of David proceeds upon this mistake that by the root and first fruit are meant any Ancestor whereas it is meant of Abraham the Father of the faithfull as Deodate in his Annot. on Rom. 11.16 or at most Abraham Isaac and Jacob in whose names all the elect are comprehended when God calls himself The God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob as our Saviour intimates Luke 20.37 38. Mat. 22.32 Mar. 12.26 27. And for that which he saith that the Jews in Pauls time were holy by covenant howbeit for the present the sons were branches broken off for unbeliefe if it be meant of the Jews broken off through unbelief in respect of their present state they were not holy by covenant Only thus fâ—r the Jewish nation in Pauls time is said to be holy either in respect of the remnant according to the election of Grace mentioned vers 5. of which he was one or in respect of the posterity that should afterwards be called according to the promise of God to Abraham in which sense they were federally holy yet this did neither give right for the baptizing of children of unbelieving Jewes in Pauls time nor now And for that which he saith that God hath chosen the race and nation of the Gentiles it is not right For God hath not chosen simply the race and nation of the Gentiles but a people to himself out of the race and nation of the Gentiles as it is said Rev. 5.7 Thou hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred and tongue and nation As for Mr. Blakes Argument because it falls in with your reason I shall answer them together in that which followes You say Now we know that when that one nation of the Jews were made Disciples and circumcised their Infants were made disciples made to belong to Gods School and circumcised with them when that nation was made disciples in Abrahams loynes and circumcised their seed also was the same when that nation was taken out of Egypt and actually made Disciples their children were also with them This is your first Argument to prove a command by cleare consequence from Mat. 28.19 for baptizing Infants Now the strength of it lies in these suppositions First that Christ did bid them baptize all nations after the manner that the Jews did circumcise one nation And Mr. Blake doth conceit this so strongly that he saith this cannot be denyed of anâ— that will have the Apostles to be able to know Christs meaning by his words in this enlarged Commission Secondly that the nation of the Jews were discipled when they were circumcised I do not impute it to Mr. Blake through defect of ability to understand but through the strong hold which these points have in his minde that Baptisme succeeds Circumcision in the place roome and use of it and the covenant of the Gospel is all one with the covenant made to Abraham that he imagines there should be such an allusion to circumcision as that the Disciples must understand Christs meaning whom to baptize from the Precept of circumcision Gen. 17. but in mine apprehension there is no colour for such a conceit 'T is true he enlargeth their commission and bids them Go and make Disciples of all nations or as it is in Mark Preach the Gospel to every creature and then to baptize the Disciples of all nations but this enlargement of commission was not in opposition to the restriction about circumcision Gen. 17. but in opposition to the restriction Mat. 10.5 6. as your self rightly expresse it pag. 44. And for that expression that the nation of the Jews were discipled that their Infants were discipled that the nation was made Disciples in Abrahams loines it is such a construction of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 make Disciples as I believe no Lexicon nor I think any Expositor to this day made of the word which plainly signifies so to teach as that the persons taught do learn and accordingly professe the things taught and our Lord Christ in Mark expresseth it by preaching the Gospel and accordingly the Apostles by preaching did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 disciple Acts 14.21 which how it can be said of Infants that can neither understand nor speak the doctrine of the Gospel preached to them without a miracle I know not I make no question but Abraham did teach his children and make them Disciples and that the Israelites did teach and make Disciples of their children as soon as they could understand the things of God but that they should be disciples in Abrahams loynes is such a piece of language as I never read in the Bible nor in any Author but such as torture words to make them speak what they would have them And sure if the Apostles had understood our Saviours command thus Disciple all nations baptizing them that is Admit the infants of all nations to baptisme as the Jews did the male Infants of that one nation to circumcision they might have saved themselves a great deal of labour of preaching afore baptisme and of baptizing females and would have left us some precedent of such a practice But you adde further And we know that in every nation the children make a great part of the nation and are alwayes included under every administration to the nation whether promises or threatnings priviledges or burthens miracles or judgements unlesse they be excepted So are they in families in cities it being the way of the Scripture when speaking indefinitely of a people nation city or family to be either saved or damned to receive mercies or punishments expresly to except Infants when they are to be excepted as we see in the judgement that befell Israel in the Wildernesse when all that rebellious company that came out of Egypt was to perish by Gods righteous doome their little ones were expresly excepted Numb 14.31 and in the covenant actually entred into by the body of the nation Nehem. 10. it is expresly limited to them who had knowledge and understanding And the Disciples who received this commission knew well that in all Gods former administrations when any parents were made disciples their children were taken in with them to appertain to the same school and therefore it behooved the Lord to give them a caution for the leaving out of Infants in this new administration that they might know his minde had be intended to have them left out which that ever he did in word or deed cannot be found in Scripture The Lord hath plainly given a caution in Scripture for the leaving out Infants in this administration accoâ—ding to ordinary rule For in that he directs them to baptize disciples upon preaching he doth exclude Infants who are not such disciples nor according to ordinary providence can be And this the Apostles could easily understand as knowing that under the term Disciple in common speech and in the whole new Testament those only are meant who being taught professed the doctrine taught by such a one
as Mr. Mather in answer to Mr. Herle or that there must be an imparity in the Clergy and so Bishops above Presbyters as the Prelates Bilson Davenâ—nt Dâ—terminat Quest. 42. and others were wont to argue or that a Doctor in Divinity may be a Justice of Peace because Eli and Samuel were Judges as the Prelaticall Doctors or that there must be a Pope because there was an High Priest as Bellarmine and the Papists If the consequence be not good in the one neither is it in the other You say in the next words that the Lords Supper succeeds in the room of the Passeover This I confesse goes current but the Scripture doth not say so that I know The Scripture expresly saith that Christ our Passeover was sacrificed for us 1 Cor. 5.7 It iâ— true the Lords Supper was appointed after the Paschal Supper but it is but our collection that thereby the Lord would make an end of the Passeover and substitute the other in its room In other places we rather finde the Lords Supper to answer the Manna and the Rock or water out of the Rock in the Wildernesse 1 Cor. 10.3 4. It is true the Apostle 1 Cor. 10.16 17. argues from the eating of the sacrifices to the eating of the Lords Supper But that was not only from the Passeover but from the rest of the peace-offerings as well as it yea from the Heathens feasts upon their sacrifices It is true 1 Cor. 5.8 we are required to keep the feast and the allusion is to the Paschal Supper but whether the keeping the feast be meant of the Lords Supper or as Beza paraphraseth it totam vitam in justitia integritate consumamus let us spend our whole life in justice and integrity or something else sub judice lis est is a controversie undetermined But let it be granted that the Lords Supper imitates I will not say succeeds into the room of the Jewish Passeover for that was a sacrifice and Christ offered is only in stead of it the Paschal Supper which because of the time and the form of words used in the institution and such like circumstances is very probable and therefore there is great Analogy between them yet he that should argue therefore we must receive the Lords Supper with unleavened bread as the Papists or that the bread and wine must be first consecrated on an Altar as was the Paschal Lamb or that the Lords Supper is not to be administred but in a Church gathered after the Church-way as the Elders of New-England in answer to the nine Positions or that we must keep an Easter and then have the Lords Supper as in ancient and later times hath been conceived you would reject these things as ill gathered and perhaps call them superstitious But whether these and more like to them do not as well follow as baptizing of Infants from circumcision of Infants because of their Analogy I leave to your self to consider You adde And this our Lord himself taught us by his own example who was circumcised as a professed member of the Church of the Jews and when he set up the new Christian Church he would be initiated into it by the Sacrament of Baptisme It is confessed that Christ was circumcised and baptized but that it was to teach us by his example either your conclusion or the agreements between Baptisme and Circumcision which you set down or that which next goes before your speech the succession of the Lords Supper to the Passeover remains yet to be proved much more that which you drive at that there is such a parity or rather identity between Baptisme and Circumcision that the command to circumcise Infants is a command to baptize Infants The circumcision of Christ was undoubtedly as his presenting in the Temple and the offering for him to accomplish the Law under which it pleased him to be made of a woman Gal. 4.4 5. and it had a spirituall use to assure our circumcision in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh Col. 2.11 This is certain we have cleare Scripture for it if you shall shew the like Scriptures for the inferences you make from Christs circumcision I shall imbrace them with both arms The Baptisme of Christ was that Christ might fulfill all righteousnesse Mat. 3.15 But how to expound this speech hath not a little difficulty Various conjectures there are about the meaning of it this seems to me most likely that righteousnesse is there taken for that which was appointed by God either in secret instructions or some particular Prophecy from God But then if it be asked why God did appoint it this seems most likely sith it is plain that this was the time of Christs anointing with the Spirit as appears Luke 4.18 that Baptisme was used to signifie his anointing by the Spirit for his great function he was then to enter on which me thinks the story it self and the speech of Peter Acts 10.37 38. do evince That which you say That being to set up the new Christian Church he would be initiated into it by the Sacrament of Baptisme seems not probable partly because Christ did not set up in his own dayes on earth a visible Church Discipline and Worship distinct from the Jewish partly because his Baptisme was of a far higher nature then our Baptisme Who was anointed with the oyl of gladnesse above his fellows Heb. 1.9 and therefore his Baptisme was of a transcendent nature above ours But if it were granted that Christs Baptisme were to teach us that he that is a member of the Church must be initiated by baptisme it will rather disadvantage your cause then advantage it sith Christ who was the holy One of God and the Angel of the Covenant and the seed of Abraham in whom all the nations of the earth should be blessed to whom the promises were made in whom the Covenant was confirmed Gal. 3.16 17. yet was not baptized till he began to be about thirty yeers of age Luke 3.23 So that you see how little help you have from your parities or Christs example to prove a like reason of circumcising and baptizing Infants But you have yet another string to your bow out of Col. 2.11 12. I will follow you to try the strength of that also You say of this conclusion there iâ— no great doubt but becâ—use some of the Anabaptists do deny the Sâ—crament of Baptisme to succeed into the room place and use of Circumcision be pleased to observe how plain the Apostle makes it Col. 2.8 9 10 11 12. It is necessary that I should first consider in what sense your Position is to be taken before I examine your proof for it The thing that you say the Apostle makes plain is that the Sacrament of Baptisme doth succeed in the room place and use of Circumcision Succession properly notes a coming after another as we say Kings succeed one another High priests one after another To speak exactly Baptisme
as Johns Disciples Christs Disciples the disciples of the Phâ—risees Luke 5.33 the disciples of the perverters Acts 20.30 and accordingly they administred Baptisme And in that Christ appoints these to be baptized he excludes others For the appointment of Christ is the rule according to which we are to administer holy things and he that doth otherwise follows his own invention and is guilty of will-worship and thus we construe the meaning of the Holy Ghost in other appointments As because it is said 1 Cor. 11. 28. Let a man examine himself and so let him eat therefore Infants are excluded though Infant-câ—â—â—union was held lawfull and necessary for six hundred yeers in the Church Wine is appointed in the Eucharist therefore not Water mixt with Wine as the Papists contend Water in Baptisme therefore not salt chrisme spettle the Preacher to baptize therefore not women or private persons Males to be circumcised therefore no females two shall be one flesh therefore no more then two against Polygamie Matth. 19.5 So that unlesse you will alter the definition of wil-worship according to Mat. 15.9 in point of worship that is excluded which is not expressed And therefore whereas you say it behoved the Lord to give them a caution for the leaving out of Infants in this new administration that they might know his minde if that be intends to have them left out which that ever he did in word or deed cannot be found in Scripture I may more truly invert thus it behoved the Lord to give them a Precept for the putting in of Infants in this which you truly call new administration as being not the same with Circumcision that they might know his mind if that he intends to have them put in which that ever he did in word or deed cannot be found in the Scripture Certainly you may as soon extract water out of a flint as draw a command to baptize Infants out of this Scripture by any expresse terms or virtuall consequence but the ordinary baptizing of Infants is and may be proved from this Text to be a wil-worship if this Scripture be the rule of administring ordinarily that Ordinance which it indeed is and hath been still taken to be As for that which you say The children make in every nation a great part of the nation so do the Infidels that are adulti of ripe yeers and yet are not therefore included in this speech Teach all nations and baptize them and as for that which you say the children are alwayes included under every administration to the nation whether promises or threatnings priviledges or benefits mercies or judgements unlesse they be excepted therefore here Infants are included when it is said Go teach all nations baptizing them I answer Fiâ—st that this speech in so universall and ample expressions if understood of temporall judgements and mercies is contrary to Ezek. 17.20 Jer. 31.29 30. Isai. 6.13 and 10.22 if of eternall as it seems you mean when you say to be either saved or damned it is contrary to Rom. 9.13.27.29 Rom. 13.5 Secondly if it were true yet makes nothing to the purpose sith this Precâ—pt is not an appointment to baptize all nations as nations without aâ— further circumscription for then every person in the world might be â—aptized but disciples of all nations and therefore it is not a nationall priviledge but a personall belonging to Disciples or Believers of every nation And for that which you say The disciples who received this commission knew well that in all Gods former administrations when any parents were made disciples their children were taken in with them to appertain to the same school if it be thus understood that God required that parents being called should instruct their children and so the children in potentia propinqua in a neer possibility were disciples it is granted according to that which God speaks of Abraham Gen. 18.19 and requires of the Israelites Deut. 6.7 But if you mean it thus that the Disciples knew that when any parents were made disciples barely and precisely for this reason without any other the children were actually disciples and so to have Baptisme administred to them it is an untruth that hath no ground for it But you have yet somewhat more to say for Infants being disciples and therefore you thus answer an objection If it be said they are not capable of being disciples I answer as capable as the Infants of the Jews and Proselytes were when they were made disciples It is granted but neither were the Infants of Jews or Proselytes capable of being actually disciples in an ordinary way nor are ours You go on And besides they are devoted to be disciples being to be trained up by their parents who are from their Infancy to teach them the knowledge of Christ. It is hard to say that parents are to teach Infants from their infancy the Knowledge of Christ For though it is said of Timothy Thou hast known the Holy Scriptures 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2 Tim. 3.15 yet our Translators would not render it from an Infant but from a child But however if their parents be to teach them from their infancy and the parents devote them to be disciples yet this doth not make them disciples actually but potentially they may never be disciples for all that But you tell us And at the present they are capable of his own teaching I deny not but Infants are capable of Christs own teaching yea of actuall faith yea of actuall profession of faith The same power that could make John Baptist in his mothers womb sensible of the presence of Christs mother and to leap for joy that could open the mouth of Balaams Asse can out of the mouth of babes and sucklings perfect praise But then this is done in an extraordinary way and extraordinary accidents make not an ordinary rule But you adde And suâ—e I am in Christs own dialect to belong to Christ and to be a Disciple of Christ or to bear the name of Christ are all one and that such Infants do belong to Christ and bear the name of Christ I have sufficiently proved already and in the margine you cite Mat. 10. 42. Mar. 9.41 Mat. 18.5 Mr. Blake pag. 21. seems to triumph in this Argument when he saith Who then is not afraid to refuse them who will receive Christ Who will not baptize them that is willing to baptize disciples in the name of Christ But this is a triumph afore victory The plain truth is there 's never a one of all the three Texts speaks of little ones in respect of age The first Mat. 10.42 is meant of the Apostles and as Beza in his Annotations sayes rightly Parvos vocat per concessionem suos discipulos homines nimirum coram mundo viles abjectos He calleth his Disciples little ones by concession to wit men vile and abject before the world so that they are called little in respect of their outward estate in the world
An Examen OF THE SERMON Of Mr. STEPHEN MARSHAL About Infant-Baptisme in a Letter sent to him Divided into Foure Parts 1. Concerning the Antiquity of Infant-baptisme 2. Concerning the prejudices against Antipaedobaptists from their miscarriages 3. Concerning the Arguments from Scripture for Infant-baptisme 4. Concerning the Objections against Infant-baptisme In which are maintained these Positions 1. Infant-baptisme is not so ancient as is pretended but as now taught is a late Innovation 2. Antipaedobaptisme hath no ill influence on Church or Common-wealth 3. Infant-baptisme cannot be deduced from Holy Scripture 4. Infant-baptisme is a corruption of the Ordinance of Baptisme LONDON Printed by R. W. for George Whitington 1645. Infant-Baptisme Is not so Ancient as is pretended As now Taught Is a late Innovation PART I. Concerning the antiquity of Infant-Baptisme SIR IT is now full nine moneths since that being informed by one of the Members of the Assembly in which you are one that there was a Committee chosen out of the Members of the Assembly to give satisfaction in the point of Paedo-baptisme and advised by the same person out of his tender love to me to present the reasons of my doubts about Paedo-baptisme to that Committee I drew them up in Latine in nine Arguments in a scholastique way and they were delivered unto Mr. Whitaker the Chair-man of the Committee about nine moneths since to which I added after an addition of three more reasons of doubting with a supplement of some other things wanting which was delivered to Mr. Tuckney and joyned by him to the former Papers My aim therein was either to find better ground then I had then found to practise the baptizing of Infants from that Assembly of learned and holy men whom I supposed able and willing to resolve their Brother in the Minâ—stâ—ry Or else according to the solemn Covenant I have taken to endeavour the reformation of these Churches according to Gods word by informing that Assembly what I conceived amisse in the great ordinance of Baptizing The successe was such as I little expected to this day I have heard nothing from the Committee by way of answer to those doubts but I have met with many Pamphlets and some Sermons tending to make the questioning of that point odious to the People and to the Magistracie Among others reading the Sermon of Mr. Richard Vines on Ephes. 4.14 before the Lord Major and the Sermon you preached at Westminster Abbey I perceive there is such a prejudice in you and it may seem by the Vote passâ—d about the members of the visible Church in the generality of the Assembly that he is likely to be exploded if not censured that shall but dispute against it and therefore little or no likelihood that this matter will be argued as I conceive it doth deserve in your Assembly And further I perceive there is a great zeale in your spirit against the denying of Children baptisme as if it were a more cruâ—ll thing than Hazaels dashing out Childrens brains That it were an exclusion of them out of the Covenant of Grace c. Which I the more admire considering the report which hath been of you as a sober learned holy well-tempered man that you should be so transported in this matter as to be so vehement in maintaining that which was accounted heretofore in many ages but an Ecclesiasticall tradition for which you are fain to fetch a command from Circumcision and confâ—sse no expresse example in Scripture for it and go not about to prove it but by consequence inferr'd from five Conclusions which though you call undeniable yet others do not think so nor yet see reason to subscribe to your judgment You are not ignorant I prâ—sume that Mr. Daniel Rogers in his Treatise of the Sacrament of Baptisme part 1. pag. 79. confessed himself yet unconvinced by demonstration of Scripture for it And whereas your Achilles for Paedo-baptisme is the Circumcision of Infants me thinks Mr. Balls words Reply to the Answer of the New-England Elders about the third and fourth Positions pag. 38 39. cut the sinews of that argument But in whatsoever they agree or differ we must look to the Institution and neither stretch it wider nor draw it narrower then the Lord hath made it â—or he is the Institutor of the Sacraments according to his own good pleasure and it is our part to leaâ—n of him both to whom how and for what end the Sacraments are to be administred how they agree and wherein they differ In all which we must affirm nothing but what God hath taught us and as he hath taught us And whereas the words of Paul 1 Cor. 7.14 are your principall strength to prove the Covenant-holines of Infants of a believing parent Musculus a writer of good esteem in his Commentary upon that place confesseth that he had abused formerly that place against the Anabaptists but found it impertinent to that purpose And for my part after most carefull and serious reading and perusing of many Authors and among the rest your Sermon I cannot yet find it to be any other then an innovation in comparison of many other things rejected late maintained by erroneous and dangerous principles having no true ground from Christs institution which alone can acquit it from Will-worship and which hath occasioned many errors in doctrine corruptions in discipline and manners unnecessary and vain disputes and almost quite changed the ordinance of Baptisme Wherefore upon advise I have resolved to examine your Sermon who are a leading man and in respect of your eminency either likely to be a very good or very bad instrument as you are guiâ—dd that you may either rectifie me or I you and that we may if the Lord shall see it good give one another the right hand of fellowship and stand fast in one mind in the truth of the Gospel and cleare the truth of God to the people whose eyes are upon us And so much the rather have I pitched upon your Sermon because I conceive it contains in a plain way as much as can be wel said for Poedo-baptisme and your Epistle seems to intimate your publishing of it to be for the ease of the Assembly and possibly it may be all I may expect from them Now the Lord vouchsafe to frame both your spirit and mine that we may seek and find truth in humility and love in this great businesse which concerns the soules perhaps lives and estates of many millions yea of all godly persons and the glory of God and honour of our Lord Jesus Christ and that we may trample under our feet our own credit our own opinion if it stand not with the honour of Christ and the truth of God LEtting passe the Epistle and leaving the various Questions and allowing the stating of the Question conceiving you mean it of baptizing by warrant of ordinary rule of Scripture without extraordinary revelation or direction Whereas you affirme that the Infants of
bring is Heb. 8.6 where our covenant is said to be established upon better promises If this Scripture serve to your purpose then the covenant of Grace now hath better promises then the covenant of Grace the Jews had but this I know you will deny who hold that the covenant of Grace is the same both to Jews and Gentiles But that you may see how confusedly you thrust things together in this place I pray you consider what covenant it is of which the Author to the Hebrewes speaks there that it had not so good promises Is it not expresly said to be that which God made when he took the Israelites by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt which covenant they brake vers 9. Now although Dr. Crisp vol. 2. Serm. 2. calls the covenant of Aarons Priestood a covenant of Grace though of lesse grace yet you say thus pag. 10. and four hundred and thirty yeers after the Law was added with great terror upon Mount Sinai not as a part of this covenant and after plainly in that giving of the Law there was something of the covenant of works made with Adam in Paradise c. So that you do grant there was a rehearsall of the covenant of works though you do make it also to have something of the administration of the covenant of Grace The truth is the Scripture plainly makes it the covenant of works Rom. 10.5 Gal. 3.10.12 Gal. 4.24 Heb. 12.18 though I deny not that which you say that it was intended as a preparative and means to fit them for Christ and therefore may not unfitly be called foedus subserviens a subservient covenant as Cameron in his Theses de triplici foedâ—re But this being so to what purpose do you tell us that our covenant is established upon better promises as if the Jewes covenant were no better then that on Mount Sinai or as if the comparison concerning priviledges were between the covenant of Grace now and the covenant of Works then whereas the question is as you say page 31. which are branches of the covenant of Grace and a little after but were no part of the covenant of Grace which God made to Abraham and his seed Now the covenant of Grace is that made with Abraham Gal. 3.15 c. as your self alledge pag. 10. and you say there that covenant was for substance alwayes the same and the substance as you recite it is the promises and the condition so that out of your own words it is clear that we have no better promises in the covenant of Grace now then they had then only the administration of the covenant of grace is now better then it was to them then it was mixt with other particular promises which because they are not coÌ„mon to al believers in the covenant of grace therfore belong not to the covenant of Grace in Christ purely taken such as the promise of deliverance from Egypt setling in Canaan c. For though it is true that godlinesse hath the promise of the life that now is and of that which is to come yet the promise of the life that now is is not a particular promise of possession of such or such a land to us or our seed or the coming of Christ out of our posteritie as it was then but only a generall promise of Gods providing for his children with persecution Mark 10.30 Then it was with expectation of Christ to come now with assurance of Christ already come in the flesh and accomplishing what was foretold of him then Christ was shadowed in darke types now wee see him unveiled in a plaine history So that though it be true that the priviledges of believers are now many wayes inlarged in some respects yet simply the Covenant of Grace is not inlarged in respect of the substance of it the promises of Grace and the condition they are still belonging to the Elect and believers and to no other The next Scripture you thus express The glory of theirs had no glory in respect of ours for this you quote 2 Cor. 3.10 But this passage is plainly meant of the Covenant at Mount Sinai which is called the letter ver 6. The ministration of death written and ingraven in stones so glorious that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance which glory was to be done away ver 7. The ministration of condemnation ver 9. Which I suppose you doe not understand of the Covenant of Grace and therefore it is impertinently alledged Your next is they were under the bondage of Infants under age in comparison of our freedome For this you alledge Gal. 4.1 c. But this is said of the administration in types and shadows and ceremonies called the rudiments of the world ver 3. Concerning which it is confessed our priviledges are enlarged but they are not branches of the Covenant of Grace which every man who is in Covenant with God may expect from God by vertue of the Covenant You goe on We as well as they are called a holy Nation a peculiar people a chosen Generation separated to him from all other people It is granted we believers are such a holy Nation c. doth it therefore follow that the priviledges of beleevers under this last and best administration of the Covenant of Grace are many wayes enlarged You allude to that place 1 Pet. 2.9 and Mr Blake pag. 8. urgeth this text to prove a birthright priviledge of Christians equall to the Nations of the Jewes But it is answered this passage is meant of the invisible Church the living lively members of Christ. To which he saith The contrary to this in the Text is cleare First by looking back to the words that there precede It is meant of all those who do not professedly with the unbelieving Jewes reject Christ. I have looked backe and finde no such thing there It is true there is mention of some who did reject Christ ver 7 8. But that when Peter sayes yee are a chosen Generation a royall Priesthood c. it should be meant of any other then true believers who alone can offer spirituall sacrifice acceptable to God through Jesus Christ is an interpretation which I disclaime much more that it should be meant of all those who do not professedly with the unbelieving Jewes reject Jesus Christ. For then it may be said not onely of Simon Magus and other hypocrites but also of all the salvages in the world that never heard of Christ that they are a chosen Generation a royall Priesâ—hood an holy Nation a peculiar people that they should shew forth the praise of him who hath called them out of darkness into his marvailous light Mr Blake addes Which will yet more fully appeare by comparing the words of S t Paul Rom. 9.32 33. I desire Mr Blake to revise his Treatise and to examine whether this and many other passages answer to Mr Vines
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of such like that is such as are graced with such like qualities who are humble and meek as children are and that Luke 18. is parallel to this in the meaning of it whosoever doth not receive the Kingdome of heaven as a little child be shall not enter therein But I answer though it be true that in other places this is one use that Christ makes of an Infants age and condition to shew that such as receive the Kingdome of heaven must be qualified with humility c. like unto children yet here it cannot be his meaning because his argument is Suffer them to come to me and forbid them not because of such is the Kingdome of God that iâ— my Church and Kingdome is made of those as well as of others This was the very cause why the disciples rebuked those who brought the children to Christ because they were little not fit to be instructed and therefore not fit that Christ should be troubled about them this Christ rebukes in them and tels them that the littlenesse of children is no argument why they should be kept from him Suffer them said he to come and forbid them not for of such is the Kingdome of God and what kinde of argument had this been if the Text should be interpreted as these men would have it Suffer little children to come unto me that I may touch them take them up in mine arms put my hands upon them and blesse them because the Kingdome of God belongeth to them who have such like qualities who resemble children in some select properties By the very same ground if any had brought doves and sheep to Christ to put his hands upon them and blesse them the Disciples had been liable to the same reproof because of such is the Kingdome of God such as are partakers of the Kingdome of God must be endued with such like properties The Minor to be proved is that all the Infants of Believers or the Infants of Believers in as much as they are Infants of Believers are actually partakers of the inward grace of Baptisme else your Argument will not serve for your purpose as hath been shewed Now neither doth the Apostles speech 1 Cor. 7.14 prove it as hath been shewed above nor doth this Text Mar. 10.14 prove it For first it is doubtfull whether these were Infants or no. I presume you are not ignorant that Piscator observat in Mat. 19.14 doth maintain that the speech of Christ is not of Infants but of children which were capable of instruction which he gathers from this that Christ called them Luke 18.16 And whereas it is said in Mark he took up in his arms the word so translated is used Mark 9.36 For the imbracing of those that were of some growth whom he placed in the midst and of whose scandalizing he there warnes nor doth the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used Luke 18.15 translated in English Infants prove it for it signifies a childe capable of teaching as when it iâ— said Timothy knew the sacred Scripture from a childe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is ever sinne he was a boy not an Infant nor doth the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 translated brought unto him prove that they were Infants For the same word is applied to them that were guided though they were not carried but did go by themselves as the blinde and deaf Daemoniake Matth. 12.22 and the lunatick childe Matth. 17.16 To this purpose Piscator As for Mr. Thomas Goodwins reason from Julius Pollux that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth signifie one that is madidus moist or sappie it is of no force to prove that they were Infants For besides that not etymologie but use must expound words if it were so yet we know children are moist till they be adolescentes youths we say till they be of good yeers they are but a gristle tender green so that notwithstanding this the children brought to Christ might be of yeers sufficient to be catechumeni and yet fit enough to resemble humility and harmlesnesse by Secondly It is yet doubtfull whether our Saviour said of them is the Kingdome of heaven for the word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of such not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of these And Luke 18.17 Mark 10.15 both adde this speech Verely I say unto you whosoever doth not receive the Kingdome of God as a little childe shall not enter therein like to which is that Matth. 18.3 But you have two exceptions against this First because this had been no reason why they should suffer these little children to come to him because of such is the Kingdome of God Secondly he might as well have said suffer sheep or doves to come to me for of such is the Kingdome of God To these exceptions it may be replied the reason may be thus conceived therefore you should not despise that age as prophane and keep them from me for even they that are my Disciples must become children again in putting off their vices being converted unlearning what they have learned becoming humble and docible which things could not be resembled by sheep and doves Thirdly but let it be granted that these were Infants and that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to be expounded as Beza in his Annot. on Mat. 19.14 horum similium these and the like yet there is no certainty only conjecture that they were believers Infants For though Christ was in the coasts of Judea then yet it might as well be that the children were brought by others as parents and that without faith in Christ as the Messiah upon the fame of his miracles and the conceit he was a prophet and so they might bring children to him to be blessed as Jacob and Esau by Isaac Josephs children by Jacob c. Fourthly but let it be granted they were the Infants of Believers and that it is said of these is the Kingdome of God it may be as Piscator observes referred not to theiâ— present estate as if for the present they were in the kingdome of God that is believers and justified but that they were elect persons and so in time of them should be the Kingdom of God Now that which gives right to Baptisme 〈◊〉 the present estate of a person Fifthly but let that be also granted yet all this proves not your Minor unlesse you can prove that the reason why the Kingdome of heaven belongs to Infants is common with these to other Infants of Believerâ— and the reason why theirâ— is the Kingdome of God is because they were the Infants of Believers that â—o it may be true of all the Infants of Believers But this cannot be true being contrary to expresse Scripture Rom. 9.6 7 8.13 and inferring this error that a childe hath right to the Kingdom of God in that he is the childe of a Believer And experience proves innumerable of them have no interest in the Kingdome of God Besides this reason may