Selected quad for the lemma: law_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
law_n	aaron_n	child_n	male_n	19	3	11.5545	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A90658	A reply to a confutation of some grounds for infants baptisme: as also, concerning the form of a church, put forth against mee by one Thomas Lamb. Hereunto is added, a discourse of the verity and validity of infants baptisme, wherein I endeavour to clear it in it self: as also in the ministery administrating it, and the manner of administration, by sprinkling, and not dipping; with sundry other particulars handled herein. / By George Philips of Watertown in New England.	Phillips, George, 1593-1644.	1645 (1645)	Wing P2026; Thomason E287_4; ESTC R200088	141,673	168

that which is clean out of that which is unclean a Thorn brings not forth Figs nor a Fig-tree bramble-buries a Turk bears not a Christian nor a Christian a Turk Ergo if children be holy the unbelieving parent is sanctified to the believing yoke-mate so that they may enjoy society one with another otherwise children born of them could not be holy In a word the scruple of the Corinthians was not whether the marriage was lawfull or no but whether a believer might continue to cohabite and enjoy marriage society with an Infidel yoke-fellow and not be polluted This was the case that troubled the Corinthians and not whether their marriage were lawfull or no and there is a great difference between a lawfull marriage and a holy pure marriage the marriage may be lawfull but not pure To the impure all things are impure but not unlawfull And their marriage being made when they were both unbelievers how can they question it now but they must question whether there was any marriage in the world ever lawfull unlesse they were both believers Secondly the Arguments the Apostle gives will none of them prove that the question was of the lawfulnesse of the marriage For first he saith the unbeleeving is sanctified to the beleeving doth this prove the marriage lawfull No certainly marriage of unbeleevers is lawfull yea altogether as lawfull as marriage of beleevers but their marriage is not so pure as of beleevers For a lawfull marriage doth not sanctifie unbeleevers one unto the other nor doth it sanctifie beleevers one to another for then it would sanctifie unbeleevers also but it doth not but their marriage remaineth impure though never so lawfull onely beleeving makes all things pure and so marriage unto them that beleeve but not more lawfull A second Argument of the Apostle is from hope of gaining the unbeleeving party Now what argument is in this to prove that their marriage was lawfull and that was their scruple Thirdly the Apostle would have every one to abide in his calling and state wherein God called him to faith and how will this prove the marriage lawfull or how if the marriage had been unlawful Not a word of all these arguments will prove that he said to be the question nor give any satisfaction unto it if it should bee the question But this was the question Whether they might continue in their lawfull married estate and not be polluted from the Infidell party This is cleare in the Text the arguments prove it to be the question and fully satisfieth the scruple ¶ 6 His sixth answer therefore concluding the holinesse here spoken of is meant of legitimacy and uncleannesse of bastardy is evacuated For what force is in this holinesse to prove the thing it is brought for by the Apostle for to invert his Argument This hee granteth Such a holinesse must be here meant as must prove an unbeleeving parent to be sanctified to the beleeving yoak-fellow But this holinesse of legitimacy cannot prove the unbeleeving parent to bee sanctified to the beleeving yoak-fellow therefore legitimacy cannot bee meant For two unbeleevers may be in a lawfull marriage estate and have children legitimate and not bastards yet for all this they are not sanctified each to other all things being impure to the impure Whereas he saith it must bee such a holinesse as is derived from all parents lawfully married which legitimacy is but the other holinesse stood for is not Reply I deny it but it must be such a holinesse as is derived onely from parents whereof one at least is a beleever now legitimacie is not such a holinesse as is derived onely from parents whereof one at least is a beleever But the other is such a holinesse But saith he it must be meant of such a holinesse as is derived from all parents lawfully married Because the Argument standeth in the children which were born before one of the parents came to the faith which therefore could receive from them unbeleeving no other holinesse but legitimacie in the course of generation Reply This holinesse here comes not by generation though concurring with it but flowes from the parents state of being in grace Secondly the Argument standeth not in regard of the children born before one was a believer but of those after as is clear from the Text For a believing person sanctifieth the unbelieving party else the children not born before either believed but born of a believer and an Infidell were unclean but now they are holy born of a believing and Infidel parent and therefore legitimacie cannot be meant here by holinesse because it is not necessary to make a childe legitimate that one of the parents be a believer It must be such a holinesse of children as is proper to children of believers at least one of them and this may also answer what hee further addeth that taking holinesse for legitimacie there can be no objection made why legitimacie should not prove the unbelieving yoke-fellow to be sanctified to the believing parent To which I adde this further that legitimacie will not prove that because legitimacie may be and is in the children of both parents unbelieving and lawfully married and yet it will not prove that they are sanctified one to another there being as much legitimacie in Infidels children as in Believers unlesse he will conclude that such marriages of Infidels are lawfull and all their children bastards legitimacie cannot be understood therefore here by holinesse but foederall holinesse as shall be further cleered afterwards and thus his refutation of my third argument is cleered to be of no validity I hope fully My fourth Argument hee thus sets down If baptisme succeed circumcision then as Infants were circumcised so Infants must be baptized But baptisme succeeds circumcision Ergo as Infants were circumcised so Infants must be baptized To this hee gives foure answers Denying the consequence that is that though baptisme succeed circumcision in a sense that therefore the same subjects are to be baptized now that were to be circumcised then In his first answer hee giveth divers instances to shew the weaknesse of the consequence in this by the inconsequences in them as the Gospel succeeds the Law The sons of Aaron were Ministers of the Law Ergo they are to be Ministers of the Gospel Baptisme succeeds circumcision grown males though they had no faith were circumcised Ergo males now having no faith must be baptized females were not circumcised Ergo females must not be baptized The Lords Supper succeeds the Passeover their little children eat it with the rest of the family in one house Ergo Infants may now eat the Lords Supper now with the rest of the family in one house And he asks if this be good reason and concludes that no objection can lie against these but will lie against mine also Reply First hee saith baptisme succeeds circumcision in a sense but setteth not down what sense it is that hee meaneth which had been necessary For

following which he sets forth to be between those two states agree to also they being not substantiall but accidentall differences yet so as they are not to be distinctly limited to one time in respect of the substance and things themselves and the effects thereof for all that he saith belongs to the new Testament were communicated unto many of them under the Old as Moses Aaron and all the elect of God and none of them are made good to many in the New But on the contrary all that is spoken by him of the Old may bee verified of men in the New as experience witnesseth the Scriptures affirm Gal. 4.29 The fault why all did not enjoy all these priviledges in the new Testament dispensed under shadowes in the Old being in themselves 2 Cor. 3.13.14 Heb. 3.7.8.22.4.2 8.8 and many now deprive themselves of these priviledges Heb. 4.1 and attaine to no more then they in the Old to establish their owne righteousnesse onely Rom. 10.3 And therefore as none are to be admitted to the priviledges of the new Testament or Gospel now but such as are sutable though many prove otherwise So none ought to have been admitted nor were in the Old Testament the same Gospel preached unto them and the new Testament shadowed under the old to enjoy the priviledges of the Old shadowing the priviledges of the New but such as were sutable even such as are required in the New though few of them proved such with this difference they were to beleeve in Christ to come to whom the Law and shadowes directed them we are to beleeve in Christ already come to whom the Ordinances doe direct us And therefore what he further repeateth having said the same all before that whosoever circumcised themselves and their Males and observed the Rites of the Law they and their children though Proselytes were the seed fleshly seed too for so he saith all this time and in that covenant and of that Church But now onely such as beleeve in Christ and be thereby regenerated are the seed and in this covenant and of the Church might well have been spared and have been answered before yet seeing hee addeth six other reasons to prove this latter clearly proving as he saith I shall bee willing to follow him And he saith First beleevers regenerate onely are in this Covenant and of this Church because none of the naturall seed of Abraham are in this Covenant by vertue of naturall relation though they remained in the Jewish Churches till Christs death But their being in the Churches by naturall relation then ceased as the Church ceased I reply First I have shewed that their standing in that Covenant and Church was not by fleshly relation but by spirituall who were counted for the seed Rom. 9.8 2dly Those few that were added to the Gospel Church were not cut off as the rest but remained naturall branches still in their owne Olive tree and what naturall relation they had they put not off and when the rest be added the Apostle saith the naturall branches shall bee ingraffed into their own stock For if the root be holy the branches will be so too Rom. 11.16 17.24 3dly The Scriptures by him quoted prove not the thing he alledgeth them for Acts 10.28 Rom. 9.8 Gal. 3.7 9 28 29. 4.28 His second Reason The Gentiles have no naturall relation to become his seed by and therefore their infants cannot become the seed of Abraham by being the seed of a beleever but must beleeve themselves otherwise they cannot be partakers in the Covenant made with Abraham Reply First there needs no such relation naturall nor were the Jewes as naturall seed onely without faith counted for the seed Rom. 9.8 Secondly the Gentiles Proselytes need not that naturall relation before to be in the covenant then but were ingraffed into the body by faith and therby their Infants Thirdly all now are not children of promise but many alwayes are deceivers and deceived as many then but not all only this may be noted that he yeeldeth that Believers now are partakers of the covenant of Abraham and therefore that then and now is the same And yet in the next and his third Reason hee denies the covenant under Christ to be the same with that which was made with Abraham because the three thousand converts Acts 2. when they were baptized did not baptize their Infants this he saith is plain Acts 2.41 and 8.12 where it is they that gladly received the Word were baptized they and they only which the Infants could not do Reply In the old Testament they that submitted themselves to the Jewish covenant and would take their God to be theirs were circumcised but Infants could not do that yet they were circumcised Secondly it is not said they were baptized and then it is not a perfect relation Reply It followeth not for all is not written that was done they might be baptized though it is not said they were For were not Christs Apostles baptized yet it is not written where when or who baptized them it is no argument to say it was not done because it is not set down but take it for granted their Infants were not baptized then which yet I will not grant for some considerations I shall afterward set down in another place doth this difference make that the covenant with Abraham and now is not the same It is not the same in this respect as all can be concluded which is but a circumstantiall difference The fourth Reason followeth if Paul and others writing to the visible Churches calls them Saints faithfull Brethren the Sons of God by adoption Rom. 16 c. and the Prophets notwithstanding they were led by the same Spirit were wont to speake otherwise of the visible Church of the Jewes as Isa 1.16 Jer. 1.2 Ezek. 3.4.4.12 Chap. 16.48.51 then naturall Infants were not in the covenant and of the Churches which the Apostles wrote unto as they were in that covenant and of that Church the Prophets spake to But Paul calls them Saints and the Prophets the other sinners yea grievous sinners and bids them wash themselves c. therefore naturall Infants were not in the Churches which the Apostle wrote unto as they were in the Jewes Reply I deny the consequence in the Reason as no way following and the proofe of it as invalid For as the Apostles do call the Churches Saints c. and the Prophets the Jewes sinners in the places alledged yet in other places the Scriptures call those sinners Saints Believers Brethren adopted c. as in many places may be made evident one or two may be enough Exod. 19.6 A kingdome of Priests a holy nation Deut. 33.2 3. Psal 22.22 and 122.8 Rom. 9.3 4. c. And the Apostle 2 Thes 2. calls them sinners carnall bids them repent c. to whom they wrote unto as Saints as Galat. Corinth where were many grosse things and sinfully amisse and most of the

away the Scriptures affirming no understanding Christian denying it Heb. 6.4 c. 3ly He answereth then the being under the everlasting covenant of grace and peace with God by Christ should be conveyed by naturall descent and not by the Gospel which is absurd and contrary to many Scriptures Rom. 1.16 17. and 10.17 Gal. 3.2 2 Joh. 3. 5 c. These Scritpures saith he shews first that the Gospel is the power of God to save every one that believeth Secondly that faith cometh by hearing the Word preached by which conversion is wrought whereby wee become sons of God by adoption and grace But the Position saith that some are partakers thereof by vertue of their parents by generation directly contrary yea to the whole Gospel of Christ Rom. 4.14 where if they of the Law naturally descended and circumcised only be heirs the promise the whole Gospel and covenant of grace is made of none effect Reply First they were all under the everlasting covenant of Gods grace equally on Gods part dispensed offering unto them thereby all the Gospel to peace and life Secondly this offer was not made unto them for any naturall respect but freely of Gods grace The naturall generation though many Gentiles also were taken into covenant and had the grace thereof offered unto them and to be bestowed upon them but not out of any respect to them naturall civill or religious Deut. 17.7 8. 9.5 but meerely out of his good will and faithfulnesse Thirdly the Gospel was preached unto all the posterity of Abraham all along to Christ and his time by himself and Apostles preaching no other thing then Moses and the Prophets had preached before them to all that then believed it was the power of God to save them Act. 15.11 all ought to have believed it and if they had it would have been the power of God to their salvation also and they that did not believe it was not the power of God to their salvation because they believed not Heb. 4.12 and it was their sin and will be to their punishment Now it is the power of God not to salvation of all though Church-members to whom it is preached but many came short through unbeliefe All the Scriptures therefore by him alledged are hereby answered nor is there any footing for his distinction in regard of Gods part dispensing but from them who received not what God offered but refused it Hee proceedeth thus If by grace I mean that favour of God whereby hee made the Jewes partakers of circumcision and ordinances as the fleshly seed of Abraham leading them to Christ above other nations then he grants that Ishmael and such were partakers of that grace Reply First this is not all they were partakers of but of the former also and of this from the former nor were they partakers of this or any thing else as they were Abrahams seed barely but from his grace to their fathers and therein taking them above others to he his peculiar people Secondly they were partakers of these ordinances as leading to Christ therefore not of ordinances barely but Christ offered unto them by these ordinances and of these ordinances for Christs sake given unto them I would ask whether they were to believe in Christ or no and so to be saved If so as certain it is how then can he make good this distinction or deny that they were under the everlasting covenant of Gods grace and by these ordinances to be partakers of But granting this unto them hee saith But this was taken away when Christ came all which I have spoken to before more then once Secondly he saith that the Apostles purpose is not to conclude those children spoken of 1 Cor. 7. within the limits of such a distinction because the Lord there in that state did count children borne of one believer unclean and polluted and to be put away with their mothers being Infidels Ezra 9.2 and 11.3 Therefore that state even while it lasted did not allow children to be of that state when one of the parents were forreiner to the Church much lesse hath it any force now to conclude it should be so when that the state it self is disanulled Reply First it is the Apostles meaning to conclude such Infants under the covenant with their believing parents whereby they were foederally holy nor can there be any other holinesse here intended as we shal see afterward And the reason which he giveth to disprove it is not sufficient because it is of an instance of a diverse nature from this of the Apostle 1 Cor. 7. though he would confound them whether willingly or no I leave others to judge His Reason is this That state did not allow of children born of one believing parent but accounted them unclean and required them to be put away with their mother Reply That of Ezra speaketh of a believing Jew married to an Infidel Heathen this of the Apostle speaketh not of a believing Christian marrying an Infidell but of one who being married when they were both Infidels the one being converted after marriage the other remaining unconverted That in Ezra was an unlawfull marriage first or last this in Corinth was a lawfull marriage Secondly that in Ezra therefore being unlawfull was not to be continued but the wife and children to be put away but this in Corinth is not so the Infidel here may be continued if contented to dwell with the believer nor are the children unclean but both the instances being of two cases so different thence is no ground for this reason and so that hee grounded on that reason falls with it A third Reason that he gives against that I said ¶ 3 that the Apostle speaketh of a holinesse which the Infants of a believer hath with their believing Parent standing under the same state of grace is this First that a Proselyte in the time of the Law by circumcision was made a member of the Jewish state as one born in the land Secondly hee was to circumcise all his males and thereby they were admitted and with the males wife females children there being no other Sacrament of entrance for them and unlesse he did circumcise himself and all his males though neither hee nor they believed hee could not be a member of that state Thirdly no president can be that ever one parent coming to be of the Jewish state and leave their married yoke-mates out did possesse their seed of the same state and therefore now in this state whereof men are partakers by faith only and thereupon a believer admitted and the unbelieving yoke-mate left out the Infants cannot be admitted into this state no more then the wife which in that state was brought in by the care of the husband being a proselyte and in this left out till shee believed Reply First a proselyte was not made a member of the Jewish Church by circumcision but by accepting the God of Israel to be his God and submitting himself to

their lawes receiving circumcision as a seal thereof that being not the first but a second grace not the covenant it self but the sign of the covenant Secondly I deny that all the males were to be circumcised or else their parents might not be admitted but only Infants were admitted and circumcised with the parent and those of yeers were not admitted and circumcised but upon their owne voluntary acceptance of and submitting to the covenant and so the believing proselytes yoke-fellow For if they had no faith though they had circumcision yet how could they partake in the Passeover or sacrifices to the remission of sin And therefore though there were no Sacrament for females entrance yet there must be faith either potentially by being under the covenant with their believing parent or actually by their own profession And as I have answered before to the like allegation they should receive the seal of the covenant which in order of nature followes it and were not in it and be admitted to circumcision the seal of the righteousnesse of faith which they had not Thirdly touching a president or rule of a believing proselyte admitted with his Infants leaving out the yoke-fellow I need say no more then this Whatsoever is not of faith is and ever was sin Rom. 14. ult and without faith it is impossible and ever was to please God Heb. 11.6 But this answer saith that a proselyte might be admitted and circumcised with all his males and females by vertue of his admission though neither hee nor they believed quite contrary to these Scriptures and so some should become one with Abrahams people neither by flesh nor faith which himself hath said are the only two wayes whereby any may be instated in such a condition As therefore in that state proselytes were admitted by faith into the fellowship thereof and therein Infants with them by vertue of Gods covenant accepted for themselves and their seed but those of yeers and their yoke-fellows excluded unlesse they did believe So in this state now abeliever and his Infants are admitted into fellowship of it but such children as are of yeers and unbelieving yoke-fellow excluded till they believe A 4th reason of this is this ¶ 4 The Apostle speaks indefinitly of children as children and in that relation to parents whose children they are whereof some of them might be twenty or thirty yeers old but children of twenty or thirty yeers old apparently wicked are not holy in such a sense as by vertue of their parents state in grace to be partakers of the same state with them and for that cause to be baptized Therefore holines here cannot be so understood by the Apostle Reply First the Apostle speaking indefinitely I grant children of any or no yeers may be understood Secondly children of twenty or thirty yeers or Infants have a state of holinesse upon them by vertue not of naturall relation but of foederall as children of a believer for that must be noted that one of them must be a believer that being the case that the Apostle resolveth Thirdly children of twenty yeers more apparently wicked were born either before the parent believed or after if after then they are holy seep a seed of a believer and so remain notwithstanding their wickednesse till they be cut off from that relation by God in his usuall way and then that holinesse is taken away from them their naturall relation stil continuing they are children stil of those parents whose they were if they were born before I say then they are unclean notwithstanding their parents believing and are not holy at all nor can be partakers of it but by their own faith in Gods covenant but for Infants as I said before they are holy and by vertue thereof may be baptized as a holy seed and so remain till by some act of theirs they be cut off and deprive themselves of it as Ishmael and Esau This exception hee excepted against saying the Apostie speaketh positively of a conclusion drawn from the state of the relation which can admit of no exception For if it could then will it be of no absolute validity to enforce the conclusion Again if the children do deprive themselves by some act of theirs of their state in grace then their believing parents can have no sanctified use of the believing yoke-mate but that may be whether the children be in the state of grace or no. Reply First the Apostle speaks positively of a conclusion drawn from the state of the relation that is not naturall as children but foederall as holy children of a believing parent Secondly it may and doth admit of an exception and yet is of absolute validity to enforce the conclusion because the exception lies in a diverse respect of the thing if it lay against the thing it self viz. as a believers childe then indeed it would not force but it lies here that when it comes to yeers and stands by its own faith in regard of personall relation acted to the covenant also by personall sin deprive it self of the personall state it had by personall relation to the covenant yet though the children cease to be and deprive themselves of that foederall holinesse which they had in regard of their personall the relation they had of children of believers and thereby holy remains still they were holy as born of them as is evident in the Jewish Infants cut off with their parents who were a holy seed before they were cut off But more of this afterward The fifth answer he makes ¶ 5 stands thus The holinesse here spoken of is such as must prove the unbeleeving parent sanctified to the beleeving yoak-mate But the holinesse of Infants in such a state of grace inward or outward will not prove an unbeleeving parent to be sanctified to the beleeving yoak-mate therefore it cannot bee meant of such a holinesse and hee gives this Reason of this Assumption Because it answers not the Corinthians scruple nor proves the thing in question by them Reply To cleer this discourse two things are to be attended First what was the Corinthians scruple and the state of the question amongst them Secondly by what argument the Apostle answers this scruple and question To the first hee saith The scruple that troubled the Church was whether their marriage were lawfull or no and sheweth that such a state of holinesse of Infants in grace whether inward or outward will not prove whether the parents were lawfully married or no because the childrens state in grace cannot prove the unbelieving parent sanctified to the believing yoke-fellow Reply First Grant the holinesse here spoken of must be such as must prove the unbelieving parent to be sanctified to the believing yoke-fellow yet to argue that such a holinesse of children in a state of grace will not prove that is but a mistake For if the children be holy then certainly the believing parents from whom they proceed must needs be holy For no man can bring

things succeed one another many wayes and there is not the same consideration of all things that succeed one another The sense that I intended it in is this That baptisme succeeds circumcision by Gods institution as a signe of Gods covenant and a seal of the righteousnesse of faith held forth in the covenant and if baptisme succeeds circumcision in this sense as it doth then necessarily followeth that look who were subjects of the covenant then and received the seal of it under those fignes administred the same subjects are now in the covenant and are to receive the seal of it under these signs administred unlesse therefore it can be proved that God by some manifest word hath excluded Infants now the consequence cannot be denied and the argument fully concluded Secondly the instance that he brings to shew the inconsequence of this by the inconsequence of them are not paralleled and subject to exceptions that this will not admit of As first the Gospel succeeds the Law therefore Aarons sons are to be Ministers of the Gospel as they were then of the Law Reply This comparisons suits not the Law and the Gospel succeed one another not as circumcision and baptisme nor will it follow because baptisme succeeded circumcision therefore Infants are to be baptized as they were circumcised so the Gospel succeeds the Law Ergo Aarons sons are to succeed themselves under the Gospel For I do not say cirumcision succeeds circumcision but thus it will follow As then there were sacrifices and services and none but Aarons sons might not administer so now no man must administer these services appointed but such as are called as Aaron was His second that circumcision was administred to grown males that had no faith is false as I have shewne before more then once nor were females excluded then from circumcision no more then they were excluded from the covenant but should have been circumcised if they had been capable as the males that females had the inward circumcision cannot be denied and whether they had not something analogicall to the outward may be questioned although it be not expressed Last of all it is true that the Lords Supper succeeds the Passeover but that all Infants did eat the Passeover with the rest will be denied many being not naturally capable by reason of age and none but such as were able to understand the nature of the ordinance might partake of it as now none but such inay partake in the Lords Supper and therefore they were required to instruct their children in the nature and use of the ordinance and although every family were to eat a Lamb together in a house yet after they were setled in the Land they were to eat it at Jerusalem and it was to be killed at the Tabernacle first Deut. 16.6 7. Nor was every family bound to eat it alone if they were too many or too few they were to have so many and no more nor might any uncircumcised or unclean or apostate eat thereof and females might although not circumcised for there are many objections to be made against these instances that cannot lie against the consequence of my Proposition A second answer hee gives is this The body of the Jewes were subjects of circumcision according to the Law even when Christ dyed yet the same were not subjects of baptisme according to the Gospel till they gladly received the Word Acts 2.4 Reply First they were not circumcised before but as they gladly received the Word and thereupon circumcised and their Infants with them by vertue of Gods promise Secondly it is true no Jewes of yeeres were baptized till they received the Word but that was not because any might be circumcised before without receiving the Word but because of the change of the manner of adminstration of one and the same word in a different manner as the parents receiving the Word under that dispensation they were circumcised and their Infants with them so now parents receiving the Word are to be baptized and their Infants with them His third answer is this as baptisme succeeds circumcision so the command and subject of baptisme succeeds the subject and command of circumcision the command of circumcision was of males only and that on the eighth day the Proseylte must circumcise all his males although they have no faith the females must not be circumcised although they have never so much faith but the commandment of baptisme is only of Disciples men and women a description of whom yee may see Luke 14.26.27.33 therefore the consequence followeth not Reply First it is the command of God that sanctifieth circumcision and baptisme in their severall times to be administred Secondly Gods command must sanctifie the subjects to whom they are to be administred and therefore to circumcise any then or baptize any now but such as God commands is a sinfull error Thirdly it is not the command of circumcising why wee baptize any but a command of baptizing them why they are baptized and therefore the commandment of baptizing being not to baptize at any set time wee do not baptize any on the eighth day as they circumcised wee likewise baptize females the command including them though they were not circumcised being not capable of it as I said Fourthly Then the case is this Whether Gods command be to baptize Infants now as it was to circcumise Infants then this he denies upon this ground circumcision was not administred unto them as Disciples but Disciples only are now to be baptized and a Disciple is hee that denies himself father c. takes up his crosse daily and followes Christ Luke 14.26 But then they that did none of these yea Proselytes and their males were circumcised though they did not believe Reply First that Proselytes and their males were cirumcised though neither he nor they believed hath been often said but never proved nor ever can be and I have shewed the contrary Secondly That none are to be baptized now but Disciples I grant it but I say also none but Disciples were then circumeised as is evident from the description of a Disciple Luke 14. For whatsoever is required of any to be a Disciple agrees to them then as may be seen Psal 44.22 with Rom. 8.36 Psal 45.10 Heb. 11.8 with this Luke 14. Gen. 4.8 with John 1.3.18 Gen. 21.9 with Gal. 4.29 where the Apostle saith as it was then so it is now and as it is now so was it then and therefore there is no difference in that respect although the word was not then used yet the matter being common we may make the word common also and if all were not true Disciples then but many degenerated so it is now also Thirdly Disciples are now and were then of two sorts First such as begun when God as I may so say first set up his School in in any place as Abraham and his grown males Heb. 11 c. taking in their Infants with them for upon this condition