doth he direct his speech unto any unbeleever but unto beleevers wherefore this principally concerneth beleevers that they might know the privioidges which appertaine unto them and their seed according to the covenant of God Gâ—n 17.7 8. which declareth that God will be their God Secondly The Apostle doth not say that the unbeleâ—viâ—â— â—â—â—band or wife sanctifieth the beleeving husband or wife but the â—â—â—â—leeving wife is sanctified in the beleeving husband and the unbeleeving husband in the beleeving wife that is to say in consideration that â—â—e is hâ— sanctified yoak-fellow Where wee are to note that though the unbeleeving wife have a priviledge to be sanctified in her beleeving husband yet not to sanctifie her beleeving husband nor hath the unbeleeving husband any priviledge to sanctified is beleeving wife Nor doth it need in this case for beleevers are holy without them though their unbeleeving yoak-fellowes are not sanctified without them Thirdly Wee are to note from the Apostles words Else were your children uncleane but now are they holy That because the unbeleeving wife is sanctified to the beleeving husband or the unbeleeving husband to the beleeving wife therefore the children are holy else not Fourthly We are to take notice that the cause of the sanctification of the unbeleeving wives or that which made them to be so sanctified was two things Frist Their abiding And Secondly Because their yoak-fellowes were beleevers if her yoak-fellow be a beleever else she cannot be so sanctified to the beleever for that that is not cannot be said to be Fifthly The Apâ—stle treateth of holinesse which wee are to take for that excellent spirituall holinesse which becometh the Lords House even such a holinesse which Abraham and his infants had Which holinesse giveth the persons who have it visible right to the covenant of Grace and scales thereof The Apostle speaketh of holinesse and doth no way lesson it and therefore considering what the infants of bel evers have been what Christ hath done for them wee may well understand that the holinesse which they have now is a holinâ—ssâ— in relation to the covenant and Church of God Sixthly It evidently appeareth from the Apostles words that wee may safely coÌ„clude that such children spoken of here are different from heathens for the unbeleeving wife had not that priviledge to bring forth such a holy seed unto a heathen And so the like may be said for the unbeleeving husband that he could not beget a holy seed of her that was an unbeleeving wife but it is peculiarly bound up in the beleeving yokâ—fellow Therfore the childeren of one or both beleeving parents are hâ—ly indeed taking the Scripture in the largest extent Seventhly If the Apostle had said to the beleevers that their children were unholy neverthelesse you might still have made suâ—h a collection as you have here to wit that he meaneth tâ—at they are no Bastards but legitimate for the legitimate children whose parents are neither of them beleevers are unholy and yet they have your holinesse to wit that which evidenceth them to be no Bastards Wherefore that the Apostle Paul meâ—neth such a holinesse which you speake of we may not in reason conclude but the contrarie as hath been observed before naâ—ely that the Apâ—stlâ— meaneth a holinesse directly opposite to thâ—◠〈…〉 spoken of 2 Cor. 6.17 And also in this place 1 Câ—â— 7.14 When he saith Else were your children unclean but now are 〈…〉 But you in giving the sence according to your sence or understanding say it is thus Else were your children Bastards but now are they no Bastards And further you say And that this is the genuine sence of this place A. R. Pag. 10. lin 33. may further and clearly appeare by the generall scope of the Apostle in the 20 21 22 23. verses following in the same Chapter where he after he had resolved the married Beleevers not to depart from their lawfull yoke-mates he then in these verses exhorts Servants and all others to abide likewise in the lawfull callings wherein they were before their Conversion and seemeth to tell them in effect thus much That their being converted to the faith did in no wise release them from any lawfull Covenants and civill duties in their severall relations wherein they stood before but bound them to a more due performance of all such obligements towards all men but in poynt of Religion and worship of God therein they were not to be in subjection to any save onely to Jesus Christ who had therefore bought them with a price Ans All which you have sayd here maketh nothing for your purpose for vindication illustration or confirmation of your strange restriction of the Apostles words but rather maketh against you for as much as the Apostle desireth every beleever to abide in the same calling wherein he was called So that the beleeving married persons had no need to put away their unbeleeving yoak-fellowes for as much as the Lord allowed them to abide together and that the unbeleeving yoak-fellowes were so sanctified for producing a holy seed Else were your children uncleane sayth the Apostle but now are they holy But you pretend that you gathered your interpretation Else were your children Bastards c. from the generall scope of the Apostle in the 20 21 22 23. verses following of the same Chapter The words therefore I will repeat at large because you shall see that here is nothing in these verses which you pretend or by which you have any occasion to urge what you doe Ver. 20. Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called Ver. 21. Art thou called being a servant care not for it but if thou mayest be made free use it rather Ver. 22. For he that is called in the Lord being a servant is the Lords freeman Likewise also he that is called being free is Christs servant Ver. 23. Yee are bought with a price be not yee the servants of men Now consider what ground you had to build such an affirmation that the Apostle in speaking of holinesse 1 Cor. 7.14 doth not meane a holinesse in relation to faith and that where he sayth Else were your children uncleane but now are they holy he meaneth else were your children bastards but now are they no bastards What title of Scripture is here to warrant these your vaine conceipts in thus opposing holy infants Or upon what reason doe you ground these unreasonable collections Is it because the Apostle sayth that the called of the Lord are the Lords freemen the Lords servants are bought with a price Surely this maketh nothing against holy infants being in Covenant for they are bought with the same price Christ came not to damnifie them but to dignifie them not to make them loosers but gainers And all this is wrought by him in whom is all fullnesse and no emptinesse riches and no povertie life and no death He it is that came to give himselfe a ransome for them But you
one with them yea they had made themselves one with the abhominable Nations as appeareth by Ezra 9.1 compared with Deut. 7.26 An accursed thing like the accursed thing And did not seperate themselves from the people of these Lands doing according to their abhominations And therefore there was a speciall cause why the children of those Idolaters in Ezra 10.3 should be put away They were not visibly holy the wives were not sanctified unto them to bring forth a visible holy seed The holy seed was mixed But the Apostle saith to the beleevers in 1 Cor. 7 13 14 15. That the unbeleeving husband is sanctified by the wife and the unbeleeving wife is sanctified by the husband Else were your children uncleane but now are they holy But if the unbeleeving depart let him depart A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases but God hath called us to peace Now wee are to take the holinesse and unholinesse to be a holinesse and unholinesse in reference to visibilitie for those that were holy visibly might be unholy invisibly and those that were unholy invisibly might be holy visibly But the Saints of God were not to judge any holy except they had cause so to doe and ground of perswasion arising from some visible demonstration either from God or from men according to the direction of the Word The visible holinesse of these holy children of beleevers here specified arose from their visible being in covenant from the sanctification of the unbeleeving yoak-fellows to their beleeving yoak-fellows The spirituall uncleannes or unholines which the unholy children had was in reference to visibilitie so when he speaketh of holy children proceeding frō a sanctified wife he hath reference to visibility the unbeleevers are sanctified to the beleevers els were the children unclean but now are they holy to wit in visibilitie for the ground of the childrens visible holinesse was first from the parents being visibly in covenant Secondly from the infants being his children against whom there was no exceptions they being conceived by such a wife who did not depart from him and therfore the children are visibly holy Thus when the Vines are visibly of the Vine of Sodome and of the feilds of Gomorrha the grapes are visibly the grapes of gall and their clusters are bitter * Deut. 32.32 but when the wife is visibly as a fruitfull Vine by the house-side of him that feareth the Lord the children are to be estemed as Olive plants ** Psa 128.3.4 A. R. Thirdly say you * Pag 5. lin 19. to lin 35. It appeares from the Jewish Church-state from whence this successive holinesse and beeing in the Covenant is concluded to come The Prosolyte that was to be brought in was to circumcise all his males Exod. 12.48 Where wee may conclude that his females were included in that time in the males there beeing say you no other ordinance of admission for them Whence you say it will follow that if the Jewes Church-state from whence you affirme this succession of beeing in the Covenant is derived doth not admit in any consideration of any lawfull beeing of parents the one a member of the Church the other not to produce a seed within the old Covenant that then such a thing under the new Covenant cannot be concluded to proceed from that rule but you affirme the former is true from the ground before layd and that therefore the later is also true and if not from that rule then from none But not from that by consequence of the former argument therefore from none Ans This is set downe obscurely You say * Lin. 19 20 21. It appeares from the Jewish state from whence this successive holinesse and beeing in the Covenant is concluded to come What successive holinesse and what beeing and what Covenant doe you here meane and who are they that make this conclusion It hath been proved before that the people of Israel had two Covenants * See before pag. 39. one established with Abraham * Gen 17. another long after at Mount Sinai * Gal. 3.17 But for Confirmation of your speech you say * Lin. 21 22 23. The Prosolyte that was to be brought in was to circumcise all his males Exod. 12.48 Where wee may conclude that his females were included in that time in the males there beeing say you no other ordinance of admission for them Ans You spake before of a successive holinesse But what holines was this which the Prosolytes had that were never on the Church before Was this a successive holinesse Surely this doth not import any other holinesse but what is by faith in Christ Wherefore you may see that you have not rightly applied this place of Scripture to prove your successive holines It was faith professed by the parent that brought in his seed with him it was not his beeing circumcised but his beliefe which was alwayes to goe before even as faith now is to goe before Baptisme and to be professed before a man or his seed is to be admitted to the ordinance of Baptisme Now the Prosolytes were to circumcise all their males But wee doe not reade that the Lord did command the Prosolites to put away their unbeleeving wives they being married unto them before even when they were Heathens but they might still retaine them and have children by them capable of the ordinance of Circumcision Whereas you speak of admission I thinke you meane admission to the Passeover for they made themselves one with the people of God by beleeving the promises of God which thing they were to doe before they were circumcised and circumcision was administred afterwards for the sealing and confirming of that faith before professed Now how you understand that the females were included in the males I know not Whether doe you meane in his male children or some other males If you say they were included in his male children Then I put the case that he had no males how then were his females included in the males that were not But your speech in charitie may have this construction That seeing the Lord did command the Prosolyte to circumcise his male children that very command did intimate that his female children were in the Covenant and according to their capabilitie to assent to Gods ordinance that it was good holy though they were not to receive it yet had a right to whatsoever came in stead thereof And this beeing not to be received by them actively it must needs be construed that they were implyed imputatively This then was a great priviledge for without this imputative holinesse they could not be numbered * Isa 4 3. among the living in Jerusalem but rather counted among the uncircumcised Philistians neither could they without this imputativenesse be admitted to receive the Lords Passeover * Exod. 12.43 44.47 which was a figure of our blessed Saviour Jesus Christ our Passeover which is sacrificed
for us * 1 Cor. 5.7 But from hence you collect a supposition and upon your supposition you ground a position Your position is That if the Jewes Church state from whence you would have us take notice that you say this succession and beeing in the covenant is derived doth not admit in any consideration of any lawfull beeing of parents the one a member of the Church the other not to produce a seed within the old Covenant your position grounded upon this supposition is that then such a thing under the new Covenant cannot be concluded to proceed from that rule Now it would be knowne what you meane by parents whether you meane any parents whatsoever or but some onely for it doth not follow that because some were not admitted that therefore no unbeleevers were allowed to abide with their beleeving yoak-fellowes for producing of a holy seed in Covenant But let us see what proofe you have upon which you ground your supposition and perswasion The former is true say you from the ground before layd and therefore the latter is also true To which I answer I know not in particular what ground you here meane but this may suffice that what you have before layd is answered fully before But because you thinke the former to be true therefore you conclude the later is also true and further you say if not from that rule then from none But not from that by consequence of the former argument therefore from none Now I know not what you meane by these words Doe you meane that the former and later of this your argument is true from that Rule and if not from that Rule then from none but not from that by consequence of the former Argument therefore from none Surely you are out here on either side Neither do I know what Rule you mean nor what nor whose Argument you mean Doe you mean by that Rule a Rule of Scripture or only some position grounded upon Scripture you should know that Ezra 10 3. will not beare out your position neither will any tittle of Scripture else for though the Jewes were to put away these wives there mentioned yet it doth not follow as you would inferre that therefore the Church of the Jewes allowed not in any consideration of any lawfull being of some parents the one a member of the Church the other not to produce a holy seed within the old Covenant though they allowed not of other some And therefore your Argument both suppositive and positivâ— together with the ground is fallen to the ground and maketh nothing against holy Infants beeing visibly in the Covenant with their beleeving parents You should know that it is evill to make any Conclusion from any Scripture which is not concluded thereby or included therein But that the Jewes Church state allowed in no consideration of no lawfull beeing together of parents the one a member of the Church the other not to produce a holy seed in Covenant is not concluded thereby nor included therein therefore it is evill to make such a Conclusion therefrom But if you meane by Rule the Rule of Scripture 1 Cor. 7.14 or Exod. 12.48 You may know that all this maketh nothing for your purpose neither but is also directly against you Now whereas you lay downe a positive argument to confirme your former speeches and crosse the same by saying and if not from that rule then from none but not from that c. therefore from none I suppose it is some over-sight Wherefore I intend not to wade any further to finde out the depth of it till I see an explanation thereof from you But in the meane time I will give you my conceptions further concerning Exod. 12.48 which is the Scripture cited here by you and so leave it to your consideration God commanded the Prosolyte to Circumcise all his males Exod. 12.48 to wit all his male Infants and all those males in his house who in sincere affection did desire the ordinance of Circumcision though his wife the mother of those Infants were neither Jew nor Prosolyte And his male Infants which he had by that woman were of necessitie to be circumcised in their infancie and not to be reckoned without but within the Church of Israel Exod. 12.48 For we reade that the Lord commanded him to circumcise all his males but did not injoyne him to put away his wife which he had before his Conversion though shee were no beleever Mariage being honourable amongst all men Heb. 13.8 Shall wee thinke they were to breake it An honourable mariage according to Gods ordinance dissolved without any just cause or waightie ground was a derogating from the first institution thereof and such a thing which we never read that God commanded or allowed the Prosolytes to doe though their wives could not be perswaded to become Prosolytes Mat. 5.31 32. 19.8 9. Yea and though Christ himselfe in some case doth allow that a man may put away his wife and Paul declareth the same in effect when he sayth If the unbeleever will not abide a brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases but God hath called us unto peace Yea and although such a divorce doth not argue a hard-heartednesse in the partie offended nor was condemned but allowed of in Christs time though it were done after the manner of Moses yet touching other divorces Mar. 10.5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 which proceeded from a hard-heartednesse Christ did not allow of such but sayth from the beginning it was not so * Mat. 19.8 And therefore wee are not to imagine that the Lord did command or injoyne the Prosolytes in the time of the Law to breake the bond of matrimony by dissolving that mariage which once was honourable neither ought we to thinke that the conversion or faith of the one parent made the mariage which before was honourable any more the dishonourable and if it did not then wee may lawfully conclude that they needed not to be maried over againe or seperated the one from the other by divorcement so long as the unbeleevers were content to abide with their beleeving yoak-fellowes but that they were rather to remaine together in love and amitie and bring forth a holy seed in Covenant such a seed who were in their infancie to be ranked with the Israelites holy infants So for the Prosolytes to claime the priviledges of the Jewes holy off-spring for his owne Infants though borne of an unbeleever was no sinne in him nor contradiction of the new Covenant of God but the effect of one and the selfe-same Covenant he being commanded to circumcise them even all his male Infants in which you your selfe grant that the females were included in that time Now I conceive that if any of the Prosolytes daughters at his entrance in did refuse to come in shee could not be compelled violently but was still as shee remained so to be esteemed without and numbered
6.5 In death there is no remembrance of God in the grave who shall praise him But the Comforter which would not have beleeving parents mourne 1 Thes 4.13 as those which have no hope hath informed them that he is the Circumciser of their heart and of the heart of their seed * Deut. 30.6 a plain evidence that they love and know him or rather are beloved and knowne of him He that loved them in their life will not forsake them in their death For the dead which die in the Lord are fully blessed yea saith the Spirit for they rest from their labours and their workes doe follow them * Rev. 14.13 But by your words it appeareth that you judge the infants of beleevers and Infidells all alike Yea the Infidell servants which serve beleevers if these your words be true have a greater priviledge then the Infants of beleevers for the servants are capable of instruction in respect of a naturall capabilitie but the Infants are not Now if you will still grant that the Infants of beleevers though they die in their infancie have a greater priviledge then the infants of unbeleevâ—rs then you must also grant that that their priviledge resteth in something else besides the bare publication of the Gospel which they are not in their infancie capable of And you should not have over-topped them so far as to say that because beleeving parents may be a means to bring their children to the knowledge and faith of Jesus Christ that therefore they have no more priviledges then the unbeleeving wife As if this were the greatest priviledge which beleevers infants have which unbeleevers themselves may have Mark 16.15 But you should rather have reasoned thus Beleeving parents may publish the Gospel to their unbeleeving servants unbeleeving wives to all other unbeleevers but they may yea ought to apply it to their infants * See Mar. 16.16 Luk. 1.76 77 78 79. as well as to themselves also to all those whom they are to esteem in the state of salvation he that hath faith thus to do is a Christian he that hath not so much faith but refuseth to apply the Gospel so the Lord be mercifull to his soule by giving him repentance and remission of his sinne All godly parents â—ike faithfull Abraham were to teach their children the way of life both what things were and what things signified Gen. 19.17.19 Josh 4.21.24 and to declare unto them the goodnesse of God in the land of the living yea to hide nothing from them which might be profitable to them or beneficiaâ—l for them But as they grew up to be capable of knowledge the parents were as before mentally so now verbally to apply the promises unto themselves and their children c. Psal 78.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8. And surely this is one cause why the Land mourns why the Lord smiteth the earth with cursing Mal. 4.5 6. because the heart of the parents are not linked to their Infants This part of good Elias and John Baptists ministâ—ry doth not worke upon them And how can it worke upon them so long as they continue in their sinnes and so wrap themselves and their off-spring in many mischiefes and miseries and doe not choose life the thing that pleaseth God but refuse it and follow the wayes of the strange woman whose wayes are wayes of death and whose steps reach downe to hell And surely I may well say unto you that those are Physicians of no value who in stead of curing them doe kill them and in stead of preserving them doe poysen harden corrupt and pervert them with such damnable doctrine which so violently possesseth them that they thinke the Infants of beleevers have no priviledge at all in respect of the Covenant of grace no more then the children of Turkes and Heathens who are unholy A dangerous doctrine and to be abhorred detested and witnessed against by those that feare the God of heaven and desire to make a difference between the precious and the vile against all such Mongrell opposites who by speech and writing contrary to the Tenour of the whole Scripture do labour to rank all infants in one condition Thus coupling light and darknesse God and Belial the beleever and the Infidell together But woe unto them may we say as sayth the Prophet Isaiah Isa 10.1 which decreâ— unrighteous decrees and write grievousnesse which they have prescribed Thus drawing * Isa 5.18 iniquitie with the cords of vanitie and sinne as it were with a cart-rope Woe ** Ver. 20. unto them that call evill good and good evill that put darknesse for light and light for darknesse bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter Psal 73.1 Yet surely God is good unto Israel may wee say to those that are pure in heart The Lord hath been mindfull of us He will blesse us He will blesse the house of Israel saith that sweet singer of Israel He will blesse the house of Aaron Psal 115.12 13 14 15. He will blesse those that feare the Lord with small and great The Lord shall increase you more and more you and your children You are blessed of the Lord who hath made the heaven and the earth NExt * See A. R. Pag. 12. lin 40. Pag. 13. li. 1 2. Pag. 13. l. 3. you say The fourth Scripture is That which speakes of Christs commanding little Children to be brought unto him and sayd That of such is the kingdome of God Hence you say therefore some reason The kingdome of God belongeth to little Children why not the Seales I Ans If by these some you mean the people of the Seperation then I say you have not set it downe according to our expression It is too generally laid downe We say the kingdome of heaven belongeth to the Infants of beleevers and we doe not barely question why not the seales But we set it downe affirmatively that the seales doe belong to the infants of beleeving parents But for as much as our poynt is particularly concerning the Baptisme of infants I intend to proceed directly to the matter in hand and answer your trifling objections by the way as I trace you Mat. 28.19 Mat. 16.16 First It is to be minded that Baptisme is one of the priviledges of Christs Church which is his house and kingdome Secondly It is also to be minded that Jesus Christ the eternall Sonne of God and Lord of Glory and of all administrations and giver of every good and perfect gift when he sayth Suffer the little Children to come unto me Mar. 10.14 Mat. 19.14 c. For of such is the kingdome of heaven He doth hereby apply the Gospel unto them I say It is Gospel which he speaketh here Where the kingdome is ther 's the Gospel Get the kingdome thou hast God and Gospel and all And so wee are to understand that with the kingdome the infants of beleevers have the Gospel of the
their seed in their infancie to have such dignitie by vertue of Gods covenant to be circumcised The Gospel of Christ being every jot as glorious as it hath been is also as effectuall and powerfull now to dignifie beleevers and their infants with the ordinance of Baptisme and that by vertue of Gods covenant unto which is annexed Christs institution which is very generall yea more generall then circumcision was of old And surely if the infants of beleevers had that power as to become the children of God in their infancie fellow heires with the Saints in light as Isaac was and all those like him were and to be coe-heires with Jesus Christ of the everlasting inheritance kingdome and glory and that before Christs resurrection Then the infants of beleevers borne after Christs resurrection have the like priviledges But the first is true from the grounds before layd from their right to the covenant their being in the covenant c. and the unchangeablenesse of the Angel of the covenant Therefore the latter that holy infants are still in the covenant is true also And this hath been sufficiently proved before Touching your Exhortation how wee should bewaile the great Apâ—stacie c. I say as the Saints of old did bewaile the great Apostacie of the Israelites both in faith and worship Isa 2.6 who were replenished from the East and were south-sayers like the Philistians and pleased themselves in the children of strangers So wee ought to bewaile this Apostacie of these now Wee have cause to bewaile their ignorance who pretend holinesse to God and make a verball profession drawing neer unto God with their mouthes like the Apostate Israelites when their hearts are far from him pleading for the baptizing of those Infants whose parents are neither of them beleevers causing the holy signe to be administred upon their infants in that idolatrous estate in the partaking whereof they have no right any more then the seed of those Apostates of the Israelites had right to circumcision in former time But yet though the Infants were circumcised in that Idolatrous estate the Prophets worke was to call them to repentance and if they returned the manner of their circumcision being repented of it was as effectuall unto them as if they had received it in an excellent and holy manner So those who are baptized in their infancie in the state of Apostacie at their conversion are not to be baptized againe but to repent of the evill of the manner and not cast away Gods holy institution but still retaine it and make a holy use of it yet they ought not to Idolize it by preferring it before that which is greater Though the Temple Rev. 2.1 2. and the Altar and the worshippers were to be measured yet the Court without was to be cast out and not to be measured because it was given to the Gentiles Againe Whereas you speak of the abrogation of the state of the Jewes I say This hath been answered fully before you should still minde that Jesus Christ came not to undermine or overthrow his kingdome though it was taken out of the hands of the unbeleeving Jewes and given unto another people whom Christ testified would bring forth fruits of it Againe Whereas you speak of the casting off of Israel according to the flesh I answer That none were cast off meerly because they were Israelites according to the flesh and though some were cut off yet others remained on and in that state where the Gentiles by faith were planted and placed as some of the Jewes through unbeliefe were cut off supplanted and displaced So the Ap stle Paul sayth the Jewes some of them not all of them were cut off because of unbeliefe and the beleeving Gentiles grafted in their stead As for those that beleeved their priviledges and prerogatives were still as great and as large both to them and their seed as they were before And the like may be sayd concerning the Proselytes And so your other question is resolved concerning the bringing in of us Gentiles and our seed as acceptable on Gods Altar And whereas you question againe A. R. Whether the parents Jew and Gentile must needs be borne againe of the Spirit and onely by faith become the seed of Abraham and heires according to promise Gal. 3.7.29 Rom. 4.11 12. And shall their children become the same seed by nature I answer The birth of the Spirit is very necessary both to young and old without which they cannot enter into the kingdome of heaven And I would have you to know that I plead not that the children of the faithfull become heires of the promise by nature but by the free grace of God which passeth all understanding which is as sufficient for beleevers and their children now as formerly And these interrogations of yours are answered at large you having mentioned the same things before Againe You say A. R. Pag. 30. lin 2. to lin 10. Neither can any shew any one such promise to any beleever in all the whole world and his seed as was and is to Abraham and his seed who is therefore the father of us all to wit of all beleevers and onely of beleevers Jew and Gentile father and childe c. Rom. 4.16 and therefore it is faith that it might be by grace to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed but the promise is sure onely to beleevers Therefore beleevers onely are the seed of Abraham to whom the promise and ordinance of the new Testament doe properly appertaine To which I answer That this hath been answered before already It hath been proved sufficiently that the same covenant which was made with Abraham and his seed is made to beleevers and their seed it being a perpetuall covenant the heires of it are perpetuall heires even such to whom the promises doe appertaine as well as unto their deare brethren of old who are departed in the same faith and this heavenly order the old Law which was given at Mount Sinai could not disanull And I hope there is no reasonable man but will condescend unto this that all those who were to receive the signe and sâ—ale of the righteousnesse of faith were visibly holy and faithfull but the Infants of beleevers were by Gods appointment to receive the signe and seale of the righteousnesse of faith therefore the Infants of beleevers were then as they are now visibly holy and faithfull And Christian Infants are as capable every way of the seale now as the Infants of the Jewes Gods holy ones were capable of the seale in former time Therefore the Baptisme of the New Testament doth properly appertaine unto such and therefore the administration of Baptisme upon them doth not overthrow the least part of the Gospel of Christ or any thing of his much lesse the whole as you in your following words most falsly speake and therefore the minor of your following argument being so small that there is no