none of these texts are so easie to be understood Consequently it is more than probable that even this Custome of Baptising Infants was instituted and ordained in the Churches by th'Apostles and that according to the commandement of Christ Add unto all that hath been sayd that of St. Ambrose Sicut nunc in ecclesià manet Constitutio salvatoris dicentis Nisi quis renatus sucrit Ita sacratissimè in lege suerat praecautum ut natus puer nisi die circumcideretur octavo exterminaretur anima ejas de populo suo Ambros Epist 33. Ad Demetriadem p. 132. who setts these two as paralell the law of God touching Circumcision The soul who is not circumcised shall be cut off from his people and the Sanction of our Saviour Except a man bee born again of water and of the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdome of God That this text is to be understood of Baptism as a mean and cause of Regeneration Not so principall as the Spirit yet so instrumentall to the Spirit that wher it may be had wee have no ground of Faith to beleev that the Spirit will work without it This is I say the constant and consentient judgement of all the Ancients and most of our modern Divines Some few only excepted who to avoid the Popish Tenet touching the absolute necessity of Bâ—ptism did fly to a Metaphor And it may be confirmed for Truth out of the Text it self if we note well To whom and upon what occasion the words were spoken viz. To Nicodemus upon occasion of his timerousnes A Disciple of Christ he was willing to be but loth to prosess it openly by being baptised To him is the commination directed and therfore the words must be understood of Baptism Now then consider well whether ther be any ground sufficient to keep of Infants from this Ordinance Any ground I say which may secure the conscience of not having sinned against the souls of our Infants if by our default they dy without this seal of the Covenant and so loos the Benefit ther-of Have not Infants need of Christ and the Application of his Blood for the washing their souls from sinn Is ther any Hope of Salvation without Christ Is ther any other way revealed by which any may have part in Christ but by his Ordinances Is ther any other Ordinance by which Infants may be made partakers of Christ and the Covenant of Grace except Baptism Is ther any text of Scripture that hath peremptorily barred their Admittance Or is ther any thing required of them that must be baptised the want wher-of may be a barr to Infants Thou doubtest because ther is no text that mentioneth either Precept or Pattern and with-out a text thou darest not venture 'T is well But when ther is such a fearfull sentence that runns in such generall terms as doth comprehend Infants also and the Danger of Omission is so great Why art thou not more cautelous on the safer side Why dost thou not as well call for a direct text to barr them or a direct Reason from Scripture which may be equivalent Is ther any text that saith None may be baptised that do not Beleev or that saith Infants for want of Actuall faith may not be baptised Doest thou not see Infants Circumcised yea by commandment Doest thou not hear the text that saith Children are Holy And are ther so many Probabilities that by th'Apostles themselves Infants were baptised And wilt thou rather hazard the soul of thy child than lay hold upon the Covenant for thy seed nay for thy self and that only upon a fear and a doubt of unlawfulnes yea such a doubt that hath no surer ground either in Scripture or Reason to countenance it than the contrary resolution Here is then the Case if these Grounds formerly mentioned prove good as ther is great probability Then thou presenting thine Infant to Baptism building upon these grounds thou hast saved thy self and thine Infant but forbearing and keeping him of thou sinnest against thine own soul and his also Again if those grounds should not prove good yet hast thou not wronged thine Infant nor thine own self Because upon such probabilities as are next door to an Evident Demonstration thou hast done that which is intended for the Glory of God and the Good of the Infant Thou hast not transgressed against any Precept no nor any light of Reason which might justly with-hold thee from seeking the Good of thine Infant at the Hands of Christ in this Ordinance I conclude therfore That ther is sufficient Ground in Scripture to warrant the Conscience of a Christian to bring his Infants to this Sacrament of Baptism with a confident expectation to receiv Benefit by the same Nay more Ther is Ground enough to warrant the Accusation of Him that upon such uncertain Reasons shall forbear to present his Infant to this Sacrament of Initiation the Accusation I say of Him as one that sinneth against the Ordinance of God and trespasseth against the Soul of his Infant yea of Himself So much for the first Question THE SECOND QVESTION Quest Whether it be not sinfull for a Christian to receiv the Sacrament in a mixt Assembly A Mixt Assembly is that wherein good and badd are mingled together and make up one Congregation when the precious are not severed from the vile nor any difference put between the Holy and Prophane Now these good and badd these precious and vile are not to be reckoned in respect of their spirituall estate toward God i. e. as they are Elect or Reprobate Sincere or Hypocriticall but in respect of their Ecclesiasticall state in the ey and judgement of Men as they are in their courses and conversations in their Calling and Profession holy or profane These bad and vile are again to be considered A parte ante or A parte post viz. Either such as yet profess not themselves in Covenant with God by joining themselves to the Assembly of his servants Or such who having formerly had a standing in the Church do afterward run out into exorbitant courses to the scandall of Religion and so deserv to be separated from the Society of the Saints and by the Sentence of Excommunication cut of from the Assembly So that the Question is Whether if either of these be found in the Congregation and company of them that draw neer to the Table of the Lord to partake of those holy Mysteries either those who as yet have not been admitted or those that by the laws of Christ ought to be shutt out and sequestred whether their presence do make it unlawfull in point of conscience for a Christian to receiv the Sacrament among them so that if he do he is eo nomine therby desiled and become partaker of their sinn Where also for the better understanding of the Answer to this Question we are to note what is granted and what is questioned and demanded Things granted are these 1. Some are not to
not to be dis-joined viz. the Covenant of Grace and the Promise of a Numerous off-springs Is it not evident that in Gen. 17. ther is speciall mention of the Covenant of Grace viz. I will be the God of thee and thy seed after thee and then followeth Thou shalt therfore keep my Covenant thou and thy seed This is my Covenant Every man-child among you shall be circumcised Why should Circumcision be restreyned to the Promise of a Numerous of-spring when the text doth not restrein it If any reply That in Gen. 15. wher the Righteousnes of Faith is mentioned to which the Apostle alludeth ther is only mention made of a Numerous of-spring promised Be it so But that of Calvin is sound who saith That whatsoever promises God did give to Abraham Jn dubium est axioma apud Christianos quascunque promissiones Abrahae dedit Deus prâ—mae illius fuisse appendices Ergo cum audiret Abraham Erit semâ—n tuum siâ—ut arena mâ—â—is in hoc verbo non substitit sed ipsum potius includebat in gratia Adoptionis tanquam partem in toto Calv. in Câ—l 3 6. they were Appendices of that first promise made to Him and so this of a numerous of spring was by Faith received as a fruit of that first Grace he bestowed on Him viz. His Adoption Nay more That Promise of a Numerous of-spring that he should be the Father of many Nations Was it fulfilled in the children of the flesh only or in the children of the Promise also And how came he to be the Father of those children but by Faith in the Covenant of Grace Conclude therefore That Circumcision was a Seal of the Covenant of Grace A Remedy of that Dis-ease which is derived from Father to Sonn by Propagation Which being in the Posterity of Beleeving Christians no less than in the Posterity of Beleeving Jewes It followeth that these have as much need as the other And being Holy by virtue of their Parents interest in the Covenant are as capable of this Benefit as the other were Consequently that the implantation of Infants into that Mysticall Body of Christ by a Sacrament is not incompatible with the state of the Church in the New Testament And if not so Since it is not repealed by Christ and his Apostles we conclude That ther is a Precept virtuall and implicit And tho it be not said in direct terms Go and baptise Beleevers and their Children yet in that it is said Circumcise them their Baptism is included so much the more Because it will appear that ther is also for the Baptising of Infants Pattern virtuall and Implicit This is in the Baptising of whole Families upon the conversion of the Masters ther-of The whole Housholds of Lydia Crâ—spus Cornelius and others were baptised To say that in them ther might be no children because none are mentioned is to speak against all sense and reason As well may it be said ther were no servants and so make up a Family of I know not how few What say we to those three thousand souls mentioned Acts 2. which were added to the Church in one day Is it probable that they were all present at the Sermon and converted to the Faith by that Sermon it being in a private House Is it not more probable that the Men being present and converted they brought also their Families to be baptised which they might well do because they heard St. Peter say The Promise is made to you and to your children So that the totall summe of men women and children might be 3000. souls Some such thing doubtless is intimated in that phrase 3000. souls answerable to that in the story of Gen. 46. ver 27. Act. 7.14 All that came down into Egipt with Jacob were 70 souls Souls i. e. persons men women and children And here doubtless the course and practice of the Converts was answerable to that in Gen. 17. No sooner is the Covenant made with Abraham but he circumciseth all the Males in his house both young and old So doubtless No sooner is the Covenant of Grace ratified betwixt Christ and the Beleeving Parents by Baptism but the Houshold is also accounted Holy and so baptised Doubtless what St. Peter said to them in Act. 2. The Promise is made to you and to your children The same did St. Paul preach to the Gentiles when they were converted that they might know the large bounty of God to them and theirs in the Covenant of Grace And how should they confirm this to them but by baptising their children Take away this and you leav open a wide gapp to an Objection which is not easily answered For they might object What tell you us of the Grace of God in Christ of the super-abundance of that Grace Do we not see the contrary This is nothing answerable to that of Abraham and Israel They by their Faith received a Benefit for their children yea their servants Not so here We our selves per-aduenture may be the better for our Faith But our children remain still as they were strangers to the Covenant Will you imagine the Apostle to reply Nay but the Promise is to you and your children So that when they come to beleev they also may be admitted How justly might the Objector rejoin what great priviledge is this So may the very Heathen all that are afarr of when they beleev If this be all that we gain Our children notwithstanding our Faith are in no better condition than the Heathen themselves Nothing so good as the children of the Jews And so the great boast of super-abundant Grace falls to the ground Thus we see good Reason to acknowledge this Custome of baptising Infants to be warranted both by Precept and Pattern tho not formall and explicite yet virtuall and implicit And that with so great light and evidence from Scripture that greater in that kind cannot be expected Before I proceed to an other Argument Let me improve this further That Custome and Practise of the Church may well be presumed to be Apostolicall which is so consonant to the text of Scripture that it doth readily illustrate the text and openeth a door of light to understand the same Such is the Custome of Infants Baptised therfore That which being granted giveth light and which being denyed doth leave the text under such a cloud of obscurity that it is not easily understood how it may pass for Truth This must be granted to open a door of light to understand the text of Scripture Now then suppose this Act of the Apostles baptising Infants we easily see how 3000. souls may be added to the Church in one day notwithstanding the Sermon were in a privat house We see how St. Peter might confirm their Beleef in this The Promise is made to you and to your children even the Promise of super-abundant Grace We see how St. Paul might urge this your children are Holy But take away the supposition of this Custome and
A MODERATE ANSWER To these two QVESTIONS 1. Whether ther be sufficient Ground in Scripture to warrant the Conscience of a Christian to present his Infants to the Sacrament of Baptism 2. Whether it be not sinfull for a Christian to receiv the Sacrament in a mixt Assembly Prepared for the Resolution of a Friend And now Presented to the publick view of all for the satisfaction of them who desire to walk in the Ancient and long-approved way of Truth and Holiness By T.B. B.D. EPH. 4. VER 1.2.3 I therfore the Prisoner of the Lord beseech you that yee walk worthy of the Vocation wherwith ye are called with all LOWLINES and MEEKNES with long-suffering forbearing one another in LOVE endeavouring to keep the UNITY of the Spirit in the Bond of PEACE LONDON Printed by I.N. for Abel Roper at the signe of the Sunne over against S. Dunstans Church in Fleet-street 1645. YOu desire mine opinion touching these two Questions 1. Whether there be sufficient Ground in the Scripture to warrant the conscience of a Christian to present his Infants to the Sacrament of Baptism with an expectation of Benefit that may accrew unto them by it 2 Whether it be not sinfull for a Christian to receive the Sacrament in a mixt Assembly I shall endeavour to give Answer to them both for the satisfying of your conscience So that you turn not Conscience into Will and Iudgement into Affection The meek yea only the meek will the Lord guid in judgement and teach his wâ—y The secret of the Lord is with them that fear him he will shew them his Covenant Psal 25. The Answer to the first Question AS for the first I answer affirmatively There is sufficient Ground in that Scripture to warrant the conscience of a Christian to present his Infants to the Sacrament of Baptism with an expectation of Benefit that may accrew unto them by it wherein I observe two particulars 1. Whether the Parent so doing may be excused from sinning through an unwarrantable use and Application of Gods Ordinance 2. Whether he may in the use thereof expect any Benefit accrewing to the Infant These two are different in their own Nature and require either of them severall Grounds of Satisfaction For tho if it be sinfull for the Parent to bring his Infants to Baptism he can expect no good for them by it In as much as no man may expect good to come from what is evill yet tho it be not sinfull in the Parent it will not follow that Good may be expected by it But I hold the Affirmative part of Both to be the Truth of God The first Argument This I build upon the words of our blessed Saviour in Mat. 19.14 Suffer little children and forbid them not to come unto me Children The children here mâ—ntioned were Infants such as men do hold in their arms The text saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that He took them up in his arms c. Where we see that our Saviour was highly displeased with his Disciples who had rebuked the Parents for bringing their children to Christ Hence I argue Christs justification of what is done doth presuppose the lawfulnesse of the thing It was therfore lawfull for the Parents to bring their children to Christ to receiv his Blessing if lawfull for them so also for others for all Consequently even for us there is a sufficient warrant to present our Infants to Christ that they may receiv his blessing You will reply That tho it be lawfull to present Infants to Christ to receiv his blessing yet not therfore lawfull to present them to Baptism I admit your reply but rejoin thus If lawfull to present them to Christ for his blessing Then lawfull to present them to him in his Ordinances in which that blessing is to be expected This I suppose will stand good That whosoever might be welcom to Christ in his person were he here upon earth may be admitted to his Ordinances in which he is present by the power of his Spirit For who doubteth but that he hath set up his Ordinances in the Church for this end that in them he might meet those of his who desire to draw neer unto Him and by these Ordinances as by a Mean appointed for that end convey to them that Blessing and Grace which were he present with us in the flesh he would bestow upon them This being laid down for a Ground I build upon it thus but ther is none other of Christs Ordinances in which and by which a Christian can present his Infants to Christ with expectation of his Blessing excepting this of Baptism Consequently either by Baptism they may be presented to Christ for his blessing or not at all If not at all Either Christs presence in his Ordinances is not equivalent to his Corporall presence or some prohibition hath in a speciall maner put in a Barr to keep them off from his Ordinances which did not keep them of from him when here upon earth If any such there be let it be named if not Then is ther a sufficient ground to warrant the Parents bringing their children to Christ in his Ordinances and particularly in Baptism that ther-in they may expect the Benefit of Christs Benediction I know what hath been objected viz. That ther is a Barr to hinder Infants implyed in thes texts Math. 28.19 Mar. 16.16 Act. 8.36 from whence this Argument is framed without Faith none may be baptised Infants want Faith and therfore They may not be baptised And then To what purpose should they be presented to that Sacrament To which I answer That granting the Assumption to be true tho if a man deny it as some do Vide Greg. Decretal lib. 3. cap. 3. De Baptismo ejus effectu I see not how it can be proved But I say let it be granted that Infants have not Faith The Proposition is utterly fals viz. That without Faith none may be baptised For neither do the texts prove it and besides ther is good reason against it 1. The texts prove it not 1. Not Mat. 28.19 This indeed sheweth what the Ministery must do Not what the People The Ministery must teach all Nations But defineth nothing whether they may not be baptised before they have learned or before they do beleev much less doth it say None but beleevers may be baptized 2. Nor Mar. 16. This text sheweth what is the issue of Beleeving and bâ—ing Baptised viz. That such shall be saved and contrarily He that beleeveth not shall be damned But saith not That none may be baptised who beleeveth not Ob. But the Order of the Words doth inferr it Beleeving set before Baptising Sol. I reply That Doctrines collected from the order of words are not alway sound nor such Arguments conclusive Ex. gr Mat. 3.6 they were baptised confessing their sinns And Joh. 3.5 Born again of water and of the Spirit Here is Baptised before Confessing and Water before Spirit yet doubtless they did
act of the Parents corruption of Nature is propagated their act it is tho not voluntary in them So by the act of the Parents in this it is a voluntary act by Faith laying hold upon the Promise of God in that Sacrament is obtained for the Infant and bestowed upon him the Grace of Regeneration This to be the root and spring of future holines and righteousnes as the other was the root and spaun of wickednes and profaness Ob. It is said That every man must live by his own faith not by anothers Sol. By his faith indeed it is said that the just shall live Hab. 2.4 It is not said Not by anothers this is not in the text of the Prophet Nor doth the text speak simply of the Benefit it self gained by Faith but of the Pre-assurance ther-of No pre-assurance of Salvation but by Faith But this doth not prove That by his faith the Parent may not obtain for his child this benefit of Baptism the Remedy for that Malady We read in the Gospell That the woman of Canaan obtained mercy for her daughter The man for his lunatick sonn the Centurion for his servant the friends and neighbours for the Palsie-sick man Which instances have been alleged by Divines to manifest this point in hand viz. The Benefit of Baptism obtained for the child by the Faith of the Parents Bernard Seâ—m 66. in Cantica Ecbertus contra Cathacos Serm. 7. Remigius on Mat. 15.21 Calvin Harmon on MÃ t 9. That note of Remigius is worth the noting She saith not Help my daughter but help me and have mercy on me and so Mar. 9.21 The father of the Lunatick saith If thou canst do any thing have compassion on us and help us He puts himself in as a Co-partner of his childs misery Say the same here It is a mercy to the Father that he can prevail for his child who if he do rightly understand himself suffereth in his child yea not only by the way of compassion but as feeling the smart and punishment of himself And therfore hath need to sue unto God for the Removing of that punishmâ—nt which lyeth upon himself in his child Yea he hath this reason to châ—llenge it at the hand of God by the prayer of Faith that so he may obtain the fulnes of the Promise made to the faithful in the Covenant of Grace Infants are part of their Parents So that the promise of Grace mentioned in the Covenant betwixt God and the Faithfull Gen. 17. is not ratified to the whole Parent except also it do extend to his Infants So then it is the Faith of the Parent laying hold on the Promise which qualifieth his Infant for the Grace and good effect of Baptism Nay yet more This text on which the Argument was grounded Mat. 19. cometh yet neerer to the point For first the blessing of Christ which the Parents sought and found for their children was not terminated in an externall and corporall Benefit as per-adventure it might be replyed touching those former Instances Doubtless the Blessing of Christ extended to the good of their souls and yet procured by the Faith of the Parents without any concurrence of Faith in the Infants I will not per-emptorily affirm it But probable enough it is that these Parents having been by Johns Baptism directed to Christ when they knew him brought their children to Him to receiv a further blessing from him even that which John told them he could not give but they must expect it from another even from Christ Next it may be worth the noting That our Saviour saith Suffer little children to come unto mee To come not To be brought The act of the Parent is reputed the act of the child That none may deride the saying of the Ancient Credit in alio sicut peccavit in alio He beleeveth and cometh to Christ in and by his Parent as formerly he had sinned in the loins of another Corollary To conclude this first Argument Since by that text of our Blessed Saviour we have ground to believ That Infants presented to him are accepted Since what persons might be brought to him may be presented to his Ordinance There being no barr put in by any word of Christ to keep them of Nay more Since the Faith of the Parent doth lay hold upon the promise of Grace not only for himself but for his Infants yea ther is ground to believ the imputation of the Parents faith to the Infant I conclude ther is sufficient ground in Scripture to warrant Parents to present their Infants to this Ordinance and that with expectation to obtain the Grace and Benefit of the same The second Argument THis I ground upon the words of our Saviour Mat. 28.0 A charge given to the Apostles to instruct the Nations whom they should convert to the Faith to instruct them I say in the observation of all such Ordinances as Christ had commended to them This Observation enjoyned hath speciall reference to matters of Discipline for the right Ordering and Government of the Churches and Assemblies of Christians in which he instructed his Apostles no lesse than in matters of Faith and Doctrine as it is evident out of Act. 1.2 where is mention made of some Commandements which Christ gave to his Apostles touching things pertaining to the kingdom of God And it is no less evident by some passages in the New Testament ex gr Cor. 11.2 2 Thes 2.15 2 Tim. 2.2 that some things were delivered to the Churches and particularly to the Ministers ther-of which were not then committed to writing but delivered from Hand to Hand called therfore Traditions These were not matters of Doctrine especially not Articles of Faith None such do we acknowledge but what are delivered and set down in the writings of the Holy Apostles and Evangelists But matters of Discipline and Rules of good order in the Church These Ordinances sett up and practised by th'appointment of the Apostles are equivalent in Authority to what Christ himself hath immediatly ordained Hence that of St. Paul Cor. 14.37 Consequently a Ground on which Conscience may build and therby may assure it self that ther-in it doth not sinn against God Of the which we cannot doubt if reading that of Cor. 11.16 we note what is the Question and what is the Resolution The Question is Whether it were indifferent for men and women to be covered or not covered in the Church-assemblies as they listed St. Paul saith No it is not but the Men must do so and the Women so Now saith he If any man be contentious q d if he will presumptuously contend against all reason that the thing is indifferent and so he may in this use his own liberty What then why saith he We have no such Custome nor the Churches of God q d The Custome of the Church which is establisht must over-rule mens froward fancies and stand for a law to quiet the conscience of him that is willing to be satisfied So
then the Customes of the Church ordained by the Apostles are a Ground of satisfaction Nor are they therfore in themselves less authenticall because they are not mentioned in the text of Scripture as prescribed by the Apostles if yet it may appear that from them they fetch their first Originall It is not the writing that giveth things their Authority See Hooker Ecclesiasticall Polity lib. 1 sect 14. pag 44. Field on the Church lib. 4.20 but the worth and credit of Him that delivereth them tho but by word and lively voice onely More certainty to us-ward things have by writing but not more Authority in themselves ex gr That saying of our Saviour not mentioned by the Evangelists yet now known to be his by the Allegation of St. Paul Act. 20.35 That Prophâ—cy of Enoch Jude 14. These in themselves were noâ— less authentick truths before than after those allegations So for Apostolicall Customes Those mentioned in the Scripture have a more unquestioned Certainty than Traditions but not greater Authority Neither is this to sett up Tradition as do the Papists to the prejudice of the Scripture Because we admit none for Apostolicall which either are contrary to the Scripture or which may not by good reason from some text of Scripture be confirmed for Apostolicall You see whither all this tendeth viz. To make way for this Assumption That if the Baptizing of Infants may reasonably be judged one of those Apostolicall Traditions one of these Church-Customs which were established in the Churches according to the commandement of Christ Then is ther sufficient Ground in Scripture to warrant the use and practise of it And tho ther be no mention of it in the text of Scripture yet if it may appear to have been ordained by th'Apostles and used by the Churches even from the dayes of the Apostles why should it not be acknowledged to be the commandement of Christ and so a Ground for Conscience to build upon Well But you will say how may it appear to have been a custome of the Churches ordained by the Apostles Here it may be worth our Observation That the pattern and president from whence most if not all of them was â—aken was the custome of Israel in the Old Testament It is the observation of Jerome Ut sciamus traditiones Apostolicas sumptas ex veteri Teâ—â—amento Quod Aâ—ron fiâ—â— ejus atque Levitâ—e in Templo â—â—crunt hoc sibi Episcopi Presbyteri atque Diaconi vendâ—â—ant in Ecclia Hieron Epla 85. ad Evagrium And this may be one speciall reason why the Providence of God did not take so much care for the writing of every Custome and Ordinance for the Government of the Church-Assemblies in the New Testament Because as ther was not so much danger of Corruption in them as in points of Doctrine So the President from whence they were take being at hand if any aberration did creep in it might easily be amended by reducing it to the pattern Yea and who can tell whether the wisdom of God did not hereby provide to uphold the credit of the Church of Israel and the Authority of the writings of Moses and the Prophets against the frowardnes of some who were but too apt and ready to dis-esteem them That the Institutions of God by Moses for the Church of Israel were the Pattern for the Apostolicall Traditions which were appointed for the Discipline and Order to be observed in the Christian Congregations it will appear more evidently if we consider that the subject matter of these Orders are Times Places Persons and the like In all which the Apostles by the Commandement of Christ setled such Rules as were consonant to what had been formerly in the Church of Israel That we might know that no better Orders for the Church can be devised than such as in Conformity to the Church of the Old Testament may justly and without wrong to the time of Truth and Grace be framed and as it were thence translated Was it not for this cause that divers particulars which should be in the Christian Churches are prophetically described in phrases taken from the Church of Israel See these texts Esai 66.21 23. Zech. 12.16 I said Without wrong to the time of Truth and Grace Because as some judiciall lawes were peculiar to that Nation and to that Age of the World and so may not be now taken into the Statutes of the Common-wealth So some Ecclesiasticall Rites were peculiar to that Age of the Church and may not now be taken into the Canons of the Christian Church tho others may which are more morall and so more perpetuall Ex. gr In the Old Testament ther was one day in seven set a part to be a Day of Holy Rest i. e. a time for the Assemblies and Holy Convocations meeting together for the works of Piety and Devotion In imitation where-of th'Apostles by the Direction of our Blessed Saviour consecrated the first day of the week to the same ends and uses and gave it that honourable name which still it beareth The Lords Day Then for Places Israel had their Synagogues beside the Temple And who knoweth not that even in th'Apostles times ther were places sett apart for the Assemblies to meet in and even then began to be called Churches So for Persons Israel had those who were sett apart to the service of the Altar and the Temple Accordingly the Apostles ordained in severall Churches certain Elders men sett apart and separated to the work and office of the Ministry who by that solemn Rite and Ceremony of their Ordination might be known and acknowledged to receiv from God a speciall designation to that function from which they might not return to secular employments and the cares of the world The maintenance of them doth St. Paul affirm to be ordained of the Lord in conformity to the Ordinance of the Old Testament Cor. 9.13.14 And whether the subordination of Some in the Ministery to other in the same Order were not likewise an Apostolicall Institution appointed by Christ and this also fetcht from the pattern of Moses I dispute not But this I make no question will be acknowledged by all That the Censures of the Church That the Directions given to the Church how to proceed in the execution of those Censures That these I say were received from Israel and that not only by the Apostles appointing them Cor. 5. Tit. 3. but also by our Saviour himself Mat. 18.15 That the Liberty which women have to come to the Table of the Lord must be acknowledged a Tradition of the Apostles taken from the Pattern of the Passover Nay yet more The Custome of the Apostles to baptise the whol housholds of them that beleeved and that immediatly upon the Conversion of the Master of the family and his subscription to the Faith of Christ whence they should have it except from that like pattern and President in the Old Testament viz. Abraham circumcising all the