A CHRISTIAN PLEA FOR INFANT'S BAPTISM. OR A CONFUTATION OF some things written by A. R. in his Treatise, entitled, The second part of the vanity and Childishness of Infant's BAPTISM. In the Answer whereof, The lawfulness of Infant's Baptism is defended, and the Arguments against it disproved, by sufficient grounds and forcible reasons, drawn from the sweet fountains of holy Scripture. S. C. Deut. 4.37. Because he loved thy fathers, therefore he chose their seed. Jer. 30.20. Their Children also shall be as aforetime. Isa. 65.23. They shall not labour in vain, nor bring forth in fear: for they are the seed of the Blessed of the Lord, and their offspring with them. Acts 2.39. The promise is unto you, and to your Children, and to all that are a far off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call. LONDON: Printed by T. P. and M. S. and are to be sold by Ben. Allen in Popes-head-Alley. 1643. A CONFUTATION OF SOME things written by A. R. in h●s Treatise, entitled, The second part of the vanity and Childishness of Infant's Baptism. In the Answer whereof, The lawfulness of Infant's Baptism is defended, and the Arguments against it disproved, by sufficient grounds and forcible reasons, drawn from the sweet fountains of holy Scripture. Mr. ARS YOur former Treatise (entitled, The vanity of Childish Baptism) being answered, I (according to my promise made unto you in that answer * Pag. 28. lin. 31, 32. ) do now proceed to answer this your other Treatise (which you have entitled, The second part of the vanity and Childishness of Infant's Baptism.) And (I conceive) it is the Treatise whereof you spoke in your vanity of Childish Baptism * Pag. 29. lin. 30, 31, 32. , wherein you say, that the grounds which Separates and some others urge for the baptising of Infants, should be answered. And here (in the beginning of this your second part) you say, * Pag. 1. Having formerly treated of the Baptism of the national Church, you have now thought it meet likewise to consider the grounds upon which the separated, and some other Churches do baptise their Infants, which (you say) are from several places of Scripture. But in answer to your first Treatise (pag. 27. line 26, 27, 28, 29.) I there tell you, that these [some others] besides Separates, I know not who they are, and if they are not separated from the unclean thing, they are still unclean. And though such may bring good grounds for baptising of Infants, from several places of Scripture; yet they cannot bring good grounds to warrant any Churches to baptise, that are not separated from Idolatry, and do not cleave unto Christ in purity, in his visible way of worship. But those that are so separated indeed, may [very justly] allege Scripture to justify what they do in things of this nature, for of all Churches and people in the world, they are the most holy and sincere, yea and cleave closest to the Rule. And they in baptising their Infants, do that whereunto they are bound by the Covenant, which both they and their holy seed are under. Whereas you say, the grounds are from several places of Scripture, especially these five, which you promise to examine in order. I answer; I know not what five you mean, for you have not so plainly distinguished them, whereby we may know how (in your book) to find them. But (it may be) you have not done it of set purpose, but through some oversight; for (in pag. 3. li. 16.) you speak of a second [argument] from [places] and (in pag 3. lin. 39) you speak of a third [argument] (from 1 Cor. 7.14) The fourth (in pag. 12. lin. 40.) is expressed to be the fourth Scripture. As (in pag. 1.) Act. 2.39. is declared to be the first. But (in pag. 18. lin. 2.) you speak of a fifth [argument.] Now by this your disorderly manner of proceeding, it appears that you do not perform what you promised (in pag. 1.) where you say, the grounds are from several places of [Scripture] especially the [five,] which you there promise to examine in order. THe first (you say) is that in Act. 2.39. The promise is to you and your children. But this Text (you say) is to no purpose in the point. To which I reply, that this your bare affirmation will not bear the least weight in the balance of God's Sanctuary: for this promise spoken of by Peter, is the promise of eternal life, and all those who are heirs of this promise, are the right Subjects of Baptism * Act. 10.47. . But the Infants of believers are heirs of this promise; for so the tener of the whole Scripture declareth: There is no place of Scripture which describeth the blessedness of the parents, but it also includeth their Infants; yea in this place Act. 2.39. where believers children are mentioned, their Infants are meant. As shall be more clearly proved in answer to your next objections following. And this being proved, it followeth that they are the right subjects of Baptism. But you say, it is not there said of Infants, but to your Children, not promises, but promise. To which I reply, that this your Answer is of no weight, for Infants are Children as well being young as old, and this great promise of God, includeth promises: for though God's great promise (in general) be but one, yet in particular it is divers. But seeing you say, it is worthy enquiry to know what is meant by you and your Children, I will (by God's assistance) prove unto you, that it is meant of believers and their Infants. Consider therefore that the Apostle doth not only distinguish them from their parents, by the title Children, and also from those afar off; But he likewise declareth them to be those children to whom the promise appertaineth as well as to the parents themselves: which doth plainly show that it ought not to be understood, as if it were spoken of [all] their Children (both godly and wicked) but of all those Children who do not degenerate from the steps of their holy parents; which sin of Apostasy, (or degeneration) you cannot justly lay to the charge of believers Infants, who never sinned actually * Mr. Spilsbury saith, the word condemns none, but with respect to actual sin. See his Treat. of Bap. pag. 11 lin. 30. : It is a sure truth, that the sins of the parents being forgiven, the Lord will not impute the same unto their Infants * Sin remitted, is not imputed, unless it be acted again. . Original sin (I say) taketh no more hold on the Infants, then on their parents, and touching actual sin, they are as clear as their parents * Exod. 20.6. . But the like cannot be said of [all] their children of ripe years * Ezek. 18.10, 11, 12, 13. . Wherefore it plainly appeareth, that the promise is made generally to all the infants of the faithful, howbeit not to all their Children, but only to such as abide in the steps of their righteous parents, amongst which holy children, the infants of believing parents are not the smallest number. Seeing then that the application of the promise of life and salvation, belongeth to the infants of believing parents, as really as to the parents themselves, or any other of their children. It is evident that they have right to Baptism. Wherefore this text which you said, is to no purpose in the point, you may see to be of great weight concerning the point, and this will clearly appear unto you (I hope) by that time you have weighed it well. Consider, (I pray you) how that these converts upon the preaching of Peter, were pricked in their hearts, and said unto Peter and the other Apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do? When the Apostle Peter saw that they were come thus far, he bid them repent, which doth not argue but that they repent before (for they were pricked in their hearts) but now Peter urged them to manifest their repentance, and showeth them how they should by faith rest upon the promise of God and he doth not limit it to [a] promise only, but saith [The] promise is to you and to your Children (namely,) the chiefest promise [a remedy answerable to their disease * Isa 61. 2● Act. 2 ver. 2●. .] And though the promise was made unto them, and to their children, Ezek. 18 10.13. yet if any of their children were a whoremonger, or Idolater, or a Railer, or a drunkard, or the like; the promise appertained not unto him. * 1 Cor 6 9, 10, 11. Rev. 21 8. Therefore by Children, he doth not here intent all their Children, both good and bad; for then impenitent persons and true Saints have share and share-like in the heavenly riches; which were blasphemy * Rev. 2.9. so to affirm, that such Ismalites, or Edomites (though the seed of Abraham according to the flesh) should have right or interest to the promise or seal thereof; but as this promise is holy, so it appertaineth and is to be applied only to those who ought to be judged holy persons, * Isa. 4.3. in Covenant with God, having the righteousness of Jesus Christ imputed unto them: Now that the infants of believing parents are in God's Covenant, and are made righteous by Jesus Christ, is proved (in the answer * Pag. 8. 21, 22, 23, 24, etc. to your first part) and may further appear unto you by the former considerations, which I have here related, therefore let those premises there, and these here, be discreetly weighed, and then it will evidently appear, that this promise mentioned (in Act. 2.39.) appertaineth to the infants of believing parents, as well as to the parents themselves, though some of the Children of believing parents have no greater a share in this gracious promise then the infants of both unbelieving parents. Your next words are these; A R Pag. 1. Pag. 2. In both these we shall be satisfied if we look back into the former part of the Chapter, where when the gifts of the holy Ghost were given forth upon the 120. and they speaking in divers tongues, and the Jews thereupon, some marvelling, some mocking, and saying, they were full of new wine, ver. 13. Peter hereupon stands up and speaks to the Jews thus; These men are not drunk as ye suppose, but this is that which is spoken by the Prophet Joel, that in the last day, (saith God) I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh, and your sons and daughters shall prophesy, etc. ver. 15, 16, 17. And immediately when he had thus spoken, he preached unto them Jesus Christ, whom they had murdered, and whom though dead and buried, yet God had raised up, and who b●ing by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of his Father the promise of the holy Ghost, had shed forth this which they did see and hear, ver. 33. As if Peter should have said to the Jews thus; We are not filled with Wine as ye suppose, but are filled with the Spirit, promised to our fathers long since, that should be poured forth in these our days, and that their sons and their daughters should prophesy, which is now fulfilled upon us their sons and daughters, and may be also poured out upon you and your Children, to make you all prophecy and speak with tongues as we do: for you and your Children are all the sons and daughters of the Jews, etc. I answer. All which you have said here, is able to give no satisfaction, concerning the matter in hand; for as much as (though you have cited some verses which you thought would make for your advantage) yet you have omitted, ver. 21. which is most material and pertinent to our present purpose. Moreover, you have not done well in taking upon you to be the Apostle Peter's spokesman (or interpreter of his meaning) before you had minded his Speech better, than it appeareth you have done; for we read not that the Apostle Peter told them, that they and their Children should (or might) all prophesy, and sp●ake with tongues (as he and some others did) much less doth he yield such a feigned reason (to wit) because they were the sons and daughters of the Jews, etc. as you would import he did; which doth not sound according to truth. But this indeed you ought to have minded that (in the Text alleged) there is something else of greater weight and consequence, than the bare prophesying or speaking with tongues * See Act. 2 39 compared with ver. 21. , for whereas the Apostle saith, [The] promise] he speaketh of that which is general to every believer, both young and old The truth of this appeareth from the express words of the holy Ghost? Act 2 39 The promise is to [you] and to [you Children] and to [●ll] that are afar off [even as many as the Lord our God shall call] But to speak with tongues and prophecy, is not common to every believer. Therefore this promise (which appertaineth generally to [all] Saints) is something else than the bare prophesying, or speaking with tongues. We know that God can make open wicked men to prophesy, and the Beasts of the field to speak with tongues, without giving them any promise of Eternal life [as may appear unto you by the story of Balaam and his ass * Numb. 22. & 23. & 24. & 31.8. ] whom we must not therefore rank with the sons and daughters * Judas 11. Rev. 2.14. (mentioned in Joel * Joel. 2.28. ) or with the holy Children (mentioned in Act. 2.39.) for then by the same Rule, false Prophets, and unreasonable creatures must be baptised; which to think would be very absurd. Wherefore it evidently appeareth, that this promise is a promise of something else than a bare prophesying, or speaking with tongues. Consider (I pray you) that Eternal life is that which appertaineth to believers only a Joh. 3.36. , and is distributed to every one of them b joh. 6.35.51.54.57, 58. joh. 10.28, ●0. , but so is not Prophesying, or speaking with tongues c 1 Cor. 12.28, 29, 30. . This promise of Eternal life was made to Adam, and all the members of Gods visible Church then d See Gen. 3. compared with Cap 4.16. & Cap. 5. , and established with Abraham and his seed in their Generations e Gen. 17.7. ; and this heavenly and Evangelicall promise, is here repeated by Peter f Act. 2.21. , and applied to all believers and their seed g Ver. 39 . And though we should be furnished with the external gifts of the holy Gh●st; and evidently perceive the devils to be subject unto us, through the name of Christ, and see Satan fall down as lightning from heaven; at the sight whereof we might have cause to rejoice! yet we have more cause of joy, that our names are written in the Lamb's book of life h Luk. 10.17, 18, 19, 20. . This eternal life, is a life above all lives, and to be desired above all things in the world, and the promise of this eternal life, Peter applieth to believing men, and women, and their holy seed. And though in the same promise is included divers things, which God distributeth unto some of his Saints, and not to other some, yet the chief thing promised is life and salvation through Jesus Christ (whereof all Saints are partakers) without which all the prophecies and tongues in the world will avail us nothing. And though the infants of believers be not capable to prophesy, or speak with tongues, yet I doubt not but they are holy i 1 Cor. 7.14. . Jeremiah k jer. 1.5. and John Baptist, were sanctified by the holy Spirit [in the womb l Luke 1.15. ] and seeing that believers have the like precious faith m 2 Pet. 1.1. , they have also the like precious privileges n Rev. 22.14. 1 Cor. 12.12, 13. Eph. 2.13. & 3.6.8. Rom 10.12. . Whereas you say, o Pag. 2. lin. 24. So then by this time we may see what is meant by the promise (to wit) the gift of the holy Ghost. I answer; It cannot appear any thing at all the more for this your exposition, neither doth it yet appear that you understand the meaning of the holy Ghost in this place; for if you did, I think you could distinguish between the external gifts of the holy Ghost, and the promise of eternal life. Consider therefore how that Peter's application of the promise] is a reason which he yields of his former speech; and you (saith he) shall receive the gift of the holy Ghost: [for] (or because) the promise is to you, and to your children's &c. What promise is that? Even the promise of salvation and redemption, spoken of in Joel 2.32. And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord, shall be delivered: for in mount Zion, and in Jerusalem shall be deliverance, as the Lord hath said and in the remnant whom the Lord shall call. Compare with this the words of Peter. ●ct. 2.21.39. and it will evidently appear that this promise (spoken of in Act. 2. ver. 39) is the promise of salvation. Joel saith, And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord, shall be delivered * joel 2.32. : And Peter rehearsing this promise) saith, (Act. 2. ver. 21.) And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord, shall be saved. Act. 2.39. Joel (in application of the promise) saith; For in mount Zion, Rom. 10.13. and in Jerusalem shall be deliverance, as the Lord hath said, and in the remnant whom the Lord shall call Peter (in application of the promise) saith, (to those Converts which were pricked in their hearts and asked counsel of the Apostles what they should do) The promise (saith he) is to you and to your Children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call. I beseech you, weigh the Sentences; He doth not say; Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord, shall prophesy and speak with tongues: This is not [the] medicine which was applied to heal the wounded-broken-hearted-soules, converted at his Sermon: But he speaketh of that which is of a higher nature, he applieth a more effectual and special medicine unto them, a more singular cordial: Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. And this is that which the Apostle Paul so much insisteth upon, Rom. 10. where in the relation, interpretation, application, and prosecution of (his text in) Deut. 30.12, 13, 14. he showeth wherein the weight of the Saints glory and happiness consisteth, Rom. 10. ver. 6. Rom. 10. ver. 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13. The righteousness of faith (saith he) speaketh on this wise: Say not in thine heart, Who shall a●cend into heaven? that is, to bring [Christ down] from above: ver. 7. Or who shall descend into the deep? (that is) to bring [up Christ.] again from the dead: ver. 8. But what saith it? The word is nigh thee even in thy mouth, and in thine heart, (that is) the word of faith which we preach: ver. 9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart, that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be [saved:] ver. 10. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness, and with the mouth Confession is made unto [salvation:] ver. 11. For the Scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him [shall not be ashamed: 1 Pet. 2.6, 7. Isa. 28.16. ] ver. 12. For there is no difference between the Jew, and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is [rich] unto all that call upon him. And in ver. 13. he showeth further wherein this riches consisteth; For (saith he) whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. In consideration of these things, we may safely conclude; that the promise mentioned in Act. 2.39. is the same promise mentioned in Joel 2.32. & Act. 2.21. & Rom. 10.13. Even the promise of eternal life and salvation by Jesus Christ our Lord. But peradventure it will seem strange unto some, that the infants of believers should be thought to be in the state of salvation, or to have the righteousness of faith, or to be confessors of Jesus Christ, or believers, or invocaters of his name, considering that they cannot manifest the same actually in their own persons. But we ought to note, that all these things are theirs by imputation; it is imputed unto them as if they had done the same in their own persons. Wherefore the Lord gave them the sign a Gen. 17.11. and seal b Rom. 4.11. of the righteousness of faith, which doth really demonstrate unto us, that the infants of believers, have the righteousness of faith imputatively; otherwise the Lord would not have given them such a sign, whereby to distinguish them from those who were not in Covenant with him, and had not this righteousness upon them. And touching their confession of Christ, all the Jews infants, as they grew up to be capable, were to confess Christ; according to this saying of the righteousness of faith, which spoke on this wise c Rom. 10.6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13. ; Say not, who shall ascend into heaven, to bring Christ down from above, etc. And seeing God usually giveth names unto persons according to their nature, state, and condition d Gen. 22.28. Rev. 3.12. & 11.8. , the infants of the believing Jew's having the name of Jews rightly attributed unto them, they were Jews (that is, Confessors) though they could not actually confess: and the like may be said for their invocation (or calling upon the name of God;) So it appeareth that the infants of the Jews had such a holy state and condition upon them, that the visible imputation e Heb. 7.9, 10. of holy actions, was conferred upon them, though they could not act the same. And the very like may be said concerning the infants of believing parents now; And seeing that salvation appertaineth to the infants of believers f Luk. 18.15, 16, 17. , the righteousness of faith is imputed unto them g Mat. 16.16. ; and therefore they ought to receive the sign and seal of the same righteousness; for we are to account that Jesus Christ (our righteousness) is a Saviour [in a special manner] unto all those who ought to be judged righteous persons in Covenant with him; and ought not to be accounted to have the guilt of original sin, but that they have it pardoned and done away through him. But the infants of believing parents ought to be judged righteous persons in Covenant with Christ, and ought not to be esteemed to have the guilt of original sin; but that they have it pardoned, and done away through him, (as hath been proved before.) Therefore we are to account that Jesus Christ (our righteousness) is a Saviour unto them in a special manner, See Mat. 1.21. as well as to their parents. It is certain, that the rarest Saint in the world, though he profess and confess never so much, yet he (being one of Adam's posterity) hath original sin from the hour of his birth, to the time of his death, yea and before his birth, he was conceived in sin; So David saith of himself, Lo in iniquity, (was I painfully brought forth) and in sin my mother conceived me, Psal. 51.5. But herein consisteth the Saint's happiness, that all their sins are remitted h Psal. 32.1, 2. Rom. 4.6. through Jesus Christ; so that the Lord will not remember their sins, nor impute the same unto them; he counteth them not guilty; he saveth his people from their sins; therefore is he called Jesus * Mat. 1.21. ; So David saith, that with Jehovah is bountiful mercy, and plentiful redemption. And he will redeem Israel out of all his iniquities. Psal. 130.7, 8. Now whereas it is said, He shall save [his people] from their sins; He will redeem [Israel] out of [all] his iniquities. Hereby is meant, all the sins of all his people (in Covenant with him) both young and old, both great and small. So David saith, Psal. 115.12, 13, 14, 15. The Lord hath been mindful, of us, he will bless us, he will bless the house of Israel: He will bless the house of Aaron: He will bless them that fear the Lord; both small and great. The Lord shall increase you more and more, you and your children. You are blessed of the Lord, which hath made Heaven and Earth. And so (in Isa. 44.3.) the Lord saith to Israel, I will pour my Spirit upon thy seed, and my blessing upon thine offspring. And (in Isa. 45.25.) In the Lord shall [all] the seed of Israel be justified, and shall glory. By [all] the seed of Israel, he doth not mean Apostates, for they are not counted for the seed k Rom. 9.8. ; but this justification, and glorification, is promised only to those that abide in the Lord Jesus l Joh. 15.4, 5.6.10. ; and so continue in his Church; But the seed of the faithful [in their infancy:] cannot justly be said to departed from Christ, to aberate from his Commandments; to Apostate or degenerate from that heavenly state, wherein the Lord of his mercy hath planted them; therefore they are (as well in infancy as after) to be accounted holy, ●p●●i●uall, and i● the new Covenant, in the very promise of Eternal life, and freed from the wrath of God and curses of the law, and under grace and mercy through Jesus Christ our Lord; therefore it is apparent, that the Lord imputeth them righteous though him; so than they are righteous by imputation; they are believers and Confessors imputatively, yea, and all the graces of God are theirs by imputation; and this favour and benediction, is not only extended to the infants of the believing Jews m Jer. 30.20. , but also ●o the infants of the believing Gentiles; There is [no d fference a Rom. 10 12. ] (saith the Apostle Paul) their riches are equal, they are all on in Christ b Gal. 3.28. ; God is their God, and Christ is their Saviour in a special manner; He justifieth the circumcision and uncircumcision by his righteousness c Rom. 4.8. ; This righteous servant justifieth many d Isa. 53.11. ; He pardoneth the iniquities of all that abide e 1 joh. 3, 5, 6. in his Covenant. And seeing that the believing Jews, and the believing Gentiles, have equal privileges f Isa. 56. : As the infants of the believing Jews were, and are in the Covenant of God with their parents g Gen. 17.7. Psal. 11. ●. ; so are the infants of believing Gentiles h Exod. 12.48. Rom. 11.12.15, 16.17 20.23, 24. ; for, Jesus Christ is the same to day as he was yesterday, and so is he for ever i Heb. 13.8. . God is the same God over all, and therefore rich unto all that call upon him * Rom. 10 12 And seeing he is the same God, rich unto all that call upon him. Believing Gentiles have the same privileges for their seed, as the believing Jews had and have for their seed; so that though their infants are all sinners k Rom 5.12.13, 14. etc. originally, yet by the free grace of God they are justifica l Ver. 20.21. ; their transgression is forgiven, and their sin is covered, and therefore they are all blessed, both small and great m Psal. 115.13 , buds n Isa. 65.23. and blossoms. Blessed o Jer. 1. Psal. 22.10, 11 & 71.6.17.18. Mar. 10.13 14.15, 16. Rev. 14. ●3. Psal. 100.5. 2 Sam 12.23. in their conception; blessed in their birth, blessed in their life, and blessed at their death; remaining still [in the Covenant,] branches p Psal. 80. 1.1● of God's holy Vine. In the Lord shall all this blessed seed of Israel be justified, and shall glory: Note, he doth not limit it to [some] only, but extendeth it to [all] not one person of them is exempted; for, though they be all sinners by nature, yet by grace they are saved, not of themselves, but it is the gift of God, who hath said, as he liveth, that he desireth not the de●th of a sinner; neither shall the son die for the father's iniquity, but every one shall bear his own iniquity q Ezek. 18. . Shall every one bear his own iniquity? Then the iniquity of the righteous parents (that is remitted) is not visibly imputed to any of their children, [in their infancy.] Therefore those infants are to be accounted righteous; For the m r●y of Jehovah is from everlasting to everlasting, upon them that fear him, and his righteousness unto children's children, to such as keep his Covenant, etc. Psal. 103.17, 18. For to say, that the sin of the parent that is remitted, is imputed to his child [that never sinned actually,] is an arguing that the son shall die for the father; yea, and for the sins of the righteous father! A flat contradiction both of the Scripture, and Reason itself. But it may be, some will say, that the best believers on earth do sin daily; yea and that in their best actions; Shall all these sins be remitted, and not be imputed, considering, that sin is daily committed by them? Ans. If they sinne, they have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Chr●st the righteous r 1 joh. 2.1, 2. ; and through him, the believing parents, who die d●i●y unto s●nne; have their sins so quelled, and crushed, that there is no power in the same whereby to condemn them; for as the Brazen Serpent was lifted up in the Wilderness, so is J●sus Christ lifted up for them s joh. 3.14, 15. , so that the fiery Messengers of Satan, though they sting them, yet cannot destroy their souls; and this being remitted to the parents', & to all believers, shall not be imputed to them; because still upon the renewing of sin, they renew their repentance, and so do cut the cords of sin, by godly sorrow t 2 Cor 7.10, 11. ; But a wicked person that is not penitent, hath the iniquities of his [father's] imputed unto him; and his mother's sin is not blotted out; all this is remembered with the Lord continually u Psal. 109 14, 15. , and laid upon the sinner that is not justified by Jesus Christ; But the infants of believers (as hath been observed before) are from under the guilt of original sin; their parent's sin is not imputed unto them; but both the original sin and actual sin is fully remitted; and the infants cannot be taxed with actual sin; they are clear, they never acted sin. Wherefore by all this it appeareth that the Lord spoke not in vain, when he bid the parents; choose life, that both they and their seed might live; for though God visiteth the iniquities of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generation of those that ●●te him, yet he showeth mercy to thousands of those that love him and keep his Commandments * Exod. 20.5, 6 . Seeing then it is so apparent that the infants of believers are freely justified and saved by J●sus Christ through his righteousness, they are under this promise mentioned by Peter, Act. 2.39. And therefore are to have Baptism (the seal of the same promise) administered upon them. And this conclusion is agreeable to your own position, * A. R. second part, pag. 6. lin. 37, 38, 39 (which is,) that that which availeth to justification, doth (according to the rule) avail to Baptism, etc. Whereas you further say * Pag. 2. lin. ●0. , that by children are meant sons and daughters, which [should] prophecy. This I deny not; But that it is only meant of them, I do deny; for, all are not Prophets x 1 Cor. 12.29 . Jeremia was not a Prophet till God called him. And though he was not set about the work, till he was capable to understand, and apprehend y jer. 1.6.10, 11, 12, 17, 18. , yet he was sanctified in the womb, and therefore the promise appertained unto him then, before he could prophesy; even so the promise is really made to the infants of the faithful, though they can neither prophesy, nor speak with tongues. Wherefore it appeareth (by what hath been said in answer unto you) that your argument is quite overthrown, and the drift thereof hath no weight in it to edify the soul, nor any strength to prove what you undertook * Pag. 2. lin. 21. , (namely) that by children, no infants are meant in this place of Acts 2.39. And although it be said, that the promise is to their children, yet you deny that the Text speaketh of their children in Covenant * Line 41. , by saying, that this objection (that these children were in Covenant) hath no colour of footing in the Text; for proof whereof you bring your own former speeches * Line 42. , and add for further demonstration, saying * Pag. 3. lin. 1.2, 3, 4, 5. , that first the promise is made equally to them, and to their children, and to them that are afar off. But these which are afar off, are not within the Covenant by the promise until they believe the same. To which I answer; that if it be not meant of their children in Covenant, then is it meant of their children out of Covenant! But you should know, that those who are out of Covenant, are not within the promise of life and salvation! None have right unto the tree of Life, but those that are in Covenant with God z Rev. 21.7, 8. & 22.14, 15. , and those that abide not in Christ, they have no part in him or his * joh. 15.6. . But the infants of believers are in Christ, and in the promise; and God is faithful a 1 Thes. 5.24. , and therefore will not break his promise with those whom he hath effectually called to the fellowship of his Son Jesus Christ. And it appeareth by the Apostle Peter's words, that these children (mentioned in Act. 2.39.) were such whom in visibility the Lord had so called in Christ Jesus; for the Apostle speaketh of them in the time present, The promise [is] to you (saith he) and to your children: but when he speaketh of those afar off, he hath relation wholly to the future time, saying, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God [shall] call. And so by this he shown that God would be a God unto all those whom he so calleth. Now this calling, I do not understand to be a bare publication of the Gospel, or general invitation, which appertaineth unto all b Mar. 15.15. 2 Tim. 1.9. ; but such a calling which is appropriated unto those whom the Lord accepteth in the Covenant of the Gospel, and fellowship with his Son Jesus Christ. That the infants of believers have fellowship with Jesus Christ, is evident; Suffer them, saith Christ, to come unto me, and forbidden them not, for of such is the kingdom of heaven c Luk. 18.15, 16, 17. . Seeing then that they are declared to be in Jesus Christ, who is made a d Isa. 42, 6, 7. Covenant to the people; they are not out of Covenant, no more than the infants of Abraham, to whom the Lord spoke, saying, I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed, etc. Thou shalt keep my Covenant therefore, thou and thy seed after thee in their generations e Gen. 17.10. . By all this it appeareth, that we have no ground to deny that the Scripture speaketh of their children in Covenant, neither are we to dream that the promise appertaineth to all sorts, or is visibly made equally to visible believers, and visible unbelievers also; for though in Gods secret account, visible unbelievers may be accounted as visible believers are, and have the promise reserved for them by God in the secret intention and unalterable resolution of his sacred Majesty, who will afterward manifest it visibly to appertain unto them in his appointed time; yet (these unbelievers) the mean while [in our account, and in their own account,] are not to be esteemed heirs of the promise, or elect vessels of mercy, so long as they are not in the Covenant; for none are to be esteemed as the children of life, but those that are visibly in Jesus Christ; for whose sake life is promised to those that choose life, and also to their seed f Deut. 29.2. . Secondly (you say) If they were in the Covenant, Pag. 3. line 6. by having this promise made to them, than were they of the new Covenant and Church of the Gospel, for there were no other people to be accounted in Covenant with God, save those which be of this Church, but those were not of this Church, but they were afterwards added thereunto, (as appears ver. 41.) and therefore were not of it before, and consequently notwithstanding the promise, being so to them and their children yet neither they nor their children were of the Covenant nor Church, until they did believe, although they were Jew's, and so the children of faithful Abraham. Ans. Here, I think, you are mistaken, for you would infer that these were not in the new Covenant, before they were baptised and added to the particular Church; but then by the same rule, we may think, th●t the Apostles baptised and admitted into Church-fellowship, 〈…〉 those who were out of the new Covenant, and that those Converts (mentioned in Act. 2.39.) were out of the new Covenant, when they ha● gladly received the Word, for as touching their Baptism, and audition to the Church, the Scripture denoteth the same, as distinct from the rest which went before. But you should know, 〈…〉 that none ought to be baptised before they are in Covenant with God; Wherefore if these aforesaid, were not in Covenant with God, before they were baptised and added, as aforesaid, than they were first added, and were afterward baptised, and afterward entered into Covenant with God, which disorderly proceeding is not according to the Rule of Jesus Christ. 〈…〉 Moreover, If it be admitted, that persons must be first added to the particular Church, before they are to be baptised (which thing I dare not affirm.) But suppose it were so, yet (I say) it cannot be proved that persons are not in the new Covenant, till they are joined to the particular Church, for all those that are out of the new Covenant, are not fit matter for it. But that these Converts (mentioned in Act. 2.) were in the new Covenant before they were baptised, is apparent by their conversion and repentance; and that the blessed promise of God in the free pardon of their sins, was rightly applied unto them, and their seed, and this is the new Covenant, That God will be our God, See Gen. 17.7. Rev. 21.3. and we shall be his people, and that he will be merciful unto us, in forgiving us all our iniquities, etc. Heb. 8.10, 11, 12. And so David saith, O bl●ss●d is he whose transgression is pardoned, and whose sin is covered. O, blessed is the man, to whom the Lord imputeth not sin. * Psal. 32.1, 2. And Paul explaineth it to be a Righteousness imputed [without works] Rom. 4.6. And that this righteousness of faith is visibly imputed to the infants of believers (as hath been heretofore) is clear from Act. 2.39. compared with other Scriptures, and therefore I conclude, they are believers imputatively, and in the new Covenant, and aught to be baptised. Now that persons are in the promise or new Covenant visibly before they have faith, I suppose, no well informed Christian will affirm. But to say, that true visible believers, though unbaptised, are not in the new Covenant, till they be baptised and added, as before specified, it showeth a great deal of ignorance, (at the best) in him that so affirmeth. NExt, you say, Their second Argument is from those places which speak● of baptising whole households. To which I answer. It is certain that divers places of Scripture speak of baptising whole households. And it would argue weakness and presumption in us to affirm that there were no infants in those family's, except we could prove the same; which if there were none, it maketh nothing against the baptising of infants. I hope we are not ignorant (at least we are admonished not to be ignorant) that God baptised the children of Israel in the Sea; 1 Cor. 10 1, 2. in which act he really declared who are the right subjects of Baptism, namely, Believing parents, and their infants with them, Jews and Prosolytes; such as were the right subjects of Circumcision * Gen. 7.9.14. Exod. 12.48, 49. : And if we do discreetly weigh the great and general Commission of Jesus Christ (given when he ascended upon high) it will give great light to this point; for it declareth that all Nations were commanded to be made Disciples and those that were made Disciples of Christ, he commanded to be baptised, so soon as it appeared that the Application of the Gospel appertained unto them; Go, (saith Christ) teach all Nations, baptising them, &c * Mat. 28.18. . Go ye into all the world, and preach the Gospel to every creature; He that believeth and is baptised, shall be saved; and he that believeth not, shall be damned * Mar. 16.15, 16. . Now I hope you will not deny infants to be part of the Nations, or to be part of the number of Creatures spoken of here, for whom an immortal state is prepared; for it is a sure truth, that they are reasonable creatures, and comprehended in these words [Every Creature.] Consider then how that the purest infants of the holiest parents are by nature the children of wrath, Conceived in sin, and brought forth in iniquity, and have Original sin cleaving unto them till their change come, (I mean, till the time of their death or dissolution) and are by nature enemies against God, so deeply stained with sin, that nothing in the world is effectual to cleanse them therefrom * Psal. 49 7, 8, 9 , but the crimson blood of their crucified Saviour; natural corruption from their conception, Rev. 1.5. is inherent in them, and cannot be subdued but by the free grace of God. Now to say, that God hath not ordained sufficient means * Mr Spil●●ury s●●●h, ●h●t the W●●● of God shows that he hath elected p●rsons to the means as well as to the end. being the way unto the s●●●e. And that was the Adoption of sons, and to be call● & justified ●y believing in jesus Christ. See his Treatise of Barnes. pag 3. lin. 41, 42, 43, 44. for their recovery, is in effect to cast them all down to hell, and so to hodwinke ●he eyes of Charity, (and s● to place them with dog●●● and whoremongers without) or else to judge they are saved without the means and that they so enter into the kingdom of ●●aven, even without Ch is't! without sait●! without ●●lin●s! ●ea without regeneration! which to affirm is contrary unto the Scripture; for Christ I sus is the only way, and door of entrance to God the Father. He is the ladder of life, by which all the Saints must ascend unto their mansion-houses. Christ is the only light, who giveth light unto all that abide in him. Who being the brightness of his Father's glory, and the express Image of his person, freely distributeth those gifts which he hath freely received of his Father, and doth not in the least lessen the Saints privileges, but in his rich mercy bestoweth his rich gifts upon his Saints for their good and benefit, though by nature they are rebellious unto him. Thou hast (saith David) received gifts for men, yea for the rebellious also, that the Lord God might dwell among them * Psal. 68.18. : for as much then as the Lord Jesus hath received gifts for the rebellious, that God might dwell amongst them, and that the infants of believers are rebellious by nature; Surely God never ordained (though they die in their infancy) that they should be saved without the gifts there spoken of, which are necessary for them, and therefore we must confess, that they are the creatures, comprehended in the general Commission, given by Jesus Christ, when he ascended up on high, when he said, Go teach all nations, baptising them, etc. Go p●●ach the Gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptised, shall be saved, etc. Hereby is meant that the general offer of the Go p●l should be tendered to all, and that those rebellious persons who were content to subj ct themselves unto the yoke of Jesus Christ, should have the Go●●●l applied unto them, and also the seal of the Cov●nant thereof; and so all believing parents, and their infants, though rebellious by nature, should all receive the same precious pri●il●●ges and prerogatives as were granted to Abraham and his infant's in whom the Lord did Evangelically declare that all the families of the earth should be blessed * Gen. 12.3. Gal. 3.8, 9 ; Gen. 17. Exod. 12.48. and ●o this Christ Jesus alluded when he applied the Gospel to Zacheus his family, house or household, saying, This day is salvation come to this house, for so much as he also is the son of Abraham: For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost * Luk 19, 9, 10. . And this was written for our sakes * Rom. 4.23, 24. ; To the intent that we should know that every believer is the child of Abraham * Gal. 3.7. & that every believing parent, hath the same precious privileges, as Isaac had * Gen. 17. Isa 56. ; and his Infants the same precious privileges, as Isaac's infants had * Isa. 22.23, 24 Psal. 112.1, 2. , who though they were by nature the Children of wrath, yet by grace they were the Children of God, in his Covenant * Gen. 17.7. , and his Church * Exod. 12 48. ; Children of the promise, counted for the l●●d * Rom. 9.8. Gen. ●1. 1●. , and called by his name. Whereas you say, because there may be infants in the household, that thence they conclude, that infants may be baptised. I ans. I never did hear any so conclude, from this bare argument (or may be) which you have here specified. But to this argument you make answer, that there might be no infants there. To which I reply, that there might be infants there; for who should control (or forbidden) the parents from keeping their own Children, as well in infancy, as after? Whereas you say, your Negative is as good as their Affirmative; What affirmative do you mean? and who are the persons you here intent? If you mean the bare conclusion from infants being in the household, that therefore infants may be baptised; I think such an Affirmative is somewhat like your Negative, though it be not the same; but peradventure those [some others] you mention besides Separates, were the authors hereof. But to make your Negative as good [and more probable] then their Affirmative, which you say is without any proof, you add these words, For it is said, Act. 18 8. That Crispus the chief Ruler of the Synagogue, believed on the Lord, with all his household, and that many of the Corinthians hearing it, believed and were baptised. And it is said of the Gaoler, who was baptised and all his, Act. 16.32. That Paul and Sylas first preached the Word unto him, and to all that were in his house. And in the 33. verse, it is said, that he with all his household believed in God. So then (say you) it is plain, that they first believed, and then were baptised; and although it be barely spoken of Paul's bapti●ing the household of Stephanus, 1 Cor. 1.16. And of the baptising of Lydia and her household, Act. 16.15. yet it cannot reasonably be imagined but that he did baptise these according to the Commission, and as he did baptise the Gaoler and his house, which was first preaching to them, and bringing him and all his house to the faith, as is evident by the Text; and those other places which are more silent, must be expounded and understood by this which is more plain, and not this by those. To which I answer, that all this which you have here rehearsed, doth not prove the thing for which you brought it (to wit) that your Negative is as good and more probable than their Affirmative; I pray you, tell me, Doth any of these Scriptures tell you that there was no Infants in these families? or that (according to your former Conclusion) it is more probable, there was none, then that there was any? Surely such a thing cannot be gathered from any tittle of Scripture, or necessary consequence therefrom; neither do these Scriptures, alleged by you, nor your following Conclusion from thence, which you have here set down, contradict the Baptism of Infants in the least, wherefore it will not serve your turn, to vindicate what you have said before in opposition of the truth. That which we ought seriously to mind, is that the infants of believing parents, are blessed with their faithful parents * Isa. 65.23. . Their iniquities are forgiven, and their sins are covered * Psal. 32.1, 2. , and the Lord imputeth righteousness unto them [without works * Rom. 4.6. ] (as hath been proved before * See pag. 3.4.6 to pag. 14. See pag. 15, 16, 17. .) Wherefore we may safely conclude, that all those infants which were then in these families, or any other (if they were the infants of one or both believing parents) the application of the Gospel belonged unto them, and therefore the Apostles in preaching life and salvation (and applying the promises) unto the parents, did also apply the promises unto their infants, according to the practice of God himself, who did not visibly separate between the believing parents and their infants, but graciously accepted of them in his Covenant; And when he preached the Gospel to the parents, never did exclude, but ever did include their infants with them. And to the intent that all believing parents might be encouraged to trust in him and rely upon him for the accomplishment of his gracious promises, which he made unto them and their Infants. The holy and blessed God repeated the same divers times, yea, and sundry times, at one and the same instant; as in Gen. 17. I will (saith God to Abraham) make my Covenant between me and thee, and thou shalt be a father of a multitude of Nations, &c * Gen. 17.2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. See also ver. 19.21. . And I will establish my Covenant between me and thee, and thy seed after thee in their generations, for an everlasting Covenant. To be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, and (again he saith) I will be their God. Note here how often in this one place and at this one time, he repeateth his Covenant, hereby to take away all doubts and suspicious objections, (which might happen (through Satan's temptations) to arise in the hearts of any of his people, against the large extent and sufficiency of the same Covenant,) he bindeth it up with weighty words, and sentences of great consequence; yea and for further confirmation of his people's faith (in believing the firmness of his promises, and the largeness of his Covenant) he annexed a visible sign and seal thereof, to the intent that they might not forget his Covenant: And as believing Gentiles and their infants were taken into Covenant with God then, so they were to submit unto his ordinances, amongst which this same Circumcision (the sign of his Covenant * Gen. 17.11. , and seal of the righteousness of faith * Rom. 4.11. ) was one, which was given unto them to observe throughout their generations: for this see Gen. 17.10, 11, 12, 13, 14. And in Exod. 12.48 49. The Lord there declareth unto his people Israel, saying; And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the Passeover to the Lord, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it, and he shall be as one that is borne in the Land; for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof. One law shall be to him that is home-born, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you. By this we may see, that the Proselytes and their seed, had equal precious privileges with the Jews, and their seed. And so the Jews infants and the infants of believing Gentiles than were not as those who were without God in the world, but were joynt-heires of the same precious promises, they had visible right, by virtue of the Covenant, to all the ordinances of God, then present, or now to come, and were to be partakers thereof, as they had capability to receive the same, even according to the requiring of the Scripture. There is much then to be considered in this, that the infants of believers were admitted to be members of the visible Church (and to receive the sign and seal of the righteousness of faith, together with other privileges) before Christ was manifested in the flesh; for Jesus Christ came not to take any privileges from them, but gave them as great (if not greater) in stead thereof. Let us not think that he came into the world to take from them the types, and to bereave them both of substances and types; But rather let us conclude, that for as much as the Son of God (whose delight was with the sons of men * Prov. 8.31. , before he was made the son of man) is wisdom and truth itself, he came not to deceive the least members of his beloved Spouse, of the least happiness or blessedness, which they formerly by right received and enjoyed from him. Now it was a blessedness unto God's peop e for the Lord to gave unto them outward visible signs, for the confirmation of their faith. But Circumcision of Infants, was an outward visible sig●e given un●o his people from God, for the confirmation ●f their faith * G●n ●7. 11. R●m. ●. 11. : Therefore it was a blessedness unto them to enjoy it, amongst other blessings, and blessed privileges. It being then a blessedness for the infants of believers to be admitted members of Gods visible Church, and so to have (by virtue of his Covenant) a visible right to all God's ordinances, and to partake of them, according as they were capable (I mean in respect of a natural capability) if the same privileges are not granted (by God) to the generation of the faithful now, it seemeth that God unloadeth his people of the blessings which he hath formerly bestowed upon them, which to affirm is contrary to the Scripture, Psal. 68.19. where David speaking of the gifts which Christ should give unto the Rebellious, saith, Bl ssed be the Lord, who daily loadeth us with blessings, even the God of our salvation, Selah. Seeing then that it was such a blessedness for the believing parents, to have their infants in God's Covenant with themselves, and to receive the sign thereof, for confirmation of their faith, and seeing that God daily loadeth his people with blessings, then surely it cannot reasonably be imagined that God hath unloaded his people of these excellent blessings, for as much as he is always one and the same. Seeing then that believing Jews and Gentiles, and their infants jointly, had this blessedness, they have the same blessedness now; their privileges are not lessened by the coming of Christ; for he came not for any such intent and purpose, but he came to confirm the promises made with the fathers: therefore was Jesus Christ a Minister of the Circumcision for the truth of God, and so to confirm the promises made with the fathers * Rom. 15.8, 9, 10, 11, 12. , by fulfilling them; So all the promises in him are yea and Amen. And this was done also, that the Gentiles might glorify God for his m●rci●; as it is written, For this cause I will confess to thee among th● Gentiles, and ●●ng unto thy Name. And again he saith, Rejoice ye● Gentiles with his people. And again; Praise Jehovah all ye Gentiles. Laud him all ye p●●ple; for his mercy is mighty towards us, and the faithfulness of Jehova● endureth for ever. Psal. 117. And again Esay●s saith, There shall be a root of Jesse, and he that shall rise to reign o●er the Gentiles, and in him shall the Gentiles trust. And David saith in Psal. 22 28, 29 31. All the ends of the earth shall remember, and turn to Jehovah, and all families of the Heathens shall do worship before th●e, for to Jeho●ah partaines the kingdom; and he is Ruler among the Na●ions, etc. A s●ed shall serve him, it shall be accounted to the Lord f●r a generation. Observe how the Scriptures here do set forth the excellent benefits which appertain to a●● the Saints in general, and to the holy families in particular, under the flourishing time of the Gospel. Here is great occasion for the ●aints to glorify, to magnify, to confess, to praise, and to laud the great God of heaven and earth, who hath so far magnified his word, so strongly confirmed his promises made unto the fathers, and hath so largely extended his Gospel-pri●iledges unto them, and to their seed: Their seed are in the blessing; It shall (saith David) be accounted unto the Lord for a generation. Weigh these sentences, and compare the same with Gen. 17 10 where the Lord said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my Covenant, thou and thy seed after thee in their generations. And so it is said here in Psal. 22. that a seed shall serve him. Now to serve him indeed, is to keep his Covenant, and those that keep his Covenant are obedient to his laws and ordinances, which he prescribeth; And as Abraham and his seed then were accounted of before the Lord, so are the believing Gentiles & their seed now; they are counted before the Lord for a generation: for time was when they were not accounted before the Lord for a generation, no reckoning was made of the Nations, they were without Christ, Eph. 2.11, 12. being aliens from the Commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the Covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world; (mistake me not, I do not say, that the believing Gentiles (or Proselytes) or their infants were without Christ, or without God in the world, when God took them in his Covenant, be it far from me so to think! for these visible Saints were no further off then the believing Jews * See Gen. 17.10, 11, 12, 13, 14. Exod. 12.48. ;) But the Apostle declareth that such aliens as were then without God in the world; Now God of his rich mercy hath called them unto him by repentance; and now God calling them his people, who were not his people, and m●king them of Lions, Lambs, bringing them into subjection to his laws, and to the obedience of his faith, they are holy and spiritual, 1 Cor. 7.14. and accounted as precious as Abraham and his infants were; for these Gentiles, who sometimes were far off, are made nigh by the blood of Christ; Eph. 2.13, 14. And he hath accepted of them jointly into his service, giving them the blessing of Abraham a Gen. 12.3. Gal. 3.8.14. and his posterity, accounting of them before him, as a holy generation b Psal. 22.30. 1 Cor. 7.14. 1 Pet. 2.9. Rev. 1.5, 6. Isa. 19.18. etc. ; Whereas before they were visibly of no account, of no estimation in the sight of God, or his people. But God of his rich mercy made them rich, yea (in general) equally rich with the Jews in respect both of external and internal precious privileges. The same God over all, (saith the Apostle) is rich unto all that call upon him c Rom 20.12. Rev. 22.14. ; their riches are not lessened (or diminished) one jot, they are equailized with the riches of the Jews; let them be bond or free, male or female, they are all one in Christ d Gal. 3.28. , Abraham's seed; like Zacheus e Ver. 29. Luk. 19 , and heirs according to promise f Gal. 3.29. , fellow-heires, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise by the Gospel g Eph 3.6. : The children of the promis● as Isaac was h Gal 4 28. , Blessed with their faithful father Abraham i Gal. 3.9. : grafted into the same stock, and olive tree and root, from whence the unbelieving Jews for unbelief were cut off k Rom. 11.19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24. ; and these believers the Apostle concludeth are blessed by God the Father with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ l Eph. 1.3. ; and therefore I see no reason why the believing parents now (though Gentiles) should not have the like precious privileges for their seed in infancy as their brethren and Countrymen had in former time for their seed m Gen. 17.11, 12, 13. Exod. 12.48. in infancy; Yea, considering that the infants of believers now are able to do, as good, great, faithful, and acceptable service, as the infants of believers in the time of the Law; and that these are as capable of Baptism [this passive Ordinance,] as those were of Circumcision [that passive Ordinance,] which was no more passive than this, and was the forerunner of this; and both that and this being in one general● institution, and one and the same in effect n Col. 2 11, 12 ; we may safely believe and justly conclude, that the Saints infants ought to be baptised; as formerly they were Circumcised; yea, and for as much as the Apostles themselves (speaking generally of baptising whole households o Act. 16.15. 1 Cor 1 16.33 ;) never once make mention of the exempting of any of their infants; (though it be a matter of so great concernment,) how then shall we reject them? And considering that in the Scripture, by the speech of an house, family, or household, infants are also employed therein * Gen. 17.23.9 10.12. & 30.25.30. & 45.10 11.18, 19 & 46 5, 6, 7. Exod. 1.1. Num. 3.15.39 Psal. 115.12, 13, 14. Luk. 19.9. Prov 31.15. 1 Tim. 5.8. , (and seeing Baptism is come in the room of Circumcision.) If infants should not have been baptised, as formerly they were circumcised, sure the Apostles, in speaking generally of baptising households, would not (without exception of infants) have used such terms as are set down in the old and new Testament, to include infants. Considering that then the Apostles had a just occasion to exclude their infants in express words, if any such thing should have been done. If holy infants should have been thrust out from being members of the visible Church, and from having their spiritual privileges, as they have had heretofore; Surely, we should have found some tittle of it in the New Testament; but there is not the least show of it, from whence we may draw any just consequence, for dismissing them from being members of the visible Church of Christ * Mr, Spilsbery saith it is a truth that the Church of the New Testament consisteth both of Jews and Gentiles, and admits of all that believe and rejects none. And for the Gentiles Infants being in the same body as well as the Jews infants, this (saith he) I believe both alike. For this see his treatise of bapt. p. 11. , and having their spiritual privileges, as they have had heretofore. Consider throughly, the words of Peter, how at the very preaching the Gospel of Repentance to the parents, in the application thereof, he did not bar out, but expressly mentioneth their children; and if we do but seriously weigh the Text, and compare it with other places of Scripture, which set forth the blessedness of the children with the parents, we may well conceive that it is meant of holy infants (as hath been formerly observed:) And as I plead for none to be baptised before they do believe, so I plead for none to have the Gospel applied unto them, before they have faith by imputation, and that is to be judged by some visible rule out of God's Word; But, the infants of believers have faith by imputation (as is proved before) therefore (in this consideration) they are believers, holy, and spiritual a 1 Cor. 7.14. , and therefore the Gospel may be lawfully applied unto them b Mar. 10, 13, 16. Mat. 19.13, 14, 15. Luk. 18.15, 16, 17 See Luk. 1.76. ; and What letteth water, that these may not be baptised, which have received the holy Spirit as well as we c Acts 10.47. ; As for actual profession, or verbal demonstration of faith, God hath not required the children of believers to perform in their own persons, in the time of their infancy; which thing though they are not able to do, yet they are in the faith of Christ, and shall certainly be saved, though they die in their infancy; for God will be no more wanting unto them, then to their parents d Isa. 22.24. Heb. 13.8. . It is to be minded, that God (baptising e 1 Cor. 10.1, 2 many families f Ex. 12.21.37.41. Ps. 77.17, 19, 20 ) did not exempt such children from the parents, but baptised those persons that passed through the Sea, both men, women, and children, young and old. And so in the midst of their afflictions, by this Oracle, gave these faithful g Heb. 11.29. persons a glimpse of that which should be in the days of the Messiah, where one element, and passive ordinance, should be general for all his precious Saints, both young and old. So the Apostles baptising many families, did not omit their infants; neither can we find in all the New Testament, that ever the infants of the faithful are exempted, in express words, nor can it be gathered by necessary consequence. The Apostle Peter maketh the Baptism in the Ark equivolent with our Baptism now a 1 Pet 3.20, 21. ; And Paul declared that he would not have the believing Corinthians ignorant * 1 Cor. 10.1, 2 , that God baptised his Church then, which consisted of many families, in which there were many infants, who were the approved subjects of Circumcision b Exod. 12.48. Jos. 5.2, 5, 7. , and of that Baptism then; And therefore Baptism now, being a [general] ordinance, [yea and always [more general] in the administration, than Circumcision ever was] yea, and it being given to all the visible members of Christ's body c Mat. 28.19, Mar. 16.16. , (amongst whom the infants of believing parents are no small number d Zach. 8.5. Luke 18.15, 16, 17. Isa. 22.24. ,) they ought to be baptised, both male, and female, thereby to set forth the excellent benefits which they have by Christ. A. R. A Third [argument] of theirs (say you) is from 1 Cor. 7.14. where it is said, Else were your Children unclean, but now are they holy: Pag. 3. l. 39, to pag. 4. l. 3. Whence (you say) they thus reason; If the Children of believing parents be holy, (that is to say, in the new Covenant) than they may have the seals of the Covenant, and be baptised. To which I add this argument, both for explanation, and confirmation of the former. All those persons whom we ought to judge to have the invisible Seal (even the holy Spirit of promise, Eph. 1.13.) ought to be esteemed spiritually holy, and in the new Covenant, and aught to be baptised * Act. 10.47. Mat. 28.18, 19 Mar. 16.15, 16 , Act. 10.47. But the infants of (one or both) believing parents, aught to be esteemed to have the invisible Seal, even the holy Spirit of promise * 1 Cor. 7.13, 14. Exod. 12.48. Luke 18.15, 16, 17. John. 3.5. A. R. , 1 Cor. 7.13, 14. Therefore the infants of (one or both) believing parents, aught to be judged spiritually holy, and in the new Covenant, and aught to be baptised. Your Reasons that they are not in the new Covenant, are * Pag. 4. l. 22, 23. Pag 4 l. 3, 4, 5. to l. 13. First, Because there is now but one Covenant on foot, which is a covenant of grace and salvation. Secondly, Because there is but one manner of entering and being in that Covenant. Thirdly, That there is but one holiness now acceptable with God, which is inward, spiritual, etc. To which I answer, that the like you may say of the members of the visible Church, which do actually and verbally profess faith. As if you should say thus unto them; There is but one new Covenant now on foot, therefore you (believers) are not in it. This reason is threadbare. Secondly, There is but one manner of entering and being in that Covenant, therefore you are not of that Covenant! This is as poor as the other. Thirdly, Because there is no holiness accepted with God, but that which is inward, spiritual, and in truth etc. Therefore you believers are not in the new Covenant, nor aught to be baptised! Is not this mad kind of reasoning? But to perform that which you promised, you should have proved, that the infants of believers are not spiritually holy, nor never did, or can enter in the new covenant, and then I would have said, you had done somewhat like to that you took upon you to do, but instead of taking awa●●he position, that infants are holy and in the new covenant, you tell us, that there is but one covenant; the manner of entering into it and abiding in it but one; the holiness now acceptable with God to be but one; To which I further answer, that though a person be not holy [internally,] nor under the new covenant [in Gods secret acount] yet [in our acount] he is to be esteemed to be in the new covenant. An hypocrite may make a glorious show, yea and seem in outward acts of obedience to go further than a true Saint, 1 Cor. 13. He may give his goods to the poor and his body to be burned, and yet want love. Ob. But peradventure you will ask how then we must judge of an hypocrite? An. Surely, as the faithful Disciples of Christ judged of Judas; Judas had, a Saint-ship, an Apostle-ship, and a Deacon-ship *** Mat. 10.1, 2, 4, 16. Matk. 3.14.19. & 6.7, 12, 13. Luke 9.1.10 john. 12.4.5, 6 & 13.29. , Simon Magus also had an [outward] Saint-ship * Act. 8.12.13 upon him; An hypocrite (or saint outwardly) (I say) must be judged to be as a [true] Saint is, till he be discovered to us; for though God know the heart, yet we do not, though he see invisibly, we cannot; We must judge of invisible things, by visible demonstrations. Some men may creep in, and make a [fair] show outwardly for a while, yea and a great while, and yet be hypocrites, but tell they are discovered to be evil, what man can point them out, and say from his own knowledge that they are not under the new covenant. A person that offers to join himself to a particular Church of Christ, and [not only by his verbal confession, but by his life and conversation] appeareth unto them to be an outside Christian, (they knowing nothing by him but good) if they refuse him, it is their sin; though all which he doth (outwardly) is feigned. A humane creature though he have the wisdom & knowledge of Angels, yet can he not know what is in man, none (I say) knoweth this but only the man Christ; wherefore it is apparent that though none are by us to be esteemed spiritually holy but those that are outwardly in the same new covenant in which the visible Church is; yet all the members therein ought so to be esteemed, till they are seen to degenerate. And moreover, I would have you to know, that God doth not only accept of our inward performances, but of our very words, yea of all external holy performances, in his worship and service, if they be done according to his will; so David saith, L●● the [words of my mouth] and the meditations of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight * Psal. 19.14. ; So that though all our worship and service unto God, aught to be spiritual, and done in spirit, and in truth, yet, God hath not bound us to do it only internally, Holiness both inward and outward is accepted of God. and not externally also; yea, for as much as he hath made us bodies, as well as souls and spirits, therefore he doth require outward performances of us, as well as inward * Mat. 28.20. Rev. 1.3.11. Zach. 14.16, 17, 18, 19 Luke 22.19, 20 , but when his saints are not capable; God then doth accept of them nevertheless, and imputeth Christ righteousness unto them notwithstanding their natural weakness; Let them (while they are capable) keep themselves unsported, and do that which God requireth, and then (when they are no more capable to know or do any spiritual action) they are still not only known of God, 1 Cor. 5.3. & 6.1, 2, 3, 4, 5 20. & 16.1.2. Act. 1.26. & 2.42. jam 2.18. but beloved of Christ, and sanctified by the holy Spirit; for though they cannot apprehend Gods working in them, yet God can tell how he worketh in them, and saveth them [by the imputation of Christ's righteousness * Ps. 3 2.2. Rom. 4.6. ;] And after this manner doth God work in the Infants of believers: So long as they are not capable, he doth not require them to act but to suffer, as holy infants in former time suffered, not only the administration of his passive ordinance * Gen. 17.14, 23 jos 5.3.7.8. of circomcision, but also death * Ex. 1.22. Act. 7.19. 1 Sam. 22.19. A. R. Pag. 4. l. 13. to l. 24. itself (for his sake) from the hands of God's enemies. But your inference from your foregoing reasons is; That if believers childerens be in the covenant, and have this true holiness, than all the childeren of believing parents must be saved, as well old childerens as young, for age doth not make them cease from being their childerens. But all the childeren of believers are not saved, no not of faithful Abraham himself, according to that known sentence of the Prophet Isaiah. 10.21. Repeated by Saint Paul Romans. 9.27. Though the number of the childerens of Israel be as the sand of the sea, yet but a remnant of them shall be saved: Therefore the childerens of believers are not in the covenant now on foot, nor aught to be baptised. To which I Ans. That believers children are in the covenant, is true; but that [all] the childerens of [all] believers are in the covenant, is not true, but all their holy infants are, and aught so to be judged, & accounted even in the state of salvation, as well as the greatest verbal professors of the faith of Christ, and all these infants of believing parents that live till they come to years of discretion, are still to be accounted holy and spiritual, except they apostate. Now though the Scripture declareth that a remnant shall be saved, yet we are directed, by the rule of God's Word, to judge, that believing parents, and their seed that do not degenerate, are of this remnant. But the childerens of believers in their infancy have not power actually to degenerate from the righteous steps of their holy parents. But old childerens may possibly. So Ishmael [when he was an infant] was not a mocker neither was Cain [in his infancy] a murderer: but when they came to years, and acted these wickednesses, they were for the same cast out, the one from communion with the family of Adam * Gen. 4.11.14.16. ; the other from the family of Abraham * Gen. 21.9.10. . And as you reason here against believers infants being in the new Covenant, because you know not absolutely whether they shall be saved. So you may reason against the parents themselves, though they are members of the visible Church, and also as well plead against every verbal professor, that is, a visible member of the same body. Thus, All you which seem to be believers, are a people which have indeed taken upon you the profession of the great name of God, and have given up yourselves unto him, to walk in all his ways, and say, you have taken hold of God's Covenant, and have covenanted together to become an entire body, City, House, Temple, Garden, Vineyard, etc. unto God, whom you suppose to be your builder and planter, etc. So you think yourselves to be his holy people, his bride by marriage, his peculiar treasure, in covenant with him, &c, But alas! you are much deceived, you think yourselves to be in a holy and happy estate, in Covenant with God, and that you have right to his Ordinances, but it is not so. For, than it will follow, That if you believers [members of this visible Church] be in the Covenant, and have this true holiness, than every member of you must be saved as well old as young, etc. But all the members of the visible Church are not saved [no, not of the Christian Church in the Apostles time, for divers of them perished, as Judas Iscareot, [one of the Lambs 12 Apostles] and Simon Magus: Therefore, though you profess faith, you are not in the Covenant now on foot, nor aught to be baptised. If this be a good and sufficient ground, or reason, to prove the parents not to be in the new Covenant, nor to be baptised, than the same reason is of force, against the infants of believers, to prove them also not to be in the new Covenant, nor to be baptised. But this is very weak, against such parents, Therefore it is of no force, against their infants. Seeing it is so, you may plainly perceive that I have just ground to except against your conclusion, Pag. 4 l. 22, 23 that because all the children of believers are not saved, Therefore the infants of believers are not in the Covenant now on foot, nor aught to be baptised. Such an excuse as this might as well have served informer time for the children of Israel, that they might not only have neglected Circumcision, but also, all other Ordinances: But such arguing bringeth large liberty tending to Atheism, destruction, and ruination of the foundation of Christian Religion. Rom. 3.1, 2, 3, 4. But what saith Paul, (when he declareth that the Jews had the Oracles of God committed unto them) what if some did not believe, shall their unbelief make the faith of God of none effect, God forbidden, yea, let God be true, and every man a liar, etc. The Apostasy of Cain, could not hurt Adam, nor hinder Abel from eternal life. For though Cain and his seed perished, yet God was still good unto his Church, unto Israel, to those that were of an upright heart. Furthermore, for to maintain error, you bring error, false things, to prove a falsehood, (like two false witnesses that stand one for another,) for, to prove your own false affirmation, that infants are not in the Covenant outwardly, nor have that holiness whereby to be admitted now to the outward ordinance of baptism, as infants were then to Circumcision in the time of the Law, and state of the Jews. You say, That the state or Church of the Jews, were under the old Covenant and Law, Pag. 4. l. 29. and stood not by faith and circumcision of the heart, (as this Church of the Gospel doth) but stood merely upon nature and circumcision of the flesh, and accordingly had their outward and fiderall holiness, and outward cleansings, all which are abolished with that state, and no such holiness or distinction is now between any persons in the world, as (you say) shall be further declared by and by. To which I answer, That the Church of the Jews were in the old Covenant and Law, is true, But that they stood not by faith and circumcision of the heart, as this Church of the Gospel doth, but stood merely upon nature and circumcision of the flesh, is not true, for the Church of the Jews had the new covenant * Mr. Spilsbery granteth the Covenant made with Abraham, and the Covenant now to be the same in substance. See his treatise, pag. 8 line. 10. that was confirmed to Abraham * Gen. 17. Gal. 3.16, 17. before, of God in Christ, which covenant the Law which was four hundred and thirty years after could not disannul that it should make the promise of none effect*. The Jews were Gods holy special a Deut. 7.6. and peculiar b & 26.18.19. people, who were not constituted of a visible mixed multitude of (profane persons, and holy believers and Infidels,) good and bad together c & 29.18. & 32.9.12. Esay. 5.1, 2. , but were a people called d & 41.1, 2. & 43.1.7. Mat. 12.2.13. , and separated e Ps. 135.4. & 148.14. & 125.2. Deut. 33.29. & 14.1, 2 from other Nations, God brought them out of Egypt f Ex. 12.41.42 , and baptised them in the cloud, and in the sea g 1 Cor. 10.1, 2 and went before them, by day in a pillar of cloud, and by night in a pillar of fire h Ex. 13.21, 22 , and at the great and victorious deliverance which they had over the Egyptians, they believed his Words, and sang his praise i Ex 15.1. Ps. 106.12. , than God led them through the wilderness k Ex. 15.22. , and made the bitter waters sweet for them l ver. 25. , that they might trust in him who healed them m v. 26. ; and he fed them with Manna, which neither they nor their fathers knew, to the intent that they might know, that man could not live by bread only, but by every word of God n Deut. 8.3. , and he made the flinty rock a fountain of waters o Ps. 114.8. Num. 20.8.11 , that they thereby might quench their thirst: Yea, The Lord came from mount Synay, and risen up from Seir, unto them, he shined forth from mount Paran, and he came with ten thousands of his Saints, from his right hand went a fiery Law, yea, he loved the people p Deut 33.2, 3 , they were therefore to trust steadfastly in God, the sword of their excellency q ver, 29. , and to look continually for eternal life of him, and cleave unto him r & 10.20. who was their life and the length of their days s & 30.19, 20. , whom they were commanded to fear and to love, and to serve, with all their heart, and with all their soul t Deut. 10.12. , so the Lord was with them, & they with him, and as he had commanded them, so they were still to be a holy people to the Lord their God, even as he was holy u Levit. 11.44. & 19.2. & 20.7. . By all which it appears that there was a manifest difference put between them and the profane of the world, as is between Christ and Antichrist. In brief, as their Church was the Church of Christ a See Cant. and the Covenant b Rev. 21.3. which they had c Gal. 3.16, 17. the Covenant of Christ, so the Commandment d Deut. 30.11.12, 13, 14. Rom. 10.6, 7, 8, 9, 10. (or word) which was not hid from them was the Gospel, (which they were not to inquire after, as though it were some strange thing afar off, or beyond the seas, etc. for it was nigh unto them, in their mouth and in their heart, that they might do it) even the Gospel of Christ, the same word of faith which Paul preached; yea, further they had not only the Gospel of Christ, but Christ himself, his presence, in a special manner amongst them, though he were not then manifested in the flesh. Esay. 63 9 Wherefore I would have you to consider, and revoke those rash speeches, that this heavenly society and blessed fraternity, stood not by faith but merely upon nature and circumcision of the flesh. It is an infidelious opinion to judge them to be Infidels (in the Jews state) whom God did so call and separate, which had his Oracles and Ordinances, whom he called his holy people, his chosen e Deut. 10.15. and peculiar people f Cap. 14.2. , his beloved ones g Cap 7.7.8. , to whose seed he promised life as to themselves h Cap. 30.19.20 whose hearts he promised to circumcise, as also the hearts of their seed i Deut 30.6. (as he hath promised to his people in the last days;) which thing, circumcision of the flesh was to teach them, it being the sign k Gen 17.11. and seal l Rom. 4 11. Col. 2.11, 12. of the righteousness of faith, as baptism is now. And this you may mind also, that though the rebellious seed of Abraham (according to the flesh) were rejected m Esay. 2.6.9 , yet the strangers that joined to the Lord were still received n Esay 56.3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. , wherefore this is a plain evidence, that they stood by the grace and life of God and Christ, and circumcision of the heart, for the cause why God rejected some of the circumcised seed of Abraham according to the flesh, was, because they were uncircumcised in heart o jer. 9.25, 26. , and therefore the Lord threatened to visit them (and did visit them) with the uncircumcised in flesh. Wherefore it appeareth, that without faith and circumcision of the heart they could not stand at all. And the Scripture saith, that the unbelieving Jews were cut off for unbelief, and that those that stand do stand by faith, and therefore are admonished not to be high minded but fear p Rom. 11.20. , and take heed q v 21. and continue in the beautifulness of God r v. 22. , and that the unbelieving Jews also if they abide not in unbelief, shall be grafted in again s v. 23. . Wherefore it appeareth, that as unbelief was the cause why the unbelieving Jews were cut off from the olive tree, whereon they were, so unbelief was the bar, which kept them off, for if they abide not in unbelief, they shall be grafted in again; and this proveth that their standing was never to be otherwise but by faith and circumcision of the heart. Neither are we to think, that the giving of the Law at mount Sinai, or the ceremonies which the Jews than had to lead them to Christ, or any of God's Oracles being committed unto them, or any persons groundless departing from the State, doth argue that the constitution of the same Church was, as you would have it taken to be; Neither did their circumcision of the flesh argue that they stood not by faith, and circumcision of the heart, no more than the outward baptism doth now argue, that the Saints now, stand not by faith, and the inward baptism of the heart and spirit, but merely upon nature and baptism of the flesh. But you should know; that as it is not possible to please God now without faith * Heb. 11.6. , no more was it then * Psal. 50.18. . In the time of the Law, God abhorred his own Ordinances if they were not done in faith * Isa. 1.13, 14. . And as faith gave Abraham the denomination of God's friend, (the righteousness of which faith, Circumcision was a seal * Rom. 4.11. ;) so none were ever esteemed as the holy people, the sons and daughters and friends of God, but those that were made nigh unto him by the promise of Christ, and by faith, and circumcision of the heart. And you should know, that the Jews had not outward spiritual holiness visibly imputed unto them merely because they were the children of Abraham, but because Abraham their Father and they his children were the children of God, and their children's children were in Covenant, and so they were the children of the promise as Isaac was, and blessed with their Father Abraham. And this may further appear unto you, because when any of the seed of Abraham (according to the flesh) did degenerate, their rejection was not for (or because) that they were the children of Abraham; but because they had taken upon them the image of Satan, and so degenerated from the steps of Abraham, and thereby became the children of Belial. And as we may say concerning these Hebrews, so we may say concerning the Heathens, when any of the Gentiles, (or Heathens) became Prosolites, their childerens that were at years of discretion were not to be circumcised, unless they were willing to enter into covenant with God, and to take upon them the Lords yoke, and fight under his banner; Howbeit, whether they were circumcised or not, they were still the Prosolytes children, according to the flesh. But concerning the infants of the Prosolytes, there was no questioning of them, they were to be circumcised (being in the covenant with their parents,) and yet not circumcised because they were their childerens by nature, but because they were in the same covenant with their holy parents, and so they were the childerens of God by his free Grace. And the Scripture doth evidently declare that none were to be admitted into the Church of the Jews, but believing Hebrews, and Prosolytes, and their holy seed. By all this it appeareth that the members of the Jews state had a spiritual holiness upon them, and stood no otherwise but by faith, and circumcision of the heart. And were not as those who were neither believing Jews, nor Prosolytes; Aliens from the Commonwealth of Israel, without hope, without God in the world, without Christ, and strangers from the covenants of promise. But the Church of the Jews, (the Lor●s peculiar people) were made nigh unto God by the bloo● of Jesus Christ, which was then to be shed; and is now shed for the remission of their sins, and their reconciliation to God the father, and his blessed spirit. And whereas you say that the state or Church of the Jews is abolished. I tell you, I am not bound to believe that God abolished his Church state whereof David, Solomon, Hezekias, Josias, and the holy Prophets and righteous men were members, such a Church at the constitution whereof there was no profane person, to be admitted, or any root beating gall or wormwood to be suffered, but if you think that God changed the state in the days of the Messiah his manifestation in the flesh, and made it more glorious, Even as the Moon is said to be changed when she hath run her course, but remaineth still the same Moon, though more glorious than before, this I would rather believe then that. And touching your speech of the abolishing of the other things. If you mean an abolishing of all the beggarly rudiments, taking away the Elimentish part of some Ordinances, and planting other materials in stead thereof; then I grant it; But be sure that you stick to this, that Christ came not to deceive the Infants of believing parents, to take away the substance of the Ordinances, but rather the yokes which cleaved thereunto; which circumstantial things, he nailed to his Cross, in token that those who rightly and truly enjoyed them before, were now benefited without them, and were to have, through a general distribution, an equal proportionable share, and right, to whatsoever came in stead thereof. Now let us consider, that if the infants of believers, (members of the Church of the Jews) were not then aliens from the Common wealth of Israel, nor without hope, nor without God in the world. They were not then without Christ, neither were they Strangers from the Covenants of Promise * Eph. 2.12. . But the Infants of believers (who were members of the Church of the Jews,) were not aliens from the Common wealth of Israel * Gen. 17.7. Deut. 29.10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15.18. Exod. 12.48, 49. , nor without hope, nor without God in the world. Therefore such holy Infants were not then without Christ, neither were they strangers from the covenants of promise. Now, for as much as the Infants of believers were not without Christ, nor aliens from the Common wealth of Israel, nor strangers from the Covenants of promise, nor without hope, nor without God in the world. They were such as were made nigh by the blood of Christ See Eph 2.13. , whose blood was then to be shed, and is poured out for them; and therefore we may safely conclude, that the holy infants are not loser's by his coming. And therefore [seeing the New Covenant is not abolished] it evidently appeareth that the Infants of believers now are in the new Covenant, because the Infants of believers were in the same New Covenant before. And this agreeth with the words of the Apostle Paul, 1 Cor. 7.14. Else were your children unclean, but now are they holy; for the Apostle there speaketh to believers, and of a holiness in relation to their faith, and to the covenant they were in. And though you said, the old Covenant is abolished, yet you grant that the New covenant is not abolished but remaineth; Wherefore you must of necessity be driven to grant also, that the infants of believers are in the new Covenant, because they were of it before, and the New covenant remaineth permanent. Thus having taken away the foundation of your Arguments which you brought (against holy Infants being in the Covenant) you may justly expect, that all which is builded upon the same sandy foundation, will fall to the ground. Pag. 4. li. 37. Your next words are these which follow; There being the new covenant now on foot, which is a covenant of grace and salvation, and which brings certain salvation to all those that rightly enter into it, and which is only by faith. Hence it is said, Act. 2.47. That the Lord added to the Church daily such as should be saved. Ans. That the new Covenant is now on foot, and that it is the covenant of grace, and salvation, and brings it to all those which rightly enter into it in deed and in truth, is not by me denied. And that the entrance is only by faith, is very true. But mind this, that there is an external right, and an internal right. We [finite creatures] must judge of the tr●e by the fruit a Mat. 12.33. Luke 6.44. , of the faith by the works b Jam. 2.18, 19 ; Judas had no internal right, for he was a devil c Joh. 6.70, 71 inwardly, yet he had an external right, for he was a Saint outwardly d Act. 1.17. ; But so long as he was not known to be a wicked man, but still made a great outward show of holiness, they were to judge him righteous; But when he manifested evil fruits, of treachery and hypocrisy, than they were to alter their former charitable opinion of him; And though he had (not only an outward Saintship, but also) an Apostle-ship, and a Deaconship before; yet when he Apostated, that man who was before to be accounted a Saint and an Angel on earth, was afterward to be esteemed as a devil. And so the like may be said concerning other wicked men. Psal 41.9, 10. Psal. 69.25, 26, 27, 28. Set thou in office over him the wicked one (saith holy David * Psal. 109.6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, [20.] ) and let the Adversary stand at his right hand. When he shall be judged, let him be condemned: and let his prayer become sin. Let his days be few, and another take his office. [Act. 1.20.] Let his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow. Let his children be continually vagabonds, and beg. Let them seek their bread also out of their desolate places. Let the extortioner catch all that he hath: and let the stranger spoil his labour. Let there be none to extend mercy unto him: neither let there be any to favour his fatherlesse-childrens. Let his posterity be appointed to cutting off; & in the generation next after, let his name be wiped out: Let the iniquity of his [father's] be remembered of Jehovah; and let not the sin of his mother be wiped out. Let them be before Jehovah continually; that he may cut off the memory of them from the earth, etc. Now that the Lord added to his Church daily such as should be saved, is certain; but here we are to note, that this Church in Jerusalem, was a visible particular Church. And that (as far as men could judge) all those were to be saved that in outward appearance were rightly added to the same, or to any other particular Church of the same constitution; And though the Lord added to his Church daily such as should be saved; yet we are not to determine that all that joined to a particular Church were saved, yea though they were added rightly according to order, in an external way. Judas was of the visible Church, yea of that Church whereof these were members, and yet we will not say that he is saved. Persons may be saved which are of no visible particular Church; And persons may be of a true visible particular Church of Christ, and yet Apostate; and not be saved, any more than Judas, who fell finally, as other reprobates do, though never so eminent in the Church. Howbeit, we will not say that any fall away, from the grace of God's secret election, but from an outward sanctification, it is possible that elected persons may for a time fall; yet not without great sin, no more than the temporary falling away of the incestuous person in the Church of Corinth, and others also, which the Scripture maketh mention of, who were the dear Saints of God, yet (for a time) fell from their steadfastness. But now I will examine your reasons what they are, whereby you say * Pag. 4. lin. 41 Pag. 5. lin. 1, 2 , That the holiness of children here, is not meant of any holiness in relation to any Church-covenant. First, (say you * Pag. 5. lin. 3. to lin. 9 ,) That which is an effect of regeneration, is not brought to pass by generation (though the parents be holy) but to be of the covenant or kingdom, is the proper effect of regeneration, Joh. 3.3. without which none can see it (much less be of it) or enter into it; therefore it cannot be brought to pass by generation, though the parents are holy. Ans. That regeneration is brought to pass by generation, I will not affirm; The infants of believers are regenerated [before they are borne] this you cannot justly deny; for Jeremy and John Baptist were sanctified in the womb; and the privileges of believers are alike precious; Not that it cometh by the means of their natural birth, or generation after the flesh; but by the Spirit of regeneration; howbeit, it is a certain truth, that the Saints generation, doth not hinder regeneration [in any of them:] Generation doth not work regeneration, but generation causeth distinction of persons, that what was one in the root, is become more in the branches; or what was one in such a branch growing on such a root, bringeth forth other branches, Abraham's holy action was Levies by imputation. See Heb. 7.9. or (as it were) little sprigs, who are in a growing condition (or in a way of thriving) so long as they are borne up and receive nourishment from the root. And this division, or distinction, by way of derivation, doth not simply make qualities contra-distinct and opposite one to the other, or break the conjunction or contraction between them, or take away the virtue of the root from them. For Abraham's act of obedience which he did before Levi was an infant, was imputed unto Levi afterward, which act was an act of obedience, even a fruit of faith, which cannot be without the Spirit. Now when Levi was borne, should they have said, that he was an unregenerated Infant? Nay, rather it may be thought that they esteemed as well of Levi (in his infancy) as Eve did of Seth in his infancy, when Seth was borne, she did not say, God hath sent mo● a young Heathen (or Canite) (though the seed of Cain was hers by generation) but (saith she) The Lord hath sent me [another seed] in stead of [Abel] whom Cain slew. Mark now, she did not say, in stead of Cain, or in stead of Cain's infants, (which did indeed spring naturally from Adam's loins,) but in stead of [Abel] (saith she,) Therefore (I say) it is apparent, that (though generation did not work regeneration yet) she believed in God, and had so much faith, 〈…〉 to put a real difference between Apostates, and those who were not Apostated, but were spiritually holy: And in that it is said that Seth was in stead of Abel, it is a plain Argument, that as Abel was in the Covenant, and as Abel was a member of the Church, so was Seth, according to his name, so was he set (or appointed) instead of Abel; for the saying imports that he took the room of Abel, as when one plant is removed out of a fruitful soil, and another planted in stead thereof. And seeing God refuseth not the bodies of his Saints, but accepteth of them in his gracious Covenant (though they are generated persons) it plainly argueth that generation doth not hinder regeneration. And therefore it appeareth that this your reason (concerning generation and regeneration) is of no force against the holy Children spoken of in 1 Cor. 7.14. but rathe● maketh for them, as shall be further made to appear. And all which you have said here doth not prove that the holiness of children there, is not meant of any holiness in relation to any Church-Covenant, which is the thing for which you brought it. The Infants of believers are visibly holy in relation to faith, and the holy Covenant. The unbelieving yoak-fellowes abiding with their be le●ving yoke fellows, are sanctified by them for this end; Else were their Children unclean, but now are they holy. So saith the holy Apostle Paul, (1 Cor. 7.14.) Your children are holy, that is to say, the children of you believers, (in Covenant with your God) they are the children of the Covenant, differing from those children that are unholy and out of the Covenant. But against this you argue, that what is an effect of regeneration, is not brought to pass by generation (though the parents be holy.) And I suppose, that those Merit-mongers (keeping still to their principles) may believe the contrary, I mean such Merit-mongers, who (against the Gospel of freegrace) do labour vehemently to shut out all believers infants from the new Jerusalem, Rev. 22.14, 15. and so do in their conceptions rank them with dogs and whoremongers without, and judge them not to be in the Covenant, or regenerated (because they have not a natural capability, to discern, apprehend, and both actually & verbally profess faith, in their own persons;) yea, they judge all infants to be visibly in one condition (and out of the Covenant in visibility) without putting any visible distinction between the Infants of the Church, and the Infants out of the Church. But if that which is an effect of regeneration, were to be brought to pass by generation, they might with some colour of truth, rank them all in one visible estate, (considering that they are all generated.) And then there had been no weight in the Apostles speech concerning this matter; But we are to know that the Apostle had good reason for what he said; The Master of spirits was his instructor, whose words are not to be wrested and perverted, and so made of none effect, but are discreetly to be observed, and faithfully obeyed. And though some do despise the Lords vessels of small quantity, even holy infants, the young Olive plants of believing parents, esteeming them unregenerated, yet we are taught to esteem highly of them, and to honour them as the precious Saints, whom the most high God hath regenerated, and separated to himself, as his peculiar treasure, who are justified, and sanctified, and saved by him; and therefore aught to be sealed unto him by Baptism, as such holy Infants in the time of the Law were sealed unto him by Circumcision. And you yourself do grant, that to be of the Covenant or Kingdom, is the proper effect of regeneration, Joh 3.3. without which none can see it, (much less be of it.) Consider what you say; for here you must confess, that (seeing all that see the kingdom of God are regenerated) either the Infant's of believers (which die in their infancy) are regenerated, or else that they shall never see the Kingdom of God, much less be of it; But Christ hath testified that the kingdom of heaven consisteth of such, and therefore we may safely conclude, that though they die in their infancy, yet they shall see the kingdom of God; and therefore it appeareth, that they are regenerated. What will you say now, in answer to your argument; seeing it maketh not against holy infants, but for them? Surely you will deny that they have any of the effects of regeneration, or else you will deny your own argument! or the Scripture of God, (which declareth that they are in covenant,) or else confess, that the infants of believers are to be accounted holy persons, in covenant with God, and heirs of his heavenly Kingdom, according as the holy Scripture teacheth us: one of these you will do, if silence prevent you not. Moreover, I know not how you take the being in the Covenant or Kingdom; there is a twofold being therein, to wit, external, and internal, outward, and inward; visible, and invisible, (as I observed before, concerning persons entrance into the Church.) Act. 8.13. Simon Magus believed, and was rightly baptised with the outward Baptism, therefore by consequence, he was visibly in the Covenant, even outwardly, and externally; He was an elected Saint, so far as men could or were to judge then at that present time, though his heart was not upright in the sight of God; and therefore he was not of God's Kingdom, nor in the new Covenant in Gods secret account, nor regenerated, no more than Judas Iscariot, though the Apostles themselves esteemed never so highly of him. But the Infants of believers are visibly in the Covenant. And we are to judge all that are in the Covenant visibly, to be elected, regenerated, sanctified, heirs of righteousness, children of God, and of his heavenly Kingdom, till they appear unto us, either by some visible demonstration of their own, or evident manifestation of others, or testification of Gods, not to be that which before we were to judge them to be. O mind this well, that Secret things belong unto the Lord our God, Deut. 29.29. but those things which are revealed, belong unto us and to our Children for ever. Secondly, (say you * Pag. 5. lin. 9 to lin. 19 ) Contradictions cannot be the effect of one and the selfsame Covenant, in one and the selfsame respect; but for one parent to be a believer, that is, of the Church, when the other parent is not, to produce a holy seed, (that is) in the Covenant, 1 Cor. 7.14. And for the other parents, to be one a Jew, and the other a Babylonian; the one a member of the Church, the other not, to produce an unholy seed (that is) out of the Covenant, and to be put away, both wife and all borne by her; as Ezra 10.3. (you say) is a contradiction in one and the selfsame respect. Therefore it cannot be the effect of one and the selfsame Covenant. Ans. That is a contradiction which is opposed to a contrary thing, as light is to darkness. And that is an effect which floweth from a Cause or ground. The ground why God gave Abraham the sign and seal of his righteousness, was Abraham's faith, in believing Gods Covenant; For Abraham had first the Covenant, and faith to lay hold upon it, and afterward the seal thereof. The ground why Abraham did administer Circumcision (Gods holy sign and seal of the righteousness of his faith) was faith, in believing the firmness of God's promise, Rom. 4.11. and the effectual power and efficacy of the Ordinance of Circumcision; which (Circumcision) had the denomination of the Covenant itself * Gen. 17.10. , because it was a sign thereof. * Ver. 11. I say, Abraham's action of Circumcision was done in faith, otherwise it had been sin unto him * Rom. 14.23. . But he added unto his faith this virtue, (this effect of the New covenant) to yield obedience unto God, in performance of this holy Ordinance upon his infants, according to God's appointment. Baptism (being come in the room of Circumcision) though it be more general, yet it hath an equivolence with Circumcision; Col. 2.11, 12. Wherefore (it being not contradictory thereunto, but sealing up one and the same Covenant of life.) As Circumcision was to be administered upon the infants of believers in former time, so Baptism is to be administered upon the infants of believers now. Now though every contradiction, argueth a difference, yet every difference, maketh not a contradiction. But to restrain (or lessen) the privileges of the Saints (under the Gospel) is not only to make one Covenant contradictory to another, but also the New covenant contradictory to itself, which is not of a fading nature, but of a flourishing nature, and hath flourished, (and doth flourish) more under the Gospel, than it did under the Law. Wherefore if you do conceive, that 1 Cor. 7.14. is of a lesser extent than Ezra 10.3. you are mistaken; but if you will say. 1 Cor. 7.14. is of a larger extent. Wherefore have you brought Ezra 10.3. to unfold it? Except it be to prove forcibly hereby (against yourself,) how that all believers infants generally of what Nation soever, have greater privileges now, since Christ's death, than they have had heretofore. As for the second part of your Argument (considering that it wanteth explanation one way, and proof another way) it will not stand you in any stead, to prove what you would have it prove, (to wit) that the holiness spoken of (1 Cor. 7.14.) is not a holiness in relation to any Church-Covenant. Indeed, if you had set it down thus; That for one parent to be a believer, and the other an unbeliever, to produce a holy seed in covenant, and the same parents remaining in the same estate without alteration, to bring forth an unholy seed, and out of the Covenant; is a contradiction in one and the selfsame respect. Or thus. For one parent to be a believer, and another parent to be an unbeliever, to produce a holy seed. And for the like parents in the same respects, to produce an unholy seed, is a contradiction in one and the selfsame respect. If you had reasoned thus, and so proved it, than you had done somewhat like to your undertake, but in speaking generally of parents, in covenant, and out of covenant, without noting in particular, the difference that was between these sanctified & unbelieving wives (mentioned in 1 Cor. 7.14) and those unbelieving wives (mentioned in Ezra 10.3.) (who were not then sanctified to believers for that purpose) you even lose yourself. But you say, it is a contradiction in one and the selfsame respects, and have not explained nor declared what it is a contradiction of; whether of the New covenant, or of the old covenant, or of both covenants: Therefore declare plainly, what covenant you think this divorcement in Ezra to be an effect of? Was it an effect of the New covenant, or of the old? you may know, that neither covenants did allow them to marry those cursed persons. You ought also to mind, that one Israelite might be divorced from another Israelite, in the time of the Law; and this precept was granted and written them by Moses, (Deut. 24.1.) for the hardness of their hearts, (Mat. 10.5.) But this (in Ezra 10.) was not a bare grant, but an absolute command; not barely permitted (or granted) unto them, for the hardness of their hearts, there is more in it then so. For those wicked persons in whom they formerly took delight, they were forceably to put away, & it was not left to their liberty, whether they would put them away or no, but it was an injunction laid upon them, under penalty of God's curse; for they perceived Gods heavy wrath was hanging over their heads, ready to seize upon them, unless there were some speedy redress. And it evidently appeareth, that you have not well read (or considered) the Scripture, for if you had, you would soon have seen a great and weighty reason, pressing these sons of God to put away these daughters of men, and those unholy children borne of them, for they (in uniting themselves thus unto them) had made themselves one with them; yea, they had made themselves one with the abominable Nations (as appeareth by Ezra 9.1 compared with Deut. 7.26.) An accursed thing, like the accursed thing; And did not separate themselves from the people of these Lands, doing according to their abominations. And therefore there was a special cause why the children of those Idolaters, (in Ezra. 10.3.) should be put away, They were not visibly holy; the wives were not sanctified unto them, to bring forth a visible holy seed. The holy seed was mixed: But the Apostle saith to the believers, in 1 Cor. 7, 13, 14, 15. That the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; Else were your children unclean, but now are they holy. But if the unbelieving depart, let him departed. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases, but God hath called us to peace. Now we are to take the holiness and unholiness, to be a holiness and unholiness in reference to visibility; for those that were holy visibly, might be unholy invisibly; and those that were unholy, invisibly, might be holy visibly. But the Saints of God were not to judge any holy, except they had cause so to do, and ground of persuasion arising from some visible demonstration, either from God, or from men, according to the direction of the Word. The visible holiness of these holy children of believers, here specified, arose from their visible being in covenant & from the sanctification of the unbelieving yoak-fellows to their believing yoak-fellows. The spiritual uncleanness or unholiness which the unholy children had, was in reference to visibility; & so when he speaketh of holy children, proceeding from a sanctified wife, he hath reference to visibility; the unbelievers are sanctified to the believers, else were the children unclean, but now are they holy; to wit, in visibility; for the ground of the children's visible holiness was, first, from the parents being visibly in covenant; Secondly, from the infants being his children, against whom there was no exceptions, they being conceived by such a wife, who did not departed from him; and therefore the children are visibly holy; Thus when the Vines are visibly of the Vine of Sodom and of the fields of Gomorrha, the grapes are visibly the grapes of gall, and their clusters are bitter * Deut. 32.32. ; but when the wife is visibly as a fruitful Vine by the house-side of him that feareth the Lord, the children are (to be esteemed) as Olive plants ** Psa. 128.3.4 . A. R. Thirdly, (say you * Pag 5. lin. 19 to lin. 35. ) It appears from the Jewish Church-state, from whence this successive holiness and being in the Covenant is concluded to come. The Prosolyte that was to be brought in, was to circumcise all his males, Exod. 12.48. Where we may conclude, that his females were included in that time in the males, there being (say you) no other ordinance of admission for them; Whence (you say) it will follow, that if the Jews Church-state, from whence (you affirm) this succession of being in the Covenant is derived) doth not admit in any consideration of any lawful being of parents, the one a member of the Church, the other not, to produce a seed within the old Covenant, that then such a thing under the new Covenant, cannot be concluded to proceed from that rule, but (you affirm) the former is true from the ground before laid, and that therefore the later is also true, and if not from that rule, then from none, But not from that by consequence of the former argument, therefore from none. Ans. This is set down obscurely, You say * Lin. 19, 20, 21. , It appears from the Jewish state, from whence this successive holiness and being in the Covenant is concluded to come? What successive holiness? and what being? and what Covenant do you here mean? and who are they that make this conclusion? It hath been proved before, that the people of Israel had two Covenants * See before pag. 39 , one established with Abraham * Gen 17. , another long after at Mount Sinai * Gal. 3.17. ; But for Confirmation of your speech, you say * Lin. 21, 22, 23. ; The Prosolyte that was to be brought in, was to circumcise all his males, Exod. 12.48. Where we may conclude, that his females were included in that time in the males, there being (say you) no other ordinance of admission for them. Ans. You spoke before of a successive holiness: But what holiness was this which the Prosolytes had, that were never on the Church before? Was this a successive holiness? Surely this doth not import any other holiness, but what is by faith in Christ; Wherefore you may see that you have not rightly applied this place of Scripture to prove your successive holiness: It was faith professed by the parent that brought in his seed with him; it was not his being circumcised, but his belief, which was always to go before, even as faith now is to go before Baptism, and to be professed before a man, or his seed, is to be admitted to the ordinance of Baptism. Now the Prosolytes were to circumcise all their males. But we do not read that the Lord did command the Prosolites to put away their unbelieving wives, they being married unto them before, (even when they were Heathens) but they might still retain them, and have children by them, capable of the ordinance of Circumcision. Whereas you speak of admission, I think you mean admission to the Passeover, for they made themselves one with the people of God, by believing the promises of God, which thing they were to do before they were circumcised, and circumcision was administered afterwards, for the sealing and confirming of that faith before professed. Now how you understand, that the females were included in the males. I know not. Whether do you mean in his male children, or some other males? If you say, they were included in his male children; Then I put the case, that he had no males; how then? were his females included in the males that were not?! But your speech, (in charity) may have this construction, That seeing the Lord did command the Prosolyte to circumcise his male children, that very command did intimate that his female children were in the Covenant, and according to their capability to assent to God's ordinance, that it was good & holy, though they were not to receive it, yet had a right to whatsoever came in stead thereof. And this being not to be received by them actively, it must needs be construed that they were employed imputatively: This than was a great privilege; for without this imputative holiness, they could not be numbered * Isa. 4 3. among the living in Jerusalem, but rather counted among the uncircumcised Philistians, neither could they without this imputativenesse be admitted to receive the Lords Passeover * Exod. 12.43, 44.47. ? which was a figure of our blessed Saviour Jesus Christ our Passeover, which is sacrificed for us * 1 Cor. 5.7. . But from hence you collect a supposition, and upon your supposition you ground a position, Your position is, That if the Jews Church state (from whence (you would have us take notice that you say) this succession and being in the covenant is derived) doth not admit in any consideration of any lawful being of parents, the one a member of the Church, the other not to produce a seed within the old Covenant, your position (grounded upon this supposition) is, that then such a thing under the new Covenant, cannot be concluded to proceed from that rule. Now, it would be known, what you mean by parents, whether you mean any parents whatsoever! or but some only; for it doth not follow, that because some were not admitted, that therefore no unbelievers were allowed to abide with their believing yoak-fellowes, for producing of a holy seed in Covenant. But let us see what proof you have, upon which you ground your supposition and persuasion. The former is true (say you) from the ground before laid, and therefore the latter is also true. To which I answer; I know not (in particular) what ground you here mean! but this may suffice that what you have before laid, is answered fully before. But because you think the former to be true, therefore you conclude, the later is also true; and (further you say) if not from that rule, then from none; But not from that by consequence of the former argument, therefore from none. Now, I know not what you mean by these words, Do you mean that the former, and later of this your argument is true, from that Rule, and if not from that Rule, then from none; but not from that, by consequence of the former Argument, therefore from none! Surely you are out here, on either side! Neither do I know what Rule you mean, nor what, nor whose Argument you mean: Do you mean by that Rule, a Rule of Scripture; or only some position grounded upon Scripture; you should know that Ezra 10 3. will not bear out your position, neither will any tittle of Scripture else; for though the Jews were to put away these wives there mentioned, yet it doth not follow (as you would infer) that therefore the Church of the Jews allowed not in any consideration, of any lawful being of some parents (the one a member of the Church, the other not, to produce a holy seed within the old Covenant,) (though they allowed not of other some.) And therefore your Argument, both suppositive and positive, together with the ground, is fallen to the ground, and maketh nothing against holy Infants being visibly in the Covenant with their believing parents. You should know that it is evil to make any Conclusion, [from any Scripture] which is not concluded thereby, or included therein. But that the Jews Church state allowed in no consideration of no lawful being together of parents, the one a member of the Church, the other not, [to produce a holy seed in Covenant;] is not concluded thereby, nor included therein; therefore it is evil to make such a Conclusion therefrom. But if you mean by Rule, the Rule of Scripture, 1 Cor. 7.14. or Exod. 12.48. You may know, that all this maketh nothing for your purpose neither; but is also directly against you. Now whereas you lay down, a positive argument, [to confirm your former speeches,] and cross the same, by saying, and if not from that rule, then from none, but not from that, etc. therefore from none. I suppose it is some oversight; Wherefore, I intent not to wade any further to find out the depth of it, till I see an explanation thereof from you. But in the mean time, I will give you my conceptions further, concerning Exod. 12.48 (which is the Scripture cited here by you) and so leave it to your consideration. God commanded the Prosolyte, to Circumcise all his males, Exod. 12.48. (to wit) all his male Infants (and all those males in his house, who in sincere affection, did desire the ordinance of Circumcision) though his wife (the mother of those Infants) were neither Jew nor Prosolyte. And his male Infants [which he had by that woman] were (of necessity) to be circumcised [in their infancy] and not to be reckoned without, but within the Church of Israel. Exod. 12.48. For we read that the Lord commanded him to circumcise all his males; but did not enjoin him to put away his wife, (which he had before his Conversion) though she were no believer. Marriage being honourable amongst all men, Heb. 13.8. Shall we think they were to break it? An honourable marriage according to God's ordinance, dissolved without any just cause, or weighty ground, was a derogating from the first institution thereof; and such a thing which we never read, that God commanded or allowed the Prosolytes to do; though their wives could not be persuaded to become Prosolytes. Mat. 5.31, 32. & 19.8, 9 Yea, and though Christ himself (in some case) doth allow that a man may put away his wife; and Paul declareth the same in effect, when he saith, If the unbeliever will not abide; a brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases (but God hath called us unto peace.) Yea, and although such a divorce, doth not argue a hardheartedness in the party offended, nor was condemned (but allowed of) in Christ's time (though it were done after the manner of Moses) yet touching other divorces, Mar. 10.5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 which proceeded from a hardheartedness, Christ did not allow of such, but saith, from the beginning it was not so * Mat. 19.8. . And therefore we are not to imagine, that the Lord did command or enjoin the Prosolytes (in the time of the Law) to break the bond of matrimony; by dissolving that marriage which once was honourable, neither ought we to think, that the conversion, or faith of the one parent, made the marriage which before was honourable, any more the dishonourable; and if it did not, than we may lawfully conclude, that they needed not to be married over again, or separated the one from the other by divorcement, so long as the unbelievers were content to abide with their believing yoak-fellowes, but that they were rather to remain together in love and amity, and bring forth a holy seed in Covenant, such a seed who were in their infancy to be ranked with the Israelites holy infants. So for the Prosolytes to claim the privileges of the Jews holy offspring for his own Infants, though borne of an unbeliever, was no sin in him, nor contradiction of the new Covenant of God, but the effect of one and the selfsame Covenant, he being commanded to circumcise them, even all his male Infants, in which you yourself grant that the females were included in that time. Now I conceive, that if any of the Prosolytes daughters at his entrance in, did refuse to come in, she could not be compelled violently, but was still, as she remained so to be esteemed without, and numbered not amongst the living in Jerusalem, but the dead in Palestina. And therefore by the same rule, if any of his male children, (who were at years of discretion) would not be content to come in with his father, as his father was to reckon him among the uncircumcised, so was he not to circumcise him, nor compel him to be circumcised, till he submitted voluntarily; yet if this Prosolyte had male infants, borne of her that was sanctified to him, though she did not sanctify him, he was to circumcise them, and to rank his holy infants (both male and female) among the circumcised Salemites; and to put such a real difference between them and his disobedient children; as between holy and profane, as between members of the Church, and not of the Church; as between circumcised Israelites, and uncircumcised Philistines. And so the holy Apostle Paul, 1 Cor. 7.14. teacheth all believers to esteem such Children holy; and directly opposite to those Children, whose unbelieving parents are not so much as sanctified to any believer, for procreating a holy seed: and therefore the Infants of one, or both believing parents, are to be esteemed holy; and it is a sin to rank them with those infants, whose parents are not any one of them in Covenant with God, or at least so to be esteemed; for we have nothing to do with secret things, which belong only unto God; but things revealed we are to look into, and so to judge of the tree by the fruit; and in doing thus, we shall not do amiss, or commit sin, because we so judge, though things fall out afterward contrary to our former expectation, since those persons declare themselves otherwise then before they did; or that God discover them unto us to be otherwise, than we were formerly to esteem them. But to this objection, * Pag. 5. lin. 34 A. R. That they are here termed holy, and are so to be esteemed. You answer. * Pag. 5. lin. 36, 37, 38. That so were the unbelieving Jews, when they were broken off, Rom. 11.16. and so is the unbelieving wife in this place; yet neither of these are to be baptised for their being termed holy; and therefore not Children for their being here termed holy. To which I answer, that you do not observe the scope of the Apostles words, for he would not have us to judge, that those are holy in visibility, who are visibly Apostated, and are cut off; for the Apostle speaking of the Apostate Jew's, saith, What shall their receiving be but life from the dead * Vers. 15. ? For (saith he) if the first fruits be holy, so is the whole lump; and if the root be holy; so are the branches * Vers. 26. . Intimating, that those branches are visibly holy, which abide in the Vine, and Olive tree, and receive nourishment from, and are borne up of the root; Ver. 17. And the Apostle declareth that those unbelieving Jews were broken off, and were not then partaker of that benefit which the believing Gentiles had, by being grafted in (in stead of the Jews) and so made partaker of the root and fatness of the Olive tree: Ver. 18. yea, & further, the Apostle declareth the cause of the Jews cutting off, namely, unbelief; Through unbelief they are broken off; Ver. 19 and therefore he exhorteth the believing Gentiles not to be highminded, Ver. 20. but to fear; Ver. 21. and to take heed, and to behold the bountifulness, and severity of God: Toward them which have fallen; Ver. 22. Severity; but (saith he) towards thee bountifulness, if thou continue in his bountifulness; or else thou shalt be cut off. And they also, Ver. 23. if they abide not still in unbelief, shallbe grafted in: for God is able to graft them in. So than it appeareth that the Apostle doth teach us, that their abiding on the Olive tree, doth demonstrate them to be holy, (in the appearance of men.) Howbeit, those are holy, (in the sight of God) who shall be saved, though they are not (known unto men to be) holy, but aught to be esteemed unholy in visibility. So the incestuous person of the Church of Corinth, (when he was cut off from them) was by the Church to be esteemed unholy, in visibility; but afterward, when he repent, he was then to be esteemed holy by those persons who formerly (and rightly according to visibility) esteemed him unholy, even at the time when he fell from his steadfastness. And so it is said, * Isa. 4.3. that he that is left in mount Zion, and in Jerusalem, shall be called holy, even every one that is written amongst the living in Jerusalem: So it appeareth, that till we see them to be of the number of those, who are in mount Zion, and in Jerusalem, we are not to esteem them holy: What they are in God's secret account, his sacred Majesty knoweth; but the revealed will of God hath directed us, not to call those visibly holy, who are visibly unholy, (as all visible unbelievers are,) nor are we to esteem those unholy outwardly, who are outwardly holy (as all visible believers are) for the Apostle putteth a difference between branch and branch; between visible believers, and visible unbelievers; as we must do between the members of the visible Church, and those that Apostate therefrom, and are cut off. But the holy children of believers (in their infancy) cannot justly be said to Apostate from God or to degenerate from that heavenly state, and holy olive tree, in which they are by faith engrafted, and therefore well might the Apostle teach us, that we are to esteem them holy. Whereas you say, so is the unbelieving wife in this place. I Ans. It is not so, The Apostle saith not, that the unbelieving wife of the believer is holy, but sanctified, but he declareth that the children are holy. And as for the baptising of such branches (that are broken off before they are grafted in again, or the unbelieving wife, before she be a believer) we plead not; but allege the contrary; for they are not visibly holy, as you would infer, but they are unholy in visibility, and are not to be esteemed as written among the living in Jerusalem, but as dead in sins and trespasses, till they repent, and believe, and live thereby; and so the Apostle saith, Rom. 11.15. What shall the receiving of the unbelieving Jews be, but life from the dead; But so long as they are spiritually dead, they are not to be esteemed holy, nor reckoned among the living in Jerusalem * Rev. 22.15. . For as such unbelievers were not meet to be members of the visible Church, in the time of the Law, no more are they meet to be members of the visible Church, in the time of the Gospel; for as the Church of God, both was, and is a spiritual holy Church, so it hath refused (and doth and aught to refuse) all those persons that a●e not living stones, holy, and spiritual; for holiness (saith David) becometh thine house, O Lord, for ever. Psal. 103.5. Next, you rehearse a question, What holiness it here meant to the Children? To which you answer, That it is not that holiness that accompanieth faith: and such holiness only is available to the admittance into the state of the Gospel, and to have right to Baptism. To which I answer, that it is to be taken for that holiness that accompanieth faith, and therefore it is available to admit them into the state of the Gospel, and giveth them visible right to Baptism; and this may appear unto you from the Apostles testimony, which declareth that if one of the parents be a believer, the children are holy, different from those unclean children whose parents are neither holy, nor sanctified to the holy, to produce a holy seed; and therefore I conclude, that we are to account the Infants of believers to have that holiness upon them, which accompanieth faith, and giveth them visible right to Baptism; & they are to be judged to be of the number of Gods elect, as really, as those, are to be judged, who profess faith, and manifest obedience in their own persons. And it is further to be minded, that visible Saints, who make a verbal profession, and walk holily in outward appearance, though we cannot infallibly tell whether they have faith or no, they are to be baptised, And we are not to dream that we can discern internally in men, seeing God only knoweth the heart, and no man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of a man that is in him; yet where we see a holy verbal profession, and a life and conversation annexed thereunto, and correspondent therewith, outwardly, though the inward qualifications be not according to the requiring of the Word, yet we are to judge them to have that internal true holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord, and also that the Lord hath admitted them into the fellowship of his Son Jesus, and into the state of his Gospel, and that they are as lively precious stones, as living fruitful plants, and therefore are to be accounted to have as much right to Baptism, as he that manifesteth more holiness. So it is said of Simon magus, Acts 8.13. that he also believed, and was baptised, and yet afterwards when he manifested evil fruits, Peter said unto him * Ver. 21.22.23. Note though Simon Magus was in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity, yet he was said before to believe, and was baptised; And now since, Peter biddeth him repent, etc. Which doth plainly show, that Peter knew not then but that he might be saved. , Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter; for thine heart is not right in the sight of God. Repent, etc. for I perceive that thou art in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity. And therefore we are to baptise those whom we are to judge to have holiness internally, though in God's sight they have it not; That is to say, Those that have holiness outwardly, are to be admitted into the outward visible state, and are to have the outward Baptism; they being to be judged to have the inward graces; as the holy children of believers have in visibility, and so are to be esteemed in the judgement of charity; which thinketh no evil. But what is the reason why you think, that the holiness ascribed by the Apostle to the children of believers, is not that holiness that accompanieth faith; Is it because they cannot work? Is it so indeed?! I tell you, that the Scripture teacheth us, that those that are of the faith, (though they cannot work) the same are the children of Abraham a Gal. 3.7. , and that the children of the promise are counted for the seed b Gal. 4.28. , and that Isaac was a child of promise in his infancy c Ver. 28, 29, 30, 31. ; And that faith and works are different things d Rom. 4.2.4. ; And therefore though the holy children of believers cannot work yet the Lord imputeth righteousness unto them e Psal. 32.1, 2. Rom. 4.6. Gen. 17.11. Rom. 4.11. without works; And yet we are to mind f Phil. 2.12. , that the Lord would not have his people to cease from working and to be idle, so long as they are able to work. But when they have neither will, skill, nor ability, (as many a visible Saint that is in years may want, and yet be no Covenant-breaker) than the Lord accepteth of them, and imputeth his righteousness unto them, as if they had done all the holy works which ever were done in the world, by any, who were imputed righteous. God is a wise God, and knoweth that his Saints can do nothing without him, nor act further than they have capability, therefore in his mercy he exacteth no more. Good in his wisdom knew that the Infants of believers were capable of passive Ordinances, and therefore he instituted the same to be imposed upon them, and administered unto them; But as for active ordinances which they could not perform, nor had natural capability to do, God did not require it at their hands, no more than he did require the Proselytes females to be circumcised, who (as you say) were employed in the males. And this doth in no way eclipse the Glory of Christ's mediatorship, but advanceth the free Grace of God, and the righteousness of Christ, far above all the works in the world. But to affirm that the infants of believers have not the true holiness, which accompanieth faith, is (in a manner) to darken the Glorious Sun of Righteousness, and the light of his Gospel, with a meritorious smoke of corrupt doctrine, arising out of the bottomless pit of sorry man's deceitful heart. But let us hear what you say further for confirmation of your affirmation. True it is, that in the time of the Law, and state of the Jews, A. R. Pag. 6. lin. 5. and old Covenant, there were some fiderally, and outwardly holy, and outwardly unclean, and then all men, yea, all things in the world, were distinguished by this kind of holiness: So the uncircumcised were then unholy, and they of the Circumcision holy, and might not accompany with the other, Act. 11.3. And accordingly had they their outward washings and purifications, for these their outward pollutions: all which were but typical things, and all these and such like distinctions are now abolished with that State, and quite taken away out of the world by the coming of Christ; and this is evident by Peter's vision, Act. 10.11. etc. expounded by himself in the 28. verse, where he saith, That God had showed him, that he should not call any man polluted or unclean: Whence it is clear, that now all men in the world are as clean as the Circumcised, and those as polluted in the Gospel-sense as any other; for now all are as one and alike in Christ Jesus, as may appear by these Texts, Rom. 10.11. Col. 3.11. Gal. 3.28. & 5.6. And as none then without this legal and outward holiness, aught to partake of those legal performances and worship, nor be admitted thereunto, without being first circumcised in the flesh, and so made legally holy, Exod. 12.48. So now none are acceptable, or aught to partake of the Gospel, worship and ordinances, without the Circumcision of Christ, which is of the heart and spirit, Col. 2.11. Rom. 2.28, 29. And thiderward spiritual truth, was typified by that outward fleshly shadow: Hence therefore I will conclude, that the Apostle meant no such kind of holiness in this place, for the believers children to have. Nor is there any such kind of holiness now in the world amongst men, nor is this or any other kind of holiness (save only that true holiness that accompanies the new creature) available to Baptism. To which I Answer. All this which you have said here, maketh nothing against the infants of believing parents, forasmuch as they are declared to be holy now under the Gospel. 1 Cor. 7.14. The cessation of the ceremonies of the old law, pleadeth their divine right to whatsoever came in stead thereof, considering that Christ came not to impoverish them, but to enrich them; If he took away any ordinance from them, which was typical, he left them that which is substantial; And the like we may say, concerning the outward holiness ceremonial, which had still relation to the covenant and Church of God; which if it were taken from them, shall we think they were left so naked, and bare, that they had not as substantial holiness, as they had before; God doth not do by holy men, as thiefs do by honest men; even strip them of their ornaments, and so leave them to shift for themselves, and get other where they can. But our heavenly Father, careth for all his children in a special manner, both for great and small, for young as well as old. He taketh nothing from them, which he knoweth is profitable to them, or beneficial for them; but giveth them as great, if not greater in stead thereof; If he know they have a necessity of it, it is his will and pleasure they should not be debarred from it. And therefore seeing baptism is come in stead of circumcision; as holy infants than were to be circumcised, so holy infants are now to be baptised; And as God declared unto Abraham, saying, that such infants must needs * Gen. 17.13. be circumcised; so we may know (that baptism being come in the room of circumcision) such infants must needs be baptised. And therefore as holy infants than had need of a Saviour to come, and therefore were circumcised, in token that Christ was theirs; so holy infants now have need of Christ come, and therefore are to be baptised in token that Christ is theirs also. And may the circumcised accompany now with the uncircomcised▪ yea surely; and this is a great plea for holy infants being in covenant, and doth really signify, that it is a visible spiritual holiness which differenceth them now from heathen infants; considering that God never taketh from his people any thing which differenceth them from other people, but he leaveth them the substance of that type, which substance doth difference them spiritually now; Therefore the Lord calleth his people (now under the Gospel) to come out from among the Idolatrous heathens, and to separate themselves, and not to touch the unclean thing, 2 Cor. 6.17, 18. and promiseth that he will be a Father unto them, and that they shall be his sons and daughters; That is to say, that as he was a father to the families of the Jews, who were separated from strangers, so likewise is he a Father to the families of the separated Gentiles, who obey his voice; and as God did graciously accept of the infants of believers, who were separated from Idolaters then; so doth he accept of the infants of believers, who are separated from idolaters now; I will, saith he, be a father unto you. Now he that is a father * Isa. 22.21. to the Inhabitants of Jerusalem, and the house of Judah, he * Ver. 24. beareth the holy offspring, & the blessed Issue; even all the glorious vessels of small quantity. Despise not therefore the infants of believers, for though in quantity they are small, yet in quality, they are excellent, therefore suffer the little infants to come unto Christ, Luk 18.16. and forbidden them not, for of such is the Kingdom of Heaven. And therefore considering that they have that holiness, which acompanieth faith, and are in the state of the Gospel, they have right to baptism, as the holy infants of the Jews (in the time of the law) had right to circumcision. And true it is that in the time of the Law, there were some fiderally and outwardly holy * This is to be understood of a ceremonial holiness, for the members of the visible Church now, are outwardly holy (that is to say) in visibility, without which we ought not to esteem them holy inwardly. . But they were members of the Church; And it doth not argue, that (because they had ceremonial holiness) therefore they were not spiritual in visibility; the contrary rather appeareth from what hath been before observed. Again, you should consider, * Leu. 5.3, 4, 5. that there were some who were spiritually clean, and yet in respect of bodily diseases were unclean; for we are not to think that every one that were defiled in their bodies, by touching of dead folks, or unclean persons, that had issues, or leprosy, (or the like) were therefore defiled in their souls, or rend thereby out of the Covenant, or that they ceased therefore to be visible members of the Church: No surely; * Leu. 4. & 5. & 6. But yet we are to know, that those who did any of these things presumptuously were guilty, so that nothing could purify them without repentance, yea, when any sinned but ignorantly, & knowing it, neglected to bring their trespass offering, their sin was increased, & they were to bear their iniquity, for remission whereof, more was required then before; yea, if a person were outwardly polluted accidentally (though he did not defile himself by any act of his,) he was to be cleansed according to the law of God * Leu. 14. ●. , which thing if he did not endeavour to do, it was his sin, and surely it could not then be taken away by any outward washing, without repentance, See Leu. 17.16 and labouring to do that which he should have done before; which ceremonial cleansings and purifications, were to lead them to Christ, who was then to be manifested in the flesh, and a Saviour to save them from their sins, which the blood of bulls, and goats, and outward washings could not do away * Heb. 10.4. ; no more than the outward Baptism, and the Lords Supper, (Gods holy and blessed Ordinances) will take away our sins now; for Christ's blood is only effectual for this purpose * Rev. 2.5. Heb. 10.5. & 8.14. ; he is the Lamb of God which taketh away the sins of the world. Joh. 1.29. But our chief point is not here about ceremonial circumstantial shadows; for we all grant, that the ceremonies of the old law are ceased. And to argue that (because they were then subject to legal pollution, and some of them had it,) that therefore they had not the inward and spiritual cleanness, is a vain and groundless thing so to think; for the Good Lord was merciful unto every one that prepared his heart to seek the Lord, the Lord God of his Fathers, though he were not cleansed according to the purification of the Sanctuary; * 2 Chro. 30.18, 19 They had not time to purify themselves, yet they did eat of the Passeover. that is, though he had not that outward purification which you speak of. And their purifications and washings (which you mention * Pag. 6. lin. 11. ) they were to teach them the benefit which they had and were to have spiritually by Jesus Christ. Their circumcision of the flesh * Gen. 17.10, 11. Rom. 4.11. also, was to teach them the Circumcision of the heart * Deut. 10.16. ; all which circumstantial Ordinances, though they are ceased, yet we have the substance of them in other Ordinances, and that outwardly. And further, it is to be minded (concerning the people of Israel) that their conformity unto the Laws of God, did really demonstrate unto men, that they were spiritually holy; and so now the conformity of God's people, to the Laws of God, doth give sufficient demonstration of their holiness in the sight of men, whereby they are to judge them to be communicable persons in a spiritual way. And though the uncircumcised were then unholy, (as you speak * Pag. 6. lin. 9 ) yet they were such uncircumcised, who were not to be judged circumcised in their hearts; and though persons than were circumcised both in heart, and flesh, and did yield universal obedience to God's commands, See Leu. 14.8. yet through some accident they might have a kind of ceremonial defilement, and yet retain their visible holiness still. You should also mind, that the people of Israel (after the Law was given in Mount Sinai) many of them, were uncircumcised in flesh * Josh. 5.5. , yet they were (at the time of their uncircumcision) a holy, peculiar people unto God, and none were like unto them * Deut. 7.6. & 26.18, 19 & 33.29. , and therefore your alleging that there was a difference between the circumcised, and the uncircumcised, and that the circumcised Israelites might not then company with the uncircumcised Heathens, is of no force against this truth, even, that the Infants of believers have that holiness which accompanieth faith; Some uncircumcised persons might be accompanied with, and some Circumcised persons might not be accompanied with. for though circumcised persons were not to accompany with the uncircumcised, yet it was meant of those uncircumcised persons, who were aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the Covenants of promise; and not of those who were then members of the Church of God; and therefore it was not meant of all uncircumcised persons; for then the parents should not have kept company with their Infants, before they were circumcised, but were to deliver them to other uncircumcised persons, to keep till the eight day, wherein they were circumcised; And then the uncircumcised believing Gentiles were not to be circumcised, by the circumcised, but by the uncircumcised: Which to dream, is mere foolishness; and therefore it appeareth that your Collections have no footing against holy infants. To the point then; Seeing that the Infants of believers, though uncircumcised, might be accompanied with (in the time of their uncircumcision) and that by the circumcised: It evidently showeth, that there was a great difference between them, and the heathen Infants of uncircumcised unbelievers. And seeing the uncircumcised infants of believers, might be lawfully accompanied with, and were different then from unbelievers, it is apparent that they were holy then, though uncircumcised. And seeing that believers infants (though uncircumcised) were holy in the time of the Law, and distinguished by their holiness from the Infants of unbelievers; and seeing that Jesus Christ is still one, and the same; and that the ceremonial holiness is ceased; it plainly argueth, that when the Apostle Paul ●aketh (in 1 Cor. 7.14.) of the holy children of believers, had by a sanctified wife; he meaneth such a holiness which is not ceased, but remaineth permanent, and doth visibly demonstrate those persons who have it, to have right to Baptism. And as Circumcision did not give faith to the Infants of the Church, nor add the Infants of the Church to the Church, (no more than any other person) but rather confirm them in it. So Baptism now, doth not bring regeneration (or faith) unto such, (or unto any other persons) as many fond imagine, neither doth it add them to the Church, but rather confirm them therein. Touching Peter vision, which you mention Pag. 6. lin. 15. , that God shown him, that he should not call any man polluted or unclean. It is good to understand in what sense it is spoken; for we may rightly ca●l all the visible members of Antichrist polluted, let them be what they will be, high or low, great or small; though they have, and usurp the ordinances of God, yet they are polluted persons so long as they remain in that estate; (even as the Apostates in the time of the Law, though they usurped circumcision, and other Ordinances, yet they were polluted persons) and these remaining in that sinful estate, they are not clean, neither legally nor evangelically. To your inference * Lin. 8. , (from Act. 10.13.) I answer, That in the Gospel sense; those that are separated from Idolatry, and those that are Idolaters, are not all one in Christ Jesus; for how can any be said to be in Christ, so long as they are visibly out of Christ? Wherefore it is to be understood, that as the wicked, of whatsoever Nation, degree, or sex they be, Rom. 2.8, 9 Rev. 22.15. are all one out of Christ; so, on the contrary, the Saints of God, of whatsoever Nation, degree, or sex they be, are all one in Christ, Rom. 10.11.12.13. Gal. 3.28. & 5.6. And this showeth us to put a visible distinction between those who are visibly holy, and those that are not. But the infant● of believers, are visibly holy (as hath been proved before) and therefore we are to judge them in Christ, and one with him, members of his mystical body, and different from those who are not visibly holy, but are out of the Covenant. Whereas you say * Pag. 6. li. 25, 26, 27. , that so now none are acceptable, or aught to partake of the Gospel, worship, and ordinances, without the Circumcision of Christ, which is of the heart and Spirit. I answer, That one ought to be baptised, before they are circumcised, or washed spiritually in the heart, (at least so far as may be discerned by men) neither aught any to presume without the inward, and outward Baptism, to lay hands upon the rest of the holy institutions of God, which properly and peculiarly are tied to the Church. And the Proselytes, or believing Gentiles in the time of the Law, before they were circumcised in the flesh, they were to be circumcised in their hearts; and before they did partake of the Passeover, (a figure of Christ's body) they and their holy seed were to be * Exod. 12.48. circumcised in flesh, as well as in heart; which participation in the Ordinances then, was not to be limited only to the outward fleshly shadow, no more than our partaking of Baptism, or the Lord's Supper now, aught to be only limited to the outward elements, of Water, Bread, and Wine. But as for the Infants of believers, they ought to be judged to have the circumcision of Christ, which is of the heart and Spirit, (as hath been formerly proved, and shall be further showed,) and therefore it is apparent, that they are acceptable, and may lawfully have the Ordinance of Baptism imposed upon them; for they being proved to be members of the visible Church of Christ, it appeareth, that they are to be judged in Christ, and new creatures, and that therefore the true holiness accompanieth them, And this being so, what then will follow, but that according to your own confession, they have right to Baptism. Further you say; If it be objected, that in respect of Justification, Pag. 6. lin. 3● it availeth nothing, but to Baptism it may. To this you Answer Lin. 37. to Pag. 7. , That that which availeth to Justification and salvation, doth according to the Rule, only avail to Baptism; for if thou believest with all thy heart, thou art justified, Act. 13.39. and shalt be saved, Act. 16.31. and mayest be baptised upon the same, and no other grounds, Act. 8.37. To which I Answer; As is the objection, so is your answer, without distinction: for there is a difference between justification in the sight of God, and justification in the sight of men; By the Word persons must be justified, and by the Word they must be condemned. All those persons who are outwardly holy, may be justified in the sight and apprehension of men, & aught to be baptised upon this ground, though their heart (known only to God) be (like the heart of Simon Magus) not upright in the sight of God. But the holy Word of God, is our Rule whereby we are to judge both believers and their infants (now under the Gospel) to be in covenant, regenerated, sanctified, and adopted unto God; the children of the promise in their infancy (as the infants of believers were in former time.) And upon this very ground, the Infants of believers now may lawfully be baptised, as the infants of believers (who were members of the Church in the time of the Law) were lawfully circumcised. To the objection * Pag. 7. lin. 1, 2. , That all that were baptised by the Apostles themselves, were not saved, etc. You answer. And say * Lin. 3. to lin. 15. you do grant, that all baptised by the Apostles were not saved, and yet deny the consequence, by distinguishing between the rule, by which they are to be baptised, (which is infallible) and the judgements of men, who are failable, and may be deceived in applying this rule; but it follows not, but that the rule being of God, is still as infallible as God himself is; for all that believe, shall be saved (which is true as God himself is true) yet all who are judged by believers to believe, do not believe, and therefore are not saved. This failing then here is not in the rule, but in their judgements, who are but men, and can judge only in the outward appearance, (by their f vits ye shall know them) Mat. 7.16 And cannot judge as God, who only knoweth the heart, 1 Sam. 16.17. Jer 17.10. Ans. Though this by construction, may be without contradiction, yet it may have a little further explanation, thus: That though the Saints do judge by the infallible rule, concerning persons, yet if they altar their judgement, according as the persons alter, they sinn● not in the alteration of their opinion, because the infallible rule doth still guide their judgements: As for instance: The infallible rule, doth direct our judgements to look upon all the members of the visible Church, to be in the state of salvation; So the Disciples of Christ esteemed highly of Judas, as indeed the infallible rule directed them; but when once he discovered himself not to be that in ●ff●ct, which before he was in appearance, than they were directed by the infallible rule, to alter their judgements without fail. Further: in stead of these words; Yet all who are judged by believers to believe, To judge of persons according to the infallible Rule, is righteous judgement; in which the judgers must lay aside all partiality. do not believe; It may be construed thus; That all who are rightly judged (or aught to be judged) by believers to believe, do not believe; For there is a difference, between what persons do, and what they should, or aught to do. And persons judging as they ought, though their judgement is alterable, yet as the Rule is not failable, neither is their judgement by it sinful; but righteous, holy, just, and lawful judgement. This being construed thus, and so taken, I assent thereunto. But as for your following inference, I abhor, and detest from my very soul. Your words are these: A. R. * Pag. 7. li. 15. to lin. 25. But in the baptising of infants, the case is far otherwise, yea, quite contrary, who will or can fail in judging an infant to be an infant; the failing therefore here is in the Rule itself, and so the fault and sin in the appointer of such a deceivable Rule: This therefore cannot be of God, who is truth itself, but must be of man; For let God be true, and every man a liar. And when doth he show himself more vainly to be so, then when he goeth about to set his p●sts by God's posts; and when he teacheth for doctrines, his own vain and lying traditions, such as this is. Ans. Groundless positions and false inferences there from, are frequent with you; your words import, that in the baptising of infants, because none can fail in judging an infant to be an infant, that therefore the layling is in the Rule itself; and therefore you conclude, it cannot be of God, but of man, a vain tradition! The like might be said of the Circumcision of infants, in the time of the Law, that because they could not fail in their judgements, in judging infants to be infants, that therefore the circumcision of infants was not of God, but of man, a vain tradition! and the rule was not infallible! But you may know, that for believers to impose the sign * Gen. 17.11. and seal * Rom. 4.11. of the righteousness of faith, upon their children (in their infancy) was good, lawful, & warrantable * Exod. 12.48. Baptism is to us as Circumcision was to the Jews. , directed by the infallible rule of God's Word; which rule was never yet abrogated; therefore it standeth in force, and is not a vain tradition; and seeing God himself administered Baptism upon infants, before the Law was given in Mount Sinai; how dare you say, it is not of God? Next after this, you cast your eye upon an Author, A. R. whom you * See Pag 7. lin. 25, 26. call, A learned and able Author of our times; whose expression (you say) you cannot but take notice of. Ans. It may be, you call him learned, and able, because (as you say) he confesseth himself unconvinced of the lawfulness of the Baptism of infants, by demonstration of Scripture for it. And yet he taketh the Baptism of infants to be one of the most reverend, general, and uncontrolled traditions which the Church hath, and which he would no less doubt of, than the Creed to be Apostolical. And upon this belief and confession of his, you Paraphrase * In lin. 31. to Pag. 8. , saying, No more would I doubt thereof, if I could be convinced by any demonstration of Scripture for it: But seeing demonstration of Scripture, neither to us is, nor by him can be produced for it, I do and must remain still unconvinced with him, and must needs take it to be a mere humane device. To which I answer, That the doubting conscience cannot be satisfied, unless God do it by his Word, or Spirit, but if the Lord do open your eyes, and give you sight to apprehend, and comprehend this light, then in it you shall see clearly this truth, even the lawfulness of the Baptism of holy infants. But if God do not by his Spirit open your heart, the tongue of men and Angels cannot convince you, but you must still remain unconvinced. But how can you expect that this Author (whom you call Mr. Daniel Rogers) should produce Scripture for the Baptism of Infants, while he is (as he saith himself) unconvinced of it by demonstration of Scripture, except you did expect that he should have played the hypocrite, & so have gone against his Conscience; you should know, that Whatsoever is not of faith is sin. And it doth not argue (as you infer) that (because no demonstration of Scripture is brought by him) that therefore none at all is brought to you, by those who are convinced of it by the authority of Scripture. This cannot be true which you affirm, considering the many Scriptures which you acknowledge have been alleged for to prove the Baptism of infants; The demonstration whereof hath been sufficiently showed unto you, and therefore if you take it not for satisfaction, you may remain unsatisfied, and still unconvinced, (though convicted) with your alleged Author, and take it (or rather mistake it) (as you esteem it) for a mere humane device. But further you say; A. R. Pag. 8. Nor is this Author alone, in deeming the Baptism of infants a traditions, for many of the Ancients with him have so declared it. Origen calleth it a Ceremony or Tradition of the Church. In Levit. hom. 8. in Epist. ad Rom. lib. 5. Augustine calleth it a Common Custom of the Church. De baptismo contra Dona. lib. 4. cap. 23. Et de Genesi ad literam. lib. 10. cap. 23. To which, I say, that things may be traditional, and commonly, and customarily practised, and yet have sufficient ground and warrant in the Scripture. Origen. But in citing Origen, you do not tell us, what he saith in the same Epistle, (to wit) that the Church received Baptism of infants from the Apostles. Augustine. And in citing Augustine, you do not declare what he saith (in contra Donatist. lib. 4. cap. 23, 24.) that the Baptism of Infants was not derived from the authority of man, or Counsels, but from the tradition or doctrine of the Apostles. But next of all you say, Erasmus * Lin. 9 , lib. 4. de Ratione Concio, saith, that they are not to be condemned that doubt whether children's Baptism were ordained by the Apostles, etc. To which I answer; No more will I condemn those who in weakness do doubt of the Baptism of Infants, but rather pity them, and pray for them, and labour, (as the Apostle biddeth us concerning those that are fallen through infirmity) To restore them with the spirit of meekness. But when their sin cometh to such a height, The obstinate, though ignorant, are to be rejected, when they reject the truth. that they resist the truth, and run on wilfully, and blasphemously, with a leprous headiness, and that against the Scripture, and the very light, and law of reason, and will not hear good Counsel, nor receive wholesome instruction; then they are not to be borne with, but condemned. Whereas you say further, that Ekius * Lin. 12. calleth (the Baptism of Infants) a Commandment and ordinance of man; In Echiridion. I answer, You should know, that it is a Commandment, and ordinance of God, In the Scripture. Whereas you produce the Papists * Lin. 15. , and the Authority of Counsels * Lin. 23: (to jump with you, and your first learned Author, cited by you, against the Baptism of Infants,) to prove it not to be warranted in the Word, but grounded upon tradition, and not upon the Scripture. I answer; It evidently appeareth, that these your erroneous conceptions, and peremptory conclusions, are builded upon a sandy foundation. I pray you, tell me; How can they believe a thing by Scripture, that judge the Fathers above the Scripture? And as you thus bring humane unsufficient Testimony, to prove the Baptism of Infants, to be a humane invention; so you do the like in labouring to make known the time when it was invented, a mere dream! and vain conceit of your own! a thing fare above your reach! And you would by your humane Authors, bear your Auditors in hand, as if the Baptism of infants, were invented some hundreds of years after Christ; which is neither certain, probable, nor possible; and yet you cite other humane Authors for it, whose historical relations (as you have set them down) have no bottom upon truth, and therefore are to no purpose against the Baptism of holy Infants. And therefore your citing them, maketh nothing for your purpose neither. But you ought rather in this to mount above humane testimony, and leave these your two cited Authors to reconcile themselves;) Go to the Law, and to the Testimony * Isa. 8.29. , (for whatsoever is not according to that, hath no light in it) and there see what time the baptism of infants was administered; I think that Circumcision of infants was not invented, nor administered before the Baptism of infants. As for the time of the invention thereof, I will not intermeddle, or take upon me to determine at this time; forasmuch as it is sufficient for us to know, that God is the Author and instituter of it; the administration whereof was in the Cloud, and in the Sea, not long after the Israelites came out of the Land of Egypt, But it was before the Law was given in Mount Sinai many hundred years before Jesus Christ was manifested in the flesh; and therefore your new account is too short a weapon to undermine Gods holy administration of Baptism upon his Redeemed ones; 1 Cor. 10.1, 2. Such as the Israelites were, whom he brought out of the Land of Egypt, and baptised in the Cloud, and in the Sea. Further, you cite more humane Authors, (to speak your pleasure) against the baptism of infants, as if it were thrust upon the world * Pag 8. lin. 37. , under colour, and pretence; foisted * Pag. 9 li. 1, 2. in (say you) like all other Antichristian devices, have their cloaks and holy pretences.) I answer; These are rude words, and words that we may rather admire at, then embrace, considering what little ground you have to speak them, and how violently you have wringed them from humane testimony, builded also upon mistake of humane Authors. Have you no more fear of God in you, then upon such sleight grounds, so publicly to break out, and that in such unseemly terms, against the Baptism of Infants, Gods holy and blessed Ordinance? Now surely, you are not to be justified, but condemned in your presuming thus to affirm, what you cannot prove; and labouring sacrilegiously to take away the visible badge of Christianity from Christian Infants. Consider what a dangerous thing it is to diminish from God's Word; Rev. 22.19. He that taketh away therefrom, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, etc. And with this consider also what ground you have had, for your evil persuasion, unjust calumniation, and sinful affirmation. You should know, that the Baptism of Infants was not brought into the world by man, much less was it thrust upon the world, under colour, and pretence, and Antichristianlike, foisted in, (as you unjustly affirm) but God in his love, and mercy, and bountiful liberality, brought it into the world, amongst other privileges, for his Elects sake, & did not thrust it upon the world, (as you speak) but ordained it in an orderly way, to be imposed upon his Church and People; whose visible holiness gave them right unto it; And he did not bring it under colour, and pretence, as the Anabaptists do their Baptism, in administering Baptism upon People, and then telling them, it is right, and afterward that it is wrong, (and that they must therefore be baptised again, by them in another manner,) and so after they have been baptised by them again and again, they after a while are restless again and unsatisfied, because he who baptised them, was unbaptised himself upon their own grounds, Nor can they believe there is any baptised rightly in the world. And so they know not upon their own grounds, what to do, or how to practise any Ordinance of the New Testament. These their Baptisms (I may say) are rather to be accounted as thrustings, colourable pretences, and foist, (and the like,) then the Baptism of holy Infants, which was brought into the world by the Wonderful Counsellor, whose mighty power is to be magnified in all his noble acts; who saved Noah and his family in the Ark, (when all the world of unbelievers, both young & old, perished with the Flood a Gen. 7. ;) Which figure answereth the baptism that now is b 1 Pet. 3.20, 21. ; who baptised the Children of Israel in the Cloud, and in the Sea c 1 Cor. 10.1, 2. ; When Pharaoh and his H●st were overwhelmed with the mighty waters d Exod. 14.28. ; who (according to his blessed promise e Deut. 18.15. , made unto his People) sent his blessed Son Jesus Christ, (our Emanuel * Mat. 1. & 2. ) into the world, to bear our sins, and to suffer death for us, and put an end to our iniquities; Who was buried, and risen again the third day, according to the Scriptures f 1 Cor. 15.4. ; And at his Ascension into the bosom of his blessed Father, he gave Commission to his Disciples, to teach all Nations g Mat. 28.19. and to preach the Gospel to every creature h Mar. 16.15, 16. ; and to baptise those who were to be esteemed in the state of salvation; Who (when his earthly tabernacle dwelled amongst us) declared that the kingdom of heaven consisteth of such holy infants * Luke 18.17. , for whom he prayed earnestly i Joh. 17.20, 21, 24. , upon whom he laid his own holy hands k Mat. 19.15. , pronouncing them blessed with his own mouth l Mar. 10.16. . Wherefore you show yourself very ignorant, and exceeding presumptuous, that dare (with open face in the view of the world,) so far to deny Christ, (in a manner,) as to say that his Ordinance of Baptism, (administered upon holy Infants,) is such a thing, which (by a supposed help of frail man) you have declared it to be. Consider further, how that although all these Ancient Fathers whom you have cited, were on your side. And though you should cite many more, in Antiquity far surpassing the other, yet all is vain which you do, yea, properly vanity without the Scripture, and as it is to no edification, so it will give no satisfaction, or information to the doubting soul, or make any thing for strengthening your error; (though it may harden you and other seduced in it) but it will be a means rather to add grief, and vexation to your spirit, at the day when you must give up your account, for all your idle words, vain actions, & hard speeches, when it will be little available to sly to these mountains to hid you from the wrath of the Lamb; whose word shall judge these fathers whom you have cited, by which they shall be justified or condemned; when they shall not judge it, or condemn it, (as Heretics formerly have done,) but be judged by it. I have not told you that Auxertius, (one of the Arians Sectaries, with his adherents, (who denied the persons in the blessed Triniti●, and denied the Godhead of Jesus Christ,) was one of the first that denied the baptism of Infants. And that Pelagius the Heretic was a patron of this opinion of yours. Whom Augustine and others of the Ancient Fathers, have opposed by the Scriptures, and condemned for heresy, as justly they might; for than it may be you would say, that Augustine was an Heretic himself as well as the rest, and therefore the citing of him (or any such as he was) can make nothing for our present purpose, in clee●ing the case in controversy; for indeed, after this manner, did Mr. Smith (the Anabaptist,) answer Mr. Clifton, who was his opposite and overthrew his errors. But indeed I desire that all things may be tried by the touchstone of the Word of God, which is the only rule for every divine action, which directeth us to hold fast that which is good, and to judge of persons and causes accordingly. Therefore I desire that what hath been spoken already in answer to your several objections, and what hath been also gathered from the word of tru●h (in vindication of this truth, of the baptism of holy Infants) may be observed. It hath been declared how the promise is made to all believers Infants, as really, as to themselves, or any of their children * See before in Pag. 3. to Pag. 15. . It hath been proved, that the general institution of Jesus Christ, is no manner of way l●sse general * Pag. 15. to pag. 24. than circumcision, but more general in respect of the parties upon whom it is to be administered. It hath been minded * Pag. 24. to pag. 64. , how that the Infants of believers were holy, & members of the visible Church in the time of the Law, and that neither the cessation of the ceremonies of the old Law, nor any thing else, which can be alleged, doth argue that they have not still the true ●●linesse which giveth them visible right to Baptism. But seeing the dispensation of God's gifts, and the distribution of his graces, are multiplied under the Gospel, we are still to esteem the young Olive pla●ts of believing parent● to be holy, as well as the stock or branches upon which they grow. And it being so, we may conclude, that they have right to holy Baptism, as their holy parents have. And to debar the holy infants of believers from Baptism, is to reject them, and so (in a manner) it is a rejection of their holy parents; a means of their discouragement; a weakening of their faith; a discomforting of their hearts; yea, and discouragement to others. But Truth overcommeth all things, it is great, and will prevail against all that oppose it. Thus having answered directly to what hath been set down by you, I proceed to the next. Your next words are these: But now to the Question; A. R. Pag. 9 lin. 21. What is meant by the holiness which children are said to have, 1 Cor. 7.14. In answer whereto, I shall show only what I conceive it to be, and then leave it to the judgement of the wise. Answer. If you mean the holy children of believing parents, (spoken of 1 Cor. 7.14.) Let us hear what you say. I say then it is only such a holiness, A. R. Lin. 25. as is opposite to some kind of uncleanness, which I take to be this, as if when they are said to be holy, it is no more than to say, they are not unclean, (to wit) no Bastards. To which I answer; That you are greatly mistaken herein, There is no such restriction in the Scripture, as you conceive, and would gather from thence; for it is apparent, that when the Apostle saith to Believers (1 Cor. 7.14.) Else were your children unclean; he meaneth here such an uncleanness, 2 Cor. 6. which he speaketh of in 2 Cor. 6.17. Which uncleanness, the Saints are bidden not to touch; I will dwell in them, and walk in them; Ver. 16. Ver. 17. Ver. 18. The Apostle speaketh to the same people, useth the same Scripture-phrase, in applying the precious promises. And doth in no way exclude, but include their posterity. For confirmation whereof, see the practice of Peter in Act. 2.39. and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from amongst them, and be ye separated, saith the Lord, and touch not the [unclean] thing, And I will be a father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord God Almighty. Observe here, how that this uncleanness is directly opposed to the holiness which those have who are in covenant with God; who always did put a difference between the holy and profane, between the infants of the world, and the infants of the Church. And so the Apostle (speaking in the Scripture language,) calleth the children of Believers holy: Else were your children unclean, (saith he,) but now are they holy, 1 Cor. 7.14. Else were your children bastards (say you) but now are they no bastards. This, you conceive, is the meaning of that Scripture: But you should mind, that the Proselytes in the time of the Law, and the believing parents in the time of the Gospel, who were formerly unbelievers, Heb. 13.4. were not all bastards: and legittimacie is not a thing peculiar to believers but unbelievers may have it. But when the Apostle speaketh of a holiness, which the children of believers have, it is that which is peculiar unto the Saints of God, and not common to Infidels, who are without God in the world, and not to be communicated with. You should mind, that the Apostle speaketh in the heavenly language of Canaan, in the Scriptures ordinary phrase; giving the believers infants such a stile, which the holy Spirit of God hath given them; (according as it is plentifully manifested in the Scriptures of God,) and which he hath not given and granted unto unbelievers infants. There is no place of Scripture, which declareth them to be holy: Wherefore we may conclude, that there is a great deal of difference between the infants of believers, and the infants of unbelievers; and that the uncleanness of the one, Rev. 22.11. 1 Cor 6.14. is opposed to the holiness of the other, as darkness, is opposed unto light. As Idolaters, are (said to be) opposed to those that are separated from them * Ver. 15, 16, 17, 18. . And so the Jews (separated from Idolaters) were all holy, both young and old, and Gods separated peculiar people * Deut 29.10. & 14.1, 2. ; The Lord was their God, and they were his people, and he dwelled in the midst of them * Levit. 26.11, 12. , and sanctified them unto himself * Exod. 31.13. Psal. 135.4. , and gave unto them his blessed Oracles * Rom. 3.2. , and holy Ordinances: yea, and the Gentiles also, who had like precious faith with the Jews, were then made partakers of the like precious privileges with them; which extended unto their infants * Exod. 12.48. , as well as to the infants of the Jews. Therefore as the infants of the Jews were holy, so were the infants of the Proselytes, (or belee●ing Gentiles.) And forasmuch as the distribution of God's gifts (under the Gospel) are larger, than they were under the Law; the infants of believers now, Ephe. 3.5, 6. have the same spiritual privileges, as the infants of believers had th●n; and have the same precious holiness, which is available to Baptism; and therefore we may conclude, that when Christ came to die for their sins, he came not to destroy their soul●s, and so to r●b them, to p●yle them, to make them spiritual bankrupts, to take from them his righteousness, and leave them to be clothed with their own righteousness; But surely, we may rather conclude, that Christ [as he was once himself an infant, of a believing par●nt, according to the flesh] so he loveth the infants of believers, Luk. 2.7.16. & 18.17. because they are Subjects of his kingdom. And as he suffered for them, so he doth not only come unto them, but cast his garment of righteousness over them, and dwell with them, and abide in them; Isa. 22.21. and is a father unto them, as he was to the Inhabitants of Judah and Jerusalem. Our God is a God of truth, and therefore he will not deceive his people, nor break his Covenant which he hath made with them; which Covenant is to his Saints thus; I will be a God unto thee, and to thy seed * Gen. 17.7. ; I will be their God ** Ver. 8. : So saith the Spirit of Truth, who will not, (nor cannot) lie; Who for strengthening of his people's faith, and increasing of their comfort, that their hearts in loving him, might be enlarged, and their joy in delighting in him might be full; he did command a visible sign and seal of the righteousness of faith, to be imposed upon them, and upon their seed, whose G●d he had testified himself to be. Now those persons to whom God is a God, they are blessed in a special manner * Psal. 33.12. , and he is a father unto them * Esa. 9.6. ; and those persons to whom God is a God, and a Father, are separated from Idolaters, and are a holy * 1 Cor. 7.14. 2 Cor. 6.17. peculiar people unto him, directly opposed to those who are unclean * Rev. 22.11.15 Isa. 52.11. Rev. 21.7, 8. , and out of the Covenant. But God is a God, and a Father to the infants of believing parents now, as he was formerly; [for his holy Covenant is sure] and therefore such infants, (even the holy off spring, and blessed issue of the blessed) are all the sons, & daughters of God; and are to be accounted amongst the number of separated Saints, in covenant with him; for he hath promised to be a God and a father unto the believing Gentiles (2 Cor. 6.18.) as he was unto the believing Jews, (Gen. 17.7. Jer. 31.1.) Concerning whom the Lord saith, Their children shall be as aforetime, Jer. 30.20. Jer. 30.20. whose holiness is directly opposed to the Idolatry, of those Idolaters, which the Lord commandeth his blessed Saints to sep●rate from, and is quite contrary to this uncleanness, which unbelievers, and their infants have; who though they are not bastards, yet they are unholy, because they are out of the Covenant, and God is not their God, nor father, to hollow them, as he is to the holy children of believing Gentiles, and as he was to the holy children of the Jews, in covenant with him. Thus the Contents of your exposition being not right, we may justly conceive, that all the Scripture which you bring to confirm it, will be wrong in the application; and your grounds false. But let us hear further what you say. A. R. Lin. 29. A. R. Lin. 30. And I will show my ground by my thus opening the Text. The believing Corinthians both men and women, married and single, do join in a Letter to the Apostle for resolution of many of their doubts touching their several conditions, this appears in the first verse, and thence to the 12 and their doubts in this particular, and which he answers in the five verses following, seems to be this in effect, as if they should thus write; we being borne anew, and made the Sons and Daughters of God ●y Faith in Jesus Christ: and being made holy by his spirit, and taken into Communion and fellowship with Jesus Christ, and his Saints in light, from an estate of darkness and death, from being Idolaters, and Children of th● Devil, have very uncomfortable cohabitation and fellowship with our wives and husbands, remaining still in their natural and blind condition, so fare different from the estate into which we are now brought: Surely our holy God that bids us touch no unclean thing, doth not allow us thus to do: And we flare lest we have done very ill in continuing thus so long, for our Marriage we cannot think but it was dissolved when we first believed: And we ought then to have put away our wives as the Jews di● their strange wives; and unto this the Apostle gins his answer in the 12. verse thus; And unto the rest (to wit, of your doubts) speak I, not the Lord, If any Brother have a wife that believeth not, if she be content to dwell with him, let him not put her away, And the woman that hath a husband that believeth not, if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him: for the unbelieving husband is sanctified to the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified to the believing husband, else were your Children unclean, but now they are holy. As if the Apostle should have said to them thus, you Corinthians do doubt of your cohabitation with your unbelieving married yoke-mates, of ●hic● t●●re is no cau●e, for to the pure all things are pure (that is, all l●●●ull 〈…〉) (namely, whatsoever is lawful in nature or civil use) is 〈…〉 to the believer, and yet even those things are impure to the imp●●e, or unbelieving, for even their minds and consciences are defiled, Tit. 1.15. But to the Bel●ever, all things are pure, (that is, as I have already said) all lawful things, for things that are unlawful in themselves c●●●●t be sanctified by ●●e faith of a tru● B●lee●er, no not to his use; but m●●t be l●f● and 〈◊〉 as sinful and wi●k●d, which if your cohabitation wer● such as you i● weakness judge, than ●as n●t your marriage lawful at the first, than it is not lawful nor sanctified to y●u now, as you judge it is not, and then are your children unclean: But if your marriage were at fi●st lawful, than your Cohabitations now with your ●oke-mates is likewise lawful, and then also sanctified to you now by your believing, else were your children unclean (that is) unlawfully begotten and Bastards, but now are they holy (that is) Legitimate and no Bastards. Ans. Here hath been many words to little purpose, as appeareth by your own Conclusion; for the Tenor of all is, that which you have affirmed before * Pa●. 9 lin. 26, 27. , which is your Conclusion now * P●●. 10 lin. 31, 32. . As if the Apostle should say, Else were your Children unlawfully begotten, and bastards, but now are they legitimate, and no bastards; A very poor collection, or rather restriction of the Apostles words! But that this restriction is in the Text, we must take it upon your bare word; for you have brought no Scripture, which any way cleareth this your Affirmation. But it hath been proved before, that the Apostle meaneth a religious holiness; a holiness in relation to faith, and to the holy Covenant of God; in which Covenant, believers & their infants are now, under the Gospel. And this may further appear unto you by these Considerations. First, That the Apostle (in this place of Scripture) speaketh not of all infants, but only of the infants of believing parents in Co●enant; for he doth not say to unbelievers, that their children are holy, neither doth he direct his speech unto any unbeliever, but unto believers; wherefore this principally concerneth believers, that they might know the privioidges, which appertain unto them and their seed, according to the covenant of God, G●n. 17.7, 8. which declareth that God will be their God. Secondly, The Apostle doth not say that the [unbelieving] ●●●band or wife sanctifieth the [believing] husband or wife, but the unbelieving wife is sanctified in the believing husband, and the unbelieving husband in the believing wife; (that is to say, in consideration that ●●e is h● sanctified yokefellow;) Where we are to note, that though the unbelieving wife have a privilege to be sanctified in her believing husband, yet not to sanctify her believing husband; nor hath the unbelieving husband, any privilege to sanctified is (believing) wife. Nor doth it need (in this case) for believers are holy without them; though their unbelieving yoak-fellowes are not sanctified without them. Thirdly, We are to note from the Apostles words, Else were your children unclean, but now are they holy: That because the unbelieving wife is sanctified to the believing husband, or the unbelieving husband to the believing wife, therefore the children are holy, else not. Fourthly, We are to take notice that the cause of the sanctification of the unbelieving wives (or that which made them to be so sanctified) was two things. Frist, Their abiding. And Secondly, Because their yoak-fellowes were believers, if her yokefellow be a believer else she cannot be so sanctified to the believer, for that that is not, cannot be said to be. Fifthly, The Apostle treateth of holiness; which we are to take for that excellent spiritual holiness, which becometh the Lord's House, even such a holiness which Abraham and his infants had. Which holiness giveth the persons who have it, visible right to the covenant of Grace, and scales thereof. The Apostle speaketh of holiness, and doth no way lesson it, and therefore considering what the infants of belevers have been, & what Christ hath done for them, we may well understand that the holiness which they have now, is a holiness' in relation to the covenant and Church of God. Sixthly, It evidently appeareth from the Apostles words, that we may safely conclude, that such children (spoken of here) are different from heathens; for the unbelieving wife had not that privilege to bring forth such a holy seed unto a heathen. And so the like may be said for the unbelieving husband, that he could not beget a holy seed of her that was an unbelieving wife, but it is peculiarly bound up in the believing yoke-fellow. Therefore the childerens of one (or both) believing parents are h●ly indeed, taking the Scripture in the largest extent. Seventhly, If the Apostle had said to the believers, that their children were unholy, nevertheless, you might still have made su●h a collection, as you have here, (to wit) that he meaneth t●at they are no Bastards, but legitimate; for the legitimate children, whose parents are neither of them believers, are unholy; and yet they have your holiness (to wit) that which evidenceth them to be no Bastards. Wherefore that the Apostle Paul means such a holiness, which you speak of we may not in reason conclude; but the contrary, as hath been observed before, (namely) that the Apostle meaneth a holiness directly opposite to th●● 〈…〉 spoken of 2 Cor. 6.17. And also in this place, 1 C●●. 7.14. When he saith, Else were your children unclean, but now are 〈…〉. But you (in giving the sense according to your sense, or understanding) say it is thus; Else were your children Bastards, but now are they no Bastards! And further you say; And that this is the genuine sense of this place, A. R. Pag. 10. lin. 33. may further and clearly appear by the general scope of the Apostle in the 20, 21, 22, 23. verses following in the same Chapter, where he after he had resolved the married Believers not to departed from their lawful yoke-mates, he then in these verses exhorts Servants and all others, to abide likewise in the lawful callings wherein they were before their Conversion, and seemeth to tell them in effect thus much; That their being converted to the faith, did in no wise release them from any lawful Covenants and civil duties in their several relations wherein they stood before, but bound them to a more due performance of all such obligements towards all men, but in point of Religion and worship of God, therein they were not to be in subjection to any, save only to Jesus Christ, who had therefore bought them with a price. Ans. All which you have said here, maketh nothing for your purpose, for vindication, illustration, or confirmation of your strange restriction of the Apostles words; but rather maketh against you, for as much as the Apostle desireth every believer to abide in the same calling wherein he was called. So that the believing married persons had no need to put away their unbelieving yoak-fellowes, for as much as the Lord allowed them to abide together, and that the unbelieving yoak-fellowes were so sanctified for producing a holy seed; Else were your children unclean, (saith the Apostle) but now are they holy. But you pretend that you gathered your interpretation (Else were your children Bastards, etc.) from the general scope of the Apostle in the 20, 21, 22, 23. verses following of the same Chapter. The words therefore I will repeat at large, because you shall see that here is nothing in these verses, which you pretend, or by which you have any occasion to urge what you do. Ver. 20. Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called. Ver. 21. Art thou called being a servant, care not for it? but if thou mayest be made free, use it rather. Ver. 22. For he that is called in the Lord, being a servant, is the Lords freeman: Likewise also he that is called being free, is Christ's servant. Ver. 23. Ye are bought with a price, be not ye the servants of men. Now consider what ground you had to build such an affirmation, that the Apostle in speaking of holiness, (1 Cor. 7.14.) doth not mean a holiness in relation to faith, and that where he saith, Else were your children unclean, but now are they holy; he meaneth, else were your children bastards, but now are they no bastards! What title of Scripture is here to warrant these your vain conceits, in thus opposing holy infants? Or upon what reason do you ground these unreasonable collections? Is it because the Apostle saith, that the called of the Lord, are the Lords freemen, the Lords servants, & are bought with a price? Surely, this maketh nothing against holy infants being in Covenant; for they are bought with the same price. Christ came not to damnify them, but to dignify them; not to make them loser's, but gainers. And all this is wrought by him, in whom is all fullness, and no emptiness; riches and no poverty; life, and no death; He it is that came to give himself a ransom for them. But you would infer, that because believers are exhorted by Paul to perform their civil Covenants, and lawful Contracts which they have made with men, that therefore it appeareth that the gloss which you gave upon the Apostles words, 1 Cor. 7.14. is a true interpretation. What weight is in your words? let any one that hath sense and reason judge; For the like might have been objected in the time of the Law, against the infants of the Church then, whom the Lord did call and sanctify, and cause to approach near unto him; that because the parents, and others, were to perform their Conditions and bargains, which they made each with other (or with strangers) not changing, Psal. 15.4. or going from their word, though it were to their hindrance, that therefore their holy infants than had no more holiness than a mere l●gittimacie, nor were different from the infants of Heathens, and Infidels. Were it not foolishness thus to think? [much more to affirm] yea, surely! and therefore such affirmations of yours, are to be taken for senseless imaginations, and vain conceptions, not worthy to be uttered to any [much less unto many.] Neither should they (at this time) have been mentioned here, but to manifest the vanity thereof, That reasonable creatures may not be deluded, by such unreasonable collections, and false inferences; But may examine what they receive before they receive it; and embrace nothing but what is agreeable to the Rule of Truth. Further you say; A. R. Pag. 11. at lin. 5. to lin. 23. And this may likewise appear in Mal. 2.14, 15. where the Spirit of God by the Prophet showeth the reasons why their offerings were no more accepted, because (saith he) God hath been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth (that is his first wife than living) against whom thou hast dealt treacherously, yet she is thy companion, and the wife of thy Covenant, and did not he make one, yet had he abundance of the Spirit, and wherefore one in that he sought a godly or holy seed, therefore keep yourselves in spirit, and let none trespass against the wife of his youth: In which words it plainly appeareth that the scope of the place is, that those Children which are generated by one man and one woman lawfully married, are a godly or holy seed, and those that are generated otherwise, are not so but Bastards. And the reason of this holiness ariseth not here from any relation they had to the Jewish State, nor from any Church Covenant, but merely from God's first Institution of Marriage in the Creation, and his then providing one woman for one man, and which therefore is of Universal concernment to all mankind, by the Law of Creation. Ans. Herein you pervert the Scripture, and bring such Conclusions therefrom, which are not included therein. Whereas you say, it is his first wife then living; I ask you why not his second * Jacob had 2 wives, Leah and Rachel; the one was elder than the other, and one was married before the other: But the children which he had by them, as also those by Billa and Zilpah, were all holy in their infancy, and so are the Infants of believers, a godly and holy seed; and all other Infants are otherwise, whether legitimate, or illegitimate. wife then living? If you will limit it only to the first wife, than it seems by your speech that he might deal treacherously with the other, and bear no blame for it. But you should know, that these Jews, to whom the Lord speaketh, were taught to follow the righteous steps of their holy parents, and not to deal treacherously with any of their wives. You say, that the scope of this place in Mal. 2.14, 15. is, That those Children which are generated by one man, and one woman, lawfully married, are a godly, or holy seed, and those that are generated otherwise are not so, but Bastards. But that this is the scope of the place, we must take upon your bare word, (or else choose,) for Scripture to prove it you have none. But (by these your speeches) it seemeth that you would have us to believe, that godliness & holiness of children dependeth upon the parents lawful generating of them. And so by this it will follow, that all the legitimate Infidels in the world are godly and holy, both young and old; which is very strange, and absurd, and overthroweth the Scriptures, which declareth that there hath been always a difference between the holy and profane, between believers and Infidels, between the Infants of the Church, and the Infants out of the Church; one sort being called, the children of God, the other, the children of men. Again, This speech of yours in saying that the children of one man, and one woman lawfully married, are a godly and holy seed; and those that are generated otherwise, are not so but Bastards. It doth imply that then all legitimated persons shall be saved, and that no Bastards shall be saved. And so out of your own mouth (for aught you know) you bring a heavy censure, and sentence of condemnation against yourself; for it seemeth by your words, that your own assurance of salvation, must rest merely upon humane testimony; for you know not whether you are legitimate, or no, but by the testimony of your parents, which if they were not lawfully married at the time of your begetting, then where is your godliness and holiness? You have it not at all upon your own grounds; howsoever, at the best, I think you will say, that you have it not from your own knowledge, but by humane testimony. But (for your comfort) you should consider, that in a religious respect, a Bastard, if he be a Convert, must not be rejected, as a castaway; for although his father and his mother sinned in his procreation, yet their sin shall not be imputed unto him; neither will the Lord reject him any whit the more for his being unlawfully begotten. Yea, though believing parents should (through temptation,) derogate from God's institution, by begetting children contrary to God's Law, yet we will not say, but as there is repentance & forgiveness for the parents returning unto God, so the believing parents may have hope (from the Scripture, that sweet fountain of consolation) that God will not impute that their sin unto their children, who never sinned actually, but will receive them to mercy with themselves. So David's child, which he had by the wife of Vriah the Hittite, though it was unlawfully begotten (contrary to God's institution in Paradise) yet it doth evidently appear, that we have no ground to say, that the infant was out of God's covenant, any more than David was. David repent, and his sin was forgiven him, and his child was clean, both in a civil, and religious respect; the which cannot justly be said of any infant, whose parents are both of them unbelievers, though they are lawful husband and wife, and the child legitimate; yet the parents (being neither of them in the Covenant) were not to esteem any of their Infants to be godly, or holy, neither from 1 Cor. 7.14. nor from any other Scripture. In consideration whereof it doth appear, that there is a real difference between the infants of the godly, and the infants of the wick●d; and that the holiness which differenceth them, is a spiritual holiness; For in respect of legitimaci●, some of the infants of unbelievers had the pre-eminence, when some of the infants of believers had it not, and yet the infants of believers (whether legitimate, as Isaac, or illegitimate, as (Pharez) were in respect of their religious sanctification, the only infants, whom God accepted of visibly in his Covenant: But as for the others, which were out of the Covenant, God rejected them, whether they were legitimate, or illegitimate; So then, it appeareth that it is the holy Covenant, which demonstrateth the children of believers to be holy and members of the visible Church, as the holy infants were in form time. By this you may see, how you are deceived, both in mistaking, and misconstruing the words of the Apostle, 1 Cor. 7.14. and misunderstanding, and perverting the words of the Prophet, Mal. 2.14, 15. Your next words are these; In the same sense is the Apostle to be taken, Heb. 13 4. where he saith, Marriage is honourable in all, and the Bed undefiled, but Whoremongers and Adulterers God will judge. If Marriage be honourable in all, and the Bed undefiled; then the issue of that Bed must needs be undefiled (that is) clean and holy; as ●n the other side, the issue of all unlawful conjunctions are unclean, illegitimate, and Bastards. Now this holiness and unholiness of Children, proceedeth not from the holiness or unholiness of the Parents; But from the lawful or unlawful conjunction of the Parents in the begetting of their Children, for the Apostle in this place speaks of all men universally. That the Apostle speaketh of all men universally in Heb. 13.4. when he saith, that Marriage is honourable amongst all is (in a sense) true; but that he speaketh of all men universally in Cor. 7.14. is not true in any sense; for (the Apostle Paul in 1 Cor. 7.14. speaking to the members of the Church, of that which principally concerned them) he groundeth his speech concerning the holiness of children, and sanctification of the unbeliever (to that use) upon the faith of one of the parents, that if one of the parents be a believer, though the other parent be an unbeliever, the Children are holy, that is to say, they are under the holy Covenant; And so it necessarily implieth, that if neither parents are believers, the children are unholy, that is, they are not born holy, nor under the holy Covenant. For it was faith that made the believers y●●k-mate to be so sanctified to him, as the Apostle speaketh, Because he was a believer, the Infidel was sanctified to him; For to an unbeliever she could not be sanctified, but unto a believer, And therefore the children of those believers were holy, because one of the parents was a believer, and this faith (so sanctifying the unbelieving yoakmates to this end, and use) made the children holy; which cannot be said of an infant, whose parents are neither of them believers; though his parents were honourably married, and the bed undefiled in his procreation, but he is unholy, ungodly and out of the Covenant, neither of his parents being holy, nor any of them sanctified then in themselves, nor sanctified in (by, or to) a believer, for producing a holy seed, spoken of in 1 Cor. 7.14. But you go on still, and say, that A. R. Pag. 11. li. 34. It seems that the holiness here of the children, ariseth not from the faith or holiness of the parents, but merely from the lawful marriage and conjunction of the parents in begetting their Children. * Lin. 38. It is even so. Ans. Is it even so? How is it even so? Doth the holiness of the holy children (spoken of in 1 Cor. 7.14. arise merely from the lawful marriage, & c? How prove you this? Who revealed this unto you? Belike you think your bare affirmation (it is even so) is sufficient proof; It may be, you will say, that Pharez and Zarah were ungodly and unholy, Gen. 38.16, 17, 24, 25, 26, 29, 30. and out of the Covenant, because their parents had not lawful marriage at their conjunction in begetting of them: And also that David's illegitimate Infant was ungodly and unholy & out of the covenant, because he was not lawfully married to Bersheba, 2 Sam. 11.4, 5. before he had begotten him. For surely if the godliness & holiness of the Infants of the faithful arise merely from the lawful marriage and conjunction of the parents in their begetting, than all the infants of the faithful, (whose parents have not lawful marriage in their begetting) are not holy, nor godly. But seeing the infants of the world, whose parents were married to each other, in their begetting were (though born legitimate,) yet not borne holy, (that is to say) not under the holy Covenant: And seeing that David's infant was in the Covenant, though he was illegitimate, 2 Sam. 11.27. & 12.16, 17.23 (which thing might be said of other illegitimated Infants of the Church then.) It plainly argueth, that there is a great gulf, between the holy infants of the Church (spoken of in 1 Cor. 7.14.) and the infants of the world, whose parents are ungodly, and out of the Covenant. And also it is clearly seen, that you foully miss it, in saying that the holiness ariseth merely from the lawful marriage and conjunction of the parents in begetting their children. In all which speeches, you still cross yourself, in what you have set down, in the fourth Page of your Book * See A.R. his second Book, pag. 4. , where you enter upon this particular, concerning 1 Cor. 7.14. For there you affirm (in opposing Infants holiness.) First, That there is [now] but one Covenant on foot, etc. Secondly, That there is but one manner of entering and being therein. And thirdly, That there is but one holiness [now] acceptable with God, etc. Consider what you said there, and that which the Apostle declareth here (in 1 Cor. 7 14.) That the children of believers are holy [now] under the Gospel. [Now] are they holy (saith he) and so judge yourself in reason, whether you do not wrong the Scripture, [and yourself also unreasonably] in making this one holiness to be a mere legitimacy, proceeding merely from the parents lawful conjunction in matrimony. But let us see what further reasons you can give for maintenance of this your opinion. For the question or doubt was only whether they might put away, A. R. Pag. 11. lin. 38 or departed from their unbelieving yoakmates, the which the Apostle answers, that they ought not to put them away; and he implies this reason, because they were lawfully married unto them, according to God's ordinance. Ans. Here you grant, that the Apostle saith, the believers ought not to put away their unbelieving yoakmates; This maketh directly against you; for it doth demonstrate that the children of believers are holy, as the holy children of the Jews were; which children were not to be put away, whose visible holiness gave the believing Jews a sufficient ground to administer Circumcision upon them in their infancy, And so Baptism being unto us, as that was to them; the holy children of believers are to have this, as they had that. For these are holy now, and have right to this, as those were holy then, and had right to the other. And the Apostle Paul, when he exhorteth the believing parents, not to departed from their unbelieving yoke fellows, he yields this reason, (what ere he implies; 1 Cor. 7.14: ) For the unbelieving husband is sanctified to the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified to the husband; and for confirmation of this reason (or these reasons) of his, he saith further, Or else were your children unclean, but now are they holy; so that the holiness of the children, is the main argument which proved that their unbelieving yoak-fellowes were sanctified, and so might be retained, and not put away. Next you say; A. R. Pag. 12. li. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. And this he backs with a double reason: First, Because their unbelieving yoakmates were sanctified to their use. Secondly, Because their Children, begotten in that state, are legitimate and holy. Ans. That the unbelieving yoakmates of the believers, were sanctified to their use, is true; But this is not all, They were sanctified to them for this use, the male to beget, and the female to conceive, and bring forth, a holy seed; or else were your children unclean, (saith the Apostle) but now are they holy. And that their children begotten in the state of matrimony, are both legitimate and holy, is very true; keep to this, and then you keep to the truth; Their children begotten in that estate, are legitimate and holy. If then they are legitimate and holy, as yourself do confess here, why will you seek to debar them from the privileges of the holy Covenant? Surely this speech of yours (being considered & compared with your former) you can object nothing now against them (except you cross yourself) but that they may, yea, and aught to be Baptised. But yet I would have you to mind, that it is not their legitimacy, or illegitimacie, which can debar them from Baptism, or admit them to it; but it is their visible holiness, which giveth them visible right to Baptism. And this is according to your former speeches, in this your Treatise; Where you affirm, That there is but one holiness now acceptable with God * Pag. 4. lin. 8. ; and such a holiness is available to Baptism * Pag. 6. li. 2, 3. , according to tha Rule * Lin. 38. . Next you say; A. R. Pag. 12. lin. 6. On the other side, If they were not so lawfully married to them, than these three conclusions would follow. First, They would not be sanctified to them. Secondly, Their children would be unclean, and Bastards. Thirdly, They might and ought to put them away. Ans. These three Conclusions (you say) would follow, if they were not [so lawfully married] unto them. Here is a threefold injunction, employed in these three words [so] [lawfully] [married] And these you have put as a preparative to your three Conclusions; all which are laid down ambiguously. I doubt not but the unbelieving yoak-fellowes of the believers, were sanctified to them; but this is not all, their servants might be sanctified unto them, and all lawful things; but their yoak-fellowes were sanctified unto ●hem, for this end and use, for producing a holy seed, as I said before *. And the reason was because one of them (being a believer) sanctified the other; If all the legitimate Children in the world, have the holiness spoken of in 1 Cor. 7.14. Then all the legitimated Children whose parents are neither of them believers, are holy: and then it will follow, that unbelieving yoke mates sanctify their unbelieving yoakmates; But this is not to be thought, for it maketh the Apostle Paul's words of none effect, where he bindeth it only in the believer, and doth not tell us, that the unbeliever sanctifieth the believer, or unbeliever, but [the believer] sanctifieth the unbeliever. And this doth forcibly prove the holiness (in 1 Cor 7.14.) to be another thing then a mere legitimacy; for it proves it to be a peculiar thing unto believers, but matrimony is not peculiar to believing parents, no more than legitimacy is peculiar to their Infants; others have the same as well as they. the unbeliever was sanctified, in, by, or to the believer, for this very end, of generating children unto him, or rather unto God; So that the believer sanctified the unbeliever. Which thing could not, nor cannot be said of the unbelievers, that they sanctify, or that their yoak-fellowes are sanctified in them; for they indeed are sanctified in themselves. But by your reasoning, Paul might as well have said, that the believer is sanctified to the unbeliever, as to the believer; But so to say, is a turning of the Apostles testimony up-side-downe. And 〈◊〉 doubt not but the believers children (begotten in that estate of matrimony) were legitimate. But the holiness is not taken simply from the lawful marriage, but in respect to the Covenant of Grace, and Church of God, they being borne members of the same, as hath been proved before; Having the holiness and righteousness of Christ imputed unto them. And seeing that believers holy children had the like privileges, as Isaac's holy children had; therefore, as those children of Isaac were in the Covenant; So were the holy children of believers in the time of the Law, and so are these now in the time of the Gospel. They are even in the holy Covenant of God and so are hallowed with their parents, by the same God who made their parents holy; the root is holy, and so are the branches, the first fruits are holy, and so is the whole lump. And upon this ground, doth the Apostle Paul prove, that the Corinthians might lawfully keep their unbelieving yok-mates; because that Else their children were unclean, but now are they holy; because that one of them was a believing parent in Covenant; for that is the reason both of the holiness of the children, and of the lawful retaining of the unbelieving yoke mates. Whereas you say, secondly, Their children would be unclean, Lin. 9, 10. and bastards. Thirdly, They might and ought to put them away. How do you prove this, that they might and ought to put them away!? I think they might and ought to keep their own Infants, though illegitimated, Bastards; Yea, and in some considerations to keep their wives. So David according to the Law of God, kept his illegitimate infant; and did not put away the wife who bore it, but still retained her, and had a holy and elected seed, by her. See Mr. Henry Ainsworth his Answer to the Anabaptists Dialog. pa. 95. So Mr. Ainsworth answereth this Objection of the Anabaptists, by proving unto them, that misbegotten children, and Bastards were not to be put away in respect of civil use; for (saith he) who should nourish, or bring them up, rather than their own parents? 2 Sam. 11.4, 5. & 12.14, 15, etc. Moreover, If unbelievers cannot be sanctified to beget, or conceive, a holy seed, except they be yoked unto believers, as you here grant, (by your words) in saying, that * See A. R. Pag. 12. lin. 19 [[that which is sanctified to a believer, being unsanctified to an unbeliever, must needs be sanctified unto him by his believing. And so the meaning (of the translations whether by or to * See A. R. lin. 16: ) is all one, and may be thus expressed; That the unbelieving wife is sanctified unto the believing husband, by, or through his believing]] Than it will follow (by your own confession) that though an unbeliever be in the state of matrimony, yet (except it be with a believer,) the unbeliever cannot procreate such a holy seed * To wit] not borne visibly holy in the holy Covenant, as the Infants of believers are. , spoken of in 1 Cor. 7 14. And so this argueth, that there is a great and manifest difference [in respect of holiness] between the infants of believers, and the infants of Infidels; And that this holiness proceedeth not merely (according to your former inferences * Pag. 11. lin. 36, 37, 38. Lin. 14, 15. ) from a lawful conjunction, in respect of Matrimony, which is honourable to all; Neither doth the unbelievers being sanctified, come simply by being in the honourable state of Marriage, (which those have who are not so sanctified) but because she (or he) is coupled in marriage with such a believer Keep still to this [that the unbelieving yokefellow may be sanctified to her (or his) believing yokefellow, but not to any unbeliever;] And then there will be some more hope, that you will be drawn out of your Anti podobaptisticall errors, for (as I said before) this doth show, that those children whose parents are neither of them believers, are not holy, nor sanctified, by their birth, from any ground appearing, in 1 Cor. 7.14. or any other Scripture. Moreover, I know none that pleadeth that the unbelieving wife of the believer, should be admitted to Baptism, and Church-fellowship with her believing husband. And yet she is sanctified unto him, in the enjoyment of her, to bring forth a holy seed; and therefore is (in this respect) far different from his cattles, and beasts, with whom he may not so unite himself; they are not so sanctified to him, as to bring forth a holy seed; but his wife is: which difference you do not set down, when you say * See A R. Pag. 12. lin. 21, 22, 23. , that she is no otherwise sanctified then servants, and his cattles, and beasts. But you should have minded, that the Beasts are sanctified to him, as beasts, the servants, as servants, and the unbelieving wife, is sanctified in him, (to him, or by him,) as a wife. But touching the children, they are holy, under the holy Covenant; as hath been formerly observed, and proved, and shall be further cleared. A. R. Pag. 12. li. 27, 28. A. R. To another Question which you call an Objection; Whether the Children of believers have no more privilege, than the children of Heathens, Turks, and Infidels: You say * Lin. 29. , In respect of the Covenant of Grace and Salvation none at all. Ans. If by their children here, you mean their infants, than I absolutely affirm and will prove, that the infants of believers have more privilege than the infants of unbelieving Heathens, in respect of the Covenant of grace, and salvation; for God hath testified to Abraham * Gen. 17.7. Jer, 30.22. Ezek. 37.27. Heb. 8.10. , saying, I will be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee. And this is the new Covenant of grace, and of salvation, That God will be our God, and we shall be his people: Which Covenant is not made unto the wicked and their offspring, to Turks, and Heathens, who are without God in the world. Rev. 21.3. Nor have they any ground to hope for the salvation of their infants; for true hope is grounded upon some promise of God, which they are destitute of; 2 Cor. 6.16.18. and where God hath made no promise, who can expert performance? Touching secret things, they belong unto the Lord our God, but things revealed, appertain to us and our children * Deut. 29.27. for ever, And whereas you say * Pag. 12. lin. 30. , It cometh not by any natural Birth, but by the work of the Spirit; for the Spirit bloweth where it listeth, Joh. 3.7, 8. And God is no respecter of persons: But in every Nation, he that feareth God and worketh righteousness, is accepted of him, Act. 10.34, 35. I answer; As the Saint's generation doth not hinder their regeneration, so their natural birth, doth not hinder the birth of the Spirit; for the Spirit bloweth where it listeth; John 3.8. And yet the sound thereof may be heard by the testimonies of Scripture; which declareth that the Spirit of God is in all that are his, and he hath wrought upon some of the infants of believers miraculously, before they were born; and God loveth all his Saints, without respect of persons * God hath promised to circumcise our heart, and the heart of our seed: and this is the work of the Spirit. ; yea, he respecteth the poorest of their infants, before the infants of the world, which are without, though they are never so rich. In every nation he that feareth God, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him, Act. 10.34, 35. And as those infants (in the time of the Law) whom he claimed visibly for his own in special, were not then to be judged destitute of his Spirit; no more are such holy infants now; for as God's Spirit is the Spirit of promise, so God is always as good as his word. Whereas you say * See A. R. Pag. 12. lin. 34. , In respect of the means of salvation, their privilege in having believing parents, is far more than those that have not; because believing parents may be a means to bring their Children to the knowledge and faith of J●sus Christ, and so be instruments of their salvation, as Sain● Paul saith here; The believing husband may save his unbelieving wife. I answer; If by children here, you mean infants, if this be all the privilege you will afford them, I thank you for nothing! But it is well they are not at your finding; for indeed this measure of yours is somewhat scant. If they die in their infancy, how shall their parents bring them to the knowledge and faith of Jesus Christ? yea, how shall they believe that they go to heaven, if they had not some warrant to believe, that the work of regeneration was wrought in them before? If the righteousness of Jesus Christ, and the graces of his holy Spirit were not imputed unto them before? Psal. 6.5. In death there is no remembrance of God; in the grave who shall praise him? But the Comforter (which would not have believing parents mourn, 1 Thes. 4.13. as those which have no hope) hath informed them, that he is the Circumciser of their heart, and of the heart of their seed * Deut. 30.6. ; a plain evidence, that they love, and know him, or rather are beloved and known of him; He that loved them in their life, will not forsake them in their death; For the dead which die in the Lord are fully blessed, yea, saith the Spirit, for they rest from their labours, and their works do follow them * Rev. 14.13. . But by your words it appeareth, that you judge the infants of believers, and Infidels, all alike. Yea, the Infidel servants, which serve believers (if these your words be true,) have a greater privilege than the Infants of believers; for the servants are capable of instruction, (in respect of a natural capability) but the Infants are not. Now if you will still grant, that the Infants of believers, (though they die in their infancy) have a greater privilege, than the infants of unbeleev●rs, than you must also grant, that that their privilege resteth in something else, besides the bare publication of the Gospel, which they are not in their infancy capable of. And you should not have overtopped them so far as to say, that because believing parents may be a means to bring their children to the knowledge, and faith of Jesus Christ, that therefore they have no more privileges, than the unbelieving wife; As if this were the greatest privilege which believers infants have, which unbelievers themselves may have, Mark. 16.15. But you should rather have reasoned thus: Believing parents may publish the Gospel to their unbelieving servants, & unbelieving wives & to all other unbelievers, but they may, yea, & aught to apply it to their infants * See Mar. 16.16. Luk. 1.76, 77, 78, 79. as well as to themselves & also to all those whom they are to esteem in the state of salvation; he that hath faith thus to do is a Christian; he that hath not so much faith, but refuseth to apply the Gospel so, the Lord be merciful to his soul! by giving him repentance, and remission of his sin. All godly parents' [●ike faithful Abraham] were to teach their children the way of life, both what things were, and what things signified (Gen. 19.17.19. Josh. 4.21.24.) and to declare unto them the goodness of God in the land of the living; yea, to hid nothing from them, which might be profitable to them, or beneficial for them. But as they grew up to be capable of knowledge, the parents were (as before mentally, so now) verbally, to apply the promises unto themselves, and their children, etc. Psal. 78.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. And surely this is one cause why the Land mourns, & why the Lord smiteth the earth with cursing, Mal. 4.5, 6. because the heart of the parents are not linked to their Infants. This part of good Elias and John Baptists ministry, doth not work upon them. And how can it work upon them so long as they continue in their sins and so wrap themselves, and their offspring, in many mischiefs and miseries, and do not choose life, (the thing that pleaseth God,) but refuse it, and follow the ways of the strange woman, whose ways are ways of death, and whose steps reach down to hell. And surely, I may well say unto you, that those are Physicians of no value who in stead of curing them, do kill them, and in stead of preserving them, do poison, harden, corrupt, and pervert them, with such damnable doctrine, which so violently possesseth them, that they think the Infants of believers have no privilege at all in respect of the Covenant of grace; no more than the children of Turks and Heathens, who are unholy. A dangerous doctrine! and to be abhorred, detested, and witnessed against, by those that fear the God of heaven, and desire to make a difference between the precious and the vile, against all such Mongrel opposites, who by speech, and writing, (contrary to the Tenor of the whole Scripture) do labour to rank all infants in one condition! Thus coupling light and darkness, God and Belial, the believer and the Infidel together! But woe unto them, may we say, (as saith the Prophet Isaiah, Isa. 10.1.) which decre● unrighteous decrees, and write grievousness, which they have prescribed. Thus drawing * Isa. 5.18. iniquity with the cords of vanity, and sin as it were with a cart-rope. Woe ** Ver. 20. unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter. Psal. 73.1. Yet surely God is good unto Israel, (may we say) to those that are pure in heart. The Lord hath been mindful of us; He will bless us. He will bless the house of Israel (saith that sweet singer of Israel) He will bless the house of Aaron: Psal. 115.12, 13, 14, 15. He will bless those that fear the Lord, with small and great. The Lord shall increase you more and more, you and your children. You are blessed of the Lord, who hath made the heaven and the earth. NExt * See A. R. Pag. 12. lin. 40. Pag. 13. li. 1, 2. Pag. 13. l. 3. you say, The fourth Scripture is, That which speaks of Christ's commanding little Children to be brought unto him, and said; That of such is the kingdom of God. Hence (you say) therefore some reason; The kingdom of God belongeth to little Children, why not the Seals? I Ans. If by these [some] you mean the people of the Separation; then (I say) you have not set it down according to our expression: It is too generally laid down; We say the kingdom of heaven belongeth to the Infants of believers: and we do not barely question, why not the seals? But we set it down affirmatively, that the seals do belong to the infants of believing parents. But for as much as our point is particularly concerning the Baptism of infants; I intent to proceed directly to the matter in hand, and answer your trifling objections by the way as I trace you. Mat. 28.19. Mat. 16.16. First, It is to be minded, that Baptism is one of the privileges of Christ's Church, which is his house and kingdom. Secondly, It is also to be minded, that Jesus Christ, the eternal Son of God, and Lord of Glory, and of all administrations, and giver of every good and perfect gift, when he saith, Suffer the little Children to come unto me, Mar. 10.14. Mat. 19.14. etc. For of such is the kingdom of heaven. He doth hereby apply the Gospel unto them. I say, It is Gospel which he speaketh here. [] Where the kingdom is, there's the Gospel. Get the kingdom, thou hast God, and Gospel, and all. And so we are to understand that [with the kingdom] the infants of believers have the Gospel of the kingdom also appertaining unto them, together with the privileges thereof. It being so, the Argument lieth thus; Those persons to whom the Gospel may lawfully be applied, to those Baptism doth of right belong, and upon them it must be administered, Mar. 16.16. Mat. 28.19. But the Gospel may lawfully be applied to Believers infants, Isa. 22.24 Jer. 30.20.22. Mat. 19.13, 14. Mar. 10.13, 14, 15, 16. Luk. 18.15, 16, 17. & 19.9, 10. Gen. 17.7, 8.11.13, 14. Rev. 21.3. & 22.14. Infant's Baptism, Jure Divino. Therefore Baptism doth of right belong unto them, and must be administered upon them. The first and second part of this Argument, being thus expressed, and also proved by the Scriptures, cited for Confirmation thereof; the Conclusion is true and certain; and may further appear so to be, by what hath been said in this Treatise, (where the point hath been handled) and may be further evinced, by taking away whatsoever else you can object against the same. And now let us hear your Answer: First, A. R. Pag. 13. lin. 5. That if Infants have right to one of the seals (if I may so call them) then to both; to the Supper as well as to Baptism. To which I reply, That this objection is impertinent. The Infants of believers (the Lords blessed Saints) have right both to Baptism, and the Lords Supper; Mar. 10.14.16 1 Cor. 7.14. as the infants of believers in the time of the Law, had right to Circumcision, and the Passeover; and we are to mind, that although persons were not (nor could not be capable * In respect of a natural capability. ) at all times to receive the Ordinances, yet they had right unto them then, and so persons now have right to those heavenly things, which they are not capable to receive; So we know that divers Saints (though in years) have right to the preaching of the Word; yet have not capability * In case of deafness, or other defects in nature. (at all times) to conceive what is taught▪ Wherefore your arguing (that if Infants have right to one of God's Ordinances, they have right to both) hath no weight in it against Infants right to Baptism. Your next words are, that Here (they say) not to the Supper, A. R. Lin. 8, 9 until they be able to examine themselves, which is required of all that receive the supper. Answer. If by [they,] you mean those of the Separation; And if by infants, you mean their infants; I answer then, that we affirm no such thing, as you would ●ather upon us * Lin. 5. , (that holy infants have no right to the Supper!) for we know they have a right unto it, though they want capability to partake of it; The Lord's supper being an active Ordinance [there is more required than a bare suffering,] for there is an acting required of the partakers thereof; Mat. 26.26. Take, eat, do this in remembrance of me * Luk. 22.19. , etc. But Baptism, [being a passive ordinance] the party upon whom it is imposed, is not required, [actually] to do it, The Lord's supper is active, & Baptism passive, in reference to the receivers thereof. but only to suffer it to be done. So the infants of believers in the time of the Law, had right both to Circumcision, and the Passeover; yet Circumcision they might receive, (when they were not capable to partake of the Passeover,) because that (as hath been formerly minded) there was an activeness required of the partaker in partaking, and at administration of the Passeover, but only a mere suffering, (by the subject) when Circumcision was imposed upon him. So that holy infants now are as capable to receive Baptism, as the infants in former time were to receive Circumcision; and these are as capable to receive the Supper now, as those infants were to receive the Passeover then. Wherefore seeing there was no reason to keep those infants from being Circumcised, though they could not partake of the Passeover, (having right unto both.) Therefore there is no just reason can be given to debar such holy infants from Baptism now, though they cannot partake of the Supper; yet they have right both to Baptism and the Supper. It may be you will say, that all that had right to the Passeover, were not to be kept from it, but to partake of it at the time of administration; and that all who have right to the supper, are to partake of it when it is administered, etc. Ans. No; not so; for persons might have just occasions, which might justly hinder them from the Passeover, and yet they had right unto the Passeover; As when they were unclean, or in a journey, yet they had still a right unto the Passeover, (though they were not at that time to partake of it.) And if they were driven from the society of the Saints, they had still right unto the ordinances, though they could not come to enjoy them. So if persons were sick, we will not say, that the Passeover was to be infused in them, against their stomach; yet had they a right thereto, though they could not partake thereof. When the Children of Israel were in Egypt, Exod. 12.11. they were commanded to eat the Passeover, with their loins girded, their shoes on their feet, and their staves in their hands, and to eat it in haste, for it was the Lords Passeover; and though every member of the Congregation, had right thereto * Exod. 12.47. , yet we will not say, they were to partake thereof, when they could not, for the causes before specified, or the like occasions. And as it may be said concerning coming to the Passeover then, so it may be said of communicating in the Lord's Supper now, that all that have right thereto, are not commanded to partake thereof. And those Saints then that could not partake of the Passeover, did not (and these that cannot partake of the supper, do not) sin in not partaking thereof; and therefore these are not commanded or enjoined by God to partake of the Supper (for God requireth not impossibilities of us,) neither are we commanded (or enjoined) to administer it unto them; but circumcision was commanded to be administered upon, & unto the other; therefore it appeareth that though they were not capable [actually] to receive the Passeover, yet seeing they were still the Saints of God, they had right thereunto. And the like may be said concerning all the holy infants of the Church now; and concerning the ordinances now, which are in stead of the ordinances then, and in effect the same. Though the Infants of Believers, have right to the Supper, yet have they not capability to receive it, and therefore it must not be administered unto them; but Baptism [that passive Ordinance] may, because there is required no actual doing of the receiver, but a suffering, for the water in Baptism is not to be drunken by them, nor to be infused into them, but imposed upon them. Moreover, Concerning their not having the Supper, A. R. you have answered yourself, in answering them, when you say * Pag. 13. lin. 10, 11, 12, 13, 14. , That Examination (in respect of the Supper) is required only of men of years, not of infants, who are not able to perform it. Further you tell us, That if your Author, nor memory fail you, Children were admitted as well to the Supper, as to Baptism, for many years in time past, (and over against in the margin of the page * Page 13. at lin. 15. you name Parker on the Cross.) Ans. Indeed you may suspect your memory, if you take your imagination to be your memory. And you may expect, that your Author can stand you in little stead, in opposing the Baptism of Infants; A good object may fail a bad subject; and so your Author may fail you, especially, he being neither an Author, nor upholder of your error, which you labour by all means to uphold. Next you say; A. R. Lin. 17, 18, 19 And why not to the one as well as to the other, seeing the same reasons are alike in both, and will centre into one, if fully prosecuted? I Answer, This is but a begging of the Question, I have told you why not to the one, as well as to the other, Because they are capable of the one (in respect of a natural capability) but not of the other. And therefore I deny that the reasons are alike in both; or will centre into one, though [never] so fully prosecuted. Whereas you further oppose infant's Baptism, saying, that * Pag 13. li. 21, 22. no Infant is required by God, in Scripture, to believe, or to repent, or to be baptised by any man, etc. The Infants of believers are not impenitent, I Answer. That this your speech is ambiguous, and abominable, and you may know, that we stand not for the Baptising of Infidels, or those in whose hearts we cannot rightly judge the foundation of repentance to be laid. For God hath not required such to be baptised, no more than he did command such to be circumcised in the time of the Law. And you should know, that faith is the gift of God, & so also is repentance; and though the Saints of God are not required to manifest their faith and repentance actually, so long as they cannot act; yet for to say, that therefore they have not faith and repentance, or that we are not to judge them to have the gifts and graces of the Spirit, because they cannot act, is a mere idle toy! and frivolous foppery. But if you will say, that though the infants of believers cannot manifest faith and repentance, no more than Isaac could (who was a child of promise in his infancy) yet they are to be judged to have faith and repentance notwithstanding. Then you will agree with us in this truth. But if you will say, you deny it, and will not assent unto it, and that therefore the infants of believers, ought not to be baptised; Then I tell you, you have your answer long ago. Christian Infants (saith Mr. Ainsworth * In his Censure upon the Anaba●tists Dia ●g. pa. 70. lin. 19 ) Have the grace they speak●●f, repentance, faith, regeneration, etc. Though not actually, or by way of declaration to others; yet they have (through the work of the Spirit) the seed and beginning of faith, virtually and by way of inclination, so that they a●e not wholly destitute of faith, regeneration, etc. though it be a thing hid, and unknown unto us, after what manner the Lord worketh these in them. E●cles. 11.5. Which Mr. Ainsworth doth further prove, thus * In the same page, lin. 27. to page 71. ; If Infants naturally are some ways capable of Adam's sin, and so of unbelief, disobedience, transgression, etc. Then Christian Infants supernaturally, and by grace, are some ways capable of Christ's righteousness, and so of faith, obedience, sanctification, etc. But Infants are capable of the former evils by Adam: therefore they are capable of the later good things by Christ. That they are capable ●f the former, he proved (in his treating of original sin) from divers Scriptures, as Psal: 51. John 3. Rom. 5. etc. The consequence, to wit that infants are capable of the later good things by Christ, he proveth thus * See his book page 71. lin. 8. . First, Because the first Adam was a figure of the second Adam, Christ; So that as the sin of the first Adam, his fault, disobedience, and death for it, came on all his Children, both by imputation, and infection, or corruption of nature; So the righteousness and obedience of Christ, cometh on all his Children, both by imputation, and renewing of nature, unto life and salvation; as the Apostle compareth them, Rom. 5.12.15, 16, 17, 18, 19.21. Secondly, Because Infants (being (by Adam) sinners, Children of wrath, etc.) m●st be borne again of the Spirit, or else they cannot see the kingdom of God, Joh. 3.3.5 6. But the Christian Infants, dying in infancy, shall see the kingdom of God, and not be damned, (as the Adversaries grant. * The old Anabaptists do grant, that children (dying in their infancy) shall see the Kingdom of God. But some now (that stand against the Baptism of Infants) say, They are all in the state of damnation; Others (that withstand Infants Baptism) say, They know not how to judge of them; But I say, by the Scripture, We are to judge the infants of believers, to be in the state of salvation, ●nd those of them that die in their infancy, are not damned, but saved: And as for other Infants (even the infants of the wicked) we have nothing to do to judge them within, but without. ) Therefore by Christ's doctrine, they are borne again of the Spirit: and so must needs (in some measure) have repentance, faith, and holiness, without which there is no regeneration. Again, That Infants have the faith, and love of God in them: And regeneration in their measure is thus proved; They to whom God giveth the sign and seal of righteousness by faith, and of regeneration, they have faith and regeneration [for God giveth no lying signe, he sealeth no vain (or false) Covenants.] But God gave to Infant's Circumcision, which was the sign and seal of the righteousness of faith, and regeneration. Gen. 17.12. Rom. 4.11. & 2.28, 29. Colos. 2.11. Therefore Infants had (and consequently now have) faith and regeneration, though not in the crop of harvest by declaration; yet in the bud and beginnings of all Christian graces. They that deny this reason, must either make God the Author of a lying sign, and seal of the Covenant to Abraham, and his Infants; or they must hold, that infants had those graces then, but not now; both which are wicked and absurd to affirm; Or they must say, that Circumcision was not the sign and seal of the righteousness of faith, and then they openly contradict th● Scripture, Rom. 4.11. Moreover, As the Apostle in Rom. 5. compareth our natural estate in Adam, and our spiritual estate in Christ, so may we, in this case. If we cannot justly object against God's work in nature, but do believe that our Infants are [reasonable creatures] and are borne [not bruit beasts, but men] though actually they can manifest no reason, or understanding more than beasts (yea, a young Lamb knoweth and discerneth his dam sooner than an Infant knoweth his Mother;) then neither can we justly object against God's work in grace, but are to believe, that our Infants are sanctified creatures, and are borne believers, not Infidels, though outwardly they can manifest no faith, or sanctification unto us. And why should it be thought incredible, that God should work faith in Infants? If it be because we know not, or perceive not how it can be; let us consider, that we know not the way of our natural birth, and other earthly things, Eccles. 11.5. Joh. 3.8. How then can we know heavenly things? If we make question of the power of God; nothing is impossible with him. He made all things of nothing; He can make the dumb beast speak with man's voice, Numb. 22. He can make the babe [in the mother's womb,] to be affected and leap for joy, at the voice of the words spoken to the mother, Luk. 1.44. And can he not also work grace, faith, and holiness in Infants? Hath Satan power by sin, to infect, and corrupt Infants, (as is before proved) and shall not God have power to cleanse from corruption, and make them holy? If we mak● doubt of the [will] of God herein, behold we have [his promises,] to restore [our losses] in Adam, by his graces in Christ, (as he showeth in Rom 5.) That he will circumcise our heart, and the heart of our seed to love him, Deut. 30.6. We have the seal of his promise, in giving Circumcision to Infants, to signify and seal the righteousness of faith, Rom. 4 11. Gen. 17. And we have assurance of all his promises, and of that to Abraham and his seed in particular, to be confirmed unto us (not abrogated or lessened) by Christ, 2 Cor. 1.20. Luk. 1.72, 73. Gal. 3.14. etc. Wherefore they are but a faithless and crooked generation, that notwithstanding all that God hath spoken and done in this kind, do deny this grace of Christ to the Infants of his people, and the seal, or confirmation of this grace by Baptism now, as it was by Circumcision of old. Next you say; Secondly, A. R. This reason is grounded upon a great mistake of the sense of the Text; for the words are not unto them belongs the Kingdom, but of such is the Kingdom, (that is) of none else, but of such, as the next words which follow in these Texts, do manifestly declare; for in Luk. 18.17. Mat. 10.15. In both places, where Christ had said, Suffer little Children to come unto me, for of such is the Kingdom of God. He presently confirms it in the next words, thus; Verily, I say unto you, whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall not enter therein. As also in Mat. 18.34. Christ speaking to his Disciples, saith, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the Kingdom of heaven; Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is the greatest in the Kingdom of heaven. Whereby it is evident, that when Christ saith, of such is the Kingdom of heaven, his meaning is not of them, nor of such as them in age, nor understanding, 1 Cor. 14.20. But of such as them in humility, and such like qualifications. Ans. If you mean here, that the Separates do ground their reason upon a great mistake, of the sense of the Text, in saying, that the Kingdom of God belongeth to the Infants, and therefore Baptism. Then to your impertinent & confused answer, or groundless aspersion. I reply. First, That it is not sufficient to say, that the reason is grounded upon a mistake, unless it be so, which if it be not so, than you are mistaken yourself (and that greatly) both in the reason, and in the sense of the Text also, in charging us with a great mistake, when it is not grounded upon any mistake, much less upon a great mistake, and least of all upon a great mistake of the sense of the Text, as you unjustly speak; and therefore your charge is but a triple evil surmise, a mere supposition of that which is not; and this may evidently appear to be true, because out of Christ's own words, we may gather that the Kingdom of heaven belongeth to the holy Infants; for, saith he, of such is the Kingdom of heaven. Secondly, We do not say, that the words are in express terms, unto [them] belongs the Kingdom, (you shall not father this upon us,) but of [such] is the Kingdom of God, and yet notwithstanding the sense is rightly taken, according to the Text, that the Kingdom of heaven belongeth unto the infants, and therefore you cannot justly charge our reason to be impertinent, or to be grounded upon any mistake at all, much less a mistake of the Text; So than it appeareth that the mistake is not ours, but yours; seeing you mistake yourself, and us, and Christ, and all. Thirdly, I do not know your meaning, when you rehearse Christ's words, Of such is the Kingdom of heaven, and say (that is) of none else, but of such, You should know that the Kingdom of heaven belongeth to those that are past infancy, as well as to Infants, Aged persons are of the Kingdom of heaven as well as such children. If you deny this, you will deny your own entrance into the Kingdom, or else say you are an infant, which thing I suppose you will not do. But the drift of your interpretation is to prove, that when Christ saith, Of such, he meaneth such, and none el●e but such [& therefore no Infants] For so it appeareth by your words afterwards, when you say, Christ's meaning: [not of them, nor of such as them in years nor understanding;] a mere nonsense conclusion; and your ground is, Because Christ saith [of such] and doth not say [of them;] But herein you err, and are mistaken in the word such; and your inferences therefrom, are not according to truth; which may appear thus; As for Instance; When Paul saith, Rom 1.32. Those that do such things are worthy of death, he m●aneth those things before specified in the same Chapter. Suppose a person should come to you, and before divers persons charge you, saying, Such persons who do such things as you do, are worthy to be condemned. I suppose the accusation toucheth your own particular person, as much as any other, and that so you will confess, and take it as meant of you. But if upon examination of the accuser, you shall find him to falter, & say, that therefore he meant not you, nor any such thing which you do, etc. would you not count him a knave, or a fool or a liar? Again, He that should come and say, Such an argument or arguments as you bring here are good, and full of wisdom, and abound in sense! you would hear h●m patiently, and partly, (if not fully) approve of his speech. But if he should draw a consequence from his former words, and say, that therefore (he meaneth) your arguments are evil, and full of foolishness and abound with nonsense! and that in saying such arguments were good, he doth not mean that your arguments are good at all, nor such as yours, in such a respect, but in respect of such, or such a thing. Would not you begin to wonder at him, and to count him a madman? an idiot? a fool? or a liar? or one that setteth himself on set purpose to cavil, or quarrel? Apply this to yourself, for even so is your own argument, or objection here against Infants; And therefore I hope I may tell you (without giving you any occasion of offence,) that as your vindication unto that person before specified, would be, that your Arguments are such as those which are so answerable to them, that they are such, and that therefore his arguing can make nothing against your Arguments. So I (in answer to you) may say, that the infants which Christ took up in his arms, are the same with those who are so answerable to them, that they are such; for reason teacheth us to know, that those infants then in Christ's arms are such as they then were, & not otherwise then they then were; and so now reason teacheth us, that reasonable creatures are as like unto themselves as those to whom they are compared, and that those to whom they are compared rightly, are not more like themselves, than themselves are like themselves, and therefore apply all this to our present purpose, and then we may see the unreasonableness, and perverseness, crookedness and foolishness, of those who will so wrest Christ's words, as if when he saith, Of such is the kingdom of heaven, he meaneth not them, but excludeth them and such as them, and only includeth some others who are for qualifications like them. And therefore now (Mr. A. R.) I challenge you, [and all that take your part in opposing Infants] to bring me one instance in all the Scripture, where persons are spoken of, and where it is said of such, that the persons with whom they are compared, & to whom such a thing is applied, are not included or comprehended in the word, such, as well as those who are compared with them. In the mean time, till you show such an instance, [whic● thing you can never do] I must still rest in the mind of Christ, that he meaneth them as well as any, & includeth them as well as the rest, and doth not exclude them, but include them, in these words, Suffer the little Children to come unto me, etc. for of such is th● kingdoms of heaven. Fourthly, If Christ had said, Of [them] ●s the kingdom of heaven, and had not said, Of [such] is the kingdom, etc. Then you might have had more colour, for to limit, and restrain the Scripture as you do. And then you would object; thus, Yea, It is true Christ as he was God, knew all things, & therefore he (knowing them to be elected) saith in particular, Of them is the kingdom, etc. But it doth not follow, that therefore such as they are of it, and therefore we cannot say, that any other believers infants are of the kingdom of heaven besides them. But here you may see, that this blocketh up your objections, considering that Christ saith, Of [such] is the kingdom, etc. And that the word [such] is of a larger extent, than the word [them] and includeth them also, as hath been observed before. Fifthly, If the next words after (both in Luk. 18. and Mar. 10.) do confirm the former, (as you confess,) than it still argueth, that the reason is invincible; and therefore neither you, nor all the men in the world, can overthrow it. It was firm before, and it being (by your own confession) confirmed in the next words after, than it is not contradicted there, as you have contradicted it here, and therefore judge yourself, whether you have not bestowed labour in vain, in thus opposing holy Infants. For these Texts do prove still, that as infants are of the kingdom, so they are not destitute of the graces of the Spirit, without which none are capable Subjects of the Kingdom. Wherefore here is sufficient demonstration of Infant's conversion, humiliation, regeneration, and great estimation, which they have with Jesus Christ, whose word is to be taken, and not refused, it being spirit, and life, and truth, and so directly opposed to your erroneous affirmations, that it quite overthroweth your unsound collections, in your violent opposition of holy infants. Sixthly, You speak very untruly, and do abuse and wrong the Scripture exceedingly, by inferring from the premises, That when Christ saith, Of such is the kingdom of heaven, His meaning is not of them, nor of such as them in age nor understanding. For Christ as he speaketh of them, so he meaneth them, (though he do not shut out aged persons, that are in respect of holiness, such as those holy infants than were, or such as these holy infants now are) and he meaneth [such] properly, both in years & understanding as may appear by the scope of the place, where it is said, that Christ commanded to suffer them to come unto him; and declareth the reason (namely) because they are Subjects of his kingdom; for of such is the kingdom of heaven (saith he.) And when he cometh to teach a further lesson, he applieth it also to persons of years, that they should learn to receive the kingdom of heaven, like them, and to be converted, and to cast away all pride, and to humble themselves: All which graces (the fruits of regeneration) the Infants of believers are not destitute of, for as much as they are regenerated, they have the seed, and beginning of all Christian graces, as hath been proved before. Now, that Christ meaneth these infants, when he saith, Of such is the kingdom, is clear in the Text, and may partly appear unto you from the former Considerations. But for further confirmation of the premises, let us mind the scope of the place, and examine the Scriptures cited. In which is expressly declared. First, That [the Infants] were [brought] unto Christ, Luk. 18.15. Secondly, The persons intent in bringing them (or the reasons why they brought them) was, [that Christ should put his hands on them, and pray] Mat. 19.13. Thirdly, When Jesus saw that the Disciples rebuked those which brought them, he was [much] displeased, Mar. 10.13, 14. Fourthly, And he [called] them unto him, Luk. 18.16. Fifthly, We are discreetly to observe, Christ's twofold charge, given unto his Disciples, In these words, (1.) Suffer the [little] Children to come unto me,] (2.) [and forbidden them not,] (Mar. 10.14.) Mat. 19.14. Sixthly, We are, heedfully, to mind the reason, (which Christ rendereth for this) which is expressed, in these words, [For of such is the kingdom of God,] Mar. 10.14. Luk. 18.16. Seventhly, Christ's addition, or confirmation of his former speech, or the use (which Christ's Disciples should make concerning themselves) is not to be forgotten; Verily, I say unto you, whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall in no wise enter therein, Mar. 10.15. Luk. 18.17. Eighthly, We are to mind Christ's act to these Infants; which was threefold; (1.) [He] took] them] up] in] his] arms,] and (2.) [Put] his] hands] upon them;] and (3.) [Blessed them,] Mat. 19.15. Mar. 10.16. All which doth give us sufficient warrant to esteem highly of them, and of all those who are like them in every respect. Therefore I desire you to weigh these things distinctly, and discreetly, and then, I hope, it will evidently appear unto you, that you are mistaken in your meaning, and have done very evil, (though you meant never so well) in saying that Christ's meaning is not of them, nor of such as them in age, etc. For indeed, you may as well say, that those were not Infants whom Christ took up in his arms, and that he did not lay his hands upon them, nor blessed them, nor such as them, in age, and understanding. But surely, if the Scripture in speaking of such persons, do not exclude the persons spoken of, than we have no reason to exclude these infants here specified, but to know that Christ Jesus, who was once an infant, and like other infants, both in age, and understanding * In respect of his humane nature. , he includeth the infants, & those like unto them both in age and understanding; when he saith, Of such is the kingdom of heaven. Consider how that the infants * Not aged persons like Infants. were brought unto Christ; The intent of those that brought them was good, and their act, in bringing them, was pleasing unto God. The truth of this may appear, by observing the declaration of their intention; and likewise Christ's great displeasure, or offence given by and taken at his Disciples, because they rebuked those that brought them; He was much displeased (saith the Holy Ghost by Mark, Mark. 10.13, 14.) which declareth an agmentation, or aggravation of his displeasure: The noting of which, maketh still for clearing the case in controversy; and may serve for further satisfaction of the doubting soul, that by Satan's deceit, Isa. 53.11. is apt to think, that this righteous servant through his knowledge doth not justify many Infants, as well as others. Christ's double charge unto his Disciples, that the holy infants should have free access and admittance unto him, without any let or hindrance, by any; and Christ's forcible reason for it, (namely) for (or because) of such is the kingdom of heaven, etc. And then, Christ's acts concerning these infants, [that he took them up in his arms, and put his hands upon them, and blessed them] doth further declare, the strength and sufficiency of mine, (and the weakness and insufficiency of your) interpretation. Seventhly, As without Christ's mind, you have taken upon you to deliver Christ's meaning, contrary to his own expressions, manifestations, and commissions; so you cite, 1 Cor. 14.20. for confirmation of your strange restriction of Christ's declaration concerning the Infants. As if Paul were a Patron of this your fond opinion; but I tell you, in this you are much deceived also, and do err (and as I in charity judge) do not know the Scriptures. It was no part of Paul's doctrine, to speak of holy infants as you do, he telleth us, they are holy * 1 Cor 7.14. . And this his exhortation (in 1 Cor. 14.20.) maketh nothing for you against holy infants; for Paul doth not speak unto Infants, when he saith, Brethren, Be not children in understanding, howbeit, in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men. Now who knoweth not but that those Saints, who are capable to act, are to perform acts of obedience unto God: when those Saints, who are not capable to act, are not bounnd so to do; For (as hath been declared before) God requireth actual obedience of his people, [so far as they can act] & no further; and so Paul's speech is, not to bind us to impossibilies, but to teach us (who have capability) to exercise the same, to the uttermost of our power, in searching after the mycries of Christ, & in treasuring up those divine truths, which are taught us by his Spirit. And this maketh nothing against holy Infants being in the Covenant, or kingdom, no more than it maketh against those aged Saints, who (in respect of a natural capability) are like children, and know no more than Infants know, nor do no more than infants do, and yet do as much as God requireth; and in respect of a spiritual capability, are like those Saints, who are capable to act, & do act according to the same; and yet those who want that capability, whether Christian infants, or other Saints, though the graces of God's Spirit do not appear in them, in the blossom, or fruit, yet have they still the sap, and seed of all Christian graces in them. Even as a man, or child, which hath not the use or exercise of reason, must not be judged to be an unreasonable creature, & wholly destitute of reason, but a reasonable creature; So these (precious Saints) before specified, though they have not the use and exercise of the graces of God's Spirit, and cannot show forth the same in the fruit, or outward manifestation, yet they are not to be esteemed ungracious (or destitute of God's grace,) but gracious Saints. And though they be in understanding like children, yet (in respect of their capableness of the Spirit) they are to be esteemed as precious as any men on earth, and we are not to judge otherwise, but that they shall be glorified, and made equal with the Angels, and be the sons of God in heaven. Now your citation of Paul's words (1 Cor. 14.20. Be not children in understanding, etc. to confirm what you inferred and collected from Christ's words concerning Infants,) doth imply, that you do judge that all those who are like those Infants in years or understanding, are not of the kingdom of heaven. And this your interpretation bringeth in three absurdities. First, It directly contradicteth Christ's words which he spoke concerning them, and checketh him in his actions which he did to them, upon them, and for them; and so you make the words, and actions of Christ, both vain and frivolous. Secondly, Your speech implieth, that Believers infants are not of the kingdom of God; and so their minority hindereth their salvation, (if they die in their infancy;) and this striketh at the fundamental principles of Gods free love unto them in Christ Jesus. Thirdly, In (implying, that none are of the kingdom of heaven, who are like Infants in understanding,) Here I think you bring in a heavy censure against yourself; for (I suppose) as you know not how soon your life shall be taken from you, the like you may say for your understanding; and when your understanding is taken away (which may be done, and yet you may live many years after) how do you differ in understanding then from a child; Surely you are then in understanding like a child, little babe, or infant; and how then (by your own exposition) will you answer the Apostle, Be not children in understanding. Surely at the time when you will want both will, skill, and ability to act any more than they, what are you differing from them, and wherein will your understanding exceed theirs? Surely in consideration of these things, you will grant, that old men, and others, that are the true Saints of God, may be like children [in understanding] and yet not break their Covenant. And in this declining or declined condition, an aged Saint may (in this respect) be said to be as destitute of understanding, as the youngest babe of a believing parent. And he may be said to be still capable of the Spirit (without being brought in any other covenant than he was in before) though he be not capable to [do] any spiritual action, by way of manifestation, but God must do all in him. Now though there be no difference between these two, in respect of spirituality, yet in some respects there is a difference; The Infant is [in nature] growing upwards, or in an inclining condition, & hath the seed of Christian graces in him; the aged Saint before specified, is in a declining condition; the leaves of the tree are fallen, no fruit appeareth, yet the spiritual sap remaineth, etc. And the consideration of this doth teach us, not to despise any of the Lords vessels, either the infants for their minority, or the old men for their antiquity, or the middle-aged for their bodily imbecility, but to esteem of them as they are, (according as the blessed spirit of God doth teach us, in his sacred Word) though through imperfection, or defection of natural ability, they cannot actually and verbally manifest the fruits of their sanctification, but are even as Children [in understanding;]. By this glimpse, you may see, that the Apostles words (in 1 Cor. 14.20. when he exhorteth us, Not to be children in understanding) will not bear out your childish construction of the words of Christ, whereby you would have us judge that he excluded infants; All which is evil in you so to think, much more to speak, and worst of all, in that you would bolster up your opinions by Paul's words, in 1 Cor. 14.20! Which maketh nothing at all for your present purpose, in your restriction and mis-application of Christ's words, where you think (through the help of Paul (1 Cor. 14.20.) to get some advantage, or plea, to keep back the holy infants of believers from the spiritual blessings, which Christ Jesus hath testified appertaineth unto them, which you think did not appertain to those Infants, which Christ took up in his arms, and laid his hands upon, and blessed; And why do you thus conceive? Because it is said of [such] & not of [them.] But this word such, will evidently appear, (being duly weighed by the Scripture) to be of a larger extent than the word them, and so to include all them, especially, considering that in all those places of Scripture where the word such is used, there is no exemption, either of the thing to which such is equalised, or coupled; for such implieth the same in nature, and condition, etc. So when Paul writeth to Philemon (Philem 9, 10.) concerning Onessimus, he saith, Yet for love's sake I rather beseech thee, being [such a one as Paul the aged.] He meaneth himself: and when John saith, Blessed and happy is he that hath part in the first resurrection; for on such the second death shall have no power, etc. Rev. 20.6. He meaneth by [such] those persons who have part in the first resurrection. The word [such,] being a general word, includeth them all. And when Nehemiah saith, (Nehe. 6.11.) Should [such] a man as I fly; He meaneth himself as much as any other man. And so when David saith, Psal. 103.17, 18. The mercy of the Lord is from everlasting to everlasting, upon them that fear him, and his righteousness unto children's children [unto such as keep his Covenant] He meaneth those that keep his Covenant, for this mercy was promised to Abraham, and his seed; who were to keep his covenant, by doing his commands. So God said to Abraham, Thou shalt keep my Covenant, [Therefore] thou and thy seed, etc. Gen. 17. And the keeping of his Covenant, consisted then, and consisteth now in the Saints yielding all obedience unto him, according to their capability. And thus it appeareth that when David saith to [such] as keep his Covenant, he meaneth all [those] that keep his Covenant. Divers other testimonies of Scripture concerning persons and things, where this word such is mentioned, might be produced, which doth still include, both the former & the later, in the specification thereof, But this may suffice, for in the mouth of two or three witnesses every thing is established. This still giveth us more ground to believe that when Christ (in his Gospel) saith (concerning infants) of such is the kingdom, etc. He meaneth those who are such in every respect; and as it is contrary to reason, so it is contrary to the Scripture, to think that the infants in his speech were not employed & included, if not principally intended. Lastly, Whereas you say, it is meant of such as them in humility, and such like qualifications; I know not from what conception you ground your speech, if not from this consideration, that the infants mentioned here (in Christ's Gospel) have humility, and such like qualifications; You should know, that although like, is not always the same, yet the same is the same, & is as like unto itself, as that which is like it in every respect, and therefore Christ's speech of Infants, (when he saith, Of such is the kingdom, etc.) implieth the infants [as well as other Saints, who are like them in understanding, though they differ in years.] I say, Christ's speech is not bound up from them, nor from any other Saints, though they are like them in every respect. And if they have humility, (according to your own grant) than you may know also that God will not reject them. He hath promised to give grace to the humble (Jam. 4.6.) To save them (Job 22.29.) To uphold them, (Pro. 29.23.) And to dwell in them, (Isa. 57.15.) and sanctify them, and renovate them by his Spirit. And seeing they have humility, Christ is in them and they in him, and therefore they are new creatures; and the * 2 Cor. 5.17. holiness which accompanieth them (by your own grant) giveth them right to Baptism. And these new creatures have new created spirits, Deut. 30.6. to whom is united the Spirit of the Creator * Isa. 44.3. , and (Christ by him) quickeneth whom he will, Joh. 5.21. which Spirit maketh intercession for them, when they cannot intercede for themselves. All which privileges the infants of believers have, and though they cannot manifest the same actually, yet we may conclude that eternal life is theirs, and the second death shall have no power over them; * Rev. 20.6. they are blessed and happy, having part in the first resurrection; for theirs is the kingdom of heaven; and therefore it appeareth that they are given for an heritage unto Jesus Christ, who is the way, and the truth, the resurrection, and the life, and their Physician, the graces of whose good Spirit, which is infused in them, they cannot be said to refuse, or to reject his kingdom, or any of those good things, which are distributed unto them. If the kingdom of heaven should not appertain unto the infants of believing parents, as it hath done heretofore, than the Scripture is not fulfilled, which saith, that their children shall be as aforetime; but the Scripture is true, as God himself is true, and therefore your words cannot be true. God took the infants of believers into covenant with him formerly, and admitted them to be members of his visible Church then, and he caused a visible sign * Gen. 17.11. , and seal * Rom. 4.11. , of his covenant, & his righteousness of faith to be imposed upon them then, and he declared from time to time his dear love, and his tender affection which he had towards them, and therefore they are as holy as they were, and shall be as holy as they are. Christ is a father * 2 Cor. 6.18. unto the believing Gentiles, as he was unto the believing Jews; and he is the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever; And therefore as the infants of believing Jews * Gen. 17. & Gentiles * Exod. 12.48. were received with their believing parents into the Church of God in former time; So the infants of the believing Jews and Gentiles, are received with their believing parents into the Church of God now; and as the other had Circumcision, so these are to have Baptism, it being given to all the members of Christ's visible Church * Mat. 28.19. , amongst whom they are a part * Mat. 10.14. . And this is according to what is written in the Scripture of God; for thus saith the Lord, Their children shall be as aforetime, and their Congregation shall be established before me, etc. Jer. 30.20. Wherefore now let us see who can give one instance, or tittle of Scripture, for the dismission of their membership, or for barring them from any spiritual privilege (now under the Gospel) which they are capable off, and in particular this of Baptism, seeing it is so generally distributed by the Lord of all administrations, and appertaineth to all Saints. Indeed if Christ Jesus had not been much * Mar. 10.14. displeased with his Disciples for such a thing, and if he had not declared that the kingdom of heaven appertaineth to them, and had not given a command, that they should be admitted unto him, or if he had not taken them up in his arms, and laid his hands upon them, and blessed * Ver. 16. them, but had despised these, and put them from him, and justified his Disciples in their rebuking of them, or if he had given the bringers of them a check, 〈◊〉 ●5. 26. as he did to the Cananitish woman; or if he had given the least touch of holy Infant's supplantation, than you might have had some matter to work upon, in this your sacrilegious opposition of holy infants. But you have no tittle of Scripture to bear you out, all the Scripture from the beginning of Genesis to the end of the Revelation, maketh against you; and therefore we may conclude against you, that the Infants of believers are, (now, as the Infants of believers were, in former time,) even subjects of God's kingdom a Luke 18.16. , members of his Church b Gen. 17. , glorious branches, young sucking-sprigs of his noble Vine c Psal. 80.11. , holy plants d & 128.3. , proceeding from those Olive trees, which are planted in the house of the Lord, and are said to flourish in the Courts of our God e & 92.13. ; And what man shall root them out, without rooting out himself: Jesus hath honoured them greatly, and what shall be done unto those whom the King of heaven delighteth to honour? That the Lord Jesus Christ greatly delighteth to honour the Infants of believers, Mat. 18.2.3. & 19.13, 14, 15. Mar. 10.13, 14, 15, 16. Luk. 18.15, 16, 17. is apparently seen in these Scriptures, where Christ Jesus [now in the time of the Gospel] honoureth them so much by his words and actions. And this is that which that heavenly Prophet Isaiah (being carried by the holy Spirit of God) spoke of long before, Our God, (that Father of mercies, and God of all comfort and consolation,) declared prophetically and oraculously, by Isaiah, the continuation of his truth unto believers, and their Infants, now under the Gospel; prophesying of Christ and of Christians, Isa. 22.21. thus; He shall be a father to the Inhabitants of Jerusalem, 22. and to the house of Judah; And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder, so he shall open, and none shall shut, 23. and he shall shut, and none shall open; And I will fasten him as a nail in a sure place. 24. And he shall be for a glorious throne unto his father's house. And they shall hang upon him all the glory of his father's house, the offspring and the issue, all vessels of small quantity, from the vessels of cups, even to all the vessels of slagons, Isa. 22.21, 22, 23, 24. First, It is here to be observed, that Christ Jesus is called here a Father, ver. 21. He shall be a Father, (saith he.) So [in Isa. 9.6.] he is called the everlasting Father. Now he that is a father, must be a father of some, & whereas he is called an everlasting father, it showeth that he is (as the Apostle saith) the same, yesterday, to day, & for ever * Heb. 13.8. . Secondly, It is declared, to whom he is a father (namely) to the Inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah. Now the Inhabitants of Jerusalem, and the house of Judah, were the Lords Saints, in covenant with him, his Church and people, of whom he had declared that Christ Jesus their Saviour should come; and these, Christ Jesus was said to be a father unto, even to the Church of the Jews, both young and old, parents and children; and salvation was said to be of the Jews a Joh. 4.22. ; Their advantage was much every manner of way, first, because the Oracles of God were b Rom. 3.1, 2. (through Christ) committed unto them; The God of their fathers c Exod. 15.2. was their father d Jer. 31.9. , and was as a nursing e Num. 11.12. father unto them; And the same God is a father now unto the believing Jews and Gentiles, as largely every way as he was then f 2 Cor. 6.18. ; The same God over all, was g Psal. 86.5. , and is, rich h Rom. 10.12. unto all that call upon him; And though some do not believe, it maketh not the faith of God of none effect no more than the infidelity of some persons then, for God was still good unto Israel, [his faithful Jews and Proselytes,] that were of an upright heart, and so he is now. Thirdly, It is said, And the key of the house of David, Isa. 22. ver. 22. will I lay upon his shoulder, so he shall open, and none shall shut, and he shall shut, and none shall open. And the very same with this, is applied unto Christ Jesus, as is mentioned, in Rev. 3.7. These things saith he that is holy, he that is true, he that hath the key of David, that openeth, and no man shutteth, and shutteth, and no man openeth, etc. Thus through his knowledge this righteous servant is made able to justify many; & 53.11. to open to whom he will, and to shut out whom he will; but he shutteth not out the infants of believers; for he declared, Of such is the kingdom of God. Fourthly, He saith, I will fasten him as a nail in a sure place; Note here, he is said to be fastened as a nail in a sure place;] A nail in a sure place, is such a thing, upon which other things have dependence, so that if the nail fall, all those things fall which are upon it; But if the nail be sure, all those things which hang thereon, are still upheld by the strength thereof. Now the Lord Jesus Christ is this nail, and he is strong, and powerful, he is perfect, and pure, no sin or brittleness, was found in him, he was capable to bear the burden that was put upon him, and able to bear it. Yea, and much more doth it appear, in that he is fastened as a nail in a sure * The safeness of holy infants consisteth in the sureness of Jesus Christ; He is unto them, as the sure place is unto him, whose choice burden shall not be taken down, till the time appointed of the Father, place, his humanity is in heaven, and there it is seated and united with his divinity, and there is his place of rest, and abiding, he is at the right hand of God, bearing us, and yet thinketh not himself over-burdened; he is able to bear, and doth bear all his holy vessels, both great, and small; even the offspring, and the issue, the vessels of small quantity; so that it is as possible to pluck God out of heaven, as to take away his former favours, which he hath extended (and doth extend) towards the faithful, and their seed; * Isa. 59.21. As for me, this is my Covenant which I will make with them, saith the Lord, the spirit, that is upon thee, and the words, that I have put in thy mouth, shall not departed out of [Thy mouth] nor out of the month of [thy seed] nor out of the mouth of [thy seeds-seed,] saith the Lord, from henceforth and for ever. Fifthly, It is said, And he shall be for [a glorious throne] unto his father's house; that is, a resting place, and a place of Judgement * Psal. 122.5. , & Justice, Righteousness is the girdle of his loins, and faithfulness, the girdle of his reins * Isa. 11.4. . And this is Christ Jesus our Lord, who doth all things by his own power, & resteth not upon any humane thing, but only upon his own divinity, in whose name we ought to do all which we do; Mat. 18.20. and he hath promised, upon the same, to be in the midst of us, to ratify those divine actions, which proceed from our sincere affections; And as he hath promised the tree of life * Rev. 2.7. and hidden Manna * 17. , and morning star * 28. , (even his own self * 24.16. & 3.21. ) unto us, so hath he promised to grant us to sit with him in his throne. Now he is not said to be for a glorious throne unto any, but unto his father's house, there is this glorious throne set in the midst of this heavenly Regiment, in the midst of his Temple, there is Jesus as a throne or seat; Revel. 4.6.8. yea, further in the midst of the throne, and round about the throne, there are also the four animals (said to be) which are full of eyes before and behind, and rest not neither day nor night, crying, Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come. Isa. 22. ver. 24. Sixthly, It is said further, And they shall hang upon him all the glory of his father's house; Here is a weighty sentence, full of substance. This glorious throne, and holy nail, which is fastened so surely, is done for no sleight intent, but it is for great purpose, (namely) to bear all the glo●ie of his father's house: It is his father's pleasure to exercise him, in bearing our glory, which is his glory, our brightness, which is his brightness; (for indeed we have no comeliness but from him, and we cannot bear ourselves, but he must bear us,) we are the burden, and he is our upholder; he dependeth upon that which will not fail him, and we depend upon him, which will not fail us. And this Angelical patron, hath taught the Inhabitants of Jerusalem, and the house of Judah, (even his Church) to fasten upon him, all the glory of his fathers-house. It is then an Ordinance from heaven, that we shall so do, as he hath said; And this institution therefore being not of man, but of God, it will stand, and it being an injunction laid upon us all, that we must (both young and old) have dependency upon this nail, even the Lord Jesus, we must do so. Now if we take this word [shall] prophetically, it being also a declaration of what should happen, (though it now be historical to us) we may still see the fulfilling of it, in Mat. 19.13. Mar. 10.13. Luk. 18.15. where the Inhabitants of Jerusalem, and the house of Judah brought their children unto Christ, and he took them up and bore them in his arms; A real sign of his love unto them indeed; And his Saints now do esteem their Infants, blessed in Jesus Christ, and do depend upon him, that he will circumcise their hearts, and the heart of their seed, (to love him more, and more,) according to his gracious promise; Deut. 30.6. And this is that which this Prophetical and Documentall sentence teacheth us, when it saith, They shall hang (or cause to rely, or depend) upon him, all the glory of his father's house; The least glory must not be left out, but all must be brought in, and laid upon him. He is the object, upon whom they must fix their eyes; He is the nail, upon which they must fasten them; for so is his Command, Mar. 10.14. Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbidden them not, for of such is the kingdom of God. As if he should say; They are the burden which I must bear, because they are part of the furniture of my father's kingdom. And those whom the father giveth me, I will not cast away. It is not the will of your heavenly father, that any of these little ones should perish * Mar. 18.1. Joh. 21.15. . They are Israelites, the lambs of my pasture, & I am the Shepherd of Israel, and will in no wise cast them away. He said, Surely they are my people, children that will not lie, so he was their Saviour; In all their affliction he was afflicted; Isa. 63.8, 9 And as I (being the Angel of God's presence) saved them, and in my love and in my pity redeemed them, and bore them up in mine arms all the days of old, so will I bear them now; Therefore, suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbidden them not, for of such is the kingdom of God. Wherefore let all those who oppose holy infants know, that they thus far, are enemies unto the Gospel, and so do sin against God exceedingly, in labouring to cast out these who are the glory of our father's house. But the holy Prophet Isaiah saith, that upon all the glory, there shall be a covering * Isa. 4.5. . Now Infants being part of the glory, there is a covering upon them, and this covering, 59.21. is by the Spirit of the Lord, for verification whereof, see the Evangel. Mat. 19.14 * Luk. 18.15, 16 where Christ saith, Of such is the kingdom of heaven, (Mark. 10.14. Of such is the kingdom of God. And he took them up in his arms, and put his hands upon them, and blessed them. (Ver. 15.) And by this it may appear, that all believing parents have ground to cast their infants upon the Lord Jesus Christ, and for them to depend upon him, who is as a nail fastened in a sure place. And whereas it is said, [All the glory,] We are taught not to leave out any of the glory, lest by abridging (or debarring) our Infants of their privileges, we leave out some of the glory, (if not the chiefest part) and so highly disobey God's Institution, in leaving out his ordinances, and his people, which are the glory of his house. It is to be minded, that this word [all,] is agreeable to the words of Christ, when he saith, Of such is the kingdom of heaven; for this word [such,] (as hath been observed * See before in pag. 92, 93. 99 100 ) is of a large extent, and includeth them also, they being the glory of the Father's house; So in Malachy, the seed of the godly are called, a godly seed, Mal. 2.14. and in 1 Cor. 7.14. they are termed holy children. God greatly delighteth in them, and they are a glory unto his Church; Wherefore they are dignified with names accordingly. And moreover, Christ being set forth as a nail unto these holy vessels, it doth signify unto us, that these must be put upon him which have not a natural capableness, the holy offspring, and blessed issue, the vessels in God's temple must be fastened upon * Not but that they are of the Temple, or members of the Church, but for more comeliness, & honour, and eminency, safety, glory, and dignity, they were appointed to be set on high (by the Inhabitants of Jerusalem, & the house of Judah) upon him, who is as a nail fastened in a sure place. him by others. If we compare the 17th of Genesis with this, it will give light to the point; for there the parents were commanded to circumcise their children, which was unto them a sign and seal of the righteousness of the same faith which Abraham had, and so it was a token that they belonged unto the Lord. And Baptism [being unto us as Circumcision was unto them,] we therefore baptise our infants, as they circumcised theirs; and thereby do confirm them unto Christ, as they confirmed theirs. And because he claimeth these holy vessels of small quantity, we therefore dedicate them unto him, according as God commanded the Children of Israel concerning theirs, and so we put them upon the Lord Jesus Christ; and they are his peculiar treasure, and he beareth them, and approveth of our practice in bringing them unto him, it being according to his Commandment, who is as faithful in his house as Moses, and is worthy of more glory than Moses * Heb. 3.3. , inasmuch as he who buildeth the house, is worthy of more honour than the house. Now in this house, there the Lord hath ordained his vessels of small quantity to abide, who are the offspring, and the issue, and the glory thereof. And they may well be called so, for God calleth and counteth them so. And also where this glory is, there is still hope, and it is, and may (in reason) be expected, that as they come to be capable, so they will manifest actually the fruits of God's Spirit; and as they are children of light, and enlightened, so they will set it forth, to the glory of the father of lights; And as glorious stars in eminency, show forth their excellency, in the bright firmament of that heavenly Jerusalem, wherein they are planted, and placed, and will be also a means to increase it, not only by grafting in those fare remote, but also by propagation, (or multiplication) of persons within themselves. As Moses (that good Christian, who was like unto Christ) saith, Deut. 1.11. The Lord make you a thousand times so many as you be. Which speech is not to be limited to an addition of persons, unto them from out of the world, but it is meant that they should increase amongst themselves, and so multiply; even as a tree, which (though it have grafts) yet groweth into many branches, which branches are not grafted in, but spring therefrom and grow thereupon. Now where this glory is not, there is a want of it, yea, and a great want, I may say indeed! And why? Because that the Church than is (in expectation, according to the ordinary course of nature) in a decaying condition. I say, the Church is ready to decay, that is to say, to be lessened more, and more, in this terrestrial habitacle; for it is appointed unto men once to die, and when they are dead, they are gone, and leave the remnant, or none behind them. But holy infants being in the Church, and members, of the same, they are a glory unto it, and it may well be expected, (according to the ordinary course of nature) that they will outlive the other, and so succeed them after their decease, and so the celestial glory of the fathers will shine in the children, (according to the mind of God) in this terrestrial world. Now where this glory is missing, (so that the generations in the Church do pass away, and none are borne to succeed,) there is a want in that respect, and so consequently, the supply thereof is to be desired; which if it be made up, than it is a glory, an honour, a rejoicing unto them. So that though this hope deferred, maketh the heart sick, yet the desire coming is as a tree of life, Pro. 13.12. a reviving unto them. Look upon the first Church that was on earth, Adam and Eve, see whether they were not comforted in bringing forth children to God; and what hope had they of the continuance of the Church on earth, if it were not by promulgation of children to their celestial Father. After Abel was slain, and Cain cast out, God sent Seth, in stead of Abel; Gen. 4.25, 26. and this thing Eve did acknowledge, and this was a great comfort unto them. And thus Eve, the mother of us all, was like unto Rachel and Leah, who built the house of Israel; And how was this? Even by bringing forth a holy seed unto God, and bringing them up in his fear. And this made all the People, and the Elders of Israel, Ruth 4.11, 12. to say unto Boze, (upon his wedding day;) The Lord make the woman that is come into thine house, like Rachel, and like Leah, which two did build the house of Israel! And do thou worthily in Ephratah, and be famous in Bethlem. And let thy house be like the house of Pharez (whom Tamar bore unto Judah) of the [seed] which the Lord shall give thee of this young woman. Note here, that the holy seed, the offspring, & the issue, are materials for building the Lords house, they are the comfort of Israel, & the glory of God's holy house, and kingdom. But where there is no offspring, no issue, than there is not that joy, that gladness, that glory, that expectation of succession, as would be, if there were children. Wherefore the Lord for comforting his people Israel, Isa. 29.22, 23. saith in the 29th of Isaiah, ver. 22, 23. Thus saith the Lord, who redeemed Abraham, concerning the house of Jacob; Jacob shall not now be ashamed, neither shall his face now wax pale. Ver. 23. But when he seethe his children, the work of mine hands in the midst of him, they shall sanctify my Name, and sanctify the holy One of Jacob, and shall fear the God of Israel. Ver. 24. They also that erred in spirit, shall come to understanding; and they that murmured, Jer. 30.20. shall learn doctrine. And in the 30th Chapter of Jeremiah, Ver. 20. God saith, their children shall be as aforetime, and their Congregation shall be established before me, etc. And in the 31. Chapter of Jeremiah, Jer. 31.15, 16, 17. Ver. 15, 16, 17. Thus saith the Lord, (to Rahel, which wept for her children (from two years old and under, ((Mat. 1.16, 17, 18.)) and refused to be comforted, because they were not) Refrain thy voice from weeping, and thine eyes from tears: for thy work shall be rewarded, saith the Lord, and they shall come again from the land of the enemy. Ver. 17. And there is hope in thine end, saith the Lord, that thy children shall come again unto their own border. Take notice here, how the Lord comforted his people, and spoke comfortably to Jerusalem; And he is the same unto his people, as he hath been heretofore; His comfort is not lessened, but is extended to all Saints, from the least unto the greatest, from the youngest to the eldest. God never lesseneth his glory nor his excellency, Psal. 68.19. which he communicateth to his people, but daily increaseth his blessings, and multiplieth his benefits towards them and theirs, and increaseth their glory, & doth not, nor never did, diminish it from them, or their infants. And therefore experience teacheth us, that the infants of the Saints are the glory of the father's house, as heretofore they have been. Seeing then it is so clear, that the infants of believers are the glory of the father's house, they (being of his household) must have the privileges of the house, according to the appointment of the householder; and what is appointed for such vessels of honour, and of glory? Surely these holy vessels of the Lords sanctuary, they being believers, and Disciples of Christ, being hallowed by the holy Ghost, aught to be baptised; See Mat. 28.19. Mark. 16.16. Seventhly, It is declared, what this glory is, and wherein this glory consisteth, or what must be put upon Christ, what glorious things, even the offspring, and the issue, (saith he) that is to say, their seed, or children; for they are the offspring, and the issue, as may appear by these Scriptures; [Job 5.25. Isa. 21.8. & 48.19. & 61.9. & 65.23. Rev. 22.16. Gen. 48.5, 6.] And this is according to what the Apostle declareth in 1 Cor. 7.14. that the children of believers, (male, or female,) the offspring, and the issue, are a holy seed. Now this offspring, and issue, hath dependency upon Jesus Christ, and he beareth them, and will bear them, Rom. 8.30. and bless them in bearing them, and justify them in blessing them, and sanctify them in justifying them, and glorify them in sanctifying them; He is all in all, in them, and for them, and to them; Their glory, is the glory of his Father's house, and they are the glory thereof, as hath been showed before. Wherefore let all Christian parents, as they love Christ, in procreation of their children, dedicate their holy offspring, and blessed issue, unto God, and lay them upon the Lord Jesus Christ, and say unto him, Save us thy people, (both great & small, Psal. 28.9. ) and bless thine inheritance, gather them, and lift them up for ever. Eighthly, Further, this holy offspring, and blessed issue, which is the glory of the house of the God of all glory and power, (who is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ) are called vessels of small quantity; vessels of small quantity, are used to be set upon nails sometimes for show, for safety and conveniency, glory and decency. Now Jesus Christ is as a nail, the offspring, and the issue, are the vessels of small quantity, and these holy vessels of small quantity, Jesus Christ is said to bear; yea, and to bear them all, [all] vessels of small quantity, (saith the Text.) Wherefore we have no ground to cast away any of them, or omit the least of these vessels, though they are but of [small] quantity. Some peradventure will think, that because the infants of believers are vessels of [small] quantity, that therefore they are [no vessels,] or vessels of [no] quantity, or vessels of contempt, or disgrace, or such in whom there is no glory spiritually, or such concerning whom they cannot judge, or such in whom the seed of God's grace is not to be esteemed to be. But let them know, that they do violent injury unto Jesus Christ, and do exceedingly eclipse the glory of his Mediatorship; For as the smallest vessels in the Lord's Temple, in the time of the Law, were as holy as the greater, though they could not contain so much; So the Infants of believers, (who are the Lords vessels) are as holy, as those Saints who are past their minority, though they being Infants, through tenderness of years, cannot contain, or receive, what the others (who be aged) can; yet are they as precious in Christ's estimation, and have his holiness upon them, as aged Saints have. There was a great difference * They differed in the quantity, not in the quality. Zach. 4.20. , in the time of the Law, between the spoons, flagons, and cups, in the Temple; and the censers, seas, and pots: and yet they were all holy, both great and small: and so were the Jews, both young and old, great and small, Infants and aged persons they were all holy ecclesiastically, and all the Lords holy vessels; and we are not to have such sacrilegious thoughts, as to think God doth refuse the infants of believers, though they are vessels of small quantity. The Bowls before the Altar were counted very glorious, when it is taken for such an excellent thing, for the pots in the Lord's house, to be like unto them. If then the pots in the Lord's house, spiritually are, (in these last days, and flourishing times of the Gospel * In respect that there is and hath been [both by the sight of the eye, & hearing of the ear] (and in divers other respects) most of God, of Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, manifested in these last days. ) like the bowls before the Altar; What are the bowls before the Altar? What are the cups? What are the flagons? The Lord in numbering up his holy vessels of small quantity, [even the holy offspring, and the blessed issue,] calleth them by the name of cups and flagons, and calleth them the glory of his house. All which doth set forth the excellency of the Infants of believers, their great holiness, and high estimation with Jesus Christ. Compare with this the Historical Relations of Christ, concerning infants in the Gospel; and there the fulling of this Prophecy will appear to be; for there they brought infants to him, that he should put his hands on them, and pray; and he approved of their act * Mat. 19.13. , yea, and gave free admittance for the infants to come unto him, and charged that none should interrupt the bringers, by forbidding them; because of such is the kingdom of heaven * Mar. 10 14. Luk. 18.17. ; and he took them up in his arms, and put his hands upon them, and blessed them ** Mar. 10.15. . But to this you answer; First, That all this is not baptising them; for Christ baptised not, A. R. Pag. 14. lin. 3, 4, 5. Joh. 4.2. And therefore this place seems not at all to prove the baptising of Infants. Ans. The holy Ghost fell upon Cornelius, and his friends, Act. 10.44. at Peter's preaching, though all this was not baptising them with water; yet (they being baptised by the holy Ghost) who could forbid water that they should not be baptised, which had received the holy Ghost as well as * Ver. 47. others; So the infants which Christ took up in his arms, he laid his hands upon, and blessed, Christ did more for holy Infants, then baptise them with water. and declared that the Kingdom of God belonged unto them; Of such is the Kingdom of heaven (saith he) & Christ had declared, that without the Spirit, persons could not enter into the Kingdom of God. But these infants were subjects of his Kingdom, (according to the doctrine of Christ) and therefore they had the Spirit; and seeing the infants of believers are as they were, they have the Kingdom, the Gospel, the Spirit, and the graces of the Spirit, and all, and therefore they may lawfully be baptised, and therefore these places have not only a semblance in them, but also a substantial ground for the baptising of the infants of the faithful; It being not various in the least, from any of God's institutions, but every manner of way agreeable to the same. And though then neither Christ, nor his Spirit, baptised with the Baptism of water, but instrumentally, yet those that have Christ, and the Spirit, have the inward Baptism, and so are to have the outward Baptism; but the infants of believers, have Christ and the Spirit, (for they have the Kingdom, which cannot be without the Spirit) therefore the infants of believers are to have the outward Baptism; As hath been proved before, and even now, and shall be further cleared afterwards. Next you say; Secondly, Let them that please do as here Christ did, A. R. yet much rather let us all learn the lesson which Christ here taught, A. R. without which we cannot be saved. But we quite perverting Christ's meaning, do in another sense become little children: for some at first had no sooner hence sounded out this tune in our ears, that the Kingdom of heaven belongs to little children, and therefore Baptism: But we all presently, like little children, dance after this pipe, as though our heads were lighter than our heels: and in the mean time lose the true sense, the marrow and fatness of these Texts which so much do concern us. And thus it is not only in these Texts, but in many more, in so much that we through this our childish (if not brutish) following the heard of Interpreters from humane authority, rather take many gross errors for undeniable principles, then once open our eyes to see and receive the truth upon Gods own bare word, that we might believe, and so be saved out of this quicksand of delusions: And indeed how can we believe, giving and receiving honour thus one of another, and seek not that honour that cometh of God alone: As Christ tells us, Joh. 12.44. To which I answer, That those may rightly do as Christ here did, who are heirs of the Kingdom whereof Christ is King. But before [you] do as Christ here did (take that counsel which you give unto others) learn the lesson which Christ hath here taught, without which, (you say) you cannot be saved. And seeing that the kingdom of heaven consisteth of the infants of believers, we may safely believe, and justly conclude, that though they are little in quantity, yet they are great in quality, and most precious in the eyes of the Lord. And surely we have need of humility, to teach us, not to be so proud, as to despise the day of [small * Zech. 4.10. things.] It is not the way to be happy, to despise those that are happy, though they have not attained to such a measure, as to confess, or express, by verbal relations, or visible demonstrations, Gods work upon their souls. And I tell you further, If you hold on in your errors, in withstanding holy infants, and do not repent of this your evil, you cannot rightly do as Christ here did, nor learn the lesson which Christ here taught, (and so upon your own ground cannot be saved) but do come under the censure (which you have here set down * Pag. 14. lin. 8, 9 ) of quite perverting Christ's meaning, etc. and losing the true sense, marrow, and fatness of these Texts, which so much concern us: An evident proof of this appeareth in your interpretation of the Scripture (in the Gospel which speaketh of infants) which you would not have to be meant of those Infants, nor of such as them in age or understanding, but of others, who are such as them in humility, and such like qualifications. So that you tying yourself unto this restriction * In Pag. 13. lin. 26, 27. 38, 39, 40, 41. , have indeed lost the marrow, and gnawn upon the bone, bitten on the bark in stead of the pith, the shell in stead of the kernel. And thus you have done, not only in these Texts, but in many more, as doth evidently appear, in these your Childish Treatises of Baptism. And if your humane Authors have made you childish, and brutish, be no more so; If you have followed them in stead of the Word, as it so appeareth by your citing them, in your Childish Treatises, and building upon their mistake; Repent then, and sin no more; Open your eyes, & see the truth; Take hold of the promises (if it be possible) that you may be saved out of this your quicksand of delusions. As for the objections which you call scattering objections * Pag 14. lin. 24, 25. , which (you say) you have met withal; As they are set down by you, some of them may well be said to be scattering. In the first objection, (in the inference) you speak of ordinances * Lin. 29. in general, which must be esteemed the Ordinances of Jesus Christ, by whom soever, or on whom soever they are administered. But here you have not told us, what Ordinances are to be esteemed so. But in answering * Lin. 33. it, you labour to discover the weakness of the Objection, which is without distinction; and you would infer, as though the objecters meant by ordinances, acts merely; for so you say * Pag. 15. lin. 9 , this objection imports, that had but the Idolatrous Corinthians taken bread and wine, and broken it, and divided it among their dogs and swine, yet this should have been the ordinance of Christ, if it must remain his by whom soever, or on whom soever it is administered; And so you demand * Lin. 15. (upon this) whether the Apostle received any such ordinance, & c? And at length you deny it to be the mind, commandment, or ordinance of Christ at all, and therefore you conclude, That for any to call such actions his ordinances, can be no less than blasphemy against the Son of God. To which, I say, that if he who framed this objection, meaneth that the ordinances of Christ, are the ordinances of Christ, than we are not to understand that he meaneth here by ordinances, mere natural acts, as giving bread and wine to dogs and swine, he hath not so expressed it; and therefore, though you denied your own inference, or swinish insinuation, yet you could not justly charge him with blasphemy against the Son of God in this particular; But rather those may be charged with blasphemy, who deny the ordinances of Christ, to be the ordinances of Christ. And indeed I think reason should teach you, that the ordinances of Christ, are the ordinances of Christ; for as every thing is the same with itself, so every ordinance of Christ is the same with itself. But (next you say;) Obj. They will reply, that bread and wine received by any in such a manner, and water sprinkled in the Name of the Father, etc. are his ordinances, and therefore whosoever hath these, hath his ordinance. Ans. I think this your accusation, is a mere surmise, or groundless supposition. You say, They will thus reply; Who are they that will thus reply? I think you have no opposite, in withstanding this, except it be such as yourself. This may well be called scattering; for it is the nature of chaff, and stubble, to be scattered by the wind; and indeed, I think that this objection (which you make to be a reply of others) is your own (if the truth were known.) And you might have saved your labour in bringing such frivolous toys. For you know, that our point is not concerning eating bread, or drinking wine, or sprinkling water, as they are merely natural acts, but as they are divine ordinances. Now to say that the eating of bread, and drinking wine, and sprinkling water, [as they are merely natural acts] are divine ordinances, and that therefore whosoever hath these, hath his ordinances, is very absurd. I never did hear it proceed out of any one's mouth, nor read in any book, besides your own. I conceive then that you might have saved your labour, and not made answer where there is no opposition, but have kept your Bartholomew-babies for Bartholomew-faire, unless you could have proved them to be the King's Subjects, as the children of six months old are, whom you have (familiarly a Pag 16. lin. 1. by a Supposition b Lin. 2. ) equalised c Lin. 15. with them in your answer. But herein also you are deceived in your judgement, it being a very childish and babish comparison; For you might know (if you have the use of your senses) that Bartholomew-babies [of the best sort] are unsensible, but [the meanest children] (of six months old) are reasonable creatures, and therefore it appeareth that your unsensible comparisons are unseasonable at this time. But the next objection being sound, you cannot answer, but in labouring to turn it away, discover how deeply you are drenched in deceivable errors, and vain conceits. The objection or position is, that It is said (1 Cor. 10.1, 2.) of the children of Israel, that they were all baptised in the cloud, and in the sea; there being young children, as well as men of years. Your answer unto this is as followeth: The Text is, that they were all baptised unto Moses in the cloud, A. R. Pag. 16. li. 23. and in the sea: But our question is not of baptising unto Moses, but of baptising unto Christ, by being dipped or buried in water by the similitude of his death, according to the institution of Christ: Thus were not these Israelites baptised, for they were in the cloud, and in the sea dry, nor was baptism then instituted; Thus then is the sense of the place; That not enjoying of any outward privilege, as Baptism, or the Lord's Supper, without true faith, companied with obedience, will now save us any more than the many outward privileges & visible signs of God's presence, and the great outward deliverances which the Lord by the hand of Moses afforded and wrought for the Israelites, in bringing them through the sea, in defending and guiding them in the Wilderness; by the cloud did exempt and save them from God's Judgements; for notwithstanding their enjoying all these outward favours, many of them perished in the Wilderness for their sins and disobedience; which St Paul sets out as examples unto us; and therefore here by way of allusion compareth their outward privileges, to the outward privileges and ordinances of the New Testament; Even as St Peter in like manner figuratively speaketh of the Ark, 1 Pet. 3.20, 21. When once the long suffering of God, waited in the days of Noah, while the Ark was preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water; the like figure whereunto Baptism doth now also save us, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ. These then being only figures and allusions, cannot serve at all to prove the point in hand. The Reply. That the Text doth declare they were all baptised unto Moses in the cloud, and in the sea, is clear, 1 Cor. 10.1, 2. And this place doth make directly against particular parts of your Judgement; as your denying the Baptism of Infants to be lawful, affirming it to be only a mere device and tradition of men, brought into the world for politic and by-ends * See A. R. his first book, in the Epistle to the Reader. . Now here you may see who brought it into the world; I will not say God did it for politic or by-ends; for than I should be like the Serpent, which would have persuaded Eve that God [for such by-ends] did forbid them to eat of the tree of knowledge of Good and evil; thereby to possess them with this, as though God envied their happy estate. But we know that God's love is not self-love, his end was always to do his people good at their later end; and by the baptising of them in the cloud and the sea, he did prophetically demonstrate what should be in the days of the Messiah; and herein aimed not only at his own glory, but at his people's comfort. See A. R. his Vanity of Childish Baptism, pag. 9 Secondly, This place maketh against your Judgement, in your holding and seeking to maintain a necessity of plunging the whole man in water in the ordinance of Baptism; for the Apostle saith, They were all baptised in the cloud, and in the sea; But we will not say, that they were plunged in water (or overwhelmed with the water of the Sea;) for then they would have been like unto the Egyptians; for the Egyptians were served after this manner * Exod. 14.27, 28. . Neither will we affirm (as you do,) that the Israelites were in the cloud and in the sea dry, without declaring what dryness we mean; for though they went upon dry ground, and the waters were a wall unto them; on the right hand, and on the left * Ver. 22, 23. , yet we may collect from the Scriptures, that they were baptised * 1 Cor. 10.1, 2. Exod. 14.19. Psal 77.15, 16 17, 18, 19, 20. with water out of the Cloud (or Sea.) But this Text you labour to shift off, by telling us, that your question is not of baptising unto Moses, but of baptising unto Christ, by being dipped or buried in water, etc. And by this it appeareth that you think this Baptism which the Children of Israel received, was not the Baptism of, (or unto) Christ, but merely a Baptism unto Moses. But you should know that Moses was not such a one as you take him to be; for he was faithful in all his house, and brought no innovations into God's Church. The Evangelicall Ordinances and Oracles then, were the things of God; If then they were the things of God; God's Son, who was always God with God, was then the owner thereof, and he being the Angel of God's presence * Isa. 63.8, 9 , who was with them in the cloud, and in the sea, when they were Baptised * Exod. 14, 19 , we may safely conclude, that the Baptism was his, as well as the rest of the Oracles and Ordinances. And you should know, that though the manner of [Baptising] then unto Moses, and now unto Christ, differeth in Circumstances, yet the [Baptism] is one and the same in substance, and therefore the Apostle Paul telleth us, they were all [Baptised] in the cloud, and in the sea * 1 Cor. 10.2. ; and he putteth no other differences between the two Baptisms, but that the one is as the other. And therefore when we speak of that Baptism, we cannot but speak of the Baptism of Christ a Understand here, that I speak of the Baptism of water; for Christ is said (by his authority) to Baptism with water, as well as with the holy Ghost & fire; and so the baptism of water is his, whether before or after his ascension. ; for as the Baptism of Christ, is not the Baptism of John, yet the Baptism of John, was the Baptism of Christ. So though the Baptism of Christ is not the Baptism of Moses, yet the Baptism of Moses was the Baptism of Christ; For Moses was faithful in all his house as a servant (for a testimony of those things which were to be spoken afterwards) but Christ as a Son, who was counted worthy of more glory than Moses; for he was the builder of the house; and therefore is worthy of more honour than the house b Heb. 3.2, 3. . And seeing they were all baptised unto Moses (who was commended for his faithfulness c Ver. 5. ) there is no just reason can be given to debar the infants of believers from Baptism now, or from being baptised unto Christ, seeing Christ is worthy of more glory th●n Moses; and that the Son's d Ver. 6. privileges are no less (but more) then the servants. But you bring in exceptions against the baptism then, and so labour to make a disparity between the baptism then in the cloud and sea, and this baptism now; for you say, They were not dipped, and then yield this reason; for they were in the cloud, and in the sea dry. But I would know of you, how long they were dry? Surely they might be watered, and yet not be dipped! There is a Medium between being dipped, and being dry. We read that the children of Isreal were baptised * 1 Cor. 10.2. , but we do not read, that they were overwhelmed, (as the Egyptians were * Exod. 14.28. .) But by this it appeareth, that the Scripture is of no value unto you, unless it will agree with your fond opinions; for you would argue, that because they were not dipped; therefore they were not baptised, at least, not according to Christ's institution. And afterwards you say, Nor was Baptism then instituted. So you have answered yourself, though it be after a writhe manner; If Baptism were not then instituted, how could that Baptism be according to the institution of Christ? though they were dipped never so much! I hope you will not say, that dipping, or plunging, maketh Baptism any more to be of Christ's institution? For than you will say, that the Egyptians were baptised according to Christ's institution, and not the Israelites. But you should know, t●at the Israelites were not baptised contrary to Christ's institution; The Angel of God's presence was with his people then, in the cloud and in the sea, He was the Instituter. Consider then (I pray you) what want was there of any thing needful unto Baptism? Ob. 1. Did they want an Instituter? Ans. They had him with them in the sea. Ob. 2. Did they want an Administrater? Ans. The Instituter could do it, or appoint it to be done by some other besides himself; But they were all baptised (saith Paul) therefore I conclude, that seeing they had the Administration, it was not without an Administrator. Ob. 3. Did they want the Element? Ans. They had water enough in the cloud, and if that had been too little, there was more in the sea; and if the Angel of God's presence (their present companion) had seen it good, they should have been dipped, and should have had as great a quantity of the Element in Baptism, as the Egyptians had without it. Ob. 4. Did they want subjects? Ans. They were the subjects themselves, and right subjects we may say; for they were such who were in God's covenant; of which Circumcision (the seal * Rom. 4.11. of the righteousness of faith) was a sign * Gen. 17.11. . This being rightly minded, it may refute your former opinion (to wit) that the Baptism of infants cannot be of God, but of man, a vain, and lying tradition * Pag. 7. lin. 18. 19 22. , thrust upon the world under colour; foisted in like Antichristian devices. Now sure if it were not of God, but of man, you will tell us what man invented it. Seeing you have presumed to be so bold to go thus far, I pray you (if you can) go a little further, and tell us who invented it; you cited divers humane Authors * Pag. 7.8, 9 , which were since Christ, but sure they were not the inventors thereof, for here you may see it was administered long before they were borne, many hundreds of years; and so your new account cometh too short to prove the Baptism of infants to be invented since Christ, for as much as this of Moses undermineth that your sandy conception. Who invented it then? I pray you tell me, for sure you can tell! at least you think so, otherwise you would not have termed it as you do. Moses did not invent it, he was faithful over his Master's house as a servant, bringing nothing into the worship and service of God, but what was appointed by God; neither would he, or God suffer such a thing to be acted, and to go unreproved; except it were according to God's appointment. Neither would the Apostle have called it Baptism, as he doth in 1 Cor. 10.1, 2. had it been an invention of man, and not an institution, or an action of Gods. But you (your self) have granted it to be a privilege unto them; then sure you must by this confess it was no invention of man, but the Lords do, though it be marvellous in your eyes; and therefore seeing that the children of Israel (in the cloud, and in the sea) had baptism conferred upon them by divine right; it was not a humane invention, nor diabolical institution (according to your former affirmation) but an Evangelicall Administration. Next you take upon you to give the sense of the place, but you from it; you tell us, that no enjoining of any outward privilege, as Baptism, or the Lord's Supper, will now save us, without true faith, accompanied with obedience; and I tell you, that I also affirm the same. But when you should declare that our Baptism cannot save us without faith, no more than their Baptism could save them, you from the point in particular, and speak in general of their many outward privileges; and when you come to particulars, you mind their bringing through the sea for one, their defence and guidance in the Wilderness by the cloud for another; but you omit their Baptism, the main thing which you should keep to at this time, and so you run on, and would turn Paul's particular testimony, into a general; whereas Paul doth speak in particular, and telleth us, that they were baptised. And at length you come to Peter, and take upon you to tell us the manner of his speech, how he compareth the Baptism of the Ark, with the Baptism now, and saith, the like figure Baptism doth now also save us; and so you tell us, that these being only figures and allusions, can prove nothing to the point in hand. Thus now you have cast off both the Baptisms of the New and Old Testament; for the Apostle Peter speaketh of the Baptism of Noah, and of the Baptism now, and saith, this is a like figure to that, and you tell us, they are figures, and allusions; but I think you mean delusions; for you say, they serve not at all to prove the point in hand. But as for this Answer of yours, it is one and the same with that in the Anabaptists Dialog. For there they tell us; 1. That Moses did not at all wash them with water in the cloud and sea. 2. That this of Moses is called Baptism by comparison, as Noah's Ark is called the figure of the Baptism that saveth us: for as the Ark saved those in it from drowning: so the Israelites were all under the cloud, and in the sea, and therein baptised or safegarded from destruction of their enemies. 3. That it pleased the Holy Ghost to [say] they were baptised in the sea and cloud, because the sea and cloud was their safety, as Noah's Ark was: And as Christ saith, they are baptised that suffer for his sake: So there is as much warrant to enjoin Infants to suffer persecution, because it is called Baptism; as to baptism them, because the cloud and sea is called Baptism. To this Mr. Ainsworth saith * In his book called A censure upon the Anabaptists Dialog pa. 99 ; Let them consider Exod. 14.24.25. compared with Psal. 77.16, 17. etc. And they may see there was water enough in the cloud: and they will not say (I think) that there was no water in the sea. All outward baptising or washing, must be with water, or some other liquor. If they were not baptised with water, what other liquor were they baptised in? Not with blood, as in the baptism of suffering death for Christ's sake, which they impertinently mention. Not with wine or strong drink; for they found none such in the Wilderness. If they can show nothing but water to baptise them in, l●t them deny no more (for shame) that they were baptised with water. God spoke to our fathers by the Prophets at sundry times (or in * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sundry parts, as it were by peice-meale) as the Apostle teacheth, Heb. 1.1. By Moses he shown how the cloud removed from before Israel, and stood behind them, (as they passed through the Sea) and gave them light, but was darkness to the Egyptians: and from the fiery cloudy pillar the Lord looking, troubled the Egyptians, and took off their Chariot wheels, that they drove them heavily, Exod. 14.19, 20.24, 25. This being briefly and obscurely told by Moses, God after by Asaph another Prophet, showeth the manner of it, how not only the waters of the Sea saw the Lord, when they fled and parted; but the clouds also from above poured out water when they reigned; the skies sent out a sound by thunder, etc. Thus the ground being softened with the rain, occasioned the Chariot wheels of the Egyptians (sticking in the mire) to fall off, and hinder their pursuit: Psal. 77.16. etc. After this the Apostle (taught by God's Spirit) manifesteth the mystery which before was kept secret, namely, how this passage under the cloud (which reigned) and through the sea, was a baptism to the Israelites: even as Christian men's washings in rivers or vessels, was a baptism to them. And as the Manna which Israel eat, and water from the rock which they drank, was the same spiritual meat and drink, which we have signified by bread and wine in the Lord's Supper, so their washing in the cloud and sea, and our washing in vessels or rivers, is spiritually the same baptism: from hence we gather the baptising of our Infants by two Arguments:] 1. All our fathers (saith Paul) were baptised in the cloud and sea: therefore (say we) Infants; for seeing there was no other baptism but that in the cloud and sea, such of our fathers as than were Infants, were at that time baptised, or else many of our fathers (even all the infants of many thousand families) were never baptised: which is contrary to the Apostles doctrine. And if Infants had baptism under Moses, it cannot be denied them under Christ. 2. In that the Apostle teacheth us, that the extraordinary and temporary sacraments (or seals of salvation) which Israel had, were the substance and truth which we now have, though Moses doth not so express: It followeth upon like ground, that their ordinary seals, namely, Circumcision, and the Passeover, were the same in truth and substance with baptism, and the Lords Supper, which we now have, and being the same; As Infants had Circumcision then, so they are to have baptism now. Secondly, Whereas they say that of Moses was called baptism by comparison, as if it were not properly baptism: they swarve from the right way: it was as truly and properly baptism to them, as ours is to us, though the manner of administration differ: even as their Manna and water were as truly and properly the Sacrament of Christ's body and blood to them, as bread and wine in the Lord's Supper are to us. Otherwise the Apostle should not say truly, that they were the same. 1 Cor. 10.3, 4. Thirdly, Noah's Ark is not called the figure of baptism, as these corrupters of Scripture tell us: but baptism (saith the Apostle) is a like figure (or antitype) 1 Pet. 3.21. So that the saving by water of eight then in the Ark, was a type or figure: and the saving of a few now by water in baptism, is an antitype, or like figure; both of them figuring salvation by the death of Christ. Fourthly, Neither do these men set down the reason fully and rightly, why they are said to be baptised, (namely,) because the cloud and sea was their safety, as Noah's Ark was,) for though it may in some sense be granted, that these were their safety, as baptism is our safety, (for it is said to save us, 1 Pet. 3.21.) yet properly they are said to be baptised in the cloud and sea, because they were in them sacramentally washed from their sins, and planted together in the likeness of his death, burial, and resurrection, as we are now by baptism, Rom. 6.3, 4, 5. The cloud served them for three uses: 1. To protect and keep them safe, Isa. 4.5.6. 2. To guide them in the way that they should go, Numb. 9.17 etc. Exod. 14.21. And these two were ordinary. 3. To baptise them by pouring down water, and this was extraordinary, and but one time in the red Sea, for aught we find. And in this respect Paul saith, they were baptised in it. Fifthly, Their last speech of enjoining infants to suffer persecution, as well as to baptise them, is spoken with a wry mouth: for as we enjoin not Infants to be baptised, though we baptise them; so can we not enjoin them to suffer persecution. But this we say and know, as Infants are baptised into Christ, so oftentimes they suffer persecution for Christ, being with their parents afflicted, imprisoned, banished, etc. yea, and bereft of life itself, so that they have even the baptism of blood or martyrdom also. Thus you may see, that there hath been (long ago) a large and sufficient Answer made unto this Answer of the Anabaptists of old, which is even one and the same with yours. Thus much for reply to your Answer to the third objection. As touching the fourth & fifth objection (the charitable construction being set aside) I except against them both; but especially the fourth; that the outward baptism is not needful to him that hath the * Pag. 17. lin. 8. other. And so for the fifth objection * Lin. 19 , which is, that Baptism is nothing, (though it may bear a charitable construction) yet if any conceive Baptism is nothing, as it is an ordinance of God, they err. Neither do I know any one amongst all the Separation, that holdeth Baptism to be nothing, but they reverence it as an ordinance of God. It is true [as you have granted in answering hereof * Lin. 26. Christian Reader, See Mr. Henry Barow, one of the three Martyrs (in Q Elizabeth's time,) his discovery of the false Church; for there he treateth on this particular point at large, and reproveth the scholastical party, who did labour to persuade the Queen, that seeing her Majesty had the inward Baptism, and had done many works of mercy and piette that therefore she might rest herself satisfied, whether she had the outward baptism or no: On the other hand, the Romanist● said, that she must count the Church of Rome a true Church, or else deny her Baptism: But these were deceived, and did not consider, how that God's ordinance is his ordinance, though in the depth of Apostasy. See the Ans. to your fi●st Treatise. ] That in some sense Baptism is nothing; even no more was Circumcision in former time yet as it was Gods holy ordinance, it was to be regarded as a thing of great concernment, and was not worn out then; though in the midst of Antichristianisme, or Apostasy; So Baptism now being no less durable, though more general than Circumcision was, nor less honourable, it ought not to be rejected but regarded, and the reverend receivers of it respected, and the contemners of it reproved and condemned. Take notice here how that in pursuing after these scattering Objections * In Pag. 14, 15. 17. , you have strangely varied from the point concerning Infants, and so have shot at rovers. Therefore I would have you (for order sake) to observe what hath been set down by me to prove the lawfulness of the Baptism of holy Infants, (against all your objections which you have set down, unto this period) all which I leave to the consideration of you, and the observation others, and so proceed to answer the next which followeth. But (say you) * Pag. 18. at lin. 2. their fifth and main [Argument] is yet behind: from the Covenant which God made with Abraham and his seed, Gen. 17. And hence (you say) thus they reason. As the Covenant and promises were made to Abraham, (being a faithful man) and his seed, and thereupon all his seed were circumcised in the time of the Law, so the same Covenant and promises are made to them, being believers and their seed: And therefore their seed may now upon the same ground be baptised. Ans. You have set down an argument on your opposites part, but you have not declared (in particular) whose it is, whether you mean that the Separates, or those some others, or other Churches, which you specify (in your first part, and the beginning of this your second part) are the Authors hereof. But whosoever the Authors are, you call this their main argument, and it may be you count it so, because it is generally laid down, and undistinguished; and I tell you, though the matter may be the Separates, yet the form is not, but rather your own; for it is anabaptistical to infer, that because the covenant and promises were made to Abraham's seed before the Law, that thereupon all his seed were circumcised in the time of the Law; if by [all] you mean all his seed by generation after the flesh; for than it will follow, that all Ismaelites, and Edomites, were circumcised, and all other Apostates of Abraham's seed by generation, besides the rest of his seed: But we do affirm, and will prove, that as Abraham had no command to Circumcise all Nations (or seeds, or any Apostate whatsoever, though the offspring of his body) but those that were the seed in covenant with God * Gen. 17.11. ; so the Saints of God, which continued in that estate wherein God had set Abraham, were to circumcise none but such as they were; yea, in this respect, the infants of the Proselytes were preferred before the infants of the Apostate seed of Abraham; and therefore you may see that we are far from affirming that any Apostate that sprung from the loins of Abraham, [(was, much less that all were)] to be circumcised; for Apostates whether they were of Abraham's loins or not, they were all visibly in a bad condition, and not to have the sign (or seal) of God's covenant put upon them; And those who were not Apostates, whether Jew's or Proselytes, they were all visibly in a good condition, and were to have the sign and seal of God's covenant administered upon them, and were different, and quite contrary to the Apostates. By true jews and Proselytes and true Christians, I mean visible Saints. Therefore (to keep to the matter in hand) the Argument for the Infants of believers lieth thus; That as all the infants of the true Jews and Proselytes were to have the seal of God's covenant put upon them then, so all the infants of those who are true Christians, aught to have the seal of God's Covenant put upon them now. See Gal. 3.17, 18. and compare herewith the words of Peter, Act. 2.39. The promise is unto you, & to your children, etc. And seeing the Covenant was (confirmed of God in Christ four hundred and thirty years before the Law) and was established with Abraham, and all his seed, who did not degenerate, and thereupon they were all to be sealed unto him (as his peculiar treasure) with that sign (or token of his covenant) which he had appointed then. It followeth that now the same covenant is confirmed of God in Christ, and made sure unto all faithful parents, and all their seed, who do not degenerate, and therefore they may all be sealed unto God, (as his peculiar treasure) with the sign (or token of his covenant) which he hath appointed now. It followeth also that [Baptism being the seal of one and the same Covenant, which Circumcision was a seal of;] it aught to be administered upon the infants of believers now, as circumcision was formerly; because that the infants of believers being formerly in the new Covenant, of which Circumcision was a sign, are not rend out of it by the coming of Christ, but confirmed in it; for Christ is no changeling, and therefore Baptism being now the seal of the same Covenant, it admitteth of the same subjects, and it being not more particular, but more general than Circumcision, and to be administered upon male and female, it appertaineth to the Infants of believers, both male and female. And this is according to that teaching Oracle, which God did in the cloud, and in the sea, in which the whole body of the Israelites were baptised, both male and female. Pag. 18. But you say, That neither Abraham nor his seed were circumcised, because the Covenant was made with h●m: and your reason is, because the Covenant was made with him above twenty years before Circumcision was instituted. And yet all this time neither Abraham nor his seed were circumcised; neither had he or any of his seed ever been circumcised, for his being in the covenant, had not the Lord afterwards expressly commanded the same. To which I answer, that though they were not circumcised so soon as they were in the covenant, neither commanded to be circumcised then, yet if Abraham had not been in the covenant, neither he nor his infants could have received the ordinance of Circumcision, the sign of the covenant, according to God's appointment. See Gen. 17. But believers and their seed that came after, were not to omit circumcision; for if they did they broke the covenant. Exod. 4.24, 25, 26. Now Abraham & his seed by virtue of God's covenant, were bound to yield obedience to God, and to walk in all his ways, as God revealed himself unto them: So that when once Circumcision was instituted, it was not to be omitted. Next * Pag. 18. at lin. 17. you say; Nor was that covenant made with Abraham and his seed, A. R. merely for his being a faithful man (for then should it have been made with Noah being a faithful man) but for his being such a faithful man, whom the Lord pleased to choose, and set out as a pattern to all believers, Rom. 4.23, 24. and to be a father of many Nations, Rom. 4 17, 18. And in whose seed all the Nations in the world should be blessed, Act. 5.25. & 13.23. (to wit) in Christ, who was to come of his flesh. Ans. The same new covenant that was made with Abraham, was made also with Noah; wherefore as Abraham is called the father of many Nations, so Noah is called the heir of justice, which is by faith; Heb. 11.7. Such a faithful man as Abraham was, such a faithful man was Noah; yea, chosen of God, and a pattern to all believers which should come after him. Now whereas you say, that the Lord was pleased to choose Abraham, and set him out as a pattern to all believers; I suppose you mean all those believers which came after him, not those that were dead before he was borne; So Noah was a pattern to Abraham, not Abraham a pattern to Noah. And it is sure that Abraham was a father of many Nations, and so was Noah; and that not only according to the flesh, but also spiritually; He was a father of many Nations according to the flesh, because he was the father of Abraham * See Luk. 3. , who was the father of many nations according to the flesh. Spiritually, Noah was the heir of Justice, and Abraham's father, as Abraham is said to be our father, and the father of all those who walk in his steps. And seeing that Christ came of Abraham, and Abraham of Noah, therefore Christ came of Noah, so that it may be said (in this respect) of Noah, as of Abraham, that in his seed (which is Christ) all the Nations of the earth are blessed. Further you say * Pag. 18. at lin. 24. ; A. R. Therefore although the Covenant and promises were made to Abraham and his seed, yet the consequence will not follow, that the covenant is likewise made with all believers and their seed; for believers only are the seed, and the seed only, and none of them a father in the Gospel sense, nor any other save only Abraham, to whom and his seed the covenant and promises are made. Ans. That the covenant and promises were made to Abraham and his seed, you cannot deny; that the Proselytes and their seed were heirs of the same covenant, as well as Abraham and his seed, the Scriptures are clear, Gen. 17.9.12. Exod. 12.48. Isa. 56. So when Zacheus believed, and so became the son of Abraham, he had the same privileges which Abraham had, namely, that the same time salvation was come to his house * Luk. 19 8, 9 . Therefore seeing that he was the son of Abraham, his infants were in the covenant of Abraham. And this is according to what the Apostle saith, Gal. 4.28. Now we brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise; if now the brethren are, as Isaac was, than their Infants are as Isaac's infants were, and are to have the same privileges of the covenant as Isaac's infants had; But the former is true, from the Apostles Testimony, and therefore the latter is true also. And therefore [Baptism being one of the privileges of the covenant of God [which they are as capable of as of circumcision] they ought to be baptised, as Isaac's infants were to be circumcised. And seeing the same Covenant which was made with Abraham, was made with Isaac and his seed, and that believers are (as Isaac was) the children of promise. The consequence then, that the covenant is likewise made unto all believing parents, and their holy seed, is very true. Whereas you tell us that Believers only are the seed, and the seed only, and none of them a father in the Gospel sense, nor any other save only Abraham. I tell you, that if Abraham had not been a believer, he could not have been the seed, much less a father spiritually unto those who walk in his steps; neither could Isaac the child of promise have been as he was. 2. Though Christ is the root of David * Rev. 5.5. , yet he is also the offspring of David * Rev. 22.16. ; so is he the root, and the offspring, the father * Joh. 8.58. and the son of Abraham * Mat. 1.1. ; so that Abraham was Christ's seed spiritually, as all the Proselytes were, and in this respect Abraham is our brother. But you tell us, Believers only are the seed, and the seed only, and none of them a father in the Gospel sense, save only Abraham; but you should know, that Noah was Abraham's father, both spiritually and temporally, and a believer, and so were the holy Patriarches before him, therefore they were the seed, and yet we will not say they were the only seed in the largest extent, for I think that all the Saints which are, or have been are not yet the only seed, for there are no doubt many yet to come. Now if by the only seed, and the seed only, you mean that God never accepted of any seed, but such as they were spiritually. I grant the same; that such are the seed indeed and in truth; and such a one was Isaac in his infancy, and such are the Infants of believers now, as those infants which Christ took up in his arms, Mar. 10.16. and laid his hands upon and blessed. And though the infants are not fathers, but faithful children of the faithful, yet they have the blessing of Abraham, which lighted upon Isaac in his infancy; and those that are blessed with faithful Abraham, are the seed of Abraham, and children of the promise; but the infants of believers are blessed with faithful Abraham, therefore they are the children of the promise. Moreover, You should not be ignorant, that Enoch, Noah, S●m, Abraham, Isaac, and divers others, were fathers spiritually. But you would have Abraham to be the only father; for you say, None of them is a father in the Gospel sense, save only Abraham; so that you exclude all believers from the beginning unto this present, (yea, to the end of the world) from being fathers any of them in the Gospel sense; But you should know, that all believing fathers, who have holy children, are fathers in the Gospel sense; and as they are holy, so are their infants, who have no more children, than Isaac had in his infancy, yet seeing they are heirs of the Covenant, which was made with Abraham, they have his blessing. So Paul termeth the children of believers holy * 1 Cor. 7.14. ; and so Peter saith, The promise is unto you, and to your children, etc. which implieth fathers; and surely I think this is Gospel sense, * Act. ●. 39. if not Gospel itself. Further you say; Wherefore to affirm that every believer hath now the same Covenant and promises made to him and his seed, A. R. Pag. 18. at lin. 30. as Abraham had to him and his seed, is very absurd: and is all one as to say, that now every believer by his believing doth immediately become a father of the faithful as well as Abraham. To which I answer as before, that believers are in the same Covenant, and therefore both they & their seed, have the same privileges of the Covenant, as the Proselytes and their seed had in former time. And you should know, that Abraham was not the father of Noah; but Noah was the father of Abraham, and he was before Abraham, and therefore was not only the father of Abraham, but also the father of all believers after him spiritually. Now though Abraham was not the father of so many believers as Noah was father of; yet Abraham had the same privileges in respect of the new covenant as Noah had: Abraham sojourned in the land of Canan as a stranger, but his seed did inherit it, yet the promise of salvation was equally made both to him and his seed, as it is to us and our seed. So Jacob, though he was not the father of so many believers w c● Abraham was father of, yet had he the same privileges, (in respect of the new covenant) as Abraham had. I will not say, that Abraham had the same outward temporal privileges which Noah had; for Noah was the father of all Nations according to the flesh, though not the father of Cain, or those before him; neither will I say, that Jacob, or Isaac had the same outward temporal privileges in every respect as Abraham had, for Abraham was the father of the Ismaelites and Edomit●s after the flesh: And yet this doth not prove, that every believer upon his believing, doth become a father of the faithful; no more than Isaac, who was a father of the faithful as well as Abraham. And seeing your demand * Lin. 35. , Where any seed are, [if] all be fathers is grounded upon an [if] or supposition, that all are fathers; let it be a supposition still, and so (upon this ground) when you bring supp●s●tions (without distinctions) builded upon your own imagination's, and prosecuted with such groundless cavillations, you may expect that your building will fall to the ground, as this doth. Lin. 36, 37, 38, 39 To your affirmation, That their seed, and their seeds-seed are all members of the Church, and to be accounted faithful, and so to be all fathers of the faithful as well as Abraham, from generation to generation to the world's end. I answer, That the infants of the faithful, are all members of the Church; and they are not to be accounted unfaithful, though they die in their infancy; And seeing God's kingdom belongeth unto them, though they have no children, ●or are fathers of the faithful 〈◊〉 abraham's was, yet they have the same precious privileges, as Abraham's infants had; So that they are to be esteemed, now, t● be the sons of God, and yet it is not manifested wha● they shall be, when their terrestrial bodies (being made like the glorious body of their sweet Saviour) shall 〈◊〉 celestially in the kingdom of Eterni●●●. Next you would make us believe, that you will express yourself more plainly, Lin. 40. (and in the interim you promise this truth) That there is now no difference between any circumcision or uncircumcision, Pag. 19 lin. 1, 2. Jew or Gentile, bond or free, male or female, but all are one in Christ Jesus, Gal. 3.28. And to this I answer, that Gal. 3.28. doth not prove, that you have performed what you promised, and called a truth; for as you have laid it down, it is an untruth, namely, that there is no difference between [any] Circumcision, or uncircumcision, etc. In this you have done evil, and in fathering it upon the Apostle Paul, you have done worse; for Paul is no patron of this opinion, it was no part of his doctrine, that there is no difference between [any] Circumcision, or uncircumcision, etc. But he putteth a manifest difference between Circumcision of the heart, and Circumcision of the flesh; as also between Jew and Jew, namely, he that is a Jew outwardly only, Rom 2.28, 29. and he that is a Jew inwardly; as also he putteth a difference between Gentile and Gentile, namely, an unbelieving Gentile, and a believing Gentile. So that Paul maketh the believing Gentiles, and the believing Jews, all one in Christ, and not believers and unbelievers all one in Christ, for he applieth his speech to the Saints only. So that it appeareth you have quitemistaken the Apostle, yea, there is no Scripture which will bear you out in this your absurd affirmation. And now I will come to what you call your plain expression, which is that; If every believer by his believing doth become a father of the faithful as well as Abraham, A. R. Pag. 19 at lin. 3. than it must be at the very instant of his believing that he doth become a father of the faithful as well as Abraham, and if so, where then will be any children to all these fathers; for none can be children before they be faithful; and also at the same instant cease to be children, and become fathers, which implies a flat contradiction, and then how ●an Abraham himself be father of all believers, Rom. 4.11, 12. Answ. Who doth affirm, that every believer doth immediately become a father? That which you say implieth a flat contradiction, Pag 19 lin. 7. I think is builded but upon a supposition of your own, Isaac's fatherhood made him not cease to be Abraham's child, no more than our fatherhood doth make us cease to be his Children. as if they should affirm, that believers upon their believing, at the same instant cease to be children, and become fathers! And then upon this you ask how Abraham himself can then be father of all believers? Which interrogation of yours implieth rather a flat contradiction of the Scriptures of God; as if Abraham was not both son and father. 1. A son of Noah he was, as we are the sons of Abraham by faith in Christ. 2. A father of the faithful he was also: So that Abraham was both a son and a father. You do not explain yourself * Lin. 9 , when you ask how Abraham himself than can be father of all believers? for you may know, that Noah was father of more believers than Abraham, & Noah himself was a believer before Abraham, And if Abraham was not his father, than he was not a father of all believers who went before him. But it may be you mean, by all believers, all that came after Abraham, and walked in his steps; for if you mean by all believers, all that ever have been, are, or shall be, then by your own ground, there were no believers before Abraham was a father, or else you must confess, that Abraham was not a father of them. But the●e were believers before Abraham was borne, and believers there were, and are after him, therefore Abraham was, and is, both a father of some believers, and a child of other believers, as we are the children of him, if we derogate not from his steps; and are the fathers of our posterity (after the flesh) who do not aberate from God's commandments. Next you say; Or how can the promise be sure unto all the seed, if believers children be the seed, for they will not affirm that all their children are saved. But this is affirmed of all the seed to whom the promise is made, Rom. 4.16. Heb. 6.16, 17. Ans. You think if believers children be the seed, the promise cannot be sure to all the seed! and why is this? your reason is, for th' y will affirm, that all their children are not saved. But if this be a sufficient reason to prove infants not to be in the promise, than it will prove that their parents are not in the promise, nor any other, and so upon this ground you must baptise none at all, nor judge any to be in the promise, though they profess faith never so much, sigh that many who are members, and make a verbal profession, and aught to be baptised by Christ's rule, fall back, like Judas Iscariot, and Simon Magus. But you should rather have questioned thus (according to truth) how can the promise be sure to all the seed, if believers infants be not in the promise? And surely, we are not to argue so perversely, and foolishly, that because [some] believers children are not saved, (since they rend themselves out of the promise) that therefore [no] believers children, o● that their infants are not in the state of salvation, and that the promise appertaineth not unto them; for this will not stand with true sense or reason, nor with the Apostles Testimony, when he saith, Rom. 3.1, 2, 3. That the Jews advantage was much every manner of way, and that the unbelief of some, did not make the faith of God without effect. So that the Apostle himself answereth your objection; for the promise is still su●e unto all that abide in God's Covenant. And seeing the infants of believing parents do abide in God's covenant, they are part of all the holy seed, and therefore it evidently appeareth, that the promise appertaineth unto them, as hath been proved before; and this doth as really appertain unto them, as to those who profess faith, and those that deny this, do in a manner make the faith of God of none effect, and so make the Author thereof a liar. But let such despisers of the children of promise, wonder and perish, without the promise, rather than that the Infants which God hath given to believing parents, should not be counted for the seed, within the promise. But next you say; Now then, if the promise be sure unto all the seed unto whom it is made, A. R. and all believers, and only all believers the promise is sure to: Then all believers, and only all believers are the seed unto whom the promise is made, and then none of Abraham's own natural seed, nor the natural seed of any other in the world, are to be accounted the seed, unto whom the promise and covenant is made, until they believe, Rom. 9.7, 8. Rom. 4.13, 14 Gal. 3 7.9. Ans. It is a sure truth, that the promise is sure to all the seed to whom it is made, and it is made to the faithful, and their seed that do not degenerate from their steps. But their Infants cannot justly be said to degenerate from the steps of their holy parents, who continue in their righteousness; Therefore they are holy, and in the Covenant, and are the children of Abraham. And seeing you have granted that all believers, and only all believers are the seed u●to whom the promise is made, than all those to whom the promise is made, are the seed, and so are believers; but the promise was made unto Abraham's infants, as well as to others: God said unto Abraham, that he would be the●r God; and for confirmation of his Covenant, he ordained that the infants should have the sign of his covenant, Gen. 17. the seal of the righteousness of his faith in their infancy. And the like may be said concerning the Proselytes, and their infants, for God was a God unto them all, both male and female, bond and free. And the like may be said now concerning believers, and their infants, for Christ's love is not lessened since he manifested himself in the flesh; He is the same as he was, and will be the same as he is, in this respect; and therefore seeing we have not one tittle of Scripture for debarring our infants of the privileges which formerly appertained to the infants of the faithful, we ought not so to shut up the kingdom of heaven against them, but aught to believe that the blessing of Abraham belongeth to them, as well as to the infants of old; for it is a sure truth, that the promise is sure unto them, and therefore the seal of the promise must be imposed upon them. Now whereas you say, that none are to be accounted the seed, till they do believe; If by belief, you mean belief by manifestation, actually, in their own persons; What is this but an arguing against Isaac in his infancy? and a shutting him out (in your conceptions) from being then a child of promise, and a shutting out of others also, who were as holy as he, & yet could not manifest faith actually in their own persons, no more than he could in his infancy. And so if you mean that none are the seed, until they do profess faith (as it appeareth you do) is not this to make void the promise of God, in shutting out all Abraham's infants, and the infants of all other believers, and thus (through their sides) to strike at Christ, who was once an infant like them? Now the thing which you should mind (but do not) is that the Covenant was established with Abraham and his seed everlastingly; with his infants, as well as others. And as we may say concerning Abraham, and his infants, so we may say concerning the Proselytes and their infants; and the like may be said for believers, and their infants now, whom you can never prove to be out of Covenant, till they appear to be seeds; and then do your best; but so long as they are not degenerated but remain the seed, they are to be accounted holy, and within the promises, and covenant of the Gospel. And as for the holy infants, I know not how they can be charged with unbelief, or disobedience against any of God's Commandments, any more than their holy parents, to whom the Lord hath testified, saying, that he showeth mercy to thousands of generations of those that love him and keep his Commandments. Next you say; A. R. Pag. 19 lin. 21. This then being a most evident truth, it may in no wise be granted, that the covenant is made with all believers, as with Abraham, or that the promise is made unto all these, as unto Abraham, or that all these are fathers as Abraham, for all these are the seed, and the only seed and children of Abraham: And those to whom the covenant and promises do only belong under the term seed. Ans. These your words do imply, that Abraham was not any part of the seed, and that the covenant was not made unto him as he was a believer, but merely as he was a father. But when God made his Covenant with him, He did not say, I will be thy God merely as thou art a father, and the God of thy seed, merely as they are thy seed, and of thy seeds-seed, merely as they are thy seeds-seed; but he testifieth that he will be the God of him, and them, though he and they should increase to many persons, yet he would be a God unto them all; as he was a God unto him; God was a God unto Isaac, and he was a God unto Abraham, and he could be no more unto him. What could Abraham have more than God? a greater reward he could not have, than the reward that exceeded all rewards. Now God hath covenanted with his people, that he will be their God, and therefore it appeareth, that the covenant is unto them, as it was unto Abraham; And so it was with the Proselytes, & their seed, as with the Jews, and their seed. And though this be a most evident truth, yet you say, it may in no wise be granted, that the Covenant is made with all believers as with Abraham; yea though they have the like spiritual privileges, as Abraham had; yet you resolve, not to grant it, and it is not material whether you grant it or no. Now that they are all fathers, as Abraham was, I will not take upon me to prove, but this I know, that they are in the same covenant, and have the same spiritual privileges, which Abraham had. As for your affirmatton, that all these are the seed, and the only seed, and children of Abraham; For explanation, I answer as before, that if Noah was Abraham's father, Abraham was not his father, and therefore Abraham was not the father of all those believers that were before he was borne; for Noah (Abraham's father) was a believer. And to this agrees your own words, for you say, believers are the seed; yea, all believers, and only all believers, are the only seed, and the seed only, and therefore you may see that Abraham, though he were a father, yet he was part of the seed; for I think you will not deny him to be a believer. Whereas you say, that if it were otherwise, then must they be comprehended, (Gen. 17.7, 8.) under the term thee, and then the rest of the phrase (to wit) and to thy seed, would be in vain, and superfluous, which to think were very irrational. I answer, That this which you have said will not stand with reason; for you should know, that if the covenant did appertain to Abraham's s●ed, in no wise, as to Abraham, than the rest of the phrase, (to wit) and to thy seed, would be in vain and superfluous, which to think would be very irrational indeed. And the like we may say concerning Peter's application of the promise unto believers and their children, that if it is bound up only in the parents, than Peter might have rested at those expressions concerning the parents particular persons, and only have said thus; Act. 2.39. the promise is unto you, and not have added these words, and to your children. Abundance of testimonies of sacred Scripture might be cited, where the seed and generation of the faithful are declared to be in the promise with their parents, but this may suffice which hath been spoken, that we may not exclude the holy offspring, and blessed issue of the blessed; but whensoever we happen upon any such place of Scripture, where the seed is said to be in the blessing with the parents, (especially, considering that the Scripture affecteth brevity) we ought then to mind, that if the blessing be bound up from the infants in the parents, than the words are in vain and superfluous, where their children, seed, offspring, and issue, are mentioned. But seeing that the promise to the seed, is not vain nor superfluous, nor ever was, it is irrational to think, that God is not the same God in extending his grace and mercy to the seed of believers, as to themselves. Next you say; Lin. 32. Put the case it be granted them to be fathers, as they do desire to be like to Abraham, then must they be fathers of only such as believe, and not until they believe, for according to the tenor of this new Covenant, and in the Gospel sense, Abraham himself is father of none other, nor otherwise. Ans. Though in some respects we desire to be fathers, as Abraham was, yet far be it from us, to desire to be fathers as he was in every respect. You shall not father such a thing upon us. We desire to be fathers as Abraham was (though not in every respect) and it is lawful for us so to do, yea, our duty, not only to desire it, but to strive to imitate Abraham, in instructing our families, and teaching them the way of life, according as every one of them is capable to receive instruction. But though some of our children do degenerate, as some of Abraham's children did, yet it maketh not the promise uneffectuall to the rest, no more than it did to the rest of the children of Abraham, who w●s a father of them in the Gospel sense; as we are fathers of the●e, our children, who abide in our righteous steps. And we are fathers of our own infants, otherwise than we are of the unbelieving Jews and Turks; for ours we know are in the cov●nant, but the other we know are not, until they do believe, But wh●n they do believe, then have they as great privileges for their infants, as Isaac had for his infants, And these are, as those were, and therefore as it was warrantable for those to be sealed then, so is it warrantable f●r these to be sealed now. But hence you affirm; That Publicans and Harlots may be the seed, A. R. and have as much right to Baptisms, as any believers seed, or as any of Abraham's own natural seed; for all and every of these, must first repent, and then be baptised, Act. 2.38. Ans. If this be forcible against believers infants, it is of force against themselves, and if such a reason could have been strong against Abraham's infants, then against Abraham himself; for the Heathens than might become converts as well as now. Moreover, I tell you, that it is not to the point for us to look what persons may be, or may have right unto, but what persons are, or must be judged to be, and what they have right unto; and therefore this position of yours is very impertinently brought against Infants right to the covenant, or Baptism, especially considering that the infants of believers are neither publicans nor harlots, nor to be ranked with them, or their infants, till the publicans and harlots cease to be so; and God create in them a new spirit, as he doth in the infants of the faithful; and so circumcise their hearts, and make them new creatures, and give them the same blessing which Christ gave unto the Israelites infant's, whom he took up in his arms, and imposed his hands upon and blessed. Whereas you further add, that Upon the same terms may any, yea, the most wicked in the world, and their seed be baptised. Ans. It is true, that the infants of those who are penitent, and in God's covenant, though they were formerly wicked, are to be baptised as well as their parents. But note this, that Baptism is a confirmation of their being in Covenant, as Circumcision was to Abraham, and his infants, and to the Proselytes, and their infants. Touching your reason for this which you annex * Pag. 20. at lin. 4. (to wit) that the partition wall is now broken down, and that the Gospel knows no difference between any; but is to be preached to every creature in the world; and so you cite, Mar. 16.15, 16 Mat. 28.19. Gal 6.15. & 8.29. I answer, That though the former position be true, yet this reason brought to confirm it is impertinent, considering that the Proselytes, and their infants [in former time] were received into God's covenant, to whom salvation was not denied then, though Christ were not manifested in the flesh nor the Go●p●l published unto all Nations, as now since, by Christ it was commanded to be. And as for the Scriptures cited by you, they make much for believing parents, and their infants; for as much as the application of the Gospel appertaineth unto them all. In Mar. 16.15, 16. the Gospel is commanded to be preached unto [every] creature; and it is said, that Whosoever believeth and is baptised, shall be saved; and whosoever believeth not, shall be damned * When Christ saith, He that believeth and is baptised, shall be saved, He no more intendeth to exclude the infants of the faithful from Baptism, then from salvation: but those that exclude them from the Covenant, do as much as in them lieth, to exclude them from both. . And in Mat. 28.19. Go make all Nations Disciples (saith Christ) baptising them. As if he should say, in former time I bond myself to one Nation, and published my name unto them, but now I stretch forth my hands further, that all Nations might be made Disciples, and baptised, as that one nation of the Jews were made Disciples and circumcised. Now sure as we cannot justly deny the infants to be creatures, to whom salvation or damnation appertaineth, so we cannot deny but that the Gospel appertaineth unto the infants of believers (as well as to their parents) though they die in their infancy, or that the holy infants are Disciples inclusively with their parents, as they have been heretofore. If then infants are included in the general Commission (as doubtless they are) than they are not to be excluded; but the infants of believers are admitted by God to come into the Church with their parents, according to the ancient custom, which was very profitable and comfortable, and no dishonour to God, nor discredit to his cause, nor hindrance to his people, but a glory unto his house, they being his pure vessels, which he prized at such a high rate, as to send his only begotten Son into the world to take upon him the nature of them, and to suffer for them, and to make them new creatures, such as are mentioned in Gal. 6.15. which availeth with God, when neither Circumcision, nor uncircumcision doth; therefore they are not excluded from the general Commission. Moreover, Christ hath declared them to be his, by blessing them, and testifying that they are of his k●ngdome; and seeing then, that they are Christ's, they are Abraham's s●ed, and heirs according to promise, Gal. 8.29. and have interest into this grace wherein they now are, so that they cannot be deprived of their inheritance, no more than those who profess faith, and do act that which these Infants have not a natural capableness to do. As touching your demand * Lin 13. (which you say is demanded in cool blood) how we do become Abraham's seed; you have testified what we will say, * Lin. 14, 15. (which may be stood to without danger,) namely, that we become Abraham seed only by faith * Imputatively . As for the inference * Lin. 15, 16. (which you bring upon it,) that so must our children by the same way; we grant the same, it is one of our principles; as also, that there is (as you confess) but one seed, and not more in the sense and acceptation of the Gospel. Next you say * Pag. 20. at lin. 18. . They further reason from the equity of circumcision thus: As infants then by God's allowance, received that seal of the covenant, so by proportion why not this now of Baptism. And in answer hereunto you rehearse * Lin. 21. God's commandment to Abraham concerning circumcision, and say, That it was both right & equal that Abraham should do herein as God had commanded him, and it had been sinful for him to have done otherwise, more or less: And so likewise it is right for us to do as God hath commanded us to do, and no otherwise. To which I answer, that God's divine institutions are full of equity, and there is no iniquity in them, nor in any thing which he doth, and God not only allowed but strictly commanded Abraham to circumcise, and without the command (or institution) he was not to put the same in execution. But when once Circumcision [the sign and seal of the righteousness of faith] was instituted, than it was to be administered; and this was ●ight and equal, and allowed o● by God. Now it remaineth for you to prove (if you can) when the substance * Mr. Spilsbery granteth, that the matter of God's worship is not changed at the coming of Ch●ist in the fl●sh. See his T●●●t. Bap. pag. 〈◊〉 lin, 15. of this institution was taken away. Peradventure you will say, that the institution of Baptism hath put anullitie to the s●al●. I answer, That the enlargement of a thing, or taking away of the circumstances, doth not take away the substance or being of it. Wherefore it appeareth, that the command for sealing of Infants, is not yet abrogated, but remaineth still; and seeing Baptism was instituted by Christ in stead of circumcision, the infants are to be baptised. But yet you question * Lin. 28. , Where the institution for baptising of infants is? And my answer is, That the Institution for sealing of the infants of the faithful, was given to Abraham, and Baptism being in stead of Circumcision, and more general, and it being now the seal, they are to be baptised, as formerly they were to be circumcised. But you say * Lin. 30. , That was to circumcise, not to baptise, that all his males, not his females, that all borne in his house, or bought with money, at eight days old. Ans. All this maketh nothing against the baptising of Infants; for the sign and seal of the righteousness of faith, is not c●ased, but the substance thereof continueth, though the outward shadow or element is departed, and delivered unto us (as it were) in another garb. And you granted before, that the females were employed in the males. And you ought to know, that the generality of the latter Commission above the former, doth plead a speciality which the Infants have in the latter, as well as in the former. But you say * Lin. 32. , If they ground it from this institution, then must they observe it in every thing, for so did Abraham, who had sinned in doing otherwise in any thing. To this I answer, That we may well ground this, from the institution of that, though we are not tied to observe that in every thing. The institution for sealing the infants of the faithful, aught to be observed by us, in every thing, and though God have altered the circumstances, as he hath done in divers other ordinances, (the substance of which we have now in the ordinances of the Gospel) yet we must not therefore neglect the substances of them, considering that they are not taken away by the alterations, changing, or taking away of the circumstances. The Passeover, & the Lords Supper, were all one in substance, though they differed in circumstances; the Baptism of John, and the Baptism of Christ were one, though they differed in some circumstances. And the like may be instanced in divers other ordinances, which are equivolent and suitable each to other; And therefore it will hold in Circumcision and Baptism. And so this still pleadeth the divine right which Infants have to the seal now, as they had to the seal then * See this treatise, pag. 121. at lin. 7. . Now, that which is not only permitted (or allowed) but commanded, it is both right and equal it should be observed, Deut. 12.32. But God commanded the outward seal of his Covenant of grace to be imposed upon the infants of his people, Gen 17.11, 12, 13. Rom. 4.11. This commandment in respect of the substance of it, was never yet abrogated or disannulled. Therefore it is in the substance of it, still to be continued, and it is both right and equal it should be observed. Next you say? Here they say * Lin. 35. , We have another institution to baptise all Nations, A. R. Mat. 28.19. But here you should observe, that we stand not for the baptising of all Nations, but as they appear unto us by the rule of the Word to be Disciples. Secondly, Though this be general, in respect of the subjects, yet it is a particular institution to baptise, as abraham's was to circumcise. And now let us hear your answer. Then they ought to observe that institution, A. R. which is first to make Disciples, and then to baptise them so made: for so is the institution, and no otherwise * Lin. 37. . To which I reply; That we do observe that institution, We plead not for the Baptising of those who are not Disciples, no more than that any were formerly to be circumcised, who were not Disciples; for the institution of circumcision, and of Baptism, is one and the same, though the circumstances in the several acts are different, as I shown before; and infants are as capable to be Disciples now, as they were formerly, and you cannot justly deny, that the infants of believers are Disciples. Now though none were to take a ground for Circumcision from the institution of Baptism, If Christ's Commission for Baptism, doth not concern infants at all, but aged persons, as some men dream, than his days are days of famine, & not of food, times of poverty, not of plenty, of leannes, not of fa●●s. Now we ought to note, that the glory of the first commission, is included in the second; if then the second be less general than the first, & have swallowed up the former, and yet n t increased, but diminished, than it is like Pharoahs' 7 lean ears of corn, and 7 liane kine, which swallowed up the fat ones. But Christ's commission is much la●ger th●n that given to Abraham, and therefore the dream, that infants a●e not in the la●ter as well as in the former, is false. yet from Circumcision they might take a ground for Baptism; not to enlarge the institution of Christ for Baptism, as if it were less general than the institution of Circumcision, but to show the largeness of Circumcision, that thereby we may confute those that do seek to make Baptism (in reference to the subjects) more streiter (or less general) than circumcision; for circumcision was acted upon the male infants, in which (you confessed) the female infants were included. And I know not how any can without sacrilege, rob (or deprive) both the infants of the male, & female kind, of these holy things, which are so largely distributed since Christ's manifestation in the flesh; for considering that infants were once to be commanded to be sealed in their infancy, and are not forbidden in the Scripture, they ought to be sealed: But it was once commanded, that the infants of believers should be sealed in their infancy, and is no where forbidden in the Scripture; therefore the seal of the Covenant ought to be imposed upon them in their infancy. And seeing you have acknowledged, that the females were included * See A. R. pag. 5. lin. 24. in Circumcision, o● in the circumcised males; therefore your objection against the position * Pag. 21. , (by w●y of answer) that Abraham was not forbidden to circumcise his females, is to no purpose, unless it be to contradict your self; for seeing you have granted the females to be included, they were not excluded; therefore your comparison here of the males of Abraham's ●●ast●, as his camel's and ass' * Lin. 7. with abraham's infants, either male, or female, is not equal; no more than that of the Bartholomew-babies, which you formerly shown (in pag 16.) But still it appeareth, that our position * Pag. 20 l. 40. , being builded upon a right foundation, remaineth permanent, for it cannot be showed, either by express command, or necessary consequence, that God hath forbidden the baptising of holy Infants. Moreover, Whereas you labour to seek out what they mean, that affirm, Lin. 13. Infants now ●re as capable of Baptism, with all its significations, as infants than were of circumcision. Ans. I think they intent that the infants have not only a capableness, but also a right to receive the ordinance of Baptism, as the infants of believers had not only a capableness, but also a right to the ordinance of Circumcision. And I suppose, if you seek to prove that the infants of believers were more capable of Circumcision, and had more right unto it, than the infants of believers are now capable of Baptism, or have right unto it now, you will lose all your labour. But you (in your answer * Pag. 21. lin. 19 ) do affirm, that so all infants in the world are capable of Baptism, and so all infants from Adam to Abraham were capable of Circumcision. And next, you demand of them why these were not circumcised? You say, They will say, because Circumcision was not then commanded; but as soon as it was commanded, it was done. But I tell you for answer, That to affis me, that as soon as Circumcision was commanded to be done upon some infants, it was done (or to be done) upon all infants. It is an untruth, as this demand Lin. 20. is your own, so I doubt not but the answer * Lin. 21. compared with lin. 19, 20. thereunto is yours also; for your tenets leadeth you to this, that Abraham might circumcise any Apostate he would, so that he brought them in his house, though they neither feared God, nor reverenced man. I will not say, this is childish, but I am sure it is foolish, and brutish, to have such unreverend thoughts, of the ordinance of Circumcision. But I suppose, that Abraham could be●ter understand the mind of God, than those who labour so to debase the ordinance of Circumcision, and the right subjects thereof. As all those do who affirm, that all the infants in the world, from Adam to Abraham, might have been circumcised, if God had instituted Circumcision then. But this is to bring in the seed of Cain with the seed of Seth, the infants of the idolatrous Heathens, with the infants of Abraham; and so to make a compounded mixture in the Lord's Church, which he always laboured to keep from pollution, by sequesterating them from the vile. Furthermore, You make answer to a position * Lin. 26. , which is, that God ga●e to infant's Circumcision, which was a sign and seal of the righteousness of faith and regeneration, Gen. 17.11. Rom. 4.11. And we know God giveth no lying sign, nor sealeth a Covenant to any persons that are not therein: Therefore infants are in the Covenant, have faith and regeneration, and so ought to be baptised now, as well as circumcised then. To this your answer is * Lin. 32. , That it is true, that God giveth no lying sign, nor sealeth to any persons that they are in the Covenant, when they are not therein. To which I reply, That I like it well, that you will now confess this truth. But it appeareth by your following words * Lin. 12, 13, 14. , that you take for granted, a thing which you have not proved, as if God declared and made known unto Abraham, that Ishmael was not in the Covenant before he was circumcised. And you cite Gen. 17.18, 19, 20, 21. Which Scripture maketh nothing for your purpose; for if you will say, God established his Covenant only with Isaac, and none other, and all the rest were out of the Covenant, than it will follow, that the rest of Abraham's children, which Abraham had by Keturah, yea, and the Proselytes, and their children, were out of the Covenant, by your ground. But you should consider, that God in establishing his Covenant with Isaac, and setting him out for a singular person, did give Isaac the pre-eminence; as Sem had above Japhet * Gen. 9.27. , and Judah (jacob's fourth son) over his eleven brethren * Gen. 49.8, 9, 10, 11, 12. ; And God establishing the Covenant with Isaac as the root, did establish it unto all those who were of the true Religion, as the branches; but if any departed from Isaac's banner, they deprived themselves of Isaac's blessing. Now for as much as it was the mind of God, that Ishmael should be circumcised * Master Spilsbery granteth, that Ishmael and Esau were by God commanded to be Circumcised as well as any of the rest of Abraham's seed, Gen. 17.10.13. See his Treat. of Bap. pag. 7. lin. 3, 4, 5 So Iscariot and Magus were commanded to be baptised as well as Peter and Paul. , and that circumcision was the signs, and seal of the righteousness of faith; It confirmeth it, that in the account of man, he was then to be judged worthy of it, even righteous, and in God's covenant; for God is not (by your own confession) the author of a lying sign, nor sealeth to any persons, that they are not in the Covenant, when they are not therein. Now this is in respect of visibility * And so Mr. Spilsbery further granteth, That though such were rejected as were not elected, this made not the promise of God of none effect to those who stood firm in the Covenant by grace in Christ Jesus, as branches in their root, pag. 17. lin 21, 22. ; for Simon Magus had Baptism (the outward visible seal of the Covenant) and yet we cannot say, that he was ever in God's secret account in the Covenant: But secret things belong to God. And till God declared unto Abraham, that Ishmael was not in the Covenant, though he promised to give Isaac never so many privileges, yet Abraham was not to judge Ishmael to be out of the Covenant, (any mo●e than others of his household) till God had directed him so to judge. Again, I suppose that Ishmael [being come to years of discretion] it was sacrilege in him to usurp the ordinance, and a sin in Abraham to impose the same upon him, except he were in the Covenant (so fare as men were to judge) of which Covenant, this (by your own confession) was no lying sign. Now though Infants were not capable to resist, or refuse to be circumcised, yet those of elder years could, and Ishmael was thirteen years of age when he was circumcised. Therefore Ishmael (submitting according as he and the rest of Abraham's family were taught, (who were at years of discretion) was to be esteemed to be in the Covenant. Moreover, That the children who were circumcised (according to God's appointment) were visibly in the Covenant before they were circumcised, is apparent by Gen. 17. ver. 14. God saith, The uncircumcised man child, whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people, he hath broken my Covenant. Which doth plainly argue that he was in the Covenant before, else how could he break that which he never had? And Abraham's children then could not be said to be rend out of the Covenant, which they were never in, or rend from a people, who were never theirs; but we may rather conclude, that as God's covenant was their covenant, & God's people their people so God was their God, as he had testified himself to be * And also I will be their God] That is (saith Mr. Spilsbery) their God, whom they shall believe and obey, upon whom they shall depend for the performance of all that I have promised unto them, by which faith and obedience they shall acknowledge me to be their God. See Spills. Treat. Bap. pag. 12. , before they were circumcised; & circumcision was added as a sign, for sealing or confirming of the same thing signified thereby. But whereas God himself calleth circumcision his Covenant a Gen. 17.10. , meaning expressly a sign of it b Ver. 11. ; and Paul calleth it a seal of the righteousness of faith c Rom. 4.11. ; you say, It was not by God ordained, nor by Abraham understood to be to the persons circumcised, a seal of their being in Covenant, and much less of their being in the faith, or regenerated * See A. R. Pag 21. l. 37, 38, 39 ; & so by this it seemeth, that you would make the words of Paul, and of God himself to be false; for you openly contradict them both; as also that which you granted before, (namely,) that God giveth no lying sign, nor sealeth to any persons, that they are in the Covenant, when they are not therein. Next you say, that Gen. 17.11. and Rom. 4.11. See A. R. must be understood * Pag. 22. , that the circumcision which Abraham received, both upon himself and seed, was to him and them a sign, and seal, that righteousness should be, (not by the law or circumcision in the flesh) but by the faith which Abraham had when he was yet uncircumcised: That he should be the father of all those of many Nations, which should afterwards believe: and that as faith was imputed unto him for righteousness, even so likewise it should be imputed to all believers whatsoever, whether they were circumcised or not. And that all these are, and were to be the only h●ires and true seed, to whom the everlasting covenant and promises of life are assuredly made, and do properly and undoubtedly appertain, ver. 3.11.12, 13, 14.16 17, 18.22, 23, 24. And therefore (you say) Circumcision never was, nor is any rule for baptising. Ans. That the Circumcision which Abraham received, was received by him, is true, but that the circumcision of his seed, was received by him, wanteth explanation; it would stand more with reason to say, that Abraham administered it upon his seed, and that his seed received it; then to say, that Abraham received the circumcision of his seed, [upon himself.] Abraham received his own circumcision upon himself, and his seed received their circumcision upon themselves, and so it was to each of them a sign, and seal, not that it was divers sorts of circumcisions, (because it was administered upon divers parties,) but the same ordinance of circumcision which Abraham received upon himself, in particular, the same ordinance of circumcision his infants received upon themselves, in particular also. And if you did but well consider the Texts, Gen. 17.11. & Rom. 4.11. you might see, that it was a sign and seal of the righteousness of faith, which went before circumcision. Consider moreover, what benefit the infants of believers [which died in their infancy] had by it; for if you will say, that it was a sign and seal of that righteousness which they never were partakers of, (or for aught we know shall never be) than your own confession will come against you * Pag. 21. lin. 31, 32. , where you grant, that God giveth no lying sign, etc. Now circumcision was a true sign of that righteousness which they had received formerly, and for confirmation of the covenant [which had been] made to them before, and to be further and further manifested, and continued to them. This is clear from Gen. 17.11.14 & Rom. 4.11. as hath been showed before. And therefore you may see, that I plead not that that righteousness came by the Law, or Circumcision; for they were righteous before, otherwise they could not have been capable of the seal of righteousness. The righteousness sealed, was a righteousness before the seal was fixed. And this righteousness was imputed unto them all, both young and old, great and small, infants and aged persons; It was unto them a sign and seal of righteousness, yea, unto the Infants as well as others. And this righteousness which it sealed, was not the righteousness of the Law, Deut. 30.12. but the righteousness of faith; and the righteousness of faith speaketh on this wise; Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend up into heaven, Rom. 10.6, 7, 8, 9, 10. that i●, to bring [Christ] down from above? or who shall descend into the deep that is, to bring up [Christ] again from the dead? But what saith it, the Word is nigh thee, etc. Wherefore it appeareth, that you have not done well, in inferring from the promises, that circumcision is no rule for baptising you ought rather to have concluded, that it is a rule for baptising, seeing that circumcision was a Gospel seal, & that the Baptism which Christ hath instituted, is one and the same with it, a sign of the same thing, a seal of the same Covenant. And therefore though circumcision is not the [onel●] ●ule for baptising, yet it is a rule, which the Saints of God may strengthen themselves withal, in the administration of Baptism upon their infants. Consider further; What circumcision sealed to the infants of believers, (that died in their infancy,) what good it did do them? either it did them good, or hurt. It was a wound, or hurt [in respect of their bodies] but it did not hurt their souls; therefore it was [some] benefit to them; for if it should not, than God gave a thing to hurt their bodies, and to do no good to their souls. The land of Canaan it sealed not unto them; for they never lived to enjoy it; A fleshly fatherhood, it sealed not unto them; for they died in infancy. What did it seal then? Did it seal nothing?! We will not say so; they being the infants of those whose sins were forgiven; and they being such which could not act, and therefore not commit actual sin. Surely (when all cometh to all) we must confess, that this sealed unto them some spiritual thing; for (they having received the wound, and incision, and dying in their infancy) it appeareth, that it sealed not unto them a natural life, therefore it sealed unto them a spiritual life, and a spiritual place, wherein they shall enjoy that spiritual life; which place, is the heavenly land of Canaan. God did not aim at the hurt of the infants when he commanded them to be circumcised, but at their good. Wherefore this very hurt of their bodies, did demonstrate some good thing which weighed down all their former hurt; And therefore seeing that infants received benefit spiritually by circumcision, that benefit came from God; God gave it to the fathers before Moses was borne almost four hundred years * Christ said to the Jews, Moses therefore gave unto you Circumcision, not because it is of Moses, but of the Fathers. See john. 7.22. ; And he never intended to take away this beneficial ordinance from the infants, but to plant as great a one in stead thereof, and make it sure to them, yea, as sure as the promise. Otherwise Christ should be less faithful in his house, than Moses; for Moses was so faithful, that he durst not (nay, would not) presume to lay such sacrilegious hands upon Circumcision, (Gods holy institution) as to bereave infants of circumcision, and disannul it by his old law, which came long after it; yea, the Apostle expressly declareth, that the Law could not disannul the covenant, and we know it did not disannul the sign and seal of that covenant; neither did Christ ever disannul it, or bereave holy infants of the benefit of it; but did take off the old garment, and put on a new, I mean, changed only the circumstantial part of the sign of his covenant, but the substance remained still, though under another element. And as a man which hath one day, one manner of apparel, another time, another suit of apparel, of another colour, and more excellent than the former, is still the same man, though in another habit; so the ordinances of Christ, which are equivolent one with the other, are the same, though the latter excel the former. So the seventh day was the same with the first day of the week, as it was a Sabbath, though not as it was [the seventh day,] yet as we may take a ground for the keeping of [a] Sabbath, from the old Testament, leaving out the circumstance, not tying ourselves to [the] seventh day; so we may take a ground from circumcision, as it was [a] sign and seal of the righteousness of faith, whereby we may be grounded in the administration of Baptism: And it is seriously to be minded, that Baptism is not larger than circumcision one way, and lesser another way (I mean less general) but (in every respect) it is as general, yea, and (in some respects) more general: As general, because such males who had right to circumcision, have right to Baptism: More general, because circumcision was to be administered only upon the males; but Baptism upon males and females. Now to make it more general, and less general, than circumcision, is a contradiction, and you by no means will allow of contradictions, at least you pretend it. If a Master promise to give his servants such or such a portion in brass farthings, and above his usual (or ordinary) custom, give it them in silver, weight, for weight; It is all one. He hath fulfilled his promise, seeing he lesseneth not the sum, and his servants (if they are wise, & know what is good for themselves) will not take exceptions thereat, or refuse the same; Even so it is with God and his people, The things which he giveth unto them, are better and better, not worse and worse, larger and larger, not lesser and lesser, and therefore we may apply this to this particular case in hand; and believe with David, that God hath magnified his Word above all his Name. Now though Baptism be greater, and more general than circumcision, in respect of the subjects, upon whom the same is administered; yet it doth not therefore argue, that Baptism is the seal of one covenant, and circumcision the seal of another covenant: The River of the Sanctuary, mentioned in Ez●chiel, though it was not so deep in one place, as in another place, yet it was the same River; And a small light and a greater light, is all one and the same light, though the greater seem (in a manner) to swallow up the lesser; So a fire, is still the same fire, though it be increased as much again as it was, fastening upon more fuel, yet it is still one and the same, though much greater than before: So Baptism, although it be, to be imposed upon the females, and differeth in respect of the act from circumcision, yet it is one and the same in effect, a seal of one and the same covenant; for the enlargement of a thing (as I said before) changeth not the nature of the thing enlarged, but maketh it to include more than it did before. Whereas it is said, that Infants were then members of the Church a Pag 22 l. 12. ; and whereas it is demanded, When they were cast out b Lin. 12. To this you answer c Lin. 13. ; That they were cast out when the Jews Church-state, Line 15. and old covenant was abrogated by the coming of Christ, and preaching of the Gospel, and planting other Churches, fare different from that of the Jews in many respects. To this I reply; That this which you have said, proveth not at all, that infants were cast out; There is not one tittle of Scripture in all the New or Old Testament to this purpose, that the infants of believers are, (or shall be) cast out; Bring me one Instance, if you can, of any one infant of a believer, that at Christ's coming was to be cast out, & then you will say something for their exempting out of the covenant, but as yet you have brought none, neither can you find any, but many, yea, multitudes of Scripture there are to the contrary, both in the new and old Testament. But you seem to point out the time when the holy infants were cast out of the Church; You tell us, they were cast out when the Jews Church-state, and old covenant was abrogated by the coming of Christ, and preaching of the Gospel, and planting other Churches, fare different from that of the Jews in many respects. But alas, you take for granted, a thing which you have not proved, and it is no marvel indeed, to see the thing that is not probable, to be without proof. That the Jews Church-state was abrogated with the old covenant, I am not bound to believe, except I see it in God's Word, much less will I grant, that the preaching of the Gospel overthrew the Church-state. But seeing the new Jerusalem hath gates and foundations, Rev. 21. according to the number of the twelve Tribes, and twelve Apostles of the Lamb, and that the Jews and Gentiles being grafted into one Olive tree, Rom. 11. make up but one Church. I must conclude, that the Church of the Jews is the Church of the Gentiles; for Christ is not properly the head of two bodies; neither did he come to abrogate the old Church * So Mr. Spilsbery saith, That the Church of God under the old Testament, and that now under the new, for nature are one, in reference to the elect of God, called to the faith, an● by th● spirit of grace united to Christ, as branches to thei● vi●e, and so an holy p●ant of God's plan●ing; of wh ●h indeed the true ●h●rch of God ●onsists. See his ●reat. of Bap●●● ●1. at lin. 14. , though he abrogated the old covenant. But now let us see how fare you would make this Church different, from the Church of Israel; you know, it must be either in matter or in form, or in both, otherwise, (I suppose) (you will strive without an opposite,) for all Christians generally do confess, that they were bound to observe such circumstances, which we are not bound to observe; but all this did not argue, bu● that their Church was fit matter, and a right form, and the same with the Church of the Gentiles. But you say * A● lin. 20. , That was corstituted upon nature, and the natural seed of Abraham; this upon grace, and the spiritual seed of Abraham. To which I answer, That if by nature, you mean corruption as it appeareth you do, than (by your ground) the Church of the Jews was constituted upon corruption, & was a corrupt Church, a leprous Church, in the very constitution. You think, that the Church of the Jews in her constitution, (which was of God's building, Isa. 5.1 2, 3. * No man (saith Mr. Spilsbery will admit of dead plants to be set in his v●neyard, or grafted into a stock, but only su●h as are capable to comply with the same, in the sap, and nourishment thereof, to the end it may grow, and bring forth fruit: and so it is with Christ, who comes not short of nature, and therefore he admits not of any dead plants to be set in his spiritual vineyard, or dead members to be joined to his mystical body, but only such as by faith are capable to comply with the head. Neither took he for himself a compounded body, consisting of both living & dead members, which all are that have not a living principle of grace, etc. For this see his Treat. of Bap. pag. 20. lin. 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14. & consisted all of visible Saints, Deut. 29.18.) to be corrupt. For the like you said before in your book. p. 4 That they stood merely upon nature and circumcision of the fl●sh & not by faith, and circumcision of the heart. And here you oppose this nature unto grace, & the natural seed unto the spiritual seed. And thus it appeareth, that you hold neither the matter, nor form of the Church to be spiritual then, nor the persons graci●us, but ungracious, fleshly, and carnal. But the Scripture teacheth us, that they were a holy nation, and a peculiar people unto the Lord their God; and so excellent, that none were like unto them; Great advantage had they every manner of way: Unto them was committed the Oracles of God. And shall we think, that God committed his Oracles to a Church which had a carnal constitution? or that he owned such for his holy peculiar people? God made an everlasting covenant with Abraham, that he would be a God unto him and his seed for ever: And though the Law was added, because of transgression, yet it could not disannul the covenant, and therefore not the Church (or people of the covenant), or the seal of the promise. Now surely, if that the Church had been constituted upon nature corrupted, (such as you have opposed to grace) and upon the natural, & not upon the spiritual seed * See before in this Treatise pag. 29, 30, 31. For there it is answered at large. , than there was no difference between the Israelites, and the Heathens; and then was the Church of Israel, no communion of Saints, but a mixed multitude, which to think is very erroneous, as may appear by these Scriptures, Exod. 19.5, 6. & 22.31. & 12.48, 49. Num. 9.14 & 15.15. Levit. 19.2. & 20.7, 8. Deut. 7.6. & 14.1, 2. & 26.18, 19 1 King. 8.53. Deut. 4.20. & 29.10, 11, 12, 13. & 10.15. Psal. 147.14. But from this your groundless affirmation, you would (through an inference) make another disparity, between the Church of the Jews; and the Church of the Gentiles: You say, That was therefore termed Israel according to the flesh, and of the circumcision of the flesh, this Israel according to the Spirit, and of the circumcision of the heart, Rom. 8 28.29. Rom. 9.6, 7, 8. Coll. 2.11. And to this I answer, That your speech doth here import, as if none who were Israel according to the flesh, were Israelites according to the spirit: but the Apostle saith, All are not Israel that are of Israel; He maketh a manifest difference between Israel, the Church of God, and those who were not really Israelites; though they came of Israel's loins according to the flesh. But your speech crosseth the Apostles speech, and tendeth to prove, that all were Israel that were of Israel. But what will you say to the Proselytes, and their seed? Were they Israel according to the fl●sh? Surely they were not; therefore they were Israelites according to the spirit? As well as others, who were also Israelites, both according to the spirit, and flesh. Moreover, None were to be circumcised, externally in the flesh, but those who were in God's covenant, and were circumcised in heart, so fare as m●n could discern; and those that were in God's covenant, were Israelites spiritually, and so to be esteemed, even as true members of the Church. So David saith, Yet surely God is good unto Israel, unto those that are pure in heart. Deut. 30.6. Circumcision of the flesh sealed unto them the circumcision of the heart; and this God promised both to them, and their seed, and then both male, and female, were all one in Christ * Exod 12.48, 49. Num. 9.14. & 15.14, 15, 16. , and so they are now ** Gal. 3.28. . As for the Scriptures (Rom. 2.28, 29. Rom. 9.6, 7, 8 Coll. 2.11) which you cite, they make nothing for your present purpose; to prove, That that was [only] called Israel according to the flesh, and the other only according to the spirit; The one constituted upon that [nature] (which you have opposed to grace) & upon the natural seed (destitute of the spirit,) the other constituted on grace (without nature,) and the spiritual seed of Abraham (without the natural seed) Prove this, and then you say something, else it is nothing to your purpose. But indeed the substance of what you say here, is answered at large in this Treatise, pag. 29, 30, 31, 32, 33. And now I will proceed to examine the Scriptures which you have cited here, for confirmation of these your opinions. As touching Rom 2.28, 29. there the Apostle declareth who are the true Jews indeed, (namely) those that are Jew's inwardly; and that the true Circumcision indeed, is that of the heart, in the spirit, not in the letter, whose praise is of God, etc. Now will you reason from this place, that those who were the natural seed (not degenerating) were not the spiritual seed? and that because God accepted of the infants with their parents, and commanded them to be circumcised, that therefore the Church-state was built upon nature, and not upon Christ! Surely you cannot gather any such thing from the Apostles words, in Rom. 2.28, 29. nor from any other place of Scripture, but rather the contrary. Yea, the Apostle in the following Chapter declareth, that as for the advantage of the Jew, and the profit of circumcision, it was much every manner of way; chief because that unto them were committed the Oracles of God: For (saith he) what if some did not believe, shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect? God forbidden: And so he concludeth, that both Jews and Gentiles are justified by faith; Seeing it is one God which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and the uncircumcision through faith; Do we then make void the Law through faith? (saith he) God forbid: yea, we establish the Law. And in the fourth Chapter Paul treateth of justification by faith without works; and expoundeth David's speech; for whereas David saith * Psal. 32.1, 2. , Blessed is the man to whom the Lord imputeth not sin, and in whose spirit there is no guile. Paul explaineth it thus; Blessed is the man to whom the Lord imputeth [righteousness without works:] From which places of Scripture, much may be gathered against those who deny infants to have faith imputatively; for the Apostle declareth that he to whom the Lord imputeth not sin, is a righteous person. Now every person is either righteous, or unrighteous; for as righteousness is not imputed unto those to whom sin is imputed, So those whose iniquities are pardoned, and their sin covered, the Lord (imputing no sin unto them) he imputeth righteousness unto them, [without works.] and this righteousness, is that which justifieth before God. It was faith which was counted unto Abraham for righteousness. And so he proceedeth in the 9th, 10th, and 11th verses, to prove, that this blessing, or blessedness, came not only upon the circumcision, but also upon the uncircumcision, declaring that Abraham received not circumcision before he had this blessedness; wherefore he calleth Circumcision a sign, and seal of the righteousness of faith, which he had before he was circumcised; which importeth, that all those who were circumcised then (according to God's appointment) were (in visibility) blessed before, and had this righteousness before; even as all those who are baptised, according to God's appointment, are righteous before, and have (in visible account) the same blessing, which those had, who were circumcised, according to the revealed will of God. And he goeth on in the 13, 14, 15. verses, and there telleth us, who are the right heirs. And in the 16th verse, he saith, that the promise is sure to all the seed, not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all. And he further showeth, that this promise ([so shall thy seed be,] and that Abraham's believing Gods promise,) was imputed unto him for righteousness; and was not written for his sake alone, but for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on God. Touching the other Scripture, Rom. 9.6, 7, 8. Isaac was no mocker, though he were mocked; no persecuter, though persecuted in his infancy. which you allege to prove your former position, concerning the different constitutions of the Church of the Jews, and of the Church of the Gentiles, it maketh nothing for your purpose neither, but directly against you; for there we may see, that though all are not Israel which are of Israel, yet the Word of God taketh effect; according to that in Rom. 3.3. Ishmaels' mocking of Isaac, did not argue, that Isaac was also a mocker. Isaac remained still a child of promise, (though an Infant.) But if it be true, (as you would infer) that the state was a state of bondmen, and that an heir, or Lord, differed nothing from a servant of sin, and if it were constituted, and stood merely upon nature, and circumcision of the flesh, and not by faith, and circumcision of the heart: it argueth that the Word of God is without effect! that all were Israel that were of Israel! all mockers with Ishmael! profane persons with Esau! etc. which to think, is very erroneous; for the word of God hath taken effect, to retain the holy Infants, and cast out visible profane persons, and therefore the state wherein they were, was a state of freemen. God was well pleased with them, and accepted of their sacrifices, and promised unto them, remission of their sins through Jesus Christ, who was then to come, and is now come. Therefore I would have you to banish such evil thoughts out of your mind, as if they had a false, corrupt, or carnal, and not a spiritual constitution. Again consider, That Church upon whom holy Baptism was rightly administered, was holy and spiritual. But holy Baptism was rightly administered upon the Church of Israel. 1 Cor. 10.1, 2. Psa. 77.16, 17, Therefore they were a holy spiritual Church, as well as we. But peradventure you will say, you mean, that in their Apostasy they pleased not God; and therefore their Church-state which they were in formerly, had a carnal constitution, and was not spiritual. To which I answer, That the like you may say concerning the Churches now, which you acknowledge to be spiritual. But you should consider, that many are called, but few are chosen: God's garden may have some plants therein, which possibly may degenerate from their kind, and become wild, yet the garden is still the Lords; but the husbandmen ought when they discover such, to weed them out. So corruptions began to spring in the Church of Corinth, 2 Cor. 7.11. and they cut down the tender fruits thereof in time. And God threatened the members of some of the Churches of Asia, 〈◊〉 Rev. 2. & 3. to execute judgement upon them, if repentance prevented him not. As for Coll. 2.11. which you have cited, that the Church of Collossia, was circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ. This implieth not but that the Jews and Proselytes, before Christ's coming, had circumcision of the flesh, as an outward sign unto them, that the Lord would circumcise their hearts, and the hearts of their seed, to love him more and more, according to his gracious promise. And seeing that the Apostle maketh circumcision here, the same in effect with our Baptism, it plainly argueth, that as infants (in former time) were to receive circumcision, so infants now (in their infancy) are to receive Baptism the seal of the same covenant. Whereas you say, That was a state of bond men * Lin. 23. , wherein an heir differed nothing from a servant, this, not of servants * Lin. 28. , but of sons and freemen. I suppose you mean by bondmen, those who were bound-servants to Satan; and by freemen, those who were set free by Christ: In this respect than you have not done well, in saying that such a one that was made free (in this spiritual respect) differed nothing from those who were visibly bondslaves of Satan. Then (it seems) Isaac differed nothing from a mocker; nor the Proselytes infants, from Heathens and Infidels. And if you mean, by servants, those who are wicked in the Church, I say, they were to be cast out, as they manifested evil fruits; for though they were in the house a while, and were as children, yet they manifesting themselves afterwards to be servants of sin, were no longer to abide; but those who are not servants of sin, are now (as they were then) to abide for ever therein; so Ishmael was in covenant with Isaac, and was circumcised; but when he manifested fruits of unholiness, out he was cast. And why was this? Gen. 21.9, 10. Not because he was Abraham's son, according to the flesh; but because he manifested himself afterward to be a servant of sin, and so degenerated from the righteous steps of Abraham. Now you ought to know, See before in this Treatise pag. 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 147, 148, 149. that the Church of the Jews was constituted of freemen, and there was not one sinner to be suffered in that church, but when he was discovered, either he must repent, or be cut off; therefore it plainly argueth, that visible wicked persons, bondslaves of Satan, were not to be the matter of that Church; in the first constitution, they were such who in all outward appearance, were not alliens from God's covenants, or promises, or strangers to God, but were such whom he knew, and owned, and such whom he would acknowledge, as in the kingdom of grace here, so in the kingdom of glory hereafter. It may be you think thus; That if the Church of Israel were constituted of freemen, why then were many of them manifested afterwards to be wicked? Corah, and his company, a congregation of Rebels, from whom Moses, and the rest were commanded to separate; famous men, and men of renown amongst the Israelites, and yet were chief in the rebellion; also Nadab and Abihu, offerers of strange fire, and many more, manifested themselves to be evil persons. Ans. If this be any ground of your prejudicacie against the Church of the Jews, then let this satisfy you, that these were freemen at first, according to visibility, as holy as Judas, or Simon Magus, or Ananias and Saphira; And therefore if it be an argument of a false constitution, for members of a Church of God to fall from their steadfastness, than it will follow, that the Church now (under the Gospel) hath not a true constitution, seeing that divers fall from their steadfastness, some for a time, like the incestuous person in the Church of Corinth, others, finally, totally, and eternally, like Judas Iscariot, who was one of the Lambs twelve Apostles. Let this then be the conclusion, that the state may be a state of freemen, though some bondmen appear in it, and are cast out, as Ishmael the son of the bondwoman, was cast out of the state of freemen, wherein the infants of believers were admitted, though they were not the seed of Abraham according to the flesh. And the consideration of this maketh much for the infants of believers now, for as much as believers (even freemens) privileges are much enlarged since Christ's manifestation in the flesh. The freemen had this privilege formerly to bring in their infants, and to difference them from those without: And surely their privileges are not lessened now: * What had the Infants of believing parents done, to deserve Excommunication (or casting out of the Church?) If they had done nothing worthy of it (as it is sure they had not) than I may justly conclude, that they were not children of the bond woman, and if not of the bondwoman, than still of the freewoman, and if children of the freewoman, than members of the Church, and if so, then there is no just reason can be given to debar such holy Infants of their privileges; amongst which, Baptism is one, as Circumcision was of old. Christ came not to bring loss and damage to holy infants; And if it be true, which you say, That till Christ's coming, an heir (or believer) differed nothing from a servant. If by a servant, you mean Ishmael, or such as he, who manifested themselves to be servants of sin, then why was the son of the bond woman cast out, & differenced from the son of the freewoman? But indeed you should mind, that Christ came to take the yoke of the Law from the shoulders of believers, and so to ease them of that servitude, under which they were; and this doth not impair the infants of believers, no not in the least. Touching Christ's discourse * Lin. 30. , which you bring to make your affirmations to appear evident true; It doth evidence, that your affirmations in this particular, are evident false; for Christ saith no such thing which you feign, that he saith; for he speaketh to those that did derogate from the steps of Abraham, which the believers Infants could not justly be said to do. And Christ doth not say, that the Church of the Jews was constituted upon nature, flesh, carnality, opposite to the spirit; but he saith, that those that continued in his Word, they then were his Disciples indeed, & should know the truth, and the truth should make them free; (not that the Church, whereof he and his brethren were members, was evilly constituted, because evil persons were in it, or degenerated from it) but that these were members in the Church, which had need to amend, or else to be cast out. See John 8. Their answer to Christ was, that they were Abraham's seed, and so were free already, and were never in bondage to any man. But in this they said not true; for they had degenerated from the steps of Abraham. And Christ in telling them, that whosoever committeth sin, is the servant of sin; did therein declare, that it was no benefit unto any to be of Abraham's seed, if they degenerated from Abraham's steps; for this was a means, (though they were members of the true Church) to make them no members of it, but to be cast out thence; for (so saith Christ unto them) the servant abideth not in the house for ever. Now by this house, is meant his Church, in which though sinners abide covertly (for a time) yet as they manifest themselves to be corrupt, and levennous, are (or at least ought) to be cast out; Therefore they abide not there for ever; So the Jews were taught by the ceremony of casting away leaven, to cast out the leaven of sin, out of their hearts, and out of their families; and also to purge the Church of God, both of sin, and sinners, so far as they could discern by the light of God's Word, But those that were true Saints, were to abide in that true Church-state for ever. So it is said, Psal. 15.5. That such shall never be moved out of God's Tabernacle, and holy Mountain. So Christ saith here, that the Son abideth for ever; If therefore the Son make you free, you shall be free indeed. By this freedom, he meant a freedom from condemnation for ever, from the law of sin, and of death for ever, because he opposeth it to the bondage they were in. Further, These persons whom Christ reprehended, were not obedient to the new covenant, neither did they regard the commandments of the Law; for the commandment saith, Thou shalt not kill. But Christ said unto them; I know you are Abraham's seed, but ye seek to kill me, because my Word hath no place in you, etc. This wickedness of theirs, was not warranted, neither by the new, nor old covenant, and therefore they were not allowed in any respect, but condemned. Wherefore it evidently appeareth, that you cannot gather from either of the covenants, that such visible wicked persons, were by God allowed to be in (much less the ground of) his Church's constitution after their discovery. These than were not meet to be members of the Church of the Jews, yea, though they were the children of Abraham (according to the flesh) yet by the new and old covenant, were to be cast out, when the least infant of a faithful Proselyte, remained still a member of the Commonwealth of Israel, which was the Church of God. Moreover, Christ did not affirm any such thing (as you would further feign he did,) th●t persons by natural birth, and circumcision of the flesh, were admitted free; for Ishmalites and Edomites, by fleshly generation, were the children of Abraham, yet they were not therefore admitted freemen, till they renounced their parent's sin, and came into the Church. And the infants of wicked parents, were circumcised in Apostasy; yet we will not say, that therefore they were free; But this we are to know, that the natural seed of the faithful, that were not apostated, or degenerated, were to be accounted the true seed; and all those who were circumcised, Gen. 17.14. according to God's appointment, were the true seed in covenant with God, and so were made free; when Apostates (though circumcised) were bond-servants to sin, and were not to be admitted (as they stood in that state of Apostasy) to be members of the Church of the Jews, as you most feignedly would father upon Christ. You fain as if Christ should say, that Abraham's nature could produce no other but servants of sin, etc. But I know not what you mean hereby. I know Abraham was a sinner in the loins of Adam, yet Adam's sin was not imputed unto him to condemnation; no more was it visibly to Abraham's seed, but as they degenerated from Abraham's steps; for the sin of Abraham, which he had actually, and originally, was forgiven him in Christ. And think not, that he was destitute of the new covenant, for though the new covenant was before the manifestation of the old covenant in Mount Sinai, yet it was new in respect of perpetuity, though old in respect of antiquity; & is set forth in Rev. 4. by the similitude of a Rainbow, in sight like an Emerald round about the throne of God. And the Infants of Abraham were never out of the Church-state, till they apostated, & degenerated from the steps of Abraham; If the promises had been made to seeds, as of many, then there had been some ground ●o believe, that visible wicked persons, or persons merely natural, destitute of the spirit, were fit matter for the constitution of that Church, and that the seed of Apostates might be circumcised, as well as others. But the promises were made only to one seed * Gal. 3.16. , namely, Christ, that is to say, Christ's body, which consisteth (or aught to consist) visibly of none but sons of God, by faith in Christ. And seeing the promise made to Abraham, and his seed, was not made through the Law, (namely, the old Law) and that this old Law could not disannul the promise, therefore the old covenant could be removed, and yet the promise continue still, to all those subjects to whom it was made. See A. R. Pag. 24. li. 1, 2. Mat. 1. Luk 3. Isa. 11. But further you would feign, that the flesh spoken of in Gen. 17.13. was Christ, who was to come of their flesh. But you should know, that Christ came of the Tribe of Judah, by lineal descent, and not of the rest of the Tribes, nor of the father- Proselytes, and yet they being circumcised, that covenant of circumcision was in their flesh. Moreover, Christ himself was circumcised [in his infancy * Luk. 2.21. ,] where was that covenant, if he were the flesh spoken of? The covenant was in his flesh, as well as in the flesh of his brethren. Now by flesh, we may, and aught to understand, that place from whence the superfluity of their foreskin was cut off. Gen. 17.10. Ver. 14. My covenant, saith he, shall be in [your] flesh; and the uncircumcised man-child, whose [flesh of his foreskin] is not cut off, the same person shall be cut off, etc. Again, If by the flesh, was only meant Christ's natural body, and by the covenant, only the circumcision, which Christ was to receive, (and did receive) in his flesh. Then circumcision was abolished, (or at an end) when Christ was circumcised, and none were to be circumcised after him. Yea, and if he were that flesh, which was to be circumcised; then it will follow, that though none other had been circumcised before or after, they had not broken the covenant. But God did declare, what the circumcision was, and where it was to be administered, and upon whom: First, It was a cutting off, of the superfluous foreskin: Secondly, That it was to be in their flesh, and not in the flesh of others in stead of them. Thirdly, That it was to be administered upon Jews and Gentiles, that were in the covenant: Gen. 17. Exod. 12.48. And so such persons were by virtue of God's covenant circumcised, not only before Christ was circumcised, but also after; and therefore you have not done well to interpret Gen. 17.13. after such a manner, & you have done evil, in feigning it, as if it were the speech of Christ, when no such things ever entered into his thoughts. Whereas you think circumcision was a covenant properly, you should know, that though circumcision had the denomination of God's covenant a Gen. 14.10. , yet it was but a sign of it b Ver. 11. . The names of things signified (in the Scripture) are given to the signs, which signify them; So the Lamb was called God's Passeover c Exod. 12.11. ; the Rock, Christ d 1 Cor. 10.4. ; the bread and wine in the Lord's Supper, Christ's body and blood, etc. e Mat. 26.26. And in this sense, is circumcision called God's covenant, that is to say, a token, or sign thereof, as God termeth it himself in Gen. 17. ver. 11. As for those which say, that the promise, covenant, election, and faith, belongeth t● [all] believers children (which supposed case you put to shut up all * Se● A. R. Pag. 25. at lin. 8. your matter) I tell you, that if by all, they mean the godly children of godly parents, than they say true; But that the wicked children of godly parents, have these excellent things belonging unto them, is no article of my faith. When the Apostle Peter saith to the Jews; Act. 2.39. The promise is unto (you, and to) [your children,] and too all that are a far off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call. In including the children here with the parents, his meaning is not to include all believers children, but only those holy ones who abide in their parents righteous steps; which thing holy Infants do, as before hath been proved at large * See pag. 3. , they do not degenerate from the righteous steps of their holy parents. And therefore such may be lawfully baptised, for no more in effect is required to Baptism, than was to circumcision of old; this is, as that was, and these are, as those were: Holy infants were to be circumcised then, and therefore such may be lawfully baptised now. Next, you * See A. R. Pag. 25. li. 19 charge the great Clerks of our times, with confounding the two Covenants, of the Law and Gospel together. And to this, I say, if by these great clerks, you mean those who think Infant's Baptism to be a mere tradition; Indeed than your accusation may prove true upon them, for such as they do put no difference between the new covenant, made with Abraham and his seed, and the old covenant and law, which came long after it; but they think this new covenant, and the old covenant, to be both one, and do not rightly understand the nature of them; and therefore the hodgepodge in their teachings, and writings, which you mention * Lin. 29. , is their own, as well as any one's else; as also the intermixture of grace and works, truth and error; as also the distillation of the spirit of giddiness into the hearts of their hearers, that they walk indeed (as you speak * Lin. 33. ) in a circular Maze: And so by confounding Law and Gospel, have laboured to bring you (or rather detain you) in bondage to sin. See A. R. pag. 26. at lin. 10. Next, You would make us believe, that you desire that the doctrine of free grace by Jesus Christ, might be set forth distinctly in its native lustre, and the spirituality thereof in its fullness of beauty and glory clearly laid open. Which is indeed a thing to be desired, both in the continuance and increase thereof. But alas, little do you think (as I in charity judge) how all your labour in this Treatise, tendeth to the darkening, obscuring, eclipsing, restraining, and limiting of the doctrine of free grace by Jesus Christ, the distinct displaying of whose native lustre, though it be never so often done, or the spirituality thereof in its fullness of beauty and glory, never so clearly laid open before you, yet you cannot see it clearly indeed, so long as you thus hoodwink the eyes of your charity, and present the blessed babes of believing parents, unto you, and yourself unto them, in such beastly shapes, as you have done throughout your discourse concerning them. You talk freely of free grace, as if it were excellent in your eyes, and that you desire to be satisfied with the fullness of the beauty thereof; But in the mean while, you would not have us think that any part thereof belongeth to the holy infants: But surely (as I said before * See before in this Treatise, pag. 82. ) it is well they are not at your finding; for if they were, it seemeth that you would (Dives-like) not admit them the least crumb which falleth from your Table. But our sweet Saviour Jesus Christ who was once an infant, and is (and always was) the only begotten Son of God, full of grace and truth, hath free grace enough in store for them, and hath displayed the same excellently in its native lustre, as is frequently manifested in the Scripture of God. Which thing no doubt you will perceive, when once God openeth your eyes to see how the covenant of mercy is made with believing parents, and their seed, that he will be their God, and will accept of them in Christ, (binding them to do nothing above their ability) And this free grace of God ariseth from his loving kindness, or good will which he hath unto them, and always had; which kind mind moved him to look upon them with the eye of pity, and so to take such his chosen one's to himself. And this grace may well be said to be free, and why? Because it proceedeth not from works, but from the love of God in Christ Jesus. The love which is in God, is that which moveth God, (who is love) to love; Because He loved thy fathers, Deut. 4.37. Gen. 17.7, 8. therefore He chose their seed. So the covenant of free grace runs thus; I will be the God of thee, and of thy seed after thee: And he bindeth the holy infants to no action, or any thing which they cannot do, but giveth them the true blessedness without works; And therefore though you talk never so long of free grace, and toss it never so often in your mouth, yet it is no freedom for you, but bondage unto you, so long as you do (by with-standing holy infants) as it were, snatch their bread, out of their mouths. The ground whereof is your unbelief, because you persuade yourself, that the holy infants are not visibly in the state of salvation, till they actually and verbally express faith: As if the believers infants [dying in their infancy] were not saved by Christ's righteousness, imputed unto them without works. And your own errors (you mention) which like hypocrites twins, do smile and weep stand and fall together, may be justly fathered upon those, who b●r●e out the infants from the said privileges which Christ hath bequeathed unto them, as they are selected unto him. As for the gay Clergy which you mention, Pag. 25. (meaning those of the Church of England, as I suppose) which you now run upon, (as you did at the latter end of your first book,) though it be to little purpose; (for as much as it doth not concern our point in hand,) yet I will tell you what I know, and have found by experience, that they are feign to betake themselves to anabaptistical Arguments, both for the maintenance of their state, and retaining of evil persons therein; which indeed ariseth from their gross mistake of the History of the Scripture, thinking (as you do) that the Church of the Jews was constituted merely upon nature and carnality, and the like stuff, never considering that God (from the beginning of the world) always constituted his Church only of such persons, who in all visible account were faithful, and holy; And still provided a way and means to purge the Church from corruptions. Moreover, The parties (formerly specified) in maintenance of their state, have also a fond erroneous conceit, that because they have some of God's ordinances, therefore they are a true Church; not considering that God's ordinances may be in a false state, as in Jeroboams whorish Church, (as hath been observed formerly ** See the Answer to A. R. first part. .) Hereupon they are forceably driven, either to confess the Church of Rome, to be a true Church, or else to maintain that an unbaptised person may baptise. Now if they stand to deny the baptism in the Church of Rome, they deny their own Baptism, which they received successively from thence; which if they do, (as upon your grounds they are driven thereunto) then how do you think they will raise baptism, except an unbaptized person baptise another? Thus you may see into what streits they wrap and ensnare themselves, in taking up such groundless Arguments as you bring, and all to justify themselves in their own way, and to avoid, and withstand the way of Separation, which is the only way of God. Whereas you bring in the disorders in worship & government, which you say, the Papists have brought in; I tell you, this is a varying from the matter in hand, yet I say, we ought to learn by the same to avoid them, and all those who seek to ruinated the foundation of Christian Religion, by casting dark shadows upon the heavenly beauty and glorious excellency of Christ's Kingly, Priestly, and Prophetical office, and eclipse his Mediatorship, as if it were less than it was before he was manifested in the flesh. As if he who hath all power both in heaven and in earth, hath not given so much authority, as generally and universally to make Disciples, and baptise them; as the Saints of old had to make Disciples and circumcise them; Surely seeing Christ is as faithful in his house as Moses. As the Gospel of Christ (in former time) was so effectual and powerful, as to cause Proselytes (and their seed in their infancy) to have such dignity (by virtue of God's covenant) to be circumcised; The Gospel of Christ (being every jot as glorious as it hath been,) is also as effectual and powerful now, to dignify believers, and their infants, with the ordinance of Baptism, and that by virtue of God's covenant; unto which is annexed Christ's institution, which is very general, yea, more general than circumcision was of old. And surely if the infants of believers had that power, as to become the children of God in their infancy, fellow- heirs with the Saints in light, as Isaac was, and all those like him were, and to be coe-heires with Jesus Christ, of the everlasting inheritance, kingdom, and glory, and that before Christ's resurrection; Then the infants of believers, borne after Christ's resurrection, have the like privileges. But the first is true from the grounds before laid, from their right to the covenant, their being in the covenant, etc. and the unchangeableness of the Angel of the covenant, Therefore the latter, that holy infants are still in the covenant, is true also; And this hath been sufficiently proved before. Touching your Exhortation, how we should bewail the great Apostasy, etc. I say, as the Saints of old did bewail the great Apostasy of the Israelites, both in faith and worship, Isa. 2.6. who were replenished from the East, and were soothsayers, like the Philistians, and pleased themselves in the children of strangers; So we ought to bewail this Apostasy of these now. We have cause to bewail their ignorance, who pretend holiness to God, and make a verbal profession, drawing near unto God with their mouths (like the Apostate Israelites) when their hearts are far from him; pleading for the baptising of those Infants, whose parents are neither of them believers, causing the holy sign to be administered upon their infants in that idolatrous estate; in the partaking whereof, they have no right, any more than the seed of those Apostates of the Israelites, had right to circumcision in former time. But yet though the Infants were circumcised in that Idolatrous estate, the Prophet's work was to call them to repentance, and if they returned (the manner of their circumcision being repent of) it was as effectual unto them, as if they had received it in an excellent and holy manner. So those who are baptised in their infancy, in the state of Apostasy, at their conversion are not to be baptised again; but to repent of the evil of the manner, and not cast away God's holy institution, but still retain it, and make a holy use of it, yet they ought not to Idolise it, by preferring it before that which is greater. Though the Temple, Rev. 2.1, 2. and the Altar, and the worshippers, were to be measured, yet the Court without was to be cast out, and not to be measured, because it was given to the Gentiles. Again, Whereas you speak of the abrogation of the state of the Jews. I say, This hath been answered fully before, you should still mind that Jesus Christ came not to undermine or overthrow his kingdom, though it was taken out of the hands of the unbelieving Jews, and given unto another people, whom Christ testified, would bring forth fruits of it. Again, Whereas you speak of the casting off of Israel, according to the flesh. I answer, That none were cast off merely because they were Israelites according to the flesh; and though some were cut off, yet others remained on, and in that state where the Gentiles by faith were planted and placed; as some of the Jews, through unbelief, were cut off, supplanted, and displaced. So the Ap stle Paul saith, the Jews some of them (not all of them) were cut off, because of unbelief, and the believing Gentiles grafted in their stead. As for those that believed, their privileges and prerogatives were still as great, and as large, both to them, and their seed, as they were before. And the like may be said concerning the Proselytes. And so your other question is resolved, concerning the bringing in of us Gentiles, and our seed, as acceptable on God's Altar. And whereas you question again; A. R. Whether the parents, Jew and Gentile, must needs be borne again of the Spirit, and only by faith become the seed of Abraham, and heirs according to promise, Gal. 3.7.29. Rom. 4.11, 12. And shall their children become the same seed by nature? I answer. The birth of the Spirit is very necessary both to young and old, without which they cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven. And I would have you to know, that I plead not that the children of the faithful become heirs of the promise by nature; but by the free grace of God, which passeth all understanding; which is as sufficient for believers, and their children now, as formerly. And these interrogations of yours, are answered at large, you having mentioned the same things before. Again, You say; A. R. Pag. 30. lin. 2. to lin. 10. Neither can any show any one such promise to any believer, in all the whole world, and his seed, as was and is to Abraham and his seed, who is therefore the father of us all (to wit) of all believers, and only of believers, Jew and Gentile, father and child, etc. Rom. 4.16. and therefore it is faith, that it might be by grace, to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; but the promise is sure only to believers; Therefore believers only are the seed of Abraham, to whom the promise and ordinance of the new Testament do properly appertain. To which I answer, That this hath been answered before already, It hath been proved sufficiently, that the same covenant which was made with Abraham and his seed, is made to believers and their seed; & it being a perpetual covenant, the heirs of it are perpetual heirs, even such to whom the promises do appertain, as well as unto their dear brethren of old, who are departed in the same faith; and this heavenly order the old Law which was given at Mount Sinai, could not disannul. And I hope there is no reasonable man, but will condescend unto this, that all those who were to receive the sign and s●ale of the righteousness of faith, were visibly holy and faithful; but the Infants of believers were, by God's appointment, to receive the sign, and seal of the righteousness of faith; therefore the Infants of believers were then (as they are now) visibly holy and faithful. And Christian Infants are as capable (every way) of the seal now, as the Infants of the Jews (God's holy ones) were capable of the seal in former time. Therefore the Baptism of the New Testament, doth properly appertain unto such; and therefore the administration of Baptism upon them, doth not overthrow the least part of the Gospel of Christ, or any thing of his, much less the whole, as you (in your following words) most falsely speak; and therefore the minor of your following argument, being so small, that there is no truth therein; the conclusion builded thereon, (that that Baptism * Pag. 30. l. 15. is Antichristian and abominable) is Antichristian and abominable, as well as your comparisons, specified in your first Book, where you compare the Baptism of Infants with the abominable Hierarchy. Against which imprecations, I must, and will still, as I have done, maintain the Baptism of holy Infants to be just and lawful, holy and Evangelicall; and aught to be observed, according to the command of Christ, Mat 28.19. M●r. 16.16. Of which sufficient hath been spoken before, and more may be according as time and occasion shall be offered. But your bare affirmations, (without proof) you take for granted to be very true, and therefore upon this ground, you proceed to make a final conclusion of your Book, with this Conclusion; A. R. His last Conclusion. That the Baptism of Infants, is the greatest delusion, and a thing of as dangerous consequence, as ever the Man of sin brought into the world; and therefore the greatest maintainers thereof, are justly to be esteemed the greatest deluders. Wherefore it is high time for us to look about us, to awaken out of th● drunken slumber, and to see how hitherto we and our fathers have been blindly led, by our blind guides, into this depth of ignorance, and missed of iniquity, and l●t us seek out by what means, and by whom we are so miserably intosticated, as to stumble and grope for our way, thus even at noon day. To which I answer, That it is not material or sufficient to say, it is a delusion, except it could be proved to be so; you should know, that it is not a delusion, nor dangerous in the least, much less can it be the greatest delusion, and of as dangerous consequence, as ever the Man of sin brought into the world; as you (without so much as any just consequence) most unjustly conclude; rather we may conclude, that the greatest with standers of holy Infant's Baptism, are the greatest deluders; Wherefore I may better conclude against you, that you have done very evil in uttering forth such bitter words, against the Baptism of holy Infants, before you had seen the promises better weighed in the Balance of the Sanctuary. And why is it? but because you do not look upon things with a single eye. Yea, your spiritual sight is so darkened, (or rather that natural reason which is in you,) that in pushing at God's people, you push against God, who standeth between you and us; though you (riding upon the insufficiency of your humane testimony, which will not bear you out) see him not, no more then blind Balaam saw the Angel of Jehovah, that fought against him; But when your eyes are opened, than you shall see your error, and be enabled to perceive a difference spiritually between the Infants of believers, and the Infants of unbelievers, in respect of a visible state, and reverence the ordinance of Baptism, administered upon holy Infants, for his sake, who is the Author and Instituter thereof; and no more condemn the generation of the just, who practise the same; and so kick against the pricks, and be a fighter (as you are now) against God. But know, that it is no better than sacrilege, to father God's holy Institutions upon the Man of sin. And seeing the sign & seal of the righteousness of faith, was commanded by God to be imposed upon the Infants of believers we may justly conclude, That those are deluded by sin, which say it is a delusion of the Man of sin; but such prejudicated opinions, as yours are, are the very suggestions of Satan; for with the same carnal reason did he possess Eve; & with the like suggestions hath he violently possessed you; this being as bad as that, it not worse; and therefore those who are most active and famous to withstand the Baptism of holy Infants, are (if you will have it) the greatest and most grossest deluders, at least (and at the best) they are deluded. And if you will still determine to hold on, as you have done, saying that the Baptism of Infants is a mere device, and tradition of man, and brought into the world for politic and by-ends, etc. when it is apparently known, that God first brought it into the world; and his love is not self-love, neither hath he any other ends, but his own glory, and the good of his people. I say, if you hold on in your peremptory conclusion, that it is a delusion of the Man of sin, and that the greatest maintainers thereof, are justly to be esteemed the greatest deluders. I must (knowing you to be deluded) desire you to awake out of this [your] drunken slumber; and know, that in all these your fond imaginations, & vain conceptions, you have brought forth a mere dream; When you awake (I hope) you will not find it so. AND now for conclusion, I desire you seriously to consider the Scriptures, reasons, and arguments brought by me to vindicate the lawfulness of the Baptism of holy Infants, against whatsoever objections you have here set down in opposition of this Truth. And withal take notice (I pray you) how that throughout both these your Treatises against Infant's baptism, you have not brought one Scripture, from whence we may draw the least consequence for dismissing the holy Infants from being members of Gods visible church, or for k●●ping them from Baptism (the visible sign of the new Covenant,) extant now, any more than such holy Infants were exempted in former time from Circumcision the visible sign of the new Covenant) extant then. But many yea, multi●udes of plain and evident testimonies there are, evidently declaring the excellent benefits which appertain unto them in Jesus Christ; Amongst which, Baptism is one, which though it be external, and is not effectual [〈◊〉 i● self] to the salvation of any, yet it is a sign (or token) by which God will have all his visible Saints, marked out for the peculiar sheep of his own pasture. And ●f holy Infants were not to be baptised, is holy Infants formerly were to be circumcised before Christ was manifested in the flesh, than it would argue a great weakness, or imperfection in Christ, eclipsing his Mediatorship, as if he were not so able to make this as profitable unto these (in their infancy) as Circumcision was unto the other (in their infancy) importing as if Christ were not so faithful in his house, as Moses, and as if Baptism were of smaller value, and of less effect than Circumcision. But Baptism is as general and as effectual every manner of way as Circumcision, therefore as Circumcision was not worn out from the Infants of believers, but was so permanent, that it remained till Christ's first coming, and till he took away the Ceremonies of the old Law; so Baptism hath not, nor shall not be taken away from these, but remain as permanent with them, till Christ (who was once an Infant like them) come again in the Clouds of heaven, with power and great glory, descending with his shouting Troops of heavenly Hosts; When the heavens from above, and hell from beneath, shall be emptied of those immortal souls and spirits which are therein, when your own eyes shall behold our Emanuel, either to your glory, or confusion; at which time, all the dead both small and great, Infants as well as others, shall be seen to stand before God to be judged; Then shall there be a separation between the precious, and the vile, when Jesus Christ, our sweet Saviour, (the very beauty of holiness, the brightness of his Father's glory, and the express image of his person) shall invite the blessed babes of believing parents, (together with the rest of his sheep) to receive the substance of all his ordinances, the accomplishment of all his promises, the enjoyment of that glorious and immortal estate, that ununchangeable and perpetual supreme inheritance, which shall never be worn out, or taken away, but remain from everlasting to everlasting. FINIS.