was an example as they apprehended tending to trouble Christ more then ordinary to meddle with poore shiftlesse babes Fourthly if they had been little ones which could goe yet it sufficeth to prove what Anabaptists deny that before persons could actually hold forth personall Faith or repentance may be actually in covenant with God and inrighted to the initiatory seale of it and that albeit Christ did not actually cause these babes then to be baptized that they had therefore no right to bee baptized it followeth not But I. S. hee acknowledgeth those children to bee of that kingdome or members of that Jewish Church and therefore have right as well as others to temporall blessings and that these children were brought to Christ for cure producing some Scriptures for that end where prayer and imposition of hands was used upon that occasion but doth the Text say of such or such like was that kingdome no verily but indefinitely of such is the kingdome of God and what though those children were of that Church since Christ inlargeth his speech as wee shewed to such like persons and so to other babes of like condition with those and had the Jewes and their babes onely right to temporall blessings will I. S. say when that Abrahams covenant of God his being a God to them scil to fulfill his promises instancing in that Luke 1. 73 74 75. as one is acknowledged by I. S. elsewhere to bee by circumcision visibly sealed upon both seeds as hee termeth them True it is that as 2 King 5. 11. Matth. 8. 3. and 9. 18. Luke 4. 3◠40. one way of healing was putting on of hands and prayer but is all here meant the Lord blessed them scil in way of cure onely or the like other Scriptures mention imposition of hands and prayer in that way of curing true but here is no mention either of the diseases or of the cure of the little ones following upon Christs imposition of hands as there is in the other Scriptures in other cases no nor is here prayer mentioned the parents desired him to pray Matth. 19. but hee blessed them saith Marke whether in prayer way it 's not said yea since the Scriptures mention these acts of blessing and imposition of hands in way of ratification of covenant right and priviledges of the covenant of grace as externally at least the heritage of such and such witnesse that Gen. 27. 17. and 28. 1. 3 4. and 48. 14 15 16. why should not wee on better grounds look at this as comprehended in this act of Christ and why is I. S. so uncharitable to limit the requests of these pious persons intreating Christ to pray indefinitely for the little ones that this was onely to move him to desire temporall things for them Christ doth not seeme to make any such interpretation of their request when hee blessed them as Marke saith what was that onely in regard of temporals who would limit Christs blessing within so short a compasse nor was it the Disciples use to hinder but further the cure of persons children brought for that end as the instances in Marke 9. Matth. 15. shew Object But if you make Infants of inchurched beleevers to bee actuall members of a visible Church doe you not destroy the usuall definition of a visible Church given by Divines that it 's a company of persons professing the faith c. Answ Musculus Aretius Melancton Calvin Beza Bucer Dr. Ames Mr. Cotton Dr. Whittaker Peter Martyr generally all our Divines which define a visible Church severally but in substance to like purpose they yet make that no undermining of their owne doctrine de ecclesia or of the descriptions visibilis ecclesiae which they doe give when the same authors maintaine from Scripture grounds that such Infants are actually members of the visible Church and externally in the covenant of grace and such as are to bee baptized yea such Infants being of the Church It is not therefore not a company of professors of the faith since Infants are fideles as they are rationalls as some say scil actu primo non secundo yea they confesse and avouch the Lord in their parents avouching of him as they did of old Deut. 26. 16 17 18. and 29. 9 10 11 12 13 14. they promised to stand to those conditions in their parents promise made with respect to them Object But if they are of the Church and in the covenant and have right to the Seale then to both as well as to one to the Lords Supper as well as Baptisme Answ We do not say they are compleat members of the Church but incompleat as Ames speaketh to this purpose in his Medullâ having interest in the Church and covenant wee say they have right to the initiatory Seale but not therefore to all memberly priviledges of voting in Church censures elections admonitions c. even growne persons that are with us as transient members by communion with other Churches yet are not reckoned as in full Church communion with us in all Churches priviledges as in chusing officers censuring offenders c. Nor will Mr. B. his paralleling of Baptisme and the Lords Supper prove that if to bee admitted by Church interest unto the one then also unto the other for suppose one and the same thing bee sealed yet not by one and the same way the former onely being the initiatory seale of covenant and Church interest not the latter nor is it true that the same preparations is required to the former as to the latter since no where spoken so exclusively of persons to bee baptized as to come to the Lords Supper Let a man examine himself and so no otherwise let him eate nor doth it follow that because there is but one excommunication there is but one communion excommunication being properly of persons in full communion of all Church priviledges in this or that Church where the offence is committed For to instance in no other case but in that of a brother in another Church which is in Church communion in Mr. B's Church by vertue of communion of Churches yet not in compleat membership full communion of all Church priviledges there he offendeth will Mr. Blackwood now put him out of Church communion with his Church by actuall censure from his Church I suppose not in that the partie hath not personally submitted yet to the Churches power but they will withdraw communion rather this then is a different way of discommunicating and by Mr. B's grounds ergo argueth a different communion and so not the same which was that hee assayed to prove nor doe his proofes evince but that others were baptized then did partake of the Lords Supper Object Before wee passe further let mee remove another objection which I meet with scil that if wee make Infants members of a visible Church which doe nothing from whence to denominate the same but are meerely passive It will follow that there may bee a visible Church
Inchurched parents at least one of them so he considereth them at least as Ecclesiasticall beleevers visibly in Covenant with God his people and holding forth faith in God and in his Covenant as beleeving brethren and sisters and not barely as lawfull man and wife as the context and proofes formerly urged declare But let us heare the reasons why meant of them as man and wife and not as beleevers in the case propounded Obj. 1. When the Infidell party is spoken of he is named and so is not the beleeving party but is barely mentioned under the common name of man or wife therefore so to bee considered in the case there spoken to An. This hath been formerly answered That as much is expressed in that case Vers 16. man and wife onely named but it were absurd to reason that therefore in that case there mentioned they are considered as man and wife not as beleeving nor in that concealing of the word beleeving in the mention of the beleeving partie is it said the wife or husband is sanctified in or to or by the unbeleeving partie as if they as such had an influence in this sanctifiednesse of the other spouse but still the phrase is rather thus the unbeleeving husband is sanctified in or to or by the wife and the unbeleeving wife by the husband evidently pointing out the wife or husband as the subject of that sanctifiednesse which in the other is an effect and applyed to them as the object Obj. 2. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath been sanctified in the preterperfect tense twise repeated therefore probably relating to their estate when both were unbeleevers Ans He repeateth the word twice as being to speake of the unbeleeving parties in some couples the husband in others the wife as sanctified in unto or by the other parties beleeving for as such the wife or husband to or by whom the Infidell partie is sanctified are considered as before proved now in the preter-perfect tense such were so sanctified not whilst both unbeleevers since not then an unbeleever sanctified to a wife beleeving but in reference to past time since their comming to the faith and to the Church-estate which was some good space of time as in which many had sundry children Obj. 3. The same word is used in 1 Tim. 4. 5. concerning the creatures being lawfull to use that therefore is the sense here Ans If that had meant onely lawfulnesse of use for the way there mentioned as in some other Scriptures some such use of the Greek word here used may be found yet it 's not therefore consequent that here as it is circumstantiated it must be so meant likewise But as for the place in Timothy the confirmation it yeelds to this text is rather for us then against us since intending a way of the creatures becomming not barely lawfull to use as it is to others which makes no improvement of the word of Covenant as well as command in prayer but of a way of a holy use to such as take that holy course for that end And even so it is here of which more anon As much is mentioned in another phrase to like purpose Tit. 1. 15. but the opposition to unbeleeving persons sheweth that albeit many things are lawfull to them yet is nothing pure as it is to the Saints namely in a preter-naturall way holy to their use Obj. 4. But this is most pertinent to the Apostles scope of encouraging to abide together Ans The Apostles scope is not to speake to a case of civill lawfulnesse of such abode then indeed it had been lawfull to have spoken in that sense but to a case of persons troubled in conscience about pollution even by a communion which out of doubt was amongst all and so to them civilly lawfull Heb. 13. 4. This therefore were but to beate the ayre to tell them for satisfaction to their troubled conscience of a matter of which they never doubted and of which if never so well assured by what they knew now or before yet still their wound is not healed but might bleed and fester for all that in as much as many things lawfull in respect of civill use amongst men yet are not alwayes such things by the use whereof the Saints may not bee in conscience polluted as in the case of divorce of old tolerated Obj. 5. Hee speaketh of things not as contingent and possibly never likely to be but of things certaine in order to effects necessarily following and so of civill lawfulnesse of spouses a certaine effect of the ordinance of marriage Ans And so is the sanctifiednesse of a lawfull spouse as certaine a sequell in reference to the other making improvement of the word of Gods covenant as well as commandement by faith in prayer 1 Tim. 4. 4 5. Repl. Yea but it 's not so certaine a sequell that the holinesse of children should follow from that spirituall condition and consideration of the parent as it 's necessary it should if the Apostles reasoning hold good from the cause to the effect since then it must necessarily follow or else hee reasons impertinently nor will it reach the trouble of such which never had nor it may bee through age or other naturall inabilitie might never have children or how could their faith sanctifie their conjugall communion in reference to children Answ The Apostle reasons from cause to effect ex natura rei and not barely ex natura eventus rei It doth not follow that such a cause is not in its nature a cause of such an effect or that one may not pertinently reason from the cause to the effect because that sometimes a second cause may bee suspended in its full operation either by the first over-ruling cause or by secondary impediments But to come to the matter propounded We will suppose it meant of matrimony which as Gods ordinance is a certaine cause as of legitimacy of the husband to marriage use so of the children begotten in and by marriage fellowship This you will say will satisfie all sides But will it indeed Is it certaine all married people should have children Is it not a very contingent effect how can you reason from cause to effect rationally Are not many married persons past having of children by each other or naturally disabled from generation what satisfaction is it to such persons to tell them of an effect so unlikely and naturally so unpossible All will answer here yea but in the nature of the ordinance it is such a cause tending by Gods appointment to such an effect and ex hypothesi supposing the object to bee qualified with that effect of legitimacy scil children actually begotten by marriage fellowship then the effect is not contingent but alwayes followeth And all married persons may bee incouraged to their condition in that the ordinance hath not influence alone upon the spouses in reference to their marriage-fellowship but upon such children as God pleaseth to bestow upon
married persons for that both became lawfull and not unlawfull As much say I in this case That a faithfull man in covenant with God and his Saints hee by improvement of Gods word c. hath this certaine to him and for his incouragement whether hee stand in relation to a spouse onely and have yet no children yet hee hath a sanctified use of his spouse or if God make his spouse fruitfull hee hath a sanctified use of her yet further in a reference to any child by her to which hee stands in relation as a parent That as another effect of the covenant improved and of faith also therein hee hath this priviledge of a Federall and Ecclesiasticall condition of his child and this is a comfortable incouragement to all such persons that there is such an influence of the word of God improved by faith that as marriage-use is sanctified by it so children begotten in marriage are Ecclesiastically and Federally holy when the Apostle saith All things are pure to the pure Tit. 1. and every creature is sanctified by the word and prayer 1 Tim. 4. hee doth not thereby weaken or falsifie the ground-worke from cause to effect or weaken their comfort thence because it may bee said it is very contingent yea impossible that one beleever should have all things or creatures c. but it sufficeth ex hypothesi what ever hee hath more or lesse its pure to him And if hee have any thing more which he had not that then it becomes actually pure to him so in this case Therefore the Apostle doth not reason thus else you should have no children but supposing you have children it would follow they were else uncleane but now they are holy Obj. 6. But hee speakes of an holinesse incident to an unbeleever remaining an unbeleever and therefore of a civill holinesse Ans When the Apostle saith every thing is sanctified by the word c. 1 Tim. 4. and Tit. 1. 15. All things are pure to the pure will any say that hee speakes of a puritie meerly civill and naturall in reference unto the pure say an Indian servant yea say a beast to whom this puritie is attributed remaine Heathen or irrationall in themselves and are civilly pure onely to the unbeleeving yet they are in a more peculiar and spirituall respect said to bee pure to the pure else why is there put such a distinction between them therein Tit. 1. 15 It is in a peculiar way and sense that the creatures 1 Tim. 4. and the Infidell spouse 1 Cor. 7. are sanctified to the faithfull Obj. 7. Yea but he speakes of an unbeleever as a joynt cause of the childrens holinesse therefore that is but civill holinesse or legitimacy Ans Hee is a joynt cause of the child properly but of the child thus priviledged hee is not any proper cause as an unbeleever but as an unbeleever sanctified to his beleeving spouse 3. I. S. hath some further expression tending to the same end that the children are holy to use as are other creatures to the Saints and concludeth that the holinesse of the parent and child is the same in nature scil the holinesse of the creature in a naturall not in any spirituall respect That is they are made lawfull to use as before he spake when he shewed in what sense the husband was sanctified scil made lawfull to use or as others say as C. B. doth That children in this Text are not holy with any holinesse distinct from Idolaters as appeareth in the repetition of the word sanctified and that holinesse hee afterwards saith it is civill holinesse Ans Albeit this hath been in substance objected before and answered yet let me give a distinct answer to it 1. Then I deny that the same word used touching the parents is repeated in mention of the children if wee speake Grammatically Yea but they are of the same roote one the verbe the other the noune And what then is there no difference in the use of the words non sequitur Aquinas is right in that touching the meaning of words saith hee non tam attendendum est à quo quam ad quid Wee must not so much heed the roote whence they are derived as the use to which in common speeches they are applied Sanctified in or to a person is one thing and holy is another Afflictions persecutions yea the falls of the Saints are sanctified to them but they are not holy It 's Pauls wont when intending that use of the word sanctified either expresly or implicitly to mention to whose use the person or thing is sanctified As here twice in this verse ◠sanctified to the husband and to the wife so Tit. 1. 15. To the pure all things are pure and 1 Tim. 4. 4 5. mentioning prayer he noteth out Gods suppliants c. to whom the cretures are sanctified But here is no mention to whose use the children are holy yea in that holy for civill use they are holy to the infidel parent as well as to the beleever he may make a lawfull use of his child yet being unbeleeving the child is not sanctified to his use as Tit. 1. 15. sheweth 2. Suppose it of an holy or sanctified use of the children strictly taken as incommunicable to others then to Saints for use yet why rather your children holy then others then other Pagans children since to the members of Corinth the Pagan Cities children might be said holy for use and they might make a holy use of them many wayes in prayer c. Yea why not instancing as well as any other creature as holy thus as well as the children of the members of Corinth Church Obj. It was more suitable to instance in children being to prove that the Infidell parents were thus sanctified in their beleeving parents Ans Yea but if that bee the question it is not one particular instance like it would prove the same unlesse an induction of more particulars that the husband is thus sanctified for so are the children so are such and such things c. therefore so is the Infidell husband or wife to the beleeving party SECT V. HAving thus removed and cleared such mistakes in the expounding this Text we come now to what I conceive to take up the full meaning of what is said of these children of the body of the Corinthian-Church-members that they are holy Some take it of Federall holinesse some of Ecclesiasticall and Church-holinesse I would exclude neither It being spoken of the children of parents in such sort in the Covenant of Grace as it is invested with Church-Covenant also explicit or implicite and in the same respect the children are Federally holy as the Covenant of Grace is cloathed with Church-Covenant in a Politicall visible Church-way And thus I conceive of the Apostles inference and argument else your children were uncleane but now they are holy Scilicet That unlesse your Interest in the Covenant of Grace which you hold forth and your faith
nothing is pure to them but their consciences are defiled in the use thereof Tit. 1. 15. Prov. 24. 4. whether the promise give right to such and such blessings or no or whether ever the blessing of the blessings bee pleaded for in prayer or no men may have a lawfull use of their meate and sleep c but such have the holy use or every thing is sanctified to such by the word and prayer which improve the same for that end 1 Tim. 4. 5. for so hee giveth meate to them which feare him as mindfull of his covenant Psal 111. 5. and so hee giveth his beloved sleepe Psal 127. 2. The eighth and last thing premised is that the Apostle in the Argument which hee useth here to confirme that of such yokefellowes being thus sanctified to or by the beleeving parties hee changeth the person from the third to the second as concerning and nearely touching the body of the Church collectively especially such as were parents and had children The case might originally respect some few yea but hee argueth about it not thus Else their children were uncleane c. but else your children were uncleane but now are they holy as extending it to all the children of the Church and to the children of the members of it whether the parents were both fathers and mothers of the Church as it was the case of many or whether the fathers or mothers onely were in the Church which was the case of some SECT III. ANd now to ascend the Watch-Tower Albeit Gigantine Casuists have done worthily yet let a dwarfe on their shoulders mention what roaving fancies he discovers to misse and what explication hee observeth to hold a right and streight course and to weather and directly to fall in with and come up to the point of divine truth circumscribed in the clause mentioned Else your children were uncleane but now they are holy And here but barely to name explications of the words uncleane and holy to which our opposites stick not As when holy is used as opposed to corporally uncleane by actuall lusts as 1 Sam. 21. 5. 1 Thess 4. 4. or holy as actually holy for office Numb 16. 7. or holy for a person borne without sinne and so not inherently uncleane So onely the Child Jesus was not uncleane but holy Act. 3. Prov. 20. Job 23. Albeit grosser Anabaptists some of them have not doubted to affirme this of other children also or holy for one personally holy or truely gratious and godly wee contend not to determine of all beleevers children that they are thus Albeit wee are charitable in our thoughts and hopes this way of this or that particular child or holy for persons elected or saved we doe not positively affirme this neither of all them considered together Albeit we hope the best of the particular children presented to us and yet we judge that a most unsound and uncharitable speech of I. S. in his booke against Infants-Baptisme p. 3. That Infants in respect of their nonage are neither subjects of election nor subjects capable of glory * Me thinks these words do savour much of the Popish Arminian Tenet of foreseen faith Contrary to that Rom. 9. 10 11 12. Esay 65. 20. some beleevers Infants die Infants will any say they are all damned God forbid Yea but if supposed to bee saved then to bee glorified unlesse some Limbus Infantum be imagined which is neither the place of glory nor of damnation And if supposed to come to glory they are capable subjects of it unlesse God order any to glory whom he fitteth not for it If supposed to be sayed then also elected and so subjects of election or persons in whom election is partly subjected unlesse it be supposed either that some reprobates or persons not elected nor capable of being elected are saved or that there is some middle state betwixt Iacob have I loved before he had done good Esau have I hated or rejected before hee had done actually evill Contrary to Rom. 9. And supposing that such Infants dying Infants are elected and glorified it must be concluded that as Infants they were subjects of election and are capable of glory unlesse any will fondly imagine that God in choosing them eyed them as other persons then ever they lived to become or glorified other persons then ever they were in glorifying of them for dying Infants they never came to be other then Infants Nor by holy is meant ceremonially holy of which holinesse the Apostle speaketh as is evident by the mention of the instrumentall meanes of sprinkling of bulls and goats blood Heb. 9. 13. which Mr. B. would seeme to draw as if intended of outward holinesse now visible to the Church when it 's evidently spoken of that branch of Jewish ceremoniall holinesse now abrogated Nor by holy is meant here persons which possibly may be converted but this is but a may bee in respect of all such children whereas the Apostle saith peremptorily they are not they may bee holy Nor by holy is meant persons that may be religiously educated as I doe not remember such use of the word holy in Scripture however it is not here the thing intended for the Apostle positively saith they are not they may be holy whereas many beleevers babes never live to be holy by holy education Others expound it thus in reference to that inhibited separation verse 12 13. that if you stay together the children will bee counted legitimate but if you part they will be accounted bastards This is far-fetcht nor de jure in cases of lawfull divorce for adultery ought the children begot of the divorced Wife in lawfull wedlock before her adulterous pranks and divorce for it bee counted bastards SECT IV. BUt there are three other Expositions of this clause which are more usually urged and pleaded by opposites to Infants federall holinesse First some make this clause Else your children c. to be a reason inforcing that inhibition verse 12 13. and not of the sanctifying of the infidell spouse in the other Thus if you divorce your yoke-fellows you must put away your children also as they did Ezra 10. 44. And Hen. Denne maketh the meaning of your children are holy to be the same with the unbeleeving husband or wife is sanctified scil They are not to be put away Whereas the immediate connection of this clause to that passage vers 14. in way of arguing and not to vers 12 13. sheweth it to be a reason of the former not of the other in vers 12 13. The case of putting away came in question but as a supposed remedy of pollution of conscience by conjugall communion the unlawfulnesse of which remedy being so expresly mentioned vers 12. 13. and confirmed by foure reasons vers 14 15 16 17. there needed no more weight put there But since the feare of pollution of conscience did occasion that case vers 12 13. and that feare is so fully taken off in the first
Nay they are not onely opposed but the Gentile body is received in instead of the Jew-body broken off vers 17. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in ramorum defractorum locum Beza on Rom. 11. 17. and vers 19. They were broken off saith the collective Gentile that I might bee graffed in The Apostle yeelds this as truth well 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as if hee would say it is true now growne ones among the Jewes were broken off who came in their stead growne Gentiles True but Jewish babes and little ones too amongst other branches and sprigs are broken off that Gentiles might come into covenant and Church estate in their stead What Gentiles growne ones nay roome is made for them in the breach of the growne Jewes Verily then such a like species of Gentiles unto those rejected Jewish sprigs scil Gentile babes and little ones must necessarily bee thus inserted and admitted into that covenant and Church estate out of which the other were broken So then as Jewes were so Gentiles are considered in this Chapters discourse touching communion in federall and Church ordinances and priviledges under the notion of Olive fatnesse c. not in a bare personall way but in reference to people of both kindes and persons of all sorts and species younger or elder which is a strong argument that God never intended to limit the benefit of his covenant grace to growne ones or parents personally but rather extends it to them in a parentall way at least Hence when that commission Matth. 28. 19. was given for this end it is in the old terme and notion of nation a large word and subject God delights to inlarge his grace in these times and his very intent in Matth. 28. is inlargement of Gospel mercies The more crosse are their minds to Gods thoughts who from that very place would conclude a straightning such a Gospell mercy as this mentioned was and is both to parents and children and for which they have nothing equivalent in stead thereof The Apostle it 's confessed bringeth in Rom. 11. 16 17. as an argument to prove the receiving in againe of the Jewes scil unto actuall fruition of all covenant and Church priviledges vers 15. For if the roote bee holy so are the branches vers 16. and so vers 28 29. To the same purpose now if the covenant with godly ancestors bee so forcible to fetch in such Apostates after so grosse and long a time of their desperate revolts from and contempts of covenant grace in Christ is it not much more of force to the receiving in of the babes of next beleeving parents unto the visible fellowship of covenant grace God forbid that any should obstinately gainesay it SECT II. BY roote I. S. saith in that Rom. 11. 16. is meant Christ personall and yet the same author elsewhere would have it meant mystically considered and elsewhere of union and communion with God in ordinances and elsewhere of Abraham in his faith and elsewhere of beleeving parents in part for hee saith not onely beleeving parents are the roote c. not onely in part then such parents are the root But indeed this author refuteth himselfe in that hee knoweth not where to fix Abraham in his faith as latherly and eying the covenant in this latitude as to him and his seed of Isaac by propagation and to the beleeving Gentiles with their seed by proportion thus hee might bee a root in his faith but if Abrahams faith bee considered in a meere personall respect so neither Jewes nor Gentiles are properly said to bee inserted into that but rather into his faith with its object the covenant It is improper to say of the Gentile that they stood in it scil in the root of faith by faith or that the Jew was broken off from Abrahams personall faith by unbeliefe Abrahams faith was a saving faith if this therefore had been in them all or they in it they had not fallen as many Jewes and Gentiles priviledged by externall covenant right did and might or supposing the root to bee meant not of Abraham Isaac and Jacob but of Christ as Mr. B. also affirmeth who is elsewhere called a root Apoc. 22. 16. and 5. 5 c. if they had been in him by any proper and invisible union neither those of the Jewes had been nor so many of Gentiles could have been broken off as they were whole Churches of these are witnes this Church of Rome to which the Apostle wrote this But otherwise if understood of impropper and visible union with Christ scil a visible union with Christ mysticall thus indeed many such may fall away finally as did these Hence that John 15. 2. now in this sense parents and children Inchurched whether Jewes or Gentiles by being in the holy root of those covenant fathers they are visibly in that holy root Christ or Christ mysticall as was shewed I. S. will and doth confesse the first fruits of whom yet the same holy effect is affirmed Rom. 11. 16. to be these fathers and why not then as wel the same fathers to bee the root since the context cleareth it that the Apostle intendeth the same of the selfesame persons under divers Metaphors Either then Christ is the first fruites as well as roote intended or those fathers are the first fruites as well as the root mentioned Verily covenanting Abraham in reference to his seed is called a rock whence that Church as a Church was hewen for in that sense the Prophet speakes to them Esay 51. 1 2. yet is Christ the rock of the Church too in another sense and why is not Abraham then a covenant root to such Church branches as that from whence they in that sense doe spring And what I say of Abraham is as well to bee referred to Isaac and Jacob in the same respect as being other veines making up this one root the Instrumentall meanes and cause of the mercy offered and exhibited both to Jewes and Gentiles in regard that to them all this large covenant was made over in a radicall way see Gen. 17. 2. 7. and 22. 18. compared with Gen. 26. 3 4 5. and 28. 13 14. whence such frequent mention in Scripture of Abraham Isaac and Jacob in reference to covenant blessings yea their names are pleaded in prayer for that end Exod. 32. 13. Deut. 9. 27. see more 2 King 13. 23. and Mich. 7. 20. c. This was not in respect of any personall holinesse of theirs or barely in respect of their personall faith but it was by reason of that large covenant made with them in this reference as the places quoted shew see further for this end Luke 1. 71 72. Rom. 15. 8. Deut. 4. 37. and 10. 15. with other like Scriptures Hence too they are made here a radicall meanes of the Jewes receiving in againe Rom. 11. 15. grounded on this reason vers 16. compared with vers 28. Whence also the Jewes which are called holy branches by vertue of their
such an ordinance that tendeth to their spirituall gaine in their childrens good thereby furthered Now if Hierom thought there were no Law for childrens baptisme why is there any transgression yea so deepe charged upon the neglectors of it that it is scelus in his account So in his second Tom. 1. 3. Dialogorum adversus Pelagianos ad finem hee proveth infants baptisme to bee for remission of sinnes as well as for entrance into Gods kingdome so that this Authors words are wrested against his owne intention Let us see whether the next be better dealt withall scil Athanasius in his third Sermon contra Arrianos Our Saviour did not slightly command to baptize but first of all hee said Teach and then baptize that true faith might come by teaching and baptisme bee perfected by Faith If Athanasius had said thus in the Authors sense yet the fallacy had still beene the same to conclude à dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter But let us look upon that place and weigh the words of Athanasius there speaking of the unprofitablenesse and vanitie of Baptisme by Arrians hee proceedeth thus For saith hee the Arrians doe not give Baptisme in the Father and Sonne but in the Creator and creature in the maker and workmanship As therefore a creature is a diverse thing from the Sonne so is the Baptisme supposed to bee given by them diverse from true Baptisme Albeit because they see the names of Father and Sonne in Scriptures they doe faine to name them for it is not hee that barely nameth the Lord which giveth lawfull Baptisme but hee that expoundeth that name and holdeth the right faith And therefore our Saviour doth not command to baptize after any fashion the Authors render the word quovis modo by slightly but first hee said Teach and then baptize in the name of the Father Sonne and Holy Ghost this clause the treatise leaveth out that by teaching a right faith might arise the treatise saith true faith might come and with the faith of Baptisme the intire initiation might bee perfected by initiation hee meanes baptisme as the words before these shew In these words The Arrians hazzard the losse of the integrity of that mystery But I speake of Baptisme For if perfect and full initiation bee given in the name of the Father and Sonne and they hold not forth the true Father c. how should the Baptisme which they give bee true c. So that that speech with the faith of Baptisme the intire initiation might bee perfected is that with the faith or doctrine of faith rightly held out the Ordinance of Baptisme might bee perfect or valid which hee calleth the right faith as the words before mentioned shew So that hee doth not here intend fidem quâ credit aliquis sed fidem quam credit hee meaneth it of the object not the habit of faith and of the qualifications of the persons baptizing to make their act valid not of the parties baptized For none will say that an hypocrites Baptisme because hee hath not true faith is not true Baptisme The essence of the Ordinance not depending upon mans faith but Gods word And that hee intends no other thing as it appeares by the premises for if you take his next words following the same it will bee evident Truely saith he even other heresies and those not a few doe in seeming words pronounce that rite of baptizing but being not right in judgement nor retaining the sound faith they possesse and bestow an unprofitable water as destitute of the Deity of Religion so that they which are sprinkled by them are rather polluted through corrupt Religion then redeemed Here therefore is an ancient Authors words wrested to another sense then the scope of his discourse tended and some words left out which served to declare his meaning and other words so palpably mistranslated that the Reader is grossely abused thereby as well as the Author SECT II. THe next testimony is of Haimo upon this Text of Matthew In this place is set downe a rule how to baptize aright scil that teaching should goe before baptisme for hee saith Teach all nations and then hee saith and baptize them for hee that is baptized must bee before instructed that hee first learne to beleeve that which in baptisme hee shall receive for as faith without workes is dead so workes when they are not of faith they are nothing worth This labours of the same fallacy as that of Jeroms testimony à dicto secundum quid ad simpliciter Gerhardi loc com loc de baptismo what the Author spake in reference to Adulti it 's applied as his mind thereby to make baptisme of children besides or against rule when yet the same Author upon the 14. of Romans speaking about the case of their dipping of children hee mentions Cyprian as practising dipping of children in baptisme but once but after saith hee hee being corrected of God hee abounded in more sublime knowledge dipping them thrice Hee looketh then at that way of baptizing Infants as a lesson which Cyprian learned of God Hee then surely thought baptisme it selfe of Infants to bee taught of God and no breach of a rule of God Wee speake not this as allowing Haimo's judgment about Immersion and much lesse that of trina Immersio but to cleare the Author from that intention which the treatise would father upon him or at least by producing the mans writings in one place would make him against hâ—…s owne light to write things contradictory in another Thus is this Author and the Reader with him abused also SECT III. THe next Author cited in this Treatise is Erasmus both upon Matth. 28. and Marke 16. to like purpose When you have taught them if they beleeve c. and repent c. then let them be baptized c. and Proposition 3. those who in times past were to bee baptized were first of all instructed in the mysteries of the Christian faith and were called Catachumeni c. This later one would thinke might have expounded the former that hee intends it of adult Pagans and not of others in Christian Churches such as ours are whose foundations are already laid and established And Proposition 6. It 's no where expressed in the Apostolicall writings that they baptized children Hee doth not say it 's not so much as probable nor is it to bee gathered by consequence that they did so wherefore his testimony is no proofe that the Apostles never did baptize Infants because it 's never mentioned expresly It 's never expresly said that I remember that the Apostles or Evangelists when they Baptized those in Acts 2. and 8. and 16. 18. that they called upon God for a blessing upon the Ordinance but will it follow that they did not sanctifie the Ordinance by Prayer Proposition 7. hee is quoted as a proofe of that Proposition Lib. 4. de ratione concion saying that they are not to bee condemned that doubt whether childrens