that ordinance; or by a profane slighting of it, though otherwise his child's title to it could not be denied: however, the child by this profanity of the parent, is cut off before he be capable to cut off himself; and no less can be meant by it, than a cutting off from visible church membership. "If any object, (these are Calvin's words),* that the infants were not to be blamed; I answer, that even as God adopts the infant son in the person of the father, when the father rejects such a benefit, the infant is said to abdicate himself from the church; for so much signifies that word, "To be put out from among the people whom God had chosen for himself." That some expound it, they shall not be Jews, is too coldrife: we must go further, to wit, that God will not acknowledge among his people those who will not bear the mark and badge of adoption." However this text directly toucheth the cutting off of the child, yet it seems plainly to follow thence, that much more the parent was to be cut off. From which it appears, that the profanity of the Jewish parents did render their children no visible church members, and consequently excluded them from circumcision, as Jewish chidren, or children of such profane parents: which hath the more weight, if it be considered, that the Lord doth not here command others to see to the circumcision of such a child, which might have been expected if he had any visible right thereto, but precludes this, while he tells us," he shall be cut off, or not acknowledged among his people:" so that should such a one afterwards be admitted, he comes in as a stranger doth, but not by birth privilege.

I come now to consider the reasons adduced to prove that the heresy, impiety, or profanity of the Jewish parents, did not exclude their children from circumcision. The first, which is taken from the universality of the command, is answered already, in taking off an objection made against our first conclusion. The command does indeed oblige all to be circumcised; but it doth also at the same time oblige them to be subjects theologically capable of that ordinance; as is above more fully declared. And, by the same labour, the force of the second reason, taken from the punishment to be inflicted on them, is removed also. And that Scripture we have spoken to before, and improved it for our purpose. To the third, taken from the practice of Joshua, in circumcising all the people at Gilgal, at the command of God; I answer, It can no

Calv. in loc.

Cutting off is of himself and of his children. p. 9.

Aruch. cit. Lightf. Temp. Serv.

no more be proven from hence, that Joshua circumcised every individual male among this people, than it can be proven from Matt. iii. 5, 6. that every individual person of Judea, and the region round about Jordan, was baptized of John, confessing their sins; for there it is said, "All Judea, and all the region," &c.: yea it is certain, neither Joshua himself nor Caleb were then circumcised, being circumcised before. But the persons that were the first subjects recipient of that ordinance there, were men at age standing in their own right, capable to answer for themselves; and for the infants among them, they stood by the right of their parents, who are, without all possible proof, denied to be all visible believers. How can it be proven, that such were there circumcised as were not visible believers? The contrary is rather manifest, that being men at age, they were circumcised at God's command. But if men will hold by this, that such as were heretics, impious, and profane, were circumcised by Joshua, then we see more how far on this argument does lead us, not only to admit the children, but even such persons themselves at age, to baptism. That is observable in Joshua's commission,* "Make thee sharp knives, and circumcise again the children of Israel the second time." With respect to Abraham and his family, their being circumcised, which was the first time, where the first subjects recipient of the ordinance were men at age, and then the infants by right derived from them; and so to be continued in the church, the males always to be circumcised in their infancy: but this order was broken off by the generation of adult persons who came out of Egypt, Josh. v. 5; so that it is now a second time to be set on foot, and so to go on as at first was appointed; first men at age to be circumcised, and then their infants. But in Old or New Testament it cannot be instanced, where the first subjects recipient of the seal of the covenant, were not visible believers. And is it not expressly said, that all the people that were men of war, which came out of Egypt, and obeyed not the voice of the Lord, were consumed in the wilderness? and after their circumcision, before they removed from Gilgal, these people kept the passover? ver. 10. Either then we must say, they were not heretics openly impious and profane, or else let us admit such as these to the sacrament of the Lord's supper too under the gospel: As Ursint observes from these two places, Numb. xv. 28; Deut. xvii. 12. "God commandeth the contumacious to be taken away out of the commonwealth, nor does he allow them to be members of his people; much less then will he have them to be

holden for members of his visible church, and to be admitted to the sacraments." And it appears, that in the wilderness, in a special manner, God acted himself the part of the magistrate, and put his own laws in execution. As to the fourth and last reason, That we never read of any of them excluded; I answer, A non scripto ad non factum non valet sequela. We read of children excluded from the church and life by their parents' impiety, and it would seem there were laws for the excluding of them; so that, by the word of God, they were excluded de jure. And we have heard, that the children of excommunicated parents were actually excluded.

IV. As to the fourth argument, taken from Acts ii. 38, 39. we have already explained and improved that Scripture against the doctrine of the opponents. Whether by the promise be meant that, "I will be your God, and the God of your seed," or not, is not very certain. Some learned men* understand by the gift of the Holy Ghost, the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit, peculiar to the first times of the church; and by the promise, the promise of the same, cited by Peter out of Joel, which he did repeat at large, ver. 17, &c. But howsoever it be understoood, it is clear, that this promise being to them gave them not a right to baptism, but that repentance was necessarily pre-required of them in order thereunto; as we have proved before; which quite invalidates any argument taken from hence for the cause that is pleaded. Again, there is another thing in this text that makes it, as explained for this cause, altogether useless to the purpose; and that is, that the promise is no less said to be to those whom the Lord shall call, who as yet were afar off, than it is said to be to those to whom he spoke; but had the Gentiles yet uncalled a right to baptism too? Finally, it is to be marked, that those to whom the apostle speaks here, were not all Jews, but many of them were Gentiles, neither were they all proselytes, as Aretius observes; yet to them is this spoken as well as to others. I have seen nothing as yet that satisfieth me as to that, in what sense the promise is said to be to those persons; but from what hath been said, it plainly appears, that in whatever sense it be said to be unto them, it doth not follow, they had thereupon a right to baptism.

V. The fifth argument is, That John the Baptist, and Christ's disciples, baptized all that offered themselves. This plainly concludes, that we are to baptize all that offer themselves; which I doubt if any sober man will affirm, seeing Turks and pagans may offer themselves in mock to be baptized: nor would ever this have

Piscator, schol. in loc; Hoornbeek, Soc. Conf. tom. 3. p. 237.

come into my head, that they baptized all that offered themselves, as an argument for this cause, unless I had seen it among the arguments offered, as Mr. Fulwood says,* by divines, (what divines he means, unless it be Mr. Prin, I cannot conjecture), which to him were never satisfactorily answered. I grant indeed, that John and Christ's apostles did baptize whosoever, being visible believers, offered themselves; but I utterly deny it in any other sense. The proofs adduced are lame, and not to the purpose; for it is plainly said of the persons whom John baptized, that they were baptized "confessing their sins." Whether or not he did baptize the Pharisees and Sadducees, of whom mention is there made, is a question, the negative whereof I think is most probable; seeing it is expressly said, Luke vii. 30, "But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized of him." And in Luke iii. while the Evangelist is speaking of those whom John baptized, particular mention is made of the people, the publicans, and the soldiers, their asking questions of John as to what they should do, and each of them gets their directions; but there is not one word of the Pharisees and Sadducees asking what they should do, nor any particular directions, given to them; for which no satisfying reason appears, if we admit that they were baptized as well as the rest: Matth. xxi. 32, “Ye believed him not; but the publicans and the harlots believed him." Ver. 45, " And when the chief priests and Pharisees had heard his parables, they perceived that he spake of them." As for that saying of John, "I indeed baptize you with water," ver. 11, it will no more prove that he baptized every individual person to whom he spoke, than it will prove that Christ baptized every individual among them with the Holy Ghost, and with fire; for this, as well as the other, John speaks to the same persons. Luke tells us the occasion of this speech, and to whom he said it, Luke iii. 15, 16, " And as the people were in expectation, and all men mused in their hearts of John, whether he were the Christ or not; John answered, saying unto them all," (amongst whom the Pharisees and Sadducees were, as Matthew must be understood,) "I indeed baptize you with water;-he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost." Will any from hence infer, that he baptized every individual person that heard him? if they will, we shall infer on the same ground, that they were all baptized with the Holy Ghost. So then that word, Luke iii. 21, " When all the people were baptized," must needs be understood of all those of them who were baptized by him at that time; as the forecited word,

vers. 15, 16, "All men mused-and he said to them all," viz. that heard him at that time. But grant he did baptise the Pharisees and Sadducees, how will it be made appear that they were not visible believers, or that they did not with the rest confess their sins? That he calls them "a generation of vipers," will not prove it; for that he said to all the multitude that came forth to be baptized of him, as well as to them and it is to be specially noticed,* he calls them not vipers, but "a generation of vipers," gennemat echidnon, those come of vipers, or the offspring of vipers: this they might be, and yet not be vipers themselves. That word, John iv. 1, doth indeed bear, that Christ by his disciples baptized more than John; yet neither John nor Christ's disciples baptized any but visible believers; for it is expressly said, "that Christ made and baptized more disciples than John," ibid.; so that both made them disciples before they baptized them. Finally, I deny that the apostles baptized any on a bare profession, or on a profession which was not a probable profession, or a probable evidence of true faith; as is clear from the Scriptures instanced, of which before.

pa

VI. As to the sixth argument, taken from Ezek. xvi. 20, 21, that the children of the idolatrous Jews are called " God's children," and "born to God?" I answer, this will not prove that they had a visible right to the seal, no more than that magistrates have such a right, because they are called "the children of the Most High ;"t as specious a character as is given here to the seed of these idolatrous persons. These might be God's children, as being heirs of God and the kingdom of heaven, though thus barbarously slain by their rents; yet no visible members of the church, nor having any visible right to the seal. What if I say, they were the first-born whom God challengeth a special propriety in, upon the account of the deliverance their fathers met with when the first-born of the Egyptians were slain? according to that law, Exod. xiii. 2. "Sanetify unto me all the first-born, whatsoever openeth the womb,-both of man and beast: it is mine." It will not thence follow, as Mr. Fulwood says, that he owneth their parents yet to remain in his covenant; for this law would have obliged the children of Israel, though they had openly renounced God's covenant, and turned entirely apostates. It was the whole nation of Israel that had this mercy conferred on them, and so it obliged those that were of that nation, though not of the church. Wherefore, howsoever the parents should apostatize and renounce the covenant, by this law their first-born was the Lord's; unless we will