in time bee of Gods kingdome that is beleevers or in that they were such as God would blesse For Christs words are not Of such may will or shall bee the kingdome of God nor that they were of his kingdome because such as hee would blesse but rather that they should not bee hindred from being blessed of him because of such is the kingdome of God as the context and force of that reason in reference to the occasion sheweth and as for that assertion of their being all elect the improbabilitie thereof hath before appeared nor doth Christ seeme to speal of the kingdome of God as taken for the invisible Church of actuall beleevers but of visible members of the visible Church as before was shewed Hee affirmeth that those little ones de praesenti were of the kingdome of God yet were not they actually beleevers hee asserteth as much of the Jews to be rejected afterward that yet at present they were the children of that very kingdome of heaven whereinto the Gentiles even the very best of them come to sit the Church estate in both was the same in the essentialls and the covenant estate the same essentially the externall right to grace and glory the very same essentially and so the reason of the grant here and assertion is the same in reference to the little ones of other visible beleevers as of these which brought their children to Christ unlesse God should bee made a respecter of persons their Infants must come to Christ and not bee hindred because they were Federally and Ecclesiastically priviledged or because of such is Gods kingdome the same is valid now since as adult persons externally in covenant and Church estate must not according to our opposites mindes bee hindred from Christ because such like as these little ones so neither beleevers little ones being also such like as well they may not bee hindred from any such way of initiatory approach to Christ as they are capable of as is externall baptizing in the name or fellowship as of the Father so of Christ the Sonne and also of the holy Spirit to which purpose I suppose our Divines had reference in urging this place for Paedobaptisme nor was this an affirming of Infants being saved by their parents faith but an assenting of their externall Church right by vertue of the latitude of Gods covenant applyed by the parents and by occasion of their holding forth of that faith which did foro ecclesiae unite them and their little ones to Christ as head of the visible Church in which may by externall adoption and insition are interested which are not saved as before wee shewed nor will that take off what it seemeth some worthy Divines have lately urged from hence for Paedobaptisme that if Christs mind had beene that Infants should have been baptized hee would have commanded these little ones to have beene baptized for an example for according to the principles of C. B. and others Christ did love these little ones with his everlasting love they received heaven of free gift as all that will bee saved must doe theirs was the kingdome of glory really and Christ as God and as an extraordinary Prophet of the Church knew all this c. now why should not or were not these Infants at least baptized C. B. will answer Infants of beleevers may die in their Infancy and they may live to commit actuall sinnes c. and wee not knowing which will live or die cannot baptize them what then according to C. B. it seemes the uncertainty of Infants deaths whilst young or living to growne yeares is an impediment to their baptisme Where did C. B. here or ever read in Scripture or of such a just barre to Infants baptisme but suppose it were so to us which know not this yet C. B. will not say but Christ knew all herein how matters would prove therefore that was no just hinderance in the nature of it thereto for then hee to whom this could bee no hinderance touching these children about whom C. B. saith hee revealed his Fathers eternall live and good will hee had caused at least these little ones to have been baptized Yea I demand upon the grant of those things mentioned whether C. B. or others opposing Paedobaptisme would deny that such as Christ receiveth and blesseth and alloweth the kingdome of heaven in their sense that is that of glory to be theirs if growne ones should not therefore bee baptized Now if this will not be denied as I suppose why supposing the like case of any little ones and Infants shall the same bee denyed where there is the same ground of baptisme in both sorts Nay suppose that by extraordinary revelation C. B. and others of his minde did know as much as here is mentioned in Marke 10. and Luke 16. that such and such children were Gods chosen ones that they were received and blessed of Christ not in any common way but as the very heires of glory as these Infants are by them supposed to bee and so were actually blessed with the spirit of grace c. would not they baptize these Infants I suppose the more judicious would and have said that in that case they would doe it because such an extraordinary revelation would suffice to warrant the act of baptizing such Infants without profession of faith and because of Peters principle Act. 10. 47. Can any forbid that these should bee bapzed which have received the holy Ghost as well as wee and the institution of baptizing Disciples would in this case beare it out such sanctified persons being Disciples c. Nor indeed could it bee denyed by them rationally since in this case Infants are not meerely supposed to bee capable thereof but really to have received the sublime things visibly sealed in baptisme even the spirit of grace love and blessing of Christ the promise of grace and glory c. And therefore not to bee denied baptisme especially seeing this their receiving of the thing signified is also manifested so all usuall occasions that way removed Now then to come to apply what here is granted First then persons may come under the notion of Disciples which were never outwardly taught and cannot personally hold out actuall faith which our opposites elsewhere deny Secondly that it is not contrary to Christs minde and to the rule that persons without personall profession of faith should bee baptized For as the former notion of Disciples if natura rei it were not otherwise applyable then as not ordinarily so neither extraordinarily and whether ordinarily or extraordinarily if applyable so it is not simply to bee denyed so I say in the latter albeit extraordinary things done besides rule crosse not ordinary rule yet neither extraordinarily nor ordinarily is any thing to be done which is in it self contrary to rule It was beside rule for a Priest to kill Zimri and Cosbi but not a breach of rule or any thing contrary to rule Thirdly that there
children of Gentile in-churched parents Though even this also is of grace that they should naturally descend from such parents Gen. 49. 26. Object 4. The Gentiles come into and abide in Church-estate by faith Rom. 11. 20. But children have not faith Therefore this Scripture concernes not them Answ 1. The Gentiles that so stand by faith are collectively taken as including also their children with them so abiding untill that these their children come to reject as did the children of those godly Jewish ancestors their covenant right And observe it by the way how tender God was of covenant children They were never excluded untill they came after many generations so wholly to degenerate as Rom. 11. 16 17 18 19 20 21 25 28. sheweth and then but not till then they are rejected so is it still God is tender of unchurching and discovenanting any that come of godly ancestors till they grosly and obstinately reject their owne mercy But if they grow up to that obstinacy then they cut off the gratious covenant entailed as from themselves personally so to their children parentally as did those of old Rom. 11. 20. and as those of Rome Corinth and Ephesus c. have done since 2. This faith mentioned is not a bare personall faith respecting this or that particular Gentile but such as is in direct opposition to that unbeleefe of the Jewes by which they were broken off as that opposition Rom. 11. 20. sheweth now it is evident that their unbeleefe was the obstinate rejecting of the covenant of grace as it was held out in Christ to them and theirs joyntly and not as barely made to themselves personally Acts 3. 25 26. and 13. 46 47. Matth. 21. 41. 42 43 44. Rom. 9. 31 32 33. and 10. to the end see Rom. 10. 21. with 11. 1. c. and vers 20. So verily is it in the faith of the Gentile opposed thereunto It is a faith that lookes to Gods covenant as in reference to families and kindreds of the earth so imbracing it and so being quickned and comforted by it That pretious fruit of faith must hold proportion to the nature of the seed thereof scil the words of promise 1 Pet. 1. 23. now the words of promise run not barely in a personall way but in a parentall oeconomicall and plurall way as well Jer. 31. 1. Acts 3. 25 c. our faith is or de jure should bee inlarged according to the latitude of covenant as was before proved Rom. 10. 8 c. By what hath been said their grosse mistakes appeare which say that none are the subjects of this lumpe but elect ones That the branches were such onely which were in Christ by faith and hee in them by his spirit for neither Jew nor Gentile branches many of them were such as appeares by their being broken off nor is that assertion sound but absurd and crosse to the very text that the Jewes owne naturall root and Olive tree whereof they were naturall branches onely by faith was union with God c. since that way of being branches onely by faith is no where called naturall nay in the same verse Rom. 11. 24. speaking of the first growne Gentiles inserting by faith it is said to bee contrary to nature nor is inserting which is onely by faith more naturall to Jewes then it is to Gentiles Neither is that true and sound that no other holinesse inrighteth any in any priviledges of grace if understood of Church priviledges now in question then holinesse of justification or sanctification since many of those naturall branches which as naturall branches of that holy root were holy federally and did partake of the root and fatnesse of the olive before their rejection as well as some better Jewes did afterward yet they were not justified for which compare Rom. 11. 16. 24. 17 18 19. so likewise the Gentiles which came to partake of that Olive fatnesse in their stead ibid. yet were fatally cut off many of them which had never bin if they had been justified and sanctified Object 5. Doth not the Apostle only speake here of the invisible Church under the notion of the Olive which sometimes was amongst the Jewes and therefore called their Olive the Apostle reasoning about the elect remnant Rom. 11. 1 2 3 4 5 6 c. and making the tree to bee the Church of beleevers still standing and some branches broken off and others graffed in and so it might seeme the graffing in to bee inserting into the invisible Church by election and faith Answ I deny not but that the Apostle discourseth about the elect and invisible members of the invisible Church vers 1 2 3. c. and therefore proveth fully enough one principall thing propounded scil that the invisible elect membes of it or the elect seed and branches of Abraham Isaac and Jacob did not could not fall away finally but it will not therefore follow that hee speaketh onely of the invisible Church in the whole chapter or that he discourseth not as well of the visible Church of the Church seed of Abraham Isaac and Jacob. Yea it wil appeare by good reason that in that part of the Chapter where hee discourseth of the Church as an Olive communicating its fatnesse to all the branches of it hee principally intendeth the visible Church as visible For 1. The objection acknowledgeth that it is the Church of beleevers still standing and some branches broken off and others graffed in now none that were in the invisible Church by election and faith could ever bee broken off Yea but they might bee in the Church in appearance or visibly as branches may bee said to bee in Christ and after broken off John 15. 2. Not to answer this with an exposition of that according to some to bee meant of Christ considered with his body the visible Church as 1 Cor. 12. 12 13. here is more said of these scil that others came in their roome and place Rom. 11. 17. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in ramorum defractorum locum as Beza noteth on that particle they had then a reall place there and a reall breach was made neither did the Gentiles come into an imaginary place in the Church but a reall and yet they came into no other place then into the place of the broken branches therefore theirs was a reall not a seeming place in the Olive the Olive then must bee the visible Church where hypocrites may have place and not the invisible Church where they can have none Besides they were such branches of the Olive as did partake of the fatnesse of the Olive not like withered branches seemingly in Christ which are saplesse nor did ever partake of the sap of Christs saving grace as these did of Church sap hence the Gentile is said to partake in common with them Rom. 11. 17. Greeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. and thou partakest in common with them in the fatnesse of the Olive What did the collective Christian
Gentile partake in common with them in shewes and semblances nay in realities in the very fatnesse of the Olive of which they partooke else it was not a partaking in common as both partooke also in common in the root Ibid. scil Abraham Isaac and Jacob not as naturall fathers for so Abraham Isaac and Jacob albeit they were naturall fathers unto the Jewes yet not in any respect naturall fathers unto the Gentiles but rather as they were Church fathers if they had not beene Church fathers to the Jewes as well as to the Gentiles how did Jew and Gentile partake in common in them as a root and what common Church fathers were Abraham Isaac and Jacob those fathers vers 28. of the invisible Church nay verily but of the visible of which even the the refuse Jewes sometimes were Which may bee a second argument that the Olive tree of which Abraham as some say and yeeld or Abraham Isaac and Iacob as others where the roote is considered here under the adjunct of the visible and not of that of the invisible Church and so it 's plainely ly verified that Jewes and Gentiles were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 partakers in common in the root and fatnesse of the Olive Rom. 11. 17. A third reason thereof is in that the Olive here intended is that whose fatnesse it is that is communicated to the branches yea to such branches as were broken off as were many refuse Jewes or might bee broken off as sundry of the Gentiles which came in their stead might bee whence that vers 21. yea ver 22. otherwise thou shalt bee cut off and so many have beene witnesses that Apostate Churches of Asia and other Churches Now saving graces peculiar to the elect flow not from any company of men no not from the invisible Church nor is it theirs but Christs to convey and communicate they cannot spare that oyle for others Matth. 25. 9. but the ordinances and they are the Churches properly and such as from the Church are derived and communicated to others whether elect or reprobate that are members of her Yea but what Church is that which holdeth forth and dispenseth Church ordinances to others not the invisible Church all the members being homogeneall the invisible Church properly hath not officers if you suppose officers you must suppose some calling others called and then they cease to bee meerely invisible for in this act they become visible now a Church without officers cannot administer all Church ordinances not communicate that Church fatnesse of the seales so then the Olive Church communicating all Church fatnesse indefinitely and so the seales too must bee the visible not the invisible Church Besides since no Olive or Church fatnesse is to bee had but in and from the Church no Church ordinances ordinarily to be dispensed but in and from the Church if the Olive here bee supposed to bee the invisible not the visible Church no ordinary communication of Church ordinances to any is possibly to bee had since the invisible Church being a Church onely of elect and savingly called persons and no hypocrites or reprobates being in or of that Church whither shall any repaire for Church ordinances there being no Church in the world dispensing ordinances by ordinary officers which alone can now dispense them in a Church way that consists onely of elect ones but there are some chaffe and tares and trash and vessels of dishonour in it Matth. 3. and 13. 2 Tim. 2. yea that Church being invisible as such is not obvious to the sense of any which being brought to the faith would desire to bee joyned to this Olive thereby to partake of it's fatnesse hee cannot see where nor what that Church is for it is invisible this will drive us all to become Seekers not till new Apostles come as some fondly imagine but perpetually yea hopelesly Fourthly it 's not denied by such as oppose us herein that the Jewes had this priviledge to bee reckoned in the outward administration of the covenant of grace as branches of the Olive by birth by virtue of Gods appointment which cannot bee true but in reference to the visible Church C.B. Object 6. You will hereby set up a Catholique visible Church Answ If that should follow hence touching a Catholique Church as noting Aliquid integraliter universale as eum dicimus orbis universus which is not really distinct from all the particular Churches in the world considered in one this universall integrum the Church albeit not visible at once to any ones eyes yet in its parts it is visible both divisim in its particular visible members as also conjunctim in visible congregations Ames medul Theolog. lib. 1. cap. 31 32. CHAP. III. Sect. I. Touching the Explication of Matth. 28. 19 20. and Marke 16. according to our opposites HAving laid downe such conclusions as make way let us now addresse our selves to some further considerations of Pedobaptisme it self according as other Scripture grounds hold it forth And first because Matth. 28. is much controverted let us try whether it make more for us then against us therein and withall take in the consideration of Marke 16. 16. which our opposites pleno uno ore cry up as quite overthrowing our doctrine of Pedobaptisme And herein I am content that they should speake First Mr. Blackwood maketh the commission to be even for the very order of the words so exact that Ministers as commissioners must stick to them and giveth reasons to prove the very order of the words to bee morall in both places and brings Mark. 16. for his proofe that without all distinction of Churches gathering or gathered thus it must bee beleeving in Christ must proceed baptisme this hee maketh his second argument and the same also his fourth onely varying the words a little but the proofe is Mark 16. 16. to which Acts 8. 12. 37. is added for proofe from which proofes also of Act. 8. 12 c. he rayseth his sixth argument so that all those three arguments together also with his eighth and last they all turne upon one hinge and have all one bottome A. R. hee also explaineth the same in the same way applying Marke 16. as an explication of Matth. 28. the Scriptures saith he hold forth that Disciples that is beleevers onely should bee baptized so Mr. B. upon Marke 16. onely beleevers are to bee baptized and unbeleevers by that affirmation are forbidden And further to prove the same the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Matth. 28. is urged by Hen. Den A. R. and Mr. B. as in reference to Disciples not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in reference to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the nations Besides in that Christ added teaching them as if the persons to bee baptized are presently to bee taught and so not Infants And that also preaching is to goe before baptisme upon the same ground And as by that plaine and well grounded treatise is added that baptizing into the name of the
enter into covenant with him And it appeares so 1. In that it agreeth in the essentialls with circumcision as an initiatory seale Col. 2. 11 12. whence baptized Gentiles are said to be of the circumcision Phil. 3. and Jewes said to bee baptized 1 Cor. 12. hence first instituted for a seale to the circumcised Jewes to shew it was in the essentialls of sealing Abrahams covenant to them but the same with circumcision in a manner onely as that sealed it to them visibly in Christ as to come this did it in like sort in reference to Christ as come that was the seale of the righteousnesse of Abrahams faith or that whereon his faith acted to righteousnes of justification Rom. 4. 11. even the promise of grace in Christ Rom. 10. 6 7. with Deut. 30. 14. hence when Christ is called the Minister of circumcicision it is thus explained by the end of the signe administred scil to confirme the promises made unto the fathers Rom. 15. 8. Acts 7. 8. Gen. 17. 11. hence the promise premised and then baptisme annexed as the seale Acts 2. 38. hence that washing annexed to the word Ephes 5. 25 26. 2. It 's a Baptizing in the name or covenant fellowship of God the Father Sonne and Spirit hee having exalted his word above all his name Psal 138. 2. 3. It 's a seale of remission of sinnes and therefore of the promise tendering the same hence joyned Acts 2. 38 39. Acts 22. 4. The nature of it sheweth the same it being a Gospell Sacrament and that is a visible seale and the seale is to the covenant hence called by the name Acts 7. 8. 1 Cor. 11. 25. Secondly it is an initiatory seale as first annexed to the Gospell dispensed with reference to covenant fellowship with God in Trinitie not first Disciple them and then let them come to my Table but baptizing them scil so soone as ever brought into covenant and Church estate and seale them up thereby unto covenant fellowship with the Father Sonne and Spirit Hence repent and bee baptized for the promise is to you not repent and come to the Lords Table for the promise is to you Hence that order observed of communion in breaking of bread after they were baptized vers 41 42 43 44. there John began in any sealing way Matth. 3. Marke 1. As of old circumcision long before the Passeover hence called the washing of regeneration metonymically attributing the thing sealed to the visible seale Tit. 3. 5. the new birth is the first fruits of the spirit of promise nor is this ascribed to the other Sacrament as that which is its proper Sacramentall worke initiatorily to seale albeit after it bee thus initiatorily sealed by baptisme the other doth also virtually confirme it Thirdly this being once administred needs never bee renewed as if two initiations or beginnings or regenerations or first enterances into covenant or first ingraffings into Christ c. as there was not Iterations of circumcision It were but to take the name of God in vaine and a wilworship indeed if ever before dispensed in the truth of the essentialls of the ordinance and it were unsafe to say wee may renew that one baptisme as wee may renue that one faith of ours unlesse as many times in a day and as in variety of occurrents changes services sufferings temptations ordinances businesses c. wee are to renue our faith so wee should renue our baptisme nor will the 19. of the Acts beare out any such practise Luke mentions Pauls discourse touching the manner of Johns baptisme scil to hold forth the duty which God required in reference to the Lord Jesus and accordingly they were by John baptized into the name of Jesus whom John held forth as vers 4 5. compared shewes and as the annexing of Pauls name 1. to this declaration vers 4 5. and then 2. to his act which hee then did vers 6. â—…inceth It 's not said then Paul baptized them but then Paul laid his hands upon them It 's said of the other seale As oft as yee doe this 1 Cor. 11. But not a whisper that way touching being oft baptized The Apostle in mentioning of one spirit body hope of our calling metonymically put for the thing hoped for even glory which is but one essentially as one faith which I suppose is taken as oft in Scripture for the doctrine of faith which is but one Gal. 1. 6. 7 8. Jude 3. and so one Lord and one God hee mentions one baptisme and why doth hee not as well say one Lords Supper too which albeit oft renewed to the same persons yet it 's but one institution and the same ordinance still if no further matter bee in that onenesse of baptisme but to signifie that it 's one and the same baptisme indeed but yet so as that it hinders not but it may often bee renued upon one and the same person warrantably though it were before orderly administred to him Fourthly that baptisme is the onely initiatory seale I never heard this yet so much as questioned by any which deny it not to bee a seale therefore I need not speake any further in confirmation thereof SECT VI. 5. THat the Application of such an initiatory seale of the covenant of grace made in reference to an ordinary politicall visible Church which God shall appoint and whereof the severall parties in that covenant are capable this is an externall condition of that covenant and to bee so farre forth kept by all that are externally interested in the same and that for that very reason and ground because they are in such sort interested in that covenant Ere wee confirme this let us premise that that covenant Gen. 17. was a covenant of grace and it was made with reference to an ordinary politicall visible Church as we have before shewed And albeit that Church quà such a politicall Church nationall c. differ from congregationall Churches yet quâ visibilâ—… ecclesia politica ordinaria so it was essentially the same with ours hence then needs no scrupling or startling As for their externall interest also in the covenant of saving grace it hath been likewise cleared that also need not breed contention upon the point of disparity This being premised the proposition may more easily proceed Gen. 17. 7. God propoundeth his gratious covenant vers 9. hee informeth of one externall condition to bee observed by persons taken into that gratious covenant and inferreth the condition upon the premised covenant thou Abraham and thy seed after thee and when Isaac with whom this covenant is established vers 19. as in whose race the Church and Church seed is to bee continued hath seed then it is thou and thy seed and when Jacob hath his seed it is still the same thou and thy seed in such covenant language what hee speaketh to one father hee speaketh to others all are but Abraham and his seed still yea and as then the same to Abrahams
capable to attend hence the baptisme of John is the doctrine thereof hence the doctrine of baptisme Heb. 6. 1 2. but specially holding forth what they may expect from God so Deut. 10. 16. and Jer. 4. circumcision called upon them for heart circumcision as capable of improving it and incourageth them what to expect especially that way from God Deut. 30. 6. Ezek. 36. 25 26 27 28 c. As for what C. B. addeth touching the rule of baptizing from Act. 2. 38 39. albeit the place hath had its distinct consideration yet I shall here adde a word of answer to this which is C. B. his third argument that if this bee a rule then none are to bee baptized but such as truely repent For to no seeming and visible repentance did Peter then exhort them but to true and saving repentance all will grant and then unlesse wee know mens hearts and principles their confession of sinnes cannot satisfie us when wee are to baptize them as being doubtfull and not certaine that the rule is fulfilled in that our act and wee must either doe things doubtfully and adventure to transgresse rule yea oft breake rule as by this argument John did Matth. 3. 11 12. and Philip Acts 8. Yea but they professed it suppose they did that was not that which Peter saith make confession of or professe your repentance and bee baptized but repent and be baptized therefore if that be laid downe as the rule by which men must or else must not be baptized hee that is baptized otherwise hee was never regularly baptized as possibly it 's the case of many in your churches That which John Spilsbury hath this way I find not in the rest hee maketh use of John 3. 5. as a repeale of the Law of circumcising of Infants and as the new law of admission c. but if that washing of water bee meant of baptisme it will then bee of as absolute necessitie to bee externally baptized as to bee regenerate both if spoken of two severall things being made as one in point of necessitie nor let any say that ordinarily it is so that none else are saved For Christs serious speaking yea protesting shewes hee intends more yea more then a supposed neglect or contempt of baptisme but simply thus verily verily unlesse c. according to vers 3. he had to like effect spoken and taking the kingdome here for a particular visible Church not that of glory which hath no ordinances 1 Cor. 15. 24. and 13. 8 9 10. how stands this with his principles that a man first bee discipled and inchurched ere baptized when as rather hee must bee from this ground first washed with water or baptized ere hee can bee in yea so much as see a visible Church and so baptisme is rather the forme of the Church then the covenant of grace as I. B. elsewhere affirmeth and reason suggesteth a Church first to bee ere Church seales to bee administred to or by it nor need this bee urged in this sense upon Nicodemus as the way of his entrance into Gods kingdome of a true visible Church For of such a Church was hee already a member even of the Jewes Church yea if thus meant then not onely unregenerate persons should not bee of visible Churches but it is not possible that they can get into them for Christ saith verily and unlesse c. hee cannot no hee should not or ordinarily hee doth not enter into the kingdome of God As for what was said of preaching the Gospel to goe before baptisme wee hold it wee preach it the doctrine of the covenant is first opened and then sealed wee hold forth to parents that Gospel covenant of Abraham as to them and their children and the Apostles did as much Acts 2. 38 39. Rom. 10. 6 7 8. they preaching the Gospel wherein all sorts of nationall creatures were concerned they held forth that of Gods mind of grace to that species of Infants of Gospelled Gentiles and so by the Gospel they as well as the other sort of adult Gentiles came to partake of the promise in the initiatory seale at least Ephes 3. 6. and what Gospel they held out in the audible word preached that they sealed by the visible word of baptisme Fiftly to that straine touching the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as not in reference to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because of the masculine gender and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the neuter if C. B. A. L. and Hen. Den had searched Scriptures they would have found this enallage or change of gender very frequent Rev. 2. 26 27. and 19. 15. it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 see Acts 15. 17. and 26. 17. see more of the like Acts 21. 25. Ephes 2. 11. and 4. 17. masculines joyned with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and I would aske A. R. and the rest whether when it 's said in the neuter gender before him shall bee gathered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all nations with the masculine annexed and hee shall separate them one from another 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 reference to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if not then it seemes some nations shall bee gathered at the last day which shall not bee separated one from the other if it have reference to it then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 them in the masculine here in Matth. 28. may very well have reference to the nations albeit in the neuter gender Sixtly to that argument raised hence from what is added teaching them that is presently teaching them c. so not Infants it is not cogent As much is said in effect of Abraham presently after hee had circumcised the males in his house and before Isaac was borne and circumcised that hee would command his children and his houshold after him and they shall keepe the way of the Lord yet none will conclude that therefore no children of his houshold servants were already circumcised and that Isaac and others should not bee circumcised in that Abraham will take this course with all of his family Are the baptized Gentiles to bee taught the commands of God that they may doe them so are the proselyted persons circumcised and others also circumcised to bee also taught Yea Infants circumcised notwithstanding that part of Gods counsell touching such teaching yea but Infants circumcised were not capable of teaching true nor are ours which are baptized yet both to bee taught and so are and were according as capable thereof and the Text in Matth. 28. 19. evinceth that it is not a present teaching them that are there mentioned simply but secundum quid scil according as the baptized persons were capable of being taught otherwise it must bee concluded that they were presently to bee all and each of them taught the whole mind of Christ and then it will follow that that could presently be done by the dispensers of the word which is impossible and likewise
growne part yet the Infant part were in that account of an holy people c. and as much may bee conceived of 1 Pet. 2. 9. SECT VI. AGainst what is usually brought from 1 Cor. 7. 14. That is objected that children of parents not sanctified by faith in their matrimoniall fellowship as Pharez and Zarah of Judah and Thamar Jepthah of Gilead and many others were within the Covenant both of saving grace and Church-priviledge Therefore faith sanctifying of the use of the marriage bed is not such a cause of sanctifying of the children Federally and Ecclesiastically so as that unlesse that bee the children are uncleane in that respect Ans This objection may seeme to make a faire flourish against such as give the Apostles meaning as onely such But mee it hurts not who make the maine spring of the holinesse of the children not to be the sanctifying of the unbeleeving yoke-fellow to the beleeving but the grace of the Covenant to the beleever and his seed even the sanctification of the beleeving yoke-fellow springeth from the grace of the Covenant sanctifying beleevers seed by vertue whereof the infidelitie of the yoke-fellow becomes no overpowering let thereunto and so in part by vertue of that Covenant as well as faith in it such a yoke-fellow is sanctified so farre forth nor is the Apostles influence from the cause to the effect of that communion but rather from a like effect of the Covenant and faith in another relation of a beleever as a parent to children unto that in that relation of an yoke-fellow that if the influence of the Covenant and faith bee wholly denyed in the one it may well bee wholly denyed in the other and that hee makes account was an absurditie in the sight of all Concerning the assertion that Bastards were Interested in the Covenant of saving grace I will not now dispute it but reason ex suppositis That Covenant interest of those bastard-Infants it was not from the parents faith sanctifying of that communion Whence was it It could not be from any actuall faith of the babes they had it not it was surely from the force of Abrahams Covenant at least as invested with Church-Covenant from which the parents being not cut off by Gods hand nor cast out by the Churches power their Covenant relation still stood so far in force that is they were interessed externally therein and so their seed with them and thus in foro Ecclesiae the force of the Covenant took off even that impediment according to that position of the objectors and how much more doth the same force of the Covenant take off any impediment of a Pagan parents infidelitie in the Texts case of lawfull conjugall followship so that such children of a Gentile Corinthian Church-members have an interest at least externall in the saving Covenant of Grace and Church-priviledge Obj. Whether the parents beleeve or not the children may bee in the Covenant and regenerate therefore that 's no cause thereof Ans Wee speake not of the inherent holinesse of the child as regenerate that is immediatly from God but of holinesse Federall and Ecclesiasticall which may bee applyable to persons unregenerate as Psal 50. 5. 16. 17. Of which more afterwards The parents visibly beleeving and Inchurched are instrumentall causes of that holinesse of their children yea whether beleevers in veritie or onely visibilitie It sufficeth thereunto nor are little ones thus in Covenant with God and his Church without either the visibilitie of faith in the parents past or present personall holinesse consisteth not with living in knowne sinnes but Federall holinesse may Ezek. 16. Obj. The Text is a reason of the question which was not about Federall holinesse but living together Ans The former part of the Text is a reason of that and none pleades for the Infidell spouses Federall holinesse but the latter part is a confirmation of that reason from another ground And Mr. B. knoweth in proofe of conclusions we take divers mediums Obj. Yea but if the child bee Federally holy then the Infidell wife is holy with covenant sanctification Ans It followeth not The word sanctified in and to another and being holy differ and signifie different things as before said Obj. If Federally holy then Abrahams seed and then they have faith Gal. 3. Ans Wee shall in due place I hope prove that they are Abrahams seed without actuall personall faith of their owne and so as Abrahams seed federally holy Obj. The Apostle speakes of an outward holinesse common to reprobates also Heb. 9. 15. and not of holinesse knowne to the Church for which persons ought to bee baptized and it 's either inward holinesse which the Church deales not with or outward of which Baptisme is not a signe Ans Outward holinesse scil that which is visible to the Church is seal'd in Baptisme The Church deales not with inward holinesse therefore with outward unlesse there is an holinesse which is neither invisible nor visible Hebr. 9. is of Ceremoniall holinesse This of Federall and Church-holinesse knowne to the Church and holinesse visible or knowne to the Church is common to Reprobates unlesse any will say the Churches judgement erres not and confound visibilitie and infallibilitie CHAP. II. Sect. I. Touching the Explication of Act. 1. 38 39. ANother Scripture confirming the Doctrine of Federall holinesse of children of In-churched parents as approved and held forth by the Apostles is that Act. 2. 38 39 where Peter directing his speech chiefly to the Jewes vers 22. and 36. saith the promise is to you and to your children not was to you c. as intending any legall blessing but a promise then in force after Christs ascension to effect some chiefe promised blessing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used to signifie the free promise or Covenant of Grace to which they had visible right SECT II. THe promise here I. S. conceiveth to bee meant onely of the Messiah which was the promise to be sent and by children to be meant allegoricall children which others inlarging expresse these two wayes 1. That the promise made unto Abraham was then fulfilled Act. 2. in sending Christ to them and to their children and to all that are afarre off namely those of the dispersion as many as the Lord our God shall call that they may bee turned from their iniquitie and bee baptized into his name for the remission of their sinnes Secondly supposing the promise to bee of a saving grace of Christ sent of the outward ordinance of baptisme of the extraordinary gifts of the holy Ghost c. It is none of these wayes true but with that limitation scil If they repent For neither God promised saving grace nor outward ordinances nor extraordinary gifts nor sent Christ to them their children or all that were afarre off without calling them and every of them Hen. Den speaketh to like purpose as this second particular hath first the promise is to you upon calling to them that are afarre of
that which by circumcision was visibly sealed unto them and their children by Gods owne appointment Circumcision being in the Sacramentall nature of it a visible seale of the righteousnesse of faith it selfe and not meerely in a personall respect to Abraham as applyed by his faith to his justification And albeit beleevers came with Abraham to have the saving experience of it Rom. 4. 7 8. 11 12. yet to the rest Circumcision was a Covenant or a Sacramentall signe or seale of Gods Covenant Act. 7. Gen. 17. even of that his Covenant mentioned vers 7. I will bee a God to thee and thy seed which containeth that promise of justification Jer. 31. 33 34. Nor will it suffice to say that Covenant was a mixt Covenant It held forth temporall things indeed but by vertue of a Covenant of Grace Psal 111. 5. as doth the promise now 1 Tim. 4. 8. but it holds forth also spirituall things in the externall right and administration thereof as to all albeit in the internall operation as to some The promises are to them all Rom. 9. 4. sci in the former sense and yet ver 8. some onely are the children of the promise and the choyce seed in that generall Covenant scil in respect of the saving efficacy of the Covenant upon them vers 6. And the same distinction is now held out in such sort amongst persons in Church-estate unlesse any will say that there are none in the Covenant as well as in Christ the Vine John 15. 2. externally onely which I suppose will not bee affirmed And in this sense Peter speaking to these Jewes before they had actually repented or beleeved vers 38. with 40 41. saith the promise of remission of sinnes is or belongeth to you scil in the externall right and administration of it the Apostle calls upon them to repent and be baptized not because then the promise should be theirs but because the promise was theirs already in the sense mentioned repent and bee baptized for the promise is to you or belongs to you as Rom. 9. 4. hath it Both baptizing and repenting are joyned as duties unto which upon this Covenant ground they are called and not as conditions of their comming by externall right in the promise none will say of the one branch that bee baptized was a condition propounded by Peter to them of their comming to right in the promise since baptisme as a Covenant Seale presupposeth a Covenant right yet is the dutie of being baptized as well as of repenting alike urged on the same ground upon the Jewes Yea but Peter having exhorted them to repent c. would not have baptized them unlesse they had repented therefore it was not their Covenant-right which hee looked at Admit he would not yet that doth not make voyd either their Covenant or Church-right thereto because being adultmembers under offence and admonished thereof by Peter they might for their obstinacy against such an admonition notwithstanding Church or Covenant-right have been debarred that seale If one of our members be under offence and the Elders admonish him to repent thereof and hee doth not hee is debarred the seale of the Lords Supper and his children of Baptisme the while not that hee is not a Church-member and so hath Church-right as well as covenant-right thereto but in that this intervening obstinacy doth suspend his jus in re albeit otherwise considered hee had jus ad rem so in the case of these offensive members of that Jewish Church which was a true visible Church and not yet dischurched and divorced by the Lord which maketh way for answer to A. K. that if they were then in Covenant they were then in the Church of the Gospel if hee meane it of being internally in the Covenant it is not that we plead for it of being externally or quoad homines we have proved they were so in Covenant and Church estate also as being yet in the Olive and kingdome of God and not cast out untill their unbeleefe or totall and finall rejection of the Covenant as ratified in Jesus of Nazareth as that promised Messiah Rom. 11. 20. to which the Jewes had not as yet come and this Church was a Gospel Church visibly interested in the Covenant of Grace the subject of the Gospell and the same essentially with that Gospel or Christian Church unlesse whilst the Jewish Church stood any will say there was no Evangelicall visible Church in the world but a legall Church for there was no other visible Church then that of the Jewes that then something further was required by Peter of the Adult-Jewes to actuall participation of baptisme and it was not because their Church of which they were members was no true visible Evangelicall Church since it was Gods onely visible Church in the time of Christs incarnation of which hee lived and dyed a member and none will say hee was no member of any Evangelicall Church but of a legall nor was it because the seale of Baptisme was not administrable in or by or to that Church of the Jewes for it 's evident that the Commission of Baptisme was first given by God to John Baptist in reference to that Church of the Jewes as a seale of their membership therein the same God that told him who should Baptize with the holy Ghost hee sent him to Baptize John 1. 33. the Pharisees themselves could not deny Johns baptisme to bee from heavens authoritie Matth. 21. 25 26. and Baptisme being a Church-Ordinance to bee in ordinary dispensation or administred onely in and by a Church of Christ that baptisme was at that time the Jewish Church-Ordinance so farre forth there was no other floore wherein all sorts which John baptized whether they proved chaffy hypocrites or solid graine upright ones were in his and Christs time interessed Matth. 3. 11. 12. this was then the onely floore or visible Church of Christ for in the visible Church is no chaffe his floore hee shall purge his floore Into this Church fellowship also did Christs owne Disciples by that new way of initiation visibly seale persons which were the reformed part of that Jewish Church continuing still their relation to those officers of the Jewish Church and their fellowship in the Church-Ordinances then dispensed and not separating from the same Matth. 10. 6 7. and 16. 24. Iohn 10. 16. either gathering into distinct Churches or calling to them other ordinary Church-officers which yet were not actually given by Christ untill upon his ascension Ephes 4. 8. 11 12 c. but the reason rather was partly because as was said they were under such offence and partly because albeit their Church were a true Evangelicall Church yet it was not so pure and perfect but had many grosse mixtures both of meere ceremoniall administrations which were now to bee laid aside and of most palpably and openly corrupt and rotten members and partly because it was now requisite not onely to acknowledge the promised Messiah of Abrahams
elect or reprobate but one in nature albeit in use and efficacy it were various according as the Spirit of God and faith made thereof improvement or not To adde one word more in way of proofe that Gentile-inchurched-beleevers Infants they are the seed of Abraham this being wholly denyed by Anabaptists If I prove that this species or sort of persons are Abrahams spirituall seed without personall actuall faith by which onely they say persons come to bee Abrahams seed quoting for it Gal. 3. 7. 6. 9. 16. 27 28 29. it sufficeth Now the place to mee is full proofe thereof whole Christ mysticall in all the parts of his body the Apostle maketh it to bee the seed of Abraham but that sort of persons the Infants of beleevers are a part of Christ mysticall or Christ considered with his body the Church as Christ is in Gal. 3. and 1 Cor. 12. 12. compared as hath beene proved Ergo that sort of persons as well that other of actuall beleevers are Abrahams spirituall seed And here supposing according to them that Christ is considered there as with his body the invisible Church it maketh still more for what I am to prove since if that sort of persons bee not of the invisible Church whereof Christ is head there can none of that sort not beleevers children at all bee saved since out of the invisible Church is no salvation at all as some of the most judicious of our opposites doe speake in way of answer to what is brought by our friends that extra ecclesiam non est salus that is say such extra ecclesiam invisibilem non visibilem But wee will goe yet further and take this as meant of Christ considered with his body the visible Church according as formerly it was proved to bee considerable And I say to exelude that sort of persons scil beleevers infants from being a part of the visible Church in generall is to exclude them from any ordinary state and way of salvation Nay I will go further and say that for any to suppose all the individuall Infants and each of them which come of such inchurched parents not to bee also parts of this body of Christ the visible Church and consequently not to bee Abrahams spirituall seed is to exclude them from a state and way of salvation in respect to the ordinary course thereof and so to leave them all under the consideration of such a way to bee saved in as is onely extraordinary ordinarily they are not to bee supposed to bee saved as at least it is not to be supposed that ordinarily or that in any ordinary way any Pagans or Turkes out of the visible Church or any in and of Rome as Tridentine and Antichristian should bee saved yet God may and sometimes doth and will have some soules brought on to him thence and even from amongst Mahumetans c. but all will yeeld I suppose that this is an extraordinary case so crosseth not that rule that without even the visible Church there is no salvation scil taking the maxime in reference to ordinary times and withall to the ordinary course and way of attaining unto salvation Such then as exclude all Infants of beleevers one or other from the notion of Abrahams spirituall seede from Covenant and Church estate they put them in the Pagan Gentiles estate of which Paul speakes who being they and theirs strangers from the promise and covenants and from the visible Church they place them in that respect in an estate of persons that are without God in the world and so under the devill the God of the world and in an hopelesse estate neither they nor any for them can have any grounded hope of them they are without hope in regard at least of any ordinary way or meane of salvation Ephes 2. 11 12. Nor let it seeme grievous that our friends and brethren in the Lord of name and worth in the Church have as it seemeth urged that in case of such an exclusion of beleevers children they are made as Turkes or Indians so farre forth in regard that being not in covenant nor Church estate the Apostle truely states such persons cases they are without hope and without God in the world Hee maketh no distinction of potentia remota propinqua in that case Yea but hee speakes of Pagan parents wee of Christian and there is not the same reason of the childrens estate which are of the one as of the other Tell me the difference supposing them actually excluded from covenant and Church estate It is not in their parents prayers or in the Churches nakedly considered without reference to any covenant or Church estate of theirs for they pray as well for Indians c. as for them Nor is it barely in their instruction and education of them for if they have any Indian or Black more bond servants in their house they must instruct both them and their children in Gods feare as they are capable thereof Yea but for the one their prayers and instructions come from a nearer bond and are carried on with more strength then in the other grant that yet this is but more and lesse and they vary no species of any formall reason of difference yea but they may beleeve more for the one then for the other and why so because usually the one sort prove religious when the other is not usuall This confirmeth what I am to prove that God is a covenant God to the children of his people and Church because albeit sometimes some prove vile enough yet usually they prove religious and pious and God speakes of things as they more frequently prove Yea I demand what is the ordinary revealed instrumentall meanes of the saving efficacy which is upon any children of Gods people and Church especially supposing they die very young is it not the word of Gods covenant as hath beene often said from Rom. 9. 6. and Eph. 5. 25 26. Yea I would know whether if beleevers have hope to take hope most properly concerning their childrens good or glorious resurrection by Christ if they die in Infancy have they other ground then that of Gods being a God to them This is Christs demonstration in that case Luke 20. 36 37 38. Is it any other then Scripture hope or comfort that way or must they sorrow as persons without hope If they draw any waters with joy Esay 12. 3. must it not bee out of the wells of salvation the promises not other promises which concerne not the case they will not helpe at such a dead lift but promises pertinent to the case of their children Yea can they have such hope without faith or can they have well-grounded faith where they have not a word of faith for it and when they cannot beleeve that God should bee so much as externally much lesse internally and savingly a covenant God to them or can they conjecture that ever any were saved ordinarily if at all touching whom God never made
forme of the Church giving Church being to persons therein interested nor is it likely that these children were other then such being either proselytes children joyned to the Jewish Church or children of Jewes either of them formerly circumcised and in facie ecclesiae of the Church the Apostles which used to bee questioning any thing obscure which they understood not or seemed to them strange would in likelihood have inquired after satisfaction therein of Christ as their manner was if it had not been very cleare convincing approved received doctrine which Christ urged as his reason of reproofe of their act in hindring the little ones approach to him hee which himselfe forbad them Matth. 10. to goe into the way of the Gentiles no not into Samaria and when himselfe tooke up the Gentile Canaanite in such sort at first albeit she a beleever Matth. 15. 22. if these had beene other then visible beleeving inchurched persons yea though Gentiles yet inchurched proselytes which brought these children hee would not have so roundly and sharpely taken up his Disciples for assaying to hinder them from him when the Apostle 1 Cor. 7. 14. speaketh thus to the Church and not to the citie as such which writ to him and to whom hee writ this back againe hee saith else their children as appropriating externall adoption as well as formerly to others of that sort Rom. 9. 1 2 3 4. they were the children of that Spouse of Christ 2 Cor. 11. 2. 3. as those were formerly of that Church Ezek. 16. 20 21. she brought forth other children by the ministry Psal 87. 5. albeit not so many as now and hereafter Esa 54. 5. but that way also did the Church beare children to the Lord. And are purer Gentiles Churches wombes in that respect shut up or doth the Lord lesse affect communion with his Church in that expression of his love now then hee did to the Church of old surely no the Corinthian members as a Church body had their Church children and seed also the Apostle taketh order with the women 1 Cor. 14. Let your women keepe silence in the Churches but why your what because they were the members wives onely no verily since some such were Pagans and without the Church and hee protesteth against any Church dealing with such 1 Cor. 5. end what have wee to doe with them from any Church care or respect but rather your women as being of the Church and so here not your children holy scil barely of your members in a common naturall way but yours in a Church relation rather And let the Apostles division bee further attended 1 Cor. 5. placing all persons as either within or without the visible Church For if his division be regular as who will say otherwise of the wisest dictates of the holy Ghost then these membra dividentia take up the whole division and there is no middle or neutrall estate actually of persons And albeit the persons chiefly intended bee adult persons yet it must hold as well of others or else it is not a compleat division So then the little ones which are borne of inchurched persons they are either actually within the Church or actually without at present onely some possibilities as some suppose of their being actuall members afterward at most but at present their actuall estate must bee the one or the other if actually within the Church I have what I seeke if onely potentially such as may come in but yet actually without 1. then the children of the Church in primitive times were such as the Apostles as extraordinary and now Elders as ordinary officers in the Church were not nor are to take any speciall Church care of since the tie of that Church care as such dependeth upon covenant and Church relation either extraordinary as that of the Apostles to all the Churches or ordinary as that of the officers of this or that Church 2. Then Churches and their officers are not to deale with any such children more then with pagans in any Church way of instruction or admonition when growne up 3. Then are such so farre forth to bee left as persons without actually to the more immediate judgement of God what have wee to doe with such God judgeth them and the phrase of Gods judging them how sad a case it noteth see Heb. 3. 4. and 10. 29 30 31. 4. Then such children being actually without they are actually and at present amongst the number of such persons of whom is little hope as Marke 4. 11 12. to them without if hardned persons in parables so Revel 22. without are dogs The persons left out of Church fellowship by the new Jerusalem are of the worst sort â—…vel 22. 15. 5. Then the Jewish Church is supposed to have a larger share in the charitie of God and his people so that their children in relation to Church estate are called and counted God and his Churches children purer Gentile Churches have no such charitie allowed towards the members children which absurdities if any will swallow let them enjoy their conceipts SECT II. ANd thus farre of the dispensing kingdome of God as it seemes to bee included and intended in the first expression Of such is the kingdome of God which may serve to answer the scruples of some as if such an assertion of children of beleevers to bee of Gods kingdome should crosse the course of providence many proving wicked For this hinders not but they belong to the visible Church no more then Christs assertion of all the Jewes to be the children of the kingdome of heaven into which the Gentiles from all parts should come after the rejection of the Jews Matth. 8. 11 12. nor is this any more crosse to Rom. 9. 6 7 8. then that is yea suppose the Kingdome of heaven bee taken for that of glory yet in that covenant and Church estate is theirs so far also is glory theirs scil in foro ecclesiae And wee have before proved that Christ spake this as man not meerely as God as hee said before of the Jewes Matth. 8. 11 12. and after this spake to like purpose Matth. 21. 43. they were as externally adopted Rom. 9. 4. externally inrighted to that promise of glory the promises indefinitely being thus far theirs that promised heritage being thus far theirs If they had not Gods kingdome in respect of this estating of theirs in it and right to it how came they to have it taken from them was not that in respect of any externall Church right actually theirs unto or to the dispensation of the covenant holding the same forth they were all heires albeit under tutors Gal. 4. 1 2 3. but to mee the former sense is rather most unquestionable that of such is the kingdome of God or of heaven scil the visible Church as before was proved and this may also satisfie that which is objected that hee might speake this in reference to the future that is that they were elect ones and should
ones 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of persons beleeving or of beleevers in mee scil of parents beleeving in Christ which little ones are not to be slighted but received in Christs name vers 5. scil unto Church communion as well as others as that phrase implyeth Rom. 15. 7. This is undeniable that the occasion of that speech in Matth. 18. and of this in Matth. 19. Marke 10. Luke 18. was different and at divers times uttered as the Texts compared shew nor saith Christ in Matth. 18. as here hee that receiveth not the kingdome of God as a little child but thus unlesse yee bee as children scil in humilitie c. vers 3 4. compared and that likewise in Matth. 18. doth not conclude ergo the interest of such children more then unto Doves or sheepe unto whom subjects of Gods kingdome are like but here as hee saith of such like is Gods kingdome for withall hee saith that others must receive Gods kingdome as they doe making them patternes as well of receiving of as interest in Gods kingdome which was never affirmed of sheepe or doves are harmelesse if patternes of it Actuall guile malice and envie are removed from Infants they act not such sinnes if they are patternes to others therein 1 Pet. 2. 1 2 3. compared they are low and little in their owne eyes not minding great things c. if patternes of it Matth. 18. Psal 131. 1 2. so here they are interested in Gods kingdome doe receive it externally at least both those here mentioned and such like Infants if they were made patternes thereof unto others else the sense of Luke 18. 17. would bee thus Unlesse any receive Christs kingdome as a child doth scil in a bare resemblance of reception thereof without any realitie therein so much as supposed he shall not enter into it Thirdly Christ bringeth this as a reason why his Disciples should not hinder little ones as prophane from him but rather further the approach of those babes because of such-like Infants like them in covenant and Church interest in God his kingdome Now if this had beene Christs onely reason thereof as is imagined because not of these out of such like little ones by resemblance in humilitie and harmelesnesse c. is Gods kingdome therefore further and doe not hinder their comming to mee then one might upon the same ground argue that since oft persons like good seed and good fish for usefulnesse and fruitfulnesse c. is Gods kingdome Matth. 13. 24. 38. 47. 49. and since of persons like Eagles for renovation sight and seed c. Gods kingdome doth consist therefore further and doe not hinder the bringing of such seed fish and Eagles unto Christ this were ridiculous Yea suppose any other thing short of what I have formerly mentioned touching these babes wherein some of these creatures are not all out fully resembling the Saints yet if not interested more then those creatures in the kingdome mentioned it 's not the degrees of more or lesse like which will alter the force of that formall reason of not hindering these creatures therefore from Christ scil because bare resemblances of the Saints as our opposites interpret this Fourthly as Christ taking them up in his armes as the word is translated sheweth they were little ones indeed of whom hee spake and not metaphoricall little ones even growne persons like them so other acts shew that hee expressed as much in effect touching those babes in his acts about them as in his words hee spake touching them the expressions of Christs love toward those persons whether he tooke them up in his armes or imbraced them it was no complement in Christ but a most significant expression of his love his blessing of them do declare that they had some more peculiar interest in some respects at least in an Ecclesiasticall and Federall way in him the King and in that his kingdome mentioned then to be bare semblances of others which had Fiftly the Greeke article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in reference to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Luke 18. 15 16 17. the little ones and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in reference to the parents as Beza noteth on the place seemeth to shew that he intended not such allegoricall little ones as the bringers of them but the little ones brought in that assertion mentioned Object Yea but Piscator maketh that an argument in that hee called the little ones vers 16. that ergo they were not babes and beside the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies a child capable of teaching as 2 Tim. 3. 15. from a child thou hast learned the Scriptures c. and so your purpose faileth to apply this against Anabaptists denying the covenant and Church right of babes of inchurched beleevers Answ 1. It 's said hee called them scil in calling their parents which brought them albeit they might not bee all capable of understanding that invitation it 's usuall in Scripture because of parents nearest interest in their children to ascribe things to their children which are rather to bee understood of the parents as when it is said Levi paid tithes in Abraham Heb. 7 c. Secondly albeit that phrase be used in Tim. thou hast knowne the Scriptures from a child yet it followes not that therefore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth not in the very naturall proper and constant use of it signifie a babe more then the like phrases used in Scripture should not have their proper signification because something there mentioned is not in strict acceptation applyable thereunto as when it 's said thou madest me hope upon my mothers breasts 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or when I was upon my mothers breasts so Psal 58. 3. the wicked are estranged from the wombe they goe astray as soone as they are borne speaking lies in these places will it bee hence argued that the Hebrew words rightly translated and so constantly used as translated signifie other then from mothers breasts and wombe c. in that a very sucking or new borne child is not capable of actuall hoping in God or going astray actually from him but rather persons growne up more in yeares here all will say these species are hyperbolicall shewing that these things were acted thus by them very early and very soone so what though a little one which is not a suckling but can speake and understand is capable of knowing the Scriptures yet it followeth not that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth any other then a babe but it sheweth that Timothy was so trained up very early hee doth not say thou even a child 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 didst know but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from a child that is very soone and early in thy age Thirdly the Apostles did not use to hinder little ones which could goe and speake from comming to Christ but further them rather whether the parents were Jewes of Gentiles yea and those not proselytes witnesse that act Mark. 9. Matth. 15. this therefore
Church yet they must come by the use of their right in a way of order Object Yea but the Catechumens were in covenant and visible Church estate yet were not presently baptized Answ If they were in covenant and Church estate they had then and thereby right so farre forth to the seale but there might bee some other actuall causes why such adult new commers on from Paganisme might bee suspended a while the use and actuall benefit of their right yet that hinders not but that in covenant Infants in whom there are no such actuall impediments that they should be suspended much lesse wholly denied as by Anabaptists they are either any right or use of their right to Baptisme SECT VII 6. ANd because in this particular some stresse of the maine case is put 1. I shall indeavour yet further to confirme it that covenant interest carryeth a maine stroake in point of application of that seale to persons interested therein and not uncapable thereof in any bodily respect First then it is the ground worke given to the generall Law about an initiatory covenant duty scil application of some injoyned initiatory seale and therefore must bee of like force in the particular branches and wayes of such initiatory sealing as circumcising then and baptizing Secondly the covenant in such sort invested with Church covenant now it is the forme of a politicall visible Church body giving therefore both a Church being as I may say as naturall formes doe a naturall being and withall the priviledge of a member of such a Church body suitable to its memberly estate as is this of the Church initiatory seale even to the least member thereof although they are not yet so perfect in all actuall energy of compleat members and so neither in all actuall priviledges of such compleat members I suppose what ever others deny this way yet our opposites doe not deny that Church covenant explicit or implicit is the forme of a visible politicall Church as such so that till that be they are not so incorporated as to be fit for Church dispensations or acts of peculiar Church power over each other more then over others over whom they can have no power unlesse they had given explicit or implicit consent thereto as reason will evince Thirdly even in doubtfull cases where the extent of the command is questionable yet interest in the covenant casts the scoales As for instance in strangers which proved religious albeit not of their family servants and so under the Law Gen. 17. 12 13. they might bee circumcised if they desired other Church ordinances c. yet were they else free unlesse in such a case of their owne desire that way Exod. 12. end Hence Cornelius a godly Gentile living neare the Jewes yet not circumcised as Acts 10. 1 2 3 4. compared with Chap. 11. 3. 14 15. 18. Yea but if the command bound them why were they at such libertie and if no binding command for their circumcision why were they circumcised suppose Exod. 12. gave some libertie to the Church guides that way for such strangers as more usually dwelt amongst them yet such as 1 Kings 8 41 42 43. which came from farre in a meere transient way for some temporary religious worship at the Temple as that proselyted Eunuch Acts 8. 27. those were surely circumcised else how admitted to temple worship since that was counted an abomination for any other so much as to come there Acts 21 28. and if circumcised at any time by any of the godly Church guides consent what gave them right to it not the commandement Gen. 17. 12 13 14. no nor that Exod. 12. what was that to an Eunuchs case and others which never sojourned with them for any space were they then unlawfully circumcised no verily no whisper of that in Scripture God allowed of that passage in Solomons prayer touching the strangers temple service 1 Kings 8. and 9. explained It was then their externall interest in Gods gratious covenant which gave rise to that application of the seale and not the commandment contrary to what some say that not the covenant but the commandment of God onely was the ground of circumcision Fourthly it appeares from the nature of an initiatory seale of the covenant which must bee as large as the covenant and so reach all the parties comprehended actually by vertue of covenant according as such children are as before declared especially since it is the seale of Gods people and visible Church as before shewed given first for the Church in giving of pastors and teachers onely to the Church which alone can administer the seales in ordinary dispensations Matth. 28. end and giving them withall to the Church as from her to bee dispensed by her officers to such as desire the same Now Gods people are knowne either by actuall personall profession and confession of their owne as adults are or by Gods promise and by parents avouching God as theirs in covenant and their childrens Gen. 17. 9 10. thou shalt doe thus and thus and thy seed also to which he submitteth afterwards and so his also with him and after him besides the maine in the initiatory seale to bee firstly and properly attended as it is a covenant and Church seale is covenant and Church interest Hence called by the name of covenant when yet it is but a Sacramentall signe and seale of it Gen. 17. 13. Acts 7 8. that is first held out and sealed as the convoy of all other desired good 2 Pet. 1. 4. But especially in that initiatory seale the signatum of the covenant is of more considerable weight then the externall Symboll ceremony and circumstance either of cutting or washing absolutely or relatively considered If washing of a person in the name of the Trinitie bee a clearer and easier Symboll then that of cutting the flesh yet not of such weight as is the covenant sealed both by the one and by the other And to shew that the covenant is the maine thing considerable therein hence it is that the covenant is first propounded as the groundworke of the commandement it selfe as of circumcision so of Baptisme and much more of the application of either to any in covenant Gen. 17. 9 10 11. Therefore scil because I have said I will bee your God I command you to doe thus and thus not because I have commanded you that I therefore promise to doe this for you or doe you thus and thus at my command and then on therefore I will doe so and so for you So the Gospell prophesie and promise is prefaced and put in the preamble to that injunction of their Baptisme by John Luke 3. 3 4 5 6 c. Hence the Gospell and so the covenant of grace hâ—ld out as grounding Baptisme Acts 2. 38 39. And childrens covenant right was held out as one branch of that Gospell as wee proved and from the same principle that they were also to bee sealed by Baptisme yea albeit the
deed and in truth of Christs kingdome For when Christ would give a reason why those Infants offered to him to blesse them should come to him hee giveth this for of such or such like even in respect of saving interest also is the kingdome of God Luke 18. so when the Lord prefaceth that covenâ—nt ground unto the Application of circumcision to Infants hee saith not hee will bee a God to this or that child of Abrahams loynes in the internall and saving interest and efficacy thereof but to some of that sort included in that indefinite promise I will bee a God to thy seed it is sufficient that all such have assuredly an externall right in that covenant and so to this seale of the fellowship of it wherefore wee may not exclude any of them lest any of the children of the Kingdome which bee the peculiar heires thereby bee indammaged or indangered Better 99. who happily have not so peculiar a title thereto bee folded up in the Church then that one of such Lambes bee left out in the wide Wildernesse the proportion of that case Matthew 18. holds in this CHAP. II. Sect. I. The Explication of Rom. 11. 16 17 c. LEt us now goe on to some proofs of that generall truth propounded removing objections intervening and then come to the particular of baptisme Let us then a little more fully cleare that place Rom. 11. 16 17. so farre as it concerneth the matter in hand Our opposites in this point would have the place onely to bee applyable to the personall estate of this or that beleever Jew or Gentile and of the personall way of their inserting by true faith But wee affirme that as the Chapter in other parts of it hath reference to the Jewes or Gentiles in the fruition or deprivation of covenant priviledges it is in a collective and not meerely a distributive way so are those Verses mentioned taken in the like collective reference And first as the discourse hath relation to the Jewes either in their admission or exclusion from Church priviledge it is in a collective not bare personall respect as appeareth by these reasons 1. In that those are intended whose fall was the occasion of the Gentiles salvation and their casting away was the life of the world verse 11. 15. and on whom God shewed such severitie verse 22. now none will restraine these to this or that particular persons casting away but must understand it of the people whether parents or children 2. In that those are intended of whom it may bee verified that they are in such sort and so long cast away as is from the first comming in of the Gentiles to their fulnesse which is the space of many ages Now none will say that this can bee affirmed of one and the same person or persons but must apply it to the people parents and children successively hence expressed by that collective name of Israel verse 25. 3. In that those are intended of whom it may bee verified they are cast away and yet to bee reconciled verse 15. cut off and yet to bee re-ingraffed verse 20. 24. enemies yet beloved verse 28. which cannot bee verified of this or that person but must bee taken of that people 4. In that they are intended whose receiving in scil to actuall fruition of covenant and Church priviledges from which they are now de facto excluded v. 24. will be to the inchurched world as life from the dead vers 15. which must be taken collectively of that people not distributively of such a person or persons amongst them 5. It is intended of those whom God from the first chose unto himselfe which yet all the space from the comming in of the Gentiles till their fulnesse abode enemies vers 25. 28. compared Now none will restraine this to such or such elected persons to whom blindnesse could not happen so long yet afterwards bee removed as the phrase untill sheweth but must bee applyed to Gods act of election of that people as some judiciously observe upon the place many thousand persons of this people lived and died and â—…ill doe live and die in this while The space being yet not accomplished in their sinnes Then it seemes some that are subjects of election may live and die in their sinnes Yea verily this absurditie must follow if you take election vers 28. strictly in reference to such and such persons among them and not largely in reference to that people There is a twofold act of divine election the one more generall whereof the body of such or such people is the adequate subject by this act God subjecteth such a people from all other peoples to himselfe and yet sundry particular persons amongst such a people may perish Thus the people of the Jews were collectively considered enemies to the Gospel yet as touching election beloved for their covenant fathers sake vers 28. of this electing act of God see Deut. 7. 6. The other more particular and speciall whereby God maketh as I may say a second draught and out of such or such selected people culleth such or such particular persons to bee saved by Christ Now such as are the subjects of election in this sense can never perish and in this sense the election among the Jewes attained it and the rest were blinded see Rom. 12. 5 6 7. see John 10. 3. 11. 14. 27 28 29. Apoc. 13. 8. 6. In that it was intended of those to whom the Gentiles are opposed and in whose stead they are inserted and against whom the Gentiles must not boast vers 11 12 13 14 15. 17 18. But it were improper to oppose in such sort such a world as they are called verse 14 15. compared to such or such particular Jewes As the Jewes are thus collectively considered so the Gentiles comming into their Olive estate are taken in a collective sense therefore called the world vers 15. the Gentiles vers 12. notions not to bee restrained to the growne sort of them but necessarily including the species of Infants among them Hence also the collective notion of Thou and Thee often used vers 17 18 19 20 21 22. 24. And that this singular is not distributively taken of some one or other Gentile but of the people of the Gentiles hee therefore in other verses speaking to the same people mentions them plurally Gentiles vers 11 12 13. 25. Hence the phrase Yee and Your applied to them vers 28. 30 31. Besides they are still set in opposition to the Jewes which fell vers 11. 12. which were cast away vers 15. and broken off vers 20. 24. 28. Now none will say that those refuse Jewes are taken distributively but collectively as was proved and much lesse that the Jewish parents onely excluding their children were understood so then if the opposition bee sutable and direct the opposite parties must bee collectively taken also and Gentiles children received in with their parents as opposed to Jewish children excluded with their parents
Apostles time but some of the branches were broken off vers 17. And blindnesse did happen to collective Israel but not wholly but in part vers 25. In both which that which is proper to the parts is applyed to the whole of which they are parts by a synecdoche To come then to argument it is true that the Jewes collectively taken for the whole nation containing the choicer part intended they are federally holy scil in respect of that choyce part and yet it followes not that the Jewes distributively taken for those Jewes living at this day supposed to bee a refuse part of that whole should bee properly said to bee federally holy and so neither to have right to Church priviledges so that the instance crosseth not us who speake of persons federally holy as well distributively and not meerely collectively considered There is therefore a fallacy a dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter Rep. Suppose we take this of the whole in respect of the choycer part of the Jewish nation this choyce part then at least is federally holy yet they have not right to Church priviledges as being not yet ingraffed into the olive nor possibly in actuall being in the world Therefore persons may bee federally holy which yet have not right to Church priviledges Answ Wee againe distinguish persons may bee said to be federally holy either seminally preparatively or actually in the former sense persons not yet existing may bee said to bee in covenant with God or such as God makes a covenant with and consequently to bee federally holy Deut. 29. 14 15. neither with you onely doe I make this covenant but with him that standeth here with us before the Lord our God and also with him that is not with us this day Marke it God saith not I will make this covenant in the future but in the present tense I doe make this covenant with him that is not here this day that is with persons unborne these being expresly taken into covenant with God and their covenant right laid up and included therein in such sort as that which in its season should actually bee exerted these persons albeit unborne and not actually existing yet in this seminall and preparatory respect of the covenant they have thus far a covenant right and so farre also a Church right together with it so here in these unborne Jewes as they are federally holy in that seminall respect Hence the Olive or Church here is called their owne Olive Rom. 11. 24. How is the Church now their owne but in respect of this seminall Church right Federall holinesse actually taken is that which is actually subjected and exerted in a person existing whether parent or child in which sense God made his covenant with those Jewes and with their children that were before him that day Deut. 29. 14 15. And in this sense the Apostle speaking of the federall holinesse especially of children actually borne of covenant in-churched parents saith they are holy scil actually 1 Cor. 7. 14. Now therefore to apply the Argument it is defective in the consequence of it thus Persons not in being which are federally holy onely seminally and intentionally they have not actuall Church right nor can actually bee baptized therefore persons existing and living which are federally holy actually they may not bee baptized this followeth not one may as well reason thus Those with whom God made a covenant Deut. 29. 14 15. who were not borne not there that day had not actuall right to circumcision could not be uncircumcised Therefore those children which were there that day with whom also God made his covenant Ibid. they had not actuall right to circumcision might not could not bee circumcised this every rationall man will say is a non sequitur Object 2. This Rom. 11. 16. is spoken of the naturall branches which have an hereditary covenant right as naturall branches of that roote Abraham Isaac and Jacob. And therefore not pertinent to the Gentiles and their children which are not branches of that root Answ Albeit the beleeving Gentiles and their children are not of that root by nature and propagation yet they are in that root by grace and by proportion The Jew-branches were broken off that the Christian collective Gentile might by grace be graffed in scil in their stead Rom. 11. 19. Looke then what covenant and Church right the Jewish parents had for their children in an hereditary way the same hath the inchurched Gentile for his children through grace Repl. This were to make way for all children of Christian Gentile nations to have right to Church priviledges Answ It sufficeth that thus farre it holds that as all and onely Church-members children were ecclesiastically priviledged among the Jewes so all and onely Church-members children are ecclesiastically priviledged among the Gentiles Object 3. The Gentiles are said to bee ingraffed not by a naturall way as being of such parents but by a way contrary to nature and therefore what is this to the federall estate of Gentile Infants as comming of beleeving parents and so in a way of nature Answ It is most true if applied to the first parties amongst any Gentile people which in the Apostles time or since enter into Church estate living formerly in a Pagan estate and not having any of their ancestors other then Pagans or such as were cut out of the wilde Olive tree scil Ancestors pagan or outlawry from all covenant and Church estate Rom. 11. 24. Ephes 2. 12. But if it bee applyed to other which come of such persons so transplanted from that wilde Olive to this good Olive estate as branches or sprigs of such Olive boughs or gratious ancestors then is it not fully verified that these are onely in a way contrary to nature partakers of the fatnesse of the Olive As they are considered together with their gratious ancestors as all of them of other pagan ancestors so they are all ingraffed in a way contrary to nature even meerely by divine Grace but as they and their gratious fathers are considered apart their fathers as nextly descended of pagan ancestors these their children as nextly springing from fathers visibly beleeving and inchurched so their covenant and Church estate comes to them principally by a way of divine grace and instrumentall by birth descent from inchurched ancestors and in this latter respect therefore such children may bee said to bee inserted by a way of nature for looke as the Israelites of old before their cutting off were and others of them hereafter will bee by virtue of their holy root or covenant fathers holy branches as naturall branches scil branches springing naturally from them or borne of them Rom. 11. 16. 24. compared or as those Israelites were not sinners or outlawries from covenant or Church as were those of the Pagan Gentiles but Jewes or ecclesiastically priviledged even by nature or naturall descent of such ancestors inchurched Gal. 2. 15. so must the proportion hold in the
goe so farre in this case To the saving interest and efficacy of Baptisme it is required that one savingly belong to Christ and bee a Disciple savingly in that sense but to the externall and Church interest in the use of the seale it 's not of necessitie for then none ought to bee baptized but such as are in a saving estate which to us is a secret and so no ordinary proceeding in mans Court yea the very place speakes of the case as one that giveth drinke to another because to him and in his judgement hee is a Disciple for infallibly hee doth not know him but taketh him rather to bee such a one and therefore refresheth him The major therefore of the Syllogisme is in substance the very Text the minor is evident such as externally belong to the Church of which Christ is the the head they doe externally belong to Christ c. hence to bee in his Church by externall profession and to bee in him are put for one John 15. 2 now that such Infants belong to that Church wee formerly proved in proving both that they belonged to Christs visible Church and kingdome and that he was head thereof also Mr. B. frameth two answers to a like objection hence his first wee have already disproved scil that Infants also belong to Christ in respect of visible and Church constitution which hee denyeth His second is as impertinent hee saith Christ speakes in Matthew and Marke of Adult persons true I never intended to urge it otherwise but my argument runs that the signification and reason of the name of Disciple there given though to growne persons yet since what is there in that Scripture applied to such is also appliable to such Infants also therefore they are Scripture Disciples So Acts 11. 26. the name Disciples and Christians are made Synomyna in way of distinction from Pagans not of the Church alike to what is here intended for distinction sake from the rest of the Pagan world amongst which since the breaking down of the partition wall I hope Anabaptists will advise better how they place beleeving Gentiles Babes unlesse they will leave a piece of the old wall standing Discipled persons in the Text as in reference to baptizing implyeth persons externally in the Covenant of grace unlesse our opposites thinke other then such should bee baptized Also persons in the visible Church are baptized unlesse they thinke persons out of any visible Church fellowship may bee in ordinary dispensation baptized for which extraordinary calls and cases our times meddle not nor have not as of old there were some which yet impeach not our rule of the Church seales given to the Church for her use and by her preaching Elders to bee dispensed he then is discipled for Baptisme which is inchurched which is in the Schoole of Christ and in peculiar fellowship with the other Schollers there and in speciall relation to Christ the Teacher of his Church yea such as to whom in some sense hee preacheth Gospell as to those Babes in Luke and howsoever hee teacheth the lowest formes as I may call them that sort of persons in his Church that is some such he so promiseth to teach them inwardly that hee doth so appeare in saved Church children yea so hee may teach Indian Papouses now too I answer if wee speake of his absolute power hee can doe more then he ever will as to make many other worlds c. but to speake of his ordinate and regulate power so hee can doe but what hee willeth to doe what his secret will is not for us Deut. 29. but according to his revealed will wee may say that those children being estranged actually from the Covenant and Church they are actually without God and Christ and hope but beleevers Infants externall estate is ecclesiastically of another nature So much for clearing Matth. 28. and confirmation of Paedobaptisme thence SECT V. A Second Argument is this All those which are the Church seed of Abraham they are to bee baptized Infants of inchurched beleevers are the Church seed of Abraham ergo are to bee baptized The major is not denied I thinke by our opposites but if it bee Gal. 3. 16 17. 27 28 29. proveth that all such were baptized in Apostolicall Churches and therefore are to bee in ours The minor hath beene formerly proved in the conclusions touching federall interest and is evident by the Apostles argument if Christs then Abrahams seed Whence I argue All such as are Christs or belong to Christ they are Abrahams seed Such Infants belong to Christ ergo they are Abrahams seed The Major is true both waies such as savingly and efficaciously belong to Christ they are so farre also Abrahams elect seed such as ecclesiastically are Christs in which sense the Apostle here speakes of it as hath been proved they are so farre also Abrahams Church seed The Minor is true of the species of such Infants if taken in an efficacious way of saving interest that sort of persons as well as the other of adult persons are such else none of them could ever bee saved unlesse some are saved which neither belong to Christ nor are elect either of which would bee absurd to affirme but that is a secret wee are to looke to visibilitie thereof as the rule of dispensation of Church ordinances If therefore taken in an ecclesiasticall sense as here it is as was proved so all such Infants doe belong to Christ as hath beene proved and consequently are ecclesiastically Abrahams Church seed SECT VI. A Third argument is taken from Acts 2. 38 39. thus Those to whom appertaineth any principall ground upon which any of the Apostles have moved and encouraged growne ones to bee baptized they are according to Apostolicall encouragement virtually given to bee baptized But to the Infants mentioned doth appertaine the forenamed ground therefore there is virtually an Apostolicall encouragement for them also to bee baptized The Major is undeniable unlesse any suppose that any of the Apostles as Apostles as here Peter is considered should give an insufficient ground to any thing unto which they encouraged others For to give a chiefe ground of encouraging and putting any upon this or that which will not universally hold where the same ground was to bee found it is to give an insufficient ground If a Pastor ministerially urge a member thus Brother looke you watch over your brethren c. for you are a brother if this bee not cogent with any other brother as a brother unto the like watch it is an insufficient principle and groundworke so here in the case mentioned none will doubt but it was a sufficient groundworke to enforce the former as a dutie scil their repentance to whom hee spake and why not of the like force in the other yea and so you will say it is where both are joyned Nay verily it must bee of force if sufficient to enforce either apart if both bee distinct duties as reason will evince
of a true visible Church which are according to Mr. B's profession and the initiatory seale of the covenant then circumcision now baptisme and so Mr. B. his ninth argument is answered his second third fourth sixth and eight argument hath been elsewhere answered his seventh argument from a mistaken exposition of Acts 19 is elsewhere answered in what is briefly spoken to that place his tenth argument from the taking up of Paedobaptisme from corrupt principles is abundantly answered in the whole discourse wherein better principles are held forth and if any hold it out upon weake and unwarrantable grounds it weakens not a good cause in it selfe that it is ill handled His last argument from universall practise to the contrary is elsewhere answered and amongst others the practise in baptizing Lydia's house is one exception nor doth that which Mr. B. would pretend as an argument to the contrary evince what hee would have they are not said to bee the brethren of the house which Paul there comforted Acts 16. ult doth Mr. B. which would make all the jaylors houshold to bee actually beleevers thinke that they attended not Paul and Silas from prison for hee was now to depart the citie and hasted out of the jaylors house by the comming of the Magistrates thither for that end vers 39. so that there was no opportunitie before to utter what they had to say at parting but another house as that of Lydia in their way out of the citie is a fitter place for that purpose there therefore they make a little pause for that end after which they departed SECT XIIII ANd to adde here to consideration of 1 Cor. 10. 1 2. which to mee hath been long of validitie to prove this practise of Paedobaptisme as then in use nor can I yet bee removed from those thoughts the Apostles scope there was to take downe their pride in priviledges and resting secure in ordinances c. by shewing them the hazard to which they lay open notwithstanding if they provoked God by an argument from a like example of Church members interested not meerely in ordinary but extraordinary priviledges yet by reason of such provocation comming to a sad end and thus lyeth the Apostles argument Where there are like priviledges of grace there if abused will bee like punishments inflicted but with you and with them of old are like priviledges of grace ergo if alike abused there will follow like punishments And because they might glory in those peculiar Church ordinances of the seales which yet they were so apt to abuse hee singles out parallels to them and therein doth not take instance from the ordinary Sacraments of the Jewes but from two extraordinary ones wherein if in any thing they might seeme to bee priviledged above others Now if there were no parallel in that materiall businesse of the childrens baptisme in Corinth Church a great part of the Apostles scope of urging them from a ground of paritie of priviledges failed nay this had been a good argument to have taken downe their pride another way scil that the members of that Church had their children with them in a glorious manner baptized in the cloud and sea yet God dealt so with them in his judgements and you Corinthians that have nothing any way parallel to such a baptisme of your children doe you thinke to escape Object 1. But you will say there is no proportion betwixt them in that this was no Sacrament at all but an extraordinary providence Answ An ordinary Sacrament it was not but a Sacrament it was though extraordinary SECT XV. FIrst in that the other of the Manna and rock was not else spirituall meat and drinke and Christ to many of them really it was then Sacramentally so or no way to them Secondly why else doth the Apostle single out but these two to the one giving the name of baptisme to the other of spirituall meat and drinke and Christ agreeable to that mentioned in the end of this argument vers 16 17. Thirdly why else doth hee having mentioned their being under the cloud vers 1. come over it againe vers 2. and adde the name of baptisme to it It were a tautology if intending it of a bare providence Fourthly else the Apostle had much failed in his scope of deterring the members of this Church considered as such from Church sinnes and wantonnesse under and against Church priviledges Fiftly else why is not the same ascribed to all the rest to the mixt multitude which were with them yea to the very beasts for all shared in this as a providence all passed thorough the Sea with them c. yet none but the Church have this ascribed to them All our fathers were under the cloud and baptized c. the Church fathers to Paul and Gentile Church members as such were those Jew Church members whether parents or children the very babes as then yet in respect of after ages of the Church to whom afterwards they were Instruments to convey Church truths and blessings they were fathers Paul spake this to the brethren of the Church yet not excluding the sisters but including them in his admonition and argument but it 's usuall that Church admonitions and Epistles doe runne in the name of the brethren as being principall actors in all Church matters and hence also albeit the females of the Jew Church as such bee by proportion included in this matter of Church priviledge yet hee nameth onely the males but onely members of the Church did share in it in that respect Sixtly hence also the phrase baptized into Moses not personally but ministerially considered in his doctrine hee gave them from God both a precept for it and a promise encouraging to it or into Moses typically considered as a type of Christ Act. 3. 22. Object 2. Was not this onely a type of saving preservation from sinne c. Answ All the Corinthians had no antitype thereof in their baptisme really no more then many of them and in a Sacramentall way that baptisme to them was as that to the Corinthians a visible seale of salvation Object 3. Doth hee not speake of a samenesse therein betwixt the Jewes themselves and not in reference to the members of the Church of Corinth Answ The scope of the Apostle being what was mentioned will not beare other sense then of comparing them with the Jewes in like priviledge for substance to deterre them from like sinnes lest they incurre like punishments Object 4. By this argument wee set up nationall Churches now Answ No more followeth hence ex natura rei but as onely Church members according to their severall capacities were so priviledged and not others so onely Church members now are to partake of Church Ordinances wee are to consider it herein quà Church which is continuing and not quà nationall Church wherein was some circumstantiall peculiaritie which vanished Object 5. You may then pleade for Infants comming to the Lords Supper since all our Fathers did
as is evident The next is Beza who is also quoted Proposition 7. in his annotations upon Matth. 28. 19. Baptize them in the name of the Father that is in calling upon the name of the Father or rather the name of the Father c. being called upon for they are Beza's words Invocato nomine Patris c. And these Translators should have done well to have rendred the Latine properly But all is in the meaning of the words The authors of the Treatise urge it for a proofe of the persons bapzed calling actually upon the name of God when they are baptized according to Christs institution bring Beza for their proofe Quaeritur therefore whether ever Beza intended that in his words Surely no for it 's known well that Beza stoutly maintaineth Paedobaptisme as an ordinance of Christ Now Infants when they are baptized cannot actually call upon the name of God therefore if Beza say the former that the rule of Christ requireth it of all that are to be baptized according to his mind that they should call upon God at the time of their Baptisme he must affirme the later against his owne light and conscience which to doe with so much deliberation as hee that writeth things upon studie must doe were a crime of a very high nature and God forbid any should charge so worthy a light in the Church with that SECT V. BEza is againe cited for confirmation of the third Proposition in his Annotations upon Matth. 3. 6. John taught those that were to bee baptized this clause is not in my Beza upon the place and admitted none to Baptisme but those that gave testimony that they beleeved the forgivenesse of their sinnes In my Beza's Notes it's rather thus that John admitted not others to his Baptisme then those which seriously professed that they did imbrace the doctrine of free remission of sinnes which how different from that of these translators let others judge It followeth in the booke Such confession was also required of the Catechumens in the primitive Church before Baptisme for in that the Sacraments are seales it is requisite that doctrine or instruction should goe before the use of those things by which the doctrine it selfe is to bee sealed Those words before Baptisme and that reason annexed for in that the Sacraments c. is not in my booke scil Beza's Annotationes majores in N. Test Printed Anno. 1594. But to returne to the testimony Beza intended that John baptized no other of that species of persons Adult then such as made that confession but not simply the Baptisme of any other persons of another sort scil babes hee that is so carefull that any should take advantage to deny that children are not rightly baptized because not dived wholly under water that hee the rather as hee saith upon Matth. 3. 11. doth note such things about the particle In omitted Luke 3. 16. surely hee intended not by affirming such things in reference to Johns hearers thereby to exclude childrens Baptisme Hence that added that such confession was required of the Catechumens in the ancient Church Now then what manner of persons they were which hee affirmeth made such confession of old such like persons for age he here intendeth And no more doth he intend exclusion of Infants from Baptisme by affirming the necessitie of confession in Johns hearers unto Baptisme then by affirming that the same was required of those Catechumens mentioned Let us then see Beza's mind further therein which wee may readily doe in the third place of Beza quoted in this Treatise Proposition 4. where Beza upon 1 Cor. 7. 14. But now your children are holy he is thus cited as saying Out of this contradictors of the truth are revealed As first all those that make Baptisme to be the first entrance to salvation and secondly those that permit all children to bee baptized which was unheard of in the primitive times whereas every one ought to bee instructâ—d in the faith before hee were admitted to baptisme And this testimony is brought to prove the Proposition that in the primitive Church the children both of the faithfull and else scil and of Pagans or Jewes were commonly first instructed c. and then baptized so that Beza's mind in that clause whereas every one ought to bee instructed c. is made and every child whether of the faithfull or Infidell should bee first instructed before hee be baptized and in that sense his second errour he blames of such which permit all children to bee baptized is as much as if hee should intend it as an errour to permit any children at all whether of faithfull or infidell persons to bee baptized before instructed So that Beza is by this made a direct Andipedobaptist as they terme it now for modesty sake But you shall not have Beza thus on your side before wee heare him in his owne words who having before spoken touching the cause why wee admit the Saints children to baptisme scil because they are comprehended in the Covenant c. he addeth Now from hence are confuted not onely Catabaptists which doe reject Infants from baptisme as uncleane but those which make baptisme the first entrance to salvation and so exclude all from salvation which are unbaptized and also those which admit all Infants whatsoever to baptisme scil whether of visible Saints or Infidels as appeares by what hee said before and by what followeth which thing scil such promiscuous baptizing of all sorts hand over head was not heard of in the ancient Church As this at least doth declare in that all adult Infidells were first to bee Catechumens before they were baptized Beza refuteth three things from that clause mentioned and explained now your children are holy and one of them is this fourth Proposition of the Authors and yet by the Authors he is brought to refute onely two things First hee refuteth Catabaptists denying baptisme to beleevers children Secondly he from the same ground refuteth them which maintaine the baptisme of all children whatsoever scil that are not children of visible Saints for if they bee such children hee counteth it rather an errour to deny their baptisme Againe in citing the last part of Beza's words the Authors craftily make it as an opposite sentence to that before Thus secondly those that permit all children to bee baptized c. whereas every one c. as if it were a contrary speech to the former permitting all children c. whereas none at all were to bee baptized of old but such as were Catechumens when Beza maketh this later a reason of the former as before wee shewed Besides the Authors shamefully change and mutilate the last words whereas every one ought c. intending every particular person Infant or Aged when Beza's words are expresly in that all adult Infidells ought first to bee Catachumens before they were to bee baptized Now who is there which doth not even feele this palpable guile and falseshood in the setters forth
and severall learne of the Priest Credo in Deum c. to which the former answer sufficeth Trecius in his Decretalls urgeth as much ex secundo Concilio Bracharensi yet the same councell also ratifieth Paedobaptism ordering Canone septimo that each Bishop should in all the Churches take care about the baptizing of Infants brought to baptism c. The like answer sufficeth to that quotation of the fourth Carthage councel in confirmation of the fifth Proposition those that are to be baptized are to give in their names after long abstinence from wine and flesh and frequent examinations with laying on of hands they are to be baptized It is the 75th Canon Now that the Councell never intended as if Infants baptisme were not valid and warrantable which could not bee thus examined see the 48th Canon of the third Carthage Councell which according to Isiodore in his summe of the Decretals was the yeare before this wherein the Councell doth ratifie even the Baptisme of children by Donatists for so the Canon is expounded in Caranza his summe of the Decretals and in Albignanus tertius his edition of the Decretalls this sinne being rather in the parents not that they offered them to baptisme but to offer them to be baptized by such Heretiques the fifth Carthage councell which according to Isiodore was two yeers after the 4th councell but according to Johannes Wolfius de rebus memorabilibus centur quarta both the fourth and fifth Carthage councell was kept the same yeere scil Anno 399. wherein there were 74. Bishops as in the other there were 97. Bishops Aurelius Bishop of Carthage being President in which councell Canon 6. they ratifie Paedobaptisme as this treatise also mentioneth Proposition 7. It 's not then imaginable that the councell that the other day if our Authors guesse right was against Paedobaptisme and yet presently bee so quite altered as to establish it yea but Mr. Blackwood in his preface to storming the two Garrisons of Antichrist would seeme to make an argument against paedobaptisme as then in use from the 14. Can. Concil Nic. and Can. 4. and 6. Concil Ancyran in which Canons the Assemblies were divided into hearers Catechumeni and Offerers or persons in full communion till cut off by death on censure yet hee cannot tell hee saith whether this division were in use before the first Nicene Counsell probably its thought since the Apostles time so that to conclude that according to his exposition of the Offerers children being not of that sort nor of the Catechumeni they must bee of the third sort of the profane rabble of hearers this is farre fetched and hee suspecteth the foundation of it scil that division whether so ancient as from the Apostles so that hee can build nothing thereupon nay by his leave hee must thrust out Infants little children not capable of being called Auditors in the Language of the ancient which hee cannot bee ignorant understand it of adult persons nor of being Catechumens if not amongst the third sort of Offerers where are they then Surely no part of the Congregation when yet in Joel 2. Assemble the Congregation gather such as suck the breasts c. children then are upon Scripture grounds as well as common reason parts of the Church Assemblies nay hath not Mr. B. made a rod for his owne back since the Assembly being divided onely into those three parts and Scripture and reason making little ones part of the Assembly and yet neither hearers nor Catechumens as reason will tell him therefore they must needs bee of the third sort scil Offerers in those times they were then in full communion witnesse Cyprian as some urge it to enseeble Cyprians testimony for Paedobaptisme and Cyprian was above 70. yeeres before the first Nicene councell yea children were Offerers too in respect of that which was offered at their baptisme witnesse the Canon of the Elebertine councell as the little ones of old were said to bring an offering in their hand when their parents onely did it for them Deut. 16. but Mr. Blackwood urgeth the seventh Canon of the Councell at Constantinople declaring how they Catechise them they are to baptize hee telleth us not what Councell it was but saith it was in Theodosius his time so it might bee and yet wee not know by what Character which it was divers of them being then called there Wolfius puts Theodosius at Anno 383. and Anno 382. the third Constantinople Councell Anno 383. the fourth Anno 402. the fifth the same yeere that the Milevitan councell was and Anno 403. the 6 7 8. now the 6th councell of Constantinople provideth that none should have chrisme and baptisme administred to them unlesse it bee such as firmely hold forth the Lords Prayer and the Creed c. excepting such who by reason of age cannot speake and provideth Can. 7. that such as bee witnesses to Infants in Baptisme should bee sound in the faith Councells use not to bee crosse to themselves in so little space as to order contrary things that onely adult persons should bee baptized and no Infants as Mr. B. expounds them and yet againe not onely adult but Infants shall bee baptized that is not square dealings And I wonder that Mr. B. foreseeing the ratifying of the 46. Canon of that Laodicean Councell before mentioned by that at Trullo which was the Emperours Palace at Constantinople where the Councell used to sit in Justinians time Can. 78. a Councels that was for Paedobaptisme expresly would enfeeble his argument from thence in that a Councell of such Fathers judge that Canons establishing both this and that scil catechising before baptisme and baptisme before catechising are not contraries that hee which holdeth the one denyeth the other but subordinate which may both stand together according as the persons to bee baptized are either adult or Infants This Mr. B. foreseeing maketh him its likely frame such a poore excuse as that its like upon some abuse or neglect it was reestablished by that Councell of Trullo but its like not rather if it were any thing of the controversie Yea but some object the Covenant of Theodor Balsamon and Zonaras upon the sixth Canon of that Grecian councell at Neocesarea Anno. 315. concerning a woman with child that shee ought to bee illuminated or baptized when shee desireth it because in that matter scil of baptisme shee that brings forth hath nothing in common with the babe which is brought forth which may bee shewed in confession that it is proprium uniuscujusque institutum ac propositum which they are brought in as so expounding or rather inferring thence that an Infant might not bee baptized because it hath not power to choose the confession of divine Baptisme Zonaras I have not but I looked upon that Patriarch of Antioch Theodor Balsamon who hath these words in his Scholia upon that Canon Some in the councell said that women with child which came from the Infidels to joyn with the
Church ought not to bee baptized but to stay till the babe they went with were brought forth lest that when shee were baptized it might seeme that the child in her wombe was baptized with her as being altogether united to her whence it will come to passe that after the babe is borne either it may bee not left unenlightned or unbaptized or if it bee baptized it may bee thought that it is rebaptized This hee maketh the occasion of the Law of that antient not Latine but Greeke councell which was a good while before the first Nicene Councell And it is very remarkable what was the occasion it was double as is evident 1. That they might avoyd the mischiefe of leaving babes unbaptized 2. That they might avoyd the other of rebaptizing two grand hinges of Anabaptisme these were such mischiefes as it seemes in their eyes that they would not have expressions let fall by them that might any way occasion the same so that both these in those times were rather inter borrenda then recipienda But let us heare what Balsamon addeth further there speaking of such Infants that they could not make promise c. for how it is with the babe in the wombe none can enquire nor be suretie for them saith he but Infants scil that are borne doe affirme by those which are their susceptors and are accounted to bee actually enlightned or baptized with divine illustration or divine baptisme they then accounted baptisme of Infants no Antichristian baptisme as the Authors of this Treatise and as John Spilsbury Mr. Blackwood and Henry Denne doe but divine Baptisme the Baptisme of the Lord wherefore I conclude that this testimony is grosly abused by Hugo Grotius SECT III. Rupertus Tritiensis THe next Author quoted is Rupertus Tritiensis l. 4. de divinis Officiis c. 18. both for the confirmation of the 4th and 7th proposition the same is urged by A. R. also to like purpose but by this authors leave that there bee no guile hid I shall make bold to transcribe the very words of Rupertus Abbas Tritiensis of which the Treatise mentioned some pieces scil It was the custome of old in the holy Church not to celebrate the Sacrament of regeneration at any other time scil then Easter and Pentecost of which hee spake before unlesse in those unto whom possibly danger might accrue by the comming of some infirmity or danger of death upon them this exception which is in his the very quaesitum the Treatise and A. R. leave wholly out how candidly they deale herein let all judge All the off-spring of the Church almost which throughout the whole yeare it could beget anew by the preaching of the word the solemnitie of Easter approaching gave in their names this day and throughout the following dayes unto the very solemnitie it selfe of Easter each one hearing the rule of faith whence also such an one was called a Catechumen for a Catechumen faith Rupertus is by interpretation a hearer both the suckling and the growne person at length at the full time after the full of the moone in the solemnitie at the holy Font repeating the symboll with full beleefe It scil the off-spring of the Church did die and rise againe with Christ but after Christianitie increased and that net of the Gospell was filled with Fish because that it was dangerous to delay so great a multitude by reason of the casualtie of death which in a multitude of men is manifold especially in regard of a company of Infants of Christian Parents much encreasing whose tender life is very oft by a small occasion cut off it seemed good to the holy Church leave off baptisme being granted every where yea offered to prevent all dangers and yet in a few to celebrate the solemnitie of baptisme with the resurrection of the Lord to which it is like c. by this that hath been said that which the Treatise and A. R. intend to disprove is rather confirmed and the guilefull wresting of the testimony discovered for besides what hath been before shewed that Infants baptisme was before this custome of baptisme at Easter and Pentecest came up and likewise whilst it was held up Infants being then and there baptized as well as at other times as by Austins testimony Serm. 4. ad Neoph. appeared this testimony also tells us 1 That baptisme of all sorts of persons in case of weakenesse and danger at other times was in use of old 2 That sucklings as well as growne ones were accounted under the notion of the off-spring of the Church begotten by the word scil in their parents which being begotten thereby in their right also their children were in churched with them 3 Confession of faith with full beleefe by others in stead of sucklings was counted as their confession the lactati as well as the grandescentes are said to make such confession of faith which they could not doe but by others 4 That there were present at this solemnitie a multitude of Infants as well as growne ones which did Sacramentally die and rise with Christ of old 5 That they baptized not of old all sorts of children at such times but onely the Infants of Christians and that upon the grounds of mortalitie and other weakenesse and hazzard was there made a change as well in respect of the growne part of the multitude as the Infants onely 6 That the change that was made upon the grounds of mortalitie and increase of the multitude was not in respect of the subjects that afterwards Infants should bee baptized whereas onely growne ones before were baptized for both sorts were before and after that custome came up baptized as wee proved but it was onely in respect of the place where and season when that whereas of old they used to come to some one great Citie and that at these seasons of yeare onely now passim every where and at any other time they might bee baptized onely some few that were borne a little before these solemne times as Rupertus in his other bookes mentioneth were reserved to bee then baptized to grace as it were the solemnitie And this may fully answer that testimony which this Treatise Proposition 7. and A. R. also urge out of Joannes Beemius de moribus Gentium speaking to like purpose So then Rupertus Tritiensis and his companion are both as much abused herein as other witnesses produced or rather traduced SECT IIII. Cassander THe next witnesse is Cassander a stout adversary to them yet fetched in by the Authors of this Treatise to prove the 4th and 7th Proposition Cassander in l. de Infantium baptismo is said to say It is certaine that some beleevers in times past have with holden baptisme from their children untill they were growne and could understand and remember the mysteries of their faith yea also counselled not to administer baptisme as by Tertullian and Gregory Nazianzen appeareth And Proposition 7. Cassander in his booke de Infantium baptismo saith
it It is concerning Dyonisius in his Ecclesiasticâ rarchiâ they would say Hierarchia who they say confirmeth their 8th Proposition thus It is ridiculous or as the Author for explication sake addeth to bee esteemed as a jest that the bath of regeneration should bee communicated to young children which neither can understand nor can heare to learne the mysteries of God I doe not here dispute whether this were Dyonisius the Areopagite under whose name the booke goeth it is most likely it was some other Grecian Dionysius whether Dionysius Alexandrinus Origens scholler as some probably thinke or some later Dionysius in the fourth or fifth Century as Dr. Vsher thinketh in his catalogue of Ecclesiastick writers yet a Greek Author hee was and ancient As for his words recited they are most vilely wrested And that which the Author of that Church Hierarchy in the 7th Chapter ad finem brings in as an objection of another reasoning according to corrupt nature the Authors of this Treatise bring in as his mind his words are these But that children not yet able to understand divine Mysteries should bee made pertakers of divine generation c. it seemeth as thou sayest to the profane to be worthy of blasphemous laughter and so on hee doth not say it deserveth laughter but seemeth so to doe And that not to the godly but to the profane And this hee said not as his owne but as anothers objection as thou sayst And if the Authors ever had seene that booke and but read on the Author of the Booke would presently have cleared himselfe from their errour For a little after hee addeth But yet of this matter scil Paedobaptisme just before propounded wee also say that those our Divines and Holy Prefectors brought to us from divine and ancient Tradition For they say that which indeed is that Infants according to the Law or Word of God are brought to the sacred habit scil to put on Christ in Baptisme to bee purged from all errour and uncleane life c. Who seeth not by this and by all the former falsehoods and lies which the Authors of this Treatise have vented that they are some Mountebank deceivers and probably some Jesuited cheaters which would send this pack of knavery abroad to deceive the simple and unlearned Reader And it may bee seeke to make the sad breach wider betwixt the professors in England by strengthning the hand of the weaker partie the Anabaptists so that what the authors or translators of a booke of some unknowne Author or Authors say of their Preface scil A mystery discovered they meane of the man of sinne but they have made it good rather to bee a mystery of the body of sinne and a mystery of iniquitie discovered in themselves and breaking out from them to open view which before lay hid And let the Treatise hereafter Ironically onely be called The plaine and well grounded Treatise concerning Baptisme CHAP. X. SECT I. I Might now have breathed a little and rested my selfe but that Mr. B. boldly challengeth any man to prove Infants Baptisme out of Justin Martyr Ireneus Origen Clemens Alexandrinus or Tertullian and after professeth hee regardeth no authoritie after the first 300. yeeres And others also call for Greeke authors and Testimony out of the Greeke Churches for it I am of small reading I confesse yet shall endeavour if it bee satisfaction onely that is herein sought to present some few things this way unto the consideration of godly sober and learned mindes and then draw to a conclusion of the whole discourse onely premising that in speaking from any of these Authors whether touching the jus or fact of Paedobaptisme it sufficeth if either expressely or by consequence the same bee held forth by them for this in Scripture course is allowed when we are to prove any thing that ought to bee done or was done either way of proofe literall or collaterall and consequentiall sufficeth Of Iustin To begin with Justin Martyr hee in his Dialogue with Trypho the Jew having spoken in way of vilifying circumcision in reference to Jewish Idolizing of trusting in and urging of it upon the Gentiles hee hath these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. and you indeed which are circumcised in the flesh need our circumcision that is baptisme But we having this have no need of that namely as having ours scil Baptisme in its stead and addes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. wee in that wee were sinners opposing the Gentiles to the Jewes have by reason of the mercy of God been received and so it is but equall to all that all should equally receive it scil Circumcision or Baptisme spoken of hee maketh our Baptisme to bee in stead of their outward circumcision and this to bee received by the Gentiles in that sinners by reason of mercy and this to be equall to all to bee received by them equally meaning either all Gentiles simply and that I think he intends not or at least all scil all sorts of Gentiles high low rich poore bond free male female babes youths and elder ones Of Irenius Ireneus supposing the place quoted lib. 2. adversus haeres Valentiniani similium cap. 39. Magister ergo existens Magistri babebat aetatem c. Christ being a Master had the age of a Master neither rejecting nor surpassing man nor dissolving in himselfe his owne law of mankind but sanctifying every age by the like in himselfe for hee came to save all scil all sorts by himselfe all I say which are new borne unto God by him Infants and little ones lads and youths and elder ones c. Ireneus his judgement is that Christ is a Master to all sorts of men to those of all ages Infants youth or elder persons and by force of Relata then in his judgement Infants as well as adults are his Schollers or Disciples that species of mankind Infants as well as growne ones albeit not all individuall Infants whatsoever come under relation to Christ as a Master therefore in his judgement that sort of persons being actually Disciples not meerely capable of it the priviledge of Disciples scil Baptisme is their due 2. Hee judgeth that species of mankind Infants as well as others to bee actually partakers of sanctification by Christ of the new birth c. the thing sealed in Baptisme therefore supposing his judgement thus in the one it is regular for him to judge that that sort of mankind are to bee visibly Baptized as well as that other sort of growne ones Origen is next and wee have already proved supposing any ground of jealousie against that quoted place in the Romans yet that of Luke is of unquestionable credit touching both his judgement and practise of Paedobaptisme Of Clemens Alexandrinus Clemens Alexandrinus is next where in his fourth booke of his Stromat alluding to that of Job returne saith hee not naked of possessions that is common but of sinne 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c.