inseâ—tatione et perditione digni videantur How unlike is Mr. Vines his speech to the Lord Mâ—jor City of London to these words of Cassander a Papist to the D. of Clevâ—â—â—â—pist â—â—pist And for those in these dayes that deny or question Paedo-baptisme as I know them not or very few of them so I cannot say what they do or hold as being not privy to their tenets or proceedings onely undeâ—standing by one of your assembly that there was a little book puâ— forth intitled the compassionate Samaritane upon perusall I found that that Author who ever he were accounts it a calumny to charge thâ— Anabaptists with opposing Magistracy But concerning this the confession of faith lately put forth in the name of 7 Churches of them Artic. 48 49. will give best information But if you meane not this but some other error depending on the opinion of Antipaedobaptisme when I meete with them in your Sermon I shall in their proper place consider whether they do depend on it or no and for the opinion it selfe I say if it be not truth the spreading of it is unhappy if it be truth the more it spreads the more happy it is for the Kingdome YOu say further And so the worke of reformation without Gods mercy likely to be much hindered by it Sir you now touch upon a very tender point in which it concerned you and it in like mannâ—r concernes me and all that have any love to Iesus Christ or his people to be very considerate in what we say I have entred into Covenant to endeavour a reformation as well as you and though I have not had the happines as indeed wanting ability to be imployed in that eminent manner you have beene in the promoting of it in which I rejoyce yet have I in my affâ—ctions sincerely dâ—sired it in my intentions truely aimed at it in my prayers heaâ—tily sought it in my studies constantly minded it in my indeavours seriously prosecuted it for the promoting of it greatly suffered as having as deepe in interest in it as other men Now bâ—gging this Postulatum or demand that Paedobaptisme is a corruption of Christs institution which upon the reading of my answer and the 12 reasons of my doubts formerly mentioned will appeare not to be a mere Petitio principii begging that which is to be proved I say this being granted I humbly conceive that Paedobaptisme is a Mother-Corruption that hath in her wombe most of those abuses in discipline and manners and some of those errors in doctrine that doe dâ—file the reformed Churches and therefore that the reformation will be so far from being hindred by removing it that indeed it is the only way to further reformation to begin in a regular way at the purging of that ordinance of Iesus Christ to wit Baptisme without which experience shewes how insufficient after-Catechizing Excommunication Confirmation Vnio reformata solemne Covenant Separation the New Church-Covenant invented or used to supply the want of it are to heale the great abuses about the admitting visible professors into the priviledge of the Church from whence spring a great part if not all the abuses in discipline receiving the Lords Supper and manners of Christian people And therefore I earnestly beseech in the bowels of Iesus Christ both you and all others that ingage themselves for God to take this matter into deepe consideration I am sensible how inconsiderable a person I am and how inconsiderable a number there be that are affâ—cted with this motion I do consider how much against the streame of the Râ—formed Churches such a reformation would be Yet when I consider how far fetched the reasons for Paedobaptisme are how cleare the institution of Christ is against it how happily truthes opposed with as much pâ—â—jâ—dice as this have beene in processe of time vindicâ—ted of whaâ— moment the knowledge of this point is to every conscience how exact a râ—formation our solemne Covenant binds us to endeavour I do not despaire but that this truth also may take place upon second thoughts â—here it hath beene rejected at the first nor doe I doubt buâ— in time Gods people will consider what an influence baptisme had of old into the comfort and obligation of conscienâ—es and how litâ—le it hâ—th now And truely Sir though it may be but my weaknes yet I suppose it can doe you no hurt to tell it I feare you want much of that blessing which was hoped for by your Assembly in that you do waste so much time about inconsiderable things comparatively and hastily passe over or exclude from examination this which deserves most to be examined but rather seeke to stop the bringing of it to any tryall But having told you thus much I follow you in your Sermon You say I shall God-willing handle this question more largely then I have done any other in this place and the rather because of three other great mischeifes which go along with it First I see that all that reject the baptizing of Infants do must upon the same grounds reject the religious observation of the Lords day or the Christian Sabbath viz. because there is not say they an expresse institution or command in the New Testament Give me leave to take up the words of him in the Poet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What a word hath gotten out of the hedge of your teeth They doe They must Though I doubt not of your will yet I see you want some skil in pleading for the Lords day that others have the truth is that it is neither so nor so They neither doe nor must reject upon the same ground the Lords day That they doe not I can speake for one and your owne words delivered after with more caution Verily I have hardly either knowne or read or heard intimate that though few yet you cannot say but you have heard or read or knowne of some that have not with baptizing of Infants rejected the Lords day but you have I presume heard or read of whole and those reformed Churches that have upon such a ground rejected the Lords day as not of divine institution who yet are zealous for paedobaptisme Nor must they And to make that good let us consider their ground as you mention it Their ground you say is because there is not an expresse institution or command in the New Testament this then is their principle that what hath not an expresse institution or command in the New Testament is to be rejected But give me leave to tell you that you leave out two explications that are needefull to be taken in First that when they say so they meane it of positive instituted worship consisting in outward rites such as Circumcision Baptisme and the Lords Supper are which have nothing morall or naturall in them but are in whole and in part Ceremoniall For that which is naturall or morall in worship they allow an institution or command in the old Testament as obligatory
dictate The Evening of the Passeover is no more accidentall then the day it selfe they being commanded both together And for the Lords Supper how we can be loose to receive it in the Morning or Evening after Supper when the Apostle doth so distinctly mention in this relation of the Institution 1 Cor. 11.23 that it was done in the night and vers 25. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 after he had supped I leave to your Assembly to consâ—der Especially those of you that are so stiffe for the sitting together at the Table which is not mentioned or hinted in the Apostles relation and therefore may seeme as much occasionall as the other And for that which you intimate as if Baptisme were not the Sacrament for spirituall nourishment growth and continuance in the Covenant as well as for entrance I take to be but a dictate like the rest which upon exact examination will not hold it seems to me somewhat neare of kinne to that of Bellarmine and other Papists that the efficacy of Baptisme extends not to the remission of the sinnes of our whole life but of originall sinne onely But you have yet one more Instance and thus you speake The like Instance I give in our Christian Sabbath the fourth Commandement binds as for the substance of it as much as ever it bound the Jewes there God once for all separated one day of seven to be sacred to himselfe and all the world stood bound in all ages to give unto God that one day of seven which should be of his own choosing Now untill Christs time God chose the last day of the seven to be his Sabbath and having by the death and Resurrection of our Lord Jesus put an end to the Saturday Sabbath and surrogated the first day of the week instead thereof to be the Lords day wee need no new Commandement for the keeping of the Lords day being tyed by the fourth Commandement to keep that day of seven which the Lord should choose the Lord having chosen this the fouâ—th Commandement binds us to this as it did the Jewes to the former so in like manner I say in the Sacrament of Baptisme What I conceive about the Lords day I have before declared Part. 2. Sect. 8. where also I shewed you how different the case of Paedobaptisme is from it which I shall not now repeate Onely whereas you bring the Sabbath for an Instance of a Command of God about the Sacraments of the Jewes binding us as well as the Jewes you forget the marke at which you shoote the Sabbath or Lords day being not to be reckoned among the Jewes Sacraments or ours according to the usuall Ecclesiasticall acception and definition of the word You see now your maxime which is the foundation of your undeniable consequence undermined I presume you may see quickly the superstruction it selfe overturned one blow more will doe it You piece things together thus When God made the Covenant with Abraham and promised for his part to be the God of him and his seed what God promised to Abraham wee claime our part in it as the childâ—en of Abraham and whâ—t God required on Abrahams part for the substance of obedience wee all stand charged with as well as Abraham Wee as Abraham are tyed to beleeve to love the Lord with all our heart to have our hearts circumcised to walke before God in uprightnesse to instruct our children and bring them up for God and not for our selves nor for the Devill to teach them to worship God according to his revealed will to traine them up under the Ordinances and Institutions of Gods own appointment All these things God commanded to Abraham and charges upon all the children of the Covenant though there were no expresse reviving these Commands in any part of the New Testament And therefore consequently that Command of God to Abraham which bound his seed of the Jewes to traine up their children in that manner of worship which was then in force binds the seed of Abraham now to traine up their children in â—onformitie to such Ordinances as are now in force Supposing you meane by what God promised to Abraham the spirituall part of the Covenant and the persons claiming to be beleevers I grant this passage to be truth for these duties are morall duties and binde at all times but that which follows I cannot tell how to take for any other then plain Judaisme You say And the sâ—me Command which enjoyned Abraham to seale his children with the seale of the Covenant enjoynes us as strongly to seale ours with the seale of the Covenant and that Command of God which expresly bound Abraham to seale his with the signe of Circumcision which was the Sacrament then in force pro tempore for the time doth virtually binde us to seale ours with the signe of Baptisme which is the Sacrament now in force and succeeds into the roome of the other by his owne Appointment This is your undeniable consequence inferred from a Judaizing principle without so much as one Scripture to prove either the principle or conclusion Whereas â— have brought ten arguments most of them out of the Scripture against your principle and for the Conclusion what construction can be made of it but this that the Command of God to Circumcise binds us still for that was the seale of the Covenant God enjoyned to Abraham and so the Law given by Moses as touching Ceremonies and rites binds Christian men contrary to Art 7. of the Church of England Then must wee Circumcise our Males at the eighth day as they did But you say it binds us virtually only to seale ours with the signe of Baptisme I pray you then what meane you by this virtuall binding The opposite Member was expresly and in Terminis in termes Is this then your meaning that it doth not binde expresly and in terminis but virtually that is implicitely and by Interpretation Tell us then I beseech you by what rule of Divinitie Logick Grammar or Rhetoricke is a man to conceive this Command Cut off the foreskin of the secret part of all the Males in thy house the eighth day That is let a Preacher of the Gospel wash with water at any time after birth the young Infants male and female of Beleevers all over or on the face You call this undeniable Consequence if so it 's either Demonstrative from the cause or effect or definition or propertie or the like or it 's onely Topicall and then not undeniable you say 't is by cleare consequence you may as well say this is good consequence Tu es Petrus super hanc Petram Thou art Peter and upon this rocke Ergo the Pope is Monarch of the Church or with Baronius Arise Peter kill and eate Ergo the Pope may deprive Princes if you can apprehend cleare consequence in it you may enjoy your conceit Nos non sumus adeò sagaces wee are not so quick-witted I passe to the next Command which
to Christians and such doe they conceive a Sabbath to be as being of the Law of nature that outward worship being due to God dayes are due to God to that end and therefore even in Paradise appointed from the creation and in all nations in all ages observed enough to prove so much to be of the Law of nature and therefore the fourth Commandement justly put amongst the Morals and if a seventh day indefinitely be commanded there as some of your Assembly have indeavourd to make good I shall not gainsay though in that point of the quota pars temporis which is moral I do yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 suspend my judgement Now Circumcision hath nothing moral in it it is meerely positive neither from the beginning nor observed by all nations in all ages nor in the Decalogue and therefore a Sabbath may stand though it fall 2. The other explication is that when they require expresse institution or command in the New Testament they doe not meane that in positive worship there must be a command totidem verbis in so many words in forme of a precepâ— but they conceive that Apostolicall example which hath not a meere temporary reason is enough to prove an institution from God to which that practise doth relate And in this after some evidences in the Scripture of the New Testament they ascribe much to the constant practise of the Church in all ages Now then if it be considered that when Paul was at Troas Acts. 20.7 the Disciples came together to breake bread and Paul preached upon the first day of the weeke and Paul 1 Cor. 16.1.2 as he had appointed in the Churches of Galatia so he appoints at Corinth collections for the poore the first day of the week Revel 1.10 it hath the Elogium or title of the Lords day and it was so Sacred among Christians that it was made the question of inquisitors of Christianity Dominicum servasti Hast thou kept the Lords day to which was answered Christianus sum intermittere non possum I am a Christian I may not omit it it is cleare evidence to me that either Christ or the Apostles having abrogated the old Sabbath Col. 2.16 subrogated the first day of the weeke instead of it Now if a moity of this could be brought for Paedobaptisme in the stead of Circumcision of infants I should subscribe to it with you But Paedobaptisme not consisting with the order of Christ in the institution being contrary to the usage of it by John the Baptist the Apostles there being no foote-steps of it till the erroneous conceit grew of giving Gods grace by it and the necessity of it to save an infant from perishing some hundreds of yeares after Christs incarnation I dare not assent to the practise of it upon a supposed analogy equity or reason of the rule of Circumcision and imaginary confederation with the beleiving parent in the Covenant of grace For to me it is a dangerous principle upon which they go that so argue to wit that in meere positive things such as Circumcision and Baptism are we may frame an addition to Gods worship from analogy or resemblance conceived by us betweene two ordinances whereof one is quite taken away without any institution gathered by precept or Apostolicall example For if we may doe it in one thing why not in a nother where shall we stay They that read the Popish expositors of their Rituals doe know that this very principle hath brought in Surplice Purification of women c. that I mention not greater matters I desire any learned man to set me downe a rule from Gods Word how far I may go in my conceived parity of reason equity or analogy and where I must stay when it will be superstition and will worship when not when my conscience may be satisfied when noâ— That which Christ and his Apostles have taken from the Jewes and appointed to us we receive as they have appointed buâ— if any other man if a Pope or Occumenicall Councel take upon them to appoint to mens Consciences any rite in whole or in part upon his owne conceived reason from supposed analogy with the Jewish ceremonies it is an high presumption in such against Christ and against the Apostles command to yeeld to it Col. 2.20 though it hath a shew of wisedome v. 23 And the Apostles example Gal. 2.3.4 5. binds us to oppose it when it is likely to bring us into bondage And for the other pillar upon which at this day paedobaptisme is built it is to me very dangerous viz. That the Covenant of Evangelicall grace is made to beleivers and their seede that the children are confederates with the Parents in the Covenant of grace Which without such restrictions or explications as agree not with the common use of the words which in the plaine sense import this that God in his Covenant of grace by Christ hath promised not only to justifie and save beleiving Parents but also their children is in my apprehension plainly against the Apostles determination Rom. 9.6 7 8. makes an addition to the Gospell mentioned Gal. 3.8 9. and drawes with it many dangerous consequences which I abhorre You adde Now God hath so blessed the religious observation of the Lords day in this Kingdome above other Churches and Kingdomes that such as indeavour to overthrow it deserve justly to be abhorred by us Upon occasion of which passage I only desire to intimate to you that from happy events it s not safe to conclude that a thing pleaseth God You know it is the way the Monks and Prelates use to inferre that their institution is of God because their Orders have yeelded so many pious Confessors Martyrs and Saints it too much countenanceth the way of arguing for Independency by which it hath prevailed in Letters from abroad and suggestions at home still harping on this string that it is the way of God because they that are in that way thrive grow more spirituall then others And if this arguing be good It prospers therefore it pleaseth God then it will follow on the contrary It prospers not therefore it pleaseth not God And if so we might inferre Infant baptisme is of men not of God sith if conscience and experience may speake there are but few Christians that have tasted the sweete comfort of their baptisme as Mr. Shepard in his Epistle before Philips vind of infant-bap The other note is this that when you say that such as indeavour to overthrow the religious observation of the Lords day deserve justly to be abhorred by us it must be taken cum grano salis with cauâ—ion of such as doe it against cleare light with a malitious spirit Otherwise your words reach to forraigne reformed Churches their teachers yea in a sort to your selfe who may be said interpretatively to indeavour to overthrow it while you build it on the same ground with paedobaptisme But I proceede YOu say
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
Believers are to be baptized with Christs baptisme by the lawfull Minister according to ordinary rule I deny it That which you say for the practise of baptizing infants may be reduced 1. To the testimonies of Antiquity 2. To the novelties and miscarriages of the opposers of it 3. To the arguments produced for it 4. To the answering objections against it I shall by Gods assistence examine each of these First you affirm That the Christian Church hath been in possession of it for the space of fifteen hundred years and upwards as is manifest out of most of the Records that weâ— have of Antiquity both in the Greek and Latine Churches To this I answer that if it were true yet it is not so much as may be said for Episcopacy keeping of Easter the religious use of the Crosse c. which I conceive you reject 2. That the highest testimonies you produce come not so high 3. Those that be alleaged being judiciously weighed will rather make against the present doctrine and practise then for it 4. There are many evidences that do as strongly prove as proofes usually are taken in such matters Quod ab initio non fuit sic That from the beginning it was not so and therefore it is but an innovation The first of these I presume you will acknowledge that for Antiquity not-Apostolicall there are plain testimonies of Episcopacy keeping of Easter the religious use of the Crosse being in use before any of the testimonies you or any other can produce for baptizing of infants and therefore I will forbear mentioning proofes so obvious to Schollars The second and third thing I shall make good in the weighing of the Testimonies you produce and the fourth in the close YOur Testimonies are either of the Greek or Latine Churches Of the Greekes you alleage foure The first is Justine Martyr of whom you say That he lived Anno 150. which wants somewhat of 1500. years and therefore you did somewhat overlash in saying that it is manifest out of most of the Records of the Greeke and Latine Church The Church hath been in possession of the priviledge of baptizing Infants 1500. years and upwards and then you say In a Treatise that goes under his name By which it is manifest that you know that it was questioned whether it was his or no and I conceive you could not be ignorant that it is not only questioned but also proved by Perkins in his preparative to the demonstration of the Probleme by Rivet in his Critieus sacer by Robert Cooke of Leeds if my memory faile me not to which I am inforced to trust in many things being spoiled of my bookes in his Censure and confessed by Papists to be none of Justine Martyrs but to bee written a great while after his dayes for as much as it mentions not only Irenaeus but also Origen and the Manichees Now what doth this bastard Treatise say You say Question 56. Justine Martyr disputes the different condition of those children who die baptized and of those children who die unbaptized The question propounded is If Infants dying have neither praise nor blame by works what is the difference in the resurrection of those that have been baptized by others and have done nothing and of those that have not been baptizâ—d and in like manner have done nothing The Answer is this is the difference of the baptized from the not baptiâ—â—d that the baptized obtaine good things meaning at the Resurrection by baptisme but the unbaptized obtain not good things And theâ— are accounted worthy of the good things they have by their baptisâ—â— by the faith of those that bring them to baptisme You may by thâ—â— testimony see what ever Age the book was made in what the reason of baptizing of Infants was Not the supposed Covenant of grace made to believers and their seed which you make the ground of baptizing of infants but the opinion that the not baptized should not obtain good things at the resurrection meaning the Kingdome of God mentioned Joh. 3.5 but the baptized should and that by reason of the faith of the bringers what ever the Parents were and therefore they baptized the children of unbâ—lievers as well as believers if they were brought YOur next Greek Author is Irenaeus who was indeed a Greeke and wrote in Greek but now only we have his works in Latine except some few fragments for which reason we are not so certain of his meaning as we might be if we had his own words in the language in which he wrote You say he lived in the same Century and it is acknowledged he lived in the same Century with Justine Martyr but not with the Author of the Questions Answers ad Orthodoxâ—s who as hath been said lived in some Age after Irenaeus is by Vsher placed at the yeare 180. by Osiander at the yeare 183. so that though he were of that Century yet he flourished in the latter part of it and so reacheth not to your 1500. years upwards Of him you say that l. 2. c. 39. he saith Christus venit per seipsuÌ„ omnes salvare omnes inquaÌ„ qui per eum renascuntur in DeuÌ„ infantes parvuloâ— pueros c. Now it is well knowne say the Glossers upon that text renascentiâ— nomine Dominica Apostolica Phrasi Baptismum intelligi You might have added what follows Aperte confirmans Apostolorum traditionem de baptismo infantium parvulorum adversus Anabaptisticam impietatem But I pray you whose Glosse was this Was it any other then Fevardentius if I mistake not of whom Rivet Crit. Sacr. lib. 2 cap. 6. Juniores tantum qui in opera Irenaei incident monitos volo ut caveant ab illis Editionibus quas impudentissimus ille Monarchus Fevardentius homo projecta audacia et nullius fidei foede in multis corrupit annotationibus impiiâ— et mendacibus conspuâ—cavit And for the glosse its false for no where doth our Lord or the Apostles call baptisme Now birth although our Lord speake of being borne againe of water Ioh. 3.5 and Paul of the washing of regeneration Tit. 3.5 and for the words themselves without the glosse all the strength lyes in this that the word Renascuntur is used for Baptisme by the Ancients which yet possibly was not the word Irenaeus used in his owne writing and how the Latine translation alters the meaning of Irenaeus you may see somewhat in Rivet Vossius Thesibus Theologic de Padebapt Thesi. 7. intimates that the proper acception is of sanctification and that the word may be so taken yea and that it is not meant of Baptisme the words and the whole scope of Irenaeus in that place shew For the scope of Irenaeus in that chapter is to refute the Gnosticks who sayd that Christ did not exceede one and thirty yeeres of age against whom Irenaeus alleageth that Christ lived in every age of infancy youth old age that by his age example
sundry hundreds of yeares after Christ restraines it to the case of necessity But it is wonder to me that if it were so manifest as you speake you should finde nothing in Eusebius for it nor in Ignatius nor in Clemens Alexandrinus nor in Athanasius nor in Epiphanius that I mention not others to me it is no small argument that baptisme of Infants was not universally knowne in the Greek Church no not in Epiphanius his dayes who is said to flourish in the yeare 390. because in his Panarium disputing against the Hieracites that denied Infants inheriting the Kingdome of heaven because not striving He brings the Infants killed by Herod the words of the Lord concerning Ieremiah Chap. 1. of his prophesie Christs blessing and receiving of infants the children crying Hosanna but nothing at all of Infants-baptisme which had beene as proper to his purpose if he had beene acquainted with it But besides the continuance of the questions to baptized persons and answered by them in many Authors mentioned this is to me and it seemed so to Hugo Grotius Annot. in Matth. 19.14 No small evidence that baptisme of Infants many hundred yeares was not ordainary in the Greeke Church because not onely Constantine the Great though the sonne of Helena a zealous Christian as it s reported was not baptized till aged but also that Gregory Nazianzen who was the sonne of a Christian Bishop and brought up long by him was not baptized till he came to be a youth as is related in his life And Chrysostome though as Grotius saith according to the truer opinion borne of Christian Parents and educated by Meletius a Bishop yet was he not baptized till past 21 yeares of age Grotius addes that the Canon of the Synod of Neocaesarea held in the yeare 315. determines that a woman with childe might be baptized because the baptisme reached not to the fruit of her wombe because in the confession made in baptisme each one 's own free choice is shewed From which Canon Balsamon and Zonaras do inferre that an Infant cannot be baptized because it hath not power to choose the confession of divine baptisme And Grotius adds furâ—her that many of the Greeks in every age unto this day do keep the custome of diffâ—ring the baptisme of little ones till they could themselves make a confession of their faith From all which I inferre That the Anabaptists need not blush to say which you seem to make a part of their impudence that the Ancients especially the Greek Church rejected the baptisme of Infants for many hundred yeeres I Proceed to the Writers of the Latine Church you alledge for Baptisme of Infants First Cyprian one of the ancientest writers amongst the Latines which is true He is placed by Perkins at the yeare 240. by Vsher at the yeare 250. Yet Tertullian was before him and counted his master Now in Tertullians time it appeares saith Grotius in Mat. 19.14 there was nothing defined cencerning the age in which they were to be baptized that were consecrated by their parents to Christian discipline because he disswades by so many reasons in his book of Baptism c. 18. the baptizing of Infants And if he did allow it it was only in case of necessity as may appeare by his words in his book de anima c. 39. But you say Cyprian handles it at large in Epist. 59. ad Fidum It is true he doth say enough in that Epistle for baptâ—zing of Infants and more then enough except he had spoken to better purpose The truth is the very reading of that Epistle upon which Hierom and especially Augustine rely for the proving of the baptizing of Infants is sufficient to discover how great darknesse there was then upon the spirits of those that were counted the greatest lights in the Church You say upon this occasion Fidus denied not the baptisme of Infants but denied that they ought to be baptized before the eighth day But you might have further observed that Fidus alleadged considerandam esse legem Circumcisionis antiquae that he thought the law of ancient Circumcision was to be considered And Vestigium Infantis in primis partus sui diebus constitutâ— mundum non esse dixistì Thou hast said that the footstep of an Infant being in the first dayes of his birth is not clean Whence it plainly appeares that there was a relique of Judaisme in him and that he did not well understand the abrogation of the Ceremoniall Law and the truth is the contentions about Easter neere that age do plainly shew that Iudaisme was not quite weeded out of the mindes of the chiâ—fe teachers among Christians You say Cyprian assures him that by the unanimous consent of 66 Bishops gathered together in a Councell baptisme was to be administred to Infantes as well as to growne men and not to be restrained to any time which is true but you adde and proves it by such arguments as these They are under originall sinne they neede pardon are capable of grace and mercy God regards not age c. But the resolution of Cyprian with his Collegues is not so lightly to be passed over sith the determination of this Councell as far as I can by search finde is the very spring-head of Infant-baptisme To conceive it aright it is to be considered that you are mistaken about the proofe of their opinion the things you mention are not the proofe but are produced in answer of objections The proofe is but one except you will make a proofe of that which is in the close of the Epistle which is that whereas none is to be kept from baptisme and the grace of God much lesse New-borne Infants who in this respect doe deserve more of our ayde and Gods mercy because in the beginning of their birth they presently crying and weeping doe nothing else but pray The onely proofe is this the mercy and grace of God is to be denyed to none that are borne of man for the Lord saith in the Gospell that the sonne of man came not to destroy mens soules but to save them and therefore as much as in us lyes if it may be no soule is to be lost and therefore all infants at all times to be baptized Whence we may observe 1. That they thought baptizing giving Gods grace and the denying it denying Gods grace Secondly that they thought the soules to be lost that were not baptized Thirdly that therefore not onely Infants of beleivers but all infants were to be baptized Whence Tossanus in his Synopsis Notes this for Cyprians errour that he taught Infantes Statim esse baptizandos ne pereant quod eis misericordia non sit deneganda Ep. 8. lib. 3. Then follow the objections which are three First That Infants are not capable being so young this he answers by saying God regards not age which he proves by an allegoricall accomodation of Elisha his stretching himselfe upon the little Childe to the applying of Gods grace to Infants The second
Italy and all Europe and it seemes he denyed not the baptizing of growne persons in Asia still whence I collect that even in the Latine Church after Augustines dayes in sundry ages the baptizing of persons of growne age did continue as well as baptizing of infants till the great darknes that over-spred the Wâ—sterne Churches spoiled by Barbarâ—us Nations destitute of learned men and â—uled by ambitious and unlearnâ—d Popes when there were none to Catechizâ— and therefore they baptized whole Countries upon the baptisme of the King of that Country though both Prince and people knew little or nothing of Christianity but were in respect of manners and knowledge Pagans still which hath beene the great cause of the upholding of Papacie and corrupting of Christian Churches I mean this great corruption of baptizing making Christians giving Christendome as it is called afore ever persons were taught what Christianity was or if they were taught any thing it was only the ceremonies and rites of the Church as they called them 2. You may conceive how light Augustine's juâ—gement was by considering the ground upon which Augustine held and urged the baptisme of Infants so vehemently which was as all know that read his works the opinion he had that without baptisme Infants must be damned by reason of originall sinne which is not taken away but by Baptisme yea though he wanted baptisme out of necessity urging those places Joh. 3.5 Rom. 5.12 continually in his disputes against the Pelagianâ— particularly tom 7. de natura gratia c. 8. And tom 2. ep 28. he saith Item quisquis dixerit quod in Christo vivificabuntur etiam parvuli qui sine Sacramenti ejus participatione de vita exeunt hic profecto contra Apostolicam praedicationem venit totam condemnat ecclesiam And in the close of the Epistle calls it robustissimam fundatissimam fidem qua Christi ecclesia nec parvulos homines recentissime natos a damnatione credit nisi per gratiam domini Christi quam in suis Sacramentis commendavit posse liberari And this Perkins in his Probleme proves was the opinion of Ambrose and many more And hence as Aquinas so Bellarmine proves baptisme of Infants froâ— Joh. 3 5. And this hath been still the principall ground The ground that you go on that the covenant of grace belongs to believers and their seed I cannot find amongst the Ancients Yea as you may perceive out of Perkins in the place alleadged although Ambrose and Augustine in his 4. book de Baptismo contra Donatistas c. 22. yielded that either Martyrdome or the desire of Baptisme might supply the defect of Baptisme and some of the School-men Biel Cajetan Gerson do allow the desire and prayer of parents for children in the wombe in stead of baptisme Yet we finde no remedy allowed by them but actuall baptisme for children born into the world So strictly did Augustine and the Ancients urge the necessity of Baptisme for Infants born 3. You may consider that Augustine held a like necessity of Infants receiving the Lords supper from the words Joh. 6.53 as is plainly expressed by him lib. 1. de peccat merit remis c. 20. And accordingly as in Cyprians time the Communion was given to Infants as appears by the story which he relates of himself giving the Communion to an Infant in his book de lapsis mentioned by August epist. 23. So it is confested by Maldonat on Joh. 6. that Innocentius the first Bishop of Rome held it necessary for Infants and that this opinion and practise continued about 600 yeares in the Church though it be now rejâ—cted by the Romane Church in the Councel of Trent 4. You may consider that Augustine held such a certainty of obtaining regeneration by Baptisme that not only he puts usually regeneration for Baptisme but also he makes no question of the regeneration of Infants though they that brought them did not bring them with that faith that they might be regenerated by spirituall grace to eternall life but because by Baptisme they thought to procure health to their bodies as is plain by his words epist. 23. ad Bonifacium Nec illud te moveat quod quidam non ea fide ad Baptismum percipiendum parvulos ferunt ut gratia spiritali ad vitam regenerentur aeternam sed quod eos putant hoc remedio temporalem retinere aut recipere sanitatem non enim propterea illi non regenerantur quia non ab illis hac intentione offeruntur celebrantur enim per eos necessaria ministeria By which last words you may perceive how corrupt Augustine was in this matter so as to excuse if not to justifie their fact who made use of Baptisme in so profane a manner as to cure diseases by it which is no marvaile if it be be true which is related of the approbation that was given of the Baptisme used by Athanasius in play amongst boyes 5. You may consider that in the same Epistle when Bonifacius pressed Augustine to shew how Sureties could be excused from lying who being asked of the Childs faith answered He doth believe for even in Baptisme of Infants they thought in all ages it necessary that a profession of faith go before He defends that act in this absurd manner Respondetur credere propter fidâ—i Sacramentum And thence is he called a believer because he hath the Sacrament of faith Which as it is a ridiculous playing with words in so serious a matter before God so it is a senslesse answer sith the interrogation was of the Childs faith before it was baptized and the answer was given before and therefore it cannot be understood of believing by receiving the sacrament of faith which came after 6. It is apparent out of the same Epistle that Infants were then admitted to baptisme whether they were the children of believers or not it was no matter with what intention they brought them nor whose children were brought yea it was counted a work of charity to bring any children to baptisme and in this case the faith of the whole Church was counted a sufficient supplement of the defect of the parents or bringers faith So that whereas the present defenders of Infant-baptisme pretend Covenant-holinesse a priviledge of Believers it was no such matter in the time of the Ancients but they baptized any Infants even of Infidels upon this opinion That Baptisme did certainly give grace to them and if they dyed without baptismâ— they did perish And thus I grant that it is true the Epistle of Cyprian is cited and approved by Augustine but neither is Augustine to be approved for approving it nor doth it advantage your tenet that you have cited his citation of it NExt to Augustine you place Hierom and it is true that he cites and approves Cyprians Epistle in the end of his third book of his Dialogues against the Pelagians and he cites and approves and commends Augustine's books de peccat merito
grant the baptizing of Infants because they durst not oppose the custome of the Church which in those dayes was accounted Sacred only they shifted â—ff the proofe of originall sinne from it by saying that they were baptized not for the remission of sinnes to eternall life for they had none but for the Kingdome of heaven which shift Augustine doth well refute in that Sermon and also opposeth some others that taught that the child not baptized might enter into the Kingdome of Heaven From Augustines time you make a great leape and say the first that ever made a head against or a division in the Church about it was Baltazar Pacommitanus in Germany in Luthers time about the yeare 1527. But therein you are much deceived For Cassander in his Testimonies of Infants baptisme in the Epistle to the Duke of Cleve tells us that Guitmund Bishop of Averse mentioneth the famous Berengarius Anno. 1030. opposing not only the corporall presence of Christ in the Eucharist but also the baptisme of little ones And that a little after sprung in Bernards time an heresie of an uncertaine Originall and appellation and he saith that they were called Cathari or Puritans and from a Country of France Albigenses spread over France and lower Germany and the banke of the Rhine of these he saith Hireliquis erroribus quos a Manichaeis et Priscillianistis mutuati sunt hoc insuper addiderunt ut Baptismum parvulorum inutilem esse dicerent ut qui prodesse nemini queat qui non et ipse credere et per seipsum Baptismi sacramentum petere possit quale nihil Manichaeos Priscillianistas docuisse legimus And indeed Bernard who is placed by Vsher at the yeare 1130. just a 100. yeares after Berengarius Sermon 66. in Cantica mentions the Heresie of some that had no name because their heresie was not from man nor received they it by man but they boasted themselves to be the successors of the Apostles and called themselves Apostolicos Now although he charge them with denying Marriage and abstaining from meates yet you may smell out of his owne words that this was but a calumny but take the Character he sets downe of them and weigh it and you would conceive he had spoken of Protestants Irrident nos quia baptizamus Infantes quod oramus pro mortuis quod sanctorum suffragia postulamus and a little after Non credunt autem ignem purgatorium restare post mortem sed statim animam solutam a corpore vel ad requiem tranfire vel ad damnationem And a little after Jam vero qui Ecclesiam non agnoscunt non est mirum si ordinibus Ecclesiae detrahunt si instituta non recipiunt si sacramenta contemnunt si mandatis non obediunt The same Bernard in Epist. 204. writes to Hildefonsus Earle of S. Gyles to take away Henricus once a Monke then an Apostate quod dies festos sacramenta Basilicas Sacerdotes sustulerit quod parvulis Christianorum Christi intercluditur vita dum baptismi negatur gratia nec saluti propinquare sinuntur and it is well known that Petrus Cluniacensis who is placed by Vsher at the yeare 1150. hath written an Epistle to three Bishops of France against Peter de Bruis and Henricus as defending errors digested into 5. Articles First That little ones may not be baptized Secondly that Temples or Altars are not to be made Thirdly that the Crosse of Christ is not to be adored or worshipped but rather to be broken and trodden under foote Fourthly that the Masse is nothing nor ought to be Celebrated Fiftly that the benefits of the living nothing profited the deceased that we are not to chant to God He saith that the heresie of the Petrobrusians was received in the Cities of Gallia Narbonensis and complaines that the people were rebaptized the Churches profaned the Altars digged downe the Crosses fired on the day it selfe of the Lords passion flesh was openly eaten the Priests scourged Monks imprisoned and by terrours and torments compelled to marry wives All this was done very neare 400. yeares before Baltazar Pacommitanus or as others write him Pacimontanus But perhaps you thinke however that Baltazar was the first that opposed the baptisme of Infâ—nts in the 16. Century which possibly may be true though herein you follow Cochlaeus and Bellarmine who addes that Erasmus himselfe had sowed some seedes of it also but Gerhard the Lutheran in the 40th Tome of his Common places where he handles this question rather derives the Originall from Carolostadius and alleageth Melancthon Com. on Coloss. and saith that he is called the father of the Anabaptists by Erasmus Alberus Now I doe not finde in Melancthon that which Gerhard saith of him yet Sleidan saith of him that he praised their opinion and Osiander that he joyned himselfe unto them and I finde that Melancthon in his Comment on 1 Cor. 9.24 sayes of him that he indeavoured to promote the Gospel though in a wrong course Arnoldus Meshovius hist Anabap lib. 1. § 2. sayes that the businesse of Anabaptisme began at Wittenberg Anno Christi 1522. Luther then lurking in the Castle of Wartpurg in Thuringia by Nicolas Pelargus and that he had Companions at first Carolostadius Philip Melancthon and others and that Luther returning from his Patmos as he called it banished Carolostadius and the rest and only received Philip Melancthon into favour againe Now they that know what was Luthers vehemency and pertinacy on the one side and Melancthons timerousnesse on the other side may well conceive â—hat as in the businesse of Images in Churches and Consubstantiation so in this about Infant-baptisme the temper of these two men much hindred the clearing of this truth perhaps fearing that a further reformation then they had begun would be an occasion of nullifying all they had done Surely it hath beene the unhappy fate of the reformed Churches that they have so stucke to Luther and Calvin that they have scarce stepped one step further in reformation then they did but stifly maintained onely the ground they had gotten Cassander in his Epistle to he D. of Cleve before mentioned reckons the error of Anabaptisme to have bin revived abouâ— the yeare 1622. by Nicolas Stork or Pelargus Thomas Munzer but it is not res tanti to search any further into this matter nor is it of any weight to enquire much after this Baltazar He is stiled Baltazar Huebmer Pacimontanus Dr. in Waldshuot in the Epistle Zuinglius writes to him before his answer to his booke about bapâ—isme in the Epistlâ— Zuinglius wrote to Gynoraeus he relates how he came to Zurich and was there demanded by the Emperor who it seemes sought his life there he made some recantation but it appeares he was afterwards taken and burnt at Vienna in Austria Anno 1528. For what cause I know not Zuinglius saith this of him in his Epistle to Gynoraeus Nos dexteritatem spectamus in homine ac mediocritatis
a great sinner esteemed as an heathen as we all know he was let him professe the faith of Christ and the covenant of salvation comes to his for now he is made a son of Abraham i.e. Abrahams promise now reacheth him Upon which I note 1. Though it be of little moment whether he were a Gentile or no yet I conceive it more likely he was a Jew partly because his name is more like the hebrew than the greek or latine and partly because if he had been a Gentile Christ had plainly discovered the calling of the Gentiles which he did not till afterward it would have caused in likelihood greater offence in them to hear a Gentile called a son of Abraham who already murmured that he was gone to be a guest to a man that was a sinner 2. You thus expound a son of Abraham that is Abrahams promise now reacheth him But Bezâ— more truly Filium esse Abrahae nihil aliud declarat quam gratis electum esse Rom. 9.8 Et vestigiis fidei Abrahae insistere Rom. 4.12 Et opera Abrahae facere Joh 8.39 Ex quibus demum recte colligitur certa futurae salutis expectatio Rom. 8.29 3. You only expresse this house by his as if you would have it conceived that salvation came only to his children by his believing whereas Mr. Tho. Goodwin if my memory deceive me not comprehended the whole family under the term house discoursing thereupon that a houshold-Church was prima Ecclesia the first Church which I marvailed to hear from him as conceiving it to overthrow the way of Government they call the Church-way which is mainly grounded on this that the first Church as Parker held is a single congregation out of many families and is primasedes potestatis Ecclesiasticae the first seat of Ecclesiâ—sticall power But I know no reason why when it is said Salvation is come to this house it should be stretched any further then Zaccheus his person in that salvation was come to him salvation was come to his house and the whole Narration favours this Exposition and Beza saith that Theophylact and some others understand by house Zaccheus himselfe I omit the conceit of Erasmus and Camerarius as if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thee did refer to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 housâ— for I thinke with Beza it is absurd to say This house is a son of Abraham 4. Although it be true that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is often a Causall particle yet it is true that it is sometimes a restrictive particle as Acts 2.45 and Acts 4.35 and therefore may be rendred by quatenus as or in quantum in as much or secundum quod according to what as well as by eo quod quoniam or quandoquidem because or forasmuch 5. In your paraphrase you put instead of salvation The Covenant of salvation which is not right what ever Author you may follow herein Now let it be considered what an erroneous inference is made by expounding it of all the posterity or family and making the particle Causall as if his believing alone did bring salvation to his house or posterity from whence this may be gathered a mans whole house or posterity may be saved barely by his believing and you will see a necessity to make 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a restrictive particle and to expound this house of Zacheus his family only in reference to his person And so what you take in by the way for the credit of your conclusion from Luke 19.9 is answered by shewing the faultinesse of your paraphrase But you returne to the Text Acts 2.38 39. You say neither can the evidence of the place be eluded by saying the promise here meant iâ—â—f the extraoâ—dinary gifts of the holy Ghost to speak with tongues c. for we all knâ—w that all who then beleeved and were baptized did not receive those extraordinary gifts of the holy Ghost and beside this argument remained still in force to be used to the end of the world who ever beleeves and is baptized shall receive remission of sins and the gift of the holy Ghost which was not true if by the holy Ghost was meant onely those extraordinary gifts Though I doe not so expound the words the promise is to you and your children of the extraordinary gifts of the holy Ghost yet the words next before and that which is before verse 33.17 18. of the same chapter might very well induce men to conceive that this is the promise of which Peter meant verse 39. nor doe I conceive your reasons sufficient to overthrow it For what though all who then beleeved and were baptized did not receive those extraordinary gifts of the holy Ghost yet Peter might assure them that it should be so for the future to them their children and all that are afarre off as many as the Lord should call though I doe not say the thing was true in this sense I onely say it might be so true notwithstanding your argument And whereas you say this argument remaines still in force to be used to the end of the world Who ever beleeves and is baptized shall receive remission of sinnes and the gift of the holy Ghost Neither doth this follow from the exposition of the words verse 39. by the words verse 38. of receiving the gift of the holy Gâ—ost For there is nothing in the text to prove that this argument still remaines in force as you speake sith it might be onely a particular benefit to them on their repenting and baptisme for ought you can inferre from the text You go on Nor secondly can it be avoided by that shift of others who interpret it thus to you and your children as many of them as the Lord shall call that is say they whether your selves or your children or any other whom the Lord shall call if they repent and be baptized they shall receive the gift of the holy Ghost If you put in stead of they shall receive the gift of the holy Ghost these words the promise is to you and them it is no shift but the genuine and necessarie explication of the text For let the promise be what ever you can make it you must put in that limitation if you will have it tâ—ue If the promise be of saving graces if of Christ sent if of the outward ordinances of baptisme c. If of the holy Ghost in â—xtraordinarie gifts it is none of these wayes true without that limitation For neither God promised saving graces nor outward ordinances nor extraordinarie gifts nor sent Christ to them their children or all that are afar off without calling them and every of them But you tell us it is plaine the strength of the argument lies in this That if they did repent and were baptized the promise should be made good to thâ—m and to their children and what comfortable argument can this be taken from respect to their children if the Apostle must be interpreted as these men
be under the first member of the division in the text It is a strange speech that he shâ—uld contend to prove this The seed of believing Gentiles are Jews by nature born to be circumcised and to keepe Moses law But let it be granted that they are called sinners in the sense he would have it thaâ— is out of the Covenant as it is said Ephes. 2.12 the question is in what sense the Gentiles were without the Covenant and the Jewes in It is certaine the Jews had by Gods appointment the priviledge of circumcision and the Covenant made with Abraham did beloâ—g to them in speciall manner and the Oracles were with them Rom. 9.4 5. and the Covenant of Saving-grace was among them till they were by unbeliefe broken off and that the Gentiles were dogs uncleane persons aliens from the commonwealth of Israel without God without Christ c. And so it may be granted that the Jews had a birth privledge though it is certaine that their birth did not intitle them to the Covenant of grace and that the common priviledge of circumcision belonging to the Jews did not arise from the Covenant of grace accotding to the substance of it but according to the admiâ—istâ—ation that then was nor was a fruit of the faith of the parents but of Gods appointment according to the dispensation of his will in that time of the churches minoritie but he that will prove that therâ—fore our children have such a birth priviledge because the Jews had must make our case as the Jews and so bring us under the Ceremoniall law But of this wee shall have occâ—sion hereafter to â—peake more fully onely by the way I thought it necessary to say so much because Master Vines referres us to Master Blakes Sermon as a learned treatise and I heard it in like manner magnified by Master Calamy and therefore have thought it necessary some where or other to â—xamine what hath any seeming strength in it And for the same reason I take notice of that speech of Master Blake page 11. Singular opinions put men upon singular interpretations which may as truely be verified of himselfe as of his adversaries in that which occasioned him so to speake Another booke lately published being the treatise of one Mr. William Cook and commended by Master Francis Woodcocke one of your Assembly as I conceive in the 62. page of it saith Whoever before but Bâ—llarmine or such Iesuiticall interpreters of Scripture tooke it so putting uncleane for bastards or holy for legitimate And in the Margin Note Reader that this is Bellarmines interpretation and after whether A. R. borrowed this answer of Bellarmine or invented it of himselfe as it is the happinesse of the good wits and holy affections of Iesuiticall and Anabaptisticall heads and hearts to jump in the same thing let others judge Mr. Woodcock had done well to have left out this passage For first although I have not now Bellarmines book by me to examine whether it be his interpretation or no yet I perceive by Chamier Panstr Cathol tom 4. lib. 5. cap. 10. § 55. who saith thus Hoc observato Bellarminum e tribus quas enumerat non iudicare quam cui praeferat quasi nihil interessâ—t This being observed that Bellarmine of the three senses which he reckons doth not shew which he preferres as if it were of no behoofe That that Author did not well heed Bellarmine when he makes it his opinion because he numbers it amongst other opinions Secondly that Authour not only erroneously but also otherwise in an unfitting way makes it a Jesuiticall interpretation only whereas he might have perceived that Bellarmine cites others then Jesuites for that interpretation and if he be not to be believed yet Chamier might be believed who saith in the same place § 50. Sic Ambrosium Thomam Anselmum exposuisse hunc Suarez appellat literalem sensum That Ambrose Thomas Anselme so expounded it and this Suarez cals the literall sense And before Bellarmine Musculus in his Commentarie on 1 Cor. 7.14 alleageth Ambrose and Hierome so expounding it and confesseth that though he had abused formerly that place against the Anabaptists yet he found that of matrimoniall sanctification and sanctity to be the right sense And Melancthon and Camerarius doe expound it of legitimation Gagnaeus Parisiensis in loc also so expounds it and Osiander Enchir. controv cum Anabap. c. 2. q. 3. Mariana schol in loc And as for that of Foederal holinesse I have rather reason to conceive it to be a new exposition the Ancients expounding it otherwise None that ever I met with expounding it of federall holinesse till the controversie of the Anabaptists in Germanie arose You say But this cannot be the meaning I clearly prove by these foure arguments First uncleannesse and holinesse when opposed one to the other are never taken for civilly lawfull Nor do I like the calling of it civill holinesse for it is not from the lawes of men but the institution of God and therefore I rather call it matrimoniall holinesse You say Vncleanesse indeed when opposed to cleanesse may be taken in severall senses An unclean vessel an unclean cloth an unclean garment when opposed to clean may signifie nothing but dirty or spotted but when uncleanâ—sse is opposed to holinesse it is alwayes taken in a sacred sense referring to a tabernacle use to a right of admission into or use in the tabernacle or temple which were types to us of the visible church and holinesse is alwayes taken for a separation of persons or things from common to sacred uses It is hard for you to make good nor is it materiall for me to disprove that which you say That when uncleanesse is opposed to holinesse it is alwayes taken in a sacred sense referring to a tabernacle use to a right of admissiâ—n into or use in the tabernacle or temple which were types to us of the visible church For if it were true yet the sense I give might stand good sith uncleanesse for bastardy might be taken allusively to the tabernacle if the exclusion of bastards from the congregation of the Lord were an exclusion from the tabernacle and so the sense might be good that uncleanesse is bastardy though that which you say were true that uncleanesse as opposed to holinesse refers to a tabernacle use Howsoever it is enough that I have proved that the word uncleanesse must be taken here for bastardy if the Apostles reason stand good Yet let me intreat you to look a little on that text 1 Thes. 4.7 and tell me whether uncleanesse there be not opposed to holinesse and whether it be taken in a â—acred sense referâ—ing to a tabernacle use to a right of admission into or use in the tabernacle or temple which were types to us of the visible church Me thinks by uncleanesse is meant fornication and by holinesse chastity and that comes very near the adjectives for bastards and legitimate which are
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
7.12.16 Heb. 9.10 Seventhly those commands that belonged to another covenant then that which now in force bind not but such are the commands of the Jews sacraments Heb. 8.13 Heb. 9.1 therefore they bind not Eightly those commands which were proper to the Jews bind not us Christians but the sacraments of the Jews were proper to the Jews so was Circumcision the Passeover the Sacrifices therefore they bind us not Ninthly If one part bind us then all the commands bind us and if we be obliged to any one rite then to all for they had all the same authority nor hath that authority dissolved any one part more then another Now it is a sure rule that ubi lex non distinguit non est distinguendum where the law distinguisheth not we must not distinguish therefore either none binds us or else we must revoke Judaisme And indeed to say so far a command of God binds and so far not without a plain declaration of Gods will is an high presumption whereby man takes on him to release or dispense with Gods Law which is of equall authority with the making of a law Lastly those commands bind us not which the Apostle would not have us subject to no not in part but such are the commands of the Jewish sacraments Col. 2.16.20 Gal. 5.1 2 3. and your self say pag. 27. the Apostle would take them off wholly from circumcision therefore they bind us not Yea it is to overthrow utterly our Christian liberty by Christ which the Apostle was so stiffe in maintaining that he would not yeeld no not one houâ— and blamed Peter for diâ—sembling this liberty Gal. 2.5.14 to maintain that all the commands and institutions of God about the Sacraments of the Jews bind us as much as they did them in all things which belong to the substance of the Covenant and were not accidentall to them But you endeavour to make good your Maxime by instances and accordingly you say thus As because Circumcision is called a seal of the covenant therefore our Sacraments are seals of the covenant though circumcision no where that I know be called the seal of the covenant but only the seal of the righteousnesse of faith Rom. 4.11 yet because it is called a signe or token of the Covenant Gen. 17.11 it may well be called a seal or confirming signe of the covenant with Abraham and so of the covenant of Grace and our Sacraments may be so called likewise they being confirming signs of the new Testament Luk. 22.10 Acts 2.38 but not because Circumcision was called so but because that phrase expresseth the truth of the thing But what is this instance to your purpose Is there a command or institution of God binding the Jews to call Circumcision so or a command or institution for us by vertue of the command to the Jews to call it so though I should oppose him that should deny our Sacraments to be seals of the covenant because he should deny a truth yet I should not say he did sin that did not call them so Your next instance is beâ—ause Circumcision might be administred but once being the seal of initiation therefore Baptisme being also the seal of initiation is to be administred but once However I conceive no necessity of circumcision or Baptisme above once yet I professe my self unsatisfied in this that there is either a command that a person be but once circumcised or a person once only baptized However if there were a command that a person should be but once circumcised and it could be proved that a person should be but once baptized yet I utterly deny that the command to circumcumcise but once is a cammand to baptize but once and therefore what ever any Divines may dictate Magisterially yet I do not think my self in Pythagoras his School that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he said it should be my rule You adde but that circumcision was to be administred on the eighth day only was an accidentall thing and therefore bindeth not I see no reason why once circumcising should belong to the substance of the covenant and to be circumcised on the eighth day should be accidentall yea if reason may rule the roast there is more reason that circumcising on the eighth day should belong to the substance of the covenant being commanded by God expresly and as many of the Ancients conceive particularly Cyprian Ep. 99. ad finem typifying Christs resurrrection on the eighth day then that to be circumcised but once should be of the substance of the covenant which is neither commanded nor is found in Scripture to typifie any thing belonging to the Covenant So vaine are mens conceits without the light of the Word But you go forward in the other Sacrament The Jewish Passeover being to be yearly repeated binds us to have a repetition of the Sacrament of the Lords Supper which came in roome of it because this belongs to the substance of the Covenant both of them being Sacraments for spirituall nourishment growth and continuance in the Covenant as the other was for birth and entrance but that their Passeover was to be eâ—ten in an evening and upon one set evening in the yeare was accidentall and so binds not us Here is a heape of dictats without proofe I grant the Jewish Passeover was to be yearly repeated because God so commanded it but thaâ— either this belonged to the substance of the Covenant or that this command binds us to the frequenâ— use of the Lords Supper I deny it if it did it were a very good plea for the superstitious custome of keeping Easter and receiving the Communion once a yeare on that day which I thinke you will be ashamed of though you lay the egge out of which it may be hatched I grant the Lords Supper is to be repeated often not because the Jewish Passeover was to be yearly repeated or because it is the Sacrament for spirituall nourishment growth and continuance in the Covenant as the other was for birth and entrance but because it may be plainly gathered from the Institution or Command of Christ and the Apostles declaration thereupon 1 Cor. 11.25 26. for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth imply 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as oft doth imply not obscurely but plainly a frequency and if example must be a rule as it is conceived in many cases lesse cleare and that have lesse reason that example Acts 20.7 should binde that on the first day of the weeke when Disciples come together they have the Lords Supper for the which the meeting then was intended and that action gave denomination to the whole service and by the relation of Justine Martyr if my memory deceive me not and others it was so in the primitive Church of Christians but I desire to be sparing in matters of command on mens consciences As for that you make the Evening accidentall to the Passeover and so not binding us in the use of the Lords Supper it 's but a
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
the reformation of these Churches according to Gods Word unto which wee have both bound our selves by solemne Covenant I have endeavoured not to let passe any thing of weight either in your Sermon or Master Thomas Goodwins which I could well remember or Master Blakes or any other that have published any thing about this matter of late It is an endlesse businesse to make a severall answer to every one I chose to answer yours because you are stiled the antesignanus Ensigne-bearer in print and for other reasons given in the Prologue My motion is that there may be an agreement among those that have appeared in publique in this cause to joyne either in a reply to this examen of your Sermon or in some other worke in which I may see together the whole strength embattailed and not be put to weary out my selfe in reading every Pamphlet of which there are too many indigested ones now adayes printed even with License and for the buying of which as now my estate is I doubt whether my purse will furnish me If I may have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 daily bread for mee and mine in a narrow compasse it will be as much as I may looke for The small stipend I had is likely to be even now subtracted If there be any willingnesse in you to have any conference with mee to consult about a way of brotherly and peaceable ventilating this point I shall be ready upon notice to give you the meeting and I hope it shall appeare that I shall not be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 stiffe in opinion in case truth shining before me present my errour to my view and I hope the like of you I shall waite a moneth after your receiving this writing to know whether any of these motions take place with you hoping you will not disdaine to let me have advertisement of your minde by some letter or message I would faine have truth and peace and love goe hand in hand if it may be though of these three 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is meet to preferre truth as Aristotle said long since It will be no griefe of heart to you at the day of resignation of your spirit that you have done nothing against the truth but for the truth You have now my writing as I have yours one day Jesus Christ shall judge us both Consider what I say and the Lord give you understanding in all things Thus prayeth From the house belonging to the Rectory of Gabriel Fanchurch in London December 7. 1644. Delivered to him Dec. 9. 1644. Your brother and fellow-servant in the worke of Christ JOHN TOMBES Inscribed thus To the reverend and worthy Mr Stephen Marshall B. D. these present As it is now printed it is enlarged in sundry places occasioned by sundry Books published since the first writing of it Colossians 2.11 12. Proves not Infant-Baptisme An Appendix to these Treatises in an Answer to a Paper framing an Argument for Infant-Baptisme from Coloss. 2.11 12. SIR YOUR Paper exhibites an Argument for Infant-Baptisme in this form That may be said to be written without which that which is written cannot be true This I grant But that which is said Colos. 2.11 12. of the compleatnesse with respect to Ordinances in the new Testament could not be true unlesse Baptisme were to Believers children as Circumcision was of old because it cannot be understood of the compleatnesse that Believers have in Christ for salvation for that the Jews had in Christ in the old Testament but yet they had a token of the Covenant to their children Ergo so they must now or else that cannot be true Answ. This Argument supposeth sundry things whereof somewhat is true somewhat false 1. It is true That the believing Jews were compleat in Christ for salvation For so was David Abraham c. who were justified by faith Rom. 4. Gal. 3. Heb. 11. 2. It supposeth that the Apostle Colos. 2.11 12. mentions Baptisme to shew that we are as compleat as the Jews in respect of outward Ordinances whereas the Apostle speaks not vers 10. of compleatnesse by reason of outward ordinances but sayes we are compleat in Christ without outward ordinances and that is his very Argument to disswade them from embracing the Jewish ordinances vers 8. yea it is plain that the Apostle makes the Jews incompleat by reason of their outward ordinances and that it is our compleatnesse that we have all in Christ without outward ordinances vers 17. Nor doth the Apostle mention Baptisme to shew that we are equall to the Jews in outward ordinances for the Apostles assertion is that we are compleat in Christ exhibited without outward ordinances and so the better for want of them but to shew how we put on Christ and so are compleat in him and therefore he mentions Faith as well as Baptisme as in like manner he doth Gal. 3.26 27. Rom. 6.3 c. Besides if that by being baptized we are compleat in outward ordinances then we need no other ordinance and consequently the Lords Supper should be needlesse 3. It is supposed that Circumcision was a token of the Covenant to their children But this is ambiguous in some sense it is true in some sense it is not true It was a token of the Covenant made to Abraham to wit First that God made such a Covenant with Abraham Secondly that God required them to keep the conditions of it But it is not true in these senses First that every person circumcised or to be circumcised of right had a title to the promises of the Covenant Secondly that this title to the promises of the Covenant was the reason why they were circumcised 4. It is supposed that if our children have not a token of the Covenant now as the Jews had that it cannot be true that we are compleat as the Jews But there is not a shadow of proof for it in the Text. And it is grounded on these false assertions First that the Jews children were in the Covenant of Grace because they were Abrahams naturall seed Secondly that a Believers children now are in the Covenant of Grace because they are a Believers children which things are expresly contrary to Rom. 9.6 7 8. 5. It is supposed that the Jews having salvation by Christ had also a compleatnesse by outward ordinances It is true that compared with the Gentiles that served dumb Idols they were compleat by reason of outward ordinancâ—s For their outward ordinances did shadow Christ to come and so did not the Rites of the Gentiles But compared with Christians since Christ manifested in the flesh so they were incompleat in respect of outward ordinances and so the Apostle determines Gal. 4.1 2 3. 6. It is supposed that without a succession of some ordinance in stead of Circumcision we are not compleat in Christ or at least not so compleat as the Jews But this I account to be false and very dangerous 1. False because it is contrary