confidence expect to meet with better measure from them than to be condemned for an overweening conceit of my own sufficiency to undertake the Work of a Conciliator I only humbly submit what I have to say to their judicious godly Consideration Whether it be not their duty to entertain and keep up Fellowship and Communion in all other Ordinances wherein they are agreed notwithstanding this their difference about Baptism which to me seems clear for several Reasons as First Because they are Members of the same Body of which Christ is the Head Rom. 12.4 5. We being many are one body in Christ and every one Members of another the import of which is that all Believers stand to Christ in the same relation that the natural Body doth stand to the natural Head and that they all stand in relation one to another as the Members of the natural Body do stand one to another To the same purpose is that 1 Cor. 12.12 where from the 4th to the 7th verse the Apostle shews That there are diversities of Gifts and differences of Administrations and diversities of Operations but all come from the same Spirit Lord and God and are given for this end that they may be for the profiting of the whole And that we might more plainly apprehend him he further tells us that as in the natural Body there are divers Members joined and each Member hath its several office for the good of all so is Christ saith he that is Christ collectively and mystically Christ and all his Members and then he adds vers 13. That by one Spirit we are all baptized into one Body Christum intellige cum Ecclesia suâ conjunctim et quatenùs est corporis mystici caput Beza in loc whether Jews or Gentiles bond or free which cannot be meant of Water-Baptism saith Mr. Jesse an eminent godly Antipaedobaptist in regard all the Body of Christ Jews and Gentiles bond and free partook not of that Sacrament of Christ instituted for the Gospel-Administration and are made to drink into the same Spirit which is also to be understood metaphorically and spiritually Potionati sumus saith Piscator and so prove our selves to be of one and the same Corporation of Believers Like to this is that Eph. 4.16 from whom the whole Body fitly joyned and compacted together c. From what hath been said there follow these five Corrollaries 1. Vnity of the Body in the Church floweth from Unity to the Head first the Members are united to the Head and then to one another and with the Head 2. This Spiritual Union and Conjunction with the Lord Jesus is the foundation of all their Communion with one another 3. As in the Natural Body all the Members do not only meet in the Head as the Lines in the Center but have real Union one with another so in this Mystical and Spiritual Body all Believers have not only each for his own part Union and Conjunction with Christ but also a real Union and Conjunction with each other which is the ground of all offices of Love and reciprocal Fellowship and Communion wherein they stand obliged amongst themselves 4. Union to the whole the Catholick or Universal Church or Body of Christ gives right to Communion with any particular Church of Christ in the World and there is no Believer as Mr. Marshal observes in any part of the World but where-ever he comes might demand upon the profession of his Faith and his voluntary subjection to the Gospel his right in the Ordinances to hear and pray and receive the Sacrament with them 5. To deny Communion to any who give evidence that they are of the same Body is to be guilty of a great Schism in the Body and most opposit to the design of God's Grace in compacting all his People into one Body which was 1. That there should be no Schism in the Body 2. That therefore the Members should have the like care of one another They therefore who in contrariety hereto stand at a distance one from another and refuse Communion do that which is not practicable from Scripture for it is unnatural and destructive to the Body and not only so but fouly scandalous to the Christian Religion for as the Lord Verulam speaks Lord Bacon's Essayes like a Divine as well as a Philosopher Schism is one of the greatest Scandals yea more than corruption of Manners For as in the Natural Body a Wound or Solution of Continuity is worse than a Corrupt Humour so in the Spiritual So that nothing doth so much keep men out of the Church and drive men out of the Church as breach of Unity This then is the first Argument they are both visibly Members of Christ's Body and therefore should have Communion one with another 2. Because both parties agree in the main Fundamentals of Religion and Union in the great things of Religion should oblige them to bear with one another in lesser matters Phil. 3.15 16. If in any things ye be otherwise minded God shall reveal even that to you Nevertheless whereto we have already attained let us walk by the same Rule let us mind the same thing Here 's an excellent direction to preserve Unity amongst God's People notwithstanding difference in judgment and for composing and healing of differences when they arise 1. Christians are to consider whereunto they have already attained and how far they do agree Whether there be not a mutual Consent in the Principles and Fundamentals of Religion for if this be wanting all Union is but a daubing with untempeted mortar and a Conspiracy against Christ but when there is a Consent in Fundamentals and the Marks of Godliness upon Persons Wisdom and Charity should teach us to condescend unto and forbear one another but alas how much is this wanting may we not sigh out that doleful sentence Heu pro quantillo pacem perdidimus for what poor inconsiderable things do we jar and differ 2. To walk by the same Rule or to put in practice those Truths wherein they do agree They agree in Prayer in Hearing in the Lord's Supper let them walk together in these The best way to attain Unity in Judgment is to maintain it in Obedience and jointly to walk together in the Ordinances and Duties wherein Christians do agree 3. To mind the same thing that is I conceive to propose the same ends in Religion Nothing causeth more difference than poor narrow selfish-ends If Professors had all one common end viz. to be really Godly and to advance the Glory of God in the World there would be an end of these bickerings St. Paul hath an eye to this Phil. 2.1 2. There he useth most pathetical Arguments to Love and Union and for to further it he presseth the Philippians to be like-minded and let nothing saith he be done through strife or vain-glory v. 2 3. and in the 4th vers look not every man at his own things c. that is at his own
that in time will produce its proper Actions It is certain that they can receive the new birth and are capable of it The effect of it is salvation if infants can receive this effect then also the new-birth without which they cannot receive the effect and he illustrates the point by a Similitude thus As the reasonable soul and all its faculties are in children Will and Vnderstanding Passions and Powers of Attraction and Propulasion yet these faculties do not operate or come abroad till time and art observation and experience have drawn them forth into action So may the spirit of grace the principle of Christian life be infused and yet lie without action till in its own day it is drawn forth and then he goes on Who is he that understands the Spirit so well as to know how or when it is infused and how it operates in all its periods and what it is in its Being and proper Nature or how or to what purpose God in all varieties does dispense it Then again if Nature saith he hath in Infants an evil principle which operates when the child can choose but is all the while within the soul Why cannot Infants have a good principle through Grace though it works not till its own season as well as an evill principle 4. Though Infants are uncapable of performing such duties as are incumbent upon professing men and women yet this hinders not but that they may be Church-Members Pray tell us what duties could those Israelitish Babes perform who notwithstanding their incapacity were asis before Members of the Church with their Parents And though they answer not all the Characters Christ gives his Adult Disciples which the Author objects against them yet they are capable of union to the Church and Fellowship in the priviledges thereof They are capable of her prayers and other pious offices and for whom the Church hath a more special care and obligation of tenderness for their souls than for others that are Without and why should this seem strange since they are Members of the Common-wealth and of the family and are capable of union with both estates and the priviledges thereof and yet cannot perform obedience to the State and Orders of either In like sort Infants are admitted Tenants but the Fealty or Homage is respited till they are of age 5. Lastly Christ himself as Mr. Baxter notes was head of the Church according to his humane nature in his infancy and this proves that the nonage of Infants makes them not uncapable of being Members And let any judge whether it be his will that no Infants should be Members For my part saith he when I consider that Infant State of Christ our head and the honour done to him therein it strongly perswades me that they know not his will who say they will not have Infants to be visible Members He farther Objects the Church of England who in their 19th Artiele do acknowledge that the visible Church is a number of Christians by profession This is down right Mr. Tombs's Examen part 3. pag. 41. only Tombes hath more charity for the Infants of Believers though not without some contradiction For he there acknowledgeth that in facie Ecclesiae visibilis Infants of believers are to be accounted Gods to belong to his Family and Church and not the Devils And what do any of us say more But mark Reader how Mr. Tombs doth esteem them such why saith he it is so as being in a near possibility of being Members of the Church of God by an act of opinion grounded on probable hopes for the future But to make them actual members of the visible Church is to overthrow the definitions of the visible Church that Protestant writers give particularly the Church of England Art 19. To which Mr. Marshall answers If overthrows it not at all for they all include the Infants of such Professors as Infants Male and Female too least you say that Circumcision made them Members I add also saith he Baptisme now as well as Circumcision of old is a real though implicite profession of the Christian Faith Next we have Dr. Owen whom he cites no less than four times in what follows in this Chapter whose judgement is sufficiently known to be against our Opposites And notwithstanding the misinterpretation the Author puts upon some passages in the Doctors Catechisme we have a particular account of his judgment in Print in a Book called A Declaration of the Faith and Order owned and practised in the Congregational Churches agreed upon and consented unto by their Elders and Messengers in their meeting at the Savoy Octob. 12. 1658. where to my knowledge he was present and the principal man of that Assembly and concerning the point before us we have it chap 29. Art 4. thus exprest viz. Not only those that do actually profess Faith in and obedience unto Christ but also the Infants of one or both believing Parents are to be Baptized and those only And in complyance herewith we have the judgment of the Synod of Elders Assembled at Boston in New-England appointed by the Court 1662. who strongly maintain by several Arguments in that printed piece That the Insant Seed of Believers are Church-Members and that being according to Scripture Members of the visible Church they are consequently the Subjects of Baptism See also the Presbyterian judgement upon the point in the larger Catechisme of the Assembly of Divines Baptisme say they is not to be administred to any that are out of the visible Church and so strangers to the Covenant of promise till they profess their Faith in Christ and obdeience to him But Infants descending from Parents either both or but one of them professing Faith in Christ and obedience to him are in that respect within the Covenant and to be Baptized we see here who they take to be of the visible Church and within the Covenant and to be baptized As for the Authority of particular Authors we have them on our side in great abundance Piscator hath it thus on the 28. of Matthew Porrò ad Ecclesiam pertinent non solùm adulti fidem profitentes sed etiam ipsorum liberi Not only grown persons who profess the Faith appertain to the Church but also their Infants Theodore Beza in his Absters Cat. Heshuii pag. 333. hath this passage Meritò arbitramur Infantes fidelium in peculio domini censeri We rightly judge the Infants of the faithful to be of the Lords Flock and he speaks of them there before Baptisme And in our Margent Bible we have this Note upon the first of Corinthians 7.14 They that are born of either of the Parents faithful are also counted Members of Christs Church because of the Promise Act. 2.39 Peter Martyr loc Commun cl 4. c. 8. p. 821 823. Non excludimus eos Infantes ab Ecclesia sed ut ejus partes amplectimur c. We exclude not Infants from the Church but imbrace them as parts John Calvin to whom
Author and all the party conclude that the Seed to whom the Covenant belongs is the Spiritual and not the Carnal Not being born after the flesh but believing that makes us children of the promise To this exception of his in which their greatest confidence lies I reply Repl. 1. It is built on a most gross corrupting and abusing the Scriptures Let us then diligently consider those two places in the Galatians And afterwards that in the Romans First touching that in the former place the words are verse 16. He saith not to Seeds as of many but of one which is Christ Beza upon the Text saith obscurus locus est it is a place not easily understood a dark Scripture and indeed too dark and intricate for Antipaedobaptists so boldly to ground their opinion upon so directly contrary to the sence of many plain places The question is what doth the Apostle mean here by Christ By Christ cannot be meant Christ solely personal for then no Believer should be accounted for the Seed but only Christ who as concerning the flesh came of Abraham And he and none else should be concerned in the promises But it is to be understood of Christ mystical as Beza there notes Apostolus eo nomine non solum caput sed membra cum suo capite designans the Apostle by the word Christ denoting both Head and Members Capnt Corpus unus est Christus the Head and the Body make up one mystical Christ the word Christ being to be taken collectively in this place so we have it 1 Cor. 12.12 to which Beza refers And if this be the sence of it as what else can rationally then as Mr. Sydenbam notes this Text will make rather for us than against us for if we exclude all Infants from being of the Body of Christ we must in so doing unavoidably exclude them from Salvation for he is Saviour to no more than he is head of which is his Body As for the words in the nine and twentieth verse that will afford the Antipedobaptists little relief the words are If ye be Christs then are ye Abrahams Seed and Heirs according to promise from whence saith the aforesaid Author they argue the Apostle here describes who are the Seed so that now no children born of believing parents can be the Seed for they must be Christs according to that v. 16. We are all the children of God through Faith in Christ Jesus But let such understand what Beza saith on the place namely that the Claramontanus Bible hath the words thus and he thinks more right 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If you be one in Christ then are ye Abrahams Seed which comports well with the former verse There is neither Jew nor Greek neither bond nor free c. but ye are all one in Christ Jesus and if ye be all one then Abrahams Seed From which 1. It is clear that the Design of the Apostle is to take away all difference between Jew and Gentile and to hodl forth their unity in Christ and that this is the very scope of the place Beza shews fully in his Annotations upon it and that now there is no distinction betwivt them as formerly But the Gentiles are become Abrahams Seed as well as the natural and believing Jews Quod unius Seminis nomine collectivo significatur as before in the sixteenth verse which is pointed out to us by the collective name of one Seed 2. The Apostle here hath no intent to shew the distinction of Abrahams Seed as the Subject of the outward priviledges and administrations of Ordinances but to shew that none are spiritually and really Abrahams Seed and Heirs of promise but such as are Christs one in him with Abraham for if this should be the distinction of Seed as the subject of outward Ordinances it would be as much against professing Believers as Infants for the proposition from this Text as our Opposites draw it is thus none but those who are Christs are Abrahams Seed and none are Christs but real Believers and therefore none but they must be baptized But how weak is this 1. Because if none but such are Abrahams Seed and consequently none but such the subjects of Baptism then visible Believers are not the subjects of Baptism for they may not be Christs no more than Infants 2. None must be baptized at all upon this account for who knows who is Christs according to Election and saving Faith To say we have charitable grounds to believe visible professors are Christs till we see the contrary is not to the question as stated nor as it lies in the Text the Text saith If ye be Christs then ye are Abrahams Seed they say none are in Christ but real Believers See Chapter the fifth of the first part of the Authors Treatise and none must be baptized but the spiritual Seed and that will require not only a judgment of charity but infallibility to determine And besides the Apostle is describing here what the real and spiritual Seed are as having an inward right to Christ and not what the apparent Seed of Abraham was for he speaks to the Galathians who were visible professors and Believers then in appearance and he puts them upon a trial of themselves whether they were Christs or no. I have been the larger in quoting something from Beza but more from Mr. Sydenham who speaks abundance of reason that you may see how wretchedly this Text is abused by our Opposites And how far wide it is from the purpose for which they usually bring it Now for that other place Ram. 9.7 8. They that are the children of the flesh these are not the children of God but the children of the promise are counted for the Seed What do they gather from hence Why that Infants because children of the flesh are not under the promise this indeed is well argued for this is to make the Apostle contradict himself in the same breath for the Text saith In Isaac shall thy Seed be called Now that was a child of Abrahams flesh and yet a child of promise too And from hence issueth three undeniable Propositions as Mr. Sydenham noteth 1. That Abrahams spiritual Seed were as much his fleshly Seed also Isaac as Ishmael except Proselytes and Servants 2. The Covenant was administred to all Abrahams natural and fleshly children as if they had been his spiritual and before they knew what faith was or could actually professs Abrahams faith 3. When there is mention of Abrahams carnal Seed in opposition to his spiritual Seed it cannot be meant primarily or solely of those that descended from his flesh for then Isaac and Jacob were the carnal Seed yea Christ himself who as concerning the flesh came of Abraham It must be therefore understood 1. Of those of Abrahams Seed which degenerated and slighted the Covenant of the Gospel such as Ishmael and such of whom the Apostle speaks of Rom. 9.1.2.3 his Brethren and Kinsmen after the flesh
the Word of God For I well know that as the custom of men doth not give Authority to the Sacrament so the use of the Sacrament cannot be said to be right because regulated by Custom 2. What though there was no Human-Authority for it till above 400 years after Christ is this any Argument against it The Author borrows this from Dr. Taylors Lib. of Proph. p. 237. for he learns how to speak from him the Drs. Words are as there was no Command in Scripture to oblige Children to the susception of it so the necessity of Paedobaptism was not determined in the Church till the Canon that was made in the Milevitan Council This Milevitan African Council was Ann. Ch. 418. and belike the reason why it was not established sooner by Councils under an Anathema was because it was rarely if at all questioned or opposed till then by any person of note as to its lawfulness Hear what Dr. Hammond says in answer to Dr Taylor about this matter It being granted by the Objecter saith he that Paedobaptism was by Canon Established in the Milevitan African Council Ann. Ch. 418. yet as long as it is also confessed that it was practised in Africa before there will be little concluded against us For what stood by Apostolical Practice and known Custom needed not to be prescribed by Canon as that which prevails by force of a greater need not be assisted by a weaker Authority And indeed while the foot-steps of so Authentique a Tradition were so lively and no Adversary or Disputer started upno question or opposition yet made against a Common usage 't were ridiculous for Councils to convene and fortify it by Canons and so the only thing reasonably deducible from the lateness of those Canons is that all that while it was universally received without Opposition I mean not saith the Dr that no Infant or any Christian was unbaptized through the space of those first 4 Centuries but that the extending of the Institution to Infants was not Opposed in the Church till about Pelagius's days whose opinion of Original Sin utterly denying the guilt of it on Adam's posterity was such as might consequentily produce some change in his opinion of Paedobaptism for in the 219 page he quotes out of the 5th Hom. of Eusebius Emissenus de Pasch a passage intimating that Pelagius himself asserted the Baptizing of Infants though not propter vitam for life yet propter regnum coelorum for the Kingdom of God i. e. entrance into the Church as is conceived 3. Whereas he saith Apostolical Tradition was pretended Let not the Reader be afrighted with this word Tradition or because Origen and Austin calls it a Tradition of the Church for when the Fathers so call it they do not intend it in such a sence as if the Church were the Author but the Subject of it Magdeburg Cent. 1. L. 2. Cap. 6. p. 496. Origines Cyprianus alia Patres Authores sunt Apostolorum etiam tempore Infantes Baptizatos esse both Origen and Cyprian and other Fathers hold that Infants were Baptized in the Apostles days and Austin's Rule is a reason for it little less than a demonstration quod universa tenet Ecclesia c. that which is universally received and practised by the Church and had not its first Institution from some Council but hath been ever retained may well be believed to be an Apostolical Tradition August contrae Donat. L. 4. C. 24. Moreover when the Fathers call thi◠… n Apostolical Tradition 〈◊〉 do other Opinions it is as our Divines usually answer the Papists in regard points of this nature are not expresly in terminis in the word but may be fairly gathered thence by consequence Chemnit Exam. Concil Triden par 1. p. 68 69. To the same purpose we have Dr. Field of the Church Lib. 4. Cap. 20. The 4th head of Tradition is the continued Practice of such things as are neither contained in Scripture Expresly nor the Examples of such Practice Expresly there delivered Though the grounds reasons and causes of the necessity of such practice be there contained of this sort is the Baptism of Infants which is therefore called a Tradition because it is not expresly delivered in Scripture that the Aposties did Baptize Infants c. nor any Express Precept there found they should do so yet is not this so received by bare naked Tradition but that we find the Scripture to deliver unto us the grounds of it Thus we see both the Fathers and Protestant-Writers take Tradition in a quite different sence from that the Romanists usually take it in who equalize the Authority of Tradition with the Scripture yea indeed give it the preheminence above it And now judg Reader what the confident assertions of our Antagonist do amount to whether dignum tanto tulit hic promissor hiatu whether the proverb be not verified in him viz. a great cry and a little Wooll Now follows the Historical Account he gives us of the Apostolical Tradition pretended to as he speaks it for Infant Baptism IT is not worth while to search into so many musty Authors as are quoted by him and indeed I thought to have taken my leave of him and to have met him again in the 3d Chapter because there we shall encounter the exceptions he brings against those Authentick Testimonies we alledg from Antiquity for our Practice nevertheless having run over his History usque ad nauseam I shall pass a few Remarks thereupon 1. The multitude of Authors quoted argues great ostentation of much Reading though much of it is prepared to his hand and for certain the most is rather ad Pompam than ad Pugnum rather for shew than service 2. Yet hath he manifested some Artifice and cunning 1. In raking out of the Dung-hil all the filthy Rites used by the Romish Church in the Administration of Baptism as Exorcism Chrism Salt Albes or White-Garments Milk Honey c. And his design herein is to dazle the eyes of the weaker sort and to make them believe even Infant-Baptism it self is also a corrupt Innovation But this will not take with the judicious who are able to distinguish between the accidental Corruptions of an Ordinance and the Ordinance it self We know Antichrist hath defiled most of the Ordinances of Christ and annexed thereto many Superstitious Ceremonies as in the other Sacrament of the Communion Adoration of the Elements is enjoyned and yet these do not disparage the Ordinance it self in the Institution and Substance of it but only defile the Communicants that so superstitiously use that Sacred Appointment Besides the Papists have affixt these corrupt Rites not only to the Baptism of Infants but of those also who are grown up and so the force of arguing from them if Infant-Baptism were removed wil ly against Baptism it self We ought not therefore to impute these corruptions to God's Ordinance of Baptizing Infants and on that account deride and cashier it
Believers and their Seed But what is this to the children of Believers what benefit redounds to them that do not actually believe nor profess the Faith of Abraham having not the use of reason the same Learned Doctor gives this answer although Infants have not actually the use of reason nor can actually believe yet to that end as Circumcision heretofore Baptism is ministred to Infants that when in time to cime they shall believe to righteousness their Faith may receive confirmation by Baptism in infancy received as Davids Faith did against Goliah he reflecting upon his Circumcision the sign and Seal of Gods Covenant with him when he went out against Goliah that uncircumcised Philistine To this purpose saith Augustin In Abraham praecessit fidei justitia accessit Circumcisio signaculum justitiae fidei c. In some justification goes before the Seal as in Abraham and Cornelius in others the Seal is before righteousness Sicut in Isaac qui octavo suoe nativitatis die circumcisus est praecessit Signaculum justitiae fidei c. As in Isaac who was circumcised the eighth day the Seal preceded Faith Ita in Baptizatis infantibus c. So in infants that are baptized August de Bapt. contra Donat. l. 4. c. 24. Excep 6. Because Baptism came not in the room place and use of Circumcision and the reasons he brings to prove it are diverse we shall now examine them First he saith It must not be look'd upon to come in the room and stead of it by any means and why 1. Because then Males Mr. Tombes Examen p. 4. not Females would be baptized Reader we must now give thee notice that we are to renew our combat with Mr. Tombes for this first reason is his Examen pag. 4. And the old Answers will do well euough 1. The reason why Females were excluded from an actual participation of Circumcision was their incapacity 2. They were virtually circumcised Mr. Marshal Defence of Infant Baptism and reputed among the circumcised ones in that they were admitted to the Passeover when the express command of the Law was that no uncircumcised parson must eat of it Exod. 12.48 And farther it appears they were reputatively circumcised by that passage where 't is said the whole house of Israel was circumcised and by that of Sampsons Parents who were displeased that he took a wife of the uncircumcised Philistins Judg. 14.3 for if the Israelitish women had not been accounted circumcised in the Males Circumcision could have made no difference between Wife and Wife 2. His next reason is Because all Believers out of Abrahams Family were not circumcised Mr. Tombes Exer p. 4 Mr Tombes Exercit. p. 4. He gives instances of those out of Abrahams Family that were not circumcised Repl. I have answered this before that some of them lived before the ordinance of Circumcision was instituted and others for other reasons were not circumcised as I have shewn but I love not to repeat 3. His third reason is because then the circumcised needed not to have been baptized if they had beem already sealed with the new Covenant Seal but Christ himself and all his Apostles c. were circumcised yet nevertheless were baptized Repl. If this deserves an Answer take this The Covenant of Grace both under the Law and Gospel is one and the same for substance though as to the external administration thereof there is a difference and accordingly the Seals are different The Landlord if he please may break the old Seal and set on a new one to the grant he makes to his Tenant 2. He saith it comes not in its room and stead as to the ends and uses Repl. Though as to some circumstances there be a difference between Circumcision and Baptism in regard of their ends and uses yet there is no material difference as to substance But let us see his reasons why Baptism succeeds not Circumcision as to the ends and uses which are these 1. Because Circumcision was a sign of Christ to come in the flesh but Baptism that he was already come Tombes exerc pag. 4. Answ There is a very good harmony notwithstanding that quoad substantiam as to the substance they both look at Christ and agree in the main The one signifies and seals the remission of sins by and through the blood of Christ to be shed the other through that blood already shed There is an agreement in the signification though not in the manner of signification 2. He saith Circumcision was to be a partition-wall between Jew and Gentile but Baptism testifyed the contrary Mr. Tombes again quoting Cameron for it Exerc. pag. 4. and then p 6 Circumcision separated the Israelited from all nations but Baptism signifieth that all are one in Christ Repl. Though Baptism be no partition-wall between nation and nation yet the end and use of Baptism is to distinguish Christians from Pagans Turks and Infidels One of the ends of Baptism is to be a badge of distinction betwixt those who are within and those who are without as the Apostle speaks 1 Cor. 5.12.13 3. The Author farther tells us Circumcision initiated the carnal Seed into the carnal Church and gave them right to carnal Ordinances but Baptism was to give the spiritual Seed an orderly entrance into the spiritual Church and a right to partake of the spiritual Ordinances Repl. Although I have ground to hope my Antagonist is a spiritual or godly man yet he talks here at a carnal rate for what thinks he of Isaac and Jacob and Christ himself they were the spiritual Seed as well as the carnal or fleshly Seed of Abraham for as concerning the flesh Christ came of him As for his expression of carnal Ordinances it is Scripture language Heb. 9 10. And the Apostle means those Levitical outward Ceremonies which were placed in terrene and earthly matters that reached only the flesh or did sanctify only to the purifying of the flesh But sure the circumcised had right to all the other Ordinances of a spiritual nature as well as those and the Author is to rash in calling the Church of God under the Old Testament a carnal Church I scruple not to say it is a carnal speech of him But 't is observable all is carnal with some men that doth not suit with their Genius when in the mean time the carnality lieth unseen by them in their own proud censorious self-conceited contentious spirits And did indeed Circumcision initiate into the carnal Church that is the Church of God under the old Testament was Jesus Christ the head of a carnal Church he was the head of the Church under the Law as much as of the Church now in the days of the Gospel and will any sober man say he was the head of a carnal Church This were heterogenous indeed that a spiritual head should be joined to a carnal Church But I pray what singular virtue do these men see and find in Baptism that they so