THE Divine Warrant OF JNFANT-BAPTISM. OR VI ARGUMENTS FOR Baptism of Jnfants of Christians. VIZ. 

I. Infants of Christians are rightly judged in the Promise of Propriety in God. p. 1.  
II. Infants of Christians are rightly judged to be of the Church. p. 20.  
III. Infants of Christians are rightly judged meet for Baptism. p. 25  
IU. The sealing of the Promise to Infants of visible professors, hath been the practice of the Universal Church ever since God added seals to the Covenant. p. 30  
V. The profit of Baptism is great to the Infants of Christians. p. 36  
VI The Promise was sealed by the initial Sacrament aforetime to Infants of Visible Professors, both Jews and of the Gentiles. p 38    
By JOHN CHURCH, M. A. Minister of Seachurch, in the County of Essex.  Repent and be Baptised every one of you in the Name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins.— For the promise is to you, and to your CHILDREN, and to all that are a far off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call. Act. 2.38.39. 
LONDON, Printed by John Macock, for George Calvert, and are to be sold at his shop at the sign of the Half Moon in Watling street, near Augustine's gate. MDCXLVIII.   

To the sober-minded Reader.  
HAving read this short Treatise, we find the Divine Warrant of that 
a Quod autem apud simplicem vulgum disseminant, longam annorum sertem post Christi resurrectionem p●aeteriisse, quibus incognitus erat pae●o●aptismus, in eo foedissime mentiun●ur▪ Siquidem nullus est Scriptor tam vetustus, qui non ejus originem ad Apostolorum seculum pro certo referat Calv. Inst. l. 4 c. 16. sect 8.  ancient Ordinance of Christ, viz. Infant-Baptism, so clearly, compendiously and solidly proved therein, not by Ecclesiastical Tradition 
b Anabaptistas', Duraee, Scripturarum armis opprimimus, quibus solis haeretici superantur. Si enim nulla nobis arma suppeterent, nisi haec (viz. Ecclesiae Traditiones) quae tu commemoras, nae Anabaptistae nostrum impetum non valde reformidarent; Whitak. contra Du●ae. l 8. sect. 80. p 197. in fol. , but by Scripture-demonstration, that we do hearty commend it to thy serious perusal, wherein thou mayst discern that Infants of Christian Parents are true Denizens of the visible Church and Kingdom of God; having just right to, and interest in Gods Magna Charta or Covenant of Grace; though some enemies to them, and to the Truth, have of late, but in vain, attempted to void and overthrow their Title. Many learned Tractates of this subject have been already published; if their prolixity, or polemical contendings for this truth against Anabaptistical or Catabaptistical fancies, deter or discourage thee from reading them: yet this invites thee, being Dogmatical, rather than Polemical; and not tedious, but compendious. Here thou hast (as they say) an Iliad in a nutshell; much in a little; the strength of former Writers Arguments, (for the 
c Legentibus brevitas ejusmodi plurimum protest, dum non intellectum legentis & sensum liber longior spargit, sed subtiliori compendio id quod legitur tenax memoria custodit; D. Cypr. Praefat. in Testam. ad Quirinum.  help of memory) extracted and contracted with select additional notions of the Authors inserted. All are thine, that the Truth of Christ may abide in thee.  


FRAN. ROBERTS, Pastor of the Church at Augustine's, Lond.  
JOHN GEREE, Minister at Faith's.     

To the right Honourable, and most noble Lord, Robert Earl of Warwick, Lord Rich, Baron of Leeze, etc.  
Right Honourable,  
IT was hoped, not long since, that the time was come, in which God would gloriously exalt his Truth, and make jerusalem a praise in the earth; for God seemed to appear more for us then ever in our, or our forefather's days: In assembling so many Worthies in Parliament; in calling an Assembly of so able and worthy Divines; in bringing the Nation into the bond of a Covenant, to root out Popery, Prelacy, Errors, Heresies, Schism, and all that is contrary to sound doctrine; and in subduing the public enemies of Truth and Peace.  
But our iniquities have separated between God and us, and our sins have hid away his face from us; We looked for light, and behold darkness: God hath let lose men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith, who resist the truth, and bring in damnable Heresies, and many follow their pernicious ways.  
The abounding of Errors, (and in particular, the spreading of Anabaptism,) calling all to contend for the faith, hath compelled me (contrary to my intentions) to make public this defence of 
* Tanto magis pro infantibus loqui debemus quanto minus ipsi per se loqui possunt. August  Poedo baptism, which is the fruit of some hours, spared from my other studies.  
I am bold (Right Honourable) humbly to dedicate these my first fruits to your honour, and with all observance to subject them to your judicious censure.  
That which hath made me thus presuming, is your singular goodness, and unparallelled humility, which makes you worthily had in honour of all.  
Artaxerxes, the Persian Monarch, received, with a cheerful countenance, a present of water of a poor labourer, when he had no need of it, accounting it the part of a truly Noble and generous spirit, to take in good part small presents offered with an hearty affection, as well as to give great things liberally.  
This small present (most Noble Lord) is presented with an entire affection, to one as truly Noble and generous as Artaxerxes.  
Your unfeigned love to the truth, manifested by your constant cleaving to it, (even in this hour of temptation, which is come upon us, in which many are turned aside after Satan;) Your care to place able and faithful Pastors over people, where you have opportunity to do God this service, and casting honour and respect upon such in these times, in which they are cast down, and filled with contempt: Your great fidelity to your Country, and your many heroic virtues shining in you; Make it our duty (who are Ministers of the Gospel) to celebrate your due praises, for the honour of your noble deservings, and the encouragement of others to walk in your pious steps.  
That your honour may be preserved in safety in these sad divisions of the Kingdom, receive a daily increase of honour, and continue faithful to the death, that you may receive the crown of life; shall be the prayer, until death, of him, who is your Honours  
Humble and Devoted Servant josiah Church.   

VI ARGUMENTS FOR THE BAPTISING OF THE Infants of Christians.  

ARGUMENT. I. The Infants of Christians are rightly judged in the promise of propriety in God, therefore they may be baptised.  
THE Antecedent I prove by ten Arguments.  
Argum. 1 I. The Infants of the Jews (so long as they continued visible professors) were rightly judged to be in the Promise of propriety in God, for it was sealed to them by the initial Sacrament, 
Gen. 17.7, 12  no less then to actual professors: Therefore the Infants of Christians are rightly judged to be in that promise.  
The Consequence I prove by four Arguments.  
Argum. 1. That promise of propriety in God was not a speciality: which I prove by seven Arguments.  
1. It was not peculiar to Abraham and visible professors, for it was sealed by the initial Sacrament to the infants of such: neither was it peculiar to Abraham and his natural seed, for it was sealed by the initial Sacrament to the infants of visible professors of the Gentiles, no less then to them; no difference was to be made; the stranger was as one home-born, 
Exod. 12, 48, 49  and there was one Law for both. Nor yet was it peculiar to that Church-State, it being a Nationall Church. 1. Promises of propriety in God are not to any in reference to a particular Church only, either Nationall or congregational, but in reference to the Catholic Church to which they appertain. 2. Visible professors and their Infants were judged in that promise before the existence of a Nationall Church. 3. Visible professors and their Infants which were of other Nations, were judged in that promise. 4, Since the dissolution of that Church-State, Christians are said to be Children of the Promise after the manner of Isaac, 
Gal. 4.28  who was in that promise as an infant of believing Parents, before he was in it as an actual believer.  
2. That promise was a Catholic promise, the most eminent promise of the Covenant of Grace, which was a Catholic Covenant, therefore it was no specialty, but the blessing of Abraham which was to come on the Gentiles by Christ; 
Gal. 3.14 Rom. 11.17 Rom. 15.8, 9  and the fatness of the Olive tree in which they were to partake, and the promise which Christ came to confirm, that the Gentiles might glorify God for his mercy.  
3. Promises of propriety in God are no specialties, for God is a God to his in every age, upon the same terms during the Covenant, by which he gives propriety in himself.  
4. That promise was given to Abraham as father of all the faithful of every Nation, 
Gen 17, 5.  and a public person representing them in every age, and not only as father of the Jewish Nation only, and therefore no specialty.  
5. That promise was an everlasting promise, and not to end with the dispensation and some temporary promises of it. 
Gen. 17.7.  1. This is expressly affirmed of it. 2. God is a God to his in every age upon the same terms, 
Mal. 3.6  he changes not. 3. Visible professors and their Infants are alike in every age, and there is nothing in them 
jam. 1.17  inconsistent with propriety in God in one age more than in another. 4. That promise is not taken away by the coming of Christ, for since he finished the work he came to do, 
Rom. 11.28  the Apostle saith, the Children are beloved for the Fathers: and parents becoming visible professors, their children were judged by the Apostles to be in the promise with them, and denominated holy, 
Act. 2.39 1 Cor. 7.14 Esa. 61.8, 9 jer. 30.20  as aforetime: and it was prophesied, that when the Jews shall be graffed in again (which shall be by virtue of that promise) the offspring shall be accounted blessed with the parent, and that the children shall be as aforetime.  
6. Though a priority in God may be yielded to the Jews and their seed, yet a sole propriety may not. The Jew was the elder sister, and Christ's first bride, and they had the first handsel of Freegrace in a Churchway: but they and their seed never had the sole propriety in God, Gentiles becoming visible professors did partake in it, and their Infants: whosoever feared God, 
Psal. 128.1.3  his Children were Olive plants as well as theirs.  
7. The former part of that promise (I will be a God to thee) is undeniably common to all believers.  
Therefore that Promise being not a specialty, the Infants of Christians are rightly judged to be in it, as the Infants of the Jews were: for Christians and their Infants have the same privileges, specialties excepted. 
Eph. 2.14  1. The Partition wall is broken down, and they are made one. 2. The breaking off, was of incorrigible Apostates and their seed, and not of visible professors and theirs: these suffered no loss by the breaking off. 
Rom. 11.1 Eph. 4.  3. Christians have like precious faith, and their Infants are no more Infidels than theirs were. 4. Christians in this dispensation are children of Abraham; 
Luc. 19.9. 1 Pet. 3 Rom. 8.17  Zacheus becoming a Christian is called a son of Abraham, and Christian women daughters of Sarah; and therefore heirs of his privileges which were not specialties; in Abrahami successimus haereditatem, & quae de illo dicta sunt, in nobis & liberis nostris quadrant: Pet. Martyr. 5. Christians are in this dispensation as Jews were in the former, they are called as they were, An holy Nation, a peculiar people, 
1 Pet. 2.9 Tit. 2.14.  a Royal priesthood, etc. And every Nation receiving the faith as the Nation of the Jews did, and in which there is a national agreement, in doctrine, worship, and discipline, as was in the Nation of the Jews, is to be accounted to the Lord in every age, 
Psal. 22.30  even Egypt and Assyria with Israel, 
Isai. 19.25 Gen. 17.5 Posita causa ponitur Causatum.  and may call Abraham Father, (who obtained the fatherhood of many Nations,) and may be accounted a national Church, no less than that nation was. 6. That promise of propriety in God was to Abraham and the Jews, as Believers; and promises to believers, as such, (if they be not specialties) appertain to all believers as they do to any: 
Iosh. 1.5. Heb, 13, 5  The promise of God's presence with Joshua, is applied to all believers.  
Argum. 2. As much love is manifested to the Infants of Christians in this dispensation, as was to the Infants of Jews in the former; Christ in this dispensation became one of them; the Infants of Jews had the promise, and of Christians, the performance: Christ on earth commanded the Infants of such as honoured him to be brought to him, and with anger rebuked his Disciples for despising the day of those small things, he embraced them, blessed them, 
Mark 10, 14, 16  affirmed that his kingdom was of them, numbered them with believers, 
Mat. 18  and taught that his Angels were their Guardians, and admonished those of riper years to be like them in innocence, humility, 
Ephes. 6.4  etc. commanded by his Apostles that they should be brought up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, etc.  
Therefore it is not to be believed, that the promise of propriety in God is rend away from the Infants of visible professors, and that they are without God, 
Eph. 2.12  and without hope in this dispensation, as the children of Infidels are.  
Argum. 3. The Infants of Christians are as capable of the promise of propriety in God as the Infants of the Jews were, these are no less the seed of the blessed of the Lord than they were: and there is not a greater absence of actual faith and knowledge in these, than was in them, neither is there any thing to render them uncapable of it, which was not in Infants of Jews.  
Argum. 4. The promise of propriety in God hath no new conditions annexed: God required no less faith and repentance in the former dispensation then in the present; he indented with Abraham to walk before him and to be perfect, 
Gen. 17.1, 7  that he might be a God to him and to his seed: and Circumcision, the initial seal of that promise, 
Rom. 4.11  is called the seal of the righteousness of faith: and they that were visible unbelievers, 
Isai. 1.10  though Jews, were no more accounted of then Sodomites and aliens.  
Therefore the Infants of Christians being certainly no less in that promise than were the Infants of Jews aforetime, they are rightly judged to be in it as they were.  
Argum. 2 II. The Infants of Converts of the Gentiles, in the former dispensation, were rightly judged to be in the promise of propriety in God, for it was sealed to them by the initial Sacrament, and the stranger was as one born in the Land: 
Exod. 12, 48, 49  Therefore the Infants of Christians are rightly judged to be in that promise. 1. The breaking off was of Jews and not of Gentiles. 
Rom. 11.21  2. Christ by his coming spoiled not the offspring of his people of any happiness enjoyed before, the offspring being as innocent as before. It is not to be imagined that their condition is worse since his coming: Num post Christum, factam esse deteriorem parvulorum sortem existimemus? Whitak. Cont. Durae. p. 681. His loving embracing and blessing such, witness for him: 
Psal. 55.21  he is not like David's friend, having words as smooth as butter, and war in his heart. 3. The renting away that promise from the Infants of visible professors, (there being no new degeneration in that species) argues a diminution of the grace of God, which cannot be imagined without execrable blasphemy. 4. As enlargement of privileges to Infants of visible professors is most congruous to the present dispensation, so it is most probable; 
Ezra 10, 1, 44  for afore-time if one parent were an infidel, the children were not rightly accounted to the Lords people: but since the present dispensation began, if one Parent were a visible professor, 
1 Cor. 7.14  the children were holy though the other Parent were an Infidel. 5. If in this dispensation children of Christians are not to be accounted in that promise, they are in a far more uncomfortable condition than the children of visible professors in the former; and it was much better to be born under the Law then under the Gospel, which is contrary to the common doctrine of the Scriptures.  
Argum. 3 III. Jews becoming Christians in this dispensation, their infants are rightly judged to be in the promise of propriety in God. 1. The Apostles judged the children of their Converts (who were most Jew's) in that promise with their Parents. 
Act. 2.39  2. It was prophesied, That when the jews should be converted, and be as aforetime, that their children should be as aforetime. 
jer. 30.20  3. The breaking off was not universal, the tree was not broken down, 
Rom. 11, 17  but only some branches were broken off.  
Therefore the infants of Christians are rightly judged to be in that promise; 
Rom. 10.12  for as there was no difference in the former dispensation, between jews and Proselytes, and the seed of either, so there is no difference in the present.  

Acts 2.39  Argum. 4 FOUR The Apostles judged the children of those which became Christians, in the promise with their parents; therefore the children of Christians are rightly judged to be in the promise.  
The promise in which they judged them, is that of propriety in God, taken in the sense in which it was given to Abraham: which was, that he would be a God to him and his natural seed, great and small, and to visible professors, and their natural seed of every nation, in regard of external adoption and privileges, so long as those of riper years did cleave to him by a visible profession: also, to him and the elect, great and small (which are properly the seed of his faith,) in regard of saving graces, and eternal life. That this is the sense of that promise, experience and right reason teach; for the Jews were not, neither are a people making a visible profession broken off, until a general desperate Apostasy in those of riper years; and we know that the elect, both great and small, obtain grace and glory.  
The promise is not only of extraordinary gifts.  
1. The promise is mentioned to Minister unto them hopes of salvation, to stay them from the pit of despair, into which their rejecting and crucifying Christ was like to praecipitate them: it had been a vain thing to mention a promise of extraordinary gifts for that end, because extraordinary gifts are common to them that perish, 
Mat. 7.22, 23  and are not saving gifts. 2. The promise, mentioned appertained to all called, and to be called by the Gospel; but extraordinary gifts were given but to some, and in the first times. 3. The promise included the children, to which extraordinary gifts are of all most impossible. 4. The promise, with their relation to it, is the only Argument used for receiving Baptism, which extraordinary gifts are least Argumentative for, being the least matter signified by it; also for repentance, to which such gifts are weak motives, 
Mat. 7.22, 23  for these may be in workers of Iniquity. By children infants are necessarily meant. 1. The word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which primarily signifies infants. 2. These of riper years are comprehended in those words (the promise is to you) for they speak them to all that were pricked in their hearts. 3. The children are mentioned as a distinct party from them that were called, and them that were after to be called, who are said to be afar off, 
Ephes. 2.13  which the Scripture speaks not of infants of visible professors. 4. The restriction of the promise to children of riper years called, excludes all infants of Christians, dying in infancy, from interest in God, and hope of salvation, 
Ephes. 2.12  which extends no further than the promise 5. It undermines the privilege which infants of Christians have above the infants of Infidels, according to the common doctrine of the Scripture, for the promise is to their children called by the Gospel. 6. Most, to whom the Apostles spoke, were Jews, whose infants had always been rightly judged in the promise. 7. They that restrain the promise to children of riper years, must prove that those thousands of Converts had no infants, and that their children were all actually called, and none of them visible rejectors of Christ (which might probably be in so great a multitude of children,) else it will be difficult to excuse the Apostle from too great boldness in affirming an actual being of the promise to the children, as to the Parents, without exception.  
Argum. 5 V. The children of Christians are denominated holy in this dispensation, therefore they are rightly judged to be in the promise; 
1 Cor. 7, 14  for they are denominated holy, because they are included in the Covenant; Sancti dicuntur quia foedere includuntur. 
Ames. Bellar. Eneru.   
1. Holiness of Regeneration, is rightly judged in such infants. 1. Because the promise of Circumcision of the heart is to visible professors, and their seed, alike. 2. Christian's ought to hope, 
Deut. 30, 6 1 Thes. 4.13  that their infants dying are saved, which they cannot without judging them Regenerate, 
john 3, 5  for none unregenerate can see the Kingdom of God, and none ordained to salvation are called out of this life which are not first sanctified: Nemo electorum è praesenti vita evocatur qui non prius sanctificatur, 
Rom. 8, 30  Calv. 3. Infancy is no let of sanctification: Infants are as capable of the habits of sanctity as men; if Adam had not sinned, they should have been holy, in, and from the womb by original justice; and grace may be infused into them, as well as original justice might have been propagated to them. It is questionless, that many such infants are Regenerate, therefore we must charitably suppose it of every individual; for when we come to particulars, which dare we exclude, there being no visible difference? He is too hardy that dares pass his peremptory censure of this or that particular, that it is unregenerate.  
2. A relative holiness is rightly concluded of all such infants; in relatione ad deum sancti sunt, Ames. Which is a privilege some enjoy which are not Regenerate, until a desperate Apostasy deprive them of it; they are accounted to the Lords people, and have visible Communion with the elect in all privileges which are not peculiar to them.  
This twofold holiness is meant where Israel is said to be an holy people, 
Deut. 14, 2 jer. 2, 3  and holiness to the Lord: Some, which were not Regenerate, were the Lords in the face of the visible Church, in fancy Ecclesiae visibilis. 
1 Cor. 7, 14  Also by the Apostle, denominating children of Christians holy, who judges of such, as the children of visible professors were judged of aforetime, which were called an holy seed, 
Ezra 10, 2 Esa. 22, 24  and compared to the vessels of small quantity in the Temple, which were no less accounted holy than vessels of greater quantity.  
3. Actual holiness (required in those of riper years) is in such infants only potentially: It is not necessary to their being federally holy (it being impossible in them, nemo tenetur ad impossibile) and therefore not to the judging them federally holy.  
Object. The Apostle means only a matrimonial holiness, which is legitimation; and the sense is, the Infidel is sanctified in the Christian by marriage, and the copulation is not adulterous, for the children are not bastards but legitimate.  
Answer, The Apostle means a federal holiness, and not a legitimation only, which I prove by six Arguments.  
Argum. 1. It is evident by the common doctrine of the Apostle, that he judged the children of Christians holy, otherwise then by a matrimonial holiness only, which is common to the children of Infidels: He taught, that the blessing of Abraham was to come on the Gentiles by Christ, 
Gal. 3, 14  of which a principal part must be that propriety in God given to him and his seed, by the Covenant, 
Rom. 11, 16  that the Christian Gentiles were graffed in for Jews broken off, 
Gal. 4, 28  and did partake of the root and fatness of the olive tree, as they did; that Christians were children of the promise after the manner of Isaac; 
Eph. 2, 14  that the partition wall was broken down; that the breaking off was not of Gentiles, but of Jews, 
Rom. 11.17. Rom. 11 28.  and but of some of them: that the children are beloved for the fathers: That there is the same faith in Christians that was in Abraham, and visible professors aforetime, which was the condition obligatory of the promise of propriety in God: That the main promises in the former dispensation were confirmed by Christ, 
Rom. 13.8, 9  that the gentiles might glorify God for his mercy, (of which the most eminent was the promise of propriety in God including infants:) That children were in the promise with their parents: 
Acts 2.39. Galat. 2.14  That there was an actual difference between the people of God, and aliens, from the birth, etc.  
Therefore he meant a foederal holiness, and not a matrimonial only.  
Argum. 2 II. By Sanctification of the Infidel in the Christian, is not meant a legitimation only, that they might live together in marriage without imputation of adultery. For, 1. The Infidel is mentioned as merely passive, is said to be sanctified, and not to sanctify; if only a legitimation by marriage be meant, the Christian is sanctified in the Infidel, no less than the Infidel in the Christian. 2. If legitimation only be meant, the term Infidel is impertinently so often mentioned, which relates not to marriage. 3. By sanctification of the creatures by the word and prayer, 
1 Timothy.  a legitimation of them only, is not meant, that a Christian may possess and use them without imputation of theft and robbery: For Infidels, which neglect that means of sanctification, have a legal right to them, (as a matrimonal right to their yoke fellows) yet all things are impure to them, even the use of marriage, 
Titus 1 16.  though it be not adulterous: Matrimonia infidelium impura ut alia omnia opera, non naturâ operum, sed vitio authorum: Pet. Martyr: Therefore by the holiness of the children is not meant legitimation only.  
Argum. 3 III. By unclean, are not meant only bastards: The Scripture denominates adulterous, unclean, but not bastards, whose parents are not Infidels: Such as want foederal holiness, 
Isaiah 52.1.2 Eccles. 9.2.  it denominates unclean, which it denies not of bastards; the Covenant was sealed to them by the initial seal aforetime, and they were accounted to the Church, though they were not advanced to offices in it.  

Deut. 23.1, 3  Objection: Bastards were numbered with the unclean, as Moabites, Ammonites, etc.  
Answer: 1. Christ numbers Infants with Believers, yet Anabaptists allow them not the denomination of Believers. 
Mat. 18.  2. Bastards, in the place mentioned, are numbered with those which want foederal holiness, as Moabites, etc. If for this they are denominated unclean, by unclean is meant wanting foederal holiness, and then by holy, must be meant having foederal holiness. 3. The opposition of things in Scripture doth not always bring those things under one denomination. 
Acts 15.20  Fornication, Idolatry, and things strangled, and blood are numbered together, yet Fornication and Idolatry are not to be denominated indifferent, nor things strangled, and blood sinful.  
And if by unclean, are not meant only bastards, by holy, are not meant only legitimate.  
Argum. 4 FOUR The Scripture denominates not any holy, for legitimation only; 
Isaiah 52.1.2 Eccles. 9.2 Tit. 1 15 Mat. 15 26  but all that have not besides it foederal holiness it denominates unclean, yea dogs: Therefore the Apostle denominates not children holy, for legitimation only.  
Argum. 5 V Interpreting holiness to be legitimation only, renders the Apostle an underminer of the privilege, which the children of Christians have above the children of Infidels, from the time of the birth, 
Isaiah 61.8 9  and which they ought to be acknowledged to have, and a giver of no more to the one then to the other, for children of Infidels, born in marriage, are matrimonially holy; Hac ratione nihil plus tribueret liberis fidelium quam infidelium. Ames. Infidelium filij si ex matrimonio procreentur, legitimi sunt: Pet. Martyr.  
But the Apostle was no under-miner of the privileges of the faithful, or of their seed; therefore he meant not legitimation only.  
Argum. 6 VI If by holiness is meant legitimation only, the Apostle was mistaken about the question proposed, which was not, whether their living together were not adulterous, they being married each to other. For, 1. Such a doubt could not arise in any, having any use of reason; all know, that living in marriage is not living in adultery, and that children begotten in marriage are not bastards. 2. It is granted (by those that interpret the holiness to be legitimation only) that they believed that their children were not bastards, how then could they doubt, that their living in marriage together was adulterous? It is easier for a Christian married with an Infidel, to be assured that the Infidel is his wife, then to know that the children that he hath by her are his children.  
The Question was, Whether a Christian might, with a safe conscience, have such intimate familiarity with an Infidel, as living together in marriage required, the Infidel being a professed enemy of Christianity: For this was dangerous for the Christian, and seemingly inconsistent with precepts given to Christians to have no familiarity with Idolaters, but to separate from them, yea from scandalous Christians, though orthodox, with whom familiarity might seem in that regard more tolerable.  
The answer is, The Christian having a lawful calling (being in marriage with the Infidel) might continue with the Infidel: for the Christian had this privilege by faith, and the Covenants, that he or she (in this case) should not be infidellized by the Infidel, but preserved; yea the Infidel was (in some sort) sanctified in the Christian, for the children born of them were not Infidels but Christians, as aforetime the children of Jews were Jews, and not Heathens.  
If the answer were, that the Christian might live with the Infidel, because the Infidel is legitimate by marriage, else the children were bastards, etc. and nothing else were intended: it had been no more, then that a Christian might live with an Infidel, as one Infidel with another, and familiarity with Idolaters may be sinful in Christians, and pernicious to them, though no adultery be committed. Such interpreters make the Apostle sectari minutias.  
Object. If foederal holiness be meant, and the Sanctification of the Infidel in the Christian, be a consequent of faith and the Covenant, than a believing adulterer may live with an Infidel adulteress: For where the cause of sanctification is, the effect will follow: Posita causa ponitur effectum.  
Answer: 1. This inference hath no proportion to the case about which the Apostle speaks; which was the case of a Christian in marriage with an Infidel, which was in those times common, one embracing Christianity, and the other continuing in infidelity. If a Question had been propounded, whether a believing Adulterer might live with an Infidel Adulteress, he would have answered, silentio et contemptu. 2. He meant not, that faith and the Covenant exclusively were the cause of the sanctification of the Infidel in the Christian: 
1 Tim. 4.4  As where he saith, every creature of God is good if it be received with thanksgiving, etc. He means not, that it is good without a legal right to it, though it be received with thanksgiving (which is usual in thiefs and robbers) but in the case of civil right only: 
Zech. 11.3  One cause produceth not the effect, una causa non producit effectum. 3. It supposes a believing Adulterer living with an Infidel Adulteress, which is not to be supposed: for a believer may fall into that sin, but living in it is inconsistent with faith, 
Acts 15 9  which purifies the heart: with Ecclesiastical Discipline, which, if despised, the despiser is to be accounted an Heathen, 
Mat. 18.17 Job 31.11  and not a Christian: and with civil Laws, for it is an heinous crime to be punished by the Judges. And if a defect of these happen, the Word of God (which shall judge men at the last day) judgeth such to be without, 
Rev. 22.15  and such are to be accounted Infidels, no l●ss then the Infidels with whom they so impurely live.  
Argum. 6 VI God never made a visible partition wall between the Parent and the Infant: In the first Covenant (which was of works) the parent and the infant were comprehended alike; and the second (which was of grace) was in this, 
Gen. 17.7  like the former, the seed was named with the parent in the most eminent promise of it; and the infants of visible professors had it sealed to them by the initial Sacrament, so soon as seals were added to it; and in the present dispensation of it, 
Acts 2.39 1 Cor. 7.14  the Apostles judged the parents and the children alike in it, and Christians in their days doubted not of the holiness of their children; and it is the doctrine of the Scripture, that the offspring is blessed with the parent, 
Isaiah 61.8.9  and so to be accounted of all, until a visible breaking off for Apostasy, in those of riper years: In adultis incipit omne malum.  
Also, when, for a violation of Covenant, by those of riper years, there hath been a visible breaking off; the manner hath been to reject the infant with the parent.  
Adam, and his were rejected alike for violation of the first Covenant, and the Jews, and theirs, for the transgression of the second: Therefore the infants are rightly judged in the promise with their parents.  
Argum. 7 VII. Threaten extend to infants of Covenant-breakers; 
Isaiah 13 18 job 20.19 Exodus 20.5 Hosea 2 4. c. 9.16. c 13 16 Ezekiel 9 6 Psalm 109 Deut. 7.9 Psa. 103 17.18  to the fruits of their womb, with their children of riper years: Therefore the promises are rightly judged to extend to infants of such as continue in the Covenant: for the Scripture holds forth the goodness of God, to be of greater extent to them which keep his Covenant, and theirs, than his severity against them that break his Covenant, and theirs. It witnesses, that he visits the iniquity of the fathers (which hate him) upon the children unto the third and fourth generation, and that he keeps Covenant and mercy with them that love him to a thousand generations, and that he kept Covenant and mercy with the people of Israel, and theirs, until those of riper years, of them, became incurable haters of him, and would have done it for ever if they had continued in his Covenant, for he is ever mindful of his Covenant. 
Psalm 111 5   
Object. 1. By generations and children, infants are not meant, but children of riper years, loving God, and keeping his Commandments.  
Answ. The infants of such are necessarily meant. For, 1. Those terms include infants. 2. In the places mentioned they are opposed to parents, and distinct from those that visibly love God, and keep his Commandments. 3. Excluding infants overturns the salvation of the infants of God's people, which is by virtue of such promises, and leaves them actually as hopeless as the infants of Infidels, and enervates the comparison of God's goodness, with his severity, for the magnifying of it. 4. If only those of riper years be meant visibly loving God, and keeping his Commandments, the sense is, his mercy is from everlasting to everlasting, to them that fear him, and to them that fear him, which is nugatory. 5. He shows mercy to children of Infidels, 
Ezek●el 18.  which coming to riper years, visibly love him. 6. By children in the other part of the Antithesis, he means, infants, and not only such as coming to riper years hate him visibly, as their fathers. For, 1. God punishes visible Idolators, not only to the third and fourth generation, but for ever: Quis nescit deum visitaturum impiam generationem, impiorum patrum in perpetuum. Rivet. in decal. 2. God visits their own sin upon them. 3. Experience teaches that God punishes the generations of Idolaters great and small, by taking away the means of grace, and casting them out of his sight, therefore Infants are meant in the latter part of the Antithesis.  
Object. 2 God sometimes casts away the children of the godly, and shows mercy to children of wicked men, he hath reserved a liberty to himself, and hath mercy on whom he will, and whom he will he hardens: 
Rom. 9 18.  Deus servat libertatem in judiciis, & bonorum distributione.  
Answer. 
Loquitu● de ijs quae ut pluri●●um a●cidunt, Rivet.  The liberty reserved by God is not to be inquired into by us: the Scripture is the rule by which we must walk, which speaks in such places as it usually falls out: We ought to judge the generations of Idolaters mentioned great and small to be those on whom God will visit the iniquity of the Fathers: and the children of those that keep the Covenant to be those that God will show mercy to, so long as those of riper years cleave to the Lord by a visible profession: and if it happen otherwise to any individual of either, it is to us anomalous, and we ought not to make rules of accidents: As in a case not unlike: the Scripture saith that the Evil doers shall be cut off, 
Psalm 37.9.  and that they which wait on the Lord shall inherit the earth: It sometimes happens otherwise to some individuals: yet we ought to judge that the wicked shall be cut off and that the righteous shall inherit the earth. 
Eccles. 7.15.  Solomon observed that sometime a just man perished in his righteousness, and a wicked man prolonged his days in his wickedness: 
Prov. 2.21, 22  yet he judged that the upright should dwell in the Land, and that the wicked should be cut-off, and transgressors rooted out.  
Argum. 8 VIII. The seed of visible professors (in which term infants are included,) is expressed in the most eminent promises, as visible professors are without limitations and restrictions: therefore the one is as rightly judged to be in the promise as the other.  
Inst. 1. The seed is named in the promise of propriety in God given to Abraham (the great Father of the Faithful) as well as himself (in which promise it is certain Infants were meant;) which promise was the most eminent of the Catholic Covenant of grace, greater than which there was none; it may be compared to the great tree which Nabuchadnezzer saw in a Vision, 
Dan. 4.11.12 Deut. 30.6. & 28.4.  whose top reached to Heaven, and fruit was much: all other promises are branches of it.  
Inst. 2. 
Psalm 37.26. Psalm 112.2. Job 5.25. Prov. 20 7. Psalm 1.2.28 Psalm 12●. 3. Pro: 14.26. etc. Deut 5.29.  The seed of visible professors is named in the promises of Circumcision of the heart, of God's blessing, etc. as visible professors are; and men are exhorted to love of righteousness, that their children may be blessed, and that it may be well with them.  
Object. By seed, infants are not meant, but children coming to riper years, making a visible profession.  
Ans. Infants are meant in the term seed. For, 1. Those promises were sealed aforetime to infants by the initial Sacrament, as well as to visible professors. 2. Infants are more properly the seed. 3. The seed is mentioned as distinct, in those promises, from those of riper years, making a visible profession. 4. Excluding infants is inconsistent with the manifold restriction of those promises to the seed of the faithful, and it throws down to hell all the infants of God's people, 
Ephes. 2.12.  for they that are strangers from the Covenant are without hope.  
Argum. 9 IX. Christian's may hope, that their children, dying in infancy, are saved. David hoped, that his infant dying (though illegitimate) was saved, 
2 Sam. 12.13. 1 Thes. 4.13.  for he comforted himself with hopes of going to him, and Christians ought not to mourn for their dead, as Infidels (who are without hope) mourn for theirs: Nos certo scimus ex ment dei revelata non debere de suis mortuis contristari sicut ethnici qui spem non habent: Ames. Therefore the infants of such are rightly judged to be in the promise, for this judgement is the foundation of Christian hope, which is not a mere Conjectural expectation without a promise, but an expectation of a future promised good. 
Ephes. 2.12. 1 Thes. 4.13. Mat 13 26.  Objectum spei est bonum futurum promissum. Ames. medul. and there is no hope of them that are visibly out of the promise, such are to be judged dogs, which shall be without,  
Argum. 10 X. The seed of visible professors ought to be accounted a seed blessed of the Lord; 
Isaiah 61.8 9 Psalm 143 13.  therefore they are rightly judged in the promise of propriety in God, in which blessedness consists.  
Objection. 1 There is not in such infant's actual faith, nor shows of divine grace; therefore they cannot be rightly judged in the promise, there being no ground for a judgement of charity of them, which is a judging the best, that the words and works of any may be interpreted, to signify.  
Answer. Actual faith, and shows of grace are necessary in all of riper years, for a right judging them in the promise, but not in such infants. For, 1. If Adam had not sinned, infants had been visibly in the Covenant without actual faith, and shows of grace. 2. Infants of visible professors in the former dispensation were rightly judged in the promise without actual faith, and shows of grace, though not any of riper years. 3. Actual faith is not necessary to the being of such infants in the promise, as it is to the being of all of riper years in it, and therefore, not necessary to the judging them to be in it. 4. The judgement of charity of such infants, is the judging the best of them, that the promises may be interpreted to signify.  
Objection. 2 All such infants are children of wrath by nature, as well as others, and in infancy there is no actual difference between them and children of Infidels, only there is a more likelihood that they are of the election, and there is more hopes of them for the future, being born in the bosom of the Church, under the means, they are in a nearer possibility, children of Christians are in potentia propinqua, and of Infidels in potentia remota only.  
Answer. As infants of Christians, and of Infidels, are children of Adam, there is no actual difference, they have the same birth-sin: but as the children of Christians are children of a people in a Covenant of grace, they actually differ from the children of Infidels, from the conception and birth. The Apostle makes an actual difference between Jews, born of parents in Covenant; and Gentiles, born of parents, strangers from the Covenant, and that from the time of birth, 
Galat. 2.15  where he saith, we are Jews by nature and not sinners of the Gentiles; and he made an actual difference between the children of Christians, 
1 Cor. 7.14  and of Infidels, denominating the former holy, and not the latter; which actual difference is not properly called a birth-priviledg, because it is not of natural generation (though contemporary with it) but of free grace, which God is pleased to honour his people with, 
Deut. 10.13  and to deny others. He hath chosen their seed above all others.  
He hath given precious promises to his people, and their seed, as of being a God to both, Circumcising the hearts of both, blessing both, etc. but not to Infidels, and their seed.  
His manner hath been to call the children of his people, 
Ezekiel 16 20 21  his children, born to him, but not the children of Infidels.  
He hath taken care of the children of his people, that they should be taught to know him, and tru●t in him, 
Psalm 78.5.7 Ephes. 6.4  and be brought up in his nurture and fear: but hath visibly neglected others.  
David acknowedges that he was his God from his mother's belly. 
Psalm 22 10  When the Ninivites repent at the preaching of jonah, 
Jonah 4.11  he took an exact account of their children, and his bowels were troubled for them.  
He numbers the hairs of the heads of his people, 
Luke 12.7  and well may be judged tenderly to regard their children.  
Also, God hath required a difference to be made, by all, 
Isaiah 61.8, 9  between the children of his people, and the children of others; the one to be accounted blessed, and not the other.  
Object. 3 All infants of Christians are not in the promise; and which are not cannot be discerned, during infancy: therefore we cannot judge any thing until riper years.  
Answer. 1. All infants of Christians are in the promise, as the infants of visible professors were in the former dispensation, which were rightly judged in it. 2. That species being named in the promise without restriction, and there being no visible difference in the individuals, we rightly judge every individual, in the promise, for we are not to make a difference where none is visible, as in the case of actual professors all are not elect and regenerate, and in the promise for life, many are Hypocrites and perish: In ecclesia plurimi sunt hypocritae qui nihil habent praeter titulum et speciem Christi: Calv. Yet we rightly judge the individuals elect and regenerate, until the contrary appear in any: by this rule the Apostles walked towards the children of Christians, they affirmed them all to be in the promise with their parents, 
Acts 2.39 1 Cor. 7.14  and denominated them all holy. 3. A certain knowledge of any individual, that it is in the promise for life, even of actual professors, is not attainable by us, God only knows who are his, 
2 Tim. 2.19  ours is a judgement of probability, which may be of such infants (the promise being to them without shows of grace) as well as of actual professors, giving shows of grace. 4. Many infants, and actual professors, have been rightly judged by men in the promise, who were not in it for life. 5. john baptist, and the Apostles, never endeavoured an exact knowledge of individuals, they applied the promise without long inquiry, to many which were Hypocrites.  
Therefore I conclude, that infants of Christians are rightly judged in the promise of propriety in God,  
Therefore they may be baptised. The Consequence I prove by three Arguments.  
Argum. 1 I. Ever since God added seals to the Covenant, the initial seal might be granted to those that could rightly be judged in the promise.  
In the former dispensation, it was granted to all such, desiring it for themselves and their infants, except to infants not eight days old, wanting strength to endure it, and to women, wanting a natural capacity, or because it was not administrable to them with modesty.  
In the latter dispensation, john Baptist, and the Apostles denied not the initial seal of it to any whom they judged to be in the promise. 
Matth. 3.5  john Baptist gave it to jerusalem, all judea, and the region about jordan; and the Apostles to many thousands in a day, 
Acts 2  and denied it not any which were not visibly strangers from the Covenant, and like to continue such.  
Argum. 2 II. Being in the promise, is the reason rendered by the Apostles for the receiving of baptism: 
Acts 2.38.39  therefore, they that are rightly judged in it may be baptised.  
Argum. 3 III. It is the judgement of Orthodox Divines, and of the Reformed Churches, that baptism belongs to all that may be rightly judged in the promise. To whom the Covenant belongs, to them baptism belongs. Perkins. in Galat. p. 263. Omnibus de bet administrari baptismus, ad quos foedus gratiae pertinet, quia est prima obsignatio foederis. Ames. medul. p. 188. Baptism ought to be administered to all to whom the Covenant belongs, because it is the initial seal of it. Baptism belongs to the children of those which are discipled, by virtue of the Covenant. Whitak. Cont. Duraeum. p. 685.  
The Saxon Church baptises such infants, because they judge it certain, that the promise of grace appertains to them: Retinemus infantium baptismum, quia certissimum est promissionem gratiae ad eos pertinere: Sax. Confess.  
The Helvetian Church condemns Anabaptists, for denying baptism to such infants, because by the doctrine of the Gospel such are in the promise. Helvet. Confess.  
To these many more instances might be added, which being consonant to the Scripture, and right reason, sound conclude.  
Objection. 1 The judgement of charity, that any are in the prom se, is not a sufficient reason for administering baptism to them: there must be shows of grace for more certainty.  
Answer. Shows of grace, and actual profession, are a reason for baptising, only as they are a ground for the judgement of charity, that the parties to be baptised are in the promise; for else, if the Devil should take an humane shape, and make a verbal profession, (though he were known to be the Devil) he must be baptised. 2. The judgement of charity was the rule by which john Baptist and the Apostles walked, in baptising; they had no infallible knowledge of the individuals, for they baptised Hypocrites, not a few.  
Objection. 2 A right to Evangelical promises is not the adequate reason of baptism, for the jews were in the promise, 
Acts 2.38.39  yet not baptised without preceding repentance.  
Answer. A visible right to the promise, either by shows of grace (as in those of riper years) or by the naming a species in the promise without restriction, of which the parties, to be baptised, are individuals (as the infants of visible professors are) is a sufficient reason for baptism. For, 1. The most learned and rational of the Anabaptists confess, that if it could appear to them, that an infant is in the Covenant, they would not doubt of the baptism of it. 2. Those jews rejecting and crucifying Christ, and atheistically mocking at Gospel-truths, ceased to have a visible right to the promise, until they regained it by repentance. Also, they were a mixed company, to whom the Apostles spoke, and not all jews, 
Acts 2.8, 11  for they were of divers languages: Inter illa millia hominum qui baptizabantur, multi eo tempore confluxere ex omni natione. Ames. To which may be added, they were adulti. 3. It is most probable, that repentance was in them only in fieri, before their baptism, and that the Apostles accepted of probabilities of it, and baptised them, as john is said to baptise some coming to him (unto repentance: 
Matth. 3.11 ) It may be judged impossible, that repentance visible by fruits, was in all of them, before baptism, there being so little space to manifest it; for immediately after the exhortation to repentance they were baptised: there could not be time to question every one of them apart, whether they repent: for the day was but about twelve hours, 
Acts 2.15  and three hours of it were passed before the Apostles began the Sermon, by which they were pricked in their hearts: and that Sermon (consisting o● so many weighty points) must necessarily belong; also, they spoke many words after it was ended, yet three thousand were added to the Church, 
Acts 2.40  by baptism, that day: Therefore, this so much pleaded against baptism of infants of Christians, argues more strongly for it. These being grievous Apostates, damnable rejectors of Christ, crucifiers of him, and Atheistical mockers at the Gospel preached, miraculously confirmed with extraordinary gifts, were (as it is most like) baptised upon probability of repentance: Therefore, infants of Christians, guilty of no actual sin, may be baptised unto repentance, etc. Si gravissimis delictoribus & in deum multum antè peccantibus, cum postea crediderint, remissio peccatorum datur, & a baptismo atque a gratia nemo prohibetur: quantò magis prohiberi non debet infans, qui recens natus, nihil peccavit, nisi quòd secundum Adam Carnaliter natus, contagium mortis antiqua primâ nativitate contraxit. Cypr. Ep. ad Fidum. 4. Being in the promise, is the only reason mentioned by the Apostles for baptism. If any disable the Reason, he imputes not a little weakness to the Apostles, and their Converts: for baptism being a Sacrament of a new administration of the Covenant, newly begun, and (as it is most like) wholly unknown to many of them until then, (many of them being strangers, living in remote parts: It was wisdom in the Apostles to give, and in them to have a satisfactory Reason for receiving it.   

ARGUMENT. II. Infants of Christians are rightly judged to be of the Church, with Christians of riper years, therefore they may be baptised.  
Argum. 1 I. THE Antecedent I prove by ten Arguments.  
I. Infants of Christians are rightly judged in the promise of propriety in God, therefore they are rightly judged to be of the Church, 
Ephes. 2.12  for they only are aliens from the Common-weal of Israel, which are strangers from the Covenant.  
Argum. 2 II. Infants of Christians are rightly called the Lords Children; for his manner hath been to call the children of his people his Children. In the old world some were called the Sons of God, 
Gen. 6.2, 3  as children of his people: and the infants of Israelites were called by him, his Children, born to him, 
Ezek. 16.20 21 Mal. 2 14, 15 Psalm 22.30 Jer 30.20 Psal. 11.6, 16  and their lawful seed a seed of God And the Jews were accounted to him, great and small in every age, until the breaking off; and the same was prophesied of the Gentiles, when they should be converted, and of the Jews, when they should be graffed in again; and the Psalmist calls himself the Lords servant, as he was the son of his handmaid: Therefore such infants are rightly judged to be of the Church, which is the House of God.  
Argum. 3 III. The Apostle denominates the children of Christians holy: 
1 Cor 7.14 Isaiah 4.3.  Therefore they are rightly judged to be of the Church which consists of such as are rightly denominated holy: to which may be added, they are denominated holy because they appertain to the Church. Quia ad Ecclesiam pertinent, hoc nomine Apostolus eos sanctos praedicat. Pet. Martyr.  
Argum. 4 FOUR The Infants of visible professors aforetime, were rightly judged to be of the Church with their Parents, for they were initiated into it by circumcision, 
Rom. 3.30 Rom. 15.8.  which was the Sacrament of initiation for that time, for which cause that Church was called the Circumcision.  
Therefore the Infants of Christians are rightly judged to be of the Church for they appertain to it, as such infants did to the Church: Si rogaveris quomodo silii Christianorum ad Ecclesiam pertineant, respondebimus, non aliter quam filil hebraeorum, Pet. Mart. These may be as rightly judged to be of the Church, as Infants of visible professors, of Jews and Gentiles were aforetime; for faith was then no less required to Communion with the Church then now; 
Rom. 4.11  Circumcision the Sacrament of initiation was called the seal of the righteousness of faith.  
Argum. 5 V. Christ affirmed the Kingdom of God to be of such: 
Mark 10 14.  Therefore they are rightly judged to be of the Church; for all that enter into the Kingdom of glory are first of the Church, and all that are aliens from the Church are without hope: 
Ephes. 2.12  extra Ecclesiam non est salus: Christ is the head and Saviour of that body only.  
Objection. 1 Those Children were brought to Christ only for some bodily cure.  
Answer. Negatively. 1. If they had been brought for a bodily cure, the Apostles would not have rebuked those that brought them: Si aegroti fuissent non prohibuissent. 2. There is not any intimation of a bodily cure, desired for them, or wrought upon them. 3. The Kingdom of God (the greatest of all blessings) is affirmed to appertain to them.  
Objection. 2 Those children were of riper years, capable of instruction, and not Infants.  
Answer. They were Infants, For, 1. They are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; by which terms infants sucking the breast are usually signified: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nominantur, quibus verbis Graeci, infants ab uberibus pendents significant, Calv. 2. They were brought to Christ in the Arms. 3. If they had been capable of instruction, the Disciples had not any show of reason to hinder the bringing of them to Christ.  
Objection. 3 Only those which were like infants for innocence, etc. Were meant and not infants.  
Answer. 
Parvulos vocat et per aetatem infants, et per simplicitatem morum adultos. Mald.  Both Infants and such of riper years as are like them are meant: For, 1. the intention of Christ in rebuking his Disciples for hindering them, was to declare that he would have infants brought to him. 2. If only those of riper years, like them for innocence, etc. were meant, Christ had not just cause of such anger at his Disciples, for being against the bringing of infants to him, but rather to approve them in it, and to have called for such as were like them. 3. Interpreting Christ of those of riper years only, enervates Christ's reason for bringing Infants to him, which was the being of the Kingdom of God of such; and renders it as strong for bringing sheep and Doves to him, as infants of Christians, for these are as innocent and docible, and the Kingdom is of such as are like them. 4. Excluding of such infants from being meant; 
Neh. 6.1▪ Psa. 103.17.18 Rev. 20.6  overturns all hope of salvation of them. 5. [such] in scripture commonly signifies the same persons, and them that are like them.  
Objection. 4 It is uncertain whether they were Infants of Christians.  
Answer. If actions may be interpreted the best that they signify, they which brought the children to Christ, may charitably be judged Christians. For, 1. They brought not children for a bodily cure, but aiming at an higher blessing, which may be argued from Christ's silence, of that which concerned the body only, and affirming the Kingdom of God to be of such, it being his manner to speak according to the hearts of those that came to him. 2. Their zeal was great to bring them to Christ; it caused them to break through all discouragements from his Disciples, and to wait for Christ's blessing: This argues, that they more highly honoured Christ then Infidels that knew him not. 3. Christ's great anger at his Disciples for rebuking, and his embraces of the children, and affirmation, that the Kingdom of God was of them, 
Mat. 15 26  argues no less, for he called Aliens, and their children, Dogs: and there is a deep silence in his word, of the appertaining of the Kingdom of God to any children of Infidels.  
Argum. 6 VI Infants of Christians are rightly judged to have the Spirit of God, and to be regenerate: 
Deut. 30.6. Isaiah 44.3  for the seed of visible professors is named in the promise of Circumcision of the heart, and of the Spirit, as such professors are; and the Spirit is promised to children, as children of the people of God: 
1 Cor. 12.13 Ephes. 4.4  Therefore they are rightly judged of the Church, for the Spirit initiates into that body all in whom it is.  
Argum. 7 VII. Infants of Christians are denominated Disciples; those whom the false Apostles would have circumcised, 
Acts 15.1.10  the Scripture denominates Disciples, and they were infants of Christians, for they urged Circumcision after the manner of Moses: Therefore they are rightly judged of the Church, which consists of Disciples. 
Isaiah 8 16   
Argum. 8 VIII. Christian's may hope, that their children dying in infancy are saved, they ought not to sorrow for their dead, as those which have no hope: 
1 Thes. 4.13.  Therefore they are rightly judged of the Church, for they that are Aliens from it are without hope, 
Ephes. 2.12.  Christ being the Saviour of the body only. 
Ephes. 3.23.   
Argum. 9 IX. Infants of Christians are not rightly judged Heathen and Dogs, (as some Anabaptists have judged them, calling baptism of infants Lavacrum Canum: 
Mat. 15.26. Rev. 22.15 ) Therefore they are rightly judged of the Church, for they which are without are Dogs.  
Argum. 10 X. Infancy is no let to being of the Church; Christ, an infant, was head and King of the Church, 
Matth. 2.2  and children of visible professors, infants, were parts of the Church in the time of the old Testament: Wheat in the grass is Wheat, though Tares are never Wheat: So infants of the Church are Ecclesia in herba, the Church in the bud, though not infants of Infidels: and if infancy were inconsistent with being of the Church, it must also be inconsistent with salvation: Therefore infants of Christians are rightly judged of the Church, (as infants in the family are rightly judged parts of the house, to which they appertain) notwithstanding infancy. 
1 Cor. 12.13  Therefore I conclude, that infants of Christians may be baptised; for baptism is the Sacrament of initiation into the Church, and the ordinary way of entrance into it: as it is confessed by the most learned and rational of the Anabaptists; by it the Apostles initiated all that they judged meet to be added to the Church. 
Acts 2.41 Acts 8.38   
For this cause, Orthodox Divines, and Churches, have approved and practised baptism of infants of Christians. Ideò baptizantur nostri pueri (sicut veterum circumcidebantur) quia extra ecclesiam deputandi non sunt. Pet. Martyr. i e. Therefore our children are baptised, (as of old, such were circumcised,) because they are not to be judged without the Church. Pet. Mart. Although baptism be a Sacrament and repentance of faith; we affirm that infants ought to be baptised, because they are judged, with their parent, in the Church of God. French. Church. Confess. Cur non per sanctum baptismum qui sunt peculium et in Ecclesia dei, initiantur? Helvet. Confess.  
Communion with the Church ought not to be denied to any which are rightly judged of the Church, (except in the case of scandal) which never occurs in infants of Christians.  
The unavoidable want of baptism is not, yet the denial of baptism to any is, an excluding of them from Communion with the Church, and keeping them visibly without, baptism being the ordinary way of initiation into the Church, and sign of it. Baptismus est signum initiationis quo Cooptamur in Ecclesiae societatem. Calv.   

ARGUMENT. III. Infants of Christians are rightly judged meet for Baptism, notwithstanding the absence in them of the Faith, Knowledge, etc. necessary in all of riper years, judged meet for Baptism, who ought to be discipled b fore they are baptised, Adultos infideles, prius oportet Cat●ch●menos esse quam baptizari: Bez. in 1 Cor. 7.14. Therefore they may be baptised.  
THE Antecedent I prove by ten Arguments.  
Argum. 1 I. The infants of visible professors, both of Jews and Gentiles in the former dispensation, were rightly judged meet for the initial Sacrament (which was Circumcision:) Therefore the infants of Christians in this dispensation are rightly judged meet for the initial Sacrament (which is Baptism,) for the initial Sacrament in the former dispensation, signified, the Circumcision of the heart, and was a seal of the righteousness of Faith, 
Deut. 30.6 Col 2.11, 12 Rom. 4.11  no less than the initial Sacrament in the present, and none of riper years were rightly judged meet for it, but such as are now judged meet for baptism.  
Argum. 2 II. Infants of Christians are rightly judged meet for the Kingdom of God, for Christ affirms, the Kingdom of God to be of such, 
Mark 10.14  and that those of riper years must be like them if they be meet for the Kingdom of God, 
Mat. 18.2  and not that such infants must be like those of riper years if they be meet for it: Therefore such infants are rightly judged meet for baptism, 
1 Pet, 3.21  it being the initial Sacracrament of it, and the first Ceremony to be used about those which are saved.  
Argum. 3 III. Infants of Christians are denominated holy, notwithstanding the absence of that faith, knowledge, 
1 Cor. 7.14  etc. which is necessary in all of riper years, that they may be denominated holy: Therefore such infants are rightly judged meet for baptism.  
Argum. 4 III. Infants of visible professors are called the Lords Children, and a seed of God, etc. 
Ezek 16.20.21 Malachi 2.15 Matth. 28.19 Galathians 3  Therefore they are rightly judged meet for baptism: It being the Sacrament of putting his name on his children, and outward sign of adoption: Baptismus est externum pignus adoptionis: Whitak.  
Argum. 5 V. Christ, on earth, despised not the day of those small things, but judged them meet to have a visible access to him, 
Mark 10.13  and to be blessed with his own hand, and he blessed them with the choicest of blessings: Therefore such are rightly judged meet for the washing of baptism by the hand of his servants.  
Argum. 6 VI Infants of Christians may be solemnly Dedicated to the Lord. For 1. It hath been a practice of his people graciously accepted of him. 
Deut. 29.11  In the days of Moses the people devoted their little ones, with themselves, to him by a solemn Covenant, and their pious act was accepted, 
jeremiah 2 3 Ezek 16. 2● joel 2▪ 16  the Lord accounted them holy, great and small, and called their children his children; and called for such of them as sucked the breast, to bear a part in days of humiliation, for transgressing the Covenant, with their parents. Anna desiring a son, 
1 Sam. 1.24  made a vow to give him to the Lord all his days, and God heard her desire, and accepted the performance of her vow: The Psalmist affirms, 
Psalm 22.10  that he was cast upon the Lord from the womb, and that God was his God from his mother's belly: Christ, on earth, commanded little children to be brought to him, and such as were brought he embraced and blessed: Oblatos humaniter et benigne accepit, solennique benedictonis ritu eosdem patri consecravit. 2. The infants of Christians are peculiarly the Lords, with their parents, in which regard the Apostle denominates them holy, for that is rightly called holy that peculiarly belongs to him: 
1 Cor. 7.14  Sanctum di●itur quod deo peculiariter devotum et consecratum est. B●z. Therefore they may be rightly dedicated to him: for the reason, why the first born in Israel were in a special manner to be dedicated to the Lord, was because they were most peculiarly his. 3. The absence of shows of divine grace in such infants is no let of a solemn dedication of them to the Lord; for infants of God's people, in the old Testament, were (by such ways as the people of God then had) dedicated to the Lord without them, and infants of Christians are denominated holy in the new Testament without shows of grace, which are necessary in those of riper years; nor yet is the dedication of infants of Christians any Argument for baptism of infants of Infidels, for the Scripture is silent of their holiness, for which cause they are not visibly the Lords, and the Lord never required of them that refused to devote themselves, a dedication of their children to him: Therefore such infants are rightly judged meet for baptism; for it is the Sacrament of Dedication to the Lord in the new Testament, 
Mat. 28.19  by which the party baptised is solemnly consecrated to him, and his name is put upon him, that he may be accounted his; and the outward sign of adoption; for in the instant of Christ's Baptism, the voice from Heaven was, 
Mat. 3.17  this is my beloved Son, declaring the meaning of that sign to be the glorious privilege of sonship; 
Gal. 3.26, 27  and the Christians in Galatia are called Children of God from their baptism.  
Argum. 7 VII. Infants of Christians are rightly judged to have in them the principal things signified by baptism, though not in such a degree as actual professors: Insunt actu primo non secundo, in semonte non in mess, in radice non in fructu. Tilen. For this was rightly judged of the infants of visible professors aforetime, in regard of the initial Sacrament, which signified the Circumcision of the heart, and was a seal of the righteousness of Faith, in the time of it, no less than baptism now is; Therefore such infants are rightly judged meet for baptism.  
Argum. 8 VIII God undertakes for what is wanting in the infants of his people through infancy, as he doth, for what is wanting in his people through infirmity: 
Psalm 119.122 Deut. 30.6. Mat. 18.19  He is a surety for his people for good, and he hath given his Word for their seed, that their heart sha' ● be circumcised, and hath promised to do for his people, and theirs, What ever they shall ask for themselves and theirs; 
Isaiah 22.24  and expects that his people should not only depend upon him themselves, but also hang upon him their offspring and issue, which the faithful have done with desired success, as the Psalmist witnesses, saying, I was cast upon thee from the womb, 
Psalm 22.10  and thou art my God from my mother's belly: Therefore such infants are rightly judged meet for baptism, the efficacy of which depends upon God's blessing. Robin's. de relig. p. 76. 77. Who can give the grace signified before or after baptism? Deus potest vel ante, vel post ba tismum, gratiam Communicare. Ames. Bellarm. enerv.  
Argum. 9 IX. Infants of Christians have by imputation that which is absent in them by infancy, as well as Christians, that which is wanting in them by invincible infirmity: As both have guiltiness by imputation from Adam, 
Rom. 5.19  so both have righteousness by imputation from Christ: the defects of both are made up out of Christ's treasury; 
Col. 3.11  Christ is all in all, else it were impossible for infants to be saved: Therefore infants of Christians are rightly judged meet for baptism.  
Argum. 10 X. Shows of grace are not necessary to the judging infants of Christians meet for baptism, as they are to judge the like of all of riper years. For, 1. They are not necessary to the judging the things signified by baptism in them: If Adam had not sinned, infants (though not any of riper years) had been rightly judged to have original righteousness in them without shows, as now they are rightly judged to have original sin in them, without shows of it; and Isaac, and other infants, were rightly judged to have the grace of the new Covenant in them without shows of it. 2. Visible grace doth not necessarily precede initial Sacraments in all, they err that affirm it: Quidam rem temporis ordine, signum semp●r praeire volunt sed falsò. Calv. In those of riper years it ought to have a praecedency, but not in infants of Christians; to these initial Sacraments are profitable before they have visible grace, 
Rom. 3.1, 2  which is evident in Circumcision: Adultis quidem nisi fidem propriam attulerint, non est salutare Sacramentum: Parvulis vero, quia fidelium liberi sunt, atque foeder● includuntur, etiam si ad huc, propter aetatem credere non possunt, est tamen salutare Sacramentum. Whitak. Contr. Durae. p. 682. Grace, visible by effects, afterwards supplies in them the present absence, as it did in such in the initial Sacrament aforetime, and in baptism in the Sea, and in the Cloud, which was the same in substance and signification with baptism in this dispensation: Christ washed Peter (in whom there might have been actual knowledge) for as much as he might know afterwards the mystery of it; 
John 13 7▪  much more may infants of Christians have the washing of baptism without actual knowledge, the presence of it in them being impossible, and the absence of it innocent: Baptism is called baptism unto repentance, as well as baptism of repentance: 
Matthew 3.11  Therefore infants of Christians are rightly judged meet for baptism, though they have not shows of grace.  
Objection. 1 1. Infants of Christians cannot perform the Covenant, to which they are engaged by baptism, therefore they are not rightly judged meet for baptism.  
Answer. 1. An engagement may precede ability of performance: the infants of visible professors aforetime were engaged by Circumcision (which made men Debtors to keep the Covenant according to the tenor of the administration, 
Galat. 5.3 ) yet had not abilities to perform it until afterwards: 
Deut. 29.11  and the Israelites in Moses days engaged their infants with themselves in a national Covenant, which they were not able actually to perform. Parents oft engage children in the cradle, actually knowing nothing, to perform duties and pay debts when they come to riper years. 2. Performance, according to ability renewed, is accepted with God: If Adam had not sinned, infants could have acted nothing of the Covenant of works yet breach o● Covenant had not been charged upon them: Circumcision, a token of the Covenant, was accepted in infants of visible proffessors in the time of it, 
Gen. 17.9.10. Isai. 38.18.19 2 Cor. 8.12  for performance of the Covenant, for it was called the Covenant: the dead bodies of the Saints act not in the grave, yet they are not guilty of transgressing the Covenant: God accepts what one hath, and requires not what one hath not: 
Mark 14 8 Mar 12 42 43, 44  Christ saith of the woman that poured the ointment on his head, she hath done what she could, and of the widow that cast in the two mites, she hath cast in more than all, for she hath cast in all she had  
Objection. 2 2. If they are rightly judged meet for baptism, they may be received to the Lords Supper: It may as well be given to infants as baptism, they being alike insensible of both.  
Answer. Infants of Christians have a right to the Lords Supper, and the substance of both Sacraments is the same, viz. the benefits of Christ's death in our Justification, Sanctification and Glorification; yet the Lords Supper ought not to be given to such infants. For, 1. The Ceremonies of Administration, and outward elements in the Lord's Supper, are such, as that it cannot be given to such infants, which argues, that God hath intended the supper only for those of riper years. In the Administration, of baptism passion only is required in the subject; it is a passive Sacrament, as of old Circumcision was; the receiver acts not necessarily about it, but suffers it to be done: But in receiving the Lords Supper actively about the elements, is necessarily required as ●eeing with the eye, taking with the hand, eating with the mouth, etc. and it cannot be given to any merely passive. 2. Baptism i● a Sacrament of initiation and entrance into the Church: Baptismus est in ecclesiam in gressus. Calv. but the Lord's Supper is a Sacrament of progress in it. In baptism we are incipientes, but in the Lord's Supper proficientes: 
Heb. 6.1, 2  Baptism is the first Ceremony used about those that are received into the Church: He that may be matriculated, may not therefore take the degree of master, and he that may be taken into the lowest form in the school, may not therefore be caught up into the highest; and because a scholar is not meet to be of the highest form, it follows not, therefore he may not be in the lowest: They which cannot be judged meet for baptism are not rightly judged meet for the other Sacrament; and they that are rightly judged meet for baptism, are not, therefore, necessarily judged meet for the other: no uncircumcised person was meet to eat the passover, neither were all that were circumcised, 
Exodus 12.48  therefore, to eat the passover: Some were a time expectants, and a special preparation was required in those that were to eat it.   

ARGUMENT. FOUR Sealing the Covenant by an initial Sacrament to infants of God's people, hath been the practice of the universal Church ever since God added seals to the Covenant of grace. Ergo,  
THat it was the practice of the Church in the time of the old Testament, (notwithstanding some omissions and intermissions) cannot be denied. And that it hath been the practice of the Catholic Church in the present dispensation of the Covenant: I conclude from two Propositions, which I will prove.  
Propos. 1. The sealing of the Covenant to the infants of Christians by baptism (the initial Sacrament of the present dispensation) was the practice of the Church in the Apostles times: This I prove by four Arguments.  
Argum. 1 I. Sealing the Covenant by an initial Sacrament to infants of God's people aforetime, was not peculiar to that Church-state. For, 1. The promise of propriety in God, sealed to such infants, was not peculiar to the infants of that time; for it was part of the most eminent Promise of the Catholic Covenant of Grace with the universal Church. 2 Sealing the Promise by an initial Sacrament, is not only in reference to a particular Church, either National or Congregational, but principally in reference to the Catholic Church, for initial Sacraments primarily respect it: this is evident in that Baptism is mentioned as a Sacrament of initiation into that body. 3. 
1 Cor. 12 13.  The dissolution of that Church state did not dissolve the sealing of that Promise by an initial Sacrament to all Infants, 
Rom. 21 17.  for there was a breaking off only of some branches, and not of all; and therefore some are in statu quo prius, and of right to enjoy such privileges as were not specialties, but common to the species: therefore the method used aforetime was observed in their days.  
Argum. 2 II. In this dispensation the Apostles judged the same of Infants of Christians that was judged, in the former, of the Infants of God's people.  
They affirmed the children in the Promise with the parents: denominated the Children of Christians holy: taught that the blessing of Abraham was come on the Gentiles by Christ: 
Acts 2.39. 1 Cor 7 14. Gal 3.14. Rom 11 17.  and that Christians were graffed in for Jews broken off, etc. therefore the Promise was sealed by the initial Sacrament to Infants with their Parents (as afore time) in their days, for such as they judged such things of the initiated by Baptism.  
Argum. 3 III. Where the heads of families became Christians, the Apostles baptised them and all theirs, 
Acts 16.15 33 1 Cor. 1.16.  even their whole households at their request (of which divers instances, as sufficient witnesses that it was their practice are left upon the sacred file of the Word) which was the method used aforetime in the initial Sacrament. 
Gen 17.   
Objection. By households must be understood the discipled of them by preaching of the Gospel, and not every individual, 
Exod. 12.48.  for in those times there were in Christian Families oft Infidels, which ought not to be baptised.  
Answer. The Apostles practice is best interpreted by practices in like cases: 
Gen. 17.12, 13 Exo 12.48, 49  Abraham was required to circumcise all his males born in his house and bought with his money: likewise the Converts of the Gentiles, in whose families some doubtless were Infidels, and refused Circumcision, such might departed the family, and were to be cut off from it; 
Gen. 17.14.  and all the rest (having a natural capacity) great and small were circumcised.  
The like was the practice of the Apostles in baptising households, for the order that they gave concerning Infidels in Christian families, was, that they should have liberty to departed the family, 
1 Cor. 7.13.  though tied to it by the strongest relation: and there is great reason to conclude that they baptised the rest, great and small. For 1. it was an ancient known custom in the Church, for religious Parents to devote their Infants with themselves to the Lord, and to undertake the bringing them up in the fear of God: 
1 Cor. 11 16.  and ancient pious customs of the Church they honoured and followed. 2. They judged the Children with the Parents in the Promise, and federally holy. 3. They had been sharply rebuked by Christ for despising the day of those small things and sent to learn of them innocency, humility, etc. and taught that the kingdom of God was of such, as well as of actual professors. 4. There is nothing in the Apostles Commission inconsistent with sealing the Promise to Infants of Christians by Baptism the initial Sacrament: For that which was given them in Commission, 
Mat. 28.19, 20  was, that they should Disciple the Nations (which were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) baptising and teaching them to do all that Christ had commanded; which was the method used in the former dispensation; Abraham and all of riper years were Discipled before the sealing of the Covenant by the initial Sacrament: yet was the Covenant sealed to Infants of visibl● professors by the initial Sacrament, which was a seal of the righteousness of faith. 5. 
Isai. 22.24.  Infants are essential and most innocent parts of the family, the offspring is the glory of the house.  
Argum. 4 IU. The most ancient credible Writers refer the original of Baptism of Infants to the Apostles times: Calvin affirms that there is no Writer so ancient which doth not refer the original of Baptism of Infants to the Apostles days: Nullus est scriptor tam vetustus qui ejus originem ad Apostolorum seculum pro certo non refert; Calv. instit. l. 4. c. 16. § 8.  
Origen affirms that the Church received instruction to baptise Infants from the Apostles: Ecclesia traditionem baptizandi parvulos ab Apostolis accepit: Orig. l. 2. in Roman. c. 6.  
Dionysius saith that it was delivered by the Apostles that Infants should be baptised: Ab Apostolis traditum fuit ut Infantes baptizarentur: Dionys.  
Augustine mentions it as a custom of the universal Church received from the Apostles; and saith, it were not to be received if it were not Apostolical: Consuetudo matris ecclesiae in baptizandis parvulis non esset omnino credenda nisi Apostolica traditio esset: August.  
Propos. 2. Baptising Infants of Christians hath been the practice of the universal Church from the times immediately following the Apostles days, and it hath been held by the same a divine institution long before the man of sin was revealed: Zanchy (whose testimony is honoured by all of sound judgement) witnesses that the Catholic Church never doubted of Baptism of Infants of those that might be judged of the Church: De Infantibus eorum qui de Ecclesia esse judicentur, Ecclesia Catholica nunquam dubitavit: Zanch. in Eph. p. 226.  
In the second Century, about the year 143. Higinus Bishop of Rome appointed godfathers and godmothers to undertake for Infants in Baptism, 
Willet in Rom. c. 6. controv. 6.  which argues that Baptism of Infants was in use then and before.  
Augustine lived in the fourth Century, and he called it the custom of the mother Church.  
Origen living in the third Century, mentions it as the practice of the Church received from the Apostles.  
And the first Sect opposing Baptism of such Infants, as an Innovation, Popish figment and delusion of the devil, sprang up in Germany but in the sixteenth Century.  
Some omissions and intermissions of Baptism of Infants, in the first times, argues not that it hath not been the practice of the universal Church, nor that it hath not been held as a divine institution: For in the time of the Old Testament there were omissions of Circumcision in evil times, and intermissions for many years; in the times of the travels of the Israelites, 
Joshua 5.  it was intermitted the space of forty years: yet Circumcision was the practice of the Church in the Old Testament, and held by it a divine institution.  
The reason of those omissions and intermissions of Baptism of Infants, and that some were expectants until riper years, was not because Baptism of Infants was accounted sinful and a delusion of the devil, for it was not so judged: Cyprian (who lived in the third Century) affirms that the Baptism of Infants was (in his time) approved in a Council of (66) Bishops, nemine contra dicente: Epist. ad Fid.  
In a Council at Milan, it was decreed that whosoever should deny Baptism of Infants should be Anathema: Quicunque parvulos baptizandos negat Anathema sit: Concil. Melevit.  
The reason why Tertullian urged delay of Baptism until riper years, was, because many baptised Infants of Infidels as well as of Christians; Jun. Constantine's Baptism was delayed out of a desire to be baptised in Jordan where Christ was baptised: and some lived among Infidels and could not enjoy it for their children; and some among Heretics and could not have it rightly administered; and some their Parents were Infidels during their Infancy, therefore they were not baptised until riper years: Some delayed Baptism until death, because of an erroneous opinion, that after Baptism there is no remission of sin: Baptismum tum demum suscipiam, cum 〈◊〉 viciis et iniquitatibus de sistam etc. Some were baptised in riper years, because having been baptised by Novatus the Heretic, they thought they had not been rightly baptised: and some, because they would be baptised by Donatus, thinking those only rightly baptised which were baptised by him and his party.  
Objection. Prelacy hath been in the Church ever since the first times, yet it doth not follow that it may be continued: so neither doth it, that Baptism of Infants is to be practised because it hath been long in use.  
Answer. Prelacy hath not been in the Church from the first times as a divine Institution, as Baptism of such Infants hath been. It is certain that Prelacy was not an Apostolical Institution, for the Apostles subjected the spirits of the Prophets to the Prophets, 
1 Cor. 14, 32  and not to a single Bishop: and the Government of the Churches to Elders in common, 
Acts 14 23. Act. 20.25.28  not advancing one over the rest, and this at their departure from them never to see them more; and Elders and Bishops were all one, they called the Elders, Bishops. Hujusmodi principatus nondum natus erat, cum primum incepit postea quam adempti Apostoli erant. Brightman.  
Jerom affirms that Bishops and Elders were one, and that the Church was governed by a Council of Elders, and that Bishops obtained the pre-eminence above Elders by Humane Custom and not Divine Institution.  
Episcopus & Presbyter unum sunt: antequam studia in religione fiebant, communi Presbyterorum Concilio Ecclesia gubernata fuit: Hieron. in Tit. 1. Noverint Episcopi se Presbyteris majores consuetudine magis quàm domini●ae dispositionis veritate; Idem.  
Ammonius in the fourth Century (a man of eminent piety) dismembered himself and fled because he would not be a Prelate. 
Socr. l. 4. c. 18.  Likewise Evagrius about the same time fled for the same cause.  
Ambrose being chosen Bishop by an universal vote of the people of Milan, denied utterly to be Bishop, and by no importunity would yield his consent, 
Socr. l. 4. c. 25.  until Valentinianus the Emperor commanded him to be created Bishop, volens nole●s. And his refusal was not from excess of modesty, but knowledge, that the Church had been and aught to be governed by Elders.  
Eccl sia seniores habuit, quorum sine Concilio nihil agebatur in Ecclesia, quod quâ negligent â obsoleverit nescio, nisi fortè doctorum desid â aut magis superbiâ, dum soli volunt aliquid videri: i. e The Church had Elders, without the Council of whom nothing was done in the Church, which thing by what negligence it grew out of use I know not, unless perhaps through the sloth or rather pride of the Teachers, whilst they alone would be thought somewhat. Ambros. in 1 Tim. 5.  
Therefore I conclude, that sealing the Promise to Infants of God's people hath been the practice of the universal Church ever since God added seals to the Covenant of Grace, and that it is no Innovation or Popish figment: and that it is intolerable presumption in those that so censure it, for to despise any pious custom of the universal Church, and to judge it evil, is insolent madness. Consuetudo matris Ecclesiae non est spernenda, August. Insolentissimae infanie est existimare non recté fieri quod ab universa Ecclesia fit: Idem ep. 111.   

ARGUMENT V The profit of Baptism is great to the Infants of Christians, therefore they may be baptised.  
THe Antecedent I prove by six Arguments.  
Argum. 1 I. The profit of Circumcision (which was, as Baptism is, 
Rom. 3.1, 2.  a Sacrament of Faith and Repentance) was great to the Infants of God's people: Therefore the profit of Baptism is great to the Infants of Christians: For Baptism is not less profitable than Circumcision was, neither are such Infants less capable of the profit of Baptism than such were of the profit of circumcision.  
Argum. 2 II. By Baptism Infants of Christians are solemnly consecrated to the Lord, 
Matth. 28.19.  and his name is put upon them: Per illum consecramur patri, filio, & spiritui sancto, eorum nomina super baptizatos vocantur: Ames. Medulla. p. 187. Therefore the profit of it is great to such Infants, for it is no light matter to be consecrated to him and called by his name. 
Deut. 28.10.   
Argum. 3 III. By Baptism Infants of Christians are solemnly initiated into the Church: 
1. Cor. 12 13.  for Baptism is the Sacrament and ordinary means of initiation into it: Therefore the profit of it is great to them; 
Isai. 65.4.7.  for it is a great privilege to have a visible standing in the Church: This is evident by the contrary; the visible breaking off of the Jews and their seed that they should no more be accounted to the Church than Infidels, was the greatest evil that ever befell them: and Excommunication, which is a visible casting out of the Church, is a dreadful thing; it is a delivering up to Satan, and a putting the party visibly in his Kingdom, in which all visibly are that have not a visible standing in the Church.  
Argum. 4 IU. By Baptism Infants of Christians are solemnly initiated into Christ's death, 
Rom. 6.3.  for Baptism is a visible participation of it by way of initiation: Per modum initiationis: Ames. Medul. p. 188 (as eating things offered to Idols is fellowship with devils; 
1 Cor. 10. ) By it the unspeakable benefit of Christ's death is absolutely sealed to as many as stand to the agreement: Therefore the profit of it is great to such Infants.  
Argum. 5 V Baptism is a strong engagement to repentance from dead works to serve the living God: 
Matth. 3.11.  It is called Baptism unto repentance: Eo ad serium dei colendi studium non mediocriter stimulamur, 
Gal. 5.3.  Calv. as Circumcision was in the time of it an engagement to serve the Lord according to the tenor of that Administration: Therefore the profit of it is great, 
Isai 49.1, 5. Psal 58.3.  for God hath form us to serve him from the womb, and we are apt to go astray from the womb.  
Argum. 6 VI Baptism is an ordinary means of the salvation of those of whom the Kingdom of God is, and necessary as a means: 
1 Pet. 3.21,  Baptismus est necessarius ad salutem, non tantum ut res praecepta, sed etiam ut salutis medium ordinarium, Ames. Bellar. enervat. Therefore the profit of Baptism is great to the Infants of Christians, the Kingdom of God being of such.  
Objection. Baptism is a means of the salvation only of those that have Faith and the answer of a good Conscience, and not of Infants.  
Answer. 1. Faith and the answer of a good Conscience are necessary only in those of riper years, that Baptism may be effectual to them for Salvation, and not in such Infants, for these are not necessary in them to salvation. 2. Baptism is compared to the Ark, and is said to save, as the Ark saved from the flood of waters, in which some had a temporal deliverance (which was a type of, 
1 Pet. 3 21.  and help to eternal salvation) which yet after perished.  
Object. 2 It is uncertain whether any individual Infant shall receive any profit by Baptism.  
Answer. 1. It is certain Baptism is as profitable to Infants of Christians as Circumcision was to Infants of God's people in the time of it: and that every such Infant baptised is solemnly dedicated to the Lord, initiated into the Church, and into Christ's death, and made a debtor to serve the Lord in righteousness and holiness all the days of his life, and is by it set upon the advantage ground for salvation. 2. There is not to us any infallible certainty that Baptism administered to any actual professor, shall be effectual to him to salvation: John Baptist and the Apostles could not say of any individual, this man shall be baptised with the holy Ghost and be saved: They baptised Individuals, as David prayed for his sick Child, namely, 
2 Sam. 22.12.  because he did not know but the Lord might hear him; he said, who can tell but the Lord may be gracious unto me that the Child may live? and there is ground of hope of the effectualness of Baptism in the Infants of Christians as well as in actual Professors, because God hath promised to be a God of the seed of his people, and to circumcise their hearts, and hath commanded them to hang upon him their issue and their offspring, 
Isai. 22.24.  and required them to be accounted a seed that he hath blessed, 
Isai. 61.8, 9  and hath declared that the Kingdom of God is of them, etc.   

ARGUMENT VI The Promise was sealed by the initial Sacrament aforetime to Infants of visible Professors, seeking it for ●h●m, both jews and of the Gentiles, therefore it may be sealed to the Infants of Christians by the initial Sacrament.  
THE Consequence I prove by six Arguments.  
Argum. 1 I. The principal promise sealed aforetime (which was the promise of propriety in God) is not made void. For, 1. It was not a temporary promise, 
Gen. 17.7. Heb. 8 7. Eph. 2.14.  for that promise was faultless, and it was no part of the partition wall broken down by Christ. 2. Infants of Christians are as faultless as the infants of God's people in the former administration, undeniably included in it: Therefore it may be sealed to the infants of Christians by the initial Sacrament in this dispensation.  
Argum. 2 II. Sealing that promise by an initial Sacrament to infants of God's people (which was the substance of Circumcision, and a distinct thing from it) did not of right cease with the Jewish Church-State: For it was not peculiar to that Church as a national Church: For, 1. That promise was sealed to infants by the initial Sacrament long before the existence of a national Church, 
Gen. 17.  and to infants of strangers, which were not of that Nation. 2. Sealing the promise by an initial Sacrament is principally in reference to the Catholic Church, for shows of grace are sufficient to it, 
Acts 8.36, 37 c. 10.47  though the parties have not joined themselves to any particular Church; and one that cannot be rightly judged to be of the Catholic Church, cannot have the promise rightly sealed to him by an initial Sacrament, though he be a Member of a particular Church.  
Argum. 3 III. Sealing the promise by the initial Sacrament in this dispensation, is upon such terms as the sealing of it was in the former; Faith and repentance were no less required in the former then in the present dispensation: Fides et resipiscentia non magis am constituunt foedus dei, quàm tempore Abrahami. Ames. The seal is changed, but not the Faith: Sacramenta sunt mutata, non fides. August. God indented with Abraham to walk before him, and to be perfect, 
Gen 17.2  before sealing the promise to him by the initial Sacrament, 
Rom. 4.11  and that Sacrament was called the seal of the righteousness of Faith; yea, a greater measure of Faith might seem necessary aforetime, 
Heb. 11.13 Rom. 13.11  for they were to behold things afar off, which to us are nearer, and there was a vail of Ceremonies upon things, which are to us open and naked: Therefore the promise may be sealed to Infants of Christians in this dispensation by the initial Sacrament.  
Argum. 4 FOUR Infants of Christians are as capable of the promise, and sealing of it by the initial Sacrament, as the Infants of God's people were aforetime; for there is not in them a greater absence of Faith, Knowledge, etc. neither is there less innocency and ability to bear it: Infants of Christians are now as able to endure sprinkling or washing with water, as Infants of God's people aforetime the cutting with the knife. Therefore the promise may be sealed to the Infants of Christians by the initial Sacrament.  
Argum. 5 V. The initial Sacrament, in this dispensation, is as appliable to Infants of Christians as the initial Sacrament aforetime was to Infants of God's people. For, 1. It is as passive, and no more action is required in the subject: Nulla actio externa requiritur ut in alijs Sacramentis. Ames. Yea, it is more facile and common in the Administration, and needs not a restriction to the male, as that aforetime did. 2. It is the same Sacrament in this dispensation that the other was in the former: Sacramentia illa in signie diversa, in rebus paria. August. For, 1. They are both initial Sacraments of the Covenant of grace. 2. They are both the first Ceremonies used about those that may rightly be judged to be in the promise, and accounted of the Church. 3. As Circumcision was rightly administered to those only that might be accounted to the Church, so is Baptism: Nemo extra ecclesiam baptizandus. Cyp. Ep. ad Januar. 4. As Circumcision was the only ordinary way of entrance into the Church aforetime, 
1 Cor. 12.13 Exod. 12.48  so is baptism. 5. As no uncircumcised person might communicate with the Church in the , so no unbaptized person did eat the Lords Supper in the Apostles times. 
Acts 2.41, 42 Gal. 5.3.  6. As Circumcision was an engagement to observance of the Covenant, according to the tenor of the former Administration, so is Baptism an engagement to observance of it according to the tenor of the present; it is called Baptism unto repentance, and of repentance; 
Matthew 3.11 Luke 3.3 Romans 6: 3 Ephes. 4.1, 5  and the Apostle argues against living in sin from Baptism, and for an holy life becoming the Gospel: and Luther reports of a Virgin that repelled all temptations to sin with baptizata sum: i. e. I am baptised. 7. As Circumcision was a sign of mortification, and putting off the body of sin, 
Deut. 10.16 Col. 2.11 Romans 6.3 Col. 2.12  so is Baptism: We are said to be buried by Baptism with Christ; and that Baptism should be the sign hereof in this dispensation, it seems to be foreseen by the Prophet Jeremiah, 
jeremiah 4.14  who calls Circumcision of the heart, washing of the heart from wickedness. 8. As Circumcision was an external seal of the righteousness of Faith, 
Romans 4 11 1 Sam. 17.36 Gen. 34.14  so is Baptism. 9 As Circumcision was a sign, distinguishing the people of God from Infidels, so is Baptism. 10. As Circumcision sealed both temporal and spiritual promises, so doth Baptism: for in the Covenant in this dispensation are both, as well as in the former, and Christians have Christ, 
Matthew 5 Matthew 6.33 Romans 8.32  and all other things by the same Charter. 11. Circumcision, of right, ended when Baptism began to b● an initial Sacrament, for Christ's Circumcision was the period of it, and it ceased to be needful so soon as John began to baptise, 
Luke 16.16  for the Law is said to continue but until John. Lastly, The Apostle plainly teaches, that Baptism is the same Sacrament to Christians that Circumcision was to God's people aforetime: 
Col. 2. 11, 12  Demonstrat id esse baptismum Christianis quod antca fuerit Judaeis Circumcisio. Calv. instit. Arguing against the continuance of Circumcision, in this dispensation, he uses two Arguments, which argue no less. For, 1. Christ being come (who was the body of the old shadows) they of right ceased. 2. That Baptism was now the sign of our mortification, for which Circumcision served aforetime: Ostendit quòd adempti sumus eam in Baptismo. Aquin.  
Argum. 6 VI. Nothing can be sound collected from the Scriptures against sealing the promise to Infants of God's people in this dispensation, by the initial Sacrament of it, as aforetime by the initial Sacrament. For,  
1. The abolishing Circumcision (the initial Sacrament aforetime) is no Argument against it, as the abolishing of Sacrifices used aforetime in making solemn Covenant with God, 
Psalm 50.5  is no Argument against solemn Covenant with God in the time of the Gospel. For, 1. Circumcision was a distinct thing from sealing the promise, and only a ceremony of it for a time. 2. The outward sign is ceased, not the substance signified by it: Circumcisio suum habet externum, quasi corpus mortale; et suum internum quasi animam immortalem, prius aboletur non posterius, Zanch. The sealing of the promise is not ceased, for seals are added in this dispensation to the Covenant. 3. Baptism the initial seal, is more facile to Infants then Circumcision was, which was the initial seal aforetime.  
2. Nothing appears in john Baptists Commission, inconsistent with sealing the promise by the initial Sacrament to Infants of Christians; he mentions an alteration of the ceremony, but no change of the subject, 
John 1.33  nor yet in the execution of his Commission is there any thing apparently against it. If it be alleged, that he preached repentance before he sealed the promise to any by the initial Sacrament. I answer; so also was the Gospel preached aforetime, 
Galathia. 3.8  before the promise was sealed to any by the initial Sacrament, yet it was sealed to the Infants of God's people by the initial Sacrament. If any plead, that men confessed sins, and shown signs of grace, before the promise was sealed to them by the initial Sacrament: I answer, no less did Abraham, and all of riper years, in the former dispensation, before the sealing the promise to them by the initial Sacrament thereof. Also, john Baptist (who best understood his Commission) affirmed, that he baptised with water unto repentance, 
Matthew 3.11  which is consistent with Baptism of Infants of Christians.  
3. It doth not appear, that Christ (the Author of the now initial seal) did abolish the sealing the promise by an initial seal to Infants of God's people. For, 1. He broke down only the partition wall, of which the promise of propriety in God, and sealing it by an initial Sacrament to Infants of God's people were no part, though Circumcision (the initial seal for a time) was a part thereof: Christus leg●m a Mose latam, non sustul●t, nisi quatenus gentes à Iudaeis separabat: Rive●. in decal. 2. Abolishing the former initial Sacrament, he instituted another more facile to Infants. 3. There is no more in Infants of God's people, in this dispensation against it, than was in such Infants aforetime. 4. He with anger rebuke his Disciples, for despising the day of such small things, and gave them nothing in Commission inconsistent with it; for the sum of their Commission was, that they should Disciple the Nations (which were strangers from the Covenant, 
Mat. 28.19, 20 ) baptising them and teaching them to do all things which he commanded, which was the method God used himself in the former dispensation, 
Gen. 17.1  for he discipled Abraham before he sealed the promise to him, and his males, by the initial Sacrament of it. All that can be sound concluded, is, that all of riper years should be discipled before baptism: Sensus est, qui adult â sunt aetate, ante sunt instituendi quàm baptizandi; non si se rumpant aliud ex hoc loco ostendent. Calv. And that the Apostles repulsed Christians desiring sealing the promise by the initial Sacrament to their Infants, 
Acts 2.29 1 Cor. 7.14  doth not appear; but the contrary is rather to be believed, for they judged children of Christians in the promise, and federally holy as well as their parents; and baptised Christians, and all theirs (where it was desired;) of which sufficient instances (as witnesses) are left us upon record.  
Therefore I conclude, that the promise of propriety in God, being sealed to Infants of God's people in the former dispensation by the initial Sacrament thereof: It may be sealed to Infants of Christians in this dispensation by the initial seal of it.  
Objection. 1 The Covenant sealed aforetime to Infants of God's people by an initial Sacrament, was much differing from that whereof Baptism is the initial Sacrament, for that was not purely Evangelical, but a mixed Gospel-Covenant, consisting partly of Evangelical promises, appertaining to Believers, as such; and partly of domestic and civil promises, both which were sealed by the initial Sacrament of that time, which, for that cause, might be administered to some which could not be rightly ju●ged Believers: But the Covenant whereof Baptism is the initial Sacrament, is purely Evangelical; consisting of promises belonging only to Believers, as such.  
Answer. 1. Spiritual and temporal promises may be said to make a mixed Covenant, but not a mixed Evangelical Covenant, for a mixed Gospel-Covenant is a Covenant partly of works, and partly of grace, and the Covenant of which Circumcision was the initial Sacrament, was not mixed after that manner, for the Law was not given until four hundred thirty years after it, 
Galat. 3.17  and then it was not mixed with it, but only annexed to it.  
2. The difference was only in the dispensation, and not in the substance of the Covenant; the Covenant of which Circumcision was the initial Sacrament, was as purely Evangelicall, as this, whereof Baptism is the initial Sacrament; for the Gospel is said to be preached unto them as well as to us, 
Galat. 3.8 Heb. 3.19 Matthew 5.5 Matth. 6.33 Rom 9 ●2 Ezek. 36.25 30  and the temporal promises were Evangelical, and belonged to Believers, as such, for because of unbelief many obtained them not. Also, there are temporal promises in this dispensation, and the people of God have Christ, and all other things by the same Charter.  
3. The promises sealed in the former dispensation were principally spiritual: Certò certius est primarias promissiones sub veteri testamento spirituales fuisse. Calv. 
Heb. 11.13  For the Fathers had temporal things little in their eye, they sought a better Country than Canaan; 
Rom 15.8 9  and Christ (who is called the Minister of Circumcision for the confirming the promises made to the Fathers) did not restore to the jews temporal things; when he came, the Romans did tyrannize over them, and he broke not their yoke from their neck, and not long after their Country was utterly destroyed. Also the Gentiles that did not take hold of that Covenant are said to be without Christ, hope and God. Yea, 
Ephes. 2.12  spiritual promises only were sealed by the initial Sacrament to many Infants; for the promise of Canaan, and other civil and domestic promises were not sealed by it to Infants of Converts of the Gentiles, for these things did not appertain to them, but to the natural seed of ●braham. Also, only spiritual promises were sealed by it to Infants dying in infancy, and if these were not sealed to them none were, 
Rom 3.1, 2  and their bodies were wounded, and their souls were not profited, and Circumcision was a punishment, and no benefit, which is contrary to the Scripture.  
Objection. 2 Circumcision was administered to some, to whom the Covenant did not extend, as to Ishmael, and others; and it was not administered to some, to whom the Covenant did extend, as to Melchizedeck, Job, Lot, Infants not 8 days old, and women.  
Answer. 1. Circumcision could not rightly be administered to any that could not be rightly judged in the Covenant, for it is called the Covenant, 
Gen. 17.10  and the token of it, therefore might not be carried beyond it. Also, Ishmael was rightly judged in the Covenant when he was circumcised, (though he was not in it for life, as appeared afterwards,) for he was the seed, and of the family of Abraham, and not then actually broken off.  
2. It is uncertain, whether Circumcision were instituted in the days of Melchizedeck, Job and Lot; and if it were, it is uncertain whether the institution of it came to their knowledge, they being removed far from Abraham: and if both these could be known, it is uncertain that they were not circumcised, and certain that they might have been circumcised, and most probable that they were, if that there were not some lets, and in such cases some of the Israelites were not circumcised, 
Joshuah 5.5  for Circumcision was intermitted forty years in the wilderness.  
3. Infants, not eight days old, had a dispensation, not having strength to endure, and women, not having a natural capacity, or to prevent the transgressing the bounds of modesty in circumcising them, or perhaps it was denied that sex for a chastisement, because the woman was first in the transgression of the first Covenant.  
Objection. 3 3. In the former dispensation all the seed of Abraham's flesh, were his seed, and therefore they might have the promise sealed to them by the initial Sacrament: But in this, only such as have Abraham's faith are to be accounted his seed, which Infants not having, they cannot be accounted his seed, therefore they cannot have the Promise rightly sealed to them by the initial Sacrament.  
Answer. 1. They which, being of riper years, have not visible faith, cannot be accounted Abraham's seed, yet Infants of Christians are rightly accounted his seed without it. For 1. the Scripture speaks expressly that the faithful are the seed of the blessed of the Lord, and their off spring with them. 
Isa. 65.23.  2. The Converts of the Gentiles and their Infants aforetime were rightly accounted the seed of Abraham, 
Exod. 12 49.  the stranger was to be accounted as he that was home-born: and it must be granted that they were to be accounted the seed of his faith, for they were not the seed of his flesh. 3. The most learned and rational of the Anabaptists confess that elect Infants are Abraham's spiritual seed, yet there is not in them visible faith. 4. The Lord calls the Infants of visible Professors, his Children; and their seed, the seed of God: 
Eze 16.20, 21 Mal. 2 15. Ma●k 10.14.  therefore the Infants of such may be called the seed of Abraham. 5. Christ on earth affirmed the Kingdom of God to be of such, therefore they may be accounted to Abraham's family. 6. Christ numbered such with believers, and the Apostle judged such to be in the promise, and denominated them holy: therefore they may be accounted the seed of Abraham's faith. 7. They cannot be denominated Infidels because they have not visible faith; as they cannot be denominated unreasonable, because they have not visible reason, nor dumb because they speak not; it not being the time in which they may, and aught to have visible faith:  aliquid privatum dicatur, eo tempore quo adesse debuit forma, absit: The Anabaptists must either account them to Believers, or to Infidels, or a third party; which if they do, it will be needful that they bethink themselves of a third place for them (a limbus Infantum) when they die. 9 Perkins in Galat. p. 263. affirms it the ancient received doctrine of the Church; that their being born in the bosom of the Church (which is God's family) of his servants (which take hold of his Covenant) supplies in them the absence of visible faith; and the ancients did abhor the accounting them Infidels: Absit ut ego dicam non credentes infants, August. de Baptis. and judged them Heretics that did not account them to Believers: Inter credentes baptizatos parvulos numerabis, nisi vis esse hereticus; August. ad Pelagium.  
2. The sealing of the Promise aforetime by the initial Sacrament to Infants and others, was to them primarily as the seed of Abraham's faith, for such as were visibly wicked, so that they could not be accounted to the seed of his faith, 
Isai. 1.10. Je●. 9.25.26. Amos 9 7.  were no more regarded of God than Sodomites, Ethiopians, Ammonites, etc. and they were visibly out of the Promise for life (though they were Abraham's natural seed) as well as Gentiles; and many of them obtained not the temporal Promises given to Abraham. The being Abraham's natural seed was no privilege to such as were notoriously and incorrigibly wicked, 
Matth. 3.9.  that they could not be judged the seed of his faith.  
Objection. 4 4. There was an express Commandment aforetime for sealing the Promise by the initial Sacrament to the Infants of God's people: But there is no such commandment in this dispensation, but the practice of baptising Infants is upheld by weak Arguments from the Old Testament.  
Answer. I. It is most insufferable hypocrisy in the Anabaptists so rigidly to exact an express commandment in this particular and to refuse satisfaction by sound collections from the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament: seeing that they cannot produce an express commandment for any thing which is proper to their way. For,  
1. What express commandment can they show for despising of dignities, and for insurrections of private men against Magistrates, which was their practice in Germany? Magistrates (though unrighteous) are called gods and sons of the most high, 
Psalm 82 6. Exod. 22 28. Rom. 13.1. 2 Pet. 2 10. Judas 8.  and reviling of them is forbidden, and subjection to them commanded, and despising of them made a character of an Heretic.  
2. What express Commandment can they produce for unchurching all reformed Churches, and pronouncing them Antichristian, for baptising Infants of Christians?  
3. What express Commandment can they show for railing accusations they bring against all faithful Ministers, which labour in the Word, 
jer. 3.15.  and feed people with knowledge and understanding, (many of which God hath used in the conversion of many souls to him) because they baptise Infants of Christians? 
jude 9  The Angel dared not bring a railing accusation against the devil, and they that despise faithful Ministers are despisers of Christ, 1 Thes. 4.8. 
Luke 10 16   
4. What express Commandment can they show for preaching of private men without abilities and authority? Mechanic fellows (not trained up in the study of divinity) they allow to be preachers, of whom it may be rightly said, which Jerome complained of some, docent priusquam discant, i. e. they teach before they have learned themselves: and which the Apostle before him of some, they desire to be teachers, 
1 Tim. 1 7.  understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm; and they account their babble and rail the only Gospel, as Montanus did the dreams of his two harlots, Prisca and Maximilla. They all take upon them to be preachers; Sumunt sibi omnes praedicandi officium; Gasti. In the Apostles days all were not Prophets, they taught that Christ gave only some Prophets, 
1 Cor. 12.29. Eph. 4.  and some Pastors and Teachers, and that none might be a Preacher except he were sent (that is, 
Rom. 10.14  had authority rightly conferred upon him, and abilities given to him; 
1 Cor. 7 20 ) and that men must abide in their callings: 
2 Cor. 2.16  and they thought none sufficient enough for preaching the Gospel, much less not such, as neither were trained up for it, nor yet extraordinarily gifted: Also Christ (who had the greatest abilities) took not upon him to preach until he was called to it: until the voice from heaven, 
Heb. 5 4 Mat. 3 17 Mat. 28.19  this is my beloved Son, hear him: and his Apostles, besides abilities, had a commission to preach the Gospel.  
It was a great sin in jeroboam, to suffer common people to execute the legal Ministry, 
1 King. 12, 31  and private men met with exemplary punishment from Heaven for meddling with it, 
2 Cor. 3 8.  and the Ministry of the Gospel is much more glorious.  
The taking away Prophets and Teachers from people, 
Isaiah 3. ●  is threatened as a heavy judgement, and much lamented: but if common people can prophesy and teach, what punishment is it?  
5. What express Commandment is there for stripping and dipping silly women? which hath occasioned the death of some, and the defiling of others?  
6. What express Commandment can they show for liberty to hold erroneous opinions, and to divulge them, which they call Liberty of Conscience? but is indeed Licentious Error.  

Deut. 29.14.5  In Moses days the people covenanted, not only that themselves present, but all of them absent, with themselves, should walk after the Lord, which they could not have done, if men ought to have such a liberty: Josiah and the people made a solemn Covenant to seek the Lord, and he caused the people to stand to it: 
2 Chro 34.32 2 Chron. 15.13. Deut. 13 1.12  and Asah made a law that if any did not stand to the Covenant he should be put to death; and lest not liberty for people to descent: God by Moses commanded that false teachers should not be tolerated: and it was prophesied that great severity should be used against teachers of lies under the Gospel. 
Zech 13. 2.4●   

Gen. 17.  When God instituted Circumcision, he gave no liberty (if any should scruple it) to do otherwise, every male that was not circumcised, was to be cut off.  
In the moral Law, the stranger (in the Jurisdiction of the people of God) is not permitted to enjoy his opinion in following secular employments on the day which the Lord hath sanctified: 
Exod. 20.  Nulli cohabitanti permittitur Sabbathi dissolutio. Lippom. Nehemiah threatened to lay hands on the Merchants of Tyre, 
Neh 13 17. to 22  if they would not desist from such business on the Lord's day.  
The liberty of Conscience, which we have by Christ, is only to hold the truth, and not a liberty to hold any error, though it be conceived by men a truth: the holy Scriptures and not men's fancies are the touchstone by which opinions are tried: 
Gal. 5.13.  and Christian liberty is no occasion to the flesh.  
To these many more might be added, for which to bring an express Command, or a sound collection from Scriptures of the Old or New Testament, would be found very difficult.  
II. There is no necessity of an express Commandment, for sealing the promise to the Infants of Christians in this dispensation by the initial Sacrament, as was for sealing it to the Infants of God's people by the initial Sacrament in the former; for Circumcision, in the former administration, was the first initial seal added to the Covenant, and there was nothing for direction in the use of an initial seal before it: Also, Circumcision was very painful, and seemingly as dangerous for tender Infants, and to humane reason uncomely; it was a yoke too heavy to be born, and therefore, not the least part of the partition wall which kept out the Gentiles, 
Acts 15.  for which cause there was a great necessity of an express Commandment.  
3. The express Commandment was not the principal reason of circumcising Infants, and others, but the Covenant: Circumcisi olim Infantes propter foedus erant. Whitak. Contr. Durae. Circumcision was called the Covenant, and the token of it, 
Gen. 17.10, 14  and not the Commandment; and the contempt and wilful neglect of it was called the transgression of the Covenant, and not of the Commandment: and despisers were threatened to be cut off, for violation of the Covenant, not of the Commandment, etc.  
Objection. 5 5. Arguing from Circumcision for Baptism of Infants, is the way to introduce Judaisme, and to subject the Church again to the whole burden of Jewish Ceremonies: and it justifies the Papists, who argue for an universal Bishop, from the high Priest among the Jews, and for sacrificing Priests, linen garments, etc. from the custom in the Jewish Church.  
Answer. Arguing from the Jewish types for the substance of those shadows, tends neither to an introducement of Judaisme, nor yet to a justification of the Quisquillian toys of the Papists for it is neither arguing for the Ceremonies of the Jewish Church, nor for the fooleries of the Popish Synagogue, but for privileges which the faithful may expect by Christ, of which those Ceremonies were prenunciative, and are ceased, not because they were evil, but because we have the substanc and truth of them, which is much better, Non quia damnata, sed quia in melius mutata, August. It cannot be rightly argued from the high Priest in the Jewish Church, that there must be such an universal Bishop as the Pope, for no such thing was intended by that type, but Christ was the substance of that shadow, who is our great high Priest, 
Heb 4.14  nor from the other Priests, that there ought to be sacrificing Priests under the Gospel, for (if that any thing were typified by them) it was a faithful Ministry under the Gospel, to prepare people for the Lord, 
Rom. 12.1.2  that they may be presented to him living sacrifices, holy and acceptable, and by their linen garments innocency and righteousness, with which the Ministers of God ought to be clothed. The Apostle argues from the sacrifices in the Jewish Church, the offering up of ourselves, 
Rom. 12 2 Heb. 23.25  and the sacrificing of praises, which he calls the calves of the lips, etc. And from sealing the Promise by the initial Sacrament to Infants of God's people aforetime may the sealing of the Promise by the initial Sacrament to Infants of Christians in this Dispensation be rightly argued: Sealing the Promise being the substance of Circumcision and benefit intended by it; and such arguing hath no colour of setting up Judaisme, for arguing for the thing signified tends not to the introducement of antiquated Ceremonies.  
Therefore I conclude that orthodox Divines and reformed Churches have sound concluded Baptism of Infants of Christians, from Circumcision of Infants of God's people aforetime: from which many of them have argued for it: as learned Whitaker: Infants were circumcised of old time for the Covenant, therefore, for the same cause they ought to be baptised: Circumcisi olim Infantes propter foedus erant, ergo propter eandem causam baptizandi, Whitak. Contr. Durae. p. 685. Also Calvin; for as much as God was pleased to grant Circumcision, the Sacrament of Repentance and Faith to Infants, it cannot be absurd if now they are partakers of Baptism: Cum Circumcisionem poenitentiae & fidei Sacramentum, Deus Infantibus communicaret, non absurdum si nunc Baptismi participes fiant, Calv. etc.  
This Argument from Circumcision is filled with the scorning and contempt of the Anabaptists, but if it appear in its full strength against them, it alone is able to put to the rout, the most numerous Army of them: Huic argumento non omnes Anabaptistae resistent; Whitak. Contr. Durae. p. 685. They are like the fish called (Sepia) which casteth out a great deal of black ink in the water to darken it, that she may glide away the more easily from the hand that else would take her; they think, by the multitude of their scoffs and jeers at it, to elude it, and escape from it.   
FINIS.   

Imprimatur  
Edm. Calamy. April 12. 1648.