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
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
position be true yet this reason brought to confirme it is impertinent considering that the Proselytes and their infants in former time were received into Gods covenant to whom salvation was not denied then though Christ were not manifested in the flesh nor the Goâ—pâ—l published unto all Nations as now since by Christ it was commanded to be And as for the Scriptures cited by you they make much for beleeving parents and their infants for as much as the application of the Gospel appertaineth unto them all In Mar. 16.15 16. the Gospel is commanded to be preached unto every creature and it is said that Whosoever belâ—eveth and is baptized shall be saved and whosoever beleeveth not shall be damned * When Christ sayth He that beleeveth and is baptized shall be saved He no more intendeth to exclude the infants of the faithfull from Baptisme then from salvation but those that exclude them from the Covenâ—nt doe as much as in them lieth to exclude them from both And in Mat. 28.19 Goe make all Nations Disciples sayth Christ baptizing them As if he should say in former time I bound my selfe to one Nation and published my name unto them but now I stretch forth my hands further that all Nations might be made Disciples and baptized as that one nation of the Jewes were made Disciples and circumcised Now sure as we cannot justly deny the infants to be creatures to whom salvation or damnation appertaineth so we cannot deny but that the Gospel appertaineth unto the infants of beleevers as well as to their parents though they die in their infancie or that the holy infants are Disciples inclusively with their parents as they have been heretofore If then infants are included in the generall Commission as doubtlesse they are then they are not to be excluded but the infants of beleevers are â—dmitted by God to come into the Church with their parents according to the anciâ—nt custome which was very profitable and comfortable and no dishonour to God nor discredit to his cause nor hinderance to his people but a glory unto his house they being his pure vessels which he prized at such a high rate as to send his onely begotten Sonne into the world to take upon him the nature of them and to suffer for them and to make them new creatures such as are mentioned in Gal. 6.15 which availeth with God when neither Circumcision nor uncircumcision doth therefore they are not excluded from the generall Commission Moreover Christ hath declared them to be his by blessing them and testifying that they are of his kâ—ngdome and seeing then that they are Christs they are Abrahams sâ—ed and heires according to promise Gal. 8.29 and have interest into this grace wherein they now are so that they cannot be deprived of their inheritance no more then those who professe faith and doe act that which these Infants have not a naturall capablenesse to doe As touching your demand * Lin 13. which you say is demanded in coole bloud how wee doe become Abrahams seed you have testified what wee will say * Lin. 14 15. which may be stood to without danger namely that wee become Abraham seed onely by faith * Imputatively As for the inference * Lin. 15 16. which you bring upon it that so must our children by the same way wee grant the same it is one of our principles as also that there is as you confesse but one seed and not more in the sence and acceptation of the Gospell Next you say * Pag. 20. at lin 18. They further reason from the equitie of circumcision thus As infants then by Gods allowance received that seale of the covenant so by proportion why not this now of Baptisme And in answer hereunto you rehearse * Lin. 21. Gods commandement to Abraham coÌ„cerning circumcision and say That it was both right equall that Abraham should doe herein as God had commanded him and it had been sinfull for him to have done otherwise more or lesse And so likewise it is right for us to doe as God hath commanded us to doe and no otherwise To which I answer that Gods divine institutions are full of equitie and there is no iniquitie in them nor in any thing which he doth and God not only allowed but strictly commanded Abraham to circumcise and without the command or institution he was not to put the same in execution But when once Circumcision the signe and seale of the righteousnesse of faith was instituted then it was to be administred and this was â—ight and equall and allowed oâ— by God Now it remaineth for you to prove if you can when the substance * Mr. Spilsbery granteth that the matter of Gods worship is not changed at the coÌ„ming of Châ—ist in the flâ—sh See his Tâ—â—â—t Bap. pag. 〈◊〉 lin 15. of this institution was taken away Peradventure you will say that the institution of Baptisme hath put anullitie to the sâ—alâ— I answer That the inlargement of a thing or taking away of the circumstances doth not take away the substance or being of it Wherefore it appeareth that the command for sealing of Infants is not yet abrogated but remaineth still and seeing Baptisme was instituted by Christ in stead of circumcision the infants are to be baptized But yet you question * Lin. 28. Where the institution for baptizing of infants is And my answer is That the Institution for sealing of the infants of the faithfull was given to Abraham and Baptisme being in stead of Circumcision and more generall and it being now the seale they are to be baptized as formerly they were to be circumcised But you say * Lin. 30. That was to circumcise not to baptize that all his males not his females that all borne in his house or bought with money at eight dayes old Ans All this maketh nothing against the baptizing of Infants for the signe and seale of the righteousnesse of faith is not câ—ased but the substance thereof continueth though the outward shadow or element is departed and delivered unto us as it were in another garb And you granted before that the females were implyed in the males And you ought to know that the generalitie of the latter Commission above the former doth plead a specialitie which the Infants have in the latter as well as in the former But you say * Lin. 32. If they ground it from this institution then must they observe it in every thing for so did Abraham who had sinned in doing otherwise in any thing To this I answer That we may well ground this from the institution of that though we are not tyed to observe that in every thing The institution for sealing the infants of the faithfull ought to be observed by us in every thing and though God have altered the circumstances as he hath done in divers other ordinances the substance of which wee have now in the ordinances of the Gospel
Cloud and in the Sea not long after the Israelites came out of the Land of Aegypt But it was before the Law was given in Mount Sinai many hundred yeares before Jesus Christ was manifested in the flesh and therefore your new account is too short a weapon to undermine Gods holy administration of Baptisme upon his Redeemed ones 1 Cor. 10.1 2. Such as the Israelites were whom he brought out of the Land of Aegypt and baptised in the Cloud and in the Sea Further you cite more humane Authors to speak your pleasure against the baptisme of infants as if it were thrust upon the world * Pag 8. lin 37. under colour and pretence foysted * Pag. 9 li. 1 2. in say you like all other Antichristian devices have their cloakes and holy pretences I answer These are rude words and words that wee may rather admire at then imbrace considering what little ground you have to speake them and how violently you have wringed them from humane testimony builded also upon mistakings of humane Authors Have you no more feare of God in you then upon such sleight grounds so publickly to breake out and that in such unseemly tearmes against the Baptisme of Infants Gods holy and blessed Ordinance Now surely you are not to be justified but condemned in your presuming thus to affirme what you cannot prove and labouring sacrilegiously to take away the visible badge of Christianitie from Christian Infants Consider what a dangerous thing it is to diminish from Gods Word Rev. 22.19 He that taketh away therefrom God shall take away his part out of the booke of life c. And with this consider also what ground you have had for your evill perswasion unjust calumniation and sinfull affirmation You should know that the Baptisme of Infants was not brought into the world by man much lesse was it thrust upon the world under colour and pretence and Antichristian-like foysted in as you unjustly affirme but God in his love and mercy and bountifull liberalitie brought it into the world amongst other priviledges for his Elects sake did not thrust it upoÌ„ the world as you speake but ordained it in an orderly way to be imposed upon his Church and People whose visible holinesse gave them right unto it And he did not bring it under colour and pretence as the Anabaptists doe their Baptisme in administring Baptisme upon People and then telling them it is right and afterward that it is wrong and that they must therefore be baptized againe by them in another manner and so after they have been baptized by them againe and againe they after a while are restlesse againe and unsatisfied because he who baptized them was unbaptized himselfe upon their own grounds Nor can they beleeve there is any baptized rightly in the world And so they know not upon their owne grounds what to doe or how to practise any Ordinance of the New Testament These their Baptismes I may say are rather to be accounted as thrustings colourable pretences and foystings and the like then the Baptisme of holy Infants which was brought into the world by the Wonderfull Counseller whose mightie power is to be magnified in all his noble acts who saved Noah and his familie in the Arke when all the world of unbeleevers both yong old perished with the Floud a Gen. 7. Which figure answereth the baptisme that now is b 1 Pet. 3.20 21. who baptized the Children of Israel in the Cloud and in the Sea c 1 Cor. 10.1 2. When Pharoah and his Hâ—st were overwhelmed with the mighty waters d Exod. 14.28 who according to his blessed promise e Deut. 18.15 made unto his People sent his blessed Sonne Jesus Christ our Emanuel * Mat. 1. 2. into the world to beare our sinnes and to suffer death for us and put an end to our iniquities Who was buried and rose againe the third day according to the Scriptures f 1 Cor. 15.4 And at his Ascension into the bosome of his blessed Father he gave Commission to his Disciples to teach all Nations g Mat. 28.19 and to preach the Gospel to every creature h Mar. 16.15 16. and to baptize those who were to be esteemed in the state of salvation Who when his earthly tabernacle dwelt amongst us declared that the kingdome of heaven consisteth of such holy infants * Luke 18.17 for whom he prayed earnestly i Joh. 17.20 21 24. upoÌ„ whom he layd his own holy hands k Mat. 19.15 pronouncing them blessed with his owne mouth l Mar. 10.16 Wherefore you shew your selfe very ignorant and exceeding presumptuous that dare with open face in the view of the world so far to deny Christ in a manner as to say that his Ordinance of Baptisme administred upon holy Infants is such a thing which by a supposed helpe of fraile man you have declared it to be Consider further how that although all these Antient Fathers whom you have cited were on your side And though you should cite many more in Antiquitie far surpassing the other yet all is vaine which you doe yea properly vanitie without the Scripture and as it is to no edification so it will give no satisfaction or information to the â—oubting soul or make any thing for strengthening your errour though it may harden you and other seduced in it but it will be a means rather to adde griefe and vexation to your spiâ—it at the day when you must give up your account for all your idle words vaine actions hard speeches when it will be little available to sly to these mountaines to hide you from the wrath of the Lambe whose word shall judge these fathers whom you have cited by which they shall be justified or condemned when they shall not judge it or condemne it as Hereticks formerly have done but be judged by it I have not told you that Auxertius one of the Arians Sectaries with his adherents who denied the persons in the blessed Trinitiâ— and deniâ—d the Godhead of Jesus Christ was one of the first that denied the baptisme of Infants And that Pelagius the Heriticke was a patron of this opinion of yours Whom Augustine and others of the Antient Fathers have opposed by the Scriptures and condemned for heresie as justly they might for then it may be you would say that Augustine was an Hereticke himselfe as well as the rest and therefore the citing of him or any such as he was can make nothing for our present purpose in cleeâ—ing the case in coÌ„troversie for indeed after this manner did Mr. Smith the Anabaptist answer Mr. Clifton who was his opposite and overthrew his errours But indeed I desire that all things may be tryed by the touchstone of the Word of God which is the onely rule for every divine action which directeth us to hold fast that which is good and to judge of persons and causes accordingly Thâ—rfore I desire
that what hath bin spoken already in answer to your severall objections and what hath been also gathered from the word of 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