Mr. Cary as if it was impossible for the Saints to be under the Covenant of Works under the former Dispensation and yet in the Covenant of Grace for I would know Whether or not they were not at that time under the Ministration of that Covenant but what tho' no sooner did they believe in Christ the Promised Seed but they were delivered from the Curse of the Law Nor is this any strange Thing For are not all now in these Days under the Dispensation of the Gospel yet untill Men and Women believe in Christ they abide still under the Curse of the Law of the First Covenant for Christ is not the end of the Law to all the World so as some erroneously assert i. e. all are justified in God's sight from the Curse of the Law but he is only the end of the Law touching Righteousness to every one that beleiveth to them and to no other Adult Person Therefore Men might be under the outward Dispensation of the Law of Works and yet through Faith be Justified and also others may be and are now under the Dispensation of the Gospel and yet for not believing in Christ be Condemned and under the Curse of the Law For the Gospel is not the Cause of our Sickness but our Cure none believing is the refusal of the Medicine So that there 's no Reason for him to say because we assert this That the Godly under that Dispensation hung mid-way betwixt Life and Death Justification and Condemnation and after Death mid-way betwixt Heaven and Hell p. 180. Therefore as all that lived under the Dispensation of the Law or Covenant of Works were saved by Faith in the Promise of Christ or by the Covenant of Grace Abraham saith our Saviour saw my Day and was glad so without Faith or Interest in Christ such that live under the Dispensation of the Gospel cannot be saved nor are they delivered from the Curse of the Law or Covenant of Works Therefore to conclude with this 't is evident the Covenant of Works though but one as to the substance of it yet there was several Ministrations of it as it was given also upon different Ends and Designs by the Lord And therefore because the said Covenant of Works was first given to Adam by vertue of which he was accepted and justified in his Innocency Could not God give forth a Second Addition Ministration or Transcript of his Righteousness and Holy Law requiring perfect Obedience though not to Justification yet to aggravate their Sin and so to their just Condemnation And doth not the Apostle assert the same Thing Rom. 3.19 20. compared with Rom. 7.13 Gal. 3.19 But saith Bishop Usher Quest. Doth not God wrong to Men to require of him that he is not able to perform Answ. He Answers No for God made Man so that he might have performed it but he by Sin spoiled himself and Posterity of those Gifts Therefore To proceed I do affirm That always generally when the Apostle speaks of the Old Covenant or Covenant of Works he passes by in silence the Covenant made with Adam and more immediately and directly applies it unto the Sinai Covenant and to that of Circumcision as all careful Readers who read the Epistles to the Romans Galatians and to the Hebrews may clearly find And farther to evince the Truth we contend for 't is evident That although there is and ever was but one Covenant of Grace yet nothing is more plain then that there were several distinct Additions of it altho' we say the Promise or Gospel Covenant was one and the same in all Ages in respect of the Things promised with the Nature and Quality thereof which is a free and absolute Covenant without Works or Conditions of foreseen Acts of Obedience or Righteousness done by the Creature whatsoever Rom. 4.5 The Substance and Essential Part of this Gospel Covenant as to the Promises of it is Christ Faith a New Heart Regeneration Remission of Sins Sanctification Perseverance and everlasting Life Yet this Evangelical Covenant had divers Forms Additions or Transcripts of it which signified those Things and the various Sanctions by which it was given forth and confirmed To Adam the Promise of it was under the Name Of the Seed of the Woman bruising the Head of the Serpent To Enoch Noah c. in other Terms To Abraham under the Name of His Seed in whom all the Nations of the Earth should be blessed To Moses by the Name of A great Prophet among his Brethren and it was signified also unto him under dark Shadows and Sacrifices Unto David under the Name of A Successour in his Kingdom To other Prophets more clearer still made known Unto as a Child is born a Woman shall compass a Man a New Covenant I will make c In the New Testament in plain Words We all with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord 2 Cor. 3.18 But now because there were so many Additions or Ministrations of the Gospel or New Covenant Doth it follow there are so many New Covenants This being so Mr. Flavel hath done nothing to remove Mr. Cary's Arguments but they stand firm For he says not That the Sinai Ministration of the Covenant of Works was ordained to justifie Mankind nor was it possible it could after a Man had sinned and yet in its Nature an absolute Covenant of Works or do for Life or Perish The Man that doeth these Things shall live in them Obj. 9. Circumcision could not oblige the Iews in its own Nature to keep the whole Law because Paul Circumcised Timothy If in the very Nature of the Act it had bound Timothy to keep the Law for Iustification how could it have been Paul's Liberty so to do saith Mr. Flavel which he asserts it was Gal. 2.3 4. p. 226. Answ. 1. That Circumcision did oblige the Jews to keep the whole Law is evident Gal. 5.3 and as I hinted before our Learned Annotators on the said place speak the same Thing positively Take more largely their very Words They were obliged to one Part of the Law they must be obliged to all other Parts of it besides that Circumcision was an owning and professing Subjection to the whole Law c. Obj. But did not the Fathers then by being Circumcised acknowledge themselves Debtors to the Law he Answers Yes they did acknowledge themselves bound to the observation of it and to endure upon the breaking of it the Curse of it but they were discharged from that Obligation by believing in Christ who was made a Curse for them that he might redeem them from the Curse of the Law Thus Pool's Annotations 2. But as to Paul's Circumcising Timothy it was when he knew Circumcision was abolished and therefore it could not oblige him Paul well knew to keep the Law Sith no Law in its own Nature can oblige any Person according to the Nature and Quality of it when 't is abrogated and in no force tho' he saw
all Mosaical Rites ended so did the Covenant of Circumcision also God never said he would be the God of Abraham's natural Seed as such as he gave himself to him and to all his true spiritual Seed for to them he gives himself or an Interest in all God is or has so far as communicative even for ever and ever or to all Eternity the Covenant of Grace being ordered in all things and sure 2 Sam. 23.5 'T is impossible this Covenant and Covenant Blessings which is comprehensive of all Grace here and Glory hereafter should referr to a certain Period of time and since he was not thus in Covenant with Abraham's carnal Seed as such 't is evident the Covenant of Circumcision tho' called an Everlasting Covenant was not the Covenant of Grace And so much to this Objection 8. Obj. There was never but one Covenant of Works and that God made with Adam and in him with all his Postâ—rity therefore the Covenant of Circumcision did not appertain in the Covenant of Works See Mr. Flavel Answ. First Our Controversie lies not so much about the Covenant of Works as given to Adam but about the Nature of Sinai Covenant since Circumcision appears to be of the same Nature with that I do not say in every respect there is no difference between the Covenant of Works made with Adam and that made with the Peopâ—e of Israel though theâ— differ not Essentially in Substance 't is all one and the same Covenant viz. Requiring compleat and perfect Righteousness 2. Therefore tho' there is but one Covenant of Works yet there was more than one Addition or Administration of the said Covenant This is evident although given upon a different end purpose and design by the Lord. Adam's Covenant I grant had one end and design and the Sinai Covenant of Works had another yet may be both as to the Essence and Substance of them but one and the same Covenant Which doubtless is all Mr. Cary intends 1. Adam's Covenant had Happiness and Justification in it by his perfect Obedience thereto and he being able in the time of his Innocency to keep it he was thereby Justified 2. But the Second Edition or Ministration of the Covenant of Works given to the People of Israel tho' in its Nature and Quality it was a Covenant of Works and one with the former yet it was not given for Life or to Justifie them nor was it able so to do by reason of their Weakness through the Flesh Rom. 8.3 But it was added because of Transgression 1. To restrain Sin or as I said before to regulate their Lives under those external Covenant Transactions of God with them as his People as before expressed 2. To make Sin appear exceeding sinful 3. To discover to them what Righteousness it is God doth require in order to the Justification of the Soul in his Sight 4. To make known to them thereby what a Righteousness Man originally in the First Adam had and lost and 5 thly It did discover their woefull Condition to them and might put â—hem upon seeking Relief and Justification by the promised Seed and so be as a School-Master to bring them to Christ. 6. That in their Conformity to it to their utmost Power to continue â—ll those outward Blessings and Privileges to the House or Church of Israel as God promised to Abraham upon that Account for 't is evident the Promises made to them upon their Obedience were Earthly and Temporal Promises and not Spiritual Hence the Apostle saith the New Covenant is established upon better Promises And Now that the Sinai Covenant was a Covenant of Works as considered â—n it self notwithstanding the end and design of God therein I find many of our sound Protestant Divines do affirm tho' given with a merciful and gracious intention or in subserviency to the Gospel 1. It commanded or did require perfect or compleat Obedience 2. On these Terms Do and Live 3. It gave no strength nevertheless to perform what its just Demands were Hence the strength of Sin is called the Law it did Condemn but could not Save 4. Nor was there any Pardon or Remission of Sin by that Covenant for any Soul that broke it for He that despised against Moses's Law dyed without mercy under two or three witnesses Heb. 10.28 Moreover 5. It cursed all that did not continue in all Things that were contained in the whole Book of the Law to do them Gal. 3.10 6. The Holy Ghost calls it the Old Covenant in contra distinction and direct Opposition to the Covenant of Grace or Gospel Covenant The law is not of faitâ— but the man that doth those things them shall live in them Gal. 3.12 And tho' Moses was the Mediator of that Covenant yet he was but a Typical Mediator and stood between God and them to plead for the Blessings of that Covenant and to prevent the Threatnings of Temporal Judgments for there was never but one Mediator between God and us upon a spiritual Account i. e. To stand between eternal Wrath and us or to make Peace with God for our Souls Take what the Learned Bishop Usher hath said about the Law as a Covenant of Works viz. Quest. How doth this Covenant i. e. The Covenant of Grace differ from that of Works Answ. His Answer is much every way for first in many Points the Law may be conceived by Reason but the Gospel in all Points is far above the reach of Man's Reason Secondly the Law commandeth to do good and giveth no strength the Gospel enableth us to do good the Holy Ghost writing the Law in our Hearts Thirdly The Law promised Life only the Gospel Righteousness also Fourthly The Law required perfect Obedience the Gospel the Righteousness of Faith Fifthly The Law revealeth Sin rebuketh us for Sin and leaves us in it but the Gospel doth reveal unto us Remission of Sins and freeth us from the Punishment belonging thereunto Sixthly The Law is the ministration of Wrath Condemnation and Death the Gospel is a ministry of Grace Justification and Life Seventhly The Law was grounded on Man's own Righteousness requiring of every Man in his own Person perfect Obedience Deut. 27.26 And in default for satisfaction everlasting Punishment Gal. 3.10 12. But the Gospel is grounded on the Righteousness of Christ admitting Payment and Performance in another in behalf of so many as receive it Gal. 3.13.14 Bishop Usher's Summ and Substance of Christian Religion p. 159. A multitude of Protestant Writers I might produce who all assert the same Doctrine And if the Sinai Covenant was not a Covenant of Works Why do all our Brethren say as it was a Covenant of Works 't is done away and Why doth the Apostle say Christ is the end of the Law as touching Righteousness It is not abolished or done away as 't is a Rule of Righteousness for as so it abides as a perpetual Rule and Law to us Therefore I wonder at Mr. Flavel's Out-crys against
and primary End of it he proves not for the direct and more immediate End and Design thereof we have proved was something else although we grant it was a dark Sign Type or Figure of that they speak of viz. to discover the Corruption of Nature by sin and the Mortification thereof and so also did most of the Ceremonies of the Law but doth it therefore follow those Ceremonies and so Circumcision did not appertain to that Ministration of the Covenant of Works God gave by Moses to the People of Israel which is abrogated and done away Must the Shadow or Sign be part of the Substance or belong or appertain to the Substance Wherefore as Mr. Cary well saith until they can prove the Sinai Covenant and Ceremonial Law c. not to be in their own Nature a Covenant of Works this which they object here has nothing in it since Sacrifices the Passover c. as well as Circumcision were Types of Christ and other Gospel-Mysteries likewise and indeed Mr. Flavel seems to me to run upon a Mistake all along in his Answer to Mr. Cary as if the latter makes no distinction between Adam's Covenant of Works and those after Administrations of the same Old Covenant for Mr. Cary I am satisfied means no more than what I have said viz. That they agree in Nature and Quality tho' Adam had Life and Justification by his own perfect Obedience unto that Law or Covenant while he stood and it was given to him to that end yet God gave not the Sinai Covenant which required perfect Obedience to the end Man might be thereby justified nor was it possible he could since he had sinned and lost his power to obey but that Law contains a clear Transcript of the first Law and so of the Holiness of God and of that Righteousness Man originally had and lost and of the Impossibility of his being justified without such a compleat and perfect Righteousness but the Law as written in the two Tables was given in Mercy upon the Score or Account I have mentioned to Israel in Subserviency to the Gospel and to it was annexed the Ceremonies to shew that a plenary Satisfaction must be made for the breach of God's Holy Law and that this must be by Blood tho' not by blood of Bulls or Goats but they might have understood that by them the Sacrifice and Blood of Christ was figured could they have seen to the end or purport of them Therefore the true Distinction lies here viz. Both are the first Covenant of Works both shew Man must live and sin not if he would be justified in God's sight the first in Man's Innocency answered the end of a Covenant of Works the second Administration thereof could not give Life nor was it given to that end but it answered the end for which God gave it and so much to this Objection Obj. 13. You cannot deny but Circumcision sealed the Righteousness of Faith to Abraham and how can you prove a Seal of the Covenant of Works can be applied to such a use and service Thus Mr. Flavel p. 234. Answ. 1. I answer first who of us say that Circumcision was a Seal of the Covenant of Works there is a great difference between a Seal of a Covenant and that which was given as a Sign or Token of that legal and external Covenant God made with all Abraham's natural Seed as such aâ—d that Circumcision was such a Sign we have before shewed as also of their having the Covenant or Law of Mount Sinai and Land of Canaan given to them c. 2. But that Circumcision was a Seal of that Faith Abraham himself had not being yet Circumcised and that he should be the Father of all that believe Paul possibly affirms Rom. 4.16 and yet it might well be of use to him also as a Sign or Token of those other Covenant Rights and Blessings granted to his natural Off-spring is evident 3. And from hence we have proved that Circumcision could not be so a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith to any other Person or Persons none having the like Faith before they were Circumcised as Abraham had nor were they made common Fathers to all true Believers whether Iews or Gentiles Obj. 14. Where the Covenant of Circumcision is by the Apostle contra-distinguished to the Covenant of Faith Rom. 4.13 the Law in that place is put strictly for the pure Law of Nature and metatypically signified the Works of the Law p. 235. Answ. 1. I suppose no Man besides Mr. Flavel ever asserted such a thing as this is I would know how Circumcision a meer positive Precept came to be a part of the Pure Law of Nature for 't is evident that the Law Paul contra-distinguisheth from the Righteousness of Faith had Circumcision in it or else the same Apostle needed not to have taken such pains to have distinguished between Circumcision and the Righteousness of Faith and had Circumcision appertained to the Righteousness of Faith or been a Gospel Covenant why doth he exclude it with the Law from being so counted read v. 10 11 12 13. 2. The Law therefore of which the Apostle speaks is that Ministration of the Law given to Israel of which Circumcision was part and so of the like Nature and Quality with it and both contra-distinguished to the Covenant of Grace or to the Righteousness of Faith And that the Law here is put strictly for the pure Law of Nature is wholly without Reason Proof or Demonstration what Law doth the Apostle speak of in the preceding Chapters and also in this see chap. 3.1 2. is it not that he calls the Oracles of God or Lively Oracles Act. 7.38 given on Mount Sinai The Law of Nature and the written Law contained in the two Tables are all one and the same Law as to the Substance of them they are materially the same tho' not formally both convinced of Sin both bring Sinners under Guilt and Condemnation and so that all Mouths may be stopped and all the World become guilty before God Rom. 3 19. both are a Rule to walk by both Witnesses for God but neither of them can give Life nor justifie the Sinner in the sight of God v. 20. Therefore neither of them are any part of the Covenant of Grace for if one of them is a part of it both of them are if the Law of Nature be not so the Law written in the Tables of Stone was not so yet the Iews had the Advantage of the Gentiles because their Law was wrote in far more legible Characters than the dimm Law of Nature Rom. 3.2 as well as in many other respects Obj. The denying Baptism to Infants hinders the Progress of the Christian Religion 1. That Principle which hinders the Progress of the Christian Religion can be no Christian Doctrine but the denying Baptism to Infants hinders the Progress of the Christian Religion therefore such a Principle can be no Christian Doctrine this is Mr. Rothwell's
main Argument pag. 2 3. to prove the Minor thus he argues viz. 2. That Principle which makes the Covenant of Grace less beneficial and extensive than the Covenant of Works hinders the Propagation of the Christian Religion but the former Principle does so Ergo To prove the Minor of this Argument he adds another viz. That Principle which allows not as great Immunities Benefits and Privileges to the Covenant of Grace as to the Covenant of Works makes the Covenant of Grace less beneficial and extensive than the Covenant of Works but the Principle that denies Baptism to Infants does so Ergo. Answ. 1. This Gentleman calls these Rational Arguments but I have nothing but his own word for it but to proceed he should have shewed what those Immunities and Benefits were in the Covenant oâ— Works which we by denying Infants Baptism render the Privileges of the Covenant of Grace to be less than those were but do you not intimate hereby that Circumcision belonged to the Covenant of Works and if so in vain do you urge Circumcision as a Privilege and also since the Covenant of Works is abrogated what is there in your Arguments for the baptizing of Infants For all Iewish Rites and Privileges may be forced upon the Christian World by this Argument of yours or else we may say the Privileges of the Gospel are less than the Privileges of the Iews under the Covenant of Works which I have already answered 2. His mentioning that Passage of Calvin is remote to his purpose he speaks of the Covenant of Grace made with Abraham not of the Covenant of Works which we say is not curtail'd by Christ's coming but is every way as extensive now as it was from the beginning but we have proved that there was a Two-fold Covenant made with Abraham and that Circumcision did appertain to his Natural Seed as such and so part of the legal Covenant Obj But the Commission Mat. 28.19 you say is as full or rather more beneficial and extensive than the Covenant of Works and consequently that the baptizing of Infants is a Christian Duty for had there been as general a Commission given by Moses to Twelve Elders of Israel as the Blessed Iesus gave to his Disciples and it had been said to them Go teach all Nations Circumcising them this had been no Prohibition to Circumcise the Iewish Children c. Ans. 1. Is this that the Mountains have brought forth we were big in Expectation by your Title Page wondering what new Notion or Arguments you had found out from the Commission Mat. 28.19 20. or what your different Method should be to prove Infant Baptism But truly Sir the Log is still too heavy you cannot lift it up I see nothing new in your whole Tract nor any thing but what has been answered but this being the main Pin upon which all hangs I shall give a brief Reply to you 1. I thank you for your plain and just Concession I see you conclude and grant Circumcision did belong to the Covenants or Works I doubt not but you are right so far and with that your Cause is gone and Calvin and all that came after him have said nothing in calling Circumcision a Gospel Covenant 2. But Sir suppose the People of Israel had never been commanded by the Lord to Circumcise their Children till Moses came and Moses had given such a Commission that you mention viz. to teach all Nations Circumcising them do you think they would have had ground from thence to have circumcised their Infants whereas his Circumcision required the teaching of all Nations first before they were circumcised of which Infants were not capable 3. 'T is evident that our Saviour in his Great Commission enjoineth no more to be baptized but such who are first taught or made Disciples and this agrees with his own Practice Joh. 4.1 he made and baptized more Disciples than John he first made them Disciples and then baptized them nor were there any baptized in the New Testament but such who first professed Faith in the Lord Jesus See our Answer to Mr. Burkit which I sent you Also our Answer to the Athenian Society this is there fully spoken unto 4. If the Commission be so extensive as you intimate Why do you not go or stir up some Ministers to go into all Heathen and Pagan Nations and Baptise them and their Children and so that way make them all Christians You may teach them the Christian Doctrine i. e. Faith and Repentance afterwards as you do your Children but the Truth is there is no need to teach them afterwards the way of Faith and Regeneration if your Doctrine be true because the chief Thing they received in Baptism you say is divine Grace viz. Regeneration Adoption and a Title to the Inheritance of eternal Life p. 20. Sure those divine Habits can never be lost Reader take what this Man says farther on this Respect Obj. But you say we neither regard nor consider the chief Thing in Baptism viz. The Testification or Witness of the divine Benevolence taking them into Covenant Protection and Patronage and conferring and bestowing Grace upon them for in Baptism the chief Thing is divine Grace which consists and stands in the remission pardon and forgiveness of Sins in Adoption or Sonship and in a Right and Title to the Inheritance of Eternal Life of which Grace Infants stand in need and are as capable as the Adult c. p. 20. Answ. This is such Doctrine that few Paedo-Baptists besides your self do assert or believe but What Proof do you give us to confirm it from God's Word You say right we do not regard it indeed Doth Baptism do all this 'T is wonderful How conferr Grace and give Pardon and Eternal Life You Ministers of the Church of England if this be so can do as strange things as the Popish Priests in Transubstantiation you can by sprinkling a little Water on the Face of a Babe it appears change the evil and vitious Habits form Christ in the Soul raise the Dead to Life and of a Child of Wrath make a Child of God It grieves me to think a Man called a Minister of the Gospel should teach such corrupt Doctrine and deceive the Ignorant For as it is without Scripture-Evidence nay contrary to it for God's Word that tells us Baptism washes not away the Filth of the Flesh that is the Corruption of depraved Nature so 't is contrary to Reason and without any rational Demonstration as Reverend Stephen Charnock tho' a Paedo-Baptist shews Many Men saith he take Baptism for Regeneration The Ancients usually give it this Term one calls our Saviour's Baptism his Regeneration This conferrs not Grace but engageth to it outward Water cannot convey inward Life How can Water an external Thing work upon the Soul in a Physical manner neither can it be proved That ever the Spirit of God is tyed by any Promise to apply himself to the Soul in gracious Opperations when
and 't is as certain those Habits can never be lost 't is the Seed that remains of which the Apostle Iohn speaks â—or can those pretended Habits lye still or asleep in Persons so long as your Notion clearly doth imply 1. He goes on to shew what the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the Learned he says tells us signifie to confess and give thanks What of this yet 't is by a â—erbal Confession of Sin if that should be signified in it 2. He says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to do it together that would be Confession Sir 〈◊〉 not the genuine signification of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 alike Similies a-like do speak a-like 〈◊〉 the same things see Schrevelius's Greek Lexicon where you will find â—â—e so defines the word 3. No doubt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to speak out they made an audible Confession â—nd not to whisper in Iohn's Ear. 4. Again he says the word signifies a Confession of known faults no doubt of 〈◊〉 and therefore such a Confession be sure that no Infants are concerned in â—â—nners have known faults enough to confess when God opens their Eyes 〈◊〉 works Grace in their Souls 5. And that the word comes from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies to confess or profess â—â—d is to be so translated which signifies a Confession by practice and actions â—â—g 49. Answ. This does not help the matter for 't is evident the Practice and Actions of the Lives of true Penitents more loudly declares or makes known that blessed Change that is wrought in them than a verbal Confession can but Infants are no more capable to do the one than the other Moreover he would have it to be such a Confession that Infants must be included for else saith he Obj. They are excluded from the Number that John turned to the Lord or else it proves that Baptism was not a means to turn them to the Lord or bringing them to Christ p. 49. 1. Answ. Did Iohn turn any Children in their Infancy to the Lord We read of no Miracles which he did but sure this would have been no small Miracle if he had changed the Hearts of Infants 2. We see you positively conclude that Baptism is indeed a Converting oâ— Soul-changing Ordinance you are of Mr. Rothwells Judgment it appears and I suppose a true Son of the Church of England but when you write again do but prove this and you do your Work in a great measure 3. But 't is strange you should attempt to confute all the Learned nay and your own Church too for she requires a verbal Confession of such that are baptized and since Infants can't do it she causes others to do it for them unless you suppose that Iohn Baptist Ordained the Rite of God Fathers and God-Mothers for there is as plain Scripture-Proof for that aâ— there is that he baptized Infants Dr. Du Veil quotes Grotius who says It plainly appears by the Rite of baptizing in the Popish Church that Baptism is to be asked before the Person is baptized which the Surety does in the Infant 's Name a clear distinct Confession of Faith is required i. e. Renouncing the World its Pomps the Flesh and the Devil Dr. Du Veil on Act. 8. p. 282. the samâ— does the Church of England require yea such a Confession that attends Regeneration for as such she baptizeth them tho' they answeâ— by Proxy she baptizeth not Infants as such but as they are Believers Eunâ—mius speaketh thus ziz Baptism is the Seal of Faith Faith is thâ— Confession of the God-head 't is necessary we should first believe anâ— and then be sealed in Baptism p. 278. of the same Book Hierom saith The Lord commanded his Apostles first to Instruct anâ— Teach all Nations and afterward should baptize such who were instrucâ—â—ed into those great Mysteries of the Faith for it cannot be saith hâ—â— that the Body should receive the Sacrament of Baptism till the Soul hâ—â— received the True Faith see Rector Rectified where there are divers of 〈◊〉 Fathers cited p. 129. to p. 237. t the same purpose Baptism saith Mr. Baxter is said to save us and therefore they 〈◊〉 will be baptized must profess the Qualifications necessary to be saved as many as have been batized into Christ have put on Christ and are all one in Christ Jesus c. And are Abraham's Seed and Heirs according to the Promise therefore saith he it is clear a Profession was pre-supposed Our Baptism is the Solemnizing of our Marriage with Christ and 't is a new and strange kind of Marriage where there is no Profession of Consent Baxt. on Confirmation c. p. 32. ' We find saith the same Baxter that when Iohn Baptist set up his Ministry 1. He caused the People to confess their Sins Mat. 3.6 and if we confess our Sins God is faithful and just to forgive us our Sins 1 John 1.9 and whereas some say saith he that Iohn called them a generation of Vipers I answer we will believe that when they prove it 2. If he baptised them it was not till they confessed their Sins and and it seems by his Charge not till they promised to bring forth Fruits meet for Repentance Mat. 3.8 Confirmat p. 24. as to those in Act. 2.37 it is plain they made an open Profession 3. It is said They that gladly received the Word were baptized we may not imagine that Peter was God or knew the Hearts of those Thousands and therefore he must know it by their Profession p. 25. He says in p. 26. The constant Practice of the Universal Church confirms the same i. e. that an Express Profession or Confession of Faith and Repentance is necessary before Persons are baptized he adds The Commission Christ saith he directeth his Apostles to make Disciples and then Baptise them and this say I excludes all Infants how was it known the Samaritans believed Philip Preaching the Things concerning the Kingdom of God c. but by their Profession Saul had more than a bare Profession before baptized pag. 27 28. the converted Gentiles Act. 13.28 shewed their Belief and glorified God openly the same may we say of the Iaylor saith he and Crispus Act. 18.8 p. 29. ' The believing Ephesians confessed and shewed their Deeds thus far Mr. Baxter Obj. A Confession could not be of such Concernment as to exclude all from any Right to Baptism for then the Pharisees and Lawyers could not have been guilty 〈◊〉 such Sin in their being not baptized of John Luk. 7.30 p. 49. Answ. Such arguing I never met with before doth if follow that a Conâ—ession of sin was not necessary because 't is said the Pharisees and Lawyers â—ejected the Counsel of God in not being baptized of John was that their greatâ—st Evil or did not their horrid Evil rather lie in their Impenitency and Unbelief which excluded them from having a Right to Baptism or in â—heir not receiving Iohn's Doctrine of Repentance for