Infant Baptism of Christs Appointment, Text

Infant Baptism of Christs Appointment · Text

p. 1OF Infant Baptiſm.

IT is a matter of great Importance rightly to determin, who are the Subjects and what is the form of Goſpel Baptiſm, to prevent error in that adminiſtration, and the lamentable Church-dividing Conſequences thereof.

It is the Covenant Intereſt and Baptiſm of the Infant Seed only of Viſible Believers that I plead for; and there are ſuch vaſt numbers (even Millions) of theſe, that if Men unduly exclude and raſe out the names of ſo many out of that great Charter of Heaven, they will have p. 2a dreadful account to give thereof to God.

Thoſe who deny Infant Baptiſm often call upon us to give expreſs Scripture for it, and ſpeak ſlightly of Conſequences.

But let them know that Scripture Conſequences (i. e. naturally deduced) are valid arguments, for Jeſus Chriſt proveth an Article of Faith viz. the reſurrection Mat. 22. v. 31. 32. from Ex. 3. v. 6. where is no expreſs word of it, and ſo the proof is only by conſequence. See others. Joh. 7. 38. Joh. 5. 46. 47. Luk. 24. 44, 45, 46. Act. 10. 43. and 28. v. 23. it would deſtroy almoſt all preaching to deny Conſequences. Beſides, what expreſs Scripture have they for admitting Women to the Lords Supper? as to 1 Cor. 11. 28. if foreign may rarely be extended to the female yet foreign [himſelf] limits it to the male. So what expreſs Scripture have they for Baptizing p. 3again thoſe who were Baptized as with us in Infancy? I conclude, things may be forbidden by good conſequence; but to thoſe who are otherwiſe minded for ever to ſilence this weak Objection, I add, That there is nothing againſt Infant Baptiſm, but by conſequence, and that not good. If the Command to Baptize Profeſſed Believers did forbid to the Baptizing of Infants (as it doth not) yet it were only by conſequence. I argue thus,

There is no expreſs Sctipture againſt Infant Baptiſm, if there were, the Controverſy were preſently at an end.

Therefore Infants may be Baptized, for where there is no Law, there is no Tranſgreſſion, Rom. 4. 15.

Undeniably then, either Scripture Conſequences muſt be owned, or elſe Infants may lawfully be Baptized, for there is no expreſs p. 4Scripture or Law againſt it.

§ 1. The Proof of Infant Baptiſm.

Poſition. That Infant Baptiſm is an Appointment of Chriſt. Or,

That it is the will of Chriſt that ſome Infants ſhould be Baptized.

Argument 1. Some Infants are Diſcipled ſo as to have the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit upon them.

Therefore by the will of Chriſt they are to be Baptized.

For that is the Commiſſion, Mat. 28. 19. foreign Diſciple ye all Nations, Baptizing them—

All then who are diſcipled by the Will of Chriſt, are to be Baptized; and they are Diſciples, not only who actually learn, but who are in the School of Chriſt his Church in order to their future Learning: Saul made havock of the Church, Act. 8. 3. Which is expreſſed, Act. 9. 1. by the Diſciples of the Lord. So then, to be a Church-member, is p. 5to be a Diſciple. Thus Act. 15. 10. The Yoke of Circumciſion was laid upon the Diſciples; Doctrinely impoſed upon the Parents; but Practically upon the Infant Seed at eight days old; for ſo was the Inſtitution, Gen. 17. v. 10, 12, 13. And ſo they are Diſciples. See alſo Act. 21. 4, 5. where Children ſeem to be numbred among Diſciples.

And as to [the Name] of the Trinity, that of being [Holy] is attributed often to Father, Son, and Spirit, Lev. 19. 2. and 20. 7. 1 Pet. 1. 15. Heb. 7. 26. Eph. 1. v. 13. and 4. 30. 1 Theſs. 4. 8. And it is given alſo to the Church and its Members, Exod. 19. 6. Deut. 7. 6. and 14. v. 2. 21. and 26. 19. and 28. v. 9. Rom. 11. 16. 1 Pet. 2. 9.

And this very Name of the Lord [Holy] he hath impoſed upon the Children of Believers, 1 Cor. 7. 14. Elſe were your Children Unclean, but p. 6now are they Holy; i. e. Holy by a Separation unto God and his Service; which often in Scripture denominateth Perſons, or Things Holy, as the Church—and it cannot be meant of Legitimation; for if both the Parents were Unbelievers, yet the Children might not be Illegitimate; For Marriage is honourable in all, Heb. 13. 4. Nor is it meant of being only Sanctified to uſe; for there is a vaſt difference between being Sanctified to, and being Holy, as Mr. Cotton ſaith, Afflictions, Temptations, yea, Sin it ſelf, is Sanctified to Believers: And yet none will ſay that Sin—is Holy.

Therefore it muſt be meant of Relative Faederal Holineſs; and ſo that Name of God is upon the Children of Believers, and conſequently, they are to be Baptized.

Arg. 2. If ſome Infants be viſibly or externally in the Govenant which God made with Abraham, then by p. 7the will of Chriſt they are to be Baptized.

But ſome Infants are viſibly or externally in the Covenant which God made with Abraham.

Therefore by the Will of Chriſt they are to be Baptized.

The Conſequence [that thoſe who are ſo in Abraham's Covenant are to be Baptized] I prove: For,

1. All the Seed of Abraham in their Generations, are expreſsly Commanded to keep the Covenant, by applying the Token of it, which is Baptiſm; Gen. 17. 9. Thou ſhalt keep my Covenant therefore, thou and thy Seed after thee in their Generations.

So long then as Abraham hath a Seed (which undeniably he hath in Goſpel Times) even in all their Generations here is a ſtanding Command to keep the Covenant.

And how keep it? v. 10. 11. This is my Covenant—And mentioning Circumciſion, he ſaith, p. 8[It ſhall be a Token of the Covenant between me and you.] So then the keeping it is by applying the Token of it. But he varieth the Phraſe, as Mr. Whiſton excellently obſerveth, an Intimation that he purpoſed a change in the Token of the Covenant. It is not ſaid, That the keeping of it in all their Generations, ſhould be by Circumciſion as the Token of it.

The Covenant in Goſpel Times cannot be kept by Circumciſion, for that is abrogated, and ceaſeth to be a Token of it; and therefore it muſt be kept by Baptiſm, which now is the Sign or Token of it, that being for the Remiſſion of Sins, Act. 2. 38, 39. which is a great Bleſſing of the Covenant, Heb. 10. v. 16, 17. This then is a full Command to Baptize all in Covenant now, for the keeping it, as it did command of old to Circumciſe them when that was the Token of the Covenant. The p. 9alteration of the Sign is no hindrance at all; as the Second Commandment of Old did require Circumciſion, Sacrifices, and Paſſover, and now theſe are abrogated, it doth equally require the obſerving Goſpel Inſtitutions, as Baptiſm, and the Lord's Supper, and is kept thereby: And the Fourth Commandment required the Obſervation of the Seventh Day as a Sabbath, yet now is kept, by obſerving, the Firſt Day of the Week as a Sabbath. So the Command of keeping the Covenant, was obſerved of old by Circumciſion, but is now by Baptiſm, ſince that is become the Token of it, and cannot be obeyed otherwiſe.

2. Baptiſm is the firſt Sign of the Covenant, and no Scripture Warrant is found to delay the applying of it to Perſons viſibly in the Covenant: Some call it an Initiatory Sign▪ which is ſo far true, as that ſpeedily p. 10after coming under the Covenant it is to be ſubmitted to, and is urged early. Act. 2. 38. and practiſed. v. 41. Act. 13. 24. Act. 22. 16. ſuch then who are faederatiare to be ſignati. Mat. 28. 19.

Yea Baptiſm followeth a being Externally and Viſibly in Covenant, as in Simon Magus. Act. 8. 13. Simon himſelf believed, and when he was Baptized, yet he was not internally and ſavingly in the Covenant, for he was in the gall of bitterneſs ſtill v. 21. 22. 23. wanted faith and repentance, his heart was not right.

And let this ever be remembred, that ſome are internally, inviſibly, and ſavingly in that Covenant, ſo as to partake of ſpecial grace bleſſings, and priviledges, as Juſtification, Adoption, Sanctification &c. Rom. 4. v. 2, 3, 13, 16, 17. Gal. 3. v. 16, 17, 18, 26, 29. and theſe ſhall never totally and finally fall away, Jer. 32, 40, 41. Joh. 10. 28. Rom. 11, 2, 7.

p. 11Others are Externally and Viſibly in that Covenant, and many of theſe are branches in Chriſt, that may be taken away, caſt forth and burnt. Joh. 15. v. 2. 6. may be broken off. Rom. 11. v. 17. 20. thus the Jews for poſitive unbelief were broken off, which thoſe who are internally in it cannot be.

And hence though the Children of ſome Godly Parents may degenerate and prove wicked, yet this is no more againſt their former viſible Covenant Intereſt and Baptiſm, then the ſame in Profeſſed Believers, who may degenerate alſo as Simon Magus did, who before was duly Baptized, only upon a Viſible External Intereſt in the Covenant.

3. There is a Connexion between the Covenant and Baptiſm. Act. 2, 38, 39. whence I argue thus,

Thoſe to whom the Promiſe is made are Commanded to be Baptized. [Be Baptized for the promiſe is to you.]

p. 12But the Promiſe is to Repenters and their Seed.

Therefore Repenters and their Seed are commanded to be Baptized.

All that have the Promiſe to them are to be Baptized, ſeeing the [for] doth intimate that to be the ground, motive and inducement to the applying Baptiſm, that the promiſe is to them.

And undeniably they are the Jews, which he ſpeaketh to v. 36. Let all the houſe of Iſrael know—them he commandeth to repent and be Baptized. v. 38. and addeth [for the promiſe is to you and your Children]

So then, in Goſpel times there is a promiſe which the Jews and their Seed had a joynt Intereſt in, (before their rejection) which was ſufficient to entitle them to Baptiſm. All repenters and believers are noted by [you] but here are two, not only [you] but alſo [your Children] within the promiſe, it is ſtill double as p. 13it was of old, to Abraham and his Seed. Gen. 17. and it tended greatly to their Comfort, that ſuch a promiſe of antient date was ſtill to them and their Seed, although they had Crucified and Slain Jeſus Chriſt, the Lord of Life; yea, if for the preſent they were but externally in Covenant, yet it might be a great ſupport in their Soul diſtreſs, that yet it was hopeful that they might obtain the ſpecial internal bleſſings of it, as remiſſion of ſin—ſeeing an external Intereſt is a great advantage that way, telling that their condition was not yet hopeleſs.

And this promiſe extending to the Jews and their Seed, muſt alſo reach to the Seed of believing Gentiles, elſe the Jews ſhould have more priviledge then they, whereas there is no difference in Goſpel times.

And thoſe words [as many as the Lord our God ſhall call] are not a limitation of the former part of the p. 14verſe, but of the words immediatly foregoing [and to all that are afar off] if that be meant of the Gentiles, as Eph. 2. 13. 17. then it telleth us, that the promiſe is not to all Gentiles univerſally and without exception, but only to ſuch of them as ſhall be called or believe, and their Seed, elſe they were leſs priviledged then the Jews.

Or if as ſome think it referreth to the Jews, becauſe the calling of the Gentiles, was as yet a great myſtery unto Peter, Act. 10. and might have been a ſtumbling block to theſe Jews, then theſe [afar off] muſt be the poſterity of the Jews to ſucceed in ages to come, who were then afar off in time; and if ſo, then by [Children] muſt be underſtood not the poſterity of the Jews which was to come after, but their preſent Children even Infants, to them belongeth this promiſe.

And this Promiſe is not to them p. 15only in the tender or offer of it, for that may extend to all afar off, this is limited to thoſe of them which the Lord ſhall call. This Promiſe is not abſolute, abſolute, it is ſo far conditional as to individuals of the Seed, as all the Children of Believers may not, and ſuch as reject the Covenant ſhall not be ſaved; but it is abſolute as to the Species, as they are in a Covenant-ſtate with God, as the Seed of others uncalled are not, and are under a greater probability of obtaining ſpiritual bleſſings as remiſſion of ſin and eternal Salvation, have higher advantages that way, than the Seed of thoſe who are out of Covenant. It is mentioned as a great priviledge, that the promiſe is to them and their Children, it is then to oppoſe God for any Man to ſay, he doth not make the promiſe any otherwiſe to them and their Children, then he doth to all others in the World, and eſpecially ſeeing p. 16Baptiſm is here entailed to it.

I now ſhall prove [That ſome Infants are viſibly or externally in the Covenant, which God made with Abraham.] For

Some Infants for many hundreds of years in all Old Teſtament times, were ſo in that Covenant made with Abraham, and God hath never repealed it or cut them off.

Therefore they are in it ſtill. That they were in it is undeniable, for at the Eighth day they were to be Circumciſed elſe the Lord ſaith they have broken his Covenant. Gen. 17. v. 14. it could not have been broken by neglecting that token of it, if they had not been in it. It is impoſſible to break that Covenant that they are not in.

And let any prove, that God hath repealed it, or cut Infants out of it in Goſpel times, if they can.

To evade this they tell us, that the Infants of believing Gentiles are not the Seed of Abraham.

p. 17I ſhall prove,

Poſit. That the Infant Seed even of believing Gentiles, are viſibly and externally in the Covenant which God made with Abraham. For

1. The Infant Seed of believing Gentiles in the days of the Old Teſtament, were ſo in that Covenant with Abraham, and therefore they are in it ſtill, unleſs God hath repealed it.

The Scripture witneſſeth that the Gentiles have greater priviledge in Goſpel times, then they had before Iſa. 42. 6. Acts 10. 45. Rom. 11. 11, 12. Gal. 3. 14. and who dare ſay that it is diminiſhed? let them prove it.

Its clear, that not only the natural fleſhly Seed of Abraham, but thoſe born in his houſe, and bought with his money (which were Gentiles) were to be circumciſed, even Infants at Eight days old, not of his Seed, Gen. 17. v. 12, 13, 14. and this is an everlaſting Covenant, and if they were not circumciſed, the Covenant p. 18with Abraham was broken, v. 14. and therefore thoſe Sons of ſtrangers Gentiles, were within the Covenant made with Abraham, how elſe could they be under circumciſion, the token of it and ſo, as it was violated if it were neglected? Yet theſe Gentiles had no right to the Land of Canaan, which argueth, that Abrahams Covenant was not meerly for the Land of Canaan, or meerly typical as ſome would have it, nor only for Abrahams fleſhly Seed, but extended to ſome Gentiles; Indeed the Church was then Domeſtical in Abrahams family, he would have none there but ſuch as owned the true Religion, ſuch only were to be in his houſe and bought with his money, as were then Church members, for he commanded not only his Children but his Houſhold after him, Gen. 18. v. 19. and they ſhall keep the way of the Lord.

And afterward ſuch of the Strangers Gentiles, who became Proſelites p. 19and owned the Jewiſh religion were to be circumciſed, Ex. 12. v. 44, 48. 49. when a ſtranger ſhall ſojourn with thee, and will keep the paſſover to the Lord, let all his males be circumciſed—one Law ſhall be to him that is homeborn and unto the ſtranger. So then, upon a profeſſion of faith or true religion, ſtrangers Gentiles were in the Covenant with Abraham in that day and came under the token of it, Circumciſion and their Infant ſeed, as well as upon a profeſſion of the faith of the Goſpel, any are owned in Covenant now, & their Infant ſeed muſt be in it with them, unleſs any can ſhew a repeal, or that they are leſs priviledged then they were. And methinks we have the contrary. Act. 2. 39. the promiſe is [to you & your Children] i. e. to the Jews, [& to as many as the Lord our God ſhall call] i. e. of the Gentiles anſwerable to the Proſelites of old, ſo Iſa. 56. v. 5, 6.

2. The Bleſſings of Abraham in p. 20Goſpel Times are come upon the Gentiles by Faith, Gal. 3. 14.

Therefore the Infant Seed of the Gentiles are, in Goſpel Times, in the Covenant which God made with Abraham.

For Abraham had no other to communicate but Covenant Bleſſings, and not the Land of Canaan, for that is not given to the Gentiles; and therefore the Bleſſings are, Gen. 17. 7, 8.—I will—be a God to thee, and to thy Seed after thee in their Generations. And this for many Generations did extend to Parents and their Infant Seed, v. 9, 10, 11.—So as they paſſed under Token of the Covenant, and were intended thereby all the time of the Old Teſtament.

He ſpeaketh indefinitely and in general of the Bleſſings of Abraham, not a parcel of them, but in the Latitude, and as amply as of Old: And therefore by Faith God is viſibly a p. 21God to the Gentiles, and to their Infant Seed; unleſs any can prove that God hath repealed that part of the Covenant which concerns the Infant Seed in Goſpel Times.

3. The Infant Seed of the Jews were in the Covenant made with Abraham in Goſpel Times, after the Death of Chriſt, after all Legal Obſervations were aboliſhed.

Therefore the Infant Seed of Believing Gentiles are in the Covenant made with Abraham in Goſpel Times.

For there is no difference between Jews and Gentiles in Goſpel Times. Rom. 10. 12. For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek (i. e. the Gentile) for the ſame Lord over all, is Rich unto all that call upon him. So Rom. 3. 22. Act. 15. 9. Putting no difference, Gal. 3. 8. The Jews and Gentiles then are equal in reſpect of Goſpel Priviledge; yea, there is no difference in reſpect of External Priviledge and p. 22Covenant Intreſt, for the Partition Wall is broken down that was between us, and both made one, Eph. 2. 14. And the ſame Olive Tree which the Jews are broken off from, that the Gentiles are grafted into, Rom. 11. v. 17, 19, 23, 24. So that the Jews are not Priviledges above the Gentiles.

Now that the Infant ſeed of the Jews were in the Covenant made with Abraham in Goſpel Times, I prove.

1. From Act. 3. 25. Ye are the Children of the Prophets, and of the Covenants which God made with our Fathers, ſaying unto Abraham, and in thy ſeed ſhall all the Kindreds of the Earth be bleſſed. This was after the Death and Reſurrection of Jeſus Chriſt, after the abrogation of all Legal Sacrifices and Ceremonial Obſervations; yet ſtill theſe Jews were within the Covenant made with Abraham, Children of it; yea, p. 23before their repentance, for he ſaith, v. 19. repent therefore &c. and their being ſtill in Covenant is uſed as an argument to it, they were not yet caſt out of that Covenant, and that included not only the Parents but the Infant ſeed, as I have proved already, ſo Act. 2. 38, 39.

2. The Jews and their Infant ſeed were in the Covenant made with Abraham, the day before the Goſpel came to them, therefore they were in it in Goſpel times after, unleſs God repealed it or caſt them out, which let any prove who can.

I run it up to the Primitive times, to determine this queſtion thus. In the Apoſtles days immediatly before their Preaching the Jews and their Infant Seed were unqueſtionably in the Covenant made with Abraham, and under the token of it Circumciſion; therefore the Infant ſeed were in that Covenant after; or elſe undeniably the coming of Chriſt, and p. 24the Jews believing on him and being Baptized, was exceedingly to their damage, injury, and diſadvantage. For this is to ſay, that the day or moment before a Jew did believe and was Baptized, his Infant ſeed were in Covenant with God, the day or moment after the Infant ſeed was out of that Covenant. Dare any ſay that to be out of Covenant with God, or to be caſt out is no damage, no diſadvantage? is it not mentioned as a myſtery, to be ſtrangers to the Covenants of promiſe, Epheſ. 2. 12? it is the miſery of the Jews, to be broken off from being externally in Covenant, and a mercy to the Gentiles to be graffed into the Olive, Rom 11. v. 17, 19, 22, 24. as promoting a partaking of the fatneſs of the Olive.

If it was a priviledge to be in that Covenant, then it muſt needs be a loſs and damage to be out of it. When the queſtion was, Rom. 3. 1. p. 25What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of Circumciſion? God by the Apoſtle anſwereth, v. 2. much every way—Is it not then great boldneſs for any Man to contradict God, and ſay, it is a mercy rather than a miſery to be broken off from it? If any abuſe the Covenant made with Abraham, and Circumciſion to the denying that Chriſt is come, and to the ſeeking Juſtification by their own works or righteouſneſs, on ſuch a falſe legal ground as Chriſt profiteth nothing, and ſo, as they oblige themſelves or are bound to keep the whole Law, and hinder their being juſtified; what is all this to the proving that it is no damage or diſadvantage for any to be caſt out of the Covenant with Abraham, even as to external Intereſt in it?

If after the Jews believing and being Baptized▪ their Infant ſeed remained in that Covenant, then conſequently p. 26the Infant ſeed of believing Gentiles are in it alſo, for now there is no difference.

4. The Seed of Abraham are the ſame for ſpecies or kind in all generations, and therefore the Infant ſeed of believing Gentiles are in the Covenant made with Abraham. Its true there is a numerical difference, Abraham hath a greater number than he had for his ſeed in the Nations of the Gentiles, Mat. 28. 19. Galat. 3. 14. and in Goſpel times there are great alterations in the outward ſtate and condition of the Church, and in the outward adminiſtration of the Covenant, but as the Covenant it ſelf, ſo the ſeed in it are for ſubſtance the ſame in all ages of it.

The Seed internally in that Covenant, ſo as to obtain juſtification and Salvation, they were and are the ſame. He ſaith to Abraham and his Seed were the promiſes made, even one ſeed 430 years before the Law, p. 27and ſo the Covenant cannot be diſanulled. Gal. 3. v. 15, 16, 17. the ſtreſs of the Apoſtles argument is laid upon the ſameneſs of the ſeed, admit one of another kind and his proof would fail. Alſo as to external Intereſt in the Covenant the ſeed is for kind the ſame. It is true, Abraham was ſo far priviledged as to have a promiſe, that of his natural ſeed concerning the fleſh, Chriſt ſhould come. Rom. 9. 5. yet after Gen. 17. 7. when perſons rejected the Covenant, though they were of the fleſhly ſeed of Abraham, yet they were caſt out, and alſo ſome ſtrangers Gentiles becoming Proſelites, and owning the Covenant with Abraham, though not of his fleſhly ſeed, yet were admitted to the external priviledges of his Covenant. v. 12, 13. Ex. 12, 48, 49. and their Infant ſeed came under the token of it, and ſo were Covenanters.

If any raſe out the Subjects of any Covenant (without their forfeiting p. 28their priviledge) it is preſently null and void.

If the Infant ſeed were raſed out of the Covenant with Abraham, who undoubtedly for many hundreds of years were Subjects of it, then the Covenant with Abraham were diſanulled, which the Apoſtle ſaith it cannot be, Gal. 3. 17. but cometh upon the Gentiles. v. 14. ſo as they injoy what the Jews were broken off from Rom. 12. v. 17, 19. and ſeeing the promiſe of being a God to Abraham and his Seed, by Divine Warrant intended the Infant Seed with the Parents, in all the time from Abraham to the coming of Chriſt, hence that muſt be the meaning of it ſtill, if Jeſus Chriſt hath not repealed it, and conſequently the Gentiles being now in that Covenant, the Infant ſeed of the believing Gentiles, muſt be viſibly and externally in the Covenant, which God made with Abraham.

I omit other Arguments inſiſted p. 29upon by others, leaſt I ſhould actum agere. As to the antiquity of the practice of Infant Baptiſm, beſides what Juſtin Martyr and Irendus ſay, Cyprian who flouriſhed about Ann. 250. or 255. in his Epiſtle to Fidus, who queſtioned whether Infants might be Baptized before the 8th. day; Cyprian with Sixty ſix Biſhops in a Council unanimouſly declared to Fidus, that they might be Baptized before the Eighth day; which very queſtion preſuppoſeth, that the Baptizing of Infants was then a thing granted, and unqueſtionable only the particular day doubted of by ſome. Neither may any conclude Cyprians teſtimony to be ſpurious ſeeing he is cited and approved not only by Auguſt. but by Hierom. Contr. Pelag. lib. 3. and Chriſt ſaith, out of the Law, Joh. 8. 17. the teſtimony of two Men is true, i. e. is to be received as true.

Neither doth the unſoundneſs of p. 30Cyprians judgment about Baptiſm otherways invalidate this; for I do not alledge him to make his opinion an Argument for Infant Baptiſm, but only to prove matter of fact, that it was then a common practice in the Church, when they might as eaſily know what was practiſed in the Apoſtles days, as we may know what was a Cuſtom a 100 or a 150 years ago. And ſeeing the doubt of Fidus was grounded on the antient Law of Circumciſion on the Eighth day; hence the Antients then made the Covenant with Abraham, an Argument for Infant Baptiſm, and alſo thought Baptiſm came in the room and place of Circumciſion. It cannot be denyed that Origen Auguſtin, Theodoret and others were for Infant Baptiſm.

§. 2. Objections againſt Infants Covenant Intereſt and Baptiſm anſwered.

That the Covenant which God made with Abraham was of grace, p. 31and in the Subſtance of it continuing in Goſpel times is evident; for the Apoſtle eſtabliſheth Juſtification even of the Gentiles, the Romans by faith in a way of grace, by the example of Abraham, Rom. 4. 1, 2, 3, 4, 11, 12, 16, 17. and by his being the Father of many Nations; now if the Covenant with Abraham had been expired, his arguments had been eaſily evaded; by ſaying, that Abraham was juſtified in one way, we in another, and that Abrahams Covenant was at an end; its true ſome appendixes relating to its adminiſtration as Circumciſion—are aboliſhed, but the Apoſtle from the date of it 430 years before the Law, concludeth peremptorily, that it cannot be diſanulled, Gal. 3, 16, 17. and carefully obſerve that when the Scripture ſpeaketh of an old Covenant, which is diſanulled, it always is the Law at mount Sinai. Jer. 31. v. 32. Heb. 8. v. 9. it never ſaith, that the Covenant made p. 32with Abraham is aboliſhed, but the contrary; declaring that the Law coming 430 years after could not diſanull it. Alſo in Goſpel times, they are ſaid to be Children of the Covenant. Act, 3. 25. And hence all thoſe notions, that the Covenant made with Abraham, was a Covenant of works, a legal temporal one, or mixt his natural ſeed, having but temporal promiſes by it in the land of Canaan, or a typical Covenant, I ſay theſe, as not true, vaniſh and come to nothing. And it is very conſiderable that in that Covenant with Abraham, the Lord promiſeth to be a God to him and his Seed after him, Gen. 17. 7. and then a Second time, with that temporal promiſe of the Land of Canaan to his Seed, he twiſteth this, v. 8. and I will be their God. So that viſibly he is a God to the ſame Seed, which he promiſeth the Land of Canaan too; and for him to be a God to any, is far greater than any temporal good whatſoever.

p. 33I ſhall now conſider what is objected, to prove a repeal of the Infant ſeeds Intereſt in the Covenant with Abraham, and alſo againſt their Baptiſm.

Ob. 1. Mat. 3. 9. Think not to ſay within your ſelves, we have Abraham to our Father. Joh. 8. 33. we be Abrahams Seed.

None be the Children of Abraham, but thoſe that do the works of Abraham. v. 39. if ye were Abrahams Children, ye would do the works of Abraham, and ſo Infants are not the Seed of Abraham.

A. 1. Theſe are ſevere reproofs to a degenerate adult ſeed, who truſted in their priviledge in having Abraham to their Father; but ſpeak nothing of cutting off all Infants from a Govenant Intereſt which they formerly had. All this might be ſaid to ſuch as were wicked and reſted in birth priviledges, in any times of the Old Teſtament, when yet Infants were undoubtedly p. 34in the Covenant, both before and after; and ſo it is nothing to the purpoſe. Jer. 7. 4. Truſt ye not in lying words ſaying, the Temple of the Lord are theſe. Yet all this may be ſaid to ſuch perſons in Goſpel times, of whatever perſwaſion, Baptiſts, Congregational Men, or any other, that own Infants in Covenant; think not to ſay you are Church members or Baptized, whilſt you do not the works of Abraham, and yet we may own Infants Covenant intereſt, where the Parents are Believers.

2. It is certain, that when that was ſaid, Mat. 3. 9. and Joh. 8. 39. the Covenant Intereſt of the Infand ſeed was not repealed, nor they cut off from it; For this was ſome time before the Death of Chriſt; till which there was no abrogation or diſanulling of any legal obſervations, much leſs of priviledge by Abraham, Eph. 2. v. 14, 15, 16. Col. 2. 14. the Jews were not p. 35broken off till afterwards; and ſo Infants yet were of the ſeed of Abraham.

Ob. 2. None but thoſe that are Chriſt's viſibly, and that are of the Faith, are Abraham's ſeed, Gal. 3. v. 16, 26, 29. Infants then are not the ſeed of Abraham.

An. 1. Here is not a ſyllable for a repeal of any priviledge, which Infants of old undoubtedly had by the Covenant with Abraham, or as his ſeed: here is nothing for cutting off any that were of the ſeed, as Infants once were, Gen. 17. Deut. 29. v. 10. to 14. rather he aſſerteth the ſameneſs of the Covenant in reſpect of its ſeed, and that it could not be diſanulled, ſee Gal. 3. 16, 17. and as God claimed Iſrael as his, Exod. 4. 22. Lev. 20. 26. So if Infants be ſtill in Covenant, why may they not viſibly be Chriſt's?

2. The Apoſtle here ſpeaketh of a ſeed of Abraham as to Juſtification p. 36and Life, and it is they which are of Faith, v. 8, 9, 10. And this not in oppoſition to an Infant ſeed, but to an adult ſeed, which ſought Juſtification by works of the Law, as thoſe verſes witneſs, and v. 24, 26, 29. And thus it was in all Ages ſince Abraham, when Infants were certainly in Covenant; yet then the ſeed of Abraham, as to Juſtification, were they of the Faith, and not of Works; and only real Believers are this ſeed. What is this againſt Infants being a ſeed as to Ordinances, as well as unſound Profeſſors? This is confirmed to be the meaning in the next Chapter, Gal. 4. v. 24. to the end, where they that were born from Mount Sinai, from the Law and Works are ſaid to be born after the Fleſh, they are in the Apoſtles ſence the fleſhly ſeed, which with Iſhmael, are to be caſt out; and they by Promiſe are thoſe of the Faith.

What is all this againſt Infants p. 37being of Abraham's ſeed, as of old; and the leſs, becauſe they are of the Faith, as their Covenant Intereſt followeth Faith, viz. of the Parent to whom the Promiſe is given for the ſeed, as that Promiſe was directed to Abraham, Gen. 17. 7. for him to act Faith upon the Lord in it, for his ſeed as well as for himſelf; and other Believers are to do the like.

Hence ſee the true meaning of Gal. 3. 16. To Abraham and his ſeed were the Promiſes made: he ſaith not unto ſeeds, as of many, but as of one, and to thy ſeed, which is Chriſt: i. e. Always Abraham had but one ſeed, Chriſt, and thoſe that are Chriſt's, and are of the Faith as to Juſtification; he never had two ſeeds for that end; in the times of the Old Teſtament there was but one ſeed, not two ſeeds, one by the Law, and another by Promiſe, but only one in Chriſt by Promiſe: and that this is the intendment, is evident, ſeeing p. 38he addeth, v. 18. For if the Inheritance be of the Law, it is no more of Promiſe, but God gave it to Abraham by Promiſe. So that the [one ſeed] excludeth only a pretended ſeed, ſeeking Juſtification by the works of the Law; ſuch God never owned for the ſeed.

And ſo it is not in the leaſt mentioned to exclude Infants, as a fleſhly ſeed, from an eccleſiaſtical ſeed, nor to repeal any priviledge or limit to cut them off from what they had before the coming of Chriſt, this is not in the leaſt the meaning; for all the time wherein Infants enjoyed ſuch priviledges, yet there was but one ſeed in the Apoſtles ſence: and which further cleareth it, obſerve this, Gal. 3. 16, 17. intendeth that Promiſe to Abraham, which was 430 years before the Law, which can be only that, Gen. 12. 3. as any may find by computing the time, this was when Abraham was ſeventy p. 39five years old, v. 4. and ſo they greatly miſtake who would have it expounded, Gen. 17. 7, 8. where Infants Covenant Intereſt is aſſerted, it is no repeal, no reſtriction, or limitation thereof, no cutting them off from any priviledges granted or confirmed to them there; for that was not four hundred and thirty years before the Law; but when Abraham was ninety and nine years old. v. 1. which was twenty four years leſs.

4. Some Infants are viſibly Chriſt's, and ſo are Abraham's ſeed: as Abraham had a natural fleſhly ſeed, and a ſpiritual ſeed, conſiſting only of real Believers, which are juſtified, and ſhall certainly be ſaved, Gal. 3. 8, 9, 11. Mark 16. 16. So alſo Abraham had, and hath an eccleſiaſtical ſeed, he was, and is a Father of the viſible Church, and all in it are his ſeed in this ſence, where are many fooliſh Virgins, Mat. 25. 1, 2. unſound Profeſſors p. 40of Faith, which yet are duely baptized, as Simon Magus was, Act. 8. 13. Such as may be in Chriſt, and be taken away and caſt forth, Joh. 15. 2. 6. and be broken off, Rom. 11. 20. which none of his ſpiritual ſeed of real believers can be. Either then ſuch Hypocrites are the ſeed of Abraham or not. If they be, then he hath a ſeed which are not his Spiritual ſeed; If they be not, then we may Baptize ſome who are not the ſeed of Abraham, and then why not Infants? Neither need we call this a third ſeed of Abraham any more than of old, and eſpecially, ſeeing that Church conſiſteth much of his Spiritual ſeed, as ſharers in higheſt priviledges in ſpecial and eternal bleſſings, though it extendeth to others as ſharers in inferiour bleſſings; both are his ſeed as Iſhmael and Iſaac were, though one had higher bleſſings then the other, Gen. 17. 20. 21.

And undeniably many hundreds p. 41of years even from Abraham till the coming of Chriſt, an Infant ſeed of Jews and Proſelites were of Abrahams Church-ſeed, and muſt be ſo ſtill unleſs any can ſhew a repeal; and this will hardly be found, ſeeing Jeſus Chriſt hath declared, that of ſuch is the Kingdom of Heaven, Mat. 19. 14. Mark 10. 13, 14. Luk. 18. 15. And if Infants be of the Church, then are they Chriſts, for that is his, Mat. 16. 18. Rom. 16. 16. 1 Cor. 12. 27. Joh. 15. 2, 6. Neither do ſome Characters of the Church forbid their being members of it, ſeeing they were undoubtedly ſuch, and theſe Elogiums are given to it, in reſpect of its better part, or what they may, ought or hopefully will be afterward; as it is the Kingdom of Heaven, Mat. 25. 1, 2. yet ſome fooliſh Virgins there, and thoſe are golden Candleſticks, Rev. 1. 12, 13, 20. yet ſome droſſy and lukewarm not pure gold.

p. 42And further conſider, the viſible Church was founded on the Covenant made with Abraham, not only as conſiſting of Jews, but Gentiles in the Nations, Gen. 17. 4, 5. behold my Covenant is with thee, and thou ſhalt be a Father of many Nations; and that Covenant extended to Infants, v. 10, 11, 12, 13. and is ſtill continuing, Rom. 4. 17, 18. Gal. 3. 17. let any prove that Infants are cut out of it, elſe they are of his Eccleſiaſtical ſeed ſtill. It is true, Ceremonial obſervations of very antient date, and Ordinances of of the Law are abrogated, Heb. 9. and 10. but the Covenant with Abraham is another thing, and from the date of it ſo long before the Law, the Apoſtle proveth cannot be diſanulled by it, Gal. 3. 17. The ceaſing of Circumciſion doth no more aboliſh the Covenant with Abraham or Infants Intereſt therein, then the aboliſhing of Sacrifices, Paſſover, and other Ceremonial obſervations doth null the p. 43Second Commandment, which during their continuance, commanded a worſhipping God by them.

And alſo the Church before the Death of Chriſt, and after, are eſſentially the ſame, Eph. 2. 14, 15. Who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us, having aboliſhed—the Law of Commandments—So then Jeſus Chriſt by his Death did not pull down one Church, and erect another, but equalized Jews and Gentiles, made both one; that the Gentiles ſhould be fellow heirs, and of the ſame body, Eph. 3. 6. Ordinances are altered in Worſhip, but the Church is in Eſſence the ſame.

And once more, the ſame Olive-tree, the Covenant with Abraham, and viſible Church, which the Jews were broken off from, for unbelief. Rom. 11. 20. the ſame the Gentiles were graffed into, v. 17. and the Jews ſhall again be graffed into that, as into p. 44their own Olive-tree, v. 23, 24. and there could be no ſuch graffing into the ſame, if the ſtock the Covenant or Church were not the ſame. And hence Abraham hath an Eccleſiaſtical ſeed the viſible Church (for there is no breaking off from the inviſible Church) and Infants being of old members of it, they are ſo ſtill (elſe it were not the ſame) and ſo they are viſibly Chriſts and of Abrahams ſeed.

5. Some Infants are viſibly of the faith, and ſo are Abrahams ſeed: I do not ſay, that faith ſeminal and habitual or actual, is in all Infants Baptized or others, for then either all of them muſt be ſaved, which they are not; or elſe they might looſe that ſpecial faith; but they are viſibly intereſted in the Covenant or promiſe, which is the word of faith and may bear that name; and the Lord being viſibly their God, Gen. 17. 7. 8. they are ſo under the promiſe of after faith and repentance, otherwiſe then p. 45others are. If they have not faith for the preſent, yet viſibly they are under a promiſe of it, it is hopeful for the future they ſhall have it, which promiſe, Baptiſm may be a ſign and ſeal of; it may ſeal a doctrin of faith even where a principle of it is yet wanting, and by Baptiſm they are obliged to ſeek it.

Alſo by the faith of the Parents, they may be deemed of the faith with them, as all Jews (Infants and all) were the Circumciſion, for there are many promiſes given for the faith of ſuch Parents to act upon, which no unbelieving Parents can claim for their ſeed; as that he will Circumciſe the heart of their ſeed, Deut. 30. 6. pour his ſpirit on them, Iſ. 44. 3. that the word ſhall not depart out of their mouth. If. 59. 21. ſee alſo Pſ. 25. 13. & 112. 2. Prov. 11. 21. the contrary of the ſeed of the wicked, Pſ. 37. 28. but eſpecially that great and comprehenſive promiſe is p. 46to believers, that he will be the God of their ſeed, Gen. 17. 7, 8. and theſe are fulfilled abſolutely to the Collective body the Church, though not te every individual, but under limitation. And Parents by rejecting the Covenant and Unbelief, may forfeit this priviledge for their ſeed as well as for themſelves, as the Infant ſeed of the Jews were broken off by their Parents unbelief, Rom. 11. 20. Elſe it muſt be ſaid that their ſeed remained in Covenant after in Goſpel times; and if Parents forfeit, there may not be an uninterrupted Succeſſion of the Church in ſome of the poſterity of Believers, yet if the rejected ſeed do after perſonally believe, they obtain the promiſes for themſelves and ſeed again. Act. 2. 39.

In ſhort, Abraham was equally a Father of the Jews (called the Circumciſion) by faith, as he was and is a Father of the Gentiles, the circumciſion by faith. Rom. 4. v. 10, 11, 12. p. 47there is no difference of his common fatherhood to both it is by faith; ſo that the Jews were as much Abrahams ſeed of faith, even when they were the circumciſion as the Gentiles are, and ſo the Jews Infant ſeed, were Abrahams ſeed of faith, externally when circumciſed of old, and as well then may the Infant ſeed of believing Gentiles, be Abrahams ſeed of faith now; and the rather becauſe he received circumciſion, as a Seal of the righteouſneſs of that faith, which he had being uncircumciſed v. 11. that he might be a father to believing Gentiles. And obſerve, that the Covenant was made with him, and he circumciſed as a viſible Believer, circumciſion was a Seal of the righteouſneſs of faith, which is common to all Believers among Jews and Gentiles, not peculiar to him.

Alſo he received Circumciſion, not meerly by vertue of a command or inſtitution, but as a token of the p. 48Covenant. Gen. 17. 9, 10, 11. So as the Covenant could not be kept after circumciſion was Inſtituted without it, v. 14. whilſt it continued; nor without Baptiſm now a token of the ſame Covenant, and connected with the promiſe, Act. 2. 38, 39. in like manner, and ſo Infants being in Covenant, as Abrahams ſeed of faith are to be Baptized.

Obj. 3. There is no kind of Covenant holineſs in the natural ſeed of Believers, more than in the ſeed of Unbelievers now under the Goſpel; for no perſon is to be accounted common or unclean by nature more than others, and ſo no perſon to be accounted clean or holy by nature more than others. Act. 10. 28. God is no reſpecter of perſons—Typical Ceremonial holineſs is aboliſhed of the ſeed as well as of Beaſts, Birds, Garments, Temple, &c.

A. The Typical ceremonial holineſs aboliſhed, is not ſaid to be by Nature. Act. 10. 28. it was by the Law; ſuch as p. 49of Birds, Beaſts, Garments, Temple, &c. and this is at an end, nothing now unclean or holy in that ſenſe; but that is nothing againſt the relative federal holineſs of perſons long before the Law, by the Covenant with Abraham viſibly having God their God, and being his People. Gen. 17. 7, 8. otherwiſe then other People, being ſeparated to the Service of God, and not afar off but nigh to him. Ezek. 16. 8, 9. Eph. 2, 3, 14, 19. and this is not meerly by nature, but as in the force of Gods Covenant. Galat. 2. 15.

As to Act. 10. 28. It declares that no perſon is common or unclean ſo as to bar him from the Preaching of the Goſpel; the Gentiles are as clean and holy now as the Jews in that reſpect; Peter might go in to Cornelius, no difference of Nation or outward ſtate or condition to hinder it (Col. 2. 11.) all on equal terms, and alike; the means of grace may be p. 50extended to the Gentiles; the offer is larger then it was; not ſtraiter here is no excluding or caſting out of Infants from any priviledge.

Indeed the Jews of old were forbidden Marriage and Covenants with the Gentiles, Deut. 7. 3. but not keeping company with them, as Calvin ſaith, we find no clear prohibition of the Jews going in to the Gentiles from the Law, but from the obſervation of the Fathers; However, there can be no pretence for ſuch uncleanneſs of Perſons, as Peter meaneth till the Law, and the aboliſhing this by the Goſpel, is nothing againſt the federal holineſs of Infants or others, long before the Law by the Covenant with Abraham.

As to Act. 10. 34, 35. it importeth that God is no reſpecter of perſons, as to acceptance with him; be he Jew or Gentile of what Nation ſoever, he may be accepted of God, if he be a fearer of God, and a worker of righteouſneſs p. 51elſe not, whatever privilege he enjoyeth, Church-memberſhip, Baptiſm, Lords Supper, &c. what is this againſt the federal holineſs of their ſeed, who are fearers of God and externally in Covenant with him?

2. In Goſpel times there is a relative federal holineſs, whereby ſome are differenced from other by a Separation from the world for God, Rom. 11. 16. 1 Pet. 2. 9. ye are a holy Nation, yea this reacheth Infants. 1 Cor. 7. 14. Elſe were your Children unholy, but now are they holy.

It cannot be meant of legitimation, for if both the Parents be unbelievers, yet the Children are legitimate. Heb. 13. 4. the marriage bed is undefiled in all. It is not barely a being ſanctified to uſe, for ſo are the unbelieving Husband or Wife to the Believer. v. 14. yet are not holy. Tit. 1. 15.

It is not qualitative holineſs, if it p. 52were to be ſure they may be Baptized; it muſt then be relative or federal holineſs.

Obj. 4. If the Children of the fleſh are not the Children of God, Rom. 9. 8. then Infants are not the ſeed of Abraham, they may be by Election, not by Calling. Abraham hath two ſeeds, a fleſhly ſeed, who had promiſes of the Land of Canaan; and a ſpiritual ſeed Heirs of eternal Life, the Heavenly Inheritance, this was never given to the fleſhly ſeed.

Anſ. Children of the fleſh by degeneracy and a legal Birth, are not the Children of God: Of theſe he ſpeaketh, Rom. 9. v. 8, 31, 32. Gal. 4. v. 29, 30. This is nothing againſt Infants Priviledge.

Alſo Children of the fleſh, Infants or adult, are not internally and ſavingly the Children of God, ſo as to inherit the Heavenly Inheritance only by fleſhly deſcent; but Infants of Believers are externally and viſibly p. 53the Children of God as well as others, Gen. 17. 7, 10, 11. Exod. 4. 22. Rom. 9. 4. To them pertaineth the Adoption, and ſo they are externally and viſibly Children, if not by regeneration, yet by dedication and ſeparation for God from others. This rendreth it probable and hopeful they ſhall afterwards ſhare in the ſpiritual and eternal Bleſſings, until they evidence the contrary by rejecting the Covenant, as Iſhmael and Eſau did.

Thus the Infant ſeed of Believers are not the ſpiritual ſeed of Abraham only by fleſhly deſcent, but they are eccleſiaſtically and externally the ſeed of Abraham, with their Parents, by vertue of the Covenant.

But to clear this Text and Matter, I ſhall add theſe things.

1. Here is no repeal of any Covenant Intereſt, which Infants undoubtedly had before the coming of Jeſus Chriſt; without which, all ſaid is nothing▪ p. 54to the purpoſe: it is not ſaid, thoſe that of old were the ſeed of Abraham, now are not ſo any longer; but rather the contrary, for (till actually caſt out) he concludeth them highly priviledged, Rom. 9. 4. Who are Iſraelites to whom pertaineth the Adoption and the Glory of [the Covenants]—and the Promiſes. So that ſtill in Goſpel times, till caſt out for poſitive Unbelief, externally they had an Intreſt in the Covenants and Promiſes, as in former days, and ſo their Infants ſhared with them.

2. The Children of the Fleſh, which here are denyed to be the Children of God, are an adult, corrupt, degenerate ſeed, ſeeking Juſtification by a Legal Righteouſneſs. Rom. 9. v. 8, 31, 32. Iſrael which followed after Righteouſneſs, hath not attained to the Law of Righteouſneſs. Wherefore? becauſe they ſought it not by Faith, but as it were by the Works of the Law. Such are a fleſhly ſeed, Gal. 4. 29. and obſtinately p. 55erring in ſuch a Fundamental in matter of Faith, in any Age, were not the Children of God; they are adult ones that thus advance their own Righteouſneſs, Infants do not ſo, and therefore are not the Children of the fleſh here intended.

Indeed the Parents may ſo forfeit their Covenant Intereſt, and conſequently, their Infant ſeed may looſe it alſo, becauſe their Right was by their Parents.

3. The Children of the Fleſh, whether adult, or Infants, are not the Children of God ſpiritually, or are not the ſpiritual ſeed of Abraham only by a fleſhly deſcent, ſo as to be Heirs of Salvation, Eternal Life, the Heavenly Inheritance; but yet may be the ſeed of Abraham eccleſiaſtically and externally, as of old, and nothing is here againſt it.

Mr. Strong doth well diſtinguiſh Abraham as a Father; he is 1. a natural Father to the Jews only. 2. a ſpiritual Father to all true Believers. 3. an eccleſiaſtical, or church Father, Rom. 11. p. 5616, 17. anſwerably he hath a natural fleſhly ſeed, a ſpiritual ſeed, and an eccleſiaſtical ſeed. Paul ardently deſired, that Iſrael might be ſaved, Rom. 10. 1. and Rom. 9. v. 3. mentioneth Election, calling Salvation v. 11, 24, 27. and in theſe reſpects it might be ſaid in all ages of the Old Teſtament, the Children of the fleſh are not the Children of God, as to Vocation and Salvation, when yet Infants were unqueſtionably externally in Covenant, and ſo then they may be ſtill, and all this that is ſaid is not againſt it. They may be a ſeed as to Ordinances, though all of them be not ſo as to Life and Salvation.

The ſame may be ſaid of Goſpel Churches, all are not Iſrael that are of Iſrael—there being fooliſh Virgins there as well as wiſe, Mat. 25. 1, 2. how then can this prove, an alteration of the Covenant, or that the Infant ſeed is now excluded, ſeeing the ſame might have been truly ſaid in all times?

4. That many of the fleſhly ſeed of Abraham might be rejected, and yet the p. 57word or promiſe of God not be made void; the Apoſtle here and Rom. 11. is aſſerting the rejection of the Jews, and now obviateth their objection, Rom. 9. v. 6. [Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect] i. e. Not that God doth violate his promiſe of being a God to Abraham and his ſeed, for all are not true Iſraelites nor of the ſeed of Abraham, who are his fleſhly ſeed, v. 6, 7. only that did not render them the Children of God, and entitle them to the promiſes v. 8. this he proveth, becauſe Iſhmael, who was of Abrahams fleſhly ſeed of old was caſt our, and where there was no diſparity or unlikeneſs in birth or works, yet Jacob was loved, and Eſau hated, v. 8. to 14. neither doth this preferring one before the other, where there was equality in themſelves, ſpeak any unrighteouſneſs with God, v. 14. for his own will is the determining rule of his ſhewing mercy, v. 15. to v. 24. This is the clear and true meaning of this Scripture, theſe inſtances ſhew that being the Children of the fleſh of p. 58old, did not make them the Children of God, as to his love—when yet undeniably the Infant ſeed were externally within the Covenant, how then can this ſpeak now for the excluding of them? when the ſame might be ſaid in all ages ſince Abraham, viz. that the Children of the fleſh, are not the Children of God ſo as to obtain ſpiritual Bleſſings, but may be rejected, when they bear upon that plea of fleſhly deſcent, and yet highly degenerate as the Jews did. It proveth no alteration of the Covenant in reſpect of its antient extent as to the ſeed. What is ſaid, is intended againſt an adult corrupt ſeed, making a carnal plea or claim, not againſt an Infant ſeed. The ſame might be ſaid now to a Church under a like degeneracy, and making ſuch a carnal plea, even where there is an owning Infants Covenant Intereſt and Baptiſm. The Queſtion here was not whither an Infant ſeed were ſtill in Covenant as they were of old? but whither the promiſe was void and of none effect (v. 6.) p. 59if a corrupt adult fleſhly ſeed were rejected?

5. The fleſhly Children of Abraham, were not the Children of God excluſively, or in oppoſition to a Spiritual ſeed, even of Gentiles by faith; the Jews often cryed out, we are the ſeed of Abraham, claiming Intereſt in the Covenant, and ingroſſing all promiſes and ſpecial bleſſings, only by being his fleſhly ſeed, hereby excluding the Gentiles, unleſs joyned with them turning to the Jewiſh Religion; on the contrary the Apoſtle declareth, that there is a ſpiritual ſeed, even of the Gentiles by faith, and that hereby they obtain ſpiritual bleſſings before the Jews Rom. 9, 8, 30, 31, 32 who are denyed to be that ſpiritual ſeed (though they were the fle…y ſeed of … ) being without faith and not doing the works of …, Rom. …. …. 10. 11. Gal. 3.

What is this againſt thoſe, who pretend not to be Abrahams carnal fleſhly ſeed, nor to be actually intereſted in ſpecial bleſſings by fleſhly deſcent, nor p. 60truſt in carnal priviledges? What is this for the excluding Infants out of a Covenant ſtate▪ an the reſult of that promiſe to Abraham … I will he the God of thy ſeed … Gen. 17. 7, 8. for many 100 years an Infant ſeed had a Covenant Intereſt joyntly with their Parents, and this was no Typical promiſe, let any prove that Infants are cut off from their ſhare in it, elſe their Covenant Intereſt muſt hold ſtill, whither Baptiſm may be applyed, or not without an expreſs Command of which before.

Abraham had a ſpiritual ſeed all along by faith, whoſe Infants were in Covenant with their Parents for many generations, and why ſhould not their priviledge continue ſtill to the ſpiritual ſeed, though the carnal fleſhly ſeed were caſt out, and their priviledge expired with it.

Infants Covenant Intereſt was not the peculiar priviledge of the fleſhly ſeed of Abraham; for the Infant ſeed of Proſelites and thoſe ſtrangers, Gen. 17. 12, 13. Ex. 12. 48. were in the Covenant p. 61made with Abraham and under the token of it, ſo as that Covenant was broken if that was omitted, yet they were not of the fleſhly ſeed of Abraham, and ſo theſe may be in ſtill, though his fleſhly ſeed be caſt out.

And once more, if all the Jews at the firſt dawning of the Goſpel day, had become the ſpiritual ſeed of Abraham by faith (as many of them did) none of them then had been rejected; for it was for unbelief, that they were broken off, Rom. 11. 20. and what ſyllable is there to prove, that there would have been an excluſion of their Infant ſeed, from that Covenant Intereſt weh they had the day before their Parents believing. And hence it followeth.

6. That the expiring and ceaſing of ſome carnal priviledges of old, afforded to the fleſhly ſeed of Abraham, hindreth not the Covenant Intereſt of the Infants of the ſpiritual ſeed by faith; if the ſeparation of the fleſhly ſeed of Abraham, to the bringing forth of the Meſſiah ceaſed and expired at his coming, that p. 62was but one priviledge of the Jews, that of them as concerning the fleſh Chriſt came, Rom. 9. 5. and yet Covenant Intereſt continued ſtill [to them pertaineth the—Covenant, and the promiſes] v. 4. Act. 3. 25.

If the aforeſaid ſeparation and the priviledge thereby, as Dr. O. ſaith was temporary having a limited ſeaſon time and end, and upon his actual exhibition in the fleſh it was to ceaſe, and if ſome carnal ordinances failed and be at an end, being abundantly ſupplyed by his being come; yet what is all this to prove, that God no longer is viſibly a God to the Infant ſeed of the Spiritual ſeed of Abraham? that is not temporary, but by an everlaſting Covenant, and faileth not.

Infants Covenant Intereſt is no branch of thoſe priviledges which he ſaith are expired; but on the contrary Dr. O. mentioneth this as one promiſe to the Church [that God will be a God to them and their ſeed for ever.] Exercit. 6. on Heb. Neither doth this make three parties p. 63in the Covenant [Abraham and his ſeed, and their Infant ſeed] any more than it did before the coming of Chriſt, when Parents and their Infants made one joynt Subject all along, as Iſaac and his Children, and Jacob and his, and thoſe Circumciſed, Joſh. 5. and theirs.

The Jews ungroundedly claimed all promiſes, by their being the fleſhly ſeed of Abraham, but the ſpiritual ſeed may duly claim that promiſe for their Children, there being nothing for the nulling of it.

Beſides, Dr. O. once and again there declareth, that the Church is one and the ſame, not one Church taken away and another ſet up in the room, the Olive-tree is the ſame, only ſome branches are broken off, &c.

Infants were of the Church, ſhew when they were all caſt out; the ſame that the Jews were broken off from the Gentiles were graffed into, Rom. 11.

Let any prove that the Church-ſtate in the Subſtance of it, was any part of that which was aboliſhed by the death of Chriſt.

p. 64They were added to the Church, Act. 2. 47. i. e. to the Church under its new adminiſtration. By breaking down the partition wall, the former confinement of the Church to the Natural ſeed of Abraham was taken off, and it hath enlargement by the acceſs of the Gentiles, but is not ſtraitned by excluding ſo vaſt a number as all the Infant ſeed. The degenerate, obſtinate, unbelieving Jews were broken off for the reformation of the Church, but it was not diſmembred by cutting off all the Infant ſeed, who had actually done neither good nor evil, nor had their Parents rejected the Covenant. Some ordinances of worſhip expired, and new were appointed as D. O. well obſerveth, but I cannot find that God caſt out any who formerly were members of it (as Infants were) without a forfeiture of their privilege.

Obj. 5. Infants are not capable of entring Covenant with God, and if they were abſolutely in it, then God did not perform his promiſe, becauſe many prove wicked; and if only conditionally then it is no more p. 65to them then others, and what advantage by it?

A. 1. Infants were of old in Covenant, and ſo are capable, Gen. 17. v. 10, 11, 12. Deut. 29. v. 10, 11, 12. ye ſtand this day all of you—your little ones—that thou ſhouldſt enter into Covenant with the Lord thy God—So then little ones are in a capacity to be engaged by Covenant for the Lord.

I may ask were they abſolutely in it or conditionally?

2. Some anſwer, the Infant ſeed of Believers are in Covenant abſolutely in the Species, conditionally in the individuals Cobbet.

Many promiſes run to a Collective body, as the Church, and are accompliſhed there, and yet may not be made good to every member particularly; as it is promiſed, that the gates of hell ſhall not prevail againſt the Church, Mat. 16. 18. and yet Satan may prevail againſt particular Members or Churches.

So the Covenant of not drowning the World, doth not ſecure every particular Man from drowning.

p. 663. As to advantages, there are many, as a Covenant-ſtate is a ſtate of greater nearneſs unto God then others are in; is declared to be a priviledge, Rom. 3. 1, 2. and 9, 4. and it is a miſery to be ſtrangers from the Covenants of promiſe, Eph. 2. 12. many advantages I could diſcover of being externally in Covenant, and thus Men may be in it and may ſo miſcarry, as to be rejected, as Iſhmael, Eſau, the Jews, Rom. 11. and yet God not break Covenant againſt Infants Baptiſm, it is objected thus.

Obj. 6. Faith and Repentance are required before Baptiſm, Mark 16. 16. He that believeth and is baptized, ſhall be ſaved, Act. 2. 38. Repent and be baptized.—If the Jews, the natural ſeed of Abraham, might not be baptized without Faith and Repentance, much leſs others. And ſuch affirmative Precepts have their negative; and ſo Infants not believing or repenting, may not be baptized.

Anſ. 1. I freely grant, that thoſe which believe and repent are to be baptized; but I deny the conſequence, that p. 67therefore Infants may not be baptized.

Such Texts conclude affirmatively, that ſuch may; they do not conclude negatively, that none elſe may: as for example, it is ſaid, Act. 8. 37. If thou believeſt with all thy heart, thou mayeſt, i. e. be baptized. This doth not conclude negatively, that none elſe may; if any will ſay hence, none may be baptized who do not believe with all their heart, then they can baptize none; for they cannot know that another doth believe with all his heart; and Simon Magus, who did not ſo, yet was duely baptized, Act. 8. 13.

If it could be proved that it is intended excluſively, then

2. It importeth, that none but thoſe who believe and repent of adult ones, may be baptized, it is not to be underſtood in oppoſition to Infants: often affirmative Commands intend only capable Subjects; and the negative part extendeth no further. Thus, as believing and repenting are commanded before Baptiſm, ſo confeſſion with the mouth is p. 68commanded before Salvation, Rom. 10. v. 9. 10. If thou ſhalt confeſs with thy mouth the Lord Jeſus—thou ſhalt be ſaved; and with the mouth Confeſſion is made unto Salvation. Will any hence deny that any Infants can be ſaved, becauſe they do not confeſs with their mouth the Lord Jeſus? It is meant of adult ones only, who are capable ſubjects. So labour, by a general term, is commanded before eating, 2 Theſ. 3. 10. We command you, that if any would not work, neither ſhould he eat. Will any conclude thence, that Infants ſhall not eat, becauſe they will not labour? So ſome commands about eating the Paſſover, as with ſower herbs—are intended only for capable ſubjects, not ſick Perſons or Infants. That of preaching the Goſpel to every creature, Mark. 16. 15, 16. is meant not to Infants, but others. So as to Baptiſm, the command to believe and repent before it, concerneth capable ſubjects only; and the negative part only ſaith, that adult Believers and impenitent ones may not p. 69be baptized, it concludeth nothing againſt Infant Baptiſm.

That new Inſtitution of Baptiſm was firſtly to be received by the adult, being given to a Church where many ſuch are found, and ſo it was proper to preach to them, believe, repent, and be baptized; and thus, we going to Turks, Indians, or others, where Baptiſm hath not come, we may preach in the ſame language, believe, repent, and be baptized, without excluding Infants from it: Yea, of old the Proſelites and Strangers muſt own the Jewiſh Religion, make a profeſſion of Faith and Love, as Iſa. 56. v. 3. to 8. Exod. 12. and then had Circumciſion for themſelves and their Infant ſeed.

3. Faith and Repentance were then neceſſary even for the Jews, the natural ſeed of Abraham, that they who were Parents may have right themſelves unto Bapiſm and other Goſpel Priviledges, and ſo their Infant ſeed may have right alſo: For as in other ages of the Church, when the Lord gave forth new Revelations p. 70and Ordinances for the Tabernacle and Temple, he required the receiving of them by Faith and Obedience, elſe they were to be cut off, Lev. 7▪ v. 20, 21, 25, 27. and 17. 4, 9. and 19. 8▪ and 23. v. 27, 29. And after great Apoſtacies and Backſlidings, they were ſeverely threatned, if they repented not▪ So at the dawning of the Goſpel day, Jeſus Chriſt the promiſed Seed being actually come, this made a great addition to that important Article of Faith; now all were obliged under the higheſt penalty to the Faith of this, that the Meſſiah was come, that Jeſus Chriſt was the Son of God, Joh. 8. 24. If ye believe not that I am he, ye ſhall die in your ſins. This was the Teſt in thoſe times▪ and for Unbelief the Jews, the natural ſeed of Abraham, were broken off, Rom. 11. 20. On this account was the command in that day to them, [Believe▪ and be baptized] for by perſiſting in poſitive, obſtinate unbelief, as to his being come, there was a rejection of the Covenant, and loſing their own right▪ p. 71and ſo their Childrens right, which reſulted from theirs muſt needs be loſt alſo. If Parents be caſt out of Covenant, then I plead not for their or their Infants Baptiſm. That faith then was indiſpenſibly neceſſary to the continuing their Covenant Intereſt, as well as to their Baptiſm, yea if circumciſion on the 8th day had continued to this day, yet this faith of his being come, would have been neceſſary thenceforth in the Parents, in order to their Childrens ſharing in it. But where the natural ſeed of Abraham by ſuch faith, laid hold on the Covenant and continued their Intereſt in it, here is nothing to prove any alteration or curtailing of the Covenant, ſo as to cut off their Infant ſeed from it, or to exclude them from Baptiſm.

Alſo the natural ſeed of Abraham had then exceedingly corrupted themſelves, and hainouſly ſinned; even ſo as to Crucifie Chriſt the Prince of Life, on which account he commandeth to Repent and be Baptized, Act. 2. v. 36. 38. p. 72When they were under ſuch tranſgreſſions, well might they be exhorted to repentance in order to Baptiſm, and to prevent their forfeiting all and utter rejection, and the Lords ſaying to them Loami, ye are none of my People. Certainly a Church which owneth Infant Baptiſm▪ having members under ſuch a horrid offence, may require a manifeſtation of repentance from the Parents before they do Baptize their Infants.

In ſhort I have diſcovered, that Infant Baptiſm followeth Parents Faith; and Repentance is pre-required to Baptiſm of a degenerate adult ſeed, but this is nothing againſt Baptizing Infants of a ſpiritual ſeed by faith.

§. 3. Of the validity of Baptiſm in Infancy.

Some ſpeak contemptuouſly of the Baptizing of Infants and undertake to Rebaptize, but

Poſ. Baptiſm adminiſtred in Infancy is valid, is no nullity.

I have proved there is Scripture warrant for Infant Baptiſm, ſome Infants p. 73are the proper Subjects of it, and ſo its no nullity.

Arg. 1. Our Baptiſm in Infancy hath all the Eſſentials of Goſpel water Baptiſm, therefore it is valid is no nullity.

For, if a ſin in Circumſtantials and accidentals of an ordinance did null it, then none were valid; no perſon is ſo Baptized, but ſome ſin in it would render it a nullity; ſeeing there is not a juſt man upon Earth that doth good and ſinneth not, Eccleſ. 7. 20. 1 Joh. 1. 8. and the contrary is clear, Zippora circumciſed when Moſes ſhould have done it, Ex. 4. 25. and yet it was valid for the Angel of the Lord was pacified, v. 26. So the high prieſts were not of the right line but yearly, yet Chriſt owneth them, Joh. 11. 51. and 18, 13. and I ask if a perſon erreth in his profeſſion of faith, and yet they Baptize him, if he after be profane, will they ſay it is a nullity? will they if he repent Baptize him again!

Now our Baptiſm in Infancy hath all Eſſentials of water Baptiſm, for it hath p. 74right matter and form; here is right matter, ex qua conſtat, viz. Water without undue mixture, here is the ſign, and the thing ſignified by it is evangelical; alſo the right matter circaquam, capable Subjects rational creatures, none elſe can be in Covenant, nor in a capacity to have the things ſignified, the graces and benefits of the Covenant. That Infants have right to it, I have evidenced, that they are capable is undeniable, as they were of circumciſion, which had a ſpiritual ſignification as well as Baptiſm, what hinders their receptivity? Infants are capable of a principle of faith and repentance, antecedently and of actual believing and repenting conſequently, and one end which Baptiſm obligeth to is after repentance, Mat. 3. 11. Act. 19. 34. Alſo it hath the right form, an application of water in a ſolemn ſignificative way, in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Mat. 28. 19. we uſe waſhing tho not ſubmerſion; it is ſuch an applying of water, that is the ſubſtance of the external form of Baptiſm, p. 75and if there were a ſinful defect (which I think there is not) in the want of ſub merſion, yet it can be but an accidental one, and ſo it can never be proved that it renders it a nullity. In Infant Baptiſm there is the Internal form, conſiſting in the relation of the ſign and thing ſignified, and the External form the applying water in a ſolemn way with the words of Inſtitution in the name of the Father—which muſt needs be more of the ſubſtance of the ordinance then ſubmerſion can be, and it is a principal part the face, which is is applyed to for the noting profeſſion, as the fathers n…me in the forehead, Rev. 14. v. 1, and ſo it is valid.

Arg. 2. Our Baptiſm in Infancy anſwereth to the Scripture ſignification of the word, and to what is ſignified by that Ordinance, therefore it is valid and is no nullity. The word foreign is rendred mergo, lavo, it noteth a ſmall uſe of water, as Luk. 16. 24. that he may [dip] & it is not the whole finger, but only the tip of it. Alſo foreign mergo, lavo, it ſignifieth p. 76not neceſſarily to dip or plunge, but as well to waſh, and this both in common and in ſacred uſe, it cannot be confined to ſubmerſion or overwhelming in the water, and ſo ſuch dipping cannot be eſſential to Baptiſm, ſo as the not uſing it ſhould render it a nullity. ſee Mar. 7. 4. foreign except they waſh, they eat not. Will any ſay, except they plunged their whole bodies under water they eat not, ſurely no, but only waſhed their hands, as v. 3. yet they, the perſons by that ſmall application of water are ſaid to Baptize or waſh, and v. 8. Luk. 11. 38. ſo in a ſacred ſenſe. 1 Cor. 10. 2. and were all Baptized unto Moſes in the Cloud and in the Sea.

Who will ſay they were dipped in the cloud, or their whole bodies plunged in the Sea? but the cloud did ſprinkle or pour water upon them.

So our pouring water on the face of an Infant in ſuch a manner, is truly Waſhing or Baptizing of it. And ſeeing dipping or plunging is not preſcribed by the Lord, only waſhing, yea if it were p. 77ſo as it were a ſin to omit it, yet for any to lay ſo great a ſtreſs upon that modality, placing ſo much Religion in it as if all were hull without it, I fear cannot be excuſed from Superſtition, which is ungroundedly charged upon others.

We anſwer, the Scripture ſignification of the word Baptize, and Conſcientiouſly think that Chriſt hath left us to a liberty, as to that mode, hath not obliged us to ſubmerſion, becauſe whatever might be done in hot Climates, yet in cold Countries ſuch a uſage would make the ſervice of the Goſpel worſe, then that of the Law, againſt Mat. 11. 28. it would without a Miracle hazard life; whereas God will have mercy rather than Sacrifice, let us not then be cenſured for the omiſſion of it.

Yea further, the thing ſignified is anſwered by our Baptiſm in Infancy, be it a ſign of regeneration, or of being buried with Chriſt, Rom. 6. 4. Col. 2. 12. or both; for, either noteth Communion with Chriſt in his Death, and that is expreſſed even by ſprinkling, ye are p. 78come to the blood of ſprinkling, Heb. 10. 24. & Heb. 10. 22. ſprinkling noteth the thing ſignified by Baptiſm, and ſo may expreſs Baptiſm the ſign; but we uſe waſhing by pouring water upon, and that is expreſſive in both, Eph. 5. 25, 26. Rev. 1. 5. hath waſhed from our ſins in his blood, Tit. 3. 5. no neceſſity that Baptiſm ſhould reſemble his death or burial in every thing, not in his being carried into the Sepulchre, and being there till the third day, they would not willingly be ſo long under water; our being buried with him in Baptiſm is a metaphorical expreſſion, noting Communion ſharing in his death, which aptly is expreſſed by waſhing.

Obj. 1. But the firſt pure way of Baptizing was by dipping, they went into and came out of the water, Mark. 1. 9. Mat. 3. 15, 16. Act. 8. 38. 39. and John Baptized in Arnon becauſe there was much water there, Joh. 3. 23.

A. 1. If this was the mode or uſage in thoſe hot Climates, then it is lawful there, but it doth not follow that it is neceſſary in p. 79cold Climates, much leſs ſo as it were a nullity without it.

2. Some uſages in the firſt adminiſtration of ordinances, being extra-eſſential to them may lawfully be omitted afterwards in ſome caſes: circumſtances much alter caſes; as the Paſſover muſt be brought the tenth day, and kept till the 14th, and the blood of it muſt be ſtruck on the door poſts in Egypt, and be eaten in haſt, with loyns girded &c. Ex. 12. but all theſe things were not duty afterward, let it be proved that they were uſed by Chriſt and the Apoſtles. Baptiſm was applyed to Chriſt at above 30 years of age, to the Jaylor at midnight. Act. 16. 33. So the Lords Supper was at firſt adminiſtred only to Men, to the Apoſtles in an upper room at night; yet all theſe things are not neceſſary duties for our imitation, ſo as a variation is ſinful.

3. The words do not neceſſarily note any more, than that they went to or unto and came from the water; foreign is often rendred not [into] but [to or unto] as p. 80Mat. 15. 24. I am not ſent, but foreign to or unto the loſt ſheep, ſo Act. 16. 40. Rom. 15. 16. And foreign ſignifieth [from] as Mat. 1. 17.—from Abraham—Mat. 7. 23. depart foreign from me ye workers of Iniquity, and 9. 15. Mark. 14. 2. Mat. 27. 45.

Thus [foreign] Act. 8. 39. is rendred as well from as out of, Mark. 6. 14. [from] the dead, Mat. 19. 20. [from] my youth, not out of my youth.

And thus theſe Texts neceſſarily import only, that they went to or unto & from the water, and however they might go into and come out of the water without dowzing or plunging their whole bodies into the water; and its ſaid as much of Philip as of the Eunuch, he went into and came out of the water, Act. 8. 38, 39. and will any ſay, that he which Baptizeth muſt always plunge himſelf into the water?

4. None of theſe Texts ſpeak a word, that the Baptizing was in the form of Submerſton, Dipping, or Plunging; it might be only by pouring water on them by waſhing, for ought is ſaid here.

p. 81As to Joh. 3. 23. the word foreign many waters may note, that there were many rivelets here and there where he came, which were not uſual in thoſe parts; and however John having many hundreds perhaps thouſands to Baptize, in thoſe hot Countries where he might go many miles for a little water, to ſhew the conveniency of that place above others, it might well be ſaid, he Baptized in Arnon, becauſe there was much water there, and I am informed, that Arnon is ſo ſhallow a water, that no perſon can be overwhelmed in it.

And now what remaineth, that can pretend to invalidate Baptiſm in Infancy? if it be ſaid, their not being profeſſed Believers, or their wanting faith.

I add, that God his declaring Infants viſible Covenant Intereſt, is as good an Evidence of their right to Baptiſm, as the viſible profeſſion of faith can be. And if the want of faith would render the Baptiſm a nullity; then ſuch as appear to be but formal profeſſors, they looſe their Baptiſm, and if they become p. 82real Believers afterwards, they muſt be Baptized again.

If they object againſt the Adminiſtrator; it falleth heavy upon themſelves; for according to their own principles, how is it poſſible for them to find a regular Adminiſtrator! If Infant Baptiſm be a nullity; and Baptiſm be that, which conſtituteth a Goſpel Church or any perſon a member thereof, as they affirm; then their own Baptiſm is a nullity, unleſs they can prove a lineal ſucceſſion from John Baptiſt or the Apoſtles, or that he which began their Rebaptizing work had an immediate call, as John Baptiſt and the Apoſtles had. For he that firſt began this Baptizing work in their way, had no other Baptiſm but that in Infancy; if that were null, then was he an unbaptized perſon and no Church member, neither could he make himſelf a Church member, wanting that which ſhould conſtitute him, ſo viz. Baptiſm. I ask what Scripture is there expreſs or by conſequence for an unbaptized perſon p. 83(and no Church member) to Baptize himſelf or others without an immediate call? without that (all Baptiſm and Church-memberſhip) in their way is unattainable, impoſſible to be attained, and ſo the principles have a tendency to deſtroy both Baptiſm and Churches.

I ſhall from the premiſes, add two Corolaries.

1. That to Baptize again thoſe that being Children of Believers were Baptized in Infancy is a great ſin, ſeeing Baptiſm in Infancy is valid; there is no Scripture warrant for Rebaptizing any with water, and ſo it is a taking the name of the Lord in vain. As to Act. 19. 3, 5. To ſay they were Baptized in the name of Chriſt, therefore they were Rebaptized with water, is a plain non ſequitur. If this were a ſecond Baptiſm it was with the Holy Ghoſt and with fire, v. 6.—the Holy Ghoſt came on them. Or one of them may be figurative, and note the owning of the doctrin, as Mat. 21. 25. Act. 18. 25.

p. 842. That to admit as members, and ſo Baptize again ſuch who are known owned members of a rightly conſtituted Church, without its knowledge or conſent is highly irregular; it is without Scripture warrant, it obſtructeth and diſableth for thoſe mutual duties, which the memberſhip in the firſt Church required at theirhands; there are various duties omitted, which are charged in the Church where they are members, Rev. 7. and 3. it breaketh the peace by diviſion; it violateth all Goſpel order.

Neither will it be a Salvo to ſay, that Churches are not rightly conſtituted for want of their Baptiſm; this is enervated already, by proving the validity of Infant Baptiſm. And it is built upon a great miſtake, viz. That Baptiſm doth conſtitute a Church, and make one a Member of it. Whereas it is not true, for at the firſt Inſtitution of Baptiſm, John the Baptiſt adminiſtred it to multitudes who were Members of the Jewiſh Church before, and ſo were not made Church Members by it, the ſame p. 85Church which Jeſus Chriſt was a Member of, and Baptized in, and ſo of a Goſpel ſtamp. The Baptiſm of John was Eſſentially the ſame with ours, being that which Jeſus Chriſt (the head of Baptized ones) paſſed under, yet what Church was Chriſt made a member of thereby? If that did conſtitute, then one member may be a Church, for where the form is, there is the thing formed, yea an excommunicate perſon an Apoſtate, one that renounceth the Goſpel and all Churches, yet his Baptiſm remaining he muſt ſtill be a Church member, for where the form is, there is the formatum; and if ſuch had loſt their Baptiſm, then if ever they be reduced they muſt be Rebaptized; whereas Patient one of the Baptiſts ſaith the Ordinance of Baptiſm is to be received but once, as a Man is to be regenerated but once, born but once, changed from death to life but once. To conclude, where Churches are of a Goſpel conſtitution (which muſt be by other means then Baptiſm) it is ſinful p. 86to withdraw members from them under pretence of bringing them under Baptiſm; therefore follow after things which make for p…ce, Rom. 14. 19. and as 1 Cor. 10. 32. Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the Church of God.