place of the Type but as one positive Institution succeeds in the place of another and this also is necessary to be foreknown by the Reader because the Anabaptists endeavour to shift off the force of many good Arguments which otherwise are not to be evaded by saying that Circumcision under the Old Testament was a Type of Baptism under the New Now to shew that Circumcision was not a Type but only the Fore-runner of Baptism we must note that strictly and properly speaking there was the same difference betwixt the Type and the Antitype as betwixt the Shadow and the Substance or betwixt a Man and his Picture in a Glass * * * Deinde quod maximè advertendum id inter Antitypum Typum interest quod quae revera in Antitypo vis in est ea non nisi specie tenus aut gradu longè exiliori in Typo extiterit Enimvero quamvis Typus nonnunquam rem aliquam cum Antitypo suo communem habuerit ea tamen res multò minùs in Typo quam in Antitypo semper valet ita ut vis rei adumbrantis virtutis in adumbratâ repertae nil nisi Symbolica quaedam Species aut tam exilis gradus fuerit ut pro umbrâ quâdam haberi possit Outramus de Sacrif l. 2. c. 18. insomuch that what was really literally and properly in the Antitype and of perfect Efficacy and Power was generally but Symbolically and representatively in the Type and figurative of something which did in a more noble perfect eminent and efficacious manner belong to the Antitype than it did to it Thus the blood of the Legal Sacrifices were but Shadows and Representations of the Blood of Christ and the purging and cleansing Virtue in their Blood serving to the purifying of the Flesh was also but a faint and umbratical resemblance of the more noble and efficacious cleansing Virtue of his Blood which purges the Conscience from dead works So the Brazen Serpent was but a Shadow or Symbol of Christ upon the Cross and the healing Virtue which belonged to it was but a figure or shadow of that more eminent and powerfully healing Virtue which was in Jesus Christ But the case is not so betwixt Circumcision and Baptism because Circumcision hath no Symbolical likeness with Baptism nor any thing belonging to it common with Baptism which doth not as literally properly fully and eminently belong unto it as unto Baptism it self For First Is Baptism a Sacrament of initiation into the Covenant of Grace under the Gospel So was Circumcision before and under the Law Is Baptism now a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith So was Circumcision then Doth it properly and effectually confirm and establish the Covenant betwixt God and us now So did Circumcision then as it is written you shall Circumcise the Flesh of your Fore-skin and it shall be a Token of the Covenant betwixt me and you Baptism doth nothing under the Gospel which Circumcision did not as properly and effectually under the Law This was then as absolute and real a Sacrament as that now is This did then as really initiate true Believers as that now doth It never was an Umbratical Sacrament or shadow of another Sacrament it never did Umbratically initiate Believers or Umbratically and in shew and Similitude only confirm the Covenant betwixt God and the Seed of Abraham and therefore could not be a Type of Baptism no more than the Broad Seal of England 300 Years ago was a Type of this Accordingly it is never mentioned in the New Testament as a Type of Baptism nor Baptism as the Antitype of it but on the contrary the only Typical Adumbrations which are found of it in the Gospel are such things which have some Symbolical likeness with it and were fitted upon that account to be Types thereof The First Is the Baptizing of the Israelites in the * * * Mare autem illud Sacramentum Baptismi fuisse declarat beatus Apostolus Dicens nolo enim vos ignorare Et addidit dicens haec autem omnia figurae nostrae sunt Cyprian Ep. 69. Ed. Ox. Red-Sea 1 Cor. 10. 2. Where the Red-Sea is a Type of the Water of Baptism their passing through it when they were delivered from Pharaoh and his Host a Type of our passing through that and of our deliverance thereby from the Devil and his Angels and their Captain and Deliverer Moses a Type of our Saviour Christ The Second Is the saving of Noah and his Family in the Ark the like figure whereunto saith the Apostle even Baptism doth also save us †††Item Petrus ipse quoque demonstrans c. Cyprian Ep. 74. ad Pompeium contra Epist Stephani in Firmilian Ep. contra eandem Epist ad Cyprian in Ep. 69. Quod Petrus ostendens unam Ecclesiam esse c. 1 Pet. 3. 21. Here it is plain that the Waters of the Flood were a shadow of the Waters of Baptism the Ark a Type of the Church and that the passing of the Ark through the Waters did prefigure our passing through the Waters of Baptism in the Ark of the Church But as for Circumcision it hath nothing in it Symbolical of Baptism nor was it an Umbratical but a real Confignation of the Covenant of Grace every way as real and substantial an Ordinance as Baptism now is and therefore succeeded in the room of it not as the Antitype did in the place of the Type but as one absolute Ordinance or positive Institution doth in the place of another according to the Apostle who saith unto the Colossians In whom also ye are Circumcised with the Circumcision made without hands in putting off the Body of the Sins of the Flesh by the Circumcision of Christ having been buried with him in Baptism Col. 2. 11 12. But in the second place if we consider the Original of Baptism as a Jewish Institution we shall find it very improbable that Circumcision should be a Type of it because a Type properly speaking is a * * * Typus quatenus vox ista sensum habet Theologicum ita definiri posse videtur ut sit futuri alicujus Symbolum quoddam aut exemplum ita à Deo comparatum ut ipsius plane instituto futurum illud praefiguret Quod autem ita praefiguratur illud Antitypus dici solet Outramus de Sacrificiis l. 1. cap. 18. Symbol of something future or an Exemplar appointed under the Old Testament to prefigure something under the New But Baptism was it self of Jewish Institution under the Old Testament and by consequence could not be Typified and prefigured by Circumcision with which it was coexistent and used with it for many years together in the Jewish Church The Jewish Church made it a Ceremony of initiating Proselytes unto the Law and our Saviour liking the Institution continued the use of it and made it the only Ceremony of Initiating Proselytes unto the Gospel superadding unto it the compleat Nature of an Initiatory
Sacrament or the full force of Circumcision as it was a Sign of the Covenant and a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith These things being premised let us proceed to the stating of the former Questions And first of all Quest I. Whether Infants are uncapable of Baptism Which considering what hath already been said concerning the Spiritual and Evangelical Nature of the Covenant which God made with Abraham and the initiation of young Children into it by God's especial appointment cannot without rashness be affirmed Nothing can reflect more dishonour upon the Wisdom of God and the practice of the Jewish Church than to assert Infants to be uncapable of the same privilege which God and the Jewish Church granted unto them For God commanded them to be Circumcised and the Jewish Church commanded them to be Baptized as well adult Proselytes and if they were then capable both of Circumcision and Baptism surely they are capable of Baptism now If they be not from whence comes the difference Not from the Nature of the Covenants for the Covenant which God made with Abraham and his Seed was as I have shew'd the same Covenant for substance which he hath since renew'd with us in Christ Nor from the Signs and Seals of the Covenant for Circumcision was a Sign and Seal of the same Grace or of the same Righteousness of Faith under the Old Testament that Baptism is now under the New Wherefore since the Covenants were for substance the same both Spiritual and Evangelical Covenants and the Grace of those Covenants the very same and only the Rites and Ceremonies which were Signs of those Covenants and Seals of that Grace being different what hinders in the nature of the thing but that Infants who were capable of the one should not also be capable of the other Is Baptism a more Spiritual Ordinance than Circumcision That cannot be because Circumcision is a Gospel-Ordinance I mean an Ordinance of the Gospel which God preached before unto Abraham and if the Spirituality of outward Ordinances are to be measured from the ends of their institution then Circumcision was every way as Spiritual as Baptism because it really signed the same Covenant and sealed the same Grace and was a Ceremony of Initiation to the same Spiritual Seed of Abraham that Baptism now is Wherefore if the relative nature of Circumcision considered as a Sacrament was the same under the Law that Baptism is under the Gospel it must needs follow that Children under the Gospel are as capable of this supposing no new Command to exclude them as under the Law they were of that if Infant Church-Membership or the Initiation of Infants was then no absurdity surely it can be none now If God under the Old Testament vouchsafed it as a gracious Priviledge unto Children to be incorporated with actual Believers and with them to be made members of his Church without a Prohibition to the contrary they must needs be capable of the same Priviledge still Nay if Infants were admitted into the Church when the entrance into it was more grievous and not without blood how unreasonable is it to assert that they are now uncapable of admission into it when the entrance into it is made more easie and more agreeable to the natural weakness of a young and tender Child Certainly if the Jewish Infants were Circumcised with the most painful and bloody Circumcision made with hands Christian Infants without a Special Countermand from God must be deemed capable of the Circumcision made without hands I mean of Baptism which is the Circumcision of Christ What God hath Sanctified and Adopted and made a Member of his Church let no Man presume to think it uncapable of Sanctification Adoption and Church-Membership but yet so rash and extravagant have the profess'd Adversaries of Infant-Baptism been as to pronounce little Infants as uncapable of Baptism as the young ones of unreasonable Creatures and that it is as vain to call upon God to send his Holy Spirit upon them as to pray him to illuminate a Stone or a Tree Nay upon this very Presumption that Infants are uncapable of Baptism they assert Infant-Baptism to be a Scandalous abuse of the Ordinance of Baptism a meer Nullity and insignificant performance and scornfully call it Baby-Baptism forgetting all this while that Circumcision of Infants was no scandalous abuse of the Ordinance of Circumcision but a valid and significant Performance and that in their Phrase there was Baby-Circumcision and Baby-Baptism in the Jewish Church The reason why they conclude Infants uncapable of Baptism is taken from the consideration of their incapacity as to some ends and uses of Baptism which cannot be answered say they but by the Baptism of grown Persons who are capable of understanding the Gospel and of professing their Faith and Repentance and of submitting unto Baptism and of having their Faith and Hope further strengthned in the use of it but Infants being utterly incapable of understanding the Gospel or of professing their Faith and Repentance and of submitting unto Baptism in which they are meerly passive or of having their Faith strengthned in the use of it they ought to be deemed uncapable of Baptism whose ends are so much frustrated when it is applied unto them But this way of arguing how plausible soever it may seem at first hearing is weak and fallacious and highly reflecting upon the Council and Wisdom of God First It is weak and fallacious because it makes no distinction betwixt a strict institution which is instituted by God for one or a few ends and procisely for Persons of one sort and an Institution of Latitude which is instituted by him for several ends and for different sorts of Persons differently qualified for those several ends Of the first sort was the Ordinance of Fringes above-mentioned which could only concern grown Persons because they only were capable of answering the end for which it was instituted viz. To look upon them and remember the Commandments of the Lord and of the latter sort is the Holy Ordinance of Marriage which was appointed by God for several ends and for Persons differently qualified and capacitated for those several ends in so much that Persons who are incapacitated as to some ends of Marriage may yet honestly Marry because they are capable of the rest All the ends and uses for which it was appointed can only be answered by the Marrying of Persons who are capacitated for procreation of Children notwithstanding superannuated Persons who are past that capacity are not incapable Subjects of Marriage nor is the Marriage of such invalid or an abuse of the Holy Ordinance of Marriage because they are capable of answering one end for which Marriage was ordained This shews how fallaciously the Anabaptists argue against Baptizing of Infants because of their incapacity as to some ends and uses for which Baptism was ordained they ought first to have proved what they take for granted that it was a Divine Institution of the
of the thing 2. Because this distinction is made by the Apostle who was of the Seed of Abraham an Hebrew of the Hebrews and by consequence very well qualified to understand the difference betwixt the Jewish Oeconomy as a Church and as a Common-wealth First I say there is a Ground for such a distinction in the Nature of the thing as is evident to any Man who is capable of considering the difference betwixt the Church-Christian before and after its Union with the Empire Before its Union with the Empire it subsisted by it self purely as a Church above three hundred years in a State of Persecution from Christ unto Constantine the Great and just so the Jewish Church for above four hundred years subsisted by it self in a State of Peregrination and Captivity from Abraham unto Moses who brought them out of Egypt and gave them the Law But Secondly As there is ground for this distinction in the nature of the thing so is it in effect made by the Apostle Gal. 3. 17. This I say that the Covenant that was before confirmed of God with Abraham in Christ the Law which was four hundred and thirty years after cannot disannul that it should make the Promise to Abraham of none Effect Here is a plain difference made between the Covenant or Promise which God made with Abraham and his Seed when he separated him from the World unto himself and that Political one which he afterwards made with the Jews when he gave them the Law And this difference is also observed Rom. 4. 13. The Promise that he should be the Heir of the World was not given to Abraham or to his Seed through the Law but through the Righteousness of Faith For if they which are of the Law be Heirs Faith is made void and the Promise is of no effect From these words which distinguish so plainly between the Covenant which God made with Abraham or the Promise which he made unto him and the Law it is evident that the beginning of the Jewish Church purely considered as a Church is to be dated from the Covenant which God made with Abraham and therefore in the second place the way to find out the nature of the Abrahamical or pure Jewish Church is to consider the nature of the Covenant or Promise upon which it was founded and if we examine the Scriptures we shall find that it was an Evangelical Covenant For substance the same with that which is since made betwixt God and us through Christ This will appear upon a Review of those Scriptures which teach us That Faith was the Condition of this Abrahamical Covenant that it was made with * * * Fide autem stare justitiā illic esse vitam praedictā est apud Habbaccuc Justus autem ex fide vivet Inde Abraham pater Gentium credidit In Genes credidit Abraham Deo deputatum est ei ad justitiam Item Paulus ad Galatas Abraham credidit Deo deputatum est ei ad justitiam Cognoscitis ergo qui ex fide sunt hi sunt filii Abrahae providens autem Scriptura quia ex fide c. Cyprian advers Judaeos Judaeos à Deo recessisse successisse vero in eorum locum Christianos fide Dominum promerentes de omnibus Gentibus ac toto orbe venientes Cyprian ad Quirin Testim L. 3. Abraham as the Father of the Faithful and in him with all Believers with his Spiritual as well as Carnal Seed proceeding from him by Spiritual as well as Natural Generation and that the Blessings or Promises of this Covenant belonged unto them upon the same Account of their Faith To this purpose speaketh the Apostle in the Fourth Chapter of his Epistle to the Romans from the 9th to the 15th Verse Cometh then this Blessedness of Justification by Faith upon the Circumcision only or upon the Uncircumcision also For we say that Faith was reckoned to Abraham for Righteousness how was it then reckon'd When he was in Circumcision or in Uncircumcision Not in Circumcision but in Uncircumcision and he received the Sign of Circumcision a Seal of the Promises made to the Righteousness of Faith which he had being yet uncircumcised that so believing before Circumcision he might be the Father both of all them that believe tho' they be not circumcised that righteousness might be imputed unto them also as his Children and the Father of Circumcision to them who are not of the Circumcision only but who also walk in the Steps of that Faith of our Father Abraham which he had being yet uncircumcised for the Promise that he should be the Heir of the World in his Posterity was not to Abraham or his Seed through the Righteousness of the Law but through the Righteousness which cometh of Faith For if they only which are of the Law be Heirs his Faith so much celebrated is made void and the Promise made to it of no effect So Gal. 3. from the 5th to the 10th Verse He therefore that ministreth unto you the extraordinary Gifts of the Spirit and worketh Miracles among you doth he it by the works of the Law or by the Faith which you have heard preached even as it is written of * * * Quoniam autem in Abraham praefigurabatur fides nostra quoniam Patriarcha nostrae fidei velut propheta fuit plenisfimè Apostolus docuit in eâ Epistolâ quae est ad Galatas dicens Qui ergo tribuit vobis Spiritum operatur virtutes in vobis Irenaeus Lib. 4. cap. 38. Abraham he believed God and it was imputed unto him for Righteousness know ye therefore that they which are the Children of Faith the same are the Children of Abraham and God in the Scripture foreseeing that he would justifie the Heathen through Faith preached before the Gospel unto Abraham saying In thee shall all Nations be blessed So then they which be the Children of Faith are blessed with faithful Abraham who is the Father of them that believe Afterwards in Verse 26. Now to Abraham or his Seed or Race were the Promises of God made He i. e. God or Moses his Pen-man saith Not to Seeds or Races as if there were divers of them but to thy Seed i. e. to one of thy Seed which is Christ And this I say that the Abrahamical Covenant that was before confirmed by God in Christ the Law which was four hundred and thirty years after cannot disannul that it should make the Promise made unto Abraham of none effect From all these Texts put together it is plain that the Abrahamical Covenant upon which the Jewish Church as such was founded was of a Spiritual Evangelical Nature and perfectly verified and fulfilled in Jesus Christ who was made of the Seed of Abraham and in whom all the Families of the Earth are blessed and whose Day Abraham himself saw and rejoyced It is farther evident from them that this Covenant was made with Abraham as the Father
first sort which I call a strict Institution and then their Argument had been good but this they will never be able to prove because Baptism succeeded in the room of Circumcision which was a Divine Institution of the latter sort and because our Saviour was Baptised in whom there was a greater incapacity as to the ends of Baptism than possibly can be in Infants even as he was in a greater incapacity as to answering the ends of Circumcision than ordinary Jewish Infants were John verily did Baptize with the Baptism of Repentance and thereby sealed unto the People the Remission of their Sins and therefore understanding very well that our Lord was not capable of this and other ends of his Baptism he forbad him telling him that he was fitter to be the Baptist than to be Baptized of him but yet as soon as our Lord gave him one general reason why he ought to be Baptized viz. Because it became him to fulfil all Righteousness he suffered him which shews that Baptism is a Divine Institution of Latitude and that in such an Institution the incapacity of a Person as to some ends doth not incapacitate him for it when he is capable of the rest But Secondly This way of arguing from the incapacity of Infants as to some ends of Baptism is highly reflecting upon the Wisdom of God who commanded young Babes to be Circumcised although all the ends of Circumcision could not be answered but by the Circumcision of adult Persons who only were capable of understanding the nature of the Institution and the nature of the Covenant into which they were to enter of professing their Faith and Repentance and of submitting unto the bloody Sacrament in which Children were merely Passive and of having their Faith and Hope further strengthned upon sealing unto them the Remission of their Sins Wherefore the full force of this Objection rises up against Infant-Circumcision as well as Infant-Baptism because Circumcision was instituted for the same ends that Baptism now is and accordingly when Men were initiated by Circumcision they were to profess their Faith and Repentance and shortly after at their Baptism solemnly to renounce Idolatry and all idolatrous Manners and Worship and their idolatrous Kindred and Relations and yet upon the desire of such Proselytes their Children were initiated both by Circumcision and Baptism though they were altogether uncapable of understanding or doing those things which their Fathers did Wherefore those Men who argue against Infant-Baptism because it doth not answer all the ends of Baptism reproach the Divine Wisdom and the Wisdom of the Jewish Church not considering that Circumcision was and Baptism is an Institution of great Latitude and compass designed on purpose by God for Children in whom there is a capacity for some nay for the * * * Rem Praecipuam in Baptismo non attendunt hoc est restificationem divinae benevolentiae in foedus tutelam suam suscipientis gratiam conferentis c. nam in Baptismo praecipua res est divina gratia quae consistit in remissione peccatorum regeneratione adoptione haereditate Vitae aeternae cujus sane gratiae Infantes indigentes capaces sunt Cassand de Bapt. Infant chief ends of Baptism as well as for Men and Women in whom there is a capa city for all They are capable of all the ends of it as it is instituted for a Sign from God towards us to assure us of his Gracious favour and to consign unto us the benefits of the Covenant of Grace For their Child-hood doth not hinder but that they may be made Members of the Church as of a Family Tribe Colledge or any other Society nor doth it incapacitate them any more from being adopted the Children of God than the Children of any other Person nor of becoming Heirs of Eternal Life by virtue of that Adoption than by vertue of any other civil Adoption the Heirs to such a Temporal Estate For Children are capable of all acts of Favour and Honour from God and Men and of being instated in all the Priviledges of any Society though they cannot as yet perform the Duties of it nor understand any thing thereof Since therefore Children are as capable and stand as much in need of almost all the Benefits of the Covenant of Grace and the Priviledges of Church Membership as Men is it not as fit that the Confirmatory Sign of those Benefits and Priviledges should be applied unto them as well as unto these Should a Prince Adopt a Beggar 's Child and incorporate him into the Royal Family and settle a part of his Dominions upon him and to solemnize and confirm all this should cut off a bit of his Flesh or command him to be washed with Water who would count this an insignificant Solemnity or say that the Child was not capable of the Sign when he was capable of the chief Things signified thereby Or to make a Comparison which hath a nearer semblance with the Case of Infant-Baptism Suppose a Prince should send for an attainted Traytor 's Child and in the Presence of several Persons assembled for that purpose should say You know the Blood of this Child is attainted by his Fathers Treason by Law he hath forfeited all Right to his Ancestors Estate and Titles and is quite undone though he be not sensible of his wretched Condition My Bowels of Compassion yern upon him and here I restore him to his Blood and Inheritance to which henceforward he shall have as much right as if the Family had never been attainted I justifie him freely and declare my self reconciled unto him and that no spot or imputation may hereafter lay upon him I here before you all wash him with pure water to signifie that he is cleansed from his Original Attaindure and Corruption of Blood and that he is as fully restored to his Birth-right as if he had never been Attaint Now suppose this were done for a poor attainted Infant could any Man say that the action was insignificant and invalid because the Child knew nothing of it or that he was incapable of the Sign when he was capable of being washed from the Attaindure and of being thereby restored to his blood and Birth-right which was the chief thing signified thereby These things should be well considered by the Despisers of Infant-Baptism against whom I may urge for Precedents the Circumcision and Baptism of the Jewish Church both these as I must often observe were applied unto Infants as well as adult and actual Believers under the Old Testament and accordingly tho' Abraham believed and solemnly professed his Faith before he was Circumcised yet I hope they will not say that God acted foolishly in commanding Isaac c. to be Circumcised before he understood the ends of Circumcision or could believe much less make profession of his Belief He was entered Sacramentally into Covenant with God before he was able to recontract or understand what the condition of the Covenant was
they be not to be excluded from Baptism It is a general rule He that doth not Labour must not Eat But who is so barbarous that might think hereby that Children should be Famished The Lord sent his Apostles at the beginning of the setting up his true Religion unto all Nations unto such as were both ignorant of God and were out of the Covenant of God and truly such Persons it behoved not first to be taught and after baptized If at this day we should go to the Turks to Convert them to the Faith of Christ verily first we ought to teach them and afterward Baptize such as would yield to be the Servants of Christ Likewise the Lord himself in times past did when first he renewed the Covenant with Abraham and ordained Circumcision to be a Seal of the Covenant after that Abraham was Circumcised But he when he perceived the Infants also to pertain to the Covenant and that Circumcision was the sealing up of the Covenant did not only Circumcise Ismael his Son that was 13 years of Age but all other Infants that were born in his House among whom we reckon Isaac Even so Faithful People which were Converted from Heathen Idolatry by the Preaching of the Gospel and Confessing the Faith were Baptized when they understood their Children to be counted among the People of GOD and that Baptism was the Token of the People of GOD they procured also their Children to be baptized Therefore as it is written Abraham Circumcised all the Male Children of his House Semblably we read in the Acts and Writings of the Apostles that after the Master of the House was turned to the Faith all the whole House was baptized And as concerning those which of old time were compelled to Confess their Faith before they received Baptism which were called Catechumeni they were such as with our Fore-Fathers came from the Gentiles to the Church who being yet rude of Faith they did instruct in the Principles of their Belief and afterward they did Baptize them but the same Ancient Fathers notwithstanding did Baptize the Children of Faithful Men as I have already partly declared And because you do require a hasty answer of your Letter of one that is but a dull Writer I am here enforced to cease particularly to go through your Letter in answering thereto knowing that I have fully answered every part thereof in that I have already written although not in such order as it had been meet and as I purposed But forasmuch as I understand that you will be no Contentious Man neither in this matter neither in any other contrary to the judgment of Christ's Primitive Church which is the Body and fulness of Christ I desire you in the intire love of him or rather Christ desireth you by me that your joy may be perfect whereto you are now called to submit your Judgment to that Church and to be at Peace and Unity with the same that the Coat of Christ which ought to be without Seam but now alas most miserably is torn in pieces by many dangerous Sects and Damnable Opinions may appear by you in no part to have been rent neither that any giddy Head in these Dog-days might take an ensample by you to dissent from Christ's true Church I beseech thee Dear Brother in the Gospel follow the steps of the Faith of the Glorious Martyrs in the Primitive Church and of such as at this day follow the same decline from them neither to the Right Hand nor to the Left Then shall Death be it never so bitter be more sweeter than this Life then shall Christ with all the Heavenly Hierusalem triumphantly imbrace your Spirit with unspeakable Gladness and Exaltation who in this Earth was content to joyn your Spirit with their Spirits according as it is commanded by the Word That the Spirit of Prophets should be subject to the Prophets One thing ask with David ere you depart and require the same that you may dwell with a full accord in his House for there is Glory and Worship And so with Simeon in the Temple embracing Christ depart in Peace To the which 1 Cor. 14. Peace Christ bring both you and me and all our loving Brethren that love GOD in the Unity of Faith by such ways as shall please him to his Glory Let the bitter Passion of Christ which he suffered for your sake and the Horrible Torments which the Godly Martyrs of Christ have endured before us and also the inestimable Reward of your Life to come which is hidden yet a little while from you with Christ strengthen comfort and encourage you to the end of that Glorious Race which you are in Amen Your Yoke-fellow in Captivity for the Verity of Christ's Gospel to live and die with you in the Unity of Faith JOHN PHILPOT FINIS THE CASE OF THE Cross in Baptism CONSIDERED Wherein is Shewed That there is nothing in it as it is used in the Church of England that can be any just Reason of Separation from it Galat. VI. 14. God forbid that I should glory save in the Cross of our Lord Jesus Christ LONDON Printed for Fincham Gardiner at the White-Horse in Ludgate-street 1684. THE CASE OF THE CROSS IN Baptism c. THE Matters in Dispute betwixt Us and our Dissenting Brethren may generally seem to the unconcern'd stander by of so slight and Inconsiderable Moment that he must needs wonder how in the World the Controversie should come to have arisen to that Deplorable height which in this last Age it hath done And although the Case which will fall under our present Debate seems to have admitted of the most specious scruples and given the best scope of reasoning of any other thing that hath fallen under question amongst us since the Reformation yet even here also the Immeasurable Byass of Prejudice and Fervency 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Opposition hath too apparently manag'd the Argument So that the Pleas against it have not seem'd so weighty as they have been numerous as if the Objectors had an Eye to that direction in Quintilian they would L. 5. c. 20. Infirmiora Argumenta Congreganda sunt imbecilla enim naturâ mutuo auxilio sustinentur be sure to amass all the weaker Arguments which though weak in themselves yet by standing together may lend a Mutual assistance to one another like Articles of Impeachment none of which singly would perhaps affect the accus'd Person but all together may amount to accumulative Treason My business therefore in handling this Case shall not be to follow every nice Scruple or trivial Objection as where the Cross in Baptism hath been charg'd with the breach of every particular Precept in the Decalogue not to concern my self in any thing which either by long Induction of consequences hath been far fetcht or with great difficulty drawn in to make a show of Argument but as briefly and plainly as may be to sum up all that hath ever seem'd of
of Christ and no member of his Body which is the Church 4. That no Church-state can depend upon human Contracts and Covenants for then a Church would be a human Creature and a human Constitution whereas a Church can be founded only upon a Divine Covenant It is true no man who is at age can be admitted to Baptism till he profess his Faith in Christ and voluntarily undertake the Baptismal Vow but the Independent Church-Covenant betwixt Pastor and People is of a very different Nature from this unless any man will say that the voluntary contract and Covenant which the Independents exact from their members and wherein they place a Church-state be part of the Baptismal Vow If it be not then they found the Church upon a human Covenant for Christ hath made but one Covenant with Mankind which is contained in the Vow of Baptism If it be then no Man is a Christian but an Independent and then they would do well to shew how the Baptismal Vow which is but one and the same for all Mankind determines one Man to be a fixt member of Dr. Owens Church another of Mr. Griffiths or any other Independent Pastors and if they could get over this difficulty there is another still why they exact this Church-Covenant of Baptized Christians before they will admit them to their Communion if Baptism makes them members of their Church This I think makes it plain that the Independent Church-Covenant is no part of the Baptismal Vow and then it is no part of the Christian Covenant and if there be no true Church-state but what depends on such human Contracts then the Church owes its being to the will of Men not to the Covenant of God 5. I observe farther how absurd it is to gather Churches out of Churches which already consist of Baptized Christians Christianity indeed separates us from the rest of the World but surely it does not separate Christians from each other The Apostles only undertook to Convert Jews and Heathens to the Christian Faith and to make them members of the Christian Church which is a state of separation from the World but these Men Convert Christians from Common Christianity and the Communion of the universal Church to Independency If the Church be founded on a divine Covenant we know no Church but what all Christians are made members of by Baptism which is the universal Church the one Body and Spouse of Christ And to argue from the Apostles gathering Churches from among Jews and Heathens to prove the gathering Churches out of a Christian and National Church must either conclude that a Church and Church-state is a very indifferent and Arbitrary thing and that Men may be very good Christians and in a safe condition without it or that Baptized Christians who are not members of a particular Independent Church are no better than Jews and Heathens that is that Baptism it self though a Divine Sacrament and Seal of the Covenant is of no value till it be confirmed and ratified by a human Independent Covenant 6. I observe that if the Christian Church be founded on a Divine Covenant on that new Covenant which God hath made with Mankind in Christ then there is but one Church of which all Christians are members as there is but one Covenant into which we are all admitted by Baptism For the Church and the Covenant must be of an equal extent There can be but one Church founded upon one Covenant and all who have an interest in the same Covenant are members of the same Church And therefore tho the distance of place and the necessities and conveniences of Worship and Discipline may and has divided the Church into several parts and members and particular Churches yet the Church cannot be divided into two or more distinct and separate Churches for that destroys the unity of the Church and unless they could divide the Covenant also two Churches which are not members of each other cannot partake in the same Covenant but the guilty Divider forfeits his interest in the Covenant without a new grant A Prince indeed may grant the same Charter to several distinct Cities and Corporations but then tho the matter of the Charter be the same their right to it depends upon distinct Grants But if he grant a Charter for the Erecting of such a Corporation and confine his Charter to the members of that Corporation those who wilfully separate themselves from this Corporation to which this Charter was granted forfeit their interest in the Charter and must not think to Erect a new distinct Corporation by the same Charter Thus it is here God hath made a Covenant oâ— grace with Mankind in Christ and declares that by this one Covenant he unites all the Disciples of Christ into one Body and Christian Church who shall all partake of the Blessings of this Covenant By Baptism we are all received into this Covenant and admitted members of this one Church now while we continue in the Unity of this Body it is evident that we have a right to all the Blessings of the Covenant which are promised to this Body and to every member of it But if we divide our selves from this Body and set up distinct and separate Societies which we call Churches but which are not members nor live in Communion with the one Catholick Church we cannot carry our Right and Title to the Covenant out of the Church with us The Gospel-Covenant is the common Charter of the Christian-Church and if we are not contented to enjoy these Blessings in common with other Christians we must be contented to go without them For it is not a particular Covenant which God makes with particular Separate Churches but a general Covenant made with the whole Body of Christians as United in one Communion and therefore that which no particular Church has any interest in but as it is a member of the universal Church God hath not made any Covenant in particular with the Church of Geneva of France or England but with the one Body and Church of Christ all the World over and therefore the only thing that can give us in particular a right to the Blessings of the Covenant is that we observe the conditions of this Covenant and live in Unity and Communion with all true Christian Churches in the World which makes us members of the Catholick Church to whom the Promises are made Secondly The next thing to be explained is what is meant by Church-Communion Now Church-Communion signifies no more then Church-Fellowship and Society and to be in Communion with the Church is to be a member of the Church and this is called Communion because all Church members have a common right to Church Priviledges and a common Obligation to all those Duties and Offices which a Church relation Exacts from them I know this word Communion is commonly used to signifie a Personal and presential Communion in Religious Offices as when Men pray and hear and receive
Forms of Admission as he is pleased to Institute which under the Gospel is Baptism as under the Law it was Circumcision I was discoursing of Gods visible way of Forming a Church which I asserted to be by granting a Church-Covenant which is that Divine Charter on which the Church is Founded but then lest any one should question how men are admitted into this Covenant I added that God had invested some Persons with Power and Authority to receive others into this Covenant by Baptism and by receiving them into Covenant they make them Members of that Church which is Founded on this Covenant Now what of all this will any sober Dissenter deny Here is no dispute who is invested with this Power what form of Church-Government Christ Instituted whether Episcopal or Presbyterian here is no Dispute about the validity of Orders or Succession or in what cases Baptism may be valid which is not Administred by a valid Authority This did not concern my present Argument which proceeds upon a quite different Hypothesis viz. the necessity of Communion with the one Church and Body of Christ for all those who are or would be owned to be Christians or Members of Christs Body I make no inquiry by whom they have been Baptized or whether they were rightly Baptized or not but taking all these things for granted I inquire whether Baptism do not make us Church-Members whether it makes us Members of a Particular or Universal Church whether a Church-Member be not bound to Communion with the whole Catholick Church whether he that separates from any sound part of the Catholick Church be not a Schismatick from the whole Church whether we be not bound to maintain constant Communion with that particular Church in which we live and with which we can when we please Communicate occasionally whether it be consistent with Catholick Communion to communicate with two Churches which are in a state of Separation from each other if you have any thing to say to these matters you shall have a fair hearing but all your Queries which proceed upon a mistaken Hypothesis of your own do not concern me and yet to oblige you if it be possible I shall briefly consider them 1. Your first Query is Whether a Pious Dissenter supposed to be received into the Church by such as he believes to be fully invested with sufficient Power is in as bad a condition as a Moral Heathen or in a worse than a Papist Ans The Catholick Church has been so indulgent to Hereticks and Schismaticks as to determine against the Necessity of Rebaptization if they have been once though irregularly baptized This you may find a particular account of in the Vindication of the Defence of Dr. Still p. 22. c. But the question is whether if they continue Schismaticks whatever their other pretences to Piety be their Condition be not as dangerous as the Condition of Moral Heathens and Papists 2. Whether the Submission to the Power and Censures of this Church which all must own to be a sound Church be part of the Divine Covenant which Vnites the Members of the Catholick Church to God and to each other Ans This is a captious question which must be distinctly answered A general Submission and Obedience to the Authority and Censures of the Church though it cannot properly be called a part of that Divine Covenant whereon the Church is founded which primarily respects the promise of Salvation by Christ through Faith in his Bloud yet it is a necessary Church-Duty and Essential to Church-Communion and so may be called a part of the Covenant if by the Covenant we understand all those Duties which are required of baptized Christians and Members of the Church by a Divine positive Law as Obedience to Church-Governours is But then Obedience to the Church of England is not an universal Duty incumbent on all Christians but onely on those which are or ought to live in Obedience to this particular Church for the particular exercises of Church-Authoritie and Jurisdiction is confined within certain limits as of necessitie it must be and though all Orthodox Churches must live in Communion with each other yet no particular Church can pretend to any original Authority over another Church or the Members of it as is the constant Doctrine of Protestants in opposition to the Usurpations of the Church of Rome But I perceive Sir you know no difference between the Authority and Power and the Communion of the Church But you add If it be then as he who is not admitted into this Church is no Member of the Catholick and has no right to the benefits of being a Member of Christs Body so is it with every one who is excluded by Church-Censures though excommunicated for a slight contempt or neglect nay for a wrongful cause Truly Sir I know not how any man is admitted into the Church of England any otherwise than as he is admitted into the whole Catholick Church viz by Baptism which does not make us Members of any particular Church but of the Universal Church which Obliges us to Communicate with that part of the Catholick Church wherein we live and whoever lives in England and renounces Communion with the Church of England is a Schismatick from the Cathelick Church And whoever is Excommunicated from one sound part of the Catholick Church is Excommunicated from the whole But then there is this difference between Excommunication and Schism the first is a Judicial Sentence the second is a Man 's own Choice the first is not valid unless it be inflicted for a just cause the second is always valid and does in its own nature cut Men off from all Communion with Christs Body I say in its own Nature for I will not pretend to determine the final States of Men for I know not what gracious allowances God will make for some Schismaticks no more than I do what favour he may allow to other Sinners But you proceed If it be no part of the Divine Covenant then a Man that lives here may be a true Member of the Catholick Church though he is not in Communion with this Sound Church This is another Horn of your formidable Dilemma If Obedience to the Authoritie and Censures of the particular National Church of England is no part of the Divine Covenant then those Baptized Christians who live in England are not bound to the Communion of the Church of England and may be Catholick Christians for all that As if because the Subjects of Spain are not bound to obey the King of England therefore English Men are not bound to obey him neither but may be very good Subjects for all that We are bound by the Divine Law to live in Communion with all true Catholick Churches and to obey the Governours of the Church wherein we live and therefore though Obedience to the Church of England be not a Law to all the World yet it is a Law to all English Christians inhabiting in
meant by external Priviledges 2 What kind of Offenders those are that forfeit their right to them and ought by the Censures of the Church to be excluded from them 3. Upon what the right of those Members that have not so offended is grounded 1. What 's meant by external Priviledges As there are two sorts of Members in Christ's visible Church so there are two sorts of Priviledges that belong to them each sort having those that are proper and peculiar to it according to the nature of that relation they bear to the Head and their fellow Members 1. There are Members only by foederal or covenant-holiness such as are only born of water when by Baptism they were united to Christ and the Church and took upon them the Profession and Practice of the Christian Religion Now the Priviledges that belong to these are of the same make with their Church-membership external and consisting only in an outward and publick Communion with the Church in the Word and Ordinances 2. There are Members by real and inherent holiness such as are not only born of Water but of the Spirit also when by the inward operations of the Holy Ghost their Souls are renew'd after the Image of God and made partakers of a Divine Nature And the Priviledges that belong to these are not only the forementioned ones but together with them others that are sutable to their more spiritual relation inward and such as consist in the especial and particular care and protection of God the pardon and remission of their sins by the Blood of Christ and the gracious influences and comforts of the Holy Ghost All comprehended in that Prayer of the Apostle for his Corinthians The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the communion of the Holy Ghost be 2 Cor. 13. 14. with you all Amen Now t is of the first sort of Members and that sort of Priviledges that belong to them that the Proposition is to be understood 2. What kind of Offenders those are that have forfeited their right to and ought by the Censures of the Church to be excluded from those Priviledges This the Apostle hath plainly told us and our own Church in its Exhortation to the Sacrament fairly intimates I have wrote unto you says St. Paul not no keep company 1 Cor. 5. 11. if any Man that is call'd a Brother be a Fornicator or Covetous or an Idolater or a Railer or a Drunkard or an Extortioner no not to eat Not only as much as can be to have no familier conversation with ver 10. him in civil matters tho' some must be had whilst we are in this World but also and more especially to avoid communion with him in religious exercises and how that is to be done the Apostle tells us viz. not by forsaking the Church our selves but by doing our utmost endeavours to have him cast out of it So it follows Therefore put away from among your selves that wicked ver 13. person And In the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ when ye are gathered together and my spirit with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ to deliver such an one ver 4 5. unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh that the spirit may bo sav'd in the day of the Lord Jesus Agreeable hereunto are the words of the Exhortation If any of you be a blasphemer of God a hinderer and slanderer of his Word an Adulterer or be in malice or envy or in any other greivous Crime repent you of your sins or come not to that holy Table Such sinners as these have in a manner undone and made void what was done in their behalf in Baptism They by not performing what was then promis'd for them but living directly contrary to it do virtually renounce that Covenant they then entred into with God in Christ and fall back again into the state of Pagans and Infidels Their Sureties engag'd for them that they should believe the Christian Faith keep God's Commandments and renounce the World the Flesh and the Devil But such habitual notorious Offenders as these say by their Practice what had they to do to undertake such things for us we will stand to no such engagements but we will be at large to believe what we please and to practice what we fancy and to worship whom we think fit And thus as it were breaking off from being in Covenant with God and virtually renouncing their Church-membership they at the same time lose all right and title to those Blessings and Priviledges that were due to them upon the account thereof and in this sad state and condition did the Primitive Christians reckon all that had hâ—ghly and notorâ—ously sinn'd amongst whom especially were the lapsed that had offer'd Sacrifice they staid not for a formal Sentence to be pronounc'd against them by the Church but lookt upon them as ipso facto excommunicate and tho' till that was past they could not actually be shut out yet they began before to avoid their Company and to forbear all religious commerce towards them But so long as Men keep in Covenant with God and abide in his Church which may be done by holding that profession of Faith that they made at their first entrance into it their right to the external franchises of it remains inviolable and their title without question As may appear from these particulars 1. From the Tenour of that Covenant they in their Baptism enter'd into with God which consists of Promises on God's part as well as Conditions on Mans. The Promises on God's part are exprest in these general 2 Cor. 6. 61. words I will be their God The Conditions on Mans in those and they shall be my People Now so far as Men perform the Conditions so far will God make good his Promises In what sense they are a People to God in the same he 'll be a God unto them If a bare faederal holiness can give Men a relation to God and God upon that account owns them to be a People unto him the same gives them some kind of interest in God and a claim to the blessings that belong to that relation Not that such Members as these are to expect those special and particular favours that are the portion of those that are more nearly and by a kind of spiritual consanguinity allied to God in Christ but yet being of God's houshould are to be allowed the liberty to partake of those external blessings which he in common bestows upon the whole Family 2. From the nature of Church-membership Church-membership necessarily implies Church-Communion or else it signifies nothing for to be admitted a Member of the Church and not to have a right in common with the rest to Church-Priviledges is to be taken in with one hand and to be thrown out with the other 't is to be put back into the state of those that are no Members and virtually to be cut off from
of Believers and with his Posterity not as proceeding from him by natural but by spiritual Generation as Heirs of his Faith as is plain from Rom. 4. 16. Therefore the Promise is of Faith that so also it might be by Grace to the end the Promise might be sure to all the Seed of Abraham not to that only which is of the Law but to that also which is of the Faith of Abraham who is the Father of us all both Jew and Gentile that believe So Chap. 9. 6. c. not as tho' the Word or Promise of God to them had taken none effect For they are not all the Israel which are descended of Israel neither because they are the Seed of Abraham are they all Children of God's Covenant but 't is said in Isaac shall thy Seed be called tho' Abraham had more Sons that is all they which are the Children of the Flesh these are not the Children of God but the Children of the Promise only as Isaac was are counted for the Seed Hence saith the Apostle in the name of the Christians Phil. 3. 3. we are the Circumcision which worship God in the Spirit and have no Confidence in the Flesh and it is one God which shall justifie the Circumcision by Faith and the Uncircumcision through Faith and if ye be Christ's then are ye Abraham's Seed and Heirs according to the Promise which God made unto Abraham Furthermore that this Covenant was Evangelical and made with the Posterity of Abraham not as his Natural but as his Spiritual Off-spring will appear in the third place from the initiatory Sacrament into it which was Circumcision or cutting off the Fore-skin of the Flesh as it is written You shall Circumcise the Fore-skin of your Flesh and it shall be a Sign of the Covenant betwixt me and you Hence the Covenant of which it was the Sign is called by * * * Acts 7. 8. St. Stephen the Covenant of Circumcision and Circumcision on the other hand is called by St. Paul the Seal of the Righteousness of Faith Faith or Faithful Obedience being the Condition of that Covenant which God required of the Children of Abraham and which they promised to perform It also signified the Circumcision of the †††〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Justin Mart. Dial. cum Tryph. p. 260. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ibid. p. 261. Heart as Moses said unto the People of Israel Circumcise the Fore-skin of your Hearts Deut. 10. 16. and in Deut. 30. 6. The Lord thy God will Circumcise thine heart and the hearts of thy Seed that thou mayest love the Lord thy God with all thine Heart and with all thy Soul that thou mayest live And agreeable unto this Spiritual Signification of Circumcision St. Paul saith Rom. 2. 28. He is not a Jew which is one outwardly neither is that Circumcision which is outwardly in the Flesh but he is a Jew which is one inwardly and Circumcision is that of the Heart in the Spirit and not in the Letter whose Praise is not of Men but of God As to the Persons who were capable of initiation into the Jewish Church by this Sacrament we have a very plain account at the institution of it in Gen. Chap. 27. I will saith God unto Abraham establish my Covenant between Me and thee and thy Seed after thee for an Everlasting Covenant to be a God unto thee and thy Seed after thee Thou shalt keep my Covenant therefore thou and thy Seed after thee in their Generations this is The Token of my Covenant which ye shall keep between Me and you and thy Seed after thee every Male among you shall be Circumcised And ye shall Circumcise the flesh of your Fore-skin and it shall be a Token of the Covenant betwixt Me and you and he that is eight days old shall be Circumcised among you every Male in your Generations he that is born in the House or bought with Money of any Stranger which is not of thy Seed he that is born in thy House and he that is bought with thy Money must needs be Circumcised and my Covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting Covenant From this account of Persons to be Circumcised it is plain First That Gentiles who were born of * * * Exod. 12. 48 49. Gentile Parents in Abraham's House or bought with his Money as Servants then were and Blacks are now among us were to be initiated into the Covenant by Circumcision from whence it appears that the Spiritual Race of Abraham were the Children of the Covenant and that when God promised to be a God to him and his Seed after him he meant the Children of his Faith Hence in all Ages of the Jewish Church if any Gentiles embraced the Jewish Faith and Religion they were admitted into it by Circumcision and thereupon reckoned among the Posterity of Abraham and the peculiar People of God although they were not the Children of Abraham according to the Flesh There were great numbers of Gentiles thus converted to the Jewish Faith and Religion and grafted like wild Branches into the Olive-Tree in all the Ages of the Jewish Church Not to mention particular Persons we read that many of the Medes and Persians became Jews in the time of Ashuerus Esther 8. 17. * * * Selden de jure l. 2. c. 2. Likewise in the time of David and Solomon vast numbers of the neighbouring Countries embraced Judaism and in the time of Hyrcanus the whole Nation of the Idumaeans turned Jews and lived in their own Country according to the Jewish Rites This short account of the Jewish Proselytes may satisfie any Man who is not perverted beyond cure that the Church of the Jews was not founded upon nor constituted by natural Generation but by Spiritual Regeneration as the Church Christian is and that those who were then related unto God as Members of his Church were so because they were the Spiritual Seed of Abraham who then was and still is the Father of the Church and Church Members to whom he is related not in his Natural but in his Religious Capacity as he was a Believer and the Father of all those that believe But Secondly It is manifest from this Scriptural account of persons to be Circumcised that Circumcision was an Ordinance of Latitude comprehending Persons of all Ages and that Children and Minors not yet arrived at years of Discretion who were incapacitated as to some ends of Circumcision were notwithstanding to be solemnly initiated by it as well as grown Men who were capable of all God was pleased to call them his nay they were his Property as much as their Parents of whom they descended he looked upon them as holy and separate and as Candidates of the Covenant and he thought them so well qualified for admission into it that he would not have it put off beyond the eighth day He that is eight days old or as it is in the Original a Son of
eight days shall be circumcis'd among you God was so far from excluding of them from Sacramental Initiation upon the account of natural incapacity that he limited the time for the administration of it beyond which he would not have it deferr'd And accordingly the Jews ever did most religiously observe it from the time of Abraham unto the time of John the Baptist and Christ who were both Circumcised the * * * Luke 1. 59. 2. 21. eighth day Nay when any Gentile turned Jew they immediately Circumcised his Children if he desired it always understanding that Children were called and elected by God in their Parents Thus saith God unto Abraham I will establish my Covenant between thee and me and thy Seed after thee for an everlasting Covenant to be a God unto thee and thy Seed after thee The great Goodness of God made him thus separate the Children with their Parents from the rest of the World and look upon them as part of his chosen peculiar People by which they became relatively Holy and of a religious Consideration and differed from the Children of Unbelievers as much as their Parents did from the Unbelievers themselves Since therefore God was pleased to be so gracious as to choose the Children with their Parents and look upon them as Holy upon their account it is no wonder that he should oblige them to dedicate and devote them betimes unto him by solemn initiation into his Church I say he called and elected them in their Parents and with them separated them unto himself from the World and agreeably to the nature of this Gracious Call and separation he made it a sufficient qualification for their actual admission into the Church by the initiating Ordinance which the Children of Heathens were not capable of because they were not so called and chosen and separated of God This was ground enough for their admission into the Church and for God to look upon them as Believers though they could not make open Profession of their Faith as Abraham did before he was Baptized and it is certain after the example of Abraham all * * * Selden de Synedr l. 2. c. 3. adult Proselytes did But though Abraham professed his Faith before he was Circumcised Isaac the next Heir of the Promise was Circumcised before he professed or could profess his Faith because if he lived he was as sure to profess it by vertue of his Calling and Election as any adult Proselyte was to continue in the Profession of his In the mean time the Faith and Consent of the Father or if the Child had none of the Susceptor or God-father 1 Maccab. 2. 46. and of the Congregation under which he was Circumcised was believed of old by the Jews to be †††Seld. de jure lib 2. c. 2. de Synedr l. 1. c 3. imputed to the Child as his own Faith and Consent They had very good ground in the Scriptures for this Opinion because the Infidelity and Disobedience of the Parents in wilfully neglecting or despising Circumcision was imputed to the Children who were esteemed and punished as Breakers of the Covenant when they were not circumcised as it is written Every uncircumcised Male whose Flesh of his Foreskin is not circumcised that Soul shall be cut off from his People he hath broken my Covenant and therefore if the Act of Parents Cassand de Baptism Infant p. 732. in neglecting to bring their Children to Circumcision was reputed theirs much more their Act in bringing them to it might well be reputed as their Act and Deed. Thus in Numb 3. 28. we find the keeping of the Sanctuary imputed to the Males of the Cohathites of a month old and upwards because their Fathers actually kept it and they were to be trained up unto it and in Deut. 29. 11 12. the little ones are expresly said to enter into Covenant with God because the Men of Israel did so and thus also our Blessed Lord who took upon him the Seed of Abraham although he healed * * * Matth. 9. 29. grown Persons for their own Faith yet he healed †††Mark 9. 23. Matth. 8. 13. Joh. 4. 50. Vid. Cassand de Baptismo Infant p. 729. Dr. Taylor of Baptizing Infants Great Exemplar Part. 1. Sect. 9. Children upon the account of the Faith of their Parents or others who besought him for them as it were imputing it to them for their own Faith Having now briefly discoursed of the Original and Evangelical Nature of the Jewish Church and the Initiatory Sacrament of it and the persons that were initiated thereinto I now proceed to make a few Observations upon the Alteration of it from the Mosaical into the Christian Oeconomy or from the Legal State of it under the Old Testament into the Evangelical under the New For as it was the same for Substance under the Law that it was before it so it still remains the same for Substance under the Gospel that it was under the Law The Foundation is the same tho' the Superstructure and Fashion of the House be very different For Abraham is still the Father of the Faithful and we that believe under the Gospel are as much his Seed and Children in God's prime Intention and the true meaning of the Words as those that were Believers under the Law Hence it comes to pass that the Church-Christian is called in the New Testament the New and Supernal Jerusalem to let us know that Christianity is nothing but Spiritual Judaism the same City new reformed constituted upon a new Charter blessed with more noble and ample Priviledges than formerly and every way better built and more August than it was Thus in Rev. 3. 12. Unto him that overcometh saith the Son of Man I will write the Name of my God and the Name of the City of my God which is New Jerusalem which is come down out of Heaven from my God that is I will acknowledge him that holds out to the end for a person truly godly and for a true Member of the pure Catholick Christian-Church which is the Spiritual Jerusalem descended from above And so Chap. 21. 2. I saw the Holy City New Jerusalem coming down from God down out of Heaven prepared as a Bride adorned for her Husband meaning Jesus Christ So in Gal. 4. Jerusalem which is from above or the Supernal Jerusalem is a free City which is the Mother of us all Hence also it comes to pass that St. Peter in his first General Epistle calls the Christians by those proper Titles and Appellations which God gave unto the Jews as unto his peculiar People viz. a chosen Generation a Royal Priesthood an Holy Nation a peculiar People which must needs imply that the Christian Church is fundamentally and radically the same with the ancient Church of the Jews Accordingly St. Paul tho' he was the Doctor of the Gentiles yet compared the calling of them to the engrafting of the wild