birth is baptisme and for that cause called the birth of water Joh. 3.5 Tit. 3.5 Therefore by administration of true baptisme the church is is truly stated and constituted in her true being Reply Regeneration and natural birth hold proportion in many things together but not in all yet I will not trouble the discourse there the great mistake is in making baptisme regeneration and that which answereth naturall birth and the places quoted will not prove it For first it will ask more skill then it may bee hee hath to recover them out of the hands of many godly judicious that deny those places to be meant of baptisme but indeed of the new birth or regeneration by the Spirit putting forth the same effects upon the regenerate party that holds some proportion with the effects of water But secondly grant they be meant of baptisme yet it followes not that baptisme is regeneration because in John there is the Spirit also and in Titus Father Son and Holy Ghost and a full work of regeneration wrought afore baptisme and themselves also will necessarily require it before they will baptize any and therefore baptisme is not regeneration being not to be administred but to regenerate persons knowne before to bee so Thirdly it is not therefore called the birth of water but as bread and wine are called the body and bloud of Christ circumcision the covenant the Lamb the Passover as therefore the Lamb or Christ is the Passover circumcision the covenant bread and wine the Lords body and bloud so baptisme is the new birth that is a signe or seale of regeneration and not regeneration it self I dislike the phrase The birth of water Secondly hee argues from the forme of baptisme which is dipping and in that repect called a buriall with Christ Rom. 6.4 betokening our death and refurrection Ergo as the rising out of the grave at the last day is the beginning of our state of glory in our bodily being so the rising out of the water of baptisme is the beginning of our visible state of grace and the beginning of our visible spirituall life is from that day c. Reply First here is the same mistake with the former making baptisme the beginning of the spirituall visible state whereas it is the signe and seale of it onely which they are to have before for doe they baptize a grown person dead or alive If alive then visibly or invisibly in the state of spirituall life not invisibly for himself hath said they must professe their faith first and receive the word Acts 2. else not to baptize any their faith in Christ their union thereby to him their communion with him in death buriall c. are to goe before their baptisme And himselfe saith it betokeneth how it is then the thing it selfe Secondly whereas he makes dipping the form of baptisme he is in a double mistake First it is not the forme but the matter of baptisme Secondly he seemes to conclude sprinkling unlawfull whereas it is lawfull as shall be seen afterward Lastly he makes it a Sacrament of our last resurrection to glory the Text making it expresly a Sacrament of our dying to finne and resurrection to new obedience Thirdly he argues from the end of baptisme which amongst others is to unite them to the visible body of Christ 1 Cor. 12.13 Gal. 3.27.28 Eph. 4.5 6. and to distinguish them from the rest of the world Col. 2.12 with 20. as circumcision did distinguish the Jewes from the Heathens But except baptisme bee administred to beleevers subjects onely capable of such union communion and distinction they cannot have that end effected to be united to the body of Christ and distinguished from the rest of the world Ergo baptisme is to be administred to beleevers for that end Reply They be beleevers first for so himselfe saith but to beleeve is to bee in Christ and by his faith forsaking sinne and the world chuseth God to bee his God and Gods people to bee his people and as by the inward grace this is done effectually invisibly so by actuall profession thereof without which he were not to bee baptized he visibly declareth and effecteth the same ends and is baptized as a signe and seale thereof baptisme there doth not effect those ends but signifie and seale those ends before effected This Argument still laboureth of the former mistake making the signe to be the signe and the thing signified by it Again there are other ends of baptisme besides these as himselfe confesseth and therefore the church may be formed a church before and without these ends to be effected by baptisme one end is to be a signe seale of the covenant which precedes baptisme it selfe and therefore baptisme comes too late to doe that which was done before Last of all Ephes 5.25.27 the party to bee baptized is and must bee a member before because the church is to bee washed not made a church by washing but being a church to be washed A fourth argument he hath is from the not iteration of baptisme it being to be administred but once the Lords Supper often in which respect baptisme is the signe of our birth and initiation the Lords Supper of our growth and conservation in the visible body of Christ and if a man may be conceived to have a being for a time in a visible church without baptisme the signe and Sacrament of his entrance and initiation hee may have a continuance there also and so consequently baptisme needlesse But baptisme is needfull as a means of the beginning of our visible being in the visible body of Christ Ergo without baptisme they have no visible being in the church and so baptisme is the form of it I answer First he saith baptisme is a signe and Sacrament of the beginning of our visible being in the body of Christ then say I it is not the beginning it selfe of our visible being in the body the signe and the thing signified being really distinct the one from the other and the thing signified preceding the signe and seale of it But of this before Secondly he plainly contradicts himselfe in saying it is a signe and Sacrament of our entrance and yet there is no visible being in the church without baptisme Thirdly where he saith If a man may have a being for a time without baptisme then may he have a continuance also it follows not for they had a being in the Jewish state before they were circumcised but circumcision was not needlesse neither should they have continued in that state without circumcision Again as the males had a being and continued members of that church seven dayes so if God had not commanded them to bee circumcised the eighth day but left it to their own wills they should have continued visible members without it alwayes as women did being not commanded Abraham and his family fourteen yeers and they in the wildernesse forty In like manner Gods command makes baptisme necessary for
they had not circumcised in forty yeers ever since they came out of Egypt nor did they circumcise any now nor afterward till Moses was dead and Joshua had brought them through Jordan into the land Joshua 5. To this he answereth divers things First that this was but a renewall of the covenant made with Abraham Isaac and Jacob before which they entred into with God in behalf of them and their children by being circumcised and therefore they being before did not now begin to be a church and therefore this doth not prove that a covenant acted by a company of believers should be it that did constitute them a church now Reply First I grant this was but a renewall of the covenant made with Abraham c. and upon his grant inferre that this was a spirituall covenant and not carnall and the same with Abrahams and ours which before he opposed mee in Secondly hee saith they entred into the covenant by circumcision Reply It is false Abraham and his were not circumcised till fourteen yeers after and now few of them in yeers were circumcised before nor any now Thirdly they did not now begin to be a church being one before It 's true but the renewall of their church estate here after many provocations of God and many declarations against them of Gods anger whereby they might feare that God would own them no more being by a covenant acted formally and outwardly between God and them as is cleerly expressed in the Text doth fully shew that both now and then they were found Gods people as believers acting a covenant betwixt God and them and one another and seeing hee grants this to be the same with that of Abraham c. that was also thus acted is out of question as this here though therefore a covenant acted now did not constitute them a church yet a covenant is acted now and is for the renewing of their church estate therefore much more was it so in the first constitution every thing decayed in the true forme of it being made the same it was by renewing the same form and otherwise cannot be the same Nor did circumcision here concurre nor any thing else and yet perfectly stated a church and so called Acts 7.1 Secondly hee answereth whereas I say circumcision was no ingredient here having not circumcised during the forty yeers nor now Hee conceives notwithstanding that circumcision was an ingredient in their parents who thereby entred into covenant for themselves and these their children as the covenant here expressed did comprehend the posterity to come Reply First howsoever they stood intire in the covenant and church-estate without personall circumcision for except Moses Caleb and Joshua there was not a man of those 600000. that came out of Egypt alive and all born in the wildernesse during the forty yeers were uncircumcised and at the time of this covenant making not one was circumcised and so the church consisted of a company of men personally uncircumcised and performed services to God and each other which ought to have been done by circumcised persons only In like manner men and women believing the Word of God and doing as these did may become thereby a true visible church though they were not baptized before nor are baptized at present covenanting and perform services to God and each other Secondly if they injoyed their perfect church-estate being not personally circumcised by vertue of their parents circumcision before them then certainly as much may be granted now that by vertue of a parents believing and being baptized their Infants may be counted and really are in the covenant before they be baptized If it be said these were grown men and expressed their faith in God I answer All were not grown men many were Infants yea posterity for and with whom this covenant was made were not yet born and for the rest what faith the most of them had may be seen Deut. 29.4 Thirdly hee answereth it was an extraordinary case and they had miraculous sacraments in stead of circumcision and the Passeover c. Reply To all this I have spoken before yet a word or two First hee calleth them miraculous sacraments here and before but he found fault with me for calling them ordinances which is all one sacraments they were therefore though extraordinary nor did the sea continue with them all this time being a transient act and many hundred thousands never past through the sea nor did the cloud baptize them all till circumcision was administred to them all Josh 5. The cloud ceased on the other side Jordan and continued not till they came into the land therefore all the members were not personally constituted members by that miraculous sacrament of baptisme which gives them hee saith their imitation Further he saith that the acting of a covenant by a company of believers was not the same of that church then but the communication of Gods covenant by circumcision ordinarily with the whole nation believers and Infidels and whosoever of any nation that would be circumcised and joyn with them to worship much lesse hath it any consequence to prove it so now Reply First I have proved that a covenant acted by them as beleevers did make them to be the people of God and circumcision was ordinarily added as a signe and seale thereof But in that hee saith the whole Nation beleevers and infidels it is an unchristian speech nor ever will he prove that any of the nation were infidels nor any of any nation joyning with them though many of them did not beleeve as they should yet beleevers they all were and God manifested it in accepting their sacrifices pardoning their sins and making an atonement for them by the Priests administrations It is therefore injurious to the grace of God so to speak and justly to be blamed Nextly he comes to my third particular by which I conceived the form of the Jewish church state outwardly was by a covenant acted by a company of beleevers c. which is from the renewall of their estate after some apostasie 2 Chron. 15.12 13 16. 34. chap. 30 31. Nehem. 9.3 10.1 from whence I collected that without which they could not stand in a right church estate visibly that was the forme of that church but without the renewall of their covenant they could not stand in a right or pure church estate but without renewall of circumcision they might Ergo. His answer hereto is First he grants they made a covenant and did well in so doing but secondly that they could not be in a church estate without so doing nor have I proved it and he will prove the contrary first because they were a church before secondly this covenant was but an animating them to doe that which they were engaged to doe before by their circumcision Gal. 5.3 Ergo. As the renewall of their covenant is not by me proved to bee the form of the church then much lesse hath it any consequence to
to believe and repent may and should be baptized and that none of yeers are to be baptized till they be converted and believe and repent nor doth the baptizing of Infants prevent the baptizing of men of yeers where any such are converted from Paganisme to Christianity no more then circumcising Infants of old prevented the circumcising of men of yeers which were converted from Gentilisme to Judaisme though it prevents the baptizing of believers children when they come to yeers because they are baptized Infants As the Jewish Infants circumcised when they were Infants could not be circumcised when they came to yeers It is a weak and feeble consequence to say where wee maintain baptizing Infants who do not actually believe that wee can never baptize any that do actually believe being only true of them that are baptized Infants and Infants of believers So wee come to the other sort of persons to be baptized viz. Infants where I shall indeavour two things 1. What Infants are to be baptized 2. That infants are to be baptized First Infants briefly are either of Infidels or believing parents The Infants of Infidels under which term I comprehend Jewes Turks Pagans and all but those that are true visible Christians are altogether strangers to the covenant of God in Christ and so can have no right at all to this ordinance yea though the parents consent much lesse against their consent Notwithstanding others undertaking for them I except only two cases 1. Slaves and servants bought with money these being Infants may be baptized for ought I know 2. When Infidell parents are converted and desire church-fellowship and thereby themselves and Infants are to be baptized I conclude in these two cases that Infants born of Infidell parents may be baptized and therefore I judge that Infidell Infants are in no wise to be baptized because they are unclean 1 Cor. 7.14 therefore such are to be deferred till they be converted and give testimony of their own faith and repentance Two Questions may be here resolved 1. In case of excommunicate persons Whether an Infant born of parents both under the censure of the church and the state of excommunication may be baptized if any will undertake for them I answer No. First because they are in that estate as Heathens and neither of them in visible covenant Secondly if by others undertaking why not Infants of Indians also Thirdly if by faith of fore-fathers as I see no Scriptures for it so where will you limit it Suppose a converted childe of Esau in Davids time could prove successively and to all evidently that hee came of Esau the son of Isaac whether should it have been circumcised as a Proselyte or as Isaac's seed A second Question is concerning Infants baptized of Heretikes whether lawfull I answer If the person baptizing had a true calling though stained with some corruption in the person or calling and in the administration of baptisme nothing essentiall omitted in matter or form those persons are not to be baptized again because baptisme is not to be administred twice to any But if any of the essentials were omitted such persons are to be baptized as not baptized before And now I come to the other particular that Infants of Believers and visible professors are to be baptized yea though but one of the parents be in church-fellowship which I shall prove after I have premised a few things 1. The Scriptures containing the books of the new and old Testament are full of perfection containing a most perfect rule of all things concerning faith and order So that in these respects nothing is to be urged as necessary nor allowed as lawfull but what is justly comprehended in them 2. There are two wayes whereby we may finde what Gods will is in all cases concerning the premises either in expresse terms or by just consequence drawn from thence So that whatsoever is not literally expressed or drawn from the letter by necessary consequence is to be rejected as not the Lords minde 3. Whatsoever can be collected by true deduction from any part of Scripture expounded in the largest sense is as truly contained in them as that which is set down in expresse terms and so is of the same force with that which is expressed So our Saviour urgeth the Devill Matth. 4. with that word only from Deut. which yet is not in the Text but truly drawn from thence So the Protestant urging justification by faith only oppose the Papists yet only is not expressed but necessarily drawn from thence For if there be but two wayes of justification as there is not and we be not justified by works as the Text saith then by faith only And Exod. 21.28 c. under the case of an Ox in all those particulars cleerly by consequence any other creature that may do hurt in the like case is intended as Cowe Dog Goat c. 4. The tender of immortality and happinesse of God to mankind hath been two wayes dispensed First to Adam and all mankind in his loynes by the Law upon condition of perfect obedience thereto in mans own personall righteousnesse Secondly Adam transgressing lost immortality and happinesse in himself and all man-kind and involved them and himself in sin and eternall wrath thereby God the Father for the praise of his grace having predestinated some to that adoption of son-ship in his Son and given them to his Son to be saved by him that hee might be glorified with the Father and hee receiving them at his Fathers hands because they were partakers of flesh and blood hee himself also took flesh and blood upon him and in that humane nature fulfilled the Law for them actually and so reconciled them all to the Father in himself that so God might be just and the justifier of the ungodly that should believe in Jesus From hence the Father maketh a new tender of life setting forth his Son to be a propitiation through his blood offering him and his righteousnesse in his humane nature and performed by it in obedience active passive to his holy will to all which shall believe and by that faith be found in him having his righeousnesse upon them accounting them thereby righteous and no sinners and making them from thence through the life of his Son manifested in them by sanctification of that holy Spirit partakers of life and immortality again This tender being one and the same in substance for ever from the first promulgation to Adam and Eve in Paradise till this day and to the end yet hath it admitted of variation in the circumstances thereof as is cleere from four severall and remarkable periods 1. From Adam fallen to Abraham under a promise of the seed of the woman to break the Serpents head Gen. 3.15 2. The second from Abraham to Moses time in the wildernesse in substance the same with the former yet differing from it First in promising the seed of the woman to proceed from Abrahams loynes according to the
others unto them Now a Church I conceive to be an institution of it whereby a company of men and women called by the word of Gods grace and some work of Gods Spirit upon them doe joyn themselves unto the Lord and one to another by entring into covenant with the Lord to have him to be the God of them theirs and they and theirs to be the Lords and his Christs as also one with another to meet together to worship God for his glory their mutuall edification to life according to Gods revealed will Now as I tie no man to my expressions so I shall be willing to learn of any that shall help me to a better understanding in this point yet in this description all the causes concurre The efficient an institution of Christ with the instrumentall the Word in some effects upon their hearts the materiall a company of men and women so called and from thence Saints and beleevers the formall joyning themselves to the Lord and one with another by entring into covenant whereof there are two branches one called Zach. 11. The staffe of beauty taking the Lord to be the God of them and theirs and giving up themselves and theirs to be the Lords the other called The staffe of bonds or brotherhood and both the covenant the finall to meet together to glorifie God the supreme and edifie one another to life with the meanes worshipping God according to his own appointment revealed in his word onely I would be understood of a Church in the constituting of it which is continued in the same state by succession till the Lord the efficient dischurch them But to proceed this confuter next saith That I make this quaere Whether baptisme be not the form of a church and answering No giving reasons of my deniall I affirm a covenant acted is the form of it To all which he answereth first in generall And here he distinguisheth between the form and the thing formed and saith That a Church being an Assembly the form or fashion thereof is the relation that every member possesseth from Christ their head and each with other wherby every law and service is communicable and executed concluding that neither a covenant or baptisme is the form of a Church but baptisme of a beleever is an instrumentall meanes by which a Church is made partaker of that forme which it hath as by which it becomes a Church Further that the instrumentall meanes of the being of a Church both of matter and form is by consent of love issuing forth from the covenant of grace made in and from our Lord through one Spirit one Faith one Baptisme Ephes 4.4 5. And if any of these be wanting and be not supplied the Church can have no visible existence and being From whence it followeth though baptisme bee not the form of a Church yet being an essentiall meanes and the last too of the visible Church where true baptisme is wanting there can be no true visible Church Reply First to let passe his distinction onely this I say that he confoundeth forme and figure as one thing which are divers For water in a round glasse or square hath this or that figure or fashion but it is not the forme whereby water is water and not another thing and therefore form differs from figure and fashion Secondly whereas he denieth a covenant or baptisme either to be a Churches form he contradicteth what he said before in his answer to my first argument to prove the covenant before Christ and after to be the same It is true said he that the coventnt of God maketh the Church both in the time of the Law and Gospel too and a Church is nothing but a people in covenant with God That saying of his here and there cannot be both true Thirdly he saith that the form of the Church is that relation that each member possesseth from Christ the head and each with other which is by consent of love Reply First the relation that each member possesseth from Christ the head and each the other is either internall as Spirit Faith Love or externall the manifestation of these as they are internall they cannot be the form of an externall visible church as they are manifested outwardly they cannot make the churches form because they may manifest these graces and yet be no church nor members of a visible and this particular church And indeed they are neither matter nor form though hee makes them both but the manifestation of these maketh them to be fit matter for a church which yet cannot be a church without the form added to the matter and that is a covenant or as he calleth it a consent which indeed is a covenant by which alone every Law and Service is communicable and excecuted Last of all he saith that consent of love from one Spirit Faith and Baptisme are essentially necessary meanes of the being of a church for matter and forme Ephes 4.4 5. And if any of these bee wanting then there can be no visible church Reply First in making all these to concurre to the matter and form of the church as meanes thereof hee necessarily yeeldeth the form and matter to be something else differing from them all Secondly he confounds baptisme with faith and love which are internall graces unlesse he means the externall profession of them flowing from the covenant of grace which if he doe then I conceive he yeelds as much as I require that in a covenant or mutuall engagement of all parties and one main part by profession of faith and love through one spirit without which a covenant cannot be in the state we speak of it Thirdly that of Ephes 4. intends not to describe the forme of a church but perswades to unity by a sevenfold unity that they are already church-members were all partakers of Lastly if baptisme may be wanting for a time and yet a beleever essentially a church-member as Abraham and his many males and females were before circumcised for the space of at least 14. yeares between the covenant and circumcision and therefore doth not concurre to the constitution of a churches matter and form but for the confirmation of a church constituted in matter and forme before And when a man of yeares is baptized in a church is the baptized a visible Saint or no If yea for he may be no reall Saint then his baptisme doth not give him matter and forme but hee hath both before or else hee ought not to be baptized And thus much to his generall discourse In particular he goeth on and saith First as it is in natural birth so it is in spirituall but in naturall birth we have the beginning of our natural being among the world and in the affairs of this life by our birth from our parents therefore wee have the beginning of our spirituall and visible being among the church as in the affaires of life eternall by our spirituall birth and this spirituall
cap. 2. sect 6. the rather because he is quoted by one as affirming Tom. 1. p. 347. that immersion was changed into aspersion after the time of Gregory 1. which was about 500. years after Christ which if he did then it is cleare he altered his judgement afterward for thus in the place quoted by me he writeth Incertum quando immersio met at a fuit in aspersionem aut unde facto initio c. It is uncertain when dipping was changed into sprinkling or whence it had beginning unlesse it may seeme that 3000. could not be baptized of a few Apostles and that in our dayes if every one should be dipped nor was there sufficient water to douze the Jaylor in the prison if hee was baptized by dipping use sheweth sprinkling to be more meet both in regard of the incommodiousnesse of the season as also in respect of modesty for which cause it is manifest that Deaconesses were imployed in undressing of women nor is the nature of the sacrament thereby altered for seeing all the force of water is in signification by washing certainly it is not much to purpose how much one is washed as in the Supper of the Lord how much one eateth or drinketh for the washing of one part is of the same nature with washing the whole Thus farre he Nor doth the sprinkling of a few drops of water more tend to evacuate Christe death or to nourish this dangerous errour that any should bee hereby occasioned to think that a few drops of Christs blood shed for his people is sufficient to wash away their sins then the eating of a bit of bread and drinking a few drops of wine doth evacuate his death and tend to nourish the same errour and what river may not in this consideration be excepted against or what quantity must it bee limited unto Thus I have run out my thoughts concerning this rite of administring baptisme I come in the next place to consider the administration of baptisme in England and the authority by which baptisme was there administred And I beleeve it is necessary to be resolved that was done by a lawfull power and just authority For though an officer of State doe a thing by vertue of his office and according to law maketh the thing authenticall and of force civilly yet it will not follow that if any private man not in office shall doe the same thing in the same form of words and every way else without any difference that such an act is legall and will be allowed but rather it will expose the doer and for whom such a thing is done to danger of just penalty So in this case and therefore if the authority by which baptisme was there administred be not lawfull and of God I confesse I cannot see how the thing it selfe can be in force and justifiable I adde that all Antichristian power and administrations by it as Antichristian cannot be lawfull And being it selfe an Idoll and humane invention it cannot give being to an ordinance or adde any thing to it but corrupt it and make it rather worse then better The ordination of a Pope or Prelate the presentation of a Patron c. give not the Minister a calling nor are necessary at all to make a man a Minister they corrupt the calling and the purity of it but the essentiall of a caling is from some other power which is necessarily required to make the practise good and authenticall If Johns baptisme was of men certainly it was unlawfull but if of God so it was lawfull and so I say of ours To cleare my selfe here I shall premise these things and so come to the conclusion First a calling may be lawfull and of God and yet corrupted many wayes as first by unfitnesse of persons in regard of their qualifications for the Pharisees sate in Moses chaire Matth. 23. Malac. 2.8 Secondly by the manner of entrance into the calling so the high Priesthood administred by them who took upon them the Kingly dignity many of them also purchasing the Priesthood by mony given to the heathen Kings who often put out one and put in another and whereas the high Priest was to continue during his life yet Caiaphas was high Priest but a yeare Thirdly by their ungodly and wicked acts in it as Elies sonnes Aaron yeelded to the people to make a Calfe and kept a festivall day yet did not these things nullifie the calling of the Priest hood nor did their administrations prove null thereby and invalid In the new Testament the church of Thyatira had corrupted the Ministeriall calling grosly in suffering a woman under colour of a Prophetesse to teach yet did not this destroy the calling of Ministry in that Church but that the calling of Ministry in that Church was lawfull Secondly a Church becomes a Church or a company of men and women become a Church not by usurping the things of God of themselves nor by imitating others in their Church practices as the Edomites Ishmaelites c. or Manasseh the son in law of Sanballat who builded a Temple in mount Gerizim after the fashion of that in Jerusalem or Onias building one in Egypt and in both of them setting up such services as were in Jerusalem but by Gods dispensation and that performed by these two acts First on Gods part sending the word of his grace offering it unto a people thereby opening their eyes and turning them from darknesse to light and taketh hold of them by some effect of his power so that he turns them from Idols to God Secondly from that act he produceth another by that effect of his power whereby such people takes hold on Gods offer and taking him and his Christ to be theirs and submitting themselves unto Christ as their Lord and King yeeld themselves up together in joynt and publike visible profession according to his lawes and ordinances Thirdly such a church thus constituted is a true church and a reall Ecclesiasticall body polity or corporation in it self and so many companies as thus joyn together are so many churches of equall power rights priviledges and jurisdictions nor is any one a mother church unto others but all are sister churches and though civilly the people may be distinguished into many commonwealths and many may be subject unto one yet the severall churches of every subordinate commonwealth are not hereby subject unto the church of the common-wealth to which the rest are subordinate but they remain entirely equall among themselves and all equally subordinate unto Jesus Christ Fourthly such a church or churches so remain still true churches so long as God continues his dispensation towards them and no longer but when God forsakes them and gives them a bill of divorce then they leave off to be a church and not before nor is it in the power of any other church or churches to unchurch any one such church but Christ himself must do that This church or these churches notwithstanding may
hee admitted them that he would have their Infants also and so in time of the Gospel to the Jewes and Gentiles at first setting it up Secondly Disciples are those that being entred with their parents into the school and profession continue successively so till God turn them off and no otherwise were the Jewes from Isaac till Christs time Disciples and so also it is now to say therefore there is no command to baptize Infants now because Disciples are to baptized is not upon any just consequence Besides let any shew me a command of baptizing females there being no command to circumcise them examples there are of baptizing them but I suppose that without a command will not suffice If any shall say it is commanded Mat. 28. where under the term of nations they are included I reply Are not children a part of all nations as they were a part of the Jewish nation But yee will say they must be made Disciples first Reply First Disciples as I said are made two wayes actually by profession or foederally by imitation as Infants were then so Infants may be now Secondly God taketh care of Infants now and requirâ—â— they should be instructed in the discipline and admonition of the Lord now God never took the care of any that were not his and in that he commanded them to be nursed up in his discipline it plainly argueth they are his Disciples His fourth and last answer is the same with the former from the difference of the subjects that were circumcised now to be baptized there being the same reason of changing the subject that there is of changing the Sacrament viz. Christs coming and if it were absurd to circumcise children now because they were circumcised then then it is absurd to baptize Infants now because they were circumcised them because Christs coming doth put an end to the subject also and hath put another subject to be baptized namely believers and only believers Reply First there is not the same reason of changing the subject that there is of the change of the Sacrament God changed the Sacraments he gave to Adam in Paradise but hee changed not the subject but continued the same offer of happinesse to Adam the same subject but he continued not the same Sacrament Secondly the Sacrament is not changed into another of another nature For the grace signified in both is the same the manner of signifying is the same in both sacramentally but the signes only are changed Thirdly the subjects are not changed by reason of Christs coming as being types of him which I have disproved before though here again implyed but because of their unbelief the kingdome being taken from them because they refused to submit Mat. 21.22 and now the subjects shall be cut off if they cease to be loyall and they should not if they had been loyall Fourthly the change of Gods administration of his grace hath been divers but the subjects to whom the grace was offered were never changed from Adams time to Abrahams where were the same subjects men women and Infants none will say Infants were excluded if they died before they came to yeers of discretion From Abrahams time to Moses the administration of grace was changed not the subjects Infants also from Moses time it was more changed till Christs time the subjects were not changed Infants not shut out no not Infants of Proselytes and why should Infants be shut out since seeing the offer of grace is the same though the administration of it differs but especially with more inlargement Upon all that hath been said it may appeare that the consequence of mine Argument is not weakened and so the point proved by it certain that as Infants were then circumcised so Infants are now to be baptized baptisme succeeding circumcision The second Part. AND thus for reply to his full answer to the discourse touching Infants baptisme it remains that I proceed with him in the rest about the form a Church wherein first he saith I speak of agreement in this that matter and form doe constitute a Church Also that the matter is a company of visible Saints professing faith in the righteousnesse of Christ and living accordingly To which he answereth First this definition agreeth not to Infants which I would make to be subjects of baptisme who are born in sinne and are children of wrath Eph. 2.3 Psa 51.5 Secondly nor doth it agree with the Jewish Church which I would make to be a pattern for ours in bringing grounds from them for baptizing infants who never were required to make such profession at the time of their admission as all Churches and members added doe since Christs time Acts 2.41 8.12 c. Thus he Before I come to reply let me give notice of this That I cannot own these words thus expressed That he and I with whom I had this discourse agreed of this that matter and forme doe constitute a Church I am consident and before we accorded had many passages to and fro but proceeded not till wee consented there nor can I say that I writ it down And touching the definition of the matter of a Church as is there expressed I am confident so farre as I can remember it was none of mine nor doe I now owne them and therefore let all observe how vain and rash he is so ungroundedly to publish these things under my name unto all the world Yet because some things in the discourse I well remember to be mine I shall cleare my way in passing this in a word or two and setting down such a definition of a Church as I have by me and go along with him in the rest and to what he saith I make this reply First I would say that the matter of a Church is a company of visible Saints And this I conclude to be clear in every place where a Church is stiled Saints Beleevers and the like Secondly this definition agrees to children as well as grown men being Saints also and holy seed of holy parents though it is true they bee born in sinne and children of wrath by nature so were infants in the old Testament as well as now as the place Psal 51. by him alledged evinceth and the same is true of the holiest men of yeares and Paul confesseth himselfe with others to be the children of wrath by nature yea then when he said it there is no hinderance then why that description may not agree to infants Thirdly it agreeth right well to the Jewish Church who were not a company of prophane persons but a holy people unto God a company of Saints and no otherwise a Church but as such or beleevers and wee are upon these terms admitted continued members of that Church so long as it continued a church as hath been shewed afore So that the description of the matter of a church doth well agree to all churches and members of churches alwayes nor are Churches to consist of or admit