The Birth Privilege, Tract
THE BIRTH-PRIVILEDGE.
GAL. 2.15.
We who are Jewes by nature, and not ſinners of the Gentiles.
THis Chapter contains a two-fold Narration of the Apoſtle,The Introduction. 1. Of his journey to Jeruſalem, with the ſeverall occurrents which happened there: brought in by him for the vindication of his Apoſtleſhip, from the firſt to the eleventh verſ. 2. Of his dealing with Peter at Antioch, which Narration ſome ſay is continued to the end of the Chapter, others that it is broke off at the ſeventeenth verſe, and in the verſes that follow the Apoſtle doth not relate what he ſaid to Peter, but directs his words to the Galathians to whom he writes, which difference I intend not now to examine. My text is within this laſt Narration or report of the Apoſtle.
In which obſerve,
1. The occaſion given by Peter: Before that certain came from James he did eat with the Gentiles, but when they were come he withdrew, Verſe 12.and ſeparated himſelfe.
2. The Iſſue which followed upon this carriage of his,Verſe 13. And the other Iewes diſſembled likewiſe with him, inſomuch that Barnabas alſo was carried away with their diſſimulation.
3. The Arguments brought for cōviction of Peter of this error, which are two,
Firſt,Verſe 14. in the fourteenth verſe, If thou, being a Iew, liveſt after the manner of the Gentiles, and not as doe the Iewes, why compelleſt thou the Gentiles to live as doe the Iewes? Thus the Argument runs, It is unreaſonable to draw others into a practice, that thou thy ſelfe purpoſely forbeareſt: But thou thy ſelfe keepeſt not the Jewiſh Rites and Ordinances; And therefore it is an unreaſonable, and a blame-worthy practice, by thy example to compell other-to their obſervation: yea, thou being a Jew takeſt thy ſelfe to have freedome, unreaſonably then doſt thou draw on others, who were never under any ſuch obligation.
The ſecond Argument is in the fifteenth and ſixteenth Verſes,Verſes 15, 16. We who are Iewes by nature, and not ſinners of the Gentiles, Knowing that a man is not juſtified by the works of the law, but by the ſaith of Ieſus Chriſt, even we have beleeved in Ieſus Chriſt, that we might be juſtified by the faith of Chriſt, and not by the works of the Law: for by the works of the Law ſhall no fleſh be juſtified: which is thus inforced: In that way wherein we who are Jewes, with all our birth-priviledges, cannot attain to righteouſneſſe; we may not teach the Gentiles to attain to it: But we who are Jewes by nature, and not ſinners of the Gentiles, cannot this way attain to righteouſneſſe: We know that a man is juſtified by faith, we are compelled to quit the Law, and to cleave to faith without works for juſtification.
The words of the text contain,
Firſt,Diviſion. the Priviledge of Peter, Paul, Barnabas, with the reſt of the Jewes.
Secondly, The Character of the Gentiles, in oppoſition to the Iewes.
As to the full purpoſe, for which the words are brought by the Apoſtle, they have (for the ſenſe of them) their dependance on the words that follow; but ſo farre as they contain the priviledge of the Iewes, in oppoſition to, and above the Gentiles, ſo farre they are full of themſelves, ſhewing firſt poſitively, what himſelf and Peter were: Iewes by nature: Secondly, Negatively, what they were not; ſinners of the Gentiles.
For ſome explication:Explication. Nature is here taken, not in the proper, but vulgar acceptation, for birth or deſcent from Anceſtors: As uſually, in our common phraſe of ſpeech, we ſay men are naturally Dutch, French, Spaniſh, Iriſh, when they are ſuch born and bred, this Scripture therefore Camero cites for one, in which the Apoſtle ſpeaks after the vulgar manner: we have a Scripture paralell with this Rom. 11.24. where Nature, and naturall is only by birth and off-ſpring: Peter, Paul, Barnabas were all naturally Iewes, born of Jewiſh parents and bred up in the way and Religion of the Jewes: ſuch only Chriſt choſe for Apoſtles, being himſelf a Miniſter of the Circumciſion: Rom. 15.8. Act. 22.3. Phil. 3.5. Act. 4.36. Exod. 19.6. Deut. 4.7, 8. Rom. 3.1. Pſal. 147.20.Peter therefore being one of the twelve, muſt neceſſarily be ſuch, Paul was ſuch, as we know from his owne mouth, a Iew, and of the tribe of Benjamin, Barnabas was ſuch of the tribe of Levi. And being ſuch, they enjoyed a priviledge which the Gentiles wanted, they were by birth & off-ſpring of a Nation that is holy: No Nation was ſo great as they who had God ſo nigh unto them, who had Statutes and Iudgements ſo righteous. The Jew had every way Prerogatives & advantages, but chiefly the Oracles of Gods God had not dealt ſo with every Nation: when other Nations were without God, they had God nigh unto them, when others were unclean, they were holy: This great priviledge of birth Gentiles wanted, and ſo were by off-ſpring ſinners, as birth renders all ſo they remaine, unholy and uncleane among the unholy and uncleane without any ſuch title to the Covenant of God that thereby they might obtaine any other denomination, they are dogs while the people in Covenant are children. And by this meanes the ſeeming oppoſition which is betweene this text and that of the Apoſtle Epheſ. 2.3. is eaſily reconciled; Here the Apoſtle makes an oppoſition in nature betweene Jewes and Gentiles; Jewes by nature had a priviledge above Gentiles; there he makes Jew and Gentile in nature equall: We (ſaith he) were by nature children of wrath as well as others, as well as heathens that have no birth-priviledge; Nature in that text is not the ſame as Nature in this: Nature there is taken for the qualification of nature, which is equally defiled in Jewes as Gentiles, which is there evidenced in the converſation of the Jewes being (before converſion by grace) the very ſame with the Gentiles: Among whom alſo we all had our converſation in times paſt, in the luſts of our fleſh, Epheſ. 2.3.fulfilling the deſires of the fleſh, and of the mind, and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others. Nature here is taken for a birth-priviledge, and ſo the Jewes (though in themſelves ſinners) are reputed an holy people, a people by Covenant holy to the Lord: Nature ſimply conſidered is ſtained, and renders Jewes and Gentiles equally ſinners and obnoxious to Gods wrath, of which Juſtification by faith is an acknowledgement as the Apoſtle here ſhewes, verſ. 17. But birth of Iewiſh anceſtors, of the ſtocke of Iſraell, puts them into a ſelect condition, into the number of a people holy to the Lord; Neither is this any contradiction; Common things dedicated for holy ſervice and uſe are holy, A people by nature ſinners, dedicated to the Lord, are for holy ſervice and uſe, for the ſervice of the Lord, when others are for ſervice of Idols; Therefore Ieruſalem, a City none of the holieſt for any tranſcendent manners of the Inhabitants thereof, is yet called by the Evangeliſt the Holy city, Mat. 4.5.by reaſon of the temple and worſhip there that were holy, and from hence this obſervation followes;
A people that enjoy Gods Ordinances convey to their Iſſue a priviledge to be reputed of a ſociety that is holy, to be numbred amongſt, not uncleane, Obſervation.but holy perſons.
For proofe, ſee the Covenant of God made with Abraham, Gen. 17.7.I will eſtabliſh my Covnant betweene me and thee, and thy ſeed after thee in their generations, for an everlaſting Covenant, to be a God unto thee and to thy ſeede after thee. God is one party in this Covenant, Abraham and his poſterity make the other; theſe in their ſucceeding generations are the people of God, and ſo by nature (that is birth priviledge) holy. And the Apoſtle ſpeaking of the Iſraelites in his time, ſaith, To them pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, Rom. 9.4.and the Covenants, the giving of the Law, and the ſervice, and the promiſes. They were a people in Covenant, having the holy oracles of God they were the ſervants of the great God, and therefore the glory above others was theirs. Hence is it that the Name of God is called upon them age after age,Ier. 14.9. Iſa. 63.19. and not upon any others that joyne not themſelves to them. The land of their habitation where they dwelt, and enjoyed this peculiar priviledge is ordinarily ſtiled the holy land, Iſa 8.8. Iſa. 19.18. Deut 14.1, 2. Iſa 64.18. Rom. 11.16, 17.being the land of Immanuel. And the language which they there ſpoke the holy language being a marke to diſcerne the people of God: The diſtinguiſhing and diſcriminating Epithite given to them was ſtill holy: Even all of this roote who were branches of Abraham, Iſaack, Iacob, all of this lumpe whereof Abraham, Iſaack, Iacob were the firſt fruits, they peculiarly had this honour to receive in their fleſh the ſigne and ſeale of this Covenant, and that in infancy, almoſt as ſoone as borne, being eight dayes old, which was their diſtinction from all others:Gen. 17.13. Iew and Circumciſion, Iew and the people of God were ſtill the ſame.
To adde ſome more ſtrength to this obſervation,Enlargements. take notice of theſe enlargements.
1. A looſe life in a parent, who by birth priviledge is of the people of God, doth not diveſt his iſſue of this priviledge, to be of the people of God, but they are, with a non obſtante, (notwithſtanding any ſuch vicious wayes of the parent) to be enrolled in this number: For proofe of this, looke upon that act of Ioſhua: when the people were got out of the wilderneſſe and were brought into the land of Canaan; Ioſh. 5.6, 7.The children of Iſrael walked forty yeares in the wilderneſſe, till all the people, that were men of Warre, which came out of Aegypt, were conſumed, becauſe they obeyed not the voice of the Lord: And the children which he raiſed up in their ſtead, them Joſhuah circumciſed, for they were uncircumciſed, they had not circumciſed them in the way: you ſee what the fathers were, yet the children Ioſhuah ordered to be circumciſed: concerning their converſation, the parents were enemies, but as touching the election, the choyce made of God, the Iſſue is to be numbred among the beloved: Who had a worſe father then Ioſiah, yet where was there a better ſon, a circumciſed man,2 Chro. 34.3. who in youth began to ſeeke the God of his father David?
2. Misbeliefe in a parent, diveſts not the Iſſue of this birth-priviledge, though the father erre in the faith yet the child is not to be ſhut out of the number of believers: We have, in this particular, our Apoſtle for a preſident: Had misbeliefe in the parent, denuded the child of this priviledge, St Paul, had not beene a Iew by nature, but an heretick or ſectary by nature, being before converſion a Phariſee, Acts 23.6. Acts 20.5. Mat. 16.6, 11.and the ſonne of a Phariſee: Scribe was a name of office, but Phariſee the name of a ſect: and therefore Chriſt warnes to beware of the leaven, that is, of the doctrine of the Phariſees, as of the Sadduces; ſuch was Pauls parentage, and yet by deſcent and of-ſpring he is of the people of the Iewes.
3. Apoſlaſie from the faith in an immediate parent, who himſelfe by deſcent was of the people of God, doth not debarre the Iſſue of this priviledge. Ahaz was ſuch,2 Chro. 28.2, 3, 4. yet his poſterity were of the Iewes, and not ſinners of the Gentiles. Thou haſt taken thy ſonnes and thy daughters, whom thou haſt borne unto me, Eze. 16.28, 21.and theſe haſt thou ſacrificed unto them. Is this of thy whoredomes a ſmall matter, that thou haſt ſlaine my children, and delivered them, to cauſe them to paſſe through the fire for them? Theſe men of ſpirituall whoredome, worſhippers of the Idoll Moloch, bring forth children to God, they make themſelves, ſinners of the Gentiles, by their going a whoring from God, and yet their children are by nature Iewes, their children God doth owne, and calls his children. While the parents live within the pale of the Church, that the ſeed may enjoy ſaving Ordinances, they are to be ſo accounted.
4. Illegitimation of birth, adulterous copulation in the parents, diveſteth not ſuch Iſſue of this priviledge, David had never in that manner ſought in faſting and prayer his childs life, had he beleeved that he muſt not have beene of the ſeed of the Jewes, but the uncircumciſed heathen.Gen. 38.29. Pharez was of ſuch a birth, yet who bare a greater name and glory in Iſrael then he? and his family? even where the illegitimation of his birth is noted, there the glory of his Race is magnified, which is yet further honoured,Ruth. 4.18. in that Chriſt, according to the fleſh, was made of his ſeed, That ſeed of Abraham per Eminentiam was out of his loynes. Iephtah, was indeed driven out by his brethren, but not becauſe that he was not of the ſeed of the Iewes and people of God,Iudg. 11.2. but becauſe they would not have him to ſhare of the inheritance among them.
1. The maine ground of this, is the great Charter of Heaven, Reaſons. 1 which God pleaſes to grant unto thoſe whom he takes, and chooſes to himſelfe upon earth. If a King grant to any ſubject a perſonall priviledge, as to keepe his great Seale, to be Lord Treaſurer, this priviledge dyes with him, his poſterity hath nothing to doe with the Seale or Exchequer, unleſſe the Prince finding them qualified, makes a ſecond choice of them, which doth not often happen. But in caſe the priviledge be perpetuall and ſucceſſive, and not terminated in the perſon, but the words of the grant rune to them and their heires, then the priviledge remaines to poſterity. Noblemen with us, have their honours, not for themſelves only, but their Iſſue; and ſome men have Offices, which they call Offices of inheritance: And all Engliſh ſubjects, have divers Immunities and freedomes. Now the great Charter of Heaven,Gen. 17.7. Acts 2.38. runs in the largeſt words, to them and their ſeed after them, in all generations.
2. This is of the nature of thoſe things, Reaſons. 2 which deſcend from parent to child, from Anceſtors to poſterity; In that Religion which is of God, we have here found it, and all other Religions doe lay claime to it.
There are thoſe things indeed, which are perſonally inherent in men, and proper to them, ſo that they cannot convey them to their iſſue, there is no deriving of them to others by ſucceſſion, as
1. Individuall accidents of the body, wounds, ſcarres or ſingular comelineſſe of feature, theſe are ſo in the parent, that they are not conveyed to their children.
2. Habits or proper guifts, whether acquired by paines, or infuſed. The ſonne of a learned man inherits not his fathers guifts. The ſonne of an Artificer is no ſuch Artiſt. The ſonne of a Prophet hath not by vertue of birth the guift of pophecy, nor is the ſonne of a regenerate man, endowed with ſaving grace for that reaſon.
There are on the contrary, thoſe things that paſſe from parent to child, which the parent by nature or ſpeciall priviledge, hath power to convey, as
1. The eſſentiall or integrall parts of a species, with the naturall properties, that doe accompany it, ſo one bruit beaſt brings forth another, one bird brings forth another, and man brings forth one of man-kind.
2. The priviledges or burdens, which in Family or Nation are hereditary, they are conveyed from parents to poſterity, from Anceſtors to their Iſſue: As is the father, ſo is the child, as reſpecting theſe particulars: The child of a Free-man with St Paul is free borne: Acts 22.28.The child of a Noble man is noble; The child of a bond-man (where ſervants were wholy their Maſters to diſpoſe) is a bond-man likewiſe.Exod. 21.4. So the child, of a Turke is a Turke; The child of a Pagan is a Pagan; The child of a Iew is a Iew; The child of a Chriſtian is a Chriſtian: As by vertue of the grand Charter of Heaven among the people of God, this priviledge doth deſcend: So it is of the nature of thoſe things that are deſcendable.
3. Reaſons. 3 The name of Iew or Chriſtian would not long hold in any family, among any people, if this truth (that there is a generation, according to the fleſh, which have this priviledge to be accounted of the people of God) may not be yeelded, but as it is in trades, the father is of one, the ſonne of another, ſo we ſhould ſee it in religions: But God provideth for a continuance in ſucceſſion, from age to age, from generation to generation; he keeps them ſtill within Covenant, though many doe degenerate.
But ſome ſay,Exception. all this is blowne away at one breath: That the Iewes had this priviledge cannot be denied. But this was a priviledge peculiar to the ſeed of Abrahams fleſh, and not to the ſeed of his ſaith: Beleeving Iewes had this birthright-priviledge, Beleeving Chriſtians have not, they muſt make profeſſion of their faith before they be accounted among them that be holy.
I anſwer,Satisfaction, 1. In the Negative, the Charter not reverſt. Such a grant God did once vouchſafe by free Charter to his people: How can it be made appeare that ever it was reverſt, or any ſuch limit put unto it? The Church of God hath held it in Fee by vertue of this grant from Abraham to this very houre, and there is no word of God to challenge them for uſurpation; They that will out us of ſo long poſſeſſion, muſt make their plea punctuall for our eviction.
Secondly, Heb. 8.6.Chriſtians can produce new Covenant-advancing Scriptures, that Chriſts comming put them into a better and more comfortable condition then were beleevers in former ages: I would faine have them to produce any one new Covenant-depreſſing Scripture, to ſhew that we in any caſe are in a worſe or more uncomfortable condition then our fathers.
If it be ſaid that though this Birth-priviledge be taken away,Object. yet we are not in a worſe condition having it in other more deſireable things enlarged.
Let theſe then ſhew when,Anſw. and where this was taken away, and what was given in lieu and recompence of this want, and greateſt diſcomfort that can come to a parent, as a parent, to have his Iſſue expunged out of the number of Gods people who are holy: Let them produce thoſe Scriptures, which ſo difference the old and new Covenant made with believers, that the one ſhould be perpetuall, the other perſonall; That the Covenant with the Iew ſhall tranſcend the Covenant with Chriſtians, as an Inheritance for ever exceeds a Grant for terme of life: Let them give us an hint of any Reaſon why this priviledge ſhould belong to the heares of Abrahams body, and not to the heires of his faith. That reaſon held forth by ſome, that Chriſt ſhould come out of his loynes is of no force, it excludes all the tribes out of that priviledge but Iudah, when every tribe of Iſrael in this were equall with Iudah, every familie of Iudah's tribe but David's; And moſt of all,Gen. 17.12, 13 it would have excluded the ſeed of the Proſelites, that according to the fleſh were ſtrangers to Iſrael, when yet in this priviledge they were equall.Exo. 12.48, 49 2. In the Affirmative. The priviledge cotinued. Six Arguments.
But not to reſt in Negatives, and Generals, (though the firſt grant being preſuppoſed, this might abundantly ſatisfie) but to come to ſome Poſitive proofes, particularly evincing this priviledge of Chriſtians.
1. The Apoſtle in time of the new Teſtament, when the Spirit was actually given, propounds this Covenant in as full a latitude, and ample extent, as ever it was made to Abraham, or belonged to the Iewes, yea in the like words, as under the old Covenant it was delivered: Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the Name of Ieſus Chriſt for the remiſsion of ſinnes, and ye ſhall receive the gift of the holy Ghoſt. For the promiſe is unto you, Act. 2.38, 39.and to your children, and to all that are aſarre off, even as many as the Lord our God ſhall call. I doe not now diſpute the end, why this Covenant is there urged, it is enough for the preſent purpoſe, that ſuch a Covenant yet remaines, and ſo concludes the promiſe ſtill to ſtand in its antient latitude and extent. Had God in theſe laſt dayes put this limit to it, then the Apoſtle (now the prophecy of the laſt dayes was fulfilled) would not have put this latitude upon it.
2. The Beleevers of the Gentiles ſucceed the Iewes in the Covenant, Iewes were broken off that Gentiles might be graffed in;Rom. 11.16, 17. and Iewes being broken off Gentiles were graffed in for them: And beſide Scripture-ſilence of any abridgement of priviledge to the ſucceſſor enjoyed by the predeceſſor, which is a good ground of claime to the ſame, we have further Evidence in the ſame place, that it is divolved upon Gentiles in as large a way as ever it was enjoyed by Iewes: We are now branches of that root by vertue of this inſition; and if the root be holy the branches are holy, is the Apoſtles argument, and if the firſt-fruits be holy, the lump is holy.
Will it be ſaid, that this propoſition is brought by the Apoſtle,Object. to prove a remaining holineſſe in the people of the Iewes, that they are not ſo caſt off but that they ſhall be againe received, but intends no proofe of Holineſſe in ſucceſſion to the Gentiles.
To this I anſwer, firſt, Anſw. 1.That a propoſition univerſally true may be applyed to all particulars; This poſition is ſuch, and being by the Apoſtle confeſſedly applyed to the Iewes, is of equall truth being applyed to the Gentiles.
Secondly, I ſay, if the holineſſe of the Root (Abraham, Iſaac, Anſw. 2.and Iacob receiving the promiſes) be an argument of weight to prove that the whole body of the people of the Iewes (were it not for their preſent actuall unbelief) were all holy, with a federall holineſſe, and that this their unbeliefe ſhall yet be done away that they may be again (as before) holineſſe to the Lord; Then it much more proves that the Gentiles remaining in the Root, and continuing in the faith are univerſally Root and branch holy.
But this with the Apoſtle is an argument of weight, as plainly appears in the Chapter: See verſ. 28. and 29. As concerning the Gospel, they are enemies for your ſakes: but as touching the election they are beloved for the fathers ſakes. They were enemies to the Goſpel for the Gentiles ſake, that they might be received, but beloved for their ſakes out of whoſe loynes they iſſued, and that they ſhall therefore be again received is there alſo demonſtrated, ſeeing the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.
Will it be further ſaid,Object. that the Branches, actually by faith engraffed, are holy, but it doth not follow that theſe, as a Root, tranſmit any ſuch holineſſe to their Iſſue.
To this I anſwer, Anſw. 1 that the conſequence is neceſſary, firſt, becauſe the branches of Anceſtors are the Root of poſteritie, being made an holy branch; in reference to their iſſue they now become an holy Root: Ieſſe was a branch of Abrahams ſtock,Iſai. 11.1. yet he was the Root of David and of Chriſt: A ſubordinate Magiſtrate is a ſubject, in reference to his ſuperior, yet a man of authoritie and command in reſpect of his inferiours: Each man is his fathers child, but his childs father: So it is here, a branch of thoſe that went before, is the root of thoſe that follow after.
Secondly, Anſw. 2 The Apoſtle hath not at all to deale in that place with a perſonall holineſſe, but with an holineſſe derivative and of ſucceſſion, the perſonall holineſſe mentioned in the objection, and maintained by the adverſaries of this Doctrine, is qualitative and inherent, derived from no other Root then Chriſt; this here, is from Abraham, Iſaac, and Iacob, receiving the promiſes: Either no holineſſe at all comes this way to Beleevers, as from Abrahams ſtock, or elſe it is ſuch as Abraham by vertue of the Covenant doth communicate to poſteritie.
3. The Grand Birth-priviledge, by the Jewes enjoyed, is to be an holy Nation; Exod. 19.6. Deut. 14.1, 2. Iſai. 63.18.… 1 Pet. 2.9.to have the whole body of their people, as diſtinguiſhed from others, accounted holy to the Lord: This was peculiarly their honour from age to age, from generation to generation; But this honour to be a choſen generation, an holy Nation, a people peculiar (Phraſes as high as ever were given the Jewes) is given to beleeving Chriſtians: Chriſtians therefore in this Birth-priviledge equall the Nation of the Jewes.
Neither will this be avoyded,Object. by affirming that the text in Peter, is meant of the Church inviſible, the living and lively members of Chriſt, who are all holy by an inherent qualitative holineſſe of ſanctification; So that here is not any equalizing of the body of Chriſtians with the Nation of the Jewes, but only an alluſion to the titles, given the Iewes to advance the Excellencie of regenerate Chriſtians, called according to Gods purpoſe.
The contrary to this in the text is cleare:Anſw. Firſt, by looking backe to the words that there precede; It is meant of all thoſe who doe not profeſſedly, with the unbeleeving Iewes, reject Chriſt Ieſus, which will yet more fully appeare by comparing the words of St Paul, Rom. 9.32, 33. But all that doe not profeſſedly reject Chriſt Ieſus, are not men called and qualified as before, Simon Magus had enough to make him one of this number: Secondly, by looking forward, to that which followes in the Character which the Apoſtle (before he ends his deſcription) addes:Hoſ. 2.23. Which in times paſt were not a people, but now are the people of God; A ſpeech taken from the Prophet, to ſet out the caſe of the Gentiles, as it is alſo by St Paul interpreted, Rom. 9.26. But the Gentiles, thus called, and of no people made a people, have all a Covenant-holineſſe, and not alwayes holineſſe inherent. The Gentiles are called from not-covenant, into covenant; from non-federation, into federation; This is that call, and therefore a call into Covenant: The Call of thoſe who are not a people; to be a people of God; is the call of Nations into Covenant, Deut. 32.21. Rom. 10.19. I will move them to jealouſie, Deut. 32.28. Rom. 10.19.with thoſe that are not a people, I will provoke them to anger, with a fooliſh Nation: But this in the text is ſuch a Call, and therefore it is the call of a people into Covenant.
4. If there yet remaine in the boſome of the Church, children born after the fleſh, ſo that the diſtinction of births as applyed to Abrahams ſeed, ſtill hath place among beleeving Chriſtians, And that which fully anſwers to Circumciſion of the fleſh remaineth among Chriſtians likewiſe, then it muſt needs follow, that there is in the Church, that priviledge of birth-holineſſe ſtill continuing: The conſequence is evident, ſeeing the birth of the fleſh, where this birth-priviledge is denyed, gives no Church-intereſt or title at all; neither doth Circumciſion of the fleſh, or that which is paralell with it, evidence any ſuch Intereſt or Title: All ſuch are excluded according to this Tenent, who are of carnall deſcent only, and can claime no other Intereſt.
This muſt needs be of force with them who affirme, that Infants (who formerly were members by vertue of birth-priviledge) then were deprived and caſt out, when the Iewes Church and State was abrogated, by the comming of Chriſt, and planting other Churches, farre different from that of the Iewes in many reſpects, That, conſtituted upon nature (they ſay) and the naturall ſeed of Abraham. This, upon grace, and the ſpirituall ſeed of Abraham; That, therefore termed Iſrael according to the fleſh, and circumciſion of the fleſh; This, Iſrael according to the Spirit, and circumciſion of the heart: If then there yet remaine, thoſe that are ſo ſtiled; infants of Chriſtians by their own argument, are not rejected, and no ſuch difference between Iew and Chriſtian, between the State of the Church then, and the State of the Church now, is to be admitted.
But there yet remaines in the boſome of the Church of Chriſtians thoſe that have no other title or intereſt then by vertue of birth after the fleſh: This diſtinction of births, which they ſay is abrogated, is of the ſame force and uſe now, as it was when Abraham was alive, and that which is full paralell with circumciſion of the fleſh ſtill remaines: The former, namely diſtinction of births, we have from St Paul: But as then he that was born after the fleſh, Gal. 4.29.perſecuted him that was borne after the Spirit, even ſo it is now. How is there truth in this aſſertion of the Apoſtle, that ſo it is now, if this diſtinction of births, be now abrogated and aboliſhed? if there be not in the Church of Chriſtians thoſe that have the ſame title, and no other, or more noble then had Iſhmael? of whom the Apoſtle is there to be underſtood.
I ſee the exception that will be taken by ſome at the phraſe [born of the fleſh] which ſome will interpret not by naturall deſcent, but corruption of nature. Object.But this can be the exception but of a few of thoſe who are herein adverſaries, ſeeing they beleeve no ſuch corruption of birth in Iſhmael, nor any other; Neither indeed were Abrahams children ever ſo diſtinguiſhed, by a birth in corruption, and a birth in grace, being all borne in corruption. Birth of the fleſh here is the ſame as kinſmen according to the fleſh, Rom. 9.3. and children of the fleſh, Rom. 9.8. But there no birth in corruption, but a birth of nature, and naturall deſcent is only underſtood: Men of no other then a carnall title perſecuted then, men that are thus, and no otherwiſe intitled to the number of the people of God take the ſame wayes now: Both branches of the diſtinction are therefore ſtill with Chriſtians.
For the latter, namely that which fully anſwers to the circumciſion of the fleſh we have from St Peter, who ſpeaking of ſalvation by Baptiſme puts by way of parentheſis this diſtinction,1 Pet. 3.21. Not the putting away the filth of the fleſh, but the anſwer of a good conſcience towards God: where, putting away the filth of the fleſh is the ſame with the Circumciſion of the fleſh, and the anſwer of a good conſcien e towards Gods, is the ſame with the circumciſion of the heart. This diſtinction is therefore ill applyed, when that which is outward and of the fleſh is only applied to Iewes; and that which is inward, and of the heart only unto Chriſtians. Deut. 30.6. Ier. 9.26.The Jewes had that which was inward, and of the heart, as well as we; and we have that which is outward and of the fleſh as well as they: Such doctrine will conclude the whole body of the Jewes without exception under condemnation, as having no holineſſe inward or ſpirituall; and all Chriſtians in a like generality in the ſtate of ſalvation, as being all inwardly holy and ſpirituall: we ſhall have neither high way rocky nor thorny ground, but only good ground, good and honeſt hearts among us, if it be circumciſion of the heart, and Iſrael according to the Spirit that alone denominates us Chriſtians.
5. The ſeed of beleeving parents under the Goſpell, muſt be lookt upon under one member of this diviſion in the text, the Apoſtles diſtinction is full and compleate, either they muſt be accounted of the people of God who are relatively and ſoederally holy, as were Jewes; or elſe out of the number, and under the ſecond head of unholy and out of Covenant, as were ſinners of the Gentiles; a third cannot be aſſigned; the Apoſtles diſtribution may not be challenged. If it be under the firſt head that they are lookt upon, we have what we contend for; If under the ſecond, then the heavy doome of ſinners, Epheſ. 2.12.Gentiles, Aliens is theirs; they are then without Chriſt, without hope, without God in the world, which will be heavy and unwelcome tidings to tender parents, that they bring not forth children (as the Jewes did) to God, but to the god of this world; that God doth not ſay of them (but Satan may) my children, leaving them in no better condition, then the ſeed of the Heathen, Pagans, Turks, Infidels, as is freely confeſſed by ſome. And what condition that is, we may learne from the Prophets David and Ieremy. Powre out thy fury upon the heathen that know thee not, Ier 10.25. Pſal. 79.6.and the families that call not upon thy name. The whole of their flocke, for ought in Scripture appeares, have no other portion.
6. We have the Apoſtles authority expreſſely affirming, that this birthright priviledge of Covenant-holineſſe ſtill appertaines to the ſeed of beleevers, where either of the parents are beleeving; The unbeleeving husband is ſanctified in the wife, 1 Co. 7.14.and the unbeleeving wiſe is ſanctified in the husband, elſe were your children uncleane, but now are they holy. The whole ſeed therefore is to be accounted in the number of thoſe that are holy (which in the text is the condition of the Jewes) and not among uncleane, which here the Apoſtle calleth, ſinners of the Gentiles. A birth-priviledge of holineſſe therefore ſtill remaines.
Here it is replyed that by holineſſe in this place is meant legitimation, Object.by uncleaneneſſe is underſtood baſtardy: ſo that the meaning of the Apoſtle is, elſe were your children ſpurious, of a baſtard birth, but now they are legitimate, as borne in wedlocke; The mariage is ſanctified in reſpect of Iſſue, not for covenant holineſſe, ſo as to put them into the number of an holy people, but to legitimize them, and to take the infamy of baſtardy away from them.
By way of anſwer I would make theſe demands; Firſt,Quaeres. Whether they will give the like interpretation of this text in hand, which is every way paralel, and anſwers in either of the branches? Doth the Apoſtle here meane, wee that are by birth legitimate, and not baſtards of the Gentiles; Phraſes thus paralel from one pen, will hardly admit interpretations ſo different.
Secondly, Whether ever they read in Scripture, or any other Authour theſe two oppoſite Epithites, uncleane and holy, in ſuch a ſenſe or meaning; that holy ſhould be legitimate, and uncleane ſpurious or baſtardy: In ſuch births uncleaneneſſe is indeed the parents ſinne, but I never read or heard that it was the childs Epithite: Singular opinions put men upon ſingular interpretations.
Thirdly, Whether it had been a baſtard birth, if neither party had been of the faith? whether mariage be not valid (being no Ordinance proper to the Church, but common to all man-kind) aſwell among heathens as Chriſtians?
But to give more particular ſatisfaction, as in the negative, that it is not meant of legitimation; ſo alſo in the affirmative that it is to be underſtood of a Covenant-holineſſe of the children of beleevers.
For the negative, 1. A reſult or fruit of faith in the parent, cannot be the legitimation of the Iſſue:Anſw. 1. Negative, Not legitimation. faith and legitimation of Iſſue being of diſtinct kinds. An unbeleever may have iſſue legitimate; and men profeſſing the faith, with Iudah, Gilead, David, may have iſſue illegitimate. But holineſſe in the text, is a fruit or reſult of faith in the parent; The unbeleeving, whether husband or wife, contributes nothing to this holineſſe; all that they doe is that (being maried to a beleever) they are no impediment: They are ſanctified, they doe not ſanctifie, The ſanctifying power, to the producing of the holineſſe of the Iſſue, is made proper to the beleeving party. The unbeleever is ſanctified, ſo that both together make an holy root to produce an holy branch.
It will be ſaid that beleeving is not in the text, the words are, that the unbeleeving husband is ſanctified in the wife, and the unbeleeving wife is ſanctified in the husband, not in the beleeving wiſe, nor in the beleeving husband, ſo that the text makes it not any reſult or fruit of faith.
This weake objection hath an eaſie anſwer, It is the wife of an unbeleeving husband, the husband of an unbeleeving wife, when the mariage is between a beleever, and an unbeleever.
Secondly, One parent is not to be preferred before another, as to be alone, in giving that honour to the iſſue in which both are equall: But here one parent is preferred before another, in giving this honour of holineſſe to the iſſue: Therefore it cannot be legitimation of the iſſue, in which either of both, whether beleeving or unbeleeving are equall: A Noble-man marrying a meane woman the Iſſue hath honour from one, legitimation alike from both; The wiſe is honoured, but doth not honour. So it is here, An infidell marrying a beleever is ſanctified, doth not ſanctifie; the iſſue hath this honour of holineſſe from the parent of honour, but legitimation (as all confeſſe) equally from either; ſomething elſe therefore then legitimation muſt needs be the meaning.
For the affirmative,2. In the Affirmative but Covenant-holineſſe. that it is meant of Covenant-holineſſe, That interpretation which here directly anſwers, that which in all reaſon was the Queſitum or ſcruple wherein the Corinthians in their letter to the Apoſtle deſired reſolution, That exactly anſwers each branch of the text, and runs full paralel with other places of Scripture, that muſt needs be taken for the interpretation. But this interpretation of Covenant-holineſſe is ſuch that anſwers their ſcruple, exactly agrees with each branch of the text, and runs full paralel with other places of Scripture. This therefore cannot be denied to be the genuine and full interpretation of the place.
For the firſt;It was their ſcruple. making it their ſcruple whether they might continue their marriage ſociety with one out of the Covenant of God, they could not but ſcruple what ſhould become of their Iſſue; whether they were to be accounted as they themſelves, of the number of the people of God, or to be excluded from them with their unbeleeving parent; eſpecially ſeeing in Ezraes time,Ezra 10.3. Nehe. 13.24. thoſe that married ſtrange wives were enjoyned to put them away, and ſuch as were borne of them; and in Nehemiah's time the Iſſue is branded as of a mixt and mongrell kind that were ſo deſcended: which is alſo further ſtrengthned by the Prieſts anſwer to the ſeverall caſes of conſcience, by Gods appointment propounded by Haggai the Prophet, If one beare holy fleſh in the skirt of his garment, Hag. 2.12.and with his skirt doe touch bread, or pottage, or wine, or oyle, or any meat, ſhall it be holy? And the Prieſt anſwered and ſaid; No. The touch of an uncleane thing by a cleane, doth not ſanctifie it, as the caſe is there reſolved:Verſ. 13. Againe, If one that is uncleane by a dead body, touch any of theſe ſhall it be uncleane? And the Prieſt anſwered and ſaid; it ſhall be uncleane. The touch of a cleane thing by an uncleane doth pollute it, as is there reſolved likewiſe: This might juſtly occaſion the Corinthians feare, that they and their iſſue might be polluted by ſociety with this uncleane party, and that the uncleane party or their iſſue, could not by them be ſanctified. And the Apoſtle returning anſwer to both (not only to their continuance in marriage-fellowſhip, but alſo to that which concernes their iſſue,) evidently manifeſts that their ſcruple was alike in both.
For the ſecond;It anſwers the text. that it fully agrees with the circumſtances of the text a Here is a couple joyned in marriage, one of them holy, of the people of God; the other unclean, a ſinner of the Gentiles, and a ſtranger to them; the Iſſue muſt take after the one, and the anſwer (as concerning the Iſſue) is fitted to both; To the unbeleeving negatively, through ſanctification in the beleeving partie they are not uncleane; to the beleever aſſirmatively, they are holy.
For the laſt: that it runnes paralell with other places of Scripture,Its paralell to other Scriptures. 1 Pet. 2.9. Deut. 54.1, 2. Iſai. 68.18. Matth. 15.16. this text is an abundant witneſſe: The people of God are ſtill thus honoured for an holy nation, an holy people, a people of holineſse: Men out of Covenant ſtill branded, as uncleane, dogs, ſinners, and the like appellations: This Scripture holds therefore firme for proofe of the aſſertion, That Chriſtians have their Birth-right Priviledge, that they tranſmit a Covenant-Holineſſe to their Iſſue, even to their whole poſterity.
Neither is it to purpoſe to object,Object. that contradictions here are joyned to produce one and the ſame effect, An holy and unholy perſon to bring forth holy Iſſue: This was the doubt which the Corinthians objected,Anſw. and the Apoſtle ſolves; ſeeing the unbeleever, whether husband or wife, is ſanctified; ſo that they joyntly make one Root for to bring forth an holy branch.
And thus it was (though the contrary be objected) in the time of the Law,Object. Anſw. one parent being within the Covenant, the childe was circumciſed; And therefore Paul circumciſing Timothy, whoſe father was a Greeke, the reaſon given is, that his Mother was a Ieweſse: Acts 16.1.And the Example of putting away of thoſe that were borne of ſtrange wives from Ezra 10. is ſtrangely by ſome here objected, ſeeing the wives themſelves were there put away, and here the Apoſtle (they know) orders otherwiſe: If they ſee that St Pauls rule accords not in the one, how is there a neceſſity that it ſhould accord in the other? Something there was in that Example ſpeciall and extraordinary, as there was in Mordecai's not bowing the knee to Haman: whether it were that now they were anew (as it were) to forme their Church, upon their return from Babylon; and were not willing to admit ſuch a mixture, eſpecially ſo many offending, as to make a conſiderable partie: or whether the Nations with whom they had joyned themſelves were of thoſe particularly forbidden them, Deut. 7. or under any ſpeciall curſe as Amalek was, which ſome conceive was the reaſon that Mordecai refuſed to give that honour to Haman an Amalekite: Certain it is that it agrees not with other preſidents; we have examples of Marriages not a few with Heathens, which though it was their ſin, yet there is no ſentence of nullitie paſſed, nor were the wives or Iſſue rejected: And the Corinthians caſe was yet fairer, their Marriage was without ſin, ſeeing they had not elſewhere to joyne themſelves in marriage, being then both parties heathens, and one partie being converted, the marriage by the Apoſtles ſentence ſtill holds, and the Iſſue to be reckoned with the beleeving parent.
Neither is here that which is proper to regeneration,Object. given (as ſome object) to naturall generation:
1. It was ſo with the Iewes, as is confeſſed,Anſw. they had this Birth-priviledge of Covenant-Holinſse, and yet that which was proper to Regeneration, was not then given to naturall generation, either of both births have from God, and among the people of God their proper right.
2. The Holineſſe which we here maintaine is no fruit of Nature, (ſo it could not have been proper to the Iew, but common to the Gentile) but from the Covenant of free grace, to all in the faith and their ſeed: Regeneration workes gration qualifications, 1 Iohn 5.4. This birth-right only entitles to outward priviledges: Regeneration therefore is not at all here wronged, nor naturall generation over-highly advanced: let thoſe that frame the objection take heed leſt themſelves run upon this Rock, denying all corruption of nature, or birth-ſin, they make Regeneration of no uſe. If all were right in the firſt birth there needed not another to follow, as the Apoſtle ſpeakes of Covenants,Heb. 8.7. ſo I may ſay of births: If the firſt had been faultleſſe, there ſhould no place have been ſought for the ſecond.
Hence it neceſſarily followes by way of Conſectary, Conſectary.that the infants of Chriſtian parents are debarred of their right, if they be not in infancie tendered and admitted unto the Ordinance of Baptiſme: Of Infants Baptiſme by neceſſary inference.They are God's, and we muſt render them to God: Chriſt hath intereſt in them, they muſt therefore be dedicated to him: They are of the number of thoſe that are holy, and therefore they are to be received and inrolled in the number: Baptiſme is a diſtinguiſhing note between the people of God, and thoſe who are ſtrangers from him; They are His, and they muſt therefore be thus diſtinguiſhed: The force of this conſequence the adverſaries doe no leſſe then acknowledge, forcing the Scriptures which evidently evince this Covenant-Holineſſe, unto ſtrained interpretations, on purpoſe to avoid it: Upon this ground infants under the law were circumciſed, and upon the ſame infants now are to be baptized: ſo that it is not barely the Analogy betweene Circumciſion and Baptiſme, by which we inforce the baptiſme of infants, but the grounds of both Circumciſion and Baptiſme: What is objected againſt one concludes againſt both:Col. 1.11, 12. Circumciſion and Baptiſme are therefore by the Apoſtle promiſcuouſly taken; there being the ſame principall and maine end of both. What can Baptiſme ſigne and ſeale but the righteouſneſſe of faith? This, circumciſion did ſigne and ſeale to Abraham and his poſteritie.Rom. 4.11. Reade that which the Apoſtle obſerves of Abrahams circumciſion, and compare it with the hiſtory of the Eunuches Baptiſme, and ſee where you can finde them differ. Faith was reckoned unto Abraham for righteouſneſſe: How was it reckoned (ſaith the Apoſtle) in circumciſion or in uncircumciſion; Rom. 4 9, 10, 11not in circumciſion but in uncircum-ſaith, which he had yet being uncircumciſed. The Eunuch on his journey with Philip, comming to a certain water ſaith, See here is water, what doth hinder me to be baptized? Act. 8.36, 37, 38.And Philip ſaid, If thou beleeveſt with all thine heart thou maiſt. And he anſwered and ſaid, I beleeve that Ieſus Chriſt is the Son of God. And he commanded the chariot to ſtand ſtill, and they went down both into the water, and he baptized him. May we not make the ſame obſervation of this Baptiſme, as the Apoſtle doth on Abrahams circumciſion? He received the ſigne of Baptiſme, a ſeale of the righteouſneſſe of the faith, which he had being yet unbaptized; So that the main end and uſe is the ſame in both: All appertaining to this faith were circumciſed, and their ſeed. All appertaining to this faith are to be baptized, and their ſeed. Strengthened by Scriptures.Hence it is that St Peter on this ground of the Promiſe made to beleevers and their ſeed, encourages his Converts unto Baptiſme, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the Name of Ieſus Chriſt, for the remiſſion of ſinnes, and ye ſhall receive the holy Ghoſt, Acts 2.38, 39.for the promiſe is made to you and your children, and to all that are afarre off, even as many as the Lord your God ſhall call. Whence I reaſon, in the ſame latitude as the promiſe is laid downe, the encouragement is alſo urged, to receive the ſigne and ſeale of it. But the promiſe is laid downe in that latitude, to comprehend Converts and their ſeed, Converts therefore and their ſeed are to be baptized. Can there be any reaſon given, why the ſeed ſhould be mentioned in the Motive or Encouragement to receive Baptiſme,Acts 16.15. if they were to be excluded from Baptiſme? Accordingly when an houſholder was baptized, all the houſhold were baptized,Verſ. 33. He and all his, Acts 16.15. ver. 33.1 Cor. 1.16. Object.
Will it be ſaid that this promiſe in this latitude is there tendered onelyonly to the Jewes?
To this I reply. Firſt,Anſw. that then Iewes receiving Chriſt (as theſe now did and were here encouraged) ſtill enjoy this birth-priviledge, which being yeelded to them cannot be denied to the Gentiles receiving the faith, without a ſingular ſchiſme between Iew and Gentile. They that murmured that their widowes were neglected, Acts 6.1.would ſoone have murmured when their ſeed had been excluded. And ſecondly, I affirme that the Gentiles are equally there included with the Jewes in the promiſe, as concerning the ſeed, as the Copulative particle (and) fully evinceth, it couples not one peece onelyonly but the whole of the promiſe.
There is yet an objection that ſeemes to take with more colour;Object. That this promiſe had reference to the gift of the holy Ghoſt, promiſed by Ioel the Prophet, here by the Apoſtle, ver. 17. &c. mentioned, and the Apoſtle here ſpeaking of the promiſe to his Converts and their children, onelyonly makes good what he had ſaid, that they ſhould receive the holy Ghoſt, and that by authoririe of the Prophet. Ioel promiſes that their ſonnes and their daughters ſhall prophecie, and this is that promiſe which is here tendered by the Apoſtle to them and their children.
I anſwer: Firſt,Anſw. the extraordinary gifts of the holy Ghoſt in this viſible way, cannot be the promiſe here by St Peter mentioned, ſeeing it is enlarged to all that are afarre off, even to as many as the Lord ſhall call. But all theſe have not the holy Ghoſt in that way extraordinary, nor any promiſe of it: That is a Baptiſme proper to thoſe primitive Saints, Matt. 3.11.that Baptiſme with the holy Ghoſt and with fire, wherewith they were told that they ſhould be baptized not many dayes after.Acts 1.5.
Secondly, however the promiſe be interpreted ſo as to belong to all that are beleevers, and call on the Name of the Lord, as there followes; yet that promiſe is on condition of their Baptiſme. The meanes are to be uſed in reference to the end: Baptiſme is the meanes, receiving of the holy Ghoſt, (there ſpecified) is the end: And the Apoſtle confirming them in the promiſe of the end, doth likewiſe encourage them to the uſe of the meanes, in Baptiſme to expect the gift of the Spirit; and ſo (according to this interpretation) that place is an encouragement to Baptiſme; The promiſe is the fitteſt encouragement to the ſigne and ſeale of the promiſe: Baptiſme is the ſigne and ſeale to which they are here encouraged, and in that latitude, as they had formerly known the command of Circumciſion.
And the Evaſion is too weake to ſay that children here are the ſame with ſonnes and daughters mentioned from the Prophet,Object. and therefore to be meant of none but ſuch that are of growth, and capable of the gift of prophecy.
The Apoſtle urgeth the promiſe in the way as in the Scriptures it is delivered,Anſw. which is to men and their poſterity, to them and theirs; ſo God promiſes to be a God in Covenant to His, and their ſeed, which people in Covenant have a promiſe alſo from him of the Spirit, and this the Apoſtle holds out to draw them on to this ſeale of the Covenant, to accept Baptiſme on the ſame termes that Abraham did circumciſion.
Secondly, it is without reaſon to beleeve that the Apoſtle ſhould inſtance in one peece of the diſtribution of the Prophet there, and to leave out the reſt, to put in alone ſonnes and daughters, when we have in the text young men, old men, ſervants and hand-maids.
Thirdly, Children here are mentioned under a promiſe to the parents, To you and your children is the promiſe made, but not ſo in Ioel, nor in the quotation of the Apoſtle: That Scripture hath onelyonly an Enumeration of the ſeverall ſorts and conditions of people in any nation, on all which the Spirit is promiſed, without any addreſſe made to the parents of thoſe ſonnes and daughters, more then to the Maſters of thoſe ſervants and hand-maids: not the ſonnes and daughters of their fleſh, but the ſonnes and daughters of the Nation, a language uſuall in our ordinary expreſſions, ſpeaking of men of any ſort or condition, as your Lawyers, your Merchants, &c. ſo here your ſonnes, your daughters, your old men, your young men, &c.
For further confirmation: Thoſe whom Chriſt receives the Church may not refuſe; Matth. 19.4. Matth. 19.14. Mar. 10.14. Luk. 18.16.The Church conſiſts of thoſe that viſibly appeare to be Chriſts. But Chriſt admits children, little children, in their infancy, ſuch that he takes into his armes, Suffer little children to come to me and forbid them not; who dare be ſo rigid when Chriſt is thus candid?
The Kingdome of Heaven receives them, the Church therefore may not exclude them: The Church receives thoſe whom glory receives, There were daily added to the Church ſuch as ſhould be ſaved: Acts 2.47.But the Kingdome of Heaven receives little children, Of ſuch is the Kingdome of Heaven.
Let none ſay that the Kingdome of Heaven is of ſuch (that is) of thoſe that are graced with ſuch qualities,Object. that are humble and meeke as little children: That may be elſewhere Chriſts way of inſtruction, it cannot be here his argumentation.
Firſt, there is no manner of conſequence in the argument thus preſſed: Let little ones in infancie come to me, for though not they, yet ſuch as they, others qualified like them, in ſome ſelect properties reſembling them ſhall go to Heaven.
Secondly, Upon the ſame ground, Sheepe, Doves, Vine-branches, might have been brought to him, for ſuch as reſemble them, in like ſelect properties, ſhall be received into the kingdom of Heaven: And Chriſt might have drawne as apt a ſimilitude from them.
Thirdly, that which the Diſciples took to be an impediment of force to hinder infants, and a juſt ground of rebuke of thoſe that brought them, is that which Chriſt underſtands in this reproofe of the Diſciples, and admiſſion of their infants. But it was their want of growth, their littleneſſe which the Diſciples took to be a juſt impediment and which occaſioned their reproofe; So that the particle (ſuch) hath direct reference to the quantity (as I may ſay) not to the quality of theſe infants, to their infant ſtature, not to their meekeeſſe or humility: And ſo it is referred elſewhere expreſſely by our Saviour himſelfe, Who ſo ſhall receive one ſuch little child; Mat. 18.5.The word is the ſame here and there, it reſpects littleneſse therefore and not meekeneſſe: The whole text may be thus fitly paraphraſed, Trouble not our Maſter with ſuch as theſe (ſay the Diſciples) there is no uſe of their comming, they need not his cure, and they are not capable of his inſtruction; They have no infirmity to be healed, no capacity to be taught, It is fit for men of abler parts, not for Infants to make their addreſſe to him: Let them come (ſaith our Saviour) and let not their infant-age exclude them, how little ſoever they are capeable of the kingdome of Heaven.
Having the ſubſtance and thing ſignified in baptiſme they may not be denied the ſigne: This is the Apoſtles way of diſpute, Acts 10.47.By Argument. And to deny them to have the thing ſignified in baptiſme is an aſſertion of odious conſequence: Chriſt is the thing ſignified in baptiſme as in all other Sacraments, Gal. 3.27, &c. And denying them Chriſt, you either exclude them from ſalvation with the Papiſts, or elſe exempt them from Originall ſinne with the Pelagians: The Anabaptiſts of the preſent age are well aware that the conſequence can be no other; they well ſee that all that joyne in this Tenent, ſaile between thoſe rockes, either to affirme, that infants die in their pollution and periſh in their birth-ſin; or elſe to deny this originall pollution or any birth-ſin at all; the latter of the two they therefore generally chooſe; judging it more faire to deny infants ſinne, then to affirme their condemnation; joyning hands with Pelagians, an hereſie of old and forepaſt dayes, rather then with Papiſts the preſent yoke and ſcourge of Chriſtians: And taking with theſe, to deny originall ſinne, they ſtraight fall upon univerſall grace, freedome of will in things spirituall: The free election of God they overthrow, leaving it in our power to make choyce of Chriſt, and not Chriſt to make choyce of us; And ſo Popery is no ſooner left, but it is againe found, they joyne hands with it as ſoone as they have left it: And all ſuch who have not yet waded ſo deepe, but now begin to ſet this way, I wiſh them to weigh with themſelves what other way they can find to make children uncapeable of Baptiſme; unleſſe they alſo make good ſuch originall purity that they ſtand not in need of Chriſt, or elſe be content to yeeld that they periſh in their ſinne without Chriſt: withall ſadly taking to heart whether the Genius of this doctrine leades, plunging almoſt all that give it entertainement into ſo many damnable and pernicious errours; ſuch as themſelves upon the firſt entry abominate: If they think that they can make it good in this more innocent way, keeping their judgements without taint of the errours mentioned, they ſee more then all the Orthodox Churches, whom in this they have left, and the whole body of thoſe to whom they beginne to joyne themſelves: The Churches whom they have left, will be afraid to own them, and the Sect to whom in this they are joyned will much more abominate and reject them; The deniall of birth-ſinne is the readieſt way to the deniall of birth holineſſe; and no other way to be taken, but by prejudging the ſalvation of them that dye as ſoone as borne, that dye before yeares of ability to make profeſſion of the faith of Chriſt Jeſus. But as the Apoſtle preſſing the dangerous and odious conſequences that follow upon the deniall of the reſurrection of Chriſt (which was his Medium to aſſert the Reſurrection of the dead) takes off all with this affirmation that Chriſt is riſen from the dead; 1 Cor. 15.10.So we preſſing the danger of denyall Infants part and portion in Chriſt, (our Medium to prove their intereſt in baptiſme) may take off all with the like affirmation, That Infants have their portion in Chriſt. Infancy excludes not from their right to him and intereſt in him, ſo that we need to run neither of theſe ſtraits, to exempt them from pollution, or exclude them from ſalvation: which eaſily may be made good: They are accepted and highly honoured of God, as we ſee in the text recited, and further in our Saviours words, Mat. 18.5, 6. But it is in the beloved, in Chriſt, Epheſ. 5.1, 6. Mat. 3.17.that we are accepted: The voice from Heaven witneſſeth that in him God is well pleaſed: Deny infants Chriſt, and God is alike pleaſed with them as with the brood of Cockatrices, and the ſeed of Serpents. Much ſure is in thoſe words of our Saviour Chriſt, Who ſo ſhall receive one ſuch little child in my name, Mat. 18.5.receives me: How doe we receive Chriſt in receiving them, if they belong not to Chriſt, if they be not members of, if they have no intereſt in Chriſt: For ſuch as ſay that they would baptize an infant, if any could make it good that he were in Chriſt Jeſus, they might as well ſay in the ſame manner to Chriſt, that they would receive that little one or ſuch a little one, in caſe it could be made good that they were of his members, and elect ones.
Nor let it be objected;Object. That Infants then are not to be denied the Lords Supper, but are to be received to his table, ſeeing Chriſt is the thing ſignified in that Sacrament, as in Baptiſme.
The difference (as all may ſee) is wide:Anſw. In this Sacrament Infants are paſſive, and ſo capeable of this honour, to be taken in; In the other we are active, and Infants for that reaſon are incapeable: They are not in capacity to performe ſo much as that which is outwardly ſacramentall: They cannot, according to the Inſtitution take and eat, much leſſe can they doe it in remembrance of Chriſt: The very phraſe (circumciſed, baptiſed) is enough to difference from eating with bitter herbes, &c. as at the Paſſeover, from communicating as at the Lords table, Infants are fit ſubjects for the one, men of growth are only fit ſubjects for the other: One to preſſe on this objection furniſheth us with a ſimilitude, Suppoſe (ſaith he) a King for ſome ſpeciall ſervice wherein the honour of himſelfe and ſafety of his kingdome is much concerned, ſhould by Commiſſion ordaine or command a Sheriffe upon paine of death, to raiſe for his ſervice ten thouſand men, the moſt able in his County; and this Sheriffe, finding the ſaid number of children about ſix moneths old, ſhould preſent them to the King at the very inſtant of battaile, as though he had thereby performed the Kings command: Would this be taken for a ſufficient performance of his duty?
But ſuppoſe that the King ſhould appoint all his free-borne ſubjects to be inrolled, and a liſt taken of their Names, who in time might act in their places for his honour, and enjoy Immunities as his ſubjects, might not Infants then goe in the number? So it is here, Baptiſme is the initiating ordinance, The ſubjects of Heaven are here inrolled, their names may therefore be taken as ſubjects, though they cannot yet act as ſouldiers: They are here intitled to all the Immunities of this kingdome, yet orderly as they ſhall be of capacity and fitneſſe to make uſe of them.
But their want of faith is challenged as an impediment to Baptiſme: Object.When the Eunuch deſired Baptiſme, we know the anſwer that he had: If thou beleeveſt with all thine heart thou maiſt: And Calviniſts denying actuall faith to be found in Infants, their Adverſaries the Lutherans come in with their argument ad hominem, making againſt us (ſay they) though not againſt the thing it ſelfe: Every Sacrament without faith in him that uſes it is a vaine Ceremony; But the Baptiſme of Infants is a Sacrament without the faith of him that uſeth it.
A ſpeech directed to a man of yeares and without any title to the Covenant (other then his actuall faith did confer upon him) is ill applyed to Infants within Covenant that otherwiſe have title to it.Anſw. 1.
This exception carries equall ſtrength againſt Infants circumciſion:Anſw. 2. There is no more faith in the Infauts of Iewes then there is in the Infants of Chriſtians; And faith is no leſſe neceſſary in the circumciſed then in the baptized: There was an equall neceſſity of the ingrediency of faith in every one in that age, as in this; yea in the ages more ancient then that of circumciſion, as appeares by the Apoſtles argument, Heb. 11.6.
Their capacity to receive the ſigne, anſwers their capacity to receive the thing ſignified, they are paſſive in the receiving of Chriſt and any intereſt in him: and ſo alſo they are, (and circumciſed Infants were) in taking the ſigne. And ſo the Lutheran propoſition being underſtood of any thing wherein we are active is a truth, but applied to Infants uncapable of action in the Sacrament where they are only paſſive, it is to be denied.
If Infants have the like gift intitling to, and intereſting in the priviledge of baptiſme with beleevers, then they withſtand God who deny their baptiſme: This is the Apoſtles argument brought for his own defence,Acts 11.17. which I wiſh were more ſeriouſly conſidered: And let it not be objected that the gift there ſpecified is a gift extraordinary, peculiar to thoſe times: It is enough to make the argument of force, that it is alike in them with that which now intitles growne beleevers: Now the want of thoſe gifts extraordinary, doth not diſable grown beleevers: The want of theſe doth not then diſable Infants.
And that they have the like gift, intitling to, and intereſting in the Sacrament of baptiſme is plaine: A Covenant-holineſſe unqueſtionable: Inherent qualitative holineſse hopefull, is a like gift to that which growne beleevers are able to produce: But Infants have Covenant-holineſſe unqueſtionable, inherent qualitative holineſſe hopefull; A beleever by the profeſſion of his faith is able to make good his title to the outward Covenant, and ſo can the beleeving parent the title of his Infant: A beleever can make good ſuch a title to the inward Covenant, that none can ſay thou haſt no part or portion in this thing: And becauſe it cannot be denied (though abſolutely and infallibly it be not affirmed) it is to be preſumed: This a beleeving parent can make good in the behalfe of his Infant, and this is ſufficient, this is a like.
But it will yet be ſaid,Object. An inſtitution is wanting, we have no precept, we have no preſident of the baptizing of Infants: The inſtitution is, Goe teach all nations, Mar. 28.19.baptizing them, &c. We muſt baptize thoſe whom by teaching we have diſcipled: to the word ſignifieth.
I anſwer, Firſt, That which hath beene ſaid doth conclude that they are within the verge of an inſtitution, being ſuch that have ſo full title: I have heard one of the moſt learned and reverend that ever I knew or heard of that was of that way more then once profeſſe with no ſmall ſolemnity, that if he knew an Infant to be ſanctified as he acknowledged John Baptiſt was, ſuch a one he would baptize: And that the particular infants whom Chriſt was ſeene for to bleſſe might have beene baptized: Thoſe then that are thus intitled, through want of an inſtitution are not to be excluded, and how farre and fully Infants of beleeving parents are intitled we have heard.
2. The place quoted hath not in it the Inſtitution of that Sacrament: Baptiſme was appointed of God before thoſe words were uttered; He that ſpoke them was himſelfe before baptized; Mat 3.16. Ioh 4.6. Mat. 10.5.They to whom they were ſpoken had baptized others; It is only an enlargement of their Commiſſion for the exerciſe of their Miniſtery, being before confined unto one Nation, now it is enlarged to all Nations.
3. The words there comprize infants, they are no more excluded then men of yeares, ſerving to make up a Nation as well as parents: The Infants of Niniveh did make a conſiderable party of the City of Niniveh; The Infants of any Nation make up a part of the Nation; and the Nation where they came was to be diſcipled, And that Infants are here comprehended further appeares by this argument.
*This argument hath ſtrength frō that of the Apoſtle, Act. 3.25 As it was with the kindred of Abraham in reſpect of covenant holineſſe, ſo it is with all kindreds of the earth, they iointly make one party in the Covenant. But infants of Abrahams kindred were in the Covenant, and of the nation in reſpect of Covenant-Bleſſedneſſe Ergo, &c.In the ſame ſenſe and latitude as Nation was taken in reſpect of the Covenant of God, when the Covenant, and Covenant-initiating-Sacrament was reſtrained to that one only Nation, where their Commiſſion was firſt limited: In the ſame ſenſe it is to be taken (unleſſe the text expreſſe the contrary) now the Commiſſion is enlarged.
This cannot be denied of any that will have the Apoſtles to be able to know Chriſts meaning by his words in this enlarged Commiſſion.
But Nation, then as is confeſſed did comprehend all in the Nation in reſpect of the Covenant, and nothing is expreſſed in the text to the contrary, therefore it is to be taken in that latitude, to comprehend Infants.
Object.Will it be ſaid that an exception of Infants is implied, in that all of the Nation muſt be diſcipled before they be baptized, but Infants are not capable of being diſcipled, and ſo they are made uncapable of Baptiſme.
I anſwer, 1. Here is rather implyed that they are of capacitie to be Diſciples,Anſw. 1. in that Chriſt ſends to diſciple Nations, and they ſerve to make up the nation.
2. It is the way of the Scripture,Anſw. 2. ſpeaking of an univerſality of a people in a land, expreſſely to except infants, in caſe they be to be excepted: As we ſee in the judgement that befell Iſrael in the wilderneſſe to the cutting off of thoſe that came out of the land of Egypt.Numb. 14.31. And in the Covenant entred by the body of the Nation of all degrees and ſexes at their returne from Babylon,Nehem. 10.28. and an exception could be no where more uſefull and neceſſary then here, to let us know that it is otherwiſe with Gentiles in this particular then it was with the Iewes, that the Nations where their Commiſſion is thus enlarged were herein differenced from the Nation to which their Miniſterie was firſt limitted.
3. Let that text of the Prophet be well weighed, where ſpeaking by the ſpirit of prophecy of the rejection of the Jewes, and the glorious call of the Gentiles in their ſtead, in that ample way as it is there ſet out hath theſe words, Behold, I will lift up mine band to the Gentiles, Iſai. 49.22.and ſet up my ſtandard to the people: and they ſhall bring thy ſonnes in their armes: and thy daughters ſhall be carried upon their ſhoulders. If there were but ſuch an hint as that by way of propheſy to have left them behind, we ſhould from ſome have heard of it with a noiſe.
4. In the Lord Chriſts Dialect, who is beſt able to expreſſe his own meaning, they are Diſciples, To belong to Chriſt is to be a Diſciple of Chriſt, This is plaine from our Saviours owne mouth, comparing his words recorded in Matthew and Mark, Matth. 10.42 Mar. 9.41.To give a cup of cold water to drink in the name of a diſciple, it is in the one; To give a cup of water to drink in my Name, becauſe ye belong to me, it is in the other: To belong to Chriſt, to be a Diſciple of Chriſt, and to beare the Name of Chriſt is one and the ſame thing with our Saviour. Now that Infants are of the number of thoſe who as Diſciples in Chriſts account doe belong unto him, and beare his Name, is yet further plain by another text of St Matthew, where Chriſt ſetting a little childe in the middeſt of his hearers ſaith, Who ſo ſhall receive one ſuch little child in my Name, Matth. 18.5.receiveth me. By all which it appeares, that which is done to Infants is done to Diſciples, hath a glorious reward as done to Diſciples; Infants therfore are Diſciples of Chriſt, are of thoſe that doe belong unto him, and beare his Name: who then is not afraid to refuſe them who will receive Chriſt? who will not baptize them that is willing to baptize Diſciples in the Name of Chriſt?
For Examples, which they ſay we want of the Baptiſme of Infants:
1. I anſwere, firſt, we walke by Rule rather then Preſident, the Rule hath been examined.
2. Examples are often very rare, where the rule is unqueſtionable, and undeniable, we have no Example of any triall of the ſuſpect wiſe by the water of jealouſie; For womens right to the Lords Supper we have no particular inſtitution; no particular Preſident more then for this of Infants Baptiſme.
3. We have Examples not to be contemned of the Baptiſme of whole houſholds, and whether Infants were there or no, as it is not certaine (though probable) ſo it is not materiall: The Preſident is an Houſhold, he that followes the Preſident muſt baptize houſholds. It appeares not that any wife was there, yet he that followes the Preſident in baptizing of houſholds, muſt baptize wives, and ſo (I may ſay) ſervants, if they be of the houſhold.
Objections are yet brought from humane authoritie,Object. which I have reſerved to the laſt, as accounting them the leaſt: And if this diſpute might this way be determined, that plurality of votes might carry it: the adverſaries know how it would fare with them in it.
Origen is vouched calling it a ceremonie or tradition of the Church: Hom. 8. in Levit. in Epiſt. ad Rom. lib. 5. Gregorie alſo in decret. diſtinct. de conſe
One of thoſe traditions which the Apoſtle charged the Theſſalonians to keep, Anſw.2 Theſſ. 2.15. which I ſpeake not by gueſſe, but we have it in the ſame Epiſtle (cap. 6.) from his own mouth, The Church (ſaith he) received Baptiſme of Infants from the Apoſtles: The greateſt points of Faith (as is well known) are ordinarily called by the name of traditions by the Antients. Traditions being onelyonly ſuch things that are delivered from one to another, they are as well written as unwritten; And we have cauſe willingly to embrace this teſtimonie; Origen lived 226. yeares after Chriſt, in the beginning of the third Century, Alſted. Chronol.he cals it a tradition of the Church, it was therefore delivered over to the Church in his time, and of antient uſe before him.
Auſtin cals it a cuſtome of the Church: de Baptiſ. contra Donat. lib. 4. cap. 23. And ſo doe I alſo call it,Anſw. and the obſerving of the firſt day of the weeke, the impoſition of hands on Church-officers, the giving of the Lords Supper to men of growth is a cuſtome of the Church likewiſe.
Eraſmus ſaith they are not to be condemned that doubt whether the Baptiſme of Infants were ordained by the Apoſtles: Lib. 4. de ratione Concio.
His words evidently imply that it was their errour,Anſw. and it ſeemes his thoughts were other of thoſe who openly did oppoſe it, and refuſe it.
Papiſts openly profeſſe that the Baptiſme of Infants is grounded upon tradition, and not upon Scripture: for which Eckius and Bellarmine are brought in.
This they doe not really and cordially but for their owne advantage,Anſw. to make good unwritten traditions againſt Proteſtant adverſaries; They know that we maintaine Baptiſme of Infants, and diſclaime theſe traditions, and if Baptiſme of infants doe appeare to be one, then they have us building what we have deſtroyed. Bellar. indeed (in his book de Verbo Dei) ſtanding for unwritten traditions as a part of the Word of God will have Baptiſme of infants to be one, but when he diſputes for Baptiſme of Infants againſt Anabaptiſts, then he can heape up texts of Scripture, de ſacra Baptiſ. cap. 8. So alſo cap. 9. in the entrance of it, Satis apertè colligitur ex Scripturis, the Baptiſme of Infants is evidently enough gathered from Scriptures: The like fetch of his I could ſhew in other particulars.
It appeares to be forced on the people by authority of Councels, out of the Councell of Milevitanum, this Canon is urged, It is alſo our will that thoſe that will not that children be baptized that are new borne from their mothers wombe, be excommunicate.
So in the Nicene Councell it was decreed that we ſhould beleeve that there is one God Maker of all things viſible and inviſible;Anſw. The greateſt points of faith (we know) under Anathema's are decreed in Councels. This Councell was in the fifth Century, 200 yeares after Origen, who ſtiles Baptiſme of Infants (as we have heard) a tradition of the Church in his dayes. And Auſtin who was not onelyonly preſent, but (as is ſaid) Preſident of that Councell, returning anſwer to thoſe that deſire divine authority for the Baptiſme of Infants, for ſatisfaction firſt produceth that rule, Quod univerſa tenet Eccleſia, nec Conciliis inſtitutum, ſed ſemper retentum eſt, non niſi authoritate Apoſtolica traditum, rectiſſimè creditur. That which the whole Church holds, and was not ordained by any Councels, but hath ever been held, that is rightly beleeved to be by Apoſtolicall authoritie. This he takes to be ſufficient, yet for more full ſatisfaction, he goes on to diſpute for it from the Scriptures, whence we ſee what himſelfe meanes by the cuſtome of the Church; And by what authoritie that Councell did appoint the Baptiſme of Infants. Auguſtinus de Bapt. contra Donatiſt. lib. 40. cap. 24. ad initium.
By all this that hath been ſaid it more fully appeares what regard is to be given to that which is cited out of Luther and Caſſander, concerning the time that Baptiſme of Infants was brought into the Church: Luther (as it is ſaid) affirmes that it came into the Church a thouſand yeares before his time, which muſt be one hundred yeares after Auſtin, and three hundred yeares after Origen. Caſſander affirmes that it was brought in three hundred yeares after Chriſt and his Apoſtles, which muſt be an hundred yeares after Origen at leaſt. If this had been true, theſe fathers muſt have ſaid as St Paul of contentions,1 Cor. 11, 16. We have no ſuch cuſtome, neither the Church of God, and could not have ſaid that it was a cuſtome or tradition of the Church, Origen then had never knowne it, and Auſtin might have called it an innovation.
Thoſe conjectures of Tuicencis & Iohannes Bohemius cōcerning the occaſion of the firſt in-let of Infants Baptiſme into the Church fals to the ground likewiſe, when men heare of a beginning they will be bold to aſſigne ſome reaſon of it, If my conjecture may be heeded, I ſuppoſe it was in ſome diſ-uſe with many not long after the Apoſtles times, and that by reaſon of the ſuperſtitious conceit that too ſoon prevailed of the opus operatum in Baptiſme, that it cleanſes all ſinnes that are paſt whether originall or actuall. And therefore many that were converted at ripe yeares deferred their Baptiſme as neere the houre of death as might be, to have all their ſinnes cleanſed by that water, againſt which cuſtome Bellarmine at large diſputes by reaſon of the abſolute neceſſity of Baptiſme, though both his grounds and theirs are on a falſe bottome: May we not then beleeve that parents upon the ſame ground did put off the Baptiſme of their children, and after did re-aſſume it upon the neceſſity of it. And this is that which the authour produced, viz. Iohannes Behemius ſpeaks of.
But Mr Daniel Rogers above all is ſtood upon, in his Treatiſe of the Sacraments he hath theſe words, I take the Baptiſme of Infants to be one of the moſt reverend, generall, and uncontrolled traditions which the Church hath, and which I would no leſſe doubt of then the Creed to be Apoſtolicall, although I confeſse my ſelfe yet unconvinced by demonſtration of Scripture for it.
I wiſh the Reader to conſider what the adverſary gaines by this teſtimony,Anſw. It is generall uncontrolled, he ſaith, and ſo he knowes unwritten traditions never were, Orthodox Divines antient and moderne have ever oppoſed them; In gaining a peice of a witneſſe ſuch an one that hath his reaſons to beleeve Baptiſme of Infants to be Apoſtolicall, they have the Church unanimouſly in all ſucceſſive ages their adverſatie.
And as the Infants of beleeving parents are to be received to Baptiſme;The conſectarie enlarged. ſo no Infants that deſcend from thoſe that make Profeſſion of the faith of Chriſt are to be refuſed: Any ſolid reaſon which will lye againſt any (for ought can be ſaid) may be a ground of the challenge of all: The promiſe made to thoſe that profeſſe Chriſt and their ſeed, takes in the ſeed of all that make profeſſion. Some that doe not withſtand, but maintaine and practiſe the Baptiſme of Infants have found a middle way, as betweene rigid Browniſts and Presbyterians, ſo between Anabaptiſts and (as I may ſay) Paedo-baptiſts; All Infants they will not have to be refuſed, confeſſing them to be within the verge of the promiſe, yet they will not have all promiſcuouſly received: The parents by ſolemne Covenant muſt firſt be made members of ſome particular congregation, and ſo their Iſsue is to be admitted, their children baptized, otherwiſe both parents and children are to be accounted as without, by nature unholy; and only the Godly regenerate (ſo farre as men can judge) no one of looſe life to be admitted.
But this middle way (under correction) I cannot but take to be a ſtep out of the way, I will here diſpute it no further then as it concernes this particular.
Either the vicious and ſcandalous life of ſuch a parent, or his non admiſſion into Covenant in a Congregationall way is the barre of the Infant that he is not admitted unto Baptiſme, but neither of theſe may be a barre.
Firſt not the vicious life of his parent.
If the ground of a childs admiſſion to baptiſme be not the faith of his immediate parent, but the promiſe made to Anceſtors in the faith, whoſe ſeed he is though at the greater diſtance; Then the looſe life of an immediate parent can be no barre to his baptiſme: This is plaine, if Ioſiah have no right from his father Ammon, yet he is not to be ſhut out, in caſe he have right from his father David or his father Abraham: And though the immediate parent were not wronged when his child is ſo ſhut out and denied, yet ſuch Anceſtor in diſtance is wronged out of whoſe loynes the Infant is deſcended: If Phinehas were not wronged in caſe Ichabod had been debarred, yet Eli yea Aaron had ſuffered. But the ground of a childs admiſſion is the promiſe to Anceſtors, whether at neerer or greater diſtance, The promiſe is to beleevers and their ſeed: Now Ioſiah was the ſeed of David, Chriſt was the ſeed of David: An Anceſtor at diſtance, and not alone immediate (where the race within the Church, may be derived in a continued ſucceſſion) gives right of admiſſion therefore unto baptiſme.
2. There is nothing that can exclude the ſeed of him that is a beleever, as beleever is oppoſed to an Infidell, the ſeed of one that is of a dogmaticall or hiſtoricall faith: This we have before made good, and from 1 Cor. 7.14. may be further cleared, He that is no Infidell is there a beleever whoſe ſeed is holy. But a man of a vicious life is in that ſenſe a beleever, Simon Magus, Acts 8.13. Luk. 8.13.the hearers compared to the rocky ground were beleevers, therefore a looſe life will not exclude the Iſſue.
His ſeed who is a member of a particular Church ſociety muſt be admitted unto baptiſme, a Church member and all that are his muſt have their priviledges: But it often falls out that men of looſe lives are members as the Church of Corinth yeelds many proofes,2 Cor. 12.20, 21, &c. Therefore vicious life excludes not the Iſſue.
Secondly, The non-admiſſion into Covenant is no barre in the parent.
1. It was no barre when themſelves who now are members were admitted in their infancy, their parents for the moſt part being no members in ſuch a way: Therefore now it is no barre though the parent be no member, but out of ſuch Church-Covenant.
2. They who have themſelves title to baptiſme, they have power to intitle their Infants likewiſe, this can be denied by none that deny not Infants baptiſme; But men never entring any ſuch Church-Covenant in a Congregationall way were baptized upon juſt title; The Converts of Peter, the Eunuch, the Iaylor, &c. No one that we reade was firſt made a member and then baptized, but were by Baptiſme made members, not reſpectively of any one particular Congregation, but of the Church of Chriſt in generall.
3. It would then be in the power of man, of three or foure (whom they ſay make a bottome Church) to keep an Infant at their pleaſure out of Gods Covenant, to be reputed at their courteſie, either of the dogs or of the children. This may not be denied, Theſe or the greater number of them have power of admiſſion of members at pleaſure. And ſome ſingularly eminent that way have affirmed that it is not enough that a man have grace to render him capable of being admitted, but he muſt have expreſſions: A fathers ſlow tongue ſhall now exclude his ſeed from this glory of admittance into the fellowſhip of the Saints. And when thoſe are not judged worthy of fellowſhip who are not of abilities to ſit in judgement with the Congregation to admit members, to paſſe ſentence upon delinquents, to judge of doctrines, not only to elect but ordaine Paſtors and Church-officers, we may eaſily gueſſe how many they exclude as without, whom Chriſt receives: Such a way had it been taken had deprived the Church of an Hezekiah, Ioſiah and many others in their age renowned. How great a provocation to ſuch children when once of growth to joyne with them, with whom the Church rankes them? and to oppoſe with the uttermoſt of fury ſuch that (after the revolution of ſo many generations inheriting that priviledge) now doe debarre them? And how great an incouragement to joyne with ſuch in all holineſſe with whom they were honoured with theſe priviledges?
Some there be that ſubſcribe theſe truths yet will have ſome caution uſed: The children of parents of looſe life, yea of excommunicate perſons, children of illegitimate birth they ſay are to be baptiſed; but with condition that the education of ſuch be undertaken by men pious and godly, two reaſons one gives.
1. Diſtinctio aliqua inter puros & impuros debet in ſacris omnibus obſervavari, ad bonorum conſolationem, correctionem malorum, & omnium aediſicationem, that is, Some difference ought to be put in all divine ordinances between the cleane and uncleane, for the comfort of the godly, the cenſure of the wicked, and the edification of all.
To which I anſwer, The perſonall impurity of the father is nor tranſmitted to the child, and therefore the diſtinction of clean and uncleane, which holds betweene the parents fals to the ground when it is applied to the Iſſue; Both of them have a Covenant-holineſſe from their parents, neither of both have holineſſe qualitative and inherent, and the children ſtanding equally intereſted in the promiſes, we have no rule that the child ſhould beare the fathers ſin.
2. Inſtituta Dei non poſſunt aliter ab omni pollutione conſervari, The ordinances of God can no other way be kept from blot and pollution.
I anſwer, Our care in the preſervation of any ordinance of God may not exceed the care of God himſelfe, leaſt under that colour we make our wiſedome to correct Gods wiſedome, and when he admits without ſuch limits; why ſhould we then put barres? A raiſe about the Communion table for that which is taken away, one hath well motioned, ſuch a one that would not nouriſh ſuperſtition but keepe back the prophane: But I know not any uſe of ſuch a one about the Font-ſtone in a Nation profeſſedly Chriſtian, and enjoying ordinances that are ſaving, where Infants (for ought that the Church is able to diſcerne) are all equall: all equally holy, all equally impure: Chriſtians in name tranſmit a Covenant-holineſſe; Chriſtians in truth cannot tranſmit holineſſe inherent: If theſe thus borne have no right at all, I ſuppoſe they ſhould not be admitted with any caution whatſoever. If they have any ſuch birthright-priviledge (notwithſtanding their ſad diſcomfort in ſuch parents) why ſhould it be thus ſuſpended on the curteſie of ſuch undertakers; I would more care were taken for education of youth (of which more anon) but this I only ſay, that I ſee not how the Infants right ſhould be deteyned, their birth-priviledge denied, till ſuch caution be given: I conclude then that right of baptiſme is as large as in any good ſenſe the name Chriſtian, The right of Infants is as large as is the name of Chriſtian in the parents.
A vaine diſpute there hath been among Schoolemen, how the child is ſaved or juſtified by the faith of the parent; whether by the habit of the parents faith, or the act of beleeving applied by the parent to the Infant at the time, and in the inſtant of baptiſme? And whether it muſt be a faith formed (as they ſpeake) with charity, or whether a faith informed, a dead faith would ſerve to the juſtification and ſalvation of the ſeed? whether a parent in mortall ſinne may apply faith to his child to ſalvation? And I would know whether there be not ſome ſuch thing now agitated, when ſuch enquiry is made into the perſonall qualification of the parent before the child may have admittance. But all theſe are meere niceties. The faith of the parent availes not directly to juſtification or ſalvation of the Infant, neither is it conſidered as applied to this or that child in baptiſme; the parent may be dead before the child be baptized; But it is conſidered only as accepting the Covenant of Gods free grant for him and his poſterity, which entitles poſterity to ſaving ordinances, but doth not neceſſarily qualifie for ſalvation. A ſubject accepts a Patent of honour from his Prince for himſelfe and poſterity, this Grant of the Prince, and acceptance in the ſubject entitles to Nobility, And the like we ſay of Chriſtianity; which evident truth takes off all difficulties, and prevents all abſurdities which follow upon theſe Quaeres:
It yet further here followes that the ſeed of beleevers thus by birth-right-priviledge baptized, 2. Conſectary, Title to all Ordinances.have a large and full right to all the Ordinances of God and priviledges of the Church appertaining to members, as they ſhall be capable of their uſe, whereſoever by the providence of God they are caſt; only ſo farre excepted as the juſt cenſures of the Church upon their perſonall defects and miſdemeanours ſhall diſable them, and give Church-officers juſt cauſe to refuſe them: The conſequence is evident: They now viſibly belong to Chriſt, they through him are dedicated to God, they have therefore title to all his viſible ordinances: They are now of the houſehold of God, and of the Citizens of the Saints orderly admitted: Scripture knowes no other admiſſion then Baptiſme: No ſooner doe we heare of a convert, but we preſently heare of his baptiſme, no Church-covenant intervening: They have right to all the immunities of this houſe, to all the priviledges of this city of God: There is ſome time after baptiſme in infancy before they have capacity to be hearers, but as ſoone as they can heare to profit ſo ſoone they muſt be received, not as ſtrangers but as children, not as Infidels but Chriſtians: They muſt be hearers, and that with ſome good proficiency before they can be communicants: But to deny a perſon entitled and qualified as before, becauſe not in Church-fellowſhip in a Congregationall way, offering himſelfe and deſiring it, is to debarre him of that right, of which by the gracious diſpenſation of God he ſtands poſſeſſed: He belongs to Chriſt, he muſt therefore partake of that which is of Chriſt: He is of the houſhold, he muſt therefore have of the foode of the houſhold: The ſtewards of the myſteries of God muſt be accountable in caſe they doe deny it.
To come to ſome practique obſervations,3. Conſectary, Holy converſation. All poſſible engagements and obligations unto holineſſe of converſation neceſſarily follow from this royall priviledge and high advancement of birth-holineſſe We blame thoſe of noble and generous birth that betake themſelves to ſordid and ignoble wayes: Thoſe thus degenerating are a blot to their families, a diſgrace and reproach to their race: No birth equall in honour to that of Chriſtians: Theodeſius worthily eſteemed it a greater honour that he was a Chriſtian then that he was an Emperour: None degenerate ſo foulely and blame-worthily as they when their converſation is unchriſtian. Wayes of ſinne are for ſinners of the Gentiles, a way proper for Turkes and Pagans: let the holy ſeed be holy, their demeanour ſuited to their honour: Sardanapalus the King may with leſſe in-infamy ſpinne among women (a worke farre below his throne) then a Chriſtian may ſinne with heathen: The Martyrs in the primitive times being moved to ſweare by the fortune of Coeſar, thought that the anſwer was full and faire to ſay they were Chriſtians; Such anſwer ſhould he have that would tempt to ungodlineſſe:Nebe. 6.11. Should ſuch a one as I flie ſaith Nehemiah, his honour would not ſuffer him to be ſo baſe: Should ſuch a man as a Chriſtian (the leaſt of whom is greater then Nehemiah's better) be for ſinne, not a ſinner by birth, Mat. 11.11.be for ſinne in his life: Baptiſme is the greateſt honour: Such beare Chriſts name and weare his livery,Iamos 1.1. Iude 1.1. 1 Pet. 1.1. 1 Tim. 2.19. They have that title in which Iude, Iames and other of the Apoſtles gloried? A Servant of Ieſus Chriſt: Baptiſme is the greateſt engagement: Let every one that nameth Chriſt depart from iniquity To talke of baptiſme and live in ſin is to weare the Colours of one and plot and fight for another, to weare Chriſts colours and ſight for Satan: Baptiſme renders a ſinner up to the heavieſt puniſhment: Amos 3.2.The high favours ſhewed the Jewes made a Jew to fare worſe in the wayes of ſinne then an heathen:Heb. 2.3. The high favours ſhewed to Chriſtians, make Chriſtians to fare worſe in ſinfull wayes then heathens: Let me preſte it in the Apoſtles words though the providence of God keeps me out of his condition,Epheſ. 4.1. 1 Pet. 1.15. 1 Theſ 4.7. Epheſ. 2.19. Mat. 25.31. Rom. 1.2. Epheſ. 1.13. Heb 9.8. 4. Conſectary, Holy education. I therefore the priſoner of the Lord beſeech you, that ye walke worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called. All in a Chriſtians calling beſpeakes this holineſſe; Hee by whom he is called; The worke to which he is called; The company unto which he is joyned; The Attendants by whom he is guarded; The Rule wherby he is guided; The Seale by which he is confirmed, and the place whither he makes and tends, all are holy.
Let the Parents of ſuch ſeed now ſee what education is expected; Breeding muſt anſwer Birth and Deſcent: A Chriſtian is of the nobleſt birth: The Apoſtle calls upon parents to bring up their children in nurture and admonition of the Lord: God may call on them thus to bring up his children; In nature theirs: in Covenant Gods: Every Chriſtian parent hath a child of God committed to his care and tuition: How great a ſoleciſme is it that parents ſhould dedicate children ſo ſoone as borne unto Chriſt, profeſſing to the world that they belong to him, and that with Hannah (concerning Samuel) they intend them for him, when nothing appeares in their lives, but that they might be given to Moloch; ſomewhat worſe then the mongrell ſeed that ſpoke halfe in the language of Canaan, and halfe of Aſhdod: Scarce a word can be heard out of their mouthes for to argue that they are Chriſtians; liſping out oathes as ſoone as words, put to learne trades, and little regard had that they may know Chriſt Ieſus: And how much is it to be deſired that authority (who I truſt will make good that we have a Chriſtian Nation) would take order for more carefull catechiſticall teaching of youth in the wayes of Chriſtian Religion, that God may not complaine of England is of Iſrael; My people periſh for want of knowledge. Hoſea 4.….A people of God and a people ignorant to perdition and deſtruction: England is highly honoured of God by this gracious call, with Capernaum liſted up to Heaven: Enegland would highly honour God if care might be taken that all might know God from the higheſt to the loweſt: We ſhall never be a Gospel-like people till we be a knowing people, till we take care that as we are lewes by nature, ſo we may be Iewes in qualification, ſo borne, ſo bred, that as our youth is deſcended ſo alſo they may be trained.
Thoſe may ſee whom they oppoſe that ſtand in oppoſition of a people thus intereſted, a people ſo ingratiated to God in Covenant that there is not the leaſt infant in whom God hath not his title and right of challenge.5. Conſectary, The danger of perſecution. Pſal. 79 1, 2, 3. The aggravation of the Pſalmiſts complaint is, that the heathens are come into thine inheritance, the dead bodies of thy ſervants have they given to be meat unto the fowles of the Heaven, the fleſh of thy Saints unto the beaſts of the earth: The whole body of ſuch a people ſtand in relation to God, as the Inheritance, the ſervants, and Saints of God; Such inſcriptions we ſind in St Pauls Epiſtles, not one of the whole body is excluded, but they are ſuch by Covenant, and ſuch by calling: Pſal. 127 3. Mat 18.5. Pſal. 137.9.Enough hath been ſaid to make it to appeare, that the denomination reaches even infants, who are the Lords heritage, and Chriſts name is upon them: As it is accounted an happy work to daſh the little ones of Babylon againſt the wall, becauſe of the hoſtlity of that Nation againſt God and his people: So it is a like execration to intermedele with the little ones of Sion, by reaſon of the holineſſe of ſuch a people,2 King 8.12. their Covenant-relations in which they ſtand intereſted. Much is ſpoken in Scripture againſt the enemies of the righteous, the haters of them ſhall be deſtroyed, he that offends againſt them ſhall not be innocent: God obſerves every cariage of the adverſary towards them in miſery; they ſpeake not a word, but God hath it againſt them; when Ammonites, Eze. 26.2.36.2. Obad. 12. Ibid. Pſal. 137.7. Obad. 13.14. Deut. 25.17.Tyrians cry Aha againſt the people of the Lord they are twitted with it, and threatned for it. Not a proud word that they utter, but it is brought in to fill up the charge againſt them: yea, every eye that is caſt with approbation of the adverſary, every encouraging word they ſpeake, and every act they doe againſt ſuch a people, yea injuries of elder times are kept in the decke and laid to them; And all becauſe that they ſtand in this relation to God, as His in Covenant, which you cannot limit onelyonly to the perſonally righteous, but all that are of a ſocietie and fellowſhip that is ſuch, that are intereſted in a righteous cauſe. The holy anointing oyle did make ſacred, when yet too often the man was wicked, and therefore David looked upon Saul as the Lords anointed. It holds in analogy and proportion unto all that have any Unction from God, as all the called of God have, When they were but a few in number, Pſal. 105.12, 13, 14, 15.yea very few, and ſtrangers— When they went from one Nation to another, from one kingdome to another people, He ſuffered no man to doe them wrong, yea he reproved Kings for their ſakes, ſaying, Touch not mine Anointed: All the people of God have that anointing from God, that none may dare to intermeddle to their harme. God promiſes his people that dwell in Sion that the burden of Aſſyria ſhall be taken away from off their ſhoulder, and his yoke from off their necke, and that the yoke ſhall be deſtroyed, becauſe of the Anointing.Iſa 10.27.
Object.Some will ſay, as this is carried, The danger of intermedling with any is with us alike: Even Papiſts and the worſt of men that are called Proteſtants are thus of a people that are called Gods people, and go by the name of Chriſtians.
For anſwer: I ſhall not enter upon that controverſie,Anſw. what there is of the being of a Church under the Papacy: The Papacy itſelfe is none of it, but only a botch bred in it, and cleaving to it. OnelyOnly this I ſay, That he that ſhall oppoſe a Papiſt under the notion of a Chriſtian, ſhall beare his ſinne, and that upon the grounds that have been given: Though a Papiſts damnable errours in the faith ſhut him out from the happineſſe of Chriſtians, yet ſuch an adverſaries perſecution renders him guilty of oppoſing the faith of Chriſt Ieſus. And he that followes with injuries a carnall Proteſtant, becauſe of Profeſſion of the ſinceritie of Religion, in oppoſition to Antichriſtianiſme, is formally guilty of perſecution. The hearers reſembled to the rocky ground ſuffer perſecution for the Word, as doth the good ground that brings forth fruit with patience. But to come home with more cleare ſatisfaction.
A people of a fouly-polluted Ordinance ſtanding in oppoſition to a people of a pure and untainted way, are as a people void of Ordinances, are as a people without God in compariſon. The oppoſition of the puritie of his ſervice God accounts as the oppoſition of his great Name, though it be by a people that goe under that name of His people: And therefore though Elijah take ſo much to heart the pulling down of Altars ſet up by Ieroboam as Gods Altars, 3 Kings 19.10.when it was done by Iſrael apoſtatizing and turned to Baal, and (in oppoſition to the worſhip of Baal) makes that way of worſhip at Dan and Bethel a following of God. 1 Kings 18.21.(Thoſe two opinions that the ten Tribes halted between were the worſhip of the falſe god Baal, and the falſe way of worſhip ſet up by Ieroboam; which corruption of worſhip (being now to draw them from Baaliſme) he is for the preſent contented to wave:) Yet we well know the brand that lies on Ieroboam in bringing in that worſhip of his,1 Kings 15.9. ſcarce the like on any man in Scripture (the man of ſin only excepted) the high phraſes alſo in which this worſhip of his is ſet out, making Prieſts for the high places, 2 Chro. 11.15.and devils, with the height of guilt to which he roſe in caſting the Levites out from executing the Prieſts office; Verſ. 14.And howſoever God often cals that people of the ten tribes by the name of his people as having Ordinances,Hoſ. 4.6. though miſerably polluted, yet in oppoſition to Iudah, where more pure Ordinances were injoyed, they are ſaid to be without God, without a teaching Prieſt, and without the Law: And ſighting againſt Iudah who could reckon up the particulars of the Ordinances of God in their puritie,2 Chron. 15.3. they are charged to ſight againſt the Lord God of their fathers: 2 Chron. 13.12.To come neerer home in an Inſtance: If the Turkiſh power ſhould fall upon a Popiſh State under the name and notion of Chriſtians, they were guilty with Saul of perſecuting the Lord Ieſus: If this Popiſh State fall upon a reformed nation, they are much more guilty. A fouler ſinne for a people of God in name and title, to perſecute his people in truth, then for a people ſtrangers to God, to perſecute a people only in name and title: Scripture prayers againſt heathens we may fitly apply in our ſufferings under the hands of Papiſts. Pilate might have been guilty in perſecution of a Phariſee as a Jew; yet that nation was much more guilty (being Iewes by nature,) in delivering Chriſt Ieſus into Pilate's hands,Ioh. 18.35. though Chriſt had been no greater then one of his Diſciples: A Papiſt perſecuting a formall carnall Proteſtant, under the notion of a man proteſting againſt idolatrous wayes, is a man blaſpheming the faith; This man thus perſecuted, perſecuting another for the power of Godlineſſe, profeſſing the ſame truth is equally, yea more guilty. The very ſin of Cain againſt his brother,1 Ioh. 2.12. Their Religions were both one, but Cain's in form, and Abel's in power. The reſult of the whole is to let us ſee what it is to oppoſe a people under any notion of Gods people, under any notion of belonging to him. A man may have his reward giving in the name of a Diſciple, Matth. 10.4.though he to whom hee gives be ſuch as God will never own for a Diſciple. And anſwerably may incurre vengeance in oppoſition of one under ſuch a name, though with thoſe on the rocky ground he be nothing leſſe in deed and truth.
Abundance of ſweet conſolations yet flow from this birth-priviledge,6. Conſectary of conſolation. and that in ſeverall ſtreames.
1. In regard of Nations.
2. In regard of Perſons.
1. In regard of Nations, They have a royall tranſcendencie above all others,To Nations as onelyonly worthy the name of a people, Enjoying the Light, Nigh unto God, A people of hope, and expectation; when others are darkneſſe, without hope, and without God in the world. The Pſalmiſt reckons up many ſweet bleſſings of a nation, That our ſonnes may be as plants growne up in their youth, Pſal. 144.12, 13, 14.that our daughters may be as corner ſtones poliſhed after the fimilitude of a palace, That our garners may be full affording all manner of ſtore, that our ſheep may bring forth thouſands and ten thouſands in our ſtreets; That our oxen may be ſtrong to labour, that there be no breaking in, nor going out, that there be no complaining in our ſtreets: All theſe are ſingular nationall favours, but only ſerving to make up, not an abſolute, but comparative bleſſedneſſe; This one riſes higher and makes it compleat,Verſe 15. Bleſſed are the people whoſe God is the Lord. See what is ſaid of Ieruſalem by the Pſalmiſt: Loe, the Kings were aſſembled, they paſſed by together, they ſaw it, and ſo they marvelled, Pſal. 48.4, 5.they were troubled and haſted away, Feare tooke hold on them, and paine as on a woman in travell, and we find the reaſon given is,Verſe 3. God is knowne in her palaces for a refuge, they have God nigh in all that they call upon him for; as Moſes hath it,Deut. 4.7. No people can ſo bottome their prayers againſt Adverſaries as the people of Gods Holineſſe.
This merciemercy is a birth-merciemercy to a people (to hold alluſion to my text) Iewes by nature, 2 Tim. 1.5.whoſe parents with Timothy's from one to another have been beleevers: And while nationall provocations breake not forth (which onelyonly with God have a ſeparating and deaſning power) his eare is ready to hear,Iſai. 59.1. Numb. 23.22. and his hand to help: While he ſees not iniquitie in Iacob, nor perverſneſſe in Iſrael (which muſt be underſtood of nationall out-breaches from God, which after by Baalams counſell followed) ſo long God is among them as the ſhout of a King, and there is no ſorcerie or divination againſt them: Verſ. 23.2 Chron. 15.2.A nation faſt to God hath God faſt to them.
2. In regard of perſons, for
Themſelves.To perſons.
Poſteritie.
For themſelves, It is much to be able with the Pſalmiſt to ſay,For themſelves. Thou art he that tooke me out of the wombe, Pſal. 22.9, 10.Thou diddeſt make me to hope when I was upon my mothers breaſts: I was caſt upon thee from the wombe, thou art my God from my mothers belly. This puts upon confidence in prayer (as an argument drawn from long continued acquaintance) as there followes: Be not farre from me, for trouble is neere. Verſ. 11.Such have timely knowledge of God, ſucking in ſomewhat of him while they ſuck milk from the breaſts: An expreſſion of height ſetting out this Birth-happineſſe, that hath ſure more in it then can be applyed to ſinners of the Gentiles: See how the Pſalmiſt yet further pleads it with God:Pſal. 116.16. Exod. 21.4. Levit. 25.16. O Lord, truly I am thy ſervant, I am thy ſervant and the ſon of thine handmaid. An alluſion to the Law of ſervants, who were the inheritance of the Maſter in whoſe houſe they were borne. I am ſuch ſaith the Pſalmiſt (thy ſervant, thy ſervant) with all earneſtneſſe of affection. I am of thine inheritance, I am one of thine houſe-borne ſervants, my mother was thine hand-maide. The ſame relation he pleades alſo, and in the ſame words, Pſal. 86.16. This Iſaiah in like manner takes notice of,Iſai. 4…, 1. The Lord hath called me from the wombe, from the bowels of my mother hath he made mention of my Name. The Apoſtle will have the Epheſians to remember that paſt time when they were without Chriſt, Epheſ. 2.…2.being Aliens from the Common-wealth of Iſrael, and ſtrangers from the Covenant of promiſe, having no hope, without God in the world. There never was a time in which theſe of this Birth priviledge were in that condition; From the wombe they were Gods heritage, and with Timothy (ſome in greater ſome in leſſer meaſure) from children have the knowledge of the Scriptures, 2 Tim. 3.15. Luke 1.15.if not with Iohn Baptiſt full of the holy Ghoſt from the wombe: which doubtleſſe is the happineſſe of not few among Chriſtians, who are eminent in ſanctification, whoſe growth in Grace is ſeene, and yet the beginnings not knowne. Howſoever they are nigh, when others are afarre off, at the pooles brimme waiting the Angels moving of it. Ioh. 4.22. Iames 1.21. Luke 19.9. In reſpect of poſteritie.Salvation is of the Iewes, ſaith our Saviour; They are under the joyfull ſound of that Word which is able to ſave the ſoule: Salvation is of his houſe who is the ſonne of Abraham.
As it is full of Conſolation to Beleevers in reſpect of themſelves, ſo alſo in reference to poſteritie: Their children are Gods children: They being of the Lords Inheritance, their children are his heritage in like manner: Theſe bring forth children to God, Ezek. 16.20.their ſeed be ownes and challenges for His: An infinite love in God, an unſpeakable comfort to a parent, when the Infant, who by corruption of nature is in Satans jawes, in no leſſe danger of Hell, then Moſes was of the water; and not ſo much as ſenſible of it; God pleaſes to looke upon him in this condition and to make it the time of love, and to find out wayes of freedome. What the Apoſtle ſpeakes from the Prophet of Gods care of the Gentiles, is certainly true being applyed to Infants. I was found of them that ſought me not, and made manifeſt to them that enquired not after me. Rom. 10.10.Had we that hopeleſſe opinion of our children as Papiſts of theirs that dye without Baptiſme; what a wretched caſe were it (with David) to part with an Infant out of the world? How could ſuch mourne in any other way then thoſe that are without hope? parting with an Infant without part in Chriſt, and in no better poſture towards God then the ſeed of the ſinners of the Gentiles. But wee finde God more rich in merciemercy, Chriſt himſelfe embracing them in their infancie, and taking them into his ſpeciall love as thoſe that beare his name: And though death prevent their Baptiſme, He that hath appointed Ordinances is not tyed to them, but can ſave without them. Bellarmine confeſſeth that the deſire of Baptiſme in one of the Catechumeni, (that is, one inſtructed in the Principles of Chriſt and not baptized) doth ſave; though the text, Iohn 3.5. underſtood with their Coment be in the Letter againſt it, why then ſhould not that Grace? which when the perſon is of capacitie would ſhew it ſelfe in deſires qualifie for Salvation in like manner? Finding this love in God, theſe bowels in Chriſt, we may ſafely conclude, that Children have bliſſe, Parents have comfort, and let God have the Glorie.
FINIS.
End of the text · Thomas Blake, The Birth Privilege (1644)