to Christians and such doe they conceive a Sabbath to be as being of the Law of nature that outward worship being due to God dayes are due to God to that end and therefore even in Paradise appointed from the creation and in all nations in all ages observed enough to prove so much to be of the Law of nature and therefore the fourth Commandement justly put amongst the Morals and if a seventh day indefinitely be commanded there as some of your Assembly have indeavourd to make good I shall not gainsay though in that point of the quota pars temporis which is moral I do yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 suspend my judgement Now Circumcision hath nothing moral in it it is meerely positive neither from the beginning nor observed by all nations in all ages nor in the Decalogue and therefore a Sabbath may stand though it fall 2. The other explication is that when they require expresse institution or command in the New Testament they doe not meane that in positive worship there must be a command totidem verbis in so many words in forme of a precepâ— but they conceive that Apostolicall example which hath not a meere temporary reason is enough to prove an institution from God to which that practise doth relate And in this after some evidences in the Scripture of the New Testament they ascribe much to the constant practise of the Church in all ages Now then if it be considered that when Paul was at Troas Acts. 20.7 the Disciples came together to breake bread and Paul preached upon the first day of the weeke and Paul 1 Cor. 16.1.2 as he had appointed in the Churches of Galatia so he appoints at Corinth collections for the poore the first day of the week Revel 1.10 it hath the Elogium or title of the Lords day and it was so Sacred among Christians that it was made the question of inquisitors of Christianity Dominicum servasti Hast thou kept the Lords day to which was answered Christianus sum intermittere non possum I am a Christian I may not omit it it is cleare evidence to me that either Christ or the Apostles having abrogated the old Sabbath Col. 2.16 subrogated the first day of the weeke instead of it Now if a moity of this could be brought for Paedobaptisme in the stead of Circumcision of infants I should subscribe to it with you But Paedobaptisme not consisting with the order of Christ in the institution being contrary to the usage of it by John the Baptist the Apostles there being no foote-steps of it till the erroneous conceit grew of giving Gods grace by it and the necessity of it to save an infant from perishing some hundreds of yeares after Christs incarnation I dare not assent to the practise of it upon a supposed analogy equity or reason of the rule of Circumcision and imaginary confederation with the beleiving parent in the Covenant of grace For to me it is a dangerous principle upon which they go that so argue to wit that in meere positive things such as Circumcision and Baptism are we may frame an addition to Gods worship from analogy or resemblance conceived by us betweene two ordinances whereof one is quite taken away without any institution gathered by precept or Apostolicall example For if we may doe it in one thing why not in a nother where shall we stay They that read the Popish expositors of their Rituals doe know that this very principle hath brought in Surplice Purification of women c. that I mention not greater matters I desire any learned man to set me downe a rule from Gods Word how far I may go in my conceived parity of reason equity or analogy and where I must stay when it will be superstition and will worship when not when my conscience may be satisfied when noâ— That which Christ and his Apostles have taken from the Jewes and appointed to us we receive as they have appointed buâ— if any other man if a Pope or Occumenicall Councel take upon them to appoint to mens Consciences any rite in whole or in part upon his owne conceived reason from supposed analogy with the Jewish ceremonies it is an high presumption in such against Christ and against the Apostles command to yeeld to it Col. 2.20 though it hath a shew of wisedome v. 23 And the Apostles example Gal. 2.3.4 5. binds us to oppose it when it is likely to bring us into bondage And for the other pillar upon which at this day paedobaptisme is built it is to me very dangerous viz. That the Covenant of Evangelicall grace is made to beleivers and their seede that the children are confederates with the Parents in the Covenant of grace Which without such restrictions or explications as agree not with the common use of the words which in the plaine sense import this that God in his Covenant of grace by Christ hath promised not only to justifie and save beleiving Parents but also their children is in my apprehension plainly against the Apostles determination Rom. 9.6 7 8. makes an addition to the Gospell mentioned Gal. 3.8 9. and drawes with it many dangerous consequences which I abhorre You adde Now God hath so blessed the religious observation of the Lords day in this Kingdome above other Churches and Kingdomes that such as indeavour to overthrow it deserve justly to be abhorred by us Upon occasion of which passage I only desire to intimate to you that from happy events it s not safe to conclude that a thing pleaseth God You know it is the way the Monks and Prelates use to inferre that their institution is of God because their Orders have yeelded so many pious Confessors Martyrs and Saints it too much countenanceth the way of arguing for Independency by which it hath prevailed in Letters from abroad and suggestions at home still harping on this string that it is the way of God because they that are in that way thrive grow more spirituall then others And if this arguing be good It prospers therefore it pleaseth God then it will follow on the contrary It prospers not therefore it pleaseth not God And if so we might inferre Infant baptisme is of men not of God sith if conscience and experience may speake there are but few Christians that have tasted the sweete comfort of their baptisme as Mr. Shepard in his Epistle before Philips vind of infant-bap The other note is this that when you say that such as indeavour to overthrow the religious observation of the Lords day deserve justly to be abhorred by us it must be taken cum grano salis with cauâ—ion of such as doe it against cleare light with a malitious spirit Otherwise your words reach to forraigne reformed Churches their teachers yea in a sort to your selfe who may be said interpretatively to indeavour to overthrow it while you build it on the same ground with paedobaptisme But I proceede YOu say
a people in Jobs and Lots families who were not circumcised nor to be circumcised and there may be a people of God whâ—â—re not baptiâ—ed as the thief on the crosse the Catechumeni dying aâ—oâ—e baptisme many martyrs and others that have dyed without Baptisme And in the signes themselves there is a great difference both in the acting of them the one of them was with blood the other without the one took away a part of the body the other not and after the acting the one was a permanent signe the other left no impression or footsteps of it that did remain The third agreement is both of them the way and means of solemn entrance and admission into the Church which may be granted yet in the solemnity there was a great difference the one to be done in a private house by a private person the other openly by the Minister thereto appointed The fourth agreement is both of them to be administred but once which I conceive true thus to wit that there is no necessity of administring either of them above once but a demonstrative Argument to prove it an heresie or unlawfull in it self to rebaptize I yet expect Yet this parity hath its disparity For Baptisme is not restrained to any set day but Circumcision was limited to the eighth day in its institution Your fifth And none might be received into the communion of the Church of the Jewes untill they were circumcised nor into the communion of the Church of the Christians untill they be baptized If you mean by Communion to be accounted members of the Church of the Jews I cannot assent unto you For not only the children were accounted in that Church who were not eight dayes old but also all the uncircumcised in the time of the travell through the Wildernesse untill they camâ— to Gilgal and all the females were members though they were not to be circumcised The reason was because God would have all within that Church that were within the families of Israel and therefore he would have the servants born in the house and that were bought with money of any stranger that were not of Abrahams seed circumcised And if you mean by the communion of the Church of Christians the accounting of them as visible members it is not true that none might be received into the communion of the Church of the Christians untill they be baptized unlesse you will with Bellarmine deny the Catechumeni to be actuall members of the Church and oppose Whitaker and others of the Protestant Divines herein The last agreement is that none but the circumcised might eat of the Paschâ—â— Lâ—mbe which is true of those that ought to be circumcised but it â—s not true simply taken for the females were to eat though not circumcised On the other side you say none may but those who are baptized be admitted to eat the Lords Supper This you affirm but you bring no other proof for it but the Analogie conceived by you between Circumcision and the Passeover and Baptisme and the Lordâ— Supper which can make but a Topick argument and that à simili which iâ— of all other the weakest Place to prove by proportions are weak probation saith Râ—â—therfuâ—d Due right of Presbyteries Ch. 2. Sect. 2. p. 37. 'T is true we find persons ordinarily upon their fiâ—st call were baptized and then after received the Lords Supper and it is true that 1 Cor. 10.2 3 4. and 1 Cor. 12.13 baptizing is put before eating and drinking and therefore thers is ground enough for ordering it so yet I make question whether if a person that professeth the faith of Christ sincerely and is not yet baptized suppose for want of a Minister or out of scruple at the way of baptizing only allowed or because the custome is not to baptize but at Easter or Whitsuntide as it was of old or the like reason should come to a Congregation of Christians receiving the Lords Supper and there receive it with love to Christ whether he should sin because not baptized as the Jews should sin that did eat the Passeover not circumcised For in the Jewes case a command is broken not here and so no transgression If he come without examination of himself not discerning the Lords body he sins he breaks the command 1 Cor. 11.28 But where is the command that he must be baptized first And for the same reason I question whether a Minister can justifiâ— it before God if he reject such a Christian from the Lords Supper because not baptized for the aforesaid reasons By this which I have said you may perceive how uncertain your agreements are and how many disagreements there are between Circumcision and Baptisme and therefore how poor a proof or rather none at all may be drawn from the supposed agreements you make between Circumcision and Baptisme for the making a command to circumcise Infants a command to baptize Infants without the Holy Ghost declaring Gods minde to be so All these agreements yâ—a if there were an hâ—ndrâ—d more cannot make it any other than an humane invention if the Holy Ghost do not shew that they agree in this particular But to make the weaknesse of this Argument the more apparent let me parallel the Priests of the Law with the Ministers of the Gospel as you do Circumcision with Baptisme As God appointed Aergâ—s and his sons to Minisâ—eâ— in the time of the Law so the Ministery of the Gospel now the Apostle makes the Analogy expresly 1 Cor. 9.13 14. and far more plainly then the Text you bring for the succession of Baptisme to Circumcision and they agree in many things As the Priests lips should preserve knowledge Mat. 2.7 Deut. 33.10 so must the Bishop be apt to teach 1 Tim. 3.2 As the Priest by offering the sacrifices held forth Christ to them Heb. 9. so the Minister by preaching Gal. 3.1 As the Priest was for the people of God so the Minister of the Gospel As the High Priest was to have the people on his breast so the Minister in his heart as the one was to blesse so the other was to pray for them As the Priest had a consecration so the Minister is to have an ordination As none was to thrust himself into the one without a calling so neither in the other And many more such agreements might be assigned will it therefore follow that a command to a Priest to offer a sacrifice propitiatory is a command to a Minister to offer a sacrifice propitiatory or a command for a Priest to wear a linen Ephod should be a command to a Minister to wear a Surplice as the Papists do just in your manner argue from Analogy or resemblance or that therefore tythes are due to Ministers jure divino by divine appointment as Bishop Carleton Dr. Sclater and others from Analogy of Melchisedecs and Aarons Priesthood would infer or that ordination may be by the people because the children of Israel laid hands on the Levites
of discipling but to baptize and it would serve for a good plea for non-preaching or meer officiating Priests whereas in Mark. 16.15 which I think will not be denied to be parallel to this Matth. 28.19 Disciple all nations is preach the Gospel to every creature But this conceit is so absurd that I presume none that hath any wit will entertain it though the paper be licensed That which I have hitherto discoursed tends to this to prove that when Christ saith Teach all nations and baptize them his meaning is by preaching the Gospel to all nations make them Disciples and baptize those that become Disciples of all nations Now concerning the Position which after Mr. Blake and Mr. Rutherfurd you seem to imbrace concerning the federall or externall holinesse of a believing or chosen nation giving right to the Infants of that nation to be baptized Give me leave to argue a little First if Infants may be baptized because they are born in a chosen nation or a believing nation then there may be a rule whereby we may know when a nation may be called a believing or chosen nation when not otherwise we should not know when to make use of this title to baptisme when not and it were absurd to conceive God should give us a rule and no direction how to make use of it But no rule can be assigned whereby to know when a nation is a believing chosen or discipled nation giving right to baptize Infants of that nation when not Ergo If it be said they may be known in that they are descended from such a Believer as Abraham I reply then God would have lefâ— us a note to know such a nation by as he did Abrahams posterity by Circumcision But there is no such note nor any such nation marked out this were indeed contray to the appointment of admitting all nations If it be said when the king of a countrey is a Believer this is no rule for it may be he may be a Believer and all the rest unbelievers and then the practice of baptizing Infidels afore they are instructed at the command of Princes As when Charles the great foâ—ced the Saxons to be Christians were to be justified If it be said the nation is a believing nation when the representative body believes and so the children of that people may be baptized I answer the representative body may be Believers and the greatest part Infidels Papists c. these Infidels children must then be baptized yea the Infidels themselves by vertue of an implicit faith in their governours faith for they are a part of the nation And therefore if Mr. Blakes Argument be good The Infants of any nation make up a part of the nation and the nation where they came was to be discipled and therefore the Infants to be baptized the same reason holds for Infidels of age for they are a part of the nation If it be said it is a believing nation when the greatest part are Believers how shall that be known How shall a minister do when he cannot come to the knowledge of it must he stay till they be counted by poll as the Sheriffes do at the election of Knights of the Shire and upon Certificate that the major part is believing then baptize Why did not the Apostles so nor any other Ministers to this day How ill would it fare with some poor Christians who are but a handfull in respect of the multitude of unbelievers of their own nation as in the Primitive times when Princes and States were adversaries to Christianity If it be said when all adulti of ripe yeers are believers then such a right is asserted as never was nor perhaps ever will be except when all Israel shall be saved and so no Infants shall be baptized on this ground Secondly but if it could be resolved what number or sort of Believers make a believing nation giving title to Infant-baptisme yet there would be uncertainty concerning the kind of believing which might denominate a believing or chosen nation having federall or externall holinesse such as may create title to the baptisme of Infants of that nation There are some nations that are reckoned among Believers which yet are mis-believers as Heretiques for instance the nation of the Goths who were Arians or grosly Idolatrous as the Spaniards shall they give title to their children to baptisme when without repentance they cannot be deemed capable of communion in the body of Christ Thirdly if Infants of wicked parents be capable of baptisme because born in a believing nation then this priviledge agrees to them either in respect of their descent or the place of their birth or both If in respect of their descent then either their descent within mans memory or their descent beyond all the memory of man If of their descent within memory and knowledge then Foundlings have no title hereby to Baptisme of whose parentage there is no knowledge neerer or remoter who are neverthelesse baptized If of that beyond memory it must be upon such a ground as is common to all Infants in the world which are descended from some Believer in some precedent generation or else such a rule must be set down as hath no certainty in it by which to administer that Ordinance If from the place of birth only because the Church of God is there then children of Turks or Jews are to be baptized because born in London If by reason of both when they concurre and not otherwise then the children of an English Embassador at Constantinople or Agent at Aleppo supposed to be wicked as the Jews that persecuted Christ loose this priviledge because born out of England If there be any other nationall respect upon which this supposed priviledge may be fastened it either hath these or the like inconveniences consequent on it Fourthly if there be such a federall holinesse of a chosen discipled or believing nation as may make the Infants of that nation though their parents be openly wicked capable of Baptisme this right must come from some grant or charter or other We find indeed God would have the posterity of Abraham and all the males in that nation circumcised So God appointed it what ever their parents were for reasons before rehearsed but there is no such grant promise covenant or appointment now to any nation of Gentiles as was then to the posterity of Abraham because the reasons now cease the Messiah is now come and the prerogatives are now personall not nationall not one nation hath priviledge above another as a nation but personall as a Believer in any nation As for the Text which Mr. Rutherfurd alledgeth to wit Rom. 11.16 it hath been examined before and shewed out of the Text that holinesse of the branches there is meant personall by faith and the objection against it which he makes to wit that then the children of a believing parent should be all sanctified whereas the contrary is manifest as in Absolom the son
not in respect of age The second Text Mar. 9.41 hath not the term little ones or children at all and it is expresly meant of the Apostles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because ye belong to Christ. The third Text Matth. 18.5 is as little to the purpose For first the word is not Infant but little childe who may be one able to speak secondly one such little child is not meant of a little childe in age but a little child in affection though an old man in age resembled by a little child as appeareth out of vers 3. one that is converted and made as a little child vers 4. one that humbles himself as a little childe vers 6. one of those little ones that believe in him And therefore Beza rightly on vers 5. hath this Annot. Puerulem talem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 id est quempiam ita se demittentem ut puerum referat nec enim proprie de pueris agit such a little childe that is any one that doth so humble himself that he resembles a little childe For he doth here properly deale concerning children And so the Syriack Interpreter qui sit sicut puer iste who may be as this boy But you have yet one place to prove that Infants are disciples which you thus expresse And I desire it may be seriously weighed whether that expression Acts 15.10 Now therefore why tempt yee God to put a yoak upon the necks of the Disciples do not necessitate us to give the name of Disciples to Infants as well as to grown men For I reason thus All they upon whose necks those false teachers would hâ—ve put the yoak of Circumcision are called disciples and to be called disciples but they would have put the yoak of Circumcision upon Infants as well as grown men therefore Infants â—s well as grown men are called disciples and to be called so The Major is undeniable the Minor I prove thus They who pressed Circumcision to be in force according to the manner of Moses Law and would put it upon their necks after the manner of Moses his Law they would put it upon Infants of those who were in convenant with God as well as upon the necks of those who were grown men for so Moses Law required But these false teachers pressed Circumcision to be in force as is apparent Acts 15.1 I have seriously weighed this Text Acts 15.10 as you desire and I find no necessity nor colour of giving to Infants the name of Disciples from that Text. And in answer to your Argument though you say it is undeniable yet I have the boldnesse to deny the Major in your Prosyllogisme For though it be true that they are called disciples upon whose necks they would put the yoak of Circumcision yet it is not said they would put it only on Disciples it is more probable they indeavoured to put it on the necks of all whether Disciples or others as universally necessary to salvation v. 1. And therefore your Mâ—jor is not certain that all they upon whose necks those false teachers would have put the yoak of Circumcision are called disciples The Minor likewise in your Prosyllogisme I deny and in your latter Syllogisme framed to prove it I deny the Major For though I deny not that they would have had Infants as well as converted Gentiles circumcised yet the putting the yoak of Circumcision is not actuall circumcision in their flesh for that they were able to bear for many ages and at this day Mahometanes and Abassine Christians do still bear as well as Jews buâ— the yoak of circumcision is the necessity of it on mens consciences and therewith the whole Law of Moses vers 5. and that as necessary to salvation v. 1. and therefore Peter having said v. 10. Why tempt ye God to put a yoak upon the necks of the Disciples addes v. 11. but we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus we shall be saved even as they plainly implying that the yoak he meant was the necessity of Circumcision and keeping Moses his law to salvation Now this yoak was not put upon Infants but upon brethren taught the necessity of it vers 1. And thus like another Sisyphus the stone you roul returns upon you Volvendo saxum sudas nec proficis bilum you sweat in rouling a stone and yet profit not a whit and you are so far from proving by virtuall and undeniable consequence a command to baptize Infants of Believers according to ordinary rule that on the contrary this Text Mat. 26.19 clearly proves Infants are not by ordinary rule to be baptized because Disciples of all nations and no other are appointed to be baptized and therefore baptizing of Infants is besides the institution and so wil-worship But yet Mr. Blake hath one Text for a reserve which he thus puts in array Let that Text of the Prophet be well weighed where speaking by the Spirit of prophecy of the rejection of the Jews 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 hand to the Gentiles and set up my Standard to the people and they shall bring thy sons in their arms and thy daughters shall be carried on their shoulders Isai. 49.22 If there were but such an hint as that by way of prophecy to have left them behind we should from some have heard of it with a noise It may be truly said the alledging this Text for Infant-baptisme is but a noise vox praeterea nihil a voyce and nothing beside as the Spartan said of the Nightingal To it I answer that the allusion is to nursing-fathers and mothers carrying children on shoulders and in their arms and the speech is metaphoricall as Junius saith in his annot in locum Haec omnia allegoricè dicuntur all these things are spoken allegorically and may be either understood as he speaks of the spirituall amplifying of Christs Kingdom and so children were brought on arms and shoulders among Gentiles by preaching and instruction as when the Apostle saith he was gentle among the Thessalonians as a nurse that cherisheth her children 1 Thes. 2.7 or it may be understood of the return of the Jews from captivity and that the following verses make more probable nor is there a word in the Text that I observe of the rejection of the Jews as he sayes but of their restitution But if it must be understood properly which hath no likelihood it may be as well conceived of bringing their children to have laying on of hands as baptizing of them I go on to that which followes in your Sermon ANother command by good consequence for the baptizing of infants you shall finde in the forementioned place when the Apostle exhorteth them to repent and be baptized c. because the promise was made to them and to their children which as I shewed clearly proves that the children of
est tale Scriptuâ— esse â—jus Authoris 〈◊〉 nomen prefâ—rt Rivet tractâ—t de Patrum Authâ—rit cap 14. Consuetudo tamen Man is Ecâ—lesia in baptizandis parvulis nequaquam sperâ—enda est neque ullo modo superflua deputanda nec omnino credenda nisi Apostolica esset traditio Augustin lib. 10. cap. 23. de Genesi § 6. Of the Testimonies of Gregory Nazianzen and the Greeke Church Lib. 2. heresi 47 vel 67. §. 7. Of the testimony of Cyprian §. 8. Of the testimony of Augustine August tâ—m 1. Confess lib. 1. c. 11 Sigâ—abar signo Cruâ—is ejus conâ—iâ—bâ—r ejus saâ—e jam inde ab uteâ—o matris mâ—ae quae multum speravit in te And then followes how being young and falling sick he desired and his mother thought to have him baptized but upon his recovery it was differred Rivet tract de Patrum authoritate c. 9. Augustinus aeternis flammis adjudicat Infantes fine baptismo morientes· §. 9. Of the testimonies of Hierom and Ambrose §. 10. Oâ— the valiâ—ity of proof by these testimonies and of the evidences that Infant-baptism is an innovation Chamier panstr Cathol to 4. l. 5. c. 15. §. 19. Denique hunc morem quis non videt ejus temporis â—sse cum vix milâ—esimus quisque baptâ—zabatur non adultus in Catechumenis diligenter exercitus H. Hamond A practicall Catech l. 1. §. 3. pag. 23. And those other fundamentals of faith which all men were instructed in anciently before they were permitted to be baptized §. 1. Of the fitnes of placing the Narration of miscarriages of opposers of Paedobaptisâ—e §. 2. Of the opposers of Infant-baptisme afore Baltazar § 3. Of Baltazar Pacimontanâ—◠§. 4. Of rebaptizing § 5. Of the Anabaptists in Germanie and the Antiprelatists in England §. 6. Of Anabaptists opposing Magistracy §. 7. Of the hindering of refoâ—mation by Anabaptisme §. 8. The Antipaedobaptists principle overthrows not the Lords day the Paedobaptists principle reduceth Judaisme and Popish Ceremonies and addes to the Gospell Vid. Rainold Confer with Hart c. 8. §. 4. §. 9. Of the evill of separating from the Ministry and Communion of Christians by reason of this opinion §. 10. Of the condition into which the opinion of Anti-paedobaptisme puts the infants of believers of originall sin salvation out of the Church and Covenant of grace §. 1. Of the connexion between the covenant and the seale §. 2. Of the first conclusion concerning the identity of the Covenant of grace fâ—r substâ—nce to Jews and Gâ—ntiles §. 3. Of the meaning of the second Conclusion The answer of the Assembly of Divines to the reasons of the 7 dissenting brâ—thren p. 48 praecog 1. The whole Churâ—h of Christ is but one made up of the collection and aggregation of all who are called out of the world by the preaching of the Word to professe the faith of Christ §. 4. That the Covenant of grace is not made to believers and their seed Twisse vind Grat. cont Armin. lib. 1. pa. 1. digr 7. Hujus autem promissionis Gen. 17.7 8. fides confestim apparet in discrimen adâ—uci ex rejectione Judaeorum exclusione eorundem ex foedâ—re Dei cum fint ex Abrahamo sâ—cundum carnem prosminati sic inquit apparet primas rerum facies intuentibus Walae cont Corvin cap. 15. pag. 377. Apostolus ostendit ideo verbum foederis divinarum promissionum Israelitis factarum non excidere aut irritum fieri licet magna Judaeorum pars esset incredula quia promissiones illae foedâ—ris factae sunt a Deo non iis proprie qui ex semine Abrahami secundum carnem erant orituri sed iis qui secundum electionâ—m gratuitam Abrahami familiae ex vi diâ—ina promissionis erant inserendi The new Annotations on the Bible Annot. on Rom. 9.8 The children of the flesh c Not all they who are carnally born of Abraham by the course of nature are the children of God to whom the promise of grace was made but the childâ—en of promise that is those who were born by vertue of the promise those who by Gods speciall grace were adopted as Isaac by a speciall and singular promise was begot by Abraham they only are accounted for thaâ— seed mentioned in the Covenant I will be thy God and the God of thy seed Estius annot ad Gen. 17.7 Colligit hinc Calvinus â—o ipso quo quis est semen Abrahae ad cum pertinere prâ—missionem Abrahae factam sed responsio manifesta prâ—missionem illam de benedictione spirituali intellectam non ad carnale semen Abrahaemi pertinere sed ad spirituale quemadmodum eam ipse Apostolus interpretatâ—â— est Rom. 4 9. Si enim carnale semen intelligas jam ad neminem ex gentibus illa promissio pertinebit sed ad solos ex Abraham Isaac secundum carnem genitos Paraeus Comment in Mat. 3.9 Docet quoque promissiones Dei non alligatas esse carnali origini sed pertinere tantum ad posteros fideles spirituales Non enim sunt filii Abrahae qui secundum carnem sunt ex Abraham sed qui secundum spiritum Ainsworth ann on Gâ—n 12.7 Thy seed That is to all the children of promise the elect who only are couâ—ted Abrahams seed Rom. 9.7 8. and in Christ are heirs by promise as well the Gentiles as the Jews Gal. 3.26.28.29 Ames Coron art 5. cap. 2. Seminis etiam inculcatio solos electos efficaciter vocatos notari docet Apostolo sic hunc titulum interprâ—tante Rom. 9.8 Gal. 3.16 4.28 §. 5. It is not in Gods church like other kingdomes Cotton Way of the Churches of Christ in N.E. c. 4. §. 6. Infants cannot claim right unto baptisme but in the right of one of their parents or both Where neither of the parents can claim right to the â—ords supper there thâ—ir Infants cannâ—t claim right to Baptisme Aâ— therefore we do not receive an heâ—â—hen to the fellowship of the supper nor their seed to Baptism so neither dare we receive an excommunicate person who is to us an heathen to the Lords supper or his children to Baptisme But after â— 7 §. 2. Or where either of the parents have made such profession Or it may be consiâ—ered alâ—o whether the children may not be baptized where either the grand-father or grand-mother have made suâ—h profâ—ssion and are still living to undertake for the Christian education of the child For it may be coâ—ceived where there is a stipulation of the Covenant on Gods part anâ— a restipulation on maâ—s part there may be an obligation of the Covenant on both parts Gen. 17.7 Or if these saile what hindereth but that if the parâ—nts will deâ—â—gne their infant to be educated in the house of any goâ—ly member of the Church the child may be lawfully baptized in the right of its household governour according to the proportion of the Law Gen 17.12 13. §. 6. Of the Texts which are Act.