A CONFUTATION OF Infants baptism, Or an Answer, To a treatise written by george PHILLIPS, of Wattertowne in New England, in the defence of Infants baptism, denying the true Church to be formed by baptism, and affirming it to be formed by a Covenant acted by a company of believers, to become one, and anothers amongst themselves.  
WHEREIN, Is plainly discovered that neither Infants baptism, nor yet such a covenant acted, can be Gods ordinance appointed by him for any such end, as to constitute true visable Churches:  
As also that baptism of believers, and that only is Gods ordinance whereby true visible Churches are rightly constituted and st●ted in ●heir true being.  
By THOMAS lamb.  Then sa●d Peter repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Christ, for the remission of sins, and y●e sh●ll receive the gift of the holy Ghost, Act. 2.38. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, Mar. 16.16. Then they that g●adly received his word were baptized, and the same day there were added to the Church three thousand souls. Act. 2.41. And as soon as they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Iesus, they w●re baptized both men and women, Act. 8.12. 
Printed in the year, 1643.   

TO THE unpartial Reader, that desireth truth in the love of it, Grace and Peace be multiplied in this life with Salvation, and happiness in the life to come through jesus CHRIST.  
AS Religion is the means of Gods glory and mans happiness, so ought it to he the principal care, study& endeavour of all how to exercise themselves therein, so as they may accomplish the proposed end; but as all things that are excellent in nature have their like; which evil minded men do many times make use of, to deceive, cousin and cheat with the false colourable show, which these things have with those that are more excellent; even so religion which is the most excellent weans in the world, tending to the most excellent end of 〈◇〉; ( viz.) the glory of the great God, and the eternal salvation of soul and body at the day of judgement, is not without the like false colourable show, wherewith Satan& his ministers do deceive, cheat, and cousin poor souls, and hereof it comes to pass, that men do after a certain manner take chaff for wheat, dross for Gold, error for truth, mans devices for Gods pure Ordinances; and as error in every subject is dangerous, according to the nature of every Subject about which it is conversant so in religion is most dangerous, it being a subject of the greatest consequence that can be: because as it is a means of Gods gl ry and our salvation, so it must bee a true means tending to the accomplishment of the proposed end, or otherwise we shall not only miss the end proposed, but shall effect a quiter contrary end, viz.) the dishonour of God, and the damnation of ourselves, even by the Religion which we observe; yea although we be never so zealous in it, and therefore it is of special concernment, that we take heed that the Religion which we do observe be Gods appointment by his revealed word, it being his prerogative, to be author, institutor, framer, and appointer of all that service, which he will have men to perform unto h m: and the reason is because Gods glory and mans happiness is so united together, as the one is not without the other atainable by man, but only as man is lead and guided by God in the use of such means as he hath appointed in his word; and for so much as Gods word doth set forth Christ to be the mediator, and principal means that God hath in wisdom and mercy appointed to glorify himself in the salvation of man by; and all other means exercised in Religion, to bee used only in subordination to him, to the working of us unto faith in him, and the increase of the s●me; Hence these conclusions f●llow;  
First, That no action of Religion performed, though it be the thing that is expressly commanded, pleaseth God for itself.  
Secondly, God require●h no action of Religion, to be performed without faith in the performer or subject of the action.  
Thirdly that God requireth that persons be first taught to believe in Christ, as in an all-sufficient means of glorifying Gods grace in our salvation.  
Fourtly, that every action of Religion be performed in the name, power, authority and Comm ssion of Jesus Christ.  
Fiftly, that every action of Religion be performed by virtue of the grace of Christ, received by faith, for whatsoever is not of Faith is sin, and without Faith it is impossible to please God.  
sixthly, that every action of Religion should teach us the infirmity of our faith.  
seventhly, that every action of Religion should be exercised as a means to strengthen our faith.  
Eightly, that when actions of Religion are performed, and the performers have no faith in Christ, those actions are means to harden the heart against Christ.  
Ninthly, no action of Religion ought to be performed by any man, no not by the faithful themselves, if Christ be not by the direction of his word the body( or rather the soul) of that action;  
And the reason of all this is, because the end measures the means, and all the actions of Religion, being but means of setting forth of Christ Jesus, the son of God to be the true means and mediator between God and man, that God doth glorify himself in the salvation of man by, and this b●ing the proper end why all the actions of Religion are to be performed: namely, to cause our understandings to see, know, and aclowledge the glory of Gods grace, shining through that his ●onne.  
And h●reupon t is that the Order which Jesus Christ the Son of God, and great Prophet of his Church, hath prescribed to effect Religion in the hearts and lives of men is this: that persons should be first taug●t by the powerful preaching of the gospel, and glad tidings of grace and salvation, which by him is appointed to be preached to all Nations, or to every creature, that thereby all persons being born in sin and heires of death, might bee converted and born again by the Doctrine of grace, and made heires of eternal life, and when they believe and make profession of faith, then and not before to be baptized upon such profession of faith, made in the name of the Father, who hath adopted them to be his children in the name of the son, by whom they are reconciled, in the name of the Holy Ghost, by whom they are regenerated into the faith which they make profession of: the end is, that thereby as by a Livery or badge, they may be distinguished to belong to the Church of Jesus Christ, who hath betrusted them with all his d●vine, and spiritual Ordinances, as Election of Ministers from amongst themselves, together with all divine administration, as a people capable thereof, and hath promised his presence with them, and his blessing upon them in the same, for the edification preservation, and final perseverance in the faith of the same gospel of grace, even the salvation of their souls, and thus by the direction of Christ: true Religion is seated in the World as the true means of Gods glory and mans happiness. Now Satan the Prince of darkn sse, as he is the Enemy of mankind, and seeks his destruction to the dishonour of God, so doth he labour in no means more than in the counterfeiting of Religion, which that he might the better effect the same: doth transform himself into an angel of light, and by his Ministers as though they were the ministers of righteousness, or of Christ, p●etend that Religion doth not thrive fast ●nough, nor members increase to the church so fast as they would have them: have therefore by their device persuaded people that as children were circumcised, so children of baptized persons ought to be baptized of the eight day, or at least betimes, and by these means have they made the Church very great, though it be not very good for they have made and compelled whole Nations, yea all to be outwardly religious, and whosoever would not be one with them in this their Religion, must neither buy nor sell, nor enjoy bodily comforts while they live, and when they die must not be butted in the Christian burial: and left this Church thus stated,( although uncapable of all divine administrations in the true service and worship of God) should be left without all Religion, having none in their hearts;( I speak of the Church in relation to the constitution of it, consisting of baptized Infants, mere naturalists in which converts are mere accidents, and appertain nothing to the nature of that Church state, which is of itself complete without them) Satan by the ministry of Antichrist hath devised a Liturgy, mass, or Service-Booke, which doth direct them where, when, how to pray, and what to pray for having provided prayers ready made for them for all occasions, which bath been thought necessary: and likewise all other services are not only there directed but therein provided, and ordered to be performed at all times for the whole service of the Church, which therefore is called Divine Service,( although there be nothing but humanity or worse in it) the performance of which as it may be without any faith, or spiritual gift, or grace from God be completely done, and therefore fit for such a Church, so have all manner of persons in the Nation been compelled with great penal laws to be frequent at such service as if it had been the only true holy spiritual service and worship of God: and yet all this while this is divine service only in name and not indeed; as the Church is a Church of Christ in name, but not indeed and in truth as they have the baptism of Christ in name but not in dead and in truth, and thereupon are these Christians in name but not in dead and truth, and so all Religion is only nominal not real, having great show but no substance, a pitiful condition and to be bewailed and greatly lamented, and the cause of all this is Infants baptism, and the reason is evident, if we do not willingly shut our eyes against the manifest light, for wheresoever Religion is exercised upon persons, before they are taught to believe in Christ, the error is as it were in the center which proves infinite in the circumference, and wanting religion in the heart: first all what ever is done is but vanity, hypocrisy, a shadow without a substance, a body without a soul, a shell without a kernel, a name without the nature of the thing, the consideration of all, which miserable witchery and delusion I being greatly affencted with,& conceiving these ensuing lines which cost me much labour, to be profitable for the discovery of the same, in some measure thought it not meet to let them lye in obscurity, while I conceived others ●o have much need of them,& many of my dear friends did earnestly desire them the gratification, whereof I could not with modesty and reason tell how to deny, and being privy to my own sincerity, that I had no base or by end: and last of all, and most of all being affencted with the glory of the great GOD, and the salvation of the souls of men which is the best end of all, and knowing true Religion to be the direct means, and false Religion to be the greatest hindrance or contradiction thereunto, of which these ensuing lines are the proper Subject; I have in the goodness of my cause adventured to put them forth to public view, resolving to abide the hazard what ever can come unto me for the same being confident of these two conclusions: first that if any shall be offended at it without a cause, there can come no hurt to me by it, for whatsoever hurt is done to any person for well doing hurts the doer, but not the person to whom the hurt is done, because they do but kick against pricks, and persecure Christ in his members, and Christs members in such a case save his life even in losing of it. Secondly, if any shall be offended at it with just cause, reason itself binds them to show the same, and that shall be for my benefit also, because thereby I may come to see mine own infirmity, while I have time to mend it, and to get greater strength, which is the greatest benefit of all, having a mind as well to see and hear from others, as to speak myself, knowing that he can never be a good teacher that is not a good learner: Courteous Reader therefore whosoever thou art let me entreat thee to red over this book, with an impartial eye try it, and search it narrowly. and if good come to thee by it let God have the glory of it, if any thing be evil, let me have thy loving admonition in that particular, and in so doing thou shalt perform a good Office of love to the truth, and to me also, but as my whole intention is in it to set forth the truth so am I not privy of any thing impertinent to that purpose, and if thou upon search shalt find it so, and shalt profit by it to thy saving instruction, and souls health, I shall have my desire and ever rest,  
Thine in the Lord, THOMAS lamb.   

A CONFUTATION OF INFANTS baptism,  
FOrasmuch as by the providence of our good and gracious God, there hath come a writing unto my hands, which containeth some Arguments for the defence of Infants baptism, written by one George Phillips, bearing the name of Pastor, of the Church of Watertowne in New England, as the same writing doth express. I shall endeavour therefore briefly and plainly, as God shall enable me to make answer thereunto, and first this Author Master Phillips before he comes to the Arguments, doth set down certain propositions to make way, as he saith, for the better understanding of his reasons, and the first is this,  
1. That the Scriptures containing the old and new Testament, are full of satisfaction, and are a most perfect rule of all things concerning faith and Order: so that in these respects nothing is to be urged as necessary, or allowed as lawful but what is justly contained therein;  
Answer. This Proposition is holy just and good, the second follows.  
Whatsoever can by just consequence be drawn from any part of Scripture, expounded in their largest extent, is truly contained in them, as well as that which is set down in express terms, and so it is of the same force with that expressed in any case: so whatsoever can be collected by true deduction from a commandement is commanded, as well as that which is expressed, else how could all our duties to God and man be contained in the ten words, or how could any duty bind but that which is expressed? so our Saviour, Mat. 4.10. urgeth the devil with this word only, which is not in the text expressed in Deut. but yet truly drawn from thence.  
Answer. I see no inconvenience in this proposition neither, in the third which follows.  
That the tender of immortality and happiness by God unto mankind, hath, been dispensed two ways, first unto Adam and all mankind in his loins by the Law upon condition of perfect obedience thereto in mans own personal righteousness: 2. After Adam was fallen by an Evangelicall Covenant made with the second Adam, the Lord from Heaven and all the Elect predestinated unto adoption of Sonship, in him, as the common root of them all: which( meaning the Covenant though it be one and the same for ever in substance, from the time of the first promulgation until this day, and so to the end, yet it hath admitted of variation in the circumstance thereof, as is clear from four several and remarkable periods: the first from Adam fallen to Abraham, under a promise of the seed of the Woman, Gen. 3.15.  
The second from Abrahams time to Moses in the wilderness, in substance the same with the former, the seed of the woman, to proceed from Abrahams loins in the flesh successively, but differing from the former, in passing the promise into a solemn spiritual Covenant made with Abraham, as the Father of all the blessed, and all blessing seed, and of all believers of all Nations, and confirmed by the sign of Circumcistion, the seal of the righteousness of faith, which he had being yet uncircumcised.  
The third from Moses till the time of Christs coming in the flesh, and this is the same in substance with the former, but differing the manner of dispensing in drawing a vail of shadows over it, consisting of all those laws written in ston, and all those Ordinances divulged from Mount Sinai, unto Abrahams posterity in the flesh, whereunto was added besides the former seal of circumcision, the Ordinance of the Passeover, and this( and not the former period) was called the Old Testament, or Law ratified by the death and blood of Bulls and Goates, &c. and shadows of better things without the application whereof, they purified only the flesh, and not the conscience.  
The fourth begins, when the son of God was manifested in the flesh and still continues, called the new Testament and ratified by the blood and death of the Lord Iesus the Testator, who being come, the vail of shadows is utterly removed, and the mosaical administration quiter abolished: the Old being done away that the New might bee established that cannot bee removed, and this is well to be headed, that all the Scriptures in the Old Testament, that foretell a removal, and disannulling of the Covenant, and the Scriptures in the new that tell of the abolishing that was foretold, as also the making of a new Covenant is to bee understood of that period from Moses to Christ, and not of that of Abraham to Moses, and the opposition that is made in the Scripture, is between that of Moses, and this under Christ.  
Answ. To this proposition I have many exceptions against the same, and though you profess yourself to be a Pastor, yet you must give me leave to tell you, that such Doctrine as this doth declare that such a name doth not( or very ill) agree unto you in that it is not wholesome food, for Christs sheep but a barren wilderness or rather hurtful, and effecting noisome diseases tending to death.  
First therefore if you limit the Reprobates from the tender of immortality and happiness from God by means of the second Adam, I conceive you err, because then how can they be said to refuse the call of God, Prov. r. 24, and put away the word of God from them, thereby judging themselves unworthy of evelasting life, Acts 13.46? or make God a liar. 1. John 5.11. or how should unbelief be a sin, John 16.9.? but this by the way.  
Secondly to your third period, I say the ordinances delivered in Moses time, was not a veil simply considered but in respect that Christ which was contained in them was not understood by the Jews, which restend in the dead done.  
Thirdly, to your third period, whereas you say, that this( and not that in the former period) was called the Old Testament, I know no reason why you should so conclude especially the rather seeing you make all your four periods, to proceed from the Evangelicall Covenant, only varying in circumstances, which if it be so, I conceive you will find no other difference between Old Testament and New properly: but the time before the coming of Christ in the flesh and the time since: for Abell, Noah and jacob, offered sacrifice as well as the Israelites did and God did never appoint the ten Commandements, nor the Ordinances administered by the levitical Priesthood, to the end, that the performers should be saved without faith in Christ, and this you say that they were shadows of better things, without the application whereof they purified only the flesh and not the conscience: and the sacrifices of Abell, Noah, Abraham, and jacob,( and Circumcision as well as the Passeover) were shadows of better things, without the application whereof, they purified only the flesh, and not the conscience of him that did the service: therefore both those two periods were as well the Old Testament as the other, by your own Argument.  
And therefore to your fourth period, which you say, begins when the Son of God was manifested in the flesh, and still continues, called the new Testament, and ratified by the death and blood of the Lord Iesus the Testator, who being come, the vail of shadows is utterly removed: I would ask whether circumcision, and the sacrifices that were administered before Moses time, be not quiter abolished( the Old being done away that the New might be established( which cannot be removed) as well as those in Moses time; thirdly if yea: then this is well to be headed, that all the Scriptures in the Old Testament that foretell a removal, and disannulling of the Covenant, and the Scriptures in the New, that tell of the abolishing that was foretold, as also of the making a new Covenant is to be understood, as well of the whole time before the coming of Christ, as of that between Moses and Christ, and thus is your proposition answered and refuted.  
Your fourth proposition is this, that children are capable of the Spirit of God, and of the grace of the Covenant, and whatsoever men of years are capable of, though not wrought in the same way and by the same means, yet the same things, and by the same spirit so far as is necessary to union with Christ, and justification to life thereby.  
Answ. This I grant, as they are Subjects for God to work upon, but this is not manifested to us, neither can it be concluded by us to belong to this child more than to that or the children of believers, more than to the children of infidels, or unbelievers, &c.  
And where it is said, nor is the Iudgement we can have of men of yeares infallible, but that we may be mistaken, as in the case of simon Magus &c.  
Answ. I answer, it doth not follow from hence, that we should have no Judgement of them, because we cannot have an infallible Judgement; now if it be concluded that we ought to judge probably, according to the profession of Faith made by them: I ask then how we shall come to the same manifestation from Infants: which when we can, let them be baptized, for if we should do it before, we do not only walk without rule, but also it may be said to us in this case, as Christ said to the woman of Samaria in another case, joh. 4.22. Ye worship that which ye know not; and as God said to the J●wes, Isa. 1.12. Who required this at your hands?  
The fifth Proposition follows,  
That baptism is not the first grace but a second, nor doth it confer grace, but is given to confirm th● former, which therefore must be presupposed, or else not to be administered; and it is the seal of the New Testament, or of the righteousness of. Faith now to all, that are partakers thereof, as of old Circumcision, was to them Rom. 4.11. only by baptism I understand that outward part, administered by a lawful Minister of the Church which may, and too often is separated from the inward( though it ought not to be) and yet remaines true baptism so administered, else simon Magus, and those false brethren, Gal. 2 being not baptized with the inward were not baptized: and if they had repented must have been baptized a new.  
Ans. To this I answer, that baptism( being not the first grace but a second, as yourself confess, nor doth it confer grace, but is given to confirm the former, which therefore must be presupposed or else not to be administered: is well to be headed of all: but especially of those which will have Infants baptized: and yet have no ground to conclude, that they have a first grace to be confirmed by that means; neither have they ground for any such presupposition; neither will, Rom. 4.11. prove any such thing; for that only proves that circumcision was in the nature of it, a seal of the righteousness which is by faith and did seal it up to Abraham that had faith: but as it did not seal it to them that had no faith: so no more was it any ground why we should presuppose faith formerly in all the subjects, upon whom it was administered; neither was that the ground why it was administered; but the command of God, and the reason why God commanded it to Abraham touching his seed, was not because Abraham was bound to believe and presuppose, that all his Seed, and his Seeds Seed, throughout their Generations, were made partakers of Union with Christ, and Justification to life by the Spirit of God,( as is insinuated in the connexion of the fourth and fifth Propositions) but that God did by this means take and distinguish the posterity of Abraham to be possessed by his favour and goodwill of laws and Ordinances, Ministers Services, Sacrifices, Tabernacle and Temple, and all other things which were means to typify, led and point out to them Christ which was to come: which was a choice favour beyond any that was bestowed upon any other Nation or People: besides, Deut. 7.6.7, 8, 9. Rom. 9.4, 5. Psal. 147.19, 20. and this was the end why the seed were required to be circumcised at eight dayes old, that they being distinguished by this means, and thereby interested into the participation of these privileges, Rom. 3.1, 2. might be trained up therein; and whosoever else of any other Nation would circumcise themselves and their Males, might come and be partakers of these privileges with the posterity of Abraham, Exod. 12 48. though there were no ground to presuppose a first grace to be confirmed in them by Circumcision.  
Secondly, I answer( to the limitation of your conception to the outward part of baptism, which may and too oft is administered, separated from the inward, though i● ought not to be) which yet remaines true baptism so administered or else Simon M●gus and those false brethren, Gal. 2. being not baptized wi●h the inward, were not baptized, and if they had repented, must have been baptized anew;) that there is a great difference to be put between false brethren and no brethren, because those which are false seem to be true but those that are no brethren, not so much as in show, there is not so much as a show for any brotherly action to be exercised upon them; and the reason why it remains true baptism u●on the one which mak●s show, and not upon the other which makes no show is because Gods authority in his command goes with the one and not with the other; and this appears, because baptism being an action of Religion to be exercised by the ministry of men, it is required that they administer the same upon believers, which if they appear, so they are to judge, and who can judge no otherwise but by appearance, it being Gods Prerogative to search the heart; but when there is no external manifestation appearing from the subject. then if baptism be administered, it is mere human invention because there is no authority of God for such an Administration: now, it is the Authority or command or God, which gives a being to every administration in Religion; and whatsoever hath not a being from God cannot be called his Ordinance; hereupon it followeth that whensoever baptism is administered upon such a subject as maketh no external manifestation of Faith, this baptism hath no being from God, but is an human device.  
Your 6. Proposition is this, that as of old more was required of Abraham and men of yeares when they were circumcised, then of Ishmael or Isaac, or other Infants continually circumcised afterwards; so now in administering baptism to persons, more is required of men of yeares then of infants; as of Abraham God required Faith, in the blessed seed; but not the same of Isaac; for of men of yeares Faith is to be required, and must be, that a man may be baptized; but not the same of Infants, &c.  
To which I answer, that more was in Abraham then in Isaac, when they were circumcised; I grant, but that more was required in the one then in the other, without which he might not be circumcised, is easilier said then proved, in the 17. of Genesis, 10. and 13. verse, it is said, that Abraham must circumcise all the males which were born in his house, or bought with his money, and verse 23. it is said, that Abraham took Ishmael his son which was then 13. yeares old, verse 25. and all the Males in his house, and circumcised them the same day as God had said; some were men of yeares, as verse 27. yet God did not require of Abraham concerning his males, nor did Abraham require of them in relation to any rule preceding any prerequisite conditions, without which they were not to be circumcised; the contrary is more probable by far: namely, that they were to be circumcised, is absolutely commanded, and they were in no wise to neglect the same, and so to do were sinful, but that prerequisite conditions in them, without which they were not to be circumcised is not so much as intimated to be appointed.  
In Exod. 12.48. it is said, if any will observe the Passeover, Circumcision of all his males is required to proceed as a general Law to the home-born and to the stranger, but to the participation of Circumcision of himself, and all his males also, nothing is required to precede. Now in the new Testament there is a ministry ordained of God for the ministration of baptism; but in the time of the law there was no ministry appointed for Circumcision, but the head of every Family only stood charged with that work to see the accomplishment thereof.  
And hereof came another difference, that in baptism there is a let spoken of, as Act. 8.36.10.47. that if Faith did not appear at least externally to the Minister, he might not administer baptism: but in Circumcision, any man might circumcise himself and his males, and thereby become a Proselyte, without any fore-going condition; because there was no order or state of men appointed by God to require any such thing of him before; and therefore in that respect, no let spoken of in Scripture.  
But the main difference appears in that God n●ver appointed a teaching ministry to precede Circumcision to the Parties required to be circumcised, as now he hath to all the Parties required to be baptized, even from that time to the end of the World Mat. 28.18, 19. and hereupon ariseth another difference, even in the Constitution of the true visible Church, which then was constituted by natural generation of ●brah●ms natural seed, but now is constituted by spiritual regeneration of Abrahams spiritual seed, by the means of the preaching of the Gospel, ev n called Saints at least so far as men can judge, as all the Epistles of P●ul to the ●hurches do plainly prove; and by all this is your insinuation of the baptism of Infants tak●n away.  
Further, I cannot but take notice of a contradiction between this Proposition and your fifth Proposition● in which you say Faith or a first grace must be presupposed, or else Bap isme not to be administered: but here you say that of men of yeares saith is to be required; and must be, that a man may be baptized but not the same of Infants; how you will reconcile this contradiction, I do not yet conceive; if you will say that grace may be though not known in Infants but in men of yeares, that are able to manifest what is in them; such manifestation is to be required from them, without which they are not to be baptized: I say that this is no reconciliation of the contradiction; for as grace may be in Infants, and not known, so it may not be, as it is not known to be, but you say baptism is given to confirm the former grace, which therefore must be presupposed, or else not be administered; and here you say, that of men of yeares Faith is to be required and must be, that a man may be baptized; but not the same of Infants: now whatsoever is to be presupposed, must be, and must be required to be, or else baptism not to be administered, and yet the same not required to be in Infants, and yet Infants to be baptized, is an apparent contradiction, because whatsoever is not to be required to be in Parties to be baptized, is not to be presupposed to be, or else baptism not to be administered. And thus have I made Answer to your sixth Proposition; and now I come to your Arguments, the first whereof is this.  
If the Covenant now under Christ be the same that was with Abraham and his Posterity in the Flesh; then as Infants were then partakers of the Covenant, and received the seal thereof, Circumcision; so are Infants partakers of the Covenant, and ought to receive the seal thereof, baptism.  
But the Covenant now under Christ is the same that was before Christ, with Abraham and his posterity in the flesh; Ergo,  
To which I answer, denying your Antecedent; namely that the Covenant now under Christ is the same that was before Christ with Abraham and his posterity in the Flesh, and for the clearing up of my grounds of this Answer, I desire to show concerning this Covenant made with Abraham in Gen. 17.7. first, what it was not; secondly, what it was; thirdly, that we have no such Covenant now in the time since Christs coming in the flesh concerning our seed.  
First therfore God did never promise to save any of Abrahams children for Abrahams sake: secondly, nor yet for his faiths sake; thirdly, nor to make all his Posterity in the flesh to be Believer. First therefore Abraham was an heir of sin and death, as all other men are, and was saved through the Mediator, Joh. 8.56. Heb. 11.13. Rom. 4.1.2. Gal. 3.6. therefore Abrahams person did not move God to save his children who was saved by the undeserved grace and mercy of God through the Mediator himself.  
Secondly, not for his faiths sake: first, because faith is not a meriting thing, it being that by which a man believes the favour of God in Christ; secondly, because if it were, then Christs Doctrine would prove false Joh. 3.3. verily, verily saith Christ, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God; thirdly, if it were so, then God should save some, the salvation of whom would bring no glory to God at all: and the reason is, if any should be saved that have no faith in their own hearts, only because their Parents have believed for them: then it will follow that some should be saved which neither know their own misery, nor Gods mercy, nor wisdom, nor power, nor justice, nor goodness; and so consequently know not how to be thankful for any benefit, seeing they know none, which is contrary to the end for which he saveth men, which is the praise of his own name: besides, this is further proved by these Texts of Scripture, Hab. 2.4. The just shall live by his Faith, Gal. 6.5. Every man shall bear his own burden, Ezek. 18.20. besides in Jsa. 10.22. Rom. 9.22. it is said, though Israel be as the sand of the Sea; yet but a Remnant of them shall be saved; all which proveth that the Israelites were not saved for Abrahams faiths sake.  
Thirdly, neither did God ever promise to give faith to all Abrahams Posterity in the flesh: First, because it is impossible that God should lye; but if he promised to give faith to them all, and did not, then he did lye; but that is false, therfore he never promised so to do.  
Secondly, God blames the unprofitableness of the Iewes, in respect of the means vouchsafed, which if in this respect he had bound himself to work in them, what he required of them were a contradiction; therefore he did not promise so to do; and so much of the first particular, what it is not.  
Secondly, I am now to show what it is, and I say, God did command Circumcision upon Abrahams Posterity in the flesh, and did thereby take, consecrate, separate, set apart and distinguish them to be by his favour, and good will, and great love possessed with divers laws and Ordinances, Ministers, Services, Sacrifices, Tabernacle and Temple, and all other things which they did possess by the appointment of God afterwards, which were means to typify and point out to them, and led them unto Christ, which was to come, Gal. 3.23, 24, 25. and unto this people and Posterity of Abraham did give a holy Land, separate from all other, for a place for them to dwell in, and did appoint a city in that Land separate from all others to be worshipped in joh. 4.20. Deut. 12.5.6, 12, 13, 18, 26. and in that City did appoint a Temple for to offer sacrifices in by the ministry of the Priests, which they might not offer elsewhere, which was a privilege that no other Nation enjoyed, Deu. 7.6 7 8, 9. Ro 9.4, 5. Psal. 147.19, 20. and whosoever would be circumcised might come to jerusalem, and be possessed with the same privileges, both they and all that belonged unto them, both children and servants, Exo. 12.48.49. but the uncircumcised Man-child in whose flesh the fore-skin is not circumcised, even that person shall be cut off from among his people, Gen. 17.14. and thus I have declared the second particular what it is. Now followeth the third that we since Christ have no such Coevnant concerning our fleshly seed, because there is no Christ now to come to be manifested by such means as was then, and the necessary absence of the truth, or thing typified did necessary require the type, and the necessary presence of the truth or thing typified doth necessary require the absence of the type.  
Now that the fleshly seed of Abraham was a type of Christ the true promised seed, is manifest in Gal. 3. ver. 16. compared with 19. where Paul saith to Abraham and his seed were the Promises made; he saith not and to thy seeds, as of many, but and unto thy seed as of one, which is Christ; and vers. 19. he saith, the Law was added till the seed came, unto which the promises were made,( which was Christ) here Paul by the power of the Spirit doth interpret the promise of God to Abraham, Gen. 17.7.( where God saith, I will establish my Covenant between me and thee, and thy seed after thee in their Generations for an everlasting Covenant to be God unto thee and to thy seed after thee) in respect of the seed to be meant in the singular number( namely of one) which is Christ: now if any shall say this lets not but all the faithful may be understood, which make up one mystical body being one with him by faith▪ he the head, and they the members; I shall freely grant it to be so according to 1 Cor. 12.12.  
But now it remaines how we may conceive the natural seed to be interpnted to be Christ, who did not believe surely, no way but ceremonially and typically, even as the male which was to be circumcised did; and the lamb to be eaten at the Passeover was to be a Male, and all the first born males both man and beast were called holy, to be offered to the Lord in typical relation to Christ the true propitiatory Sacrifice.  
So then when Christ the true promised seed was come, the seed in the flesh that lead to Christ, ceased.  
And so it did indeed, for the natural relation ceased at the death of Christ, and not before, at which time the distinction or different holinesse between jew and gentle ceased, Acts 10.28. Eph. 2.14, 15. in Rom 11.20. it is said, through unbelief they are broken off; now, it is manifest they were the true Church till the death of Christ, and then broken off through unbelief: why were not the Jews in the sin of unbelief before? Yes, no doubt; why? then were they not broken off before, and why then? The reason is because the time of faith was come, and therefore now they were broken off through unbelief; the Seed was come, therefore the natural Seed ceased; Christ was come, therefore the Law ceased; as long as the Law lasted they did remain in the Church by being circumcised, and observing the Rites and Ceremonies of the Law, though they did remain in unbelief; but when the time of faith was come, Gal. 3.25. Then they were no longer in the Covenant and Church, by observing the Rites and Ceremonies of the Law, which they entred into by Circumcision; but now they were broken off through unbelief, which notes out unto us that the standing in that Church before Christ in the time of the law and the standing in this Church since Christ in the time of the gospel, is upon different grounds, for the standing in that Church was by being circumcised, and observing the Rites and Ceremonies of the Law: but the standing in this Church is by faith, and being baptized into the same faith, Act. 2.38, 41. joh. 4.1. Gal. 3.26, 27. Rom. 11.20. and it is to be noted that the Iewes, the same people that were circumcised, and in Covenant with Abraham according to the flesh, and thereby members of the jewish Church, could not be the visible Church according to the gospel, unless they did manifest faith, and so bee in Covenant with Abraham according to the Spirit, and baptized into the same faith: whereas if the Covenant now under Christ were the same that was before Christ with Abraham and his posterity in the flesh, then by the same right they possessed Circumcision, and the jewish Church-state, they must possess this since Christ, which they could not do, therefore it is not the same.  
It is true therefore that the Covenant of God, makes the Church both in the time of the Law and gospel too, for the Church is nothing else then a people in Covenant with God; now look how the Covenant differs, so the Church and people differs, which is made by it, and which enter into it.  
Now the Covenant whereby God took a people outwardly to be his people then was that whereby they did( being circumcised) participate of all those outward means which lead to Christ which was to come, Psal 147.19, 20.  
But that Covenant whereby he takes a people outwardly to be his people now, whereby they are admitted to be baptized, is that profession they make of faith in Christ, Acts 8.12, 37. Mat. 3 6. whereby th●y have true and spiritual conjunction with God, and are his people, Heb. 3.6.  
Indeed it is true, that Christ is and ever was the Mediator and means of Salvation, and also that all those that were saved, were saved through faith in him both before and since Christs coming; but yet because the outward means of making Christ known doth differently depend upon his being yet to come, and upon his being come in the flesh; the one being more dark, the other more plain; the one more carnal, the other more spiritual; therefore the participation of these means do make the state of the participants to differ.  
Concerning which, note these differences, first it's called the Old Testament, and the time since Christ, the New Testament, Heb. 9.18. Secondly, it is called the carnal Commandement: this since Christ is called the power of the endless life Heb. 7.16. Thirdly, it is called a blamable Testament in opposition to a better Testament, established upon better promises, Heb. 8.6. Fourthly it is called impotent, and beggarly rudiments in respect of Christ, which is the end of them, Gal. 4 9. Col. 2 8.  
Fiftly, it's called a yoke of bondage, in opposition to the liberty and freedom which comes by the gospel, Gal. 5.1. Act. 15.10. sixthly it's called jerusalem below, or earthly in opposition to jerusalem above celestial, and Heavenly, which is the privilege of the visible Church in the New Testament, Gal. 4.25, 26. Heb 12.22. Seventhly it's called a Law, and a Schoolmaster: the rudiments of the world: the time since Christ, the time of faith, Gal, 3.19.23, 24 and 4.3, 4. Eightly, it's called the stop of the partition wall, the Law of Commandements standing in Ordinances: yea hatred, or the cause of hatred in opposition to the unity, and peace that comes by the gospel, Ephes. 2.14.15. Col. 2.14. and hereupon it followeth, that only such persons are to be admitted unto these Gospell-priviledges as are suitable thereunto.  
This State then being 1. The New Testament. such only as are 1. In the new Covenant. are suitable thereunto. 2. Established upon better promises. 2. In possession of the promises. 3. After the power of the endless life. 3. Partakers of the Powers of endless life. 4. In Christ. 4. In Christ 5. In liberty of the Spirit. 5. In freedom of the spirit. 6. celestial Jerusalem. 6. born from above. 7. A state of Faith. 7. In the Faith. 8. A state of unity and Peace. 8. In unity, Peace and love.  
Therefore only such are to be admitted unto the Gospell-priviledges. In the time therefore before Christ, such as would circumcise themselves, and their males and observe the Law in the Rights and Ceremonies thereof, together with their children by generation were the seed, and in Covenant with that Church.  
But now since Christ, only such as believe in Christ and are thereby children by regeneration are the seed, and in covenant with this Church. The proof of this is clear, first, because none of the natural seed of Abraham, are in the covenant by virtue of any natural relation, though they did remain in the Jewish Church till the death of Christ: and as that Church then ceased, so their being in the Church by a natural relation ceased also, Act. 10.28. Rom. 9.8. Gal. 4.28.31. C. 3.7.9.14.16.19.22.26.28, 29. Secondly the Gentiles have no natural relation to become Abrahams seed by: and therefore a believers child cannot become the seed of Abraham by being the seed of a believer, unless such children do believe themselves, and cannot otherwise in no respect be participants in the covenant made with Abraham. Thirdly, neither did the three thousand converts baptize their children, when they themselves were baptized, as Abraham did according to Gods command, Gen. 17.23. circumcise his Males the self same day; which plainly proves, that the Covenant now under Christ is not the same that was with Abraham and his posterity in the flesh: now that the 3000. converts did not baptize their children, when they were baptized themselvees is plain, Act. 2.41. the words are, then they that gladly received the word were basttised, 1● The meaning is onely they, and none other, or else it were an imperfect relation, if others that did not gladly receive the word were baptized also: therefore none but those, and therefore not their Infants; for such a testimony( viz. that they gladly received the word) is no where recorded in Scripture, neither can be of Infants; also Acts 8.12. It is said, when they believed the things that concerned the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus, they were baptized both men and women, and not before, therefore not their Infants. Fourthly Paul and others writing to the visible Churches, since Christ do usually express themselves of all the members, as of Saints, faithful brethren, called, reborne, the Sons of God by adoption, Rom. 1.6.8. Chap. 8.15. 1 Cor. 1, 2.4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. Chap. 4.15, 16. 2 Cor. 1.1.7 Chap. 3.2. Gal. 3.26. Ephes. 1.3.15. Phil. 1.1.3, 4, 5, 6, 7. Colo. 1.2, 3, 4. 1 Thes. 1.1.2.4. 2 Thes. 1.1.3. 1 Pet 1.1.2 3.10.21, 22, 23. which the Prophets( notwithstanding they were lead by the same spirit) were wont to speak otherwise of the visible Church of the Jews, as Isay 1.1.16 jer. chap. 1 and 2. Ezek. 3, 4 12. chap. 16.48.51. which difference could not be if the natural children had been in the Covenant, and of the Church as the Jews were.  
Fiftly, the Argument and purpose of Paul is to exclude all things, besides faith to be any ways available to the participation of the Covenant, in relation to Abraham in the time since Christ, Rom. 4.16. Gal. 3.7.9.14.16.19.22.26.28, 29. therefore the posterity in the flesh are not now in the Covenant by any natural relation, as they were before Christs coming in the flesh.  
sixthly, the Author to the Heb. 8.8. saith from jer. 31.31. Behold I make a new Covenant with the house of judah, not like the Covenant I made with their Fathers but this is the Covenant, I will put my Law in their mind, and all shall know me from the least of them to the greatest of them, where we are to note, that the principal difference is in the subjects of the covenants: in the former, God did not put his Law in their mind nor writ it their hearts, that is so as without which, they might not be of the house of Israell, but did writ it in Tables of ston, requiring them to keep it; but now is Christ the mediator of the New Covenant, and Testament, that through death which was for the redemption of the transgressions that were in the former Testament: they which were called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance, which promise being received, the persons so believing, and only they are the house of judah, the true Israel of God, Gal 6.16. Rom. 2.28, 29. the subjects of this covenant, which have the Law written in their hearts: in the former Covenant many of the subjects of it were destitute of the knowledge of God, being the Posterity of Abraham according to the flesh: at the first Infants circumcised at 8. dayes old, according to the Law, and therefore were to learn God in Christ, when they came of yeares.  
But now the Subjects of this covenant are such, as all of them do know God, from the least to the greatest, having the Law written in their hearts being all possessed of the benefit of remission of sins, through Faith by spiritual regeneration, vers. 12. chap 10 17, 18 Insomuch, as it is a great shane for the Church of Corinth, that any should bee amongst them 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 that was before Christ, with Abraham and his posterity in the flesh, and this shall suffice for answer to this your Argument.  
Now I shall examine your proofs, and the first thing you would 〈◇〉 is, that the covenant made with Abram and his posterity in the fle●●, ●●fore Christ, and that now under Christ is the same: your first 〈◇〉 that the gospel is the Doctrine of the Covenant.  
But this was preached to Abraham, and to the Iewes in the 〈◇〉 and in Davids time, therefore the covenant is the s●me in all.  
Answ. And is this a good proof, to prove the coven●●● 〈◇〉 with Abrams posterity in the flesh, before Christ a●● 〈…〉 be the same, surely no such matter, and if it be, then 〈…〉 ever the gospel which is the Doctrine of the 〈…〉 preached, they with their posterity are in the cove●●●● 〈…〉 though they be the scoffing Athens, Act. 17, 18, 19, 20 〈…〉 is no more in your proof, but let us see your second proof you say.  
If Abraham be the father of the Iewes and Gentiles, and equally as he believes the righteousness of faith,& his children equally, as so believing and no otherwise, then the Covenant is the same.  
But Abraham is the Father of the Iewes and Gentiles, and equally as he believes, Rom. 4.11, 12.16, 17.23, 24. Gal 3.7.9.26.29. therefore the Covenant is the same.  
Answ. What consequence hath this Argument, to prove that the covenant made with Abram and his posterity in the flesh before Christ, and that now under Christ is the same, surely none at all.  
For first if none be Abrahams children, no otherwise than as they believe the righteousness of faith, then when any do so believe, let them be baptized.  
But it is true as it is said and proved in the Scriptures, alleged that none are Abraham children, neither of Jews, nor Gentells but as they do believe the righteousness of faith, viz. according to the promise) Rom. 9.8 Gal. 3.29. chap 24.28.  
Therefore none other are Evangellically in the covenant, nor ought to be baptized.  
Secondly, the body of the Jewish Nation were the posterity of Abraham, according to the flesh, were commanded to be circumcised, Gen. 17.10. and so in covenant according to the Law, or otherwise they could not have been of the jewish Church while the Law lasted, Rom. 9.4.& they could not have been broken off through unbelief, Rom. 11.20. and then in the time of the Law they might not eat the Passeover, Exod. 12.48. neither might they come to the Temple to bring their Sacrifices, Acts 21.2. therefore they were legally in the Covenant, though they were but the posterity of Abraham according to the flesh, yet none of the uncircumcision might in the time before Christ partake of these privileges, nay, though they did believe, therefore the difference was very great.  
Thirdly, now since Christ no gentle is Abrahams seed at all, but by believing the righteousness of faith, although he be the Child of believing Parents. Gal. 3.29.  
Fourthly, none of the Jews themselves( which were the natural seed of Abraham and partakers of all the Ordinances of the Old Testament, as well Circumcision as any other, and that by virtue of the same natural relation) could be admitted to be baptized, Acts 2.39. nor yet to partake of any of the succeeding Ordinances of the gospel, but upon the manifestation of faith; therfore the Covenant before, and that since is not the same.  
Your third Reason i● of as little force as the former if it be well weighed; which is this, That the standing of the Jews in the gr●ce of God, was the same with Abrahams.  
I answer, here we must distinguish of the word grace, which may equally be taken either particularly for the Covenant of everlasting life, by which the Saints are fre●ly justified, as Rom. 3.24. or else more generally for any effect of Gods goodness whereby he doth freely communicate any kind of benefit unto men which must needs be by grace and favour, seeing no man deserveth any thing at his hands.  
This being premised, I now make answer, That if you take grace in the first sense for the Covenant of everlasting life by which the Saints are freely justified: then I deny that the Jews were ever required to manifest their interest therein before they could be admitted to stand members of the visible Church-state before Christs coming; as all both Jews and Gentiles must now since the death of Christ, Acts 8.37. and yet nevertheless all that were saved, it was by grace in this first sense; but if grace be taken in the second sense( namely more generally) then I must needs aclowledge that it was Gods great grace and mercy that the Jews had a Law of Circumcision and other ordinances which was to them as a schoolmaster to led them to Christ which was to come, Gal. 3.24. and also promises that Christ must be born of their seed according to the flesh Ro. 9.5.( and in these respects) the standing of the Jews was the same with Abrahams( and these are the respects) spoken of by Mary, Luke 1.54, 55. of the mercy spoken to Abraham and his seed, and the Covenant and Oath spoken of by Zachary, ver. 72.73. namely, that Christ should come, and was expected by them to be born of the Virgin Mary and John the Baptist to be his fore-runner, as appeareth v. 47 compared with v. 76. according to the promises and Oath of God made to Abraham, Gen. 12.3. chap. 22.16, 17, 18.  
But all this is too short to prove that the Covenant now under Christ, is the same that was before Christ, with Abraham and his posterity in the flesh; and therefore here you may see all your proofs for your assumption taken away, whereupon I suppose your double consequence will fail also; but yet because your consequences stand distinct, and your proofs annexed to them, I will therefore consider of them in order as they stand.  
The first Consequent that you would prove, is, That Infants are now in the Covenant, as they were then before Christ, you are resolved upon four reasons.  
The first is, else the Covenant were not the same with that which( as you say) you have proved it to be.  
To which I answer, that I have disproved your proofs of that particular, and therefore this reason is nothing.  
2. You say Else the state of the grace of God should be straitned, and be made of less extent by Christs coming, then it was before, whereas it is more enlarged and of greater extent; there being nothing more then in the state of the person to interest Infants in the Covenant then now.  
First, I answer denying the consequence, and the reason is because the preaching of the gospel is as full as large and as ample a testimony of Gods grace, as any of the fleshly posterity of Abraham had by the Covenant, and larger; inasmuch as the gospel preached now is a more full declaration of the grace of God and the benefits that come by Christ then ever Circumcision or the Ordinances of the Old Testament did declare to them, and the fleshly seed of Abraham had but the declaration of the grace of God in Christ by the Covenant, then though the believing seed of Abram had the grace of God in Christ declared them.  
And now the Seed of the Gentiles believers and unbelievers are made partakers of the preaching of the gospel though th●y be not in the Covenant; which is a larger declaration of the grace of God and of the benefits that come by Christ, then ever the fleshly seed of Abraham had by being in the Covenant.  
Therfore the exclusion of the fleshly seed doth not straighten the grace of God at all.  
Secondly, as it was of larger extent in respect of the clear Revelation of the grace of God beyond what it was before Christs coming; so likewise it is of larger extent in respect of the revelation to more people, then it did hen, for then it was confined to the Land of Israel, and the people of the Jews; but now this more clear Revelation of the grace of God( abounding beyond whatever Circumcision and all the Ordinances of the Law did or could reveal unto the fleshly seed then in Covenant) is by Christ commanded to be preached to all Nations; yea, to every man and woman Mark 16.15. Mat. 28.18 19. Lu. 24 47, and yet the people nevertheless more in Covenant nor to bee bap●ised unless they believe therfore the increase of the extent of Gods grace doth not necessary imply a bringing of the fleshly seed of believers within the Covenant.  
Thirdly, if you by extension of grace do conceive that ever God did accept of the posterity of Abraham into the Covenant of everlasting life, by Christ, without faith in their own persons, onely in relation to Abraham, and thereupon conclude that the seed of believers are now much more taken into the covenant of everlasting life by the faith of their Parents: therein you err, and such an extension of grace I do absolutely deny both now and in the time before Christ too: this error was condemned in the Jews by John Baptist, Mat. 3.9 and by Christ, John 8.34 39 40, 41. But of this I have spoken sufficiently before.  
Fourthly and where it is said That there was nothing more in the state of the persons, then to in●●rest Infants in the covenant then now.  
I answer, That though there was nothing in the state of the Persons; yet there was something in things, and in the order of times, Christ being yet to come.  
In which respect the necessary absence of the truth, and true promised seed did necessary require the type, namely the fleshly seed to be selected, separated and ceremonially holy, of whom the promised seed was to come: but now the necessary presence of the truth, and true promised seed Jesus Christ being come, doth necessary require the absence of the type, and the consummation, termination, abrogation and utter abolution of this selected, separated and ceremonial holiness of this natural and fl●shly seed; and therefore now there is nothing but Evangelicall holiness selection or separation remaining, which is not without personal faith and therfore no visible, being but upon ex●ernall manifestation, and consequently no admittance to any Ordinance of the Covenant by any exercising lawful authority in such causes but only by virtue of such external manifesta- and thus have I answered your second Reason.  
Your third Reason, whereby you would prove that infants are now in the Covenant as they were, then is this, Abraham, being the root, and the Iewes and Gentiles the branches, as when the Iewes were broken off and as well Infants as men of yeares; and so when Iewes be again implanted, as well Infants as men of yeares shall be so.  
To which I answer, first I conceive( under favour) that by the root is meant Christ, according to that of John 15.5. where Christ saith, I am the Vine, ye are the branches, because the Apostle saith, Rom. 11.20 thou standest by faith: now Christ is the proper object of faith, and not Abraham.  
But admit that Abraham be the root; yet the Gentiles are not the branches in a natural relation nor the Jews branches in a spiritual relation, without ●ersonall faith, or else the Jews could not be broken off through unbelief, because unbelief doth not make the Jews cease ●o have natural relation to Abraham; and therefore if you make Jews and Gentiles to be the branches equal in relation to ●he ●oo●Abram, you must make the relation such as is possible to them both such onely is a spiritual relation, Galat. 3.29. for in a natural relation it is not possible for the Gentiles to be branches in relation to the root Abraham.  
3. Whereas you say, when the Iewes were broken off, it was at well Infants as men of yeares.  
I answer, it is true, because Christ which was the true promised seed being come, the natural relation in the Covenant ceased and now there was no relation in the Covenant with Abraham, but by faith in Christ onely.  
4. Whereas you say, That when the Iewes be again implanted, as well Infants as men of yeares shall be so.  
I answer that as unbelief did break them off, so faith onely must graft them in, as ver. 23.  
But that ever the Jews shall be planted so as Infants to be members of the visible Church without the manifestation of faith lawfully, as once they were before Christs coming, can be no way proved but it is an absolute error.  
Fourthly, your fourth reason to prove Infants in the Covenant, as they were then is this, If t●e Jews and Ge●tile are incorporated into one Body in Christ, and the jewish Infants are of that Body, then so must the Infants of the Gentiles be; bu th● Iewes and Gentiles are incorporated into one Body in Christ;( by the gentiles being made near and Citizens, which they were not before the Iewes being in Christ) Eph. 2.11.20,& 3, 6. and the Iewes Infants are of the same Body: therfore so are the Infants of the Gentiles.  
I answer, that this is recorded to belong to the Gentiles, as a benefit in special to be the Body of Christ: because the Jews had means before, and some of the Jews had faith by that means, and were true members of his Body: Christ the head and they the members and so consequently the body; why because the members and the head make up the body, and then their were no members known, but the Jews therefore no body; but the Jews and the Gentiles had no means before; and therfore Christ by his coming brought this to pass, that means should be afforded as well and as much as to the Jews, and consequently faith by the means and so united to Christ the head; now being joined to the head, they must necessary be joined to the Body, therefore joined to those believing Jews which before were the body, but as the Jews were no otherwise the body, but in relation to the head unto which they were united onely by faith: so the Gentiles had union with the Jews no otherwise but through Christ the head of them both, being joined to him by faith, and so to them.  
Secondly, I say, that the Gentiles did not by conversion enter into fellowship with the Jewish national Church-state; for that state the Jews possessed not by Christ themselves,( but a new Gospell-state which onely some few of the Nation, which were converted to the faith participated of) therfore much less could the Gentiles participate of any such Church state with them now: then, if neither Jews nor Gentiles were the body of Christ considerably as a Nation; but only in respect of conversion by which they were inheritors of the same body, and partakers of the same promise in Christ by the gospel; then were not the Jews merely as Jews of the body, and so consequently not their Infants.  
But neither Jews nor Gentiles were the body of Christ considerably as a Nation, but onely in respect of conversion by the gospel, Eph. 3.6. Therefore the Jews merely as Jews are not of the body of Christ, and consequently not their Infants till they be converted; and therefore so are not the Infants of the Gentiles neither; and thus you may see your reasons of proving Infants in the Covenant to fail you, and therefore your next consequence will surely fall, which is this, that Infants ought now to be baptized, as then circumcised.  
First, Else the Covenant were not the same, nor Infants in it.  
I answer no more, it is not the same in respect of the natural relation to Abraham, as I have shewed and therefore Infants not in it  
Secondly, you say if they have the thing and substance, they cannot be denied the seal and circumstance, if the first grace, then the second confirming.  
I answer true, when they manifest that they have the thing and substance, or any other can manifest it for them, then let them have the seal and circumstance; and surely none can forbid water, why they should not be baptized, when they are known to be in the Covenant.  
Thirdly, you say, If by virtue of this word of God to Abraham I will be thy God, a●d the God of thy seed, Infants are included, and therefore of old ci●cumcised, and the same promises be continued in the same state to ●he G●ntiles; then the Gentiles Infants are also in it, but the first is ●rue Ergo,  
I answer, that the same promises are not continued in the same state to the Gentiles who are not Abrahams children by natural relation nor ye● is it con●inued to the Jews, neither seeing their being in the Covenant by a natural relation ceased at the death of Christ, at which time the commandement of Circumcision cease● also and had the natural relation held the natural seed within the Cov●nant still; then doubtless the commandement had remained still touching ●he circunctsing of that natural seed for there is no more reason for the ceasing of the one, then for the ceasing of the other; and if Circumcision had remained, then I suppose none would have pleaded for the baptizing of Infants; but if the Covenant be ceased touching the natural seed, then there is no Infants to be circumcised, nor baptized neither; but the Covenant ceased at the death of Christ touching the natural seed, Act. 10.28. Gal. 3 25. Eph. 2.14, 15. Rom 11.20.21. Gal. 4.25, 26. therfore this is no proof for Infants to be circumcised nor baptized neither.  
And thus I have done with your first Argument; your second follows thus.  
If in the whole body of Israelites as well Infants as men of yeares were baptized, and with the same baptism that ours is, then Infants are now to be baptized, as then they were: but in the whole body of Israelites Infants were baptized, and that with the same baptism spiritually that ours is.  
Therefore Infants are now to be baptized as then they were.  
I answer this Argument is a sophism and lies not true in his form; for in the first part of your Argument it appears as if you intended that the ●sraelites were baptized corporally as now since Christ the Disciples of Christ were: and in the second part of your ●rg●●ent you tell us it is the same baptism spiritually that ours is, whereas if you had said so in the first part then I say your Antecedent would be too narrow to infer the consequent; and this I shall manifest by laying down your Argument in such a form as it may agree with itself;( for as it lies now it agrees not with itself.)  
First, if in the whole Body of Israelites as well Infants as men of yeares were baptized, and with the same baptism materially and formally, that ours is; then Infants are now to be baptized as then they were.  
But in the whole Body of Israelites Infants were baptized, and that with the same baptism materially and formally that ours is. Therfore Infants are now to be baptized as then they were.  
Who would not see first that your Minor were false, the cloud and the Sea not being the same baptism materially and formally that ours is: and secondly neither would the consequence follow, because Infants were then baptized; therefore Infants must now be baptized, no more then because Adam was not to eat of the three in the midst of the Garden; therfore the eating of some kind of fruit by us is evil; or no more then this, Infants were circumcised then, therefore Infants must be circumcised now.  
But secondly, I will supply your Argument in the first part with that which is expressed in the second pat, and then see the force and power of it thus: if in the whole body of Israelites as well Infants as men of yeares were baptized, and with the same baptism spiritually that ours is; then Infants are now to bee baptized as then they were.  
But in the whole Body of the Israelites Infants were baptized, and with the same baptism spiritually, that ours is.  
And now I deny the consequence, and wil● show you how the Antecedent is too narrow to infer the same thus.  
That although God did by the miraculous working of his divine providence, grace and goodness led the People of Israel through the sea dry, and drowned the egyptians which were their enemies, and did also afford them a cloudy Pillar, which was a defence from their enemies, and a guid to them in their way whither they were going, which must be in the nature of the things considered as great a Sacrament, sign or token of Gods love in Christ to that people as baptism was to the Corinthians, and therefore called baptism: and( for no other reason will it from hence follow, that we should administer such an Ordinance as baptism is to our Infants, without a command from God so to do for this is the force of your Argument; God did by the work of his providence baptize the Infants of Israel spiritually, Ergo we may by our work without Gods command baptize our Infants materially, ceremonially and formally; and is this good reasoning? who sees not that God hath no limits, but may by his providence testify his grace as largely as he will; therfore we may device means to worship God as large as we will, or may administer his means to whom we will, without any direction from him: who sees not that there is no force in such manner of arguing; but it is absurd and erroneous so to reason?  
Thirdly, therefore the purpose of Paul is, to declare to the Corinthians that Ordinances would do them no more good without faith and repentance, then Miracles( which were as great as Ordinances) could do the Israelites good to prevent Judgements when they sinned; and that therefore it would be a vain thing for these Corinths to rest secure in the possession of these Ordinances, as if God respected them thereby without Faith in Christ, such a faith as preserved them from those sins which the Israelites committed; the which faith if they had not, they were no more exempt from Gods displeasure, plagues and Judgments then the Israelits were: and if Ordinances would secure these Corinths, then those miracles would secure them: but these Miracles did not secure them; therefore these Ordinances cannot secure you; but you must have a better security then this, namely, faith in the blood of Christ, whereby you are to be carried on towards God in all things as a People prof●ssing and practising the truth: But his purpose is not to show that Ordinances, namely baptism and the Lords Supper are required to be administered by these Corinths to themselves and to their Infants, though they do not believe in Christ: because then God did exercise such Miracles to the Israelites which did not believe, which is the sequel of this Argument compared with the proof, as we shall see by the examination thereof; for your first proof is this.  
You say, That the other Ordinances there mentioned, are the same sp●ritually with ours; they eat the same spiritual meat, and ●rank the spiritual drink with us.  
I answer then by consequence belike the Corinths must baptize themselves and their Infants, and both of them eat the Lords Supper, though neither of them do believe, because then God lead the Israelites through the Sea dry, and gave them the Cloud, and Manna, and the Rock which spiritually is the same with ours, which notwithstanding did not believe: the which thing thus laid open, I hope you will not affirm.  
Secondly, I answer therefore that you err in calling them( the other Ordinances there mentioned) whereas they are the ther Miracles, which had you well weighed, you would not have made th●m the ground of your Argument for the justifying of such a practise as the baptizing of Infants is.  
Fourthly, besides if after the Israelites were entred into the Land of Canaan th●y were then neither baptized with the cloud nor sea nor any other baptism; then was not the baptism which they had before in the cloud and in the sea an example of perpetual practise of baptism: but the first is true, for they entred through the Sea but once, and the cloud ceased when they entred into Canaan, neither can any show that they were baptized with any other baptism; therefore the baptism which they had before, is not an example of perpetual p actice of baptism.  
Fifthly Bap●ismes of different kinds depends upon different grounds, and are to be administered upon different Subjects for different ends but the baptism of the Cloud and Sea, and the baptism we have now are of divers kindes, e●go they depend upon different grounds, and are to be administered upon different subjects for different ends.  
Your second proof you say, Otherwise the apostles Argument w●re not of f●●ce against the Corinthians if they were n●● the same Sacraments with ●ur●, nor the conclusion contain that the Corinthi●ns should be punished with the like punishment, if they commit●ed the like sins.  
I answer, denying the consequence, for although the Cloud and Sea, Manna and the Rock were Sacraments of the same Christ that baptism and the Lords Supper is, yet they were not the same Sacraments; and it sufficeth to the Apostles purpose that the Cloud, Sea, Manna, and Rock, were as great and efectuall tokens of Christ, and so they were in the nature of the things simply considered) as baptism and the Lords Supper is, though they were different Sacraments of the same Christ and not the same Sacraments, and except they were dipped in water, and did eat and drink bread and wine as we do, ye cannot say they were the same Sacraments with ours; and thus have I refuted your second argument.  
Your third argument follows, which is this:  
There is one and the same consideration of the first fruits and the lump the root and the branches: But the first fruits and roote believing Parents are holy and must be Baptized, therefore Jnfants the lump and branches are holy and must be Baptized.  
I deny the asumption or second part of your argument, assumed out of the first, viz. That believing Parents are the roote or first fruits; neither doth, Rom. 11.16. nor the 1 Cor. 7.14. prove any such thing; we will consider of the places distinctly, and first of the first, in Rom. 11.18. It is said( speaking to the believing Gentiles) boast not thyself against the branches, for if thou boast thyself thou bearest not the roote but the roote thee; now if they bear not the roote but the roote beareth them, then they cannot bee the roote, and yet they stood by Faith verse the 20 and were but branches, verse 21. this first place is therefore abused to make believing parents the first fruits and roote, and their Infants naturally descended from them to be the branches, whereas believers are but branches themselves: and secondly, 1 Cor. 7.14. doth prove no such thing neither, which as it neither expresseth roote nor first fruits, so hath it no such sense and meaning as that the holinesse of Faith in the parents, should cause the holinesse in the children.  
But before I express my reasons of the exposition, either negative or affirmative, I conceive it necessary to observe what you say( on the contrary you say, you suppose it is mistaken when expounded to be the same holinesse spoken before of Infidel's person sanctified to the believer, and further you say, the Apostle speak ng therefore of a two-fold holinesse, the one( n t) in the thing itself but to anothers use, the other of the thing itself it cannot but be sinful to conf●und them.  
To which I answer, that I will not contend nor gainsay any of this, but further you say.  
That the Apostle saith two things, that to the pure all things are pure, and sanctified; therefore a believing husband or wife may dwell w●●h an infidel yoke-fellow, the second thing is, that by virtue of a believers state in grace, all his fruit is holy, and partakers of the same state of grace, with him, unless they do by some act of theirs deprive themselves of it as Esau, Ishmael, &c.  
To which I answer, that the former of these two things, I grant, but the latter I wholly deny, that it is any of the purpose of Paul so to speak.  
For first, it is the purpose of Paul to conclude such a holinesse in the children, as was inseparable to their very being, or else it would not have been a sufficient reason to have proved the sanctification of the unbelieving yoke-mate by the believer, and therefore to suppose some Act of theirs to deprive them of the holinesse there spoken of is a coarcted and far fetch't exposition.  
Secondly, if by a believers state in grace be understood the covenant that Abraham and all believers do possess by faith: then first I say, that Esau nor Ishmael were never of it, Rom. 9.8. and therfore could not by any Act of theirs deprive themselves of it.  
Secondly, if they were and deprived by some Act of theirs; then we must fall upon Arminius tenet of falling away which understanding Christians do utterly abhor.  
Thirdly, then the being in the everlasting covenant of grace, and peace with God by Christ, should be conveyed and derived by natural descent, and not by the gospel, which is absurd and contrary to many Scriptures, Rom. 1 16, 17. chap. 10.17. galatians 3.2. joh. 3.5. 1 Pet. 1, 23. Iam. 1.18. joh. 1.13.  
The first of these Scriptures saith the gospel is the power of God to salvation to every one that believeth; whereas this position saith, that some are ●artakers of a state of grace and salvation by virtue of their parents, being in the state of grace, which is directly contrary the one to the other: and all the other scriptures, and many more proves that Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God, by which conversion and regeneration is wrought, by which onely and alone we become Sons of God by adoption and grace; now therfore to say that some are partakers of the same by generation, by virtue from their parents is directly contrary, yea contrary to the whole gospel of Christ, Rom. 4.14. where the Apostle saith, if they which be of the Law( that is naturally descended and circumcised onely) be Heires: Faith is made void and the promise( that is, the whole gospel or Covenant of grace) is made of none effect.  
But if you mean by a State of grace such favour as it pleased God to bestow upon the posterity of Abrah●m, according to the flesh whereby( being circumcised) they were segregated and distinguished to be possessed of Ordinances leading them to Christ, which was then to come above other neighbour Nations: I grant that this distinction agrees to them yet neverth●lesse: to this I say first that this distinction was taken away at the death of Christ Ephes. 2.14 15. Act. 10.28.  
Secondly, neither is it Pauls purpose to conclude these children spoken of 1 Cor. 7.14. within the Limits of such a distinction, first because the Lord in the time of the Law did account of children, in the very case and consideration that these children were in, to be a polluted and unholy seed, and to be put away with their Mothers which were not members of the Church according to the Law, Ezra, 9.2.10 3. Therefore that State did not allow even while it lasted children to be of that state, when one of the parents were foreigners to the Church, therefore much less hath it any consequence to conclude it, so now when the State itself is nullifyed.  
Thirdly, in the time of the Law from which this successive being in the state of grace, is concluded to come the proselyte Jew was required to circumcise all his males, Exod. 12.48. and he should be as one that was born in the Land, and it must bee conceived that the Females were included in the Males, and did enter into the state with them; there being no circumcision, or other Sacrament of entrance appointed for them, whereupon it followeth that there can be no President or rule, no not in the time of the Law itself; that ever any one parent coming to be of the jewish state and leaving their married yoke-mate out did possess their seed of the same state, and the reason was because the Law did enjoin the proselyte to possess all of the state that were under his Jurisdiction by the authority of that Law which required him to circumcise all his males.  
And therefore the state now which takes in upon Faith onely, and thereupon takes the husband which believeth and leaves out the wife which believeth not and takes the wife which believeth, and leaves out the husband which believeth not; can receive no rule from that state to take in the children before they do believe no more then the wife which then was brought into that state by the law of the husbands being a proselyte, and left out of this state until such time as they do believe,  
Fourthly, the Apostle speaks indefinitely of their Children young or old, which it may be, some were 10, 20 or 30. yeares old; and it must be considered, that age doth not make them cease to be Children in relation to those Parents, whose children they are, and again it must be considered, that Pauls purpose is not to speak of Children in respect of yeares, but in respect of relation only for his Argument is an Argument of rela●ion.  
Now it is an absurdity of such a nature, as no body I think will own to conclude, that Children of 20 or 30 yeares old which are apparently wicked, are holy in such a sense as by virtue of their Parents state in grace to be partakers of the same state of grace with him, so as to be Baptized by virtue of this relation.  
Therefore holiness here cannot in the Apostles meaning be so understood, neither will the exception take it off, ( viz.) unless they do by some act of theirs deprive themselves of it) as Esau and Ishmael, &c.  
To which I Answer, that the Apostle speaks positively of a conclusion drawn from the State of the relation which can admit of no exception, which if it could, then will it bee of no absolute validity to enforce the conclusion; and according to this Argument if the Children do by some Act of theirs deprive themselves of their estate in grace, then their Parents can have no sanctified use of their unbelieving yoak-mate though they have never so much faith in themselves; whereas contrary to this the Apostle saith, to the pure all things are pure ●it 1.15. without reference to the children, therefore the childrens state in grace or not in grace, addeth not nor diminisheth any thing to that purpose.  
Fiftly, therfore I say that the holinesse spoken of here, is such a holiness as must prove the unbelieving Parent sanctified to( or by) their unbelieving yoke-mate, but it the Parents be not lawfully married, the grace of the child( if it have any though never so much) cannot prove the unbelieving Parent sanctified to or by their believing yoke-mate: Now if any shall object, that if their Parents were not lawfully married, then were they not husband and wife each to other: I answer: that upon the same ground that the Corinthians did question the dwelling with their unbelieving yok-mate, upon the same ground they did question their being lawfully husbands and wives each to other, which if they were not, all the grace that can be imagined in the Children, will never prove the unbelieving Parent sanctified to or by their believing yoke-mate, therefore the holiness here spoken of is not a state of grace, neither inward nor outward neither, seeing that answers not the Corinthians scruple, nor proves the thing in question by them.  
sixthly, therefore I answer positively, that the holiness here spoken of is legitimacy, and the uncleanness Basterdy, and the reason is partly because such an exposition hath force to prove the thing in question, and the other hath not; and partly because such a holiness is derivative from all Parents lawfully married, and the other is not, Mal. 2.15. and it must be such a holiness as is derivative from all Parents lawfully married because one of the Parents being come to the Faith, and the argument standing in the Children which were begotten and born before, which therefore could not receive any virtue from the faith of the Parents by the course of generation to have any holiness thereby derived unto them; Therefore it must be such a holiness as is derivative from all Parents lawfully married, and that is no other then Legitimacy, and that such an exposition of holiness so understood hath force sufficient to prove the thing in question, is clear; because if one of the Parents do believe there can no objection be made why Legitimacy should not prove the unbelieving Parent to be sanctified to or by the believing yoke-mate whereas if there be no children Legitimate, the question may lye as it did with the Corinthians, whether they were bound together as husband and wife, and whether the unbeliever be sanctified to the believing yoke-mate, yea or no: but taking it for granted that they have Children each by other legitimate, it is then out of question; the conclusion then is, that there can be no such holiness understood of Children in this place of Paul as by which they must be baptized, and thus is your third Argument refuted.  
Your fourth Argument is this, If baptism succeed Circumcision then if Infants were to be Circumcised, Infants are to be baptized; but baptism succeeds Circumcision, therefore as Infants were to be Circumcised so Infants are to be baptized.  
To which I answer, I deny the consequence of the proposition for it doth not follow, because baptism in a sense succeeddeth Circumcision, that therefore the same subjects that were to be Circumcised then, are to be baptized now; no more then this consequence, the gospel succeeds the Law, the Sons of Aaron were Ministers of the Law, therefore the Sons of Aaron are to be Ministers now, or no more then this, baptism succeeds Circumcision, then if they Circumcised all the Males servants though they were men and had no Faith, then so they are to baptize them now; and so in restriction, also baptism succeeds Circumcision, Females were not to be Circumcised then though they had Faith, therefore not to be baptized now: or thus; the Lords Supper succeeds the Passeover then if the little Children and servants eat it, namely the Passover, with the rest of the Family distinctly by themselves in a house, then so are little children and servants to eat the Lords Supper with the rest of the Family distinctly in one house by themselves now: and is this good reason? and yet what ever objection can be made against any of these consequences, will lye against yours also.  
Secondly, I say the body of the Jewish Nation were subjects Circumcised according to the Law, even when Christ died, yet the same were not subjects of baptism according to the gospel until they gladly received the word of God, Act. 2.41.  
Thirdly, therefore I answer, that as baptism succeeds Circumcision, so doth the commandement of baptism succeed the commandement of Circumcision, and the Subject commanded to be baptized doth succeed the subject commanded to be Circumcised: as therefore of old when persons were to be Circumcised, they had recourse to the commandement of Circumcision for direction of themselves in the parties to be circumcised; so now ought we to have recourse to the commandement of baptism for direction of ourselves in the parties to be baptized, now therfore for to have recourse to the commandement of Circumcision, for to have direction in the parties to be baptized, is not onely a failing in method, order, and good decorum, but also causeth a necessity of erring, because the commandement of Circumcision and the commandement of baptism is of different subjects; and if we should take the parties to be baptized from the commandement of Circumcision, then we must baptize none but Males, and that on the eighth day too; and the Proselyte must baptize all his Males whether they have Faith or no, and the Females must not be baptized though they have never so much faith; whereas contrariwise the commandement of baptism requireth the baptism of Disciples, and onely Disciples, and that both men and women, Mat. 28.18. joh 4.1, 2. Act. 2.38.41. chap. 8.12.37. chap. 10.47. Gal. 3.26.27, 28, 29. and what is the description of a Disciple, see Luke 14.26, 27, 33.  
Fourthly, That which was the reason of the change of the Sacrament was the reason of the change of the subject which the Sacrament was to be administered unto whereupon it followeth that by the same reason that we take Infants to be baptized, because Infants were formerly Circumcised, by the same reason we may Circumcise them now, because they Circumcised them then and so consequently the question of baptism ended, unless it should be pleaded, that Infants should be baptized and circumcised both: Now if it be absurd to circumcise Infants now, notwithstanding they circumcised them then, because Christ is now come, who hath put an end to Circumcision and all the Ceremonies of the Law, surely it is no less absurd to baptize Infants now in relation to their circunctsing of them then, because Christs coming doth put an end to the subject also, and hath instituted another Subject to be Bap●ised, and th●y are those that first taught to believe in Christ, and onely those; and thus is the consequence of baptism succeeding circumcision taken away.  
And thus have I made a full answer to your discourse touching Jnfants baptism, and now it remaines I should make some answer to your discourse touching the form of the Church.  
And first you speak of Agreement in this, viz. That matter and form do constitute a Church,( to which we do agree)  
Also you say, That the matter is a company of visible Saints, professing faith in the righteousness of Christ, and living accordingly.  
To this I answer, that this definition agreeth not to Infants, which you would make the subjects of baptism, who are born in sin, and are by nature the children of wrath, Psal. 51.5. Ephes. 2.3.  
Secondly, neither doth it agree with the constitution of the Jewish Church( which you make to be a pattern for ours, by bringing your grounds from thence for the baptizing of Infants) who never were required to make any such profession at the time of their admission, as all the Churches since Christs coming are, and all the Members added, or to be added, do when they are added, Act. 2.41. chap. 8.12, 13.37, 38.10.47, 11.15, 16, 17  
So then after you have set down wherein we do agree,( as indeed it were well if you did agree with yourself in it) then you make a Quaere Whether baptism be not the form of it, and your answer is No, and then you give your reasons of that denial, and then you affirm, That a Covenant acted is the form; to all which I answer, first in general, that we are to distinguish betwixt that which formeth and the form which is formed▪ because the form of any thing according to the common and vulgar acception of form is that outward frame fashion or figure that the thing hath, whereby it is distinguished or hath its denomination, and to apply it to the question in hand, the Church being an Assembly, the form, fashion, or figure thereof is the relation or state that every Member possesseth from Christ their King and common head, and each with other, whereby every Law in every office or service is communicable and executed; so then neither baptism nor a Covenant is the form of the Church but baptism of believers is the instrumental means by which the Church cometh to be made partakers of that form which it hath, and by which it comes to be a Church, and to have such a name settled upon it, and without which it can have no such name agree unto it.  
The instrumental means then of the being of this Church, both for matter and form is by consent of love, issuing forth from the Covenant of grace made in from one Lord through one Spirit, one Faith, one baptism: Eph. 4.4.5. and if any of these means be wanting, then something is wanting that causeth the Church to be, and except that want be supplied, the Church can have no visible existence or being, and from hence the conclusion ariseth, that although baptism be not the form, frame, fashion, or figure of the Church, yet seeing baptism is an essential part of the means conducing to the being of the visible Church, yea and the last means too; That where true baptism is wanting, there can be no true visible Church.  
Secondly, wheresoever true baptism is administered according to the will of Christ revealed in the Scripture, there the true visible Church is by that means, truly constituted and stated in his true being.  
It is therefore called the birth of water, Joh. 3.5. Titus 3.5. As therefore the birth which we receive from our natural Parents, is that by which we receive the beginning of our natures being among the common state of mankind in the affairs of this corporal life, even so baptism being the birth of water, is that whereby we receive the beginning of our visible being in our spiritual estate among the Church and people of God, in the affairs appertaining to eternal life, but the first is true from the analogy that baptism hath with natural birth, therefore the second by force of consequence is also true.  
Secon●ly, I argue from the form of baptism, it being a dipping of the body into the water and in that respect called a burial with Christ, Rom. 6.4. Col. 2.12. betokening our death and resurrection.  
As therefore the rising out of the grave at the last day is the beginning of our being bodily in the state of glory, so the rising out of the water of baptism is the beginning of our being in the visible state of grace, and the beginning of our visible spiritual life is from that day, &c. in respect of their outward station.  
Thirdly, I argue from the end for which baptism is appointed, which amnogst other, 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 which are not baptized as they are, Col. 2.12. compared 20. and so Circumcision did distinguish and denominate the proselyte Jews from what they were before, and from all other Heathens Ex. 12.48 49. Ro. 3.1.2.  
From whence I reason thus; if union and communion with the visible body of Chrsst, and distinguishment from the rest of the world be the end for which baptism is appointed, then whensoever it is administered according to appointment, it must necessary be concluded to be such a means as is effectual to accomplish the proposed end, and unless baptism as a means be administered to persons which are believers, subjects only capable of such union, communion, and distinction, such an end can no ways else be effected, and that way it may be and is; but the former is true by the ground before laid, Ergo the latter is also true.  
Fourthly, I argue from the Irreiteration of baptism, it being to be administered but once, the Lords Supper often, in which respect baptism is the sign of our birth, the Lords Supper is the sign of our growth: baptism is the Sacrament of our entrance or initiation, the Lords Supper is the Sacrament of our continuance and conservation in the visible body of Christ, and therefore by the same reason that a man may be conceived to have a being in the visible Church for a time without baptism, the sign and Sacrament of his birth, entrance and initiation by the same reason he may have a continuance of his being there without the same also, and so consequently baptism needless: but baptism is not needless but needful,( being a sign of our birth, entrance and initiation) to be administered as a means of our visible birth, entrance initiation or the beginning of our visible being in the visible body of Christ( which therefore in that respect is called the birth of water) which thereby do visibly enter into the Covenant of Grace.  
Therefore without baptism they have noe visible being in the Church, and by it they have.  
Fiftly, I argue from the nature of baptism as it is a seal of the Covenant, and so consequently a part of the Covenant, an Ordinance of mutual engagement between God and man, Act. 2.38. chap. 22.16. 1 Cor. 1.13. even as circumcision was an engagement to all the duties or Ordinances of the Law, Gal 5.3. so is baptism an engagement to all the Ordinances of the gospel, which is therfore called Christs bond or yoke, Psal. 2.3. Mat. 11.29. his badge or livery of his professed Disciples, there being no other visible Ordinance of God appointed to pass upon persons, to note out their being in the Covenant before this; from hence I reason  
They that are baptized upon profession of Faith have sealed to the covenant,& are known thereby to belong to the covenant, and so have a visible being in the same, whereas they that are not baptized by virtue of profession of Faith by them made cannot by any Ordinance of God be known to belong thereunto.  
But God hath appointed some Ordinance to be administered upon persons which make profession of Faith, whereby they may be visibly known to belong to the covenant of grace, whereas others that partake not thereof cannot be so known, and there is nothing before baptism appointed so to do.  
Therefore baptism administered to persons professing Faith and repentance, is it alone by which they may be known according to Gods Ordinance, to be in the covenant of grace, and to be of the visible body of Christ.  
Lastly, I argue from the Commission for baptism, Mat. 28 18. given to the first, which was, that they should make Disciples, all Nations baptizing them, where note that baptizing is a participle to the making of them, to bear the name of Disciples or Shollers in Christs school, hereupon the words of Christ in the Commission, Mar. 16.16. are, he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; Faith puts a man into the State of salvation before God: baptism before men; and assoon as they were Disciples baptized, and so stated a visible assembly, then to teach them to observe all things whatsoever he had commanded them, ver. 19. where note, they were first to be a Church of Christ; Secondly, they were to do and observe as a Church of Christ, from whence I reason.  
If the Commission for baptism given to the first Church-planters of the new Testament, did require baptism, and that only to be administered upon persons, as the last thing to make Disciples or Schollers in Christs school, in a visible state of salvation, seated in the observation of all the rest of the Ordinances of Christs kingdom, then baptism administered upon those which are first taught, is that by which the true visible Church is constituted, and stated in its true being: but the former appears by the ground before laid, Ergo.  
Thus have I cleared and proved my position, that baptism is the thing or instrument and means forming and constituting of the Church, though it bee not the outward fashion, frame, figure, or form of the Church formed; yet never●helesse because your Arguments seem to lie against the question thus stated, I will consider them in order as they lye; First therefore you say, that which giveth being to a Church must be removed, if the Church cease to be a Church.  
But baptism cannot be removed from a Church.  
To which I answer, that it is as easy to remove baptism from a Church, as to remove a Church from being a Church.  
Secondly, you say that which being wanting to a church constituted, doth not cause it to be no Church, that cannot be the form of the Church,  
But baptism may be wanting in a Church constituted, and yet it be a Church as circumcision to them, Joshua 5. Ergo.  
Answer, I deny the second proposition namely, that baptism may be wanting in a Church constituted because it is constituted by baptism, as we have prov●d before, neither will, Ioshua 5 help you herein, the case of the Israelites being extraordinary, having special dispensation from God himself in the supply of miraculous Sacraments in the cloud and Sea, Manna and the rock 1 Cor 10.1.2. which God gave them while their travails necessary required the forbearance of circumcision, and the Passeover, which if such necessity had not been, would not have been dispensed with, but the parties so neglecting should have been cut off, Gen. 17.14. If it be replied they were members of the Church of Israel yet not circumcised: therfore we may be members now though not baptized. I deny the consequence, unless that any can show the like case and president of the supply of miraculous Sacraments, to serve in their room; which when they can, we will then grant that those new means from God may serve to effect the same thing which till then we must be contented with the rule of his Word, namely, to have the Church constituted by baptizing of believers in ordinary cases, and not otherwise.  
Thirdly you say, That which is but an adjunct to a thing cannot be the form of it: but baptism is but an adjunct of a Church: Ergo.  
To which I answer, this argument lieth not against my question, as I have stated it, because that which is but an adjunct may be a means of forming and constituting of the thing to which it is adjoined: so baptism being administered upon believers, may be a means to constitute and form them into a true visible Church-state.  
Fourthly, you say, That which is the seal of the Covenant, cannot be the form of the Church: but baptism is the seal of the Covenant,  
Ergo.  
To which I answer, That which is the seal of the Covenant may be a means to constitute and put the Church into an outward visible form, for the which I have spoken somewhat before in the 5. Argument: unto which I refer the Reader for brevities sake.  
Fifthly, you say, That which remaines when a man is no Church-member and is not to be administered to restore him unto Membership, that cannot be the form of the Church.  
But baptism remaines when a man is no Church-member, Ergo.  
To which I answer denying the assumption, but yet because many seem to stumble at this argument most, I will endeavour a more satisfactory answer.  
That by which a person professeth Christ with, is that onely by which he truly professeth baptism and Membership with the Church and body of Christ; whereupon it followeth, that upon the same reason that any person is dispossessed of Membership with the Church, upon the same reason he must be concluded to be dispossessed of Christ and of baptism also, and the reason is because he is to be concluded destitute of all the ends for which baptism is appointed, yea and the grounds also upon which it is administered; in that he possesseth not Christ, he possesseth neither ground of baptism, nor end, and therefore no true being of baptism itself.  
As for the restoring of a person to Membership, we are to note that repentance is but an effect of the same faith by which he possessed Christ at first, and by which he had right to, and possessed baptism in dead, and in truth, though it did seem otherwise to us whiles error or sin did appear to be predominate in him, which repentance is that by which he is to be restored to communion with the Church again after Excommunication, which if he repents not, and so hath no such effect of faith appearing in him, by which he did apprehended Christ at first, then it doth appear that he never did possess Christ the gro nd of Ba●tisme, and consequently not baptism in its true being: for though men may deceive themselves, and may deceive other men like themselves, yet they cannot deceive God, whose Ordinance it is, and upon whom baptism, and all other divine Ordinances have their dependence, who hath ordained that onely believers should be baptized, which if therefore men have no faith though they pretend to have faith, then have they no right to baptism before God, who knoweth them to be destitute of faith. Yet because they seem to men to whom the power of such administration is committed, to have faith, they therfore are bound to baptize them; yet hath this baptism no true being from God, unless and until the parties do believe in dead and in truth, as they seem to do by their profession.  
By all which it doth appear plainly, that in every Excommunicate person, there is a necessary and unavoidable mistake of him first or last, either therefore first he was no believer, and so had no right to baptism, and so baptism had no true being in him, although he seemed to have faith, or else secondly he is a believer, when Excommunicate, and hath Christ and baptism in its true being, although now through the prevalency of error or sin he seemed to have no faith.  
Therefore from hence it followeth that as a man falleth from his faith, he falleth from his baptism too, and as he returns to his faith so he returns to his baptism again also; then if he seemeth to fall from his faith and doth it not really then so likewise he seemeth to fall from his baptism also. Then likewise if he fall wholly from the faith indeed, which he professed to have, as a man may do, then doth he fall wholly from his baptism indeed, and shall never have benefit by it.  
From whence I reason, as a man cleaveth to his baptism so he cleaveth to the Church which is constituted by it, but as a man forsakes his baptism so he forsakes the Church.  
But he that forsakes the ground and ends of baptism forsakes baptism which is administered upon those grounds, and appointed for those ends. Ergo  
baptism cannot be concluded to remain when a man is no Church Member indeed and in truth.  
Secondly I reason, he that returneth to his baptism, returneth to the Church which is constituted by it.  
But he that returneth to the grounds and ends for which it is appointed and upon which it is administered, returneth to baptism in respect of its true being. Ergo  
he that returneth to baptism returneth to the Church which is constituted by it.  
And thus have I done with the negative arguments, and now I come to the affirmative, first therefore you say, That an outward Covenant acted between God and a company of believers to become one and anothers, and so the like amongst themselves is the form of a Church.  
To which I answer, that the Covenant of God makes the Church, I grant, but that any can be concluded to have an outward being in the Covenant of the gospel now in the time of the gospel without baptism, is it which I deny, and require you to prove, having formerly proved the contrary.  
But whereas you speak of a company of believers acting a Covenant to become one anothers amongst themselves to be the form of the Church.  
To which I answer, that by the same reason, that if a Covenant acted to become one& anothers amongst themselves, should be the form of the Church without being baptized for the present, by the same reason they may receive the form of the Church without all the administrations of the gospel for the future, which I conceive would be absurd to affirm.  
Secondly, neither is there any warrant that God hath appointed men to act any such covenant for any such end, and therefore so to do is will-worship, vanity, the invention of man, and mens inventions in Gods worship are plain superstitions and flat breaches of the second commandement, Thou shalt not make to thyself, &c.  
And therefore if it be the form of the Church, it must needs be a Superstitious Church, which is formed by such a Superstitious action.  
Thirdly, a Covenant acted by believers to become one and anothers amongst themselves, may be with ignorance both of the nature and duties of a true Church, as is proved by the presupposition of it to be the form of the Church without baptism, how then should it be the form of the Church, for if they be ignorant that the visible Church must subsist of baptized ones, how can it be avoided, but that they are ignorant of the nature of the true visible Church? and being ignorant of the nature thereof, they are necessary ignorant of the duties thereof: for if they conceive that persons should be employed in the services of relation in the Church unbaptized, then they be ignorant of the duties of the Church, because all the external services of relation must flow from the visible union and relation made in baptism, 1 Cor. 1.13. chap. 12.13. Rom. 6.3, 4, 5. Gal. 3.26, 27. Eph. 5.26. Col. 2.12.20. compared chap. 3.1.2. Heb. 10.22, 23, 24, 25. therefore it cannot be the form of Christs true visible Church.  
But let us examine your proofs, you say First, if the kingdom of Heaven that es the Church-state that we now have be the same that the Iewes had, then what was the form of that is the sorme of this.  
To which I answer, that if the Church-state we have now, be not the same with theirs, then the form of that is not the form of this: and then your argument is grounded upon an if; that is upon nothing: but the Church-state we have now, is not the same that the Jews had, that being constituted of a natural seed, according to the course of a natural generation, this being constituted of a spiritual seed according to Gods gracious effectual working by the powerful preaching of the gospel by spiritual regeneration, Act. 2.41. Ergo  
Secondly, whereas you said a little before, that a Covenant acted by believers to become one anothers amongst themselves to be the form of the Church, and then argue from the State of the Jews to prove this form which never did form themselves so this; therefore surely tends to overthrow yourself, and to argue from your proof to overthrow your principle.  
But you say, That the form of the Jewish Church-state was such a Covenant as is by you above expressed, this you clear by 4 particulars as you say first their entrance into it with Abraham and his seed, was by a visible and outward Covenant, into which Reprobates as well as Elect were admitted, as ishmael and Esaw, Gen. 17. and Circumcision was not the Covenant but a token of the Covenant, ver. 11  
First I answer, this proves not the form of the Church to be such a Covenant as is by you above expressed, acted by a company of believers to become one and anothers amongst themselves, for Abraham and his seed, Reprobates as well as Elect enter into it: Now Abraham was but one believer, and ishmael his seed which entred with him, you instance to be a Reprobate.  
Secondly, I answer, that Circumcision was not only a token of the Covenant but a part of the Covenant itself, being that whereby the parties circumcised were bound to keep the whole Law, Gal. 5.3. and therefore God saith, Gen. 17, 10. This is my Covenant let every Man-child be circumcised, and ver. 13 He that is born in thine house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised, so shall my Covenant be in your flesh: but the uncircumcised Man-child, in whose flesh the fore-skin is not circumcised, even that person shall be cut off from his people, because he hath broken my Covenant: therefore the Covenant here spoken of was such as was entred into by Circumcision, and not such as was acted by a company of believers to become one and anothers amongst themselves to be the form of the Church  
But you would seem to clear it by a second particular( viz) by the establishment of it in the plain of Moab.  
But this establishment was by a Church-Covena●t Deut. 29.10.16. in which they avouched God to be their God, and God avouched they were his people, Deut. 26.17, ●8. ne●ther could circumcision be any ingredient here, because they had not circumcised any of 40. yeares ever since they came out of Egypt; nor did they circumcise any till after Moses and Joshua, had brought them through jordan into the Land of Canaan, Joshua. 5.5.  
To this I answer, that this covenant which was now established, with the people of Israel in the plain of Moab, was the same covenant which was made with Abram, Isaac, and Jacob, v. 13. which they entered into with God in the behalf of themselves, and their posterity by being circumcised, Gen. 17.10, 11, 12, 13, 14 compared 23, 24, 25, 26, 27. Act. 7, 8. and therefore being in the covenant before, they did not begin to be a Church now, and therefore this proves not that a covenant acted by a company of believers to become one and anothers, should be it, that should constitute them to be a Church now.  
Secondly, whereas you say, neither was circumcision any ingredient here, because they had not circumcised any of 40. yeares, I answer, I conceive notwithstanding, that circumcision was an ingredient in their parents who thereby entered into a covenant for themselves, and these children even as the covenant here specified, did comprehend the posterity to come, ver. 15.  
Thirdly, the case of the Israelites was extraordinary, having special dispensation from God, in the supply of miraculous Sacraments, and signs of his grace as means of manifestation, in special of the testification of the covenant, as leading them through the read Sea dry, giving the cloudy pillar by day, and the Pillar of fire by night, to guide and defend them miraculously, causing their clothes and shoes to remain suitable to their bodies and feet, without new supplies, and without waxing old. who were fed miraculously without bread, even by Manna, and water out of the Rock, that they might thereby know that he was the Lord their God, Deut. 29.5.6. Whiles their travails necessary required the forbearance of Circumcision, and the Passeover, which necessity if it had not been; it should not have been so dispensed with, Numbers 9 13. Gen. 17 14. which necessity, seeing it came to pass by Gods commanding them to journey in the wilderness, therefore did in the room of Circumcision for that time, supply with such miraculous Sacraments which are no rules in ordinary cases, as may appear by their cessation assoon as they came into the Land of Canaan, who then were presently lead by ordinary rules, as circumcision, and the Passeover, josh. 5. wherefore in ordinary cases circumcision was the distinction of Jew and Gentiles, and the means of the constitution of the Church of Israel, Gen. 17.10.11, 12 13, 14. Exodus 12.48. Act. 7, 8. Rom. 3.1, 2. Ezek. 44.9. Act. 11.2, 3. chap. 16.1.3. Rom. 2.25, 26, 27, 28, 29. chap. 3.30. and 4. Ephes. 2.11. Phil. 3.2, 3.5. Col. 2.13. 1 Sam. 17.26 36.  
Hereupon it followeth, that although the Church of Israel were a people in covenant with God, yet the way of entrance into this covenant visibly, and so the constitution of this Church was ordinarily circumcision. Therefore as a covenant acted by a company of believers to become one and anothers, was not the form of that Church then, but a special communication of Gods covenant, by circumcision ordinarily, with the whole Nation believers and infidels, and whosoever of any Nation that would be circumcised, and come to jerusalem to worship; much less hath it any consequence to prove it so now.  
But the the third particular by which you would clear it, is by the Iewes, renewing themselves after some apostasy, 2 Chron. 15.12, 13.16. and 34.30.31. Neh. 9.38.10.1. From whence you reason.  
That without which they could not stand in a right Church-estate, that is the form of the Church, but without the renewal of their covenant, they could not stand in a right and pure Church-Estate. Ergo.  
To the assumption I answer, that the Jews made a covenant to seek the God of their Fathers, I grant; that they did well in so doing, I grant also; but they could not be in a Church-state without so doing I deny, and you have not proved, and I will prove the contrary: first because they were the Church of God before. Secondly, that which was now renewed had a being before, and the making of this covenant was but animating, and enabling them to do that which they were engaged, and bound to do before by th●ir circumcision, G●l. 5.3 and therefore as this renewing of their cov●nant is not by your Argument proved to be the form of the Church, then much less hath it any consequence, to prove that a covenant acted by a company of believers to become one and anothers amongst themselves, is the form of a Church now.  
But the fourth particular by which you would clear it, is from their deissolution, from whence you reason thus.  
That which being taken away makes them cease to be a Church, that is, the form of the Church, but the dissolving of the covenant is the making of them cease to be a Church. Ergo,  
That the taking away of the covenant maketh them cease to be a Church you say, is clear from Zach. 11.10.14. Whence it was prophesied off, and from the New Testament, whence it is shewed how it is accomplished after the death of Christ.  
To which I answer, first that the covenant of grace is eternal, the things thereof remaining unshaken, the Kingdom that comes by it cannot be shaken, Heb. 12.27, 28. the Ordinance of baptism which belongs unto it, the fruit and benefit of it is eternal; the Church which is constituted by it is never dissolved, but remaines to all eternity for it to be administered onely to believers, Act. 8.37. And Christ saith, he that believeth in him shall never die. John 11.26:  
Secondly, as the taking away the covenant makes the Church to cease: so it onely proves the covenant to be the ground of the Church, and the Church only to have a being, as it is stated upon that ground, and that is in participating in the covenant, and not otherwise: now the question being of the visible Church, then there must needs be a visible participation of the covenant, or otherwise there can be no visible being; now there was no visible participation of the covenant made with the people of Israel,, before the coming of Christ ordinarily, and by ordinance before circumcision, neither is there any visible participation of the covenant since Christ, by order of appointment without, or before baptism: therefore circumcision then, and baptism now must be it, by which they are constituted, or concluded to have a visible being in the covenant, and consequently the Church to have a visible being, in respect of this visible participation in the covenant, whereupon it followeth, that if the covenant be dissolved or ceaseth, or be taken away, needs must the circumcision or baptism, which is the ordinance of participation be dissolved, cease, or bee taken away, whereby their relation or being a visible member doth consist.  
Now then, seeing that the covenant which was before Christ did cermonially led to Christ, and is in that respect dissolved, ceased and taken away; then circumcision by which persons had visible participa●ion thereof is also dissolved, ceased and taken away, and so consequently the visible Church of the Jews ceased as was prophesied, Zach. 11.10.14. and was accomplished at the death of Christ at which ●ime the partition wall was broken, Act. 2.41.10.28. Ephe. 2, 13, 14 15.  
And also seeing the covenant since Christ is ratified by the death and blood of the Lord Jesus the Testator, cannot be removed, dissolved, ceased and taken away( as you yourself affirm in your third proposition, and fourth period) then baptism administered upon believers, by which they have visible participation thereof, cannot be removed, dissolved, ceased, and taken a way.  
Therfore the true visible Church now in respect of the ground of it, cannot be removed, dissolved cease, or be taken away.  
Onely two exceptions need explication: first the true Church may possibly die, and none survive them in the same visible state Ergo, the true visible Church may be removed, dissolved, ceased, and taken away.  
Secondly, persons may seem to be, and not be true members of the true visible Church, which afterwards may show themselves otherwise, and so the Church may cease.  
To the first I answer, that the cessation of the Church by death is but onely to our outward view, for to our Faith it is no more ceased, then their relation to the covenant is ceased, and the relation which the faithful have in, and to the covenant when they die doth not cease; no more then the covenant itself, whereupon such a relation is grounded doth, which is as firm as God himself the mak●r of the covenant is.  
Secondly as the outward view of the church ceaseth, so the outward view of their relation to the Church by baptism ceaseth also, by which they had visible participation with the body of Christ and ●herefore this excep●ion hinders not, but that the true visible Church of the New Testament constituted by the baptisms of believers, by which they have visible participation cannot be removed, dissolved, ceased or taken away.  
To the second exception I answer, that the covenant cannot properly be said to be dissolved, or taken away from such as only seemed to be in the covenant, and were not indeed and in truth in it, but when they manifest themselves to bee what they are, they do declare that they never were in covenant with Christ at all, and therefore the dissolving of the Church, in respect of hypocrites, is not by dissolving or taking of the covenant from them, but by discovering of them to be such as never had any true right to baptism, which therefore hath now no true being in them, and consequently were never in the covenant, 1 John 2 19.  
From all which it doth appear that the covenant( no not of God himself) cannot be the form of the Church, but only the ground whereupon the Church is stated, and it is constituted by participation, and visibly by visible participation, and that is onely baptism, and the continuance in the Church, is the continuance of the manifestation of the same participation, possessed by baptism, therefore baptism of believers is the constitution of the visible Church of Christ.  
But from these 4. particulars, you argue, That if an outward Covenant was the form of the Church under the old Testament, then is it the form of the Churches under the new Testament: But the former is true.  
Ergo.  
To which I answer, denying both antecedent and consequent also: for if the Covenant of God himself is not the form of the Church of the old Testament( but only the ground upon which the Church was stated) much less can it be said that an outward Covenant acted by the people of Israel, a company of them to become one and anothers, is the form of the Church: but least of all doth it prove such a thing to form the Church now: But the former is manifested by what is above said: Ergo.  
Your arguments from the new Testament follow. First, but you further prove it from the new Testament, you say from Mat. 18.20. That it is a company not baptizing themselves, but gathering themselves together in his name, where the word used doth properly and commonly signify a Church assembling or synagoguising, as Joh. 20.19. Act. 4.31.& 11.26.13.44.& 14.27.& 1 Cor. 15.6.30.& 20.8.15.8.  
To which I answer, that though it be a company not baptizing themselves, yet do none of the Scriptures prove that a company of ●nbaptised persons have this name of true visible Church given unto them: and therfore the assemb king of persons merely is not the cause of that denomination in the Scripture sense: but when their baptism is the cause of their assembling, whereby they do assemble, in the name of Christ, in whose name they are baptized, that is the reason why the Scripture affords them the denomination of Christs true visible Church; for they were the assemblies of disciples, and Disciples were all baptized, being first taught, joh. 4.1.2. Mat. 28.18.  
You say, look what makes a member of a Church to be a member, or no member, that makes a Church to be a Church or no Church: and so that is the form of it, there is the same reason of the whole that is of every part.  
But the making, or dismembering, or restoring of a member, is by a Covenant( acted, to become one and anothers) Esay 56 4.6.  
To which I answer, that the Covenant of God is the ground upon which the Church and every member therof is stated, I grant, and have formerly proved: but that a Covenant acted by any to become one and a●others amongst themselves, should form the member or Church, either is by me denied; neither doth Esay 56.4 6 prove any such thing, for it only saith, The eunuchs that take hold of my Covenant, and the stranger that embraceth my Covenant, that is were Circumcised, and performeth the duties which they were bound to perform by Circumcision, Gal. 5, 3. should have a place in his house, and not by acting a Covenant to become one and anothers, and neglecting of Circumcision.  
3. You say The comparison is of a Church with a candlestick. Rev. 1.12.20. look what is the form of a candlestick, the same by proportion is the form of a Church; as the matter signifies the matter of a church proportionably.  
But the form of a candlestick is the joining toegether the shaft and the branches, which signifies Christ and many members united together, which cannot be but by agreement or Covenant.  
To which I answer, I grant the comparison and the proportion also, but that this cannot be but by an outward agreement or covenant acted by a company of believers to become one and anothers amongst themselves, is the thing that I deny; for persons may be united to Christ by faith and baptism, and so stated in the Covenant of Grace, and members of ●he visible Church proportionably, like as the form of a Candlestick is the joining together the shaft and the branches.  
Fourthly, You say, If the removing of the Candlestick, and so the unchurching of them be by dissolving of the Covenant and their fellowship as to them, Zach. 11.10 14. by dissipation, then that was the form of it.  
But removing of the Candlestick is the dissolving of the Covenant and their fellowship thereby; as to them by dissipation, Zach. 11.10.14.  
Therefore that was the form of it.  
To which I answer, denying the second proposition, because the everlast●ng Covenant of the new Testament established by the blood of Christ, cannot be sh●k●●, removed, dissolved, but remaineth for ever, Heb. 12.27 28 13 20. and therefore the Covenant upon which the Church is stated, now doth differ from that which was before the coming of C●rist, upon which the jewish Church was stated seeing that was d●sso●uble, but this is undissoluble, Heb. 8.13. and therefore thei● Kingdom of heaven was shaken and taken away, Zac. 11.10.15. Heb. 12.26, 27, 28. Mat. 21.43. Hag. 2 7. and this kingdom cannot be shak●n and taken away in respect of the ground and foundation upon which it is built, Heb. 12.28. Mat. 16, 18, 19.  
A●d as for the removing of the candlestick, and so the unchurching the of them, ●is only by a discovery or laying open, or manifestation of a people to bee voided of any participation of the Covenant w●ich fo●merly they professed, were esteemed, and had a name to hav●, 1 J h. 2.19. Rev. 3.1. and not the d●ssolving or taking away of a Covenant from them, which once they had and enjoyed, much less is it the disso●ving the outward Covenant, acted by a covenant of believers, to become one and an oth●rs amongst themselves: The u●churching of them, which as the acting of it is will-worsh●p, and no ordinance o● G●d, and so the church so constituted merely Antichristian, so the dissolving of such C●venant cannot be the unchurching of any true churches, because Ie●us Christ hath no Churches, in true visible being so constituted.  
FINIS.   

Some principal matters handled in this book.  

1 THAT the old Covenant is one and the same as well between the time of Abraham and Moses as between the time of Moses and Christ, page. 3, 4.  
2 The typical nature of the old Covenant with the cessation thereof described. page., 11, 12. 15, 16.  
3 That the Covenant now since Christ is not the same that was be fore with Abrahams posterity in the flesh. page. 12. 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19.  
4 That the grace of God is never the more straitned, but enlarged to our seed after the flesh, though they be not in the Covenant, now as they are our seed according to the flesh. p 19. 20.  
5 That the circumcisiing of Infants, nor yet the Old Covenant hath no consequence to prove the baptizing Infants. page., 21, 22, 23, 24, 29. 30. 33, 34.  
6 That only baptizing of believers is the means of constituting true visible Churches in the times of the gospel. page., 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42.  
7 That a Covenant acted to become one and anothers among themselves cannot be the form of the visible Church. page., 43. to the end.