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 Suppâ—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 by infants you mean their infants I answer then that wee affirme no such thing as you would â—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 refereÌ„ce 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 Suppâ—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 upoÌ„ 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
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 makâ— 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 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 upoÌ„ 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 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 elâ—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 mâ—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 which 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
unto them as it was unto Abraham And so it was with the Proselytes their seed as with the Jewes and their seed And though this be a most evident truth yet you say it may in no wise be granted that the Covenant is made with all beleevers as with Abraham yea though they have the like spirituall priviledges as Abraham had yet you resolve not to grant it and it is not materiall whether you grant it or no. Now that they are all fathers as Abraham was I will not take upon mee to prove but this I know that they are in the same covenant and have the same spirituall priviledges which Abraham had As for your affirmatton that all these are the seed and the onely seed and children of Abraham For explanation I answer as before that if Noah was Abrahams father Abraham was not his father and therefore Abraham was not the father of all those beleevers that were before he was borne for Noah Abrahams father was a beleever And to this agrees your owne words for you say beleevers are the seed yea all beleevers and onely all beleevers are the onely seed and the seed onely and therefore you may see that Abraham though he were a father yet he was part of the seed for I thinke you will not deny him to be a beleever Whereas you say that if it were otherwise then must they be comprehended Gen. 17.7 8. under the tearme thee and then the rest of the phrase to wit and to thy seed would be in vaine and superfluous which to thinke were very irrationall I answer That this which you have sayd will not stand with reason for you should know that if the covenant did appertaine to Abrahams sâ—ed in no wise as to Abraham then the rest of the phrase to wit and to thy seed would be in vaine and superfluous which to thinke would be very irrationall indeed And the like wee may say concerning Peters application of the promise unto beleevers and their children that if it is bound up onely in the parents then Peter might have rested at those expressions concerning the parents particular persons and onely have sayd thus Act. 2.39 the promise is unto you and not have added these words and to your children Abundance of testimonies of sacred Scripture might be cited where the seed and generation of the faithfull are declared to be in the promise with their parents but this may suffice which hath been spoken that wee may not exclude the holy off-spring and blessed issue of the blessed but whensoever wee happen upon any such place of Scripture where the seed is said to be in the blessing with the parents especially considering that the Scripture affecteth brevitie wee ought then to mind that if the blessing be bound up from the infants in the parents then the words are in vaine and supâ—rfluous where their children seed off-spring and issue are mentioned But seeing that the promise to the seed is not vaine nor superfluous nor ever was it is irrationall to thinke that God is not the same God in extending his grace and mercy to the seed of beleevers as to themselves Next you say Lin. 32. Put the case it be granted them to be fathers as they doe desire to be like to Abraham then must they be fathers of onely such as beleeve and not untill they beleeve for according to the tenor of this new Covenant and in the Gospel sense Abraham himselfe is father of none other nor otherwise Ans Though in some respects we desire to be fathers as Abraham was yet far be it from us to desire to be fathers as he was in every respect You shall not father such a thing upon us Wee desire to be fathers as Abraham was though not in every respect and it is lawfull for us so to do yea our duty not only to desire it but to strive to imitate Abraham in instructing our families and teaching them the way of life according as every one of them is capable to receive instruction But though some of our children doe degenerate as some of Abrahams children did yet it maketh not the promise uneffectuall to the rest no more then it did to the rest of the children of Abraham who wâ—s a father of them in the Gospel sence as wee are fathers of theâ—e our children who abide in our righteous steps And wee are fathers of our own infants otherwise then wee are of the unbeleeving Jewes and Turkes for ours wee know are in the covâ—nant but the other wee know are not untill they doe beleeve But whâ—n they doe beleeve then have they as great priviledges for their infants as Isaac had for his infants And these are as those were and therefore as it was warrantable for those to be sealed then so is it warrantabâ—e fâ—r these to be sealed now But hence you affirme That Publicans and Harlots may be the seed A. R. and have as much right to Baptismâ— as any beleevers seed or as any of Abrahams owne naturall seed for all and every of these must first repent and then be baptized Act. 2.38 Ans If this be forcible against beleevers infants it is of force against themselves and if such a reason could have bin strong against Abrahams infants then against Abraham himselfe for the Heathens then might become converts as well as now Moreover I tell you that it is not to the poynt for us to look what persons may be or may have right unto but what persons are or must be judged to be and what they have right unto and therefore this position of yours is very impertinently brought against Infants right to the covenant or Baptisme especially considering that the infants of beleevers are neither publicans nor harlots nor to be ranked with them or their infants till the publicans and harlots cease to be so and God create in them a new spirit as he doth in the infants of the faithfull and so circumcise their hearts and make them new creatures and give them the same blessing which Christ gave unto the Israelites inâ—ants whom he took up in his armes and imposed his hands upon and blessed Whereas you further adde that Vpon the same tearmes may any yea the most wicked in the world and their seed be baptized Ans It is true that the infants of those who are penitent and in Gods covenant though they were formerly wicked are to be baptized as well as their parents But note this that Baptisme is a confirmation of their being in Covenant as Circumcision was to Abraham and his infants and to the Proselytes and their infants Touching your reason for this which you annex * Pag. 20. at lin 4. to wit that the partition wall is now broken down and that the Gospel knows no difference between any but is to be preached to every creature in the world and so you cite Mar. 16.15 16 Mat. 28.19 Gal 6.15 8.29 I answer That though the former
position be true yet this reason brought to confirme it is impertinent considering that the Proselytes and their infants in former time were received into Gods covenant to whom salvation was not denied then though Christ were not manifested in the flesh nor the Goâ—pâ—l published unto all Nations as now since by Christ it was commanded to be And as for the Scriptures cited by you they make much for beleeving parents and their infants for as much as the application of the Gospel appertaineth unto them all In Mar. 16.15 16. the Gospel is commanded to be preached unto every creature and it is said that Whosoever belâ—eveth and is baptized shall be saved and whosoever beleeveth not shall be damned * When Christ sayth He that beleeveth and is baptized shall be saved He no more intendeth to exclude the infants of the faithfull from Baptisme then from salvation but those that exclude them from the Covenâ—nt doe as much as in them lieth to exclude them from both And in Mat. 28.19 Goe make all Nations Disciples sayth Christ baptizing them As if he should say in former time I bound my selfe to one Nation and published my name unto them but now I stretch forth my hands further that all Nations might be made Disciples and baptized as that one nation of the Jewes were made Disciples and circumcised Now sure as we cannot justly deny the infants to be creatures to whom salvation or damnation appertaineth so we cannot deny but that the Gospel appertaineth unto the infants of beleevers as well as to their parents though they die in their infancie or that the holy infants are Disciples inclusively with their parents as they have been heretofore If then infants are included in the generall Commission as doubtlesse they are then they are not to be excluded but the infants of beleevers are â—dmitted by God to come into the Church with their parents according to the anciâ—nt custome which was very profitable and comfortable and no dishonour to God nor discredit to his cause nor hinderance to his people but a glory unto his house they being his pure vessels which he prized at such a high rate as to send his onely begotten Sonne into the world to take upon him the nature of them and to suffer for them and to make them new creatures such as are mentioned in Gal. 6.15 which availeth with God when neither Circumcision nor uncircumcision doth therefore they are not excluded from the generall Commission Moreover Christ hath declared them to be his by blessing them and testifying that they are of his kâ—ngdome and seeing then that they are Christs they are Abrahams sâ—ed and heires according to promise Gal. 8.29 and have interest into this grace wherein they now are so that they cannot be deprived of their inheritance no more then those who professe faith and doe act that which these Infants have not a naturall capablenesse to doe As touching your demand * Lin 13. which you say is demanded in coole bloud how wee doe become Abrahams seed you have testified what wee will say * Lin. 14 15. which may be stood to without danger namely that wee become Abraham seed onely by faith * Imputatively As for the inference * Lin. 15 16. which you bring upon it that so must our children by the same way wee grant the same it is one of our principles as also that there is as you confesse but one seed and not more in the sence and acceptation of the Gospell Next you say * Pag. 20. at lin 18. They further reason from the equitie of circumcision thus As infants then by Gods allowance received that seale of the covenant so by proportion why not this now of Baptisme And in answer hereunto you rehearse * Lin. 21. Gods commandement to Abraham coÌ„cerning circumcision and say That it was both right equall that Abraham should doe herein as God had commanded him and it had been sinfull for him to have done otherwise more or lesse And so likewise it is right for us to doe as God hath commanded us to doe and no otherwise To which I answer that Gods divine institutions are full of equitie and there is no iniquitie in them nor in any thing which he doth and God not only allowed but strictly commanded Abraham to circumcise and without the command or institution he was not to put the same in execution But when once Circumcision the signe and seale of the righteousnesse of faith was instituted then it was to be administred and this was â—ight and equall and allowed oâ— by God Now it remaineth for you to prove if you can when the substance * Mr. Spilsbery granteth that the matter of Gods worship is not changed at the coÌ„ming of Châ—ist in the flâ—sh See his Tâ—â—â—t Bap. pag. 〈◊〉 lin 15. of this institution was taken away Peradventure you will say that the institution of Baptisme hath put anullitie to the sâ—alâ— I answer That the inlargement of a thing or taking away of the circumstances doth not take away the substance or being of it Wherefore it appeareth that the command for sealing of Infants is not yet abrogated but remaineth still and seeing Baptisme was instituted by Christ in stead of circumcision the infants are to be baptized But yet you question * Lin. 28. Where the institution for baptizing of infants is And my answer is That the Institution for sealing of the infants of the faithfull was given to Abraham and Baptisme being in stead of Circumcision and more generall and it being now the seale they are to be baptized as formerly they were to be circumcised But you say * Lin. 30. That was to circumcise not to baptize that all his males not his females that all borne in his house or bought with money at eight dayes old Ans All this maketh nothing against the baptizing of Infants for the signe and seale of the righteousnesse of faith is not câ—ased but the substance thereof continueth though the outward shadow or element is departed and delivered unto us as it were in another garb And you granted before that the females were implyed in the males And you ought to know that the generalitie of the latter Commission above the former doth plead a specialitie which the Infants have in the latter as well as in the former But you say * Lin. 32. If they ground it from this institution then must they observe it in every thing for so did Abraham who had sinned in doing otherwise in any thing To this I answer That we may well ground this from the institution of that though we are not tyed to observe that in every thing The institution for sealing the infants of the faithfull ought to be observed by us in every thing and though God have altered the circumstances as he hath done in divers other ordinances the substance of which wee have now in the ordinances of the Gospel
seperate famous men and men of renowne amongst the Israelites and yet were chiefe in the rebellion also Nadab and Abihu offerers of strange fire and many more manifested themselves to be evill persons Ans If this be any ground of your prejudicacie against the Church of the Jewes then let this satisfie you that these were free-men at first according to visibilitie as holy as Judas or Simon Magus or Ananias and Saphira And therefore if it be an argument of a false constitution for members of a Church of God to fall from their stedfastnesse then it will follow that the Church now under the Gospel hath not a true constitution seeing that divers fall from their stedfastnesse some for a time like the incestuous person in the Church of Corinth others finally totally and eternally like Judas Iscariot who was one of the Lambs twelve Apostles Let this then be the conclusion that the state may be a state of free-men though some bond-men appeare in it and are cast out as Ishmael the sonne of the bond-woman was cast out of the state of free-men wherein the infants of beleevers were admitted though they were not the seed of Abraham according to the flesh And the consideration of this maketh much for the infants of beleevers now for as much as beleevers even free-mens priviledges are much enlarged since Christs manifestation in the flesh The free-men had this priviledge formerly to bring in their infants and to difference them from those without And surely their priviledges are not lessened now * What had the Infants of beleeving parents done to deserve Excommunication or casting out of the Church If they had don nothing worthy of it as it is sure they had not then I may justly conclude that they were not children of the bond woman and if not of the bond-woman then still of the free-woman and if children of the free-woman then members of the Church and if so then there is no just reason can be given to debarre such holy Infants of their priviledges amongst which Baptisme is one as Circumcision was of old Christ came not to bring losse and dammage to holy infants And if it be true which you say That till Christs coming an heire or beleever differed nothing from a servant If by a servant you mean Ishmael or such as he who manifested themselves to be servants of sinne then why was the son of the bond woman cast out differenced from the sonne of the free-woman But indeed you should minde that Christ came to take the yoake of the Law from the shoulders of beleevers and so to ease them of that servitude under which they were and this doth not impaire the infants of beleevers no not in the least Touching Christs discourse * Lin. 30. which you bring to make your affirmations to appeare evident true It doth evidence that your affirmations in this particular are evident false for Christ sayth no such thing which you faine that he saith for he speaketh to those that did derogate from the steps of Abraham which the beleevers Infants could not justly be said to doe And Christ doth not say that the Church of the Jewes was constituted upon nature flesh carnalitie opposite to the spirit but he sayth that those that continued in his Word they then were his Disciples indeed should know the truth and the truth should make them free not that the Church whereof he and his brethren were members was evilly constituted because evill persons were in it or degenerated from it but that these were members in the Church which had need to amend or else to be cast out See John 8. Their answer to Christ was that they were Abrahams seed and so were free alâ—eadie and were never in bondage to any man But in this they said not true for they had degenerated from the steps of Abraham And Christ in telling them that whosoever committeth sinne is the servant of sinne did therein declare that it was no benefit unto any to be of Abrahams seed if they degenerated from Abrahams steps for this was a means though they were members of the true Church to make them no mâ—mbers of it but to be cast out thence for so sayth Christ unto them the servant abideth not in the house for ever Now by this house is meant his Church in which though sinners abide covertly for a time yet as they manifest themselves to be corrupt and levennous are or at least ought to be cast out Therefore they abide not there for ever So the Jewes were taught by the ceremony of casting away leaven to cast out the leaven of sinne out of their hearts and out of their families and also to purge the Church of God both of sinne and sinners so far as they could discerne by the light of Gods Word But those that were true Saints were to abide in that true Church-state for ever So it is said Psal 15.5 That such shall never be moved out of Gods Tabernacle and holy Mountaine So Christ sayth heer that the Sonne abideth for ever If therefore the Sonne make you free you shall be free indeed By this freedome he meant a freedome from condemnation for ever from the law of sinne and of death for ever because he opposeth it to the bondage they were in Further These persons whom Christ reprehended were not obedient to the new covenant neither did they regard the commandements of the Law for the commandement sayth Thou shalt not kill But Christ sayd unto them I know you are Abrahams seed but yee seek to kill me because my Word hath no place in you c. This wickednesse of theirs was not warranted neither by the new nor old covenant and therefore they were not allowed in any respect but condemned Wherefore it evidently appeareth that you cannot gather from either of the covenants that such visible wicked persons were by God allowed to be in much lesse the ground of his Churches constitution after their discovery These then were not meet to be members of the Church of the Jewes yea though they were the children of Abraham according to the flesh yet by the new and old covenant were to be cast out when the least infant of a faithfull Proselyte remained still a member of the Common-wealth of Israel which was the Church of God Moreover Christ did not affirme any such thing as you would further faine he did thâ—t persons by naturall birth and circumcision of the flesh were admitted free for Ishmalites and Edomites by fleshly generation were the children of Abraham yet they were not therefore admitted free-men till they renounced their parents sinne and came into the Church And the infants of wicked parents were circumcised in Apostacie yet wee will not say that therefore they were free But this wee are to know that the naturall seed of the faithfull that were not apostated or degenerated were to be accounted the true seed and all those who were circumcised
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 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 19 And 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 râ—pâ—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 Mr. Ainsworth * In his Censure upon the Anabaâ—tists Dia â—g pa. 70. lin 19. Have the grace they speakâ—â—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 aâ—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 Eâ—cles 11.5 Which Mr. 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 â—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. mâ—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 graÌ„t that childreÌ„ dying in their infanciâ— 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 â—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 thâ— 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
that is eight soules were saved by water the like figure whereunto Baptisme doth now also save us by the resurrection of Jesus Christ These then being onely figures and allusions cannot serve at all to prove the poynt in hand The Reply That the Text doth declare they were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea is cleare 1 Cor. 10.1 2. And this place doth make directly against particular parts of your Judgement as your denying the Baptisme of Infants to be lawfull affirming it to be onely a meer device and tradition of men brought into the world for politick and by-ends * See A. R. his first booke in the Epistle to the Reader Now here you may see who brought it into the world I will not say God did it for politick or by-ends for then I should be like the Serpent which would have perswaded Eve that God for such by-ends did forbid them to eat of the tree of knowledge of Good and evill thereby to possesse them with this as though God envied their happie estate But wee know that Gods love is not self-love his end was alwayes to doe his people good at their later end and by the baptizing of them in the cloud and the sea he did prophetically demonstrate what should be in the dayes of the Messias and herein aymed not onely at his owne glory but at his peoples comfort See A. R. his Vanitie of Childish Baptisme pag. 9. Secondly This place maketh against your Judgement in your holding and seeking to maintaine a necessitie of plunging the whole man in water in the ordinance of Baptisme for the Apostle sayth They were all baptized in the cloud and in the sea But wee will not say that they were plunged in water or over-whelmed with the water of the Sea for then they would have been like unto the Aegyptians for the Aegyptians were served after this manner * Exod. 14.27 28. Neither will wee affirme as you doe that the Israelites were in the cloud and in the sea dry without declaring what drines we meane for though they went upon dry ground and the waters were a wall unto them on the right hand and on the left * Ver. 22 23. yet wee may collect from the Scriptures that they were baptized * 1 Cor. 10.1 2. Exod. 14.19 Psal 77.15 16 17 18 19 20. with water out of the Cloud or Sea But this Text you labour to shift off by telling us that your question is not of baptizing unto Moses but of baptizing unto Christ by being dipped or buried in water c. And by this it appeareth that you think this Baptisme which the Children of Israel received was not the Baptisme of or unto Christ but meerly a Baptisme unto Moses But you should know that Moses was not such a one as you take him to be for he was faithfull in all his house and brought no innovations into Gods Church The Evangelicall Ordinances and Oracles then were the things of God If then they were the things of God Gods Sonne who was alwayes God with God was then the owner thereof and he being the Angel of Gods presence * Isa 63.8 9. who was with them in the cloud and in the sea when they were Baptized * Exod. 14 19. wee may safely conclude that the Baptisme was his as well as the rest of the Oracles and Ordinances And you should know that though the manner of Baptising then unto Moses and now unto Christ differeth in Circumstances yet the Baptisme is one and the same in substance and therefore the Apostle Paul telleth us they were all Baptized in the cloud and in the sea * 1 Cor. 10.2 and he putteth no other differences between the two Baptismes but that the one is as the other And therefore when we speake of that Baptisme wee cannot but speake of the Baptisme of Christ a Understand heer that I speake of the Baptisme of water for Christ is said by his authoritie to Baptise with water as well as with the holy Ghost fire and so the baptisme of water is his whether before or after his ascension for as the Baptisme of Christ is not the Baptisme of John yet the Baptisme of John was the Baptisme of Christ So though the Baptisme of Christ is not the Baptisme of Moses yet the Baptisme of Moses was the Baptisme of Christ For Moses was faithfull in all his house as a servant for a testimony of those things which were to be spoken afterwards but Christ as a Sonne who was counted worthy of more glory then Moses for he was the builder of the house and therefore is worthy of more honour then the house b Heb. 3.2 3. And seeing they were all baptized unto Moses who was commended for his faithfulnesse c Ver. 5. there is no just reason can be given to debarre the infants of beleevers from Baptisme now or from being baptized unto Christ seeing Christ is worthy of more glory thâ—n Moses and that the Sonnes d Ver. 6. priviledges are no lesse but more then the servants But you bring in exceptions against the baptisme then and so labour to make a disparitie between the baptisme then in the cloud and sea and this baptisme now for you say They were not dipt and then yeeld this reason for they were in the cloud and in the sea drie But I would know of you how long they were drie Surely they might be watered and yet not be dipt There is a Medium between being dipt and being dry Wee reade that the children of Isreal were baptised * 1 Cor. 10.2 but wee doe not reade that they were overwhelmed as the Aegyptians were * Exod. 14.28 But by this it appeareth that the Scripture is of no value unto you unlesse it will agree with your fond opinions for you would argue that because they were not dipped therefore they were not baptised at least not according to Christs institution And afterwards you say Nor was Baptisme then instituted So you have answered your selfe though it be after a writhen manner If Baptisme were not then instituted how could that Baptisme be according to the institution of Christ though they were dipt never so much I hope you will not say that dipping or plunging maketh Baptisme any more to be of Christs institution For then you will say that the Aegyptians were baptized according to Christs institution and not the Israelites But you should know tâ—at the Israelites were not baptized contrary to Christs institution The Angel of Gods presence was with his people then in the cloud and in the sea He was the Instituter Consider then I pray you what want was there of any thing needfull unto Baptisme Ob. 1. Did they want an Instituter Ans They had him with them in the sea Ob. 2. Did they want an Administrater Ans The Instituter could doe it or appoint it to be done by some other besides himselfe
truth therein the conclusion builded thereon that that Baptisme * Pag. 30. l. 15. is Antichristian and abominable is Antichristian and abominable as well as your comparisons specified in your first Book where you compare the Baptisme of Infants with the abominable Hierarchy Against which imprecations I must and will still as I have done maintaine the Baptisme of holy Infants to be just and lawfull holy and Evangelicall and ought to be observed according to the command of Christ Mat 28.19 Mâ—r. 16.16 Of which sufficient hath been spoken before and more may be according as time and occasion shall be offered But your bare affirmations without proofe you take for granted to be very true and therefore upon this ground you proceed to make a finall conclusion of your Booke with this Conclusion A. R. His last Conclusion That the Baptisme of Infants is the greatest delusion and a thing of as dangerous consequence as ever the Man of sinne brought into the world and therefore the greatest maintainers thereof are justly to be esteemed the greatest deluders Wherefoâ—e it is high time for us to look about us to awaken out of thâ— drunken slumber and to see how hitherto wee and our fathers have been blindly led by our blind guides into this depth of ignorance and mist of iniquitie and lâ—t us seek out by what means and by whom wee are so miserably intosticated as to stumble and grope for our way thus even at noone day To which I answer That it is not materiall or sufficient to say it is a delusion except it could be proved to be so you should know that it is not a delusion nor dangerous in the least much lesse can it be the greatest delusion and of as dangerous consequence as ever the Man of sinne brought into the world as you without so much as any just consequence most unjustly conclude rather wee may conclude that the greatest with standers of holy Infants Baptisme are the greatest deluders Wherefore I may better conclude against you that you have done very evill in uttering forth such bitter words against the Baptisme of holy Infants before you had seen the promises better weighed in the Ballance of the Sanctuary And why is it but because you doe not look upon things with a single eye Yea your spirituall sight is so darkened or rather that naturall reason which is in you that in pushing at Gods people you push against God who standeth between you and us though you rideing upon the insufficiency of your humane testimony which will not beare you out see him not no more then blinde Balaam saw the Angel of Jehovah that fought against him But when your eyes are opened then you shall see your errour and be inabled to perceive a difference spiritually between the Infants of beleevers and the Infants of unbeleevers in respect of a visible state and reverence the ordinance of Baptisme administred upon holy Infants for his sake who is the Author and Instituter thereof and no more condemne the generation of the just who practise the same and so kick against the prickes and be a fighter as you are now against God But know that it is no better then sacriledge to father Gods holy Institutions upon the Man of sinne And seing the signe seale of the righteousnes of faith was coÌ„manded by God to be imposed upon the Infants of beleevers we may justly conclude That those are deluded by sinne which say it is a delusion of the Man of sinne but such prejudicate opinions as yours are are the very suggestions of Sathan for with the same carnall reason did he possesse Eve with the like suggestions hath he violently possessed you this being as bad as that it not worse and therefore those who are most active and famous to withstand the Baptisme of holy Infants are if you will have it the greatest and most grossest deluders at least and at the best they are deluded And if you will still determine to hold on as you have done saying that the Baptisme of Infants is a meer device and tradition of man and brought into the world for politick and by-ends c. when it is apparently knowne that God first brought it into the world and his love is not selfe-love neither hath he any other ends but his own glory and the good of his people I say if you hold on in your peremptory conclusion that it is a delusion of the Man of sinne and that the greatest maintainers thereof are justly to be esteemed the greatest deluders I must knowing you to be deluded desire you to awake out of this your drunken slumber and know that in all these your fond imaginations vain conceptions you have brought forth a meer dream When you awake I hope you will not finde it so AND now for conclusion I desire you seriously to consider the Scriptures reasons and arguments brought by mee to vindicate the lawfulnesse of the Baptisme of holy Infants against whatsoever objections you have heer set downe in opposition of this Truth And withall take notice I pray you how that throughout both these your Treatises against Infants baptisme you have not brought one Scripture from whence wee may draw the least consequence for dismissing the holy Infants from being mâ—mbers of Gods visible church or for kâ—â—ping them fâ—oÌ„ Baptisme the visible sign of the new Covenant extant now any more then such holy Infants were exempted in former time from CircumcisioÌ„ the visible sign of the new Covenâ—nt â—xtant then But many yea multiâ—udes of plaine and evident testimonies there are evidently dâ—claring the excellâ—nt benefits which appertaine unto them in Jesus Christ Amongst which Baptisme is one which though it be externall and is not effectuall 〈◊〉 iâ— selfâ— to the salvation of any yet it is a sign or token by which God will have all his visible Saints marked out for the peculiar sheep of his owne pasture And â—f holy Infants were not to be baptized is holy Infants formerly were to be circumcised before Christ was manifested in the flesh then it would argue a great weaknes or imperfection in Christ eclipsing his Mediatorship as if he were not so able to make this as profitable unto these in their infancie as Circumcision was unto the other in their infancie importing as if Christ were not so faithfull in his house as Moses and as if Baptisme were of smaller value and of lesse effect then Circumcision But Baptisme is as generall and as effectuall every manner of way as Circumcision therefore as Circumcision was not worne out from the Infants of beleevers but was so permanent that it remained till Christs first coming and till he took away the Ceremonies of the old Law so Baptisme hath not nor shall not be taken away from these but remaine as permanent with them till Christ who was once an Infant like them come againe in the Clouds of heaven with power and great glory descending with his shouting Troopes of heavenly Hosts When the heavens from above and hell from beneath shall be emptied of those immortall soules and spirits which are therein when your owne eyes shall behold our Emanuel either to your glory or confusion at which time all the dead both small and great Infants as well as others shall be seen to stand before God to be judged Then shall there be a seperation between the precious and the vile when Jesus Christ our sweet Saviour the very beautie of holinesse the brightnesse of his Fathers glory and the expresse image of his person shall invite the blessed babes of beleeving parents together with the rest of his sheep to receive the substance of all his ordinances the accomplishment of all his promises the enjoyment of that glorious and immortall estate that ununchangeable and perpetuall supreame inheritance which shall never be worne out or taken away but remaine from everlasting to everlasting FINIS
A CHRISTIAN PLEA FOR INFANTS BAPTISME OR A CONFVTATION OF some things written by A. R. in his Treatise entituled The second part of the vanitie and Childishnesse of Infants BAPTISME In the Answer whereof The lawfulnesse of Infants Baptisme is defended and the Arguments against it disproved by sufficient grounds and forcible reasons drawn from the sweet fountains of holy Scripture S. C. Deut. 4.37 Because he loved thy fathers therefore he chose their seed Jer. 30.20 Their Children also shall be as aforetime Isa 65.23 They shall not labour in vaine nor bring forth in feare for they are the seed of the Blessed of the Lord and their off-spring with them Acts 2.39 The promise is unto you and to your Children and to all that are a far off even as many as the Lord our God shall call LONDON Printed by T. P. and M. S. and are to be sold by Ben. Allen in Popes-head-Alley 1643. A CONFVTATION OF SOME things written by A. R. in hâ—s Treatise intituled The second part of the vanitie and Childishnesse of Infants Baptisme In the Answer whereof The lawfulnesse of Infants Baptisme is defended and the Arguments against it disproved by sufficient grounds and forcible reasons drawn from the sweet fountains of holy Scripture Mr. ARS YOur former Treatise 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 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 coÌ„demns 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
Esayâ—s sayth There shall be a root of Jesse and he that shall rise to reigne oâ—er the Gentiles and in him shall the Gentiles trust And David saith in Psal 22 28 29 31. All the ends of the earth shall remember and turne to Jehovah and all families of the Heathens shall do worship before thâ—e for to Jehoâ—ah partaines the kingdâ—me and he is Ruler among the Naâ—ions c. A sâ—ed shall serve him it shall be accounted to the Lord fâ—r a generation Observe how the Scriptures here doe set forth the excellent benâ—fits which appertain to aâ—â— the Saints in generall and to the holy families in particular under the flourishing time of the Gospel Here is great occasion for the â—aints to glorifiâ— 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-priâ—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 mâ—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 a Gen. 12.3 Gal. 3.8.14 and his posteritie accounting of them before him as a holy generation b Psal 22.30 1 Cor. 7.14 1 Pet. 2.9 Rev. 1.5 6. Isa 19.18 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 c 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 d Gal. 3.28 Abrahams seed like Zacheus e Ver. 29. Luk. 19. and heires according to promise f Gal. 3.29 fellow-heires and of the same body and partakers of his promise by the Gospel g Eph 3.6 The children of the promisâ— as Isaac was h Gal 4 28. Blessed with their faithfull father Abraham i Gal. 3.9 grafted into the same stocke and olive tree and root from whence the unbeleeving Jewes for unbeliefe were cut off k 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 l 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 m 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 Circumcisioâ— that passive Ordinance which was no more passive then this and was the forerunner of this and both that and this being in one generalâ— institution and one and the same in effect n 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 o Act. 16.15 1 Cor 1 16.33 never once make mention of the exempting of any of their infants though it be a matter of so great concernment how then shall we reject them And considering that in the Scripture by the speech of an house 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 circumâ—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 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
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 persoÌ„ 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 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 Lâ—â— 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 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 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
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 distinctioÌ„ 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 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 infanciâ— when Seth was borne shee did not say God hath sent moâ— 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 ratheâ— 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 leâ—ving yoak fellowes are sanctified by them for this end Else were their 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 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
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 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 a Gal. 3.7 and that the children of the promise are counted for the seed b Gal. 4.28 and that Isack was a childe of promise in his infancie c Ver. 28 29 30 31. And that faith and works are different things d Rom. 4.2.4 And therefore though the holy children of beleevers cannot work yet the Lord imputeth righteousnesse unto them e Psal 32.1 2. Rom. 4.6 Gen. 17.11 Rom. 4.11 without works And yet we are to minde f Phil. 2.12 that the Lord would not have his people to cease from working and to be idle so long as they are able to 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 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 which 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
Exod. 12.48 Baptisme is to us as Circumcisâ—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 lâ—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 that this Author whom you call Mr. Daniel Rogers should produce Scripture for the Baptisme of Infants while he is as he saith himself unconvinced of it by demonstratioÌ„ 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 câ—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 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 infaÌ„ts 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
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 Gâ—n 17.7 8. which declareth that God will be their God Secondly The Apostle doth not say that the unbeleâ—viâ—â— â—â—â—band or wife sanctifieth the beleeving husband or wife but the â—â—â—â—leeving wife is sanctified in the beleeving husband and the unbeleeving husband in the beleeving wife that is to say in consideration that â—â—e is hâ— 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 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 Apâ—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 holinâ—ssâ— in relation to the covenant and Church of God Sixthly It evidently appeareth from the Apostles words that wee may safely coÌ„clude 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 yokâ—fellow Therfore the childeren of one or both beleeving parents are hâ—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 suâ—h a collection as you have here to wit that he meaneth tâ—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 meâ—neth such a holinesse which you speake of we may not in reason conclude but the contrarie as hath been observed before naâ—ely that the Apâ—stlâ— meaneth a holinesse directly opposite to thâ—◠〈…〉 spoken of 2 Cor. 6.17 And also in this place 1 Câ—â— 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 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 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 lâ—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 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 Vniversall 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 theÌ„ 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 upoÌ„ 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 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 cast-away 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 begotteÌ„ 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 Vriah 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
and full of wisdome and abound in sense you would heare hâ—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 argumeÌ„ts 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 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 unreasonablenessâ— 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 Mr. A. R. I challenge you and all that take your part in opposing Infants to bring me one instance in all the Scripture where persons are spoken of and where it is 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 whicâ— 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 thâ— kingdomâ— of heaven Fourthly If Christ had sayd Of them â—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 theÌ„ to be elected saith in particular Of them is the kingdom c. But 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 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 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 which 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 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 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 which doth still include both the former the later in the specification thereof But this may suffice for in the mouth of two or three witnesses every thing is established This still giveth us more ground to 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 which 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
the Chariot wheeles of the Aegyptians sticking in the mire to fall off and hinder their pursuit Psal 77.16 c. After this the Apostle taught by Gods Spirit manifesteth the mysterie which before was kept secret namely how this passage under the cloud which rained and through the sea was a baptisme to the Israelites even as Christian mens washings in rivers or vessels was a baptisme to them And as the Manna which Israel eat and water from the rock which they dranke was the same spirituall meat and drinke which wee have signified by bread and wine in the Lords Supper so their washing in the cloud and sea and our washing in vessels or rivers is spiritually the same baptisme from hence we gather the baptizing of our Infants by two Arguments 1. All our fathers sayth Paul were baptized in the cloud and sea therefore say wee Infants for seeing there was no other baptisme but that in the cloud and sea such of our fathers as then were Infants were at that time baptized or else many of our fathers even all the infants of many thousand families were never baptized which is contrary to the Apostles doctrine And if Infants had baptisme under Moses it cannot be denied them under Christ 2. In that the Apostle teacheth us that the extraordinary and temporary sacraments or seales of salvation which Israel had were the substance and truth which wee now have though Moses doth not so expresse It followeth upon like ground that their ordinary seales namely Circumcision and the Passeover were the same in truth and substance with baptisme and the Lords Supper which wee now have and being the same As Infants had Circumcision then so they are to have baptisme now Secondly Whereas they say that of Moses was called baptisme by comparison as if it were not properly baptisme they swarve from the right way it was as truly and properly baptisme to them as ours is to us though the manner of administration differ even as their Manna and water were as truly and properly the Sacrament of Christs body and bloud to them as bread and wine in the Lords Supper are to us Otherwise the Apostle should not say truly that they were the same 1 Cor. 10.3 4. Thirdly Noahs Arke is not called the figure of baptisme as these corrupters of Scripture tell us but baptisme sayth the Apostle is a like figure or antitype 1 Pet. 3.21 So that the saving by water of eight then in the Arke was a type or figure and the saving of a few now by water in baptisme is an antitype or like figure both of them figuring salvation by the death of Christ Fourthly Neither doe these men set downe the reason fully and rightly why they are sayd to be baptized namely because the cloud and sea was their safetie as Noahs Arke was for though it may in some sense be granted that these were their safetie as baptisme is our safetie for it is said to save us 1 Pet. 3.21 yet properly they are sayd to be baptized in the cloud and sea because they were in them sacramentally washed from their sinnes and planted together in the likenesse of his death buriall and resurrection as wee are now by baptisme Rom. 6.3 4 5. The cloud served them for three uses 1. To protect and keep them safe Isa 4.5.6 2. To guide them in the way that they should goe Numb 9.17 c. Exod. 14.21 And these two were ordinary 3. To baptize them by powring downe water and this was extraordinary and but one time in the red Sea for ought wee finde And in this respect Paul sayth they were baptized in it Fifthly Their last speech of injoyning infants to suffer persecution as well as to baptize them is spoken with a wry mouth for as we injoyne not Infants to be baptized though we baptize them so can wee not enjoyne them to suffer persecution But this wee say and know as Infants are baptized into Christ so oftentimes they suffer persecution for Christ being with their parents afflicted imprisoned banished c. yea and bereaved of life it selfe so that they have even the baptisme of bloud or martyrdome also Thus you may see that there hath been long agoe a large and sufficient Answer made unto this Answer of the Anabaptists of old which is even one and the same with yours Thus much for reply to your Answer to the third objection As touching the fourth fifth objection the charitable construction being set aside I except against them both but especially the fourth that the outward baptisme is not needful to him that hath the * Pag. 17. lin 8. other And so for the fifth objection * Lin. 19. which is that Baptisme is nothing though it may beare a charitable construction yet if any conceive Baptisme is nothing as it is an ordinance of God they erre Neither doe I know any one amongst all the Seperation that holdeth Baptisme to be nothing but they reverence it as an ordinance of God It is true as you have granted in answering hereof * Lin. 26. Christian Reader See Mr. Henry Barow one of the three Martyrs in Q Elizabeths time his discovery of the false Church for there he treateth on this particular poynt at large and reproveth the scholasticall partie who did labour to perswade the Queen that seeing her Majestie had the inward Baptisme and had done many works of mercy and pietâ—e that therfore shee might rest her selfe satisfied whether shee had the outward baptisme or no On the other hand the Romanistâ— said that shee must count the Church of Rome a true Church or else denie her Baptisme But these were deceived and did not consider how that Gods ordinance is his ordinance though in the depth of Apostacie See the Ans to your fiâ—st Treatise That in some sence Baptisme is nothing even no more was Circumcision in former time yet as it was Gods holy ordinance it was to be regarded as a thing of great concernment and was not worne out then though in the middest of Antichristianisme or Apostasie So Baptisme now being no lesse durable though more generall then Circumcision was nor lesse honourable it ought not to be rejected but regarded and the reverent receivers of it respected and the contemners of it reproved and condemned Take notice heer how that in pursuing after these scattering Objections * In Pag. 14 15. 17. you have strangely varied from the poynt concerning Infants and so have shot at rovers Therefore I would have you for order sake to observe what hath been set downe by me to prove the lawfulnesse of the Baptisme of holy Infants against all your objections which you have set downe unto this period all which I leave to the consideration of you and the observation others and so proceed to answer the next which followeth BVt say you * Pag. 18. at lin 2. their fifth and maine Argument is yet behinde from the Covenant which God made with
he the same priviledges in respect of the new covenant as Abraham had I will not say that Abraham had the same outward temporall priviledges which Noah had for Noah was the father of all Nations according to the flesh though not the father of Caine or those before him neither will I say that Jacob or Isaac had the same outward temporall priviledges in every respect as Abraham had for Abraham was the father of the Ismaelites and Edomitâ—s after the flesh And yet this doth not prove that every beleever upon his beleeving doth become a father of the faithfull no more then Isaac who was a father of the faithfull as well as Abraham And seeing your demand * Lin. 35. Where any seed are if all be fathers is grounded upon an if or supposition that all are fathers let it be a supposition still and so upon this ground when you bring suppâ—sâ—tions without distinctions builded upon your own imaginationâ— and prosecuted with such groundlesse cavillations you may expect that your building will fall to the ground as this doth Lin. 36 37 38 39. To your affirmation That their seed and their seeds-seed are all members of the Church and to be accounted faithfull and so to be all fathers of the faithfull as well as Abraham from generation to generation to the worlds end I answer That the infants of the faithfull are all members of the Church and they are not to be accounted unfaithfull though they die in their infancie And seeing Gods kingdome belongeth unto them though they have no children â—or are fathers of the faithfull 〈◊〉 Abrahams was yet they have the same precious priviledges as Abrahams infants had So that they are to be esteemed now tâ— be the sons of God and yet it is not manifested whaâ— they shall be when their terrestriall bodies being made like the glorious body of their sweet Saviour shall 〈◊〉 celestially in the kingdome of Eterniâ—â—â— Next you would make us beleeve that you will expresse your selfe more plainly Lin. 40. and in the intrim you promise this truth That there is now no difference between any circumcision or uncircumcision Pag. 19. lin 1 2. Jew or Gentile bond or free male or female but all are one in Christ Jesus Gal. 3.28 And to this I answer that Gal. 3.28 doth not prove that you have performed what you promised and called a truth for as you have layd it downe it is an untruth namely that there is no difference between any Circumcision or uncircumcision c. In this you have done evill and in fathering it upon the Apostle Paul you have done worse for Paul is no patron of this opinion it was no part of his doctrine that there is no difference between any Circumcision or uncircumcision c. But he putteth a manifest difference between Circumcision of the heart and Circumcision of the flesh as also between Jew and Jew namely he that is a Jew outwardly onely Rom 2.28 29. and he that is a Jew inwardly as also he putteth a difference between Gentile and Gentile namely an unbeleeving Gentile and a beleeving Gentile So that Paul maketh the beleeving Gentiles and the beleeving Jewes all one in Christ and not beleevers and unbeleevers all one in Christ for he applieth his speech to the Saints onely So that it appeareth you have quitemistaken the Apostle yea there is no Scripture which will beare you out in this your absurd affirmation And now I will come to what you call your plaine expression which is that If every beleever by his beleeving doth become a father of the faithfull as well as Abraham A. R. Pag. 19. at lin 3. then it must be at the very instant of his beleeving that he doth become a father of the faithfull as well as Abraham and if so where then will be any children to all these fathers for none can be children before they be faithfull and also at the same instant cease to be chilâ—â—en and become fathers which implyes a flat contradiction and then how â—an Abraham himselfe be father of all beleevers Rom. 4.11 12. Answ Who doth affirme that every beleever doth immediately become a father That which you say implyeth a flat contradiction Pag 19. lin 7. I thinke is builded but upon a supposition of your owne Isaacs fatherhood made him not cease to be Abrahams child no more then our fatherhood doth make us cease to be his Children as if they should affirme that beleevers upon their beleeving at the same instant cease to be children and become fathers And then upon this you aske how Abraham himselfe can then be father of all beleevers Which interrogation of yours implyeth rather a flat contradiction of the Scriptures of God as if Abraham was not both sonne and father 1. A sonne of Noah he was as wee are the sonnes of Abraham by faith in Christ 2. A father of the faithfull he was also So that Abraham was both a sonne and a father You doe not explaine your selfe * Lin. 9. when you aske how Abraham himselfe then can be father of all beleevers for you may know that Noah was father of more beleevers then Abraham Noah himselfe was a beleever before Abraham And if Abraham was not his father then he was not a father of all beleevers who went before him But it may be you meane by all beleevers all that came after Abraham and walked in his steps for if you mean by all belâ—evers all that ever have been are or shall be then by your owne ground there were no beleevers before Abraham was a father or else you must confesse that Abraham was not a father of them But theâ—e were beleevers before Abraham was borne and bâ—leevers there were and are after him therefore Abraham was and is both a father of some beleevers and a childe of other beleevers as wee are the children of him if wee derogate not from his steps and are the fathers of our posteritie after the flesh who doe not aberate from Gods commandements Next you say Or how can the promise be sure unto all the seed if beleevers childrâ—n be the seed for they will not affirme that all their children are saved But this is affirmed of all the seed to whom the promise is made Rom. 4.16 Heb. 6.16 17. Ans You thinke if beleevers children be the seed the promise cannot be sure to all the seed and why is this your reason is for th y will affirme that all their children are not saved But if this be a sufficient reason to prove infants not to be in the promise then it will prove that their parents are not in the promise nor any other and so upon this ground you must baptize none at all nor judge any to be in the promise though they professe faith never so much sith that many who are members and make a verball profession and ought to be baptized by Christs rule fall back like Judas
see his Treat of Bap. pag. 20. lin 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14. consisted all of visible Saints Deut. 29.18 to be câ—rrupt For the like you said before in your book p. 4 That they stood meerly upon nature and circumcision of the flâ—sh not by faith and circumcision of the heart And here you oppose this nature unto grace the naturall seed unto the spirituall seed And thus it appeareth that you hold neither the matter nor forme of the Church to be spirituall then nor the persons graciâ—us but ungracious fleshly and carnall But the Scripture teacheth us that they were a holy nation and a peculiar people unto the Lord their God and so excellent that none were like unto them Great advantage had they every manner of way Vnto them was committed the Oracles of God And shall wee thinke that God committed his Oracles to a Church which had a carnall constitution or that he owned such for his holy peculiar people God made an everlasting covenant with Abraham that he would be a God unto him and his seed for ever And though the Law was added because of transgression yet it could not disanull the covenant and therefore not the Church or people of the covenant or the seale of the promise Now surely if that the Church had been constituted upon nature corrupted such as you have opposed to grace and upon the naturall not upon the spirituall seed * See before in this Treatise pag. 29 30 31. For there it is answered at large then there was no difference between the Israelites and the Heathens and then was the Church of Israel no communion of Saints but a mixt multitude which to thinke is very erronious as may appeare by these Scriptures Exod. 19.5 6. 22.31 12.48 49. Num. 9.14 15.15 Levit. 19.2 20.7 8. Deut. 7.6 14.1 2. 26.18 19. 1 King 8.53 Deut. 4.20 29.10 11 12 13. 10.15 Psal 147.14 But from this your groundlesse affirmation you would through an inference make another disparitie between the Church of the Jewes and the Church of the Gentiles You say That was therefore termed Israel according to the flesh and of the circumcision of the flesh this Israel according to the Spirit and of the circumcision of the heart Rom. 8 28.29 Rom. 9.6 7 8. Coll. 2.11 And to this I answer That your speech doth here import as if none who were Israel according to the flesh were Israelites according to the spirit but the Apostle sayth All are not Israel that are of Israel He maketh a manifest difference between Israel the Church of God and those who were not really Israelites though they came of Israels loynes according to the flesh But your speech crosseth the Apostles speech and tendeth to prove that all were Israel that were of Israel But what will you say to the Proselytes and their seed Were they Israel according to the flâ—sh Surely they were not therefore they were Israelites according to the spirit As well as others who were also Israelites both according to the spirit and flesh Moreover None were to be circumcised externally in the flesh but those who were in Gods covenant and were circumcised in heart so farre as mâ—n could discerne and those that were in Gods covenant were Israelites spiritually and so to be esteemed even as true members of the Church So David sayth Yet surely God is good unto Israel unto those that are pure in heart Deut. 30.6 Circumcision of the flesh sealed unto them the circumcision of the heart and this God promised both to them and their seed and then both male and female were all one in Christ * Exod 12.48 49. Num. 9.14 15.14 15 16. and so they are now ** Gal. 3.28 As for the Scriptures Rom. 2.28 29. Rom. 9.6 7 8 Coll. 2.11 which you cite they make nothing for your present purpose to prove That that was onely called Israel according to the flesh and the other onely according to the spirit The one constituted upon that nature which you have opposed to grace upon the naturall seed destitute of the spirit the other constituted on grace without nature and the spirituall seed of Abraham without the naturall seed Prove this and then you say something else it is nothing to your purpose But indeed the substance of what you say heer is answered at large in this Treatise pag. 29 30 31 32 33. And now I will proceed to examine the Scriptures which you have cited heer for confirmation of these your opinions As touching Rom 2.28 29. there the Apostle declareth who are the true Jewes indeed namely those that are Jewes inwardly and that the true Circumcision indeed is that of the heart in the spirit not in the letter whose praise is of God c. Now will you reason from this place that those who were the naturall seed not degenerating were not the spirituall seed and that because God accepted of the infants with their parents and commanded them to be circumcised that therefore the Church-state was built upon nature and not upon Christ Surely you cannot gather any such thing from the Apostles words in Rom. 2.28 29. nor from any other place of Scripture but rather the contrary Yea the Apostle in the following Chapter declareth that as for the advantage of the Jew and the profit of circumcision it was much every manner of way chiefly because that unto them were committed the Oracles of God For sayth he what if some did not beleeve shall their unbeliefe make the faith of God without effect God forbid And so he concludeth that both Jewes and Gentiles are justified by faith Seeing it is one God which shall justifie the circumcision by faith and the uncircumcision through faith Doe wee then make voyd the Law through faith sayth he God forbid yea wee establish the Law And in the fourth Chapter Paul treateth of justification by faith without workes and expoundeth Davids speech for whereas David sayth * Psal 32.1 2. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord imputeth not sinne and in whose spirit there is no guile Paul explaineth it thus Blessed is the man to whom the Lord imputeth righteousnesse without works From which places of Scripture much may be gathered against those who denie infants to have faith imputatively for the Apostle declareth that he to whom the Lord imputeth not sinne is a righteous person Now every person is either righteous or unrighteous for as righteousnesse is not imputed unto those to whom sinne is imputed So those whose iniquities are pardoned and their sinne covered the Lord imputing no sinne unto them he imputeth righteousnesse unto them without workes and this righteousnesse is that which justifieth before God It was faith which was counted unto Abraham for righteousnesse And so he proceedeth in the 9th 10th and 11th verses to prove that this blessing or blessednesse came not onely upon the circumcision but also upon
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 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 a Deut. 7.6 and peculiar b 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 c 29.18 32.9.12 Esay 5.1 2. but were a people called d 41.1 2. 43.1.7 Mat. 12.2.13 and separated e Ps 135.4 148.14 125.2 Deut. 33.29 14.1 2 from other Nations God brought them out of Egypt f Ex. 12.41.42 and baptized them in the cloud and in the sea g 1 Cor. 10.1 2 and went before them by day in a pillar of cloud and by night in a pillar of fire h Ex. 13.21 22 and at the great and victorious deliverance which they had over the Egyptians they beleeved his Words and sang his praise i Ex 15.1 Ps 106.12 then God led them through the wildernesse k Ex. 15.22 and made the bitter waters sweet for them l ver 25. that they might trust in him who healed them m v. 26. and he fed them with Manna which neither they nor their fathers knew to the intent that they might know that man could not live by bread only but by every word of God n Deut. 8.3 and he made the flinty rock a fountain of waters o Ps 114.8 Num. 20.8.11 that they thereby might quench their thirst Yea The Lord came from mount Synay and 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 p Deut 33.2 3 they were therefore to trust stedfastly in God the sword of their excellencie q ver 29. and to look continually for eternall life of him and cleave unto him r 10.20 who was their life and the length of their dayes ſ 30.19 20. whom they were commanded to fear and to love and to serve with all their heart and with all their soule t Deut. 10.12 so the Lord was with them they with him and as he had commanded them so they were still to be a holy people to the Lord their God even as he was holy u Levit. 11.44 19.2 20.7 By all which it 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 a See Cant. and the Covenant b Rev. 21.3 which they had c Gal. 3.16 17. the Covenant of Christ so the Commandement d Deut. 30.11.12 13 14. Rom. 10.6 7 8 9 10. or word which was not hid from them was the Gospel which they were not to 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 e Deut. 10.15 and peculiar people f Cap. 14.2 his beloved ones g Cap 7.7.8 to whose seed he promised life as to themselves h Cap. 30.19.20 whose hearts he promised to circumcise as also the hearts of their seed i Deut 30.6 as he hath promised to his people in the last dayes which thing