circumcision of the flesh was to teach them it being the signe k Gen 17.11 and seal l Rom. 4 11. Col. 2.11 12. of the righteousnesse of faith as baptisme is now And this you may minde also that though the rebellious seed of Abraham according to the flesh were rejected m Esay 2.6.9 yet the strangers that joyned to the Lord were still received n Esay 56.3 4 5 6 7 8. wherefore this is a plain evidence that they stood by the grace and life of God and Christ and circumcision of the heart for the cause why God rejected some of the circumcised seed of Abraham according to the flesh was because they were uncircumcised in heart o Ier. 9.25 26. and therefore the Lord threatned to visite them and did visit them with the uncircumcised in flesh Wherefore it appeareth that without faith and circumcision of the heart they could not stand at all And the Scripture saith that the unbeleeving Jewes were cut off for unbeliefe and that those that stand doe stand by faith and therefore are admonished not to be high minded but fear p Rom. 11.20 and take heed q v 21. and continue in the beautifulnesse of God r v. 22. and that the unbeleeving Jewes also if they abide not in unbeliefe shall be grafted in again Å¿ v. 23. Wherefore it appeareth that as unbeliefe was the cause why the unbeleeving Jewes were cut off from the olive tree whereon they were so unbeliefe was the bar which kept them off for if they abide not in unbeliefe they shall be grafted in again and this proveth that their standing was never to be otherwise but by faith and circumcision of the heart Neither are we to thinke that the giving of the Law at mount Sinai or the ceremonies which the Jewes then had to lead them to Christ or any of Gods Oracles being committed unto them or any persons groundlesse departing from the State doth argue that the constitution of the same Church was as you would have it taken to be Neither did their circumcision of the flesh argue that they stood not by faith and circumcision of the heart no more then the outward baptisme doth now argue that the Saints now stand not by faith and the inward baptisme of the heart and spirit but meerly upon nature and baptisme of the flesh But you should know that as it is not possible to please God now without faith * Heb. 11.6 no more was it then * Psal 50.18 In the time of the Law God abhorred his own Ordinances if they were not done in faith * Isa 1.13 14. And as faith gave Abraham the denomination of Gods friend the righteousnesse of which faith Circumcision was a seal * Rom. 4.11 so none were ever esteemed as the holy people the sonnes and daughters and friends of God but those that were made nigh unto him by the promise of Christ and by faith and circumcision of the heart And you should know that the Jewes had not outward spirituall holinesse visibly imputed unto them meerly because they were the children of Abraham but because Abraham their Father and they his children were the children of God and their childrens children were in Covenant and so they were the children of the promise as Isaack was and blessed with their Father Abraham And this may further appeare unto you because when any of the seed of Abraham according to the flesh did degenerate their rejection was not for or because that they were the children of Abraham but because they had taken upon them the image of Satan and so degenerated from the steps of Abraham and thereby became the children of Belial And as we may say concerning these Hebrews so we may say concerning the Heathens when any of the Gentiles or Heathens became Prosolites their childeren that were at yeares of discretion were not to be circumcised unlesse they were willing to enter into covenant with God and to take upon them the Lords yoake and fight under his banner Howbeit whether they were circumcised or not they were still the Prosolytes children according to the flesh But concerning the infants of the Prosolytes there was no questioning of them they were to be circumcised being in the covenant with their parents and yet not circumcised because they were their childeren by nature but because they were in the same covenant with their holy parents and so they were the childeren of God by his free Grace And the Scripture doth evidently declare that none were to be admitted into the Church of the Jewes but believing Hebrews and Prosolytes and their holy seed By all this it apeareth that the members of the Jewes state had a spirituall holinesse upon them and stood no otherwise but by faith and circumcision of the heart And were not as those who were neither beleeving Jewes nor Prosolytes Aliens from the Common-wealth of Israel without hope without God in the world without Christ and strangers from the covenants of promise But the Church of the Jewes the Lorâ—s peculiar people were made nigh unto God by the blooâ— of Jesus Christ which was then to be shed and is now shed for the remission of their sins and their reconciliation to God the father and his blessed spirit And whereas you say that the state or Church of the Jews is abollished I tell you I am not bound to beleeve that God abollished his Chuâ—ch state whereof David Solomon Hezekias Josias and the holy Prophets and righteous men were members such a Church at the constitution whereof there was no prophane person to be admitted or any root beating gall or wormwood to be suffered but if you thinke that God changed the state in the daies of the Messias his manifestation in the flesh and made it more glorious Even as the Moone is said to be changed when shee hath run her course but remaineth still the same Moone though more glorious then before this I would rather beleeve then that And touching your speech of the abolishing of the other things If you mean an abolishing of all the beggarly rudiments taking away the Elimentish part of some Ordinances and planting other materialls in stead thereof then I grant it But be sure that you stick to this that Christ came not to deceive the Infants of beleeving parents to take away the substance of the Ordinances but rather the yoakes which cleaved thereunto which circumstantiall things he nayled to his Crosse in token that those who rightly and truely enjoyed them before were now benefited without them and were to have through a generall distribution an equall proportionable share and right to whatsoever came in stead thereof Now let us consider that if the infants of beleevers members of the Church of the Jews were not then aliens from the Common wealth of Israel nor without hope nor without God in the world They were not then without Christ neither were they Strangers from the Covenants
this see his treatise of bapt p. 11. and having their spirituall priviledges as they have had heretofore Consider throughly the words of Peter how at the very preaching the Gospel of Repentance to the parents in the application thereof he did not barre out but expresly mentioneth their children and if wee doe but seriously weigh the Text and compare it with other places of Scripture which set forth the blessednes of the children with the parents we may well conceive that it is meant of holy infants as hath been formerly observed And as I plead for none to be baptized before they doe beleeve so I plead for none to have the Gospel applyed unto them before they have faith by imputation and that is to be judged by some visible rule out of Gods Word But the infants of beleevers have faith by imputatioÌ„ as is proved before therefore in this consideration they are beleevers holy and spirituall a 1 Cor. 7.14 and therefore the Gospel may be lawfully applyed unto them b Mar. 10 13 16. Mat. 19.13 14 15. Luk. 18.15 16 17 See Luk. 1.76 and What letteth water that these may not be baptized which have received the holy Spirit as well as wee c Acts 10.47 As for actuall profession or verball demonstration of faith God hath not required the children of beleevers to performe in their owne persons in the time of their infancie which thing though they are not able to doe yet they are in the faith of Christ and shall certainly be saved though they die in their infancie for God will be no more wanting unto them then to their parents d Isa 22.24 Heb. 13.8 It is to be minded that God baptizing e 1 Cor. 10.1 2 many families f Ex. 12.21.37.41 Ps 77.17 19 20 did not exempt such children from the parents but baptized those persons that passed through the Sea both men women and children young and old And so in the middest of their afflictions by this Oracle gave these faithfull g Heb. 11.29 persons a glimpse of that which should be in the dayes of the Messias where one element and passive ordinance should be generall for all his precious Saints both young and old So the Apostles baptizing many families did not omit their infants neither can wee finde in all the New Testament that ever the infants of the faithfull are exempted in expresse words nor can it be gathered by necessary consequence The Apostle Peter maketh the Baptisme in the Arke equivolent with our Baptisme now a 1 Pet 3.20 21. And Paul declared that he would not have the beleeving Corinthians ignorant * 1 Cor. 10.1 2 that God baptized his Church then which consisted of many families in which there were many infants who were the approoved subjects of Circumcision b Exod. 12.48 Jos 5.2 5 7. and of that Baptisme then And therfore Baptisme now being a generall ordinance yea and alwayes more generall in the administration then Circumcision ever was yea and it being given to all the visible members of Christs body c Mat. 28.19 Mar. 16.16 amongst whom the infants of beleeving parents are no small number d Zach. 8.5 Luke 18.15 16 17. Isa 22.24 they ought to be baptized both male and female thereby to set forth the excellent benefits which they have by Christ A. R. A Third argument of theirs say you is from 1 Cor. 7.14 where it is said Else were your Children uncleane but now are they holy Pag. 3. l. 39 to pag. 4. l. 3. Whence you say they thus reason If the Children of beleeving parents be holy that is to say in the new Covenant then they may have the seales of the Covenant and be baptized To which I adde this argument both for explanation and confirmation of the former All those persons whom wee ought to judge to have the invisible Seale even the holy Spirit of promise Eph. 1.13 ought to be esteemed spiritually holy and in the new Covenant and ought to be baptized * Act. 10.47 Mat. 28.18 19 Mar. 16.15 16 Act. 10.47 But the infants of one or both beleeving parents ought to be esteemed to have the invisible Seale even the holy Spirit of promise * 1 Cor. 7.13 14. Exod. 12.48 Luke 18.15 16 17. John 3.5 A. R. 1 Cor. 7.13 14. Therefore the infants of one or both beleeving parents ought to be judged spiritually holy and in the new Covenant and ought to be baptized Your Reasons that they are not in the new Covenant are * Pag. 4. l. 22 23. Pag 4 l. 3 4 5. to l. 13. First Because there is now but one Covenant on foot which is a covenant of grace and salvation Secondly Because there is but one manner of entering and being in that Covenant Thirdly That there is but one holinesse now acceptable with God which is inward spirituall c. To which I answer that the like you may say of the members of the visible Church which doe actually and verbally professe faith As if you should say thus unto them There is but one new Covenant now on foot therefore you beleevers are not in it This reason is threed-bare Secondly There is but one manner of entering and being in that Covenant therefore you are not of that Covenant This is as poor as the other Thirdly Because there is no holinesse accepted with God but that which is inward spirituall and in truth c. Therefore you beleevers are not in the new Covenant nor ought to be baptized Is not this mad kind of reasoning But to performe that which you promised you should have proved that the infants of beleevers are not spiritually holy nor never did or can enter in the new covenant and then I would have said you had done somewhat like to that you tooke upon you to doe but instead of taking awaâ—â—he position that infants are holy and in the new covenant you tell us that there is but one covenant the manner of entering into it and abiding in it but one the holinesse now acceptable with God to be but one To which I further answer that though a person be not holy internally nor under the new covenant in Gods secret acount yet in our acount he is to be esteemed to be in the new covenant An hypocrite may make a glorious shew yea and seeme in outward acts of obedience to goe further then a true Saint 1 Cor. 13. He may give his goods to the poore and his body to be burned and yet want love Ob. But peradventure you will aske how then we must judge of an hypocrite An. Surely as the faithfull Disciples of Christ judged of Judas Judas had a Saint-ship an Apostle-ship and a Deacon-ship *** Mat. 10.1 2 4 16. Matk 3.14.19 6.7 12 13. Luke 9.1.10 Iohn 12.4.5 6 13.29 Symon Magus also had an outward Saint-ship * Act. 8.12.13 upon him An hypocrite or saint outwardly I
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
that what hath bin spoken already in answer to your severall objections and what hath been also gathered from the word of truâ—h in vindication of this truth of the baptisme of holy Infants may be observed It hath been declared how the promise is made to all beleevers Infants as really as to themselves or any of their children * See before in Pag. 3. to Pag. 15. It hath been proved that the generall institution of Jesus Christ is no maner of way lâ—sse generall * Pag. 15. to pag. 24. then circumcision but more generall in respect of the parties upon whom it is to be administred It hath been minded * Pag. 24. to pag. 64. how that the Infants of beleevers were holy members of the visible Church in the time of the Law and that neither the cessation of the ceremonies of the old Law nor any thing else which can be alledged doth argue that they have not still the tâ—ue â—â—linesse which giveth them visible right to Baptisme But seeing the dispensation of Gods gifts and the distribution of his graces are multipâ—yed under the Gâ—spel wee are still to esteem the young Olive plaâ—ts of beleeving parentâ— to be holy as well as the stock or branches upon which they grow And it being so we may conclude that they have right to holy Baptisme as their holy parents have And to debar the holy infants of beleevers from Baptisme is to reject them and so in a manner it is a rejection of their holy parents a means of their discouragement a weakning of their faith a discomforting of their hearts yea and discouragement to others But Truth overcommeth all things it is great and will prevaile against all that oppose it Thus having answered directly to what hath been set downe by you I proceed to the next Your next words are these But now to the Question A. R. Pag. 9. lin 21. What is meant by the holinesse which children are sayd to have 1 Cor. 7.14 In answer whereto I shall shew onely what I conceive it to be and then leave it to the judgement of the wise Answer If you mean the holy children of beleeving parents spoken of 1 Cor. 7.14 Let us heare what you say I say then it is onely such a holinesse A. R. Lin. 25. as is opposite to some kinde of uncleannesse which I take to be this as if when they are sayd to be holy it is no more then to say they are not uncleane to wit no Bastards To which I answer That you are greatly mistaken herein There is no such restriction in the Scripture as you conceive and would gather from thence for it is apparent that when the Apostle sayth to Beleevers 1 Cor. 7.14 Else were your children uncleane he meaneth here such an uncleannesse 2 Cor. 6. which he speaketh of in 2 Cor. 6.17 Which uncleannesse the Saints are bidden not to touch I will dwell in them and walke in them Ver. 16. Ver. 17. Ver. 18. The Apostle speaketh to the same people useth the same Scripture-phrase in applying the precious promises And doth in no way exclude but include their posteritie For confirmation whereof see the practise of Peter in Act. 2.39 and I will be their God and they shall be my people Wherefore come out from amongst them and be yee separated sayth the Lord and touch not the uncleane thing And I will be a father unto you and yee shall be my sonnes and daughters sayth the Lord God Almightie Observe here how that this uncleannesse is directly opposed to the holinesse which those have who are in covenant with God who alwayes did put a difference between the holy and prophane between the infants of the world and the infants of the Church And so the Apostle speaking in the Scripture language calleth the children of Beleevers holy Else were your children uncleane saith he but now are they holy 1 Cor. 7.14 Else were your children bastards say you but now are they no bastards This you conceive is the meaning of that Scripture But you should minde that the Proselytes in the time of the Law and the beleeving parents in the time of the Gospel who were formerly unbeleevers Heb. 13.4 were not all bastards and legittimacie is not a thing peculiar to beleevers but unbeleevers may have it But when the Apostle speaketh of a holinesse which the children of beleevers have it is that which is peculiar unto the Saints of God and not common to Infidells who are without God in the world and not to be communicated with You should minde that the Apostle speaketh in the heavenly language of Canaan in the Scriptures ordinary phrase giving the beleevers infants such a stile which the holy Spirit of God hath given them according as it is plentifully manifested in the Scriptures of God and which he hath not given and granted unto unbeleevers infants There is no place of Scripture which declareth them to be holy Wherefore wee may conclude that there is a great deale of difference between the infants of beleevers and the infants of unbeleevers and that the uncleannesse of the one Rev. 22.11 1 Cor 6.14 is opposed to the holines of the other as darknesse is opposed unto light As Idolaters are sayd to be opposed to those that are seperated from them * Ver. 15 16 17 18. And so the Jewes seperated from Idolaters were all holy both young and old and Gods seperated peculiar people * Deut 29.10 14.1 2. The Lord was their God and they were his people and he dwelt in the middest of them * Levit. 26.11 12. and sanctified them unto himselfe * Exod. 31.13 Psal 135.4 and gave unto them his blessed Oracles * Rom. 3.2 and holy Ordinances yea and the Gentiles also who had like precious faith with the Jewes were then made partakers of the like precious priviledges with them which extended unto their infants * Exod. 12.48 as well as to the infants of the Jewes Therefore as the infants of the Jewes were holy so were the infants of the Proselytes or beleeâ—ing Gentiles And forasmuch as the distribution of Gods gifts under the Gospel are larger then they were under the Law the infants of beleevers now Ephe. 3.5 6. have the same spirituall priviledges as the infants of beleevers had thâ—n and have the same precious holinesse which is available to Bâ—ptisme and therefore we may conclude that when Christ came to die for their sinnes he came not to destroy their soulâ—s and so to râ—b them to pâ—yle them to make them spirituall bankâ—outs to take from them his righteouâ—ness and leave them to be clothed with their own righteousnes But surely wee may rather conclude that Christ as he was once himselfe an infant of a beleeving parâ—nt according to the flesh so he loveth the infants of beleevers Luk. 2.7.16 18.17 because they are Subjects of his kingdome And as he suffered for
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
Anabaptists by proving unto them that mis-begotten children and Bastards were not to be put away in respect of civill use for sayth he who should nourish or bring them up rather then their owne parents 2 Sam. 11.4 5. 12.14 15 c. Moreover If unbeleevers cannot be sanctified to beget or conceive a holy seed except they be yoked unto beleevers as you here grant by your words in saying that * See A. R. Pag. 12. lin 19. that which is sanctified to a beleever being unsanctified to an unbeleever must needs be sanctified unto him by his beleeving And so the meaning of the translations whether by or to * See A. R. lin 16 is all one and may be thus expressed That the unbeleeving wife is sanctified unto the beleeving husband by or through his beleeving Then it will follow by your owne confession that though an unbeleever be in the state of matrimony yet except it be with a beleever the unbeleever cannot procreate such a holy seed * To wit not borne visibly holy in the holy Covenant as the Infants of beleevers are spoken of in 1 Cor. 7 14. And so this argueth that there is a great and manifest difference in respect of holinesse between the infants of beleevers and the infants of Infidells And that this holinesse proceedeth not meerly according to your former inferences * Pag. 11. lin 36 37 38. Lin. 14 15. from a lawfull conjunction in respect of Matrimony which is honourable to all Neither doth the unbeleevers being sanctified come simply by being in the honourable state of Marriage which those have who are not so sanctified but because she or he is coupled in marriage with such a beleever Keep still to this that the unbeleeving yoak-fellow may be sanctifiâ—d to her or his beleeving yoak-fellow but not to any unbeleever And then there will be some more hope that you will be drawn out of your Anti podobaptisticall errours for as I sayd before this doth shew that those children whose parents are neither of them beleevers are not holy nor sanctified by their birth from any ground appearing in 1 Cor. 7.14 or any other Scripture Moreover I know none that pleadeth that the unbeleeving wife of the beleever should be admitted to Baptisme and Church-fellowship with her beleeving husband And yet shee is sanctified unto him in the enjoyment of her to bring forth a holy seed and therefore is in this respect far different from his cattell and beasts with whom he may not so unite himselfe they are not so sanctified to him as to bring forth a holy seed but his wife is which difference you doe not set downe when you say * See A R. Pag. 12. lin 21 22 23. that shee is no otherwise sanctified then servants and his cattell and beasts But you should have minded that the Beasts are sanctified to him as beasts the servants as servants and the unbeleeving wife is sanctified in him to him or by him as a wife But touching the children they are holy under the holy Covenant as hath been formerly observed and proved and shall be further cleared A. R. Pag. 12. li. 27 28. A. R. To another Question which you call an Objection Whether the Children of beleevers have no more priviledge then the children of Heathens Turkes and Infidells You say * Lin. 29. In respect of the Covenant of Grace and Salvation none at all Ans If by their children heer you meane their infants then I absolutely affirme and will prove that the infants of beleevers have more priviledge then the infants of unbeleeving Heathens in respect of the Covenant of grace and salvation for God hath testified to Abraham * Gen. 17.7 Jer 30.22 Ezek. 37.27 Heb. 8.10 saying I will be a God unto thee and to thy seed after thee And this is the new Covenant of grace and of salvation That God will be our God and wee shall be his people Which Covenant is not made unto the wicked and their off-spring to Turkes and Heathens who are without God in the world Rev. 21.3 Nor have they any ground to hope for the salvation of their infants for true hope is grounded upon some promise of God which they are destitute of 2 Cor. 6.16.18 and where God hath made no promise who can expert performance Touching secret things they belong unto the Lord our God but things revealed appertaine to us and our children * Deut. 29.27 for ever And whereas you say * Pag. 12. lin 30. It commeth not by any naturall Birth but by the worke of the Spirit for the Spirit bloweth where it listeth Joh. 3.7 8. And God is no respecter of persons But in every Nation he that feareth God and worketh righteousnesse is accepted of him Act. 10.34 35. I answer As the Saints generation doth not hinder their regeneration so their naturall birth doth not hinder the birth of the Spirit for the Spirit bloweth where it listeth John 3.8 And yet the sound thereof may be heard by the testimonies of Scripture which declareth that the Spirit of God is in all that are his and he hath wrought upon some of the infants of beleevers miraculously before they were born and God loveth all his Saints without respect of persons * God hath promised to circumcise our heart and the heart of our seed and this is the work of the Spirit yea he respecteth the poorest of their infants before the infants of the world which are without though they are never so rich In every nation he that feareth God and worketh righteousnesse is accepted with him Act. 10.34 35. And as those infants in the time of the Law whom he claimed visibly for his own in speciall were not then to be judged destitute of his Spirit no more are such holy infants now for as Gods Spirit is the Spirit of promise so God is alwayes as good as his word Whereas you say * See A. R. Pag. 12. lin 34. In respect of the means of salvation their priviledge in having beleeving parents is far more then those that have not because beleeving parents may be a means to bring their Children to the knowledge and faith of Jâ—sus Christ and so be instruments of their salvation as Sainâ— Paul saith here The beleeving husband may save his unbeleeving wife I answer If by children here you meane infants if this be all the priviledge you will afford them I thanke you for nothing But it is well they are not at your finding for indeed this measure of yours is somewhat scant If they die in their infancie how shall their parents bring them to the knowledge and faith of Jesus Christ yea how shall they beleeve that they goe to heaven if they had not some warrant to beleeve that the worke of regeneration was wrought in them before If the righteousnesse of Jesus Christ and the graces of his holy Spirit were not imputed unto them before Psal
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
Saints have There was a great difference * They differed in the quantitie not in the qualitie Zach. 4.20 in the time of the Law between the spoones flaggons and cups in the Temple and the censers seas and potts and yet they were all holy both great and small and so were the Jewes both young and old great and small Infants and aged persons they were all holy ecclesiastically and all the Lords holy vessels and we are not to have such sacrilegious thoughts as to thinke God doth refuse the infants of beleevers though they are vessells of small quantitie The Boules before the Altar were counted very glorious when it is taken for such an excellent thing for the potts in the Lords house to be like unto them If then the potts in the Lords house spiritually are in these last dayes and flourishing times of the Gospell * In respect that there is and hath been both by the sight of the eye hearing of the eare and in divers other respects most of God of Christ and of the Holy Spirit manifested in these last dayes like the boules before the Altar What are the boules before the Altar What are the cups What are the flaggons The Lord in numbering up his holy vessells of small quantitie even the holy off-spring and the blessed issue calleth them by the name of cups and flaggons and calleth them the glory of his house All which doth set forth the excellency of the Infants of beleevers their great holinesse and high estimation with Jesus Christ Compare with this the Historicall Relations of Christ concerning infants in the Gospel and there the fulling of this Prophecie will appeare to be for there they brought infants to him that he should put his hands on them and pray and he approved of their act * Mat. 19.13 yea and gave free admittance for the infants to come unto him and charged that none should interrupt the bringers by forbidding them because of such is the kingdome of heaven * Mar. 10 14. Luk. 18.17 and he took them up in his armes and put his hands upon them and blessed them ** Mar. 10.15 But to this you answer First That all this is not baptizing them for Christ baptized not A. R. Pag. 14. lin 3 4 5. Joh. 4.2 And therefore this place seemes not at all to prove the baptizing of Infants Ans The holy Ghost fell upon Cornelius and his friends Act. 10.44 at Peters preaching though all this was not baptizing them with water yet they being baptized by the holy Ghost who could forbid water that they should not be baptized which had received the holy Ghost as well as * Ver. 47. others So the infants which Christ took up in his armes he layd his hands upon and blessed Christ did more for holy Infants then baptize them with water and declared that the Kingdome of God belonged unto them Of such is the Kingdome of heaven sayth he Christ had declared that without the Spirit persons could not enter into the Kingdome of God But these infants were subjects of his Kingdome according to the doctrine of Christ and therefore they had the Spirit and seeing the infants of beleevers are as they were they have the Kingdome the Gospel the Spirit and the graces of the Spirit and all and therefore they may lawfully be baptized and therefore these places have not onely a semblance in them but also a substantiall ground for the baptizing of the infants of the faithfull It being not various in the least from any of Gods institutions but every manner of way agreeable to the same And though then neither Christ nor his Spirit baptized with the Baptisme of water but instrumentally yet those that have Christ and the Spirit have the inward Baptisme and so are to have the outward Baptisme but the infants of beleevers have Christ and the Spirit for they have the Kingdome which cannot be without the Spirit therefore the infants of beleevers are to have the outward Baptisme As hath been proved before and even now and shall be further cleared afterwards Next you say Secondly Let them that please doe as here Christ did A. R. yet much rather let us all learne the lesson which Christ here taught A. R. without which wee cannot be saved But wee quite perverting Christs meaning doe in another sense become little children for some at first had no sooner hence sounded out this tune in our eares that the Kingdome of heaven belongs to little children and therefore Baptisme But wee all presently like little children dance after this pipe as though our heads were lighter then our heeles and in the meane time loose the true sense the marrow and fatnesse of these Texts which so much doe concerne us And thus it is not onely in these Texts but in many more in so much that wee through this our childish if not brutish following the heard of Interpreters from humane authoritie rather take many grosse errours for undeniable principles then once open our eyes to see and receive the truth upon Gods own bare word that wee might beleeve and so be saved out of this quick-sand of delusions And indeed how can wee beleeve giving and receiving honour thus one of another and seek not that honour that commeth of God alone As Christ tells us Joh. 12.44 To which I answer That those may rightly doe as Christ here did who are heires of the Kingdome whereof Christ is King But before you do as Christ here did take that counsell which you give unto others learne the lesson which Christ hath here taught without which you say you cannot be saved And seeing that the kingdome of heaven consisteth of the infants of beleevers wee may safely beleeve and justly conclude that though they are little in quantitie yet they are great in qualitie and most precious in the eyes of the Lord. And surely we have need of humilitie to teach us not to be so proud as to despise the day of small * Zech. 4.10 things It is not the way to be happie to despise those that are happie though they have not attained to such a measure as to confesse or expresse by verball relations or visible demonstrations Gods work upon their soules And I tell you further If you hold on in your errours in withstanding holy infants and doe not repent of this your evill you cannot rightly doe as Christ here did nor learne the lesson which Christ here taught and so upon your own ground cannot be saved but doe come under the censure which you have here set downe * Pag. 14. lin 8 9. of quite perverting Christs meaning c. and loosing the true sense marrow and fatnesse of these Texts which so much concerne us An evident proofe of this appeareth in your interpretation of the Scripture in the Gospel which speaketh of infants which you would not have to be meant of those Infants nor of
seventh day so wee may take a ground from circumcision as it was a signe and seale of the righteousnesse of faith whereby wee may be grounded in the administration of Baptisme And it is seriously to be minded that Baptisme is not larger then circumcision one way and lesser another way I mean lesse generall but in every respect it is as generall yea and in some respects more generall As generall because such males who had right to circumcision have right to Baptisme More generall because circumcision was to be administred onely upon the males but Baptisme upon males and females Now to make it more generall and lesse generall then circumcision is a contradiction and you by no meanes will allow of contradictions at least you pretend it If a Master promise to give his servants such or such a portion in brasse farthings and above his usuall or ordinary custome give it them in silver weight for weight It is all one He hath fulfilled his promise seeing he lesseneth not the summe and his servants if they are wise know what is good for themselves will not take exceptions therat or refuse the same Even so it is with God and his people The things which he giveth unto them are better and better not worse and worse larger and larger not lesser and lesser and therefore we may apply this to this particular case in hand and beleeve with David that God hath magnified his Word above all his Name Now though Baptisme be greater and more generall then circumcision in respect of the subjects upon whom the same is administred yet it doth not therefore argue that Baptisme is the seale of one covenant and circumcision the seale of another covenant The River of the Sanctuarie mentioned in Ezâ—chiel though it was not so deep in one place as in another place yet it was the same River And a small light and a greater light is all one and the same light though the greater seem in a manner to swallow up the lesser So a fire is still the same fire though it be increased as much again as it was fastening upon more fuell yet it is still one and the same though much greater then before So Baptisme although it be to be imposed upon the females and differeth in respect of the act from circumcision yet it is one and the same in effect a seale of one and the same covenant for the enlargement of a thing as I said before changeth not the nature of the thing enlarged but maketh it to include more then it did before Whereas it is said that Infants were then members of the Church a Pag 22 l. 12. and whereas it is demanded When they were cast out b Lin. 12. To this you answer c Lin. 13. That they were cast out when the Jewes Church-state Line 15. and old covenant was abrogated by the comming of Christ and preaching of the Gospel and planting other Churches farre different from that of the Jewes in many respects To this I reply That this which you have said proveth not at all that infants were cast out There is not one tittle of Scripture in all the New or Old Testament to this purpose that the infants of beleevers are or shall be cast out Bring me one Instance if you can of any one infant of a beleever that at Christs coming was to be cast out then you will say something for their exempting out of the covenant but as yet you have brought none neither can you finde any but many yea multitudes of Scripture there are to the contrary both in the new and old Testament But you seem to poynt out the time when the holy infants were cast out of the Church You tell us they were cast out when the Jewes Church-state and old covenant was abrogated by the coming of Christ and preaching of the Gospel and planting other Churches farre different from that of the Jewes in many respects But alas you take for granted a thing which you have not proved and it is no marvaile indeed to see the thing that is not probable to be without proofe That the Jewes Church-state was abrogated with the old covenant I am not bound to beleeve except I see it in Gods Word much lesse will I grant that the preaching of the Gospel overthrew the Church-state But seeing the new Jerusalem hath gates and foundations Rev. 21. according to the number of the twelve Tribes and twelve Apostles of the Lambe and that the Jewes and Gentiles being grafted into one Olive tree Rom. 11. make up but one Church I must conclude that the Church of the Jewes is the Church of the Gentiles for Christ is not properly the head of two bodies neither did he come to abrogate the old Church * So Mr. Spilsbery sayth That the Church of God under the old Testament and that now under the new for nature are one in reference to the elect of God called to the faith anâ— by thâ— spirit of grace united to Christ as bâ—anches to theiâ— viâ—e and so an holy pâ—ant of Gods planâ—ing of wh â—h indeed the true â—hâ—rch of God â—onsists See his â—reat of Bapâ—â—â— â—1 at lin 14. though he abrogated the old covenant But now let us see how farre you would make this Church different from the Church of Israel you know it must be either in matter or in forme or in both otherwise I suppose you will strive without an opposite for all Christians generally doe confesse that they were bound to observe such circumstances which wee are not bound to observe but all this did not argue buâ— that their Church was fit matter and a right forme and the same with the Church of the Gentiles But you say * Aâ— lin 20. That was corstituted upon nature and the naturall seed of Abraham this upon grace and the spirituall seed of Abraham To which I answer That if by nature you mean corruption as it appeareth you do then by your ground the Church of the Jewes was constituted upon corruption was a corrupt Church a leporous Church in the very constitution You think that the Church of the Jewes in her constitution which was of Gods building Isa 5.1 2 3. * No man sayth Mr. Spilsbery will admit of dead plants to be set in his vâ—neyard or grafted into a stock but onely suâ—h as are capable to comply with the same in the sap and nourishment thereof to the end it may grow and bring forth fruit and so it is with Christ who comes not short of nature and therefore he admits not of any dead plants to be set in his spirituall vineyard or dead members to be joyned to his mysticall body but onely such as by faith are capable to comply with the head Neither tooke he for himselfe a compounded body consisting of both living dead members which all are that have not a living principle of grace c. For this
see his Treat of Bap. pag. 20. lin 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14. consisted all of visible Saints Deut. 29.18 to be 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
Joh. 1.29 But our chiefe poynt is not here about ceremoniall circumstantiall shadowes for we all grant that the ceremonies of the old law are ceased And to argue that because they were then subject to legall pollution and some of them had it that therefore they had not the inward and spirituall cleannesse is a vaine and groundlesse thing so to thinke for the Good Lord was mercifull unto every one that prepared his heart to seek the Lord the Lord God of his Fathers though he were not cleansed according to the purification of the Sanctuary * 2 Chro. 30.18 19. They had not time to purifie themselves yet they did eat of the Passeover that is though he had not that outward purification which you speak of And their purifications and washings which you mention * Pag. 6. lin 11. they were to teach them the benefit which they had and were to have spiritually by Jesus Christ Their circumcision of the flesh * Gen. 17.10 11. Rom. 4.11 also was to teach them the Circumcision of the heart * Deut. 10.16 all which circumstantiall Ordinances though they are ceased yet we have the substance of them in other Ordinances and that outwardly And further it is to be minded concerning the people of Israel that their conformitie unto the Lawes of God did really demonstrate unto men that they were spiritually holy and so now the conformitie of Gods people to the Lawes of God doth give sufficient demonstration of their holinesse in the sight of men whereby they are to judge them to be communicable persons in a spirituall way And though the uncircumcised were then unholy as you speak * Pag. 6. lin 9. yet they were such uncircumcised who were not to be judged circumcised in their hearts and though persons then were circumcised both in heart and flesh and did yeeld universall obedience to Gods commands See Lev. 14.8 yet through some accident they might have a kinde of ceremoniall defilement and yet retaine their visible holinesse still You should also mind that the people of Israel after the Law was given in Mount Sinai many of them were uncircumcised in flesh * Josh 5.5 yet they were at the time of their uncircumcision a holy peculiar people unto God and none were like unto them * Deut. 7.6 26.18 19. 33.29 and therefore your alledging that there was a difference between the circumcised and the uncircumcised and that the circumcised Israelites might not then companie with the uncircumcised Heathens is of no force against this truth even that the Infants of beleevers have that holinesse which accompanieth faith Some uncircuÌ„cised persons might be accompanied with and some Circumcâ—sed persons might not be accompanied with for though circumcised persons were not to accompany with the uncircumcised yet it was meant of those uncircumcised persons who were aliens from the common-wealth of Israel and strangers from the Covenants of promise and not of those who were then members of the Church of God and therefore it was not meant of all uncircumcised persons for then the parents should not have kept company with their Infants before they were circumcised but were to deliver them to other uncircumcised persons to keep till the eight day wherein they were circumcised And then the uncircumcised beleeving Gentiles were not to be circumcised by the circumcised but by the uncircumcised Which to dreame is meere foolishnesse and therefore it appeareth that your Collections have no footing against holy infants To the poynt then Seeing that the Infants of beleevers though uncircumcised might be accompanied with in the time of their uncircumcision and that by the circumcised It evidently sheweth that there was a great difference between them and the heathen Infants of uncircumcised unbeleevers And seeing the uncircumâ—ised infants of beleevers might be lawfully accompanied with and were different then from unbeleevers it is appareÌ„t that they were holy then though uncircumcised And seeing that beleevers infants though uncircumcised were holy in the time of the Law and distinguished by their holinesse from the Infants of unbeleevers and seeing that Jesus Christ is still one and the same and that the ceremoniall holines is ceased it plainly argueth that when the Apostle Paul â—aketh in 1 Cor. 7.14 of the holy children of beleevers had by a sanctified wife he meaneth such a holines which is not ceased but remaineth permanent and doth visibly demonstrate those persons who have it to have right to Baptisme And as Circumcision did not give faith to the Infants of the Church nor adde the Infants of the Church to the Church no more then any other person but rather confirme them in it So Baptisme now doth not bring regeneration or faith unto such or unto any other persons as many fondly imagine neither doth it adde them to the Church but rather confirme them therein Touching Peters vision which you mention Pag. 6. lin 15. that God shewed him that he should not call any man polluted or uncleane It is good to understand in what sense it is spoken for wee may rightly caâ—l all the visible members of Antichrist polluted let them be what they will be high or low great or small though they have and usurpe the ordinances of God yet they are polluted persons so long as they remaine in that estate even as the Apostates in the time of the Law though they usurped circumcision and other Ordinances yet they were polluted persons and these remaining in that sinfull estate they are not cleane neither legally nor evangelically To your inference * Lin. 8. from Act. 10.13 I answer That in the Gospel sense those that are seperated from Idolatry and those that are Idolaters are not all one in Christ Jesus for how can any be sayd to be in Christ so long as they are visibly out of Christ Wherefore it is to be understood that as the wicked of whatsoever Nation degree or sex they be Rom. 2.8 9. Rev. 22.15 are all one out of Christ so on the contrary the Saints of God of whatsoever Nation degree or sex they be are all one in Christ Rom. 10.11.12.13 Gal. 3.28 5.6 And this sheweth us to put a visible distinction between those who are visibly holy and those that are not But the infantâ— of beleevers are visibly holy as hath been proved before and therefore wee are to judge them in Christ and one with him members of his mysticall body and different from those who are not visibly holy but are out of the Covenant Whereas you say * Pag. 6. li. 25 26 27. that so now none are acceptable or ought to partake of the Gospel worship and ordinances without the Circumcision of Christ which is of the heart and Spirit I answer That one ought to be baptised before they are circumcised or washed spiritually in the heart at least so far as may be discerned by men neither ought any to presume without the inward
and outward Baptisme to lay hands upon the rest of the holy institutions of God which properly and peculiarly are tyed to the Church And the Proselytes or beleeving Gentiles in the time of the Law before they were circumcised in the flesh they were to be circumcised in their hearts and before they did partake of the Passeover a figure of Christs body they and their holy seed were to be * Exod. 12.48 circumcised in flesh as well as in heart which participation in the Ordinances then was not to be limitted onely to the outward fleshly shadow no more then our partaking of Baptisme or the Lords Supper now ought to be onely limitted to the outward elements of Water Bread and Wine But as for the Infants of beleevers they ought to be judged to have the circumcision of Christ which is of the heart and Spirit as hath been formerly proved and shall be further shewed and therefore it is apparent that they are acceptable and may lawfully have the Ordinance of Baptisme imposed upon them for they being proved to be members of the visible Church of Christ it appeareth that they are to be judged in Christ and new creatures and that therefore the true holinesse accompanieth them And this being so what then will follow but that according to your owne confession they have right to Baptisme Further you say If it be objected that in respect of Justification Pag. 6. lin 3â— it availeth nothing but to Baptisme it may To this you Answer Lin. 37. to Pag. 7. That that which availeth to Justification and salvation doth according to the Rule onely availe to Baptisme for if thou beleevest with all thy heart thou art justified Act. 13.39 and shalt be saved Act. 16.31 and mayest be baptized upon the same and no other grounds Act. 8.37 To which I Answer As is the objection so is your answer without distinction for there is a difference between justification in the sight of God and justification in the sight of men By the Word persons must be justified and by the Word they must be condemned All those persons who are outwardly holy may be justified in the sight and apprehension of men ought to be baptized upon this ground though their heart knowne onely to God be like the heart of Simon Magus not upright in the sight of God But the holy Word of God is our Rule whereby we are to judge both beleevers and their infants now under the Gospel to be in covenant regenerated sanctified and adopted unto God the children of the promise in their infancie as the infants of beleevers were in former time And upon this very ground the Infants of beleevers now may lawfully be baptized as the infants of beleevers who were members of the Church in the time of the Law were lawfully circumcised To the objection * Pag. 7. lin 1 2. That all that were baptized by the Apostles themselves were not saved c. You answer And say * Lin. 3. to lin 15. you doe grant that all baptized by the Apostles were not saved and yet deny the consequence by distinguishing between the rule by which they are to be baptized which is infallible and the judgements of men who are failable and may be deceived in applying this rule but it follows not but that the rule being of God is still as infallible as God himselfe is for all that beleeve shall be saved which is true as God himselfe is true yet all who are judged by beleevers to beleeve doe not beleeve and therefore are not saved This failing then here is not in the rule but in their judgements who are but men and can judge onely in the outward appearance by their f uits yee shall know them Mat. 7.16 And cannot judge as God who onely knoweth the heart 1 Sam. 16.17 Jer 17.10 Ans Though this by construction may be without contradiction yet it may have a little further explanation thus That though the Saints doe judge by the infallible rule concerning persons yet if they alter their judgement according as the persons alter they sinnâ— not in the alteration of their opinion because the infallible rule doth still guide their judgements As for instance The infallible rule doth direct our judgements to looke upon all the members of the visible Church to be in the state of salvation So the Disciples of Christ esteemed highly of Judas as indeed the infallible rule directed them but when once he discovered himselfe not to be that in â—ffâ—ct which before he was in appearance then they were directed by the infallible rule to alter their judgements without faile Further in stead of these words Yet all who are judged by beleevers to beleeve To judge of persons according to the infallible Rule is righteous judgement in which the judgers must lay aside all partialitie doe not beleeve It may be construed thus That all who are rightly judged or ought to be judged by beleevers to beleeve doe not beleeve For there is a difference between what persons do and what they should or ought to doe And persons judging as they ought though their judgement is alterable yet as the Rule is not failable neither is their judgement by it sinfull but righteous holy just and lawfull judgement This being construed thus and so taken I assent thereunto But as for your following inference I abhorre and detest from my very soule Your words are these A. R. * Pag. 7. li. 15. to lin 25. But in the baptizing of infants the case is far otherwise yea quite contrary who will or can faile in judging an infant to be an infant the fayling therefore here is in the Rule it selfe and so the fault and sinne in the appointer of such a deceivable Rule This therefore cannot be of God who is truth it selfe but must be of man For let God be true and every man a lyar And when doth he shew himselfe more vainly to be so then when he goeth about to set his pâ—sts by Gods posts and when he teacheth for doctrines his owne vaine and lying traditions such as this is Ans Groundlesse positions and false inferences there from are frequent with you your words import that in the baptizing of infants because none can faile in judging an infant to be an infant that therefore the layling is in the Rule it selfe and therefore you conclude it cannot be of God but of man a vaine tradition The like might be sayd of the Circumcision of infants in the time of the Law that because they could not faile in their judgements in judging infants to be infants that therefore the circumcision of infants was not of God but of man a vaine tradition and the rule was not infallible But you may know that for beleevers to impose the signe * Gen. 17.11 and seal * Rom. 4.11 of the righteousnesse of faith upon their children in their infanciâ— was good lawfull warrantable *