YOur former Treatise (intituled, The vanitie of Child­ish Baptisme) being answered, I (according to my promise made unto you in that answer Pag. 28. lin. 31, 32.) doe now proceed to answer this your other Treatise (which you have intituled, The second part of the vanitie and Childishnes of Infants Baptisme.) And (I conceive) it is the Treatise whereof you spake in your vanitie of Childish Baptisme Pag. 29. lin. 30, 31, 32., wherein you say, that the grounds which Seperates and some others urge for the baptizing of Infants, should be answered.

And here (in the beginning of this your second part) you say, Pag. 1. Having formerly treated of the Baptisme of the nationall Church, you have now thought it meet likewise to consider the grounds upon which the seperated, and some other Churches doe baptize their Infants, which (you say) are from severall 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 Seperates, I know not who they are, and if they are not seperated from the unclean thing, they are still un­cleane.

And though such may bring good grounds for baptizing of In­fants, from severall places of Scripture; yet they cannot bring good grounds to warrant any Churches to baptize, that are not seperated from Idolatry, and doe not cleave unto Christ in puritie, in his vi­sible way of worship.

But those that are so seperated indeed, may [very justly] alledge Scripture to justifie 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 baptizing 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 severall places of Scripture, especially these five, which you promise to examine in order.

I answer; I know not what five you meane, for you have not so plainly distinguished them, whereby wee may know how (in your book) to find them. But (it may be) you have not done it of set purpose, but through some over-sight; 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 speake of a fifth [argument.]

Now by this your disorderly manner of proceeding, it appeares that you doe not performe what you promised (in pag. 1.) where you say, the grounds are from severall 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 poynt.

To which I reply, that this your bare affirmation will not beare the least weight in the ballance of Gods Sanctuary: for this promise spoken of by Pe­ter, is the promise of eternall life, and all those who are heires of this promise, are the right Subjects of Baptisme Act. 10.47.. But the In­fants of beleevers are heires of this promise; for so the tener of the whole Scripture declareth: There is no place of Scripture which describeth the blessednesse of the parents, but it also includeth their Infants; yea in this place Act. 2.39. where beleevers children are [Page 3] mentioned, their Infants are meant. As shall be more clearly pro­ved in answer to your next objections following. And this being prooved, it followeth that they are the right subjects of Baptisme.

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 Gods great promise (in gene­rall) 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 Gods assistance) prove unto you, that it is meant of beleevers and their Infants. Consider therefore that the Apostle doth not onely 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 shew 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 doe not degenerate from the steps of their holy parents; which sinne of Apostacie, (or degeneration) you cannot justly lay to the charge of beleevers Infants, who never sinned actually Mr. Spilsbury sayth, the word cōdemns none, but with re­spect to actuall sinne. See his Treat. of Bap. pag. 11 lin. 30.: It is a sure truth, that the sinnes of the parents being forgiven, the Lord will not im­pute the same unto their Infants Sinne remit­ted, is not im­puted, unlesse it be acted a­gain.. Originall sinne (I say) taketh no more hold on the Infants, then on their parents, and touching actu­all sinne, they are as cleare as their parents Exod. 20.6.. But the like cannot be said of [all] their children of ripe yeares Ezek. 18.10, 11, 12, 13..

Wherefore it plainly appeareth, that the promise is made gene­rally to all the infants of the faithfull, howbeit not to all their Chil­dren, but onely to such as abide in the steps of their righteous parents, amongst which holy children, the infants of beleeving parents are not the smallest number.

Seeing then that the application of the promise of life and salvati­on, belongeth to the infants of beleeving parents, as really as to the parents themselves, or any other of their children. It is evident that they have right to Baptisme. 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 appeare unto you (I hope) by that time you have weighed it well.

Consider, (I pray you) how that these converts upon the [Page 4] preaching of Peter, were pricked in their hearts, and said unto Peter and the other Apostles, Men and brethren, what shall wee doe? When the Apostle Peter saw that they were come thus far, he bid them repent, which doth not argue but that they repented before (for they were pricked in their hearts) but now Peter urged them to manifest their repentance, and sheweth them how they should by faith rest upon the promise of God and he doth not limit it to [a] pro­mise onely, but sayth [The] promise is to you and to your Children (namely,) the chiefest promise [a remedy answerable to their dis­ease Isa 61. 2 [...] Act. 2 v [...]r. 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 Rayl [...]r, 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 intend 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 blas­phemie Rev. 2.9. so to affirme, that such Ismalites, or Edomites (though the seed of Abraham according to the flesh) should have right or interest to the promise or seale thereof; but as this promise is holy, so it apper­taineth and is to be applyed only to those who ought to be judged holy persons, Isa. 4.3. in Covenant with God, having the righteousnesse of Jesus Christ imputed unto them: Now that the infants of beleeving parents are in Gods Covenant, and are made righteous by Jesus Christ, is proved ( in the answer Pag. 8. 21, 22, 23, 24, &c. to your first part) and may further appeare 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 appeare, that this promise mentioned (in Act. 2.39.) appertaineth to the infants of beleeving parents, as well as to the parents themselves, though some of the Children of beleeving parents have no greater a share in this gracious promise then the infants of both unbeleeving parents.

Your next words are these; ‘ A R Pag. 1. Pag. 2.In both these wee shall be satisfied if wee looke 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 Jewes thereup­on, some marveiling, some mocking, and saying, they were full of new wine, ver. 13. Peter hereupon stands up and speaks to the Jewes thus; These men are not drunke as yee suppose, but this is that which is spoken by the Prophet Joel, that in the last day, (sayth God) I will powre out my Spi­rit [Page 5] upon all flesh, and your sons and daughters shall prophecie, &c. ver. 15, 16, 17. And immediately when he had thus spoken, he preached unto them Jesus Christ, whom they had murthered, 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 heare, ver. 33. As if Peter should have sayd to the Jewes thus; Wee are not filled with Wine as yee suppose, but are filled with the Spirit, promised to our fathers long since, that should be powred forth in these our dayes, and that their sonnes and their daughters should prophecie, which is now fulfilled upon us their sonnes and daughters, and may be also powred out upon you and your Children, to make you all prophecie and speake with tongues as we doe: for you and your Children are all the sonnes and daughters of the Jewes, &c.’

I answer. All which you have sayd 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 ma­teriall and pertinent to our present purpose. Moreover, you have not done well in taking upon you to be the Apostle Peters spokesman (or interpreter of his meaning) before you had minded his Speech better, then it appeareth you have done; for we reade not that the Apostle Peter told them, that they and their Children should (or might) all propheci [...], and sp [...]ake with tongues (as he and some others did) much lesse doth he yeeld such a fained reason (to wit) because they were the sonnes and daughters of the Jewes, &c. 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 alledged) there is something else of greater weight and consequence, then the bare prophe [...]ying 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 generall to every belee­ver, both young and old The truth of this appeareth from the ex­presse 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 prophecie, is not common to every beleever. Therefore this promise (which appertain­eth generally to [all] Saints) is something else then the bare prophe­cying, or speaking with tongues. Wee know that God can make open wicked men to prophecie, and the Beasts of the feild to speake with tongues, without giving them any promise of Eternall life [as may ap­peare [Page 6] unto you by the storie of Balaam and his asse Numb. 22. & 23. & 24. & 31.8.] whom wee must not therefore ranke with the sonnes and daughters Jude 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 baptized; which to think would be very absurd. Where­fore it evidently appeareth, that this promise is a promise of some­thing else then a bare prophecying, or speaking with tongues.

Consider (I pray you) that Eternall life is that which appertain­eth to beleevers onely Joh. 3.36., and is distributed to every one of them Ioh. 6.35.51.54.57, 58. Ioh. 10.28, [...]0., but so is not Prophecying, or speaking with tongues 1 Cor. 12.28, 29, 30.. This promise of Eternall life was made to Adam, and all the members of Gods visi­ble Church then See Gen. 3. compared with Cap 4.16. & Cap. 5., and established with Abraham and his seed in their Generations Gen. 17.7.; and this heavenly and Evangelicall promise, is here repeated by Peter Act. 2.21., and applyed to all beleevers and their seed Ver. 39..

And though wee should be furnished with the externall gifts of the holy Gh [...]st; and evidently perceive the devills to be subject unto us, through the name of Christ, and see Sathan fall downe as lightning from heaven; at the sight whereof we might have cause to rejoyce! yet wee have more cause of joy, that our names are written in the Lambs book of life Luk. 10.17, 18, 19, 20..

This eternall life, is a life above all lives, and to be desired above all things in the world, and the promise of this eternall life, Peter ap­plyeth to beleeving 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 chiefe 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 availe us nothing.

And though the infants of beleevers be not capable to prophecie, or speake with tongues, yet I doubt not but they are holy 1 Cor. 7.14.. Jeremiah Ier. 1.5. and John Baptist, were sanctified by the holy Spirit [in the wombe Luke 1.15.] and seeing that beleevers have the like precious faith 2 Pet. 1.1., they have al­so the like precious priviledges Rev. 22.14. 1 Cor. 12.12, 13. Eph. 2.13. & 3.6.8. Rom 10.12..

Whereas you say, Pag. 2. lin. 24. So then by this time wee may see what is meant by the promise (to wit) the gift of the holy Ghost.

I answer; It cannot appeare any thing at all the more for this your exposition, neither doth it yet appeare that you understand the meaning of the holy Ghost in this place; for if you did, I thinke you could distinguish between the externall gifts of the holy Ghost, [Page 7] and the promise of eternall life. Consider therefore how that Peters application of the promise] is a reason which he yeeldeth of his for­mer speech; and you (saith he) shall rec [...]ive the gift of the holy Ghost: [for] (or because) the promise is to you, and to your Childrens &c. What promise is that? Even the promise of salvation and redemption, spoken of in Joel 2.32. And it shall come to passe, 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 appeare that this promise (spoken of in Act. 2. ver. 39.) is the promise of salvation. Joel sayth, And it shall come to passe, that whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord, shall be delivered Ioel 2.32.: And Peter rehearsing this pro­mise) sayth, ( Act. 2. ver. 21.) And it shall come to passe, that whosoe­ver shall call upon the name of the Lord, shall be saved. Act. 2.39. Joel (in applica­tion of the promise) sayth; 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) sayth, (to those Converts which were pricked in their hearts and asked counsell of the Apostles what they should doe) The promise (sayth 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 prophecie and speak with tongues: This is not [the] medicine which was applyed to heale the wounded-broken-hearted-soules, converted at his Sermon: But he speak­eth of that which is of a higher nature, he applyeth a more effe­ctuall and speciall medicine unto them, a more singular cordiall: 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 sheweth wherein the weight of the Saints glory and happines consisteth, Rom. 10. ver. 6. Rom. 10. ver. 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13. The righteousnes of faith (sayth he) speaketh on this wise: Say not in thine heart, Who shall a [...]cend into heaven? that is, to bring [Christ downe] from above: ver. 7. Or who shall descend into the deepe? (that is) to bring [up Christ.] againe from the dead: ver. 8. But what sayth it? The word is nigh thee even in thy mouth, and in thine heart, (that is) the word of faith which wee preach: ver. 9. That if thou shalt confesse [Page 8] with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt beleeve in thine heart, that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be [saved:] ver. 10. For with the heart man beleeveth unto righteousnes, and with the mouth Confessi­on is made unto [salvation:] ver. 11. For the Scripture sayth, Who­soever beleeveth 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 Greeke: for the same Lord over all is [rich] unto all that call upon him. And in ver. 13. he sheweth further wherein this riches consisteth; For (sayth 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 eternall life and salvation by Jesus Christ our Lord.

But peradventure it will seeme strange unto some, that the in­fants of beleevers should be thought to be in the state of salvation, or to have the righteousnes of faith, or to be confessors of Jesus Christ, or beleevers, or invocaters of his name, considering that they cannot manifest the same actually in their own persons. But wee 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 signe Gen. 17.11. and seale Rom. 4.11. of the righteousnesse of faith, which doth really demonstrate unto us, that the infants of belee­vers, have the righteousnes of faith imputatively; otherwise the Lord would not have given them such a signe, whereby to distinguish them from those who were not in Covenant with him, and had not this righteousnes upon them. And touching their confession of Christ, all the Jewes infants, as they grew up to be capable, were to confesse Christ; according to this saying of the righteousnes of faith, which spake on this wise Rom. 10.6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13.; Say not, who shall ascend into heaven, to bring Christ downe from above, &c. And seeing God usually giveth names unto persons according to their nature, state, and condition Gen. 22.28. Rev. 3.12. & 11.8., the infants of the beleeving Jewes having the name of Jewes rightly attributed unto them, they were Jewes (that is, Confessors) though they could not actually confesse: and the like may be sayd for their invocation (or calling upon the name of God;) So it appeareth that the infants of the Jewes had such a holy state and condition upon them, that the visible imputation 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 beleeving parents now; And [Page 9] seeing that salvation appertaineth to the infants of beleevers Luk. 18.15, 16, 17., the righteousnes of faith is imputed unto them Mat. 16.16.; and therefore they ought to receive the signe and seale of the same righteousnes; for we are to account that Jesus Christ (our righteousnes) is a Saviour [in a speciall 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 originall sinne, but that they have it pardoned and done away through him.

But the infants of beleeving parents ought to be judged righteous persons in Covenant with Christ, and ought not to be esteemed to have the guilt of originall sinne; but that they have it pardoned, and done away through him, (as hath been proved before.)

Therefore wee are to account that Jesus Christ (our righteous­nes) is a Saviour unto them in a speciall manner, See Mat. 1.21. as well as to their parents.

It is certaine, that the rarest Saint in the world, though he professe and confesse never so much, yet he (being one of Adams posteritie) hath originall sinne from the houre of his birth, to the time of his death, yea and before his birth, he was conceived in sinne; So David sayth of him­selfe, Loe in iniquitie, (was I painfully brought forth) and in sin my mother conceived me, Psal. 51.5. But herein consisteth the Saints happines, that all their sinnes are remitted 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 guiltie; he saveth his people from their sinnes; therefore is he called Jesus Mat. 1.21.; So David sayth, that with Je­hovah is bountifull mercy, and plentifull 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 sinnes; He will redeem [Israel] out of [all] his iniquities. Hereby is meant, all the sinnes of all his people (in Covenant with him) both young and old, both great and small. So David sayth, Psal. 115.12, 13, 14, 15. The Lord hath been mindfull, of us, he will blesse us, he will blesse the house of Israel: He will blesse the house of Aaron: He will blesse them that feare 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 sayth to Israel, I will powre my Spirit upon thy seed, and my blessing upon thine off-spring. 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 [Page 10] not mean Apostates, for they are not counted for the seed Rom. 9.8.; but this justification, and glorifi [...]ation, is promised onely to those that abide in the Lord Jesus Joh. 15.4, 5.6.10.; and so continue in his Church; But the seed of the faithfull [in their infancie:] cannot justly be sayd to depart from Christ, to aberate from his Commandements; to Apostate or degene­rate from that h avenly state, wherein the Lord of his mercy hath planted them; therefore they are (as well in infancie as after) to be accounted holy, [...]p [...]i [...]uall, and i [...] the new Covenant, in the very pro­mise of Eternall 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 then they are righteous by imputation; they are believers and Co [...]fessors imputatively, yea, and all the graces of God are theirs by imputation; and this favour and benediction, is not onely extended to the infants of the beleeving Jewes Jer. 30.20., but also [...]o the infants of the b [...]leeving Gentiles; There is [no d fference Rom. 10 12.] (sayth the Apostle Paul) their riches are equall, they are all on in Christ Gal. 3.28.; God is their God, and Christ is their Saviour in a speciall manner; He justifieth the circumcision and uncircumcision by his righteousnes Rom. 4.8.; This righteous servant justifieth many Isa. 53.11.; He pardoneth the iniquities of all that abide 1 Ioh. 3, 5, 6. in his Covenant.

And seeing that the beleeving Jewes, and the beleeving Gentiles, have equall priviledges Isa. 56.: As the infants of the beleeving J [...]wes were, and are in the Covenant of God with their parents Gen. 17.7. Psal. 11. [...].; so are the in­fants of beleeving Gentiles 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 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. Beleeving Gentiles have the same priviledges for their seed, as the beleeving Jewes had and have for their seed; so that though their infants are all sinners Rom 5.12.13, 14. &c. originally, yet by the free grace of God they are justifica Ver. 20.21.; their transgression is for­given, and their sinne is covered, and therefore they are all blessed, both small and great Psal. 115.13, buds Isa. 65.23. and blossoms. Blessed 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 Psal. 80.1.1 [...] of Gods 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] onely, 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, [Page 11] 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 sonne die for the fathers iniquitie, but every one shall beare his own iniquitie Ezek. 18.. Shall every one beare his owne iniquitie? Then the iniquitie of the righteous parents (that is remitted) is not visibly imputed to any of their children, [in their infancie.] Therefore those infants are to be accounted righte­ous; For the m r [...]y of Jehovah is from everlasting to everlasting, upon them that feare him, and his righteousnes unto childrens children, to such as keep his Covenant, &c. Psal. 103.17, 18.

For to say, that the sinne of the parent that is remitted, is imputed to his childe [that never sinned actually,] is an arguing that the sonne shall die for the father; yea, and for the sinnes of the righteous father! A flat contradiction both of the Scripture, and Reason it selfe.

But it may be, some will say, that the best beleevers on earth doe sin daily; yea and that in their best actions; Shall all these sinnes be remitted, and not be imputed, considering, that sinne is daily committed by them?

Ans. If they sinne, they have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Chr [...]st the righteous 1 Ioh. 2.1, 2.; and through him, the beleeving parents, who die d [...]i [...]y unto s [...]nne; have their sinnes so quelled, and crushed, that there is no power in the same whereby to condemne them; for as the Brazen Serpent was lifted up in the Wildernes, so is J [...]sus Christ lifted up for them Ioh. 3.14, 15., so that the fiery Messengers of Sathan, though they sting them, yet cannot destroy their soules; and this being re­mitted to the par [...]nts, & to all beleevers, shall not be imputed to them; because still upon the renewing of sinne, they renew their repentance, and so doe cut the cords of sinne, by godly sorrow 2 Cor 7.10, 11.; But a wicked person that is not penitent, hath the iniquities of his [fathers] imputed unto him; and his mothers sinne is not blotted out; all this is remembred with the Lord continually Psal. 109 14, 15., and laid upon the sinner that is not justified by Jesus Christ; But the infants of beleevers (as hath been observed before) are from under the guilt of originall sinne; their parents sinne is not imputed unto them; but both the originall sinne and actuall sinne is fully remitted; and the infants cannot be taxed with actuall sinne; they are cleare, they never acted sinne. Wherefore by all this it appeareth that the Lord spake not in vaine, 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 sheweth mercy to thou­sands of those that love him and keep his Commandements Exod. 20.5, 6.

Seeing then it is so apparent that the infants of beleevers are freely justified and saved by J [...]sus Christ through his righteousnesse, they are under this promise mentioned by Peter, Act. 2.39. And there­fore are to have Baptisme (the seale of the same promise) administred 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) availe to Baptisme, &c.

Whereas you further say Pag. 2. lin. [...]0., that by children are meant sonnes and daughters, which [should] prophecie. This I denie not; But that it is onely meant of them, I doe deny; for, all are not Prophets 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 Ier. 1.6.10, 11, 12, 17, 18., yet he was sanctified in the wombe, and therefore the promise apper­tained unto him then, before he could prophecie; even so the promise is really made to the infants of the faithfull, though they can neither prophecie, nor speake with tongues. Wherefore it appeareth (by what hath been said in answer unto you) that your argument is quite overthrowne, and the drift thereof hath no weight in it to edifie the soule, nor any strength to prove what you undertooke 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 proofe whereof you bring your own former speeches Line 42., and adde 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 untill they beleeve 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 Rev. 21.7, 8. & 22.14, 15., and those that abide not in Christ, they have no part in him or his Ioh. 15.6.. But the infants of beleevers are in Christ, and in the promise; and God is faithfull 1 Thes. 5.24., and therefore will not breake his promise with those whom he hath ef­fectually called to the fellowship of his Sonne Jesus Christ.

And it appeareth by the Apostle Peters words, that these chil­dren [Page 13] (mentioned in Act. 2.39.) were such whom in visibilitie the Lord had so called in Christ Jesus; for the Apostle speaketh of them in the time present, The promise [is] to you (sayth 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 shewed that God would be a God unto all those whom he so calleth.

Now this calling, I doe not understand to be a bare publication of the Gospel, or generall invitation, which appertaineth unto all 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 Sonne Jesus Christ. That the infants of beleevers have fellowship with Jesus Christ, is evident; Suffer them, sayth Christ, to come unto mee, and forbid them not, for of such is the kingdome of heaven Luk. 18.15, 16, 17.. Seeing then that they are declared to be in Jesus Christ, who is made a Isa. 42, 6, 7. Covenant to the people; they are not out of Covenant, no more then the infants of Abraham, to whom the Lord spake, saying, I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed, &c. Thou shalt keep my Covenant therefore, thou and thy seed after thee in their generations Gen. 17.10..

By all this it appeareth, that wee have no ground to deny that the Scripture speaketh of their children in Covenant, neither are we to dreame that the promise appertaineth to all sorts, or is visibly made equally to visible beleevers, and visible unbeleevers also; for though in Gods secret account, visible unbeleevers may be accoun­ted as visible beleevers are, and have the promise reserved for them by God in the secret intention and unalterable resolution of his sa­cred Majestie, who will afterward manifest it visibly to appertaine unto them in his appointed time; yet (these unbeleevers) the mean while [in our account, and in their own account,] are not to be e­steemed heires 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 Deut. 29.2..

Secondly (you say) If they were in the Covenant, Pag. 3. line 6. by having this promise made to them, then 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 appeares ver. 41.) [Page 14] 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, untill they did beleeve, although they were Jewes, and so the children of faithfull Abraham.

Ans. Here, I think, you are mistaken, for you would inferre that these were not in the new Covenant, before they were baptized and added to the particular Church; but then by the same rule, wee may think, th [...]t the Apostles baptized 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 Baptisme, 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 baptized before they are in Covenant with God; Wherefore if these aforesaid, were not in Covenant with God, before they were baptized and added, as afore­said, then they were first added, and were afterward baptized, 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 baptized (which thing I dare not affirme.) But suppose it were so, yet (I say) it cannot be proved that persons are not in the new Covenant, till they are joyned 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 baptiz [...]d, is apparent by their conversion and repentance; and that the blessed promise of God in the free pardon of their sinnes, was rightly applyed 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 wee shall be his people, and that he will be mercifull unto us, in forgiving us all our iniquities, &c. Heb. 8.10, 11, 12. And so David sayth, O bl [...]ss [...]d is he whose trans­gr [...]ssion is pardoned, and whose sinne is covered. O, blessed is the man, to whom the Lord imputeth not sinne. Psal. 32.1, 2. And Paul explaineth it to be a Righteousnesse imputed [without workes] Rom. 4.6. And that this righteousnes of faith is visibly imputed to the infants of beleevers (as hath been heretofore) is cleare from Act. 2.39. compared with other Scriptures, and therefore I conclude, they are beleevers impu­tatively, and in the new Covenant, and ought to be baptized.

Now that persons are in the promise or new Covenant visibly be­fore they have faith, I suppose, no well informed Christian will affirme. But to say, that true visible beleevers, though unbaptized, are not in the new Covenant, till they be baptized and added, as be­fore specified, it sheweth a great deale of ignorance, (at the best) in him that so affirmeth.

NExt, you say, Their second Argument is from those places which speak [...] of baptizing whole housholds.

To which I answer. It is certaine that divers places of Scripture speake of baptizing whole housholds. And it would argue weaknes and presumption in us to affirme that there were no infants in those famili [...]s, except wee could prove the same; which if there were none, it maketh nothing against the baptizing of infants. I hope we are not ignorant (at least wee are admonished not to be ignorant) that God baptized the children of Israel in the Sea; 1 Cor. 10 1, 2. in which act he really declared who are the right subjects of Baptisme, namely, Be­leeving parents, and their infants with them, Jewes and Prosolytes; such as were the right subjects of Circumcision Gen. 7.9.14. Exod. 12.48, 49.: And if wee doe dis­creetly weigh the great and generall 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 baptized, so soone as it appeared that the Application of the Go­spel appertained unto them; Goe, (sayth Christ) teach all Nations, baptizing them, &c Mat. 28.18.. Goe yee into all the world, and preach the Gospel to every creature; He that beleeveth and is baptized, shall be saved; and he that beleeveth not, shall be damned Mar. 16.15, 16.. Now I hope you will not denie infants to be part of the Nations, or to be part of the number of Creatures spoken of here, for whom an immortall 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 sinne, and brought forth in iniquitie, and have Originall sinne 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 sinne, that nothing in the world is effectuall to clense them therefrom Psal. 49 7, 8, 9., but the crimson bloud of their crucified Saviour; naturall corruption from their conception, Rev. 1.5. is in­herent [Page 16] in them, and cannot be subdued but by the free grace of God. Now to say, that God hath not ordained sufficiēt means Mr Spil [...]ury s [...]h, [...]h [...]t the W [...] of God shews 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 sonnes, and to be call [...] & justified [...]y be­leeving in Ie­sus Christ. See his Treatise of Ba [...]. pag 3. lin. 41, 42, 43, 44. for their recovery, is in effect to cast them all downe to hell, and so to hod­winke [...]he eyes of Charitie, (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 kingdome of [...]aven, even without Ch ist! without sait [...]! without [...]lin [...]s! [...]ea without r [...]ge­neration! which to affirme is contrary unto the Scripture; for Christ J sus is the onely way, and doore of enterance to God the Father. He is the ladder of life, by which all the Saints must ascend unto their mansion-houses. Christ is the onely light, who giveth light unto all that abide in him. Who being the brightn [...]s of his Fathers glory, and the expr [...]sse 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 priviledges, 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 (sayth 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 beleevers are rebellious by nature; Surely God never ordained (though they die in their infancie) that they should be saved without the gifts there spoken of, which are necessary for them, and therefore we must confesse, that they are the creatures, comprehended in the generall Commission, given by Jesus Christ, when he ascended up on high, when he said, Goe teach all nations, baptizing them, &c. Goe p [...]ach the Gospel to every creature. He that beleeveth and is baptized, shall be saved, &c. Hereby is meant that the generall offer of the Go p [...]l should be tendred to all, and that those rebellious persons who were cōtent to subj ct themselves unto the yoke of Jesus Christ, shou [...]d have the Go [...]l app [...]yed unto them, and also the seale of the Cov [...]nant thereof; and so all bel [...]eving parents, and their infants, though reb [...]llious by nature, should all receive the same precious pri­ [...]il [...]ges and p [...]rogatives as were granted to Abraham and his in­fa [...]ts 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 applyed the Gospel to Zacheus his familie, house or houshold, saying, This day is salvation come to this house, for so much as he also is the sonne of Abraham: For the Sonne of man is come to seeke and to save [Page 17] that which was lost Luk 19, 9, 10.. And this was written for our sakes Rom. 4.23, 24.; To the intent that wee should know that every believer is the childe of A­braham Gal. 3.7. & that every beleeving parent, hath the same precious pri­viledges, as Isaac had Gen. 17. Isa 56.; and his Infants the same precious priviledges, as Isaacs 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 houshold, that thence they conclude, that infants may be baptized.

I ans. I never did heare 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 controle (or forbid) the parents from keeping their owne Children, as well in infancie, as after?

Whereas you say, your Negative is as good as their Affirmative; What affirmative doe you mean? and who are the persons you here intend? If you meane the bare conclusion from infants being in the houshold, that therefore infants may be baptized; I think such an Affirmative is somewhat like your Negative, though it be not the same; but peradventure those [some others] you mention besides Seperates, were the authors hereof.

But to make your Negative as good [and more probable] then their Affirmative, which you say is without any proofe, you adde these words, For it is said, Act. 18 8. That Crispus the chiefe Ruler of the Synagogue, beleeved on the Lord, with all his houshold, and that many of the Corinthians hearing it, beleeved and were baptized. And it is said of the Gaoler, who was baptized 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 houshold be­leeved in God. So then (say you) it is plaine, that they first beleeved, and then were baptized; and although it be barely spoken of Pauls bap­ti [...]ing the houshold of Stephanus, 1 Cor. 1.16. And of the baptizing of Lydia and her houshold, Act. 16.15. yet it cannot reasonably be imagi­ned but that he did baptize these according to the Commission, and as he did baptize 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; [Page 18] and those other places which are more silent, must be expounded and under­sto [...]d by this which is more plaine, 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 then 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 doe these Scriptures, alledged by you, nor your following Conclusion from thence, which you have here set downe, contradict the Baptisme of Infants in the least, wherfore it will not serve your turne, to vin­dicate what you have said before in opposition of the truth.

That which we ought seriously to minde, is that the infants of beleeving parents, are blessed with their faithfull parents Isa. 65.23.. Their ini­quities are forgiven, and their sinnes are covered Psal. 32.1, 2., and the Lord impu­teth righteousnes unto them [without workes Rom. 4.6.] (as hath been proved before See pag. 3.4.6 to pag. 14. See pag. 15, 16, 17..) Wherefore wee 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 beleeving 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 practise of God himselfe, who did not visibly seperate between the beleeving 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 b [...]leeving parents might be incouraged to trust in him and relie 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 (sayth 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 (againe he sayth) I will be their God. Note here how often in this one place and at this one time, he repeat­eth [Page 19] his Covenant, hereby to take away all doubts and suspicious ob­jections, (which might happen (through Sathans temptations) to arise in the hearts of any of his p [...]ople, 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 peoples faith (in beleeving the firmenesse of his promises, and the largenesse of his Covenant) he annexed a visible signe and seale thereof, to the intent that they might not forget his Covenant: And as beleeving 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 signe of his Co­venant Gen. 17.11., and seale of the righteousnesse 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 sojourne with thee, and will keep the Passeover to the Lord, let all his males be circum [...]ised, and then let him come neer 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-borne, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you. By this wee may see, that the Proselytes and their seed, had equall precious priviledges with the Jewes, and their seed. And so the Jewes infants and the infants of be­leeving Gentiles then 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 vertue of the Covenant, to all the ordinances of God, then present, or now to come, and were to be partakers there­of, as they had capabilitie 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 beleevers were admitted to be mem­bers of the visible Church (and to receive the signe and seale of the righteousnesse of faith, together with other priviledges) before Christ was manifested in the flesh; for Jesus Christ came not to take any priviledges from them, but gave them as great (if not greater) in stead thereof. Let us not thinke 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 Sonne of God (whose delight was with the sonnes of men Prov. 8.31., before he was made the sonne of man) is wisdome and truth it selfe, he came not to deceive the least members of his beloved Spouse, of the least happi­nes [Page 20] or bl [...]ssednesse, which they formerly by right rec [...]ived and en­joyed from him. Now it was a blessedness [...] unto Gods peop e for the Lord to gave unto them outward visible signes, 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 confi [...]mation [...]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 priviledges.

It be [...]ng then a bless [...]dnes for the infants of beleevers to be admit­ted m [...]mbers of Gods visible Church, and so to have (by vertue of his Covenant) a visible right to all Gods ordinances, and to partake of them, according as they were capable (I mean in respect of a na­turall capabilitie) if the same privil [...]dges are not granted (by God) to the g [...]neratio [...] of the faithfull now, it seemeth that God unloadeth his people of the blessings which he hath formerly bestowed upon them, which to affirme is contrary to the Scripture, Psal. 68.19. where David speaking of the gifts which Christ should give unto the R [...]belli [...]us, sayth, Bl ssed be the Lord, who daily loadeth us with bl [...]ssings, even the God of our salvation, Selah. Seeing then that it was such a bless [...]dness [...] for the beleeving parents, to have their infants in Gods Covenant with themselves, and to receive the signe thereof, for confirmation of their faith, and seeing that God daily loadeth his peo­ple with bl [...]ssings, then surely it cannot reasonably be imagined that God hath unloaded his people of these excellent blessings, for as much as he is alwayes one and the same. Seeing then that beleeving Jewes and Gentiles, and their infants joyntly, had this blessednes, they have the same blessednes now; their priviledges are not lessened by the comming 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 confirme the promises made with the fa­thers Rom. 15.8, 9, 10, 11, 12., by fu [...]filling them; So all the promises in him are yea and A­men. And this was done also, that the Gentiles might glorifie God for his m [...]rci [...]; as it is written, For this cause I will confesse to thee among th [...] Gentiles, and [...]ng unto thy Name. And again he sayth, Rejoyce ye [...] G [...]tiles with his people. And againe; Praise Jehovah all yee Gentiles. Laud him all yee p [...]ple; for his mercy is mightie towards us, and the faithfuln [...]sse of Jehova [...] e [...]ureth for ever. Psal. 117. And againe Esay­ [...]s sayth, There shall be a root of Jesse, and he that shall rise to reigne o­ [...]er the Gentiles, and in him shall the Gentiles trust. And David saith [Page 21] in Psal. 22 28, 29 31. All the ends of the earth shall remember, and turne to Jehovah, and all families of the Heathens shall do worship before th [...]e, for to Jeho [...]ah partaines the kingd [...]me; and he is Ruler among the Na [...]ions, &c. A s [...]ed shall serve him, it shall be accounted to the Lord f [...]r a generation. Observe how the Scriptures here doe set forth the excellent ben [...]fits which appertain to a [...] the Saints in generall, and to the holy families in particular, under the flourishing time of the Gospel. Here is great occasion for the [...]aints to glorifi [...], to magnifie, to confesse, 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 (sayth David) be accounted unto the Lord for a gene­ration. Weigh these sentences, and compare the same with Gen. 17 10 where the Lord sayd unto Abraham, Thou shalt keepe my Co­venant, thou and thy seed after thee in their generations. And so it is sayd 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 lawes and ordinances, which he prescribeth; And as Abraham and his seed then were accounted of before the Lord, so are the beleeving 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 Com­mon-wealth of Israel, and strangers from the Covenants of promise, ha­ving no hope, and without God in the world; (mistake me not, I doe not say, that the beleeving 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 thinke! for these visi­ble Saints were no further off then the beleeving Jewes 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 Lyons, Lambs, bringing them into sub­jection to his lawes, and to the obedience of his faith, they are ho­ly and spirituall, 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 bloud of Christ; Eph. 2.13, 14. And he hath accepted of them joyntly into his service, giving them the blessing of Abraham Gen. 12.3. Gal. 3.8.14. and his po­steritie, [Page 22] accounting of them before him, as a holy generation Psal. 22.30. 1 Cor. 7.14. 1 Pet. 2.9. Rev. 1.5, 6. Isa. 19.18. &c.; 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 generall) equally rich with the Jewes in respect both of externall and internall precious priviledges. The same God over all, (sayth the Apostle) is rich unto all that call upon him Rom 20.12. Rev. 22.14.; their riches are not lessened (or diminished) one jot, they are equailized with the riches of the Jewes; let them be bond or free, male or female, they are all one in Christ Gal. 3.28., Abrahams seed; like Zache­us Ver. 29. Luk. 19., and heires according to promise Gal. 3.29., fellow-heires, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise by the Gospel Eph 3.6.: The children of the pro­mis [...] as Isaac was Gal 4 28., Blessed with their faithfull father Abraham Gal. 3.9.: grafted into the same stocke, and olive tree and root, from whence the unbeleeving Jewes for unbeliefe were cut off Rom. 11.19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24.; and these beleevers the Apostle concludeth are blessed by God the Father with all spiritu­all blessings in heavenly places in Christ Eph. 1.3.; and therefore I see no rea­son why the beleeving parents now (though Gentiles) should not have the like precious priviledges for their seed in infancie as their brethren and Countrimen had in former time for their seed Gen. 17.11, 12, 13. Exod. 12.48. in in­fancie; Yea, considering that the infants of beleevers now are able to doe, as good, great, faithfull, and acceptable service, as the in­fants of beleevers in the time of the Law; and that these are as ca­pable of Baptisme [this passive Ordinance,] as those were of Circum­cisio [...] [that passive Ordinance,] which was no more passive then this, and was the forerunner of this; and both that and this being in one general [...] institution, and one and the same in effect Col. 2 11, 12; we may safe­ly beleeve and justly conclude, that the Saints infants ought to be baptized; as formerly they were Circumcised; yea, and for as much as the Apostles themselves (speaking generally of baptizing whole housholds 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, familie, or houshold, infants are also implyed 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 Baptisme is come in the roome of Circumcision.) If infants should not have been baptized, as former­ly they were circum [...]ised, sure the Apostles, in speaking generally of baptizing housholds, would not (without exception of infants) have used such tearmes as are set downe in the old and new Te­stament, to include infants. Considering that then the Apostles [Page 23] had a just occasion to exclude their infants in expresse 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 spirituall priviledges, as they have had heretofore; Sure­ly, we should have found some tittle of it in the New Testament; but there is not the least shew of it, from whence wee 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 Jewes and Gentiles, and admits of all that beleeve and rejects none. And for the Gentiles Infants being in the same body as well as the Jews in­fants, this (saith he) I be­leeve both a­like. For this see his treatise of bapt. p. 11., and having their spirituall privi­ledges, 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 barre out, but expresly mentioneth their children; and if wee doe but seriously weigh the Text, and compare it with other places of Scripture, which set forth the blessednes 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 baptized before they doe beleeve, so I plead for none to have the Gospel applyed unto them, before they have faith by im­putation, and that is to be judged by some visible rule out of Gods Word; But, the infants of beleevers have faith by imputatiō (as is pro­ved before) therefore (in this consideration) they are beleevers, holy, and spirituall 1 Cor. 7.14., and therefore the Gospel may be lawfully applyed unto them 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 baptized, which have received the holy Spirit as well as wee Acts 10.47.; As for actuall pro­fession, or verball demonstration of faith, God hath not required the children of beleevers to performe in their owne persons, in the time of their infancie; which thing though they are not able to doe, yet they are in the faith of Christ, and shall certainly be saved, though they die in their infancie; for God will be no more wanting unto them, then to their parents Isa. 22.24. Heb. 13.8..

It is to be minded, that God (baptizing 1 Cor. 10.1, 2 many families Ex. 12.21.37.41. Ps. 77.17, 19, 20) did not exempt such children from the parents, but baptized those persons that passed through the Sea, both men, women, and children, young and old. And so in the middest of their afflictions, by this Oracle, gave these faithfull Heb. 11.29. persons a glimpse of that which should be in the dayes of the Messias, where one element, and passive ordi­nance, should be generall for all his precious Saints, both young and old. So the Apostles baptizing many families, did not omit their in­fants; neither can wee finde in all the New Testament, that ever the [Page 24] infants of the faithfull are exempted, in expresse words, nor can it be gathered by necessary consequence. The Apostle Peter maketh the Baptisme in the Arke equivolent with our Baptisme now 1 Pet 3.20, 21.; And Paul declared that he would not have the beleeving Corinthians ig­norant 1 Cor. 10.1, 2, that God baptized his Church then, which consisted of many families, in which there were many infants, who were the approo­ved subjects of Circumcision Exod. 12.48. Jos. 5.2, 5, 7., and of that Baptisme then; And ther­fore Baptisme now, being a [generall] ordinance, [yea and alwayes [more generall] in the administration, then Circumcision ever was] yea, and it being given to all the visible members of Christs body Mat. 28.19, Mar. 16.16., (amongst whom the infants of beleeving parents are no small num­ber Zach. 8.5. Luke 18.15, 16, 17. Isa. 22.24.,) they ought to be baptized, 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 uncleane, but now are they holy: Pag. 3. l. 39, to pag. 4. l. 3. Whence (you say) they thus reason; If the Children of beleeving parents be holy, (that is to say, in the new Covenant) then they may have the seales of the Covenant, and be baptized. To which I adde this argument, both for explanation, and confirmation of the former.

All those persons whom wee ought to judge to have the invi­sible Seale (even the holy Spirit of promise, Eph. 1.13.) ought to be esteemed spiritually holy, and in the new Covenant, and ought to be baptized Act. 10.47. Mat. 28.18, 19 Mar. 16.15, 16, Act. 10.47. But the infants of (one or both) beleeving parents, ought to be esteemed to have the invisible Seale, 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) beleeving parents, ought to be judged spiritually holy, and in the new Covenant, and ought to be baptized.

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 holinesse now acceptable with God, which is inward, spirituall, &c.

To which I answer, that the like you may say of the members of the visible Church, which doe actually and verbally professe faith. As if you should say thus unto them; There is but one new Covenant [Page 25] now on foot, therefore you (beleevers) are not in it.

This reason is threed-bare.

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 holinesse accepted with God, but that which is inward, spirituall, and in truth &c. Therefore you belee­vers are not in the new Covenant, nor ought to be baptized! Is not this mad kind of reasoning? But to performe that which you pro­mised, you should have proved, that the infants of beleevers 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 tooke upon you to doe, 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 holinesse 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 shew, yea and seeme in outward acts of obedience to goe further then a true Saint, 1 Cor. 13. He may give his goods to the poore and his body to be bur­ned, and yet want love.

Ob. But peradventure you will aske how then we must judge of an hypocrite?

An. Surely, as the faithfull 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 Iohn. 12.4.5, 6 & 13.29., Symon 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 wee doe not, though he see invisibly, we cannot; We must judge of invisible things, by visible demonstrations. Some men may creep in, and make a [faire] shew outwardly for a while, yea and a great while, and yet be hypocrites, but tell they are discovered to be evill, what man can poynt them out, and say from his own knowledge that they are not under the new covenant.

A persō that offers to joyn himself to a particular Church of Christ, and [not only by his verball confession, but by his life and conversati­on] apeareth unto them to be an out-side Christian, (they knowing [Page 26] nothing by him but good) if they refuse him, it is their sinne; though all which he doth (outwardly) is fained.

A humane creature though he have the wisdom & knowledg 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 estemed, 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 externall 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, ought to be spirituall, and done in spirit, and in truth, yet, God hath not bound us to doe it only internally, Holinesse 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 soules 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 neverthelesse, and imputeth Christ righteousnesse unto them not­withstanding their naturall weaknesse; Let them (while they are capable) keep themselves unsported, and doe that which God re­quireth, and then (when they are no more capable to know or do any spirituall action) they are still not only knowne of God, 1 Cor. 5.3. & 6.1, 2, 3, 4, 5 20. & 16.1.2. Act. 1.26. & 2.42. Iam 2.18. but be­loved of Christ, and sanctified by the holy Sprit; 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 Christs righteousnesse Ps. 3 2.2. Rom. 4.6.;] And after this manner doth God worke in the In­fants of beleevers: 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 Ios 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. it selfe (for his sake) from the hands of Gods enimies.

But your inference from your foregoing reasons is; That if be­leevers childeren be in the covenant, and have this true holinesse, then all the childeren of beleeving parents must be saved, as well old childeren as young, for age doth not make them cease from being their childeren. But all the childeren of beleevers are not saved, no not of faithfull Abra­ham [Page 27] himselfe, according to that known sentence of the Prophet Isaiah. 10.21. Repeated by Saint Paul Romans. 9.27. Though the num­ber of the childeren of Israel be as the sand of the sea, yet but a remnant of them shall be saved: Therefore the childeren of beleevers are not in the covenant now on foot, nor ought to be baptized.

To which I Ans. That beleevers children are in the covenant, is true; but that [all] the childeren of [all] beleevers are in the covenant, is not true, but all their holy infants are, and ought so to be judged, & accounted euen in the state of salvation, as wel as the greatest ver­ball professors of the faith of Christ, and all these infants of be­leeving parents that live till they come to yeares of discretion, are still to be acounted holy and spirituall, except they apostate.

Now though the Scripture declareth that a remnant shall be sa­ved, yet we are directed, by the rule of Gods Word, to judge, that beleeving parents, and their seed that doe not degenerate, are of this remnant. But the childeren of beleevers in their infancie have not power actually to degenerate from the righteous steps of their holy parents. But ould childeren may possibly. So Ishmael [when he was an infant] was not a mocker neither was Cain [in his infancie] a murtherer: but when they came to yeares, and acted these wickednesses, they were for the same cast out, the one from communion with the familie of Adam Gen. 4.11.14.16.; the other from the familie of Abraham Gen. 21.9.10..

And as you reason here against beleevers 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 verball professor, that is, a visible member of the same body.

Thus, All you which seem to be beleevers, are a people which have indeed taken upon you the profession of the great name of God, and have given up your selves unto him, to walke in all his wayes, and say, you have taken hold of Gods Covenant, and have covenanted together to become an entire body, City, House, Temple, Garden, Vineyard, &c. unto God, whom you suppose to be your builder and planter, &c. So you thinke your selves to be his holy people, his bride by marriage, his peculiar trea­sure, in covenant with him, &c, But alas! you are much deceived, you thinke your selves to be in a holy and happie estate, in Covenant with God, and that you have right to his Ordinances, but it is not so. For, then [Page 28] it will follow, That if you beleevers [members of this visible Church] be in the Covenant, and have this true holinesse, then every member of you must be saved as well old as young, &c. 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: Therfore, though you profess faith, you are not in the Covenant now on foot, nor ought 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 baptized, then the same reason is of force, against the infants of beleevers, to prove them also not to be in the new Covenant, nor to be baptized. 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 conclusiō, Pag. 4 l. 22, 23 that because all the children of belee­vers are not saved, Therefore the infants of beleevers are not in the Covenant now on foot, nor ought to be baptized.

Such an excuse as this might as well have served informer time for the children of Israel, that they might not onely have negle­cted Circumcision, but also, all other Ordinances: But such argu­ing bringeth large liberty tending to Athisme, destruction, and ruination of the foundation of Christian Religion.

Rom. 3.1, 2, 3, 4.But what saith Paul, (when he declareth that the Jewes had the Oracles of God committed unto them) what if some did not believe, shall their unbeliefe make the faith of God of none effect, God forbid, yea, let God be true, and every man a lyar, &c.

The Apostasie of Cain, could not hurt Adam, nor hinder Abel from eternall 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 errour, you bring errour, false things, to prove a falshood, (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 holinesse whereby to be admitted now to the outward ordinance of baptisme, 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 meerly upon nature and cir­cumcision [Page 29] of the flesh, and accordingly had their outward and fiderall ho­linesse, and outward cleansings, all which are abolished with that state, and no such holinesse 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 meerly upon nature and circumcision of the flesh, is not true, for the Church of the Jewes 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 foure hundred and thirty yeares after could not disanull that it should make the promise of none effect*.

The Jewes were Gods holy speciall Deut. 7.6. and peculiar & 26.18.19. people, who were not constituted of a visible mixt multitude of (prophane persons, and holy beleevers and Infidels,) good and bad together & 29.18. & 32.9.12. Esay. 5.1, 2., but were a people called & 41.1, 2. & 43.1.7. Mat. 12.2.13., and separated Ps. 135.4. & 148.14. & 125.2. Deut. 33.29. & 14.1, 2 from other Nations, God brought them out of Egypt Ex. 12.41.42, and baptized them in the cloud, and in the sea 1 Cor. 10.1, 2 and went before them, by day in a pillar of cloud, and by night in a pillar of fire Ex. 13.21, 22, and at the great and victorious deliverance which they had over the Egyptians, they beleeved his Words, and sang his praise Ex 15.1. Ps. 106.12., then God led them through the wildernesse Ex. 15.22., and made the bitter waters sweet for them ver. 25., that they might trust in him who healed them 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 Deut. 8.3., and he made the flinty rock a fountain of waters Ps. 114.8. Num. 20.8.11, that they thereby might quench their thirst: Yea, The Lord came from mount Synay, and rose 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 Deut 33.2, 3, they were therefore to trust stedfastly in God, the sword of their ex­cellencie ver, 29., and to look continually for eternall life of him, and cleave unto him & 10.20. who was their life and the length of their dayes & 30.19, 20., whom they were commanded to fear and to love, and to serve, with all their heart, and with all their soule 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 Levit. 11.44. & 19.2. & 20.7..

By all which it appeares that there was a manifest difference put between them and the prophane of the world, as is between Christ and Antichrist.

In brief, as their Church was the Church of Christ See Cant. and the Co­venant Rev. 21.3. which they had Gal. 3.16, 17. the Covenant of Christ, so the Comman­dement 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 enquire after, as though it were some strange thing afar off, or beyond the seas, &c. for it was nigh unto them, in their mouth and in their heart, that they might doe it) even the Gospel of Christ, the same word of faith which Paul preached; yea, further they had not onely the Gospel of Christ, but Christ himselfe, his presence, in a speciall 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 meerly upon nature and circumcision of the flesh.

It is an infidelious opinion to judge them to be Infidels (in the Jewes state) whom God did so call and separate, which had his Ora­cles and Ordinances, whom he called his holy people, his chosen Deut. 10.15. and peculiar people Cap. 14.2., his beloved ones Cap 7.7.8., to whose seed he promised life as to themselves Cap. 30.19.20 whose hearts he promised to circumcise, as also the hearts of their seed Deut 30.6. (as he hath promised to his people in the last dayes;) which thing, circumcision of the flesh was to teach them, it being the signe Gen 17.11. and seal Rom. 4 11. Col. 2.11, 12. of the righteousnesse of faith, as baptisme is now. And this you may minde also, that though the rebellious seed of Abraham (according to the flesh) were rejected Esay. 2.6.9, yet the stran­gers that joyned to the Lord were still received 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 Ier. 9.25, 26., and there­fore the Lord threatned to visite 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 unbeleeving Jewes were cut off for unbeliefe, and that those that stand doe stand by faith, and therefore are admonished not to be high minded but fear Rom. 11.20., and take heed v 21. and conti­nue in the beautifulnesse of God v. 22., and that the unbeleeving Jewes also if they abide not in unbeliefe, shall be grafted in again v. 23..

Wherefore it appeareth, that as unbeliefe was the cause why the unbeleeving Jewes were cut off from the olive tree, whereon they [Page 31] were, so unbeliefe was the bar, which kept them off, for if they abide not in unbeliefe, 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 thinke, that the giving of the Law at mount Sinai, or the ceremonies which the Jewes then had to lead them to Christ, or any of Gods Oracles being committed unto them, or any persons groundlesse 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 then the outward baptisme doth now argue, that the Saints now, stand not by faith, and the inward baptisme of the heart and spirit, but meer­ly upon nature and baptisme 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 Gods friend, (the righteousnesse of which faith, Circumcision was a seal Rom. 4.11.;) so none were ever esteemed as the holy people, the sonnes 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 Jewes had not outward spirituall holinesse visibly imputed unto them meerly because they were the children of Abraham, but because Abraham their Father and they his children were the children of God, and their childrens children were in Covenant, and so they were the children of the promise as Isaack was, and blessed with their Father Abraham.

And this may further appeare 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 childeren that were at yeares of discretion were not to be circumcised, unlesse they were willing to enter into [Page 32] covenant with God, and to take upon them the Lords yoake, 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 childeren by nature, but because they were in the same covenant with their holy parents, and so they were the childeren of God by his free Grace.

And the Scripture doth evidently declare that none were to be admitted into the Church of the Jewes, but believing Hebrews, and Prosolytes, and their holy seed. By all this it apeareth that the mem­bers of the Jewes state had a spirituall holinesse upon them, and stood no otherwise but by faith, and circumcision of the heart. And were not as those who were neither beleeving Jewes, nor Prosolytes; Aliens from the Common-wealth of Israel, without hope, without God in the world, without Christ, and strangers from the covenants of pro­mise. But the Church of the Jewes, (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 a­bollished.

I tell you, I am not bound to beleeve that God abollished his Chu [...]ch 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 prophane person, to be ad­mitted, or any root beating gall or wormwood to be suffered, but if you thinke that God changed the state in the daies of the Messias his manifestation in the flesh, and made it more glorious, Even as the Moone is said to be changed when shee hath run her course, but re­maineth still the same Moone, though more glorious then before, this I would rather beleeve 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 materialls in stead thereof; then I grant it; But be sure that you stick to this, that Christ came not to deceive the Infants of beleeving [Page 33] parents, to take away the substance of the Ordinances, but rather the yoakes which cleaved thereunto; which circumstantiall things, he nayled to his Crosse, in token that those who rightly and truely enjoyed them before, were now benefited without them, and were to have, through a generall distribution, an equall proportionable share, and right, to whatsoever came in stead thereof.

Now let us consider, that if the infants of beleevers, (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 beleevers (who were members of the Church of the Jewes,) 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 beleevers 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 bloud of Christ See Eph 2.13., whose bloud was then to be shed, and is powred out for them; and there­fore we may safely conclude, that the holy infants are not loosers by his coming. And therefore [seeing the New Covenant is not aboli­shed] it evidently appeareth that the Infants of beleevers now are in the new Covenant, because the Infants of beleevers 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 uncleane, but now are they holy; for the Apostle there speaketh to beleevers, and of a holinesse 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 necessitie be driven to grant also, that the infants of be­leevers 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 foote, which is a covenant of grace and salvation, and which brings certaine salvation to all those that rightly enter into it, and which is onely 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 enterance is onely by faith, is very true. But mind this, that there is an externall right, and an internall right. We [finite creatures] must judge of the tr [...]e by the fruit Mat. 12.33. Luke 6.44., of the faith by the workes Jam. 2.18, 19; Judas had no internall right, for he was a devill Joh. 6.70, 71 inwardly, yet he had an externall right, for he was a Saint outwardly Act. 1.17.; But so long as he was not known to be a wicked man, but still made a great outward shew of holinesse, they were to judge him righteous; But when he mani­fested evill fruits, of treachery and hypocrisie, then they were to alter their former charitable opinion of him; And though he had (not onely 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 devill. 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 sinne. Let his dayes be few, and another take his office. [Act. 1.20.] Let his children be fatherlesse, and his wife a widow. Let his children be continually va­gabonds, and begge. Let them seeke their bread also out of their desolate places. Let the extortioner catch all that he hath: and let the stranger spoyle his labour. Let there be none to extend mercy unto him: neither let there be any to favour his fatherlesse-children. Let his posteritie be ap­pointed to cutting off; & in the generation next after, let his name be wiped out: Let the iniquitie of his [fathers] be remembred of Jehovah; and let not the sinne of his mother be wiped out. Let them be before Jehovah con­tinually; that he may cut off the memorie of them from the earth, &c.

Now that the Lord added to his Church daily such as should be sa­ved, is certaine; 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 [Page 35] the same constitution; And though the Lord added to his Church daily such as should be saved; yet wee are not to determine that all that joyned to a particular Church were saved, yea though they were added rightly according to order, in an externall way. Judas was of the visible Church, yea of that Church whereof these were mem­bers, and yet wee 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 then Judas, who fell finally, as other repro­bates doe, though never so eminent in the Church. Howbeit, we will not say that any fall away, from the grace of Gods secret electi­on, but from an outward sanctification, it is possible that elected per­sons may for a time fall; yet not without great sinne, no more then 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 deare Saints of God, yet (for a time) fell from their stedfastnesse.

But now I will examine your reasons what they are, whereby you say Pag. 4. lin. 41 Pag. 5. lin. 1, 2, That the holinesse of children here, is not meant of any holi­nesse 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 passe by generation (though the parents be holy) but to be of the covenant or kingdome, is the proper effect of regeneration, Joh. 3.3. without which none can see it (much lesse be of it) or enter into it; there­fore it cannot be brought to passe by generation, though the parents are holy.

Ans. That regeneration is brought to passe by generation, I will not affirme; The infants of beleevers are regenerated [before they are borne] this you cannot justly deny; for Jeremie and John Baptist were sanctified in the wombe; and the priviledges of beleevers are alike precious; Not that it commeth by the means of their naturall birth, or generation after the flesh; but by the Spirit of regeneration; how­beit, it is a certaine truth, that the Saints generation, doth not hinder regeneration [in any of them:] Generation doth not worke regenera­tion, but generation causeth distinctiō 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 roote, bringeth forth other branches, Abrahams ho­ly action was Levies by im­putation. See Heb. 7.9. or (as it were) little sprigges, who are in a growing condition (or in a way of thriving) so long as they are borne up and receive nourish­ment [Page 36] from the roote. And this division, or distinction, by way of derivation, doth not simply make qualities contra-distinct and op­posit one to the other, or break the conjunction or contraction be­tween them, or take away the vertue of the roote from them. For Abrahams 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 sayd, that he was an unregenerated Infant? Nay, rather it may be thought that they esteemed as well of Levi (in his infancie) as Eve did of Seth in his infanci [...], when Seth was borne, shee did not say, God hath sent mo [...] a young Heathen (or Canite) (though the seed of Caine was hers by generation) but (saith shee) The Lord hath sent mee [another seed] in stead of [Abel] whom Caine slew. Marke now, shee did not say, in stead of Caine, or in stead of Caines infants, (which did indeed spring naturally from Adams loynes,) but in stead of [Abel] (saith shee,) Therefore (I say) it is apparent, that (though generation did not worke regeneration yet) shee beleeved in God, and had so much faith, [...] to put a reall 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 plaine 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 roome of Abel, as when one plant is removed out of a fruitfull soyle, 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 appeare. And all which you have said here doth not prove that the holinesse of children there, is not meant of any holines in relation to any Church-Covenant, which is the thing for which you brought it.

The Infants of beleevers are visibly holy in relation to faith, and the holy Covenant. The unbeleeving yoak-fellowes abiding with their be le [...] ­ving yoak fellowes, are sanctified by them for this end; Else were their [Page 37] Children uncleane, but now are they holy. So sayth the holy Apostle Paul, (1 Cor. 7.14.) Your children are holy, that is to say, the chil­dren of you beleevers, (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 passe by generation (though the parents be holy.) And I suppose, that those Merit-mongers (keeping still to their princi­ples) may beleeve the contrary, I meane such Merit-mongers, who (against the Gospel of free-grace) do labour vehemently to shut out all beleevers infants from the new Jerusalem, Rev. 22.14, 15. and so doe 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 naturall capabilitie, to discerne, apprehend, and both actu­ally & verbally professe faith, in their own persons;) yea, they judge all infants to be visibly in one condition (and out of the Covenant in visibilitie) 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 passe by generation, they might with some colour of truth, ranke 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 sayd; 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 doe despise the Lords vessells of small quantitie, even holy infants, the young Olive plants of beleeving parents, esteem­ing them unregenerated, yet wee are taught to esteeme highly of them, and to honour them as the precious Saints, whom the most high God hath regenerated, and seperated to himselfe, as his peculiar treasure, who are justified, and sanctified, and saved by him; and therefore ought to be sealed unto him by Baptisme, as such holy In­fants in the time of the Law were sealed unto him by Circumcision.

And you your selfe doe grant, that to be of the Covenant or King­dome, is the proper effect of regeneration, Joh 3.3. without which none can see it, (much lesse be of it.)

Consider what you say; for here you must confesse, that (see­ing all that see the kingdom of God are regenerated) either the Infants [Page 36] [...] [Page 37] [...] [Page 38] of beleevers (which die in their infancie) are regenerated, or else that they shall never see the Kingdome of God, much lesse be of it; But Christ hath testified that the kingdome of heaven consisteth of such, and therefore wee may safely conclude, that though they die in their infancie, yet they shall see the kingdome 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 denie that they have any of the effects of regeneration, or else you will de­nie your owne argument! or the Scripture of God, (which decla­reth that they are in covenant,) or else confesse, that the infants of beleevers are to be accounted holy persons, in covenant with God, and heires of his heavenly Kingdome, according as the holy Scripture teacheth us: one of these you will doe, if silence prevent you not.

Moreover, I know not how you take the beeing in the Cove­nant or Kingdome; there is a two-fold beeing therein, to wit, ex­ternall, and internall, outward, and inward; visible, and invisible, (as I observed before, concerning persons enterance into the Church.)

Act. 8.13. Simon Magus beleeved, and was rightly baptized with the outward Baptisme, 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 judg then at that present time, though his heart was not upright in the sight of God; and therefore he was not of Gods Kingdome, nor in the new Covenant in Gods secret account, nor regenerated, no more then Judas Iscariot, though the Apostles themselves esteemed never so highly of him. But the Infants of beleevers are visibly in the Covenant. And wee are to judge all that are in the Covenant visibly, to be elected, regenerated, sanctified, heires of righteousnesse, children of God, and of his heavenly Kingdome, till they appeare unto us, either by some visible demonstration of their owne, or evident manifestation of others, or testification of Gods, not to be that which before wee were to judge them to be.

O minde 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 selfe-same Covenant, in one and the selfe-same respect; but for one parent to be a beleever, 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 selfe-same re­spect. Therefore it cannot be the effect of one and the selfe-same Cove­nant.

Ans. That is a contradiction which is opposed to a contrary thing, as light is to darknesse. And that is an effect which floweth from a Cause or ground.

The ground why God gave Abraham the signe and seale of his righteousnesse, was Abrahams faith, in beleeving Gods Covenant; For Abraham had first the Covenant, and faith to lay hold upon it, and afterward the seale thereof. The ground why Abraham did ad­minister Circumcision (Gods holy signe and seale of the righteousnesse of his faith) was faith, in beleeving the firmenesse of Gods promise, Rom. 4.11. and the effectuall power and efficacie of the Ordinance of Circumcision; which (Circumcision) had the denomination of the Covenant it self Gen. 17.10., because it was a signe thereof. Ver. 11. I say, Abrahams action of Circumci­sion was done in faith, otherwise it had been sinne unto him Rom. 14.23.. But he added unto his faith this vertue, (this effect of the New co­venant) to yeeld obedience unto God, in performance of this holy Or­dinance upon his infants, according to Gods appointment.

Baptisme (being come in the roome of Circumcision) though it be more generall, 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 ad­ministred upon the infants of beleevers in former time, so Baptime is to be administred upon the infants of beleevers now.

Now though every contradiction, argueth a difference, yet every difference, maketh not a contradiction. But to restraine (or lessen) the priviledges of the Saints (under the Gospel) is not onely to make one Covenant contradictory to another, but also the New covenant contradictory to it selfe, which is not of a fading nature, but of a flourishing nature, and hath flourished, (and doth flourish) more under the Gospel, then it did under the Law.

Wherefore if you doe conceive, that 1 Cor. 7.14. is of a lesser extent then 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 your selfe,) how that all beleevers infants generally of what Nation soever, have greater priviledges now, since Christs death, then they have had heretofore.

As for the second part of your Argument (considering that it wanteth explanation one way, and proofe another way) it will not stand you in any stead, to prove what you would have it prove, (to wit) that the holinesse spoken of (1 Cor. 7.14.) is not a holinesse in relation to any Church-Covenant.

Indeed, if you had set it downe thus; That for one parent to be a beleever, and the other an unbeleever, 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 selfe-same respect. Or thus. For one parent to be a beleever, and another parent to be an unbeleever, 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 selfe-same respect. If you had reasoned thus, and so proved it, then you had done somewhat like to your underta­kings, but in speaking generally of parents, in covenant, and out of covenant, without noting in particular, the difference that was be­tween these sanctified & unbeleeving wives (mentioned in 1 Cor. 7.14) and those unbeleeving wives (mentioned in Ezra 10.3.) (who were not then sanctified to beleevers for that purpose) you even loose your selfe.

But you say, it is a contradiction in one and the selfe-same respects, and have not explaned 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 thinke 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 minde, 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 hardnes 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 hard­nesse [Page 41] 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 libertie, whether they would put them away or no, but it was an injunction layd upon them, un­der penaltie of Gods curse; for they perceived Gods heavie wrath was hanging over their heads, ready to seaze upon them, unlesse there were some speedy redresse.

And it evidently appeareth, that you have not well read (or considered) the Scripture, for if you had, you would soone have seen a great and weightie reason, pressing these sonnes of God to put away these daughters of men, and those unholy children borne of them, for they (in uniting themselvs thus unto them) had made thē ­selves one with them; yea, they had made themselves one with the abhominable Nations (as appeareth by Ezra 9.1 compared with Deut. 7.26.) An accursed thing, like the accursed thing; And did not seperate themselves from the people of these Lands, doing according to their abhominations.

And therefore there was a speciall 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 beleevers, in 1 Cor. 7, 13, 14, 15. That the unbeleeving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbeleeving wife is sanctified by the husband; Else were your children uncleane, but now are they holy. But if the unbeleeving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases, but God hath called us to peace.

Now wee are to take the holinesse and unholinesse, to be a holinesse and unholinesse in reference to visibilitie; 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 doe, and ground of perswasi­on arising from some visible demonstration, either from God, or from men, according to the direction of the Word. The visible holinesse of these holy children of beleevers, here specified, arose from their visible being in covenant & from the sanctification of the unbeleeving yoak-fellows to their beleeving yoak-fellows. The spirituall uncleannes or unholines w ^ch the unholy children had, was in reference to visibilitie; & so when he speaketh of holy children, proceeding frō a sanctified wife, he hath reference to visibility; the unbeleevers are sanctified to the be­leevers, [Page 42] els were the children unclean, but now are they holy; to wit, in vi­sibilitie; for the ground of the childrens visible holinesse 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 depart from him; and therfore the children are visibly holy; Thus when the Vines are visibly of the Vine of Sodome and of the feilds 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 fruitfull Vine by the house-side of him that feareth the Lord, the children are (to be estemed) as Olive plants Psa. 128.3.4.

A. R.Thirdly, (say you Pag 5. lin. 19. to lin. 35.) It appeares from the Jewish Church-state, from whence this successive holinesse and beeing 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 wee may conclude, that his fe­males were included in that time in the males, there beeing (say you) no other ordinance of admission for them; Whence (you say) it will follow, that if the Jewes Church-state, from whence (you affirme) this succes­sion of beeing in the Covenant is derived) doth not admit in any considera­tion of any lawfull beeing 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 affirme) the former is true from the ground before layd, 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 downe obscurely, You say Lin. 19, 20, 21., It appeares from the Jewish state, from whence this successive holinesse and beeing in the Cove­nant is concluded to come? What successive holinesse? and what beeing? and what Covenant doe you here meane? 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 wee may conclude, that his females were included in that time in the males, there beeing (say you) no other ordinance of ad­mission for them.

Ans. You spake before of a successive holinesse: But what holines was this which the Prosolytes had, that were never on the Church [Page 43] before? Was this a successive holinesse? Surely this doth not import any other holinesse, 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 holines: It was faith professed by the parent that brought in his seed with him; it was not his beeing circumcised, but his beliefe, which was alwayes to goe before, even as faith now is to goe before Baptisme, and to be professed before a man, or his seed, is to be admitted to the ordinance of Baptisme. Now the Prosolytes were to circumcise all their males. But wee doe not reade that the Lord did command the Prosolites to put away their unbeleeving wives, they being married unto them before, (even when they were Hea­thens) but they might still retaine them, and have children by them, capable of the ordinance of Circumcision. Whereas you speak of ad­mission, I thinke you meane admission to the Passeover, for they made themselves one with the people of God, by beleeving the promises of God, which thing they were to doe before they were cir­cumcised, and circumcision was administred 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 doe you meane 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 charitie) 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 capabilitie to assent to Gods 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 beeing not to be recei­ved by them actively, it must needs be construed that they were im­plyed imputatively: This then was a great priviledge; for without this imputative holinesse, 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 Jewes Church state (from whence (you would have us take notice that you say) this succession and beeing in the covenant is derived) doth not admit in any consideration of any lawfull beeing 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 knowne, what you meane by parents, whether you meane any parents whatsoever! or but some onely; for it doth not follow, that because some were not admitted, that therefore no unbeleevers were allowed to abide with their beleeving yoak-fellowes, for producing of a holy seed in Covenant.

But let us see what proofe you have, upon which you ground your supposition and perswasion.

The former is true (say you) from the ground before layd, and there­fore the latter is also true.

To which I answer; I know not (in particular) what ground you here meane! but this may suffice that what you have before layd, is answered fully before.

But because you thinke 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 meane by these words, Doe you meane 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: Doe 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 beare out your position, neither will any tittle of Scripture else; for though the Jewes were to put away these wives there mentioned, yet it doth not follow (as you would inferre) that therefore the Church of the Jewes allowed not in any consideration, of any lawfull 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 positiv [...], [Page 45] together with the ground, is fallen to the ground, and maketh no­thing against holy Infants beeing visibly in the Covenant with their beleeving parents.

You should know that it is evill to make any Conclusion, [from any Scripture] which is not concluded thereby, or included therein.

But that the Jewes Church state allowed in no consideration of no law­full beeing 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 evill to make such a Conclusion there­from.

But if you meane 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 downe, a positive argument, [to confirme your former speeches,] and crosse the same, by saying, and if not from that rule, then from none, but not from that, &c. therefore from none.

I suppose it is some over-sight; Wherefore, I intend not to wade any further to finde out the depth of it, till I see an explanation thereof from you.

But in the meane 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 necessitie) to be circumcised [in their infancie] and not to be reckoned without, but within the Church of Israel. Exod. 12.48. For we reade that the Lord commanded him to circumcise all his males; but did not in­joyne him to put away his wife, (which he had before his Conver­sion) though shee were no beleever.

Mariage being honourable amongst all men, Heb. 13.8. Shall wee thinke they were to breake it? An honourable mariage according to Gods ordinance, dissolved without any just cause, or waightie 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 doe; though their wives could not be perswa­ded to become Prosolytes.

Mat. 5.31, 32. & 19.8, 9.Yea, and though Christ himselfe (in some case) doth allow that a man may put away his wife; and Paul declareth the same in effect, when he sayth, If the unbeleever 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 hard-hearted­nesse in the partie offended, nor was condemned (but allowed of) in Christs 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 hard-hear­tednesse, Christ did not allow of such, but sayth, from the beginning it was not so Mat. 19.8..

And therefore wee are not to imagine, that the Lord did com­mand or injoyne the Prosolytes (in the time of the Law) to breake the bond of matrimony; by dissolving that mariage which once was honourable, neither ought we to thinke, that the conversion, or faith of the one parent, made the mariage which before was honourable, any more the dishonourable; and if it did not, then wee may law­fully conclude, that they needed not to be maried over againe, or se­perated the one from the other by divorcement, so long as the unbe­leevers were content to abide with their beleeving yoak-fellowes, but that they were rather to remaine together in love and amitie, and bring forth a holy seed in Covenant, such a seed who were in their infancie to be ranked with the Israelites holy infants. So for the Prosolytes to claime the priviledges of the Jewes holy off-spring for his owne Infants, though borne of an unbeleever, was no sinne in him, nor contradiction of the new Covenant of God, but the effect of one and the selfe-same Covenant, he being commanded to circumcise them, even all his male Infants, in which you your selfe 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, shee could not be compelled vio­lently, but was still, as shee 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 yeares 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 compell 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 sanctifie him, he was to circumcise them, and to rank his ho­ly [Page 47] infants (both male and female) among the circumcised Salemites; and to put such a reall difference between them and his diso­bedient children; as between holy and prophane, 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 beleevers to esteem such Children holy; and directly opposite to those Chil­dren, whose unbeleeving parents are not so much as sanctified to any beleever, for procreating a holy seed: and therefore the Infants of one, or both beleeving parents, are to be esteemed holy; and it is a sinne 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 wee have nothing to doe with secret things, which belong only unto God; but things revealed wee are to look into, and so to judge of the tree by the fruit; and in doing thus, we shall not doe amisse, 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, then wee were formerly to esteeme 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 unbeleeving Jewes, when they were broken off, Rom. 11.16. and so is the unbeleeving wife in this place; yet neither of these are to be baptized for their being tearmed holy; and therefore not Children for their being here tearmed holy.

To which I answer, that you doe not observe the scope of the Apostles words, for he would not have us to judge, that those are holy in visibilitie, who are visibly Apostated, and are cut off; for the Apostle speaking of the Apostate Jewes, sayth, What shall their recei­ving be but life from the dead Vers. 15.? For (sayth 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 unbeleeving Jewes were broken off, and were not then partaker of that benefit which the beleeving Gentiles had, by being grafted in (in stead of the Jewes) and so made partaker of the root and fatnesse of the Olive tree: Ver. 18. yea, & further, the Apostle declareth the cause of the Jews cutting off, namely, unbeliefe; Through unbeliefe they are broken off; Ver. 19. and there­fore [Page 48] he exhorteth the beleeving Gentiles not to be high-minded, Ver. 20. but to feare; Ver. 21. and to take heed, and to behold the bountifulnes, and severitie of God: Toward them which have fallen; Ver. 22. Severitie; but (sayth he) towards thee bountifulnes, if thou cōtinue in his bountifulnes; or els thou shalt be cut off. And they also, Ver. 23. if they abide not still in unbelief, shalbe grafted in: for God is able to graft them in. So then 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 (knowne unto men to be) holy, but ought to be esteemed unholy in visibilitie. 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 visibi­litie; but afterward, when he repented, he was then to be esteemed holy by those persons who formerly (and rightly according to vi­sibilitie) esteemed him unholy, even at the time when he fell from his steadfastnesse. And so it is sayd, Isa. 4.3. that he that is left in mount Sion, 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 Sion, and in Jerusa­lem, wee are not to esteeme them holy: What they are in Gods se­cret account, his sacred Majestie knoweth; but the revealed will of God hath directed us, not to call those visibly holy, who are visibly unholy, (as all visible unbeleevers are,) nor are we to esteeme those unholy outwardly, who are outwardly holy (as all visible beleevers are) for the Apostle putteth a difference between branch and branch; between visible beleevers, and visible unbeleevers; as we must doe be­tween the members of the visible Church, and those that Apostate therefrom, and are cut off.

But the holy children of beleevers (in their infancie) cannot justly be said to Apostate from God or to degenerate frō that heavenly state, and holy olive tree, in which they are by faith ingrafted, and therefore well might the Apostle teach us, that we are to esteem them holy.

Whereas you say, so is the unbeleeving wife in this place.

I Ans. It is not so, The Apostle sayth not, that the unbeleeving wife of the beleever is holy, but sanctified, but he declareth that the chil­dren are holy.

And as for the baptizing of such branches (that are broken off be­fore they are grafted in againe, or the unbeleeving wife, before shee be a beleever) we plead not; but alledge the contrary; for they are [Page 49] not visibly holy, as you would inferre, but they are unholy in visibili­tie, and are not to be esteemed as written among the living in Jeru­salem, but as dead in sins and trespasses, till they repent, and beleeve, and live thereby; and so the Apostle sayth, Rom. 11.15. What shall the receiving of the unbeleeving Jewes 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 unbeleevers 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 spirituall holy Church, so it hath refused (and doth and ought to refuse) all those persons that a [...]e not living stones, holy, and spirituall; for holinesse (sayth David) becometh thine house, O Lord, for ever. Psal. 103.5.

Next, you rehearse a question, What holinesse it here meant to the Children?

To which you answer, That it is not that holinesse that accompani­eth faith: and such holinesse onely is available to the admittance into the state of the Gospel, and to have right to Baptisme.

To which I answer, that it is to be taken for that holinesse that ac­companieth faith, and therefore it is available to admit them into the state of the Gospel, and giveth them visible right to Baptisme; and this may appeare unto you from the Apostles testimony, which declareth that if one of the parents be a beleever, the children are holy, different from those uncleane 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 beleevers to have that holines upon them, which accompanieth faith, and giveth them visible right to Baptisme; & they are to be judged to be of the num­ber of Gods elect, as really, as those, are to be judged, who professe faith, and manifest obedience in their owne persons.

And it is further to be minded, that visible Saints, who make a verball profession, and walke holily in outward appearance, though we cannot infallibly tell whether they have faith or no, they are to be baptized, And we are not to dreame that wee can discerne 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 verball 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, [Page 50] yet wee are to judge them to have that internall true holinesse, 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 fruitfull plants, and therefore are to be accounted to have as much right to Baptisme, as he that manifesteth more holinesse. So it is said of Simon magus, Acts 8.13. that he also beleeved, and was baptized, and yet after­wards when he manifested evill fruits, Peter said unto him Ver. 21.22.23. Note though Simon Magus was in the gall of bitter­nesse, and in the bond of iniquitie, yet he was sayd before to be­leeve, and was baptized; And now since, Pe­ter biddeth him repent, &c. Which doth plainly shew, 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, &c. for I perceive that thou art in the gall of bitter­nesse, and in the bond of iniquitie. And therefore we are to baptize those whom we are to judg to have holines internally, though in Gods sight they have it not; That is to say, Those that have holinesse outward­ly, are to be admitted into the outward visible state, and are to have the outward Baptisme; they being to be judged to have the inward graces; as the holy children of beleevers have in visibilitie, and so are to be esteemed in the judgement of charitie; which thinketh no evill. But what is the reason why you thinke, that the holinesse ascribed by the Apostle to the children of beleevers, is not that holines 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 Gal. 3.7., and that the children of the promise are counted for the seed Gal. 4.28., and that I­sack was a childe of promise in his infancie Ver. 28, 29, 30, 31.; And that faith and works are different things Rom. 4.2.4.; And therefore though the holy children of be­leevers cannot work yet the Lord imputeth righteousnesse unto them Psal. 32.1, 2. Rom. 4.6. Gen. 17.11. Rom. 4.11. without works; And yet we are to minde 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 worke. But when they have neither will, skill, nor abili­tie, (as many a visible Saint that is in years may want, and yet be no Covenant-breaker) then the Lord accepteth of them, and imputeth his righteousnesse unto them, as if they had done all the holy workes which ever were done in the world, by any, who were imputed righ­teous. God is a wise God, and knoweth that his Saints can doe no­thing without him, nor act further then they have capabilitie, therefore in his mercie he exacteth no more. Good in his wisdome knew that the Infants of beleevers were capable of passive Ordinances, and therefore he instituted the same to be imposed upon them, and administred unto them; But as for active ordinances which they [Page 51] could not performe, nor had naturall capabilitie to doe, God did not require it at their hands, no more then he did require the Proselytes females to be circumcised, who (as you say) were implyed in the males. And this doth in no way eclipse the Glorie of Christs media­torship, but advanceth the free Grace of God, and the righteousnesse of Christ, far above all the works in the world. But to affirme that the infants of beleevers have not the true holines, w ^ch accompanieth faith, is (in a manner) to darken the Glorious Sunne of Righteousnesse, and the light of his Gospel, with a meritorious smoake of corrupt doctrine, arising out of the bottomlesse pit of sorie mans deceiptfull heart.

But let us heare what you say further for confirmation of your affirmation.

True it is, that in the time of the Law, and state of the Jewes, A. R. Pag. 6. lin. 5. and old Covenant, there were some fiderally, and outwardly holy, and outwardly uncleane, and then all men, yea, all things in the world, were distinguished by this kinde of holinesse: So the uncircumcised were then unholy, and they of the Circumcision holy, and might not accompanie with the other, Act. 11.3. And accordingly had they their outward washings and purificati­ons, for these their outward pollutions: all which were but typicall things, and all these and such like distinctions are now abolished with that State, and quite taken away out of the world by the comming of Christ; and this is evident by Peters vision, Act. 10.11. &c. expounded by himselfe in the 28. verse, where he sayth, That God had shewed him, that he should not call any man polluted or uncleane: Whence it is cleare, that now all men in the world are as cleane 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 appeare by these Texts, Rom. 10.11. Col. 3.11. Gal. 3.28. & 5.6. And as none then without this legall and outward holinesse, ought to partake of those legall 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 ought 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 thi [...] [...]ward spirituall truth, was typified by that outward fleshly shadow: Hence there­fore I will conclude, that the Apostle meant no such kinde of holinesse in this place, for the beleevers children to have. Nor is there any such kinde of holinesse now in the world amongst men, nor is this or any other kinde of holinesse (save onely that true holinesse that accompanies the new crea­ture) available to Baptisme.

To which I Answer. All this which you have said here, ma­keth nothing against the infants of beleeving 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 inrich them; If he tooke away any ordinance from them, which was typicall, he left them that which is substantiall; And the like we may say, concerning the outward holinesse ceremoniall, which had still relation to the covenant and Church of God; which if it were taken from them, shall we thinke they were left so naked, and bare, that they had not as sub­stantiall holinesse, as they had before; God doth not doe by holy men, as theeves 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 speciall maner, both for great and small, for young as well as old. He taketh nothing from them, which he knoweth is profitable to them, or beneficiall for them; but giveth them as great, if not grea­ter in stead thereof; If he know they have a necessitie of it, it is his will and pleasure they should not be debarred from it. And there­fore seeing baptisme is come in stead of circumcision; as holy infants then 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 baptisme being come in the roome of circumcision) such infants must needs be baptised. And therefore as holy infants then 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 accompanie now with the uncircomci­sed▪ yea surely; and this is a great plea for holy infants being in cove­nant, and doth really signifie, that it is a visible spirituall holinesse which differenceth them now from heathen infants; cōsidering that God never taketh from his people any thing w ^ch differenceth them from other people, but he leaveth them the substance of that type, w ^ch 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 seperate themselves, and not to touch the uncleane thing, 2 Cor. 6.17, 18. and promiseth that he will be a Father [Page 53] 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 Jewes, who were seperated from strangers, so likewise is he a Father to the families of the seperated Gentiles, who obey his voyce; and as God did grati­ously accept of the infants of beleevers, who were seperated from Ido­laters then; so doth he accept of the infants of beleevers, who are se­perated from Idollaters 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 off-spring, & the blessed Issue; even all the glo­rious vessels of small quantitie. Despise not therefore the infants of be­leevers, for though in quantitie they are small, yet in quality, they are excellent, therfore suffer the little infants to come unto Christ, Luk 18.16. and forbid them not, for of such is the Kingdome of Heaven. And therefore con­sidering that they have that holinesse, which acompanieth faith, and are in the state of the Gospel, they have right to baptisme, as the holy infants of the Jewes (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 ceremoniall holines, for the members of the visible Church now, are out­wardly holy (that is to say) in visibilitie, without which wee ought not to esteem them holy inwardly.. But they were members of the Church; And it doth not argue, that (because they had ceremoniall holinesse) therefore they were not spirituall in visibilitie; the contrary rather appeareth from what hath been before observed. Againe, you should con­sider, Lev. 5.3, 4, 5. that there were some who were spiritually cleane, and yet in respect of bodily diseases were uncleane; for we are not to thinke that every one that were defiled in their bodies, by touching of dead folks, or uncleane persons, that had issues, or leprosie, (or the like) were therefore defiled in their soules, or rent thereby out of the Co­venant, or that they ceased therefore to be visible members of the Church: No surely; Lev. 4. & 5. & 6. But yet we are to know, that those who did any of these things presumptuously were guilty, so that nothing could purifie thē without repentance, yea, when any sinned but ignorantly, & knowing it, neglected to bring their trespasse offering, their sin was increased, & they were to beare their iniquitie, for remission wher­of, more was required then before; yea, if a person were out­wardly polluted accidentally (though he did not defile himselfe by any act of his,) he was to be cleansed according to the law of God Lev. 14. [...]., which thing if he did not endeavour to doe, it was his sinne, and surely it could not then be taken away by any outward wash­ing, without repentance, See Lev. 17.16 and labouring to doe that which he should have done before; which ceremoniall cleansings and purifica­tions, [Page 54] were to lead them to Christ, who was then to be manifested in the flesh, and a Saviour to save them from their sinnes, which the bloud of bulls, and goats, and outward washings could not doe a­way Heb. 10.4.; no more then the outward Baptisme, and the Lords Supper, (Gods holy and blessed Ordinances) will take away our sinnes now; for Christs bloud is onely effectuall for this purpose Rev. 2.5. Heb. 10.5. & 8.14.; he is the Lambe of God which taketh away the sinnes of the world. Joh. 1.29.

But our chiefe poynt is not here about ceremoniall circumstantiall shadowes; for we all grant, that the ceremonies of the old law are ceased.

And to argue that (because they were then subject to legall pollu­tion, and some of them had it,) that therefore they had not the in­ward and spirituall cleannesse, is a vaine and groundlesse thing so to thinke; for the Good Lord was mercifull 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 purifie 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 (w ^ch you mention Pag. 6. lin. 11.) they were to teach them the benefit w ^ch 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 circumstantiall 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 conformitie unto the Lawes of God, did really demonstrate unto men, that they were spiritually holy; and so now the conformi­tie of Gods people, to the Lawes of God, doth give sufficient demon­stration of their holinesse in the sight of men, whereby they are to judge them to be communicable persons in a spirituall 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 then were circumcised both in heart, and flesh, and did yeeld universall obedience to Gods com­mands, See Lev. 14.8. yet through some accident they might have a kinde of cere­moniall defilement, and yet retaine their visible holinesse 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 al­ledging that there was a difference between the circumcised, and [Page 55] the uncircumcised, and that the circumcised Israelites might not then companie with the uncircumcised Heathens, is of no force against this truth, even, that the Infants of beleevers have that holinesse which accompanieth faith; Some uncircū ­cised persons might be ac­companied with, and some Circumc [...]sed 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 common-wealth 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 beleeving Gentiles were not to be circumcised, by the circumcised, but by the uncircumcised: Which to dreame, is meere foolishnesse; and therefore it appeareth that your Collections have no footing against holy infants.

To the poynt then; Seeing that the Infants of beleevers, though uncircumcised, might be accompanied with (in the time of their un­circumcision) and that by the circumcised: It evidently sheweth, that there was a great difference between them, and the heathen Infants of uncircumcised unbeleevers. And seeing the uncircum [...]ised infants of beleevers, might be lawfully accompanied with, and were different then from unbeleevers, it is apparēt that they were holy then, though uncircumcised. And seeing that beleevers infants (though uncircum­cised) were holy in the time of the Law, and distinguished by their holinesse from the Infants of unbeleevers; and seeing that Jesus Christ is still one, and the same; and that the ceremoniall holines is ceased; it plainly argueth, that when the Apostle Paul [...]aketh (in 1 Cor. 7.14.) of the holy children of beleevers, had by a sanctified wife; he meaneth such a holines which is not ceased, but remaineth perma­nent, and doth visibly demonstrate those persons who have it, to have right to Baptisme.

And as Circumcision did not give faith to the Infants of the Church, nor adde the Infants of the Church to the Church, (no more then any other person) but rather confirme them in it. So Baptisme now, doth not bring regeneration (or faith) un­to such, (or unto any other persons) as many fondly imagine, neither doth it adde them to the Church, but rather confirme them therein.

Touching Peters vision, which you mention Pag. 6. lin. 15., that God shewed him, that he should not call any man polluted or uncleane.

It is good to understand in what sense it is spoken; for wee 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 usurpe the ordinances of God, yet they are polluted persons so long as they remaine 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 sinfull estate, they are not cleane, neither legally nor evangelically.

To your inference Lin. 8., (from Act. 10.13.) I answer, That in the Gospel sense; those that are seperated from Idolatry, and those that are Idolaters, are not all one in Christ Jesus; for how can any be sayd 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 sheweth us to put a visible distinction between those who are visibly holy, and those that are not. But the infant [...] of belee­vers, are visibly holy (as hath been proved before) and therefore wee are to judge them in Christ, and one with him, members of his mysti­call 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 ought 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 ought any to presume without the in­ward, and outward Baptisme, to lay hands upon the rest of the holy institutions of God, which properly and peculiarly are tyed to the Church. And the Proselytes, or beleeving 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 Christs 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 limitted onely to the outward fleshly sha­dow, no more then our partaking of Baptisme, or the Lords Supper [Page 57] now, ought to be onely limitted to the outward elements, of Water, Bread, and Wine. But as for the Infants of beleevers, 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 shewed,) and therefore it is apparent, that they are acceptable, and may lawfully have the Ordinance of Baptisme 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 holinesse accompanieth them, And this being so, what then will follow, but that according to your owne confession, they have right to Baptisme.

Further you say; If it be objected, that in respect of Justification, Pag. 6. lin. 3 [...] it a­vaileth nothing, but to Baptisme it may.

To this you Answer Lin. 37. to Pag. 7., That that which availeth to Justification and salvation, doth according to the Rule, onely availe to Baptisme; for if thou beleevest with all thy heart, thou art justified, Act. 13.39. and shalt be saved, Act. 16.31. and mayest be baptized 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, & ought to be baptized upon this ground, though their heart (knowne onely 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 beleevers and their infants (now under the Gospel) to be in covenant, regenerated, sanctified, and adopted unto God; the children of the promise in their infancie (as the infants of be­leevers were in former time.) And upon this very ground, the In­fants of beleevers now may lawfully be baptized, as the infants of be­leevers (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 baptized by the Apostles them­selves, were not saved, &c. You answer.

And say Lin. 3. to lin. 15. you doe grant, that all baptized by the Apostles were not saved, and yet deny the consequence, by distinguishing between the rule, by which they are to be baptized, (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 him­selfe [Page 58] is; for all that beleeve, shall be saved (which is true as God himselfe is true) yet all who are judged by beleevers to beleeve, doe not beleeve, 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 onely in the outward appearance, (by their f uits yee shall know them) Mat. 7.16 And can­not judge as God, who onely 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 doe judge by the infallible rule, concer­ning persons, yet if they alter 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 looke 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 himselfe not to be that in [...]ff [...]ct, which before he was in appearance, then they were directed by the infallible rule, to alter their judgements without faile.

Further: in stead of these words; Yet all who are judged by belee­vers to beleeve, To judge of persons accor­ding to the in­fallible Rule, is righteous judgement; in which the judgers must lay aside all partialitie. doe not beleeve; It may be construed thus; That all who are rightly judged (or ought to be judged) by beleevers to beleeve, doe not beleeve; For there is a difference, between what persons do, and what they should, or ought to doe. And persons judging as they ought, though their judgement is alterable, yet as the Rule is not fai­lable, neither is their judgement by it sinfull; but righteous, holy, just, and lawfull judgement.

This being construed thus, and so taken, I assent thereunto.

But as for your following inference, I abhorre, and detest from my very soule.

Your words are these: ‘ A. R. Pag. 7. li. 15. to lin. 25.But in the baptizing of infants, the case is far otherwise, yea, quite contrary, who will or can faile in judging an infant to be an infant; the fay­ling therefore here is in the Rule it selfe, and so the fault and sinne in the appointer of such a deceivable Rule: This therefore cannot be of God, who is truth it selfe, but must be of man; For let God be true, and every man a lyar. And when doth he shew himselfe more vainly to be so, then when he goeth about to set his p [...]sts by Gods posts; and when he teacheth for do­ctrines, his owne vaine and lying traditions, such as this is.’

Ans. Groundlesse positions and false inferences there from, are frequent with you; your words import, that in the baptizing of in­fants, because none can faile in judging an infant to be an infant, that therefore the layling is in the Rule it selfe; and therefore you con­clude, it cannot be of God, but of man, a vaine tradition!

The like might be sayd of the Circumcision of infants, in the time of the Law, that because they could not faile in their judgements, in judging infants to be infants, that therefore the circumcision of infants was not of God, but of man, a vaine tradition! and the rule was not infallible!

But you may know, that for beleevers to impose the signe Gen. 17.11. and seal Rom. 4.11. of the righteousnesse of faith, upon their children (in their infan­ci [...]) was good, lawfull, & warrantable Exod. 12.48. Baptisme is to us as Circum­cis [...]on was to the Jewes., directed by the infallible rule of Gods Word; which rule was never yet abrogated; therefore it standeth in force, and is not a vaine tradition; and seeing God him­selfe administred Baptisme 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 l [...]arned 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 himselfe unconvinced of the lawfulnesse of the Baptisme of infants, by demonstration of Scripture for it. And yet he taketh the Baptisme of infants to be one of the most reverend, generall, and uncon­trouled traditions which the Church hath, and which he would no lesse doubt of, then the Creed to be Apostolicall.

And upon this beliefe 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 doe and must remaine still unconvinced with him, and must needs take it to be a meere humane device.

To which I answer, That the doubting conscience cannot be sa­tisfied, unlesse God doe it by his Word, or Spirit, but if the Lord doe open your eyes, and give you sight to apprehend, and comprehend this light, then in it you shall see clearly this truth, even the lawfulnesse of the Baptisme of holy infants. But if God doe not by his Spirit o­pen your heart, the tongue of men and Angels cannot convince you, but you must still remaine unconvinced. But how can you expect [Page 60] that this Author (whom you call M ^r. Daniel Rogers) should produce Scripture for the Baptisme of Infants, while he is (as he saith himself) unconvinced of it by demonstratiō of Scripture, except you did ex­pect that he should have played the hypocrite, & so have gon 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 authoritie of Scripture. This cannot be true which you affirme, considering the many Scrip­tures which you acknowledge have been alledged for to prove the Baptisme of infants; The demonstration whereof hath been suffici­ently shewed unto you, and therefore if you take it not for satisfa­ction, you may remaine unsatisfied, and still unconvinced, (though convicted) with your alledged Author, and take it (or rather mistake it) (as you esteem it) for a meere humane device.

But further you say; ‘ A. R. Pag. 8.Nor is this Author alone, in deeming the Baptisme 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 Custome 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 traditionall, and c [...]mmonly, and customarily practised, and yet have sufficient ground and warrant in the Scripture.

Origen.But in citing Origen, you doe not tell us, what he sayth in the same Epistle, (to wit) that the Church received Baptisme of infants from the Apostles.

Augustine.And in citing Augustine, you doe not declare what he sayth ( in contra Donatist. lib. 4. cap. 23, 24.) that the Baptisme of Infants was not derived from the authoritie 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, sayth, that they are not to be condemned that doubt whether Childrens Baptisme were ordained by the Apostles, &c.

To which I answer; No more will I condemne those who in weaknesse doe doubt of the Baptisme of Infants, but rather pittie them, and pray for them, and labour, (as the Apostle biddeth us [Page 61] concerning those that are fallen through infirmitie) To restore them with the spirit of meeknesse. But when their sinne 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 leaprous headines, and that against the Scripture, and the very light, and law of reason, and will not heare good Counsell, nor receive whol­some instruction; then they are not to be borne with, but condemned.

Whereas you say further, that Ekius Lin. 12. calleth (the Baptisme of Infants) a Commandement and ordinance of man; In Echiridion.

I answer, You should know, that it is a Commandement, and or­dinance of God, In the Scripture.

Whereas you produce the Papists Lin. 15., and the Authoritie of Coun­sells Lin. 23: (to jump with you, and your first learned Author, cited by you, against the Baptisme 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 erronious con­ceptions, and peremptory conclusions, are builded upon a sandy foun­dation. I pray you, tell me; How can they beleeve a thing by Scripture, that judge the Fathers above the Scripture?

And as you thus bring humane unsufficient Testimony, to prove the Baptisme of Infants, to be a humane invention; so you doe the like in labouring to make knowne the time when it was invented, a meere dreame! and vaine conceipt of your owne! a thing farre above your reach! And you would by your humane Authors, beare your Audi­tors in hand, as if the Baptisme of infants, were invented some hun­dreds of yeares after Christ; which is neither certaine, probable, nor possible; and yet you cite other humane Authors for it, whose historicall relations (as you have set them downe) have no bot­tom upon truth, and therfore are to no purpose against the Baptisme 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;) Goe 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 baptisme of infants was administred; I thinke that Circumcision of infāts was not invented, nor administred before the Baptisme 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 Aegypt, But it was before the Law was [Page 62] given in Mount Sinai many hundred yeares before Jesus Christ was manifested in the flesh; and therefore your new account is too short a weapon to undermine Gods holy administration of Baptisme upon his Redeemed ones; 1 Cor. 10.1, 2. Such as the Israelites were, whom he brought out of the Land of Aegypt, and baptised in the Cloud, and in the Sea.

Further, you cite more humane Authors, (to speak your pleasure) against the baptisme of infants, as if it were thrust upon the world Pag 8. lin. 37., under colour, and pretence; foysted Pag. 9 li. 1, 2. in (say you) like all other Anti­christian devices, have their cloakes and holy pretences.)

I answer; These are rude words, and words that wee may ra­ther admire at, then imbrace, considering what little ground you have to speake them, and how violently you have wringed them from humane testimony, builded also upon mistakings of humane Au­thors. Have you no more feare of God in you, then upon such sleight grounds, so publickly to breake out, and that in such unseemly tearmes, against the Baptisme of Infants, Gods holy and blessed Ordi­nance? Now surely, you are not to be justified, but condemned in your presuming thus to affirme, what you cannot prove; and la­bouring sacrilegiously to take away the visible badge of Christianitie from Christian Infants. Consider what a dangerous thing it is to di­minish from Gods Word; Rev. 22.19. He that taketh away therefrom, God shall take away his part out of the booke of life, &c. And with this consider also what ground you have had, for your evill perswasion, unjust calum­niation, and sinfull affirmation. You should know, that the Baptisme of Infants was not brought into the world by man, much lesse was it thrust upon the world, under colour, and pretence, and Antichristian-like, foysted in, (as you unjustly affirme) but God in his love, and mer­cy, and bountifull liberalitie, brought it into the world, amongst o­ther priviledges, for his Elects sake, & did not thrust it upō the world, (as you speake) but ordained it in an orderly way, to be imposed upon his Church and People; whose visible holinesse gave them right unto it; And he did not bring it under colour, and pretence, as the Anabaptists doe their Baptisme, in administring Baptisme upon People, and then telling them, it is right, and afterward that it is wrong, (and that they must therefore be baptized againe, by them in another manner,) and so after they have been baptized by them againe and againe, they after a while are restlesse againe and unsa­tisfied, because he who baptized them, was unbaptized himselfe up­on their own grounds, Nor can they beleeve there is any baptized [Page 63] rightly in the world. And so they know not upon their owne grounds, what to doe, or how to practise any Ordinance of the New Testament.

These their Baptismes (I may say) are rather to be accounted as thrustings, colourable pretences, and foystings, (and the like,) then the Baptisme of holy Infants, which was brought into the world by the Wonderfull Counseller, whose mightie power is to be magnified in all his noble acts; who saved Noah and his familie in the Arke, (when all the world of unbeleevers, both yong & old, perished with the Floud Gen. 7.;) Which figure answereth the baptisme that now is 1 Pet. 3.20, 21.; who baptized the Children of Israel in the Cloud, and in the Sea 1 Cor. 10.1, 2.; When Pharoah and his H [...]st were overwhelmed with the mighty waters Exod. 14.28.; who (accor­ding to his blessed promise Deut. 18.15., made unto his People) sent his blessed Sonne Jesus Christ, (our Emanuel Mat. 1. & 2.) into the world, to beare our sinnes, and to suffer death for us, and put an end to our iniquities; Who was buried, and rose againe the third day, according to the Scriptures 1 Cor. 15.4.; And at his Ascension into the bosome of his blessed Father, he gave Commission to his Disciples, to teach all Nations Mat. 28.19. and to preach the Gospel to every creature Mar. 16.15, 16.; and to baptize those who were to be e­steemed in the state of salvation; Who (when his earthly tabernacle dwelt amongst us) declared that the kingdome of heaven consisteth of such holy infants Luke 18.17., for whom he prayed earnestly Joh. 17.20, 21, 24., upō whom he layd his own holy hands Mat. 19.15., pronouncing them blessed with his owne mouth Mar. 10.16.. Wherefore you shew your selfe 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 Baptisme, (administred upon holy Infants,) is such a thing, which (by a supposed helpe of fraile man) you have declared it to be.

Consider further, how that although all these Antient Fathers whom you have cited, were on your side. And though you should cite many more, in Antiquitie far surpassing the other, yet all is vaine w ^ch you doe, yea, properly vanitie without the Scripture, and as it is to no edification, so it will give no satisfaction, or information to the [...]oubting soul, or make any thing for strengthening your errour; (though it may harden you and other seduced in it) but it will be a means rather to adde griefe, and vexation to your spi [...]it, at the day when you must give up your account, for all your idle words, vaine actions, & hard speeches, when it will be little available to sly to [Page 64] these mountaines to hide you from the wrath of the Lambe; 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 con­demne it, (as Hereticks 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 deni [...]d the Godhead of Jesus Christ,) was one of the first that denied the baptisme of Infants.

And that Pelagius the Heriticke was a patron of this opinion of yours. Whom Augustine and others of the Antient Fathers, have opposed by the Scriptures, and condemned for heresie, as justly they might; for then it may be you would say, that Augustine was an Hereticke himselfe 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 cōtroversie; for indeed, after this manner, did M ^r. Smith (the Anabaptist,) answer M ^r. Clifton, who was his oppo­site and overthrew his errours.

But indeed I desire that all things may be tryed by the touchstone of the Word of God, which is the onely rule for every divine action, which directeth us to hold fast that which is good, and to judge of persons and causes accordingly.

Th [...]rfore I desire that what hath bin spoken already in answer to your severall objections, and what hath been also gathered from the word of tru [...]h (in vindication of this truth, of the baptisme of holy In­fants) may be observed.

It hath been declared how the promise is made to all beleevers 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 generall institution of Jesus Christ, is no maner of way l [...]sse generall Pag. 15. to pag. 24. then circumcision, but more gene­rall in respect of the parties upon whom it is to be administred.

It hath been minded Pag. 24. to pag. 64., how that the Infants of beleevers 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 alledged, doth argue that they have not still the t [...]ue [...]linesse which giveth them visible right to Baptisme. But see­ing the dispensation of Gods gifts, and the distribution of his graces, are multip [...]yed under the G [...]spel, wee are still to esteem the young Olive pla [...]ts of beleeving parent [...] to be holy, as well as the stock or branches upon which they grow. And it being so, we may conclude, that [Page 65] they have right to holy Baptisme, as their holy parents have. And to debar the holy infants of beleevers from Baptisme, is to reject them, and so (in a manner) it is a rejection of their holy parents; a means of their discouragement; a weakning of their faith; a discomforting of their hearts; yea, and discouragement to others.

But Truth overcommeth all things, it is great, and will prevaile a­gainst all that oppose it.

Thus having answered directly to what hath been set downe 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 holinesse which chil­dren are sayd to have, 1 Cor. 7.14. In answer whereto, I shall shew onely what I conceive it to be, and then leave it to the judgement of the wise.’

Answer. If you mean the holy children of beleeving parents, (spo­ken of 1 Cor. 7.14.) Let us heare what you say.

I say then it is onely such a holinesse, A. R. Lin. 25. as is opposite to some kinde of un­cleannesse, which I take to be this, as if when they are sayd to be holy, it is no more then to say, they are not uncleane, (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 sayth to Beleevers (1 Cor. 7.14.) Else were your children un­cleane; he meaneth here such an uncleannesse, 2 Cor. 6. which he speaketh of in 2 Cor. 6.17. Which uncleannesse, the Saints are bidden not to touch; I will dwell in them, and walke 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 po­steritie. For confirmation whereof, see the practise 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 yee separated, sayth the Lord, and touch not the [uncleane] thing, And I will be a father unto you, and yee shall be my sonnes and daughters, sayth the Lord God Almightie.

Observe here, how that this uncleannesse is directly opposed to the holinesse which those have who are in covenant with God; who alwayes did put a difference between the holy and prophane, 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 Beleevers holy: Else were your children uncleane, (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 minde, that the Proselytes in the time of the Law, and the beleeving parents in the time of the Gospel, [Page 66] who were formerly unbeleevers, Heb. 13.4. were not all bastards: and legitti­macie is not a thing peculiar to beleevers but unbeleevers may have it. But when the Apostle speaketh of a holinesse, which the children of beleevers have, it is that which is peculiar unto the Saints of God, and not common to Infidells, who are without God in the world, and not to be communicated with.

You should minde, that the Apostle speaketh in the heavenly lan­guage of Canaan, in the Scriptures ordinary phrase; giving the belee­vers infants such a stile, w ^ch 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 unbeleevers infants. There is no place of Scripture, which declareth them to be holy: Wherefore wee may conclude, that there is a great deale of diffe­rence between the infants of beleevers, and the infants of unbeleevers; and that the uncleannesse of the one, Rev. 22.11. 1 Cor 6.14. is opposed to the holines of the other, as darknesse, is opposed unto light. As Idolaters, are (sayd to be) opposed to those that are seperated from them Ver. 15, 16, 17, 18.. And so the Jewes (seperated from Idolaters) were all holy, both young and old, and Gods seperated peculiar people Deut 29.10. & 14.1, 2.; The Lord was their God, and they were his people, and he dwelt in the middest of them Levit. 26.11, 12., and sanctified them unto himselfe 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 Jewes, were then made partakers of the like precious priviledges with them; which extended unto their in­fants Exod. 12.48., as well as to the infants of the Jewes. Therefore as the in­fants of the Jewes were holy, so were the infants of the Proselytes, (or belee [...]ing Gentiles.)

And forasmuch as the distribution of Gods gifts (under the Go­spel) are larger, then they were under the Law; the infants of belee­vers now, Ephe. 3.5, 6. have the same spirituall priviledges, as the infants of belee­vers had th [...]n; and have the same precious holinesse, which is availa­ble to B [...]ptisme; and therefore we may conclude, that when Christ came to die for their sinnes, he came not to destroy their soul [...]s, and so to r [...]b them, to p [...]yle them, to make them spirituall bank [...]outs, to take from them his righteou [...]ness, and leave them to be clothed with their own righteousnes; But surely, wee may rather conclude, that Christ [as he was once himselfe an infant, of a beleeving par [...]nt, ac­cording to the flesh] so he loveth the infants of beleevers, Luk. 2.7.16. & 18.17. because [Page 67] they are Subjects of his kingdome. And as he suffered for them, so he doth not onely come unto them, but cast his garment of righteousnesse 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 p [...]ople, 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 sayth the Spirit of Truth, who will not, (nor cannot) lye; Who for strengthening of his peoples faith, and encreasing 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 signe and seale of the rig [...]t [...] ­ousnesse of faith, to be imposed upon them, and upon their seed, whose G [...]d he had testified himselfe to be.

Now those persons to whom God is a God, they are blessed in a speciall 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 seperated from Idolaters, and are a holy 1 Cor. 7.14. 2 Cor. 6.17. peculiar people unto him, directly opposed to those who are uncleane 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 beleeving 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 sonnes, & daugh­ters of God; and are to be accounted amongst the number of sepera­ted Saints, in covenant with him; for he hath promised to be a God and a father unto the beleeving Gentiles (2 Cor. 6.18.) as he was unto the beleeving Jewes, (Gen. 17.7. Jer. 31.1.) Concerning whom the Lord sayth, Their children shall be as aforetime, Jer. 30.20. Jer. 30.20. whose holinesse 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 uncleannesse, which unbeleevers, 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 hallow thē, as he is to the holy children of beleeving Gentiles, and as he was to the holy children of the Jewes, in covenant with him.

Thus the Contents of your exposition being not right, wee may justly conceive, that all the Scripture which you bring to confirme it, will be wrong in the application; and your grounds false. But let us heare further what you say.

A. R. Lin. 29. A. R. Lin. 30. And I will shew my ground by my thus opening the Text.

The believing Corinthians both men and women, married and single, do joyne in a Letter to the Apostle for resolution of many of their doubts touching their severall conditions, this appeares in the first verse, and thence to the 12 and their doubts in this particular, and which he answers in the five verses following, seemes to be this in effect, as if they should thus write; we being borne anew, and made the Sonnes 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 darkenesse and death, from being Idolaters, and Children of th [...] Devill, have very uncomfortable cohabitation and felloship with our wives and husbands, remaining still in their naturall and blind condition, so farre different from the estate into which we are now brought: Surely our holy God that bids us touch no uncleane thing, doth not allow us thus to do: And wee f [...]are least wee have done very ill in continuing thus so long, for our Marriage wee cannot thinke but it was dissolved when wee first beleeved: And wee ought then to have put away our wives as the Jewes di [...] their strange wives; and unto this the Apostle begins 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 beleeveth not, if she be content to dwell with him, let him not put her away, And the woman that hath a husband that beleeveth not, if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him: for the unbeleeving husband is sanctified to the wife, and the unbeleeving wife is sanctified to the beleeving husband, else were your Children uncleane, but now they are holy.

As if the Apostle should have said to them thus, you Corinthians do doubt of your co [...]abitation with your unbeleeving 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 lawfull in nature or civill use) is [...] to the beleever, and yet even those things are impure to the im­p [...]e, or u [...]bel [...]ving, for even their mindes and consciences are defiled, Tit. 1.15. But to the Bel [...]ever, all things are pure, (that is, as I have al­rea [...]y said) all lawfull things, for things that are unlawfull 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 si [...]full and wi [...]k [...]d, which if your cohabitation wer [...] such as you i [...] w [...]ak [...]sse iudge, then [...]as n [...]t your marriage lawfull at the first, then it is not lawfull nor sanctified to y [...]u now, as you judge it is not, and then are your children uncleane: But if your marriage were at fi [...]st lawfull, then your Cohabitations now with your [...]oke-mates is like­wise [Page 69] lawfull, and then also sanctified to you now by your beleeving, else were your children uncleane (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 Tenour 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 poore collection, or rather restriction of the Apostles words! But that this restriction is in the Text, wee 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 holinesse; a holinesse in relation to faith, and to the holy Covenant of God; in which C [...]venant, b [...]l [...]e­vers & their infants are now, under the Gospel. And this may further appeare unto you by these Considerations.

First, That the Apostle (in this place of Scripture) speaketh not of all infants, but onely of the infants of beleeving parents in Co [...]enant; for he doth not say to unbeleevers, that their children are holy, nei­ther doth he direct his speech unto any unbeleever, but unto belee­vers; wherefore this principally concerneth beleevers, that they might know the privioidges, which appertaine 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 [unbele [...]vi [...]] [...] ­band or wife sanctifieth the [beleeving] husband or wife, but the [...] ­leeving wife is sanctified in the beleeving husband, and the unbeleeving husband in the beleeving wife; (that is to say, in consideration that [...]e is h [...] sanctified yoak-fellow;) Where wee are to note, that though the unbeleeving wife have a priviledge to be sanctified in her belee­ving husband, yet not to sanctifie her beleeving husband; nor hath the unbeleeving husband, any priviledge to sanctified is (beleeving) wife. Nor doth it need (in this case) for beleevers are holy without them; though their unbeleeving yoak-fellowes are not sanctified without them.

Thirdly, Wee are to note from the Apostles words, Else were your children uncleane, but now are they holy: That because the unbeleeving [Page 70] wife is sanctified to the beleeving husband, or the unbeleeving husband to the beleeving wife, therefore the children are holy, else not.

Fourthly, We are to take notice that the cause of the sanctification of the unbeleeving wives (or that which made them to be so sanctifi­ed) was two things.

Frist, Their abiding.

And Secondly, Because their yoak-fellowes were beleevers, if her yoak-fellow be a beleever else she cannot be so sanctified to the belee­ver, for that that is not, cannot be said to be.

Fifthly, The Ap [...]stle treateth of holinesse; which wee are to take for that excellent spirituall holinesse, which becometh the Lords House, even such a holinesse which Abraham and his infants had. Which holinesse giveth the persons who have it, visible right to the covenant of Grace, and scales thereof. The Apostle speaketh of holi­nesse, and doth no way lesson it, and therefore considering what the infants of bel evers have been, & what Christ hath done for them, wee may well understand that the holinesse which they have now, is a holin [...]ss [...] in relation to the covenant and Church of God.

Sixthly, It evidently appeareth from the Apostles words, that wee may safely cōclude, that such children (spoken of here) are different from heathens; for the unbeleeving wife had not that priviledge to bring forth such a holy seed unto a heathen. And so the like may be said for the unbeleeving husband, that he could not beget a holy seed of her that was an unbeleeving wife, but it is peculiarly bound up in the beleeving yok [...]fellow. Therfore the childeren of one (or both) beleeving parents are h [...]ly indeed, taking the Scripture in the largest extent.

Seventhly, If the Apostle had said to the beleevers, that their children were unholy, neverthelesse, 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 beleevers, are unho­ly; and yet they have your holinesse (to wit) that which eviden­ceth them to be no Bastards. Wherefore that the Apostle Paul me [...]neth such a holinesse, which you speake of we may not in rea­son conclude; but the contrarie, as hath been observed before, (na [...]ely) that the Ap [...]stl [...] meaneth a holinesse 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 sence according to your sence, or un­derstanding) [Page 71] 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 sence of this place, A. R. Pag. 10. lin. 33. may further and clear­ly appeare by the generall scope of the Apostle in the 20, 21, 22, 23. verses following in the same Chapter, where he after he had resolved the married Beleevers not to depart from their lawfull yoke-mates, he then in these ver­ses exhorts Servants and all others, to abide likewise in the lawfull 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 lawfull Covenants and civill duties in their severall relations wherein they stood before, but bound them to a more due performance of all such obligements towards all men, but in poynt of Reli­gion and worship of God, therein they were not to be in subjection to any, save onely to Jesus Christ, who had therefore bought them with a price.’

Ans. All which you have sayd 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 beleever to abide in the same calling wherein he was called. So that the beleeving married persons had no need to put away their unbeleeving yoak-fellowes, for as much as the Lord allowed them to abide together, and that the unbelee­ving yoak-fellowes were so sanctified for producing a holy seed; Else were your children uncleane, (sayth the Apostle) but now are they holy. But you pretend that you gathered your interpretation (Else were your children Bastards, &c.) from the generall 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 doe.

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 Christs servant. Ver. 23. Yee are bought with a price, be not yee the servants of men.

Now consider what ground you had to build such an affirmati­on, that the Apostle in speaking of holinesse, (1 Cor. 7.14.) doth not meane a holinesse in relation to faith, and that where he sayth, Else [Page 72] were your children uncleane, 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 vaine con­ceipts, in thus opposing holy infants? Or upon what reason doe you ground these unreasonable collections? Is it because the Apostle sayth, 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 damnifie them, but to dignifie them; not to make them loosers, but gainers. And all this is wrought by him, in whom is all fullnesse, and no emptinesse; riches and no povertie; life, and no death; He it is that came to give himselfe a ransome for them.

But you would inferre, that because beleevers are exhorted by Paul to performe their civill Covenants, and lawfull Contracts which they have made with men, that therfore 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 sence 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 sanctifie, and cause to approach neere unto him; that because the parents, and others, were to performe 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 then had no more holinesse then a meer l [...]gittimacie, nor were different from the infants of Heathens, and Infidells.

Were it not foolishnesse thus to thinke? [much more to af­firme] yea, surely! and therefore such affirmations of yours, are to be taken for sensles imaginations, and vaine conceptions, not worthy to be uttered to any [much lesse unto many.] Neither should they (at this time) have been mentioned heer, but to ma­nifest the vanitie 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 appeare in Mal. 2.14, 15. where the Spirit of God by the Prophet sheweth the reasons why their offerings were no more accepted, because (saith he) God hath been witnesse between thee and the wife of thy youth (that is his first wife then living) against whom [Page 73] thou hast dealt treacherously, yet shee is thy companion, and the wife of thy Covenant, and did not he make one, yet had he aboundance of the Spirit, and wherefore one in that he sought a godly or holy seed, therefore keepe your selves in spirit, and let none trespasse 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 holinesse ariseth not here from any relation they had to the Jewish State, nor from any Church Covenant, but meerly from Gods first Institution of Marri­age in the Creation, and his then providing one woman for one man, and which therefore is of Ʋniversall concernment to all man-kinde, 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 aske you why not his second Jacob had 2 wives, Leah and Rachell; the one was elder then the other, and one was married before the o­ther: But the children which he had by thē, as also those by Billa and Zilpah, were all holy in their infancie, and so are the Infants of be­leevers, a god­ly and holy seed; and all other Infants are otherwise, whether legi­timate, or ille­gitimate. wife then living? If you will limit it onely to the first wife, then it seems by your speech that he might deale treache­rously with the other, and beare no blame for it. But you should know, that these Jewes, to whom the Lord speaketh, were taught to follow the righteous steps of their holy parents, and not to deale 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, wee 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 beleeve, that godlines & holines of children depend­eth upō the parents lawfull generating of them. And so by this it will follow, that all the legitimate Infidells 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 al­wayes a difference between the holy and prophane, between beleevers and Infidells, 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.

Againe, 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 [Page 74] imply that then all legitimated persons shall be saved, and that no Ba­stards shall be saved. And so out of your owne mouth (for ought you know) you bring a heavie censure, and sentence of condemnation against your selfe; for it seemeth by your words, that your owne assurance of salvation, must rest meerly 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 godlines and holines? You have it not at all upon your own grounds; howsoever, at the best, I thinke you will say, that you have it not from your owne 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 sinne shall not be imputed unto him; neither will the Lord reject him any whit the more for his being unlawfully begottē.

Yea, though beleeving parents should (through temptation,) dero­gate from Gods institution, by begetting children contrary to Gods Law, yet we will not say, but as there is repentance & forgivenesse for the parents returning unto God, so the beleeving parents may have hope (from the Scripture, that sweet fountaine of consolation) that God will not impute that their sinne unto their children, who never sinned actually, but will receive them to mercy with themselves.

So Davids childe, which he had by the wife of Ʋriah the Hittite, though it was unlawfully begotten (contrary to Gods institution in Pa­radise) yet it doth evidently appeare, that we have no ground to say, that the infant was out of Gods covenant, any more then David was. David repented, and his sinne was forgiven him, and his childe was cleane, both in a civill, and religious respect; the which cannot justly be sayd of any infant, whose parents are both of them unbeleevers, though they are lawfull husband and wife, and the childe 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 appeare, that there is a reall difference between the infants of the godly, and the infants of the wic­k [...]d; and that the holinesse which differenceth them, is a spirituall ho­linesse; For in respect of legitimaci [...], some of the infants of unbeleevers had the preheminence, when some of the infants of beleevers had it [Page 75] not, and yet the infants of beleevers (whether legitimate, as Isaac, or illegitimate, as (Pharez) were in respect of their religious sanctifi­cation, the onely 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 beleevers to be holy and members of the visible Church, as the holy infants were in formed time.

By this you may see, how you are deceived, both in mistaking, and mis-construing 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) cleane and holy; as [...]n the o­ther side, the issue of all unlawfull conjunctions are uncleane, illegitimate, and Bastards. Now this holinesse and unholinesse of Children, proceedeth not from the holinesse or unholinesse of the Parents; But from the lawfull or unlawfull conjunction of the Parents in the begetting of their Children, for the Apostle in this place speakes 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 holinesse of children, and sanctification of the unbeleever (to that use) upon the faith of one of the parents, that if one of the parents be a beleever, though the o­ther parent be an unbeleever, the Children are holy, that is to say, they are under the holy Covenant; And so it necessarily implyeth, that if neither parents are beleevers, the children are unholy, that is, they are not born holy, nor under the holy Covenant. For it was faith that made the beleevers y [...]k-mate to be so sanctified to him, as the Apostle speaketh, Because he was a beleever, the Infidell was sancti­fied to him; For to an unbeleever shee could not be sanctified, but un­to a beleever, And therfore the children of those beleevers were holy, [Page 76] because one of the parents was a beleever, and this faith (so sanctify­ing the unbeleeving yoak-mates to this end, and use) made the chil­dren holy; which cannot be sayd of an infant, whose parents are nei­ther of them beleevers; 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 be­leever, for producing a holy seed, spoken of in 1 Cor. 7.14.

But you goe on still, and say, that ‘ A. R. Pag. 11. li. 34.It seems that the holines here of the children, ariseth not from the faith or holines of the parents, but meerly from the lawfull 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 holines of the ho­ly children (spoken of in 1 Cor. 7.14. arise meerly from the lawfull marriage, &c? How prove you this? Who revealed this unto you? Belike you thinke your bare affirmation (it is even so) is sufficient proofe; 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 lawfull marriage at their conjunction in begetting of them: And also that Davids 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 godlines & holinesse of the In­fants of the faithfull arise meerly from the lawfull marriage and con­junction of the parents in their begetting, then all the infants of the faithfull, (whose parents have not lawfull 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 Davids infant was in the Covenant, though he was illegitimate, 2 Sam. 11.27. & 12.16, 17.23 (which thing might be sayd of other illegitimated Infants of the Church then.) It plainly argueth, that there is a great gulfe, 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 fowly misse it, in saying that the holinesse ariseth meerly from the lawfull marriage and conjunction of the parents in begetting their children. In all which speeches, you still crosse your selfe, in what you have set downe, in the fourth Page of your Booke See A.R. his second Book, pag. 4., where [Page 77] you enter upon this particular, concerning 1 Cor. 7.14. For there you affirme (in opposing Infants holinesse.)

First, That there is [now] but one Covenant on foot, &c.

Secondly, That there is but one manner of entering and being therein.

And thirdly, That there is but one holinesse [now] acceptable with God, &c. Consider what you sayd there, and that w ^ch the Apostle de­clareth here (in 1 Cor. 7 14.) That the children of beleevers are holy [now] under the Gospel. [Now] are they holy (sayth he) and so judge your selfe in reason, whether you doe not wrong the Scrip­ture, [and your selfe also unreasonably] in making this one holinesse to be a meer legitimacie, proceeding meerly from the parents lawfull conjunction in matrimony.

But let us see what further reasons you can give for maintenance of this your opinion.

Ans. Here you grant, that the Apostle saith, the beleevers ought not to put away their unbeleeving yoak-mates; This maketh directly against you; for it doth demonstrate that the children of beleevers are holy, as the holy children of the Jewes were; which children were not to be put away, whose visible holinesse gave the beleeving Jewes a sufficient ground to administer Circumcision upon them in their in­fancie, And so Baptism being unto us, as that was to them; the holy children of beleevers 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 beleeving parents, not to depart from their unbeleeving yoak fellowes, he yeeldeth this reason, (what ere he implies; 1 Cor. 7.14:) For the unbeleeving husband is sancti­fied to the wife, and the unbeleeving 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 uncleane, but now are they holy; so that the holinesse of the children, is the main argument which pro­ved that their unbeleeving 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 unbeleeving yoak-mates were sanctified to their use.

Secondly, Because their Children, begotten in that state, are legiti­mate and holy.

Ans. That the unbeleeving yoak-mates of the beleevers, 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 femal [...] to conceive, and bring forth, a holy seed; or else were your children uncleane, (sayth 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; keepe to this, and then you keepe to the truth; Their children begotten in that estate, are legitimate and holy. If then they are legitimate and holy, as your selfe doe confesse here, why will you seek to debarre them from the priviledges of the holy Covenant? Surely this speech of yours (being cōsidered & compared with your former) you can ob­ject nothing now against them (except you crosse your self) but that they may, yea, and ought to be Baptized. But yet I would have you to mind, that it is not their legitimacie, or illegitimacie, which can de­bar them from Baptisme, or admit them to it; but it is their visible holinesse, which giveth them visible right to Baptisme. And this is ac­cording to your former speeches, in this your Treatise; Where you affirme, That there is but one holinesse now acceptable with God Pag. 4. lin. 8.; and such a holinesse is available to Baptisme 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, then 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, implyed in these three words [so] [lawfully] [married] And these you have put as a preparative to your three Conclusions; all which are laid downe ambiguously.

I doubt not but the unbeleeving yoak-fellowes of the beleevers, were sanctified to them; but this is not all, their servants might be sancti­fied unto them, and all lawfull things; but their yoak-fellowes were sanctified unto [...]hem, for this end and use, for producing a holy seed, as I sayd before *. And the reason was because one of them (being [Page 79] a beleever) sanctified the other; If all the legitimate Children in the world, have the holines spoken of in 1 Cor. 7.14. Then all the legitimated Children whose parents are neither of them beleevers, are holy: and then it will follow, that unbeleeving yoak mates sanctifie their unbeleeving yoak-mates; But this is not to be thought, for it maketh the Apostle Pauls words of none effect, where he bindeth it onely in the beleever, and doth not tell us, that the un­beleever sanctifieth the belee­ver, or unbeleever, but [the be­leever] sanctifieth the unbelee­ver. And this doth forcibly prove the holinesse (in 1 Cor 7.14.) to be another thing then a meer legitimacy; for it proves it to be a peculiar thing unto beleevers, but matrimony is not peculiar to beleeving parents, no more then legitimacy is pe­culiar to their Infants; others have the same as well as they. the unbeleever was san­ctified, in, by, or to the beleever, for this very end, of gene­rating children unto him, or rather unto God; So that the beleever sanctifi [...]d the unbeleever. Which thing could not, nor cannot be said of the unbeleevers, that they sanctifi [...], 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 belee­ver is sanctified to the unbeleever, as to the beleever; But so to say, is a turning of the Apostles testimony up-side-downe. And [...] doubt not but the beleevers children (be­gotten in that estate of matrimony) were legitimate. But the holinesse is not taken simply from the lawfull marriage, but in resp [...]ct to the Covenant of Grace, and Chu [...]ch of God, they being borne members of the same, as hath been proved before; Having the holinesse and righteousnesse of Christ imputed unto them. And seeing that beleevers holy chil [...]ren had the like priviledges, as Isaacs holy children had; therefore, as those children of Isaac were in the Covenant; So were the holy children of beleevers 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 unbeleeving yok-mates; because that Else their children were unclean, but now are they holy; be­cause that one of them was a beleeving parent in Covenant; for that is the reason both of the holinesse of the children, and of the lawfull retaining of the unbeleeving yoak mates.

Whereas you say, secondly, Their children would be uncleane, Lin. 9, 10. and bastards.

Thirdly, They might and ought to put them away.

How doe you prove this, that they might and ought to put them away!? I thinke they might and ought to keepe their owne 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 bare [Page 80] 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 M ^r. Ainsworth answereth this Objection of the Anabaptists, by proving unto them, that mis-begotten children, and Bastards were not to be put away in respect of civill use; for (sayth he) who should nou­rish, or bring them up, rather then their owne parents? 2 Sam. 11.4, 5. & 12.14, 15, &c.

Moreover, If unbeleevers cannot be sanctified to beget, or conceive, a holy seed, except they be yoked unto beleevers, as you here grant, (by your words) in saying, that See A. R. Pag. 12. lin. 19. [[ that which is sanctified to a beleever, being unsanctified to an unbeleever, must needs be sanctified unto him by his beleeving. 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 unbeleeving wife is sancti­fied unto the beleeving husband, by, or through his beleeving]] Then it will follow (by your owne confession) that though an unbe­leever be in the state of matrimony, yet (except it be with a belee­ver,) the unbeleever cannot procreate such a holy seed To wit] not borne visibly holy in the ho­ly Covenant, as the Infants of beleevers are., spoken of in 1 Cor. 7 14. And so this argueth, that there is a great and mani­fest difference [in respect of holinesse] between the infants of belee­vers, and the infants of Infidells; And that this holinesse proceedeth not meerly (according to your former inferences Pag. 11. lin. 36, 37, 38. Lin. 14, 15.) from a law­full conjunction, in respect of Matrimony, which is honourable to all; Neither doth the unbeleevers 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 beleever Keep still to this [that the unbeleeving yoak-fellow may be sanctifi [...]d to her (or his) beleeving yoak-fellow, but not to any unbelee­ver;] And then there will be some more hope, that you will be drawn out of your Anti podobaptisticall errours, for (as I sayd before) this doth shew, that those children whose parents are neither of them beleevers, 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 unbeleeving wife of the beleever, should be admitted to Baptisme, and Church-fellow­ship with her beleeving husband. And yet shee 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 cattell, and beasts, with whom he may not so unite himselfe; they are not so sanctified to him, as to bring forth a holy seed; but his wife is: which difference you doe not set downe, when you say See A R. Pag. 12. lin. 21, 22, 23., that shee is no otherwise sanctified [Page 81] then servants, and his cattell, and beasts. But you should have min­ded, that the Beasts are sanctified to him, as beasts, the servants, as ser­vants, and the unbeleeving 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 beleevers have no more priviledge, then the children of Hea­thens, Turkes, and Infidells: You say Lin. 29., ‘In respect of the Covenant of Grace and Salvation none at all.’

Ans. If by their children heer, you meane their infants, then I ab­solutely affirme and will prove, that the infants of beleevers have more priviledge then the infants of unbeleeving 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 wee shall be his people: Which Covenant is not made unto the wicked and their off-spring, to Turkes, 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, apper­taine to us and our children Deut. 29.27. for ever,

And whereas you say Pag. 12. lin. 30., It commeth not by any naturall Birth, but by the worke 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 righteousnesse, is accepted of him, Act. 10.34, 35.

I answer; As the Saints generation doth not hinder their regene­ration, so their naturall 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; w ^ch declareth that the Spirit of God is in all that are his, and he hath wrought upon some of the infants of beleevers 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, w ^ch are without, though they are never so rich. In every nation he that feareth God, and worketh righteousnesse, 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 speciall, were not then to be judged destitute of his Spirit; no more are such holy infants now; for as Gods Spirit is the Spirit of promise, so God is alwayes as good as his word.

Whereas you say See A. R. Pag. 12. lin. 34., In respect of the means of salvation, their privi­ledge in having beleeving parents, is far more then those that have not; because beleeving 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 beleeving husband may save his un­beleeving wife.

I answer; If by children here, you meane infants, if this be all the priviledge you will afford them, I thanke 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 infancie, how shall their parents bring them to the knowledge and faith of Jesus Christ? yea, how shall they beleeve that they goe to heaven, if they had not some warrant to beleeve, that the worke of regeneration was wrought in them before? If the righteousnesse 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 beleeving parents mourne, 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 knowne 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 workes doe follow them Rev. 14.13..

But by your words it appeareth, that you judge the infants of be­leevers, and Infidells, all alike.

Yea, the Infidell servants, which serve beleevers (if these your words be true,) have a greater priviledge then the Infants of belee­vers; for the servants are capable of instruction, (in respect of a natu­rall capabilitie) but the Infants are not.

Now if you will still grant, that the Infants of beleevers, (though they die in their infancie) have a greater priviledge, then the infants of unbeleev [...]rs, then you must also grant, that that their priviledge resteth in something else, besides the bare publication of the Gospel, which they are not in their infancie capable of.

And you should not have over-topped them so far as to say, that because beleeving parents may be a means to bring their children to the knowledge, and faith of Jesus Christ, that therefore they have no more priviledges, then the unbeleeving wife; As if this were the greatest pri­viledge which beleevers infants have, which unbeleevers themselves may have, Mark. 16.15. But you should rather have reasoned thus:

Beleeving parents may publish the Gospel to their unbeleeving ser­vants, & unbeleeving wives & to all other unbeleevers, but they may, yea, & ought 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 mercifull to his soule! by giving him repentance, and remission of his sinne.

All godly parents [ [...]ike faithfull 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 goodnesse of God in the land of the living; yea, to hide nothing from them, which might be profitable to them, or beneficia [...]l 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, &c. 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 minist [...]ry, doth not worke upon them. And how can it worke up­on them so long as they continue in their sinnes and so wrap them­selves, and their off-spring, in many mischiefes and miseries, and doe not choose life, (the thing that pleaseth God,) but refuse it, and fol­low the wayes of the strange woman, whose wayes are wayes of death, and whose steps reach downe to hell.

And surely, I may well say unto you, that those are Physicians of no value who in stead of curing them, doe kill them, and in stead of pre­serving them, doe poysen, harden, corrupt, and pervert them, with such damnable doctrine, w ^ch so violently possesseth them, that they thinke the Infants of beleevers have no priviledge at all in respect of the Co­venant of grace; no more then the children of Turkes and Heathens, who are unholy. A dangerous doctrine! and to be abhorred, dete­sted, and witnessed against, by those that feare the God of heaven, [Page 84] [...] [Page 85] [...] [Page 84] and desire to make a difference between the precious and the vile, against all such Mongrell opposites, who by speech, and writing, (contrary to the Tenour of the whole Scripture) do labour to rank all infants in one condition! Thus coupling light and darknesse, God and Belial, the beleever and the Infidell together! But woe unto them, may we say, (as sayth the Prophet Isaiah, Isa. 10.1.) which decre [...] unrighteous decrees, and write grievousnesse, which they have prescribed. Thus drawing Isa. 5.18. iniquitie with the cords of vanitie, and sinne as it were with a cart-rope. Woe Ver. 20. unto them that call evill good, and good evill; that put darknesse for light, and light for darknesse; bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter.

Psal. 73.1. Yet surely God is good unto Israel, (may wee say) to those that are pure in heart. The Lord hath been mindfull of us; He will blesse us. He will blesse the house of Israel (saith that sweet singer of Israel) He will blesse the house of Aaron: Psal. 115.12, 13, 14, 15. He will blesse those that feare 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 speakes of Christs commanding little Children to be brought unto him, and sayd; That of such is the kingdome of God. Hence (you say) therefore some reason; The kingdome of God belongeth to little Children, why not the Seales?

I Ans. If by these [some] you mean the people of the Seperation; then (I say) you have not set it downe according to our expression: It is too generally laid downe; We say the kingdome of heaven belong­eth to the Infants of beleevers: and we doe not barely question, why not the seales? But we set it downe affirmatively, that the seales doe belong to the infants of beleeving parents. But for as much as our poynt is particularly concerning the Baptisme of infants; I intend 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 Baptisme is one of the priviledges of Christs Church, which is his house and kingdome.

Secondly, It is also to be minded, that Jesus Christ, the eternall Sonne of God, and Lord of Glory, and of all administrations, and gi­ver of every good and perfect gift, when he sayth, Suffer the little Children to come unto me, Mar. 10.14. Mat. 19.14. &c. For of such is the kingdome of heaven. He doth hereby apply the Gospel unto them. I say, It is Gospel [Page 85] which he speaketh here. [] Where the kingdome is, ther's the Go­spel. Get the kingdome, thou hast God, and Gospel, and all. And so wee are to understand that [with the kingdome] the infants of beleevers have the Gospel of the kingdome also appertaining unto them, together with the priviledges thereof.

It being so, the Argument lieth thus;

Those persons to whom the Gospel may lawfully be applyed, to those Baptisme doth of right belong, and upon them it must be ad­ministred, Mar. 16.16. Mat. 28.19.

But the Gospel may lawfully be applyed to Beleevers 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. Infants Baptisme, Jure Divino.

Therefore Baptisme doth of right belong unto them, and must be administred 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 certaine; and may further appeare so to be, by what hath been said in this Trea­tise, (where the poynt hath been handled) and may be further evinced, by taking away whatsoever else you can object a­gainst the same.

And now let us heare your Answer:

First, A. R. Pag. 13. lin. 5. That if Infants have right to one of the seales (if I may so call them) then to both; to the Supper as well as to Baptisme.

To which I reply, That this objection is impertinent. The Infants of beleevers (the Lords blessed Saints) have right both to Baptisme, and the Lords Supp [...]r; Mar. 10.14.16 1 Cor. 7.14. as the infants of beleevers in the time of the Law, had right to Circumcision, and the Passeover; and wee are to minde, that although persons were not (nor could not be capable In respect of a naturall ca­pabilitie.) 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 wee know that di­vers Saints (though in yeares) have right to the preaching of the Word; yet have not capabilitie In case of deafnesse, or other defects in nature. (at all times) to conceive what is taught▪ Wherefore your arguing (that if Infants have right to one of Gods Ordinances, they have right to both) hath no weight in it a­gainst Infants right to Baptisme.

Your next words are, that ‘Here (they say) not to the Supper, A. R. Lin. 8, 9. untill they be able to examine them­selves, which is required of all that receive the supper.’

Answer. If by [they,] you mean those of the Seperation; And if [Page 86] by infants, you mean their infants; I answer then, that wee affirme 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 capabilitie to partake of it; The Lords supper being an active Ordinance [there is more required then a bare suffering,] for there is an acting required of the partakers thereof; Mat. 26.26. Take, eate, doe this in remembrance of me Luk. 22.19., &c. But Baptisme, [being a passive ordinance] the partie upon whom it is imposed, is not required, [a­ctually] to doe it, The Lords sup­per is active, & Baptisme pas­sive, in referēce to the receivers thereof. but onely to suffer it to be done.

So the infants of beleevers 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 active­nesse required of the partaker in partaking, and at administration of the Passeover, but onely a meer suffering, (by the subject) when Cir­cumcision was imposed upon him. So that holy infants now are as capable to receive Baptisme, 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 keepe 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 debarre such holy infants from Baptisme now, though they cannot partake of the Supper; yet they have right both to Baptisme and the Supp [...]r.

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 administred, &c.

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 uncleane, 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 so­cietie of the Saints, they had still right unto the ordinances, though they could not come to enjoy them. So if persons were sicke, wee will not say, that the Passeover was to be infused in them, against their stomack; yet had they a right thereto, though they could not partake thereof.

When the Children of Israel were in Aegypt, Exod. 12.11. they were com­manded to eat the Passeover, with their loynes girded, their shooes on their feete, and their staves in their hands, and to eat it in hast, 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 comming to the Passeover then, so it may be said of communicating in the Lords 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, doe not) sinne in not partaking thereof; and therefore these are not commanded or injoyned by God to partake of the Supper (for God requireth not impossibilities of us,) neither are we commanded (or injoyned) to administer it unto them; but circumcision was commanded to be ad­ministred upō, & unto the other; therfore 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 sayd 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 Beleevers, have right to the Supper, yet have they not capabilitie to receive it, and therefore it must not be administred unto them; but Baptisme [that passive Ordinance] may, because there is requi­red no actuall doing of the receiver, but a suffering, for the water in Baptisme 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 your selfe, in answering them, when you say Pag. 13. lin. 10, 11, 12, 13, 14., That Examination (in respect of the Supper) is required onely of men of yeares, not of infants, who are not able to performe it.

Further you tell us, That if your Author, nor memory faile you, Children were admitted as well to the Supper, as to Baptisme, for many yeares in time past, (and over against in the margent of the page Page 13. at lin. 15. you name Parker on the Crosse.)

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 Baptisme of Infants; [Page 88] A good object may faile a bad subject; and so your Author may faile you, especially, he being neither an Author, nor upholder of your errour, which you labour by all meanes to uphold.

Next you say; ‘ A. R. Lin. 17, 18, 19And why not to the one as well as to the other, seeing the same reasons are alike in both, and will center 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 naturall capabilitie) but not of the other. And therefore I deny that the reasons are alike in both; or will center into one, though [never] so fully prosecuted.

Wheras you further oppose infants Baptisme, saying, that Pag 13. li. 21, 22. no Infant is required by God, in Scripture, to beleeve, or to repent, or to be baptized by any man, &c.

The Infants of beleevers are not impe­nitent,I Answer. That this your speech is ambiguous, and abominable, and you may know, that we stand not for the Baptizing of Infidells, or those in whose hearts wee cannot rightly judge the foundation of repentance to be layd. For God hath not required such to be baptized, no more then 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 r [...]p [...]ntance, or that wee are not to judge them to have the gifts and graces of the Spirit, because they cannot act, is a meer idle toy! and frivolous foppery. But if you will say, that though the infants of beleevers cannot manifest faith and repentance, no more then Isaac could (who was a childe of promise in his infancie) 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 beleevers, ought not to be baptized; Then I tell you, you have your answer long agoe.

Christian Infants (sayth M ^r. Ainsworth In his Cen­sure upon the Anaba [...]tists Dia [...]g. pa. 70. lin. 19.) Have the grace they speak [...] [...]f, repentance, faith, regeneration, &c. Though not actually, or by way of declaration to others; yet they have (through the worke 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, &c. though it be a thing hid, and unknowne unto us, after what manner the Lord worketh these in them. E [...]cles. 11.5.

Which M ^r. Ainsworth doth further prove, thus In the same page, lin. 27. to page 71.;

If Infants naturally are some wayes capable of Adams sinne, and so of unbeliefe, disobedience, transgression, &c. Then Christian In­fants supernaturally, and by grace, are some wayes capable of Christs righteousnesse, and so of faith, obedience, sanctification, &c. But In­fants are capable of the former evills 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 origi­nall sinne) from divers Scriptures, as Psal: 51. John 3. Rom. 5. &c. 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 sinne 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 righteousnesse 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, &c.) m [...]st be borne againe of the Spirit, or else they cannot see the kingdome of God, Joh. 3.3.5 6. But the Christian Infants, dying in infancie, shall see the kingdome of God, and not be damned, (as the Adversaries grant. The old Anabaptists doe grāt, that childrē (dying in their infanci [...]) shall see the Kingdom of God. But some now (that stand against the Baptisme of Infants) say, They are all in the state of damnation; Others (that withstand Infants Bap­tisme) say, They know not how to judge of them; But I say, by the Scripture, Wee are to judge the infants of belee­vers, to be in the state of sal­vation, [...]nd those of them that die in their infancie, are not damned, but saved: And as for other Infants (even the infants of the wicked) we have nothing to doe to judge them within, but without.) Therefore by Christs do­ctrine, they are borne againe of the Spirit: and so must needs (in some measure) have repentance, faith, and holi­nes, without which there is no regeneration.

Againe, 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 signe and seale of righte­ousnesse by faith, and of regeneration, they have faith and regeneration [ for God giveth no lying figne, he sealeth no vaine (or false) Covenants.]

But God gave to Infants Circumcision, which was the signe and seale of the righteousnesse 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 signe, and seale 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 affirme; Or they must say, that Circum­cision was not the signe and seale of the righteousnesse of faith, and then they openly contradict th [...] Scripture, Rom. 4.11.

Moreover, As the Apostle in Rom. 5. compareth our naturall estate in Adam, and our spirituall estate in Christ, so may wee, in this case.

If wee cannot justly object against Gods worke in nature, but doe be­leeve that our Infants are [reasonable creatures] and are borne [ not bruit beasts, but men] though actually they can manifest no reason, or understanding more then beasts ( yea, a young Lambe knoweth and discerneth his damme sooner then an Infant knoweth his Mother;) then neither can wee justly object against Gods worke in grace, but are to beleeve, that our Infants are sanctified creatures, and are borne be­leevers, not Infidells, though outwardly they can manifest no faith, or sanctification unto us.

And why should it be thought incredible, that God should worke faith in Infants? If it be because wee know not, or perceive not how it can be; let us consider, that we know not the way of our naturall birth, and other earthly things, Eccles. 11.5. Joh. 3.8. How then can wee know hea­venly things?

If we make question of the power of God; nothing is unpossible with him. He made all things of nothing; He can make the dumbe beast speak with mans voyce, Numb. 22. He can make the babe [ in the mothers wombe,] to be affected and leap for joy, at the voyce of the words spoken to the mother, Luk. 1.44. And can he not also work grace, faith, and holines in Infants? Hath Sathan power by sinne, to infect, and corrupt Infants, (as is before proved) and shall not God have power to clense from corruption, and make them holy? If wee mak [...] doubt of the [will] of God herein, behold wee have [his promises,] to restore [our losses] in Adam, by his graces in Christ, ( as he sheweth in Rom 5.) That he will circumcise our heart, and the heart of our seed to love him, Deut. 30.6. Wee have the seale of his promise, in giving Cir­cumcision to Infants, to signifie and seale the righteousnesse of faith, Rom. 4 11. Gen. 17. And wee 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. &c. Wherefore they are but a faithlesse and crooked gene­ration, [Page 91] that notwithstanding all that God hath spoken and done in this kinde, doe deny this grace of Christ to the Infants of his people, and the seale, or confirmation of this grace by Baptisme 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 Kingdome, but of such is the Kingdome, (that is) of none else, but of such, as the next words which follow in these Texts, doe 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 Kingdome of God. He presently confirmes it in the next words, thus; Verily, I say unto you, whosoever shall not receive the kingdome of God as a little childe shall not enter there­in. As also in Mat. 18.34. Christ speaking to his Disciples, sayth, Except yee be converted, and become as little children, yee shall not enter into the Kingdome of heaven; Whosoever therefore shall humble himselfe as this little childe, the same is the greatest in the Kingdome of heaven. Whereby it is evident, that when Christ sayth, of such is the Kingdome 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 humilitie, and such like qualifications.’

Ans. If you mean heer, that the Seperates do ground their reason upō a great mistake, of the sense of the Text, in saying, that the King­dome of God belongeth to the Infants, and therefore Baptisme. Then to your impertinent & confused answer, or groundlesse aspersion. I reply.

First, That it is not sufficient to say, that the reason is grounded upon a mistake, unlesse it be so, which if it be not so, then you are mistaken your selfe (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 lesse upon a great mis­take, and least of all upon a great mistake of the sense of the Text, as you unjustly speake; and therefore your charge is but a treble evill surmise, a meer supposition of that which is not; and this may evidently appeare to be true, because out of Christs owne words, wee may gather that the Kingdome of heaven belongeth to the holy Infants; for, sayth he, of such is the Kingdome of heaven.

Secondly, Wee doe not say, that the words are in expresse tearmes, unto [them] belongs the Kingdome, (you shall not father this upon us,) but of [such] is the Kingdome of God, and yet notwith­standing [Page 92] the sense is rightly taken, according to the Text, that the Kingdome 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 lesse a mistake of the Text; So then it appeareth that the mistake is not ours, but yours; seeing you mistake your selfe, and us, and Christ, and all.

Thirdly, I doe not know your meaning, when you rehearse Christs words, Of such is the Kingdome of heaven, and say (that is) of none else, but of such, You should know that the Kingdome of heaven belongeth to those that are past infancie, as well as to Infants, Aged persons are of the Kingdome of heaven as well as such children. If you denie this, you will denie your own enterance into the Kingdome, or else say you are an infant, which thing I suppose you will not doe. But the drift of your interpretation is to prove, that when Christ sayth, 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, Christs meaning: [not of them, nor of such as them in yeares nor understanding;] a meer non-sense conclusion; and your ground is, Because Christ sayth [of such] and doth not say [of them;] But herein you erre, and are mistaken in the word such; and your inferences therefrom, are not according to truth; which may appeare thus; As for Instance;

When Paul sayth, 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 doe such things as you doe, are worthy to be condemned. I suppose the accusation toucheth your own particular person, as much as any other, and that so you will confesse, and take it as meant of you.

But if upon examination of the accuser, you shall find him to faul­ter, & say, that therefore he meant not you, nor any such thing w ^ch you doe, &c. would you not count him a knave, or a foole or a lyar?

Againe, He that should come and say, Such an argument or ar­guments as you bring here are good, and full of wisdome, and a­bound in sense! you would heare 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 evill, and full of foolishnesse and abound with non­sence! and that in saying such arguments were good, he doth not mean that your argumēts 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 idiote? a [Page 93] foole? or a lyar? or one that setteth himselfe on set purpose to ca­vill, or quarrell?

Apply this to your selfe, for even so is your owne 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 tooke up in his armes, 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 Christs armes 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, then themselves are like themselves, and therefore apply all this to our present purpose, and then wee may see the unreasonable­ness [...], and perversenesse, crookednesse and foolishnesse, of those who will so wrest Christs words, as if when he sayth, Of such is the kingdome of heaven, he meaneth not them, but excludeth them and such as them, and onely includeth some others who are for qualifications like them.

And therefore now (M ^r. 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 sayd of such, that the persons with whom they are compared, & to whom such a thing is applyed, are not included or comprehended in the word, such, as well as those who are compared with them. In the mean time, till you shew such an instance, [whic [...] thing you can never doe] 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, &c. for of such is th [...] kingdom [...] of heaven.

Fourthly, If Christ had sayd, Of [them] [...]s the kingdome of heaven, and had not sayd, Of [such] is the kingdome, &c. Then you might have had more colour, for to limit, and restraine the Scripture as you doe. And then you would object; thus,

Yea, It is true Christ as he was God, knew all things, & therfore he (know­ing thē to be elected) saith in particular, Of them is the kingdom, &c. But [Page 94] it doth not follow, that therefore such as they are of it, and therfore we can­not say, that any other beleevers infants are of the kingdome of heaven be­sides them. But heer you may see, that this blocketh up your objecti­ons, considering that Christ sayth, Of [such] is the kingdome, &c. And that the word [such] is of a larger extent, then 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.) doe confirme the former, (as you confesse,) then it still argueth, that the reason is invincible; and therefore neither you, nor all the men in the world, can overthrow it. It was firme before, and it be­ing (by your own confession) confirmed in the next words after, then it is not contradicted there, as you have contradicted it here, and ther­fore judge your selfe, whether you have not bestowed labour in vaine, in thus opposing holy Infants. For these Texts doe prove still, that as infants are of the kingdome, so they are not destitute of the graces of the Spirit, without which none are capable Subjects of the Kingdome. Wherefore heer is sufficient demonstration of In­fants 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 erronious affirmations, that it quite overthroweth your unsound collections, in your violent opposition of holy infants.

Sixthly, You speake very untruly, and doe abuse and wrong the Scripture exceedingly, by inferring from the premises, That when Christ sayth, Of such is the kingdome 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 doe not shut out aged persons, that are in respect of holinesse, such as those holy infants then were, or such as these holy infants now are) and he meaneth [such] properly, both in yeares & understanding as may appeare by the scope of the place, where it is sayd, that Christ commanded to suffer them to come unto him; and declareth the reason (namely) because they are Subjects of his kingdome; for of such is the kingdome of heaven (sayth he.) And when he cometh to teach a further lesson, he applyeth it also to persons of yeares, that they should learne to receive the king­dome 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 beleevers 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 sayth, Of such is the kingdome, is cleare in the Text, and may partly appeare unto you from the former Considerations. But for further confirmati­on of the premises, let us minde the scope of the place, and examine the Scriptures cited. In which is expresly 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, Wee are discreetly to observe, Christs two-fold charge, given unto his Disciples, In these words, (1.) Suffer the [little] Children to come unto me,] (2.) [and forbid them not,] (Mar. 10.14.) Mat. 19.14.

Sixthly, Wee are, heedfully, to minde the reason, (which Christ rendereth for this) which is expressed, in these words, [For of such is the kingdome of God,] Mar. 10.14. Luk. 18.16.

Seventhly, Christs addition, or confirmation of his former speech, or the use (which Christs Disciples should make concerning them­selves) is not to be forgotten; Verily, I say unto you, whosoever shall not receive the kingdome of God as a little childe, he shall in no wise enter therein, Mar. 10.15. Luk. 18.17.

Eighthly, Wee are to minde Christs act to these Infants; which was three-fold; (1.) [He] took] them] up] in] his] armes,] 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 esteeme 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 appeare unto you, that you are mistaken in your meaning, and have done very evill, (though you meant never so well) in saying that Christs meaning is not of them, nor of such as them in age, &c.

For indeed, you may as well say, that those were not Infants whom Christ took up in his armes, 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, [Page 96] doe not exclude the persons spoken of, then wee 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 appeare, by observing the declaration of their intention; and likewise Christs great displeasure, or offence given by and taken at his Disciples, because they rebuked those that brought them; He was much displeased (sayth 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 controversie; and may serve for further satisfaction of the doubting soule, that by Sathans deceit, Isa. 53.11. is apt to thinke, that this righteous servant through his know­ledge doth not justifie many Infants, as well as others. Christs double charge unto his Disciples, that the holy infants should have free ac­cesse and admittance unto him, without any let or hindrance, by any; and Christs forcible reason for it, (namely) for (or because) of such is the kingdom of heaven, &c. And then, Christs acts concerning these infants, [that he took them up in his armes, and put his hands upon them, and blessed them] doth further declare, the strength and suffici­encie of mine, (and the weaknesse and insufficiencie of your) interpre­tation.

Seventhly, As without Christs minde, you have taken upon you to deliver Christs meaning, contrary to his owne expressions, mani­festations, and commissions; so you cite, 1 Cor. 14.20. for confirma­tion of your strange restriction of Christs 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 doe erre (and as I in charitie judge) doe not know the Scriptures. It was no part of Pauls doctrine, to speake of holy infants as you doe, 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 speake unto Infants, when he sayth, Brethren, Be not children in understanding, howbeit, in malice be yee children, but in understanding be men. Now who knoweth not but that those Saints, who are capable to act, are to performe acts of obedience unto God: when those Saints, [Page 97] who are not capable to act, are not bounnd so to doe; For (as hath been declared before) God requireth actuall obedience of his people, [so far as they can act] & no further; and so Pauls speech is, not to binde us to impossibilies, but to teach us (who have capabilitie) to exercise the same, to the uttermost of our power, in searching after the my­cries of Christ, & in treasuring up those divine truths, w ^ch are taught us by his Spirit. And this maketh nothing against holy Infants being in the Covenant, or kingdome, no more then it maketh against those aged Saints, who (in respect of a naturall capabilitie) are like children, and know no more then Infants know, nor doe no more then infants doe, and yet doe as much as God requireth; and in respect of a spiri­tuall capabilitie, are like those Saints, who are capable to act, & doe act according to the same; and yet those who want that capabilitie, whether Christian infants, or other Saints, though the graces of Gods Spirit doe not appeare in them, in the blossome, or fruit, yet have they still the sap, and seed of all Christian graces in them.

Even as a man, or childe, 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 Gods Spirit, and cannot shew forth the same in the fruit, or outward manifestation, yet they are not to be esteemed un­gracious (or destitute of Gods grace,) but gracious Saints. And though they be in understanding like children, yet (in respect of their capable­nesse of the Spirit) they are to be esteemed as precious as any men on earth, and wee are not to judge otherwise, but that they shall be glorified, and made equall with the Angels, and be the sonnes of God in heaven.

Now your citation of Pauls words (1 Cor. 14.20. Be not chil­dren in understanding, &c. to confirme what you inferred and col­lected from Christs words concerning Infants,) doth imply, that you doe judge that all those who are like those Infants in yeares or understanding, are not of the kingdome of heaven. And this your in­terpretation bringeth in three absurdities.

First, It directly contradicteth Christs words which he spake 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 vaine and frivolous.

Secondly, Your speech implyeth, that Beleevers infants are not [Page 98] of the kingdome of God; and so their minoritie hindereth their sal­vation, (if they die in their infancie;) and this striketh at the funda­mentall principles of Gods free love unto them in Christ Jesus.

Thirdly, In (implying, that none are of the kingdome of heaven, who are like Infants in understanding,) Here I thinke you bring in a heavie censure against your selfe; for (I suppose) as you know not how soone 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 yeares after) how doe you differ in understanding then from a childe; Surely you are then in understanding like a childe, little babe, or infant; and how then (by your owne exposition) will you answer the Apostle, Be not children in understanding. Surely at the time when you will want both will, skill, and abilitie to act any more then 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 breake their Covenant. And in this declining or declined condition, an aged Saint may (in this respect) be sayd to be as destitute of understanding, as the youngest babe of a beleeving parent. And he may be sayd to be still capable of the Spirit (without being brought in any other covenant then he was in before) though he be not capable to [doe] any spirituall acti­on, by way of manifestation, but God must doe all in him.

Now though there be no difference between these two, in respect of spiritualitie, 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 spirituall sap remaineth, &c. And the considera­tion of this doth teach us, not to despise any of the Lords vessells, either the infants for their minoritie, or the old men for their anti­quitie, or the middle-aged for their bodily imbecilitie, but to esteem of thē as they are, (according as the blessed spirit of God doth teach us, in his sacred Word) though through imperfection, or defection of naturall abilitie, 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 beare out your childish construction of the words of Christ, whereby you would have us judge that he excluded infants; All which is evill in you so to think, much more to speake, and worst of all, in that you would boulster up your opinions by Pauls words, in 1 Cor. 14.20! Which maketh nothing at all for your present purpose, in your restriction and mis-application of Christs words, where you thinke (through the help of Paul (1 Cor. 14.20.) to get some advantage, or plea, to keep back the holy infants of be­leevers from the spirituall blessings, which Christ Jesus hath testified appertaineth unto them, which you thinke did not appertaine to those Infants, which Christ took up in his armes, and layd his hands up­on, and blessed; And why doe you thus conceive? Because it is sayd of [such] & not of [them.] But this word such, will evidently appear, (being duly weighed by the Scripture) to be of a larger extent then 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 equali­zed, or coupled; for such implyeth the same in nature, and condi­tion, &c.

So when Paul writeth to Philemon (Philem 9, 10.) concerning Onessimus, he sayth, Yet for loves sake I rather beseech thee, being [such a one as Paul the aged.] He meaneth himselfe: and when John sayth, Blessed and happie is he that hath part in the first resurrection; for on such the second death shall have no power, &c. Rev. 20.6. He meaneth by [such] those persons who have part in the first resurre­ction. The word [such,] being a generall word, includeth them all. And when Nehemiah sayth, ( Nehe. 6.11.) Should [such] a man as I fly; He meaneth himselfe as much as any other man.

And so when David sayth, Psal. 103.17, 18. The mercy of the Lord is from everlasting to everlasting, upon them that feare him, and his righteousnesse unto childrens 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, &c. Gen. 17. And the keep­ing [Page 100] of his Covenant, consisted then, and consisteth now in the Saints yeelding all obedience unto him, according to their capabilitie. And thus it appeareth that when David sayth 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, w ^ch 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 beleeve that when Christ (in his Gospel) sayth (concerning infants) of such is the kingdome, &c. He meaneth those who are such in every respect; and as it is contrary to reason, so it is contrary to the Scripture, to thinke that the infants in his speech were not implyed & included, if not principally intended.

Lastly, Whereas you say, it is meant of such as them in humilitie, and such like qualifications; I know not from what conception you ground your speech, if not from this consideration, that the infants mentioned heer (in Christs Gospel) have humilitie, and such like qualifications; You should know, that although like, is not alwayes the same, yet the same is the same, & is as like unto it selfe, as that w ^ch is like it in every respect, and therfore Christs speech of Infants, (when he sayth, Of such is the kingdome, &c.) implyeth the infants [as well as other Saints, who are like them in understanding, though they dif­fer in yeares.] I say, Christs speech is not bound up from them, nor from any other Saints, though they are like them in every re­spect. And if they have humilitie, (according to your own grant) then 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 sanctifie them, and renovate them by his Spirit. And seeing they have humilitie, Christ is in them and they in him, and therefore they are new creatures; and the 2 Cor. 5.17. holinesse which accompanieth them (by your own grant) giveth them right to Baptisme. 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) quickneth whom he will, Joh. 5.21. which Spirit maketh intercession for them, when they cannot inter­cede for themselves.

All which priviledges the infants of beleevers have, and though they cannot manifest the same actually, yet we may conclude that [Page 101] eternall life is theirs, and the second death shall have no power over them; Rev. 20.6. they are blessed and happie, having part in the first resurrection; for theirs is the kingdome 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 kingdome, or any of those good things, which are distributed unto them. If the kingdome of heaven should not appertaine unto the infants of beleeving parents, as it hath done here­tofore, then the Scripture is not fulfilled, which sayth, that their children shall be as aforetime; but the Scripture is true, as God himselfe is true, and therefore your words cannot be true. God took the in­fants of beleevers into covenant with him formerly, and admitted them to be members of his visible Church then, and he caused a visi­ble signe Gen. 17.11., and seale Rom. 4.11., of his covenant, & his righteousnesse of faith to be imposed upon them then, and he declared from time to time his deare love, and his tender affection w ^ch 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 beleeving Gentiles, as he was unto the be­leeving Jewes; and he is the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever; And therefore as the infants of beleeving Jewes Gen. 17. & Gentiles Exod. 12.48. were re­ceived with their beleeving parents into the Church of God in former time; So the infants of the beleeving Jewes and Gentiles, are received with their beleeving parents into the Church of God now; and as the other had Circumcision, so these are to have Baptisme, it being gi­ven to all the members of Christs 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 sayth the Lord, Their children shall be as aforetime, and their Congregation shall be established before me, &c. 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 spirituall priviledge (now under the Gospel) which they are capable off, and in particular this of Baptisme, 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 armes, and layd his hands upon them, and blessed Ver. 16. them, [Page 102] 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 Infants supplantation, then 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 beare you out, all the Scripture from the beginning of Genesis to the end of the Revelation, maketh against you; and therefore wee may con­clude against you, that the Infants of beleevers are, (now, as the In­fants of beleevers were, in former time,) even subjects of Gods king­dome Luke 18.16., members of his Church Gen. 17., glorious branches, young sucking-sprigs of his noble Vine Psal. 80.11., holy plants & 128.3., proceeding from those Olive trees, w ^ch are planted in the house of the Lord, and are said to flourish in the Courts of our God & 92.13.; And what man shall root them out, without rooting out himselfe: 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 belee­vers, 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) spake 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 beleevers, 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 naile in a sure place. 24. And he shall be for a glorious throne unto his fa­thers house. And they shall hang upon him all the glory of his fathers house, the off-spring and the issue, all vessels of small quantitie, 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, (sayth he.) So [in Isa. 9.6.] he is called the everlasting Father. Now he that is a father, must be a father of some, & wheras he is called an everlasting father, it sheweth that he is (as the Apostle sayth) 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 [Page 103] 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 Jewes, both young and old, parents and children; and salvation was said to be of the Jewes Joh. 4.22.; Their advantage was much every manner of way, first, be­cause the Oracles of God were Rom. 3.1, 2. (through Christ) cōmitted unto thē; The God of their fathers Exod. 15.2. was their father Jer. 31.9., and was as a nursing Num. 11.12. fa­ther unto them; And the same God is a father now unto the beleeving Jewes and Gentiles, as largely every way as he was then 2 Cor. 6.18.; The same God over all, was Psal. 86.5., and is, rich Rom. 10.12. unto all that call upon him; And though some doe not beleeve, it maketh not the faith of God of none effect no more then the infidelitie of some persons then, for God was still good un­to Israel, [his faithfull Jewes 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 applyed unto Christ Jesus, as is mentioned, in Rev. 3.7. These things sayth 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, &c. Thus through his knowledge this righteous servant is made able to justifie many; & 53.11. to open to whom he will, and to shut out whom he will; but he shutteth not out the infants of beleevers; for he declared, Of such is the king­dome of God.

Fourthly, He sayth, I will fasten him as a nayle in a sure place; Note here, he is said to be fastned as a nayle in a sure place;] A nayle in a sure place, is such a thing, upon which other things have de­pendance, so that if the nayle fall, all those things fall which are upon it; But if the nayle be sure, all those things which hang thereon, are still upheld by the strength thereof. Now the Lord Jesus Christ is this nayle, and he is strong, and powerfull, he is perfect, and pure, no sinne or brittlenesse, was found in him, he was capable to beare the bur­den that was put upon him, and able to beare it. Yea, and much more doth it appeare, in that he is fastned as a nayle in a sure The safenes of holy infants consisteth in the surenes of Jesus Christ; Hee is unto them, as the sure place is unto him, whose choyse burden shall not be taken downe, till the time appoin­ted of the Fa­ther, place, his humanitie is in heaven, and there it is seated and united with his divinitie, and there is his place of rest, and abiding, he is at the right hand of God, bearing us, and yet thinketh not himselfe over-bur­dened; he is able to beare, and doth beare all his holy vessels, both [Page 104] great, and small; even the off-spring, and the issue, the vessels of small quantitie; 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 faithfull, 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 depart 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 fathers house; that is, a resting place, and a place of Judgement Psal. 122.5., & Ju­stice, Righteousnesse is the girdle of his loynes, and faithfulnesse, the girdle of his reines 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 divinitie, in whose name we ought to doe all which we doe; Mat. 18.20. and he hath promised, upon the same, to be in the middest of us, to ratifie 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 starre 28., (even his own selfe 24.16. & 3.21.) unto us, so hath he promised to grant us to sit with him in his throne.

Now he is not sayd to be for a glorious throne unto any, but unto his fathers house, there is this glorious throne set in the middest of this heavenly Regiment, in the middest of his Temple, there is Jesus as a throne or seate; Revel. 4.6.8. yea, further in the middest of the throne, and round about the throne, there are also the foure animalls (said to be) which are full of eyes before and behinde, and rest not neither day nor night, crying, Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almightie, which was, and is, and is to come.

Isa. 22. ver. 24.Sixthly, It is sayd further, And they shall hang upon him all the glory of his fathers house; Here is a weightie sentence, full of substance. This glorious throne, and holy nayle, which is fastned so surely, is done for no sleight intent, but it is for great purpose, (namely) to beare all the glo [...]ie of his fathers house: It is his fathers pleasure to exercise him, in bearing our glory, which is his glory, our brightnesse, which is his brightnesse; (for indeed wee have no comelinesse but from him, and we cannot beare our selves, but he must beare us,) wee are the bur­den, and he is our upholder; he dependeth upon that which will not faile him, and we depend upon him, which will not faile us.

And this Angelicall 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 [Page 105] we shall so do, as he hath sayd; And this institution therefore being not of man, but of God, it will stand, and it being an injunction laid upon us all, that wee must (both young and old) have dependencie upon this nayle, even the Lord Jesus, wee must doe so. Now if wee take this word [shall] prophetically, it being also a declaration of what should happen, (though it now be historicall to us) wee 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 bare them in his armes; A reall signe of his love unto them indeed; And his Saints now doe esteem their Infants, blessed in Jesus Christ, and doe 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 Propheticall and Documentall sentence teacheth us, when it sayth, They shall hang (or cause to relie, or de­pend) upon him, all the glorie of his fathers house; The least glorie must not be left out, but all must be brought in, and layd upon him. He is the object, upon whom they must fix their eyes; He is the nayle, upon which they must fasten them; for so is his Command, Mar. 10.14. Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not, for of such is the kingdome of God. As if he should say; They are the burden which I must beare, because they are part of the furniture of my fathers king­dome. 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 Shep­heard of Israel, and will in no wise cast them away. He sayd, 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 Gods presence) saved them, and in my love and in my pittie redeemed them, and bare them up in mine armes all the dayes of old, so will I beare them now; Therefore, suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not, for of such is the kingdome of God.