THis Chapter contains a two-fold Narration of the Apostle, The Introdu­ction. 1. Of his journey to Jerusalem, with the severall occurrents which happened there: brought in by him for the vindi­cation of his Apostleship, from the first to the eleventh vers. 2. Of his dealing with Peter at Antioch, which Narration some say is continued to the end of the Chapter, others that it is broke off at the seventeenth verse, and in the ver­ses that follow the Apostle doth not relate what he said to Peter, but directs his words to the Galathians to whom he writes, which difference I intend not now to examine. My text is within this last Narration or report of the Apostle.

In which observe,

• 1. The occasion given by Peter: Before that certain came from James he did eat with the Gentiles, but when they were come he withdrew,
  Verse 12.
  and separated himselfe.
• 2. The Issue which followed upon this carriage of his,
  Verse 13.
  And the other Iewes dissembled likewise with him, insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.
• 3. The Arguments brought for cōviction of Peter of this error, which are two,

First, Verse 14. in the fourteenth verse, If thou, being a Iew, livest after the manner of the Gentiles, and not as doe the Iewes, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as doe the Iewes? Thus the Argument runs, It is unreasonable to draw others into a practice, that thou thy selfe purposely forbearest: But thou thy selfe keepest not the Jewish Rites and Ordinances; And therefore it is an unreasonable, and a blame-worthy practice, by thy example to compell other-to their observation: yea, thou being a Jew takest thy selfe to have freedome, unreasonably then dost thou draw on others, who were never under any such obligation.

The second Argument is in the fifteenth and sixteenth Verses, Verses 15, 16. We who are Iewes by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the saith of Iesus Christ, even we have be­leeved in Iesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the Law: for by the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified: which is thus inforced: In that way wherein we who are Jewes, with all our birth-priviledges, cannot attain to righteousnesse; we may not teach the Gen­tiles to attain to it: But we who are Jewes by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, cannot this way attain to righteousnesse: We know that a man is justified by faith, we are compelled to quit the Law, and to cleave to faith without works for justification.

The words of the text contain,

• First,
  Division.
  the Priviledge of Peter, Paul, Barnabas, with the rest of the Jewes.
• Secondly, The Character of the Gentiles, in opposition to the Iewes.

As to the full purpose, for which the words are brought by the Apostle, they have (for the sense of them) their dependance on the words that follow; but so farre as they contain the priviledge of the Iewes, in opposition to, and above the Gentiles, so farre they are full of themselves, shewing first positively, what himself and Peter were: Iewes by nature: Secondly, Negatively, what they were not; sinners of the Gentiles.

For some explication: Explication. Nature is here taken, not in the proper, but vulgar ac­ceptation, for birth or descent from Ancestors: As usually, in our common phrase of speech, we say men are naturally Dutch, French, Spanish, Irish, when they are such born and bred, this Scripture therefore Camero cites for one, in which the Apostle speaks after the vulgar manner: we have a Scripture paralell with this Rom. 11.24. where Nature, and naturall is only by birth and off-spring: Peter, Paul, Barnabas were all naturally Iewes, born of Jewish parents and bred up in the way and Religion of the Jewes: such only Christ chose for Apostles, being himself a Minister of the Circumcision: Rom. 15.8. Act. 22.3. Phil. 3.5. Act. 4.36. Exod. 19.6. Deut. 4.7, 8. Rom. 3.1. Psal. 147.20. Peter therefore being one of the twelve, must necessarily be such, Paul was such, as we know from his owne mouth, a Iew, and of the tribe of Benjamin, Barnabas was such of the tribe of Levi. And be­ing such, they enjoyed a priviledge which the Gentiles wanted, they were by birth & off-spring of a Nation that is holy: No Nation was so great as they who had God so nigh unto them, who had Statutes and Iudgements so righteous. The Jew had every way Prerogatives & advantages, but chiefly the Oracles of Gods God had not dealt so with every Nation: when other Nations were without God, they had God nigh unto them, when others were unclean, they were holy: [Page 3]This great priviledge of birth Gentiles wanted, and so were by off-spring sin­ners, as birth renders all so they remaine, unholy and uncleane among the unholy and uncleane without any such title to the Covenant of God that thereby they might obtaine any other denomination, they are dogs while the people in Covenant are children. And by this meanes the seeming opposition which is betweene this text and that of the Apostle Ephes. 2.3. is easily reconciled; Here the Apostle makes an opposition in nature betweene Jewes and Gentiles; Jewes by nature had a priviledge above Gentiles; there he makes Jew and Gentile in nature equall: We (saith he) were by nature children of wrath as well as others, as well as heathens that have no birth-priviledge; Nature in that text is not the same as Nature in this: Nature there is taken for the qualification of nature, which is equally defiled in Jewes as Gentiles, which is there evidenced in the conversation of the Jewes being (before conversion by grace) the very same with the Gentiles: Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past, in the lusts of our flesh, Ephes. 2.3. fulfilling the desires of the flesh, and of the mind, and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others. Nature here is taken for a birth-priviledge, and so the Jewes (though in themselves sinners) are reputed an holy people, a people by Covenant holy to the Lord: Nature simply considered is stained, and renders Jewes and Gentiles equally sinners and obnoxious to Gods wrath, of which Justifica­tion by faith is an acknowledgement as the Apostle here shewes, vers. 17. But birth of Iewish ancestors, of the stocke of Israell, puts them into a select condition, into the number of a people holy to the Lord; Neither is this any contradiction; Common things dedicated for holy service and use are holy, A people by nature sinners, dedicated to the Lord, are for holy service and use, for the service of the Lord, when others are for service of Idols; Therefore Ierusalem, a City none of the holiest for any transcendent manners of the Inhabitants thereof, is yet called by the Evangelist the Holy city, Mat. 4.5. by reason of the temple and worship there that were holy, and from hence this observation followes;

A people that enjoy Gods Ordinances convey to their Issue a priviledge to be reputed of a society that is holy, to be numbred amongst, not uncleane, Observation. but holy persons.

For proofe, see the Covenant of God made with Abraham, Gen. 17.7. I will establish my Covnant betweene me and thee, and thy seed after thee in their generations, for an everlasting Covenant, to be a God unto thee and to thy seede after thee. God is one party in this Covenant, Abraham and his posterity make the other; these in their succeeding generations are the people of God, and so by na­ture (that is birth priviledge) holy. And the Apostle speaking of the Is­raelites in his time, saith, To them pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, Rom. 9.4. and the Covenants, the giving of the Law, and the service, and the promises. They were a people in Covenant, having the holy oracles of God they were the servants of the great God, and therefore the glory above others was theirs. Hence is it that the Name of God is called upon them age after age, Ier. 14.9. Isa. 63.19. and not upon any others that joyne not themselves to them. The land of their habitation where they dwelt, and enjoyed this peculiar priviledge is ordinarily [Page 4]stiled the holy land, Isa 8.8. Isa. 19.18. Deut 14.1, 2. Isa 64.18. Rom. 11.16, 17. being the land of Immanuel. And the language which they there spoke the holy language being a marke to discerne the people of God: The distinguishing and discriminating Epithite given to them was still holy: Even all of this roote who were branches of Abraham, Isaack, Iacob, all of this lumpe whereof Abraham, Isaack, Iacob were the first fruits, they peculiarly had this honour to receive in their flesh the signe and seale of this Covenant, and that in infancy, almost as soone as borne, being eight dayes old, which was their distinction from all others: Gen. 17.13. Iew and Circumcision, Iew and the people of God were still the same.

To adde some more strength to this observation, Enlargements. take notice of these en­largements.

1. 1 A loose life in a parent, who by birth priviledge is of the people of God, doth not divest his issue of this priviledge, to be of the people of God, but they are, with a non obstante, (notwithstanding any such vicious wayes of the pa­rent) to be enrolled in this number: For proofe of this, looke upon that act of Ioshua: when the people were got out of the wildernesse and were brought into the land of Canaan; Iosh. 5.6, 7. The children of Israel walked forty yeares in the wildernesse, till all the people, that were men of Warre, which came out of Aegypt, were consumed, because they obeyed not the voice of the Lord: And the children which he raised up in their stead, them Joshuah circumcised, for they were uncircumcised, they had not circumcised them in the way: you see what the fathers were, yet the children Ioshuah ordered to be circumcised: con­cerning their conversation, the parents were enemies, but as touching the ele­ction, the choyce made of God, the Issue is to be numbred among the belo­ved: Who had a worse father then Iosiah, yet where was there a better son, a circumcised man, 2 Chro. 34.3. who in youth began to seeke the God of his father David?

2. 2 Misbeliefe in a parent, divests not the Issue of this birth-priviledge, though the father erre in the faith yet the child is not to be shut out of the number of believers: We have, in this particular, our Apostle for a presi­dent: Had misbeliefe in the parent, denuded the child of this priviledge, S ^t Paul, had not beene a Iew by nature, but an heretick or sectary by nature, being before conversion a Pharisee, Acts 23.6. Acts 20.5. Mat. 16.6, 11. and the sonne of a Pharisee: Scribe was a name of office, but Pharisee the name of a sect: and therefore Christ warnes to beware of the leaven, that is, of the doctrine of the Pharisees, as of the Sad­duces; such was Pauls parentage, and yet by descent and of-spring he is of the people of the Iewes.

3. 3 Aposlasie from the faith in an immediate parent, who himselfe by des­cent was of the people of God, doth not debarre the Issue of this priviledge. Ahaz was such, 2 Chro. 28.2, 3, 4. yet his posterity were of the Iewes, and not sinners of the Gentiles. Thou hast taken thy sonnes and thy daughters, whom thou hast borne unto me, Eze. 16.28, 21. and these hast thou sacrificed unto them. Is this of thy whoredomes a small matter, that thou hast slaine my children, and delivered them, to cause them to passe through the fire for them? These men of spirituall whoredome, worshippers of the Idoll Moloch, bring forth children to God, they make themselves, sinners of the Gentiles, by their going a whoring from God, and yet their children are by nature Iewes, their children God doth owne, and [Page 5]calls his children. While the parents live within the pale of the Church, that the seed may enjoy saving Ordinances, they are to be so accounted.

4. Illegitimation of birth, adulterous copulation in the parents, 4 divesteth not such Issue of this priviledge, David had never in that manner sought in fasting and prayer his childs life, had he beleeved that he must not have beene of the seed of the Jewes, but the uncircumcised heathen. Gen. 38.29. Pharez was of such a birth, yet who bare a greater name and glory in Israel then he? and his family? even where the illegitimation of his birth is noted, there the glory of his Race is magnified, which is yet further honoured, Ruth. 4.18. in that Christ, according to the flesh, was made of his seed, That seed of Abraham per Eminentiam was out of his loynes. Iephtah, was indeed driven out by his brethren, but not because that he was not of the seed of the Iewes and peo­ple of God, Iudg. 11.2. but because they would not have him to share of the inheritance among them.

1. The maine ground of this, is the great Charter of Heaven, Reasons. 1 which God pleases to grant unto those whom he takes, and chooses to himselfe upon earth. If a King grant to any subject a personall priviledge, as to keepe his great Seale, to be Lord Treasurer, this priviledge dyes with him, his po­sterity hath nothing to doe with the Seale or Exchequer, unlesse the Prince finding them qualified, makes a second choice of them, which doth not often happen. But in case the priviledge be perpetuall and successive, and not terminated in the person, but the words of the grant rune to them and their heires, then the priviledge remaines to posterity. Noblemen with us, have their honours, not for themselves only, but their Issue; and some men have Offices, which they call Offices of inheritance: And all English subjects, have divers Immunities and freedomes. Now the great Charter of Heaven, Gen. 17.7. Acts 2.38. runs in the largest words, to them and their seed after them, in all generations.

2. This is of the nature of those things, Reasons. 2 which descend from parent to child, from Ancestors to posterity; In that Religion which is of God, we have here found it, and all other Religions doe lay claime to it.

There are those things indeed, which are personally inherent in men, and proper to them, so that they cannot convey them to their issue, there is no deri­ving of them to others by succession, as

• 1. Individuall accidents of the body, wounds, scarres or singular comeli­nesse of feature, these are so in the parent, that they are not conveyed to their children.
• 2. Habits or proper guifts, whether acquired by paines, or infused. The sonne of a learned man inherits not his fathers guifts. The sonne of an Artificer is no such Artist. The sonne of a Prophet hath not by ver­tue of birth the guift of pophecy, nor is the sonne of a regenerate man, endowed with saving grace for that reason.

There are on the contrary, those things that passe from parent to child, which the parent by nature or speciall priviledge, hath power to convey, as

• 1. The essentiall or integrall parts of a species, with the naturall proper­ties, that doe accompany it, so one bruit beast brings forth another, one bird brings forth another, and man brings forth one of man-kind.
• [Page 6]2. The priviledges or burdens, which in Family or Nation are hereditary, they are conveyed from parents to posterity, from Ancestors to their Issue: As is the father, so is the child, as respecting these particulars: The child of a Free-man with S ^t Paul is free borne:
  Acts 22.28.
  The child of a Noble man is noble; The child of a bond-man (where servants were wholy their Masters to dispose) is a bond-man likewise.
  Exod. 21.4.
  So the child, of a Turke is a Turke; The child of a Pagan is a Pagan; The child of a Iew is a Iew; The child of a Christian is a Christian: As by vertue of the grand Char­ter of Heaven among the people of God, this priviledge doth descend: So it is of the nature of those things that are descendable.
• 3. Reasons. 3 The name of Iew or Christian would not long hold in any family, among any people, if this truth (that there is a generation, according to the flesh, which have this priviledge to be accounted of the people of God) may not be yeelded, but as it is in trades, the father is of one, the sonne of another, so we should see it in religions: But God provideth for a continuance in succession, from age to age, from generation to generation; he keeps them still within Covenant, though many doe degenerate.

But some say, Exception. all this is blowne away at one breath: That the Iewes had this priviledge cannot be denied. But this was a priviledge peculiar to the seed of Abrahams flesh, and not to the seed of his saith: Beleeving Iewes had this birthright-priviledge, Beleeving Christians have not, they must make profession of their faith before they be accounted among them that be holy.

I answer, Satisfaction, 1. In the Ne­gative, the Charter not reverst. Such a grant God did once vouchsafe by free Charter to his people: How can it be made appeare that ever it was reverst, or any such limit put unto it? The Church of God hath held it in Fee by vertue of this grant from Abraham to this very houre, and there is no word of God to challenge them for usurpation; They that will out us of so long possession, must make their plea punctuall for our eviction.

Secondly, 2 Heb. 8.6. Christians can produce new Covenant-advancing Scriptures, that Christs comming put them into a better and more comfortable condi­tion then were beleevers in former ages: I would faine have them to produce any one new Covenant-depressing Scripture, to shew that we in any case are in a worse or more uncomfortable condition then our fathers.

If it be said that though this Birth-priviledge be taken away, Object. yet we are not in a worse condition having it in other more desireable things enlarged.

Let these then shew when, Answ. and where this was taken away, and what was given in lieu and recompence of this want, and greatest discomfort that can come to a parent, as a parent, to have his Issue expunged out of the number of Gods people who are holy: Let them produce those Scriptures, which so difference the old and new Covenant made with believers, that the one should be perpetuall, the other personall; That the Covenant with the Iew shall transcend the Covenant with Christians, as an Inheritance for ever exceeds a Grant for terme of life: Let them give us an hint of any Reason why this priviledge should belong to the heares of Abrahams body, and not to the heires of his faith. That reason held forth by some, that Christ should [Page 7]come out of his loynes is of no force, it excludes all the tribes out of that pri­viledge but Iudah, when every tribe of Israel in this were equall with Iu­dah, every familie of Iudah's tribe but David's; And most of all, Gen. 17.12, 13 it would have excluded the seed of the Proselites, that according to the flesh were strangers to Israel, when yet in this priviledge they were equall. Exo. 12.48, 49 2. In the Affir­mative. The privi­ledge cotinu­ed. Six Argu­ments.

But not to rest in Negatives, and Generals, (though the first grant being presupposed, this might abundantly satisfie) but to come to some Positive proofes, particularly evincing this priviledge of Christians.

1. The Apostle in time of the new Testament, when the Spirit was actu­ally given, propounds this Covenant in as full a latitude, and ample extent, as ever it was made to Abraham, or belonged to the Iewes, yea in the like words, as under the old Covenant it was delivered: Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the Name of Iesus Christ for the remission of sinnes, (1.) and ye shall re­ceive the gift of the holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, Act. 2.38, 39. and to your chil­dren, and to all that are asarre off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call. I doe not now dispute the end, why this Covenant is there urged, it is enough for the present purpose, that such a Covenant yet remaines, and so concludes the promise still to stand in its antient latitude and extent. Had God in these last dayes put this limit to it, then the Apostle (now the prophecy of the last dayes was fulfilled) would not have put this latitude upon it.

2. The Beleevers of the Gentiles succeed the Iewes in the Covenant, (2.) Iewes were broken off that Gentiles might be graffed in; Rom. 11.16, 17. and Iewes being broken off Gentiles were graffed in for them: And beside Scripture-silence of any abridgement of priviledge to the successor enjoyed by the predecessor, which is a good ground of claime to the same, we have further Evidence in the same place, that it is divolved upon Gentiles in as large a way as ever it was enjoyed by Iewes: We are now branches of that root by vertue of this insition; and if the root be holy the branches are holy, is the Apostles argu­ment, and if the first-fruits be holy, the lump is holy.

Will it be said, that this proposition is brought by the Apostle, Object. to prove a remaining holinesse in the people of the Iewes, that they are not so cast off but that they shall be againe received, but intends no proofe of Holinesse in succession to the Gentiles.

To this I answer, first, Answ. 1. That a proposition universally true may be applyed to all particulars; This position is such, and being by the Apostle confessed­ly applyed to the Iewes, is of equall truth being applyed to the Gentiles.

Secondly, I say, if the holinesse of the Root ( Abraham, Isaac, Answ. 2. and Iacob recei­ving the promises) be an argument of weight to prove that the whole body of the people of the Iewes (were it not for their present actuall unbelief) were all holy, with a federall holinesse, and that this their unbeliefe shall yet be done away that they may be again (as before) holinesse to the Lord; Then it much more proves that the Gentiles remaining in the Root, and continuing in the faith are universally Root and branch holy.

But this with the Apostle is an argument of weight, as plainly appears in the Chapter: See vers. 28. and 29. As concerning the Gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election they are beloved for the fathers sakes. [Page 8]They were enemies to the Gospel for the Gentiles sake, that they might be received, but beloved for their sakes out of whose loynes they issued, and that they shall therefore be again received is there also demonstrated, seeing the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.

Will it be further said, Object. that the Branches, actually by faith engraffed, are holy, but it doth not follow that these, as a Root, transmit any such holinesse to their Issue.

To this I answer, Answ. 1 that the consequence is necessary, first, because the bran­ches of Ancestors are the Root of posteritie, being made an holy branch; in reference to their issue they now become an holy Root: Iesse was a branch of Abrahams stock, Isai. 11.1. yet he was the Root of David and of Christ: A subordinate Magistrate is a subject, in reference to his superior, yet a man of authoritie and command in respect of his inferiours: Each man is his fathers child, but his childs father: So it is here, a branch of those that went before, is the root of those that follow after.

Secondly, Answ. 2 The Apostle hath not at all to deale in that place with a perso­nall holinesse, but with an holinesse derivative and of succession, the perso­nall holinesse mentioned in the objection, and maintained by the adversaries of this Doctrine, is qualitative and inherent, derived from no other Root then Christ; this here, is from Abraham, Isaac, and Iacob, receiving the pro­mises: Either no holinesse at all comes this way to Beleevers, as from Abra­hams stock, or else it is such as Abraham by vertue of the Covenant doth communicate to posteritie.

3. (3.) The Grand Birth-priviledge, by the Jewes enjoyed, is to be an holy Nation; Exod. 19.6. Deut. 14.1, 2. Isai. 63.18. [...] 1 Pet. 2.9. to have the whole body of their people, as distinguished from others, accounted holy to the Lord: This was peculiarly their honour from age to age, from generation to generation; But this honour to be a chosen generation, an holy Nation, a people peculiar (Phrases as high as ever were given the Jewes) is given to beleeving Christians: Christians therefore in this Birth-priviledge equall the Nation of the Jewes.

Neither will this be avoyded, Object. by affirming that the text in Peter, is meant of the Church invisible, the living and lively members of Christ, who are all holy by an inherent qualitative holinesse of sanctification; So that here is not any equalizing of the body of Christians with the Nation of the Jewes, but only an allusion to the titles, given the Iewes to advance the Excellencie of regenerate Christians, called according to Gods purpose.

The contrary to this in the text is cleare: Answ. First, by looking backe to the words that there precede; It is meant of all those who doe not professedly, with the unbeleeving Iewes, reject Christ Iesus, which will yet more fully appeare by comparing the words of S ^t Paul, Rom. 9.32, 33. But all that doe not professedly reject Christ Iesus, are not men called and qualified as before, Simon Magus had enough to make him one of this number: Secondly, by loo­king forward, to that which followes in the Character which the Apostle (before he ends his description) addes: Hos. 2.23. Which in times past were not a peo­ple, but now are the people of God; A speech taken from the Prophet, to set out the case of the Gentiles, as it is also by S ^t Paul interpreted, Rom. 9.26. But [Page 9]the Gentiles, thus called, and of no people made a people, have all a Covenant-holinesse, and not alwayes holinesse inherent. The Gentiles are called from not-covenant, into covenant; from non-federation, into federation; This is that call, and therefore a call into Covenant: The Call of those who are not a people; to be a people of God; is the call of Nations into Covenant, Deut. 32.21. Rom. 10.19. I will move them to jealousie, Deut. 32.28. Rom. 10.19. with those that are not a people, I will provoke them to anger, with a foolish Nation: But this in the text is such a Call, and therefore it is the call of a people into Covenant.

4. If there yet remaine in the bosome of the Church, (4.) children born after the flesh, so that the distinction of births as applyed to Abrahams seed, still hath place among beleeving Christians, And that which fully answers to Circumci­sion of the flesh remaineth among Christians likewise, then it must needs fol­low, that there is in the Church, that priviledge of birth-holinesse still conti­nuing: The consequence is evident, seeing the birth of the flesh, where this birth-priviledge is denyed, gives no Church-interest or title at all; neither doth Circumcision of the flesh, or that which is paralell with it, evidence any such Interest or Title: All such are excluded according to this Tenent, who are of carnall descent only, and can claime no other Interest.

This must needs be of force with them who affirme, that Infants (who for­merly were members by vertue of birth-priviledge) then were deprived and cast out, when the Iewes Church and State was abrogated, by the comming of Christ, and planting other Churches, farre different from that of the Iewes in many respects, That, constituted upon nature (they say) and the naturall seed of Abraham. This, upon grace, and the spirituall seed of Abraham; That, therefore termed Israel according to the flesh, and circumcision of the flesh; This, Israel ac­cording to the Spirit, and circumcision of the heart: If then there yet remaine, those that are so stiled; infants of Christians by their own argument, are not rejected, and no such difference between Iew and Christian, between the State of the Church then, and the State of the Church now, is to be admitted.

But there yet remaines in the bosome of the Church of Christians those that have no other title or interest then by vertue of birth after the flesh: This distinction of births, which they say is abrogated, is of the same force and use now, as it was when Abraham was alive, and that which is full paralell with circumcision of the flesh still remaines: The former, namely distinction of births, we have from S ^t Paul: But as then he that was born after the flesh, Gal. 4.29. persecuted him that was borne after the Spirit, even so it is now. How is there truth in this assertion of the Apostle, that so it is now, if this distinction of births, be now abrogated and abolished? if there be not in the Church of Christians those that have the same title, and no other, or more noble then had Ishmael? of whom the Apostle is there to be understood.

I see the exception that will be taken by some at the phrase [born of the flesh] which some will interpret not by naturall descent, but corruption of nature. Object. But this can be the exception but of a few of those who are herein adversa­ries, seeing they beleeve no such corruption of birth in Ishmael, nor any other; Neither indeed were Abrahams children ever so distinguished, by a birth in corruption, and a birth in grace, being all borne in corruption. Birth of the [Page 10]flesh here is the same as kinsmen according to the flesh, Rom. 9.3. and chil­dren of the flesh, Rom. 9.8. But there no birth in corruption, but a birth of nature, and naturall descent is only understood: Men of no other then a carnall title persecuted then, men that are thus, and no otherwise intitled to the number of the people of God take the same wayes now: Both branches of the distinction are therefore still with Christians.

For the latter, namely that which fully answers to the circumcision of the flesh we have from S ^t Peter, who speaking of salvation by Baptisme puts by way of parenthesis this distinction, 1 Pet. 3.21. Not the putting away the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience towards God: where, putting away the filth of the flesh is the same with the Circumcision of the flesh, and the an­swer of a good conscien e towards Gods, is the same with the circumcision of the heart. This distinction is therefore ill applyed, when that which is out­ward and of the flesh is only applied to Iewes; and that which is inward, and of the heart only unto Christians. Deut. 30.6. Ier. 9.26. The Jewes had that which was in­ward, and of the heart, as well as we; and we have that which is outward and of the flesh as well as they: Such doctrine will conclude the whole body of the Jewes without exception under condemnation, as having no holinesse inward or spirituall; and all Christians in a like generality in the state of salvation, as being all inwardly holy and spirituall: we shall have neither high way rocky nor thorny ground, but only good ground, good and honest hearts among us, if it be circumcision of the heart, and Israel according to the Spirit that alone denominates us Christians.

5. (5.) The seed of beleeving parents under the Gospell, must be lookt upon under one member of this division in the text, the Apostles distinction is full and compleate, either they must be accounted of the people of God who are relatively and soederally holy, as were Jewes; or else out of the number, and under the second head of unholy and out of Covenant, as were sinners of the Gentiles; a third cannot be assigned; the Apostles distribution may not be challenged. If it be under the first head that they are lookt upon, we have what we contend for; If under the second, then the heavy doome of sinners, Ephes. 2.12. Gentiles, Aliens is theirs; they are then without Christ, without hope, without God in the world, which will be heavy and unwelcome tidings to tender parents, that they bring not forth children (as the Jewes did) to God, but to the god of this world; that God doth not say of them (but Sa­tan may) my children, leaving them in no better condition, then the seed of the Heathen, Pagans, Turks, Infidels, as is freely confessed by some. And what condition that is, we may learne from the Prophets David and Ieremy. Powre out thy fury upon the heathen that know thee not, Ier 10.25. Psal. 79.6. and the families that call not upon thy name. The whole of their flocke, for ought in Scripture appeares, have no other portion.

6. (6.) We have the Apostles authority expressely affirming, that this birthright priviledge of Covenant-holinesse still appertaines to the seed of beleevers, where either of the parents are beleeving; The unbeleeving husband is sancti­fied in the wife, 1 Co. 7.14. and the unbeleeving wise is sanctified in the husband, else were your children uncleane, but now are they holy. The whole seed therefore is to [Page 11]be accounted in the number of those that are holy (which in the text is the condition of the Jewes) and not among uncleane, which here the Apostle calleth, sinners of the Gentiles. A birth-priviledge of holinesse therefore still remaines.

Here it is replyed that by holinesse in this place is meant legitimation, Object. by uncleanenesse is understood bastardy: so that the meaning of the Apostle is, else were your children spurious, of a bastard birth, but now they are legiti­mate, as borne in wedlocke; The mariage is sanctified in respect of Issue, not for covenant holinesse, so as to put them into the number of an holy people, but to legitimize them, and to take the infamy of bastardy away from them.

By way of answer I would make these demands; First, Quaeres. Whether they will give the like interpretation of this text in hand, which is every way paralel, 1 and answers in either of the branches? Doth the Apostle here meane, wee that are by birth legitimate, and not bastards of the Gentiles; Phrases thus pa­ralel from one pen, will hardly admit interpretations so different.

Secondly, Whether ever they read in Scripture, 2 or any other Authour these two opposite Epithites, uncleane and holy, in such a sense or meaning; that holy should be legitimate, and uncleane spurious or bastardy: In such births uncleanenesse is indeed the parents sinne, but I never read or heard that it was the childs Epithite: Singular opinions put men upon singular inter­pretations.

Thirdly, Whether it had been a bastard birth, 3 if neither party had been of the faith? whether mariage be not valid (being no Ordinance proper to the Church, but common to all man-kind) aswell among heathens as Chri­stians?

But to give more particular satisfaction, as in the negative, that it is not meant of legitimation; so also in the affirmative that it is to be understood of a Covenant-holinesse of the children of beleevers.

For the negative, 1. A result or fruit of faith in the parent, cannot be the legitimation of the Issue: Answ. 1. Negative, Not legitima­tion. faith and legitimation of Issue being of distinct kinds. An unbeleever may have issue legitimate; and men professing the faith, with Iudah, Gilead, David, may have issue illegitimate. But holinesse in the text, is a fruit or result of faith in the parent; The unbeleeving, whe­ther husband or wife, contributes nothing to this holinesse; all that they doe is that (being maried to a beleever) they are no impediment: They are sanctified, they doe not sanctifie, The sanctifying power, to the producing of the holinesse of the Issue, is made proper to the beleeving party. The unbe­leever is sanctified, so that both together make an holy root to produce an holy branch.

It will be said that beleeving is not in the text, the words are, that the un­beleeving husband is sanctified in the wife, and the unbeleeving wife is sancti­fied in the husband, not in the beleeving wise, nor in the beleeving husband, so that the text makes it not any result or fruit of faith.

This weake objection hath an easie answer, It is the wife of an unbeleeving [Page 12]husband, the husband of an unbeleeving wife, when the mariage is between a beleever, and an unbeleever.

Secondly, One parent is not to be preferred before another, as to be alone, in giving that honour to the issue in which both are equall: But here one parent is preferred before another, in giving this honour of holinesse to the issue: Therefore it cannot be legitimation of the issue, in which either of both, whether beleeving or unbeleeving are equall: A Noble-man marrying a meane woman the Issue hath honour from one, legitimation alike from both; The wise is honoured, but doth not honour. So it is here, An infidell marrying a beleever is sanctified, doth not sanctifie; the issue hath this honour of holinesse from the parent of honour, but legitimation (as all con­fesse) equally from either; something else therefore then legitimation must needs be the meaning.

For the affirmative, 2. In the Affir­mative but Covenant-holinesse. that it is meant of Covenant-holinesse, That interpreta­tion which here directly answers, that which in all reason was the Quesitum or scruple wherein the Corinthians in their letter to the Apostle desired reso­lution, That exactly answers each branch of the text, and runs full paralel with other places of Scripture, that must needs be taken for the interpretation. But this interpretation of Covenant-holinesse is such that answers their scruple, exactly agrees with each branch of the text, and runs full paralel with other places of Scripture. This therefore cannot be denied to be the genuine and full interpretation of the place.

For the first; It was their scruple. making it their scruple whether they might continue their marriage society with one out of the Covenant of God, they could not but scruple what should become of their Issue; whether they were to be accoun­ted as they themselves, of the number of the people of God, or to be exclu­ded from them with their unbeleeving parent; especially seeing in Ezraes time, Ezra 10.3. Nehe. 13.24. those that married strange wives were enjoyned to put them away, and such as were borne of them; and in Nehemiah's time the Issue is branded as of a mixt and mongrell kind that were so descended: which is also further strengthned by the Priests answer to the severall cases of conscience, by Gods appointment propounded by Haggai the Prophet, If one beare holy flesh in the skirt of his garment, Hag. 2.12. and with his skirt doe touch bread, or pottage, or wine, or oyle, or any meat, shall it be holy? And the Priest answered and said; No. The touch of an uncleane thing by a cleane, doth not sanctifie it, as the case is there resolved: Vers. 13. Againe, If one that is uncleane by a dead body, touch any of these shall it be uncleane? And the Priest answered and said; it shall be uncleane. The touch of a cleane thing by an uncleane doth pollute it, as is there resol­ved likewise: This might justly occasion the Corinthians feare, that they and their issue might be polluted by society with this uncleane party, and that the uncleane party or their issue, could not by them be sanctified. And the Apo­stle returning answer to both (not only to their continuance in marriage-fel­lowship, but also to that which concernes their issue,) evidently manifests that their scruple was alike in both.

For the second; It answers the text. that it fully agrees with the circumstances of the text a [Page 13]Here is a couple joyned in marriage, one of them holy, of the people of God; the other unclean, a sinner of the Gentiles, and a stranger to them; the Issue must take after the one, and the answer (as concerning the Issue) is fitted to both; To the unbeleeving negatively, through sanctification in the belee­ving partie they are not uncleane; to the beleever assirmatively, they are holy.

For the last: that it runnes paralell with other places of Scripture, Its paralell to other Scrip­tures. 1 Pet. 2.9. Deut. 54.1, 2. Isai. 68.18. Matth. 15.16. this text is an abundant witnesse: The people of God are still thus honoured for an holy nation, an holy people, a people of holinesse: Men out of Covenant still branded, as uncleane, dogs, sinners, and the like appellations: This Scripture holds therefore firme for proofe of the assertion, That Christians have their Birth-right Priviledge, that they transmit a Covenant-Holinesse to their Issue, even to their whole posterity.

Neither is it to purpose to object, Object. that contradictions here are joyned to produce one and the same effect, An holy and unholy person to bring forth holy Issue: This was the doubt which the Corinthians objected, Answ. and the Apostle solves; seeing the unbeleever, whether husband or wife, is sanctified; so that they joyntly make one Root for to bring forth an holy branch.

And thus it was (though the contrary be objected) in the time of the Law, Object. Answ. one parent being within the Covenant, the childe was circumcised; And therefore Paul circumcising Timothy, whose father was a Greeke, the reason given is, that his Mother was a Iewesse: Acts 16.1. And the Example of putting away of those that were borne of strange wives from Ezra 10. is strangely by some here objected, seeing the wives themselves were there put away, and here the Apostle (they know) orders otherwise: If they see that S ^t Pauls rule accords not in the one, how is there a necessity that it should accord in the other? Something there was in that Example speciall and extraordinary, as there was in Mordecai's not bowing the knee to Haman: whether it were that now they were anew (as it were) to forme their Church, upon their return from Babylon; and were not willing to admit such a mixture, especially so many offending, as to make a considerable partie: or whether the Nations with whom they had joyned themselves were of those particularly forbidden them, Deut. 7. or under any speciall curse as Amalek was, which some con­ceive was the reason that Mordecai refused to give that honour to Haman an Amalekite: Certain it is that it agrees not with other presidents; we have examples of Marriages not a few with Heathens, which though it was their sin, yet there is no sentence of nullitie passed, nor were the wives or Issue rejected: And the Corinthians case was yet fairer, their Marriage was with­out sin, seeing they had not elsewhere to joyne themselves in marriage, being then both parties heathens, and one partie being converted, the marriage by the Apostles sentence still holds, and the Issue to be reckoned with the be­leeving parent.

Neither is here that which is proper to regeneration, Object. given (as some ob­ject) to naturall generation:

1. It was so with the Iewes, as is confessed, Answ. they had this Birth-priviledge of Covenant-Holinsse, and yet that which was proper to Regeneration, was [Page 14]not then given to naturall generation, either of both births have from God, and among the people of God their proper right.

2. The Holinesse which we here maintaine is no fruit of Nature, (so it could not have been proper to the Iew, but common to the Gentile) but from the Covenant of free grace, to all in the faith and their seed: Regeneration workes gration qualifications, 1 Iohn 5.4. This birth-right only entitles to outward priviledges: Regeneration therefore is not at all here wronged, nor naturall generation over-highly advanced: let those that frame the objecti­on take heed lest themselves run upon this Rock, denying all corruption of nature, or birth-sin, they make Regeneration of no use. If all were right in the first birth there needed not another to follow, as the Apostle speakes of Covenants, Heb. 8.7. so I may say of births: If the first had been faultlesse, there should no place have been sought for the second.

Hence it necessarily followes by way of Consectary, Consectary. that the infants of Christian parents are debarred of their right, 1 if they be not in infancie ten­dered and admitted unto the Ordinance of Baptisme: Of Infants Baptisme by necessary in­ference. They are God's, and we must render them to God: Christ hath interest in them, they must there­fore be dedicated to him: They are of the number of those that are holy, and therefore they are to be received and inrolled in the number: Baptisme is a distinguishing note between the people of God, and those who are strangers from him; They are His, and they must therefore be thus distinguished: The force of this consequence the adversaries doe no lesse then acknowledge, for­cing the Scriptures which evidently evince this Covenant-Holinesse, unto strained interpretations, on purpose to avoid it: Upon this ground infants under the law were circumcised, and upon the same infants now are to be baptized: so that it is not barely the Analogy betweene Circumcision and Baptisme, by which we inforce the baptisme of infants, but the grounds of both Circumcision and Baptisme: What is objected against one concludes against both: Col. 1.11, 12. Circumcision and Baptisme are therefore by the Apostle promis­cuously taken; there being the same principall and maine end of both. What can Baptisme signe and seale but the righteousnesse of faith? This, circumci­sion did signe and seale to Abraham and his posteritie. Rom. 4.11. Reade that which the Apostle observes of Abrahams circumcision, and compare it with the history of the Eunuches Baptisme, and see where you can finde them differ. Faith was reckoned unto Abraham for righteousnesse: How was it reckoned (saith the Apostle) in circumcision or in uncircumcision; Rom. 4 9, 10, 11 not in circumcision but in uncircum-saith, which he had yet being uncircumcised. The Eunuch on his journey with Philip, comming to a certain water saith, See here is water, what doth hin­der me to be baptized? Act. 8.36, 37, 38. And Philip said, If thou beleevest with all thine heart thou maist. And he answered and said, I beleeve that Iesus Christ is the Son of God. And he commanded the chariot to stand still, and they went down both into the water, and he baptized him. May we not make the same observation of this Baptisme, as the Apostle doth on Abrahams circumcision? He received the signe of Baptisme, a seale of the righteousnesse of the faith, which he had being yet unbaptized; So that the main end and use is the same in both: All ap­pertaining [Page 15]to this faith were circumcised, and their seed. All appertaining to this faith are to be baptized, and their seed. Strengthened by Scriptures. Hence it is that S ^t Peter on this ground of the Promise made to beleevers and their seed, encourages his Converts unto Baptisme, Repent, 1 and be baptized every one of you in the Name of Iesus Christ, for the remission of sinnes, and ye shall receive the holy Ghost, Acts 2.38, 39. for the promise is made to you and your children, and to all that are afarre off, even as many as the Lord your God shall call. Whence I reason, in the same latitude as the promise is laid downe, the encouragement is also urged, to receive the signe and seale of it. But the promise is laid downe in that latitude, to com­prehend Converts and their seed, Converts therefore and their seed are to be baptized. Can there be any reason given, why the seed should be mentioned in the Motive or Encouragement to receive Baptisme, Acts 16.15. if they were to be ex­cluded from Baptisme? Accordingly when an housholder was baptized, all the houshold were baptized, Vers. 33. He and all his, Acts 16.15. ver. 33. 1 Cor. 1.16. Object.

Will it be said that this promise in this latitude is there tendered onely to the Jewes?

To this I reply. First, Answ. that then Iewes receiving Christ (as these now did and were here encouraged) still enjoy this birth-priviledge, which being yeel­ded to them cannot be denied to the Gentiles receiving the faith, without a singular schisme between Iew and Gentile. They that murmured that their widowes were neglected, Acts 6.1. would soone have murmured when their seed had been excluded. And secondly, I affirme that the Gentiles are equally there in­cluded with the Jewes in the promise, as concerning the seed, as the Copu­lative particle (and) fully evinceth, it couples not one peece onely but the whole of the promise.

There is yet an objection that seemes to take with more colour; Object. That this promise had reference to the gift of the holy Ghost, promised by Ioel the Pro­phet, here by the Apostle, ver. 17. &c. mentioned, and the Apostle here spea­king of the promise to his Converts and their children, onely makes good what he had said, that they should receive the holy Ghost, and that by authori­rie of the Prophet. Ioel promises that their sonnes and their daughters shall prophecie, and this is that promise which is here tendered by the Apostle to them and their children.

I answer: First, Answ. the extraordinary gifts of the holy Ghost in this visible way, cannot be the promise here by S ^t Peter mentioned, seeing it is enlarged to all that are afarre off, even to as many as the Lord shall call. But all these have not the holy Ghost in that way extraordinary, nor any promise of it: That is a Baptisme proper to those primitive Saints, Matt. 3.11. that Baptisme with the holy Ghost and with fire, wherewith they were told that they should be bap­tized not many dayes after. Acts 1.5.

Secondly, however the promise be interpreted so as to belong to all that are beleevers, and call on the Name of the Lord, as there followes; yet that promise is on condition of their Baptisme. The meanes are to be used in refe­rence to the end: Baptisme is the meanes, receiving of the holy Ghost, (there specified) is the end: And the Apostle confirming them in the promise of the end, doth likewise encourage them to the use of the meanes, in Baptisme [Page 16]to expect the gift of the Spirit; and so (according to this interpretation) that place is an encouragement to Baptisme; The promise is the fittest encouragement to the signe and seale of the promise: Baptisme is the signe and seale to which they are here encouraged, and in that latitude, as they had formerly known the command of Circumcision.

And the Evasion is too weake to say that children here are the same with sonnes and daughters mentioned from the Prophet, Object. and therefore to be meant of none but such that are of growth, and capable of the gift of prophecy.

The Apostle urgeth the promise in the way as in the Scriptures it is deli­vered, Answ. which is to men and their posterity, to them and theirs; so God pro­mises to be a God in Covenant to His, and their seed, which people in Cove­nant have a promise also from him of the Spirit, and this the Apostle holds out to draw them on to this seale of the Covenant, to accept Baptisme on the same termes that Abraham did circumcision.

Secondly, it is without reason to beleeve that the Apostle should instance in one peece of the distribution of the Prophet there, and to leave out the rest, to put in alone sonnes and daughters, when we have in the text young men, old men, servants and hand-maids.

Thirdly, Children here are mentioned under a promise to the parents, To you and your children is the promise made, but not so in Ioel, nor in the quotation of the Apostle: That Scripture hath onely an Enumeration of the severall sorts and conditions of people in any nation, on all which the Spirit is promised, without any addresse made to the parents of those sonnes and daughters, more then to the Masters of those servants and hand-maids: not the sonnes and daughters of their flesh, but the sonnes and daughters of the Nation, a language usuall in our ordinary expressions, speaking of men of any sort or condition, as your Lawyers, your Merchants, &c. so here your sonnes, your daughters, your old men, your young men, &c.

For further confirmation: 2 Those whom Christ receives the Church may not refuse; Matth. 19.4. Matth. 19.14. Mar. 10.14. Luk. 18.16. The Church consists of those that visibly appeare to be Christs. But Christ admits children, little children, in their infancy, such that he takes into his armes, Suffer little children to come to me and forbid them not; who dare be so rigid when Christ is thus candid?

The Kingdome of Heaven receives them, the Church therefore may not ex­clude them: The Church receives those whom glory receives, There were daily added to the Church such as should be saved: Acts 2.47. But the Kingdome of Heaven receives little children, Of such is the Kingdome of Heaven.

Let none say that the Kingdome of Heaven is of such (that is) of those that are graced with such qualities, Object. that are humble and meeke as little children: That may be elsewhere Christs way of instruction, it cannot be here his argu­mentation.

First, there is no manner of consequence in the argument thus pressed: Let little ones in infancie come to me, for though not they, yet such as they, others qualified like them, in some select properties resembling them shall go to Heaven.

Secondly, Upon the same ground, Sheepe, Doves, Vine-branches, might [Page 17]have been brought to him, for such as resemble them, in like select properties, shall be received into the kingdom of Heaven: And Christ might have drawne as apt a similitude from them.

Thirdly, that which the Disciples took to be an impediment of force to hinder infants, and a just ground of rebuke of those that brought them, is that which Christ understands in this reproofe of the Disciples, and admission of their infants. But it was their want of growth, their littlenesse which the Disciples took to be a just impediment and which occasioned their reproofe; So that the particle (such) hath direct reference to the quantity (as I may say) not to the quality of these infants, to their infant stature, not to their meekeesse or humility: And so it is referred elsewhere expressely by our Sa­viour himselfe, Who so shall receive one such little child; Mat. 18.5. The word is the same here and there, it respects littlenesse therefore and not meekenesse: The whole text may be thus fitly paraphrased, Trouble not our Master with such as these (say the Disciples) there is no use of their comming, they need not his cure, and they are not capable of his instruction; They have no infirmity to be healed, no capacity to be taught, It is fit for men of abler parts, not for Infants to make their addresse to him: Let them come (saith our Saviour) and let not their infant-age exclude them, how little soever they are capeable of the king­dome of Heaven.

Having the substance and thing signified in baptisme they may not be de­nied the signe: This is the Apostles way of dispute, Acts 10.47. By Argument. 1 And to deny them to have the thing signified in baptisme is an assertion of odious conse­quence: Christ is the thing signified in baptisme as in all other Sacraments, Gal. 3.27, &c. And denying them Christ, you either exclude them from sal­vation with the Papists, or else exempt them from Originall sinne with the Pelagians: The Anabaptists of the present age are well aware that the con­sequence can be no other; they well see that all that joyne in this Tenent, saile between those rockes, either to affirme, that infants die in their pollution and perish in their birth-sin; or else to deny this originall pollution or any birth-sin at all; the latter of the two they therefore generally choose; judging it more faire to deny infants sinne, then to affirme their condemnation; joy­ning hands with Pelagians, an heresie of old and forepast dayes, rather then with Papists the present yoke and scourge of Christians: And taking with these, to deny originall sinne, they straight fall upon universall grace, freedome of will in things spirituall: The free election of God they overthrow, leaving it in our power to make choyce of Christ, and not Christ to make choyce of us; And so Popery is no sooner left, but it is againe found, they joyne hands with it as soone as they have left it: And all such who have not yet waded so deepe, but now begin to set this way, I wish them to weigh with them­selves what other way they can find to make children uncapeable of Bap­tisme; unlesse they also make good such originall purity that they stand not in need of Christ, or else be content to yeeld that they perish in their sinne without Christ: withall sadly taking to heart whether the Genius of this do­ctrine leades, plunging almost all that give it entertainement into so many damnable and pernicious errours; such as themselves upon the first entry [Page 18]abominate: If they think that they can make it good in this more inno­cent way, keeping their judgements without taint of the errours mentioned, they see more then all the Orthodox Churches, whom in this they have left, and the whole body of those to whom they beginne to joyne themselves: The Churches whom they have left, will be afraid to own them, and the Sect to whom in this they are joyned will much more abominate and reject them; The deniall of birth-sinne is the readiest way to the deniall of birth holinesse; and no other way to be taken, but by prejudging the salvation of them that dye as soone as borne, that dye before yeares of ability to make profession of the faith of Christ Jesus. But as the Apostle pressing the dangerous and odious consequences that follow upon the deniall of the resurrection of Christ (which was his Medium to assert the Resurrection of the dead) takes off all with this affirmation that Christ is risen from the dead; 1 Cor. 15.10. So we pressing the danger of denyall Infants part and portion in Christ, (our Medium to prove their in­terest in baptisme) may take off all with the like affirmation, That Infants have their portion in Christ. Infancy excludes not from their right to him and interest in him, so that we need to run neither of these straits, to exempt them from pollution, or exclude them from salvation: which easily may be made good: They are accepted and highly honoured of God, as we see in the text recited, and further in our Saviours words, Mat. 18.5, 6. But it is in the belo­ved, in Christ, Ephes. 5.1, 6. Mat. 3.17. that we are accepted: The voice from Heaven witnesseth that in him God is well pleased: Deny infants Christ, and God is alike pleased with them as with the brood of Cockatrices, and the seed of Serpents. Much sure is in those words of our Saviour Christ, Who so shall receive one such little child in my name, Mat. 18.5. receives me: How doe we receive Christ in receiving them, if they belong not to Christ, if they be not members of, if they have no in­terest in Christ: For such as say that they would baptize an infant, if any could make it good that he were in Christ Jesus, they might as well say in the same manner to Christ, that they would receive that little one or such a little one, in case it could be made good that they were of his members, and elect ones.

Nor let it be objected; Object. That Infants then are not to be denied the Lords Supper, but are to be received to his table, seeing Christ is the thing signified in that Sacrament, as in Baptisme.

The difference (as all may see) is wide: Answ. In this Sacrament Infants are passive, and so capeable of this honour, to be taken in; In the other we are active, and Infants for that reason are incapeable: They are not in capacity to performe so much as that which is outwardly sacramentall: They cannot, according to the Institution take and eat, much lesse can they doe it in re­membrance of Christ: The very phrase (circumcised, baptised) is enough to difference from eating with bitter herbes, &c. as at the Passeover, from com­municating as at the Lords table, Infants are fit subjects for the one, men of growth are only fit subjects for the other: One to presse on this objection furnisheth us with a similitude, Suppose (saith he) a King for some speciall service wherein the honour of himselfe and safety of his kingdome is much concer­ned, should by Commission ordaine or command a Sheriffe upon paine of death, to [Page 19]raise for his service ten thousand men, the most able in his County; and this She­riffe, finding the said number of children about six moneths old, should present them to the King at the very instant of battaile, as though he had thereby per­formed the Kings command: Would this be taken for a sufficient performance of his duty?

But suppose that the King should appoint all his free-borne subjects to be inrolled, and a list taken of their Names, who in time might act in their places for his honour, and enjoy Immunities as his subjects, might not Infants then goe in the number? So it is here, Baptisme is the initiating ordinance, The subjects of Heaven are here inrolled, their names may therefore be taken as subjects, though they cannot yet act as souldiers: They are here intitled to all the Immunities of this kingdome, yet orderly as they shall be of capacity and fitnesse to make use of them.

But their want of faith is challenged as an impediment to Baptisme: Object. When the Eunuch desired Baptisme, we know the answer that he had: If thou belee­vest with all thine heart thou maist: And Calvinists denying actuall faith to be found in Infants, their Adversaries the Lutherans come in with their ar­gument ad hominem, making against us (say they) though not against the thing it selfe: Every Sacrament without faith in him that uses it is a vaine Ceremony; But the Baptisme of Infants is a Sacrament without the faith of him that useth it.

A speech directed to a man of yeares and without any title to the Cove­nant (other then his actuall faith did confer upon him) is ill applyed to Infants within Covenant that otherwise have title to it. Answ. 1.

This exception carries equall strength against Infants circumcision: Answ. 2. There is no more faith in the Infauts of Iewes then there is in the Infants of Chri­stians; And faith is no lesse necessary in the circumcised then in the bap­tized: There was an equall necessity of the ingrediency of faith in every one in that age, as in this; yea in the ages more ancient then that of circumci­sion, as appeares by the Apostles argument, Heb. 11.6.

Their capacity to receive the signe, answers their capacity to receive the thing signified, they are passive in the receiving of Christ and any interest in him: and so also they are, (and circumcised Infants were) in taking the signe. And so the Lutheran proposition being understood of any thing wherein we are active is a truth, but applied to Infants uncapable of action in the Sacrament where they are only passive, it is to be denied.

If Infants have the like gift intitling to, and interesting in the priviledge of baptisme with beleevers, then they withstand God who deny their bap­tisme: This is the Apostles argument brought for his own defence, Acts 11.17. which I wish were more seriously considered: And let it not be objected that the gift there specified is a gift extraordinary, peculiar to those times: It is enough to make the argument of force, that it is alike in them with that which now intitles growne beleevers: Now the want of those gifts extra­ordinary, doth not disable grown beleevers: The want of these doth not then disable Infants.

And that they have the like gift, intitling to, and interesting in the Sacra­ment [Page 20]of baptisme is plaine: A Covenant-holinesse unquestionable: Inherent qualitative holinesse hopefull, is a like gift to that which growne beleevers are able to produce: But Infants have Covenant-holinesse unquestionable, inherent qualitative holinesse hopefull; A beleever by the profession of his faith is able to make good his title to the outward Covenant, and so can the belee­ving parent the title of his Infant: A beleever can make good such a title to the inward Covenant, that none can say thou hast no part or portion in this thing: And because it cannot be denied (though absolutely and infallibly it be not affirmed) it is to be presumed: This a beleeving parent can make good in the behalfe of his Infant, and this is sufficient, this is a like.

But it will yet be said, Object. An institution is wanting, we have no precept, we have no president of the baptizing of Infants: The institution is, Goe teach all nations, Mar. 28.19. baptizing them, &c. We must baptize those whom by teaching we have discipled: to the word signifieth.

I answer, First, That which hath beene said doth conclude that they are within the verge of an institution, being such that have so full title: I have heard one of the most learned and reverend that ever I knew or heard of that was of that way more then once professe with no small solemnity, that if he knew an Infant to be sanctified as he acknowledged John Baptist was, such a one he would baptize: And that the particular infants whom Christ was seene for to blesse might have beene baptized: Those then that are thus intitled, through want of an institution are not to be excluded, and how farre and fully Infants of beleeving parents are intitled we have heard.

2. The place quoted hath not in it the Institution of that Sacrament: Bap­tisme was appointed of God before those words were uttered; He that spoke them was himselfe before baptized; Mat 3.16. Ioh 4.6. Mat. 10.5. They to whom they were spoken had bap­tized others; It is only an enlargement of their Commission for the exer­cise of their Ministery, being before confined unto one Nation, now it is en­larged to all Nations.

3. The words there comprize infants, they are no more excluded then men of yeares, serving to make up a Nation as well as parents: The Infants of Niniveh did make a considerable party of the City of Niniveh; The Infants of any Nation make up a part of the Nation; and the Nation where they came was to be discipled, And that Infants are here comprehended further ap­peares by this argument.

This argument hath strength frō that of the Apo­stle, Act. 3.25 As it was with the kindred of Abra­ham in respect of covenant holi­nesse, so it is with all kindreds of the earth, they iointly make one party in the Covenant. But infants of A­brahams kindred were in the Co­venant, and of the nation in respect of Covenant-Bles­sednesse Ergo, &c. In the same sense and latitude as Nation was taken in respect of the Co­venant of God, when the Covenant, and Covenant-initiating-Sacrament was restrained to that one only Nation, where their Commission was first limi­ted: In the same sense it is to be taken (unlesse the text expresse the contrary) now the Commission is enlarged.

This cannot be denied of any that will have the Apostles to be able to know Christs meaning by his words in this enlarged Commission.

But Nation, then as is confessed did comprehend all in the Nation in re­spect of the Covenant, and nothing is expressed in the text to the contrary, therefore it is to be taken in that latitude, to comprehend Infants.

Object.Will it be said that an exception of Infants is implied, in that all of the [Page 21] Nation must be discipled before they be baptized, but Infants are not ca­pable of being discipled, and so they are made uncapable of Baptisme.

I answer, 1. Here is rather implyed that they are of capacitie to be Disci­ples, Answ. 1. in that Christ sends to disciple Nations, and they serve to make up the nation.

2. It is the way of the Scripture, Answ. 2. speaking of an universality of a people in a land, expressely to except infants, in case they be to be excepted: As we see in the judgement that befell Israel in the wildernesse to the cutting off of those that came out of the land of Egypt. Numb. 14.31. And in the Covenant entred by the body of the Nation of all degrees and sexes at their returne from Babylon, Nehem. 10.28. and an exception could be no where more usefull and necessary then here, to let us know that it is otherwise with Gentiles in this particular then it was with the Iewes, that the Nations where their Commission is thus enlarged were herein differenced from the Nation to which their Ministerie was first limitted.

3. Let that text of the Prophet be well weighed, where speaking by the spirit of prophecy of the rejection of the Jewes, and the glorious call of the Gentiles in their stead, in that ample way as it is there set out hath these words, Behold, I will lift up mine band to the Gentiles, Isai. 49.22. and set up my standard to the people: and they shall bring thy sonnes in their armes: and thy daughters shall be carried upon their shoulders. If there were but such an hint as that by way of prophesy to have left them behind, we should from some have heard of it with a noise.

4. In the Lord Christs Dialect, who is best able to expresse his own mea­ning, they are Disciples, To belong to Christ is to be a Disciple of Christ, This is plaine from our Saviours owne mouth, comparing his words recorded in Matthew and Mark, Matth. 10.42 Mar. 9.41. To give a cup of cold water to drink in the name of a disciple, it is in the one; To give a cup of water to drink in my Name, because ye belong to me, it is in the other: To belong to Christ, to be a Disciple of Christ, and to beare the Name of Christ is one and the same thing with our Saviour. Now that Infants are of the number of those who as Disciples in Christs ac­count doe belong unto him, and beare his Name, is yet further plain by another text of S ^t Matthew, where Christ setting a little childe in the middest of his hearers saith, Who so shall receive one such little child in my Name, Matth. 18.5. re­ceiveth me. By all which it appeares, that which is done to Infants is done to Disciples, hath a glorious reward as done to Disciples; Infants ther­fore are Disciples of Christ, are of those that doe belong unto him, and beare his Name: who then is not afraid to refuse them who will receive Christ? who will not baptize them that is willing to baptize Disciples in the Name of Christ?

For Examples, which they say we want of the Baptisme of Infants:

1. I answere, first, we walke by Rule rather then President, the Rule hath been examined.

2. Examples are often very rare, where the rule is unquestionable, and un­deniable, we have no Example of any triall of the suspect wise by the water of jealousie; For womens right to the Lords Supper we have no particular in­stitution; [Page 22]no particular President more then for this of Infants Baptisme.

3. We have Examples not to be contemned of the Baptisme of whole housholds, and whether Infants were there or no, as it is not certaine (though probable) so it is not materiall: The President is an Houshold, he that fol­lowes the President must baptize housholds. It appeares not that any wife was there, yet he that followes the President in baptizing of housholds, must baptize wives, and so (I may say) servants, if they be of the houshold.

Objections are yet brought from humane authoritie, Object. which I have reser­ved to the last, as accounting them the least: And if this dispute might this way be determined, that plurality of votes might carry it: the adversaries know how it would fare with them in it.

Origen is vouched calling it a ceremonie or tradition of the Church: Hom. 8. in Levit. in Epist. ad Rom. lib. 5. Gregorie also in decret. distinct. de conse

One of those traditions which the Apostle charged the Thessalonians to keep, Answ.2 Thess. 2.15. which I speake not by guesse, but we have it in the same Epi­stle ( cap. 6.) from his own mouth, The Church (saith he) received Baptisme of Infants from the Apostles: The greatest points of Faith (as is well known) are ordinarily called by the name of traditions by the Antients. Traditions being onely such things that are delivered from one to another, they are as well written as unwritten; And we have cause willingly to embrace this testimonie; Origen lived 226. yeares after Christ, in the beginning of the third Century, Alsted. Chronol. he cals it a tradition of the Church, it was therefore delivered over to the Church in his time, and of antient use before him.

Austin cals it a custome of the Church: de Baptis. contra Donat. lib. 4. cap. 23. And so doe I also call it, Answ. and the observing of the first day of the weeke, the imposition of hands on Church-officers, the giving of the Lords Supper to men of growth is a custome of the Church likewise.

Erasmus saith they are not to be condemned that doubt whether the Baptisme of Infants were ordained by the Apostles: Lib. 4. de ratione Concio.

His words evidently imply that it was their errour, Answ. and it seemes his thoughts were other of those who openly did oppose it, and refuse it.

Papists openly professe that the Baptisme of Infants is grounded upon tra­dition, and not upon Scripture: for which Eckius and Bellarmine are brought in.

This they doe not really and cordially but for their owne advantage, Answ. to make good unwritten traditions against Protestant adversaries; They know that we maintaine Baptisme of Infants, and disclaime these traditions, and if Baptisme of infants doe appeare to be one, then they have us building what we have destroyed. Bellar. indeed (in his book de Verbo Dei) standing for unwritten traditions as a part of the Word of God will have Baptisme of in­fants to be one, but when he disputes for Baptisme of Infants against Ana­baptists, then he can heape up texts of Scripture, de sacra Baptis. cap. 8. So also cap. 9. in the entrance of it, Satis apertè colligitur ex Scripturis, the Baptisme of Infants is evidently enough gathered from Scriptures: The like fetch of his I could shew in other particulars.

It appeares to be forced on the people by authority of Councels, out of the Councell of Milevitanum, this Canon is urged, It is also our will that those [Page 23]that will not that children be baptized that are new borne from their mothers wombe, be excommunicate.

So in the Nicene Councell it was decreed that we should beleeve that there is one God Maker of all things visible and invisible; Answ. The greatest points of faith (we know) under Anathema's are decreed in Councels. This Councell was in the fifth Century, 200 yeares after Origen, who stiles Baptisme of Infants (as we have heard) a tradition of the Church in his dayes. And Austin who was not onely present, but (as is said) President of that Councell, returning answer to those that desire divine authority for the Baptisme of In­fants, for satisfaction first produceth that rule, Quod universa tenet Ecclesia, nec Conciliis institutum, sed semper retentum est, non nisi authoritate Apostolica traditum, rectissimè creditur. That which the whole Church holds, and was not ordained by any Councels, but hath ever been held, that is rightly beleeved to be by Apostolicall authoritie. This he takes to be sufficient, yet for more full satisfaction, he goes on to dispute for it from the Scriptures, whence we see what himselfe meanes by the custome of the Church; And by what authori­tie that Councell did appoint the Baptisme of Infants. Augustinus de Bapt. contra Donatist. lib. 40. cap. 24. ad initium.

By all this that hath been said it more fully appeares what regard is to be given to that which is cited out of Luther and Cassander, concerning the time that Baptisme of Infants was brought into the Church: Luther (as it is said) affirmes that it came into the Church a thousand yeares before his time, which must be one hundred yeares after Austin, and three hundred yeares after Origen. Cassander affirmes that it was brought in three hundred yeares after Christ and his Apostles, which must be an hundred yeares after Origen at least. If this had been true, these fathers must have said as S ^t Paul of contentions, 1 Cor. 11, 16. We have no such custome, neither the Church of God, and could not have said that it was a custome or tradition of the Church, Origen then had never knowne it, and Austin might have called it an innovation.

Those conjectures of Tuicencis & Iohannes Bohemius cōcerning the occasion of the first in-let of Infants Baptisme into the Church fals to the ground like­wise, when men heare of a beginning they will be bold to assigne some reason of it, If my conjecture may be heeded, I suppose it was in some dis-use with many not long after the Apostles times, and that by reason of the superstiti­ous conceit that too soon prevailed of the opus operatum in Baptisme, that it cleanses all sinnes that are past whether originall or actuall. And therefore many that were converted at ripe yeares deferred their Baptisme as neere the houre of death as might be, to have all their sinnes cleansed by that water, against which custome Bellarmine at large disputes by reason of the absolute necessity of Baptisme, though both his grounds and theirs are on a false bot­tome: May we not then beleeve that parents upon the same ground did put off the Baptisme of their children, and after did re-assume it upon the ne­cessity of it. And this is that which the authour produced, viz. Iohannes Be­hemius speaks of.

But M ^r Daniel Rogers above all is stood upon, in his Treatise of the Sacra­ments he hath these words, I take the Baptisme of Infants to be one of the most [Page 24]reverend, generall, and uncontrolled traditions which the Church hath, and which I would no lesse doubt of then the Creed to be Apostolicall, although I con­fesse my selfe yet unconvinced by demonstration of Scripture for it.

I wish the Reader to consider what the adversary gaines by this testimony, Answ. It is generall uncontrolled, he saith, and so he knowes unwritten traditions never were, Orthodox Divines antient and moderne have ever opposed them; In gaining a peice of a witnesse such an one that hath his reasons to beleeve Baptisme of Infants to be Apostolicall, they have the Church unanimously in all successive ages their adversatie.

And as the Infants of beleeving parents are to be received to Baptisme; The consecta­rie enlarged. so no Infants that descend from those that make Profession of the faith of Christ are to be refused: Any solid reason which will lye against any (for ought can be said) may be a ground of the challenge of all: The promise made to those that professe Christ and their seed, takes in the seed of all that make profession. Some that doe not withstand, but maintaine and practise the Baptisme of Infants have found a middle way, as betweene rigid Brownists and Presbyterians, so between Anabaptists and (as I may say) Paedo-baptists; All Infants they will not have to be refused, confessing them to be within the verge of the promise, yet they will not have all promiscuously received: The parents by solemne Covenant must first be made members of some par­ticular congregation, and so their Issue is to be admitted, their children bap­tized, otherwise both parents and children are to be accounted as without, by nature unholy; and only the Godly regenerate (so farre as men can judge) no one of loose life to be admitted.

But this middle way (under correction) I cannot but take to be a step out of the way, I will here dispute it no further then as it concernes this particular.

Either the vicious and scandalous life of such a parent, or his non admission into Covenant in a Congregationall way is the barre of the Infant that he is not admitted unto Baptisme, but neither of these may be a barre.

First not the vicious life of his parent.

If the ground of a childs admission to baptisme be not the faith of his im­mediate parent, but the promise made to Ancestors in the faith, whose seed he is though at the greater distance; Then the loose life of an immediate parent can be no barre to his baptisme: This is plaine, if Iosiah have no right from his father Ammon, yet he is not to be shut out, in case he have right from his father David or his father Abraham: And though the immediate parent were not wronged when his child is so shut out and denied, yet such Ance­stor in distance is wronged out of whose loynes the Infant is descended: If Phinehas were not wronged in case Ichabod had been debarred, yet Eli yea Aaron had suffered. But the ground of a childs admission is the promise to Ancestors, whether at neerer or greater distance, The promise is to beleevers and their seed: Now Iosiah was the seed of David, Christ was the seed of David: An Ancestor at distance, and not alone immediate (where the race within the Church, may be derived in a continued succession) gives right of admission therefore unto baptisme.

2. There is nothing that can exclude the seed of him that is a beleever, as beleever is opposed to an Infidell, the seed of one that is of a dogmaticall or historicall faith: This we have before made good, and from 1 Cor. 7.14. may be further cleared, He that is no Infidell is there a beleever whose seed is holy. But a man of a vicious life is in that sense a beleever, Simon Magus, Acts 8.13. Luk. 8.13. the hearers compared to the rocky ground were beleevers, therefore a loose life will not exclude the Issue.

His seed who is a member of a particular Church society must be admitted unto baptisme, a Church member and all that are his must have their privi­ledges: But it often falls out that men of loose lives are members as the Church of Corinth yeelds many proofes, 2 Cor. 12.20, 21, &c. Therefore vicious life excludes not the Issue.

Secondly, The non-admission into Covenant is no barre in the parent.

1. It was no barre when themselves who now are members were admit­ted in their infancy, their parents for the most part being no members in such a way: Therefore now it is no barre though the parent be no member, but out of such Church-Covenant.

2. They who have themselves title to baptisme, they have power to intitle their Infants likewise, this can be denied by none that deny not Infants bap­tisme; But men never entring any such Church-Covenant in a Congregationall way were baptized upon just title; The Converts of Peter, the Eunuch, the Iaylor, &c. No one that we reade was first made a member and then bapti­zed, but were by Baptisme made members, not respectively of any one parti­cular Congregation, but of the Church of Christ in generall.

3. It would then be in the power of man, of three or foure (whom they say make a bottome Church) to keep an Infant at their pleasure out of Gods Covenant, to be reputed at their courtesie, either of the dogs or of the chil­dren. This may not be denied, These or the greater number of them have pow­er of admission of members at pleasure. And some singularly eminent that way have affirmed that it is not enough that a man have grace to render him capable of being admitted, but he must have expressions: A fathers slow tongue shall now exclude his seed from this glory of admittance into the fel­lowship of the Saints. And when those are not judged worthy of fellow­ship who are not of abilities to sit in judgement with the Congregation to ad­mit members, to passe sentence upon delinquents, to judge of doctrines, not only to elect but ordaine Pastors and Church-officers, we may easily guesse how many they exclude as without, whom Christ receives: Such a way had it been taken had deprived the Church of an Hezekiah, Iosiah and many others in their age renowned. How great a provocation to such children when once of growth to joyne with them, with whom the Church rankes them? and to oppose with the uttermost of fury such that (after the revo­lution of so many generations inheriting that priviledge) now doe debarre them? And how great an incouragement to joyne with such in all holinesse with whom they were honoured with these priviledges?

Some there be that subscribe these truths yet will have some caution used: The children of parents of loose life, yea of excommunicate persons, children of [Page 26]illegitimate birth they say are to be baptised; but with condition that the education of such be undertaken by men pious and godly, two reasons one gives.

1. Distinctio aliqua inter puros & impuros debet in sacris omnibus observa­vari, ad bonorum consolationem, correctionem malorum, & omnium aedisica­tionem, that is, Some difference ought to be put in all divine ordinances be­tween the cleane and uncleane, for the comfort of the godly, the censure of the wicked, and the edification of all.

To which I answer, The personall impurity of the father is nor transmitted to the child, and therefore the distinction of clean and un­cleane, which holds betweene the parents fals to the ground when it is ap­plied to the Issue; Both of them have a Covenant-holinesse from their pa­rents, neither of both have holinesse qualitative and inherent, and the chil­dren standing equally interested in the promises, we have no rule that the child should beare the fathers sin.

2. Instituta Dei non possunt aliter ab omni pollutione conservari, The ordi­nances of God can no other way be kept from blot and pollution.

I answer, Our care in the preservation of any ordinance of God may not exceed the care of God himselfe, least under that colour we make our wise­dome to correct Gods wisedome, and when he admits without such limits; why should we then put barres? A raise about the Communion table for that which is taken away, one hath well motioned, such a one that would not nourish superstition but keepe back the prophane: But I know not any use of such a one about the Font-stone in a Nation professedly Christian, and enjoying ordinances that are saving, where Infants (for ought that the Church is able to discerne) are all equall: all equally holy, all equally im­pure: Christians in name transmit a Covenant-holinesse; Christians in truth cannot transmit holinesse inherent: If these thus borne have no right at all, I suppose they should not be admitted with any caution whatsoever. If they have any such birthright-priviledge (notwithstanding their sad discomfort in such parents) why should it be thus suspended on the curtesie of such under­takers; I would more care were taken for education of youth (of which more anon) but this I only say, that I see not how the Infants right should be de­teyned, their birth-priviledge denied, till such caution be given: I conclude then that right of baptisme is as large as in any good sense the name Christian, The right of Infants is as large as is the name of Christian in the parents.

A vaine dispute there hath been among Schoolemen, how the child is sa­ved or justified by the faith of the parent; whether by the habit of the pa­rents faith, or the act of beleeving applied by the parent to the Infant at the time, and in the instant of baptisme? And whether it must be a faith formed (as they speake) with charity, or whether a faith informed, a dead faith would serve to the justification and salvation of the seed? whether a parent in mortall sinne may apply faith to his child to salvation? And I would know whether there be not some such thing now agitated, when such enquiry is made into the personall qualification of the parent before the child may have [Page 27]admittance. But all these are meere niceties. The faith of the parent availes not directly to justification or salvation of the Infant, neither is it considered as applied to this or that child in baptisme; the parent may be dead before the child be baptized; But it is considered only as accepting the Covenant of Gods free grant for him and his posterity, which entitles posterity to sa­ving ordinances, but doth not necessarily qualifie for salvation. A subject accepts a Patent of honour from his Prince for himselfe and posterity, this Grant of the Prince, and acceptance in the subject entitles to Nobility, And the like we say of Christianity; which evident truth takes off all difficulties, and prevents all absurdities which follow upon these Quaeres:

It yet further here followes that the seed of beleevers thus by birth-right-priviledge baptized, 2. Consectary, Title to all Ordinances. have a large and full right to all the Ordinances of God and priviledges of the Church appertaining to members, as they shall be ca­pable of their use, wheresoever by the providence of God they are cast; on­ly so farre excepted as the just censures of the Church upon their personall defects and misdemeanours shall disable them, and give Church-officers just cause to refuse them: The consequence is evident: They now visibly be­long to Christ, they through him are dedicated to God, they have therefore title to all his visible ordinances: They are now of the household of God, and of the Citizens of the Saints orderly admitted: Scripture knowes no other admission then Baptisme: No sooner doe we heare of a convert, but we presently heare of his baptisme, no Church-covenant intervening: They have right to all the immunities of this house, to all the priviledges of this city of God: There is some time after baptisme in infancy before they have capacity to be hearers, but as soone as they can heare to profit so soone they must be received, not as strangers but as children, not as Infidels but Chri­stians: They must be hearers, and that with some good proficiency before they can be communicants: But to deny a person entitled and qualified as before, because not in Church-fellowship in a Congregationall way, offering himselfe and desiring it, is to debarre him of that right, of which by the gracious dispensation of God he stands possessed: He belongs to Christ, he must therefore partake of that which is of Christ: He is of the houshold, he must therefore have of the foode of the houshold: The stewards of the mysteries of God must be accountable in case they doe deny it.

To come to some practique observations, 3. Consectary, Holy conver­sation. All possible engagements and ob­ligations unto holinesse of conversation necessarily follow from this royall priviledge and high advancement of birth-holinesse We blame those of noble and generous birth that betake themselves to sordid and ignoble wayes: Those thus degenerating are a blot to their families, a disgrace and reproach to their race: No birth equall in honour to that of Christians: Theodesius worthily esteemed it a greater honour that he was a Christian then that he was an Emperour: None degenerate so foulely and blame-worthily as they when their conversation is unchristian. Wayes of sinne are for sinners of the Gentiles, a way proper for Turkes and Pagans: let the holy seed be holy, their demeanour suited to their honour: Sardanapalus the King may with lesse in-infamy spinne among women (a worke farre below his throne) then a Chri­stian [Page 28]may sinne with heathen: The Martyrs in the primitive times being mo­ved to sweare by the fortune of Coesar, thought that the answer was full and faire to say they were Christians; Such answer should he have that would tempt to ungodlinesse: Nebe. 6.11. Should such a one as I flie saith Nehemiah, his honour would not suffer him to be so base: Should such a man as a Christian (the least of whom is greater then Nehemiah's better) be for sinne, not a sinner by birth, Mat. 11.11. be for sinne in his life: Baptisme is the greatest honour: Such beare Christs name and weare his livery, Iamos 1.1. Iude 1.1. 1 Pet. 1.1. 1 Tim. 2.19. They have that title in which Iude, Iames and other of the Apostles gloried? A Servant of Iesus Christ: Baptisme is the greatest engagement: Let every one that nameth Christ depart from in­iquity To talke of baptisme and live in sin is to weare the Colours of one and plot and fight for another, to weare Christs colours and sight for Satan: Baptisme renders a sinner up to the heaviest punishment: Amos 3.2. The high favours shewed the Jewes made a Jew to fare worse in the wayes of sinne then an heathen: Heb. 2.3. The high favours shewed to Christians, make Christians to fare worse in sinfull wayes then heathens: Let me preste it in the Apostles words though the providence of God keeps me out of his condition, Ephes. 4.1. 1 Pet. 1.15. 1 Thes 4.7. Ephes. 2.19. Mat. 25.31. Rom. 1.2. Ephes. 1.13. Heb 9.8. 4. Consectary, Holy educa­tion. I therefore the prisoner of the Lord beseech you, that ye walke worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called. All in a Christians calling bespeakes this holinesse; Hee by whom he is called; The worke to which he is called; The company unto which he is joyned; The Attendants by whom he is guarded; The Rule wher­by he is guided; The Seale by which he is confirmed, and the place whither he makes and tends, all are holy.

Let the Parents of such seed now see what education is expected; Breeding must answer Birth and Descent: A Christian is of the noblest birth: The Apostle calls upon parents to bring up their children in nurture and admonition of the Lord: God may call on them thus to bring up his children; In nature theirs: in Covenant Gods: Every Christian parent hath a child of God com­mitted to his care and tuition: How great a solecisme is it that parents should dedicate children so soone as borne unto Christ, professing to the world that they belong to him, and that with Hannah (concerning Samuel) they in­tend them for him, when nothing appeares in their lives, but that they might be given to Moloch; somewhat worse then the mongrell seed that spoke halfe in the language of Canaan, and halfe of Ashdod: Scarce a word can be heard out of their mouthes for to argue that they are Christians; lisping out oathes as soone as words, put to learne trades, and little regard had that they may know Christ Iesus: And how much is it to be desired that autho­rity (who I trust will make good that we have a Christian Nation) would take order for more carefull catechisticall teaching of youth in the wayes of Christian Religion, that God may not complaine of England is of Israel; My peo­ple perish for want of knowledge. Hosea 4. [...]. A people of God and a people ignorant to per­dition and destruction: England is highly honoured of God by this gracious call, with Capernaum listed up to Heaven: Enegland would highly honour God if care might be taken that all might know God from the highest to the low­est: We shall never be a Gospel-like people till we be a knowing people, till we take care that as we are lewes by nature, so we may be Iewes in qualification, [Page 29]so borne, so bred, that as our youth is descended so also they may be trained.

Those may see whom they oppose that stand in opposition of a people thus interested, a people so ingratiated to God in Covenant that there is not the least infant in whom God hath not his title and right of challenge. 5. Consectary, The danger of persecution. Psal. 79 1, 2, 3. The aggravation of the Psalmists complaint is, that the heathens are come into thine inheritance, the dead bodies of thy servants have they given to be meat unto the fowles of the Heaven, the flesh of thy Saints unto the beasts of the earth: The whole body of such a people stand in relation to God, as the Inheritance, the servants, and Saints of God; Such inscriptions we sind in S ^t Pauls Epistles, not one of the whole body is excluded, but they are such by Covenant, and such by calling: Psal. 127 3. Mat 18.5. Psal. 137.9. Enough hath been said to make it to appeare, that the denomination reaches even infants, who are the Lords heritage, and Christs name is upon them: As it is accounted an happy work to dash the little ones of Babylon against the wall, because of the hostlity of that Nation against God and his people: So it is a like execration to inter­medele with the little ones of Sion, by reason of the holinesse of such a peo­ple, 2 King 8.12. their Covenant-relations in which they stand interested. Much is spo­ken in Scripture against the enemies of the righteous, the haters of them shall be destroyed, he that offends against them shall not be innocent: God ob­serves every cariage of the adversary towards them in misery; they speake not a word, but God hath it against them; when Ammonites, Eze. 26.2.36.2. Obad. 12. Ibid. Psal. 137.7. Obad. 13.14. Deut. 25.17. Tyrians cry Aha against the people of the Lord they are twitted with it, and threatned for it. Not a proud word that they utter, but it is brought in to fill up the charge against them: yea, every eye that is cast with approbation of the ad­versary, every encouraging word they speake, and every act they doe against such a people, yea injuries of elder times are kept in the decke and laid to them; And all because that they stand in this relation to God, as His in Covenant, which you cannot limit onely to the personally righteous, but all that are of a societie and fellowship that is such, that are interested in a righte­ous cause. The holy anointing oyle did make sacred, when yet too often the man was wicked, and therefore David looked upon Saul as the Lords anoin­ted. It holds in analogy and proportion unto all that have any Unction from God, as all the called of God have, When they were but a few in number, Psal. 105.12, 13, 14, 15. yea very few, and strangers— When they went from one Nation to another, from one kingdome to another people, He suffered no man to doe them wrong, yea he re­proved Kings for their sakes, saying, Touch not mine Anointed: All the peo­ple of God have that anointing from God, that none may dare to intermeddle to their harme. God promises his people that dwell in Sion that the burden of Assyria shall be taken away from off their shoulder, and his yoke from off their necke, and that the yoke shall be destroyed, because of the Anointing. Isa 10.27.

Object.Some will say, as this is carried, The danger of intermedling with any is with us alike: Even Papists and the worst of men that are called Prote­stants are thus of a people that are called Gods people, and go by the name of Christians.

For answer: I shall not enter upon that controversie, Answ. what there is of the being of a Church under the Papacy: The Papacy itselfe is none of it, but on­ly [Page 30]a botch bred in it, and cleaving to it. Onely this I say, That he that shall oppose a Papist under the notion of a Christian, shall beare his sinne, and that upon the grounds that have been given: Though a Papists damnable errours in the faith shut him out from the happinesse of Christians, yet such an ad­versaries persecution renders him guilty of opposing the faith of Christ Iesus. And he that followes with injuries a carnall Protestant, because of Professi­on of the sinceritie of Religion, in opposition to Antichristianisme, is formally guilty of persecution. The hearers resembled to the rocky ground suffer perse­cution for the Word, as doth the good ground that brings forth fruit with pa­tience. But to come home with more cleare satisfaction.

A people of a fouly-polluted Ordinance standing in opposition to a people of a pure and untainted way, are as a people void of Ordinances, are as a peo­ple without God in comparison. The opposition of the puritie of his service God accounts as the opposition of his great Name, though it be by a people that goe under that name of His people: And therefore though Elijah take so much to heart the pulling down of Altars set up by Ieroboam as Gods Al­tars, 3 Kings 19.10. when it was done by Israel apostatizing and turned to Baal, and (in op­position to the worship of Baal) makes that way of worship at Dan and Bethel a following of God. 1 Kings 18.21. (Those two opinions that the ten Tribes halted between were the worship of the false god Baal, and the false way of worship set up by Ieroboam; which corruption of worship (being now to draw them from Baalisme) he is for the present contented to wave:) Yet we well know the brand that lies on Ieroboam in bringing in that worship of his, 1 Kings 15.9. scarce the like on any man in Scripture (the man of sin only excepted) the high phrases also in which this worship of his is set out, making Priests for the high places, 2 Chro. 11.15. and devils, with the height of guilt to which he rose in casting the Le­vites out from executing the Priests office; Vers. 14. And howsoever God often cals that people of the ten tribes by the name of his people as having Ordinances, Hos. 4.6. though miserably polluted, yet in opposition to Iudah, where more pure Or­dinances were injoyed, they are said to be without God, without a teaching Priest, and without the Law: And sighting against Iudah who could reckon up the particulars of the Ordinances of God in their puritie, 2 Chron. 15.3. they are charged to sight against the Lord God of their fathers: 2 Chron. 13.12. To come neerer home in an Instance: If the Turkish power should fall upon a Popish State under the name and notion of Christians, they were guilty with Saul of persecuting the Lord Iesus: If this Popish State fall upon a reformed nation, they are much more guilty. A fouler sinne for a people of God in name and title, to persecute his people in truth, then for a people strangers to God, to persecute a people only in name and title: Scripture prayers against heathens we may fitly apply in our sufferings under the hands of Papists. Pilate might have been guilty in persecution of a Pharisee as a Jew; yet that nation was much more guilty (being Iewes by nature,) in delivering Christ Iesus into Pilate's hands, Ioh. 18.35. though Christ had been no greater then one of his Disciples: A Papist persecuting a formall carnall Protestant, under the notion of a man protesting against idolatrous wayes, is a man blaspheming the faith; This man thus persecuted, persecuting another for the power of Godlinesse, professing the [Page 31]same truth is equally, yea more guilty. The very sin of Cain against his bro­ther, 1 Ioh. 2.12. Their Religions were both one, but Cain's in form, and Abel's in power. The result of the whole is to let us see what it is to oppose a people under any notion of Gods people, under any notion of belonging to him. A man may have his reward giving in the name of a Disciple, Matth. 10.4. though he to whom hee gives be such as God will never own for a Disciple. And answerably may in­curre vengeance in opposition of one under such a name, though with those on the rocky ground he be nothing lesse in deed and truth.

Abundance of sweet consolations yet flow from this birth-priviledge, 6. Consectary of consolation. and that in severall streames.

• 1. In regard of Nations.
• 2. In regard of Persons.

1. In regard of Nations, They have a royall transcendencie above all others, To Nations as onely worthy the name of a people, Enjoying the Light, Nigh unto God, A people of hope, and expectation; when others are darknesse, without hope, and without God in the world. The Psalmist reckons up many sweet blessings of a nation, That our sonnes may be as plants growne up in their youth, Psal. 144.12, 13, 14. that our daughters may be as corner stones polished after the fimilitude of a palace, That our garners may be full affording all manner of store, that our sheep may bring forth thousands and ten thousands in our streets; That our oxen may be strong to labour, that there be no breaking in, nor going out, that there be no complaining in our streets: All these are singular nationall favours, but only serving to make up, not an absolute, but comparative blessednesse; This one rises higher and makes it compleat, Verse 15. Blessed are the people whose God is the Lord. See what is said of Ierusalem by the Psalmist: Loe, the Kings were assembled, they passed by together, they saw it, and so they marvelled, Psal. 48.4, 5. they were troubled and hasted away, Feare tooke hold on them, and paine as on a woman in travell, and we find the reason given is, Verse 3. God is knowne in her palaces for a refuge, they have God nigh in all that they call upon him for; as Moses hath it, Deut. 4.7. No people can so bottome their prayers against Adversaries as the people of Gods Holinesse.

This mercie is a birth-mercie to a people (to hold allusion to my text) Iewes by nature, 2 Tim. 1.5. whose parents with Timothy's from one to another have been beleevers: And while nationall provocations breake not forth (which onely with God have a separating and deasning power) his eare is ready to hear, Isai. 59.1. Numb. 23.22. and his hand to help: While he sees not iniquitie in Iacob, nor perversnesse in Israel (which must be understood of nationall out-breaches from God, which after by Baalams counsell followed) so long God is among them as the shout of a King, and there is no sorcerie or divination against them: Vers. 23. 2 Chron. 15.2. A nation fast to God hath God fast to them.

2. In regard of persons, for

• Themselves.
  To persons.
• Posteritie.

For themselves, It is much to be able with the Psalmist to say, For themselves. Thou art he [Page 32]that tooke me out of the wombe, Psal. 22.9, 10. Thou diddest make me to hope when I was upon my mothers breasts: I was cast upon thee from the wombe, thou art my God from my mothers belly. This puts upon confidence in prayer (as an argument drawn from long continued acquaintance) as there followes: Be not farre from me, for trouble is neere. Vers. 11. Such have timely knowledge of God, sucking in some­what of him while they suck milk from the breasts: An expression of height setting out this Birth-happinesse, that hath sure more in it then can be applyed to sinners of the Gentiles: See how the Psalmist yet further pleads it with God: Psal. 116.16. Exod. 21.4. Levit. 25.16. O Lord, truly I am thy servant, I am thy servant and the son of thine hand­maid. An allusion to the Law of servants, who were the inheritance of the Master in whose house they were borne. I am such saith the Psalmist (thy ser­vant, thy servant) with all earnestnesse of affection. I am of thine inheritance, I am one of thine house-borne servants, my mother was thine hand-maide. The same relation he pleades also, and in the same words, Psal. 86.16. This Isaiah in like manner takes notice of, Isai. 4 [...], 1. The Lord hath called me from the wombe, from the bowels of my mother hath he made mention of my Name. The Apostle will have the Ephesians to remember that past time when they were without Christ, Ephes. 2. [...]2. being Aliens from the Common-wealth of Israel, and strangers from the Covenant of promise, having no hope, without God in the world. There never was a time in which these of this Birth priviledge were in that condition; From the wombe they were Gods heritage, and with Timothy (some in greater some in lesser measure) from children have the knowledge of the Scriptures, 2 Tim. 3.15. Luke 1.15. if not with Iohn Baptist full of the holy Ghost from the wombe: which doubt­lesse is the happinesse of not few among Christians, who are eminent in sanctification, whose growth in Grace is seene, and yet the beginnings not knowne. Howsoever they are nigh, when others are afarre off, at the pooles brimme waiting the Angels moving of it. Ioh. 4.22. Iames 1.21. Luke 19.9. In respect of posteritie. Salvation is of the Iewes, saith our Saviour; They are under the joyfull sound of that Word which is able to save the soule: Salvation is of his house who is the sonne of Abraham.

As it is full of Consolation to Beleevers in respect of themselves, so also in reference to posteritie: Their children are Gods children: They be­ing of the Lords Inheritance, their children are his heritage in like manner: These bring forth children to God, Ezek. 16.20. their seed be ownes and challenges for His: An infinite love in God, an unspeakable comfort to a parent, when the In­fant, who by corruption of nature is in Satans jawes, in no lesse danger of Hell, then Moses was of the water; and not so much as sensible of it; God pleases to looke upon him in this condition and to make it the time of love, and to find out wayes of freedome. What the Apostle speakes from the Prophet of Gods care of the Gentiles, is certainly true being applyed to Infants. I was found of them that sought me not, and made manifest to them that enquired not after me. Rom. 10.10. Had we that hopelesse opinion of our children as Papists of theirs that dye without Baptisme; what a wretched case were it (with David) to part with an Infant out of the world? How could such mourne in any other way then those that are without hope? parting with an Infant without part in Christ, and in no better posture to­wards [Page 33]God then the seed of the sinners of the Gentiles. But wee finde God more rich in mercie, Christ himselfe embracing them in their infancie, and taking them into his speciall love as those that beare his name: And though death prevent their Baptisme, He that hath appointed Ordinances is not tyed to them, but can save without them. Bellarmine confesseth that the desire of Baptisme in one of the Catechumeni, (that is, one instructed in the Principles of Christ and not baptized) doth save; though the text, Iohn 3.5. understood with their Coment be in the Letter against it, why then should not that Grace? which when the person is of capacitie would shew it selfe in desires qualifie for Salvation in like manner? Finding this love in God, these bowels in Christ, we may safely conclude, that Chil­dren have blisse, Parents have comfort, and let God have the Glorie.