Selected quad for the lemma: faith_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
faith_n	abraham_n	righteousness_n	seal_n	9,017	5	9.6941	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A87687	Baptism without bason. Or, Plain Scripture-proof against infant-baptism, I. By way of answer to Mr. Baxter's arguments, and to the exercitations of Mr. Sidenham, teacher to a church a[t] Newcastle, concerning infants baptism: for which that their pretended consequences are from concessions not to be granted, and from Scriptures as mistaken, and absolutely wrested, is clearly discovered. With II. Several questions and answers, positively holding out the minde of Christ in baptizing of believers onely; and that the magistrates may be induced more and more to encourage the preaching thereof in publike. III. A declaration written to the election of grace, who for want of information are of contrary judgment. Written by William Kaye, minister of the Gospel at Stokesley.	Kaye, William.	1653 (1653)	Wing K32; Thomason E715_13; ESTC R207264	49,935	54

Gospel Heb. 8. which is said to be established upon better promises ver 7. which could not be if Mr. Sidenham might have liberty to exalt it above measure and plead a false title or uphold that which by Christ and his Church hath been totally taken away Heb. 8. Act. 15. And further I must tell Mr. Sidenham which it may be may seem to him strange that God having made man judge of baptisme whereby man must look at what is visibly revealed and not contradict his commission upon the uncertain consequences of secret pretences therefore the old covenant as altogether made void and impertinent is not onely waved but also the gracious new covenant which is in force except it should be revealed or manifested so that through discipling and profession of faith we could judge of it secret things belonging unto God were no ground or consequence of baptisme nor to proceed upon the promise Act. 2.38 untill that time that they should be called Mr. S. chap. 3. p. 16. The next thing which must have its place of consideration is that question of Abraham's seed with whom the promise was made and on this bangs all the main weight on both sides And if we make Infant believers to be in Covenant as Abraham 's seed the controversie will be at an end There is a carnal and a spiritual seed under the New Testament as our opposites must acknowledge Answ The first great thing as Mr. S. is pleased to call it the nature of the Covenant his foundation being thrown down I cannot see how the door of hope in this third chapter can have a hinge to hang upon neither can your opposites in your sense acknowledge your distinction if by spiritual seed you understand the children of believers before they be by being called and made actual believers made Abraham's seed in walking in the steps of Abraham Rom. 4.12 16. Therefore as the promise was made to Abraham both the seed and the promise must be distinguished As Abraham had a natural seed it was either that which he had of Hagar called the seed according to the flesh or of Sarah called the seed according to the promise because God gave it by promise both which seeds spoken of Gal. 4.23 are both of them to be accounted the seed according to the Law Rom. 4.16 and so the promise made unto them upon this account was the Covenant of which Circumcision was a signe that is to say temporal promises Gen. 17. as I have before fully proved 2. But Abraham hath also a seed of faith Rom. 4.16 that is all believers both of the Circumcision and of the Gentiles Rom. 4.12 which as they walk in the steps of Abraham are the seed of Abraham he is their father Rom. 4.12 16. Gal. 3.6 7 8 9. compared with Psal 22.23 30. And therefore if in this sense Mr. S. understand a spiritual seed which the Scripture calleth a seed of faith Rom. 4.16 I shall grant him but if he imagine that the seed of faith came by Circumcision or that it is as he saith Infant-believers then I deny it for I do affirm that the seed of faith came by the promise and oath which God made to Abraham upon the attempting of sacrificing of his son Isaac whereby Abraham to be father to the seed of faith both those that are circumcised and of the Gentiles was then promised Gen. 22.16 17 18. compared with Gal. 3.6 7 8 9. Heb. 6.13 14. So that Mr. S. and I do not so much differ about Abraham's seed in a spiritual relation which properly called is Abrahams seed by faith Rom. 4.16 as we differ that he would make a spiritual seed by Circumcision and in Infants which till they be believers are not so called so that Infant-believers as considered to be Infants were not in covenant as M.S. pretendeth further then in that covenant whereof circumcision was a signe whereby onely the Infants of Jews or such as were made Jews by circumcision had as Abrahams seed the temporall promises made good unto them of Canaan c. so that here again Mr. S. stumbles upon circumcision neither had I said this but that Mr. S. will not let us be quiet But which is worse with reflection upon circumcision and to get a consequence to maintain the dotage of popery c. whereby they hold Children damned if they be not baptized Mr. S. thus far further advanceth his cause with hay and stubble saying p. 21. there is a secret distinction and veine of election carried through the administration which takes hold of some and not of others as if the election or promise were made it should not be effectuall without that administration but blessed be God he hath not produced any Scripture to sow this piece of old cloth on the new garment of the Gospel of which I thought to have made a farther discovery but that circumcision being again brought upon the stage I am called to answer in that Mr. Sidenham p. 14. Saith Let us come to circumcision the seal of the covenant Answ That the vail of flesh which through circumcision hangs over M. S's eyes may be removed that he may look above circumcision the Scripture may inform him that circumcision is not a seal of the covenant but it is onely a Token of the Covenant Gen. 17.11 and though it is called a seal of the righteousness of Abraham Gen. 15.6 compared with Rom. 4.11 yet this makes not circumcision a seal of the covenant and if it were it could not seal more then is in the covenant that is temporall mercies and as it was the seal of Abrahams righteousness which he had before circumcision and not given by circumcision Rom. 4.10 with whom the covenant was first made To this I answer that circumcision as a seal relating to Abraham holds forth Gods approbation of Abraham as signs and miracles did confirm the approbation of the faith of the Apostles Mark 16.17 and the conversion of the people is the seal or approbation of the Ministery 1 Cor. 9.2 that therefore every ones faith must be so confirmed God not beginning an administration or not making an originall covenant with them but doing for Abrahams sake or chusing these Apostles to be chosen witnesses is neither consonant to Scripture or reason so that the Scripture in the old Testament never speaks more then that circumcision is a signe of the covenant made in the flesh Gen. 17.11 and as it relates with respect of a particular application to Abraham it was the seal of his righteousness which as I proved before was not by means of circumcision and though we do disclaim Abraham to be our Father by circumcision in that thereby he was but a Father of some Nations all being Jews or made Jews by circumcision Exod. 12.48 Gen. 17.15 yet we do own Abraham as to the example of faith as Mr. Sidenham rightly states it to be our Father from the Oath and Promise God made to Abraham Gen.

upon which Mr. S. would build a foundation is fallen to the ground and how then shall his doctrine for which he hath no foundation to make the seed of believers Church-members by vertue of the Covenant of which circumcision was a token be able to stand seeing it is so absolutely condemned and taken away M. S's and M. B's consequence for circumcision cannot be admitted of that Children upon that pretence should have baptisme of which Mr. S. is much mistaken in that he calleth baptisme the new externall signe and seal of the Covenant he having no Scripture to prove what he saith neither can he prove that baptisme is a seal at all neither is there any such thing in the covenant to be signed or sealed he as conceiteth Yet Mr. Sidenham p. 10. Saith First and chiefly we affirm this meaning circumcision was the same in substance with the Covenant administred under the Gospel since Christs coming in the flesh and spirit Secondly It was founded on pure grace Answ First then and chiefly I answer that here is a confounding of things that differ circumcision being called a Covenant but figuratively Gen. 17.10 It being in its own Nature the token of the Covenant Gen. 17.11 so that Mr. Sidenham saying that circumcision is the same in substance with the Covenant in the Gospel is partly mistaken as also in comparing circumcision with baptisme he being not able to finde any proof in Scripture that baptisme is either Covenant or Seal Secondly And that circumcision is not the same in substance with the Covenant under the Gospel Heb. 8 expresly declareth that when the Covenant whereof circumcision is a token and the new Covenant are compared that the new Covenant is established upon better promises Heb 8.6 then a temporall inheritance And yet Mr. Sidenham would have the best of promises in circumcision as in the next place doth appear in that he saith that circumcision was founded on pure grace and that it was a pure Covenant of grace Gal. 3.16 17 18 19 29. Answ That it may truly and clearly appear First that the Scriptures he produceth witness against him And secondly that he hath not rightly applied them let us observe 1. That that which he alleadgeth Gal. 3.16 that the promises were not made to Abrahams seeds as of many but as of one to thy feed which is Christ though we take this for Christ mysticall as Mr. Sidenham would have it yet here is nothing relating to circumcision in which if we mind it is said the promises were made not to the seeds which was of Hagar and strangers as well as of Isaac which promise had respect to circumcision therefore those promises being excluded which had respect to the seeds of many there is nothing of circumcision spoken in the 16. ver but of the promise which relates to Gen. 22.16 17 18. and that ver 17. speaketh nothing of circumcision there are three things mentioned in the said verse Covenant Law and Promise the first two whereof the Covenant and Law are onely named as that they could not or cannot disannull the Promise which is made as I have proved before unto Abraham Gen. 22.16 17 18. and unto Abrahams seed which are the children of God by grace and faith called to walk in the steps of Abraham Rom. 4.11 12. as I shall presently more fully declare therefore in that God made a gracious promise to Abraham because Abraham did believe in God when he should have sacrificed his sonne Isaac therefore this promise hath respect to Gen. 22.18 for you see this is not called a Covenant but a promise which was made to Abraham ver 16 17. and therefore that all that is spoken by the Apostle ver 18. as is above mentioned as the verses are alledged by Mr. Sidenham Gal. 3.16 17 18 19. doth not hold forth any thing to make Mr. Sidenhams pretence that circumcision is founded on pure grace or to be a Covenant of pure grace is fully discovered And therefore 2. That in the next place I may make it appear that Mr. S. hath not rightly apprehended these Scriptures in calling circumcision from thence a Covenant of pure grace This I say To be founded on pure grace or that God of his pure grace or good will was pleased to look on Abraham so as to give him a temporal promise or a seed according to the flesh is not to be denied yet this makes not the gift to be pure grace as if God in his pure grace give the wicked meat drink and cloathing doth not prove that their meat drink and clothing is pure grace Therefore however circumcision the signe of temporal mercies was given on Gods part of his pure grace it makes not the Covenant to be pure grace which as I said in the contents of the 8. chap. to the Hebrews is called a Covenant of temporall promises for all spirituall promises which were made to Abraham were not by vertue of circumcision but in that as the Apostle saith Gal. 3.8 God foreseeing that he would justifie the Heathen through faith preached the Gospel unto Abraham saying In thee shall all Nations be blessed which words are expresly mentioned Gen 22.18 and cannot be found Gen. 17. circumcision relating to Nations that should come of Abrahams seed in which temporall promise the Gentiles had no Interest but as they submitted to the Jews Therefore it s clear enough or the Sun cannot shine more clearly then that the seed of Abraham being believers or walking in the steps of Abraham Gal. 3.7 9. Rom. 4.12 circumcision the token of a temporall covenant did not hold forth this spirituall mercy which God upon Abrahams sacrificing of his Sonne promised Abraham even to bless all Nations in him as hath been at large discovered And therefore that which Mr. Sidenham saith that the Apostle useth the same expression in Heb. 8.10 where he speaketh of the new Covenant which was as Mr. Sidenham pretendeth used Gen. 17. I will be thy God and the God of thy seed In this he may see how partially he is blasted to favour his own imagination For first God doth not onely say as in Gen. 17. I will be a God unto thee and thy seed after thee but in the new Covenant he saith not onely that He will be a God unto them and they shall be a people unto him but to shew that this new covenant is upon better promises God sheweth that he will work a work of grace even to write his Lawes in their hearts c. this God never promised in circumcision and that God in circumcision did onely it relating to all the world promise no more then to be a God in providence unto them or to make good his promise or covenant to give them the promised Land read Levit. 26.44 45. 2 King 13.22 23. and there you shall fully be informed and therefore you may see that circumcision is no covenant of pure grace or equivalent with that new covenant under the

22.16 17 18. compared with Gal. 3.6 7 8 9. Rom. 4.12 16. Now that Abraham was a believer before Gen. 17. so that God did bless Abraham and that circumcision did seal his Faith he had though not as the Apostle saith by circumcision Rom. 4.11 I do grant but that God gave Abraham in circumcision more then Abraham begged of God Gen. 15.3 48. or that God did give Abraham more then an inheritance of which circumcision was a token Gen. 17.4 11. this I defend and that therefore circumcision was not an administration to make Church-members I desire this being so much mistaken to produce these reasons to the contrary 1. Because they did not circumcise in the Temple or by a Priest but a woman Exod. 4.25 and others did circumcise Josh 5.3 2. A stranger by circumcision was not said to be of the Church but as one of the Nation Exod. 12.48 and if any refused to be circumcised they were not to be excommunicated out of the Church but to be cut off out of the Nation Gen. 17.14 and that the Church is not the Nation Reason the seventh proves 3. The Female was not circumcised and yet Hanna and other Women were of the Church and if in the Man the Woman might be admitted into the Church why might not the Woman in the Man be baptized and receive the Lords Supper since they would have baptism to succeed circumcision 4. Because God said that the Covenant of which circumcision was a signe Gen. 17.11 was a covenant in the flesh Gen. 17.13 and God did never promise more then a temporall inheritance in that covenant Gen. 15.3.18 compared with Gen. 17.3 4 5 8. 5. In the case of Dinah marrying with Sichem all that was desired of him was this that they should be one people if Sichem c. would be circumcised which was done without any change of religion Gen. 34.22 24. and though it might be supposed as we do with our children they would endeavour to learn them and make them submit to their Religion yet all this endeavouring like the paines that we take in the nurture and admonition of our Children did not admit or make them visible Church-members but onely made preparation for their admission as the next reason will fully clear it 6. Because to the Jews God said Gather my Saints together unto me those that have made a covenant with me by sacifice Psal 50.5 and Zeph. 3.9 it s prophesied both of Jews and Christians that they should serve God with one consent Therefore Children not sacrificing whereby there might be a visible appearance of Faith and Repentance and they not being willing or knowing to serve God with one consent could not be of the visible gathered Church or they were not visible Church-members for to make a visible Church member there must be something appearing in the party that is to be admitted so as to give his consent but in a Child we have or see nothing that represents the face of a Church-member 7. Children by circumcision were not made Church-members because after they had been circumcised they were presented unto the Lord in the Temple and our Saviour did no more for them when they were brought unto him then bless them by praying for them Mat. 19. 8. God was said to have a Church in the Wilderness Act. 7.38 and yet for forty yeers together they were not circumcised and therefore circumcision made not a Church if baptism as Mr. Sidenham saith doth not make one for so he saith pag. 166. Baptisme doth not forme a Church 9. Because the Gentiles had a Church as Mr. Baxter hath notably proved by Job c. and Abraham was of the Church before and yet the Gentiles were never circumcised and Abraham had not been circumcised but that God made circumcision a signe of the covenant which was to give him a seed by Sarah and to make him a Father and Sarah a Mother of divers Nations Gen. 17.6 16. for as all Nations whether Jews or Gentiles are blessed in Abraham this was not by circumcision but by oath and promise made to Abraham Gen. 22. ●6 17 18. as the Apostle Gal. 3.9 compared with Heb. 6.13 14. fully declareth and therefore we do not look at circumcision that it did admit unto the Church or that baptism should succeed it circumcision relating to temporal promises 10. Because these words in the covenant whereof circumcision is a signe I will be thy God and o thy seed after thee were onely spoken of God that he might manifest himself to be a God in providence to make his temporal promise good to Abraham and such strangers that should sojourne with him God excepting against none in circumcision as he doth in point of salvation and therefore God expresly declared his meaning that in respect of the covenant whereof circumcision was a signe he was their God to make good his promise to give them the Land of Canaan Levit. 26.44 45. and in that he condemned and tooke away this circumcision making a new covenant not according to the old covenant declares that the old covenant had no spiritual promises Heb. 8.6 7 8 9. 11. That Mr. Sidenham and Mr. Baxter making circumcision to bring Children into the Church is but from their own wrested consequences for there is no such Scripture that saith Circumcision makes a Child a member of the Church neither is there any Scripture that can prove circumcision a covenant of pure grace or that baptism doth succeed it upon which they ground their conclusion or consequence 12. If baptism should succeed circumcision then it could not be said that baptism is the like figure of Noahs Ark 1 Pet. 1.21 in which there was no Children nor did any enter into it but such as believed the word preached unto them 13. They were debtors to the Law not by covenant or contract the Law being made four hundred and forty yeers after circumcision Gal. 3.17 and therefore they were debtors to the Law by consequence as a thing that followed and was after imposed upon the people so that they were not circumcised upon that account 14. They were twice circumcised The first time in token they should inherit the promised Land And the second time as being come to possess it Joshua 5.2 therefore circumcision did not make them Church-members The great thing then which Mr. Sidenham pag. 9. speaketh of in this controversie the nature of the covenant being fully and plainly discovered it s too apparent that he hath been too much discipled by the Jewish rabbies in making the Covenant by their traditions and doctrine greater then ever God intended it whereby the promise and oath God made to Abraham whereby he is the Father of the faithful hath been over-looked Therefore Mr. Sidenham failing to make good his hinge and maine weight in thinking to make all promises to Abraham as Father to the faithful to be held out in circumcision and that it was a seal of the covenant

S. hath not opened but shut up or turned the stream of those gracious expressions of Scripture And yet upon conclusion after a great deal of discourse this chapter consisting of almost a sheet of paper he concludes that however this Scripture holds forth the promise of believers of the Gospel both Jews and Gentiles and their children which is true if the last words wherein all the main business depends be applied whereby we may see to whom this promise is made even to as many as the Lord our God shall call Mr. S. chap. 6. pag. 45. having hitherto endeavoured to plead his own cause by the strongest Arguments which by consequence he could produce now endeavouring to throw down our foundation in this sixth chapter he tells us that our great plea from Mat. 3.8 9. is made vain These be Mr. S's words That we may still take off the Objections let us view that place so much stood on Matth. 3.8 9. When John saw many of the Pharisees and Sadduces come to his Baptism he sayth O generation of vipers who hath forewarned you to flee from the wrath to come Bring forth fruits meet for repentance And think not to say that you have Abraham to your father for I say that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham From this text they gather The pretence of being Abrahams children could not give them a right to Baptism And if John denyed Abraham's seed upon that account much more would he the adopted children That this is no such ominous place against Infant-baptism consider who they were he spake unto the Pharisees and Sadduces men of age and degenerate from Abrahams faith persons that lived in their own works and righteousness therefore he calls them a generation of vipers which was not as they were Abrahams children but as they walked not in Abrahams steps and were quite degenerate Answ To which I answer that the plea is not vain as Mr. S. in the contents of his chapter pretendeth that is by us made from Matth. 3.8 9. though to obscure the light that therein shineth or for Mr. S. to light his candle or gloss or interpretation to darken the sun-light of express Scripture is labour in vain in that 1. I say that Matth. 3.8 9. in the general is directly against Infant-baptism in that none but such as have faith and repentance must think to be baptized is as clear a place as can be desired or pleaded for 2. That the pretence or consequence from Circumcision from this of Mat. 3.8 9. Think not to say you have Abraham to your father is also condemned it appears that John did not judge them to have any benefit or priviledge as being Abrahams seed according to the Law Rom. 4.16 whereby Abraham was their father by circumcision Gen. 17.5 16. And therefore John apprehending the Pharisees and Sadduces as Mr. S. c. do to stile themselves through this pretended priviledge from Abraham without looking home for faith and repentance which every childe of Abraham should have which calls Abraham father by faith as onely they that believe ought to do Gal. 3.7 therefore to undeceive the Pharisees and Sadduces and to unbottom them and to throw down their sandy foundation that John in the simplicity of the Gospel might be downright with them though it 's true that Mr. S. sayth that he did not call them a generation of vipers as they were Abrahams seed yet that they might not through fleshly confidence make their plea or rest upon this account that they might be baptized being but Abrahams seed according to Law and not by faith he tells them to undeceive them saying Think not to say that you have Abraham to your father as that you should think upon this account that I should baptize you therefore John without as much as taking notice which he would have done if there had been cause of any legal priviledge they had by Abraham to plead for Baptism onely exhorts them to faith and repentance by which they are the children of Abraham by faith Rom. 4.12 16. Gal. 3.7 which John makes the ground of his admittance unto Baptism unto which Gospel-ordinance none but a taught disciple by the express and plain words of Christ ought to be admitted And therefore our plea that the pretence of being Abrahams children by Law or Circumcision could not give a right to Baptism as hath been before often proved is very warrantable so that John did not desire to dispossess them or question them as the Legal seed or children of Abraham but onely let them know that they ought not to have so much as a thought to get Baptism though they should think to say We have Abraham to our father which in other respects it was both lawful for them to think profess and affirm that they were Abrahams children according to the Law but yet not to plead it as a consequence for Baptism much less for their childrens And but that I strive not to take advantage upon every occasion it 's an easie thing to prove by the words of Christ in that he did approve of the Pharisees to sit in Moses chayr and of their doctrine and ●n that they as the word Pharisee signifieth did expound the Scripture and that the Sadduces were strict living men that gave much to the poor though they admitting of nothing but the letter of the Scripture denyed the resurrection yet as Authors testifie they were the best of the Jewish Church and did uphold circumcision though as many that pretend to the Church they stood for traditions and had their failings and through unbelief in Christ were a generation of vipers yet that they were quite cut off and degenerated from Abrahams seed by the Law he cannot prove as may appear by Christ Joh. 8.37 39. And therefore John not approving of them upon this account as being Abraham's seed according to the Law makes it clear that John did object both against them for their evil lives and for pretending that they should have Baptism from the pretence that Abraham is their father according to the Law as before said Therefore we stand to our plea that Matth. 3.8 9. is not onely against Infants baptism in the general but also against the very consequence which from Circumcision whereby Abraham is a father according to the Law is pretended to uphold the same And therefore children were not baptized by John as though as Mr. S. sayth p. 47. they were neglected by John as though he could not have got time to attend to baptize them but John did not baptize them because they were not Abraham's seed according to the faith Rom. 4.12 16. Gal. 3.7 9. that is they were not actually believers otherwise John would not have been guilty of such partiality and injustice for John refused none but such and all such whatsoever as in whom there was not the appearance of the fruits of faith and repentance Acts 15.1 2 3 4.

make him tedious to the Reader as what he hath alleadged in Christ's being baptized by John chap. 19. pag. 162. with his conceited Question Whether Christ did preach before he did baptize All these Chapters being but strife of words and doubtful disputations I not striving for mastery but onely as engaged endeavouring to undeceive the deluded people in holding forth the Truth I seeing no edification for me to follow the flying shadows of needless conjectures altogether as unedifying as endless genealogies Therefore onely to the last Chapter wherein Mr. S. holdeth forth pag. 166. That Baptism doth not form a Church I answer That though Baptism doth no more form a Church then it formeth a believer no Church hath been found or acknowledged which hath not been baptized Therefore though through the falling away from the Faith Christians can experience that the work of grace in giving a seal to the Ministery and thereupon there hath been a yeelding up of one another to serve God with one consent whereby a Church hath been gathered before these members as in the Churches of all Independents they have been baptized yet if the said Independent Churches should in mercy have their eys opened as some can experience to see and submit to the minde of Christ in the Order of the Gospel whereby the first that is in baptism be last discovered then in this extraordinary work of grace the work of grace upon full trial being approved of that the said Church be found to be gathered Saints and the seal of the Ministery then the said Church as a houshold of faithful without breaking their relation of Pastor and Flock they may be baptized For we must not build upon another mans foundation Christ himself owning the man that cast out devils though he followed not the Apostles And though the Spouses sister want two brests yet was she owned for their sister Cant. 8.8 So that whatsoever work of God is wrought it is to be acknowledged provided that the Pastor of the said Church be baptized by such a Pastor of a Church that is under the practice of Baptism Thus much in answer to Mr. S's book as it relates unto Baptism To conclude I shall onely make answer to that which Mr. S. first objected against the doctrine of Baptism and concerning the denying of singing of Psalms in his Epistle Dedicatory Mr. S. Epist Dedic I have treated upon these two subjects viz. denying of Infant-baptism and singing of Psalms which eat mens affections and creep at the heart like a gangrene insensibly An Opinion that hath been always ominous and of a wonderful strange influence accompanied with the most dangerous retinue of Errours since the first Embryo of it was brought forth whether by the judgement of God or from its natural and secret connexion with other principles of darkness I will not determine onely God hath shewed some black characters upon it in every nation where it hath prevailed though we cannot but say Many Saints are innocently under the power of it To which I return this answer That Hypocrites drawn out of the element of the world receiving the new wine of the doctrine of the kingdom of heaven into the old bottles of their hearts Hymenius-like have made shipwrack of their profession makes not the Opinion always ominous nor doth the abuse of drink condemn the lawful enjoyment of the creature For if you had but tasted you might have experienced that the doctrine of baptizing of believers doth like all other Truths Joh. 17.17 so sanctifie and work through Christ such a spiritual union with Christ and all his Saints that indeed a blinde and profane soul cannot live in the element of it And therefore if any such appear that have owned it they either forsake the Church or they are cut off by the Church as withered branches however the evil complained of if ever it be visible though a Gangrene may be cured with the knife of Excommunication Yet on the contrary such inevitable evils attend Infant-Baptism that it is the very heart-blood and pulse of the soul of Antichrist and the onely partition-wall which hinders the communion of Saints and the greatest let to the gathering and uniting of all Saints into Truth and Church-fellowship that can be So that as long as it is in practice the smoak shall not fully vanish out of the Temple And therefore such black characters do point it out it being built upon the foundation of wrested consequences implicite faith blinde charity and pretended antiquity that Antichrist himself and all the profane sons of the world plead their own birthright-priviledge in it and rest under the cover or shelter of it Though I must with Mr. Sidenham conclude that many Saints do acknowledge it and as owned by the world do decry it And therefore it is to be hoped that as the Saints shall be more fully informed Saint-like they will renounce it and will submit Christ like unto the Ordinance of Baptism The second thing in controversie is the denying of singing of Psalms of which Mr. S. saith thus I hope when mens Hearts come in tune their Voices will likewise The former denies more fundamental principles as the Covenant in its extent and subjects the freeness of grace the riches of it working in the New Testament and contracts the Gospel leaving more grace visible in the Legal and Old Testament-dispensation then in the New Answ As concerning Singing of Psalms Hymns and Spiritual Songs though I hope to make these to appear to be distinct which Mr. S. conceiveth to be individually united yet as to the point in controversie about Singing this I have to say That as Christ shall more and more raign he shall rouze up and gather his Saints to be baptized into one body 1 Cor. 12.14 and united into and acted with the Spirit of Christ and his Apostles that their hearts will be in tune That as Independent Churches cast off Infant-sprinkling so Churches of Christ under baptism will return as some of them for the present are unto singing And yet I finde that those that are not under the present practice dare not deny their title to the Ordinance of Singing But that denying Infant-baptism is worse or that there is any evil at all but a submission to the Ordinance and Commission of Christ in denying of Infant baptism I must needs therefore further say That to pretend baptism of Infants to be helpful to exalt free grace is absolutely to deny the grace of God to be free which is conveyed without the Ordinance of baptism And that the childe of a reprobate may be as soon under the Covenant of Free-grace as the childe of a believer And that no man can judge who are under the Covenant of Free grace and who are not And therefore we do not baptize upon this account but as we see grace faith and consent visibly appearing And therefore their pretended light that will baptize the children of believers onely as