A REPLY TO A CONFUTATION of some grounds for Infant's Baptism: AS ALSO, Concerning the form of a Church, put forth against me by one THOMAS LAMB.  
Hereunto is added, A Discourse of the Verity and Validity of Infant's Baptism, wherein I endeavour to clear it in itself: As also in the Ministry administering it, and the manner of administration, by Sprinkling, and not Dipping; with sundry other particulars handled herein.  
By George Philip's of Watertown in New England.  MATTH. 7.15. Beware of false Prophets, which come unto you in Sheeps-clothing. A parvulo recens nato, usque ad decrepitum senem, nullus prohibendus est a Baptismo, August. Enchirid. cap. 42. Dic quaeso & omni me libera quaestione, quare infantuli baptizentur? Orthodox: ut iis peccata in baptismate dimittantur, Hieron. advers. Pelagian. Dialog. ter. 
LONDON, Printed by Matthew Simmons, for Henry Overton, and are to be sold at his Shop in Popes-head-Alley. 1645.   

To the Reader.  
WHO is so ignorant, but seethe what Satan's Masterpiece, and greatest work in the kingdom of Christ is at this day, viz. to divide and sow Tares of discord between man and man? And truly whose heart bleeds not to behold the present divisions, by sword, by pen, in affection & in opinion, under which the land of peace lies now a bleeding? Among which divisions, none more lamentable nor grievous to a tender spirit, than those that are between persons professing the fear of God, especially in those times when all their strength and spirits should be wholly taken up against the common Adversary, watching their destruction at their very doors; yet such is the malice of Satan to set them especially at a distance, and at variance, whom the precious blood of Christ hath been shed to reconcile. And this he doth especially when he hath started a controversy (according to the old observation) In re Sacramentaria, in matters of the Sacraments; and therefore it is no wonder if he troubles the world, and divides the minds of some piously affected about the baptism of Infants; although withal one would wonder in other respects, how any godly men who have better things to mind, should hold up the Buckler in defence of such a stigmatised doctrine, by the pens of so many of God's Worthies, from the Scriptures. If indeed there were any new light concerning it, that was never yet discovered to the world, this present age might have second thoughts, and learn the more by others errors; but when in this controversy men dig up only the old Sepulchers, and heap up little more than the dried bones and sculls of other men's examined, condemned and corrupted devices: this is very uncomfortable, and very unbeseeming the spirit of a prudent and humble Christian; who will never suffer himself to be removed, much less attempt the moving of others, from the ancient received opinion and practice of the most sincerely godly in all ages, without mountains of arguments, and light as clear as the Sun from the holy Scriptures, to alter his mind, or make him to remove the ancient Landmarks; and therefore he that writ the life of Doctor Whitaker, prudently observes of him, that he was Academiae oraculum, the Oracle of that University; and, Mundi miraculum, the miracle of the world in his time: because, though he was a man of such eminent parts, yet he ever kept the ancient received Doctrine, & had nothing proper, nor did he in veteri via novam semitam quaerere, he did not seek a new path in the old way, as almost all Divines of great parts do use to do, as from Hierom he observes.  
The Author therefore of this Reply, (in which we wish he had a stronger Adversary to honour,) well known in the gates of his people, and among the Churches of Christ in this Western world, for his learning, godliness, and peaceableness of disposition, cannot be justly blamed as any Firebrand of contention in returning this Answer, it doth but defend the Walls and Trenches of the ancient received Truth; nor would he have made any resistance, had he not been assaulted on that ground where himself with God's truth, have had just and quiet possession so long: Nor hath he published it to increase disunion; but for satisfaction of his conscience,  
Firstly, who hath given him this occasion to reply; or if not of his, yet of some others godly and tender, who in simplicity have been, or may be suddenly taken in the snares of the Fowlers of these evil times. I remember it was Luther's prayer, seconded often by learned, holy, and aged Paraeus, A Doctore glorioso, & Pastore contentioso, & inutilibus quaestionibus, liberet Ecclesiam suam Dominus. To start this controversy about Infant's baptism, I fear upon sad examination, will fall under the head of those inutiles quaestiones, especially in these unsettled and troublesome times; and though pretended to be a work of Reformation, yet will give as sad a blow to that which is firstly and principally to be attended in it, as almost any opinion I know; and the end will speak as much: And therefore a sober strong defence of the baptism of Infants, may be very profitable & useful against an unprofitable questioning of it now; and the more, because it is much to be feared, that the doctrine of Anabaptism, especially in this controversy concerning Infants, will gangrene fare, and leaven much; and that for these Reasons:  
First, because there is not that express word, nor such manifest clearness in such full and express sentences of the Scripture, as in many other practical points: For the practice of this; there is sufficient Scripture to satisfy a sober humble mind that loves the truth in sincerity in this point; yet they that are contentious, and love scruples, and questions, (a disease Paul would have cured, 1 Tim. 1.5, 6.) will be always touching upon that string, viz. Where is your commandment? I see not any express Scripture; Yes, that you may by just and full deduction from the Scripture; and that is a good proof from Scripture; or else our Saviour's proof of the resurrection was bad, from I am the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, which is not expressly contained in these words, but deducted from them.  
Secondly, (if conscience and experience may speak) there are but few Christians that have tasted the sweet and comfort of their baptism; and therefore are very apt to question this ordinance, if they meet with a fit tempter to deceive them: For this is a certain and everlasting truth, viz. that that truth which a man hath received without love to it, by some sense of the sweetness of it, in times of temptation, he will quickly cast off: A man will not care for that bread that doth not feed him, nor will keep on those clothes in Winter time that do not warm him; nor love that truth which doth not refresh him; and consequently will be ready to cut down that barren baptism under whose covert he hath so long lived, but never tasted of the fruit of it, never felt the comfort of the shadow of it; and assuredly, what ever reasons men pretend against baptising of Infants, this is generally the root of those evils; they never felt the benefit of it, they never received this truth in love; and for this cause God sends strong delusions about it, 2 Thes. 2.10, 11. And it's Calvin's observation, concerning the Libertines and Anabaptists in his time; the Lord, saith he, never suffered a wicked man to fall into a strong delusion, but because he did not love the truth at all; nor leaves a godly man in a delusion for a time, but because he did not love the truth enough. Some have therefore thought the best way to stop the spreading of Anabaptism, was for some holy and able men to leave the controversal part; and more plainly, clearly and positively to set out the nature and use of baptism, and what benefits a Christian may reap thereby, and how he may suck out the milk and honey from this Rock; and then he that once tastes the good of it, beholds the infinite riches of God's grace therein, will not be easily persuaded to cast away that, which he feels of such daily use and precious virtue to him.  
Thirdly, in regard of the unsettledness and ungroundedness of so many godly Christians; partly through the want of settled and able Ministers among them; partly through a carelessness of spirit, in taking truths upon trust of other men's judgements only, not labouring to be grounded in them themselves; and hence, when they are strongly assaulted by Familists, Anabaptists, Antipsalmists, etc. they fall down, heaps upon heaps, and most miserably wounded, because they want armour and weapons, strong grounds, and clear principles from Scripture, to defend themselves; and therefore it was the ancient complaint of zealous Gildas, that the Arrian heresy, and other poisonful opinions, like so many poisonful Serpents, infected the ancient Britain's, because they were a people always desirous of novelties, and established in nothing; and therefore let the Reader make much of such books, and of this in special, whereby the judgement may be convinced, and the heart established in the blessed truth of Christ; try all things herein, and weigh them in the balance of the Word; what thou findest to be of weight, receive in love, and remember to take heed of rejecting, that, if some things herein should want some grains, and seem too light; do thus for the truth's sake, and so embrace this truth in these divided times for peace sake, that they that have one God, and one and the same Jesus, may have one faith, and one and the same heart, as in other, so in special in this point, and not set the whole house on fire, to roast their own Eggs; and that this may be, let sober minded men attend but unto these general rules.  
1. First remember the blessed Apostles Golden rule of peace, Phil. 3.8.9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16. Let every Christian make it his chiefest study, his greatest business, to prize Jesus Christ, to be found in him, to know him, and the power of his death and resurrection, to press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus; here is work for you (saith Paul) sufficient to take up all your life-time, and thoughts all your life long; let us therefore (saith he) as many as be perfect (i. that think ourselves most perfect and exact Christians, knowing more than all others) be thus minded; and then, if in any thing you be otherwise minded, and differ one from another, God will reveal the truth unto you. On that God would give those that are most zealous against Paedobaptism, to consider of this rule: How useful is it for many to trouble themselves and the churches with these conceits; who, if well catechised, would be found extremely ignorant and ungrounded in the most necessary matters about their union and spiritual communion with Jesus Christ? and if they were well busied in matters of that heavenly nature, they would have little desire to spend their time and thoughts about less weighty and more doubtful points.  
2. Secondly, labour for holiness of mind, and a mean esteem of your gifts, parts, knowledge, wisdom, etc. The Apostle doth beseech the Philippians, if any consolation in Christ, if any comfort of love, if any fellowship of the Spirit, that they would be like minded, Phil. 2.1, 2. and the means to this he sets down, vers. 3. In lowliness of mind, let each man esteem of others better than themselves; You that contend against Paedobaptism, think thus, viz. that as you are to prize Christ, so every truth of Christ; and you are persuaded in your consciences, that you have herein the truth on your sides, otherwise you would not strive for it; and that though many, nay most godly men have been, and are otherwise minded; yet you think they are but men, and therefore may be deceived: I answer, 'tis very true, they are men, and I had thought you had been so too, and therefore may not you be deceived? Is not lowliness of mind of use now? to think how foolish thou art, and apt to be deceived, and to esteem of others (very godly) better than thyself; didst never see the folly of thine own counsels? hadst never experience how blind thou hast been many times, not able to see things before thy very feet? Did the Lord never acquaint thee with thy extreme ignorance and uncapableness of spiritual mysteries even about such as none question or doubt of? and mayst not thou be woefully deluded, and blinded about that thy opinion with so many (as much acquainted with God as thyself) yet dare not but question and do fully condemn? hast not felt thy heart naturally disliking truth, and embracing error, and through the hollowness of it, returning many echoes to one false noise? Fear therefore thine own weakness, deny thy own wisdom, think meanly of thyself, and this difference will soon cease; Little threads may be easily tied together; you can hardly do so with cables ends, they are too big to fasten: be little in thine own eyes, and thou wilt soon cease contending about these points.  
3. Thirdly, observe the fruit of this opinion; for by the fruits (not of false teachers lives, for they are in sheep's clothing, but of their false doctrines) ye shall know them, Mat. 7.6. First, it leads men to destroy the extent of God's free grace in that everlasting covenant he hath made with Abraham and all his seed, Jews and Gentiles, to be a God to him and his seed; and hence come those audacious cries of a carnal covenant God made with Abraham, and not Evangelicall, nor a covenant of grace; and is it nothing to destroy God's grace? Is it not a crying sin, to refuse God to be thy God, and is it no sin to refuse his promise of being the God also of thy seed? which (but that I dispute not now) is as much Evangelicall as the first branch is; if the first branch be, but what follows after this? The next is, they condemn all the best reformed churches, forsake all Gods faithful Ministers (this is that Satan chief aims at) by whom happily they have been called and long edified, than they confusedly gather into private churches, set up and commend an unlearned Ministry; it may be they like of none at all, because they can edify themselves best by promiscuous prophecies; and any that can preach or prophesy, (as every one they say in his measure can) hath commission also to baptise; I will mention no more, nor do I mention this to offend any, but to humble and put a holy fear before the Saints eyes; But when I consider of these and such like fruits, I cannot but cry out with Calvin, having published the opinions of Servetus, these they are, (saith he) Vae autem eorum stupori qui ad ejusmodi portenta non exhorrescunt. Let it be therefore the care of all the faithful ones of Jesus Christ, to study peace, and follow after it; contend against the common enemies of faith, but let it be more bitter than death, to contend one with another; nothing more lamentable, then for to see Christ's sheep scattered one from another; a sad token of the Lords forsaking a people, when they will not come and agree togethe under his wings. Most certain it is, that abuse of liberty for every man to think what he pleaseth, and speak what he list, for Christians to contend and hang together like ropes of sand; to make little other use of the light, breaking forth gloriously in these latter days, than drunkards do of candles in the night, when they are fallen out, which serve only to show them on whom and where to lay the greatest blows; these things cry to heaven for a renewed tyranny of blasted Prelacy, or of that which shall be worse to this generation. When the staff of bonds was broken, Zach. 11.14. the Lord immediately set over his people an idle Shepherd in the land, vers. 16. which should neither visit those that were cut off, nor seek the young, nor heal the broken, nor feed that which stood still, but only eat the fat, and tear their claws in pieces: the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ therefore pity his poor scattered flock, bring back them that are driven or drawn away, seek out them that are lost, heal them that are broken, feed and establish them that stand, destroy the enemies of his people's peace, until that kingdom come in all his people's hearts, both from East to West, in old England and new, which is righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost; that when the floods of God's displeasure shall overwhelm the Christian world for that universal deep corruption of their own ways, the waters of effectual baptism (being locked up in the Ark of God's eternal Covenant) may lift us up in peace.  
Tho. Shepard.   

The Author to the Christian Reader.  
IF it were in my choice, I would not trouble you with reading any thing of mine, being privy to mine own insufficiency to do any thing in this kind, that may be worth your pains; yet seeing I cannot avoid it, being provoked by one who hath made himself my adversary without a cause, and especially in a matter of so great weight and consequence, wherein he goeth about to wrong the truth of God professed by us, I desire you would hold me excused in undertaking the justifying so precious a truth of the Lord, and maintaining the cause by a reply unto his confutation of some grounds, wherewith I am satisfied in my conscience, about our practice in the case of baptising of infants of believers. I know you will meet with some things of no great weight, I desire not that you should think better of any thing than it is; only my request is, that you would cover any weakness of mine in that kind, nor let it at all prejudice your esteem and approbation of that which is according to God, and deserves acknowledgement. Something you shall find which may be profitable to an humble and tractable spirit. Concerning the question itself debated, this seems to be a great matter with many, that there is no express command for baptising believers Infants; and nothing will stop their mouths, but still they call for a commandment to be produced for practising hereof. To answer this; First, Mat. 28.19. Go, make Disciples in all nations, baptising them, etc. seems to want very little of an express commandment to baptise Infants of believers, because they are certainly a part of all nations, and that as opposed to one nation of the jews, from whom the Gospel and Church estate was taken and given to all nations, a part of which nation Infants were, and under the same state of God's dispensation of his grace, and partakers of all the privileges thereof. And this may be further cleared from Mat. 21.33.— 43. where the Vineyard and King dom taken from the Jews and given to the Gentiles, are th● Church estate and covenant. Now that infants were plants in that vineyard, subjects of that kingdom, as well as men of years; and so must it be now, in this vineyard must be young plants, as well as old, and Infants subjects in this kingdom as they were before. It is true that the text saith, Make them disciples, and then baptise them; and I fully believe, that none but a disciple may be baptised; but I am out of doubt, and do not in the least question, but that an infant of a now believing parent, is a disciple as well as the parent, which I have fully cleared, I hope, to any judicious reader's judgement in the explanation of the arguments grounded upon these Scriptures, I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed, etc. 1 Cor. 7.14. Secondly, let them press for a command in all things also, and do nothing further than they have an express command for every thing else that they do or will do; and then I shall think they may show forth more justice & upright dealing, then otherwise I can conceive. And let any man give me an express command of baptising women, or admitting them to the Lords table, besides many other things of weighty consideration in our practice, that may upon the same ground be called into question. And let them in good earnest give an express command for a man that is no Prophet, nor son of a Prophet, to take upon himself the office of teaching the word of God, and administering the public ordinances, Amos 7.14. Ro. 10.14. Thirdly, if there be no commandment nor example in the state of the new Testament for a person unbaptised to baptise any other; than it is unlawful for an unbaptized person to baptise any other. But there is no command nor example in the state of the new Testament for an unbaptized person to baptise others. Ergo. And so baptism can never be administered by any unto any. For concerning the instance of I. Baptist, it will not satisfy conscience in this cause, both because he had an immediate calling, nor was he under the state of the new Testament, his Ministry being opposed to the Ministry of it by our Saviour, Lu. 7.28. John was the greatest among the Prophets (in the state of the old Testament) before Christ; yet the least in the kingdom of heaven (in the state of the New) after Christ, is greater than he. Nor can it ever be proved, that John was unbaptised. Last of all, this cannot be denied, that a just deduct from the Scripture is of equal force with an express command. But by just deduction from Scripture it may be proved, that believers infants may be baptised. Ergo, it is of equal force with a command. Now whether the Assumption be not evinced by the scope and issue of my arguments, I leave to all impartial readers to judge. And let this be further well considered, whether the denying baptism of infants of believers, doth not tend to overthrow all Christian religion, and throw down all able Ministry of the Word, and set up an unlearned Ministry, and cast all Evangelical order into desperate confusion. Though I will not take upon me to determine, yet this is my apprehension, I am persuaded that this mistake here, hath forced many to fall upon such ungrounded courses, as themselves cannot rest in, let any man follow this principle close, and see where it issueth. Some denying this, and yet under conviction of the necessity of the ordinance, they have sought a new baptism to be conferred upon them by some formerly baptised when they were men of years. Others not able to make that good, take another way, & one baptising himself, after baptizeth others. Another sort not content herewith, maintain, that any one converted, and coming to the knowledge of God's ways, may teach others, & converting them, may baptise those whom he so converts, though unbaptised himself; alleging for this purpose, Mat. 28.19. which place will give no ground to such an apprehension, because all those were officers chosen to who that was spoken, and were all baptised themselves, and not unbaptised, as they who allege it must understand it, otherwise making no jot to their purpose. Some other perceiving all these insufficient to settle conscience, waving all, do give up all solemn and religious public worship of God, and travel with expectation of some new revelation, and wait for some immediate raising up of some extraordinary officer to begin all anew. And last of all (not to go beyond mine own observation) there is a generation, who questioning all the former practices (as they justly may) fall flatly to deny all ministry, and the use of it; Baptism, the Lords Supper, etc. as but for a time, and not now required; speaking contemptibly of the Ministry, as Sorcerers and Magicians, and of all the ordinances of the Gospel, as shadows, I dolls, and not to be regarded, (horrescens refero). Now dear Christian Reader, as you love God's truth, and desire the blessing of it upon your own souls; consider if it doth not deeply concern you all, to tremble at the calling into question such a precious and comfortable truth as this of baptising believers Infants is: The denying whereof puts men upon such unwarrautable and unsatisfiing practices as these be. And let me entreat you in the bowels of Jesus Christ, to labour for an humble heart, and to walk closely with the Lord, praying mightily and earnestly to him for his grace and holy Spirit to keep you in these evil and dangerous days: For blessed is he that keepeth his garments, that men may not see his nakedness, Rev. 16. Acquaint yourselves with the worth of baptism; study to enjoy the full fruit of it, that your hearts being established with the power of God's grace, you may walk worthy the sacred Laver of regeneration, wherewith you are washed; And bringing up your children in the discipline and instruction of the Lord: you may make good this truth, that your Infants are the baptised Disciples of the Lord Jesus. If my weak endeavours may be blessed of God for any furtherance and help unto you herein, I shall expect no other recompense for my pains, but your thanks to God, and prayers for myself. And so commending my labours and you all by my earnest prayers unto Gods gracious blessing in Christ Jesus your Lord and ours, I rest  
A fellow-servant of all God's Saints, GEORGE PHILIP'S.   

A REPLY to a CONFUTATION of some Grounds for Infant's Baptism, etc.  

HAving met with a Book, entitled, A Confutation of Infant's Baptism, or, an Answer to a Treatise written by George Philip's of Watertown in New-England, in defence of Infant's Baptism, etc. it put me into a kind of wonderment, to see my name put forth in print, and as Author of a Treatise, who never writ any such Treatise, nor ever desired or intended the publication of any Discourse upon that, or any other subject; being privy unto my own disability to do any thing in that kind, that may be to the glory of God, or the edification of all into whose hands such a Treatise must needs come; and therefore do really judge that he hath not only wronged me, but the truth, and all God's people, and done contrary to just and Christian dealing, in publishing such a thing under my name, and making that common which ought first to have been cleared by private dealing; the rule being evident, that if any offend another privately, the offended should first seek to gain the offender, in convincing him of his fault, betwixt themselves, and thereby prevent further scandal: This I am confident of, that I never writ one word to him (being altogether unknown to me) nor to any other in England about this matter. Yet seeing I cannot deny my name, nor wholly disclaim all that he hath put forth under it, howsoever he came by it, I hope none will condemn me, if I shall endeavour (by God's assistance) to justify the cause, in returning an Answer unto his Confutation, but rather think that I am necessitated thereto, by this his proceeding, unless I would give myself up to the censure of all, as not having a good cause, or being not able to give any clear grounds to maintain it. But before I proceed thereto, I think it fit to give an account how this business hath been carried.  
One Nathaniel Biscoe coming from England, and sitting down with us at Watertown, upon a time desired some conference with me, and especially about these two things: The Church's constitution, and Infant's Baptism: I judging he did intent no more than he pretended (a private conference about those particulars for further light, being not well resolved on either side) yielded to his request, and in my chamber with him alone, agitated those two points, both hearing what he could say, and answering unto every objection he made; and also propounded unto him some of those grounds which in that Book are expressed; divers hours we spent in that discourse, and how I carried myself towards him, I leave to him to manifest, or to be revealed when all secrets shall be made known. The issue was, that he had nothing to say, only for his better consideration, he desired that I would pen down those arguments that had passed betwixt us on my part; I willingly (not suspecting such an event) yielded, and in a piece of paper sent them unto him, expecting that he would have attended a further conference with me about the matter; but having got my paper, and transcribed it, he communicated it to some that were contrary to my apprehension in these points, and either himself, or some other by his means, sent them into England, whether to this confuter, or who else, I know not: but this I am certain, it hath been thus divulged, and not written with my own hand, nor subscribed by my name, so far as I can remember. And concerning the Propositions themselves, and arguments here expressed, I cannot say that here is all I writ, or that I wrote all that is here (having not the writing I gave him, nor a copy thereof, that I can find with me) only so far as I shall question any thing, I will give notice thereof, as I shall meet with it: And having premised thus much, I come to the Book, and therein (pasfing by the title page): First, to the Epistle prefixed, and secondly, to the Discourse itself. Concerning the Epistle, I observe these things:  
First, the means of God's glory and man's happiness.  
Secondly, the order how these means are o be improved and dispensed.  
Thirdly, the grounds of his writing this Book, with the conclusion.  
Touching the first, the means of God's glory and man's happiness, these things are noted: first, it is Religion: secondly, that men's care and study should be, principally how they should exercise themselves in Religion, that they may attain that end: Thirdly, that this Religion must be pure and true Religion, otherwise men may not only miss the right end, but effect a quite contrary: Fourthly, that this true Religion is only to be God's appointment in his Word: Lastly, that the Word sets forth Christ the Mediator as principal, and all other subordinate unto him, for the attainment of the end, God's glory in men's happiness: from all which in the general, and according to that sense, they seem to bear, I see no reason to descent. Nor from the intimation of Satan and his ministers policy to corrupt true Religion, and counterfeit a false Religion, under pretence of the true, to cousin, cheat and deceive poor souls with chaff instead of wheat, etc. It being a certain truth, as the Scriptures and experience of all ages, and of this wherein we live, do too woefully manifest. And I wish himself were none of the number, as hearty as I pray for myself. From this Discourse he deduceth nine Conclusions, to which I can subscribe, under these Considerations. To the first, taking Religion, and pleasing of God in a strict and peculiar sense, otherwise I do not see a ground of difference between sins and duties materially: To the second and third, the bond of obedience lieth upon all men, who therefore are to be taught in the law, that they may become dead to the law through the law, and so glad to fly to Christ for righteousness and life: To the fourth, the word Commission, added to the rest, seemed to make all actions of Religion common to all (as to preach, baptise, etc.) or to restrain acts of Religion to them in office only.  
To the ninth; If he intent by these words, no man ought to perform any act of Religion, unless Christ be all in all in that action, that therefore no man may or must pray, etc. be exhorted thereunto, etc. I agree not with him. And so I come to the second thing in the Epistle: The order how this Religion is to be wrought in men's hearts, and this is set down thus: First, preaching the Gospel, to convert men from sin to grace, and then to baptise men converted, professing their Faith, and not before; by which (as the end of baptism) they may be distinguished, as by a badge or livery to belong to the Church of Christ: To this in a word, I say thus much; that there is a distinction to be made, between a company to be converted, and to be constituted, and a Church now constituted; in a company to be converted and to be constituted, that which is said is true, the Gospel must first be preached, and by faith received and professed, and then they are to be sealed, and not before; but in a Church now constituted, the like is not required, but the Churches are propagated by continual succession, till God out them off. Thus was it with Abraham and his family, the Gospel was preached to him and his, he and his believed and were circumcised, and after they did not believe before they were circumcised, but were propagated and continued a Church till Christ's time; and so when the Gospel was to be preached to the Gentiles, they were not to be baptised till they believed, but believing they were joined to the Church, and then baptised, and that Church continued by succession till God cut them off again. But because this is the point in difference, I shall spare farther speech, till I come to reply unto the answer in the Book: And touching the complaint is made again of Satan and his Ministers, Policy and Malice, to set up a false religion; I join in it, only I dare not account that to be any part of humane religion or of Satan, the baptising of Infants (and I hope I shall prove it) is no humane device for any thing we cannot prove to be divine in the administrations in England, I suppose our former practice and present state, doth fully acquit us from giving our allowance thereto; but I shall have occasion to speak something likewise about this afterward. And in a word, concerning the occasions of his writing this Treatise, he expresseth amongst others, the miserable witchery and delusion of Satan, which he had spoken of before, and intends to wrap up myself and all other God's servants and Saints in old England and here in new, with all our way of religion and worship, wherein we desire to glorify the Lord; To all which, I shall spare to answer, leaving any that desire satisfaction in the case as it concerns us here, or them there, to a Discourse I have written about that matter, in justification of Infant's baptism, with the calling of Ministers here and there, and their adminstrations; and leave him to the Lord, who shall judge us all; only I wish him to consider his own words, that if it be without cause, that he thus traduceth and pours out his distaste against us, he hurts himself more than he doth us, and will be found to kick against the pricks; and it may be he shall not find it so easy a matter to answer all that he hath here at random written, and in his Confutation put out against me, before that Judge, as he seems to be bold in troubling the world with it. And so passing the Epistle, I come to the Book itself, wherein I shall endeavour (by God's good help) to justify what he takes upon him to confute, and follow him step by step accordingly, as he goeth along, letting pass his Preamble; only I can say, he speaks not truth, in saying a Writing written by Georg. Phil. came to his hand, and subscribed by him as Pastor of Watertown, when as I writ it not; and what I writ was not subscribed by me at all, and therefore let him that sent it, and himself take it betwixt them, and see whether they may not justly repent of so speaking: But to proceed, he sets down some Propositions, which it seems, that Writing expressed; for the clearing of the Arguments:  
To the first and second, whereof he saith nothing, and therefore according to the second, yields, that though there be not express literal commands for Infant's baptism in the Scriptures nor example, yet if by just consequence from thence it can be proved and cleared, that is as sufficient as if it were literally commanded.  
To the third Proposition, about the tender of happiness to man two ways dispensed: First, to the first Adam, and all mankind by the law and works; the other to the second Adam, and all the elect in him, which being one eternal covenant from the first promulgation for ever in substance, yet varied by divers circumstances in a fourfold period manifested, first from Adam to Abraham, called the Promise; secondly, from Abraham to Moses in a visible outward covenant; thirdly, from Moses to Christ, called the old Testament; the fourth from Christ to the end, called the new Testament. To this, I say, he hath divers exceptions, and of such weight in his apprehension, that he is not able to forbear my person and calling, as that I am not worthy the name of a Pastor, and it doth very ill agree to me, as the doctrine delivered in this Proposition doth declare, being not wholesome food, but a barren wilderness, or rather hurtful, effecting nothing but noisome diseases, and tending to death. In answer whereunto, in a word, I freely acknowledge myself not worthy the name of a Pastor, and that it very ill agrees to me, and many reasons there are, which force me so to acknowledge, though the censure of this Confuter makes me not think so at all, nor the doctrine there delivered by me, which is good and wholesome, whatsoever he saith to the contrary, if that be wholesome that is contained in God's sacred Scriptures, as I shall clear by and by: But let all take notice of this, that for a man to leave his cause, and fall upon men's persons or callings, it is an argument of a bad cause, or a corrupted heart, or both; for I suppose he will not challenge universal authority, and who made him a Judge over me? in regard of his own private, I confess he hath liberty to judge of what I say, or any other; and if I had written to him, he might rightly have answered, nor should I have taken it ill, if he had written to me about them, I think I should have taken it well; but the man will be a Judge over me, and that without as much as a word of intination that I had offended him first, but he saith he must have leave to tell me so: As concerning his exceptions, they are so weak, and of no value, as he must give me leave to tell you all, that the name of a wise and reasonable man doth not (or very ill) agree to him, and be yourselves Judges: For, first, he put an if; If I limit reprobates from the tender of happiness, made to the second Adam, and all the elect in him, he conceives I err, because they could not then be said to refuse the call of God, etc. but if I did not so limit it, what then? will he confess he did ill to blot the paper with such needless suppositions? Or that he wanted charity to think that I never read those Scriptures by him alleged, and many others: as also that of Heb. 3. & 4.2?  
To the second exception against the third period; when I said that a vail of shadows were drawn over the Covenant, he saith it was not a vail simply, but because Christ contained under them was not understood by the Jews, which rested in the deed done. To which I answer, that I did not say a vail simply, but it was a vail, and so the Scriptures, Col. 2.16. Hebr. 9.1.8, etc. Ezr. 10.1. 2 Cor. 3.13, etc. where the Apostle speaks of a double vail, one upon Moses face, signifying the obscurity of the ministry, (which in the ministry of the new Testament is done away) another upon their hearts, which remaineth unto this day upon them, (and upon too many other) but that shall be taken away when they turn to the Lord; so that it was a vail, and a vail simply, so that he might well have spared those two, and not said he had many, there remaining but two, which are not many.  
To the third exception and fourth, whereas I said that the Scriptures speaking of the old Testament, of the abolishing of the old Testament, are to be understood of that dispensation from Moses time to Christ's, and the opposition made in the Scriptures between the old and new, is of those two times, from Moses to Christ, and from Christ afterwards, and not of the former; he sees no reason why I should so conclude: I confess, so great is our sinful nature, we think that to be good reason that is not so, and judge not that reason that is: but I may see a reason why I so conclude, though he sees it not; and if I thought he would see it, I should set it down, but if he will not, yet some may, for their sakes therefore, this is the reason (yea, more than reason) why I so conclude: First, the Scriptures mention two, an old and new Testament: Secondly, the Scriptures express the old to be that from Moses to Christ, and the new, that from Christ and after, as I hope any will see clearly by viewing these places: Exod. 24.4.8. Heb. 9.15. to 24. Jer. 31.31, etc. Heb. 8.6.8. to the end, Heb. 12.18. to the end, 2 Cor. 3.16. etc. and the whole course of the Apostles dispute in removing the Law, Tabernacle, Service, Priesthood, etc. which he calls the old, and establishing Christ and the true Tabernacle, and limiting his whole discourse to these two, clears it to me beyond exception; and this is the reason grounded upon these Scriptures, and other considerations why I said as I did. He further saith, that the two first periods are the old Testament, as well as that of Moses time till Christ; and first, because they offered sacrifices till Abraham, and then they circumcised till Moses: and secondly, because those sacrifices before Moses time and circumcision then used are abolished by Christ's coming. To which I answer, though they offered sacrifices before Abraham's days, and they after Abraham's days circumcised, yet before Moses time, God manifested not his will in a testamentary dispensation, nor can we properly say that those were abolished by Christ's coming, being removed before by Moses, at least altered by a new institution; nor were the sacrifices of Melchisedec, nor his Priesthood abolished, which was before Moses, as was Aaron's, but unto Melchisedec our Saviour succeeded: so that these exceptions might well have been spared, seeing the doctrine contained in the Propositions is sound and wholesome, and the contrary unsound, and hurtful; yet before I go from this Proposition, let me commend this unto you all, that the reason why they would weaken this Proposition, is because they would maintain that opinion that the Covenant made with Abraham was a carnal covenant, and of the flesh, applying all those Scriptures that speak by way of derogation hither, when as they are spoken of the old Testament, and not of this period, from Abraham, which was the everlasting Covenant of God, continued with Jews, and now to us Gentiles, and the same for ever; and so my Proposition is not answered, nor refuted.  
To the fourth, of children's capacity to receive all grace necessary to union with Christ, and justification to life thereby, as well as men of years; he yields, only denying it to be manifest to us, which; this or that; nor of Believers children more than Infidels.  
I answer, I grant it, we cannot conclude it of this or that, but of all alike, yet otherwise of Believers children then of the Infants of Infidels; for as Infidel parents are without God in the world, so their children are also, and we have no ground to think an Infidel man or woman is elected of God, adopted, etc. and so we can judge no better of their children, but as the faith of the parents professed is a sufficient ground to me, to think according to the rule, that he belongs to God: so Gods taking hold of a Believers child to be his, as he doth, (and we shall show it afterward) is a sufficient ground to me to think a Believers child to be justified and sanctified, which though I may be mistaken, and my judgement in this case is not infallible, yet it is as much as I can have of any man of years, of whose state I cannot judge infallibly.  
To the fifth, where I say Baptism is not the first grace, but a second, being a seal of the righteousness of faith, as circumcision of old, Rom. 4.11. which must be presupposed, or else baptism not to be administered; he answereth that it is well to be heeded of all, especially those that maintain Infants Baptism, having no ground to conclude that Infants have a first grace; Rom. 4.11. will prove no such thing, it will only prove circumcision was in the nature of it a seal of the righteousness of faith, and did seal it to Abrham that had faith, but not to them that had no faith; nor was it a ground why we should presuppose faith in all, upon whom it was administered, or why it was administered.  
To this I reply (1.) Baptism is not the first grace, but something precedes it, to which Baptism is added as a seal; and if children have not some former grace to which Baptism doth seal; then I cannot see that they are to be baptised. This former grace (though many other things might be expressed, yet having so plain a Scripture, I rest in it) is this righteousness of faith, which what ground we have to conclude children have, I shall labour to clear under these distinctions: First, the righteousness of faith is to be considered, either as it is dispensed by God in an offer, or as it is received by them to whom it is offered: Secondly, in applying this offer, God makes some partakers of it before the seal is put to, as in Abraham, the men of years in his house, and Proselytes (at least in our judgement) some he makes partakers of it at the time of sealing, both concurring, some after, and some never at all. 3. That circumcision was (not in the nature of it, but by institution) and Baptism is the seal of this grace, and is to be attended, either on God's part or ours: On God's part, signifying and confirming, that he will make good his offer; on our part, that we believe this offer, and abide in it; And to apply all God offered Abraham the righteousness of faith he believed, God sealed and Abraham both; again, God continued the dispensation of this offer to Esau and Jacob; and so all Infants of the Jews after was willing to bestow it upon them: God sets his seal to confirm he is willing; Esau had not the rites before, nor was it conferred at that time, nor ever after, and so it was with most of the Jews, as is clear in them, in the wilderness, who had it not before, nor at the time, nor ever after; for the Gospel was preached unto them, but they believed it not, and so it profited nothing; yet they were circumcised Infants, though they had no faith before, nor then, nor ever after: what was then the former grace that this seal was set to? nothing in them, but the offer of righteousness on God's part, which he said, and sealed, he was willing to bestow on them; so I conclude the like in Baptism. The seal now of the righteousness of faith, and that there is the same former grace in Infants now, that was in Infants then; namely, the continuance of the dispensation of Gods offer of righteousness with which their fathers at first closed, and were partakers of, and which was one special ground, why those Infants were circumcised, and is now a ground of Infants baptising; and though many than were not, and many now are not partakers of that grace offered and sealed, yet that doth not make it no grace; but on Gods part offered and sealed, it is the same without alteration, that it is to them who receive it; and the difference lieth only in the subjects: for I suppose no man will deny, but God offered unto Ishmael the righteousness of faith, and that he shall be punished for refusing of it; and so the rest of the Jews that slighted God's grace so offered: nor will any affirm that Simon Magus and others had not the offer of righteousness made unto them, but they that refused shall surely perish for it, as they, Acts 13.38. Further, it is not right which is said of them, that circumcision to them was a sign only, and to this end administered, to distinguish them, and to interest them in those Laws and Ordinances, etc. which were means to typify and lead to Christ that was to come, wherein they were to be trained up: For though this were one end, yet not only, nor all; for as it was a sign distinguishing, so it was a sign of justification, and that God would thereby circumcise their hearts; yea, it was a seal as well as a sign, and did not only signify, but confirm. And may I not say the same of Baptism? (mutatis mutandis) and for that end to be administered to Infants now, that they by this means may be distinguished, and thereby interested in all the privileges of Laws and Ordinances, and Ministers, etc. which are means to set forth Christ come, and to mind us of his obedience to the Father, and that they may be trained up therein; where I add, that by Baptism, I mean that outward part of Baptism (by a lawful Minister) with water, in the name of the Father, Son and holy Ghost, which is often separated from the inward, in the party baptised, and conclude this to be true Baptism, else Simon Magus, and those false brethren, Gal. 2. were not baptised, (having not that inward) and if they had repent must have been baptised anew.  
To this he answereth, that it is true, because false brethren are brethren, though false, and they seem to be true, and make such a show by manifestation of themselves, and therefore according to us are to be judged true, and therefore to be baptised, though they be false, yet their baptism is true baptism; but to administer it to one no brother, nor giving any manifestation of such an estate, that is not commanded of God, and so a humane devise to baptise such an one. I grant this last; but if he mean Infants are no brethren, nor can give any manifestation thereof, and therefore God hath not commanded them to be baptised, and therefore to baptise them is a humane invention, I descent wholly, and in a word reply, children are brethren; for if God be their father as will as to men of years, than they are brethren as well as men of years, but God is their God, and calls them his children, Ezek. 16.20, 21. And though God hath not expressly said, ye shall baptise Infants; yet if by good deduction from God's Word, it may be made good, it is sufficient to clear it from being a humane invention; but of these afterward.  
Now I come to the sixth Proposition, as more was required of Abraham, and of men of years (viz. faith) before circumcision, then of Isaac and other Infants successively circumcised, so now no more is required of men of years, (viz. faith) that they may be baptised, then of Infants of baptised persons.  
To this he answereth, that he grants more was in Abraham then in Isaac, when circumcised, but not more required of the one then of the other, without which he might not be circumcised, and therefore concludeth, that all the males of Abraham's family were circumcised, whether they had faith or no faith, nor was any condition pre-required: and so Proselytes, that all males were to be circumcised before they might eat the Passeover, but nothing required of them before circumcision, Exod. 12.49. nor was there any ministerial and teaching office ordained to circumcise himself and all his males, and thereby become a proselyte, without any other condition.  
But now in the new Testament, a teaching Ministry must precede the parties baptising, Matth. 28.19. and faith in the Word taught, Acts 8.26. & 10.47. From whence he gathereth a double difference: first, than was required no Minister, nor faith to go before circumcision: secondly, even in the constitution of the visible Church, which then was constituted by natural generation of Abraham's natural seed, but now is constituted by spiritual regeneration of Abraham's spiritual seed.  
To all which I reply: First, if circumcision was the seal of the righteousness of faith, then more was required of Abraham then of Isaac, for Isaac could not actually believe, and if Abraham had not actually believed before, he had not been circumcised, which was the seal of that faith he had before he was circumcised, Rom. 4.  
Secondly, concerning Abraham's family, that they were all to be circumcised, and all the men of years also, without any condition prerequired, whether they had faith or no faith, I might pass it by, because he saith, it is but probable, though far more probable, yet in a word, is it so much as probable? had Abraham's males not faith, at least in outward show and manifestation, so that Abraham judged they had? 2. Doth not God give testimony that Abraham taught his house to fear him, and keep his commandments? 3. And I conclude it very probable, that they professed subjection to the same God, and his Word with Abraham, and were not Atheists, or worshippers of a strange God, which would ill beseem Abraham's family and faith. To conclude, this is unfound to say, faith was not required of the grown males, and yet all circumcised with the seal of the righteousness of faith which they had not.  
Thirdly, touching the proselytes, that nothing was required of them before circumcision, is taken for granted, without the least proof, and contrary unto the Scriptures, which show before they were accepted of God into the liberties of his House, they were to take hold of his Covenant, join themselves to God, and the people of Abraham, to fear the Lord, and to love him, etc. 1 King. 8.41. Ruth 1.16. Isa. 56.3, etc. Besides, as before, they should receive circumcision, not as a seal of the righteousness of faith, which were a great abuse: and hereunto I might add the testimony of Jewish Writers, who record divers things to be done before they could be circumcised, as Ainsworth relateth upon Gen. 9.4. Exod. 12.48, 49. and other places: the difference made therefore in this respect is void, nor is that exception of teaching Ministers now prerequired, but not then, of any value; the Proposition speaking of more required then of men of years, then of Infans.  
Touching the other difference he seems to make in the Church's constitution, then of Abraham's carnal seed, but now of Abraham's spiritual seed; I conceive it very unfound: For,  
First, were there not many proselytes in the Churches then? and that of the constitution of it? were they Abraham's natural seed by natural generation, and all the males of his house, which amounted to the number of three hundred and eighteen trained men born in his house besides others?  
Secondly, the Church's constitution than consisted not of them as Abraham's seed in the flesh, but in being the people of God by covenant, and thereby a peculiar people, a royal priesthood, though this state was continued by natural generation from Abraham's days till Christ. The Jews indeed pleased themselves with the fleshly prerogative; but our Saviour condemneth them, John 8. and the Apostle cleareth this point fully, Rom. 9.1. to 9 & Chap. 10.2, 3, etc. 11.1. to 10. wherein the Apostle shows plainly, the reason why they were not spiritual as others were, and they should have been, because a spirit of slumber fell upon them; so that the Church's constitution than consisted of many proselytes, and all Jews, not as carnal or a natural generation of Abraham in the flesh, but as a spiritual seed of Abraham, by following the steps of Abraham, in regard of God's intention, offer and dispensations; but with many of them God was not well pleased, because they were not spiritual as he would have had them; and now the Church's constitution is of the like spiritual seed, though many be carnal, the Church then and now consisting of elect and reprobates, the elect only obtaining, and the rest being hardened; and let me ask him now in his own words as he doth me in his first exception to my third Proposition, How can God blame them for refusing his call, etc. were they not Abraham's seed in the flesh? And is not this their true constitution, according to his apprehension? One thing more he observeth, and that is a contradiction betwixt the fifth and the sixth Proposition, which he cannot but take notice of: The contradiction is this, that in the fift I should say, faith, and the first grace must be presupposed, or else Baptism not to be administered; and in the sixth, that in a man of year's faith is to be required, and must be, that he may be baptised, but not the same of Infants: and framing a solution, which he conceives I might make, viz. that grace may be in Infants, though not known; but in men of years, who are able to manifest what is in them, such manifestation is to be required from them, without which, they are not to be baptised, and concludeth this doth not reconcile, but an apparent contradiction remaineth: To which I add this short reply:  
First, that I said not, faith, or a first grace, but a first grace is to be presupposed; nor did I mean it of faith, for they are not capable of actual faith, though they may have habitual, which cannot be discerned; and I conceive that we must look upon some known grace, from which we may judge (though not infallibly) that baptism doth belong unto them.  
Secondly, therefore (as in my reply to his fifth Proposition) grace is either federal, or covenanting grace, or of the things contained in the covenant: federal grace is that whereby God out of his free love doth take a people, and make them his, without any deserts of their own, that were not his, Deu. 4.34.37.7. Ezek. 16.2, etc. And Infants were partakers of this grace, as well as men of years. Grace freely given is either general to all in covenant (as the offer of all spiritual good contained in the Covenant, which he is willing to make them partakers of; nor doth their refusal derogate from the grace of God on his part offered unto them) or proper to some, and that either common to many, or particular to some; namely, the elect, as all grace accompanying and completing salvation, Heb. 6.4.9. God in all preventing the creature, in beginning with them, and going before them, without which they neither first, nor last, would seek after, or receive any thing in the least of all: Now then, to apply this, by first grace, I do, and did mean federal grace, and the dispensation of the offer of the benefits in the Covenant; and to this grace he sealeth, and thereby confirmeth, that he is willing to make all good unto them all on his part, and if they be not partakers of it, it will prove their own fault and sin; and thus the contradiction was but imagined, and not really in my expressions. And then he cometh to my arguments, whereby I prove, that Infants now are to be baptised: The first whereof is taken from the oneness of the covenant, from Abraham to this day, and lieth thus; If the covenant made with Abraham, and continued to the Jews, and since to the Christians, be one and the same, then as Infants were in the covenant then, and received the seal of it, circumcision, so are Infants now in the covenant, and must receive the seal thereof, baptism; but the first is true, therefore the second. To this he answereth by denying the Antecedent, that the covenant is one and the same; and to clear the grounds of his denial, he undertakes to show, concerning the covenant of Abraham, 1. What it was not. 2. What it was. 3. That we have no such covenant since Christ's coming concerning our seed. In showing what it is not, he lieth down three things:  
First, that God did never promise to save any of Abraham's seed for Abraham's sake.  
Secondly, nor yet for his father's sake. I know none that say so, and therefore this might have been spared; yet Ishmael was partaker of the same blessing, because he was Abraham's seed, Gen. 17.20. and 21.13. And many times the Israelites fared the better for their father's sake; nor yet was Abraham or his faith any efficient, or meritoriously a cause thereof, but God's free grace alone.  
Thirdly, he saith, that God did never promise to give faith to all Abraham's posterity in the flesh, and sets down two reasons hereof: 1. Because than God should lie, because he did not that he promised, but it's impossible for God to lie. 2. Because it is a contradiction, to say that God had promised to work in them that he required of them, and yet blame them for not profiting in respect of the means vouchsafed them: To which I reply; first, what is the meaning of the promise, Deut. 30.6. and Ezek. 11.19. and the like? doth not God promise here that he would give them faith? and what is the meaning of that threatening, Gen. 17.14. where God denounceth cutting off all such as did not circumcise themselves for breaking his covenant? doth it not hold out their despising and neglecting the righteousness of faith, which God thereby sealed his promise of making them partakers thereof? And for the first reason, that God should then be a liar, I see no force in it; for did not God promise to bring them into Canaan, yet not one of them came in, being shut out by unbelief, Heb. 3.7. Jer. 18.9. At what instant I shall speak to any (which is by promises) to build, and plant, and yet to repent of the good wherewith he had said, he would benefit them, I hope no man will say God is a liar, nor in threatening Nineveh to destroy it in forty days, yet spared it, was he a deceiver? To say no more, the Apostle, Rom. 3.1. etc. and 9.5. cleareth that God's faithfulness in promising them all good, was not blemished on his part promising, though they came short by unbelief, nor is there any contradiction in Gods promising to work faith in them, and yet blame them for not profiting, for he was willing to work it in them, but they resisted his holy Spirit in the Ministry, Act. 7.5. only this I desire all to consider, whether in denying God promised to work faith in them, and yet blaming them for not profiting, he doth not intent they had power of themselves to do what he commanded, without any concourse of his in the work, but only persuasion, the words seem to conclude of much, and others do stiffly maintain the same, with whom he consents in denying Infants baptism. Next he proceeds to show what this covenant made with Abraham was, and he saith that it was Gods command of circumcision upon Abraham's posterity in the flesh, whereby he did separate, consecrate, and distinguish them to be by his favour possessed of the land of Canaan, and divers privileges therein, which he particularly describeth, and thus he saith he declareth, what it is.  
I reply, first, he shutteth out Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and all his posterity, many hundred thousands, that never were possessed of the land of Canaan nor any of those privileges mentioned, they being not brought into the land, nor any of those privileges instituted or revealed, till four hundred years after this covenant made with Abraham, and what was God's covenant with all these, all the time, or was it disannulled as soon as it was made?  
Secondly, he seems to confound the covenant and circumcision the sign of it, as if there were no other covenant, but circumcision in the flesh, God calls it indeed his covenant, but it's sacramentally, the sign for the thing signified; for the Lamb is called the Lords Passeover, which was but the sign of it: so the bread and the wine are called the body and blood of Christ, being but the sign of the Testament and of communion of his body and blood; so likewise the Lord himself, Gen. 17.11. calls circumcision the token, and the sign of the covenant betwixt him and them, and so the Apostle calleth it, Rom. 4.11. Circumcision is asign and a seal, etc.  
Thirdly, the covenant was, that God would send his Son in the flesh, and by his righteousness, (called the righteousness of faith) justify all that would believe it, and receive him and his righteousness. This God preached to Abraham, he believed, and enjoyed Christ, and righteousness by him, and was justified thereby, Rom. 4. Gal. 3.8. God preached this to all the posterity of Abraham in the wilderness, in the land of Canaan, till Christ came, all that believed and received Gods offer, were justified, as Abraham; all that did not believe, and were not justified, should have been justified if they had believed, and were not justified, because they believed not the Gospel being preached unto them, and God promising he would justify them if they would believe, but it profited them not, because it was not mixed with faith in those that heard it, Rom. 9.31. Gal. 3.18. Heb. 3, etc. 4.2. Joh. 1.11, 12. And all these particulars which he expresseth, were added by Moses from God, to typify and lead them to Christ which was to come; so that it was Christ and his righteousness which was held out unto them, and offered, and that properly and principally, God intending not the sacrifices and the rest for themselves, but Christ by them, and circumcision first and last was the sign and seal hereof on God's part administered, whereby he signified unto them, and confirmed his gracious readiness to justify them, and sanctify them in and through his Son; so that all that he saith in this case, though in some sense it is true, yet it is but a part of the truth; and so he cometh to the third conclusion, which is this: That we have now no such covenant since Christ's coming in the flesh, concerning a fleshly seed, as was that of Abraham. This he laboureth to prove by a pretty large discourse, the sum whereof is gathered into these Propositions.  
First, that the fleshly seed of Abraham was a type of Christ to come; which he proveth from Gal. 3.16, 19 where he saith, by seed there, is meant Christ, and therefore spoken in the singular number, Seed, as of one, that is, Christ; and not Seeds, as to many, and shows that the word Seed may be interpreted of Christ two ways, mystically for true believers in Christ, 1 Cor. 12.12. or typically, or ceremonially for the fleshly seed not believing, as the Lamb, etc. were types of Christ.  
To this I reply, First, the fleshly seed was not a type of Christ; what was instituted by God are to be acknowledged: but God never instituted the natural and fleshly seed of Abraham to be a type of Christ to come: Some of that natural seed did typify Christ, as Aaron and his sons, but not as natural seed: Not as natural seed, but as Officers in their offices and administrations. But neither they nor the rest were ceremonially Christ, and types of him, it is a doctrine of man's invention, Gal. 3.16. will prove no such thing. First, by seed we are to understand Christ individually, and not collectively: for by him alone individually, we have the blessings of God upon us, & it cannot be communicated unto mystical Christ, and to make the members of Christ sharers in the work of blessing of us. Secondly, interpreting the seed to be Christ, either mystically or typically, he excludes all true believers that were mystically Christ (believing now being no otherwise but mystically) from being a type of Christ, though Abraham's fleshly seed. Thirdly, in saying the not believing posterity of Abraham by fleshly relation, was a type of Christ, he concludes it of Esau, and all after him, in all their idolatries, witchcrafts, etc. to be types of Christ throughout their whole state till he came, which cannot be true of them before Moses, till when there was no institution of types of Christ, nor yet safely nor honourably propounded.  
The second Proposition is; This fleshly seed, not believing, were in the Covenant, and a true Church, till Christ's time and death; the absence of the thing typified, necessarily requiring the presence of the type.  
Reply: First, as I said before, they were not a type of Christ, and therefore in that respect were not necessarily to be in Covenant, and a Church, till Christ came.  
Secondly, If the fleshly seed not believing, as such were in the Covenant, and of the true Church, than Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, with all believing Jews were not in the same Covenant, and parts of the same Church, being not homogeneal parts, i. of the same, but of a divers kind.  
Thirdly, If the fleshly seed were typically Christ, and a true Church, then either those many hundreds in Abraham's family, Isaac's servants, and all Proselytes, after being circumcised, were not of the Church, or else should typify Christ with the Jews, and yet not abraham's fleshly seed, so as the conclusion of Abraham's fleshly seed, being ceremonially Christ, is not right.  
The third Proposition, That when Christ came and died, than they were no longer in the Covenant, nor a Church, but were broken off by unbelief; and he makes, this to be the reason (in answer to a second objection he makes why then?) the presence of the thing typified necessarily requiring the absence of the type.  
Reply. This is no reason of their breaking off, they being no types of Christ; and the Apostle gives a certain and a sure reason, Rom. 11.11. & 19 etc. That salvation might come to the Gentiles, for to provoke the Jews to jealousy, etc. 2. Himself confesseth they were broken off by unbelief, which necessarily implies, that either they had not been cut off, if they had believed, and so were not types, or else if types, they should have been cut off, though they had believed.  
Two Objections he raises:  
First, Were they not under unbelief before? and he answereth yes, no doubt.  
Secondly, Why were they not broken off before? and why then? He answereth, because till Christ came they were in the Covenant, and a true Church typically by being circumcised, and observing the ceremonies of the Law. This is his answer.  
I reply to both: First, They were in unbelief before.  
Secondly, most of them were broken off many hundred years before; as the ten Tribes in Hezekiahs' days; And God said, Lo-ammi, no peaple, Hos. 1.6.8. And Lo-ruhamah, no mercy. I will no more have mercy upon them, but will utterly take them away; But I will have mercy upon the house of Judah: these ceased before Christ was come, and therefore are not a type, and so that no reason of their continuance.  
But thirdly, The Scriptures give us a true reason (besides the former, Rom. 11.) why any of them continued till Christ came, and were not cut off before.  
First, Because a remnant of them were to be saved, Isa. 1.9. Mat. 24.22.  
Secondly, Because Christ was to come of them according to the flesh, and borne under the Law, Gal. 4. which he could not have been, if the Church estate had been disannulled.  
Thirdly, Because they were to be rejected for casting off Christ, Zach. 11.10. to 15. & Mat. 21.33. to the end, and 22.1. At last he comes to his inference from all this discourse, and concludeth the Covenant then and now is not the same; that was typical in the fleshly seed; and this of spiritual seed, and not typical. To this I have replied enough. Secondly, The standing of them in that Church and Covenant, was by Circumcision, and observing the rites of the Law; the standing in this Covenant and Church is by faith and Baptism, and so upon different grounds.  
I reply, First, Circumcision and observing of Rites being not the Covenant, but additions to the Covenant, and profession of Faith; and Baptism also being not the Covenant, but additions, the Covenant may be the same, though the circumstances differ: As the covenant made with Abraham till Moses, and after to Moses and the people, though to the latter were many additions, which were not in the former. Secondly, their standing then, and our standing now, is the same in substance (though much differing in circumstances, viz. faith in God's covenant; this is clear, Rom. 11.20. they were cut off by unbelief, thou standest by faith: if they continue not in unbelief, they shall be ingraffed again, v. 23. We stand by faith, and so should they have done if they had believed; and shall stand again when they shall believe. They were cut off for unbelief, and we shall be cut off for unbelief, if we give way to it: their falling and ours from God's covenant and the Church estate, our standing and theirs in the covenant and the Church-estate, is not upon different, but the same grounds. Thirdly, if the covenant under Christ be the same with that before Christ; then by the same right Abraham and his posterity possessed the Church estate then and circumcision, by the same right they might possess the Church estate and Baptism now: But they could not possess the Church estate & Baptism now, by the same right they possessed it. Ergo. I answer: they might, and that right was and is partly the grace of God offered, and partly their acceptance of that grace by faith working by love, though I might deny the consequence, for that the covenant may be the same, and yet in some respect the right to be a member, in the one and in the other, might not be the same: But I have said enough before to clear my Argument, and to make it good (notwithstanding any thing in his answer against it) In his further proceeding in this Argnment, he granteth two things; First, the covenant of God makes a Church then and now, a Church being nothing else but a people in covenant with God: and that as the covenant whereby a Church is made, differs; so the Church differs which is made by that Covenant, but the covenant then and the covenant now differs, therefore the Church differs: for the covenant which made them a Church, was Gods taking them (being circumcised) to participate of all those outward means which leads to Christ who was to come. That covenant which makes a Church now, is Gods admitting men to be baptised, making profession of faith in Christ.  
I reply in one word, I consent that the Church then and now is made by a covenant. Secondly, I say, that circumcision was not, baptism is not, the covenant, but signs and seals of the covenant, circumcision then, baptism now. Thirdly, that the covenant than was, God would be their God, justifying and sanctifying them, through his Son whom he would send, if they would believe in him, and the same is the covenant now. Fourthly, the sign and the seal of it than was circumcision, whereby God confirmed he would circumcise their hearts in his Son, by cutting away their sins, in justifying and sanctifying; the sign and seal of it now, is washing with water, etc. whereby God confirms he will wash away their guilt and stain of sin. Fifthly, the people then that were of years, did restipulate and make profession of faith in Christ before circumcised: And let any one show me any one of Abraham's family, or one Proselyte ever after, that was admitted into the Church estate without some restipulation (which is necessary in the nature of a covenant) and subjection to God & his righteousness, & so circumcised without it. In a word then, as the covenant differs, the Church made by it differs; if the covenant differ essentially, than the Church differs essentially: but if the covenant differ but circumstantially, than the Church differs circumstantially, and not essentially. And so much is clear, as I said, unto which also himself consenteth in the next passage, granting it, as that Christ is, and ever was the Mediator and means of salvation, both before and since Christ's coming, dispensed by the covenant of God, Christ being called the Covenant, Isai. 42.6. In whom also the promises are Yea & Amen, 2 Cor. 11.18. It is true that he saith, that the outward means of making Christ known, doth depend differently upon his being yet to come, and upon his being come, the one being more dark and carnal, the other more plain and spiritual; and therefore the participation of these means do make the state of the participants to differ; but this difference is not in regard of the thing itself, but in regard of the manner of the thing, more dark, and more clear, do not change the thing, or make it divers, but only circumstantially, the substance is the same, the circumstances differ. And thus much all his eight differences following, which he sets forth to be between those two states, agree to also, they being not substantial, but accidental differences; yet so as they are not to be distinctly limited to one time in respect of the substance, and things themselves, and the effects thereof: for all that he saith belongs to the new Testament, were communicated unto many of them under the Old, (as Moses, Aaron, and all the elect of God) and none of them are made good to many in the New. But on the contrary, all that is spoken by him of the Old, may be verified of men in the New, as experience witnesseth, & the Scriptures affirm, Gal. 4.29. The fault why all did not enjoy all these privileges in the new Testament (dispensed under shadows in the Old) being in themselves, 2 Cor. 3.13.14. Heb. 3.7.8.22.4.2. & 8.8. and many now deprive themselves of these privileges, Heb. 4.1. and attain to no more than they in the Old, to establish their own righteousness only, Rom. 10.3. And therefore as none are to be admitted to the privileges of the new Testament, or Gospel now, but such as are suitable, though many prove otherwise. So none ought to have been admitted, nor were, in the Old Testament, (the same Gospel preached unto them, and the new Testament shadowed under the old) to enjoy the privileges of the Old, shadowing the privileges of the New, but such as were suitable, even such as are required in the New, though few of them proved such, with this difference, they were to believe in Christ to come, to whom the Law and shadows directed them; we are to believe in Christ already come, to whom the Ordinances do direct us. And therefore what he further repeateth, (having said the same all before) that whosoever circumcised themselves, and their Males, and observed the Rites of the Law, they and their children (though Proselytes) were the seed (& fleshly seed too, for so he saith all this time) and in that covenant, and of that Church. But now only such as believe in Christ, and be thereby regenerated, are the seed, and in this covenant, and of the Church, might well have been spared, and have been answered before; yet seeing he addeth six other reasons to prove this latter (clearly proving as he saith) I shall be willing to follow him.  
And he saith, First, believers regenerate only, are in this Covenant, and of this Church, because none of the natural seed of Abraham are in this Covenant by virtue of natural relation, though they remained in the Jewish Churches till Christ's death. But their being in the Churches by natural relation, then ceased as the Church ceased: I reply, First, I have showed that their standing in that Covenant and Church, was not by fleshly relation, but by spiritual, who were counted for the seed, Rom. 9.8. 2dly, Those few that were added to the Gospel Church, were not cut off as the rest, but remained natural branches still in their own Olive tree, and what natural relation they had, they put not off; and when the rest be added, the Apostle saith, the natural branches shall be ingraffed into their own stock: For if the root be holy, the branches will be so too, Rom. 11.16, 17.24. 3dly, The Scriptures by him quoted, prove not the thing he allegeth them for, Acts 10.28. Rom. 9.8. Gal. 3.7, 9, 28, 29. & 4.28.  
His second Reason: The Gentiles have no natural relation to become his seed by, and therefore their infants cannot become the seed of Abraham, by being the seed of a believer, but must believe themselves, otherwise they cannot be partakers in the Covenant made with Abraham.  
Reply. First, there needs no such relation natural, nor were the Jews (as natural seed only without faith) counted for the seed, Rom. 9.8. Secondly, the Gentiles Proselytes need not that natural relation before to be in the covenant then, but were ingraffed into the body by faith, and thereby their Infants: Thirdly, all now are not children of promise, but many always are deceivers, and deceived, as many then, but not all; only this may be noted, that he yields that Believers now are partakers of the covenant of Abraham, and therefore that then and now is the same. And yet in the next and his third Reason, he denies the covenant under Christ to be the same with that which was made with Abraham, because the three thousand converts, Acts 2. when they were baptised, did not baptise their Infants; this he saith is plain, Acts 2.41. and 8.12. where it is, they that gladly received the Word were baptised, they and they only, which the Infants could not do.  
Reply. In the old Testament, they that submitted themselves to the Jewish covenant, and would take their God to be theirs, were circumcised, but Infants could not do that, yet they were circumcised: Secondly, it is not said they were baptised, and then it is not a perfect relation.  
Reply. It followeth not, for all is not written that was done, they might be baptised, though it is not said they were: For, were not Christ's Apostles baptised? yet it is not written where, when, or who baptised them; it is no argument to say it was not done, because it is not set down, but take it for granted, their Infants were not baptised then (which yet I will not grant, for some considerations I shall afterward set down in another place) doth this difference make that the covenant with Abraham and now is not the same? It is not the same in this respect, as all can be concluded, which is but a circumstantial difference.  
The fourth Reason followeth, if Paul and others, writing to the visible Churches, calls them Saints, faithful Brethren, the Sons of God by adoption, Rom. 16, etc. and the Prophets (notwithstanding they were led by the same Spirit) were wont to speak otherwise of the visible Church of the Jews (as Isa. 1.16. Jer. 1.2. Ezek. 3.4.4.12. & Chap. 16.48.51.) then natural Infants were not in the covenant and of the Churches which the Apostles wrote unto, as they were in that covenant and of that Church the Prophets spoke to: But Paul calls them Saints, and the Prophets the other sinners; yea, grievous sinners, and bids them wash themselves, etc. therefore natural Infants were not in the Churches which the Apostle wrote unto, as they were in the Jews.  
Reply. I deny the consequence in the Reason, as no way following, and the proof of it as invalid: For as the Apostles do call the Church's Saints, etc. and the Prophets the Jews sinners in the places alleged; yet in other places, the Scriptures call those sinners Saints, Believers, Brethren adopted, etc. as in many places may be made evident; one or two may be enough: Exod. 19.6. A kingdom of Priests, a holy nation: Deut. 33.2, 3. Psal. 22.22. and 122.8. Rom. 9.3, 4. etc. And the Apostle, 2 Thes. 2. calls them, sinners, carnal, bids them repent, etc. to whom they wrote unto, as Saints: as Galat. Corinth. where were many gross things and sinfully amiss, and most of the Epistles to the seven Churches, Rev. 2. & 3. Therefore there is no difference in those Churches the Apostles wrote to, and that the Prophets spoke to: and natural Infants may be in the covenant, and of the Churches now, as they were before Christ, notwithstanding. The fifth argument is the same with the first and second, and therefore was then answered. The sixth is taken from Hebr. 9.8. where, from Jer. 31. the Apostle saith, Behold, I will make a new covenant with the house of Judah, not like the covenant I made with your fathers, when I brought them out of the land of Egypt, etc. where he notes, that the principal difference is in the subjects of the covenant: and let it be noted, that therefore it is not in the covenant itself: in his proceeding, he notes two differences; the first in the writing of the Law, which in the former state was in a table of stone, not in their hearts, as without which they might not be the house of Israel; in the latter the law is written in their hearts.  
Reply. First, that this difference falls not in the time from Abraham to Moses, as is clear; for Jeremiah expresseth the time of their coming out of Egypt, and then that time began, whence the difference between that state and this must arise; nor was the Law written before that time in tables of stone, and therefore either Abraham, and all those following, to Moses, had no Law at all, or it was written in their hearts; and indeed so it was, as well as it is now written in any of our hearts; but it is not written in all now, but only in such as belong to God's election, and so it was then; and therefore there is no difference betwixt that period, and this under Christ in the writing of the Law, nor in the subjects.  
Secondly, the promise that God made to Abraham continued to all till Moses time, and then was not abolished, but continued still to them, till Christ, as is evident, the Gospel being preached to them in the wilderness, Heb. 3. and to them in Canaan, Psal. 95. the Gospel and the Promise are taken for the same, Gal. 3.8.18. and since contimued to the Gentile Churches; and this promise is the covenant which is one in all times: Again, this is to be attended, that the Apostle speaks not of the Covenant, but of the Testament, as is clear by his whole discourse, in the 8. and 9 Chapt. where he speaks of one and the same thing in all, and it is of a Testament; and therefore Jeremiah speaks of a Testament also: And therefore, though it be commonly translated covenant, yet it should be testament, at least covenant should be understood testament. This testament in both places is twofold: the first from their coming out of Egypt, till Christ; the second from Christ ever after: the first is called the old, and is antiquated or done away: the second, called the new, is established and remains. Nor are the times of the old and new Testament so to be attended in the differences, as if they under that had not the Law written in their hearts many of them, and all should, (it being their sin that it was not) or that these under the new Testament had every one of them the Law written in their hearts, many of them always being destitute of the grace of God through their own default; so that the difference made by him is none at all; all the elect then having the law written in their hearts as well as in tables of stone, and none but the elect having it now written in their hearts, the reprobate having it then and now written but in tables of stone, for the Gospel abolisheth not the Law, and ten words, but establisheth it rather, Rom. 3. last.  
The other difference he makes is from the effects of the Law then and now; in the former many of them were destitute of the knowledge of God: At the first, Infants circumcised the eighth day, and therefore were to learn God in Christ afterward coming to years; but in the latter, all do know God from the least to the greatest, have the Law written in their hearts, possess remission of sin; in so much, that it is a great shame for the Church of Corinth, that any of them should be destitute of the knowledge of God: 1 Cor. 15.34. which could not be, if Infants were the subjects of this covenant and Church; therefore the covenant since Christ is not the same with that before Christ.  
Reply. First, he grants that some than had the knowledge of God, though many had it not; but why had they it not? Did he not give them his Spirit to write it in their hearts? (which now writeth it in whose hearts it is written) if he knew it not, let him read Nehem. 9.20. Isa. 63.10. Acts 7.51. And to say all know God now, is contrary to experience, and Scriptures, and that in one of the first and eminent Churches, as his quotation showeth, 1 Cor. 15.  
Secondly, God promiseth then and now, to write this Law in men's hearts, offereth himself to do it by his Spirit, giveth all means necessary thereto then and now; but they did not all then, they do not all now know God, because they resist his Spirit in the means. There were then false Prophets, there are now false teachers, who then led away, and now seduce many; but all the elect then and since obtained, though the rest were justly hardened.  
Thirdly, it is a great shame, that any in the Church of Corinth, or any else, under the new Testament, know not God; and so it was before, and they were always blamed for it, which therefore they might, and aught to have had, else why blamed? Or were they blamed because Infants were then in the Church, and knew not God? Were they not blamed for their own want of knowledge, though their Infants were uncapable? And may not we now be blamed if they know not God? because Infants be in the Church, as he concludes? The covenant therefore with Abraham, and after till Christ, and now since, is the same in substance, though it differ much in circumstances; it being the same Law there written in stone, and now in flesh, which was written in many men's hearts then as now it is; but not in all men's hearts now no more than before, though it ought to have been in all then, and now should be, and is only their own fault then and now, in whom it was, and is not written, and they all justly perish for want thereof.  
The difference lies not therefore in God's dispensation, the matter dispensed, or the subjects to whom it is dispensed, but in the manner and measure of dispensing, then more darkly, now more clearly; then more sparingly, now more fully, Heb. 1.1. And this shall suffice for reply to what he said against my first argument.  
Next, he comes to my proofs: and first the Antecedent or Assumption, That the covenant made with Abraham and his posterity before Christ and this since Christ is the same: This I proved by three Reasons: The first this; the Gospel is the Doctrine of the covenant; but this was preached to Abraham, to the Jews in the wilderness, and in David's time; Ergo, the covenant is the same in all.  
To which he Answreth, is this a good proof that the covenant is the same? surely no: For then to whomsoever the Gospel is preached, they are in the covenant, though they be scoffing Athenians: as Act. 17. and concludes, that there is no more in my proof.  
Reply. First, is this a good answer? and doth this confute what I said, that the Gospel was preached to Abraham, & c? Surely no; for there is no more in all he says then this, that it was not a covenant to scoffing Athenians who received it not by outward subjection unto it.  
Secondly, there is therefore a difference to be put between people to whom the Gospel is preached; to some it is preached to be received: so to Abraham, Athenians, etc. to some as having received it; so to the Jews succeeding, and to the Churches of the Gentiles.  
Thirdly, the Gospel is the promise, the promise is the covenant, (he grants this afterward) the sum whereof is, I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed, if thou wilt accept of it, and will bless thee and thy seed with forgiveness of sin, and life in my Son, whom I will send in the flesh, if you will believe in him. This God preached to Abraham and the Athenians; Abraham accepting, he was in the covenant; if he had not accepted it, he had not been in the covenant; as the Athenians were not, because they accepted it not, yet should have been, if they had received the offer of God as well as Abraham.  
Fourthly, the Gospel is the doctrine of the covenant, or materially the covenant itself, and being from first to last but one, Gal. 1.6. on God's part dispensed to Abraham and his family to be received, and on their part received, continued to the Jews till Christ on God's part, (being that which made them his people in covenant, and of the Church in all Apostasies and Idolatries, etc. till God cast them off) and after derived to the Gentiles, and believed by them, it cannot but be really the same covenant on God's part, to all to whom it was offered, and on their part who receive it, as offered by God, and they that receive it not will be guilty of refusing God's covenant of grace and life, and perish justly. More therefore there is in the proof than he would take notice of; or knew how to answer, and therefore thought it his best way to say nothing.  
My second Reason to prove the second covenant was the same in all the three periods is this: If Abraham be the father equally of Jews and Gentiles, as he believes, and they his children equally, as believing the righteousness of faith, than the covenant is the same. But Abraham is equally father of Jews and Gentiles, equally as he believes, and they his children equally as believing, Rom. 4.11. Gal. 3.7. Ergo, The covenant is the same, because the promise of the righteousness of faith is the covenant on God's part held forth.  
To this he answereth; The argument hath no force at all to prove that the covenant made with Abraham and his posterity before Christ and this since Christ is the same.  
Reply. What force there is in this argument let others judge, and that they may more fully do it, I shall set it down in clear terms thus: If the matter of the covenant, and the conditions required of all that will be partakers of the covenant be the same, than the covenant is the same in all the three periods. But the matter of the covenant, and the conditions required of all that will be partakers of it, are the same in all the three periods; Ergo, The covenant is the same.  
The first Proposition is evident: For, as all to whom the Law is prescribed, and the condition of works and self-righteousness is required of them, they are all under the covenant of works: so all to whom the righteousness of faith is held forth, and the condition of faith is required of them, they receiving it and submitting, are all under the same covenant of grace.  
The second Proposition is as manifest: Rom. 4.13.14.16. that faith was required of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, will not be denied, and was performed by them, Heb. 11. That God's righteousness was offered, and faith in it required of the Jews in Moses time, and after, is evident, because they were blamed every where for not believing; and the Apostle, Rom. 9.31, 32. shown that they came short of God's righteousness, because they sought it not by faith; and himself hath said before, and presently after saith again, that they were cut off by unbelief. If they were cut off by, and for unbelief, then certainly they stood by faith, and that was required of them: and so they in the wilderness were shut out of God's rest (that is, God's righteousness in Christ) because they mixed not the Gospel with faith where they heard it, Heb. 4.2. That the righteousness of God is preached to the Gentiles, and faith required of them, himself every where affirmeth; therefore the conclusion, that the covenant in all the three periods is the same, is undeniable. Yet seeing he sets down sundry considerations, upon which he said as he did; I shall attend to hear him: And first, he saith, if none be Abraham's children but such as believe the righteousness of faith, than none but such as believe are within the covenant and to be baptised; but the first is true, Ergo, the second.  
Reply. First, What is this to the argument? How doth this clear that there is no force in it to prove the covenant now and then to be the same? If I should grant him all this, yet my argument is of force, the covenant may be the same, though none but such as believe in the righteousness of God be in the covenant, and so to be sealed: for, secondly, any are said to be in the covenant in a twofold respect:  
First, as to take God to be their God, and of their seed, to work faith in them who can never believe of themselves, unless God give them to believe, which he works in all in whom it is wrought, in the first instant, without any actual concourse of power to make the dead sbul live, and become active through his assistance.  
Secondly, as none actually believing and professing the same, which to men-ward may seem to be true, but is not always so indeed; If he mean that none but of the second sort are in the covenant, and are to be baptised, I deny it, and do affirm, that Infants of such as do actually believe and profess, are under God's covenant and promise with their parents, to work the faith in them that he hath wrought in their parents, as I shall make further proof of afterward.  
Secondly, he saith, the body of the Jewish nation were the posterity of Abraham, according to the flesh, were commanded to be circumcised as so in the covenant, and otherwise could not have been of the Jewish Church. They were not to bring their sacrifices to the Temple, nor eat the Passeover; therefore these were legally in the covenant, though but the posterity of Abraham according to the flesh; yet none of the uncircumsion might before Christ's time partake of those privileges, though they did believe. The difference therefore was very great.  
Reply. That the Jewish Nation was Abraham's posterity according to the flesh, who knows not? yet that they were thereby of the Church is not true, and that they were in covenant before, and Church-members, is certain, though he affirm the contrary never so often, without any proof at all; for circumcision follows the covenant at Church state, being a sign of it, doth not go before it, as is evident in Abraham's case and his families; as also in Isaac's case, and all following him, who were not circumcised at the 8th day, but as in the covenant before; and how could a Jew, being uncircumcised, be cut off from his people, and despise God's covenant, if he had not interest in that estate before? And were not those many hundred in Abraham's family, and all proselytes after in the covenant, and of the Church, though not of Abraham's posterity in the flesh? This is not required therefore to make them of the Jewish Church, nor was it sufficient to be Abraham's posterity, and circumcised, to make them in the covenant and in the Church, and no more required, as in Esau's case, and the rest of Abraham's children by Ketura, where he saith, they were legally in the covenant, though but Abraham's posterity. I reply, More was required of them to be in the covenant, then to be Abraham's posterity in the flesh, even to be the Lords to have Abraham's faith wrought in them, without which they could not be, or continue in the covenant. If he mean by legally in the covenant, they were in a legal covenant, a covenant of works, it is contrary to the Scriptures, Galat. 3.17, 18. Now was there any such covenant dispensed unto them by God? But if he mean they were in the same covenant we have, but legally being perverted by them contrary to the doctrine of God, he grants what I said, and contradicts himself. Further, he saith, none uncircumcised before Christ's time, may partake in those privileges, though they did believe.  
Reply. It is not true: For Enoch, Noah, Melchisedec, and many others, were partakers of some of them, before circumcision was instituted, and all they in the wilderness during the forty years' travel there. Though therefore the difference was very great in many circumstances, yet it was the same in substance; which is that I said.  
A third consideration he hath, is this, No Gentiles are Abraham's seed at all, but by believing the righteousness of faith, although he be the child of believing parents.  
Reply. First, I deny it: For the infants of believing Gentiles in covenant, are Abraham's seed, though they do not actually believe; as the infants of Proselytes Gentiles before Christ, were Abraham's seed with their believing parents.  
Secondly, none of the Jewish parents or children, were Abraham's seed, but by actually believing the righteousness of faith, or under the promise of God to work it in them, Rom. 9.6, 8. But what is this to the disproof of my Argument, That the covenant with Abraham then and now is the same? I see not a word to that purpose.  
A fourth consideration he thus sets down, None of the Jews themselves, Abraham's natural seed, and partakers of all the orders of the Old Testament, by virtue of that natural relation, could be admitted to be baptised, but upon manifestation of faith. Therefore the covenant before, and this since, is not the same.  
Reply. First, all Abraham's natural seed, were not partakers of all ordinances of the old Testament, by virtue of that relation, as Esau's posterity, nor was that relation necessary: for than no Proselyte could have enjoyed them.  
Secondly, the natural posterity of Abraham did partake of those ordinances by virtue of the covenant, or their actual faith; and therefore enjoyed them no longer than their covenant and faith continued.  
Thirdly, it followeth not that the covenant now and then is not the same, because the Jews of years were not baptised without manifestation of their faith: for the difference only is circumstantial; viz. the manifestation of their faith in Christ the Messiah now come, which before they believed should come: nor will he ever prove, that the infants of those Jews, believing and baptised, were not also baptised with their parents. And this of his considerations to my second Reason; my third Reason followeth.  
The standing of the Jews, and of us Gentiles in the grace of God, is the same with abraham's, therefore the Covenant is the same.  
To this he answereth, First, distinguishing of the word Grace, which is taken (saith he) particularly for the covenant of life, generally for any effect of God's goodness, whereby he freely communicateth any benefits unto the sons of men: which must needs be by grace, seeing no man deserveth any thing.  
Secondly, he applieth this distinction, and saith, that if grace be taken in the first sense, and particularly for the covenant of everlasting life unto free justification, he denieth that the Jews were required to manifest their interest therein, before they could be admitted to stand members of the Jewish visible Church state; as all both Jews and Gentiles must now since the death of Christ, and yet none saved but by grace in this first sense. But if grace be taken in the latter and more general sense, for some effect of God's goodness communicated freely to any in any kind of benefit, than he granteth that the jews stood under the same grace of God with Abraham, and had circumcision and other ordinances to lead them to Christ to come, yea to be born of their seed, according to the flesh: And in these respects the Jew's standing was the same with Abraham's; and these respects are spoken of by Mary, Luke 1.54, 55. and Zachary, Luke 1.72, 73  
Rep. First, the distinction is not necessary: for though in a general sense any thing from God may be called a grace, as it is a free gift of God to them them that never deserve it; yet in this discourse, and usually in the Scriptures, it is not used in this larger sense.  
Secondly, to make those privileges of the Jews to be but effects of common grace, he wrongeth the grace of God, as dispensing nothing more of particular favour to the Jews then to the Gentiles, though they had more and larger matters than the Gentiles. Yet being from common grace, it altars not the state of them under God's grace from the Heathens, whom in this case God leaveth not without witness of himself.  
Thirdly, in that he saith, the Jews had circumcision and other Ordinances leading them to Christ, and that Christ should be born of their seed after the flesh. And in these respects they stood in the same grace with Abraham.  
Reply. First, Abraham had not those ordinances which they had, their standing therefore in these things differ.  
Secondly, these were not all the respects: for the passages in Luke 1. vers. 54. speak of other things; namely, remission of sins, justification and sanctification. In a word, did not Christ come of Terah as well as of Abraham; yea, of Noah, Sem, & c? read Luke 3. And did they not believe in him to come? Heb. 11.7. and how can any exclude them before Abraham, of this privilege, (yea and the Gentiles also with them, before the time of distinction of the people) more than them after, in the due and proper consideration of the thing itself?  
But to say no more, I come to the other sense of the word Grace, and did, and do intent my reason in that acceptation. But here he denies that ever the Jews were required to make any such manifestation to make them members of that Church before Christ, as all Jews and Gentiles since must do to make them members of a Church now.  
Reply. First, Abraham and his Males made such a protestation, and all Proselytes that ever after joined, without which they had not been members, as having no other relation; and besides, the seal should have been set upon them, as the seal of the righteousness of faith which they had not.  
Secondly, the Jews after Moses time were required first and last to make such manifestation of their faith in God's righteousness, and they sinned and were liable to God's displeasure when they failed, were often punished, and at last cast off for want of it, which could not have been, if it had not been required of them.  
Thirdly, suppose that there was not the like manifestation required of them, that is now, yet the same thing was required of them that was of Abraham, and is now of us, namely faith in God's righteousness. And therefore though they then and we now, should differ in this respect, that there was not such a manifestation of faith required, as is now, yet the covenant may be, & is the same now and then, the manifestation being not the covenant, but a circumstance about the covenant.  
To conclude, if the matter propounded in all these three periods, not excluding the first in the time before Abraham, be the same, viz. God's righteousness, the Word of God's grace and the Gospel, if the condition required of all be the same, viz. faith in God's righteousness; And if the effect be the same in all that do believe, viz. that they that believe are freely justified by Christ, without the deeds of the Law, though the elect only obtain, and the rest refuse, are hardened and perish for ever for their sinful unbelief; then the covenant is the same in all these three periods, as I first propounded, and my proofs are full and clear for this purpose, come not short at all, nor are taken away, as he would persuade himself: but I question not but others will see that he is much mistaken, many of the things he speaks, being not only unsound, but absurd and uncongruous to wholesome doctrine. It followeth, that I next go on with him about the consequent from this antecedent, which he supposeth he hath taken away, and so the consequences therefrom will fall and fail also; and certainly so they would, if he had taken away the antecedent, and therefore he might have spared his labour in seeking to disprove them, and the proofs I added. But it seems he thought not as he said, and therefore he setteth down my consequence, and the proofs thereof, and seeks to overthrow them all, as he hath done my antecedent.  
My first consequent was, that seeing the covenant with Abraham, the Jews and us Gentiles, is the same: Therefore as infants were then in covenant, so they are now in covenant since Christ.  
To clear this consequence to be just, I added (as he sets them down) four reasons.  
The first; Else the covenant were not the same, in all, as I have proved it is. He answereth, he hath disproved my proofs of that particular, and therefore this reason is nothing.  
Reply. How he hath disproved my proofs, others shall judge, and I have removed those disproofes of his; and therefore this Reason is something, and the Consequence thereby certain.  
My second Reason; Else the state of God's grace should be straitened, and made of less extent by Christ's coming, than it was before; whereas it is more enlarged, and of greater extent, there being then no more in the state of persons to interest infants into the covenant, than now.  
To this he answereth diversely, denying the consequence, that is, that unless infants be now in the covenant, as they were then, the state of God's grace is straitened, and made of less extent by Christ's coming.  
First, saith he, because the preaching of the Gospel is as full, as large and ample a testimony of God's grace, as any of the fleshly seed of Abraham had by the covenant, and larger. The Gospel preached now is a fuller declaration of the grace of God, and the benefits that come by Christ, then ever circumcision, and the ordinances of the old Testament did declare to them. The fleshly seed had but the declaration of the grace of God by the covenant: now the seed of the Gentiles, believers and unbelievers, are made partakers of the preaching of the Gospel, though they be not in the covenant.  
Reply. First, he seemeth to oppose the preaching of the Gospel now, to the former times, as if the Gospel were not preached unto them all that time: for in this passage (Gospel now preached, and Covenant then) is a direct opposition: And so in the next branch he opposeth Circumcision, and the Ordinances of the old Testament, to the Gospel preached now; as if the Gospel preached, were peculiar to the new Testament, contrary to the Scriptures.  
Secondly, I affirm, and none can deny, that there is not any point of doctrine held forth by the Gospel in the New Testament, nor any grace of God, or effect thereof, but it was held forth then in the Old, though more darkly then & sparingly, yet the same in both. And therefore it is not right that he saith, The Ordinances of the Old Testament did not make so full a declaration of God's grace, as the Gospel preached now doth, unless he mean it of the measure and manner, and then it is not to the purpose he should aim at.  
Thirdly, I suppose it is evident, that since Christ's coming for many hundred years under the state of the Apostles, there was a little preaching of the Gospel, and declaration of the grace of God, as ever was by the dispensation of the old Testament, for the most part.  
Fourthly, whereas he saith, that Abraham's fleshly seed had but a declaration of God's grace by the covenant (adding though the believing seed of Abraham had the grace of God in Christ declared them, of which I confess I can make no sense; and besides, they include a flat contradiction: but now the seed of the Gentile believers, and unbelievers, have the Gospel preached to them though not in covenant.  
Reply. First, I understand not what difference he would put between the declaration of the grace of God in Christ, and preaching of the Gospel; in my apprehension there is no more than in preaching the Gospel and preaching the Gospel: for surely the preaching of the Gospel is the declaration of the grace of God in Christ, and declaration of God's grace in Christ, is preaching the Gospel, and Circumcision and the other Ordinances together, with the Word preached, did as truly hold forth God's grace in Christ, and the benefits thereof, as the Gospel now preached doth, and the Ordinances of the new Testament: only the difference lies in Christ to come, and now come; as also in the measure and manner of the dispensation, and not altogether in the matter.  
Secondly, he saith, that the seed of the Gentiles, believers, and unbelievers, are made partakers of larger graces in having the Gospel preached unto them, being not in covenant, than the fleshly seed had been in covenant.  
Reply. First, Abraham had the Gospel first preached unto him, when he was an unbeliever, and not in covenant. But was it larger grace to have it preached unto him when he was not in covenant, then when he was? Surely no.  
2dly,, that the Gentiles were made partakers of greater grace by being out of covenant, than the Jews by being in covenant, is an unreasonable speech: for in that respect they are set one against another, the Gospel was preached unto them both; and therefore unless he deny this, he cannot avoid the blame of the former.  
Besides, the Jews had the Oracles of God, the adoption, the promises, etc. Rom. 9.4. by being in covenant; but the Gentiles had nothing visible, whereby they might be accounted partakers of God's grace, till they were in covenant: and therefore the Jews had larger grace than the Gentiles believing or not believing, not being in covonant, etc.  
A second answer he gives to overthrow my Consequence, That if infants be not in the covenant now, the grace of God is straitened by Christ's coming, is this; The grace of God is now revealed to more people than before: Then it was confirmed to the people of the Jews only, but now it is commanded to be preached to all Nations. Therefore the exclusion of Infants doth not straiten the grace of God at all.  
Reply 1. That the declaration of the grace of God was limited to the Jews, but now is common to all Nations, I grant; as also, that there is a more full and clear declaration of that grace of God now, then in former times. Yea, if he can lay down more respects, wherein God's grace is enlarged now, above what it was then, I should well approve of it, yet this toucheth not my argument that I alleged, and still affirm, that the grace of God is now more straitened than it was then, if infants be not now in the covenant, as than they were. And that besides others in a twofold respect: First, in respect of Infants themselves, who in this abounding of grace dispensed, are excluded and shut out by the God of that grace, when before they were not; and therefore to them it is straitened.  
Secondly, in respect of Parents, who then looked upon their Infants as the Lords equally with themselves; but now they look upon their Infants as aliens, without God and Christ: and have no more interest in them then an Indian child hath: nor are any Parents or others to account of their children any otherwise then they do of the Infant of an Indian.  
So that this discourse meddleth not with my Argument, nor the scope of it, nor are his answers to the purpose, that should clear this, that the grace of God is not straitened now more than then; though Infants were excluded, which were not then.  
It may be yet his third answer will do that, which is this;  
If by extension of grace I do conceive that ever God accepted any into the covenant of everlasting life, as the fleshly seed of Abraham, without inherent faith, and thereupon conclude, that much more now are the seed of believers taken into the covenant, by their parent's faith, I err, and he absolutely denies any such thing then or now, etc.  
Reply. First, here is not one word to my argument, he forgets what he was a doing, and falls into a suppofition, he doth not show, that if Infants be not now in the covenant, the grace of God is straitened, because then Infants were. Secondly, that Infants were then in the covenant, is not, cannot be denied.  
That the covenant on Gods part dispensed, was the covenant of everlasting life, is evident, because it was an offer of God unto them, to become their God, and their seeds God, to bless them with the forgiveness of sins in his Son, called the righteousness of Faith.  
Though it was not a covenant of life to all, through their own default, and they will be guilty of refusing everlasting life offered unto them.  
That all Infants had not inherent faith in them when they were Infants, and yet accepted of God into covenant of everlasting life, to work that faith in them; yea, though elect, as Paul for instance; but had it wrought in them afterward by God in the mean he vouchsafed, and that from and according to the covenant he had taken them into: And if God then did thus dispense his grace, as to take Infants into that covenant, the covenant of everlasting life, not having inherent faith in themselves, but that he might work it in them; Then if now Infants be excluded, it argues that God's grace is not so large as it was then, he doth not give himself to be the God of our Infants to bless them in his Son, as he did give himself to them to be the God of their Infants for to bless them.  
That God received none of Abraham's posterity into any covenant as his fleshly seed, and in that respect, because they were so, is so certain, that I conceive it to be a certain error to affirm it, Abraham being set forth as the father of all nations, in that transaction between God and him, and not as the father of the Jews only, who were his fleshly seed. Nor do I think that Infants now are received into covenant as fleshly seed of Gentiles, nor by their parent's faith, as being any cause of it, but only as Isaac, etc. were of old by God's free grace, taking the believing parents with their children into a covenant, in whom he worketh faith, to close with him, and undertakes to work the same in their children after; for which purpose be taketh hold of them by his covenant; and let all that know the truth, judge whether he or I do err, I in affirming, or he denying these things, though he do it never so absolutely.  
Last of all to this consectary which I added; that there was nothing then in the state of persons to interest Infants in the covenant more than now; he giveth this answer: Though there was nothing in the state of persons, yet there was something in things and order of times, Christ being yet to come; and here he concludeth two things:  
First, that the whole fleshly seed of Abraham separated by ceremonial holiness was a type of Christ to come, and therefore Infants then in the covenant, and but ceremonially holy.  
Secondly, that Christ the thing typified being come, all that typical state is utterly abolished, etc. Infant's now not to be in it.  
Reply. First, I deny that the fleshly seed of Abraham was a type of Christ, and have spoken to it before, and do conceive it a very erroneous conceit, and full of absurdities.  
Secondly, we must then exclude grown men also upon the same ground from the covenant and Baptism now; for if they were a type, therefore children then in covenant and circumcised, but now not in covenant and baptised; men also being a part of the type must now not be in covenant, nor be baptised; or else Infants may.  
Thirdly, all proselytes could not be a type of Christ, because not of the fleshly seed of Abraham, nor Abraham and his family, with all those succeeding till Moses time, because the ceremonial ordinances were not yet instituted, nor doth the circumstance of things and time put any essential difference between them and us, it being the same Christ, then by those things, and in that time dispensed, that is now by these things, and in this time, not any other, nor any thing else; but I have said enough for this in some Reply before, and so much to his answer to my second Reason.  
A third Reason, whereby I proved Infants to be in the covenant now as they were then, was this, as he hath set it down: for I cannot remember that I used it here, Abraham being the root, and Jews and Gentiles the branches, as when the Jews were broken off, as well Infants as men of years were broken off; so the Gentiles being planted in their stead, they must be Infants as well as men of years. And so the Jews, when they shall be again implanted, as well infants as men of years shall be so.  
To this he answereth: First, he conceives Christ to be the root here meant.  
Reply. Then they were in Christ, with, of and from Infants, also without actual faith or unbelief. Again, that Christ is the root of Abraham himself, and all else I question not; but that Christ is not meant here, Rom. 11.4. I am confident, and no man will affirm that reads the Chapter with understanding: Rom. 11.28. they are said to be beloved for the Father's sake; not that Abraham, or Christ are equally a root, or at all in the same respect and sense, but in a divers: Christ the real and efficient root, Abraham but federally, and in regard of God's covenant made with him as a father of many nations; but I shall say no more hereto, because himself admits it, and answereth:  
Secondly, the Gentiles are not branches in a natural relation, nor the Jews branches in a spiritual relation, but by personal faith. To make Jews and Gentiles equally branches, therefore of the root of Abraham, we must make the relation spiritual which is proper to them both.  
Reply. First he contradicteth himself in these words, saying the Jews are not branches by a spiritual relation, and yet they and the Gentiles cannot be equally branches, but by a spiritual relation: Further, if he mean by faith personal, habitual as well as actual, and excludes not habitual, I consent, for Infants may have habitual that cannot have actual; while Infants and many men may seem to have actual saving faith, that have not true saving habitual faith.  
Secondly, if he mean by spiritual relation foederall, I also grant what he saith; but if he mean by personal faith actual, and by spiritual, saving faith. I reply, all the Jews had not actual faith then, nor Gentiles now, who yet profess actual faith then, and now, nor had Infants their actual faith no more than they can have now; and yet they were branches of the Olive then, which he concludes cannot be but by personal faith, (it being not by natural relation) which now Gentiles Infants may have, as well as they had, or whatsoever else those Infants had, whereby those Infants were branohes of their own Olive tree.  
To that I say, that when the Jews were broken off, as well Infants, as men of years were broken off: he answereth, it is true; because the natural relation in the covenant ceased, when Christ the promised seed came, and now there is no relation in the covenant with Abraham, but by faith in Christ.  
Reply. First, this contradicteth that which in the foregoing answer he seemed to set down; that there must be such a spiritual relation as is possible to them both, and that is faith; for no otherwise can the Jews and Gentiles suit, nor could they have been broken off by unbelief (which maketh not the Jews cease to have a natural relation to Abraham) unless faith was required of them; and yet here he saith they were in covenant by natural relation.  
Secondly, the Jews were not in covenant by natural relation, and as a type of Christ (which he said before, and I have disproved) but Abraham was the father of Jews and Gentiles, as he believed, and they his children, as believing, and no otherwise, as is clear, Rom. 4.9.14. the Apostle showing that he was heir of the world, not through the Law, but the righteousness of faith, to the Gentiles, though uncircumcised, and not to the Jews, though circumcised, but as they walked in the steps of that faith of Abraham, which he had, being yet uncircumcised; besides, if they had been in the covenant by natural relation, how could those many hundreds in Abraham's family be in the covenant, who were not of Abraham's flesh? or how could Ishmael or Esau cease to be in the covenant, being Abraham's natural seed? Whereas I said, when the Jews be again implanted, as well Infants of such as believe, as men of years shall be implanted: He answereth; as unbelief did break them off, so faith only must graft them in; but that Infants of the Jews being members of that Church before Christ's coming shall be planted, so as to be members of a Christian Church without manifestation of faith lawfully, can no way be proved, but is an absolute error.  
Reply. Dictator-like; but first, Why may not Infants be now implanted without manifestation of faith, and so be of a Christian Church, as than they were of that Church without such manifestation of faith?  
Secondly, such a faith may graft Infants in again, as is opposite to the unbelief that cut them off; that faith therefore (or whatsoever it was) that made them branches of that root, and for want whereof they were cut off, the same may graft them in; nor can any man render a reasonable cause, why he should deny it. It is therefore too peremptory to say it is an absolute error, and his bare saying will never prove it to be so, but himself to be too rash, and unadvised.  
My fourth Reason to prove Infants are now in the covenant, as they were then, is thus: If the Jews and Gentiles be incorporate into one body in Christ, and the Jewish Infants were in the body, than so may and must Infants of believing Gentiles now be verum prius. To this he answereth two things:  
First, the Jews had means before, and some of them faith by those means, and so true members of Christ, he the head, and they the body, there being no other members known but the Jews. The Gentiles by Christ coming, had this special benefit, to have the means, and faith by the means, and thereby united to Christ the head, and so to Jews the body, and the Jews had no other relation to Christ the head, but by faith, and the Gentiles to Christ, nor them but by faith.  
Reply. First, where he saith some of the Jews had faith, and were true members; if he means saving faith, and savingly, his argument runs not, because the faith of the Gentiles and their union with Christ was not saving, and savingly in all, as Simon Magus, Judas, etc. If he means it generally, according to charity, then more Jews had faith then some, that had true faith, and were true members, even all federally in regard of profession; nor is it true, that there were no members known, and of that body then, but Jews, for the many hundreds in Abraham's family, and very many proselytes, were known members of that body, and yet were not Jews.  
Secondly, there is two ways of being united to Christ the head, and to the body Jewish then and of the Jews and Gentiles now; the first is federally, sacramentally, outwardly, and visibly, so all the Jews were then the body, and all of it, as is clear, 1 Cor. 10.1, etc. all baptised, all eating and drinking one and the same Baptism: Manna, Rock (as the Apostle saith, we are one body, by being baptised into one Christ, and by eating and drinking one bread & cup, by one Spirit a body mystical, 1 Cor. 12, 13. Acts 7.38. The second is really, spiritually, and effectually, inwardly, and invisibly. In the first sense, the elect and reprobate are both considered; so many as the Lord calls by means: In the second sense, the elect only are to be considered, whether of Jews or Gentiles; that there are these two sorts of being in Christ, is evident from many Scriptures: Joh. 15.1. two sorts of branches, one fruitful, and shall be saved, the other unfruitful, and shall be damned, Mat. 22.14. Many are called, but few are chosen; Many are called, and not chosen, many are called, and chosen: and all this is true of the Jewish state before Christ, as is clear in the seven first verses, and all is true likewise of the state after Christ, as is plain in the rest, and of both, 14. All the Jews therefore (though not savingly) from Abraham to Christ, were that body successively, and the Gentiles since Christ's time added to that body, by being made near; no alteration of the Jews, as the body in the real and essential consideration of it, but an access of the Gentiles to them, which our Saviour also in another place expresseth, John 10.16. Other sheep I have which are not of this fold, and I must bring them into it, that there may be but one fold, and one Shepherd: For Rom. 11.17. some of the branches were broken off, not all, and thou wert graffed in amongst them; therefore as Jewish Infants were then in the fold, and members of the body all along; so it must be granted, that the Infants of Believing Gentiles now added to the body and fold are in it.  
His second answer is this: First, that the Gentiles by conversion, did not enter into the Jewish national Church.  
Secondly, if neither Jews nor Gentiles were the body of Christ, considerably as a nation, but only by consersion, than were not the Jews as Jews of the body, and consequently not their Infants. But neither Jews nor Gentiles were the body of Christ considerably, as a nation, but by conversion, therefore neither Jews as Jews were of the body, nor their Infants; and consequently not the Infants of the Gentiles.  
Reply. First, he seemeth to restrain the being of the body to the present Jews in Christ's time, which is erroneous, and denies it of the former.  
Secondly, the proselytes of the Gentiles before Christ, did by conversion enter into fellowship with the Jewish national Church, and their Infants with them.  
Thirdly, the Jews were not the body, as a nation, yet the nation was the body, and that federally, God taking hold of them by his covenant, and making them unto himself an holy nation, as well Infants as others, Exod. 19.6. Deut. 29.11.14.15. at the first constitution they were the body by conversion, at least appearingly; But ever after, all succeeding were the body; for to be truly converted, on Gods part promised, though on their part not always enjoyed through their own default. Next, he comes to my other consequence, which is this; seeing Infants are now in the covenant, as these were then in the covenant, therefore Infants ought now to be baptised, as than they were circumcised, sealed with the sign of the covenant now, as they were sealed with the sign of the covenant then. To clear this, my first Reason was thus, else the covenant were not the same, and Infants in it: He answers that it is not the same in respect of natural relation to Abraham, as he had showed, and therefore Infants not in it.  
Reply. First, he here holdeth the Jews to have fellowship in the covenant before Christ by virtue of natural relation; and yet he said before that they were not the body (which they were by covenant) as Jew's, that is by natural relation.  
Secondly, I have showed before, that the Jews were not in that covenant by natural relation, but by faith, which is the only condition of the covenant.  
Thirdly, it no way followeth it is not the same, in respect of natural relation, therefore it is not the same at all, nor doth it hinder Infants being in it, because they now have no natural relation to Abraham; for the proselyte Infants were taken in of old into fellowship with the Jews in that covenant, but not in respect of natural relation, which they have not; the reason there remains firm, and unanswered.  
My second was this; if they had the thing and substance, they cannot be denied the seal and circumstance, if the first grace, than the second, and confirming. He answereth, it is true, when they or any other for them can manifest, that they have the thing and substance, then let them have the seal and circumstance.  
Reply. First, he denies not that they have the thing, though they cannot manifest it.  
Secondly, if I may conclude they have the thing, and cannot (by a rule) conclude they have not, then though they cannot manifest it, yet I may feel them, and what more can be, when they do manifest; I may be mistaken, I cannot conclude infallibly they have the thing.  
Thirdly, the Jews Infants were not able to manifest the thing, yet circumcised; and why may not Infants be baptised, though they cannot manifest the substance, seeing they may have it.  
Last of all, there is a double consideration of our being in Christian state, one foederall, and outward, the other spiritual also, and inward: there is a double consideration of Baptism, (as of Circumcision) the one outward, the other inward also; now man applies on his part the outward baptism, to one that is outwardly in Christian state (as Infants are) it belonging to man to do no more; and if he should commonly apply it to them that are not spiritual in that state, nor ever shall be, yet herein he sins not, but doth that he ought to do, in applying to the subject what belongs to it in respect of that, which in the subject is proportionable to what he doth.  
My third Reason to prove that infants, being now in the covenant as theirs, and therefore aught to be now baptised, as then circumcised, was this: By virtue of this word to Abraham, I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed, Infants of old were included, and therefore circumcised, and the same promise belongeth to the Gentiles in the same state, as to Jews, therefore the Infants of Gentiles are included, and must be baptised.  
He answereth; first, that the Jews, till Christ's time, were under that promise, by natural relation only, and then they ceased to be under it by natural relation, and so circumcision ceased also.  
Secondly, neither to Jews nor Gentiles, is that promise continued in the same state, the Gentiles being not abraham's seed by natural relation, and that of the Jews ceased, and so he concludes thus; if the covenant touching the natural seed be ceased, than Infants are neither to be circumcised, nor baptised: but the covenant touching the natural seed ceased at Christ's death, Acts 10.28. Gal. 3.25. Ephes. 2.14, 15. Rom. 11.20.21. Gal. 4.25, 26. therefore Infants are neither to be circumcised, nor baptised.  
Reply. First, it is flat contrary to Scripture, to say, that the Jews were under the promise by natural relation, Rom. 9.6.8. the Apostle fully concludeth, that all are not Israel, nor under that promise that are of Israel, that is, as they were of the flesh, they are not the children of Abraham under that promise; and therefore, though Abraham had other children, yet the promise was limited to Isaac, yea, though Esau came of Isaac as well as Jacob, yet was the promise limited to Jacob 10.11. though both of one father and mother, Rom. 4.11. the promise is made to Abraham to be the father only of them that believe, and therefore none first, or last, then, or now, are under the promise by virtue of natural relation.  
Secondly, circumcision was not applied to Abraham's posterity as his natural seed in that respect: For,  
First, it was the seal of the righteousness of faith, and therefore not be administered to any, but as believing the righteousness of faith, or such as God promised to work it in them.  
Secondly, otherwise the proselytes, and their Infants could not have been circumcised, being not abraham's posterity in the flesh.  
Thirdly, all the Scriptures alleged by him speak not of the abolishing of the covenant, but of ceremonies and shadows dispensed unto them for a time, which in Christ's death were done away; those that seem to speak of the covenant, Rom. 11.20, 21. add 7. Gal. 4.25, 26. speak not at all of the abolishing of the covenant, but of the continuance of it altogether as the same then and now; Rom. 11. speaks of the Jews being cut off by unbelief from the covenant, and not of disannulling the covenant, and the Gentiles instated in that they were cut off from; that of Gal. 4. speaks not of a change of the state of the promise, but of the difference of persons now, and then, under the same state of the promise then and now, as it was, and is on God's part dispensed: From all in brief, we may gather these particular conclusions:  
First, God made a promise to Abraham, to be his God, and the God of his seed, as many as should believe, Jews or Gentiles, which was accepted by Abraham and his family, and thereupon sealed by God.  
Secondly, God continued to hold out the same promise in the same state to the Jews, and Proselytes, till Christ's time, that he would be a God to them, and their children, as he promised to Abraham, and perform all that good he promised to Abraham; or promised him to perform to them, and sealed their Infants to confirm all this on his part, giving all means necessary thereunto, nothing wanting, Isa. 5.4.  
Thirdly, some always received this good in this promise, through all that time, till Christ, and in his time, (viz all, and only the elect) the rest were punished with a spirit of slumber for their neglect; and at last cut off (viz. all, and only non-elect.)  
Fourthly, God continues the same promise in the same state unto some Jews, and offers it also to it he Gentiles, if they will believe, and so to have Abraham their Further, and their Infant's father; (for seed includes Infants all along.)  
Fifthly, that amongst them before Christ, there was many had a work of the spirit of bondage wrought upon them, and some a work of the spirit of adoption. Ishmael in an Allegory, was the type of the children of Bondage, and Isaac of the children of Adoption: And so it is now in the times after Christ, there are some of Isaac's rank, and some of Ishmaels'; there were always two Jerusalem's; Ishmael and such as he was, are of the Jerusalem below, Isaac and such as he was, are of Jerusalem from above, the two mothers, or Jerusalem's being not two several dispensations of one and the same Covenant in a twofold Testament any way No change therefore is in the promise in the state of it, but it is the same from the time of revealing it, till now. And Infants all that time from Abraham to Moses, and from Moses to Christ, were of that seed, and Proselyte Gentiles and their Infants; and so now Gentile Infants are of the seed also: and as Infants were then circumcised, so now are they to be baptised. And thus I have done with his answer to my first Argument, the second follows, thus:  
If in the whole body of Israelites, as well Infants as men of years, were baptised with the same baptism that ours is, than Infants are now to be baptised as then they were: But in the whole body of Israelites Infants were baptised with the same baptism spiritually that ours is; therefore Infants are now to be baptised as then they were.  
He answereth first, the Argument is a Sophism (that is, deceitful) because in the first Proposition I leave out spiritually, as if I intended they were baptised corporally, as now since Christ's time men are: And to help me, he frames an Argument for me, putting in materially and formally, in stead of spiritually, which he grants I used in the second proposition; and then he answers by denying the Minor, that is, that we are baptised with the same baptism materially and formally, that they were baptised with; and so putting in materially and formally, which was not in mine, he leaveth out spiritually, which was in the second, and should have been in the first proposition, had not he that writ it, left it out: And if this be not a false argument, yet it is an argument of his false dealing. Again, granting that that and ours were the same materially & formally, yet he denies that it will follow thence, that now Infants may be baptised as they were then, no more than this will follow, Adam might not eat of the forbidden fruit; therefore some kind of fruit is forbidden us to eat. Or this, Infants were then circumcised: Ergo, Infants must now be circumcised.  
Reply. First, all this might have been spared: for I used spiritually in mine argument, and in all the discourse following. And further, he had not the writing from me, nor written with my hand; and therefore if the word spiritually were left out, it was not by me; and what wisdom is it, or honesty, to blame me for another man's fault? But let this pass.  
Secondly, he saith, I seem to intent they were baptised corporally, as now we are.  
Reply. Yea, doubtless, and so they were, having their bodies sprinkled with those signs of the spiritual things, which are signified now by these signs now instituted. And to his Argument, that ours is not the same materially with theirs, I grant it; but that theirs and ours were and are sacramental signs of one and the same spiritual grace, I affirm: and therefore it follows, that as Infants were then baptised with the same spiritual baptism that ours is, though they had no actual faith: For now Infants are to be baptised with the same spiritual baptism that theirs was: And the comparisons that he useth to weaken the consequence, are not available. For as Adam might not eat of the forbidden tree in the garden, no more might we, and then sinned in, and with him in his eating, and should now sinne in eating of any sacramental Tree, if God should appoint one, and forbidden us to eat of it. And as infants were then circumcised spiritually, signified by that outward sign of cutting the flesh: so now Infants are to be circumcised spiritually by that outward sign of washing the flesh. And if our and their circumcision spiritually the same, were also materially & formally the same, I should not question the circumcising Infants now.  
But secondly, he setting down my argument aright, by putting in spiritually in the first proposition, he than denies the consequence, that is, though Infants were then baptised with the same spiritual baptism that ours is, yet ought not Infants to be baptised now; because that was a miraculous work of God's providence, and no sacrament instituted by God, and called baptism by way of comparison only, that being as great a token of God's love to them in Christ, as baptism an instituted ordinance was to the Corinthians, summing up all in this Enthymeme, God did baptise spiritually the Infants of Israel, therefore we may baptise Infants materially and formally, without God's command.  
Reply. First, I grant that Gods miraculous works of providence are to be admired of us, not imitated by us.  
Secondly, that every sign is not a Sacrament, though every Sacrament consists in part of something that is a sign.  
Thirdly, there being many other miraculous works of God, and tokens of his favour, which the Apostle might have taken and applied them to the Corinthians, as well as these: if they had been no more than a work of providence, it is not for nothing that he takes these rather than others.  
Fourthly, though the things were wonderful works of God, yet they were not barely so, but by his institution set forth to be Sacramental signs of their putting on Christ, eating and drinking his body and blood, which they could not be without institution, nor would or could the Apostle say, they put on Christ, or by these means, as signs, if they had not been instituted, though there be no mention of it in Moses writings, it is something that the Apostle saith, They were baptised into Moses, which means thus much, Moses was God's instrument from some word of his made known unto him, whereby he applied these signs to them, to signify these things. And his Syllogism that he makes, is a mere Sophism; which (to do as much for him as he did for me) I shall set down in full terms, and then mend it for him, his Enthymeme in an entire Syllogism is thus: If God by his providence did baptise the Infants of Israel spiritually, then may we without God's command, baptise Infants materially and formally: But God by the work of his providence did baptise the Infants of Israel; Therefore we may, without God's command, baptise our Infants materially and formally. And who sees not this a mere false Sophism, speaking in the first Proposition of baptism spiritually, and in the second of baptism materially and formally? To mend it for him, thus it must run; If God did by a work of his providence spiritually baptise the Infants of Israel, than we may baptise our Infants spiritually without God's command; but the first is true, therefore the second also. But in this there are many faults also: for he saith God baptised them, when as the Text saith, Moses, they were baptised into Moses: Again, he compareth things together as unequal, which are equal, and speaketh first of Baptism, so called only, and not so indeed, and then of Baptism so called, and so indeed: in all which he goeth about grossly to abuse the Reader, and to make him think, that I had no better ground to raise my argument on, than what he would seem to hold forth; let me therefore set down the truth of this place in this argument. If God instituted those works of his to be sacramental signs of the same spiritual baptism, that our signs signify, and Moses from God's appointment applied, then to that body as such, then as the same spiritual baptism were applied to Infants, as well as men of years by those signs; so may the same spiritual baptism be applied to Infants now, as well as to men of years by these signs.  
His third answer is to the same purpose, where going about to set down the scope of the Apostle he sums it up in this form: If miracles (which yet were as great as ordinances) did not secure them, but when they sinned they were punished, than ordinances will will not secure you, but you shall be so punished, if you so sin; but miracles ever did not secure them, but when they sinned they were punished; Ergo, ordinances will not secure you ever.  
Reply. The drift of the Apostle is, to deter them from Idolatry, and other sins, lest they be punished as their fathers were. If they object and say, though they were punished, yet we may hope for more grace, because he hath given us two sacraments, Baptism, and the Lords Supper, and thereby hath given us to have the Son on us, and in us, as pledges of his love and favour; the Apostle taketh away this pretence, by telling them, they can promise to themselves no more security herein, than they might promise unto themselves, because they had the same signs of God's favour spiritually, the same Sacraments by other signs dispensed, but the same Christ, and therefore you can be no more secure than they might be; and that these miraculous works were set apart by God's appointment to be sacramental signs to them of the same thing that water, bread, and wine are now to us an evident, because:  
First, the Apostles argument should not be of things equal, and so not of force to convince the conscience of the Corinthians.  
Secondly, there were other works of God, that held proportion with these (as their passing through Jordan, their eating Quails, etc.) but the like is not said of them by the Apostle, nor can be said of any man.  
Thirdly, these works of God cannot of themselves signify Christ, but were only as all such works of providence of that nature are, demonstrations of God's power, presence and goodness to the people, but cannot of themselves signify such a thing, but by some clear appointment, no more than bread and wine could signify now the body and blood of Christ, if they were not set apart for that purpose, by, and according to an institution.  
Fourthly, in going through the Sea, eating Manna, drinking of the rock they could not put on, eat or drink Christ as they were natural things, having no such virtue in them, either to signify, or convey him unto them of themselves; neither was Christ bodily applied unto them: as therefore it must be sacramentally, as now in these signs we have. If any shall object, and say: first, the Israelites understood no such thing: secondly, they did not all eat, drink, and put on Christ: I answer:  
First, that all did not understand it is like, nor now do all understand the mysteries of salvation now, but they ought to have understood them, as we ought now. Moses, Aaron, and all truly regenerate, did understand as it is now; now do the understanding, or not understanding of the things of God then, and now, altar the nature of them; but so they are of themselves, as God's appointment makes them, whatsoever men's understandings are.  
Secondly, they did not all eat, etc. I answer, they did all eat, and put on Christ sacramentally, and some of them sacramentally and really; and now all do not put on Christ, eat and drink him really, but only sacramentally; yet some did both, and the rest than did, and now do make themselves guilty of the death of Christ in unworthy receiving, and did and shall bear their judgement.  
But to come to the Confuter; having showed what the scope of the Apostle was, he next showeth what it was not, and that saith he, is this, the Apostle intends not to show that the Corinthians should administer the Sacraments to themselves and their Infants, though they do not believe in Christ, because than God did exercise such miracles to the Israelites, which did not believe, which saith he is the sequel of my argument.  
Rep. First, he maketh of my argument what he pleaseth; before he said this was the sequel, that we may baptise Infants now without God's command, as God by his providence baptised Infants then.  
Secondly, the Apostles purpose is not at all to prove who are to be baptised, men or Infants, believers or unbelievers; nor did I say a word that way, and therefore he shows himself to have but a little understanding in him, to say, that is the sequel of my argument, I brought it not to prove that the Corinthians might baptise themselves and their Infants, though they did not believe, but that the Corinth's, and all God's people may baptise their Infants, if they, and we whose Infants they are, be God's people; and the Antecedent, from whence he would make the sequel, is untrue, which is thus: because God did exercise such miracles to the Israelites, who did not believe: For,  
First, he saith, they were miracles, which is true, considered as bare acts of God, but they were not only miracles, they were sacramental ordinances also, as is evident by the Text, and what I said before.  
Secondly, he saith, they did not believe, whereas the Scripture saith, With many of them God was not well pleased; some therefore did believe, yea, the whole body were God's people, and therefore were not unbelievers, in a proper sense, though they did not so believe as they ought: and Psal. 106.12. They believed his Word, and sang his praises; yea, those, they presently are said, they forgot his works, and waited not for his counsel. But it seems he little regarded what he said, for he said any thing; let all now consider, that my consequence was this: That vifible believers, may now baptise their Infants with these signs of spiritual baptism, and following from this Antecedent, because believing Israelites Infants were baptised with those signs of the same spiritual baptism; yet he goeth about to prove, that that he said was the sequel of my Argument, from my proofs added; the first whereof is this: the other ordinances there mentioned, are the same spiritually with ours; Ergo, this of baptism was the same spiritually with ours, (this I said, because the Apostle doth not admit spiritually the same with ours, as he said of the other) my proof is of this, that that baptising and ours is the same spiritually, and not of this, that the Corinth's may baptise themselves and theirs, though neither do believe; and therefore this was not my sequel, that he saith, but it may be his answers will make it good. And,  
First, he saith, that by consequence belike the Corinth's must baptise themselves and their Infants, though neither of them do believe, because God did baptise them with the same spiritual baptism that ours is, though they did not believe, the which thus laid open, he hopes I will not affirm.  
Reply. This is the same with the former, and therefore is answered fully; that the Corinth's did believe, that the Israelites did believe; and doth this sense convince that to be my sequel, which he said by my proof? I hope all will see, that I might justly say, the believing Corinth's might baptise their Infants, because the Israelites baptised theirs, with the same spiritual baptism that ours is, and shall hold it still, for any thing he saith to the contrary; yet not trusting to this he gives another answer.  
Secondly, saith he, you err in calling there the other ordinances, whereas they are the other miracles, and concludes, that if I had well weighed the Scripture, I would not have made it a ground to justify Infant's baptism.  
Reply. And what is this to that he should prove; namely, my proof evinceth that to be my sequel, which he said was my proof was not, who was to be baptised, but that all the ordinances there mentioned were the same with our baptism, as well as the rest.  
Again, where he saith, they were the other miracles, and not the other ordinances, and that I err in calling them so.  
I reply, it is too much bodlnesse in him to prescribe how others shall speak, and he errs grossly, in saying as he doth; for if that shown that these miracles were ordinances also; Ergo, may be so called: for could these miraculous works signify such things, unless they had been ordained thereto? and whatsoever is ordained is an ordinance. In a word, I have upon his expression better viewed this place then ever I did, and doubt not, but every one that shall weigh how ill he confutes it, will see that there is a just ground in it to defend the baptism of Infants, which is the question.  
A fourth answer he gives to my Argument is this: If the Israelites were not baptised with these signs, nor with any other after they came into the land of Canaan, than this was not a perpetual sign of the practice of baptism, but they were not baptised with these signs, nor any other after they came in to the land of Canaan; therefore it was not a perpetual sign of the practice of baptism.  
Reply. First, it is the mind of the that they had another baptism continued unto them: And Hebrew Writers affirm, that three things concurred to make a Jew, or Proselyte male a stated member, circumcision, baptism, and sacrifice; and to females, baptism and sacrifice. And some conclude from hence, that the Jews therefore questioned John Baptist, calling to baptise, but not his baptism, being used to it before; but to pass that.  
2ly, What time will he prescribe to make an example sufficient? it must have a period, and why may not a month serve as well as a longer time, and those forty years in the wilderness as well as a thousand?  
3ly, How many things in the Scripture are recorded, done in a short time, which were examples of things done in a longer time? Eze. 4.5, 6. the acts of Abraham's justification by faith, Gen. 15.6. an example of perpetual justification, Rom. 4.24. Judas 7. the instances in the Scripture, 1 Cor. 10. & many others; so that this answer is of no force.  
The fifth and last answer is this, Baptism of different kinds depend upon different grounds, and are to be ministered upon different subjects to different ends: but the baptism of the cloud and Sea are of divers kinds, therefore they depend upon different grounds, and are to be administered upon different subjects for different ends.  
Reply. I shall say no more but this; baptisms of the same kind depend upon the same grounds, and are to be administered upon the same subjects to the same ends; but baptism of the Sea and cloud is the same spiritually with ours, therefore they depend upon the same grounds (divine institution) and to be administered upon the same subjects, (God's people, men and Infants) and to the same ends (to put on Christ Jesus). Another proof I added to my Argument was this, otherwise the Apostle should link things together that are not equal; nor would it be of force against the Corinthians, if they were not the same Sacraments spiritually: now the conclusion is certain, that the Corinthians should be punished with like punishment, if they committed the like sins. His answer hereunto denies the consequence, because although the Cloud, and Sea, Manna, and Rock, were Sacraments of the same Christ, that Baptism and the Lords Supper is, yet they were not the same Sacraments; and it sufficeth the Apostles purpose, that the cloud, etc. were as effectual tokens of Christ (as they were in the nature of them) as Baptism and the Lords Supper is, though they were different Sacraments of the same Christ, and not the same Sacrament. And except they were dipped in water, did eat and drink bread and wine, as we do, I cannot say they were the same Sacraments with ours.  
Reply. First, he should say sacramental signs, and not Sacraments; for neither the seal nor bread and wine are the Sacraments, but sacramental sigues, the things signified, concurring to make them sacraments; nor can any be guilty of the body of the Lord in eating the bread, if that alone were the Sacrament.  
Secondly, it is true, that the sacramental signs then and now were not the same, and in that regard the Sacraments are not the same, but to say absolutely they are not the same therefore, is not right: For a man, though dressed in never so many fashions differing one from another, yet he is the same man still, although his fashions differ; and in that respect he is not the same, yet the man is the same in all: So Christ is the same yesterday and to day, and for ever, though set forth by divers signs then and now, 1 Cor. 5.7. Christ our Passeover is offered for us, he is the Lamb slain from the beginning of the world, their Lamb and ours, their Passeover and ours, theirs and ours dispensed the same, but not by the same signs; and therefore to what subjects the same Christ was applied then by those signs, to such subjects may the same Christ be applied now by these signs; but I have spoken to these things before: now is my Argument refuted by any thing he hath said?  
My third Argument follows, which is this; there is one and the same consideration of the root and branches, of the first fruits and lump: but the first fruits and root believing parents are holy, and must be baptised, therefore Infants the lump and branches are holy, and must be baptised.  
To this he answereth, denying the Assumption, viz. believing Parents are the roots and first fruits, and the Scriptures that I bring will not prove it: Rom. 11.16. 1 Cor. 7.14. which he considering apart; and,  
First, Rom. 11.16. concludeth, that parents are not the root, because they are branches of the root, they bear not the root, but the them; therefore they cannot be this root, nor their children naturally descending from them branches, and concludeth this first place to be abused in so applying it.  
Reply. Grant that believing parents are branches, and not the root; yet Infants as well as men of years are branches, and Abraham, and the Fathers are the root, and that of the Gentiles, as well as the Jews, 1 Cor. 10.1. Now the Argument holdeth as well here in this respect as in the other: For, if Abraham the root be holy, so are the branches; as is the state of the one, so is the state of the other; and this the Apostle concludes of all the body of Jews, (yea, counting them are cut off natural branches still) and let believing Gentiles be counted branches, yet Infants than were some of the branches, when they were in the Olive, or root, and so were branches cut off when their parents were cut off; as long as the parents stood branches, so long the Infants were branches; nor were any parents' branches but from that state they had when Infants; Gentiles Infants therefore are branches with their believing parents, and stand in the same state with them.  
Secondly, we know that the Scriptures do not so appropriate the words, root, and first fruits, as not to apply them to others, besides the particulars: Jerem. 11.16. God called the Church there an Olive, and the people branches; so she is called a Vine, Isa. 5, etc. So others are called first fruits: as, 1 Cor. 16.15. Rev. 14.4, etc. And if parents had no relation to children, nor Infants to parents in this respect, how could Infants, being branches with their parents to Abraham the root, be cut off with their parents, seeing they could not be cut off for their own unbelief? and their relation to Abraham was entire, in respect of any thing on their part to the contrary. This place therefore is not abused in the application of it, but fully concludeth what I brought it for.  
Next he considereth, 1 Cor. 7.14. which he saith, neither suppresseth roots nor first fruits; nor hath it any such meaning, as that the holiness of the parent should cause a holiness in their Infant.  
In a word, I reply, root and first fruits are not expressed, but necessarily employed; and so much is expressed as amounts to that: For, if the children be holy upon their parents believing, and if the parents did not believe, the children should not be holy, it is as much as if he had said, the root is holy, and the branches are holy, not in the parents believing, any cause of their children's holiness, but God's free grace. But not to strive about words, in the view of the place itself, before he comes to express his Reasons, negative and affirmative, he conceives it necessary to observe what I say, which he thus sets down:  
I suppose it is mistaken, when expounded of the same holiness, spoken of before, of an Infidel person, sanctified to a believing yoke-fellow. And the Apostle speaking of a twofold holiness, the one not in the thing itself, but to another use; the other of the thing itself, it cannot but be sinful to confound them: He answereth, he● will not contend, nor gainsay any thing of this.  
Reply. Herein he makes himself an Adversary to some of his judgement in this case of Baptism, who maintain that state of holiness to be meant in the children, that was in the parent, that is holy to the believers use. Further, he saith, I say the Apostle saith two things; that to the pure all things are pure; Ergo, a believing person may dwell with an Infidel yoke-fellow.  
Secondly, that by virtue of a believers state in grace, all the fruit is holy, and partakers of the same state in grace, unless they do by some act of theirs deprive themselves of it, as Esau and Ishmael, etc.  
In answer to this he grants the former, but denies the latter wholly, and that it is not the purpose of Paul so to speak, and therefore he gives divers reasons.  
First, ¶ 1 the Apostle intends such a holiness in the Infants, as is inseparable from their very being; or else it would not have been a sufficient proof of the sanctification of the unbelieving unto the believer.  
Reply. I deny that the Apostle intends to conclude such a holiness as is inseparable to their very being; for than it would be common to all Infants, whereas this is appropriate to an Infant of at least one believer. In a word, there is a twofold holiness of a person: one is external, and is the separation of him from common state to be the Lords, and bound up in covenant with him, which is federal holiness. The other is internal, and is the special separation of a man from the state of sin, by inherent sanctificaon from justification in Christ, which is inseparable from them that have it: The other is separable, as in the case of Jews, who by this were called a holy people, when yet they were not really sanctified by inherent grace, and the holy city called an Harlot; and of this in his place, which fully will prove what the Apostle intends, as we shall see afterward; His second Reason follows, which is this:  
¶ 2 If by a believers state in grace be meant the covenant that Abraham and all believers do possess by faith, than he saith, first Ishmael, Esau, etc. were never of it, Rom. 9.8. and therefore could not by any act of theirs deprive themselves of it.  
Reply. First, by the state of grace is meant that covenant that Abraham and all believers do possess by faith.  
Secondly, I say Ishmael, Esau, etc. were of that covenant dispensed on God's part unto them, and to be received on their part by faith at present or afterward. And if Ishmael and Esau were not so in that covenant, as well as Isaac and Jacob, then how could they be circumcised with the seal of the righteousness of faith? they had the same seal set unto them that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob had, and if it were not the same covenant, than Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were in one covenant, and sealed to that; and Ishmael and Esau, and the like, were in another covenant, and sealed to that, with the same seal that the others were sealed to the other.  
Further, whether or no shall Ishmael, Esau, etc. be judged according to that covenant of Abraham, and punished for refusing it? if so, (as it is certain) than they were under that covenant, though they enjoyed not the benefit of it, which is the meaning of Rom. 9.8. and deprived themselves of it by hardening their hearts, and had a spirit of slumber inflicted upon them, as a just punishment of that their refusing, Rom. 11.7.  
Secondly, he saith, that if Ishmael and Esau were deprived by some act of theirs, than we must fall upon Arminius tenet of falling from grace, which all understanding Christians do utterly abhor.  
Reply. First, it is well known, that many holding with the Consuter, in this point of paedobaptism, do maintain that a man truly elected, and in state of salvation, may, and do fall away and perish; if he dissents in this, I will not blame him.  
2ly, What understanding Christian did ever deny that some men fall from grace? and are there not many Scriptures that do testify as much? Christians do deny, that any elect of God, and made partakers of saving calling, can fall away from that estate, they thereby are made partakers of. But there is another state of grace, whereof many non-elected are partakers of, by the covenant on Gods part dispensed, and of many effects of God's operation in their hearts, some more, some less, and from this all of them may, many of them do fall away, the Scriptures affirming, no understanding Christian denying it, Heb. 6.4, etc.  
3ly, He answereth, than the being under the everlasting covenant of grace and peace with God by Christ should be conveyed by natural descent, and not by the Gospel, which is absurd, and contrary to many Scriptures; Rom. 1.16, 17. and 10.17. Gal. 3.2. 2 Joh. 3. 5, etc. These Scritpures, saith he, shows: first, that the Gospel is the power of God, to save every one that believeth: Secondly, that faith cometh by hearing the Word preached, by which conversion is wrought, whereby we become sons of God by adoption and grace. But the Position saith, that some are partakers thereof, by virtue of their parents by generation, directly contrary, yea, to the whole Gospel of Christ, Rom. 4.14. where, if they of the Law (naturally descended and circumcised only) be heirs, the promise (the whole Gospel and covenant of grace) is made of none effect.  
Reply. First, they were all under the everlasting covenant of God's grace, equally on God's part dispensed, offering unto them thereby all the Gospel to peace and life.  
Secondly, this offer was not made unto them for any natural respect, but freely of God's grace. The natural generation (though many Gentiles also) were taken into covenant, and had the grace thereof offered unto them, and to be bestowed upon them, but not out of any respect to them, (natural, civil, or religious, Deut. 17.7, 8. & 9.5.) but merely out of his good will and faithfulness.  
Thirdly, the Gospel was preached unto all the posterity of Abraham, all along to Christ, and his time, by himself and Apostles, preaching no other thing than Moses and the Prophets had preached before them, to all that then believed, it was the power of God to save them, Act. 15.11. all aught to have believed it, and if they had, it would have been the power of God to their salvation also; and they that did not believe, it was not the power of God to their salvation, because they believed not, Heb. 4.12. and it was their sin, and will be to their punishment. Now it is the power of God, not to salvation of all (though Church-members) to whom it is preached, but many came short through unbelief. All the Scriptures therefore by him alleged, are hereby answered; nor is there any footing for his distinction, in regard of Gods part dispensing, but from them who received not what God offered, but refused it. He proceedeth thus: If by grace I mean that favour of God, whereby he made the Jews partakers of circumcision and ordinances, as the fleshly seed of Abraham, leading them to Christ above other nations, than he grants that Ishmael, and such were partakers of that grace.  
Reply. First, this is not all they were partakers of, but of the former also, and of this from the former; nor were they partakers of this, or any thing else, as they were Abraham's seed barely, but from his grace to their fathers, and therein taking them above others to he his peculiar people. Secondly, they were partakers of these ordinances as leading to Christ, therefore not of ordinances barely, but Christ offered unto them by these ordinances, and of these ordinances for Christ's sake given unto them. I would ask whether they were to believe in Christ or no, and so to be saved? If so (as certain it is) how then can he make good this distinction, or deny that they were under the everlasting covenant of God's grace, and by these ordinances to be partakers of? But granting this unto them, he saith, But this was taken away when Christ came; all which I have spoken to before, more than once.  
Secondly, he saith, that the Apostles purpose is not to conclude those children spoken of, 1 Cor. 7. within the limits of such a distinction, because the Lord there in that state did count children borne of one believer, unclean and polluted, and to be put away with their mothers, being Infidels, Ezra 9.2. and 11.3. Therefore that state, even while it lasted, did not allow children to be of that state, when one of the parents were foreigner to the Church, much less hath it any force now to conclude it should be so, when that the state itself is disannulled.  
Reply. First, it is the Apostles meaning to conclude such Infants under the covenant with their believing parents, whereby they were federally holy; nor can there be any other holiness here intended, as we shall see afterward. And the reason which he giveth to disprove it, is not sufficient, because it is of an instance of a divers nature from this of the Apostle, 1 Cor. 7. though he would confound them, whether willingly or no, I leave others to judge. His Reason is this: That state did not allow of children born of one believing parent, but accounted them unclean, and required them to be put away with their mother.  
Reply. That of Ezra speaketh of a believing Jew, married to an Infidel Heathen; this of the Apostle speaketh not of a believing Christian, marrying an Infidel, but of one who being married, when they were both Infidels, the one being converted after marriage, the other remaining unconverted. That in Ezra was an unlawful marriage first or last, this in Corinth was a lawful marriage: Secondly, that in Ezra therefore being unlawful, was not to be continued, but the wife and children to be put away; but this in Corinth is not so; the Infidel here may be continued, if contented to dwell with the believer, nor are the children unclean; but both the instances being of two cases so different, thence is no ground for this reason, and so that he grounded on that reason falls with it.  
A third Reason that he gives against that I said, ¶ 3 that the Apostle speaketh of a holiness, which the Infants of a believer hath with their believing Parent, standing under the same state of grace, is this:  
First, that a Proselyte in the time of the Law, by circumcision was made a member of the Jewish state, as one born in the land.  
Secondly, he was to circumcise all his males, and thereby they were admitted, and with the males, wife, females, children; (there being no other Sacrament of entrance for them) and unless he did circumcise himself and all his males, though neither he nor they believed, he could not be a member of that state.  
Thirdly, no precedent can be, that ever one parent coming to be of the Jewish state, and leave their married yoke-mates out, did possess their seed of the same state; and therefore now in this state, whereof men are partakers by faith only (and thereupon a believer admitted, and the unbelieving yoke-mate left out) the Infants cannot be admitted into this state, no more than the wife, which in that state was brought in, by the care of the husband being a proselyte, and in this left out till she believed.  
Reply. First, a proselyte was not made a member of the Jewish Church by circumcision, but by accepting the God of Israel to be his God, and submitting himself to their laws, receiving circumcision as a seal thereof, that being not the first, but a second grace, not the covenant itself, but the sign of the covenant.  
Secondly, I deny that all the males were to be circumcised, or else their parents might not be admitted; but only Infants were admitted and circumcised with the parent, and those of years were not admitted and circumcised, but upon their own voluntary acceptance of, and submitting to the covenant, and so the believing proselytes yoke-fellow: For, if they had no faith, though they had circumcision, yet how could they partake in the Passeover, or sacrifices to the remission of sin? And therefore, though there were no Sacrament for females entrance, yet there must be faith, either potentially by being under the covenant with their believing parent, or actually by their own profession. And (as I have answered before to the like allegation) they should receive the seal of the covenant (which in order of nature follows it) and were not in it, and be admitted to circumcision, the seal of the righteousness of faith, which they had not.  
Thirdly, touching a precedent or rule of a believing proselyte, admitted with his Infants, leaving out the yoke-fellow, I need say no more than this: Whatsoever is not of faith, is, and ever was, sin, Rom. 14. ult. and, without faith it is impossible (and ever was) to please God, Heb. 11.6. But this answer saith, that a proselyte might be admitted and circumcised with all his males and females, by virtue of his admission, though neither he nor they believed, quite contrary to these Scriptures; and so some should become one with Abraham's people, neither by flesh nor faith, which himself hath said are the only two ways, whereby any may be instated in such a condition. As therefore in that state proselytes were admitted by faith into the fellowship thereof, and therein Infants with them, by virtue of God's covenant, accepted for themselves and their seed, but those of years, and their yoke-fellows excluded, unless they did believe: So in this state now, abeliever and his Infants are admitted into fellowship of it; but such children as are of years and unbelieving yoke-fellow excluded, till they believe.  
A 4th reason of this is this: ¶ 4 The Apostle speaks indefinitely of children as children, and in that relation to parents, whose children they are, whereof some of them might be twenty or thirty years old, but children of twenty or thirty years old, apparently wicked, are not holy in such a sense, as by virtue of their parent's state in grace, to be partakers of the same state with them, and for that cause to be baptised. Therefore holiness here cannot be so understood by the Apostle.  
Reply. First, the Apostle speaking indefinitely; I grant children of any or no years may be understood.  
Secondly, children of twenty or thirty years, or Infants have a state of holiness upon them by virtue (not of natural relation, but) of federal, as children of a believer; for that must be noted, that one of them must be a believer, that being the case, that the Apostle resolveth.  
Thirdly, children of twenty years more apparently wicked, were born either before the parent believed, or after; if after, than they are holy seep, a seed of a believer, and so remain, notwithstanding their wickedness, till they be cut off from that relation by God, in his usual way, and then that holiness is taken away from them, their natural relation still continuing, they are children still of those parents, whose they were; if they were born before, I say then they are unclean, notwithstanding their parents believing, and are not holy at all, nor can be partakers of it, but by their own faith in God's covenant: but for Infants, as I said before, they are holy, and by virtue thereof may be baptised as a holy seed, and so remain, till by some act of theirs they be cut off, and deprive themselves of it, as Ishmael and Esau. This exception he excepted against, saying, the Apostie speaketh positively, of a conclusion drawn from the state of the relation, which can admit of no exception: For, if it could, then will it be of no absolute validity to enforce the conclusion. Again, if the children do deprive themselves by some act of theirs, of their state in grace, than their believing parents can have no sanctified use of the believing yoke-mate; but that may be, whether the children be in the state of grace or no.  
Reply. First, the Apostle speaks positively of a conclusion, drawn from the state of the relation, that is not natural, as children, but foederall, as holy children of a believing parent.  
Secondly, it may, and doth admit of an exception, and yet is of absolute validity, to enforce the conclusion, because the exception lies in a divers respect of the thing; if it lay against the thing itself, viz. as a believers child, than indeed it would not force; but it lies here, that when it comes to years, and stands by its own faith, in regard of personal relation acted to the covenant, also by personal sin, deprive itself of the personal state it had by personal relation to the covenant; yet, though the children cease to be, and deprive themselves of that federal holiness, which they had in regard of their personal, the relation they had of children of believers, and thereby holy, remains still; they were holy as born of them, as is evident in the Jewish Infants, cut off with their parents, who were a holy seed, before they were cut off. But more of this afterward.  
The fifth answer he makes, ¶ 5 stands thus, The holiness here spoken of is such as must prove the unbelieving parent sanctified to the believing yoak-mate. But the holiness of Infants in such a state of grace inward or outward, will not prove an unbelieving parent to be sanctified to the believing yoak-mate, therefore it cannot be meant of such a holiness; and he gives this Reason of this Assumption, Because it answers not the Corinthians scruple, nor proves the thing in question by them.  
Reply. To clear this discourse, two things are to be attended: First, what was the Corinthians scruple, and the state of the question amongst them: Secondly, by what argument the Apostle, answers this scruple and question.  
To the first, he saith: The scruple that troubled the Church, was, whether their marriage were lawful or no, and showeth that such a state of holiness of Infants in grace, whether inward or outward, will not prove whether the parents were lawfully married or no, because the children's state in grace cannot prove the unbelieving parent sanctified to the believing yoke-fellow.  
Reply. First, Grant the holiness here spoken of, must be such as must prove the unbelieving parent to be sanctified to the believing yoke-fellow, yet to argue that such a holiness of children in a state of grace will not prove that, is but a mistake: For, if the children be holy, then certainly the believing parents from whom they proceed, must needs be holy: For no man can bring that which is clean out of that which is unclean; a Thorn brings not forth Figs, nor a Figtree bramble-buries; a Turk bears not a Christian, nor a Christian a Turk; Ergo, if children be holy, the unbelieving parent is sanctified to the believing yoke-mate; so that they may enjoy society one with another, otherwise children born of them could not be holy. In a word, the scruple of the Corinthians was not whether the marriage was lawful or no, but whether a believer might continue to cohabite and enjoy marriage society with an Infidel yoke-fellow, and not be polluted. This was the case that troubled the Corinthians, and not whether their marriage were lawful or no; and there is a great difference between a lawful marriage and a holy pure marriage; the marriage may be lawful, but not pure; To the impure all things are impure, but not unlawful. And their marriage being made when they were both unbelievers, how can they question it now? but they must question whether there was any marriage in the world ever lawful, unless they were both believers.  
Secondly, the Arguments the Apostle gives, will none of them prove that the question was of the lawfulness of the marriage.  
For first he saith, the unbelieving is sanctified to the believing, doth this prove the marriage lawful? No, certainly, marriage of unbelievers is lawful, yea altogether as lawful as marriage of believers, but their marriage is not so pure as of believers. For a lawful marriage doth not sanctify unbelievers one unto the other, nor doth it sanctify believers one to another: for than it would sanctify unbelievers also, but it doth not, but their marriage remaineth impure, though never so lawful, only believing makes all things pure, and so marriage unto them that believe, but not more lawful.  
A second Argument of the Apostle is from hope of gaining the unbelieving party. Now what argument is in this to prove that their marriage was lawful, and that was their scruple?  
Thirdly, the Apostle would have every one to abide in his calling and state wherein God called him to faith, and how will this prove the marriage lawful? or how if the marriage had been unlawful? Not a word of all these arguments will prove that he said to be the question, nor give any satisfaction unto it, if it should be the question. But this was the question, Whether they might continue in their lawful married estate, and not be polluted from the Infidel party. This is clear in the Text, the arguments prove it to be the question, and fully satisfieth the scruple.  
¶ 6 His sixth answer therefore concluding the holiness here spoken of, is meant of legitimacy and uncleanness of bastardy, is evacuated. For what force is in this holiness, to prove the thing it is brought for by the Apostle for to invert his Argument? This he granteth: Such a holiness must be here meant, as must prove an unbelieving parent to be sanctified to the believing yokefellow. But this holiness of legitimacy cannot prove the unbelieving parent to be sanctified to the believing yokefellow: therefore legitimacy cannot be meant. For two unbelievers may be in a lawful, marriage estate, and have children legitimate and not bastards, yet for all this they are not sanctified each to other, all things being impure to the impure. Whereas he saith, it must be such a holiness as is derived from all parents lawfully married, which legitimacy is, but the other holiness stood for, is not.  
Reply. I deny it, but it must be such a holiness as is derived only from parents, whereof one at least is a believer: now legitimacy is not such a holiness as is derived only from parents whereof one at least is a believer. But the other is such a holiness. But saith he, it must be meant of such a holiness as is derived from all parents lawfully married. Because the Argument standeth in the children which were born before one of the parents came to the faith, which therefore could receive from them unbelieving, no other holiness but legitimacy in the course of generation.  
Reply. This holiness here comes not by generation, though concurring with it, but flows from the parent's state of being in grace.  
Secondly, the Argument standeth not in regard of the children born before one was a believer, but of those after, as is clear from the Text: For a believing person sanctifieth the unbelieving party, else the children (not born before either believed) but born of a believer and an Infidel were unclean, but now they are holy, born of a believing and Infidel parent; and therefore legitimacy cannot be meant here by holiness, because it is not necessary to make a child legitimate, that one of the parents be a believer. It must be such a holiness of children, as is proper to children of believers, at least one of them; and this may also answer what he further addeth, that taking holiness for legitimacy, there can be no objection made why legitimacy should not prove the unbelieving yoke-fellow to be sanctified to the believing parent. To which I add this further, that legitimacy will not prove that, because legitimacy may be, and is in the children of both parents, unbelieving, and lawfully married; and yet it will not prove that they are sanctified one to another, there being as much legitimacy in Infidels children as in Believers, unless he will conclude, that such marriages of Infidels are lawful, and all their children bastards; legitimacy cannot be understood therefore here by holiness, but federal holiness: (as shall be further cleared afterwards) and thus his refutation of my third argument is cleared to be of no validity, I hope fully.  
My fourth Argument he thus sets down: If baptism succeed circumcision, then as Infants were circumcised, so Infants must be baptised: But baptism succeeds circumcision; Ergo, as Infants were circumcised, so Infants must be baptised. To this he gives four answers: Denying the consequence, that is, that though baptism succeed circumcision in a sense, that therefore the same subjects are to be baptised now, that were to be circumcised then.  
In his first answer, he giveth divers instances, to show the weakness of the consequence in this, by the inconsequences in them, as the Gospel succeeds the Law. The sons of Aaron were Ministers of the Law; Ergo, they are to be Ministers of the Gospel: Baptism succeeds circumcision; grown males, though they had no faith, were circumcised; Ergo, males now having no faith must be baptised; females were not circumcised; Ergo, females must not be baptised. The Lord's Supper succeeds the Passeover, their little children eat it with the rest of the family in one house; Ergo, Infants may now eat the Lords Supper, now with the rest of the family in one house. And he asks if this be good reason? and concludes, that no objection can lie against these, but will lie against mine also.  
Reply. First, he saith baptism succeeds circumcision in a sense, but setteth not down what sense it is that he meaneth, which had been necessary. For things succeed one another many ways, and there is not the same consideration of all things that succeed one another. The sense that I intended it in is this, That baptism succeeds circumcision by God's institution, as a sign of God's covenant, and a seal of the righteousness of faith, held forth in the covenant; and if baptism succeeds circumcision in this sense, (as it doth) then necessarily followeth; that look who were subjects of the covenant then, and received the seal of it, under those fignes administered, the same subjects are now in the covenant, and are to receive the seal of it under these signs administered: unless therefore it can be proved, that God by some manifest word, hath excluded Infants now; the consequence cannot be denied, and the argument fully concluded.  
Secondly, the instance that he brings to show the inconsequence of this, by the inconsequence of them, are not paralleled and subject to exceptions that this will not admit of: As first the Gospel succeeds the Law, therefore Aaron's sons are to be Ministers of the Gospel as they were then of the Law.  
Reply. This comparisons suits not, the Law and the Gospel succeed one another not as circumcision and baptism; nor will it follow, because baptism succeeded circumcision, therefore Infants are to be baptised as they were circumcised, so the Gospel succeeds the Law; Ergo, Aaron's sons are to succeed themselves under the Gospel: For I do not say cirumcision succeeds circumcision; but thus it will follow: As then there were sacrifices and services, and none but Aaron's sons might not administer; so now, no man must administer these services appointed, but such as are called, as Aaron was. His second, that circumcision was administered to grown males that had no faith, is false, as I have shown before, more than once, nor were females excluded then from circumcision, no more than they were excluded from the covenant, but should have been circumcised, if they had been capable, as the males; that females had the inward circumcision, cannot be denied; and whether they had not something analogical to the outward, may be questioned, although it be not expressed: Last of all, it is true, that the Lords Supper succeeds the Passeover, but that all Infants did eat the Passeover with the rest, will be denied, many being not naturally capable, by reason of age, and none but such as were able to understand the nature of the ordinance might partake of it, (as now none but such inay partake in the Lord's Supper) and therefore they were required to instruct their children in the nature and use of the ordinance; and although every family were to eat a Lamb together in a house, yet after they were settled in the Land, they were to eat it at Jerusalem, and it was to be killed at the Tabernacle first, Deut. 16.6, 7. Nor was every family bound to eat it alone; if they were too many, or too few, they were to have so many, and no more, nor might any uncircumcised, or unclean, or apostate eat thereof, (and females might, although not circumcised) for there are many objections to be made against these instances, that cannot lie against the consequence of my Proposition.  
A second answer he gives is this: The body of the Jews were subjects of circumcision, according to the Law, even when Christ died, yet the same were not subjects of baptism, according to the Gospel, till they gladly received the Word, Acts 2.4.  
Reply. First, they were not circumcised before, but as they gladly received the Word, and thereupon circumcised, and their Infants with them, by virtue of God's promise.  
Secondly, it is true, no Jews of years were baptised till they received the Word, but that was not because any might be circumcised before without receiving the Word, but because of the change of the manner of adminstration of one and the same word in a different manner; as the parents receiving the Word under that dispensation they were circumcised, and their Infants with them; so now parents receiving the Word, are to be baptised, and their Infants with them.  
His third answer is this; as baptism succeeds circumcision, so the command and subject of baptism succeeds the subject and command of circumcision: the command of circumcision was of males only, and that on the eighth day; the Proseylte must circumcise all his males, although they have no faith, the females must not be circumcised, although they have never so much faith; but the commandment of baptism is only of Disciples, men and women, a description of whom ye may see, Luke 14.26.27.33. therefore the consequence followeth not.  
Reply. First, it is the command of God that sanctifieth circumcision and baptism in their several times to be administered.  
Secondly, God's command must sanctify the subjects to whom they are to be administered; and therefore to circumcise any then, or baptise any now, but such as God commands, is a sinful error.  
Thirdly, it is not the command of circumcising why we baptise any, but a command of baptising them, why they are baptised; and therefore the commandment of baptising being not to baptise at any set time, we do not baptise any on the eighth day as they circumcised; we likewise baptise females, the command including them, though they were not circumcised, being not capable of it as I said.  
Fourthly, Then the case is this, Whether Gods command be to baptise Infants now, as it was to circcumise Infants then; this he denies, upon this ground, circumcision was not administered unto them as Disciples, but Disciples only are now to be baptised, and a Disciple is he that denies himself, father, etc. takes up his cross daily and follows Christ, Luke 14.26. But then they that did none of these, yea, Proselytes and their males were circumcised, though they did not believe.  
Reply. First, that Proselytes and their males were cirumcised, though neither he nor they believed, hath been often said, but never proved, nor ever can be, and I have showed the contrary.  
Secondly, That none are to be baptised now, but Disciples, I grant it; but I say also none but Disciples were then circumeised, as is evident from the description of a Disciple, Luke 14. For whatsoever is required of any to be a Disciple, agrees to them then, as may be seen, Psal. 44.22. with Rom. 8.36. Psal. 45.10. Heb. 11.8. with this, Luke 14. Gen. 4.8. with John 1.3.18. Gen. 21.9. with Gal. 4.29. where the Apostle saith, as it was then, so it is now, and as it is now, so was it then; and therefore there is no difference in that respect, although the word was not then used, yet the matter being common, we may make the word common also; and if all were not true Disciples then, but many degenerated, so it is now also.  
Thirdly, Disciples are now, and were then of two sorts: First, such as begun (when God, as I may so say, first set up his School in in any place) as Abraham and his grown males, Heb. 11, etc. taking in their Infants with them; for upon this condition he admitted them, that he would have their Infants also; and so in time of the Gospel to the Jews and Gentiles at first setting it up: Secondly, Disciples are those, that being entered with their parents into the school and profession, continue successively so till God turn them off; and no otherwise were the Jews from Isaac till Christ's time Disciples, and so also it is now; to say therefore there is no command to baptise Infants now, because Disciples are to baptised, is not upon any just consequence. Besides, let any show me a command of baptising females, there being no command to circumcise them, (examples there are of baptising them, but I suppose that without a command will not suffice) If any shall say, it is commanded, Mat. 28. where under the term of nations they are included.  
I reply, Are not children a part of all nations, as they were a part of the Jewish nation? But ye will say, they must be made Disciples first?  
Reply. First, Disciples, as I said, are made two ways, actually by profession, or federally by imitation, as Infants were then, so Infants may be now.  
Secondly, God taketh care of Infants now, and requir●● they should be instructed in the discipline and admonition of the Lord; now God never took the care of any that were not his, and in that he commanded them to be nursed up in his discipline, it plainly argueth, they are his Disciples.  
His fourth and last answer is the same with the former, from the difference of the subjects that were circumcised, now to be baptised, there being the same reason of changing the subject, that there is of changing the Sacrament, viz. Christ's coming; and if it were absurd to circumcise children now, because they were circumcised then, than it is absurd to baptise Infants now, because they were circumcised them; because Christ's coming doth put an end to the subject also, and hath put another subject to be baptised; namely, believers and only believers.  
Reply. First, there is not the same reason of changing the subject, that there is of the change of the Sacrament, God changed the Sacraments he gave to Adam in Paradise, but he changed not the subject, but continued the same offer of happiness to Adam, the same subject; but he continued not the same Sacrament.  
Secondly, the Sacrament is not changed into another of another nature: For the grace signified in both is the same, the manner of signifying is the same in both sacramentally, but the signs only are changed.  
Thirdly, the subjects are not changed, by reason of Christ's coming, as being types of him, (which I have disproved before, though here again employed) but because of their unbelief, the kingdom being taken from them, because they refused to submit, Mat. 21.22. and now the subjects shall be cut off, if they cease to be loyal, and they should not, if they had been loyal.  
Fourthly, the change of God's administration of his grace hath been divers; but the subjects to whom the grace was offered, were never changed, from Adam's time to Abraham's, where were the same subjects, men, women, and Infants, none will say Infants were excluded, if they died before they came to years of discretion: From Abraham's time to Moses, the administration of grace was changed, not the subjects; Infants also; from Moses time it was more changed, till Christ's time, the subjects were not changed, Infants not shut out, no, not Infants of Proselytes; and why should Infants be shut out since, seeing the offer of grace is the same, though the administration of it differs? but especially with more enlargement. Upon all that hath been said, it may appear, that the consequence of mine Argument is not weakened, and so the point proved by it certain, that as Infants were then circumcised, so Infants are now to be baptised, baptism succeeding circumcision.   

The second Part.  
AND thus for reply to his full answer to the discourse touching Infants baptism, it remains that I proceed with him in the rest, about the form a Church; wherein first he saith, I speak of agreement in this, that matter and form do constitute a Church. Also, that the matter is a company of visible Saints, professing faith in the righteousness of Christ, and living accordingly. To which he answereth, First, this definition agreeth not to Infants, which I would make to be subjects of baptism, who are born in sin, and are children of wrath, Eph. 2.3. Psa. 51.5. Secondly, nor doth it agree with the Jewish Church, which I would make to be a pattern for ours, in bringing grounds from them for baptising infants, who never were required to make such profession at the time of their admission, as all Churches and members added do since Christ's time, Acts 2.41. & 8.12, etc. Thus he.  
Before I come to reply, let me give notice of this, That I cannot own these words thus expressed, That he and I with whom I had this discourse, agreed of this; that matter and form do constitute a Church I am confident; and before we accorded had many passages to and fro, but proceeded not till we consented there, nor can I say that I writ it down. And touching the definition of the matter of a Church, as is there expressed, I am confident so fare as I can remember, it was none of mine, nor do I now own them; and therefore let all observe how vain and rash he is, so ungroundedly to publish these things under my name unto all the world. Yet because some things in the discourse, I well remember to be mine, I shall clear my way in passing this in a word or two, and setting down such a definition of a Church as I have by me, and go along with him in the rest, and to what he saith I make this reply. First, I would say that the matter of a Church is a company of visible Saints: And this I conclude to be clear in every place where a Church is styled Saints, Believers, and the like. Secondly, this definition agrees to children as well as grown men, being Saints also, and holy seed of holy parents: though it is true they be born in sin, and children of wrath by nature; so were infants in the old Testament as well as now, as the place Psal. 51. by him alleged, evinceth: and the same is true of the holiest men of years, and Paul confesseth himself with others to be the children of wrath by nature, yea then when he said it, there is no hindrance then why that description may not agree to infants. Thirdly, it agreeth right well to the Jewish Church, who were not a company of profane persons, but a holy people unto God, a company of Saints, and no otherwise a Church, but as such, or believers; and we are upon these terms admitted & continued members of that Church, so long as it continued a church, as hath been showed afore. So that the description of the matter of a church, doth well agree to all churches and members of churches always, nor are Churches to consist of, or admit others unto them. Now a Church, I conceive to be an institution of it, whereby a company of men and women called by the word of God's grace, and some work of God's Spirit upon them, do join themselves unto the Lord and one to another, by entering into covenant with the Lord, to have him to be the God of them & theirs, and they and theirs to be the Lords and his Christ's: as also one with another, to meet together to worship God for his glory & their mutual edification to life, according to Gods revealed will. Now as I tie no man to my expressions, so I shall be willing to learn of any that shall help me to a better understanding in this point: yet in this description all the causes concur. The efficient (an institution of Christ) with the instrumental, the Word in some effects upon their hearts; the material, a company of men and women so called, and from thence Saints and believers: the formal, (joining themselves to the Lord, and one with another) by entering into covenant, whereof there are two branches, one called, Zach. 11. The staff of beauty, taking the Lord to be the God of them and theirs, and giving up themselves and theirs to be the Lords: the other called, The staff of bonds, or brotherhood, and both the covenant, the final to meet together to glorify God the supreme, and edify one another to life, with the means worshipping God according to his own appointment revealed in his word: only I would be understood of a Church in the constituting of it, which is continued in the same state by succession, till the Lord the efficient dischurch them.  
But to proceed, this confuter next saith, That I make this quaere, Whether baptism be not the form of a church; and answering, No, giving reasons of my denial, I affirm a covenant acted is the form of it. To all which he answereth first in general; And here he distinguisheth between the form and the thing form, and saith, That a Church being an Assembly, the form or fashion thereof is the relation that every member possesseth from Christ their head, and each with other, whereby every law and service is communicable and executed; concluding, that neither a covenant or baptism is the form of a Church: but baptism of a believer is an instrumental means by which a Church is made partaker of that form which it hath, as by which it becomes a Church. Further, that the instrumental means of the being of a Church, both of matter and form, is by consent of love issuing forth from the covenant of grace made in and from our Lord, through one Spirit, one Faith, one Baptism, Ephes. 4.4, 5. And if any of these be wanting, and be not supplied, the Church can have no visible existence and being. From whence it followeth, though baptism be not the form of a Church, yet being an essential means, and the last too of the visible Church, where true baptism is wanting, there can be no true visible Church.  
Reply. First, to let pass his distinction, only this I say, that he confoundeth form and figure as one thing, which are divers. For water in a round glass or square, hath this or that figure, or fashion; but it is not the form whereby water is water, and not another thing; and therefore form differs from figure and fashion.  
Secondly, whereas he denieth a covenant or baptism either to be a Church's form, he contradicteth what he said before in his answer to my first argument to prove the covenant before Christ and after to be the same. It is true (said he) that the coventnt of God maketh the Church both in the time of the Law and Gospel too: and a Church is nothing but a people in covenant with God. That saying of his here and there cannot be both true.  
Thirdly, he saith, that the form of the Church is that relation that each member possesseth from Christ the head, and each with other, which is by consent of love.  
Reply. First, the relation that each member possesseth from Christ the head, and each the other, is either internal (as Spirit, Faith, Love,) or external, the manifestation of these: as they are internal, they cannot be the form of an external visible church: as they are manifested outwardly, they cannot make the church's form, because they may manifest these graces; and yet be no church, nor members of a visible and this particular church. And indeed they are neither matter nor form (though he makes them both;) but the manifestation of these maketh them to be fit matter for a church, which yet cannot be a church without the form added to the matter, and that is a covenant, (or as he calleth it, a consent, which indeed is a covenant) by which alone every Law and Service is communicable and excecuted.  
Last of all he saith, that consent of love from one Spirit, Faith, and Baptism, are essentially necessary means of the being of a church for matter and form, Ephes. 4.4, 5. And if any of these be wanting, then there can be no visible church.  
Reply. First, in making all these to concur to the matter and form of the church as means thereof, he necessarily yields the form and matter to be something else differing from them all.  
Secondly, he confounds baptism with faith and love, which are internal graces, unless he means the external profession of them flowing from the covenant of grace; which if he do, than I conceive he yields as much as I require, that in a covenant or mutual engagement of all parties, and one main part by profession of faith and love through one spirit, without which a covenant cannot be in the state we speak of it.  
Thirdly, that of Ephes. 4. intends not to describe the form of a church, but persuades to unity by a sevenfold unity, that they are already church-members, were all partakers of. Lastly, if baptism may be wanting for a time, and yet a believer essentially a church-member, as Abraham and his many males and females were before circumcised for the space of at least 14. years between the covenant and circumcision, and therefore doth not concur to the constitution of a church's matter and form, but for the confirmation of a church constituted in matter and form before. And when a man of years is baptised in a church, is the baptised a visible Saint, or no? If yea, for he may be no real Saint, than his baptism doth not give him matter and form, but he hath both before, or else he ought not to be baptised. And thus much to his general discourse.  
In particular he goeth on, and saith, First, as it is in natural birth, so it is in spiritual; but in natural birth we have the beginning of our natural being among the world, and in the affairs of this life by our birth from our parents; therefore we have the beginning of our spiritual and visible being among the church, as in the affairs of life eternal by our spiritual birth: and this spiritual birth is baptism, and for that cause called the birth of water, Joh. 3.5. Tit. 3.5. Therefore by administration of true baptism, the church is is truly stated and constituted in her true being.  
Reply. Regeneration and natural birth hold proportion in many things together, but not in all, yet I will not trouble the discourse there, the great mistake is, in making baptism regeneration, and that which answereth natural birth, and the places quoted will not prove it: For first, it will ask more skill than it may be he hath, to recover them out of the hands of many godly judicious, that deny those places to be meant of baptism, but indeed of the new birth or regeneration by the Spirit putting forth the same effects upon the regenerate party that holds some proportion with the effects of water. But secondly, grant they be meant of baptism, yet it follows not that baptism is regeneration, because in John there is the Spirit also, and in Titus, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and a full work of regeneration wrought afore baptism, and themselves also will necessarily require it, before they will baptise any; and therefore baptism is not regeneration, being not to be administered but to regenerate persons known before to be so. Thirdly, it is not therefore called the birth of water, but as bread and wine are called the body and blood of Christ, circumcision the covenant, the Lamb the Passover: as therefore the Lamb or Christ is the Passover, circumcision the covenant, bread and wine the Lords body and blood; so baptism is the new birth, that is, a sign or seal of regeneration, and not regeneration itself. I dislike the phrase, The birth of water. Secondly, he argues from the form of baptism, which is dipping, and in that respect called a burial with Christ, Rom. 6.4. betokening our death and resurrection. Ergo, as the rising out of the grave at the last day, is the beginning of our state of glory in our bodily being; so the rising out of the water of baptism, is the beginning of our visible state of grace, and the beginning of our visible spiritual life, is from that day, etc.  
Reply. First, here is the same mistake with the former, making baptism the beginning of the spiritual visible state, whereas it is the sign and seal of it only, which they are to have before: for do they baptise a grown person dead, or alive? If alive, then visibly or invisibly in the state of spiritual life: not invisibly, for himself hath said, they must profess their faith first, and receive the word, Acts 2. else not to baptise any: their faith in Christ, their union thereby to him, their communion with him in death, burial, etc. are to go before their baptism. And himself saith, it betokeneth how it is then the thing itself.  
Secondly, whereas he makes dipping the form of baptism, he is in a double mistake: First, it is not the form, but the matter of baptism: Secondly, he seems to conclude sprinkling unlawful, whereas it is lawful, as shall be seen afterward. Lastly, he makes it a Sacrament of our last resurrection to glory, the Text making it expressly a Sacrament of our dying to fin, and resurrection to new obedience.  
Thirdly, he argues from the end of baptism, which amongst others is to unite them to the visible body of Christ, 1 Cor. 12.13. Gal. 3.27.28. Eph. 4.5, 6. and to distinguish them from the rest of the world, Col. 2.12. with 20. as circumcision did distinguish the Jews from the Heathens. But except baptism be administered to believers, subjects only capable of such union, communion, and distinction; they cannot have that end effected, to be united to the body of Christ, and distinguished from the rest of the world. Ergo, baptism is to be administered to believers for that end.  
Reply. They be believers first; (for so himself saith) but to believe, is to be in Christ, and by his faith forsaking sin and the world, chooseth God to be his God, and God's people to be his people: and as by the inward grace this is done effectually invisibly; so by actual profession thereof (without which he were not to be baptised) he visibly declareth, and effecteth the same ends, and is baptised as a sign and seal thereof, baptism there doth not effect those ends, but signify and seal those ends before effected. This Argument still laboureth of the former mistake, making the sign to be the sign and the thing signified by it. Again, there are other ends of baptism besides these, as himself confesseth, and therefore the church may be form a church before and without these ends to be effected by baptism, one end is to be a sign & seal of the covenant, which precedes baptism itself, and therefore baptism comes too late to do that which was done before. Last of all, Ephes. 5.25.27. the party to be baptised, is and must be a member before, because the church is to be washed, not made a church by washing, but being a church to be washed.  
A fourth argument he hath, is from the not iteration of baptism, it being to be administered but once, the Lords Supper often, in which respect baptism is the sign of our birth, and initiation, the Lords Supper of our growth and conservation in the visible body of Christ; and if a man may be conceived to have a being for a time in a visible church without baptism the sign and Sacrament of his entrance and initiation, he may have a continuance there also, and so consequently baptism needless. But baptism is needful, as a means of the beginning of our visible being in the visible body of Christ. Ergo, without baptism they have no visible being in the church, and so baptism is the form of it.  
I answer: First, he saith baptism is a sign and Sacrament of the beginning of our visible being in the body of Christ; then, say I, it is not the beginning itself of our visible being in the body, the sign and the thing signified being really distinct the one from the other, and the thing signified preceding the sign and seal of it. But of this before.  
Secondly, he plainly contradicts himself in saying, it is a sign and Sacrament of our entrance, and yet there is no visible being in the church without baptism.  
Thirdly, where he saith, If a man may have a being for a time without baptism, then may he have a continuance also; it follows not: for they had a being in the Jewish state before they were circumcised, but circumcision was not needless, neither should they have continued in that state without circumcision.  
Again, as the males had a being, and continued members of that church seven days, so if God had not commanded them to be circumcised the eighth day, but left it to their own wills, they should have continued visible members without it always, as women did, being not commanded: Abraham and his family fourteen years, and they in the wilderness forty. In like manner God's command makes baptism necessary for all these ends which he hath appointed it for, and so for those ends it is to be administered, and the omission of it is a grievous sin. But none of these ends is to give them a visible being in a visible church, but by way of signification and confirmation; Ergo, baptism is not the form of the church.  
A 5th Argument is from the nature of Baptism, as it is the seal of the Covenant, if there be no visible Ordinance before Baptism to note out their visible being in the covenant whereby they may be known, than it is baptism that doth it: But there is no other visible ordinance before baptism to note out their visible being in the covenant whereby they may be known; Ergo, it is baptism that doth it; and so it is the form of the Church.  
Answ. 1. If he really grant it is the seal of the covenant, than it is not the covenant itself, for which he hath formerly argued.  
Secondly, it must be considered, to whom baptism must note out their visible being in the covenant; if to themselves, they may know it before: for he that believeth hath the witness in himself; if to others, either Christians, they must know it before, or not baptise them; or else the world and baptism can no way notify such a thing unto them, they cannot take notice thereof, nor will they; they know them not, because they have not known Christ, nor the Father. And if a man truly baptised fall off from his profession, to whom doth it note that he is in the covenant, though it be known he was baptised? And our Saviour giveth a rule whereby all men shall know his Disciples (not if baptised, but) if they love one another, and keep his commandments; and if any say he hath fellowship with God, and doth evil, he lies, and all the world may know it, though they know he was visibly baptised; Ergo, baptism cannot be the form of a church, seeing it doth not note out their visible being in covenant, which is notified before; and by other means, both before and after: Last of all, again he contradicteth himself, in saying here, that baptism is the form of the church, and yet before denying baptism or the covenant either to be the form of it.  
The 6th Argument is taken from the commission given to the first, Matth. 28.19. where the Participle baptising, concurres to making them Disciples: and Mark. 16.16. Faith puts a man into the state of salvation before God, Baptism before men; the reason runs thus: If from commission to the first planters, baptism was required to make a person a Disciple, in a visible state of salvation, and stated in all other ordinances of Christ's kingdom, than baptism so administered is that which gives being to a true visible Church. I answer,  
First, the Scripture requires, first that they be made Disciples, and then being Disciples to be baptised, and therefore baptism doth not make them Disciples: Again, faith makes them Disciples in the state of salvation before God, and profession of that faith (and not baptism) doth make visibly and outwardly Disciples in the state of salvation before men, Rom. 10.9, 10. They that baptise any, must know them to be visibly such before they baptise them, else not baptise them, as himself hath saith, from Acts 2.21.8.12.  
Secondly, Baptism is required to state them in the observation of all the ordinances of Christ's kingdom, not by making them a church, or member to whom only such ordinances; yea, baptism itself doth belong, but to make them fit to observe them, being members; and there are other things, though they be baptised, that may hinder them from observaton of those ordinances; as in the old Testament circumcision did not make them a church, but being a church they were to be circumcised, without which they might not observe the Passeover, but there were other things also which did hinder them from observation of the Passeover, though they were circumcised.  
And thus, of his Position, and the grounds of it, That baptism is the thing that formeth the church; only if I understand his close, he flatly contradicts himself, in saying baptism is the means and thing that formeth the church, and yet it is not the outward form of our church form: For, either it formeth the church withan outward or inward: but not inward before God, Faith doth that, and therefore the outward form it must be; and so he said in his last Argument baptism puts a man into the state of salvation before men. Again, he grants the church to be form with an outward form without baptism, in saying baptism is not that outward form of the church form. If a form church, it hath a form that form it, but the form is not baptism; Ergo, he overthrows all that he hath argued for, or else the church hath two outward forms; one he grants the church hath without baptism, the other by baptism, which these six arguments plead for. It were well if he agreed with himself.  
Next he answereth the Reasons I set down (as he saith) to prove that baptism is not the form of a visible church; The first whereof is this: That which giveth being to a church must be removed to make a church cease to be a church; but Baptism cannot be removed from a church whilst it remains a church; Ergo. He answers, It is as easy to remove baptism from a church, as to remove a church from being a church.  
Reply. First, this is a very easy answer, and toucheth no part of the Argument. Again, a church is unchurched not by unbaptizing the baptised (as it must be, if it were the form of a church) but by destroying the church itself. The church must first in reasan be made no church, before ordinances can cease to be ordinances in that church; but destroy the church, and baptism will not be baptism; as the Edomites circumcision was not circumcision when they were not the church; the Jews circumcision, and all that they do, are nullities to this day, since they ceased to be a church.  
A second Reason is this; That which being wanting to a church constituted, doth not cause the church to be no church, that cannot be the form of the church; but baptism may be wanting to a church constituted, and yet it be a church: As circumcision to Infants seven days, always to all females, to them in the wilderness forty years, Josh. 5. Ergo:  
Answ. He denies the second Proposition; That baptism may be wanting to a church constituted, his Reason, because a church is constituted by baptism; and so Josh. 5. he saith, that case was extraordinary, having special dispensation from God himself, supplied by miraculous Sacraments, during the time of their necessary forbearances of circumcision and the Passeover, while in travels, unless we can show a like case, and supply of miraculous Sacraments, we cannot conclude, that a church is a church, or men members of a church without baptism by which they are constituted.  
Reply. First, the Reason he gives, that baptism cannot be wanting in a church constituted, because it is constituted by baptism, is of no force, because a church is not constituted by baptism, as I have showed before, and he begs the question.  
Secondly, To that of Joshua the 5th, the case was not extraordinary, nor need they be hindered by their travels, no more than they were hindered by the danger they were in, after they were over Jordan, for all the fight men 60000 thousand, were now all sore by circumcision; easy had it been for the Canaanites to have come upon them and slain them, as jacob's two sons did the Sichemites. If any shall say, that God could, and did defend them: I say, was not God as able to defend them in the wilderness where the most of them would have been always well? To say that God dispensed with them, is not proved; it is as easy to say he did not, and who so reads Josh. 5.2, etc. shall have cause to conclude, that they sinned in omitting it (though God imputed it not unto them;) besides, they stayed sometime a year in a place; and often long enough to have been healed: I rather think God did not dispense with them; and that they sinned in omitting it, and therefore called the reproach of Egypt; and for the miraculous Sacraments they had, it was not to supply the absence of the other ordinances, for than they should not have begun before these were taken away as they did; nor should these have been continued after those were given them, as they were, especially the Passeover celebrated the second year, Numb. 9.1, etc. and for any thing I know continued all the time, till they came into the land, yearly according to institution: and so Calvin upon Johshua the 5th thinketh, and that God did tolerate them, though not circumcised, and a reason he gives, because they offered sacrifices continually, which was not much less than to eat the Passeover, no man being to bring a sacrifice that was unclean, as all uncircumcised were; nor is it probable that all were circumcised, who celebrated the Passeover, Numb. 9 and therefore Manna and the Rock did not supply the absence of the Passeover, but they were both together for a time, as circumcision, and the sea, and cloud to all that were circumcised; some whereof came into the land: And therefore, though I show no extraordinary case, nor miraculous sacraments to supply the absence of ordinary; yet from that place (especially adding the case of Infants always seven days without circumcision, and sometimes more, and females always, and yet members) I see nothing that is said, but as then the church was a church, and all members, though many not circumcised: so a church may be a church now, and yet baptism for a time wanting (though it ought not to be) and then baptism is not the form of the church.  
A third Reason I give (as he saith, for I cannot remember I used a word of it) is this: That which is an adjunct to a thing, cannot be the form of it; but baptism is an adjunct of a church; Ergo.  
To this he answereth: This is not against his question as he stateth it, because that which is an adjunct may be a means of forming the thing to which it is adjoined, and so baptism is.  
Reply. First, how he states his Question is nothing to me, his Answer must be to the question as I stated it; seeing he takes upon him to refute it: In altering the state of the question therefore, he shows he had nothing to say against it as I set it down; But,  
Secondly, I grant an adjunct may be a means of forming the subject, so as it is by the adjunct, and without that adjunct the subject could not be so form and denominated: As freedom is an adjunct to man, and is necessary to make him be, and named a free man, but it is not necessary to make him a man; he may be a man without it: So baptism is necessary to form a church, or member, to be, and named a baptised church and member, but it concurres not therefore to make a church or member to be a church or member, and therefore that form whereby it is, and called a church, or member, ariseth from something else. A subject may have twenty adjuncts, but not one, nor all make it a subject, that it is before the adjuncts, and without them.  
A 4th Reason, That which is the seal of the covenant cannot be the form of the church; but baptism is the seal of the covenant; Ergo. His answer is, That the seal of the covenant may be a means to constitute and put the church into an outward visible form, and refers to his fifth Argument, where he hath spoken something before.  
Reply. He answered to neither Proposition here. That baptism is the seal of God's outward covenant, cannot be denied, that baptism therefore cannot be the form of a visible church, is evident: as a seal cannot be the form of that place, or honour which a man hath by the kings grant under writing, it is the grant and contract that makes the man to honour this state or that from the king, and not the seal, though the seal be useful and necessary: So here, baptism makes not the church to be the church, but it is added to God's covenant made with the Church before, whereby it is a Church, and this seal added to the covenant made for confirmation, without which the state would be the same, though not so authentical to us, in regard of our weakness: For his reference, see my answer to it.  
A fifth Reason, That which remains when a man is excommunicate, and is not to be administered to restore him again, when cut off, that cannot be the form of the church; but baptism remains, when a man is excommunicated, nor is to be administered to restore him to membership when cut off; Ergo.  
To which he answereth, by denying the Assumption, that is, that baptism remains when a man is excommunicate, nor is to be administered again when he is to be restored; and denying this, he must affirm that baptism doth not remain where a man is no member by excommunication, and such a man must be baptised, that he may be restored again. To make this good, he giveth a long answer, which I contract into these Propositions:  
First, that by faith a man possesseth Christ, and so baptism and membership with the Church.  
Secondly, that some have true saving faith, and so they have Christ, baptism, and membership in the truth of all and savingly, and some have but seeming faith, and so have Christ, baptism, and membership, not in truth, but seemingly, (yet accounted by others true that cannot discern them to be but seeming.)  
Thirdly, that a true believer excommunicate for sin, is not really deprived of faith, Christ, baptism, and membership, but seemeth only to be cut off; but he that seemed to have faith, but had not indeed, excommunicate for sin, is cut wholly and really from Christ, etc. which he only seemed to have, and no faith, Christ, etc. can be said to remain, being neither believer, nor baptised, nor member indeed, because he forsaking the grounds and ends of his baptism, he forsaketh baptism, which was administered upon these grounds, and for these ends.  
Fourthly, he that by the renewal of his repentance returneth to his faith again (by which he is to be restored to communion with the church again after excommunication) returneth thereby to his baptism and membership again.  
Reply. Granting the first Proposition, that faith possesseth a man of Christ, etc. and likewise this in the second, that some have faith in Christ, etc. really and saving, in the truth of all; but where he saith some have but seeming faith, (and yet baptised, etc.) and seem to have Christ, baptism, and membership, but have none in truth, I deny that these are seeming, unless as opposed to saving, spiritual and supernatural; thus indeed many have not, nor can any have these things, but only elect persons, and so their saith, and all is seeming: But faith considered in itself, it is certain that many have that faith they profess they have, as the devils, and do believe as they say they do; nor do I think, that if a man knew one to be a reprobate, (unless in the case of fin unto death) yet having and professing faith, he is not to be rejected, without some special word of God: Thus Abraham and Isaac, circumcised Ishmael and Esau, though they knew before they were reprobates: And our Saviour put Judas into Apostleship when he knew what he was to the full.  
Secondly, a man having such a faith, is in Christ, in a sense, John 15. hath baptism and church-membership indeed, and in the truth of it, though not spiritually and savingly, I cannot say these are all, or any of them seeming, but in opposition to saving; so they seem to be indeed, but are not, Heb. 6.4.9. they are really enlightened, they taste of the heavenly gift, and fall away, and perish for ever; but they had no part in those as accompanying salvation, these are distinct one from another: The one sort are acquired by natural powers, and are moral only, those will never save them; the other are infused, spiritual, supernatural, and always accompany salvation.  
To the third Proposition, I say, that a believer to salvation excommunicate for some sin, is not deprived of the faith he had, but that he is cut off from membership (and so from baptism, if it be the form of his membership,) it is most certain, as much as the other is, and it is more than a seeming to be cut off, being ratified in heaven (his everlasting estate remaining with God inalterable) and he that seemed to have saving faith, etc. but had not, is not deprived of that faith he had, by excommunication, nor cut off otherwise from his baptism and membership than the former, (in foro humano) being things that he had as really as the former, though not of the same kind, nor to the same benefit. And if all were but seeming in the Refuters sense, certainly, his excommunication will be but seeming roo; and doth this seem to be a seemly thing, to speak thus of the things of God?  
To the fourth, he that by repentance returneth to his faith again, that is, in true meaning, to an entire standing in the profession of faith, returns to his baptism and membership again. I grant, that by renewal of repentance, he is to be restored from under the censure unto communion with the church again: And hence I gather, that faith and repentance professed, are the means whereby he was stated in the covenant and membership, and therefore now required of him again, to set him in his former state, and not baptism, which certainly would have been under some prejudice by excommunication, and must have been cleared as well as his profession, if that had constituted his membership, especially, if he had but seeming faith, baptism and membership before; for let me put this case, which certainly may, and sometimes doth fall out; that a seeming believer, having seeming baptism, etc. (to speak his language) is excommunicated, and so is cut off from all that he only seemed to have, he had no baptism and membership indeed, but seemed to have; and from all that is really and wholly cut off, nothing remains; this penson was not before really converted, but under the state of censure he is really converted, and gives full satisfaction to the church, shall he be restored to his seeming baptism and membership that he had before by his seeming faith? (rather he cannot be restored to that seeming state, because he saith nothing remains) Or shall he have a new membership, and real in the truth of it, for his real faith and repentance? but this must be by a new & real baptising; (the former not remaining) and therefore, though repentance of him that was a true believer, recovers his former standing in the covenant, and so his baptism, which he was not really deprived of; yet it must needs be, that he that did not truly believe, being now really converted, can not receive his former seeming baptism (nor were it worth the recovering) by his repentance, but must have a real baptism added to him for his real faith instead of that seeming baptism that he had by his seeming faith. The truth is, neither true believer nor seeming (as he speaks) have either of them their baptism taken away by censure, but both their memberships really, and not seemingly, and by repentance are restored to their former rights and membership.  
That therefore that must be to make a man a member, and the destruction whereof makes a man no member, and the renewing whereof must be to restore him to be a member again, that is the form of a church-member, and so of a church; but baptism doth not make a man a visible member, nor is baptism nullified to make him no member, but remains still true baptism; nor is it to be renewed to restore him to his membership again; therefore baptism is not the form of the church: For to make a thing to cease to be that it was, must necessarily be by taking away of the form, by which it was that it was: for so long as that form remains, you cannot make the thing to be any other, or not that it was, but in making a member no member, there is a destruction of that form whereby he was a member, that is, a real casting him out from being the Lords, or having the Lord to be his, and to be delivered up to Satan, likewise a casting him out from being one of God's people, to be of the world again (as Demas,) and the contrary hereunto must be reacted to restore a member. Therefore this alone is the form of a member, and so of a Church. And this is no other thing but a Covenant acted (as before I described,) therefore a Covenant is the form of the Church.  
This I affirmed, and he proceedeth to disprove, setting down a Proposition, and the proofs of it that I alleged. The Proposition is this: An outward covenant acted between God and a company of believers to be one another's, and for the like among themselves, is the form of the visible church. I cannot say these were my expressions, yet I shall justify the Proposition, That a visible Covenant (according to my former distinction) is the form of a visible church. His answer to this is, That the covenant of God makes the church; but that any can be concluded to have an outward being in the covenant of the Gospel now without baptism, he denieth, requires me to prove it, and saith, he hath proved the contrary before. To which, with my answer to it, I refer you.  
He goeth on, and saith, Whereas I say a company of believers acting a covenant to become one another's amongst themselves, to be the form of the church. He answereth, By the same reason (if without baptism at present) they may receive the form of the church without administration of the Gospel for the future, which he conceives will be absurd to affirm.  
Reply. First, the administrations of the Gospel do not concur to the form of the church, and therefore she hath her form without them, nor could she be partaker of them, but being a church first. They are necessary for her well-being, not her being: And if she should neglect the administration of the Gospel, and administer the contrary, yet she should be a church still by her first constitution, till God cast her off, which without question in time he will do, though she do but neglect his.  
Secondly, a church receives her form to be a church for administrations sake, and to enjoy those administrations to be exercised therein according to God's word; and therefore she will not be wanting to herself herein. If I shall say, If baptism be the form of a church, then by the same reason she may receive the form without all administration of the Gospel for the future. I conceive it would be absurd to affirm it. There is nothing in what he said therefore worth answering. And the same hath been said and answered before. Secondly, he saith, God hath appointed no such thing for men to act such a covenant for any such end; and therefore so to do, is will-worship, invention of man, and in God's worship plain superstition, and flat breach of the second commandment; and therefore if it be the form of a Church, it is a superstitious church, which is so form by such a superstitious action.  
Reply. I grant, all humane inventions in God's worship, are sinful, superstitious, and flat breaches of the second commandment, and added to God's worship, do pollute the same. But secondly, it doth not disannul a church that some inventions of men are joined (which ought not to be) to God's worship; nor do I think that himself thinks as he saith, that God hath not appointed men to act such a covenant for any such end; because he hath said many times, and granted, a few lines before these words, that the covenant of God makes the church. Now a covenant of God is that which is acted between him and believers outwardly with whom he first makes it (any other I suppose he understood not by it) and so continued in by them following, till God cut them off. If thus, then suppose it should be a mistake to say (to become one another's also) that cannot so alter the covenant as to make it superstitious, or a humane invention. And when they baptise a man in years, will they not first require him to take God in Christ to be his God, and to submit to him in all things, etc. And is not this a covenant acted, and the end of it to be to form him a church-member? What invention of man is in this? But if the proof be found good, this will be found his mistake so to say; and therefore I shall stay till we come to them.  
Thirdly, he saith, A covenant acted by believers to become one another's, cannot be a form of a true visible church; because it may be with ignorance both of the nature and duties of a true church, as is proved by presupposing it to be the form of the church before Baptism.  
Reply. First, I see no force in this reason: for none ought to be ignorant of the nature and duties of a true church before they be joined, but to be well catechised first, nor is there any colour of reason to prove that such may be ignorant as are joined by a covenant, by presupposing it to be the form of the Church before baptism.  
Secondly, a covenant acted by believers, and baptising them, are not supposed to be so distant in time, as that they may not go together, but the covenant must proceed in order of nature and time, baptism being but the seal of it, and is but an idol with out it; the covenant making them capable of baptism, and nothing else: and baptism being a visible and outward seal, it must needs be an outward and visible covenant to which it is added, and so maketh a member to be a form member. The Scriptures quoted by him, 1 Cor. 1.15, etc. to prove that all their external relations must flow from their relation and union in baptism, are absurdly alleged; and there is no relation and union in baptism, but by way of signification and confirmation. The union must go before, if they do not profess faith in Christ, (whereby they are united unto Christ) before baptised, they must not be baptised, as himself hath often said, and is truth.  
But to come to the proofs I added to my proposition, the first he saith, was this, If the Kingdom of heaven, that is, the Church state that we now have, be the same that the Jews had; then if such a covenant as I have above expressed, was the form of that Church, it is the form of ours now: But the Kingdom of heaven (that is, the visible Church state that we now have,) is the same they had. Ergo, If such a covenant was the form of that church, it is also the form of these now. And the form of the Jewish Church was such a covenant. Ergo. He answereth first, If the Church state then and now be not the same, than the form of that is not the form of this, (and so my Argument grounded upon an IF, is nothing.) But the Church state then (constituted of a natural seed) was not that we have now (constituted of a spiritual seed.) Ergo.  
Reply. In denying the Church state then and now to be the same, he flatly contradicteth the Scripture, Mat. 21.33, 43. where it is clear, that the Vineyard and Kingdom of heaven being the Church state they possessed, is threatened to be taken away and given to other nations. It is the same Vineyard and Kingdom taken away and given.  
Secondly, it is a gross mistake to say, that they were a Church stated of Abraham's natural seed, which hath oft already been gainsaid by me: God's intention in entering into covenant with them, was to have them all spiritual, he constituted them not a church as a natural seed, but as spiritual; and if all were not spiritual, it was their sin: And all now in Church estate are not spiritual, many are carnal. And the Jews still remain natural branches to be graffed in again, though not as natural seed, but as believing, etc. Secondly, he saith, where I said, A covenant acted by believers amongst themselves, to become one another's, to be the form of the Church, and here arguing from the state of the Jews to prove this form, which did never form themselves so; in so doing I overthrew myself, and argue from my proof to overthrow my principle.  
Reply. First, let all observe, that he constantly leaves out a part of my words, and that of greatest weight, (viz. A covenant acted between God and themselves, though I add these words also.)  
Secondly, I say, the Jews were form a Church estate, and only by such a covenant, and this will be evident by clearing those four particulars I brought to prove that part of my argument.  
The first is this, The entrance into it with Abraham, his family, and seed, was by a covenant acted visibly, and outwardly: This was that which distinguished them, and made them differ from other people, and whereby they became the Lords, and the Lord theirs. This was a visible and outward covenant, because the seal of it was outward and visible, and Ishmael and Esau were in it, and reprobates as well as elect, and this covenant was made with Abraham and his family, at least 14 years before they were circumcised, Gen. 17. that being but the renewal of the covenant made before; only let this be noted, that Abraham and his family were all this time in covenant, and a called people, and so a church visibly form: for no man can think that he & his were all that time under that covenant without a form. A federal form they had certainly, (that is, a church form) and circumcision did not put the federal form upon them, but was added for confirmation on both parts: Yet his answer is, that this proves not the form of the church to be such a covenant as is by me expressed, acted by a company of believers to become one another's. For Abraham and his seed, reprobates and elect enter into it; now Abraham was but one believer, Ishmael his seed, who entered in with him was a reprobate.  
Reply. First, it was a covenant, acted between God and Abraham, and his family, because they were signed and sealed to the covenant fourteen years after.  
Secondly, though reprobates and elect were in the covenant, yet that doth not disprove a covenant acted by believers, to be the form of a church, seeing many reprobates do believe for a time. I do not mean they are known to be so, but many prove so afterward, and himself doth confess that they have not infallible judgement, but may be, and many times are deceived; and if he should not confess, yet the Scriptures clear it in Simon Magus case, Judas, etc.  
Thirdly, though Abraham was but one believer, and Ishmael a reprobate, yet they might join together in covenant, because at first Ishmael was but an Infant, and not presently known to be a reprobate, and more than Ishmael entered into the first covenant, as Sarah his wife; and above three hundred males, who therefore had the seal of the covenant set upon them, which could not have been, if they had not been in covenant. Where I said, circumcision was not the covenant, but the token of it, Gen. 17.11. He answereth, it was not only a token of it, but a part of the covenant itself, being that whereby the parties were bound to keep the whole Law, Gal. 5.3. and therefore God said, Let every man child be circumcised; and he that was not, brake God's covenant therefore the covenant here spoken of, was such as was entered into by circumcision, but not such as was acted by believers, and so to be the form of the church.  
Reply. I deny circumcision to be a part of the covenant, as without which the covenant is not entire and a real formal covenant, else Abraham, Sarah, and his family, were not in the covenant all these fourteen years before circumcision; he grants it is a sign of the covenant, and I will grant him, that as the sign of the thing may be a part of the thing signified, so may circumcision be a part of the covenant, and no otherwise; and as a seal is a part of the thing sealed, and not else, and though it be called covenant oftentimes, yet it is by impropriety of speech: As in the Lord's Supper bread and wine are called the body and blood of the Lord, and baptism regeneration, because they signify and seal those things to faith which are signified by them; where he saith, the parties were bound thereby to keep the whole Law, Gal. 5.3. it is a gross mistake, for it did seal to the righteousness of faith, and not to the righteousness of the Law, nor bound them more, nor otherwise to fulfil the Law, than baptism doth us now. It's true, the Apostle saith as much, but,  
First, he speaks it in respect of the times then and after, not with respect to times before.  
Secondly, he speaks it in a certain sense, that is, when men make it an ingredient unto justification; they that do so renounce justification by Christ alone, and seek to be justified by their own righteousness, and so they are bound to fulfil the whole Law, or never to be justified; how else could Paul circumcise Timothy? Act. 16. Would he do that than which he condemneth here? or did it oblige others otherwise then it did Timothy or David, Isaiah, etc. It was God's ordinance and institution, it bond them to no such thing; but that arose from their corrupt understanding of the things, turning the covenant of grace into a covenant of works unto themselves; and the same may be said of baptism now.  
Let this therefore be attended, that God did never dispense a covenant of works to the Jews, but it was a covenant of grace, and circumcision the sign and seal of it, and not the covenant itself; and the covenant was acted between God and Abraham, and his family and seed believers, they and theirs to be the Lords, and to take God to be the God of them and theirs, and so to become one another's in the Lord, whereby they were made the people of God, and a visible church truly constituted.  
My second particular was this; the establishment of it in the plains of Moab, but this establishment was by a covenant acted, Deut. 26.17, 18. and 29.10, 15. In which God avouched them to be his people, and they avouched him to be their God, and their young children also with them; nor could circumcision be the covenant here, nor part of it, or ingredient into it, because they had not circumcised in forty years, ever since they came out of Egypt; nor did they circumcise any now, nor afterward, till Moses was dead, and Joshua had brought them through Jordan, into the land, Joshua 5.  
To this he answereth divers things.  
First, that this was but a renewal of the covenant made with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob before, which they entered into with God in behalf of them and their children, by being circumcised; and therefore, they being before did not now begin to be a church, and therefore this doth not prove, that a covenant acted by a company of believers should be it that did constitute them a church now.  
Reply. First, I grant this was but a renewal of the covenant made with Abraham, etc. and upon his grant, infer that this was a spiritual covenant, and not carnal; and the same with abraham's and ours, which before he opposed me in.  
Secondly, he saith they entered into the covenant by circumcision.  
Reply. It is false, Abraham and his were not circumcised till fourteen years after, and now few of them in years were circumcised before, nor any now.  
Thirdly, they did not now begin to be a church, being one before. It's true, but the renewal of their church estate here (after many provocations of God, and many declarations against them of God's anger, whereby they might fear that God would own them no more) being by a covenant acted formally and outwardly between God and them (as is clearly expressed in the Text) doth fully show, that both now and then they were found God's people as believers, acting a covenant betwixt God and them, and one another; and seeing he grants this to be the same with that of Abraham, etc. that was also thus acted is out of question as this here; though therefore a covenant acted now did not constitute them a church, yet a covenant is acted now, and is for the renewing of their church estate; therefore much more was it so in the first constitution, every thing decayed in the true form of it, being made the same it was by renewing the same form, and otherwise cannot be the same: Nor did circumcision here concur, nor any thing else, and yet perfectly stated a church, and so called, Acts 7.1.  
Secondly, he answereth; whereas I say circumcision was no ingredient here, having not circumcised, during the forty years, nor now. He conceives, notwithstanding that circumcision was an ingredient in their parents, who thereby entered into covenant for themselves and these their children, as the covenant here expressed did comprehend the posterity to come.  
Reply. First, howsoever they stood entire in the covenant and church-estate without personal circumcision; for except Moses, Caleb, and Joshua, there was not a man of those 600000. that came out of Egypt alive, and all born in the wilderness during the forty years were uncircumcised, and at the time of this covenant making not one was circumcised, and so the church consisted of a company of men personally uncircumcised, and performed services to God and each other, which ought to have been done by circumcised persons only. In like manner, men and women believing the Word of God, and doing as these did, may become thereby a true visible church, though they were not baptised before, nor are baptised at present, covenanting, and perform services to God and each other.  
Secondly, if they enjoyed their perfect church-estate (being not personally circumcised) by virtue of their parent's circumcision before them, then certainly, as much may be granted now; that by virtue of a parents believing, and being baptised, their Infants may be counted, and really are, in the covenant before they be baptised. If it be said, these were grown men, and expressed their faith in God? I answer, All were not grown men, many were Infants; yea, posterity, for, and with whom this covenant was made, were not yet born; and for the rest, what faith the most of them had, may be seen, Deut. 29.4.  
Thirdly, he answereth, it was an extraordinary case, and they had miraculous sacraments in stead of circumcision and the Passeover, etc.  
Reply. To all this I have spoken before; yet a word or two:  
First, he calleth them miraculous sacraments here and before, but he found fault with me for calling them ordinances, (which is all one) sacraments they were therefore, though extraordinary; nor did the sea continue with them all this time, being a transient act, and many hundred thousands never passed through the sea, nor did the cloud baptise them all, till circumcision was administered to them all, Josh. 5. The cloud ceased on the other side Jordan, and continued not till they came into the land; therefore all the members were not personally constituted members by that miraculous sacrament of baptism, which gives them (he saith) their imitation. Further, he saith, that the acting of a covenant by a company of believers, was not the same of that church then, but the communication of God's covenant by circumcision ordinarily with the whole nation believers and Infidels, and whosoever of any nation that would be circumcised and join with them to worship, much less hath it any consequence to prove it so now.  
Reply. First, I have proved that a covenant acted by them as believers, did make them to be the people of God, and circumcision was ordinarily added as a sign and seal thereof: But in that he saith, the whole Nation, believers and infidels, it is an unchristian speech, nor ever will he prove, that any of the nation were infidels, nor any of any nation joining with them, though many of them did not believe as they should, yet believers they all were, and God manifested it in accepting their sacrifices, pardoning their sins, and making an atonement for them by the Priest's administrations. It is therefore injurious to the grace of God so to speak, and justly to be blamed.  
Nextly, he comes to my third particular, by which I conceived the form of the Jewish church state outwardly, was by a covenant acted by a company of believers, etc. which is from the renewal of their estate after some apostasy, 2 Chron. 15.12, 13, 16. & 34. chap. 30, 31. Nehem. 9.3. & 10.1. from whence I collected, that without which they could not stand in a right church estate visibly, that was the form of that church; but without the renewal of their covenant they could not stand in a right or pure church estate, (but without renewal of circumcision they might.) Ergo. His answer hereto is, First, he grants they made a covenant, and did well in so doing; but secondly, that they could not be in a church estate without so doing, nor have I proved it, and he will prove the contrary; first, because they were a church before; secondly, this covenant was but an animating them to do that which they were engaged to do before by their circumcision, Gal. 5.3. Ergo. As the renewal of their covenant is not by me proved to be the form of the church then, much less hath it any consequence to prove that it is the form of a church now.  
Reply. He denies not what I affirmed, to wit, that they could not stand in a right and pure church estate, without renewal of their covenant, he denies that they could not stand in a church state without it; and great difference there is, between a church and no church, a pure and impure church; he saith nothing therefore to what I said and proved: yet I am willing to hear what he saith.  
First, they were a church before, and I say so too, but much degenerated, and much transgressing the covenant.  
Secondly, he saith, they did no more than they were bound to do by their circumcision.  
Reply. I have answered that, Gal. 5. before, that it did not engage them to keep the whole Law, it being the seal of the righteousness of Faith, nor did the seal bind them to any thing but as in relation to the covenant, which only bound them. Hence Levit. 26. where God threatened to send a sword to avenge thequarrell of his covenant, he did not plead with them about circumcision, but for not believing (circumcision of the heart, as Jerem. 9 last) and testifying their faith by obedience, and so they did now mend this by attending to the covenant, and thereby setting themselves visibly in a right church state again, which therefore proves that the form of the church was a visible covenant: for that which makes a church impure to be pure, according to the right constitution, that is it which gives it the constitution; but the renewal of the covenant maketh an impure church pure, according to the right constitution. Ergo, the covenant giveth it a constitution.  
Again, if failing in the covenant causeth a true church to be otherwise then according to constitution, than the covenant gives her her constitution: But the first is true. Ergo the latter; and circumcision the seal, remains the same without any alteration. As in men's covenants the seal annexed remains the same, though the covenant to which it is adjoined, may in many things be violated.  
My fourth and last particular to prove a covenant acted by them as believers, was the form of the Jewish church, was this; That which being taken away, made that church cease to be a church, that was the form of that church: But the dissolving of their covenant made that church cease to be a church. Ergo. The first Proposition he meddles not with, and I raise it on this ground, That nothing can cease to be that hath a being, but by annihilating the matter and form of its being; nor can any thing cease to be that it is, but by taking away that form of it, whereby it is such a thing rather than another. And therefore if any thing cease to be that it was, it must be by taking away the form of it.  
The second Proposition that the dissolving of their covenant, made that church cease to be a church, which I cleared from Zach. 11.10, 14. take a view and you may see it clearly, the chapter declares the rejection of the Jews from being a church (no man can deny it,) and that at Christ's time, and for rejecting of him, and upon their rejection, they ceased to be a visible church, and God's people, as they had been.  
First, therefore, it is to be observed how God will effect this, that they shall be no church, nor his people, and that is by breaking his covenant with them, vers. 10. That I may break my covenant which I had made with this people.  
Secondly, this covenant had two branches, one, the staff of Beauty, and this is the covenant between God and them mutually, called Beauty, because God making a covenant with them, did adorn them with all excellency and comeliness, whereby they became beautiful above other people, Ezek. 16.8, etc. yea in the eyes of the Heathen, v. 14. which could not be circumcision, nor any invisible covenant, but outward and visible. The other branch of the covenant is called Bonds, and that is the covenant on their parts one with another, whereby they joined together in a brotherhood to worship God; called Bonds, because they were thereby knit and bound together, to be a compact body and brotherhood Ecclesiastical.  
Thirdly, that God by breaking these two staves, did break his covenant with them, and thereby they ceased to be his visible people, and a brotherhood amongst themselves: all these are evidently foretold in the Text, and accomplished after our Saviour his death, when they were wholly rejected of God, and never since enjoyed that estate. From whence it followeth plainly, that their constitution in that Church estate, was by that covenant, which being disannulled, their Church estate, and constitution is altogether annihilated.  
Now let us see what he answers to this reason: First, he saith, the covenant of God's grace is eternal; the Kingdom, or Church state that comes by it, cannot be shaken, Heb. 12.28. baptism the fruit of it, a church constituted by it, remains eternally, John 11.26. He that believes in Christ, shall never die.  
Reply. First, I grant that the covenant of grace is eternal, and that as well in the time before Christ, as since; but I speak of it as it is made with men, in which respect though it be eternal in itself, yet it is not eternal to all that it is made with, but may and doth cease to this or that man, to this or that Church.  
Secondly, the Kingdom shaken, and that cannot be shaken, is not the covenant of grace applied to the Jews or Gentiles, but the manner of administration of one and the same covenant in itself, but from the divers administration of it, one way to them, the old Testament, another way to us, now the new Testament; the former is shaken and removed, and changed into this, that cannot be shaken or changed, but shall remain till Christ's coming, 1 Cor. 15. yet this or that church may be shaken out of it, and many have been, and that this shaking is meant of the former manner of administration only, is evident by the Scripture itself, and not of the covenant, else the covenant with them was not the eternal covenant of grace, but a covenant of another nature; this particular church therefore may be disannulled, yet the covenant remains eternal and unshaken. Again, the kingdom of Heaven is taken two ways in Scripture:  
First, as before, for the manner of administration of the covenant, and so it may be, and hath been shaken, and of this, Heb. 12.  
Secondly, for the church-estate, and the covenant of grace by laying hold whereon a people became a church. This can never be shaken so, as that there should not be a visible church visibly in covenant with God; and of this, Matth. 21.43. which may be taken from one company and given to another: (as from the Jews to the Gentiles) but never cease to be with one people or other, hell's gate being not able to prevail against it, Matth. 16.  
Thirdly, baptism, the fruit of it, or church-estate, by partaking thereof (not by baptism, but by the covenant) is eternal to all the elect; and so he that believeth in Christ shall never die, but these are not eternal to any else at all (for reprobate members dying, remain not members, etc.) so that here is nothing in this answer that proveth the Jews were not a church-estate by an acted covenant.  
Secondly, he answereth, the covenant is a ground of a churches being a visible church, that the visible participation in the covenant, is by some visible thing, which was circumcision then, is baptism now; other visible participations there was not, nor is any; therefore by circumcision then and baptism now, they are a visible church. And as the taking away of the covenant causeth the church to cease; so it causeth their circumcision and baptism to cease also, whereby they had visible participation in the covenant and church.  
Reply. First he saith, a covenant is the ground of a visible, (for the question, saith he, speaks of a visible church) and so say I, and a visible ground of any man's being circumcised then, or baptised now; if it be a ground of a visible church, than a church cannot be a church without it, and so constituted a visible church by it.  
Secondly, there must be some visible thing whereby a man may have visible participation in the covenant, I grant it; but, saith he, there is no other visible thing whereby any are partakers of the covenant, but circumcision then, and baptism now; I deny it, and affirm there is some visible thing preceding circumcision, than baptism now: For when they baptise a man, do they baptise him as out of covenant or in it? If in covenant, than it is as he is invisibly in it, or visibly, not invisibly, that they cannot know; therefore visibly by something they can discern and know, and upon that baptise him, and that is the profession of his faith in the covenant, which as it must go before baptism, so it makes him partaker visibly of the covenant before he be baptised or circumcised; therefore circumcision then, baptism now is not the only visible participation in the covenant, nor indeed any participation at all; but a visible sign and seal of his visible participation: and this appeareth further from the description of a Sacrament, an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace which must be there, or the outward is not to be applied; but it cannot be concluded to be there, but by some outward evidence, therefore something visible, and thereby visible participation in the covenant must go before visible baptism: As then the covenant must be taken away before the church cease to be a church, and not circumcision nor baptism, which cannot cease until the church ceaseth (all which himself granteth) so as long as any continue visible profession of faith, so long the covenant continueth and visible profession must cease before the covenant ceaseth in respect of men; Ergo, by visible profession of faith in the covenant is obtained and declared visible participation in the covenant, and so is the church-estate constituted thereby.  
Further, he saith, the covenant before Christ, did ceremonially lead to Christ, and in that respect is dissolved, and circumcision by which they had participation in that covenant is dissolved; and therefore the visible church ceased, as was prophesied, Zach. 11. and accomplished at the death of Christ, the partition wall being broken down, Ephes. 2.13, etc. the covenant since Christ ratified by the death of the testator, cannot be dissolved, (as I affirm in my third Proposition and fourth poriod,) and so baptism by which they have true visible being in the covenant cannot be removed, nor the visible church-state.  
Reply. Here is nothing said that hath not been said before, again and again, and so answered; yet in a word:  
First, he confoundeth covenant and testament, there is but one covenant, but yet two Testaments, and the covenant was dispensed to Abraham, before there was any testament instituted, and the Scriptures that speak of abolishing the old, and establishing the new, are not to be understood of two covenants, (there being but one) but of two Testaments, as I shown in my third Proposition, and fourth period; and he much mistakes himself, abuseth his Reader, and cannot but know that he speaks not truly, in saying I affirmed the new covenant cannot be removed, when as I said, the new Testament cannot be removed.  
Secondly, the covenant before Christ did not ceremonially lead to Christ; for the covenant always (from Adam) held forth Christ, the same yesterday, to day and for ever; but the old Testament before Christ, did ceremonially lead to Christ, and was abolished at Christ's coming, that the new confirmed by his blood might be established.  
Thirdly, the covenant and visible church-state thereby did not cease at Christ's coming in itself, but was taken away from the Jews, and given to the Gentiles, and that not because the covenant and church-estate typified Christ, but because they believed not; for had they believed, they should have enjoyed the covenant and church-state still (though the old Testament should have ceased, and the new be put in the room) and now it shall be taken from such Gentiles so oft as any of them cease to believe, as is already fallen out to many churches. Yet without any prejudice to the covenant of God or visible church-estate which ever remain.  
Last of all, I have showed before, that circumcision did not give them a visible being in that covenant and church-estate; nor baptism us, but outward profession of subjection to the covenant gave them, and gives us a being in the covenant and visible church-state, circumcision then, and baptism now being but signs and seals of it.  
Further, against his conclusion, that the true visible church, in respect of the ground of it, cannot be removed or dissolved, he putteth two exceptions, and seeks to clear it from them.  
The first is this: The true Church may possibly die, and none survive them in that estate; Ergo, the true Church may cease to be: His answer to this is, the true Chrch ceaseth to be, but only to our outward view, for to our faith it is no more ceased than their relation to the covenant ceaseth, which doth not cease to the faithful when they die, but it remains as the covenant itself, which is as firm as God that made it.  
Secondly, as their outward view to the church ceaseth so their relation to the church by baptism ceaseth, by which they had visible participation with the body of Christ, therefore the exception hinders not, but that the true visible Church remains undissolved.  
Reply. Whether this were mine or no, I cannot say, as also many other things, the which he puts forth in my name; a word or two:  
First, he changeth the State of the Question, speaking of a visible state, whereas he speaketh of an invisible state, and of the elect only, whereas himself will confess, that many may be in a visible, with whom the covenant ceaseth, and church-estate when they die, if it cease not before.  
Secondly, this or that true visible church may die, and none succeed them, and then the visible church ceaseth for ever, the outward covenant also, and baptism the seal of it ceaseth, and that not only to the outward view, but to our faith also: For I suppose none have so much faith, as to believe that a company of dead men, and ceasing to be, are a visible church in covenant, and baptised; that they were such may be believed, but that they are such, and hold their relation still, with the visible church by their baptism, as members thereof, is but his dream, as any that are dead and saved may be accounted a part of a church, it is of the church predestinate from all ages, from the beginning to the end; a part whereof are in heaven triumphant, and a part on earth militant; and otherwise to make them in heaven a part of any church, or of this or that visible church, is but a devised thing: Nor doth it follow, that this or that visible church ceasing, and none surviving; Ergo, the visible Church of Christ ceaseth; so this his exception might have been spared: Nor doth his answer clear his Proposition from it, but it is wholly overthrown thereby.  
A second exception is this; persons may seem to be true members of a visible church, and yet not be so, and may show themselves not to be afterwards, and so the church may cease.  
He answereth, that when such do manifest themselves what they are, they declare thereby, that they never were in covenant, nor church at all, nor baptised: So the church thereby cease not to be by being dissolved; but they are discovered never to have been in that covenant nor church, and so never were baptised, 1 Joh. 2.19.  
Reply. This exception savoureth of himself, but briefly, where hypocrites discover themselves to be such, they thereby declare they never were of the number of Gods elect, and so not in the covenanted visible church, and baptised as the elect of God; but that they were not truly members of that visible church to which they belonged, in the covenant, and truly baptised is not true, but cross to Scriptures affirming such to be branches in the Vine, Joh. 15. (or else now cut off) and members of the church, as in the Epistles to the churches in Asia, etc. And if such an hypocrite, after his discovery should repent, and be truly converted, than he must be joined to the church, not by restoring, but by a new covenant, and be new baptised, having no covenant, baptism, or membership before; for that place, 1 John 2.19. it doth not say they went out from us, because they were not with us, (for how could they have gone out from them if not with them, and really with them, or else they seemingly went out from them) but because they were not of us, that they might be made manifest that they were not of us, the Text therefore doth not deny them to be truly members with them visibly, but they were not true members of them; so that all he hath said, doth not wave the exception: From all which it doth appear, that baptism (even of God himself) cannot be the form of a church, but only it is a seal of the covenant by which the church is constituted: it is constituted by participation, and visibly by visible participation, and that is only by visible and outward acting to subjection in the covenant: the continuance also in a church is by the continuance of the manifestation of the same participation possessed, their visilbe profession of subjection to the covenant; therefore baptism of believers is not the constitution of church visible, but a covenant acted, as from all these four particulars I argued, gathered up into this sum: If a covenant acted by believers was the form of the visible church before Christ, than it is the form of visible churches since Christ; but the first is true, (as will appear by all these four particulars) therefore also the latter.  
This he answereth by denying both Antecedent and Consequent, his Reason against the Antecedent is, because if God himself was not the form of the church of the old Testament, much less can it be said that an outward covenant acted by the people of Israel was the form of the church, as is manifested by what is above said; his Reason of denying the Consequent is least of all, nor doth it prove such a thing to form the churches now.  
Reply. This Reason of denying the Antecedent is not reasonable; for what was the covenant of God himself, but an outward covenant acted between God and the people of Israel? I know no other covenant of God, but that which he made with Abraham between Abraham and his seed, and himself, which was also continued to his posterity; and that covenant was acted between God and them, and one with another (and so the form of that Church) is evident from the former four particulars considered together, notwithstanding all that he hath said to the contrary.  
The covenant God made with Abraham his family and seed, was an outward acted covenant, the renewal of which by them in the plains of Moab, was such; so was that in Asa's, Josiah's, Nehemiah's days, all these were outward and visible covenants, acted outwardly. Of this covenant under which the Jews stood, doth Zacharias speak, Zach. 11.10.14.  
This Zachary shows how it was in two branches, the staff of Beauty acted betwixt God and them, and the staff of Bonds acted between themselves to be a brotherhood, by which title a Christian Church is frequently styled in the new Testament: by all which it appears, that it was such a covenant spoken off, by which they were God's people and church, and by the dissolution whereof, they were no Church. Besides, there was a visible Church from Adam's restitution till Abraham's time, by their profession of faith in God's righteousness, and neither circumcision nor baptism, yet a true constituted visible Church, out of which Cain was ejected and cast out. The consequent from hence is this, That a covenant outwardly acted by believers, with God and one another, is the form of the visible Churches in the new Testament, because it was the form of the Church before Christ, and there can be but one form of one and the same thing: as a man grown, and a child, is but the same man, and hath the same form that makes him a man now when he is grown, that he had when he was a child. Even so the church before Christ is compared to a child under age, and churches since Christ, to grown men, Gal. 4.1, etc. Further, to prove that we have the same Church-estate (not in number but in kind,) I alleged, Matth. 21.43. where it is said, The Kingdom of Heaven shall be taken from them, and given to another Nation, that Church estate was not dissolved, but taken away from them (Heb. 12. speaks not of the covenant as Church estate, but of the manner of administration, as I have showed before, a Kingdom is not to be taken there in the sense that it is here in Matthew) it ceased to them, but was not dissolved in itself, nor in respect of others to whom it was given, not another Kingdom and Church estate given to others divers from that, but the very same.  
So Matth. 22.1, etc. the marriage Supper in one and the same continued all the time of that church estate before Christ, and in these churches since Christ.  
They were invited and called from time to time, but they would not come, at last they were therefore destroyed, & the Gentiles called in their stead: therefore that then and this now was but one covenant, and the same church estate, the form of it then and now the same, which then was an outward and visible covenant, acted between God and the people mutually; and therefore this same is the form of churches now.  
Having passed through the Argument which I gathered out of the old Testament, I next added some others, and first from Mat. 18.20. where the word used in the Greek, is commonly used for church assembling, or Synagoguising taken from the Jews, whose assemblies, and places of assembling, were called Synagogues, John 20: 10. Acts 4.21. & 11.26. & 13.44. & 14.27. & 20.7. 1 Cor. 5.4. & 11.18, etc. and other places many, though some by him set down, are misquoted. His answer hereto was this, that the assembling of persons merely in the Scripture, was not the cause of that denomination, nor will any Scripture prove, that that name Church is given to a company of unbaptized persons, but the assembling of a company of persons baptised in Christ's name, is the reason why they are denominated a true visible Church.  
Rep. I grant, that according to the intent of the question, that the assembling of a company of men unbaptised, is not the occasion why they are denominated a church (yet the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is generally applied to a company of unbaptized persons, as Act. 19.31.39.41. thrice together, but that a church so meeting, is of baptised persons; yet the reason why a company of baptised persons meeting together, is called a Church, is truly and only because they meet together, and that not accidentally (for so many thousands meet together in one place) because they constantly meet together in one place by agreement to perform the solemn duties which they are bound to perform to God and each other. Such a meeting together is that which only giveth them the denomination of a Church, nor is baptism any reason of their meeting together: for then all baptised persons must meet together in one place; nor could this or that company be called a church for that reason, much less several companies churches, if there were nothing else added, Matth. 18.19. Whatsoever two of you shall agree together in: where the word agree is properly by a consent manifested by concurring voices, and paction so used, Matth. 20.2.13. To say no more to this (though I might say much more,) because I am not privy to myself that it was used by me, I come to the next reason, which was, That whatsoever maketh a man a member of a church, or no member; that makes a company of men to be a church or no church (there is the same reason of the whole, that there is of every part;) but the making or unmaking, or restoring a man to be a member, is by a covenant acted, Esay 56.4, 6. Ergo, that is the form of the church.  
His answer grants, that the covenant of God is the ground upon which the church and every member thereof is stated; but he denies that a covenant acted to become one another, do form the church or member either; nor doth Esa. 56.4, 5. prove any such thing, but only that the Eunuch or stranger that took hold of God's covenant, that is, were circumcised, and performed the duties, which they were thereby bound to perform, Gal. 5.3. should have a place in his house, not by acting a covenant, and neglecting circumcision.  
Reply. What he saith here, hath been said before and answered, and I am confident, that he cannot make good what he grants, that a Church is grounded upon God's covenant, and thereby stated; but in this sense I speak of a covenant acted by believers between God and them (which he always leaves out) and between themselves; and therefore a covenant acted doth form the church or membership thereof, Esay 56. doth prove it sufficiently, where the Lord saith, If an Eunuch or stranger shall take hold of, and embrace my covenant, that is, shall submit themselves to enter into covenant with me, taking me to be their God, and becoming one of my people, by joining themselves to me and them thereby, and receive circumcision as a seal thereof, and do my works, shall have a place in my house; whereas he expoundeth the covenant to be circumcision, he doth but run in a common mistake, it being but a sign & seal of the covenant, and cannot be the covenant itself, no more than a signeor seal of a thing can be the thing itself that it signifieth and sealeth: and is not only an error in religion, but against manifest reason too. But of this often before, though therefore they were to be circumcised, yet that was the first thing before which there was nothing acted visibly, and that they did not first make some outward profession and expression of being one with them, and having their God to be theirs, will never be proved by him; and if he will not yield the contrary by what is and hath been said, let him be content that other men be of another judgement, and have his leave to be quiet, or else convince me of his calling he hath to deal in such matters as he doth, with arrogancy enough. He addeth, not by acting a covenant, neglecting circumcision. I grant it, and so also, not by acting a covenant, or circumcision, and neglecting sacrifices, etc. but acting a covenant doth form the church, and giveth them right to circumcision, and the rest, which must be added, or else they will be found despisers of God's covenant, which they had made, whereby they were bound to observe circumcision, and all other appointments of God before they were circumcised, as is manifest in all them that lived before Abraham's days, and in Abraham's days, by Gods expressing himself to Abraham, Gen. 12, 13.15. chapters, which was before he was circumcised. As for that, Gal. 5.3. it hath been fully answered before, and therefore I omit it.  
My next reason was taken from the comparison of a church with a Candlestick, Rev. 1.12.20. such as is the form of a candlestick, such by proportion is the form of a church (as the matter signifies the matter of a church proportionally;) but the form of the candlestick is the joining together of the shaft and branches, signifying the uniting together of many members and Christ, which cannot be but by agreement, and covenant. Ergo, a covenant acted is the form of a church.  
His answer first granteth the comparison, and proportion also. But secondly, denies that a covenant acted by believers, or agreement mutually, is necessary to form the church to be one body, and concludes, that persons may be united to Christ by faith and baptism, and so stated in the covenant of grace, and members of the visible church, proportionally, as the form of the candlestick is the joining together of the shaft and branches.  
Reply. First, where he denies mutual agreement, or a covenant acted, is the form of the church, he doth it without any reason given, which is an easy way of confuting; for where he saith it may be by faith and baptism, he should prove it is, and must be, or else he shows himself to hear himself speak.  
Secondly, in saying faith in Christ, and baptism may unite them to Christ, and so state them in the covenant of grace. I affirm faith alone doth it: But it is faith professed, that may make a man capable of baptism, in those that they themselves will admit members; and therefore it must be faith professed that unites a man to Christ visibly, and so he is a member of Christ visibly before baptism comes; nor could be baptised without that visible union, and therefore he is not made a visible member of Christ by baptism, but is so before.  
Thirdly, though by faith professed a man is visibly united to Christ, and may be so acknowledged; yet this doth not unite him or make him a member of this or that particular church, but there must be something whereby he may be united to this or that church, and make him a member thereof, rather than of another; baptism doth not so make him, for then all baptised should be of one and the same church, and not of Ephesus more than of Smyrna; nor can they be any other things then mutual agreement or covenant acted, a● we know it to be certain in all consociations, a mutual covenant is the bond and form of them, as in marriage, commonwealths, 2. Rev. 17.21. and so of other societies and bodies incorporate: so also in this mystical body of Christ, a church visible being an Ecclesiastical body politic, consisting of many members consociated, it must needs be by covenant acted mutually; and by this comparison of marrying, the Apostle sets forth the relation of Christ and the Church, the bond tying the members each to other, that uniteth them all to the head, which is a marriage covenant, Ephes. 5. baptism being but the seal of it: And thus we are come to the last Argument.  
If the removing of the candlestick, and so unchurching of a church be by dissolving the covenant and their fellowship, (as to them by dissipation, Zach. 11.) then a covenant acted is the form of a visible church: But the removing of the candlestick is the dissolving the covenant and their fellowship thereby (as to them by dissipation:) Ergo, a covenant acted is the form of it.  
To the second Proposition he answereth two things:  
First, because the covenant in the new Testament established in Christ's blood is everlasting, and cannot be shaken and dissolved, and differ from the covenant which was before Christ, which was shaken, dissolved and taken away, therefore their kingdom of Heaven was shaken, and church-estate was taken away; but the kingdom and church-state now cannot be taken away, Heb. 12.27. Matth. 21.43.  
Reply. Here is nothing which is not said before and answered; yet observe that he declines the true question, which is of a visible church, and flies to the invisible state; for to visible churches there is an end many times of their visible state, and yet the covenant of God remains eternal to all the elect of God, and never is taken away from them; nor indeed is the visible kingdom of Christ altogether taken away, but it hath, and doth remain somewhere upon earth, though many particular churches are often ruinated and destroyed. Again, he speaks to the state before Christ, and the difference of this since Christ; whereas the Proposition speaks of this since Christ only: and the argument is taken from the state of churches since Christ, as the expressions fully declare, Rev. 2. & 3. where churches compared to candlesticks are threatened dissolution for their faults, Ephesus, Rev. 2.5. I will remove thy candlestick, that is, I will make thee no church: Rev. 3.16. I will spew thee out of my mouth; noting an utter undoing of them: and an allusion was made to Zach. 11. to intimate the way how God would unchurch them, not by taking away their baptism, but by destroying them, and dissipating their fellowship in the covenant; nor was that of Zachary any part of the argument that he could have, nor advantage from that to fetch in the state of the old Testament in his answer: And whereas I say the destruction of the church of Ephesus or Laodicea, was not by taking away their baptism from them; so that who so remains alive of them at the time of dissipation, should not be accounted baptised persons (having received baptism, though it will do them no good in the state they are in) for let me put this case, a whole church is dissipated and unchurched, yet one or two of them that live still after a few days, are truly converted from their hypocrisy and apostasy, justifying the Lord, and seeking, the one to join to Philadelphia, the other to Smyrna, and each give such satisfaction to the church of their faith, and repentance, as they dare not deny the right hand of fellowship: Shall these two be now anew baptised, having received true baptism before, whilst they were members of Ephesus before she was destroyed? If any shall say as he did before in his answer to the first Reason against baptism, being the form of the church, that all before being but seeming, was nothing indeed; and so account he was not baptised at all, and never had any capacity of being baptised truly till now: Besides, what hath been replied there, I add, that the same state must be then of a man that is a member, but an hypocrite in the church unknown so to be, who in continuance of time by God's Spirit in the Word, is convinced of his unsound estate; reputes of it, manifests this to the church, and so clears it, that the church is satisfied, that she was before mistaken, and he was but seemingly a believer, and so had but a seeming membership and baptism; I say likewise, that this man also must be baptised, if he were not before truly baptised: And how fearful a thing is it thus to dally in God's matters, and to make God's ordinance descend upon our apprehension, to be or not to be: humanus intellectus non est mensura institutionum Dei, the ordinance administered to such a man before, was God's ordinance, and true baptism, but he did not receive it savingly, which now upon this work of grace he doth; and baptism in itself applied unto him is not truer baptism now than it was before, it proves only unto him more profitable: But I go on further, where he saith the covenant before Christ might be, and was dissolved, shaken, and removed; this covenant since Christ cannot be dissolved, shaken, or removed. All may easily see, that either wilfully or ignorantly he confoundeth covenant and testament, which are divers things: for the kingdom before Christ spoken of, Heb. 12. is not the covenant, but manner of administration; that before Christ the old Testament, to be shaken and removed; this since Christ the new Testament established, and never to be shaken, nor removed; and this kingdom shaken, was not taken away from the Jews and given to the Gentiles, but utterly abolished, and a new kingdom given and set up that shall not be abolished, nor end, till Christ shall give it up to the Father, 1 Cor. 15. Last of all, the covenant before Christ was the eternal covenant of God and remains the same for ever, and cannot be shaken; this covenant God made with Abraham continued to the Jews till Christ's time, and this also is called the kingdom of God, Matth. 27.34. which cannot be altered, nor was it disannulled nor abolished then, but only taken away from the Jews (whereas kingdom in the other sense was utterly abolished) and given to the Gentiles, and a new or another, but the same; and therefore, though the Jewish people were cut off, yet the covenant and church-state remained and was given to the Gentiles, yet so as that many of the Gentile churches have been cut off, and may be, and shall be cut off for the same cause that the Jews were cut off, (viz.) if they continue not in faith, Rom. 11.  
His second answer is this, the removing of the candlesticks, and unchurching of them is only by discovery or manifestation of a people to be void of any participation in the covenant, which formerly they professed, were esteemed, and had a name to have, 1 John 2.19. Rev. 3.1. and not dissolving or taking away of covenant which once they had and enjoyed; much less is it a dissolving of an outward covenant acted by believers; such a covenant is will-worship, and the churches constituted thereby merely Antichristian; the dissolving of such a covenant cannot be the unchurching of any true churches; Jesus Christ having no true visible church so constituted.  
Reply. All hath been said and answered before that here he speaks; yet a word here: If the removing of the candlestick, and unchurching of such be nothing but only a discovery that they were in no covenant before, than the Jews before Christ were in no covenant, but only seemed to be so, etc. Ephesus and the rest were in no covenant, but had a name only to be in it, who are long ago rejected; nor were the Saints in Rome graffed branches into the true Olive, but only were esteemed so to be; and the cutting, breaking off, dissolving of all those and the like, is but a declaration, and manifest discovery that they were never in covenant; and what great punishment is it for these and the like, to have that taken away from them which they never had? But I doubt not, but that all that have any judgement to discern of things aright, will easily see, as the unsoundness, so the unreasonableness of what he faith.  
Secondly, the places alleged by him are not to his purpose; the first not speaking of their membership and state in the covenant which they had and departed from, but of the soundness of their state therein, and of saving grace from the Father, election in Christ, which they had not, and hereby manifested that they had not, in that they departed from the fellowship of faith. The other place, Rev. 3. speaks not of them as having a name to be a church, for that they were, and Christ so called them, and would not have so acknowledged them, had they not so been; but it speaks of the condition they were in in this church-estate, as having a name to be alive in faith and holiness, but indeed were in this respect dead, and yet not quite dead, but almost; and therefore are bidden to strengthen the things that are ready to die: these places therefore do not at all speak of their being in covenant, or church-estate, but only of the unsoundness of their estate in faith and godliness.  
Thirdly, whereas he opposeth a covenant, and a covenant acted by believers, as divers things, or contrary, if he understood himself, he should have done well to express himself what he meant by them both, that others might understand him: For can there be a covenant, and not outwardly acted? Is not a covenant between two parties? Or is it a covenant unless all parties agree? there is no covenant of God, but it is outwardly manifested to men, and by visible means made known to such as he would have to be in it; nor is that a covenant made with them, but as they outwardly receive it, and by some visible act answer the Lord therein, and so make themselves partakers thereof, and visibly by visible participation, which cannot be but by acting or passing consent to the covenant, whereby God and they become one another's, and they visibly Gods people, which being once done, they remain a church and God's people as long as this state continues, and when it ceaseth, than they cease to be God's people, forsaking each other again mutually, which also is further evident, in that God useth this expression to note out his dissolution, giving them a bill of divorcement, and so dissolving that marriage covenant, which they were joined together in, Jerem. 13. I cannot but therefore conclude, that he doth speak unchristianly, in saying an outward covenant acted by a company of believers, is will-worship, and churches so constituted are Antichristian; or the dissolving of such a covenant cannot be the unchurching of any true churches, because Jesus Christ hath no other true visible churches, but those only that are so constituted.    

A Discourse of the Verity and Validity of Infant's Baptism in itself considered: As also it hath been administered in the Church of ENGLAND.  
WHEREIN, Besides the Arguments duly propounded, and clearly explained for the proof thereof, occasionally: The calling of the Ministers in England, and here administering that ordinance; Likewise the manner of administering it by sprinkling and not dipping, is handled and justified.  
AS it hath ever been the fruit of Satan's malice to pervert the right ways of the Lord, and if not utterly to abolish, yet greatly to corrupt the worship and ordinances of God: So there have never wanted men of evil minds, who give themselves to promote his sinful designs. A proof whereof beyond exception, is, that man of Sin, with all that Apostasy, wherein the prevailing efficacy of Satan is not so much to be wondered at, as the severe judgement of God is to be adored, who thereby punisheth the wanton spirits of men, giving them up to make and believe lies, because they receive not the truth in the love of it. And no less is his mercy to be admired to these latter times, in dispensing from heaven such beams of light and grace, as he hath thereby enlightened the horrid darkness which overspreads the world, and put many upon reformation of what they saw amiss; yet here again, Satan envying our good, by his wiles and subtlety hath prevailed, that some have not gone so fare as the light revealed called for at their hands. And some making more haste then good speed, have gone beyond the truth in many things, so that there is scarce any truth of God that the adversary attempts not to vilify, nor any ordinance which suffers not prejudice by some or other. To reckon particulars would be over tedious, my intentions being bounded in respect of that ordinance of Baptism, than which there is scarce any part of Christianity more sophisticated and mangled. It deeply therefore concerneth all that love the common truth, or have a care of their own salvation, to try all things, and to hold fast that which is good: To lay a sure foundation, and be understandingly principled in these necessary matters, that they may be able to stand fast; and having done all, to obtain the happy issue of all, Eternal life.  
In Baptism itself I know nothing respecting the essence or rites belonging to the essence which is not contradicted by some or other. I shall now speak of the persons baptising, and to be baptised. And to this purpose, first, concerning the persons baptising. This is a question, To whom the right and power to administer doth belong: Whether the power and authority to baptise be not common and promiscuous, that any one may not baptise, or be proper only to such as be called to labour in word and doctrine: And that it is unlawful to any else to administer it. Here men be distracted into parts. First, some maintain, that in case of necessity, not only an Officer, though but a Deacon; but he that is no Officer, if baptised; yea, though unbaptised, if they can speak the words, and know the rites and order: And not only a man, but a woman also may baptise, if a man cannot be procured.  
To prove these conclusions, many Arguments are pressed. First, Zippora's example. Secondly the 28. of Matthew, Go, teach all Nations, etc. Though the words be spoken to the Apostles, and their Successors, yet to teach is lawful to all; yea, in case of necessity, all are bound to teach, as Aquila and Priscilla. So also, though to baptise belong chief to Ministers, yet in case of necessity, others, no Ministers, may baptise; yea, and with greater reason, because it belonged more to the Apostles to preach, then to baptise, 1 Cor. 1.17. Thirdly, Acts 8. Philip baptised the Eunuch, chap. 9 Ananias baptised Paul, neither of them were Apostles, or Pastors.  
There being yet no Pastor ordained besides the Apostles: So Acts 10. Peter commanded them to be baptised of some brethren that went with him, which were neither Apostles nor Deacons.  
Finally, Acts 2. three thousand were baptised on the day of Pentecost. This could not fitly be done by the Apostles alone, therefore some body else must help them, and these must needs be Laici, private men.  
Fourthly, from congruence, because Baptism is of chiefest necessity in respect of all men, therefore it was expedient that the administration of it should be committed to all, especially in case of necessity. The matter also is common, and easy to be had every where, the administration consists in a most simple action and words: Therefore it was convenient that the Minister of it should be very common, and to be granted to every one.  
Fifthly, from humane testimony, Tertull. de Baptismo, Laicis jus est baptizandi, quod enim ex aequo accipitur, ex aequo datur: Alexander confirming and ratifying the act of Athanasius, a Laic, and a boy, administering baptism to boys in sport. The Nicene Council ratified the baptism of heretics, but they could have no true Office. Concilium Elivertin.  
To answer these Arguments briefly: First, in general; not one of these places, or considerations will prove an unbaptized person may baptise; because all their instances are of persons circumcised, or baptised, or in church estate, and therefore argue not that part of the resolution of the question given.  
In particular to each: First, to the instance of Zippora, it was not limited to any by any word of God to circumcise: there were none appointed to perform this ordinance, as in other cases afterwards; and in this, from the first institution: and therefore it might be lawful for her or any other to do it, but it follows not that it may be so in this.  
Secondly, it was a singular and extraordinary practice, and therefore the consequence is not sound: for not one instance more can be given, and it was extraordinary, in extreme case of necessity; whereas there is not the like case fallen out. For it was not to prevent the child's dying uncircumcised, but to prevent the dying of her husband, who had neglected the command, and was in danger of death, by God's hand.  
Thirdly, the case of necessity pleaded for it nothing so: for where doth the Lord say, that an unbaptized person shall be cut off from his people? And there is as great necessity to eat the Lords Supper, John 6. as some expound it, yet children have not that.  
Last of all, Zippora did it in presence of her husband, therefore it will as well prove that a woman may baptise praesente Presbytero.  
To the second, from Matth. 28. This may as well prove, that they may do any thing else as well as baptise, but that will not be granted; therefore this should not be pleaded for. Secondly, therebe two kinds of teaching, one by office, as an Elder; the other without office and authority, as any private person, yea women, Titus 2. Matthew speaks of the first only, therefore it will not follow, because Ministers are put into an office to teach and baptise, therefore every one that may teach, may baptise.  
To the third, Philip was not Laicus, therefore it will not prove that any no officer may baptise. Secondly, he was an Evangelist, Acts 21. it will not prove therefore that a Deacon may. Thirdly, he had an immediate calling, and therefore was extraordinary; Ananias also had the same, the consequence fails therefore. Again, Ananias was the Pastor of that Church at Damascus, who certainly were not here all this time without an officer. Peter commanded they should be baptised: but it followeth not that he might not baptise them himself. Again, who can say, there were no officers besides him? When was Paul without an officer in company?  
To the fourth, from convenience; the reason will prove it to be convenient at all times, as well as in case of necessity, and therefore why should it be limited to any case? yea, and for any person, and as well in presence of an officer, as absent, and therefore should not be limited.  
Last of all, there is no more necessity of being baptised with water, then of eating the bread and drinking the wine: yet it is not allowed to be common, but appropriated to Ministers, and yet the reason will as well prove commonness of this as the other.  
To the fifth, humane authority without Scripture is of no force to argue points of Christianity.  
That of Athanasius done in sport, is absurd, and showeth the boldness of superstition.  
Concerning heretics baptism, they had Ministerial calling, and therefore it is beside the state of the question.  
Secondly, some again stating the question after Antichrists exaltation, propound three ways as professed in the world:  
The first, by such as hold a succession of Ministers from Rome, or less, and so of Baptism.  
A second, of Familists, and the scattered flock, that none may meddle therewith lawfully, till there come some extraordinary men, and condemning both these.  
A third, is holding forth and affirming, that any Disciple of Christ, in what part of the world soever, coming to the Lords way by the Word and Spirit of God, preaching that Word of God unto others, and converting them, he may, and aught also to baptise them.  
To prove this, they bring three Arguments:  
The first is taken from the re-building of the Temple, after the captivity in Babylon, by proportion, thus: As every Israelite then, with whom the Lord was, and whose spirit the Lord stirred up, was commanded to go to build, Ezr. 1.3, 5. though some were more excellent in the business than the other; so now, every spiritual Israelite, with whom the Lord is, and whose spirit the Lord stirreth up, is commanded to go and build the spiritual Temple, which they do, by begetting men anew, by the immortal seed of the Word, so making them living stones; and then couple them together a spiritual house upon confession of their fins by baptism.  
In brief, an Israelite circumcised in flesh, God stirring up his heart, was commanded to build the Temple made with hands, from the first stone to the last. Therefore an Israelite circumcised in heart, (not baptised in the flesh) God stirring him up, is to build the Temple made without hands, from the first stone to the last: Go preach and baptise, teaching his Disciples to the end of the world.  
The second Argument; If John Baptist, being unbaptised himself, preached, converted, and baptised, then may any man else do so too; but John Baptist unbaptised, preached, converted, and baptised; Ergo, any man unbaptised may preach, convert, and baptise. The consequence they prove thus: All things written afore time, were written for our instruction, Rom. 15.4. The same God that spoke with John in the Wilderness, speaketh now to us in the Scriptures, the same word he spoke to John; and therefore, seeing the Lord hath spoken, who shall not preach and practise according to his Word; seeing God now speaketh to no particular person, one more than another?  
The third is from humane authority: Mr. Perkins, and others confess, that if a Turk should come to the knowledge of the truth in Turkey, he might preach the Word to others, and converting them, might baptise them, though unbaptised himself.  
Now, these are their Arguments; to which I answer:  
First, in general the apprehension falls in with the Papists determination in the point, and herein differ; that they hold it may be lawful for any, yea, unbaptised, in case of necessity, and extraordinarily to baptise, when no other can be gotten; but these hold that any unbaptized may do it, in any case, at all times, and ordinarily; nor do their Arguments exclude women, whose spirits the Lord may stirup; and the instance, that the captives returning include them fully: for of that sex, there were some forward in the work, Neh. 3.12 as of old, in building the Tabernacle, Exod. 35.22.  
In particular I answer to the first Argument: First, the consequence is false; for the comparison is not of things alike: The Temple signified Christ's humane nature, and Heaven, and sometimes it signifies a Believer, and not a church-estate, as is clear, Joh. 2. calling his body the Temple, Heb. 8.2. Chap. 9.1. Chap. 11.24. A Tabernacle more excellent, not made with hands, nor of this building, which were figures of the other, and true Tabernacle and Temple which God had builded, and not man; to argue from the Temple to the Church (whereas it was a figure of Christ) cannot be allowed.  
Secondly, the bvilders were all Gods visible people in covenant with him, and circumcised; but the argument speaks of them that are not Gods visible people, nor baptised, etc. therefore not to be admitted to build, as Neh. 2.20. Ezr. 4.  
Thirdly, they went up, the whole body together to build, but they did not all actually build, but some workmen only, whom God had made able and skilful, the rest of the people encouraged, contributed and oversaw the rest, Ezr. 3.7. to the 10. So by proportion, every one may not, every one cannot actually perform this thing, only the Carpenters and workmen whom God hath gifted, and justly officiated to that purpose; the rest must encourage, contribute and forward the work, according to their place.  
Fourthly, they had God's Word by Cyrus to set them on; and being hindered, had Haggai and Zachary to press them to it; but these look for no such allowance. Besides, it is incongrnous to oppose the Temple made with hands, to the Church as made without hands, and also that the church is wholly made without hands, being made by men's endeavours; yea, effecting sometimes no true infallible spiritual stones.  
Last of all, it dissolveth and overturneth that institution of Christ, Ephes. 4.11. Who gave some to be Apostles, etc. for the gathering and perfecting of the Saints; whereas they say every man may do it, and apply at random that to every man, no officer nor baptised person.  
That of Mat. 28. was spoken but to the eleven who were baptised and especial officers already chosen and set up officers in the church.  
To the second from John Baptist, etc. the Antecedent affirms John unbaptised; but no word of proof given, nor one syllable of reason: For though it be not expressed of whom, when, and where he was baptised (nor is there mention of Christ's Apostles baptism,) yet it follows not that John was not baptised. If I shall affirm the contrary, viz. that John was baptised, and infer from hence, no person unbaptised may baptise; for John was baptised, and say it is written for our instruction: this will not be granted. And why might not John baptise himself, being the beginner of the new Testament, as Abraham circumcised himself, though after some body circumcised did it? And if John Hel. (or Smith) baptised himself first, and then baptised others, John Baptist might do it as well as he. Or what if God baptised him, as he buried Moses? Or what if he were baptised in the Jewish church, they practising a baptism to every proselyte, to make them members incorporate into the commonwealth of Israel?  
But secondly, I deny the consequence. For suppose John unbaptised, yet it followeth not, what John did, every man may do, because there is a vast difference between the beginning of things, and in constituting, and a thing now constituted. And the proof of the consequence is invalid and unsound: For if whatsoever be written, be written for our learning, and the same word spoken to them in the Scripture formerly, is now spoken to us in the same consideration, then let every man go sacrifice his son, as Abraham did, rob the Indians as the Israelites did the Egyptians, kill an unbeliever striving with a Christian, as Moses did, go to Rome as Paul did, and a thousand the like: for it is written for our instruction, and the same word spoken to them, is now spoken to us in the Scripture: who seethe not gross absurdity here? Again, if all may and must do as John, how is it that John did it alone, and none else but he? Not a man before or after him, baptised, or unbaptised, except they had an especial calling thereto, as Christ's Apostles. And John himself took it not upon himself, but was sent, and commanded so to do, John 1.33. Not by a motion of his own spirit or willingness, but by an immediate revelation, and divine appointment: so that the consequence from John, having such a calling, so evident and heavenly, as the Pharisees durst not oppose, to any man, upon a willingness of mind, and inward motion (not heroical and of divine inspiration, but) private and common to all, is as bad as from a lawful Magistrate to an Usurper.  
To the third Argument from Mr. Perkins, and others (which are not named) I answer in a word: First, it is unjust to use humane authority to press others, yet to reject it ourselves: Mr. Perkins saith, Infants must be baptised. Secondly, humane authority, though the men be never so many, never so eminent, is no foundation of divine disputations. The Argument from humane authority is as easily rejected as propounded, though otherwise much good use may be made of their writings, and by the ablest gifted.  
But thirdly, what other men say (except I read them, or some relate them) or what Mr. Perkins saith in other places, I know not, (for no place is quoted) but what I read in him upon Galat. 1.11. pag. 172. is nothing to this purpose: and what he saith, is quite contrary. His words are these: If in Turkey, America, or else where, the Gospel should be received of men by counsel and persuasion of private persons, they shall not need to send into Europe far consecrated Ministers; for they have power to choose their Ministers within themselves: For where the Lord gives the Word, he gives the power also. Where he speaks not a word of a person unbaptised, converting and baptising others. But first, if they should be converted by endeavours of private persons, and not stirred up in their own minds to convert others Secondly, he saith not, these private persons are unbaptised, but implieth and intendeth they are baptised; as I have read the case thus stated: If some private Christians cast there by Shipwreck and should do such a thing, the case now stands thus: Who 〈…〉 Minister to these new converts by these private men conve●●●● 〈…〉 may administer to them in office, the things of God? (which 〈…〉 out as necessary) and there being but two ways, either 〈…〉 where be Ministers already, or else setting up some of themselves; He denying the former, concludeth the latter, viz. they should choose one of their own company, and set him up, that must be by rule, and questionless would be that private brother, a baptised Christian, cast there by providence, having been a means of converting them: Otherwise if a Pagan should by any private means be converted, and convert others, I suppose they have no power, (unless extraordinary calling can be made good for it) to administer baptism, but must either go to churches already gathered, as in the old Testament they incorporated themselves into the Jews body, or else send for some who may join in a church there, and choosing Officers admit them to them so joined, etc.  
Thus of the question, as some take it. Now on the contrary I affirm, that it is not lawful for any man now to baptise another, being himself unbaptised; or though baptised, yet unless he be lawfully and truly called thereto by men according to God's word, more or less. And that I may not nakedly affirm it, besides the proof from the disproof of the former, I add these arguments.  
1. They only may baptise, to whom the commission of baptising is given. But it is only to the officers of churches. Ergo, they only may baptise. The Major is manifest of itself, because institution of baptism depends upon the sole will of the Institutor, and is to be measured according thereto: As of the Eucharist. The Minor is clear from Matth. 28. Go, teach and baptise, etc.  
2. The Analogy of the other Ordinances Ministerial, which none may meddle withal but Ministers, Rom. 10.15. the administration of the Lords Supper, Censures, etc.  
3. In the first times noneunbaptized, or out of office, did baptise, than ought it not to be otherwise now. But in the first times none out of office, or unbaptised, did baptise: Therefore it ought not to be otherwise now. The consequence is true, that we must do as they commanded us from Christ, and having received from Christ, delivered to us. As also they are patterns and precedents, and therefore the Apostles names are in the walls of the new Jerusalem. The Minor, or Antecedent is clear, by an Induction of such as did baptise in those times, as John Baptist, Christ and his Disciples, John 4.12. Ananias, Acts 9 Philip, Acts 8. Peter, Acts 16. Paul, etc.  
4. If Christ have set in his churches by institution, Apostles, etc. to gather and perfect the Saints for the work of the Ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, till we all come in the unity of the faith, and knowledge of Jesus Christ to a perfect man, than all should be done by them, not by any man or woman, whose spirit God stirreth up; but Christ hath set these up, etc. therefore all must be done by these officers, and not else: The first is true, else these are in vain, and not sufficient: the Minor is clear from Ephes. 4.11, etc.  
5. If no woman but a man, nor a man but baptised, nor a man baptised but an officer, nor no other officer but he that preacheth the Word, by office may baptise, than a baptised man and in office called thereto, may, and must only baptise. Verum prius, from the disproof of the former apprehensions; Ergo, the latter is true also.  
Secondly, concerning persons to be baptised; this is the question, What persons are to be baptised?  
I answer, They are of two sorts:  
1. Men of years, or Infants: Touching men of years, I think there is no difference, but all agree that they being converted to believe and repent, may, and should be baptised; and that none of years are to be baptised till they be converted and believe, and repent; nor doth the baptising of Infants prevent the baptising of men of years, where any such are converted from Paganism to Christianity, no more than circumcising Infants of old prevented the circumcising of men of years, which were converted from Gentilism to Judaisme; though it prevents the baptising of believers children, when they come to years, because they are baptised Infants: As the Jewish Infants circumcised, when they were Infants, could not be circumcised when they came to years. It is a weak and feeble consequence, to say, where we maintain baptising Infants, who do not actually believe, that we can never baptise any that do actually believe, being only true of them that are baptised Infants, and Infants of believers. So we come to the other sort of persons to be baptised, viz. Infants, where I shall endeavour two things:  
1. What Infants are to be baptised.  
2. That infants are to be baptised.  
First, Infants (briefly) are either of Infidels, or believing parents: The Infants of Infidels (under which term I comprehend, Jews, Turks, Pagans, and all but those that are true visible Christians) are altogether strangers to the covenant of God in Christ, and so can have no right at all to this ordinance; yea, though the parent's consent, much less against their consent: Notwithstanding others undertaking for them; I except only two cases:  
1. Slaves and servants bought with money, these being Infants, may be baptised, for aught I know.  
2. When Infidel parents are converted, and desire church-fellowship, and thereby themselves and Infants are to be baptised, I conclude in these two cases; that Infants born of Infidel parents may be baptised; and therefore I judge that Infidel Infants are in no wise to be baptised, because they are unclean, 1 Cor. 7.14. therefore such are to be deferred, till they be converted, and give testimony of their own faith and repentance.  
Two Questions may be here resolved:  
1. In case of excommunicate persons; Whether an Infant born of parents, both under the censure of the church, and the state of excommunication, may be baptised, if any will undertake for them:  
I answer, No.  
First, because they are in that estate, as Heathens, and neither of them in visible covenant.  
Secondly, if by others undertaking, why not Infants of Indians also?  
Thirdly, if by faith of forefathers, as I see no Scriptures for it, so, where will you limit it? Suppose a converted child of Esau in David's time could prove successively, and to all evidently, that he came of Esau the son of Isaac; whether should it have been circumcised as a Proselyte, or as Isaac's seed?  
A second Question, is concerning Infants baptised of Heretics, whether lawful?  
I answer: If the person baptising had a true calling, though stained with some corruption in the person or calling; and in the administration of baptism, nothing essential omitted in matter, or form, those persons are not to be baptised again; because baptism is not to be administered twice to any: But if any of the essentials were omitted, such persons are to be baptised, as not baptised before. And now I come to the other particular; that Infants of Believers, and visible professors, are to be baptised; yea, though but one of the parents be in church-fellowship, which I shall prove after I have premised a few things.  
1. The Scriptures containing the books of the new and old Testament, are full of perfection, containing a most perfect rule of all things concerning faith, and order: So that in these respects, nothing is to be urged as necessary, nor allowed as lawful, but what is justly comprehended in them.  
2. There are two ways whereby we may find what Gods will is in all cases, concerning the premises; either in express terms, or by just consequence drawn from thence. So that whatsoever is not literally expressed, or drawn from the letter by necessary consequence, is to be rejected, as not the Lords mind.  
3. Whatsoever can be collected by true deduction from any part of Scripture expounded in the largest sense, is as truly contained in them, as that which is set down in express terms, and so is of the same force with that which is expressed: So our Saviour urgeth the Devil, Matth. 4. with that word (only) from Deut. which yet is not in the Text, but truly drawn from thence. So the Protestant urging justification by faith only, oppose the Papists, yet (only) is not expressed, but necessarily drawn from thence: For if there be but two ways of justification, (as there is not) and we be not justified by works, as the Text saith, then by faith only: And Exod. 21.28, etc. under the case of an Ox in all those particulars clearly by consequence any other creature that may do hurt, in the like case is intended, as Cow, Dog, Goat, etc.  
4. The tender of immortality, and happiness of God to mankind, hath been two ways dispensed:  
First, to Adam, and all mankind in his loins by the Law, upon condition of perfect obedience thereto in man's own personal righteousness.  
Secondly, Adam transgressing, lost immortality and happiness in himself and all mankind, and involved them and himself in sin, and eternal wrath thereby, God the Father, for the praise of his grace, having predestinated some to that adoption of sonship in his Son, and given them to his Son to be saved by him, (that he might be glorified with the Father) and he receiving them at his Father's hands, because they were partakers of flesh and blood, he himself also took flesh and blood upon him, and in that humane nature fulfilled the Law for them actually, and so reconciled them all to the Father in himself, that so God might be just, and the justifier of the ungodly, that should believe in Jesus.  
From hence the Father maketh a new tender of life, setting forth his Son to be a propitiation through his blood, offering him and his righteousness, (in his humane nature, and performed by it in obedience, active, passive, to his holy will) to all which shall believe, and by that faith be found in him, having his righteousness upon them; accounting them thereby righteous, and no sinners, and making them from thence, through the life of his Son manifested in them by sanctification of that holy Spirit partakers of life and immortality again. This tender being one and the same in substance for ever, from the first promulgation to Adam and Eve in Paradise, till this day, and to the end, yet hath it admitted of variation in the circumstances thereof; as is clear from four several and remarkable periods.  
1. From Adam fallen to Abraham, under a promise of the seed of the woman to break the Serpent's head, Gen. 3.15.  
2. The second, from Abraham to Moses time in the wilderness, in substance the same with the former, yet differing from it:  
First, in promising the seed of the woman to proceed from Abraham's loins according to the flesh successively.  
Secondly, by passing the promise into a solemn formal visible covenant, as the father of the blessed, and all-blessing seed, and of all believers of all nations.  
Thirdly, confirming it by circumcision, the sign and seal of the righteousness of faith, which he had yet being uncircumcised.  
3. The third from Moses to Christ's coming in the flesh; this is the same in substance with the former, the same Christ, and doctrine, and grace dispensed, but differing from the former in the manner of dispensation, in divers circumstances:  
First, in adding these ten words in tables of stone, and drawing a vail of shadows over it, consisting of all those Laws and Ordinances delivered to Moses on the mount, according to the pattern shown him, and by him communicated to the people.  
Secondly, in adding the Ordinance of the Passeover, with divers rites thereto belonging; all which were to continue till the time of Reformation; and this, and not the former, is the old Testament, ratified by the death of Bulls and Goats, etc. Shadows of better things, without the application whereof, the other purified the flesh, and not the conscience.  
4. The fourth gins with the manifestation of the Son of God in the flesh, and still continues, and is the new Testament, ratified by the death and blood of the Lord Jesus, the testator, who being come, the veil of shadows was utterly removed, and the Mosaical administrations quite abolished; the old being done away, that the new might be established, which cannot be removed. And this is to be attended, that all the Scriptures that speak of the removal of the old, and setting up of the new Testament; or that declare the abolishing of the old, and establishing of the new, (as was foretold) is to be understood of these two periods, from Moses to Christ, and after; not of that from Abraham to Moses; and he opposition in this case made in the Scriptures, is of that under Moses and Christ only.  
5. The covenant that God made with Abraham, and continued to his seed, the Jews, and us Gentiles, hath two parts in it; the first respecteth God, the other respecteth us: In the first, concerning God, is contained all that concerns our good, temporal and eternal, and himself held forth, as the sole efficient of all; preventing us with his grace freely, and performing all the good pleasure of his grace in us, according to his own will; nor doth any thing, that he is pleased to work, depend on us, nor requires he any thing of us by way of efficiency or causality; yet so, as that he worketh something in us without us; even being merely passive in the act of working, till it be first wrought; something he works by us, stirring up and assisting that which he hath first wrought in us; nor can we at first do any thing, till he hath principled us by supernatural grace; nor first, or last, more than he helpeth us, who worketh all, the will and deed according to his will.  
6. Infants are passively capable of the dispensation of God, and of the Spirit and grace of the covenant, and what ever men of years are capable of, though not wrought in the same way, or by the same means, yet the same things, and by the same Spirit, so far as is necessary to union with Christ, and his justification to life thereby, else no children dying Infants, are elected, or shall be raised up again in their bodies, and saved; nor is the judgement that we can have of men of years infallible, as in Simon Magus, etc.  
7. The Lord having taken hold of any man or woman, by outward dispensation of means, to call them out of Infidelity, into visible profession of faith in the Word of his grace and obedience to his commands, they are hereby made partakers of his covenant, and all the privileges outwardly belonging thereto; yea, though they have not saving faith, but be hypocrites; and so themselves, and all that ever proceed from them, continue in the same state, parents and children successively, so long as the Lord continues the course of his dispensation; nor can any alteration befall them, whereby this estate is dissolved, but some apparent act of God breaking them off from him.  
8. Baptism is not the first grace, but the second; nor doth it confer grace, but confirm the former, which therefore must be presupposed; and it is the seal of the righteousness of faith in the new Testament, to all that receive it, as circumcision of old was to them, Rom. 4.11. By baptism I mean the ordinance of the church administered by a just calling, which is too oft, (though it never should be) separated from inward grace, yet remains true baptism so administered, else Simon Magus, and those false brothers, Gal. 2. being not inwardly baptised, were not truly baptised, and if they had repent, must be baptised anew.  
9 Last of all: as of old more was required of Abraham, and of men of years, turning Proselytes, when they were to be circumcised, then of Isaac and their Infants, continually afterwards circumcised: So now, in administering baptism to persons, more is required of men of years, then of Infants. God required faith of Abraham in the blessing seed, before circumcised; but he required not faith of Isaac, nor of any one of Abraham's seed after him, before circumcision; but that they should believe afterward, which he promised to work in them. So now, of men of years, faith is to be required, and must be, that a man of years be baptised, but not so of Infants of baptised persons, who are to be baptised, that they may believe afterward, etc.  
Having premised thus much; I come to the proof of the question, that Infants of believing parents, and in covenant with God, by visible profession, may and aught to be baptised.  

ARGUMENTS.  
¶ 1 IF the covenant now under Christ be the same that it was with Abraham and the Jews before Christ; then, as Infants were in that covenant, and partakers of the sign thereof, circumcision; so are Infants now in the covenan, and should receive the sign thereof, baptism: But the covenant now under Christ, is the same with that before Christ, with Abraham and his posterity in the flesh: Therefore as Infants were then in the covenant, and signed with circumcision, so are Infants now in the covenant, and are to receive baptism the sign thereof.  
In this Argument three things are to be cleared: First, that the covenant made with Abraham and his posterity before Christ, and this under Christ, is the same.  
And secondly, that Infants were then in that covenant, so they be now in this.  
And thirdly, that all Jewish Infants were then partakers of the sign, and circumcised; and so should Infants now receive baptism, the sign of it. Of each of these I will set down particular grounds. 1. That the covenant with Abraham and the Jews before, and the Gentiles now, is the same, is evident by these reasons:  
First, the Gospel is the doctrine of the covenant, but this is but one, Gal. 1.6. and was preached to Abraham, Gal. 3.8. Rom. 4.11. and to the Jews in the wilderness, Heb. 3. & 4. and in David's time, Heb. 4.7. from Psal. 95. and during their whole state, Rom. 9.31. & 10.2. This Gospel is now preached to us, Heb. 4.2. Therefore the covenant is the same in all, and it is an injurious thing to God's grace, and utterly against the Scriptures to affirm, that that covenant was of nature in the flesh, and of earthly things: This is of grace, in the spirit, and of heavenly things. And as little understanding do they show in God's word, that say God's covenant was in their flesh, because circumcision outward was in their flesh. For though God calls it his covenant, yet it is not, but the sign of it, as he after expresseth, and outward baptism is no less on the flesh, than it, and so may be called God's covenant on the flesh.  
Secondly, if Abraham be the Father of the Jews and Gentiles equally, as he believes the righteousness of faith, and they his children equally, as so believing, and no otherwise, than the covenant is the same: But Abraham is the father of Jews and Gentiles equally, as he believes, and they his children equally, as so believing, Rom. 4.11, 12, 16, 17, 23, 24. Gal. 3.7, 9, 26.29. Therefore the covenant is the same. By [believing] I mean the profession of Faith.  
Thirdly, the standing of the Jews under the grace of God, was the same with Abraham, as is clear from Gods often expressing himself to be the God of their Fathers, Abraham, etc. and dispensing himself according to the covenant made with Abraham, &c, and to his posterity, Exod. 2.24. 2 Reg. 13.23. And their praying to the Lord to remember his covenant made with Abraham, etc. acknowledging the accomplishment of it to them, Luke 2.54. and 72.74. And let not any say, it was a covenant of giving the Land of Canaan: For if that were all, why did David, so long after Joshuah, possess them of Canaan, when they had rest there, yet still provoke them in his time, to enter into God's rest, lest they should be shut out as their Fathers were in the wilderness, as the Apostle argueth, Heb. 3.4. was this the land of Canaan (unless as a type?) was it not Christ, and Gods free grace? Now our standing is the same with the Jews, as is evident, Matth. 21.4. chap. 22.1.  
2. That the Infants of the Jews were then in the covenant, will not be denied. That Infants are now in the covenant, whose parents profess the faith, I prove thus: (1.) Else the covenant was not the same with the former, but another: But it is the same with the former, and not another divers from that, as I have proved. Ergo, etc. Else the state of the grace of God should be straitened, and made of less extent by Christ's coming, than it was before; whereas it is more enlarged, and of greater extent.  
3. If Infants be not now in the covenant, as well as then, either it is because God hath excluded them expressly, or there was something more in the persons of believers then, then now, to interest Infants in it: But God hath no where expressly excluded them, nor was there any thing in the persons then, more than now, to interest them. Therefore Infants are now in the covenant, as then.  
4. If Jew's and Gentiles be incorporated into one body in Christ, and the Jews Infants were in the body before, and so continued; then so must the infants of Christian Gentiles be now. But the Gentiles and Jews be incorporate into one body in Christ, (by the Gentiles being made near, and Citizens, which they were not before, as the Jews were, but strangers and fare off) Ephes. 2.11, 13, 20. & 3.6. and the Jews Infants were, and continued in that body, therefore so are the Infants of believing Gentiles.  
3. Infant's should now be baptised, as than they were circumcised. To clear it further, I add these considerations.  
1. Else the covenant was not the same then and now, nor Infants in it now as then, which I have proved to be otherwise.  
2. If they have the thing and substance, they cannot be denied the sign and circumstance; if the first grace, than the second and confirming: But Infants have the thing and substance, for they have the same covenant, and the Kingdom of heaven which was taken from the Jews, of which Infants were subjects, as well as elder men, is now given to the Gentiles. Therefore, as Peter, Acts 10. so say I, Who can forbid water, that Infants should not be baptised as well as men of years, seeing they are subjects of the Kingdom as well as they?  
3. Else there should be no difference between the Infants of Gentiles believing, & Pagans and Infidels, as there was before between the Jews Infants, and the Gentiles, which as it is uncomfortable, & without just ground, to say so, so it is contrary to the word of God, which affirmeth, that the Infants of believing Gentiles are holy, and not as the Infants of Infidels, which are profane. This is manifest, 1 Cor. 7.14. where the Apostle resolving this scruple, Whether a believer might continue to cohabite and enjoy marriage-fellowship with an Infidel yoke-fellow, and not be polluted; and he affirming it, cleareth his affirmation by three Arguments:  
1. First, from the privilege of the state of grace to a believer himself, that being by faith pure himself, all things are pure to him, and so the society of marriage with an Infidel. And this to be so, he cleareth, viz. That an Infidel is sanctified to a believing yoke-mate.  
2. From a privilege of the state of grace to their children, that they themselves being pure by faith, their children are thereby born pure of them, and holy in that estate; which could not be, if the society of marriage was polluted. This is the true meaning of the words; yet what holiness is here meant, hath troubled men, who have traveled with variety in expounding or torturing these few words: Some will have them understood politically, and that two ways: 1. In respect of the present children born of them, which could not be legitimate, if their marriage was not lawful. 2. In respect of those children they might have by others, if they should forsake this marriage, and betake them to another, those children would be bastards.  
Some ceremonially, of uncleanness of children begotten in time of the woman's disease, and are holy, when the Infidel party forbears that time; which is absurd and groundless.  
Some take it religiously: But here they differ, some will have it to mean future holiness, which the Parent by cohabitation may make the child partaker of: either obtaining it may be baptised, or by counsel when they come to age.  
But if they forsake the Infidel party, than the children will remain in infidelity still.  
Others take it for present holiness, yet not in one sense: for some conceive thus: That the believer abiding and gaining the Infidel party, the children shall be holy, that is, both parents that dedicate and devote them to God.  
Others take it of federal holiness, and is nothing else but that the children do belong to the covenant of God, as well as the parent, and as well as if both parents had been believers. Thus diversely are the words taken. To issue all, note these things:  
First, that it pertains to children of one at least believing, which is evident, because he speaks to a case not of all mankind, but of an Infidel with a believer: Therefore the argument must be taken from some thing proper to a believer: so it is in the first Argument. Though all things natural, in regard of the use of them, be common to Infidels with believers, (as to eat, sleep, etc.) yet the impurity of conscience defileth the use of every thing to an Infidel; and the purity of conscience purifieth the use of every thing to a believer, 1 Tim. 4.4. And as this is taken from something proper to a believer, so in this of children's holiness: Therefore legitimation cannot be meant, because that is no more proper to a believer then an Infidel. Pilat was as legitimate as Paul, though not so holy. Never was it heard that Infidels children were called holy, nor can an instance been given of this notion, viz. that an holy child should signify legitimate. Again, to make marriage lawful, it is not necessary that the parties, at least one of them, be a believer, (else there were no lawful marriage among Infidels.)  
The question is not therefore of legitimate marriage, but of legitimate marriage polluted. It were to no purpose to argue from legitimacy of children to prove that: for children are always legitimate from lawful marriage, whether the marriage be unclean and impure, or not. Therefore it cannot be meant of legitimacy.  
Secondly, it is spoken of something present, notwithstanding the disparity of religion continue. This is manifest, because the believer must not departed from the Infidel willing to cohabite, because the children are holy.  
Now, if he should mean when the Infidel party is converted, or the children afterward, this being uncertain, whether ever it should be or no; the question is left unresolved, the scruple is not removed, and it is uncertain from thence, whether ever it shall be a pure marriage or no, and in the mean time is not: The exposition therefore of holiness of children in respect of future, and what may be, is not sound. I take it therefore of federal holiness, whereby the children are with their believing parents taken by God to be his, and by him put under his covenant, and so they continue when men of years, though they never have any further grace wrought in them; nor have any other state upon them, than what they had when they were born: nor are they right that do expound it, to be all one with the former, of the Infidels sanctified to the believing party, as if he should say, you need not question your dwelling with the Infidel party, no more than you question your dwelling with your children: For,  
First, there is a twofold holiness, the Apostle speaks of the one, not of the thing itself, but to the believers use; the other of the thing itself, and not in regard of the believers use, and it is unjust to confound them.  
Secondly, the dwelling with the Infidel party was not scrupled, but the enjoyment of marriage society, and therefore children are not to be compared with them in that respect.  
Last of all, the words are brought to prove that a believing party sanctifieth the Infidel party, and therefore that cannot be the sense of it, and it were to prove the same by the same, etc.  
If in the promise made to Abraham, ¶ 2 I will be the God of thee and of thy seed, both Jews and Gentiles are included, and of old, Infants as well as men of years, and therefore circumcised, than Infants now also, and so to be baptised; but under that promise, both Jews and Gentiles are included, and their Infants, and for that cause circumcised; Ergo, so are Infants now, and for that cause to be baptised.  
First, the promise was made to Abraham, and to his seed, which are both Jews and Gentiles, and therefore made unto him in the state of uncircumcision, and after that circumcised, Rom. 4.11. to 16. Gal. 3.8.  
Secondly, Infants were then under that promise, and for that cause circumcised, because God was their God, as well as of men of years; yea, from thence he was their God, when men of years; Nor did God actually first require faith of any Jews (after Abraham's time) to become their God; but God freely vouchsafed them that grace from an act of their own; nor did the unbelief of men of years frustrate that grace of God, but still he made it good, and continued it unto them in all their apostasies, until by some manifest act he cast them off, as he did at last the ten Tribes; and finally, all in the days of his Son's manifestation; nor might any Infant but a Jews be circumcised, except himself first was incorporated into the Jewish body Ecclesiastical.  
Thirdly, that Infants now also are under that promise, and so to be baptised as a part of that seed; they were in it till Christ's time, and why should they be now excluded? or let any show who did it, or where it was done, it shall be sufficient. If any shall say, that believers are the seed of Abraham. I answer, so it was among the Jews, Rom. 9.6, 7, 8. the children of promise are counted for the seed; and therefore our Saviour argueth them not to be the children of Abraham, but of their father the Devil, Joh. 8. Let this then be noted that our Saviour and his Apostle speaketh thus of them in a certain respect; and we are to consider them; first, as Abraham's seed federally, continuing in outward profession, and so they were all God's people, men and Infants, and were all under that promise, and so were partakers of all promises and privileges given unto that people on Gods part offered, Rom. 9.4, 5.  
Secondly, as under God's election of grace, and so the elect only obtained the things promised, whether Infants, or men of years, Rom. 11. But the want of obtaining did not make them not to be the seed, nor under that promise in another sense: Abraham had two sons, the one obtained, the other not, of his posterity there were always of them two sorts, the one bound after the flesh (not naturally, but in another sense,) the other after the Spirit, and so it is now, Gal. 4. But being after the flesh, did not make that God was not their God, and they Abraham's seed federally: So than it remains, that as the Jews Infants were included under that promise, and for that cause circumcised, so the Gentiles believing are with their Infants under that promise, and for that cause to be baptised, though only the elect, whether Infants, or men of years, Jews or Gentiles, do obtain the rest are hardened, and take we heed that we increase not the number of them.  
If in the whole body of Israel, as well Infants as men of years, ¶ 3 were baptised, and with the same spiritual baptism that ours is; then Infants are now to be baptised: But in the whole body of Israel Infants were baptised with the same spiritual baptism that ours is; Ergo, Infants are now to be baptised; I mean, Infants of believing parents, and not any other.  
1. First, that it was the same spiritual baptism with ours, is evident, 1 Cor. 10.1, etc.  
1. The other ordinances there mentioned, were the same spiritually with ours; they eat the same spiritual meat, and drank the same spiritual drink, on Gods part dispensing, and whosoever eat and drank unworthily, not discerning the Lords body and blood, were guilty on their part of his body and blood, therefore they were baptised with the same spiritual baptism with ours.  
2. Otherwise the Apostle should link things together in his argument that were not equal, nor would it be of force with the Corinthians, if they were not the same with ours spiritually; nor the conclusion certain, that they should be punished with the like punishment, if they committed the like sins.  
2. Secondly, it cannot be denied, but those Infants were baptised with the same spiritual baptism, though they could not actually repent and believe, for they were a part of all Israel; nor had all men of year's faith and repentance; God baptised them all, one as well as another, though all obtained not the full benefit of it, but only the elect. If then Infants were baptised with the same spiritual baptism, signified and dispensed by those signs, no reason can be given, why Infants may not now be baptised with the same spiritual baptism dispensed by other signs; and here were have an example of Infant's baptism, which some call for so much.  
There is the same reason of the first fruits and the lump; ¶ 4 of the root and branches; but the first fruits and root believing parents are holy, and must be baptised; Ergo, Infants the lump and branches are holy, and must be baptised.  
1. The first is clear from the Law of sanctifying the lump, by offering the first fruits, there is nothing more required, and so Rom. 11.16.  
2. The second is clear also, from Rom. 11.16. where note:  
1. Abraham and the Father are the first fruits and root, and so all believing parents, 1 Cor. 7.14, etc. Infants having no actual unbelief, could not be cut off with their parents.  
2. That Infants of believing parents are branches of that root, and men of years not otherwise branches then as they were branches first, when Infants.  
3. The branches then broken off, are those men of years, and Infants then rejected, with all their posterity to this day.  
4. That all the Jews were not rejected, but some branches continued on, and they men of years, with their Infants, and were baptised, that all those Jews not broken off had no Infants is unlikely, without question they had many; that they were branches before their parents closing with the way of the new Testament, cannot be denied; that they were broken off for actual unbelief, could not be; that their parents continued on branches, and the Infants broken off, will never be proved; but it is manifest that they continued branches of their parents, or of the fathers with their parents, and so were baptised, else their parent's condition should be worse under the state of grace administered in the new Testament, than it was in the old, and they should change from the better to the worse; their children who before were branches of the root, and now should be broken off, their parents continuing still, and should be in no better case than Infidels Infants; and God who was their God before, now should not be their God: and before they were circumcised, and that being abolished, they are left destitute of all signs of God's grace, and may not be baptised; O woeful change, if so, or rather a finfull charge upon God's grace.  
5. When Jews shall be ingraffed again, as Infants with men of years were broken off, so Infants shall be again implanted with their converted parents, else such branches should not be ingraffed as were broken off, which is quite contrary to the Text, and their case should be far worse than it was, which to hold, is to lay a stumbling block in the way of the Jews, to hinder them from closing with Christ.  
6. The Gentiles being implanted in stead of the Jews broken off, as they were Infants, as well as men of years, so Infants of Gentiles believing, are ingraffed with their parents, else such branches are not ingraffed as were broken off: As then Jew's Infants, while branches, were by virtue thereof circumcised, and such as continued, when others were broken off were baptised: So also must Infants of Gentiles be baptised, which is in part to be made partakers of the fatness of the Olive, Rom. 11.16, 17.  
If baptism succeeds circumcision, ¶ 5 then as Infants were circumcised, so now they must be baptised; but baptism succeeds circumcision; Ergo.  
1. That baptism succeeds circumcision, is clear, Col. 2.11, 12. where the Apostle speaks of two circumcisions, the one outward in the flesh, made with hands, the other inward in the heart, made without hands. And though they had not the outward, which of old was the sign and means of the inward; yet they needed it not, because in Christ they were complete, and through him made partakers of the inward, conveyed unto them by baptism, as the sign and seal thereof.  
Again, either baptism succeeds circumcision, or something else succeeds it, or it hath nothing to succeed it. But it hath something to succeed it, (as all other ordinances of the old Testament) and nothing else can be shown; Ergo, baptism succeeds it.  
Finally, the thing signified in both, is the same without alteration, which is cleansing from sin, by justification and sanctification; Ergo, the sign in the former being removed, baptism must needs succeed it in place, as the sign of the same thing.  
2. Infants are therefore to be baptised, as they were circumcised, there being nothing more required now, nor any thing that may hinder that Infants should be baptised, then was required then, or that might hinder that they should be then circumcised. If then their outward circumcision, the sign of the same spiritual circumcision with ours, was applied to Infants then: So outward baptism the sign of the same spiritual circumcision with theirs, may be applied to Infants now; nor do I know of any objection that need trouble any judiciously godly: For the two principal, that we have no command for baptising them now, or any to be baptised, but Disciples, are fully taken away in this Discourse by the truth of it. And though I account not of humane testimony without Scriptures, of any authority to satisfy in divine matters, yet added to the former, it is not to be slighted. I shall therefore propound to consideration, what I have observed, intending not to say all, nor to quote their say at large, but to give some references only, and in this order:  
First, I will set down the judgement of single learned men in their writings,  
Secondly, the consent of whole assemblies: And,  
Thirdly, the practice of all churches in all ages.  
First, that Infants have been, and aught to be baptised, receives confirmation from testimony of all ancient Writers, which I have been able to take notice of, as appears by these places: Justin Mart. in quaestion. Orthodox. Tertul. lib. de baptismo, cap. 18. pag. 225. See Junius notes also upon it, pag. 157. Dionysius, Areop. quoted by Thom. 3. qu. 68 art. 9 Origen affirming that the church had it from the Apostles, hom. 2. in Ps. 38, & in Levit. hom. 8. & in 6. ad Rom. Cyprian. Epist. lib. 3.8. Epist. ad Fidum: Item. Epist. in the first Tome of Counsels, pag. 240. Cyril. upon Leu. 8. Syricius epist. in first tome of Counsels, Capit. 1. pag. 493. Hieron. lib. 4. in Ezek. 16. Idem lib. 3. contra Pelag. Idem Epist. ad Laetam. Aug. in Enchirid. cap. 42.43.51.65. In lib. de definite. Orthodox. fidei, cap. 21. de fide ad Petrum cap. 24.27.38. Idem. lib. 4. de baptismo contra Donatist. cap. 14. and in many other places, and against Donatists, lib. 4. cap. 23. he hath these words: The baptism of Infants was not derived from the authority of men, nor of Counsels, but from the tradition and doctrine of the Apostles. Greg. Nazian. de sacro Lavacro orat. 3. Ambros. de Abraha. lib. 2. cap. 11. Jeron. Critobul. contra Pelag. lib. 3. etc.  
Secondly, the attestation of whole assemblies declare as much, not ordaining, but bearing witness unto it upon special occasions, as the day and time of the year, etc. when they should be baptised, Apostol. constitut. lib. 6. cap. 15. sub finem. pag. 92. Concil. Melevitan. cap. 2. p. 555. Concil. African. cap. 77. pap. 584. Epist. concilii Carthag. contra Caelest. & Pelag. p. 542. Concil. Carthag. quint. cap. 6. pag. 520.  
Thirdly, the practice of all churches consent hereto. In the African churches they used to baptise Infants, as Athanasius testifieth, Quaest. 124. The same was used in the Asian churches, as Nazianzen affirmeth: And the Magdeburgens. in their Centuries observe, that in the first hundred years after Christ, Infants were baptised; nor was it taken notice of in that age, that Infants were excluded from baptism: and so continued in all ages to this day; and though the Eastern and Western churches separated, and did hold several opinions and rites differing one from another, yet neither omitted the baptising of Infants: Among the Eastern and African Christians, whereof there are some whole kingdoms, and very many in several kingdoms scattered here and there in companies, and divided amongst themselves into eleven observable factions and fractions, yet have they all successively holden & do hold baptising Infants: with some difference, I confess; some not baptising males afore forty days, nor females before eighty, though they die before: some not before, except in case of necessity: some sooner, but none later, that I have observed. In like manner, the Western churches have had, and have some difference in some rites and ceremonies, yet not at all in the point of baptising Infants: And as in the Eastern churches before and after separation from the rest, and never yielding subjection to the Pope of Rome: So in the Western it is evident, that it was every where, and always practised before the exaltation of that Antichrist; upon which considerations I count it a defect of modesty and charity, to call this practice Antichristian and humane invention, and to wave such light of all ages, in so weighty and plain a case, agreeable to the evidence of former arguments.  
For close of the Arguments, I shall say this more: The first that denied the baptism of Infants, and opposed the practice of the churches in this case, was one Auxentius an Arrian, with his adherents, who died about 380. years after Christ, as Mr. Philpot the martyr of Jesus, noteth in an Epistle of his, written out of prison, to a fellow-prisoner of his, about the point; so Mr. Fox relateth in his Book of Martyrs, ad an. 1555. Bullinger after affirmeth the same. Tom. 3. serm. 8. decade. quint. After him, the Pelagians and Donatists opposed it, against whom Augustin, besides others, wrote and defended it. The Pelagians denied it upon this ground, that Infants had no original sin: And in Bernard's time, one Peter Abilaird. amongst many other gross opinions, wherein he saith, he was magis Arrius quam Arrius, held this also, that Infants were not to be baptised, Epist. 190, etc. And it is not unworthy consideration, that in the several ages, wherein this practice was gainsaid, it was by such, who in other things were grossly erroneous, as most Anabaptists at this day.  
And thus far of my grounds for baptising Infants; I next come to speak of a few things to the manner of baptising; whether it ought to be with dipping, and may not be with sprinkling only.  
That dipping hath been in use in some ages and places, is out of question, and dipping thrice also, stories relate but that it was instituted, and so belong to the essentials of baptism, I am not convinced: For, as I would have no man to yield to humane apprehensions without God's Word; so, unless it can be proved from Scriptures, I desire I may have the same leave I give others, to reserve my faith for divine authority, to captivate my faith hereto. I observe these things pressed:  
First the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which they say, signifies to dip, and therefore to baptise, is to dip, and not to sprinkle; many places are brought to this purpose, wherein the word is so translated, and must be so taken.  
To which I answer: The word I grant is so translated, and must be so taken in some place; but it is not always so translated, nor can be so taken: as Heb. 9.10. with divers baptisms; some of these were with sprinkling, Heb. 9.13. compared with Numb. 19.11. 17, etc. 1 Cor. 10.2. They were baptised into Moses in the cloud, and in the sea, it is not, they were dived and dipped into them, Mar. 1.8. I baptise you with water, but he shall baptise you with the holy Ghost, and with fire; now, this was not to be dipped with the holy Ghost, and with fire, but sprinkled, as was foretell. And why may it not be translated, I sprinkle you with water, as well as it must be sprinkled with the holy Ghost poured on you. Again, Acts 1.5. & 10.16. in the last places of both clauses, it must be understood sprinkling, not dipping; and why may it not be taken for sprinkled in the two former? Howsoever, the word is not always to be translated dipped, appears by these places, but may and must be translated sprinkled; and so the force of the word doth not enforce my belief, that a man must dip, or else he doth not baptise.  
Secondly, they urge consent to dipping, from John's practice baptising in Aenen, because there was many waters that he might dip them; from Philip's baptising the Eunuch, and others also, who they conclude baptised with dipping: To these I answer,  
First, the word will not necessarily enforce it, That they were baptised is our of question, but whether by dipping or sprinkling, is questionable; for the word may signify either, as I have showed, and the Text doth not determine which, by any other expression: For, as for that of many waters being there, some say that it is not meant of a great deep River, but of many rivers, (Piscator) and the reason of his choosing that place, may be, because other places might not so well continue; and many other reasons there may be, and yet this none, that he might dip them, for that might as well have been done in other places: and it is said, that was the reason without proof, which may be as easily denied as it is affirmed: nor is there any such necessity in translating the Preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that it must needs be into Jordan, and signify dipping over head and ears, but it may be well enough translated, to Jordan. I think that if the Eunuch dived over head and ears, that Philip did not douze himself so too; yet it is said equally of them both, they descended 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, from the Chariot to thewater, not into it, & that they both came 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, from the water, not out of the water.  
Secondly, it is not probable that they dived the parties under water when they baptised them; partly, because at some times, and in some places, it was administered in a house, and suddenly, when there was no thought aforehand to prepare fit instruments, as in Cornelius house, the Jailor and his household, Lydia and her family, Acts 10. & 16. so that they might have water enough to dive them in: partly, because it was not easy for a man to take a grown man in his arms, and dive him under water: Otherwise I see not how the Minister should baptise them, but rather they should baptise themselves, nor should the administration be ministerial, if the baptised person should not be passive in receiving it.  
Thirdly, if they should be wholly dipped into water, it will hazard oft some men's lives, by being strangled under the water; and who can so exactly carry the action, as not to do too much, or too little, to hold them under too long, or not long enough?  
Lastly, it is not seemly, nor agreeing to common, much less religious modesty, to take them and dip them naked, before others; nor can I be persuaded, that Jesus when he was baptised, or any other baptised by John, or any body else, stripped themselves naked. If any shall say, they covered their unseemly parts, or that it was done in their ; I shall say, it is as easily denied, as affirmed: the Scripture gives not the least hint of such a thing, which I suppose it would have done, if it had been so; as in other cases it tells us of saul's stripping himself among the Prophets; the executicners of Steven laying their garments at Paul's feet, etc. Especially it being in so weighty a matter as should concern all ages.  
Again, if all their  were on, or but some of them, then certainly their flesh was not washed (as 1 Pet. 3.21.) but their : Only this I shall acknowledge, that I see not but dipping (consideratis considerandis) may be lawful, nor can I say, that they that use it, do worse than they that use it not. But that it is absolutely necessary, or the omission of it maketh baptism null. That sprinkling is unlawful, Antichristian, of humane invention, etc. and that baptism for administration, is invalid, evacuateth the death of Christ, etc. I cannot yield, I have given some considerations why I think dipping not absolutely necessary, I shall add a few, why I think sprinkling with water is unlawful, and that baptism so administered, is true baptism. First, because the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 will yield it, and may be justly so translated, and must be so taken in the places by me quoted before, to which I might add more, as Mark 7.4. etc.  
Secondly, from the types of our spiritual washing, which were done by sprinkling, as Exod. 12. the sprinkling of the blood of the Lamb, Exod. 23. the sprinkling of the Altar, Book, people, Levit. 16. sprinkling the unclean by the water of the red Heifers ashes, Num. 19 All which typified unto them the blood of Christ, and the application of it unto themselves for their justification and sanctification. If sprinkling were then sufficient to them for the same purpose that dipping is now urged, I see nothing to hinder, but that sprinkling may do the same now: for though that was commanded, yet this is not forbidden.  
Thirdly, the Prophets foretelling this grace of God communicated unto us by that ordinance (and I think this ordinance itself is forespoken of therein) they do set it forth by sprinkling, as Esa. 52.15. My servant shall sprinkle many Nations. Esai. 44.3. Exek. 36.25. I will pour clean water upon you. From these Prophecies I conclude, that sprinkling, or pouring on, may be justified.  
Fourthly, in the new Testament the grace of God is set forth by the very word sprinkling, as Heb. 10.22. Having your hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and your bodies washed with pure water, which notes baptism, and this washing, as also 1 Cor. 6.11. may be with pouring on, as the same word is so to be taken, Acts 16.33. The same hour he took them, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, washed their mounds, which was not with dipping certainly, but with pouring on. So Heb. 12.21.24. To the blood of sprinkling, 1 Pet. 1.2. Elect, etc. through the sanctification of the Spirit unto obedience, and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ. By these expressions certainly the holy Ghost intends to hold out the administration of the signs of God's grace. So that upon these considerations, I am well persuaded, that though dipping may be lawful, yet sprinkling is not unlawful, and question not but the ordinance administered by sprinkling, is as valid, as the administering of it by dipping. And if they do not forget themselves, that condemn sprinkling as Antichristian, humane, etc. they do and will grant, that in some cases it may be lawful, and then it is lawful in itself morally, or certainly, no case can make it morally lawful, but it is a sin so to do in what case soever: I argue therefore from thence, thus:  
Fifthly, if sprinkling in some case be lawful, than it is not morally unlawful in itself at all. But in some cases sprinkling may be lawful (as where there is but little water.) Ergo, it is not morally unlawful in itself.  
Sixthly, I shall add here the judgement of Chamier, Tom. 4. lib. 5. cap. 2. sect. 6. & the rather because he is quoted by one as affirming, Tom. 1. p. 347. that immersion was changed into aspersion after the time of Gregory 1. which was about 500 years after Christ, which if he did, than it is clear he altered his judgement afterward: for thus in the place quoted by me, he writeth, Incertum quando immersio met at a fuit in aspersionem, aut unde facto initio, etc. It is uncertain when dipping was changed into sprinkling, or whence it had beginning, unless it may seem that 3000. could not be baptised of a few Apostles, and that in our days if every one should be dipped; nor was there sufficient water to douze the Jailor in the prison, if he was baptised by dipping; use showeth sprinkling to be more meet, both in regard of the incommodiousness of the season, as also in respect of modesty: for which cause it is manifest that Deaconesses were employed in undressing of women; nor is the nature of the sacrament thereby altered: for seeing all the force of water is in signification by washing, certainly it is not much to purpose how much one is washed: as in the Supper of the Lord, how much one eateth or drinketh; for the washing of one part is of the same nature with washing the whole. Thus fare he: Nor doth the sprinkling of a few drops of water, more tend to evacuate Christ death, or to nourish this dangerous error, that any should be hereby occasioned to think that a few drops of Christ's blood shed for his people, is sufficient to wash away their sins, than the eating of a bit of bread, and drinking a few drops of wine doth evacuate his death, and tend to nourish the same error; and what river may not in this consideration be excepted against, or what quantity must it be limited unto? Thus I have run out my thoughts concerning this rite of administering baptism, I come in the next place to consider the administration of baptism in England, and the authority by which baptism was there administered. And I believe it is necessary to be resolved, that was done by a lawful power, and just authority: For though an officer of State do a thing by virtue of his office, and according to law maketh the thing authentical and of force civilly; yet it will not follow, that if any private man not in office, shall do the same thing in the same form of words, and every way else without any difference, that such an act is legal, and will be allowed; but rather it will expose the doer, and for whom such a thing is done, to danger of just penalty: So in this case, and therefore if the authority by which baptism was there administered, be not lawful and of God, I confess I cannot see how the thing itself can be in force and justifiable. I add, that all Antichristian power, and administrations by it, as Antichristian, cannot be lawful. And being itself an Idol and humane invention, it cannot give being to an ordinance, or add any thing to it, but corrupt it, and make it rather worse then better. The ordination of a Pope, or Prelate, the presentation of a Patron, etc. give not the Minister a calling, nor are necessary at all to make a man a Minister, they corrupt the calling and the purity of it, but the essential of a caling is from some other power, which is necessarily required to make the practice good and authentical. If John's baptism was of men, certainly it was unlawful; but if of God, so it was lawful, and so I say of ours. To clear myself here, I shall premise these things, and so come to the conclusion.  
First, a calling may be lawful, and of God, and yet corrupted many ways; as first, by unfitness of persons in regard of their qualifications: for the Pharisees sat in Moses chair, Matth. 23. Malac. 2.8. Secondly, by the manner of entrance into the calling: so the high Priesthood administered by them who took upon them the Kingly dignity, many of them also purchasing the Priesthood by money given to the heathen Kings, who often put out one, and put in another, and whereas the, high Priest was to continue during his life; yet Caiaphas was high Priest but a year. Thirdly, by their ungodly and wicked acts in it, as Elies sons, Aaron yielded to the people to make a Calf, and kept a festival day; yet did not these things nullify the calling of the Priest hood, nor did their administrations prove null thereby, and invalid. In the new Testament, the church of Thyatira had corrupted the Ministerial calling grossly, in suffering a woman under colour of a Prophetess, to teach, yet did not this destroy the calling of Ministry in that Church, but that the calling of Ministry in that Church was lawful.  
Secondly, a Church becomes a Church, or a company of men and women become a Church, not by usurping the things of God of themselves, nor by imitating others in their Church practices, as the Edomites, Ishmaelites, etc. or Manasseh, the son in law of Sanballat, who builded a Temple in mount Gerizim, after the fashion of that in Jerusalem, or Onias, building one in Egypt, and in both of them setting up such services as were in Jerusalem) but by God's dispensation, and that performed by these two acts: First, on God's part, sending the word of his grace, offering it unto a people, thereby opening their eyes, and turning them from darkness to light, and taketh hold of them by some effect of his power; so that he turns them from Idols to God: Secondly, from that act he produceth another, by that effect of his power, whereby such people takes hold on God's offer, and taking him and his Christ to be theirs, and submitting themselves unto Christ, as their Lord and King, yield themselves up together in joint and public visible profession, according to his laws and ordinances.  
Thirdly, such a church thus constituted is a true church, and a real Ecclesiastical body, polity or corporation in itself, and so many companies as thus join together, are so many churches of equal power, rights, privileges, and jurisdictions; nor is any one a mother church unto others, but all are sister churches: and though civilly the people may be distinguished into many commonwealths, and many may be subject unto one, yet the several churches of every subordinate commonwealth are not hereby subject unto the church of the commonwealth, to which the rest are subordinate, but they remain entirely equal among themselves, and all equally subordinate unto Jesus Christ.  
Fourthly, such a church or churches, so remain still true churches, so long as God continues his dispensation towards them, and no longer: but when God forsakes them, and gives them a bill of divorce, than they leave off to be a church; and not before; nor is it in the power of any other church or churches, to unchurch any one such church, but Christ himself must do that. This church, or these churches, notwithstanding, may much degenerate, and be defiled, in their doctrine and government, desperately corrupted with error and sinful practices (as the Jews before Christ commonly, and most of all in Christ's days; after Christ, the churches of Corinth, Galatia, the churches of Asia, Rev. 2. and 3. &c.) yet, till Christ remove the candlestick, and come himself, and unchurch them, they still abide churches of Christ, and are so to be acknowledged of all.  
Fifthly, such as the state of the church is, such is the state of the Ministry of that church and administration, and so long as the true church remains a true church, so long the ministry remains a true ministry, and all the divine institutions, authentical administrations, and truly the Lords ordinances, notwithstanding the mixture of humane devices with them, making the commandments of God of none effect, through their traditions. To clear all these in each particular by the light of divine revelation, would require a larger discourse than I intent, and not so difficult as tedious. I doubt not, but any truly judicious, considering the state of churches in the old and new Testament, will yield without any other travel, what is here set down, and that the church, ministry, and administrations, stand and fall together.  
To come then to the question, I affirm; that if there be true churches in England, then there is a lawful ministry there, and true authentical administrations. But there are true churches there; Ergo, there is a lawful ministry there, and authentical administration. The Consequent is clear, because it is the true being of a church that giveth being to the truth of ministry and ordinances, and not the ordinances that give being to a church. Lot any company set up preaching, and administer the Sacraments, (I so call them for discourse sake) that will not make that company to be a church, but because they are not a church, therefore they are not Gods ordinances. The antecedent, that there are true churches in England, I prove thus: If the true visible state of Christ's Church be to abide from his time unto the end of the world (as it must, Dan. 7. Luke 1.33. Mat. 16.16. & 18.18.20. & 28.19, 20. 1 Cor. 11. Heb. 12.29, etc.) than it is in England, and places of like consideration, that it hath continued in some other places of the world. But it hath not continued in any other places of the world, (it will be grateful to all that desire truth, if any man can show where) also in England, and places of like consideration hath Christ's visible church continued: Again, if there be no other churches in the world, nor have been for many hundred years, but those that are infected with Papism, (that is the dominion of the Pope and traditional doctrine) or reformed churches, and England amongst others, then either the churches infected with Papism are the true visible churches of Christ, or the reformed. But there are no other churches in the world, nor have been for many hundred years, but those that are infected with Papism, or the reformed; Ergo, the one or the other, must be the true visible churches of Christ. But notwithstanding those that are infected with Papism, few grant it, as now they stand; Ergo, the reformed, and England amongst others. Further, if Antichrist must fit in the Temple of God, 2 Thes. 2.4. and the courts of the Temple be given unto the Antichristian Gentiles for a certain time, Rev. 11.1. to 15. to tread under foot, than there was a true church-estate where he sat, and whilst he sat there, and the true measured Temple, whose courts he treads under foot; nor can there be Antichrist, unless there be the Temple and courts thereof where he is. And if Antichrist ever sat in England, then there was the Temple of God there before he sat in it; and whilst he sat in it, as also in other reformed churches. The Temple or church is the subject wherein he must sit. The Antichristian seat is not the subject nor constitutes it, but is an accident, vitiating the subject, the removing thereof Antichristianity doth not destroy the subject, or make it cease to be, but changeth it into a better state. I shall add this: If ever there were true churches constituted in England, than they remain so still, or God hath by some manifest act unchurched them; unless therefore they that deny true ministry in England, and baptism there, can, and do prove, that churches were never constituted there, or make good some manifest act of God unchurching them, suitable to such acts of his in Scriptures in the like cases, and whereby we may clearly discern the like effects, all that can be said to disprove the lawfulness of ministry there, or to prove the unlawfulness of administrations there, so far as they are prescribed in the word, will not be available. And yet I shall be content to speak a little farther of the church-estate and ministry in England. And concerning churches, it is to be considered, that a companny become or are a church, either by conversion and initial constitution, or by continuance of the same constituted churches successively by propagation of members, who all are born in the church-state, and under the covenant of God, and belong unto the church, and are a church successively, so long as God shall continue his begun dispensation, even as well, and as fully as the first; and though in respect of the numerical members, they are not the same; yet truly they are the same in kind, Rom. 11.16. 1 Cor. 7.14. Gal. 2.15. even as man continues the same in kind from the first man, though not the same in number; so the church-estate continued from Adam's time till abraham's in the world by succession of generations: So the Jews continued a church from Abraham's time till Christ's.  
Secondly, the way to prove churches to have had true constitution, is no way to be attained, but either by Scriptures, or humane testimony: By Scriptures, we may take notice of many churches planted in Judea, Syria, Galatia, Achaia, Macedonia, etc. and by name, Rome, Corinth, Cenchrea, Philip: Coloss. Thessaly. Ephes. Smyrna, etc. of any other by name I know not. That the Apostle preached from Jerusalem to Illyricum, and that he mentions his coming into Italy by Spain, is evident, but whether any churches were planted there or no, divine records manifest not: And as clear it is, that those churches mentioned in Scriptures are destroyed; nor can we by Scriptures prove the continuance of Christ's visible Kingdom in the world for many hundred years upward, but in Rome, which few will plead for, to have any truth of church-estate; and I see no need of proving any such thing in this case. So that by Scripture testimony, I know not where we may cast our eyes, to look upon any Church now, or for many years past, existent: By humane testimony, we may take notice of the Gospel, preached in many places, and amongst other, in Britain, by Apostolical authority, where the Word hath ever continued since, more or less, and therefore it is false for Rome to challenge the conversion of the English nation, and no less absurd and injurious for us to draw and derive our succession from them: As the Gospel was received there, so it hath not been without fruit, as also in other places; but under the tyranny of Ethnic Emperors, and apostasy of Antichristian Bishops, many there have witnessed unto the truth of Christ, and suffered for the testimony of Jesus; nor hath it been at any time, nor is now ineffectual there, but the Lord hath been pleased to bless those means of his, notwithstanding persecution or corruptions, with conversion of many thousand souls from Satan to himself; yea, he hath not only reserved successively even in England unto himself thousands that have not bowed their knees unto Baal, but amongst others, some of the most famous lights that he vouchsafed to raise up in the time of that horrid darkness overspreading the world, have been of English Christians, as Mr. Wickliff, Pastor of Lutterworth, (though corruptly called in part) in Lincolnshire. It cannot be denied, that as in all other places of the Western world wheresoever Christianity settled, the whole world went after the Beast, and all churches (I know not one excepted) with that apostasy were corrupted, and the courts of the Temple were not measured, and the holy city was given to be trodden under foot of the Gentiles Antichristian 42. month's; yet all this time the holy city remains a holy city, and after too, unless God himself rejecteth her. In the same condition amongst others, were the churches in England corrupted as the rest, with false doctrine, Idolatry, etc. and usurped upon by Antichrist, against which, God even there also had his two witnesses, some few prophesying in sackcloth. At last it pleased God more fully to clear up the light, and caused his truth to prevail; so as many thousands were redeemed from amongst men Antichristian, and they were the first fruits unto God and the Lamb; nor was the church-estate altered essentially all this time, nor are these first fruits unto God, new constituted churches, but members of some churches, clearing themselves from corruption, and by reformation recovering themselves out of a desperate diseased condition, into a more healthful and sound estate. In which course the Lord went on mightily in many places, especially after Luther's time, yea, even in England; something by Henry the 8th, more by Edward the 6th. and Queen Elizabeth, who did not constitute new churches, but reform the churches, (as Geneva, Scotland, etc. in a further degree) deeply degenerated from the first constitution, and the pure state thereof; as they did the like in the state of Judah often, sometimes better and more fully, and sometimes not so fully in the days of Judges, David, Asa, Jehosaphat, Hezekiah, Josiah, Ezra and Nehemiah.  
To conclude this, as I believe firmly Christ's visible Church hath continued in the world from his time to this day, though not always in one estate, nor ever in like purity: So I know not how it may be better cleared in the general, or any thing more be said for any other church or churches, than I have here set down, for the continuance of the visible church-estate in England in particular; if any can, I think they shall do well, and that which is necessary, especially in these times; and therefore, as I said afore, unless they that deny true ministry in England can show that there never was church-estate in England, nor constituted churches; or that God hath given them a bill of divorce, I shall desire all that will not be satisfied herewith, that they will be content not to disquiet themselves with disturbance to others.  
I come now to propound some things about the ministry there in particular. To this purpose, we know all, that no man can have a lawful Calling but of God, and that in one of these two ways: Immediately by himself, without concurrence of man: or mediately by men, using them as instruments, other way of calling I know not any according to the Word; accounting all callings, or way of calling not set down in the Word to be humane and Idolatrous.  
Concerning the way of calling by men (for of the other I know not any, but the Apostles, that ever were, or are to be called) two things I desire to speak to:  
First, who hath the power of applying a calling to a man.  
Secondly, how it is applied.  
1. Who hath the power of applying a ministerial calling to a man? some say the Pope, some stand for in mediate revelation, both which I conceive to be alike contrary to the Word; some say the Christian Magistrate, quà Magistrate, at least approbation; but I see no warrant for this neither; some say the Church, but by Church they understand a Presbytery or Classis (a company of Presbyters of several churches) or Council, but of these we have no clear evidence in Scriptures to evince such a church, or such a practice: For, though there be mention of laying on of the hands of Presbyters, yet that was not the actual calling of a man, but a ceremony of confirmation, as I shall show afterward.  
By church therefore, I judge is meant a company of Saints, joined together in profession, and successively, standing up in the same estate, and this company hath power to apply the office to such a man as may be according to God's Word: Thus I judge, partly from Scriptures, partly from reason; the Scriptures are these, in the old Testament the Jews chose their own officers: Deut. 1.13. & 16.18. In the new Testament, Act. 1.26. The word signifies, he was incorporated into the society of the eleven, by common suffrages.  
In the context I note two things:  
First, the whole company did choose two from out of themselves, and set them before the Lord, because the applying of that kind of calling depended only on God; yet they bring it thus far, as to single out two.  
Secondly, God having chosen one of the two, they subscribe to it by joint suffrages; nor did any other thing concur in that man's calling, no imposition of hands, which if it had been necessary, certainly should have been, especially there being eleven Apostles present; and inferior persons, in a case imposed hands on Paul and Barnabas, Acts 13. Again, Acts 6.3, 5. The multitude, that is, the church, and it seems, without the assistance of the Apostles, did look out by examination and trial, and choose seven men amongst themselves, and then set them before the Apostles, who prayed, and laid their hands on them, Acts 14.23. They set no Elders in every church, by lifting up of hands, that is, they assisted the churches in ordaining Elders, who were chosen by people's suffrages, manifested by their lifting up their hands; and 2 Cor. 8.19. he whose praise is in the Gospel was chosen by the churches, testifying their suffrages, by lifting up their hands; from which Scriptures I judge, that the power of choosing and setting apart a person for church-office, is in the church itself. Hereunto I add these reasons:  
First, that which concerns all the church, it is reason it should be done by all the church; but to have this or that man an officer, to administer, concerns all the church; Ergo, it is reason it should be done by the church, to choose him to office.  
Secondly, no adjunct in order of nature, is before the subject, nor is capable of receiving any thing, but as it adheres to, and so from the subject; but ministry is the adjunct of the church, and the church is the subject; Ergo, the ministry is not capable of any power, but as it adheres to the church, and so from it; as the eye in the body, etc.  
Thirdly, the Church is the Spouse of Christ and his body, but a Presbytery is not the Spouse, not the body, but a part of the Spouse, or body, Rom. 12.1 Cor. 12. Ergo, the power is in the church primarily, and not in the Presbytery, else the head should not derive power to the body at all; and though the Presbyters, qua Believers, are a part of the body of Christ with the rest, that make up the whole; yet as Presbyters they are parts of Christ, and not of the church: the mouth and eyes of Christ, and not of the church; so they and the church, as believers, have no power, but they derive it immediately from Christ; which I cannot see how it may be made good.  
Fourthly, if the church hath power to refuse a man, and to put him out, than she hath power to choose and put him in; but the first is true, else she sins not in suffering false teachers; nor can she decline a vicious Elder, or shut herself of him, invito vel non curante presbyterio.  
Fifthly, there is no power that any can have from heaven ordinarily, but by some transaction between God and them; but there is no such transaction between God and the Presbytery primarily, the covenant is not made with them, but with the church, Rom. 9 v. 4. Ephes. 2.12, 13.19.20. Ergo, the power is hers primarily, and as the first subject of it from Christ.  
Sixthly, if the church and not the Presbytery be the kingly nation, royal priesthood, and Kings and Priests unto God, than the power belongs to the church, and not to the Presbytery; but the church is the kingly nation, etc. and not the Presbytery; Ergo, the power belongs to the church, and not to the Presbytery. The Antecedent is true, Exod. 19.1 Pet. 2.5. Rev. 7.6. and that as a church. The Consequent is evident: Because, etc. they should be titular things only, and have a naked name only, without power; and they that are not Kings and Priests, etc. as the Presbytery, qua tales, they should have the power.  
Last of all, if the words, Go tell the Church, be meant not of the presbytery only, but of the church of Saints, the whole body consisting of flock and Elders, than the power belongs not to the Presbytery, but to the whole: But the words, Go tell the church, are not meant of a Presbytery, but of the whole, consisting of flock and Elders; Ergo, the power belongs to the church, as totum, and not to the Presbytery, distinguished from the church. All this is manifest from the use of the word church, which in the new Testament is not where used for the Presbytery alone, but sometimes for the members alone without, or distinct from Presbytery: as Acts 14.23. and 15.4.22. 1 Cor. 12.28. frequently for the whole flock and Elders together. 
Junius, etc.  Some, I confess, allege those places: Acts 14.27. and 18.22. to prove the word church to mean Presbytery, and the reason they give is this: That it is not probable that the Apostle there saluted all the church, or gathered all the church together, but rather the Presbytery: But there is no force in this reason; for it is like, will I say, that he gathered the whole church, and saluted the whole church, and might do it well enough without any inconvenience; yea, and the Text saith, he did, and therefore it is more than likely, even a most certain truth. The places therefore will not prove that the word church doth mean Presbytery, nor argue, that Go tell the church, is tell the Presbytery.  
Secondly, from the relation of the party offending, which is to the church, and not to the Presbytery; for their fellowship is with the church as church, the covenant and brotherhood is with them; and therefore, though the Presbytery orderly exerciseth the power; yet it is in ordine ad Ecclesiam; there is no particular relation between the party and Presbytery, as may advantage the Presbytery to exercise such an act of power over the party, no more than they may administer the Sacraments to a private person, but to him as a church member, and with the whole church.  
Thirdly, the Presbytery consisting of three or four Elders, are ofsended by a brother, bound up in fellowship with an hundred private brethren; now the Presbytery admonishing, they can go no further, if they be the church, and the brother not hearing the Presbytery, is to be accounted as a Publican and Heathen, though not one of the hundred know of it; and so if a private brother offend, and bring it to the Prebytery.  
Fourthly, the Presbytery may be the party offending, and then you must tell the Church that the Church offendeth, that is, go tell themselves. If you say, I may tell the Classis; I answer, Take for granted, there is such an ordinance, yet I will suppose they may take in with the offending Presbytery, and I must stay at a general Council, if it may be had, which is not free from error neither. And I shall as willingly stay at a Church of Saints, unless I see more convincing grounds to enforce the institution of them, as divine appointments. And if a Church offend, there is another course to be taken; this rule will not reach here.  
Fifthly, if by Go tell the Church, be meant the Presbytery, than there being but two or three of the Presbytery, a brother offended cannot take one or two of them for witnesses, because than he should tell the Church before the turn come, and could make no further proceeding. But a brother offended may take one or two Presbyters for witnesses. Ergo, Presbytery cannot be the Church. And if it cannot be taken for a Presbytery, much less for a Classis, Synod, Council: Nor do I observe any of Christ's Apostles in any directions given by them to Timothy, Titus, or any Churches or people, or Christ himself in his Epistles to the seven Churches of Asia, speak one word of going to a Classis, or Provincial Synod and Church, and which certainly they would have done, if there had been such an institution.  
Again, Christ would have blamed the Classis, or Presbyterial Church, and not every particular Angel, and the particular church to which he belonged. And I verily think he would have spoken some word of Council in one or other, that they should have gathered a Synod, or some of each Church's Presbyteries at least, to have met about it, and to have taken some course to rectify things, if he knew there were, or aught to be such a constitution or ordinance binding all ages. And he had left them without advice in seeking some help without their own limits and bounds, within which he terminates all his instructions and counsels; upon these considerations I conceive it is not a well grounded apprehension, nor to be made good by force of argument, that every one of these seven Churches were Classical or Synodall churches, that is, many churches in a consociation; and the Angel in each to mean a company of Presbyters belonging to all those churches, as the particular Elders of each, but here attended as a Classis, or collection of all the Presbyters of each church, and that the seven Angels should be seven Classes, or Synodall, Presbyterial assemblies; notwithstanding I conceive there may be good and necessary use of such assemblies in a way of prudence, and brotherly helpfulness. Thus of the power of applying, to whom it belongeth; a little now of the way of applying of this calling to a man, which is done by these particular acts: First, by trial consisting in a right understanding of Christ's rule, and applying it to such a man, as they shall discern the rule to fit to: and herein though the help of Presbyters, as better gifted, be especially useful, yet not excluding the people, as if their part in trial were nothing, whereas they must try all things, 1 Thess. 5. the spirits, 1 John 4. are able to discern the voice of Christ from a stranger, Joh. 10. and prove the verity of Paul's teaching by the Scriptures, Acts 17.2 ly the party thus tried, is propounded and presented to the church, or multitude, who by their suffrages do consent to choose and set apart that man for that office. And that this belongeth to the people, none that I know will deny. And upon the people's manisestation of themselves, if he shall accept it, and yield himself up for that office to which they have set him apart, I count this the chief part, and most essential of a Ministerial calling, and true, though there should be no more.  
Thirdly, ordination, by imposition of hands upon the head of the elect party, which was practised sometimes by the Apostles, Acts 6. and by the Presbytery in Timothy's calling, 1 Tim. 4. Yet to clear this a little further, two things may be cleared: First, of the necessity of this ceremony, which some hold must be, or else no calling, and that it alone giveth the essence of calling to a man. But I do not think it is so necessary, or of such consequence; first, because it was not used by Christ in ordaining his Apostles nor instituted by him for ordaining others. That Christ imposed his hands upon many infirm, and commanded his Apostles to lay their hands upon the sick for their recovery, is clear, Matth. 9 Mark 5.6, 7, 8, 16. Luke 4.13. but we never read that Christ commanded imposition of hands to ordain an officer. In this case we read that it was also sometimes used, 
1 Tim. 5.  Acts 6. & 1 Tim. 4. and not any where else that I know of: for Acts 13. is of a divers consideration. There are but two places therefore that speak to this case, neither of which proves an institution; they laid their hands upon many sick, and upon others, to confer the holy Ghost; but these prove no institution in these things. Our Saviour breathed upon the Apostles, and they received the holy Ghost, but he made not that an institution. Secondly, Divines judge it a thing indifferent, and therefore not essential, as Polanus, Tilenus, that the act of trial and choosing is much greater than the laying on of hands. Calvin. Instit. lib. cap. 3. sect. 16. yet I count it a comely and convenient rite, and not to be neglected where it may be had in God's way; nor do they that hold it necessary, so maintain it, but that in some cases it may be wanting, and yet the calling lawful, which I judge disputable.  
A second question is, to whom it belongeth to impose hands? I answer, to a Presbytery if it may be had: but that the want of it maketh the calling invalid, I see nothing to conclude: for than no calling to the Ministry can be cleared from that time that one being chosen out of the rest of the Presbytery, and called peculiarly Episcopus, and performing this action alone, afterward usurped by the Hierarchy; but all these Ministries must be null, and there should be no true Ministry in the world: and how can now any at this day have power legitimate to do this first, and being done by such as were no Presbyters, or Antichristian Idols, how can the act and acts of any following Presbytery be comfortably cleared? In a word, I think that as in the presentment of the Levits at first to the Lord, Numb. 8.9, 10. all the Congregation was gathered together and laid their hands on the Levits: it was the act of the whole company, yet performed 〈◊〉 them, and in their stead by some of them, not the Elders, (they were too few) but by the first born, in whose stead they were given up to God: So it may be now in the like case, there being no Presbytery, the people choosing one for Office, according to rule, this rite may be at first performed by some chief in stead of the rest. And if it be not practised at the first, I see no such danger, the rest concurring. As in their return from Babylon after the 70 year's captivity, things were not so exact as at first institution; yea, five special things were always wanting from that time in the second Temple, that had been in the first. But I cannot prove, may some say, all these, nor the first two, which I hold to be of the essence of Ministerial calling, in reference to the Ministry in England? I answer, First, things are done either explicitly and in express terms, or implicitly and by a  and virtual consent. Secondly, every company meeting in one place for worship successively from the first constitution, remained a true Church, though much corrupted; and still so much purer as they did or do reform themselves in their standing and worship according to the word of Christ. Thirdly, the calling of Ministry in each church, though greatly corrupted, is essentially a true calling, as the church is essentially a true church, consisting of Saints federally, though they be not such Saints as they should be. Fourthly, the manner of calling is not the Bishop's ordination, etc. that makes it not a calling, but mars the goodness of it, adds nothing unto it, but derogates from the purity of it. But the people receiving a man, sent unto them in a corrupt way, and joining with him to worship God, though here also with much corruption; and not exercising their power in refusing him (though they do not explicitly exercise their power in choosing) they do implicitly choose him. I say, by these three acts of receiving, joining with, and not refusing, they do virtually and really give him all the just calling that he hath, which is a true Ministerial calling, and so all the ordinances, administered by him there, which God hath prescribed (as baptism amongst others, notwithstanding humane additions corrupting the purity of any of them) are really Gods ordinances, and of divine authority, and validity. As of old, Jer. 5.30, 31. There is a horrible thing committed in the Land, the Prophets prophesy falsehoods, the Priests bear rule by their means, and my people love to have it so: Yet this did not make them no Church, or take away the lawfulness of Ministry, or nullify their just administrations; so in this case I judge the same, and therewith conclude this Discourse.   
FINIS.