and this be the common enforcing reason to both it must hold as well in either of them considered apart as in both of them joyntly taken And I would know if the Apostle had from such a ground of the promise urged one already baptized to repent onely had it not beene sufficient or suppose hee had to deale with one that in his judgement had repented already urging him onely to bee baptized because the promise belonged to him had not this been of sufficient force thereunto no rationall person I thinke will deny it The minor will appeare by declaring the groundwork upon which the Apostle urged them to bee baptized Now this was the onely ground upon which Peter urged them as to the former dutie of repenting so to the later of being baptized For the promise is or belongs to you scil the promise of grace of remission of sinnes c. as before was cleared Yea but repentance is called so too from them on this ground and that Infants are not capable of To this wee have formerly answered why it was meete to require as we doe some testimony of repentance in offensive members of a corrupt Church albeit a true visible Church as was that of the Jewes if they will bee fixed members of purer Churches as was that Church of Christians vers 41. and as members thereof partake of the seales yet wee doe not expect the same of their children too under no such actuall scandall but baptize them in their confessing parents right also Besides it appeareth before that it was a sufficient ground on which to urge the baptisme of such or such a person as considered in it selfe apart Now that the groundworke scil interest externall at least was that interest of those persons not yet savingly wrought upon in the promise of grace that appertaineth to such Infants of inchurched and externally covenant parents it appeareth in this very Scripture the persons spoken to were members of that true visible Church of the Jewes visibly in the covenant as wee proved the persons spoken of also were their owne naturall children as was likewise proved and of them also Peter avoweth even after Christs ascension and in reference to participation in the seale of baptisme in a Church of Christians That the promise is to your children so that the conclusion followeth that the baptisme of such children is virtually called upon as well as of adult persons SECT VII Object YEa but the Jewes children were not then baptized Acts 2. Answ It 's more then such as so speake can prove from the Text. No will some say but it is not For they that gladly received the word saith the Text were baptized vers 41. And they continued in the Apostles Doctrine and fellowship and breaking of bread and prayers vers 42. and 44. All that beleeved had all things common 44. and sold their possessions c. vers 45. and continued daily in the Temple c. vers 46. which are not appliable to Infants And what then therefore other things there mentioned were not so too non sequitur what more usuall in Scripture then to speake of things in a collective way of persons which are not all and each of them appliable to all and each particular person of that company but by a Synecdoche some things are spoken of the whole wholly but others are onely appliable to some parts of that whole It 's said in this place all that beleeved were together and had all thing common and sold their possessions vers 44 45. will any take this of the whole company in all the parts of it all were not capable of such an act applied to all as not all having possessions to sell for some were in need rather of supply from others vers 45. It is therefore a Synecdoche so in the other so all are said to continue in the Apostles doctrine and prayers c. as before this Infants were not capable of and therein it is as in the other Synecdochicall for of other things mentioned they were capable and they were appliable to them they had things in common too and had supplies of clothing or food c. according to their need unlesse any will say that these persons spoken of had no children needing such supplies as well as themselves or else if they had yet their needs were not supplied so when they all eate their meate in severall houses c. what were the children shut out of doores if they had any or had none of those families any children in them Suppose they could not eate meate with such singlenesse of heart yet were they not of them that did eate their meate and were refreshed with them there were doubtlesse some hypocrites in heart amongst them and they could not eate with them with a single heart but were rather spots in their feasts of charitie as Judes phrase is Jude 12. yet by a Synecdoche all did eate with heart singlenesse in that some which were capable of the act doing did so among them all added were such as should bee saved too by a Synecdoche and in a Church sense yea their Infants some of them were such really and all of them in an externall and ecclesiasticall respect of covenant and Church interest they were capable of that adjunct albeit not of some others so were they capable of being added to the visible Church of Christians as they were of that true visible Church of the Jewes before And as all the Infants of covenant and inchurched Parents which stand right in the Church are also in that right inchoatively members of that Church albeit not perfectly And inchoative actuall membership of a true visible Church doth externally inright to the initiatory Church and Covenant seale of baptisme of which two these members children were enrighted as well as others then present And for further clearing of this way of application of some common acts to an assembly where are children which are not appliable to the whole company wholly see Acts 21. 5. bringing on the Apostle and his company is appliable to all those of Ephesus men women and children but that act of praying not so properly appliable to the little ones but rather to the growne persons present Weeping and swearing is applyed to the whole company assembled whereof many were children Ezra 10. 1. 5. compared yet proper to the growne part albeit the other of being assembled before the house of God c. were common as that sinne confessed on the behalfe of the whole assembly vers 2. was understood of the whole figuratively In respect of that part of the assembly which had so sinned which were not the children as is evident no nor all the growne ones but some onely amongst them as vers 18. 23 24 25. declare so Deut. 31. 11 12. men women and children must bee all gathered to have the Law read in their hearing that they may heare and learne and feare the Lord and observe all the words
of his Law it is all applyed to all indefinitely yet sense and reason tells us that sundry of the children were neither capable then of such observing of all Gods words no nor so much as hearing the words read at that time in such sort as thereby at present to bee stirred up to feare or obey the Lord but some things onely are appliable to the whole assembly wholly other things now mentioned to the whole at present onely in respect of the growne part and to the others no other thâ—n as involved in any such acts of their parents at most so Joel â— 14. â— solemne assembly of all the inhabitants of the land is to 〈◊〉 convented for fasting so chap. 2. 1. againe repeated and ver 15 16 17. instance is given in the sucklings as to bee a part of that assembly for that end and the maine dutie vers 13 14 is laid forth as required of them all which are called to this solemne fast scil not meerely to abstaine from food or to expresse sorrow by rending their garments but to rend their hearts by godly compunction and sorrow c. all will yeeld that such things are not properly applyable to sucklings but to some of the assembly nor yet will any in reason exclude Infants from being of that Church assembly for such Church use according as they were capable of any thing mentioned albeit not capable of all mentioned Jer. 43. 4. 6 7 disobedience to Gods voyce is applied to all the people yet not properly verified in all the children which were of that people and company Deut. 29. 1. All Israel is said to have seene those wonders in Egypt and yet many of them that were then growne it being 40. yeares after their comming out thence vers 5. never saw the same much lesse did the little ones which were a part of that assembly vers 14. yet who will conclude because little ones were not Israel seeing theâ—e wonders that therefore they were not Israel entring into Covenant vers 11 12. and marke the phrase applied to the little ones that they also entred into covenant with God ibid. as well as God is said to make his covenant with them vers 14 15. this was a covenant of grace as hath been proved so that Hen. Dens notion holds not concerning God being in a sense in covenant with Infants but they may not bee said to enter into covenant with him that by the way To returne to that in hand nations baptized Matth. 28. are to bee taught to observe Christs commandements but non sequitur that Infants are no part of the Churches in the nation to bee baptized so here Infants beleeve not actually c. non sequitur ergo not to bee added to the Church in a solemne way of initiation to Church estate inchoatively by externall baptisme Both may stand together and have their truth of the whole in some things wholly wherein they are capable as of Church estate and baptisme in others true of the whole in respect of some part thereof as actuall beleeving To like purpose C. B. argueth weakely in his sixth argument that the whole citie was baptized men and women mentioned not their children too as if therefore excluded I may as well argue from Gen. 14. 11 12. That those Kings tooke all the goods of Sodome and Lot ergo they tooke no people besides contrary to vers 16. or if they did take people and women yet not children too And if Lot were first taken and then redeemed by Abraham with others yet not ergo his children or daughters or if then under the notion of women yet not a word of children wherefore either they were left behind in the Citie without their Parents when they were taken or if taken with the Cities and persons yet not brought backe againe which would bee absurd to affirme Secondly suppose the beleeving Jewes children were not just at that time baptized when their Parents were thus solemnly admitted to that Church of Christians yet non sequitur that they were not baptized afterwards When members are solemnly admitted to compleat and fixed membership in our Churches wee baptize not oft times their little ones the first day of that their admittance yet doe it afterwards as occasion is offered and their desire thereof signified SECT VIII YEa but neither then nor in any other Text in the Acts is it ever mentioned that any children of any beleeving Jewes were baptized A. Non sequitur that therefore they were never baptized Many things of great weight were done by Christ and so by his Apostles which were not recorded yet not therefore never acted by them John 20. 30 31. of which see more before touching consequences of Scripture But doe our opposites indeed conclude that none of the beleeving Jewes children were ever baptized by Apostolicall approbation Is it imaginable that among so many thousand beleeving Jewes at least ecclesiastically such which are so moved and touched in the case of their childrens being not circumcised and sealed that way to the covenant that it would not much more startle them to suppose such a tenet or practise as to deny them to bee sealed any way by initiatory sealing at all as neither by circumcision so not by baptisme Are they so ready to move contentions in that point Acts 22. 21. and upon but a supposed deniall of it and are they no way moved so much as to put the case state the question to be satisfied from the old Testament for no other Scripture was then extant why their Infants which were ever used to bee reckoned in Abrahams covenants so sealed thereto by the seale then only in use but now they are either wholly excluded any Church interest and any covenant interest actually or if owned yet as such yet why denied of that which is now the initiatory seale of such interest in the covenant Yea doth Peter expresly mind them of the interest of their children as well as themselves in the promise wishing them therefore to be baptized and this occasioned no stirring of questions and cases why on the same ground their children must not be also baptized other contentions about other things are mentioned and other differences in points controvertible in those times as Acts 11. 2 3. and 15. 1. 2. c. and 21. 11. and 6. 1 2. and 15. 38 39. and Gal. 2. 11. Surely then either the beleeving Jewes which when worse men had that priviledge of their childrens covenant and Church estate and right to the initiatory seale the case is so soone altered with them that they thinke it no matter of scruple to call the deniall and omission of it into question or to assay to desire satisfaction in it for matter of judgement and practise in the case or if starting it why is not so great a controversie mentioned as started by some at least that could not so wholly forget their childrens good when solicitous about their owne and when so
the latter dayes they all by the charge of God must have loâ— and inheritance with them in Canaan What in the earthly Canaan meerely verily there is no cause of such a limitation even with our opposites Canaan is typicall also typed out Gospell mercies covenant blessings and priviledges Heb. 3. and 4. 1 2 3 c. Surely then it 's the charge of God in reference to the choâ—…ce dayes of Gospel Churches that where godly strangers are cast and desire to fix and to incorporate themselves as into one people to injoy one and the same spirituall possessions and mansions under one and the same spirituall government of their Prince that such strangers together with their children should bee joynt inheritors with the Churches in the Churches heritage of the fellowship of such ordinances or priviledges as they are severally capable of as at least they are of the initiatory seale of baptisme And if others which hold with I. S. against us in this point are of his minde his pâ—inciples will further administer answer to that objection he citeth Ezek. 16. 8. Jer. 31. 33. Heb. 8. 10 Gal. 3. 18 19. Heb. 6. 17. Deut. 26. 15 16 17. Deut. 29. 12 13. Rom. 9. 8. with Gal 4. 28 by which it appeareth saith hee that it is the promise or covenant of grace which produceth a Christian and giveth him a being in such an estate of grace as in Church fellowship and afterwards hee useth arguments to prove the covenant of grace to bee the forme of the Church c. which how it will stand with other things elsewhere held forth by him and some of his minde is considerable As first that the command of God was the onely ground of circumcision confessed to bee the seale of the covenant yea but the Jewes had Church fellowship in their circumcision all will yeeld as being a Church ordinance and then the command of God gave them not alone a being in that fellowship since ex concessis the covenant of grace which was ever the forme of the Church c. it 's said it gave them such a being Secondly that the covenant wherein the Jew Church was interested was not a covenant of grace yet this author produceth Ezek. 16. 8. Deut. 26. 16 17 18. Deut. 29. 12 13. to prove that this covenant of grace was the forme of the Church and that by this argument amongst others because it was ever so Surely this Church of old was a true visible Church to which these places have reference and yet the whole body of the people are spoken of as the places declare So then the covenant made with them by this authors grounds was the covenant of grace Thirdly that the little ones of the Jewes were not in the covenant of grace yea but whence then had they that Church being and right to that Church fellowship in the seale of circumcision whence called that covenant Churches children Ezek. 16. 8. 20 21. 23. whence else are they of that number which were to enter into that covenant Deut. 29. 11 12. Albeit the author politiquely leaveth out that v. 11. in citing the place which is here produced to prove the covenant of grace to bee the forme of the Church and that which giveth one a Church being and as hee argueth that to be the forme of the Church because it was of old so so say I of the covenant of grace as invested with Church covenant that which was of old the forme of the Church giving being to Church membership and fellowship in Church ordinances the same is now such but the covenant as made with respect to parents and children was of old the forme of the Church giving being to such scil in circumcision as of parents so of children therefore the same is now in such sort the forme of the Church to give a Church being to parents and children in respect of Church fellowship in baptisme and so I conclude against that Fourthly that children of persons visibly in covenant with God and his Church have no right to baptisme when yet as hath been proved they have interest in the same covenant and so consequently by this very principle laid downe unto this Church initiatory seale of baptisme Yea but Infants have not the law written in their hearts and so it 's a seale to a blank A. No more had they of old no not Infant Isaac nor those Deut. 24. 11. with 30. 6. they are not therefore such as have not the covenant made to them because they have not such a power of grace actually in their hearts that is the execution of Gods covenant which oft times is long after but the very 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Berith or covenant it selfe is the promise of it Deut. 29. 11. 14 15. and 30. 6. compared hence that promise called the covenant as being the most substantiall part of it ibid. and Gen. 17. 6 7. 11. 13. they are present actuall subjects of the promise of future grace I will circumcise their hearts I will bee a God to them c. and that initiatory seale is to this especially Gen. 17. 7. 11. 13. Acts 13. 8. So are not Turkes and Pagans children in foro ecclesiae besides Judas and Ananias his baptisme was in Gods institution and in respect of the Church court and their Church right no seale to a blank albeit Gods Law was never written in their hearts and they shall finde it to their cost both Gospell words and seales will worke one way if not a savour of life then of death the cup in the Lords Supper is to all Sacramentally the testament or a visible seale of the very covenant of grace in Christs blood 1 Cor. 11. 25. yet some drinke of that cup unworthily and because it is Sacramentally of that nature thence are they guilty of Christs blood ver 27. 80. circumcision on all sorts was Sacramentally the Covenant of grace albeit not savingly and efficaciously such Gen. 17. 7. 11. 13. as before was proved SECT XIII AS for that objection of supposed absurdities of making Christs body to consist of dead members forcing Christs spouse upon him destroying Gods Church holding people in blindnesse bringing reproach upon religion filling consciences with scruples making men rest in their baptisme c. I answer they follow not exnatura rei from the initiatory sealing of Infants with the Church seale for if so then without distinction of times or Churches c. it must universally hold and so reflects upon the wisedome and faithfulnesse of God who once at least ordered such a thing scil putting the appointed seale of his covenant circumcision to such Infants they were members of the visible body of Christ a true visible Church c. yet God did not thereby destroy his Temple force a Spouse on Christ fill his Church with dead and rotten members hold people in blindnesse lay a foundation of persons resting in their circumcision kill them with scruples by it or destroy the markes
Christs owne c. even the worst of them John 1. 12. Deut. 32. 19 20. Isa 1. 2. and 43. 6. Ezek. 16. 20 21. 23. Matth. 15. 26. Christs chickens Matth. 23. end not Gods children meerely by creation as neither were that Church-seed of old called the sons of God for that Gen. 6. 1 2. in opposition to the daughters of men or of those without the Church For so all were of God Mal. 2. 10. Heb. 12. 9. nor yet by regeneration and saving adoption such but by externall filiation and adoption The argument then is a dicto secundum quid They are not children of the promise or of God savingly and in respect of the effect of the promise and of their covenant and Church estate to salvation therefore not at all children of God or of his promise which followeth not 2 Object They were children onely after the flesh and of the Sinai-covenant John 8. Gal. 4. now Abrahams spirituall seed onely are in the covenant of grace Rom. 9. Answ If children after the flesh be taken properly so even Isaac and Jacob were such They had Abraham to their father as well as the Jewes If taken exclusively as if no more but children of the flesh wee have already proved in what sense they were children of God and of his free covenant If children of the flesh allegorically so I deny that the Apostles intent Gal. 4. is to compare the state of the Jewes from Abrahams time downward to Ishmaels of Hagar as neither were they as Ishmael of Hagar the bondwoman but of Sarah the freewoman even as Isaac was Esa 51. 1 2. Hebr. 11. 11 12. Esa 10. 22. 23. So neither doth the Apostle consider them in reference to their first covenant estate in Abraham but to their degenerate estate into a legall frame and way scil as adhering to the morall Law delivered in mount Sinai not as a rule of holy life as there it was propounded and intended but as the substance of the covenant of workes so as to looke for life by it in which way God never intended it to his covenant people And likewise considering them as abusing the ceremoniall law not as given of God at Sinai to represent the Messiah before his comming in the flesh as one in whose blood virtually they might and ought to have looked for life and grace and by it to bee led to him when come in the flesh as hee in whom all those shadowes were fulfilled and so to cease but they abusing both morall and ceremoniall Law so as to seeke to bee justified after Christs comming thereby and not by Christ and persecuting such as held forth the contrary in this allegoricall sense not Hierusalem or the Church of old but Jerusalem which then was when Paul wrote this long after Christs time As might be shewed by comparing Gal. 1. 17. 18. and 2. 1. with other Scriptures This Hierusalem which then was and her children Hierusalem which now is and her children and verse 29. and so it is now not so was it of old verse 29. Those which did as Rom. 9. 31 32 33. and 11. 20. which were enemies to the Gospel-church v. 21. 1 Thes 2. 14 15 16. These which would bee under the Law in that sense not under Christ Gal. 4. 21. to 26. These were the persons here intended Yea it 's evident that hee considereth not the Jew-Church of old as in covenant with God but that Allegoricall Hierusalem in that hee applyeth this to all Legalists whether Jewes or Gentiles Those of Galatian Churches which are and will bee of that straine they were such children also Gal. 4. 21. Tell mee saith Paul to them yee that desire to bee under the Law c. where hee applyeth that further verse 2 3 4 c. whence also that Gal. 5. 2 3 4 c. In a word it 's one thing to bee under the morall or ceremoniall Law as a tutor another thing to bee under it as a parent both the Church-seed of Abraham and his choyce elect seed were all in common under the Law in the former sense and so to the outward face of reason and comparatively they were as servants Gal. 4. 1 2 3 4. scil not so free from vayles and manifold ceremonious burdens and services They were a royall nation under a Princely covenant and estate Exod. 19. 5 6. They were then children yea and heires as to Canaan so to greater things also in respect of externall right Gal. 4. 1 2 3. But yet as Princes children at schoole or as great mens sonnes at a kind of service Thus they were under the Law as a Tutor ibid. but under it as a parent and mother v. 23 24 c. scil such as were only of the Sinai covenant in the legall part of it and were to inherit by vertue thereof or no way Thus those Jewes as of Abraham Isaac Jacob considered as covenant-fathers they were of other manner of seed scil such like as Gen. 17. 7 and Deut. 36 c. and were externally instated to another manner of inheritance 3 Object They were under the old and first covenant which was formerly c. and not under the new or in the covenant of grace Answ Even that Sinai covenant could not disanuall that covenant formerly made with them in Abraham as being much later then it Gal. 4. 16 17. That was upon their comming out of Egypt Jer. 31. 32. This above 400. yeeres before it The covenant of Abraham Isaac and Jacob in reference to their Church seed was in the essentialls of it the same with that dispensed to us now and as to them before Abraham an everlasting covenant and Gospel Heb. 13. 20. Rev. 14. 6. The Lord as others which are wise and not variable made but one testament or covenant or will of grace yet he caused it to be writ in divers characters some more legible and perspicuous The royall charter and grant was and is the same but renewed so that the phrases new and old import not new in nature and substance but in accidents and qualities or new that is renewed As the same grace in nature it is said to be new or renewed every morning Lam. 3. 22 23. so the commandement of love the same in nature both old from the beginning yet also new â— John 2. 7 8. so the new way Heb. 10. 20. yet the old way too Heb. 13. 8. 20. Christ is not two wayes but one way John 14. 6. so new heavens and earth scil refined new churches yet the same essentially with those of old as wee sometimes call garments new which are but old ones new trimmed When the covenant is said to be new and old it is not divisio generis in species but subjecti in adjuncta So the phrases first and second Heb. 9. note that two testaments specifically different but numerically as the first and second person in the Trinitie are called first and second yet are not two Gods
was ground why Christ might command those little ones brought to him to bee baptized yea it was his mind and according to his will they should bee baptized albeit it bee not mentioned that they were baptized who could forbid water that they should bee baptized which received the holy Ghost which were Disciples Christs extraordinary knowledge of it himselfe and revelation thereof to his Apostles then present which used to baptize others John 4. 1. 2. it 's granted was sufficient warrant albeit there had been no rule for it when yet in this case the rule of baptizing Disciples John 4. 1. also might suffice Let it then bee no more said that if it had been Christs mind that Infants should bee baptized hee would have commanded those Luke 18. to bee baptized since according to the acknowledged principles those little ones either were or might groundedly have been baptized But wee will suppose Christ did not then expresly injoyne those little ones baptisme or that they were not then baptized yet will it not follow that it was not his mind such babes to whom hee expressed such love should not bee baptized or were not baptized hee that had his time of blessing them was free to take his time of injoyning their baptisme Yea hee gave not any expresse charge touching any care to bee had of them by those which brought them nor touching their being further instructed in the way of God and many other things of that nature And yet none will thence reason that Ergo it was not his minde that any speciall care or religious indeavour touching their further good should bee used No more doth the former follow that it was not his mind that either those or any other such like persons should bee baptized because hee did not then expresse his mind that way touching those little ones There might bee diverse other reasons why Christ might not then injoyne the same possibly their parents themselves albeit circumcised yet not baptized or if baptized their children also might be baptized when they were And his reasons to prove that by kingdome of heaven is rather meant that of glory then of grace are as weake still First Because they understand not the Lawes of the kingdome of grace Secondly because this kingdome is a locall kingdome as appeareth by the word entring in But doth C. B. which saith these Infants did receive the kingdome of God by gift thinke that they received not the kingdome of grace at present before their entrance into glory they were not yet entred heaven but on earth then and long after it may bee yet hee saith those little ones received it of gift in what way or by what meanes could they receive it without any covenant right surely no For there is no inheritance of glory other then that promised inheritance hence the promise put for glory promised Heb. 10. 36. nor eternall life but such as is promised Tit. 1. 1 2 3. yea could they receive it without the Spirit which yet they must also partake of by promise or no way none are made partakers of the Divine nature in any respect but by the promises 2 Pet. 1. 4. now if thus really and effectually interested in the covenant of grace and partakers of the spirit then the kingdome of grace too was theirs albeit they understood not the Lawes of it Yea doth Mr. B. thinke that the kingdome of glory belongs to any to whom that of grace belongeth not must not that bee first ours before the other yea doth not the phrase of receiving the kingdome note out that the kingdome of glory is received in and by the receiving of that of grace or of the word of the kingdome the promise and covenant c. else is it not improper to say that those Infants before they entred into Gods kingdome of glory they did receive it It 's a Locall kingdome as Mr. B. hath it and is it proper to say that a man receiveth a place before hee come at it otherwise then by word of mouth or writing or some equivalent ingagement I conclude then that the kingdome that they received was rather that of grace even the covenant of grace if not also grace of the covenant wherein was plighted and ingaged some right to that of glory or that it was the kingdome of glory in reference to such plighting and pledge of it Nor doth Mr. B. his other reason conclude against what I have said they were at least externally of Gods kingdome in that first sense scil considered as his kingdome dispensing scil his Church Secondly they received his kingdome in a second sense scil considered as dispensed in the revealed way of Gods plighting of it by word and initiatory seale at last of Circumcision if not of Baptisme and how ever in the externall right to both they are such which according to men at least should enter into glory in respect of actuall fruition of it which is the kingdome in a third sense scil the kingdome to bee possessed and to which a entring in in the Text hath indeed reference but else Mr. Blackwoods reason would not inforce it that because of that locall expression of entring in the kingdome must ergo bee a locall kingdome or heaven it selfe there are locall expressions very full Matth. 8. 11 12. sitting down of some in the kingdome of heaven out of which others are cast yet will not Mr. B. conclude that even the Jewes were in heaven and so cast out thence if they had not been first in they had not been thence cast in and out are here relatives It was some other kingdome scil that of grace in the externall subject of it the visible Church and ingagement of it the covenant of grace and dispensation of it the administration of Church ordinances c. in which they were by externall adoption and incision and out of all actuall priviledges whereof they were afterward cast As for that which others object against us in this point of childrens federall and ecclesiasticall estate from hence scil that Christ saith not of these but of such and such like scil as A. R. hath it such like in humilitie c. is the kingdome of God c. this is as groundlesse an interpretation as some others mentioned For first it 's evident that Christ maketh these little ones patterns to others like them in that interest in Gods kingdome of such or such like is Gods kingdome now samples must have that verified in themselves in some sense in which they are examples to others secondly they are inclusively made examples of such an initiatory receiving of the kingdome of heaven as tendeth to a more full fruition and injoyment thereof Luke 18. 17. Mark 10. 15. and and therefore at least externally such and so qualified themselves now will their paralelling this with Matth. 18. 3 4 5 6. hold good therein to say nothing that that Matth. 18. 6. may bee read from the Greek these little
Booths or Tabernacles to dwell in Deut. 16. 16 17. compared with Levit. 23. 34 35. 38 39 40. which none will say was Infants worke Let none then object that you may as well plead for Infants comming to the Lords Supper as in Cyprians time and was the corruption of the time as was crossing rebaptizing c. in use in his time too and as the Jewes Infants partooke of the passeover the contrary whereof appeares in a word wee spake of initiatory sealing of persons outwardly capable thereof otherwise albeit the parties have a covenant right unto it in the generall yet in that case of incapability it 's peculiar and their jus in re justly suspended from being personally elicited and this doth not make the ordinary rule and ground of right to the initiatory seale to bee invalid suppose an adult beleeving Pagan or Turke to joyne to our opposite Churches who make totall immersion essentiall to baptisme and that they were banished into Freezeland or Greenland or some such cold countrey if this person bee very weake and sick yet desireth to joyne to them ere hee die I demand whether hee hath right to baptisme or no this will not bee denyed Yea but is this right to bee elicited surely no unlesse they would bee guilty of his death But why not baptized because you will say it 's not simply necessary to salvation There being no contempt of it but onely a naturall and corporall incapacitie thereof but this crosseth not that ordinary rule ground and way of baptizing Very true but then let none object against such Infants covenant right to the initiatory seale the case of the females of Abrahams seed which albeit in Abrahams covenant yet not circumcised for when God injoyned cutting away of the superfluous foreskin of the flesh to bee the seale of his covenant the very nature of the command doth in reason if the notion of males had never beene expressed reach the case of the males which have such a superfluous foreskin of their flesh and not the females which are naturally and corporally uncapable thereof as having by nature no such superfluous foreskin and so in that case as in some others that law of circumcision had some things peculiar in it albeit it had other things in common with that of baptisme For the clearer handling of this thesis propounded wee shall lay downe a few other propositions or conclusions SECT II. 1. THat mixt commands of God having some part circumstantiall vanishing some part substantiall abiding the latter is binding to us since Christs time albeit the former be not A seventh day which God shall single out to bee holy is binding to us not the very seventh day of the week to be that day he that commanded the sanctification of the seventh day hee commanded a seventh day of his owne choosing and that to bee that seventh day the former stands in the fall of the latter Hee that commanded a strict holy worship on the Sabbath Exod. 34. 21 c. he commands sutable worship to the day and strictnesse of worship in such and such a manner of expressions the former was perpetuall the latter temporary the moralitie of the second commandement inforceth all the substantialls in seales or worship injoyned nor doth Christ in that sense abolish a title of the Law SECT III. THat consequentiall commandements grounded on Scripture are Scripture commandements as even consequentiall articles of faith are articles of faith and in a word all consequences drawne as necessarily flowing from or grounded upon Scripture principles these are of Scripturall warrant Paul Act. 13. 46 47. maketh a promise yea an old testament promise to bee virtually a command yea a new Testament commandement Loe wee turne to the Gentiles why so For God hath so commanded us How doth that appeare or where It followeth so hath God commanded saying I have set thee for a light to the Gentiles that thou shouldest bee my salvation to the ends of the earth this was spoken too in Esay 42. and 49. and it was a gracious promise in the letter of it yea but Paul rightly drew the force of a command as included in it according to the old rule Hee which promiseth the end hee commandeth the meanes tending to that end but of this more hereafter but here wee see what ground worke is made use of in way of authorising so great and waighty a matter upon It 's verily the mind of God and Christ that Baptisme and the Lords Supper should bee administred to the worlds end yet is it onely to bee drawne by Scripture consequence from such like places as Matth. 28. 19 20. and 1 Cor. 11. 26. So when it 's said As oft as yee doe this our Divines make account it is a virtuall command to celebrate the Lords Supper often and not as in some places twice or thrice a yeare That sisters as well as brethren should in case bee ecclesiastically censured it is of Scripture warrant yet by consequence onely for the rule is of a brother offending c. nor is brother of the common gender Matth. 18. 15. 2. Thes 3. 6. 14. And as in matter of practise so of faith it is thus in Christs time there was no other Scripture how then should that great article of the resurrection bee convincingly proved even to learned Sadduces which deny it verily an old Testament proofe Christ maketh account sufficeth as that Matth. 22. 29. 31 32. compared with Exod. 3. 6 c. and Luke 22. 37. yet this was but drawne by consequence Thus the orthodox fathers dealt against the Arrians denying Christ to bee essentially one with the Father they held him forth to bee 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 consubstantiall or coessentiall with the Father yet no direct Scriptures are for the same expresly so in reasoning against such as denyed the deity of the holy Ghost or that hee was to bee worshipped they did the like And where is it otherwise then by consequence to bee drawne from Scripture that there are three distinct persons or substances in that one God or that Christ hath two natures essentially distinguished and yet united in one Person c Circumcision is called a signe of the covenant how did Paul in speaking of Abraham mention circumcision as the seale of the righteousnesse of his faith whence drew hee that that circumcision was in the nature of it else it had not beene so to Abraham or any other any such thing verily it was from Scripture consequence And as in matters of faith and practise so in matters of fact the same rule holds Acts 4. 4. there were foure thousands 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 virorum not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hominum a word of the common gender which beleeved What no woman among them none of their wives that were very strange but were they not baptized Anabaptists will yeeld surely they were yea but that must bee drawne by consequence The Church of the Philippians Colossians
it It is concerning Dyonisius in his Ecclesiasticâ rarchiâ they would say Hierarchia who they say confirmeth their 8th Proposition thus It is ridiculous or as the Author for explication sake addeth to bee esteemed as a jest that the bath of regeneration should bee communicated to young children which neither can understand nor can heare to learne the mysteries of God I doe not here dispute whether this were Dyonisius the Areopagite under whose name the booke goeth it is most likely it was some other Grecian Dionysius whether Dionysius Alexandrinus Origens scholler as some probably thinke or some later Dionysius in the fourth or fifth Century as Dr. Vsher thinketh in his catalogue of Ecclesiastick writers yet a Greek Author hee was and ancient As for his words recited they are most vilely wrested And that which the Author of that Church Hierarchy in the 7th Chapter ad finem brings in as an objection of another reasoning according to corrupt nature the Authors of this Treatise bring in as his mind his words are these But that children not yet able to understand divine Mysteries should bee made pertakers of divine generation c. it seemeth as thou sayest to the profane to be worthy of blasphemous laughter and so on hee doth not say it deserveth laughter but seemeth so to doe And that not to the godly but to the profane And this hee said not as his owne but as anothers objection as thou sayst And if the Authors ever had seene that booke and but read on the Author of the Booke would presently have cleared himselfe from their errour For a little after hee addeth But yet of this matter scil Paedobaptisme just before propounded wee also say that those our Divines and Holy Prefectors brought to us from divine and ancient Tradition For they say that which indeed is that Infants according to the Law or Word of God are brought to the sacred habit scil to put on Christ in Baptisme to bee purged from all errour and uncleane life c. Who seeth not by this and by all the former falsehoods and lies which the Authors of this Treatise have vented that they are some Mountebank deceivers and probably some Jesuited cheaters which would send this pack of knavery abroad to deceive the simple and unlearned Reader And it may bee seeke to make the sad breach wider betwixt the professors in England by strengthning the hand of the weaker partie the Anabaptists so that what the authors or translators of a booke of some unknowne Author or Authors say of their Preface scil A mystery discovered they meane of the man of sinne but they have made it good rather to bee a mystery of the body of sinne and a mystery of iniquitie discovered in themselves and breaking out from them to open view which before lay hid And let the Treatise hereafter Ironically onely be called The plaine and well grounded Treatise concerning Baptisme CHAP. X. SECT I. I Might now have breathed a little and rested my selfe but that Mr. B. boldly challengeth any man to prove Infants Baptisme out of Justin Martyr Ireneus Origen Clemens Alexandrinus or Tertullian and after professeth hee regardeth no authoritie after the first 300. yeeres And others also call for Greeke authors and Testimony out of the Greeke Churches for it I am of small reading I confesse yet shall endeavour if it bee satisfaction onely that is herein sought to present some few things this way unto the consideration of godly sober and learned mindes and then draw to a conclusion of the whole discourse onely premising that in speaking from any of these Authors whether touching the jus or fact of Paedobaptisme it sufficeth if either expressely or by consequence the same bee held forth by them for this in Scripture course is allowed when we are to prove any thing that ought to bee done or was done either way of proofe literall or collaterall and consequentiall sufficeth Of Iustin To begin with Justin Martyr hee in his Dialogue with Trypho the Jew having spoken in way of vilifying circumcision in reference to Jewish Idolizing of trusting in and urging of it upon the Gentiles hee hath these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. and you indeed which are circumcised in the flesh need our circumcision that is baptisme But we having this have no need of that namely as having ours scil Baptisme in its stead and addes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. wee in that wee were sinners opposing the Gentiles to the Jewes have by reason of the mercy of God been received and so it is but equall to all that all should equally receive it scil Circumcision or Baptisme spoken of hee maketh our Baptisme to bee in stead of their outward circumcision and this to bee received by the Gentiles in that sinners by reason of mercy and this to be equall to all to bee received by them equally meaning either all Gentiles simply and that I think he intends not or at least all scil all sorts of Gentiles high low rich poore bond free male female babes youths and elder ones Of Irenius Ireneus supposing the place quoted lib. 2. adversus haeres Valentiniani similium cap. 39. Magister ergo existens Magistri babebat aetatem c. Christ being a Master had the age of a Master neither rejecting nor surpassing man nor dissolving in himselfe his owne law of mankind but sanctifying every age by the like in himselfe for hee came to save all scil all sorts by himselfe all I say which are new borne unto God by him Infants and little ones lads and youths and elder ones c. Ireneus his judgement is that Christ is a Master to all sorts of men to those of all ages Infants youth or elder persons and by force of Relata then in his judgement Infants as well as adults are his Schollers or Disciples that species of mankind Infants as well as growne ones albeit not all individuall Infants whatsoever come under relation to Christ as a Master therefore in his judgement that sort of persons being actually Disciples not meerely capable of it the priviledge of Disciples scil Baptisme is their due 2. Hee judgeth that species of mankind Infants as well as others to bee actually partakers of sanctification by Christ of the new birth c. the thing sealed in Baptisme therefore supposing his judgement thus in the one it is regular for him to judge that that sort of mankind are to bee visibly Baptized as well as that other sort of growne ones Origen is next and wee have already proved supposing any ground of jealousie against that quoted place in the Romans yet that of Luke is of unquestionable credit touching both his judgement and practise of Paedobaptisme Of Clemens Alexandrinus Clemens Alexandrinus is next where in his fourth booke of his Stromat alluding to that of Job returne saith hee not naked of possessions that is common but of sinne 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c.