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

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

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

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

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

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

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

§ 1. The Proof of Infant Baptism.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Page 12] But the Promise is to Repenters and their Seed.

Therefore Repenters and their Seed are commanded to be Baptized.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Page 17]I shall prove,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Strong doth well distinguish A­braham as a Father; he is 1. a natural Father to the Jews only. 2. a spiritual Father to all true Believers. 3. an ec­clesiastical, or church Father, Rom. 11. [Page 56] 16, 17. answerably he hath a natural fleshly seed, a spiritual seed, and an ec­clesiastical seed. Paul ardently desired, that Israel might be saved, Rom. 10. 1. and Rom. 9. v. 3. mentioneth Election, calling Salvation v. 11, 24, 27. and in these respects it might be said in all a­ges of the Old Testament, the Children of the flesh are not the Children of God, as to Vocation and Salvation, when yet Infants were unquestionably external­ly in Covenant, and so then they may be still, and all this that is said is not a­gainst it. They may be a seed as to Or­dinances, though all of them be not so as to Life and Salvation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I may ask were they absolutely in it or conditionally?

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

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

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

[Page 66]3. As to advantages, there are many, as a Covenant-state is a state of greater near­ness unto God then others are in; is de­clared to be a priviledge, Rom. 3. 1, 2. and 9, 4. and it is a misery to be strangers from the Covenants of promise, Eph. 2. 12. many advantages I could disco­ver of being externally in Covenant, and thus Men may be in it and may so miscarry, as to be rejected, as Ishmael, Esau, the Jews, Rom. 11. and yet God not break Covenant against Infants Baptism, it is objected thus.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I shall from the premises, add two Corolaries.

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

[Page 84]2. That to admit as members, and so Baptize again such who are known owned members of a rightly constituted Church, without its knowledge or consent is highly irregular; it is without Scripture war­rant, it obstructeth and disableth for those mutual duties, which the mem­bership in the first Church required at theirhands; there are various duties omitted, which are charged in the Church where they are members, Rev. 7. and 3. it breaketh the peace by divi­sion; it violateth all Gospel order.

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