1 King 12.2 3. Besides They might all keep the Feast of unleavend bread by abstaining from leaven and yet not by eating the Passover Lamb. All strangers too in their houses were to do the first but not the second So for keeping the first day of the week as a Sabbath of day of rest and worship to God and not keeping the Seventh Day yet Sabbath hath as little positive Command and less too then this of Infant Baptism Indeed we find that on the first day of the week the Disciples met to break bread Acts 20.7 but he saith Not to keep it a day to the Lord. Again in 1 Cor. 16.1 2. the Apostle bids That they should 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 every first day of the week lay aside something for the poor Saints but that they should keep it or any other one day as a Sabbath not a Word I might also mention Christian men's being Magistrates and the lawfulness of making Wars and of Oaths in the Name of God for Confirmations but I pass them 4. That children should be admitted into the Church-state they had formerly in custom and practise under the Law and therefore for that there needed less positive institution onely that which was of difference between that state and the state of it in the Gospel-time since Christs Ascension was meet to be declared As that persons should be admitted into the Kingdom of God and discipled by Baptism and that the Male-Infants of the Gentiles should not be circumcised and that females as well as males should be baptized all which are held forth in the Commission Disciple all Nations or all the Gentiles baptizing them Though indeed it was formerly in use as the Hebrew Doctours say To baptize their females in the times of Circumcision Things that were not to be altered they might follow the light hinted to them in the Law in planting the Churches though yet Christ left them not to that but tells them plainly That of such as Infants is the Kingdom that he preached and set up And such a hint as that with a large general Commission might suffice for that considering what had been their practise for receiving in Infants And in this way the Apostle made use of the Law and ordered things in the Christian Church with a correspondency by way of analogy and proportion in like matters to what was ordered in the Jewish Church in divers particulars As to instance About subjection of the woman unto the man the Apostle saith I permit not a woman to speak in the Churches but to be in subjection as also saith the Law 1 Cor. 14.34 And speaking of the lawfulness of the Gospel-Preachers receiving maintenance of the people that they preach to and labour amongst he backs his saying and order with the authority of Moses Law 1 Cor. 9.8 9 10. Say I these things only or saith not the Law also the same For it is written Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the Oxe that treadeth out the corn Thence inferring à minore ad majus and by way of analogy that if God regard Oxen and would have them sustained in their work by them for whom they work then much more the Preachers of the Gospel that labour for mens souls should be by them also so sustained 1 Cor. 9.8 9 10. Which direction he tells us is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a bare humane prudence but a duty approved of God And so ver 13. he proves the same thing more plainly by the Order of God in the Law for their Priests and Levites alluding to Deut. 18.2 3. with an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as if they might well know and could not reasonably plead ignorance of the mind of God in this matter from what they read in the Law of Moses before and without his thus writing unto them Know ye not that they that ministred the holy things eat of the holy things and they that serve at the Altar partake of the Altar even so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Lord hath ordered or ordained that they that preach the Gospel should live of the Gospel The main substance of the Law is yet observable though not the particular circumstances of tythes and offerings in that Legal way We cannot say thence indeed That tythes are jure divino but thence we may say That maintenance by the people of those that preach the Gospel labor in the work of God amongst them is an Ordinance jure divino And if the people by themselves or their Representatives whom they elect and chuse to make Laws and Orders for them do pitch upon that way of tenths to do it in then is it in that way lawful to receive maintenance of them that being the way that the people have thought good to observe Gods Order in The like I might say about the Supper concerning the Apostles allusions to the Sacrifices and amongst them the Passover in his speaking of the nature of it 1 Cor. 10.18 and 5.8 9. Yea what else was their choice of Elders in every City and their laying on hands upon them in ordaining them but a manifest reference to the Law and the Order of God therein in chusing Elders over the Congregation laying on hands on them so chosen upon which also followed the spirit of Prophecy in the first institution of them Num. 11.24 25 26. with Deut. 34.9 And what other precept had they from Christ for so doing in the particular Churches that we read of And yet see the practise in Acts 14.23 even as their baptizing men and all theirs housholders and their housholds together seems to be a plain imitation of the circumcising men and all their males at the first institution of Circumcision and the after-proselyting of Heathens to them Now whereas some say By the same reason we should have one universal High Priest or Bishop too because they had an High Priest I answer So we have even the Man Christ Jesus who then was not come in the flesh to be High Priest to them and that we should have another on the earth follows nor for they never had two together appointed them Besides That all that Order of sacrificing and ceremonies we have express testimony for the ceasing but of ceasing to have children in the Kingdom of Christ or to bring them up for the Lord as Disciples to him we have no expressions but clearly to the contrary even as they were to disciple them to Gods Law and Statutes c. Only whereas they had an Ordinance acted upon males only yet so as the females were counted of the Circumcision in and with them as if they had been circumcised too the Commission is in such expressions as take in both Sexes and the practise of baptizing both Sexes is expressed in Acts 8.12 They were baptized both men and women Which words are sometimes used to denote both Sexes of any Age rather then grown Ages only of either Sex as may be seen 1
they then suck in they are apt to hold fast according to that Quo semel est imbuta recens servabit odorem Testa diu And that Teach a child 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an Infant in the way that he should go and he will not depart from it when he is old The Gospel-Preachers had much ado to perswade grown men to come into the Christian School wherein Christ is the great Teacher to be his Disciples as such are hardly yet perswaded to learn any lesson of his contrary to what they have formerly apprehended A great if not the greatest part of the difficulty of the Apostles work stood in that because they knew not the Name they would have them stoop to and the doctrine they would have them learn was novel to them they had much to say against it as that their wisemen Fore-fathers and Rulers neither knew nor approved it and the rest of the world would hate them for it c. thence they were not nor would be baptized unto Christ till they had first assented to the Doctrine It was their being convicted of the truth that made them willing to leave the world and its doctrines and become Scholers or Disciples unto Christ and to be initiated under his Government and Teaching But now it s not so with children born to them that are discipled their Christian Parents are bound to bring them up in the nurture of the Lord and they to receive it as they are capable which also usually they are apt to do at least so far as to the external profession and acknowledgment of Christ and his Name if it be carefully as is required put to them and that profession and acknowledgment with orderly walking is as much or more then divers of them had whom John and the Apostles baptized Matth. 3.7.11 Acts 8.13 Chap. 19.3 4. Therefore also it seems to me a great absurdity to require that before-hand of them for their matriculating discipling or receiving in that is urged upon those that have been otherwise principled and have much to oppose which they have not and to bring an heap of proofs instancing what such so fore-principled did to be a rule for those that are not so It is as inept as if they should alleadg the Jews proceedings in requiring confessions and acknowledgments of them that came unto them from the Gentiles to shew that the like was requirable of their Infants before their Circumcision or like as if a man should say that because God requires of grown men actual repentance faith and invocation of him to salvation therefore he requires them of Infants too and so that they dying before may not be saved If God dispense with their non-acting those things through incapacity and yet saves them why should it seem irrational that he dispense with the want of such acknowledgments or with the want of those things themselves to admit them into the outward Court of his Kingdom If he dispense with them for the greater why should we not for the less especially when we know he did actually dispense with the want of those things in them for admission into the Jewish Church which yet were there required for their admission into it that were men of years and we find no one title of his that he would have them excluded his Church or Kingdom amongst the Gentiles Nay his Commission insisted on is in such large terms as do abundantly include them The Jews never had so large a Commission for circumcising Infants as this is for baptizing them though there be not such express mention of them herein for all the Gentiles comprehends all Infants male and female too whereas the Jews were limited to males only and whereas they were tyed to the eighth day at soonest that so they might have a Sabbath pass upon them for their cleansing now they are clean at any time those uncleannesses and ways of cleansing being done away in Christ the Commission gives power to do it to all in discipling them though through the wickedness of the world rejecting the counsel of God and refusing to submit to Christ themselves or to subject theirs to him they cannot do it to all that their liberty and power extends to but such surely are guilty of resisting the Messengers of Christ as either hinder them from discipling themselves or withhold and forbid their children From what hath been said then it appears that there is no need of searching after particular express mention of Infants to warrant their baptizing for when a man hath a general Commission what needs the particularizing the several branches in it to warrant a mans acting upon them If Let a man 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 examine himself and so let him eat c. be warrant enough for womens eating the Supper because the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is in it self comprehensive enough of the female Sex why then should not Disciple all the Gentiles or all Nations here be warrant sufficient to disciple Infants baptizing them c. seeing that word is every whit as comprehensive of Infants If a man should scruple to baptize an English man or a Scotch man because he finds not those Nations exprest in all the Scripture would not any man laugh at him seeing the Commission is to all the Gentiles whereof they are part Or when it s said Christ died for all would it not be a fond scruple to say It 's doubtful whether he died for Infants that dye in their infancy or not The like is this to say What warrant have we to baptize Infants now when the Commission is Disciple all the Gentiles baptizing them If a King should say Go into such a Countrey and subject all the Inhabitants in it to my Government and protection putting them into my Subjects fashions and way of living it would be a vain thing to say What should little children be subject to him too and brought up after the manner of his Subjects Sure in bringing all the Inhabitants in their Infants must needs be included and be taken for subjects with them and be brought up after his subjects fashion And now I hope I shall not need to say much by way of answer to that Objection that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to learn but Infants can learn nothing till they begin to be grown up For so a Proselite 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is denominated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from coming and joyning himself to the Jewish Church which Infants could not properly be said to do till grown up and yet they were also with their Parents proselited So a Subject is he that voluntarily is subject to and obedient to his Prince which Infants cannot properly be and yet they are in the number of Subjects too But besides this we have shewed that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is rather in its first act to bring into and subject to the Government of the School that they might learn then
secret purposes and intentions in Christ But will you say all Infants belong to it Object 7 then the Infans of Turks and Heathens may be admitted into it too To this what my answer is may be seen by what is said before Matth. 28.19 Answ I wish that since God hath enlarged his Kingdom and Grace to us Gentiles and that we have put on the Name of Christians we have not forgot our selves or rather the grace of God that admitted us and put on the Jewish Pharasaical principles to count the Indians and Turks as common and unclean as their Pharasees counted us Surely so far as God hath cleansed we ought not to account common Yea God hath shewed us that we ought not to call any man common or unclean that is As the Son of God Christ Jesus died for all and risen again that they that live should live to him and as God hath to that end also made him Lord of all and hath given all Nations to him even the utmost ends of the earth for his possession and hath given forth Commandment to publish in his Name glad tidings even the Gospel of his Kingdom to all and sent his servants in as much as in them lies to disciple all the Gentiles without exception baptizing them into his Name c. so bringing them into the obedience of his faith So did the whole world yeild to his gracious Proclamation they might be into his Kingdom received but such as refuse it refuse their own mercy and chusing to follow Satan do abide in his Kingdom and are out of Christs And their Infants are kept out with themselves not that they may not be discipled and brought into the Kingdom or as if the Kingdom was prohibited to them but because they are not brought or come not to it their parents and those that have the tuition of them hindring them and God for and by their refuseal lets them go and theirs with them and lye in the darkness of the world which they prefer before his Kingdom otherwise did even Turks or Indians yeild up their children to Christians to be brought up by them in the Christian way or did God by his providence bring any of them to be under their tuition they may yea ought to disciple them baptizing them and training them up in the instruction of the Lord notwithstanding that their Parents were or are Turks or Pagans Christs Kingdom is free for Infants to come into any Infants and those that come are to be entertained in it and not forbidden They do well that bring them to it to be made Disciples to Christ and they do evilly that prohibit them Object 8 By this then children of unbelievers as well as others may be admitted to Baptism But that your best Reformed Churches will not allow Answ It s not the inward reality of faith in the Parent that intitles his children to the Kingdom for of that here it is uncertain whether those that brought these children or that were Parents to them did believe with their hearts in him and were Disciples to him though its probable they were such as had an high esteem of him as a Prophet at least and so listened to his Doctrine But it s the grace of God in Christ to mankind that opens the Kingdom to them and gives liberty of admission into its outward Court to all that come to it and tells us Infants appertain to it also whence the Kingdom now gathers good and bad but the end of the world when the Net is drawn to the shore will put a difference Professed subjection to it is enough for our acting towards men of years For even such as but professed that were by the Apostles evidently admitted and that without staying to see the truth of that profession as is plain in Simon Magus and in those that were baptized in the same hour Act 16.33 that they heard the word first in or very presently upon it they and their houses for any that profess that themselves will as it may be charitably conceived be willing to bring up theirs in the same way with themselves Only this we are to mind that whom we admit we take in to be under Christs Regiment and to be trained up in his Name and so in his Fathers and Spirits in and with him otherwise we should not disciple baptizing them according to the Commission and therefore they that will not yeild their children up to that and endeavour it by themselves or yeild them up to the care and endeavour of such as will their children are deservedly to be refused in this business because they should not thereby be discipled or taken rightly into Christs Kingdom And yet herein the servants of God are to beware of rashness in judging mens intentions and ought seriously to admonish and instruct men even as John did the Pharisees and Sadduces that came to his Baptism And as the Apostle wishes those that profess themselves believers to bring up their children Ephes 6.4 When the Lord and King comes to take view of his Church he will separate the good from the bad in his baptizing and admitting into the more inward states of his Kingdom Gathering the wheat into his Garner and casting out the chaff into unquenchable burning But some object yet further Object 9 That Christ acted here as an extraordinary Prophet and so it was no work of ordinary Ministry nor rule for baptizing To which I answer 1. That it s said without preof Answ 1 or colour of proof Laying on hands and Praying was a work of Ministry yea of ordinary Ministry at least it was so in the institution of the Christian Church and therefore it is by the Apostle mentioned with other ordinary doctrines and practises Heb. 6.1 2 3. 2. The rule and ground of baptizing must come to us and hath done so from the great Prophet of the Church Jesus Christ and is to be searched for in his words and actions All that he did and said were the deeds and sayings of an extraordinary Prophet yea in his Ministration he acted and spake usually as an extraordinary one and yet in those his doings and sayings lie all the grounds of our Religion 3. We do not so much look upon and urge his action though that a so is considerable and testifies his good will to children as at his Doctrine and Instruction left for us upon that action as we said before But it s said further Object 10 That this place rather affords ground for Episcopal Confirmation then for Baptism Answ If for Episcopal Confirmation then for Baptism much more as presupposed for laying on of hands with prayer used in confirmation was evidently a customary Observation of the ancient Ordinance or Custom of laying on hands on persons baptized And we read not of laying on hands with prayers and blessings upon any but fore-baptized ones in the Church of Christ as instituted upon his Ascension If then it warrant
speaks and so some Copies also express it which is not only legitimated to him as is commonly interpreted for so they were each to other before one of them believed when yet its never said of two Infidels that either of them is sanctifiid in the other but also set apart or separated in respect of others to the procreation of an holy seed Ezra 10.2 And yet this is not in her self but in her Husband in regard that he is set apart to act for and be holy too and so in point of procreation to propagate unto God or as the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 often signifies she is so by her Husband he as it were puts a sanctity upon her as to holy use or use to procreate for God As of old the holiness of the Priests unto the Lord as to liberty to eat of the holy things did put a sanctity upon their wives as to that liberty who otherwise perhaps might not have eaten of them being of other Tribes And so it s for the other part The unbelieving Husband in the believing wife else saith he were your children unclean because believers are to be holy unto God in all things and if their children should not be holy to them they would be unclean not fit to live with them or to be admitted into the Congregation of the Lord as of old those that were born of strange women Ezra 10.12.44 Neh. 13.27 And such as the Jews call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which we translate Bastards Deut. 10.2 but indeed were such as were born of strange women of another religion As if the Apostle should say If the same unholiness was in the unbelieving wife or husband here to the believing husband or wife as was in the Jewish state in the strange women so that these must be separated and put away from the believers as well as the strange women there from the Jews then is there the same course to be taken with your children as with theirs they may not live with you neither nor be of the Lords Congregation no more then those might Deut. 10.2 but now seeing its otherways your children are holy * Tam ex seminis praerogativae quam ex institutionis discina â—ert de Ani. Now what was the holy seed there but the seed set apart for God the people in his Church and under his Name and more peculiar care There were none that I can find that were called the holy seed by them but such as were admitted or admittable by their branchship to Abraham into the Lords Congregation and thereto appertained Now the children of one parent believing that is owning and professing the Christian faith for to all such those Apostolical rules reached are affirmed to be holy and therefore admittable sure into the Congregation of the Lord. And that this is thence deduceable appears in this That no person is ever in Scripture called holy that is without the bounds of the Church of God but in as much as they are within the bounds of that which is a holy people consecrate unto God they are called holy a holy seed a holy people But many things without may be lawful and persons not of it may be legitimate but holiness is a Church-word generally in the Scriptures that in Rom. 11.16 If the first fruits be holy so is the Lump if the root be holy so are also the branches says this That if Abraham Isaack c. were holy that is set apart by and for God to be a people for his Name so were they that sprung from them and are under their institution while branches till broken off but then they cease to be so and those that are graffed in through the faith of Jesus come in their room and have place amongst the branches participate as much of the vertue and sap of the root for intituling their off-spring to the place of branches and to the holiness of branches as they that are broken off had for themselves and theirs before their breaking off as we noted before otherwise the branches graffed in beside nature should not occupy the place and receive the same sap and juice from the root as the other had and so should not participate with the natural but there should yet be a partition wall to sever the one from the other contrary to the Apostles Doctrine of Christ as come in the flesh yea contrary to the constant course of God in former times for he admitted the stranger Proselytes then graffed in amongst the Jews the same priviledges for their children as they that were of Abraham's seed had so far as they have Church-fellowship Against this that 's said about childrens being holy I find it objected That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies chastity in 1 Thes 4. and therefore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here signifies only legitimate which seems to me to be a strange inference for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thence should rather signifie chaste too and if applied to children while but in Infancy no man can doubt of chastity in them at least so as to denominate them unchaste whether their parents marriage was holy or not And if applied to children grown up they may be chaste though born in unholy wedlock or in fornication and they may be unchaste though never so legitimate Beside 2. There is no such cause of such confidence as I see is used in that affirmation of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifying chastity in that place I think 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies chaste but not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in any place of the New Testament but as chastity is included necessarily in sanctity It s thrice used in that Chapter verses 3.4.7 and I am sure its signification is larger then chastity in the seventh for it s exposed to uncleanness in over-reaching or defrauding a brother in any matter And I think that when it s said we are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it s better to translate it in holiness then in chastity only we not being called only to and in that particular branch of holiness but in and to holiness in all manner of conversation And holiness including chastity fornication and all abuse of the vessel or body might well be thereunto opposed Surely the Apostle enlarges the use of the body in holiness further then to chastity only as opposed to bodily fornication in Rom. 6.19 Yeild up your members servants to righteousness 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unto or for holiness which holiness is there opposed to uncleanness and lawlesness 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so that its nearer the Text to say that holiness there signifies a consecration unto God and to the Government of his holy Spirit to that or in that we are called and so to abstain from fornication as well spiritual as corporal though corporal fornication is also a profaning that that was given up to God as 1 Cor. 6.15 Your bodies are the members of Christ given up to be holy for