given to Swearing Lying Drunkenness and lascivious Talking as God knows a great Number of the Members of the Church of England are known to be such your Discipline seems to have no power in such Cases for thus saith one of your own Ministers Who minds Canon 109 that prohibits common Swearers common Drunkards notorious Whoremasters and Whores c. from the blessed Sacrament of the Lord's Supper Do not even Bishops hear Men swear a thousand Oaths and either do not or dare not use any Discipline against them But now if a good Man do not stand up and bow to the Altar at the Name of Jesus when the Creed is read because he dares not pay greater Reverence in a religious way to any Writing than he pays to the holy Scriptures If he dares not use the Sign of the Cross in Baptism nor sprinkle his Child c. then shall he be prosecuted as a great Sinner cast to the Devil and laid in Prison yea he is sentenced already For in Canon 6. thus we read Whosoever shall affirm that the Rites and Ceremonies of the Church of England are superstitious or such as Men who are zealously and godlily affected may not with any good Conscience approve them use them or as Occasion requireth subscribe unto them let him be excommunicated ipso facto and not restored until he repent and publickly revoke such his wicked Errors 4. Thus as we conceive the Discipline of Righteousness Mercy and Charity established by Christ is laid aside and a Mercenary Court set up holding the Traditions of Men instead of Christ's Institutions in Ecclesiastical Government who also live voluptuously upon the Sins of the People But as for the Reformation of evil Manners or the making Peace and Concord alas it is not sought for nor indeed expected from these Courts And as the Reverend Grosthead said at Rome when he saw all things ruled by Money so may I say of the Courts under consideration O Money Money what wilt thou not do there As for the opprobrious Language prohibited by the Canon we think it uncomely for any to use it tho we dissent from the Ceremonies themselves SECT IV. Concerning Imposing of Ceremonies 1. ALL Divine Ceremonies ordained by Christ or his Apostles we reverence and religiously observe and keep as they were delivered 2. That any Church since their days hath just power to make and ordain Divine Ceremonies to be any necessary parts of the Worship of God we see no ground to believe much less that such Ceremonies may lawfully be imposed under pain of Excommunication Banishment Imprisonment Loss of Estate and Life For tho it is certain God has given power to the Rulers of the World to make change or disannual Laws in point of Civil Government yet we believe all the Power on Earth cannot make one Institute or Divine Ceremony in Religion And therefore we cannot but think the Church of England erred from the Rule of Righteousness in decreeing Rites and Ceremonies which God has not commanded 3. For when we see how sharply fome were reprehended by St. Paul for bringing the Christian Churches in Galatia under some Legal Ceremonies which once had a divine Original and Use in the Church of God as Invaders of the Liberty wherewith Christ had made them free averring also That if they were subject to them Christ should profit them nothing Gal. 5. 1 2. We can see no ground to free the Protestants from Sin who either take up Scriptureless Ceremonies from the Papists or invent Ceremonies themselves but least of all when they force Men will they nill they to conform to such Ceremonies or else to be ejected and delivered up to Satan And surely it was very unreasonable for her Bishops to consent to a Law that pious Men only dissenting in these things from the Church of England should be banished or else hanged as Felons without Benefit of the Clergy And we humbly desire that the Severity of that Law may be considered and mitigated 4. But if it shall be said That the Ceremonies of the Church of England as the Sprinkling of Infants the Sign of the Cross in Baptism bowing to the Altar to name no more at present are not sinful then how shall we be ever able to reprove a Papist for using holy Water bowing to the Image of Christ c. Certainly if we must submit to the Ceremonies of the Church of England in her present Constitution we must submit to theirs too where they have power on their side to enforce them But he that shall impartially consider what a learned Protestant hath said of the Sinfulness of that one Ceremony of the Sign of the Cross in Baptism in his Book entituled Against Symbolizing with Antichrist in Ceremonies will see great cause to avoid touching with any such Inventions however they may be supposed to have had an harmless Use among Christians at the first But who sees not that when such Ceremonies have got the Reputation of Religion upon them and are forced on by humane Laws what incredible Miseries they have brought upon the Christian World How have they lorded it over Kings and Kingdoms over the Estates Liberties and Lives of Christians Who sees not that being thus set up they are sometimes more set by than sincere Faith and an holy Life as if all true Religion and Loyalty too were only to be judged of according to Mens Submission to those Humane Innovations For it is notorious even in this our Land that let a Man but conform to all the Ceremonies he shall live honourably let his Life be never so debauched almost But let a Man refuse these Ceremonies out of conscience to God because they are not from Heaven then he is Envy's Mark let his Life be never so just and harmless Such Effects should lead us to consider what the Causes are And because we are speaking of Ceremonies we crave leave to enquire What means the Ceremony of the Ring in Marriage Why are we forced not only to use it but to use it in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy-Ghost The Church of England blames the Papists for saying Marriage is a Sacrament but shall we then make a Sacrament of a Ring Sure you make the Ring as sacred in Marriage as you make the Water in Baptism Such Usages as these we fear give the Papists too much cause to use this Speech A Protestant is but a Papist scar'd out of his Wits It is not then any thing of Prejudice or Obstinacy which makes us to stand off from the Communion of the Church of England but an unfeigned Desire to serve God aright and a godly Fear lest by touching with these unwritten Traditions we should bring our Souls under Guilt in the sight of God Howbeit if any can convince us that the Church of England is justifiable in these things here objected we shall suspect our selves to be mistaken in other things which we here
under to preserve and chearfully to give to all their Dues in respect of Love Honour Fear Tribute Custom c. God is to have the things which are God's Princes the things which are theirs and all Men as well those that are not Christians as those that are must have that Love and Honour which is their Due even from the Servants of Christ Thus then we approach the Text which calls upon us to Honour all Men Love the Brotherhood to Fear God and to Honour the King In which Directions is briefly contained the whole duty of a Christian Man As 1. His Duty in general to Mankind Honour all Men. 2. His particular Duty to the Church of God Love the Brotherhood 3. His special Duty to Almighty God Fear God 4. His Obedience to the Higher Powers Honour the King In opening these Words we shall consider the genuine import of them 1. Honour all Men. 1. The Word Honour here according to the Greek may be understood thus Esteem all Men highly value all Men at an high Price or count them precious And hence Tremelius reads the place Omnem Hominem in Honore habite have all Men in high Esteem or Honour And in this Direction is implied that lowly and gracious Spirit that friendly and amicable Temper which all Christians should have and evidence towards Mankind for he that is not of a lowly Spirit cannot Honour all Men. 2. By All Men we must not here admit of the exception of any Man as such but forasmuch as they are all the Off-spring of God it is the Will of God that a due esteem be given to them all as the most noble part of his Creation under the Sun And but a little lower than the Angels Psal 8. 2. Love the Brotherhood By Love here we may safely understand a more special kind of Love than that which we owe to all Men which is well expressed in the 2 Epist of John Whom I love in the Truth for the Truths sake which dwelleth in us Hence some of our Translators render the Words thus Love Brotherly Fellowship And the Rhemists tells us that This Speech often commendeth the Vnity of all Christians among themselves 3. Fear God The Original imports an awful dread or such a Fear as causeth Trembling and 't is the same Word used Mat. 10. 28. where it is evident such a Fear is intended But rather fear him which is able to destroy both Soul and Body in Hell By the Fear of God therefore in this place we must understand the dutiful Observance of his revealed Will for so the Fear of God is sometimes taken as ever we expect to see his Face with Comfort and here the Fear of Man is excluded because it brings a Snare Prov. 29. 25. and is a fatal prevention to the Service of God 4. Honour the King 1. The Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 does not barely signify Honour or Esteem in this place but a magnificent or splendid kind of Honour for so hath the Lord ordained for his Vicegerents giving them the Title of Gods in Psal 82. 6. 2. It is carefully to be considered what King is immediately meant in our Text he could be no King of Israel for the Kings of Israel had failed long before this Epistle was written and tho Christ was born King of the Jews yet he did not enter upon his Regality with respect to the Government of that nor any other Nation but plainly tells us His Kingdom is not of this World Nor did the Apostle speak of any Christian King for as yet None of the Princes of this World knew Christ 1 Cor. 2. 8. The King therefore here immediately intended was an Heathen King the King of the Romans who at that time as Historians relate was both of very wicked Life and Idolatrous in his Religion calling himself Pontifex Maximus as being chief about the Worship of Jupiter And yet S. Peter will have him honoured even by those who had put themselves under the Yoak of Christ their Heavenly King And St. Paul expresly requires the same Rom. 13. 1. Wherefore from the Text thus explained we should learn these four things I. That Christians must by no means be of an haughty scornful nor wrathful Spirit towards any Man but of an humble and gentle Behaviour to pay the Debt of Honour to all and to esteem them precious II. Brotherly Fellowship Love and Concord are to be sought for and maintained by all Christians one with another as such III. Christians must have an awful Fear of God before their Eyes that in Matters of Religion they may serve him only and not provoke him by sinful Courses nor by the Fear of Man IV. Christians are bound by Gospel-Rules to be good Subjects to Princes to honour their Persons and conscienciously to obey their Authority These Propositions do harmonize with the Doctrine which is according to Godliness For the First That Christians must by no means as they tender their claim to the venerable Title of Christian and to any part in the Kingdom of Christ be of an haughty scornful or wrathful Spirit against any Man is a Doctrine needful to be proclaimed by an heavenly Herald by the Voice of an Archangel even to that part of the World called Christendom For who can sufficiently bewail the almost utter Absence of this gracious Spirit which abounded in the Author and first Professors of Christianity and the undeniable Appearance of a Spirit of a quite contrary nature at this day in all parts of the World where Christ is named From whence come Wars and Fightings Come they not hence even from Pride as it is written Prov. 13. 10. Only by Pride cometh Contention What greater Injuries Indignities and Dishonours can be offered by Mortals one towards another than are amongst the several Orders professing Christianity yea very often by Men of the same Order one towards another So very far are the generality of Christians from obeying the Voice of our Text. And look how far they are gone from the Spirit of Humility and Tenderness which leads all that have it to esteem Mankind very precious so far they have lost the Christian Religion as will appear in proving the first Proposition To which purpose 1. We shall give precendency to our Lord Christ who perceiving an haughty Spirit peeping forth in his chosen Disciples even then whilst the very Mirror of Meekness and Humility was before their Eyes does solemnly denounce unto them and in them to all Christians that except they were converted and became as little Children they should by no means enter into the Kingdom of Heaven Luke 18. 15. And therewithal gives notice of a Wo impending or coming upon the World from that Spirit of Pride and Ambition in this so early an appearance of it which yet notwithstanding seems to have over-run the Church in all Ages to the Scandal of Religion But would so small a Fault in the chosen Disciples as it may seem in
thus Submit your selves to every humane Creature To this I say The Words Humane Creature are better understood of the Laws made by Humane Authority than of the Magistrates themselves For as the most high God and he only can give Being and Power to a Divine Law insomuch that no Power on Earth can create such a Law so Earthly Gods and none but they can create and give Power to an humane Law and Laws thus made are rightly called Humane Creatures or Ordinances of Men as our English expresses it And when Laws are thus made tho they should happen to be ill Laws as it sometimes happens to be so yet they must be obeyed either actively or passively because the Power Magistratical must not be resisted only the Error of an ill Law must be refused by all faithful Men especially in Matters of Religion as we have shewed before 4. This great Power which God hath given to Kings and Rulers of the Earth to make Laws is as I conceive the chief cause why they are called Gods Psal 82. 6. I have said ye are Gods and all of you are Children of the most High That is because of that resemblance which they have to God himself being decked with Power and Majesty to make and execute Laws in this lower World which concern the Children of Men as such 5. And as to the Form of Kingly Government for this is all that I can find in my Text Let us hear what God himself saith By me Kings reign and Princes decree Justice by me Princes rule and Nobles even all the Judges of the Earth What can be said more in this case If any shall say 't is not God but Wisdom that speaks these Words Prov. 8. 15 16. I answer it is Folly that makes the Objection for this Wisdom is the Voice of God because it is the Wisdom of God Kings are called the Lords Anointed And not only the Kings of Israel but even Heathen Kings also Isa 45. 1. Thus saith the Lord to his Anointed even to Cirus Now Cirus was King of Persia Ezra 1. 1. 6. If yet it be said that Government but not the Form of Government is of God but of human Choice c. I answer I speak not of a Government to be formed and not yet in being but of one established and therefore I say the distinction is dangerous But how shall it be a Power or Government without its Form Does God make an Ordinance or any thing else without Form If so what can you call it It is the Form that gives every thing to be or at least to be called what it is It 's bad venturing to say that God makes an Ordinance and leaves Man to form it as to the Essentials of it And seeing no Nation can long endure without Government nor that Government subsist without Form It seems necessary that both be acknowledged to be of God and consequently where the Form of Government is Regal or Kingly it is of God and as such to be had in Honour That God does by his Providence order and permit Men to transact order and settle the Mode of Government in Nations which yet are unsetled in that respect does not prove that the Form or Settlement when made is not of God or not to be esteemed so because in such an emergency the Voice of the People together with God's Providence must herein be acknowledged the Voice of God For thus in an ordinary way is that Saying true By me Kings reign and Princes decree Justice By me Princes rule and Nobles even all the Judges of the Earth It was the most high God which gave Nebuchadnezzar a Kingdom Majesty Glory and Honour Dan. 5. 18. who then may question his Regal Power to be of God It 's ill murmuring worse disputing worst of all to fight against God Surely if Nebuchadnezzar must have this Honour given to him as King even by Daniel that Servant of God because by the Almighty he was thus exalted altho otherwise he was a sinful Man a great Idolater it must needs resolve all doubts that may arise about the warrantableness of Kingly Government and all Christians Obedience to it with respect to all Kings under whom they live whatsoever If it be objected that some may usurp Kingly Government and some that have it may abuse it I answer Tho this be true yet it is nothing to the purpose for this is incident to all other Forms of Government And when God permits such things it 's usually for the Sins of the People as it is written For the Transgressions of a Land many are the Princes thereof Prov. 28. 2. He gave them a King in his Wrath But this was because Israel had rejected God and his Prophet Samuel Otherwise God had promised to give his People a King Numb 23. 21. Yea the Government of Moses himself was after a sort a Regal or Kingly Government Deut. 33. 4 5. If then it so fall out that Kings or other Rulers do oppress their Subjects I know no remedy for the Subject but Prayers and Tears that God would turn their own Hearts more to his Fear and the Heart of their Prince towards them For the Hearts of Kings are in his Hands And with patient Suffering and humble Supplication to seek for Favour For Rebellion must by no means be admitted For it is as the Sin of Witchcraft being against God as well as against the King because it is against the Ordinance of God And hence Tertullian well said The Christian knows that the Emperor is constituted of God And saith the Prophet I have delivered all these Countries into the Hands of Nebuchadnezzar Who then may take them out of his Hand Sure none but God who sets up one and puts down another as pleases him For he that gives can only rightfully take away and he doth so when Men abuse what he gives Mene Mene Takel Vpharsin God hath numbred thy Kingdom and finished it and given it to the Medes and Persians Dan. 5. 25 26. If it be objected from that Passage They have set up Kings and not by me that Kingly Government is of Man not of God I answer This rather proves the contrary for here a disorder only is reproved in the way of doing that which they could not do rightly but by him that is God They so set up a King as they rejected God that he should not reign over them 1 Sam. 8. 7. Hence it was that Samuel gave them that Reproof and Exhortation 1 Sam. 12. 20. Ye have done all this Wickedness yet turn not aside from following the Lord but serve the Lord with all your Heart But God did not deny them a King No but he had given them direction how to chuse them a King Deut. 17. 14 15 16. And most certain it is that of all Civil Governments which God hath set up in the World Kingly Government is the most frequent and permanent so far as the Scripture gives
any account of this Matter And indeed it holds the nearest resemblance to that Government which God himself exercises over the World in general For he is King of Kings and his Kingdom ruleth over all Let us then come more directly to the Text Honour the King And 1. Of the Honour which we owe to his Royal Person We must esteem it very highly and behave our-selves towards him with that Fear and Reverence which belongs to him as placed next unto God My Son fear thou the Lord and the King Prov. 24. 21. Give unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's and to God the things which are God's So the Text Fear God Honour the King We see the King holdeth the next place of Honour unto God Hence Tertullian personating the Christians of his time says We honour the Emperour as a Man next unto God And saith Optatus Above the Emperour there is none but God who made the Emperour If we will honour the King's Person or esteem him highly we must not only upon all sit occasions give him with Reverence his Place and Titles of Honour but also defend his Person with the hazard of our own as those did who would not suffer King David to hazard himself saying Thou art worth ten thousand of us Let us hate to think or speak evil or contemptuously of him whom God hath exalted and set over us We find a remarkable Instance of true Love and Loyalty to a Prince 2 Sam. 15. 19 20 21. Here tho Ittai was willed by the King not to put himself in danger for him yet he answers thus As the Lord liveth and as my Lord the King liveth surely in what place my Lord the King shall be whether in Death or in Life even there also will thy Servant be This poor exiled Stranger for such he was shall rise up in Judgment against many native Subjects who have done quite contrary hereunto even in our days 2. We must Honour him in Love Sincere Love and Loyal Affection as he is King can in no wise be wanting in a good Subject Nor can we honour the King heartily if we do not love him entirely Now he that truly loves his Prince has him much in his serious Thoughts especially when he prays to the God of Heaven He will not then forget him whom he truly Loves whom he honours in Love If he love him he will pray for him perhaps that is all the good he can do his Prince and in this a mean Subject may serve his King as much as any so that his Prayer be Serious and Godly It is highly observable how the duty of making Prayer for all Men and particularly for Kings and Rulers with Supplication Intercession and giving of Thanks is required of Christians especially of those in the Ministry That by the Ministers constant and devout performance of this Duty in behalf of all that are in Authority the Hearts of the People may be more endeared towards their Prince and themselves hereby instructed to perform their Duty and manifest their Love to their Governours in like manner 1 Tim. 2. 1 2. And to enforce the Exhortation to this Duty the Apostle tells us that it is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour vers 3. 3. The next Demonstration of honouring the King shall be taken from the manner of our Language and the matter of our Discourse when concerned to speak of him or of his Doings In these we must hate the thoughts of Scurrility or reflecting Expressions for the Tongue is the Index of the Mind and we are expresly forbidden to curse or speak evil of the King even in our Bed-Chamber for these things are so odious that Providence will fight against such as do so and the Iniquity of such doings will return upon the Offenders For a Bird in the Air shall carry the News and that which hath Wings shall tell the Tidings Eccles 10. 20. Are they not marked out in Scripture for the worst sort of Men that are not afraid to speak evil of Dignities More daring and presumptuous than Angels who are great in Authority and may lawfully do more than Men yet they dare not bring a railing Accusation against the Devil who is the Prince of Darkness but they refer the wrong done to them unto God who both can and will rebuke him But why may not the good Angels rebuke Satan Why they know as wicked as he is he could do nothing about the Body of Moses nor any thing else without License from the Almighty He must indeed be withstood in his Temptations but he must not be rail'd on it seems And then what manner of Men are they that will take Liberty to rail on their Princes if they do not what they would have them Nay tho they should do Evil yet must they in no wise be evil spoken of Thou shalt not revile the Gods nor speak evil of the Ruler of my People Exod. 22. 28. Acts 23. 5. Object But have not the Prophets reproved Kings when they did Evil I answer Yea God reproved them by his Prophets frequently And no doubt that Men of God such as have Commission from him may and ought to deal faithfully with Kings and Rulers when they do that which is Evil in the sight of the Lord. But this is that which is intolerable that the Errors or Infirmities of Princes should be made the Subject of Mens Discourse Surely they are rather to be lamented before the Lord in secret Is it meet to say to a King Thou art wicked and to Princes Ye are ungodly Job 34. 18. The true Sence of these Interrogatives is No. It is by no means thus to reflect upon a King St. Paul having spoken rashly Acts 23. 5. corrects and excuses himself by saying I wist not Brethren that he was God's High Priest For it is written Thou shalt not speak Evil of the Ruler of my People Let Christians beware of this evil Disease which reigns in these days Let them remember They are bound by Gospel-Rules to Honour the King next to God himself Thus much of the Honour which we owe to the King's Person Let us now consider how we are obliged by Gospel-Rules to obey his Authority And here 1. Let the Subject consider how much God has set him below his Prince for Obedience seldom issues from a lofty Mind It 's not impossible for a Subject in conceit to be a Prince's Mate and then Subjection is Death to him That Passage concerning Mephibosheth the Son of Jonathan 2 Sam. 9. 8. was written for our Learning When he considered the Majesty of King David and his own Condition as a Subject What is thy Servant saith he that thou shouldst look upon such a dead Dog as I am Such self-abasing Thoughts in a Subject especially those of low degree does argue an Heart full of desires to honour him whom God has exalted as his King and a Mind willing to obey him Let Christians learn by
of a fruitful Land and external Peace and Glory as a Nation whilst they did truly walk according to the Laws of God of which Advantages their Children were partakers as well as others But on the other side the Christian Church by how much she is more faithful by so much the more is she subject to Persecution As may be seen in the differing estate of the faithful Church at Smyrna Rev. 2. 8 9. and the unfaithful Church at Laodicea Rev. 3. 17. Or if we rerespect Rites and Ceremonies then 't is certain even in the Judgment of all Christians the Jews had more Ceremonies belonging to their Infants than belongs to Christian Infants For besides the Rite of Circumcision there was an Offering to be offered for them and they were to be presented in the Temple and to partake of the Passover Exod. 12. 47 48. and therefore Mr. Taylor does ill to deny it pag. 92. Whereas the Poedobaptists only contend for the external Rite of Baptism to belong to their Infants But if by the Word Privileges in the Argument be meant some higher thing than external Ceremonies then the Minor is true For as God was gracious to Infants in the Jewish Nation as to the Business of Salvation So is he such to the Infants of every Christian Nation in the World But if now you be displeased because I do not prefer or at least equalize Christians Infants with Jewish Infants in respect of external Ceremonies Then let me freely tell you that I do believe the Privileges of Christians is greater than the Jews even in this that God accepts our Infants to his Grace and to Glory without imposing the Burthen of any Ceremony at all upon them For seeing he has by the Gospel taken away that bloody Ceremony of Circumcision and by our Lord Christ declared Infants to have right to the Kingdom of Heaven without imposing any Ceremony upon them instead of Circumcision I say herein our Privileges are greater than the Jews and in this Sense I confirm your Minor But then I deny the Consequence of your Major For you may plainly see that our Christian Privileges when compared with the Jews stand not in having external Ceremonies but rather in being freed from them Even as it cannot be doubted but that the Children of Seth Henoch and Noah c. had as great Privileges as the Jews and yet it is certain and plainly confessed by Augustine that they had no Ceremony or sign of Regeneration belonging to them that we read of Aug. de Civ Dei lib. 15. cap. 16. Thus your chief Fort being demolished what Reasons you bring to defend it signifie nothing however we shall meet with them in the following Arguments Mr. Taylor 's Argument 2. Those who were Circumcised under the Law may be baptized under the Gospel But Children were Circumcised under the Law Therefore they may be baptized under the Gospel ANSWER 1. I answer to the Major If by Those you mean all those that were Circumcised under the Law Then the Major is not true For first all Male-Servants which were bought with Money must needs be Circumcised they might not else dwell in the Family Gen. 17. 12 13 14. Exod. 12. 44 48 49. But no such imposition is laid upon Families under the Gospel 1 Cor. 7. 2. If by Those you mean Infants then I deny your Major For tho Infants were Circumcised under the Law it does not follow that Infants may be Baptized under the Gospel Nor do your Arguments brought to make it good prove it at all For 1. Tho Baptism succeeds Circumcision as the Sacrament of initiation yet it does not follow that the same Persons or Persons no otherwise qualified than the Infants of the Jews or Servants bought with Money are to be admitted to Baptism because Circumcision belonged to the natural Seed of Abraham as such whether in the Covenant or no as in the case of Ishmael and to his Servants as such But Baptism being the Sacrament or washing of Regeneration belongs to those who are born from above as such Hence 't is said Gal. 3. 28. We are Abraham's Seed because we are Christ's so as to have crucified the Flesh with the Affections and Lusts Gal. 4. 24. And not that they are Christ's because they are Abraham's Seed This vast difference therefore between the Communicants of the Church Jewish and the Church Christian shews a great difference between the carnal Ordinances of the Law and the spiritual Ordinances of the Gospel so that it is no good arguing from Infants Right to the one to their Right to the other 2. You say our Children are as capable of being Baptized as the Jews were of being Circumcised But this is denied for the Jews had a Command to Circumcise Infants and that made them capable of that Ceremony but without a Command none were capable of it For some Infants might be as capable of Circumcision in respect of Strength on the seventh Day as others on the eighth Day but the Command not empowering any to circumcise till the eighth Day made all Children that died before the eighth Day uncapable of Circumcision Again you will not say that any Man as such only is capable of Baptism because you grant they must first be Disciples and as such baptized Nor will you say that all Infants as such only may be baptized because you do not think God has required the Infants of the Turks to be baptized So then unless you can shew that God has required our Infants to be baptized they have no capacity for it We conclude then whatever may be urged as a Capacity for Baptism yet without a Command from God to baptize our Infants is meer Will-Worship and Presumption 3. You say That the Precept of receiving Parent and Child into Covenant stands unrepealed to this day But if by receiving into Covenant you mean a receiving to the Duties of the Covenant what you say is not true for the Covenant of Circumcision is repealed Gal. 5. 2. Behold I Paul say unto you If ye be circumcised Christ shall profit you nothing And there was never any Covenant but the Covenant of Circumcision which obliged Parents to bring their Infants to the Ceremonies of Religion So then Infants are not under the Burthen of any Ceremonies of Religion at this day I marvel you should here say There is no Countermand of the ancient Jewish Practice of receiving Children to Circumcision Either the Printer has wrong'd you or else you hold the Jews are yet bound to circumcise their Infants 4. You argue from Christ's being proposed as Mediator of a better Covenant that therefore this great Privilege you mean bringing Infants to Ceremonies of Religion is not repealed But the Truth is far otherwise for the Covenant of Christ as Mediator is therefore better than the Covenant of the Law because he has taken these Ceremonies out of the way and accepts poor Infants without any other Ceremony instead of them yea