THat the blessed Sacraments of the New Testament, which are in their own Nature Signes & Seals of the greatest U­nion have been an occasion of much Dispu [...]e in the world, is known to all men. Yea such is our darknes who know but in part, as that these uniting Misteries of the Gospel, have accidental­ly sent a fire not only between the Church & the world, [which we need not to wonder at) but even amongst Christians themselves, & tha [...] [...]too of a more Pure & Reforme [...] profession. To say nothing what hapned soon after Apostles & Apostolical men fell asleep in the Lord; the last Century hath sadly evidenced the truth hereof in those con­troversies about the Eucharist; which have been agitated not only between Pro [...]stan [...] and Papists, but also Lutherans and [...], as they are called formerly, indeed the dispute hath been [...], upon other Accounts; But in this last Age the great Question is about right to Sacraments, or the Subjects unto whom they are regularly applied▪ Concerning a right to partake at the Lord Table, there hath not been so great a Controversy in these New- [...], as there hath been touching right to Baptisme, it being upon [...], [...] [Page 2] (too many) unquestionable grounds, [...] concluded, that none may claim right to that Ordinance of the Supper, except they do mani­fest their ability to discern the Lords body, and to examine them­selves. But as to Baptisme there are some who are for an extream strictness, even so as to deny a baptismal Interest to belong to any Children (and consequently all such Parents if unbaptized might not claim right to that holy Institution) whose Parents are not Immedi­ately admittable to the Lords Table. Others [...] for an universal lati­tude as to the Subject of Baptisme, even so as to comprehend all that are nomine tenus Christians. Now inasmuch as the farther clearing of these Questions may tend unto peace, and Edification of the Chur­ches; and that thereby Service will be done for Christ, & for his holy Truth, yea, and fo [...] not only present, but succeeding Generations in this Country, we shall therefore (by the help of Christ) inquire in­to them, and avoiding all harsh reflections upon any mans person or notion, endeavour to keep close to Scripture and Reason in the following Disquisition. As for the first of these Enquiries, it hath indeed been already in a way of order decided by a Synod which was assembled in Boston in New-England, Anno 1662.

But when Providence first brought forth the Issue of that debate many did Conscientiously dissent from these Conclusions. And although of later years, that Cause hath exceedingly gained ground, yet there are some that still withhold their Assent, whereby practice according to those determinations is impeded in many Churches. The first Question then is, Whether the Qualifications expressed in the fifth Proposition of the late Synod Book do give right unto Baptisme. In many Polemical discourses a great part of the Contest hath risen from the not understanding, or not rightly stating of the Question, that so there may be no mistake about that matter, Let it be remem­bred that the words of the Proposition are these, viz. Church mem­bers who were admitted in minority, understanding the doctrine of faith and publickly professing their Assent thereto, not scandalous in Life, and solemnly owning the Covenant before the Church wherein they give up themselves, and their Children to the Lord, and subject themselves to the Government of Christ in his Church, their Children are to be bap­tized. So that the Question now is not whether the Children of ignorant or prophane persons, or of Hereticks may be baptized, or of such as do in a light manner own the Covenant, and so do no more, but visibly take the Lords Name in vain; or of such o [...] do [Page 3] refuse to subject themselves to Church Discipline, I say the Questi­on is not whether such persons have right to Baptisme, no such thing being affirmed by the Synod. Nor is the Question whether grand-Children as such have right to Baptisme by virtue of the faith and Covenant of their godly proparents, although the Immediate Parent should be a forsaker of the Covenant and God of his Fa­ther. This very mistake hath been the Reason why many have drank in prejudice against the Synod Book, Because they have appre­hended, that there in the Baptisme of the Children of godless Pa­rents hath been pleaded for, only by virtue of the Grand-Fathers Religion, although the next Parent should be no Christian. But that is a most Injurious stating of the Question, for the Synod Book doth in no wise ground Baptisme on the qualification of the Grand-Father, but on the qualification of the Immediate Parent. Let the Question then be understood concerning any Parents whatsoever, whether that being qua­lified according as [...] in the mentioned Proposition expressed, they, & con­sequeutly their Children have not right to Baptisme. Now considering the terms of the Proposition, I Conceive that the Affirmative part of the Question is true, And although the Reasons produced and urged by the Synod do evince the truth of this Assertion, yet as some far­ther Explication thereof, and Addition thereto, (althoug [...] I am nei­ther worthy nor able to add ought unto what is already by those Wotrhies performed) we shall (as in Gods holy fear) now propound some Arguments to be weighed in the Ballance of the Sanctuary.

The first Argument may be taken from that regular membership, or standing in the visible Church which doth belong to these per­sons. Thus we Reason. They that according to the Scripture are and ought to be continued in the visible Church, have right to Bap­tisme for themselves and their Children. But this is true concerning the persons in Question; Ergo, &c.

The Proposition is the great Convincing Argument whereby An­tipaedo-Baptists have been confuted. It is aboundantly proved by those that handle see Mr. Baxter of Infant Bap­tisme, Chap. 4. see also the An­swer of N. E. Elders to 21 Quest. Q [...]. 1. that Controversy about Infant Baptisme, yea, some Anabaptists confess it to be a truth, that such persons have right to Baptisme, and it is cleared in the Synods first Propo­sition, which was unanimously consented to, yet let it be granted that it is not a meer standing or membership in the visible Church, but a regular standing therein that entituleth to Baptisme, that is (in a word) when a man is according to Scripture Rule become a member of the visible Church, and there is no Rule in the word to cast him out of the Church, such a person is a proper adequate Subject of Baptisme. The only doubt and difficulty will be about the Assumption. As in most Arguments (that is the part which needs to be strengthned) Now that is manifest, 1. From the definition of the visible Church. That so it may appear, that to administer Baptisme according to this Proposition is no deviation from Congregational Principles, we shall not go to any other for a definition of the visible Church but to Congregational men. Now they in their [...]. 26. Ph [...]. 2. declaration of Faith at the Savoy meeting 1658. thus speak. The whole body of men say they, throughout the world professing the Faith of the Gospel, and obedience unto God by Christ according unto it, not destroying their own profession by any Errors, and evening the Foundation or unholi­ness of Conversation, are, and may be called the visible Church of Christ. Now compare this definition with the persons described in the Proposition, and we shall find, that all the particulars therein expressed, do agree unto them. Also Doctor Owen [who was a great part of that Assembly at the Savoy] doth give the like de­scription of the Catholick visible Church in his Book of [...]. Schisme, where he thus writeth. The universality of men professing the doctrine of the Gospel, and obedience to God in Christ, according to it through­out [Page 9] the world is that which is commonly called the Catholick Church All Professors of the Gospel throughout the world, called to the knowledge of Christ by the word do make up and constitute his visible Kingdome by their professed subjection to him, [...]. The universal Church is a Collection of all that are duely called Christians. I do not think, that particular Congregations do stand unto it in that Re­lation of a Species to a genus, in which the whole nature of it should be comprised, which would deprive every one of membership in this universal Church which is not joyned actually to some particular Church, then which nothing can be more devoyd of Truth. Pag. [...] As to the description of this Church, I shall a [...]uiess, in that lately given by a learned man, Ecclesia universalis est communio seu societa [...] omnium coetnum, I had rather he had said, omnium fidem Christi­anam profitentium five illi ad Ecclesias aliquas particulares perti­neant, five non pertineant. And pag. 134, 135, 136. He shew­eth what things are necessary to constitute a member of the visible Catholick Church, and at last, pag. 137. Concludes saying, we are at length arrived to this Issue, the belief and profession of all the necessary saving Truths of the Gospel without the manifestation of an internal principle of mind in consistent with the belief of them, or adding of other things in profession which are inconsistent to the Truths so professed, is the bond of this unity of the visible professing Church of Christ. Also he sheweth that not only Modern but Antient Divines have esteemed this the Catholick Church, so Ju­stin Martyr, Iren [...] Terta [...]lian, &c And many passages to the same purpose are to be seen in a late discourse concerning Evan­gelical love and Church peace, written by the same learned hand, wherein this description of the Church Catholick visible, is more fully opened. And it is in the same Treatise, with great evidence of Reason manifested, that Baptisme is grounded upon membership in this Church, it would be too tedious to transcribe all that is there said about this matter, But the Reader that hath the Book may if he please consult pag. 47, 52, 53, 54, 74, 75.

2. This is evident from that famous Text, Math 16▪ 18. which intimateth that those that profess Faith in Christ and do not destroy that Profession by any Heresy in Judgement, or Sandal in Conversation, are to be esteemed as belonging to the visible Church. But the persons in Question do this. They [...] publick­ly and solemnly before God, Angels and men profess their [...] [Page 6] to the doctrine of Faith, and their Consent to the Covenant, and are not scandalous in Life. Ergò

3. Either such persons as these are to be owned as belonging to the visible Church, or else we shall exclude all persons except those of our way out of the Church visible▪ If we say, that none belong to the visible Church but such as do first make a Relation of the work of grace (a practice holy and good and far be it from me to reflect thereon, as if it▪ were Superstitious or needless. Al­beit I Confess the rigid Imposition of this, or that Mode, or For­mality In this matter not determined in the Scripture, is not to be excused) and so joyne themselves to particular Churches, this would be at once to unchurch all men but our selves. But to ap­propriate membership in the Catholick Church to our selves alone is such rigid, Censorious, arrogant, self-assuming, as better becometh Papists then men of modest and Congregational Princi­ples.

4. To be wholly excluded the visible Church is a most dread­ful thing, and therefore to affirm it concerning all those persons, whom the Proposition refers unto it that which (for my part) I dare not do. Judicious Interpreters conceive (and that not with­out Reason) that, that Book of the Living which some in Scrip­ture are said to have their Names blotted out of, is meant concern­ing the Pachymer [...]s in Peraoh in Dio­nys, Are [...]pag. Church Book. To have a name to be amongst the number of the Lords faithful Servants is a great favour, so to be deprived of such a name is a heavy Judgement and usual Curse that doth fall upon, and follow Hypocrites, after they are in their graves, It is mentioned as no small mercy, Psal. 87. 6. The Lord shall count when he writeth up the People that this and that man was born there. And on the other hand, it is a terrible threatning which we have Ezek. 13. 9. They shall not be in the Assembly of my people, neither shall they be written in the writing of the house of Israel. And this may give light unto those words of Moses, Exod. 32:32. And if not, blot me I pray thee out of thy Book which thou hast writ­ten. That is, (saith Mr. Caryl on Job. Ch. 24. V. 20. an excellent Interpreter) out of the Book which thou hast commanded to be written as a record of the People of Is­rael. God said to Moses that if he would let him alone, and not by his Prayers withstand the destruction of the Children of Israel, he would of make him a great Nation. Nay, (saith Moses) rather then that Gods Name should suffer by the ruine of his people, I am [Page 7] content not only to be without the honour of being the head of a greater Nation then this, but that my Name should not be record­ed as a Leader of this Nation. Yea, moreover that my Name should not at all be mentioned amongst the Lords People, I am content to be without the honour of being recorded so much as a member of Gods Church in this world. Thus also Paul could wish himself an Anathema from Christ for his Brethren his kins­mens sake, &c. Rom. 9. 3. b. c. he was willing to be in the Con­dition, which excommunicate persons are visibly in. Though he had been so great a Planter and Propagator of Churches, he was willing upon Condition the Jews might be saved, to have his Name blotted out of the Church Records. That Imprecation, Psal. 69. 28. Let them be blotted out of the Book of the Living, is a Prophetical Imprecation (many of those direful Imprecations which the Old Testament is full of, are rather Prophesies then Prayers) concerning the unchurching of the Jews, because of their abuses offered unto Christ, of whom David was a Type. Now then, if it be so fearful a judgement to be excluded out of the visi­ble Church, we had need be careful how we shut out our Children and poor Posterity from being of the house of Israel. It hath been an Antient received maxime, (however abused by Papists and Prelates) extra Eeclesiam nulla salus do jus [...] verum sen sum vide apud Jacob. Cappel. in Annot. 1 Pet. 3. 21. & Altingi; problem. Theol. loc. 13. Prob. 9. Hinc & illud Hieronymi, Non habet deum Pa­trem qui non ha­bet Eeclesiam matrem. that there is no Salvation out of the Church, therefore to affirm this concerning all those of whom our present Controversy speaketh, is at once to shut them all out of Heaven. And this is Implicitely done, when we deny them all title to Baptisme, uncircumcised persons, ( h. e. not all such as were so actually, but they that had no right to Circumcision) are said to go down into the nether parts of the Earth, Ezek. 28. 10. and 31. 18.

5. The persons in Question are either belonging to the visible Church, or of the world only. The Scripture speaketh of those two terms, Church, and the world, as opposite and Contradistinct, therefore often the gentile Heathen Nations which in the dayes of the old Testament belonged not to the visible Church, are called the world in Contradistinction to the Jews, who were once the only Church and people of God upon Earth, which [ [...] we may observe] giveth the true Interpreta­tion of those by the Arminians much abused Scriptures, which speak of Christs dying for the world. But to say, that the per­sons [Page 8] in Question, and their Children are of the world only, is in Effect to say, that they are visibly the Devils, and none of the Lords Children, or that they are only the visible members of Satans, and not of Christs Kingdome, for Satan is the Prince and God of this world, John 14. 32. 2 Cor. 4. 4.

6 Either the p [...]sons in Question, and their Children are with­in the Pale of the visible Church, or else they are amongst those, whom the Scripture doth style [...] those that are without, 1 Cor. 5. 12, 13. Col 4 5. The visible Church is compared to an house, It is Gods house and Christs house. The Temple in re­spect of both the Courts of it was [as Divines conceive] a Type hereof, thence the Courts of the Temple were not covered but open, thereby signifying the visibility of the Church. Now as, for Heathens, Idolaters, &c. they are out of this house, they have no standing in the Courts of the Lord. They do not stand within thy ga [...]e, O Jerusalem. But shall we say thus concerning all those de­scribed in the Proposition? This is to say, that they are dogs, Math. 15▪ 26, 27. Rev. 32▪ 15. And indeed to deny unto them title to Baptisme is practically and Consequentially to affirm no less, as will appear to him that well considereth and compareth these Scriptures, Rev. 22. 15. 1 Cor. 7:14. with Isai. 52. 1. Math 7 6.

7. They that are true worshippers do belong to the visible Church, A false Church is a Company of false worshippers; and vide Owen de Tacol. & mornei Treat of Church Cu. 1. pag. 10. a true Church is a Company of true worshippers. But we can­not say of the persons in Question that they are false worshippers, for they worship the true God only, and that in no other wayes or means, then what himself hath instituted, therefore surely they belong to the visible Church, and consequently have right to Baptisme.

Having endeavoured to clear the first Argument, we proceed unto a second and that shall be, because the persons in Question are visible believers, The Argument stands thus, visible believers have right to Baptisme for themselves and theirs. But the persons in Question are visible believers. Ergo.

The Proposition (at least so far as it concerns persons Adult] is yielded on all hands. Yea, even those that do mistake, and so pervert this principle, yet acknowledge that where there is faith, there ought to be Baptisme. But that Faith which giveth right to Baptisme [ in foro Ecclesie.] as to us is not invisible faith. But the visibility of faith is that which we must proceed upon as to the Administration of this Ordinance. It is said that Simon Magus believed & was baptized, Acts 8. 13. he was not baptized upon the account of an invisible and saying faith whereof he was destitute, but because he was a visible believer. And the like may be said con­cerning many thousands, that were baptized by John Baptis & the A­postles: We proceed then to the Assumption, which is thus demon­strated. The persons in Question are either visible believer, or Infi­dels, The Scripture acknowledgeth no medium between these two, but men are either believers or Infidels, the Greek word [...] used throughout the New Testament, for unbeliever & for [...] Infidel is the same, That word which in some places is translated unbeliever, is elsewhere rendred Infidel. I Confess that some men who pre­tend to be of the Christian belief, have not right to Baptisme, be­cause they are Infidels in practice, and those are the worst, of In­fidels, 1 Tim 5. 8. But when a man is not an Infidel neither as to his Profession nor as to his practice, the Scripture calls him a Be­liever, or non-Infidel. Now can any say concerning the persons in Question that they are Infidels, or that they are in the same con­dition with the unbelieving Jews, or Turks, or other Heathens. How harsh, yea, how horrid is that affirmation which asserteth all the Children in Question to be in the same state with the Chil­dren of Turks, Tartars, or Cannabals, yet if they be not visible [Page 10] believers, or if they have not right to Baptisme they are in the same Condition with Jews and Turks, and such like Heathenish Infidels, In a word to deny them right to Baptisme (the Gospel Circumcision) is to make them to be not Israelites, but Egyptians, Josh. 5. 9. The Hebrew Doctors Buxtorf Lexi [...]. T [...]almud. p. 407. say of those two Rites of Cir­cumcision and Baptisme that whosoever shall neglect either of them is not to be accounted a Proselite.

2. If the persons in Question be all out of the number of visible believers, then there is no rational ground of charitable hope con­cerning the Salvation of any of them or theirs. As for unbelievers the word is plain, that they shall have their portion in that Lake which burns with fire, Rev. 21. 8. Mark, 16. 16. Nor is it any ri­gid, Principle in them who affirme that no charity binds us to be­lieve that Vide Twisse contra Corvin. p. 30. &c. lege etiam Cameronis. Disput. cum courcellio. the Children of Infidels are saved, we find in Scrip­ture that God gave express Command, not only that Aault per­sons amongst the Heathen Nations but that their little ones also should be destroyed, see Numb. 31. 17. Deut. 20. 16, 17. and 13. 12. 13. Josh. 7. 15, 16. And they are pronounced happy that should dash the little ones of Babylon against the stones, Psal. 137. 9. Which manifests that such little ones are not saved. But who dare conclude thus concerning all the Children in Question, or concerning this or that particular amongst them?

3. They partake in the special gifts of the Holy Ghost, I mean such spiritual gifts as are peculiar unto Christians, therefore are they believers, and have right to Baptisme, Acts 10. 45. and 11. 15. Assent unto the Mystery of the Gospel is a great gift of the Holy Ghost, even more then flesh and blood can attain unto, Math. 16. 17. And doth not the Apostle declare that they that do in a serious manner profess that Jesus in the Lord have in some sort received the Holy Ghost, and he opposeth such unto Gentiles, or unbelievers, 1 Cor. 12. 2, 3. In a word, the persons in Question are illuminated with the knowledge of Christ, which Illumination is a great gift of the Holy Spirit, and one Character of a visible believer, Heb. 10. 32. the believing Hebrews are called illumina­ted ones. Drufius his note on the place is that these illuminati were indeed Baptizati, therefore [...] is used for Baptisme; and [...] for baptize, and we know that Vide Heb. 6. 4. [...]um version Sy­ria [...] ▪ & Scorsi Not▪ in rheo­phen. Homil. 21. [...]. [...]. 8. V [...]is de A­nahaptismo Thes. 9. the Antient Church is wont to express Baptisme by the term of illumination.

[Page 11] 4. The Scripture calls persons so qualified as is in the Proposi­tion expressed, believers. For 1. They are in the Scripture said to have Faith, or to be believers, who do make an open Profession of the Christian Religion before the world, not everting the reali­ty of that Profession by any practice inconsistent therewith, Acts 5. 14. 1 Cor, 7. 12, 13, 14, 15. But thus it is with the persons in Question.

2. They that do give up themselves to the Lord, and to his people, are in Scripture phrase believers. Thus the believing Macedonians are described 2 Cor. 8. 5. they gave their own selves to the Lord, and to us by the will of God. Now this description of a believer doth belong to the persons in Question; for it is ex­pressly affirmed in the Proposition that they must give up them­selves and their Children to the Lord, and subject themselves to the Government of Christ in his Church.

5. It is yet further evident that the persons we speak of are visible believers, because they are Disciples. Disciples and be­lievers are the same, If we search the Scriptures we shall find that believers and disciples are Synoni [...]ous, Acts 4. 32. with 6. 2. and 13 48, 52. and 15. 9, 10. and 19. 1, 2. They that belong to Christ are disciples, as is clear beyond dispute by comparing Math. 10. 42. with Mark. 10. 41. Now the Children in Question belong to Christ, all of them visibly, and some of them really and saving­ly, therefore are they disciples, and therefore believers unto whom Baptisme doth of right appertain. Besides they that do subject themselves to Christs discipline cannot with any colour of reason be excluded from discipleship, but this is in the Proposition affirmed of those in Controversy Yet again they that are justly stiled Christians are disciples, Acts 11. 26. Now thus are the persons in Question. Indeed if these Children are not to be nominated Christians, if they be such, as that if we speak in the Scripture dialect, we may not lawfully style them Christians, then are they not meet to be baptized; but on the other hand, if they be (and ought by us to be accounted) Christians, then the with­holding Baptisme from multitudes of such persons, is unjustify­able, and will one day appear to be sinful.

We come now to a third Argument for the demonstration of the Truth before us, which is thus disposed.

Those Huic Argumen to non omnes A­nabaptistae resi­stout whitaker. Qualifications which did give right to Circumcision, do give right to Baptisme. But the persons in question even Parents & Children have those Qualifications which did give right to Circumcision, Ergò

The Proposition is evident, (1.) because Baptisme v. Calvin In­stit, I. 4. ch. 16. com­eth in the room of Circumcision [...]. Either Baptisme doth so, or something else is instituted to succeed Circumcision, or else we must say there is no Ordinance at all given to Believers instead thereof, But neither of these latter may be affirmed, therefore is the former true. Besides that Scripture, Col. 2. 11, 12. doth clear­ly intimate, that Baptisme doth succeed Circumcision, the place hath See Forbes de Justif. p. 125. 126, Dr. Winter of Infant Bapt. p. 120. Dr. Homes p. 27. Mr. syden­ham p. 118. Mr. Cobbet p. 196. Mr Oeree p. 30. Mr Cotton p. 127 Mr. Cragg p. 264. Mr. Marshal p 27, 28. vossius de pae­do Baptismo. Thes. 11. Mr: Vaughams dis­pute with Mr. Tombs p. 5. been abundantly vindicated by others notwithstand­ing the glosses of Antipaedo-Baptists put upon it, therefore we shall not insist here, only thus much shall be said, it is evident that the Apostle in that Context is labouring to deliver the Christian Colossians from those lmpositions and [...] which were put upon them, by some false and Jewish Teachers, who had re­duced them under legal bondage, and in special to the Observati­on of Circumcision. The Argument which be useth to unde­ceive them, is that they had Compleatness in Christ; for they had in him circumcision, which is [...] made without hands, or inward Circumcision. True might they say. But so had Abraham and the Fathers after him, yet they had an outward Ordinance applyed to them also; so have you too saith the Apo­stle, for you are buried with him in Baptisme, wherein [also] you are risen with him. So that in your Baptisme you have a greater priviledge belonging to you, even an Ordinance that doth hold forth unto you not only mortification (buried with him in Baptisme) as Circumcision did, but also vivification, you are risen with him so that in Christ you are Compleat partaking of the Substance of Circumcision and more too, and therefore why should you ob­serve Circumcision still? This is the Apostles scope, and his Rea­soning is strong and Irrefragable. However no man can deny but that the Apostle disswading from the practice of Circumcision [Page 14] tells them of their Baptisme, and why should he do so, if this do not come in the room of that? And doth v Blakes birth. priviledg. p. 10. not the Apostle Pe­ter allude unto Circumcision, when he expresseth the external Bap­tisme, by the putting away of the filth of the flesh, 1 Pet. 3. 21. But the truth of this is farther manifested from the great Analogy and Agreement, which is (without any straining of Notions) to be ob­served between these two Ordinacces, E. G. (1.) In that Cir­cumcised persons were solemnly dedicated and consecrated to God, so as to become his devoted Servants, yea, they were espou­sed to the God of Abraham, Isaac, & Jacob: Hence a Circumcised person was called by the Name of [...] [...]hathan i. e. an espoused one, quia Circumcisionis die, [...] desponsatur, because when he is Circumcised, he is solemnly espoused to the true God. This I take to be the Intendment and Interpretation of that difficult place, Exod. 4. 25. our version (which many Expositors follow) carryes it as if those words of Zippora [...] were spoken to her hus­band Moses, whom she out of Enmity against that sacred rite of Circumcision called a bloody husband. But I conceive that our translation doth not [...] hit upon the true sense of them.

1. Because [...] Hebrews never call an husband by the name of Chatham, after the seven dayes of Espousal are over, therefore Zipporah having been marryed some years could not now call her husband by that Name.

2. Zipporahs Father Iethro being a Midianite descended from Adraham, and a godly man also, he must needs keep up Circum­cision, in his Family, so that his Daughter could not be offended at that, yea, Antient H [...]tories acquaint us that the Arabians [ Zipporah was an Arabess] did never wholly omit that rite. Not only Herodotus, but [...]osephus affirms that the Ishm [...]elites were Circumcised in his time, so all men know that the Turks who pretend a descent from Abraham are at this day.

3. It is not probable that Zipporah would have dared to revile her husband, when she saw the Lord in the room ready to kill him.

4. The Angel went away, when, [...] Sept. or because she said Cathan dami [...]n, ver. 26. Now it is not likely that the Angel would desist from his attempt of staying Moses, because of his wives invectives against her husband, but when she did solemnly [Page 15] pronounce the Child to be a Circumcised one, this might well be since the neglect of that Ordinance was the cause of this threat­ned death.

5. Not only the Hebrews, but the Arabians (of whom it was said Zipporah was) are wont to call a Vide Schin­dler. Pentag lot. & R. Kimchi in Radi [...]e. [...] newly Circumcised person by the Name of Chathan. This [...] Interpretation is follow­ed by Ouk [...]los, Elias in Tishbi, Abenezra, and other Jewish Expositors; And by Drusins Mede, Obr. Cartwright, &c. Hence is that Iob. 1. 12. we are born [not of blood] but of God, &c. b. c. v. Ludov. Cap­pel. in lo [...]. our being Circumcised and reckoned amongst the Children of God, is not enough except we partake of a Divine and spiritual Regeneration. This may be the Reason why Circumcised per­sons are styled the Children of God. The Hebrews were wont to call those that were peculiarly devoted to this or that, the Children of that which they were devoted unto. Hence are those phra­ses of the Son of perdition, Child of death, Children of the Bride­groom, &c. Beza in Mat. 8. 12. The Sume is, in Circumcision there is a solemn Consecration of the Soul to the true God. There­fore is that phrase, Jer. 4. 4. Circumcise your selves. i. e. give your selves as every true penetent doth to the Lord, so that Circumci­sion noteth Consecration to the Lord. Hence a mans hired Servants were not Circumcised, but only his Children, or his bought Servants, the Reason was because he had not an absolute Power over those, as he had over these, to dedicate them to the use and Service of the true God. But thus it is in Baptisme, the baptizate is given, Consecrated, and espoused to Christ, yea, a Christian is one who is gr. [...] Leigh. [...] offered, i. e. dedicated to the Lord, Rom 12 2. From the abuse of this Truth hath sprung that Super­stition of baptizing Alters, Bells, Churches so called, thereby to signify their Consecration and dedication to the Service of the Lord. Now as by the Straw and Stubble we may gather what kind of grain was in the Field, so even those Superstitions shew that Consecration to the Service of Christ is the thing signifyed by Baptisme.

2. Circum [...]sion did intimate that our nature is corrupt and de­filed, [...]. [...]. [...]. Therefore the Jews called the sin of [...] [...] [...] or [...] from Deut. 10. 16. [...] to that Question when an Infant may be [...] of the would to come? The Answer given is, [...] [Page 16] after he is Circumcised; Circumcision being admitted as a sign of the taking away by grace the evil nature in man. And in Answer hereunto v. Ain [...] worth [...] Gen. 17. 4. this Corruption of nature is by the Apostle called [...], uncircumcision, Col. 2. 13. but the like may be affirmed coecerning Baptisme, Eph. 5. 26. Tit. 3. 5. Heb. 10. 22.

3. Circumcision did seal and signify Conversion and Regene­ration, Rom. 2. 28, 29. Hence when in the dayes of the Jewish Church any of the Heathen Nations being Proselyted and joyned to the Church were thereupon Circumcised and baptized, they called them new born. In which respect Christ may well upbraid Nicodemus for his not understanding what was spoken to him con­cerning the new birth, Joh. 3. 10. Art thou a Master in Israel and knowest not these things, q. d. Art thou a Rabbi and yet understan­dest not the true meaning of these Phrases, and of the rites that are Customary in your Church? And hence also is that Deut. 30. 6. I will Circumcise thy heart and the heart of thy Seed, &c. which doth manifest that Circumcision was a Seal of Regeneration, and in other places the Scripture speaketh of the Circumcision of the heart, because the outward Circumcision made with hands, was a sign of the inward Circumcision made without any hands, but that of the Spirit, so doth the Apostle plainly teach us that Cir­cumcision signifyed the putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, Col, 2 12. Now the very same thing is signifyed in Baptisme, even a mortifying of the old man, Rom. 6. 3, 4, 5, 6. therefore is it called the Laver of Regeneration, Tit. 3 5 effectum significati praedicatur de signo ut cum Baptismus di [...]itur Regenerare. Ames. And our Saviour teacheth that a man must be born of water and of the Spirit, Iob. 3. 7. h. e. [...]. of the Spirit, as the principal Author of this new birth, and of water, or Baptisme, whereby the Regenerating work of the Spirit is as by a sacred Symbol adam­brated and sealed. Other Concurrences there are, which make good this Assertion, that Baptisme answers to, and cometh in the room of Circumcision. But designing brevity we let them pass, these instanced in being sufficient to evince the thing, they are produced for.

2. The truth of the Proposition will be very evident, if we con­sider how persons were to be qualifyed that had right to Circum­cision, and what are the grounds of right to Baptisme comparing them together.

[Page 17] 1. An Everlasting Ingagement or Covenant to become the Lords Servant was required in order to entituling to that [...]rite of Circumcision. This no man can easily doubt of, that is but ac­quainted with the first Institution of Circumcision, of which the 17 Chapter of Genesis giveth us the account at large. Therefore Circumcsiion is called the Covenant, because it was a sign of token of the Covenant ver. 10. 11. And the neglecters of Circumcision, are therefore said to be breakers of the Covenant, ver. 14. The Jew­ish Doctors are some of them of the opinion that when Elias complained of the Children of Israels forsaking the Covenant, 1 King. 19. 14. that he there taxeth them with the neglect of that Ordinance of Circumcision, However that were, this is cer­tain, that the omission of Circumcision was a renouncing of the Covenant. From this ground it was that Children had [...]ight to Circumcision. viz. Because of their Covenant Interest. The Children of Israelites were by virtue of the Covenant born the Lords Servants, Levit. 25. 41, 42. which explaineth Davids meaning, Psal. 116. 16. where he saith, O Lord truly I am thy Ser­vant, and the Son of thy Hanamaid q. d The Child of a Servant is a Servant, It is so as to those Servants over whom a man hath a more absolute power, their Children are also born his Servants, so saith David, I am born the Lords Servant, because my Mother was in Covenant with him. Consider the place with Ezek 16. 20. hence I say was their right to Circumcision. The Jewish Ma­sters Buxtor flexie. Tha [...] [...]. p. 14 & S [...]hind [...] penteg. p 297. Hortin. These phil. p. 1 [...]. [...] tell us that by three things did Israel enter into Covenant BEM [...]AH by Circumcision, BITEBILAH Baptism, BECORBAN and Sacrifice, and so say they) did Erbnick [...]inall Ages. In a time when Sacrifice could not be offered, as after the destruction of the Temple they entered into Covenant by Circumcision and Baptisme. Learned men have observed, that though Baptisme was not an Evangelical Sacrament till Johns time, yet it was used long before amongst the Jews, when they did Solemnize the Admission of any Proselyte into their Church and Covenant. Yea, and the In­fants of Proseites were baptized as well as their Parents, as the Jewish Records do abundantly testify. v. Bab. Cherub. fol. 11 Light [...], Hor▪ Hebr. p. 40. Cradock Harmon. p. 29. 30.

Hence Saints ship being the same with feacrate [...] was requisite in order to Circumcision. Therefore the [...], that is to say the lews are termed Saints, Deut. 33. 3. Psal. 50 [...] [Page 18] and 148. 14. And if we follow lewish phrases, an uncircumcised, and unholy, unclean person are the same, yea, in Scripture phrase, we find them Identical, Isai. 52. 1. Henceforth there shall come no more unto thee the uncircumcised, and the unclean, which yields a marvellous light to that invincible Argument for Paedo-Baptisme taken from the Apostles words, 1 Cor. 7. 14. else were your Chil­dren unclean, but now are they [ [...]] Saints. If an Hebrew (such an one as Paul who wrote those words) should read that Expression, he could not but Conclude that the Apostle doth there affirm, that the Children of Christians have the same Saintship or faederal holiness which the Children of the Jews formerly had, and a right unto that, which is the Gospel Circumcision, Consider the place in Ezra 9. 2. and 10. 3. which doth afford a most clear and satisfactory explication of the Apostles meaning in the Scripture but now cited. Now as Covenant Interest gave right to Cir­cumcision, so it doth to Baptisme. We find therefore that the Apostle calls upon the Converting Jews to submit to Baptisme, because the promise i. e. the Covenant (for promise and Covenant are frequent Synonimas in Scripture, Rom. 9. 4. Eph. 2. 12. as in the Synod Book is truly observed) Mr. Co [...]to [...] of Infant Baptis. pag. 32. is belonging to them, Acts 2. 38, 39. Hence it is that a disciple is the proper Snbject of Baptisme, A disciple and a Covenanter are the same. There is a Covenant between Master and Scholar. A disciple is one that stands ingaged to become the Lords Scholar; There are that ground Baptisme not upon Covenant Interest, but upon perfor­mance of the Conditions required in the Covenant. But I wish that this may be deeply Considered of, for this very mistake seemeth to be one of the greatest Causes of dissent from the sy­nods Proposition, whose defence and demonstration we have un­dertaken, we must therefore distinguish between Confoederation and [...], promi [...]ing and performing. If only performers have right to Baptisme, then no Reprobate or unregenerate per­son may be baptized; For they perform not the Conditions of Re­pentance and Faith. It remaineth then that the Covenant or promise (where such a non performance as doth render the pro­mise to be no promise is not evident) is that which entitleth to Baptisme, if any shall (as most do) fall short of that which their Baptismal vow Ingageth them unto, at their peril shall it be▪ Nevertheless, God in the Gospel of grace doth declare unto [...], [Page 19] that he will be their God in Case they will be his people. Now if any persons will promise to be his Servants, and do not by any other either Profession or practice contradict that Promise, it is his will that the Every belonging to his Servants, or the Seal of Baptisme should be Conferred on them. To pro­mise Service and Fidelity in warr is enough to get listed, but the faithful performance of Service is of necessity to be rewar­ded. In like sort an Ingagement to become a new Crea­ture, and to walk as it becometh a Servant of Jesus Christ, [provided as before expressed] giveth Title to Baptisme. But performance of that Ingagement is necessary in order to obtaining the good sealed therein, Rom. 2. 25.

2. In Adult persons Historical Faith was required in or­der to Circumcision, yea, true saving Faith was requisite, in order to partaking of the spiritual benefit and Efficacy of that Sacred Institution. Abraham had Faith before he was Circumcised, And Circumcision is expressly called a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith, Rom. 4. 11. The Jews themselves had of [...]old the knowledge of this Truth. For some of their Rabbins teach Maimon Treat of Kings Ch. 10. S. 7. [...] that none have right to Circumcision but Abrahams Seed, and none are Abrahams Seed but such as ob­serve his Law, which though now quite perverted by them, is in it self a true Principle. But the same also is to be af­firmed concerning Baptisme. Therefore when [...]ohn baptized, be taught the People that they should believe on him that should come after him, that is on Iesus Christ, Acts. 19. 4.

3. Adult persons might not be Circumcised, except they did openly before the world make a Credible or uncontra­dicted profession of the Name of the true God, and of the only true Religion, [...] such a Profession as is not attended with any either opinion or practice Contradictory unto, and Inconsistent with sincerity. It was not enough for them to believe the Truth inwardly, but they must also make professi­on of it outwardly. Yea, we find in the Jewish Records, that they were of old very careful about this matter, not ad­mitting of Proselytes unto Circumcision, except upon good Experience they found that they did for sincere Ends embrace the true Religion, which [themselves say] was the Reason that so few Proselytes were admitted in the dayes of David [Page 20] and Solomon, lest haply the Time-serving Ethnicks of those dayes might out of Carnal fear or worldly Advantage take upon them the Profession of the then only true Religion. Now the same thing is true concerning Baptisme. As those that were Circumcised, must be Professors [let it be remembred that we speak of persons Adult] of the Name of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Iacob, or the God of Israel, [so styled because the Covenant was made and renewed with them] so they that are baptized must be Professors of the Name of Christ, or of the only true God in Jesus Christ. As the old Testament style usually calleth God the God of Israel, or the God of Abraham Isaac and Iacob, which is his memorial to all Generations. So in the New Testament style he is, the God of Iesus Christ, because the New Testament is made with Jesus Christ, and with believers in and through him, hence then Baptisme being a Seal of the New Testament, the par­takers of it must profess the Name and Religion of Christ, and thence are said to be baptized into his Name, [...] 1 Cor. 1. 13. were you baptized in [or into] the Name of Paul. The A­postle would say, that we are baptized into the Name of Christ alone, h. e. baptized persons are Ingaged to profess no other Religion, or to owne no other Lord of their Faith and of their Souls but only Jesus Christ. Thus Acts 8. 16. they were baptized [...] into the Name of the Lord Iesus, h. e. by the Rite of Baptisme they were solemnly admitted into the Profession of the Christian Faith. Thus it is said, 1 Cor. 10. 2. They were baptized [...], into Moses, h. e. into the Profession of Moses, i. e. the Law [for the Law it called Moses in the Scripture] or Doctrine taught by Mo­ses, as Expositors Basil de Spiri­ [...]u Sanct. Ch. 14. Antient and Gataker Misc. ch. pag. 28. modern have Inter­preted that place. So Acts 19 8. they were baptized into Iohns Baptisme, i. e. into the Profession of his doctrine, which was sealed by his Baptisme; In like sort, baptizing into the Name of Christ, Implyeth that the person baptized is for ever Inga­ged to profess the Name and Religion of Christ. We read of some in the New Testament that did believe on Christ, that did not make an open Profession thereof, Iohn. 12. 42. These were not baptized [which by the way is a clear evi­dence [Page 21] [...]that is not a meer [...]Historical but a Justifying Faith which doth entitle to Baptisme) for men by receiving that Ordinance, did before the world avouch Christ to be their Lord, and own themselves to be his disciples and Servants, John 4. 1. Baptisme is the mark, Character, and Cognizance of a Christian, hence John speaketh of those that have the Name of the Lamb (al­though some Copies express not that phrase, yet others have it) and of his Father in their Foreheads, Rev. 14. 1. who are set in opposition to those that receive the mark of the Beast in their Foreheads, Chap. 13. ver. 16. Now by those that thus bear the Name of Christ and of God in their Foreheads, we are (as that great Interpreter Mede. of the Apocalyps who is [...] hath learnedly explained it) to understand those who break not their Faith, whereby they have bound themselves in Baptisme to Christ (the Lamb) as their Lord and General, and to his Father. The Sacrament of Baptisme whereby we solemn­ly profess allegiance to God and Christ, and by which we take up­on us his Name, is the Seal of the Lord, and so is called by the Antients, Austin, In John Sract. 6. calls it, the Royal marks and the mark of the Redeemer. Tertullian [...] Idol. c. 19: calls it the mark of Christ, To Exhort. ad Bap. Ba [...]t, so the Scho [...]ast. See more in Mede on Rev. 14. 1. By all this discourse then, it appears that See Mr. Cotton of Infant Bapt. p. 39. 40. they are greatly ly deceived who think that Circumcision was only a carnal thing, sealing no more then carnal or temporal Promises. The Jews themselves, although they understood but little of those mysteries which themselves observed Comparatively to what is revealed in the Gospel, yet they ever thought that holy and Heavenly myste­ries were signifyed by Circumcision. As appears by their words in the Book called Zohar cited by Ainswrrth on Gen. 17. 11. and many other Testimonies that might easily be produced, and they that adhere to that Not on that the Sacraments of the old Testa­ment did not seal (for the Substance) the same spiritual mysteries, which are sealed in the Sacraments of the New Testament do com­ply, [...] not only with the Anabaptists but with Papists against the [...] of Orthodox and Protestant Writers, yea, their notion is evidently and fully against the scope and Reasonings of the holy Apostle in the 1 [...]. Chap. of his [...] Epistle to the Corinthians.

[Page 22] Moreover, it is from what hath been declared, manifest that they are no less mistaken, who think that the difference between Circumcision and Baptisme lyeth in this. That Regeneration is requisite to Baptisme, but that meer natural descent from Abra­ham gave right to Circumcision▪ Regeneration was as much re­quited in order to Circumcision, as 'tis in order to Baptisme, but that the thing which did entitle to Circumcision, was the being visibly the spiritual Seed of Abraham, and not a meer natural des­cent from him, is evident.

1. In that there were in the dayes of the old Testament, some descended from Abraham who had no right to Circumcision, E. G. Edomites, Ishmaelites. &c. Jer. 9. 26. Psal. 120. 5.

2. In that some were Circumcised, who were not of the natu­ral Seed of Abraham, viz. his spiritual Seed, so. Proselytes to the Faith of Abraham. Though a man were a Jew by birth he had no right to Circumcision, except he were of the Jewish (that is of Abrahams) Religion; and he that was of the Jewish Religion, although he were not a Jew by birth, yet had right to that Ordi­nance. In a word, Abrahams Children are such as are so, either externally or internally. Amongst external Children are such as do profess the Faith and Religion of Abraham, Thus did the Jews and Proselytes of old, and so do all that are truly called Christians now. Those that are the spiritual Children of Abraham upon an internal Account are such as are truly Regenerate, Gen. 21. 12. Isaac was both these, therefore is he called the Child of the Promise, v. [...] An­not. in lo [...]. h. e. born by virtue of the Promise which Ishmael was not, only by natural Generation. Hence Penitent Za [...]heus is called a Son of Abraham, Luk. 19. 9. The latter of these have right to Baptisme in Soropoli, in the sight of Heaven, the former have so in soro Soli, as to men; yea, and in some sense in foro Dei likewise, h. e. God commands that such should have the Seal of the Covenant applyed to them, withal Ingaging that if they will be as good as their word, that then all the blessings propounded in the Covenant, shall be theirs, so then it remaineth still a Truth; that as to any substantial difference, the same qualifications were required under the old Testament to fit for Circumcision which are now required under the new Testament to entitle to Baptisme, Hence Christians are called the Circumcision in a spiritual Sense, [Page 23] Phil. 3. 3. and the Iews are said to be baptized, 1 Cor. 10. 2, which sheweth that those two Ordinances do as to their Essentials agree.

We come at last to the Assumption of the Argument thus far propounded, viz. That the persons in Question have those Qualifi­cations which did give right to Circumcision. E. G.

1. They are in Covenant with God, which is proved first in that they were once in Covenant with him (as all that are for Pae­do Baptisme will readily acknowledge) and they are not charge­able with the guilt of any sin, either of Commission or of O­mission, for the which the Lord doth discovenant his people; Indeed if the Children whose Interest we plead, were born of Idolatrous or Hereticall Parents, or of Parents degenerated into Infidells, or Incorrigibly Scandalous in their lives and conver­sations; these are evilis for which God doth disowne and dis­covenant men, and therefore so might we likewise, Exod. 32. 7. Ezek 23. 4, Revel. 11. 2. Tit. 3. 10, Rom. 11. 21. with Zech. 11. 10 Psal. 50. 16. of which more under the second Question, but no such thing can be said of these concerning whom we dispute. He that doth affirme ( affirmanty Incumbit probated) that these Chil­dren have been guilty of such evil, as that the God of all patience and grace doth now reject and disown them as not belonging to him, must bring forth his strong Reasons to prove what he saith and shew wherein.

2. Though the persons in Question had never been taken in to Covenant in their Infancies, yet being qualified as the Propo­sition expresseth, they must therefore needs be under the bond of the external Covenant, should a Jew, Turk, or Indian, do such things, as the Proposition requireth, he would then be visibly in Covenant with the Lord. How much more then are these per­sons so?

3. They that may become guilty of breaking Covenant are in Covenant, Rom. 4. 15. But so may the persons in Question, should any of them (which mercy forbid) forsake the God of their Fathers, and degenerate into Heathenisme or Antichristia­nisme, the Lord will judge them after the manner of those that break Covenant with him, Ezek. 16. 38. Isai. 24. 5.

4. Either these persons and their Children are in Covenant with the Lord, or else there is no Salvation for any of them or [Page 24] theirs. If there were, there would be Salvation without a Co­venant, but it is a sure Principle that there is no Salvation out of the Covenant of grace. If therefore the Children whose Cause we plead, are not Interessed in the Covenant of grace there is no visible hope of their Salvation. They that are strangers to the Covenant of Promise are without God and without Christ in the world, and so without hope, Eph. 2. 12.

5. Their serious desire of Baptisme doth evidence their non re­nanciation of the Covenant. Many of those Apostate Jews, who of old did forsake the Covenant, Dan. 11. 30. did also re­nounce Circumcision, yea, they did in a vile manner uncircumcise themselves, as is by credible History reported, 1 Maccab. 1. 16. which giveth light to that Scripture, 1 Cor. 7. 18. profane v. Epiph [...]nlib de. Mens. & pond Cels l. 7. c. 25. Goodwin jewish Antiq. 16. c. 1. Esau is thought to be the first Author and practiser of that wick­ed Invention.

2. The persons in Question have an Historical Faith, for the Proposition expressly requireth that they must understand and as­sent to the Doctrine of Faith. Now this is a special (though not an only or the main) Qualification entituling persons Adult to Baptisme, Act 8. 36, 37.

3. They make an open, credible, or uncontradicted profession of the Name of the true God, and of the true Religion before the world, for it is also inserted in the Proposition, that they must publickly profess their assent to the Doctrine of Faith, and solemnly owne the Covenant before the Church, giving themselves and theirs up to the Lord, and subjecting themselves to the Government of Christ. These things mentioned were the main grounds of Cir­cumcision, and are the Qualifications requisite in order to Baptisme; and therefore being found in the persons concerning whom the Question is, can any man forbid water that these should not be bap­tized? But before we pass off from this Argument it seemeth ne­cessary to remove a ponderous Objection, for it may be said, if those Qualifications which entitled to Circumcision do give right to Baptisme, will it not then follow, That as in the Jewish Church persons though never so prophane, and wicked in their Conver­sations yet had their Children Circumcised So in Christian Chur­ches Parents no better qualified then such Jews were, may claim right to Baptisme for their Children? I Answer, this will not fol­low [Page 25] from the Argument insisted on. [1.] because if the Rule had been duely observed, all prophane Impenitent persons had been cut off from the Church of Israel by the Censure of Excom­munication. It would be besides the Question here to enter up­on a large discussion of that Controversy, whether there were not Censures appointed in the Jewish Church upon the account of moral transgressions. That persons were suspended from parta­king in holy things by Reason of Ceremonial uncleanness is not doubted, But whether it were so in the Church of Israel on the ac­count of moral uncleanness hath been a Question amongst some, Mr. Aarous Rod Blossoming. Lib. 1. Gelaspy hath learnedly and elaborately proved that the Affirmative is true. The Jewish Masters tell us of four Baxtorf. lex. T [...]lmad: p. 1 304 1305. and twenty Causes of Excommunication, and many of them are for transgressions of the moral Law, especially they say, that L [...]em [...]odem libro. p: 195. an Heretical or Epicurean Israelite was excommunicated withont delay yea, the most Antient and famous of the Jewish writers In libro de victimas offeren­tibas. Philo, Antiq. Judaic. l. 19. c. 7. Josephus, &c. informous, that in the Church of Israel of old there were Ecclesiastical Censures upon the account of moral uncleannesses, and the Scripture doth in many places, not obscure­ly intimate as much unto us. This seemeth evident from Separabitur a caetu, i. e. ex­communicabitur sit Osiander▪ Ju­nias, M [...]lvenda, Ezra 10. 8. and A [...]e [...] per­illad [...], intelli [...]it d [...]o excommunicati­on is genera Gro­tins in loc. Neh. 13. 25. And in the New Testament we find that the Jews did excommunicate such as were Heretical in Judgement as well as the Scandalous in Life, Iohn 9. 22. and 12. 42. and 16. 2. also great Interpreters Conceive that, that Scrip­ture Isai. 66. 5, doth respect Excommunication upon the account of Religion, so de Arcauo ser­mone. C. 47. Arias Montanus de Republiea Habreor. c. 7. Bertramus Cent. 1. l. 1 c 8 the Centuriators &c. yea, this is the Sentence of Erasmus, Brentius, Tossanus, Diodati, Cartwright, Gerhard, and others cited by Book 1. c. 6. Gelaspi. Now amongst the Jews if a man were excommuni­cate, his Children were cast out of the Church too. He that is justly accounted the most learned man that hath been in the world, as to Iudaical learning in that Book of his, the Composure where of was the fruit of [...] thirty year study, informs us, that amongst the Israelites the difference between him that was guilty of death, and him that was guilty of Cutting off, i. e. Church Cen­sure was [...] that, in the former himself only was Cut off, but not his Children, but as for the latter, not himself only but his Chil­dren were Cut off. And another learned Author Goodwin [...] & Aaron l. 5. Ch. 2. in Jewish [Page 26] Antiquities, tells us that the children of excommunicate persons were not Circumcised.

2. If persons now be as well qualified as of old in the Church of Israel, they required Proselytes to be before they admitted them to Circumcision, they have right to Baptisme, for they ab­solutely refused to receive a Scandalous or Hereticall person. Nay, (as before was hinted) Buxtorfeodem Libro p. 408. they strictly enquired whe­ther he that desired to be Circumcised, had not Mercenary ends and motives, which prevailed with him, and if so it appeared, they would not accept of such a Proselyte. Now these things considered, it doth not at all follow, that because many prophane and Heretical persons had their children Circumcised, that there­fore such now should have Baptisme, either for themselves or their children.

Enough hath been said to clear the third Argument, we come then unto a fourth, which is this, They that are under the discipline and Government of Christ in his Church, have right to Baptisme, But the Children in Question are so, Ergo.

Concorning the Proposition many words are not needful, even Anti-Paedo [...] Baptists themselves do acknowledge that disciples have right to Baptisme, according to Math. 28. 19. But they that are under the discipulus a disciplina qua [...]i discipulin [...]. V. Mr Philip Good­win Evan [...]el. Condun. p. 9. discipline and Government of Christ in his Church are disciples, therefore they have right to Baptisme, and Consequently may transmit that right to their Children; The Consequence I know will be denyed by those that Scruple all Infant Baptisme, but it is readily embraced by those for whom this discourse is principally intended. To proceed to the Assumption, viz. That the Children in Question are, (and ought to be carried towards accordingly by the particular Churches, where they are, and have been baptized) under the Government and discipline of Christ in his Church. Inasmuch as this is a Truth of no small Importance and Concernment to the Interest of Christs Kingdome, and wherein the welfare of the rising Genera­tion in New-England is not a little involved, we shall therefore propound [as briefly as may be] some Arguments for it, which seem to carry a Convincing Evidence of light along with them.

1. Baptized persons are under the discipline and Government of Christ, for Baptisme doth ingage the receiver of it unto an ob­servance of all that Christ doth Command, and therefore unto a Subjection [...] that discipline which is by him appointed, Math. 28. 19, 20. when a person is baptized he is solemnly ad­mitted into Christs School, can one be admitted into Christs School, and yet not Subject to the Orders and discipline of that School? who ever subjecteth himself to Baptisme, doth by that very act Subject [...] to that discipline which doth belong to the School of Christ. Again, Baptisme is the Livery which of right appertaineth to Christs hou [...]hold Servants, surely, if a man [Page 28] accept of that Livery he doth thereby submit himself to the Laws and Government of Christ, which is exercised in Christs Family here on Earth. Therefore the persons in Question being bapti­zed, may not plead exemption from discipline. To desire the Priviledges of Christs School and yet to expect freedom from the rod of it (in Case of due desert) is unreasonable.

2. That discipline and Government which Christ hath ap­pointed in his Church hath been exercised towards Children [according to their Capacity] even in all Ages of the world, so it was when the Church was domestical, Gen. 4. 16. and 21. 10. and after the Church became National, Gal. 5. 3. This (I take it) is questioned by none, or very few. Now in as much as to be under the wing of Christs Government in his Church, is a very high Priviledge, he that shall affirme that although the Chil­dren of the Jews were invested with this Priviledge, yet that the Children of Christians are divested thereof, had need to have strong Reasons to prove this Assertion, and must shew us the Repeal from Scripture, or we cannot believe him. Be­sides, if due enquiry be made into the Catholick practice of the N. T. Church, it will be found that such persons as we are speaking of, have ever been looked upon, as within the verge of the Churches power and discipline. Clemens [...] in his divine Epistle to the Church of [...] Conter etiam Tertul. contra Marcion. l. 4. Corin­thians, bids them look well to this. Let (says he) your Children be made partakers of that discipline which is in Christ. This Testimony is the more to be valued, for that this Cle­mens is thought to be the very same person that we read of in the Scriptures, as one of Pauls see Medes works in Folio p. 1013. & Bux­tons Notes on that Epistle of Clement. Fellow Labourers, Phil 4. 3. And that Epistle of his doth wholly Savor of a Pri­mitive and Apostolical Spirit, and thence was most highly va­lued by the Antients, being honourably mentioned by l. 3. c. 3. I­renoeus, In Catal. Script. Eccles. Hiero [...], H [...]stor. Eccl. c. 12. Eusebiu, l. 3. c 18. Necophorus &c. And in after times baptized ones (one Question is of such) were kept under a strict discipline, which also was the Reason why some deferred their Baptisme, yea, detained their Children from Baptisme a long time, so it was with Austin Confess l. 1. c 11 as himself Confesseth. Moreover, they that have any acquaintance with the Customes of the Church in the Ages following the [Page 29] Apostles, know that in those times there were three sorts of per­sons, under the Churches Inspection.

1. Such as were only instructed in the mysteries of Christian Religion, these the Greeks called Catechument: the Latines v. Tertuil. de [...] and adv. [...] c. 4. and [...] [...]. 3. Ep. 17. Audientes, and when they desired Baptisme they were termed compe [...]entes, [...] those did receive [...], before admission to full Communion.

2. Such as were moreover baptized; but not admitted to higher Priviledges, these were stiled baptizati, Inutati, [...]. Now these were subject to Church Censures, Albaspin. in [...]. de p [...] ­nit. c. 7. lege [...] p 420. Censura si p [...]arent post Baptismum coerceban [...]ur. And yet they were not admitted to the Lords Supper, Nay, the teachers or those dayes were Cautelous of so much as preaching v. Cyril. Alex­contra Julian. l. 7 Chrysort [...]iu 1 Cor 15. 29. Dyonis. [...]. de Hierarch. Initio concerning the Lords Supper, (which I Confess was unjustifiable [...] and Superstition) if any of these that were only Catechument, [...], or baptizati were present, as is evident beyond all Con­tradiction from Innumerable Testimonies, out of the Antients (Fathers as they are called) easily producible.

3. [...], perfecti, or Confirmed ones, i. e. such as were ad­mitted to all Church Priviledges. So then, the Christian Church of old did discipline such Children as our Question is about, al­though not presently admitted to the Lords Table. Further­more, since the Anti Christian Apostasy, the Reformed Church hath ever owned this Truth. As for those pure Churches, which Ratio ordin. [...]. Bohem. p 71. for a long time flourished in Bohemia, Commenius testify­eth concerning them, that ( disciplinoe subjacent omnes a sene ad [...] ­fantem) even Children as well as others were under discipline. Thus also it was in that gathered Church which was in London in the dayes of Edward the sixth, as their famous Pastor Forma Eccles. [...]. [...]: [...] p 1041, &c 107, &c. Iohannes Alasco hath declared. And in one word, in Reformed Churches generally, yea, even in those of the Separation witness Mr. Ro­binson, in his Appendix to Mr. Perkins Cateehisme, and the Churches in Plymouth Colony (though some of them are not of the way of separation, but our Congregational Brethren) at this day extend discipline towards their Children, (as the matter doth re­quire) and dismiss them also, (when by removal put upon it) to other Churches, although they were never in full Communion [Page 30] with any Church. Now it is a saying of above thousand years old, and hath much of Truth in it, [...] That, that which the univer­sal Church holds, and hath in all Ages been practised is [...] esteemed as Apostolical. But this extending of discipline towards the Chil­dren of the Church which we plead for hath been the Catholick practice of the Churches of Christ in all places & in all Ages, which is a great Argument to prove that it hath the stamp of lus Divi­num upon it. Although in Antipaedo-Baptistical Congregations [and some few other] there hath been no Church care about Children, yet some few inconsiderable exceptions are not enough to invalidate a general Rule, or to prove that the Church in gene­ral hath not walked according to this Rule. And albeit some now with us are apt to Conceive that only Parents, and not their Chil­dren are given up to the Elders and Brethren of the Church, yet the affirmative of this Question was so clear in former times amongst us, as that Children in their Catechisme were taught thus to be­lieve. Mr. Cotton in his Milk for babes hath again and again ex­pressed this. See him also in his Book of the holiness of Church members, pag. 57. and of Infant Baptisme, pag. 163. And An­swer to Williams, pag. 44. 78. 3. Discipline is our great Inte­rest, which we are ingaged to assert and plead for. This is the Cause of God in New-England in a special manner. We are the Children of the good old Non-Conformists, now what was it that they did suffer so much for, but that so they and their Children al­so might be brought under that discipline, and Government which Christ hath appointed in his Church? and therefore were they by their Adversaries the Prelates reproached, with the Name of Disciplinarians, should we now desert that Cause, it would be a sad degeneracy. There are many godly Souls in New-England, that the great motive which prevailed with them to come into this wilderness, was that so they might leave their Children under the Government of Christ in his Church. But if the Church hath nothing to do with such, these Confessors have suffered many things in vain. Have we for our poor Childrens sake in special, left a dear and pleasant Land, and ventured our Lives upon the great waters, and encountred with the difficulties and miseries of a wilderness, and doth it at last come to this, that they have no more Advantage as to any Church care about them, then the Indi­ans [Page 31] and Infidels amongst whom we live? O this is sad! when Pharaoh would suffer the Children of Israel themselves to serve the Lord in the wilderness, but their little ones must not go with them, we know what Spirit acted him. We may avert that they who will not suffer the Children of Christs people to come under his Government, are not in that matter acted by his Spirit.

4. God hath owned and blessed the application of Church dis­cipline, towards the Children in Question, for much, yea, for sa­ving good. Instances are not rare amongst us, that when some of these Children have been left to scandalous miscarriages, and thereupon in the Name of Christ Censured, the Lord hath blessed those Censures, even to the Conversion of their Souls, the fl [...]sh hath thereby been destroyed, and the Spirit saved; this proveth that the practice we argue for is no [...]umane Invention, but a a [...]vize Institution. Doth not the Apostle prove, see Mr. Cotton of Baptisme. p. 173. that his Calling was divine, because God owned it and succeeded it with a blessing, 1 Cor. 9. 1, 2. with Chap. 4. 15, 16? And is not Peters call to the work of the Ministry amongst the Jews evinced from the very same Argument, Gal. 2. 7 8, 9. Was not Gods blessing of Aa­rons Rod an effectual demonstration of the divine approbation of his Ministry? The like may be said in this Case, concerning the Rod of discipline. Its true, that the Lord may, [and many times doth] own an Ordinance of his own, though attended with many humane mixtures and Superstitions; but that which is meerly an Invention humane in divine worship, God hath cursed it, and he will never bless it, should Churches go about to Censure the Children of unbelieving Indians, the Lord Jesus would never own such proceedings, but he hath, and doth, and will own them, as to those that are the Children of the Church.

5. The neglect of discipline towards the Children in Question, hath been the woful Cause of much evil amongst us. There are many sad Complaints against the rising Generation, and too much Cause for them, but how much sadder would it be if they who make such Complaints should be any way chargeable with the guilt of these miscarriages, by with holding from this [...], that which is by the Lords appointment the means [...] and recovery out of evil: This very neglect hath brought a wound upon these Churches which (except the Lord be exceed­ing [Page 32] merciful) is now become immedicable, and Incurable, Hine prima [...], children have been let alone so long and are be­come so numerous, and many of them such [...] as that (though once it might have been done with much ease) it is now [in some places at least] become a difficulty, [ and almost an Im­possibility] how to bring them under the yoke of Christ. But what Answer they will give to the Lord in that day, at whose doore this evil shall lye, I know not, but sometimes have inward tremblings to think, I would not for all this world, that the guilt of the miscarriage of so many Souls should lye upon me. It was disputed in Oxford, whether the chief Magistrate be in any Case a Subject of Church Censure. The Respondent pleaded, that though all other Christians might [in Case] be the Subject of that Ordinance, yet he by Reason of the dignity of his person must be ex [...]mpted, whom the opponent urged with this Argument salutare animoeremedium, &c. That which is a means appointed by Christ for the salvation of the Soul may not be with held from the chief Magistrate, But Church Censure is so, Ergo.

Thus I would say here, that which is a means appointed by Christ, for the Salvation of the Souls of our Children, and to pre­vent their Eternal ruine. Let us not say that it belongs not to them, but so is Church Censure, 1 Cor. 5. 5. It is an Ordinance, yea, a Priviledge, which in its own nature is not only panal but me­decinal. Therefore they are injurious to the Souls of the Chil­dren concerning whom our present dispute is, that will not suf­fer them to have the benefit of so great and healing an Ordinance.

6. They that are of those whom the Scripture Stileth [...] Those within, are under Church discipline, 1 Cor. 5. 12. What have I to do to judge them that are without? do not ye judge them that are within? which plainly sheweth that discipline doth or should run parallel with the visible Church. Who ever an A­postle hath power to Censure, is a Subject of Church discipline, But it was true con [...]rning every member of the visible Church that an Apostle had power to Censure them. And surely there ought to be a difference acknowledged between Children and Strangers, Mat. 17. 25, 26. Nor are they worthy to be account­ed members of Christs Kingdome, who are not willing to Subject themselves to the Laws and Government therein appointed; [Page 33] But it was before proved that the persons in question, are mem­bers of the visible Church.

7. They that by a personal Act of their own, do subject themselves to the Discipline and Government of Christ, are u [...] questionably under that Government. But this is true concern­ing the persons described in the Controverted Proposition. A­gainst this Argument, I see not; what can with any Colour [...] Reason be pretended, unless it should be said, that the Scripture forbids persons, no better qualifed, then is by the Propsition re­quired, to snbject themselves to Discipline, which assertion is great deale sooner affirmed then proved.

8. The Synods Argument, taken from the Relation which such Children stand in towards the Elde [...] of the Church, seemeth very demonstrative. All the flock are under the seeding (which implyeth Rule and Government) of the Elders thereof, Act. 20. 28, But Children are part of the flock, it is a strange flock which hath no Lambs in it, every particular Church being under the inspection of ordinary Elders, is a flock of God, 1 pet. 5. 2. But if only such as are in full Communion are subject to Church discipline then the flocks, i. e. Churches [ Cant. 1. 7.] of Christ, consist only of sheep but not of Lambs.

9. They that are of Christs Family are the Subjects of Christs discipline, but the Children of Believers as well as themselves are of Christs Family. Gods Children are of Christs Family, but the Children of Believers are Gods Children, Ezek. 16. 20, 21. thy Sons and thy Daughters whom thou hast born unto me, my Chil­dren saith the Lord. In a word, the Church is married unto Christ [...]; Hence the Children of the Church, are the Children of Christ, the Churches husband; therefore these whose Interest we are pleading, being Church Children, they are Christs Children, and therefore the Subjects of his discipline, yea, and the Scripture saith expressly concerning converted Gentiles, that their Chil­dren are brought into the Church (which is the Family of Christ) in the Arms of their Parents, Isai. 49 22. I have the rather insi­sted on this Argument, because if this matter referring to disci­pline were but duely attended, the other Question about Baptisme would be brought unto such a narrow, as that there would be lit­tle the occasion for this dispute. It is true and a worthy observa­tion [Page 34] of Mr. Cottons, Let (saith he) Grounds and Ends of Infant Baptisme, p 106, 134, 161, 163. the primitive practice be restored to its purity, and then there will be no more fear of pest­ering Churches with a Carnal Generation of members baptized in their Infancy, then of admitting a Carnal Company of Hypocrites, confessing their Faith and Repentance, in the face of the Congrega­tion, either the Lord in the faithfulness of his Covenant, will sancti­fy the hearts of the baptized Infants to prepare them for his Table, or else he will discover their Hypocrisy and prophaneness in the pre­sence of his Church before men and Angels, and so prevent the pollu­tion of the Lords Table, and Corruption of the discipline of the Church by their partaking therein. And in another place the same great Author hath Holiness of Church members p. 51. this passage. Many Children are born in the Church to whom the Pastor is by his Office a Pastor, whose Conversion he is bound to intend and attend.

Thus for the fourth Argument. In the fifth place, it is a Con­sideration not to be slighted, that the usual Arguments whereby Paedo-Baptisme in the general is proved, may [...]truly be applyed to those concerning whom our present dispute is. Also the Objections against this extent of Baptisme are such, as Antipaedo-Baptists are wont to make use of to serve their turn. And that this may not seem to be words only, without proof, let there Instance be given to Confirm what hath been said. Now the Arguments commonly produced to prove Infant Baptisme are those which have been insisted on, They that are of Gods Church; that are in-covenanted; Believers; disciples; Children of Abraham; Chil­dren of the Kingdome; that are Christs; holy Persons; the heritage of [Page 35] the Lord; [...] of Salvation; Subjects of the Special Blssings of Christ &c. are to be Baptized. But all this is true concerning some Children, Ergo, some children are to be Baptized. Yea, and all those Arguments which demonstrate the just Divinum of Paedo [...]aptisme in general, may be applyed to those concern­ing whom the question speaketh. On the other hand, the or­dinary Objections against all Infant Baptisme are such as these, viz. ‘that thereby we shall come to have a Carnal Generation of Church members, and that Church membership is not propa­gated by Generation under the new Testament, as it was under the old, that Infants do not hold forth Faith and Repentance, and are not fit to partake at the Lords Table, that there is neither Precept nor Example in Scripture to warrant such Baptisme, that it upholds the state of Anti Christ, setteth the Seal to a blank, &c.’ Such Reasons as these now mentioned, Anabaptists make use of, to serve their turns? as in their printed Pamphlets may be seen, & what have the Brethren of the Antisynodalian perswasion, more to say then these things? Also some that are great sticklers against the Synod Book, rase Foundation-Pillar-Principles in the doctrine of Paedo­Baptisme, for they reject the distinction of Baptismes being a Seal of Initiation, and the Lords Supper of Con­firmation. They own not an holiness of Consecration or dedication to the Lord, as the ground of Baptisme; but maintain, that all Holiness is either Imputed, or else qualitative, viz. in respect of an holy frame of heart in Regeneration, which is the Ana­baptists very distinction, see Mr. Hooker of the Covenant p. 43. Mr. Cobbet. p. 18. Mr. Cotton. P. 111. They say that sincere Saints only, and not any hypocrite is under the Covenant of grace, which Assertion I thought that none but Anabaptists and Antinomians had maintained it, till now I see some others, in that principle jumping with them. Yea, many of the Antisynodalian bre­thren deny that Children are members of the Church, pretending that it cannot stand with the purity of the Church to own such a member there in. But Mr. Cotton In his Epistle prefixed to my Fathers Cate­thisme. See al­so his Book of Infant Baptisme, p. 101. 103. saith, that all but Antipae­do Baptists do acknowledge Children to be members of Christs Kingdome and Church. And Dr. Goodwin In his Epistle to Mr. Cottons grounds & ends of Infant Bap­tisme hath spoken worthily in saying that Infants are purissinapars Ecclesia the pu­rest part of the Church. The study of this Controversy, hath [Page 36] made me willing to peruse what ever tracts (whether printed or in Manuscripts) I could any way come by the sight of, do pro­fessedly handle that Question concerning Paedo Baptisme. And I must needs say, that I have not yet met with any discourse where in the Baptisme of Infants is with more succinctness and full Conviction Asserted and proved, then it is in the Synod Book, which doubtless is partly come to pass, by Reason that, that learned and worthy Divine Mr. Mitchel late famous Pastor of the Church in Cambridge, had a special hand in the Composure thereof, who was ('tis well known by what means) above others versed in that Controversy. Nor is it wholly to be buried in si­lence, that professed Antipaedo Baptists are much displeased at the Synod Book. I have by me a M. SS. written in England by an Antipaedo Baptist there, in Confutation of the Synod Book. How the men of that opinion amongst us stand affected, needs not to be said, this Argument will be of no moment with some, but it is of weighty Consideration with me, and I know not, but that it may be so with some others, into whose hands this Discourse shall come; and I ha [...]e therefore mentioned it.

There is yet another Argument, viz. That John Baptist and the Apostles did Baptize persons that had no higher qualifications, then are in the Controverted Proposition expressed. As for John, the Scripture assureth us that Ierusalem and all Iudea, and all the Region round about Iordan were baptized of him, Math. 3. 5, 6. Mark. 1 5. Now it seemeth much against Reason to Imagine, that those numerous multitudes of (by him) baptized ones, had all of them higher qualifications then those required in the Proposition, (especially Considering that John himself doth in­timate that many of them were but chaffy Professors) which if they had not, it must needs follow that persons so qualifyed [Page 37] had right to that Ordinance. For certainly, John would not ap­ply Baptisme unto unmeet Subjects, and whereas it is alleadged by some, that John told his hearers that they must bring forth fruits meet for Repentance, that only proveth that Repentance is necessary, in order to obtaining the spiritual good held forth in Baptisme, and not that John Baptized none but true penitents. Nor is that scruple of any weight, which hath by others been ob­jected, who Question whether the Baptisme of John and that in­stituted by Christ were the same. For besides that the Affirma­tive is abundantly and irrefragably proved by our Divines against the Papists and some of the Antients (Fathers so called) this ob­jection falls to the ground, in that it is evident, that the Apostles were for as great a Latitude respective to the Subject of Baptisme as John was, for it is said, that they baptized more then Iohn, John. 4 1. Consider the place, with Iohn. 6. 60, 61, 64, 66. How can we think that those many thousands of Jews whom the Apo­stles baptized before our Saviours Ascension, were so qualified as some with us would now have it to be? It is Confessed that in after Ages as the mystery of iniquity began to work, and men would be stricter and wiser then the Rule, there was in the Church a great Rigidity as to the Administration of Baptisme, the Cate­chumeni were sometimes long deferred, and detained from this Ordinance, and held as Competentes it may be many years to­gether. But did the Baptist or the Apostles ever carry it so? Sure­ly no. Yea, men did v. Euseh. i. 4. de vita Constant. Theod. Lib. 1. Hist. Eccles c. 35 Nazianz. [...] 40. de Bapt. Superstititiously omit Baptisme, some because they would be baptized in the River, where Christ was baptized. Valentinian the Emperor dyed as he was going to be baptized in the River Iordan, others because they thought that if they sinned after Baptisme, their sins could not be forgi­ven, &c. So that too much Rigidity as well as too much Laxe­ness in this point doth Incurr the Censure of Superstition and An­ti Christianisme. And yet it is not to be forgotten, that in former Ages of the Church there hath ever been a greater Latitude as to the Subject of Baptisme, then as to the Subjects of the other Seal of the Lords Supper. Thus it is at this day, in the Prote­stant Churches throughont Christendome, [so called] yes, and hath been so ever since the Reformation, as who so doth Consult the Confessions and Forms of Discipline published by many of the [Page 38] Reformed Churches will easily perceive. Also towards the Pri­mitive times, there were some admitted to hearing and to Bap­tisme, [as was partly intimated before, and may more fully be cleared anon] who were kept from the Lords Table. They that were v. Mo [...]ice of Right to the Lords Supper. p: 115. ex Al­baspin. [...] Gregor. Theumaturgi. Epist. Canon quam citat Me­das in 1 [...] Cor. 11. 22. p. 420. called sta [...]tes were admitted to some but not to all Church Priviledges. There were in the Church of old Initian & Confir­mate. The former of these were admitted to Baptisme and un­to Discipline, but not to the Lords Supper. The latter Sort on­ly were received to full Communion in all Church Priviledges.

Enough [I Suppose] hath been said for the evincing of the Affirmative Part of the Question propounded. Nevertheless, it must needs be owned, that there are weighty Objections, which seem to propend towards the Negative in this Contro­versy. And in that respect I am far from Censuring those that do not concurr with my present perswasion in this matter, yea, I do Confess that I was my self twelve years ago dissenting from that, which now upon much study and enquiry after the mind of Christ, I see, and cannot but profess to be the Truth. Nor do I think it a disparagement to me (who am a man full of Ignoran­ces and Infirmities) openly to declare that the Lord hath grati­ously given me to see further into His Truth, then once I did. All men acknowledge that when Bellarmine wrote his Book of Recognitions, It was the greatest Testimony of Ingenuity that [Page 39] ever was given by him. And there have been many Learned men, who [...] me in light more then the Moon doth the least [...], who have in farr greater matters then this is, [...]ern Cause upon second thoughts to alter their Apprehensions. Is not Au­stin famous for his humility manifested in his Book of Retractati­ons? And vide Bucer [...] Retractationem de­caena inter scrip­ta ejus Anglica­na. p. 642. & al­ter m [...] Retracta­tionem. p. 647. Bu [...]er for changing his Judgement in that Con­troversy about Consubstan [...]a [...]ion. Yea, Leather, v pezetij Mel­lif. Histor. & Melch. Ad. m in vita Lutheri notwith­standing all that he had said and written for that [...]. yet saw cause before his death to be of another mind, albeit he was slow to publish it [but left it to Melancthons wisdome] lest his Do­ctrine in other matters of a higher Concern, should be called in­to Question. And great Zvinglius was once a little inclined to Antipaedo-Baptisme, yet the Lord in mercy gave him not only to see the evil of that error, but also to do special Service for the Church, in vindicating the Truth against the Anabaptists of that Age. It is a great honour to Mr. Robinsons name, that he was by means of Doctor Ames writings, brought off from his Ri­graity of Separation in that point of refusing to hear in Church Assemblies in England, and that he left written [ propria manu] in his study, Convincing Reasons, to manifest the lawfulness of that practice, which sometimes himself had publickly declared against. And it is both a wise and a witty Return which Doctor Owen maketh to Mr. Cawdry, who chargeth the Doctor with some Inconstancy of Judgement, for that he saw Cause after his writing for the Presbyterian to appear on the behalf of the Con­gregational way. see his review of Schisme. p. 45. He that can glory that in fourteen years be hath not Altered or improved his Conceptions of some things of no greater Importance then that mentioned, shall not have me for his Rival. So I say, that person who though his Course of life lead unto Constant study and enquiry after Truth, yet shall not in the space of twelve years change his Apprehension in any matter, though of as great a Concern [and a greater too] as this now under debate, hath more Reason to be ashamed [if not of his pertinacy yet] of his non-proficiency in knowledge, then to boast of his non-Apostacy. I shall proceed then to mention those Obje­ctions [with some others] which once were prevalent with me to Cause a dissent from the Proposition thus farr asserted and proved, and also the Answers which to me seem satisfactory.

[Page 40] 1. It is objected we shall become guilty of prophaning the blood of Christ, if we apply Baptisme to unmeet Subjects.

Answer. Some indeed Conceive that the water in Baptisme, doth signify the blood of Christ, as wine in the Lords Supper doth, and hence are affraid to Administer Baptisme to any, except such as holding forth Faith and Repentance, are Subjects [...]t for the Lords Supper. But there are Learned and very worthy Di­vines who Conceive that they are mistaken, who think that the water in Baptisme doth (as wine in the Lords Supper doth) by Divine Institution represent the Blood of Christ. see Mr. Medes Discourse on Tit. 3. 5. It is very true, that the Blood of Christ is that which maketh Baptisme and all other Ordinances effectual, but that is not the [...] or Countertype, which the water in this Sacrament figureth. Therefore the Antients are silent concerning the Blood of Christ [...]n their explications of this Mystery, and some Lutherans com­plain of the Calvinists as being the Authors of this Notion. Nor may we assigne significations to Sacramental Types without Scripture warrant. But the Scripture every where mentions another thing to be signifyed by this water, sc. not the Blood, but the Spirit of Christ, or Regeneration. Yea, those two are distinguished, when both the Sacraments of the New Testament, are Conjunctly and mysteriously mentioned in the Scripture, Ezek. 47. 1. Iohn. 19. 34. with 1 Iohn 5. 8.

2. Though it be most true, that in Baptisme we have Com­munion with Christ in respect of his Death and Resurrection, yet it will not follow, that the Blood of Christ is prophaned by baptizing the persons in Question, because they are so Qualifyed as that we are bound in Charity to hope that they are Interested in the Redemption of Christ.

Baptisme is a Seal of Initiation, Regeneration, insition into Christ, and not of growth in grace, which the Lords Supper doth Seal. Per­sons may be capable of receiving Baptisme that are incapable of partaking at the Lords Table, some amongst the Iews admitted to Circumcision that were not admitted to the Passover or full Com­munion in all Church Priviledges.

It is further objected by some, that if such persons have right to Baptisme, then also to the Lords Supper, as those that had right to Circumcision were admitted to the Passover. But it may be Answered that it doth in no wise follow, that if these persons have right to Baptisme, that then they have right to the Lords Supper. For no Paedo-Baptist will affirm, that the same Qualifications are required for Baptisme which are required for Admittance to the Lords Table; The Scripture maketh a plain difference here, for Disciples see the An­swer to the Apo­logetical Pre­face. p. 43. and [...] Baptisme. p. [...], 63. and Baxter, p. 115. as such have right to Baptisme, Iohn 4. 1, Mat. 28. 19, 20. Hence all, and every disciple hath so: when as they are not simple disciples, but self examining disciples, that have right to partake of the Lords Supper, 1 Cor. 11. 28. Covenant Interest alone giveth right to Baptisme, but not to the Lords Supper. Hence persons may have Immediate right to Baptisme both for themselves and theirs, and yet not of that other Ordinance, as (according to the opinion of some) is proved by the Instance of a Believer not actually joyned to a particular Church, hence al­so it cometh to pass, that, that may prevent the Administration of the Lords Supper in Churches, which is not a sufficient Cause to hinder the Administration of baptisme, E. G. in Case of Schisme, we see the Administration of one of these Ordinances is suspended but not of the other.

Furthermore, Baptisme is a Sacrament of Initiation, or Insition into Christ, as those Scripture Expressions of being baptized into Christ, baptized into one body, &c. do evince, Gal. 3. 27. Rom. 6. 3. 1 Cor 12. 13.

Hence we read of twelve gates in New Ierusalem, Rev. 21. 12. which Judicious Interpreters take to be an Allusion as to the [Page 42] See Mr. Por­ [...]er of [...] num­ber, 66 [...]. P. 100, 114, 133, 14 [...], 147. twelve gates which were in literal Ierusalem, so to the twelve Congregations which are supposed to have been in Chri­stian Ierusalem, (I mean the Christians which lived in Ierusalem before the Romans destroyed it) wherein baptisme was admini­stred, and thereby persons admitted, ( i. e. Sacramentally) into the Heavenly Ierusalem, i. e. the Catholick Church. It is a Seal not of growth in grace, but of Regeneration, Tit. 3. 5. I Confess this Notion hath been misunderstood and abused by many, but that doth not make it to be an untruth. It was a perverting of this Principle, when those Antient Superstitions were introduced of giving milk and hony to those that were newly baptized, ad Infantandum as Tertu [...]ian speaketh to signify the Spiritual Infan­cy and Regeneration of those that were baptized, and of applying salt, &c to them, because those Customes were of old used to­wards new born Infants, Isai. 7. 14, 15. Ezek. 16. 4. Also from the abuse of this Principle, it hath come to pass that in many Sy­nagogues or meeting houses ( Cata [...]brestically styled Churches) the Font stands at the door of the house, because Baptisme is a Seal of Enterance into the Church. Yea, the Gentiles did Ins­tiate by Sacred washings: and from them the Papists have learn­ed to asperse holy water (as they call it) on those that are enter­ing into the Church. Thus we hear him in the famous Heathen Poet speaking.

Now all these washings, which the Gentiles used in their Sacra, Iustin Mar [...]vr saith that by a Diabolical [...] ( Diabolus est dei sinia) they derived from the Scriptures and Customes which were originally of divine Institution. But as [Page 43] for the Lords Supper, it is a Sacrament not of Initiation but of Confirmation, or growth in grace. There is then in this respect a great difference to be observed in these two Sacraments. Hence it is that baptisme is but once to be administred, and the Lords Supper often, because a man is but once Regenerate, whereas he is alwa [...]es growing up in Christ. Now to Argue that is persons have right to a Sacrament of Initiation, that then they have so to the Sacrament of Confirmation is no cogent Reasoning. Mr. Mede [...] hath truly observed, (though he stretch that Princi­ple to another purpose) that the Eucharist is a Sacrament of a different nature from baptisme, this is the Rite only of our new birth, wherein God accepts us to be his Servants, but the Lords Supper is the Sacrament whereby we exercise the Functions of this new life, worshipping and glorifying God through Jesus Christ, offering up spiritual Sacrifice and service to him. Fur­thermore, we have seen by Experience that Infants of seven (nay of three) years old have clearly evidenced that Faith and other graces were wrought in their hearts, so godly Iosias, Timothy and others mentioned in the Scriptures had grace wrought in their hearts before they were come to Adult Age. Have not Children been Martyrs for the Truth, that Child which suffered Martyr­dome Fox Acts and Monum. Vol. I. p. 116. with Romanus was but seven years old, were not some of the Martyred Children Ibid p. 57, 58. of Felicitas, who suffered under the fourth Persecution then in minority? I omit here the old story of the Pueri Ephesmi which Antient Records speak of but I would not wholly pretermit the true affecting stories which to this purpose have of late been published Mr. Janeways Token for Chil­dren. by a faithful Minister of Christ, who hath to the great Comfort and benefit both of Parents and Children cleared that matter to the world by exemplifying in thirteen Children, who were effectually wrought upon in their minority, or in-Adult Age. Now Certainly, these Children had right to baptisme. Mr. T [...]mb [...] himself (for he Confesseth [...] that such Children as Iohn Baptist was, might be baptized) would hardly deny it, but they had not Immediate right to partake at the Lords Table, since by Reason of Age (or non-Age rather) they were not Subjects capable thereof. To Conclude, Mr. Hookers [...] words seem to have much evidence of Truth and Reason with them. Baptisme (saith he) is the En­terance [Page 44] into Christs Family, there is more to be looked at to make a person capable of the Supper of the Lord, he must be able to Ex­mine himself, and must not only have grace but growth in grace To the same purpose see Mr. Steven Marshals learned and Judicious Sermon of Infant Baptisme, pag. 51. As for that which is added to Confirme the Objection thus farr Answer­ed, viz. that in the Jewish Church none were Circumcised but they were Immediately admitted to the Passover, It is sooner affirmed then proved. 1. The Jewish v. Hottinger. The saur Philol. I. 1. c. 1. p. 17, 18. & Dru [...]de Tri­bus Sect. Judaeor p. 101. Masters tell us of three sorts of Advenae or Proselytes, Gerei Toschab, Proselyti Inquliini, who did observe those Commandments which were called the seven Precepts of Noah, these indeed were not Circumcised.

2. Gerei Tzedek, Proselyti Justi [...]ia. Alias Gerei Gerurim, Proselyti [...] who out of pure respect to Religion and the Name of God became Proselytes. Now these were ad­mitted to Circumcision, Baptisme, Sacrifices, Passover, and all Priviledges belonging to members, in the Church of Israel.

3. Shechirim, Mercena [...]ius Proselytus est Circumcisus qaldem, fed men Baptizatus, sic enim explicant Rabbini [...] Kabbi Levi [...] lib. Chin. [...] Rabbi­n [...]rum. Mercenarij, such a Proselyte was (as some say) Circumcised, but not recived to further Priviledg­es. However, we know from Scripture, that that unclean­ness would debarr from coming to the Passover, which yet did not unfit for the other Ordinance of Circumcision. As also that Circumcision was according to divine Institution ob­served by many who never were acquainted with the Ordi­nance of the Passover. Thus have we the second Objection Answered. Nevertheless it may not be amiss for the Rea­der to bear in mind that Anabaptists are wont to make use of this very Argument, sufficiently Confuted in the writings of the Orthodox [...], who have maintained the Truth against the opposers of See Blackwood against Infant Boptisme▪ p: 9. Answered by Mr. Blake, p. 44 Infant Baptisme.

We proceed to Consider a third Objection, viz. that member­ship in a particular Church constituted according to Gospel Rules is that which doth give right to Baptisme, which since it cannot be affirmed concerning the Children in Controversy, therefore it may seem that they have no Title to Baptisme.

Unto this may be Answered.

1. A particular Church is by some taken in a very strict Sense, viz. for a Company of professing Covenanting Believers entrusted by Christ with the Keys of the Kingdome of Heaven, Math. 16. 18, 19. Thus by Church is meant a Society consisting of Elders and Brethren which are a Body Politick, or Spiritual Corporation, unto whom Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction doth entirely belong. Yea, the particular Church is sometimes in the Scripture taken in this strict Sense, Acts 15. 22, 23. The Elders and Brethren are there said to be not only the Church, but the whole Church. See more to this purpose in that excellently Judicious Epistle which Dr. Goodwin, and Mr. Nye have prefixed to Mr. Cottons Trea­tise of the Keys, pag. 3. Now in this Sense not only Children but also women are exempted from being members Constituent of the particular Church. h. e. They have nothing to do with the power of the Keys. See that Preface mentioned in the page Cited, and the Reply of the dissenting Brethren at Westminster, pag. 30. and Dr. Owens Catechisme, pag. 89. 103. Doubtless some such Notion as this must be aimed at by Learned Mr. Nor­ton, [Page 46] when he asserts that women are members of the Church, but not members Constituent. For thus he writeth in his acute and accurate discourse In M: Ss. since the writing of this▪ that Script of Mr. Nortons is printed. See my first Principles of New England. pag. 20, 21. about Church membership, the mem­bership of a male Child Confaederating mediately, i. e. In the publick, person of the Mother excelleth the membership of the Mother Con­federating Immediately in her own person, because the Mother, though she be a Church member, yet is not capable of being a mem­ber Constituent of the Church, for only Brethren Constitute a Church, in that they alone be capable of being the Subject of the power of the Keys, 1 Cor. 14. 34. 1 Tim. 2. 12. So as that should the Brethren dye, the Sisters surviving could not continue a Church, but would Immediately cease to be Church members, &c. Thus Mr. Nor­ton. Nevertheless, we must not therefore exclude either Women or Children from being the Subjects of Church discipline, we know that in Civil Corporations those that belong to such a City are under the Jurisdiction of the Aldermen, and Common Coun­cil, who yet are not themselves either the one or the other. In a Colledge, all that have their Names written in the Colledge Book, are Subject to the Statutes and Government of that Col­ledge, although no members Constituent of the Corporation, even so all that have their Names written in the Church Book, h. e. all that are members of the visible Church, are ( i. e. ought to be) subject to the Laws of Christs Kingdome, and submit them­selves to his Government exercised by those Spiritual Corpora­tions which Christ hath endowed with a Charter, albeit they are not members Constituent thereof, or those to whom the power of the Keys doth belong. Neither let it be objected here, that we must not fashion the Church according to the world. True, but if men in the world do in some things order matters as Christ hath appointed in his Church, we need not marvel at it; for Christ being the wisdome of God hath ordered matters in his Church according to the Rules of Infinite wisdome, he hath also by the same Spirit of wisdome taught men to order Civil Consti­tutions aright. If therefore in some things, the wisdome of our Ancestors in ordering of their Civil Governments, doth imitate that of Christs in framing his Church, we may from the one Il­lustrate the other. See more in the above praised Preface, p. 7. 9.

2. A particular Church is sometimes taken more largely, so. for [Page 47] that special part of Christs visible Church, which hath its subsi­sting in this or that particular place. Hence the Apostle saith to the Corinthians, you are the body of Christ and members in parti­cular, Epist. 1. 12, 27. so then, they were not only belonging to the body or Church of Christ in general, but members of that par­ticular part of Christs mystical body, which was then in Corinth. In this sense, it must not be denyed, but that the Children in Question are members of the particular Church, h. e. they are parts ( membrum est par [...] Integri saith the Logician) of that part of Christs visible Church which doth reside in this or that particu­lar place, as formerly hath been demonstrated. As for those who think there is no difference between the instituted or particular Church strictly taken, and the Church visible, so as that a man cannot be a member or one of these, but he must be so of the other too, their notion is easily everted. For that may possibly dis­member a man as to a particular Church which will not do so as to the visible Church. Diotrephes did Cast Brethren out of the Church. 3 John 10. He did not cast godly Souls wholly out of the visible Church (for that was not in his power); But out of some particular Church. See Engl. Annot Be-like it was out of that particular Church at Corinth, where a Spirit of division and Faction prevail­ing, might well occasion such disorders and abuses of Church Censures. Men may be cast out of the particular Church ( clave erran [...]e) and yet not out of the Catholick Church, either visible or invisible. Again, no one can be a member of the particular Church without the Consent of other men, but a man may belong to the visible Church; whether men will or no. A man may make profession of the Name of Christ, and his Conversation may be as becometh the Gospel, whether men will or no. Now such a Profession and practice will Constitute a member of the vi­sible Church, but a farther act of Confoederation is necessary to Constitute him a member of an Instituted Church. Yet more, suppose a particular Church to be dissipated and dissolved by per­secution, so as that all the members are cut off, onely one or two, these escaped ones, of what Church are they members? Not of the particular, for that hath now no being, therefore they are members only of the Church general visible, as when a Cor­poration in a Kingdome is destroyed, yet a member of it escaping [Page 48] remaineth a member of the Kingdome, though not of that Cor­poration, which is dissolved, so it is here.

3. They will undertake a difficult province, who shall main­tain that Membership in a particular Gospel Church, is the for­mal reason of Baptisme. All and only they that have an interest in Abrahams Covenant have right to Baptisme; now certainly, some that are not stated Members in any particular Church, yet are within Abrahams Covenant. There are who do observe that in the Scripture there is some difference between those terms of Brethren and Disciples. vide Belgick Annotations Act. 21. 4, 7. Brethren being used for those that were incorporated in some particular Church, but Disciples are the same with Christians though not joyned in particular Churches. Now Disciples as such and not Brethren only have right to Baptisme. And truly it is hard to affirm, that a godly person must be denied Baptisme for his Childe meerly be­cause he is not joyned to a particular Church, though it may be the reason of his not joyning is only the weakness of his tender Conscience which scrupleth his own fitness for the Lords Supper; and so for actual Membership in the particular Church, and yet in the mean time would gladly have himself and his Consecrated to Christ, yea and rejoyce to be under the Government and Laws of his Kingdome exercised in particular Churches. Besides, the Institution of Baptisme was precedanous to the Institution of particular Gospel Churches. Those whom John Baptized were none of them Members of a Gospel Church; nor will it suffice to say, that they were Members of the Jewish Church, and that therefore Iohn Baptized them; If Baptisme belonged to them as Members of the Iewish Church, then Iohn would have Baptized all such Members, a quatenus ad omne valet consequentia which we know he did not, Luk. 7. 30. Baptisme is a Seale not of the Old but of the New Testament, and therefore Membership in the Old Testament Church could not give right thereunto. Again Cornelius was Baptized by Peter before he was joyned to any particular Church, and yet he was no See Dr. Twisse Letters to Mr. Meed p 1020. Proselite to the Iewish Church, for he was uncircumcised, Act. 11. 3. Also the Eunuch was Baptized before he was a Church-member, as to a particular Church, and although he might be a Iewish Proselite that could not inright him to Baptisme, because Baptisme was no Ordinance [Page 49] of that Church, and being baptized he was bound to relinquish the Jewish Religion & Church and to joy [...] himself to the Christian Church. When Philip went to Samaria, we find not that there was any Church there planted at that time, yet he baptized them that believed, Act. 8. The Jaylor was not a member of an Instituted Ch. nor those in his house when baptized, Act. 16. 31. The three thou­sand Converts were first baptized, Acts 2. 41. then added to them, i. e. the Church, v. 47. There is little said to enarvate this Argument only it is alleadged that the Administrators were extraordinary, but to that there is a ready, and it should seem a rational Answer, viz. That extraordinary Officers would not apply Baptisme to unlawful or undue Subjects. Certainly, the Apostles would not administer Baptisme to unmeet Subjects, (therefore they never baptized unbelieving Jews or Heathens, &c,) yet so it must be, if mem­bership in a particular Church be a necessary Qualification to render one baptizable. For many thousands that were destitute of this Qualification, did the Apostles baptize, yea, it seemeth a matter deeply to be Considered of, that we do not read in the Scripture of any one person ever baptized after he was joyned to a particular Church, but of many that were so before such joyn­ing. Nor do we read of any one person admitted to the Lords Table (since the first Administration and Institution of that Sa­cred Ordinance) before his joyning to some particular Church, but of many after that, which seemeth strongly to intimate that membership in a particular Church is a necessary requisite as to ad­mission to the Lords Supper, but not so as to Baptisme. Besides Paul was baptized before he was joyned to any particular Church, Act. 9. & that by Ananias who is thought to be only an Ordinary Tea­cher, some conceive that he was one of the Elders at Damascus, o­thers think he was one of the 70 disciples. But it cannot be proved that he was an extraordinary Officer. Let us further argne a little, when Children of other Churches are baptized by the Officer of this Church, into what Church are they baptized? Not into that parti­cular Church, where the Seal is Administred to them, for they are no members there, nor into that particular Church from whence they are brought, for the Officer of one Church, hath not power to baptize a Child into another Church then his own, therefore it remaineth that they are baptized into the Church Universal.

[Page 50] Finally; If membership in the particular (strictly taken) or Instituted Church be necessarily required before Baptisme, it will then follow, that an Instituted Church may (and in some Cases ought to) Consist of none but unbaptized persons. Suppose a Company of Indians should be Converted to the Faith of Christ; according to this notion, they must first of all be formed into an Instituted Church and then baptized, so here is an Instituted Church, and not one baptized member in all the Church. A thing never known in Apostolical dayes. See P. B. defence of law­fulness of baptizing Infants against I. S. pag. 23, 30, 31. and in the same discourse, Chap. 4. per totum. The summe of the An­swer is, That membership in a particular Church is not the for­malis Ratio of Baptisme. And if it were so, it may ( sensu sano) truly be affirmed of the persons in Question, that they are mem­bers of particular Churches.

It is in the fourth place objected, that the Administration of Baptisme, according to the pleaded for Latitude is inconsistent with the purity of particular Churches? Answer. It is such a pleasant thing to hear men plead for the purity of Churches, as that, though they should miss it, in their Apprehensions, we may well bear with them, yea, the Lord the Searcher of all hearts, when he seeth a [...] aim at holyness in his Servants doth many [...] not only overlook their mistakes, but also reward their Sin­cerity, [Page 51] and therefore as for those with whom this objection is a real Scruple, we ought to carry it towards them with all manner of Love and Christian moderation. Nevertheless, Let the Considerate Reader mind the Answer, which is,

1. That they whose notion is, that the particular Church is a Spiritual Corporation entrusted with the power of the Keys of the Kingdome of Heaven, whereof women and Children are only members Inclusively, and not properly Constituent, or whose no­tion is that membership in the particular Church, is not the formal Reason of Baptisme, are not at all concerned in this Objection.

2. The Synod doth sufficiently provide for the purity of Chur­ches, inasmuch as they exclude the persons in Question from the Lords Table, and that Priviledge of vering in Church affairs, till they be further Qualifyed: Now it is not Baptisme which will Corrupt particular Churches, but the admission of persons unduely qual [...]fyed to the management of the affairs of Christs Kingdome, and to the Supper of the Lord, which is an Ordinance peculiarly belong­ing to those in, (and never regularly Administred to any out of) particular Churches. And as for a faithful Care concerning Ad­missions to the Lords Table. I know no men that have been more regularly strict and exact about that matter, then those that have been strenuous Assertors of Baptisme according to the Syno­dical Latitude.

3. It is a zealous and diligent Attendance to discipline accord­ing to the Rules of Christ and not Curtailing the Covenant that will keep Churches pure. There are two wayes practised by men in order to keeping Churches pure, the one is humane, the other is divine. The humane way is to straiten the grace of the Lords Covenant, that is the way of the Anabaptist. The divine way is faithfully to attend discipline. Now it will be found in the Issue, that the divine way only is that which will attain the End, experience doth testify that Churches have been pure or impure, according as discipline hath flourished or been evanid amongst them. Look abroad the world upon the Corrupted Collapsed Churches that are in many places, and we shall see that they have little more then a Carcase of discipline amongst them, without the life and power of it, which is the true and great Reason of their Corruption.

[Page 52] 4. It is to be feared that the denyal of such Baptisme as is di­sputed for, will in time Introduce Corruption and Impurity into Churches. For hereby persons out of the exceeding great desire; which they have that their Children might be baptized, (and who can blame them for that?) are put upon a Temptation to venture upon the Lords Table before such time as they are so well qualified for it as were meet yea and Churches also are hereby put upon a Temptation to be lax in their Admissions to the Lords Ta­ble, that so they may be quiet from the continual clamours of those that do account themselves not a little wronged, when Baptisme is withheld from their Children. These things may serve to Answer that Objection, but there is another wherein there seems to be a real knot. For in the fifth place it may be alleadged, that the per­sons in Question, either have to the Judgement of Charity a Justi­fying Faith or not. If not they (and consequently their Children) are not baptizable. If yea, then they are forthwith admittable to the Lords Snpper. Answer.

1. I do readily acknowledge, that as it is only a Justifying Faith which giveth right to Baptisme Coram Deo, so it is the pro­fession or visibility of this Faith that giveth right thereunto Co­ram Ecclesiâ. Some have maintained that a Dogmatical Histo­rical Faith, or a Faith of Assent to the Truth of the Gospel doth entitle to Baptisme. But the common Lege Gataker contra wardum & Baxter of con­firmation, p. 32, 33, 113, 114. & Davenant in Col 1. 18. & Thorn­dike of the Church p. 31. 32. Protestant Doctrine against the Papists speaketh otherwise. Though a man should believe all that the holy Scriptures say concerning God and Christ, yet if he doth not Consent with [...], that this God shall be his God, and this Christ his Saviour, he hath not right to Baptisme in the sight of God, or if he doth not profess such a Consent (which is Implyed in the Proposition before us when it is said concerning the persons in Question that they gave up themselves to the Lord.) he cannot justly claim Baptisme. In most Churches in the World men own the Creed (called the Apostles) before Ba­ptisme, now therein they say I believe [In] God, and not only I believe God, so, with a Faith of assent only in the understanding, [...] to believe in God implieth a consext of the will choosing this God for my God & considering that in Baptisme there is a profes­sion of Repentance for past transgressions, and an engagement to walk in newness of life for time to come, Mark. 1, 4. 2 Pet. 1. 9. [Page 53] And that it cometh in the room of Circumcision, which was a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith, Rom. 4. 11. and that thereby remission of Sins is sealed, Act. 2. 38. which Remission is not promised to any Faith but justifying, Also that Baptisme is said to save, 1 pet. 3. 21. and they that are Baptized are said to be in Christ, Gal. 3. 27. and to have Communion with Christ. in respect of his Death and Resurrection, Rom. 6. 4, 5. Col. 2. 12. I say from these and many the like considerations I am fully perswaded that is not a meer Hystorical but Sacramenta non conferunt [...] [...] [...]is qui vel fidem habent vel faltem eam pre­seterunt, [...] nullis certis argument is com­pertum esse pos­sit, earn esse ementitam. Thes [...] Salmur vol. 3. p. 39. Justi­fying Faith which giveth right to Baptisme.

2. The persons in question are such as in the Judgement of Rational Charity have such a Faith: if a man doth seriously pro­fess that he doth accept of Jesus Christ as his only Lord and Sa­viour, except he be a person that hath some way forfeited his credit, Charity requireth us to believe him, 1 Cor. 13. 7. indeed they that have by an ill carriage forfeited the credit of their pro­fession, we must stay for further fruits before we are bound to judge that they speak the truth, but if it be a credible person that speaketh, the Law of Nature, and of Christ, and the Apo­stolical practice in receiving such teacheth us to believe and hope well concerning such serious Professours. The question is not whe­ther the persons under dispute are undoubtedly true Believers; No doubt bnt that many of them are not so, but whether they possibly [and probably] may be true Believers. Now no man can in reason judge otherwise but that many of them are so, yea there is not any one particular person of them, concerning whom we can say, that he is not so; yea it is certain of every man of them that he is a true Believer, if what he saith concerning himself be true; Now if a man be so qualified as that 'tis probable that he is amongst the number of Believers, yea certain that he is so, if he do not make a false and Hypocritical Profession of his embracing Christ, Charity that hopeth the best requireth us till something contrary do appear, to hope that such a person may be a true Christian. In brief, true Faith doth consist in the Resignation of a mans self up to the Lord, now the persons in question profess that they do thus, and we ought to hope that they are sincere in that Profession because nothing contrary doth appear, but several things there are which call for a Charitable Judgement, E. G. The [Page 54] seriousness and solemnity of the Profession in-offensiveness of con­versation, a willing subjection to the Holy Government of Christ appointed in his Church, &c.

3. It will not follow that therefore these persons are Imme­diately to be admitted to the Lords Table, or to the Priviledges of full Communion, for more full and satisfactory Evidences of Regeneration and of Christian proficiency are requisite in order to Admission to the Lords Supper, then [...]in order to Baptisme. There seemeth to be much evidence of Reason and Scripture light in that which a Mr. Gelaspi in libro supra ci­tato learned Writer speaketh when he hath these Words, This Argument ( viz. from the Admission of persons so, or so, qualified to Baptisme) doth not fully reach Ad­mission to the Lords Table, where some further and more exact proof must he had of ones fitness and qualification for the Communion of Saints, even those of age when they are Baptized are but Incipientes when they come to the Lords Table they are Proficientes. There is more required in Proficients then, in Novie [...]s and Beginners, as there is more required to fit one for strong Meat then for Milk. Moreover, if all that are in a state of Justification are immedi­ately to be admitted to the Lords Table, then either we must deny that Infants are in a state of Salvation, or we must run into that which was of old a gross Error in the Church, and is at this day a custome in those degenerate Titular Christians, who are known by the name of Thom a Jesu L. 7. C. 5. copbti, Zab. de Relig. Ethiop. Abissives, G [...]ido de H [...]res. Armanians, v. Purchas. Pilgr. L. 1. C. 13. Maronites, &c. who distribute the Eucharist to Children pre­sently after their Baptisme. But let out Brethren if they can, in­stance in any one pure Church throughout the World, in any age of it, that have been as large in the Administration of the Lords Supper, as they have been respecting the Subject of Baptisme, excepting some few of late. I know that in Corrupted, Col­lapsed Churches, it hath been so (as but now was intimated) but not in pure Churches walking according to the primitive patern. Verbo A Believer and his House ( i. e. his posterity) is straight­way to be admitted to Baptisme, Act. 16. 31, 33. but we cannot say, that every Believer is straight-way [...] dum [...] geriter) or immediately to be admitted to the Lords Table. To conclude, thus I argue, If we finde in the Scripture, that Disciples, yea, Believers that had in the judgement of [Page 55] Charity a justifying Faith and were there­upon Baptized, yet were not admitted to the Lords Table for several years after their Ba­ptisme, then it is lawful to admit to Baptisme, though not pre­sently to the Lords Supper; but (not to mention others) we read of twelve Disciples or Believers at Ephesus, who were not admitted to the Lords Supper of sundry years after their Ba­ptisme therefore it followeth not, that if the persons in question be as to the judgement of Charity (yea in sincerity) Believers that then they must needs be without any further delay admitted to the Lords Table, and to all other Priviledges, or to full Com­munion, Act. 19. 1, 2, 3, 7. And it is abundantly clear that in the Primitive times, many were admitted to Baptisme who were not admitted to the Lords Supper; Nay, who had not so much as once heard of the Lords Supper, v. Albasp. in Text de pan. Hence the Ancients do generally and frequently say, that a Baptized per­son is not a perfect Christian till such time as he be unctus or con­firmatus, their meaning is, that he may be Baptized, and yet not in full Communion as to all Church Priviledges, See Mr. Hanmer of Confirm. P. 15, 16. but this Objection was partly answered before, Chap. 7. & 9.

There is one Objection more to be subjected to Examination, which because there are that lay the weight of their whole Cause upon it, we shall (by the help of Christ) endeavour a full An­swer to it. It is then objected that the persons in Question are no members of the visible Church, because they never had any membership, but what they received in Infancy, which member­ship neither doth nor can continue, when persons are adult, and consequently they have no right to Baptisme?

Answ. 1. In case the persons concerning whom the Question is had never been admitted into the Church in their Infancies, yet being qualified as in the Proposition is expressed, they would be­come Members of the visible Church. Should an Indian or any other Infidel make a solemn Profession that he doth believe ac­according to the Christian Faith, and this Profession not be con­tradicted by his life, and withal desire Baptisme; yea, and sub­mit himself to the Government of Christ in his Church, and Pro­mise to be the Lords Servant; for ought we know such an one may be of the Invisible, but we are therefore sure that he is of the visible Church. Now all this is found in those Children whose interest we are pleading for.

2. Whereas its said that a Membership received in Infancy cannot continue but is alwayes invalid and extinct, when the In­fant cometh to be Adult, that assertion cannot be truth, as the following Arguments do manifest.

Argument; 1. If the part or interest which some Infants have in the Lord doth continue, when they are Adult, then their membership received in Infancy doth not alwayes cease & vanish when they are adult, for to be a Church member & to have a part in [Page 57] the Lord are terms equivolent, Iosh. 22. 24, 25, 27. Read Dr. Owens Expes. Upon Heb 4. 9. p. 256, 297. The Church and the People of God are the same thing variously expressed, 2 Chron. 23. 16. our English word Church is vide Fulleri Miscil. Sacr. l. 2. c. 9. thought to come from [...] which is as much as to say the Lords People, To be of the number of Gods People and to be a Church member are one and the same; To be continued a Member of the Church is to be continued amongst the number of the Lords People, or to remain one of them that do belong to the only true God, but the part or interest which some Infants have in the Lord doth continue when Adult: That Interest which Timothy and his Mother and Grandmother had in the Lord whilst they were Infants did conti­nue when they were Adult, 2 Tim. 1. 5. & 3. 15. So the interest which David while an Infant had in God continued when he was Adult, therefore he said, Psal. 22. 10. I was cast upon thee from the Womb, thou act my God from my Mothers Belly. Lord (said David I have been committed to thy care and keeping ever since I came into the World, and therefore thou wilt not cast me off now; by vertue of thy Covenant, I have had an Interest in thee ever since I was born, and therefore thou wilt be my God and Saviour still. Now if his part which he had in the Lord being an Infant were vanished and nullified; how could he plead that as an Argument with the Lord, and strengthen his Faith there­on for Mercy? how could he say, not only thou wast my God as soon as I was born, but thou art my God from my Mothers belly, if his Relation to God were not continued.

Argument 2. If Children that were received into the Church in their minority may after they be come Adult be cast off, then they continue Members when Adult. For certain it is, that no man can lose that which he hath not, he cannot be cut off from the Relation which he is a stranger to, or be cast out of such as house if he be not within, or cashiered of such a company, if he be not one belonging thereunto; but they that were received into the visible Church when Infants may after they become Adult be cast off, albeit they have no new membership additional to that of their Infant Estate, else why did David say to Solomon, if thou forsake the Lord he will cast thee off for ever, 1 Chron. 28. 9. What was it that Solomon was in danger of being cast off from? surely it was in part that visible Relation, which then being in his [Page 58] minority he stood in before the Lord, or his Church-memember­ship: And when was he in danger of being thus cast off? even after his Adult age, therefore Church-membership or visible Rela­tion to God though received in Infancy, doth sometimes continue in Adult age, and vanisheth not with Infancy, did not the Lord himself Denounce and Execute a Dreadful Sen­tence of Excommunication upon Apostate Israel, Jerem. 3. 8. Now what new Church membership were they deprived of be­yond what did in their Infancies appertain to them? yea, and who is able to prove that in the day of their being Cast off by the Lord, they had any better (or near so good) membership or standing in the visible Church, then these have whose Interest we Assert? Moreover, the Author of this Objection acknowledgeth, that members received in Infancy, when they come to be Adult (in Case they break the Covenant) may and ought to be disowned by the Church, now I would know, what is this disowning? either it is an humane device, or it is part of that Discipline which Christ hath appointed in his Church, If it be a humane de­vice, away with it. Let us have nothing in the Church, but what, the Lord Jesus hath Instituted. Especially, let not those who are ready to accuse others with designs of Introdu­cing humane Inventions into the Church, because they would practice that, which upon much study and Enquiry after the mind of Christ, they believe is according to his will, set up an Ordinance which the word speaketh not of. If it be a part of that Discipline which Christ hath appointed, then it must be ap­plyed to none but Church members, since the End and designs of discipline is as that great Divine Ames Medul. L. C. 37. Th. 1. well expresseth it, Ad tol­lenda Scandala ex Ecclesia Dei, to remove Scandals out of the Church of [...]God, therefore persons that do no way belong to the Church of God are not Subjects capable thereof.

Argument 3. The Synods Reason taken from the Relation of Subjects and bond-Servants, stands unshaken and Irrefragable, not withstanding any thing that hitherto hath been said, to Inva­lidate it; they that are born the Subjects of such a Prince, do re­main his Subjects, when they grow up to Adult Age, and shall the Children of Christians who are born and baptized the Subjects of Christ the King of Kings, Ezek. 37. 24, 25. cease to be his Sub­jects [Page 59] when once they are grown to years of discretion? Is not this doctrine highly Anti-christian, yea, very Injurious to the Kingdome of the Lord Jesus, which doth at once deprive Jesus Christ of the greatest part of his Adult Subjects, which he hath in the world? one that is born the Servant of such a Master, doth continue his Servant, after that he is become Adult. Now the Child of a Believer is born the Servant of God, therefore did David say, O Lord truly I am thy Servant, I am thy Servant, the Son of thy handmaide, Psal. 116. 16. 'though he were now come to years of discretion, yet he proveth that he was the Lords Servant still, because he was the Son of a believing Mother, he doth not only say, I was thy Servant, but I am so, because born of one that was so, But if this doctrine which we dispute against be Truth, one might have said to him, you are mistaken David, your Argu­ment proveth no such thing as you bring it for, it only proveth that you were Gods Servant when an Infant, but now where you are a man your Relation to him Ceaseth for all that, but David in Spirit said this, and therefore we know his Argument was good.

Argument 4. That Assertion which doth Contradict the great designe of, and special thing which is signifyed [...] in and by the Bap­tisme of Infants is unsound, but so doth this Assertion concerning the non Continuance of Childrens Relation to God when they be­come Adult, for what is the great Designe of Infant Baptisme, but that thereby the Children of the faithful might be for ever ingaged to the true God in Christ? Is not this one thing thereby signifyed, that now this Childe is become the Lords, not for four­teen or twenty years, but as long as he shall live, when as this notion of non-Continuance of membership holds forth the contrary, viz. that when Infants are become Adult, the Ingagement that was between God and them is expired and null.

Argument 5. That Assertion which runs cross to the Covenant of grace is not to be admitted; but so doth this▪ For in the Co­venant God promiseth to be a God not only to the Parent, but al­so to the Child and that Everlastingly, Gen, 17. 13. Psal 48. Last. when as this Assertion brings in a new Covenant, wherein the Lord doth not promise to continue to be the Childs God, as he doth to be the Fathers God. We say of the Anabaptists, that sure their Tenent cannot be sound, because they make a Covenant which [Page 60] God never made, even a Covenant which taketh in the Parent but leaveth out the Child; the like may we say of this Assertion, which teacheth that God doth Covenant to be the Parents God for ever, except he violate the Covenant by choosing another God, but that he covenants to be the Childes God, only twenty years or till he become Adult, and then though the Child never did choose any other but his Fathers God, yet his time is out, he is set at liberty from his Service to the true God, and what hath be to do with the Lord God of Israel, Joshua 22. 24: Is not this to make that Covenant temporary which the Lord hath called Everlasting, Gen. 17. 13, Isai. 24. 50 1 Chron. 17. 22. In a word, Abrahams Govenant is but one, embracing Father and Child with both Arms, when as this notion maketh two Cove­nants, (Specifically different the one from the other) of the Co­venant of grace, one that is with the Parent, which lasts for ever, another with the Child which is of force, it may be twice or thrice [...]seven years, and then the Lease is out. For my part I neither can, nor dare believe this to be true, especially consider­ing that the Lord doth expressly promise in his gracious Cove­nant to be a God even from the womb to Gray hairs, Isai. 46. 3, 4.

Argument 6. Children that are Regenerated in their Minority do retain their membership in Gods Church, but some such Chil­dren there are, Iob. 31. 18. Luk. 1. 15. 2 Tim. 3. 15. therefore it folloveth undenyably that a membership received in Infancy may Continue in Adult Age.

Argument 7. They whom the Lord hath received into his Church do there Coutinue till God put them out, but God hath received Infants into his Church, Ezek. 16. 20. Math. 19. 14. 1 Cor. 7. 14. And he doth cast none out of his Church but for He­resy or Scandal, therefore such as were born members of the vi­sible Church, when they come to be Adult, not being chargeable with any Scandal or Heresy, they continue members of the visi­ble Church still.

Argument 8. The Jews did retain their membership received in Infancy after they were Adult, Christ o [...]vneth the Jews still retain­ing the substance of the true worship of God to be a Church, Iohn 1. 11. and 4. 22. They are said to be the Children of the Kingdome, Math. 8. 12, The Vineyard of the Lord, Math. 21. 41, 43. Now I would [Page 61] ask any one that maketh this Objection; whether he doth, or can think in his Conscience, that if the Iews had been qualified as is in the Proposition expressed, that then God would have rejected them, and their Children from being his people, I do not think that any sober men will say, or can think so, and if not, why should we reject and disown believing Gentile Parents and their Children, considering that, that Kingdome which did belong to the Jews is now given to the Gentiles, Math. 21. 43 & 28. 19. and that the Scripture doth expresly declare that called inchurched Gentiles do not lose their visible Relation to God as long as they continue in the faithful Profession of the Truth of the Gospel, for the reje­cting whereof, the Jews were deprived of their visible Church Estate, Rom. 11. 20, 22. surely had we more of the Spirit, Grace, and Patience of the Lord, in our hearts, it would be otherwise with us; we are (saith Mr. Cotton in his Judicious Treatise of Infant Baptisme)▪ See Mr. Cotton of Infant Ba­ptisme p. 56, 65. shallow and narrow our selves, and so we mea­sure the Grace of God and the Covenant thereof according to our own scanning.

Argument 9. That Assertion which is a most uncomfortable saddening Doctrine to the Godly, both Parents and Children is to be rejected, as not being from the Spirit of truth. God speak­eth comfortably to his People, Isai. 40. 1. and would not have their hearts saddened, Ezek. 13. 22. and the spirit of truth is the Comforter, Job. 16. 7. But it is another Spirit which is the Author of all Doctrines which are indeed dark and uncomfortable to those that fear the Lord, and so is this Assertion.

1. Its uncomfortable to Godly Parents, How great a com­fort is it to a godly man, to think; though I dye and leave [...] the World and my poor Children are left behinde me, yet God will be with and bless them when I am gone, Gen. 25. 11. & 48. 21. Prov. 20. 7. I leave them interested in God for ever. As a pre­cious man when dying, called his Children about him and said, Children, I have nothing to leave you, but a God, and a gracious Covenant, and thats enough for you. So on the other hand, how [...] and dismal is it, for a man to think, my Children when once they are grown up to years of discretion have no interest in God, no [...] in the Covenant of his Grace, were this Doctrine true it would be enough to break the heart of a godly man, who [Page 62] prizeth the Lords Covenant above a thousand Worlds: But blessed be God that it is false.

2. Its uncomfortable to the Children of Godly Parents how many of the Elect of God have found this a sweet consideration to them, that they could say, the God of my Father, and truly I am the Son of thy Handmaid, Remember that I was thine, be­fore ever Satan had any thing to do with me, yea before I was born into the World, Deut. 29. 14, 15. and though by manifold breaches of Covenant I have deserved that thou shouldst cast me off, yet remember thy Covenant, and that I am thine still. I appeal to the sanctified Experience of Godly Children, if they have not found the Doctrine of a continued interest in the Cove­nant of Grace to be full of glorious consolation.

Argument 10. The Principles upon which this notion (of an impossibility of the continuance of a Membership received, in Infancy) is built, falls to the Ground, and therefore the super­structure built thereon cannot stand. There is little of Scripture alledged for this conception, but the grounds of it are principally two.

1. That there is a specifical difference between the Member­ship of an Infant and of one that is Adult; this notion cannot hold water: Do but ask any Logical Tyro, of what sort the distri­bution is, when Church-members (or any other Members) are distinguished into Infants and Adult; he will answer you, that it is a distribution of the Subject from its Adjuncts, and therefore it cannot be a distribution of the Genus into its Species. Besides things that do Specifically differ can never be the same: as a Man and Bruit can never be the same; Take a young Bruit and keep it an hundred years, he will never be a Man, but keep a young Childe so long, and he will become an aged Man, the reason is because there is a Specifical difference between a Man and a Bruite, but not between an old Man and a Childe; So he that is now an Infant-member will hereafter be an Adult-Member, which could not be if these did Specifically differ. Again, things that are of the same nature do not Specifically differ for we do not in this Dispute take Species in the notion that Individual are Species but for the same with Genus) but so is the Membership of an Infant, and of a person Adult, Root and Branch are of the [Page 63] same nature, as common experience proveth, James 1. 12. But the membership of the Child is as the Branches and the Parent is the Root; witness Rom. 11. 16. Therefore they are of surely the same nature, Ergo, not specifically different: Is it usuall for men that hold an Errour to cut the throat of their own Prin­ciples; so doth (as it seemeth to me) the Author of this Notion, when he professeth that the Holyness and membership of Parent and Child are of the same nature, yea, one and the very same; How can that be, if they specifically differ, Furthermore, those things which have the same essential causes, even the same matter and forme, do not specifically differ, but this is true con­cerning the membership of an Infant and of an Adult person, there are the same essential causes of both, for Saintship is the matter, and Confederation the forme, both of the one and the other; But whereas for the countenancing of this conceipt it is said, that there is something required as an essential conditi­on ( viz. works and fruits) of the Parents in order to mem­bership which is not required of the child, therefore they do spe­cifically differ; this is as if one should say, there is something required of an Officer in a Church, which is not required of other members, therefore there is a specifical difference be­tween the membership of an Officer and of a common member. The other Principle upon which this notion of non-continuance of membership is founded, is that the holyness of Infants is only imputed, and therefore it ceaseth, when they being capable to act for themselves are incapable of Advantage by meer Parental Im­puted Holiness?

Answer, Should it be affirmed that the inherent Sanctification of the parent is imputed to the Childe that were a dangerous As­sertion, and were in effect to make the Parent the Childs Christ, but if the meaning of the Objection be, only that the Parents profession and act of confederation, is so imputed to his Childe as that he is there by reputed a Professour and Confederator, this is true but it toucheth not the Question; For Confutation then, we affirm, that the Holiness of Infants is real. Foederal Holiness is real, but the Holiness of Infants is foederal, 1 Cor. 7. 14. Deut. 29. 13. Besides, it is a marvellous mistake to think that persons Adult, or that Infants are said to be holy, only upon account of [Page 64] Inherent or qualitati [...] Holiness, for the Scripture acknowledgeth foederai Holiness. Thus the body of the Israelitish Nation was Holy. As to, Inherent Holiness or saving Sanctification, the greatest part of them were strangers to it, but they were all foede­rally Holy, Deut. 7. 6. & 14. 2. & 26. 18, 19. Ezra. 9. 2. Dan. 8. 24. & 12. 7. therefore also the Covenant is called the Holy Co­venant, Dan. 11. 28, 30. Luk. 2. 23. Because they that are with­in the Covenant are an Holy People, See Mr. Hooker of the Co­venant, pag. 41. See [...]rake p. 7 [...]. The Scripture speaketh of an Holiness which is transmitted from Father to Childe, Rom. 11. 16. 1 Cor. 7. 14. which cannot be said of Inherent Holiness. Again, if the Childe have a Membership of his own really distinct from the Parents Membership, this notion of a meer imputed Holiness, vanisheth, Bat so it is, as appears because the Membership of the Childe may continue when the Membership of the Parent is utterly cea­sed, namely after the Parent is dead; the weight of this Argu­ment hath so pressed the beloved Brother who layeth the stress of his cause upon this Notion or Imputation, as that he hath seri­ously made a Question of it, Whether Men do not remain Members of the visible Church after they are Dead? But can any man in good earnest think, that an Hypocrite when he is dead and gone to his own place is still a member of Gods Church? yet his Infant Child is so, therefore the membership of the Child doth exist after from the membership of the Parent is extinct, therefore it is really distinct from the Parents membership, there­fore the Child hath a real, and not only an Imputed holiness apper­taining to him. It might also have been said here, that there is a Relative Holiness which is perpetual, viz. in respect of Consecration and dedication to the Lord, 1 Sam. 1. 1, 22. Psal. 106. 16. there is an holiness of Propriety. So was the Temple holy, yea, thus were the Children of Israel (and in a more peculiar manner the Levites) an holy People, Ezra. 8. 28. This holiness is to be affir­med of all that belong to the visible Church. Hence Christians are said to be the Temple of God, 1 Cor. 6. 19. Therefore it is there said, you are not your own, 9. d. as the Temple was the Lords Propriety, so are you; God hath a peculiar Interest in you, and Lordship over you, as he had in the Temple after its dedica­tion, more then in any house upon the Earth, and thus are the [Page 65] Children of Believers Holy, because God hath a special Interest and propriety in them, beyond what he hath in any other Children in the world, they do of right forever belong unto God, they are named after the God of Israel, The Name of the true God, Fa­ther, Son, and Spirit is put upon them, and being thus Consecra­ted to be the Lords Servants, they are holy. And for this Rea­son is the Lord styled, the Holy one of Israel, Psal. 71. 22. Because he was the separated Object whom his People Israel did choose and single out as the Object of their fear, when all the world about them served Idols.

Argument 11. The Children of the faithful being in Co­venant are Christs and Abrahams Seed, and therefore Heirs, Gal. 3, last, Rom. 4. 1. 3. Now it is strange that Children should have a right to the Inheritance whilest in their non-Age, Gal. 4. 1. But no right when Adult, although they continue faithful Chil­dren still.

Argument 12, This notion will enforce Rebaptization For the Covenant which the Child was in when an Infant, is (it seems) become a meer nullity, so that now being Adult he must not Renew his Covenant, See Mr Cobbet ubi supra p. 31. 139 but enter into a new and other kinde of Covenant which he was never in before, Now it is necessary that when a man doth enter into Covenant he should be Initiated by Baptisme. There was lately a Sect in the world who upon this very ground, although they did acknowledge Baptisme of Infants as lawful, yet did rebaptize themselves when Adult, See Baxter of Infant Baptisme, pag. 343. Thus have we seen the Truth proved, and all Objections against the pleaded for extent of the Covenant of grace falling like Dagon some­times before the Ark of the Covenant. Before we pass over to the second Question as a Conclusion to this, let it once for all, be said and remembred, that in many passages in this Discourse, we have respect to the received distinction of Jus in re & ad rem, or of Right and Possession. A person may have right to those Pri­viledges, which yet he may for the present be justly detained from the actual enjoyment of. Again, we must distinguish Right and present Administration. It is Faith or Interest in the Covenant of grace which giveth right to Baptisme; yet before a man can have Baptisme regularly administred to him, there must be some [Page 66] Steward of God to dispense this mystery; and the person that hath Faith (we speak of the Adult) must become professedly subject to the Gospel, and to the orders of Christs School, If respect be had to these distinctions, some notions will appear, to be very Consentaneous amongst themselves, which otherwise may seem to have a Repugnancy in them.

The things which have been spoken may suffice for the clea­ring of the first Question, we proceed now (as in the Lords holy fear) to Consider of the second. Question, viz. Whether all that profess Christianity have right to Baptisme? The Answer where­unto is Negative. In most places in Christendome (as 'tis called) there is much more need to Insist on the demonstrative, evincing of the Negative to this Question then on the Affirmative of the former. But amongst us that which we have already Asserted and proved, is the Controversy of the Time and place, where in the Lord hath Cast our Lot to be, and Consequently the present Truth, in which respect we have been the more large in discussing that, but shall be brief in this which followeth. Nevertheless, perceiving that some do already plead for Baptisme, upon the meer Account of a Practically Contradicted, and everted Professi­on of Christianity, and not knowing but that in process of Time (for one extream begets another, and it may be feared that our [Page 67] Rigidity or over strictness as to the Subject of Baptisme will Issue in promiscuous Laxness) such large and loose Principles (they being suitable to that Corrupt nature which is in men) may pre­vail generally; upon these and the like Considerations, we shall here mention some Arguments which enforce a Negative Con­clusion to the Question, but now propounded.

Argument 1. They that are not visibly or externally in Covenant with the Lord, have no right to Baptisme, for Baptisme being (as all men excepting Antipedo-Baptists do concurrently acknowledge) a Seal of the Covenant, they that have nothing to do with the Covenant, have no just title to plead for Baptisme the Sea I thereof; But this is true concerning many who Call them­selves Christians. E. G. Idolaters and such like, are not to be esteemed [...]he Lords Covenant People, Exod. 22. 7. Ezek. 23. 4. Hos. 1. 8. and 2. 2. upon this ground, Farel vide cal, vint Epist, 147, 149. and Calvin, as also our amous Second part of second reply p. 142. Carewright, and other Renowned non-Con­formist, have maintained that the Children of papists (both the Paren [...]s, being such) ought not to be baptized. Baptisme being the Every which belongs to Christians, manifest Anti-Christians of those that are the Devils Servants (as Idolaters are) cannot went it, but by usurpation, wherefore the Apostle saith, there can he no Communion between Christ and Belial, 2 Cor. 6. 15. Then surely the mark of Christ must not be set upon Belials i. e. Ido­laters. See Dr. Lights foots Sermon on Luk. 1. 17. p. 40. for oft in the Scripture Belial is as much as to say an Idol, and by the Children of Belivl, Idolaters are meant. So again, they [...]that go on incorrigibly in a Course of Prophaneness are not to be reputed as in Covenant with the Lord, for the proof of which that Script are is plain and full, Psal 50. 16, 17. Alas, there are many that pretend to be Christians, when as they are visibly & notoriously Covenant-breakers, they make no Conscience of keeping Covenant with men, and therefore we may be sure, they will not keep Covenant with God, but are unfit to Covenant ei­ther for themselves or for their Children. Now they that have nothing to do to take Gods Covenant into their mouths have no­thing to do with Baptisme the Seal of the Covenant.

Argument 2. They that in the Judgement of rational Charity have not a visible Interest in the thing sealed in Baptisme, vide whitaker prefect de sacr [...] L. 2. de neced. Bapt. have go right to the Seal. God hath joyned, the exhibiting signe and [Page 68] the thing exhibited together, therefore men must have a Care that they do not knowingly put them asunder, I say not that we must know that there is the thing sealed, wherever we do apply the Seal, but I say that we may not apply the Seal, when we know there is not the thing sealed, for so to act, were in baptizing to Contradict the nature and blessed Ends of Baptisme. But there are many who profess Christianity, that yet in the Judgement of rational Charity have not a visible Interest in the thing sealed in Baptisme. For Baptisme is unto the party baptized a Signe and Seal of his Union with Christ, Rom. 6. 5. Gal. 3. 27. of Regenera­tion, Tit. 3. 5. John 3. 6. of Remission of sins, Mark 1. 4. of his being Ingaged to walk in newness of Life, Rom. 6. 3, 4. when as the plain contrary unto all these particulars is sadly visible and ap­parent concerning the greatest Number of those that profess Chri­stianity in the world. Ergo they have not right to Baptisme.

Argument 3. They that will not submit themselves to the dis­cipline and Government of Christ, there is no Reason that they should be baptized, wee (saith that famous Iohn a Lasco) suffer no Stranger to offer his Infant to Baptisme in our Churches, who doth not willingly submit himself to the Discipline of our Church. To admit men into Christs Family, that will not be subject to the Laws and Government thereof, or to the Priviledges of Christs School, that will not be subject to the orders therein, is against Reason. But many that profess Christianity, yet reject Church discipline. Ergo.

Argument 4. They that are either Formally or ipsojure ex­communicated Consule Theses Theol, Salmur. have no right to Baptisme. It cannot be de­nyed but that some great Divines have written for the Baptisme of the Children of Excommunicates, but then they are wont to put in this Caution, viz. that there must be some other person to un­dertake for the Childs Education in the true Religion, so did Be­za [...]eza Epist. 9. 10. express his Judgement when the Ministers of Neoco­mun refused to baptize such Children. Let this one Argument instead of many be Considered, viz. that they that are not mem­bers of the visible Church have not right to Baptisme, for it was before proved and is indeed a granted Principle with those that defend the Truth against Antipaedo-Baptists, that a Regular standing in the visible Church is that which doth entitle to Baptisme, [Page 69] But justly Excommunicate ones are not of the visible Church: Hence such are said in Scripture to be cast forth, and to be cast cut, viz. out of Gods House or Church in this World, Iob. 15. 6. Gal. 4. 30. and to be cut off, Gal. 5. 12. Gen. 17. 14. Surely a Mem­ber that is cut off from the Body is not Still belonging thereunto. And to be put away from amongst those that are of the Church, 1 Cor. 5. 2, 13. One that is for breaking the Marriage Covenant put away doth not remain under Conjugal Relation. No more doth one that is Excommunicate remain a Member of the visible Church, Yea, such are said to be Delivered in the Name of Christ up to Satan, 1 Cor. 5. 5. i. e. Gelaspy libro supra citato 297. they are Authoritatively o [...]cla­rea to be no longer of the visible Church, but of the World and so under Satans Regiment, who is the God of this World, 2 Cor. 4. 4. the same person cannot possibly at the same time, be as to his visible state, both of Christs and of Satans Kingdome, Mat. 6. 24. 2 Cor. 6. 15. But Excommunicates are as to their visible state of Satans Kingdome, Ergo their Children may not be baptized, They that write concerning things of that nature, say, that when the Devil doth enter into an explicite league with any one that pre­tends to be a Christian, he causeth them to renounce their Ba­ptisme. I remember a tremendous Instance to that purpose of one about fourteen years agoe, in Sherborn in Dorset, who being imprisoned upon the Accompt of familiarity with Satan, confes­sed to others (and to my self also) that the Devil made her to renounce her Baptisme, and so made a formal Covenant with her, giving her a new name, &c. But certainly, it will not please Christ, that we should Baptize those into his Name, who are visibly and manifestly the servants of Satan: we know of old, they were wont professedly (and their conversations might not contradict that Profession) to renounce Satan, &c. or they were not Baptized, shall we then Baptize such as remain the known Snbjects of his King­dome? And this Argument holds, not only concerning such as have a just censure formally passed upon them by the Church, but also with reference to them that are ipso jure Excommunicate i. e. that are so visolius legis sine sententiâ judicis, yea (which is more) they that are de jure Excommunicate, have no right to Baptisme, now this is true concerning all Heretical or Prophane persons, yea [Page 70] and obstinate persisters in lesser evils, then Heresie or Scandal, whom we may suppose to have a present standing in the visible Church, they ought not to be tolerated there, but the Rule is ex­press for their being forth with rejected, except they repent, Mat. 18. 17. 1 Cor. 5. 11, 12. 2 Toes. 3 6. Tit. 3. 10. or if such be not already in the Church they may not be admitted, and therefore not Baptized, whereby Admission into the Church is Solemnized, it cannot be a duty to solemnize the Admission of a person into the Church (which is done in Baptisme) and yet at the same time a duty to reject him from Church-fellowship (which is a duty concerning such persons as were but now mentioned) [...] such have not right to Baptisme. But as for many that profess Chri­stianity, they are Excommunicates either formally or de jure Ergo.

Argument 5. They that are not Christians have not right to Baptisme, because Baptisme is the mark of Christianity as hath been shewed [...] we may not by baptisme go about to Christianize those who we know are nor Christians, for that would be to take the Lords Name in vain. Now some profess Christianity con­cerning whom it is evident, that they are not Christians, Rev 2. 9. their practise is such as doth quite [...] nullifie their profession. Tit. 1. ult. Mr. Baxter Argreth well & strongly, when he saith, [...] we must not Baptize him for a Christian who we are sure is none, if a Man should affirm that he did believe in Christ, and yet should presently profess that he will not obey him, every man will conclude that, that profession is no profession. Now if an Affirmation contradicted by words ought not to be taken for a Profession, much less an Affirmation more certainly contradicted by the tenour of the life: In a word, Infidels may not be bapti­zed, therefore they that are worse then Infidels may not. Now so are some that call themselves Christians, 1 Tim. 5. 8.

Argument 6. In the Primitive and Apostolical times men were not baptized upon the bare account of Profession, except there were a practise that did in some sort correspond with that Profession; Hence in those times in order to the Application of Baptisme, they required not only a Profession of the Christian Faith, but (as was partly hinted but now) an Abrenu [...]tation [Page 71] of Satan in the Greek church they used this Form. Flesh and the World. Some conceive that the Apo­stle, when he speaketh of the Answer of a good Conscience 1 Pet. 3. 21. [...] alludeth to that Custome in the Primitive times, when the Administrator did aske the baptized, Credis? dost thou believe? And he answered again Credo, I do believe; Abrenun­tias? dost thou renounce Sin, Saran and the World? the partie to be Baptized answered againe, Abrenuntie, I do renounce them Spendes? doest thou Covenant? Answer, Spendea, I do Cove­nant. Also we know, that John Baptisi, when he Baptized, re­quired not only a profession of Repentance, but a Conversation suitable there unto, even fruits meet for Repentance, Matth. 3. 8. Some have thought that John refused none who desired to partake of his Baptisme, but judicious Interpreters are not wanting, who conceive that he repelled the Pharisees from his baptisme, albeit they desired it. Thus the [...] Centuriators, [...] Pa [...]e [...]s, [...] Gela­spy, [ [...]] Mr Baxter. And of our N. E. Divines [...] Mr. Cotton, [...] Mr. Hooker, [...] Mr. Norton. And it is not very Consonant to Reason for us to imagine that John would call them a Genera­tion of Vipers, and baptise them in the same breath Consider Mat 3. 7. with Luke 7. 30.

Argument 7. It rendeth greatly to the dishonour of the name of Christ, that every one should be owned of, and entered into his Family David would not endure a profane person in his Family. Psal. 101. 7 And can we think that it will pleas Christ that such should by Baptisme be entered into his Family, his Church that is? Great men would account themselves dishonoured, if the Livery appertaining to their Servants, should be worne by every vise person, and will not the great God our Saviour Jesus Christ, think me like, when Baptisme the Livery of his Servants is worn by the unholy & prophane? In a word, promiscuous Baptisme doth make the Church [...] no household, but an Inn rather, to receive who­soever commeth, whereby the name of the Lord is prophaned.

Argument 8. Christ hath for [...] to dogs, Mat 7 6. [...] [Page 72] 20. Phil. 3. 2. 2 Pet. 2. 22. Rvel. 22. 15, This I confess is a Common Argument. Beza contra Erast. Vide etiam Bezae Annot. in 1 Cor 7 4. maketh use of it for this end, & so did De side & ope­ribus. Austin of old, & Chrysostom De Comonn­ctione Cordis l. 1 before him, & Tertullian be­fore him; De Baptism. c. 18. and there is weight in it. If it should be said, that the reasons which have been aleadged concern Adult persons being un­baptized, when as the controversie is touching the baptisme of Infants born of Parents already baptized; The Answer is, that the Arguments do reach this also. For if we prove that neither Parent hath a Title to Baptisme, nothing more needs to be said to prove that the Child hath no Title thereunto. For nibil­dat quod non habet, it is against all Reason to Imagine, that a man should be able to entitle another unto that Priviledge which him­self hath no Title to, nor Interest in. The Derivative right cannot be greater then the Primitive. I know Austin blameth him, that when he excommunicated Classicanus, did cast his Children out of the Church with him, and concerning Children born before Excommunication, the thing is disputable amongst learned men, albeit it was before noted, that the Jews of old in Excommunica­ting the Parent, did also cut off the Child from being of the Con­gregation of Israel, and from having any right to Church Privi­ledges. And evident it is, that such Children as are born of such Parents as either never had, or cease to have any visible right to Baptisme, can not rationally claim right thereunto.

As for humane Testimony in this Case, as it is true, that it doth Conclude nothing in matters of this nature, where we must to the Law, and to the (divine) Testimony, and if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no true Light in them, so we shall not greatly insist thereon. The Truth is, that Protestants general­ly have been extreamly lox and large, in their Principles and pra­ctices as to the Subject of Baptisme, which I will also confess, [Page 73] hath in part come to pass, by reason that the Church hath been in Babylon, and hath not yet fully shaken off the dust thereof, Let not the Anabaptist Triumph withont a Cause in this Concession. It was before acknowledged, that overmuch Rigidity as to the Subject of Baptisme is Anti-Christianisme. For that Error pre­vailed when Anti-Christ first began to rise. Let it now likewise be owned as a Truth, that when the Anti-Christian Apostacy was come to its height, an Error on the other hand prevailed, even a Catholick promiscuous baptizing of all Sorts, nay a com­pelling of men to receive Baptisme against their wills. Bellar­mine De sacrem Bapt. and others of the Popish Faction, have taught that Baptisme doth sanctifie the unclean, and therefore that it is not prophaned, though it be Administred to unclean persons. Hi­stories tell us what wild work the men of that Religion have made of it, when they have pretended to Christianize the poor misera­ble Indians in some places of America, It is reported that in the Kingdome of Mexico Surius incron [...] ad Ann. 1558. sundry of their Preachers did in a few years time baptize each one of them above one hundred thousand. It is to be found amongst the Records of Charles the fifth, that See Purchase Pilgrim. p 115. an old Priest had baptized seven hundred thousand and another three hundred thousand, and certain others very great multitudes, and yet their own writers Oviedo, Benzo, &c. do confess that scarce one of them willingly became a Christian, and that they remembred not any thing of the Christian Religion, on­ly that they had been baptized, we know what was done in Eng­land after that Cambden Brit­tan Beda ad Pau­linum. Austin the Monke arrived there, and how it was usual in those Popish times either by force or by Speeds Chron. Book. 7. Ch. 36. fraud to bring men to Baptisme, before their hearts were indeed per­swaded to embrace the Gospel.

So then, in Arguing against such promiscuous baptizings as the present discourse is treating of, we dispute against nothing but that which is Anti-Apostolical and Anti-Christian. No [...] have there been altogether wanting those (though it is to be wished that their number had been greater) who have already undertaken this Cause. I might mention here vide Synops. Purior [...] p. 4 [...]. Thes 46 Polyander, [...], Waleus, Taysius, also Sparhemius giveth [...] three Reasons to prove that Prophane men cannot lawfully be baptized. Mr. Baxter hath written a large and learned Treatise, the whole designe [Page 74] whereof is to prove that the notoriously ungodly have no right to Baptisme, and to Answer the Objections and pleas which some have Insisted on, others I omit, only it may not be amiss, here to recite some remarkable passages out of learned Mr. Gelaspies Aarons Rod, blossoming. Thus he writeth, pag 544, 545 ‘It were a prophanation of the Sacrament of Baptisme to bap­tize a Catechamen or Jew, or a Pagan professing a Resolution to turn Christian, he being manifestly under the power of abomi­nable reigning sins, and being still a prophane and wicked liver, although he were able to give a sound and Orthodox Confession of Faith, Austin Lib. [...] & operib [...]s, Chap. 18. tells us that the Church did not admit scandalous persons to baptisme. And except they repent, (saith he) from their dead works, they are not suffered to come to Baptisme, divers Arguments he brings in that book for this thing; As 1. That Peter saith, Acts 2. 38. Repent and be baptized. 2. That the Apostle Heb. 6. 1 In­joyneth Repentance from dead works, with Baptisme, 3. That John preached the Baptisme of Repentance. 4. That Fornica­tors, Adulterers, Thiers, &c. shall not inherit the Kingdome of God, therefore such as are known to live in these sins without Repentance ought not to be baptized. 5. He argueth from 2 Cor. 6. 14, 15, 16, &c. Now I offer this Query, shall an abo­minable wicked Li [...]e, Murther, Adultery, Swearing, Cursing, Lying, or the like, keep back a man from so much as entering in­to the visible Church, by the door of baptisme, and shall not the like abominations keep back a man from Fellowship with Saints at the Lords Table? See also pag. 555. where he thus speaketh. Erastus argueth from the Admission of a Generation of Vipers to baptisme to prove the lawfulness of admitting a Generation of Vipers to the Lords Supper. But I argue [...] wise, such persons as desire to be received into the Church by baptisme, if they be prophane and scandalous persons, ought not to be baptized, but refused baptisme: therefore prophane and Scandalous persons ought much less to be admitted to the Lords Supper.’ Likewise in pag. 515. he hath this passage, which me­thinks [...] to be written in Letters of Gold. I believe (saith he) no [...] Minister would adventure to baptize one [Page 75] who hath manifest and Infallible Signs of unregeneration. Sure we cannot be Answerable to God, if we should minister Baptisme to a man whose works and words do manifestly declare him to be an unregenerate unconverted person. And if we may not Initiate such an one, how shall we bring him to the Lords Table? Thus far Mr. Gelaspy.

To Conclude, it would be an happy thing, if in all Controver­sies of this nature, we could be of the same mind, and of the same Iudgement; for so doth the Scripture require, 1 Cor. 1. 10. Philz. 2. But that is rather to be wished for, and endeavoured after, then to be hoped, till that great and blessed day come, wherein there shall be one Lord and his Name one in all the Earth, one Sheepfold, & one Shepherd. When we are come unto a perfect may, unto the mea­sure of the stature of the fulness of Christ, we shall come unto that perfect unity of the Faith, which [...] this world we attain not to, yet if the Lord help us, with a Spirit of wisdome and moderation, (although Truth must no [...] on any Terms be parted with, as Lu­ther Ruat caelum [...] mica v [...]rit tis pere it Luther in [...] said, let Heaven and Earth perish rather then the least Truth should be lost) we shall not Censure one another or be of dif­ferent off nations, because of different Apprehensions in the Questions Controverted. And we had need, to be the more careful over our own hearts about this matter; for that, there are not waning so­lemn Instances, both in the present and former Ages of woful Pa­roxysmes, occasioned amongst good men by this very Question touching the Subject of Baptisme. To mention only that which hap­pened in the Church whereof Renowned Farel was the Pastor. lege inter Cal­vini [...] [...]pit 147, 148, 149: One that was a member therein did Apostatize to the Papists, after which the grand mother being of the true Church desired Bap­tisme for her grand-Child. Farel considering that both the next Parents were Idolaters, & the Child still under their Education, re­fused (as well he might) to baptize the Child, but his [...] baptizeth it, whereupon there happned an uncomfortable diffe­rence between them two, (& in the Church who yet were [...] of them godly and learned me [...], both of them studious of Reformation, both of them Sufferes together for bearing [...] to the Truth of the Gospel. So those famous [...] & [...] differed in judgement about the Subject of Baptisme. These things should make us [...] moderate in our notions, which al­so [Page 76] they that have a righteous Cause are wont to be as zealous for the Truth. I shall finish with the Words of that famous African Synod fourteen hundred years agoe, being come to the Conclusion, of the Controversie then under debate, concerning the Subject and time of Baptisme they yet say, Inter Cyprian opera p. (mihi) 148. Nominem Iudicamus si di­versum in bacre senserit, we Censure no man, albeit as to this Question, he be not altogether of our Judgement.