THE DOCTRINE AND PRACTICE OF PAEDOBAPTISM, Asserted and Vindicated. By a large and full improovement of some principal Arguments for it, and a brief Resolution of such material Objections as are made against it. Whereunto is annexed a brief and plain Enarration, both Doctrinal and Practical, upon Mark 10. v. 13. 14. 15. 16. As it was some time since Preached in the Church of Great Yarmouth: Now published for an Antidote against those yet spreading Errors of the times, Anabaptism and Catabaptisme. By JOH. BRINSLEY. Tanto magis proinfantibus loqui debemus, quanto minus ipsi pro se loqui possunt. August. ad Hil. Ep. 89. London, Printed for Charles Greene, and are to be sold at his shop in Ivy Lane at the sign of the Gun. 1645. I Have perused this Vindication of The Doctrine and Practice of Paedobaptism, in which the Reverend Author hath also handled some things not usually treated on by any, in our Language, which he submits to the judgement of the learned and judicious; And I commend to be Imprinted. Ja. Cranford. May 22. 1645. To all the true Lovers of Truth and Peace in the Church of England, Specially those in the Town of Great Yarmouth. TO You have I dedicated this part of my labours, to whom I have devoted all. What sad and dangerous distempers have invaded the Ecclesiastical body of this Kingdom in this spring-time of Reformation, I shall not need to tell you; there being scarce any part of it but feels of them, and labours under them. Hereupon it hath been, and is my highest ambition, to show myself (what one of Col. 4. 14. Lucas de Medico corporum factus jam erat Medicus animarum. Hieron. in ep. ad Phil. the Penmen of sacred Writ is said to have been, and what every Minister of the Gospel, (at this time specially) ought to be) both an Evangelist, and a Physician. To this end I have already adventured abroad some Counsels and Prescripts, The healing of Israel's breaches An. 1642 Church-Reformation. An. Church-Remedy. An. 1644, which being proper for the place where Providence hath laid out my Practice, may also (if rightly applied) prove not unuseful to others. And to the same end it is that I have now sent this Tractate after them; wherein you have a Topical Remedy for that spreading Gangrene of Anabaptism, which, unless timely prevented, may prove fa●all to the whole body both of this Church and State. This evil beginning to show itself as in some other parts adjacent, so) in this place, which God hath in part committed to my Cure, I was induced sometime since to encounter with it in the Pulpit. My endeavours herein (I bless God) I found not altogether unsuccessful. And hereupon I am now the rather encouraged to present them to a more public view. Wherein, if any shall conceive my service M. Marshal's Sermon. M. Cook. D●. Featly &c. Gen. 38. 30. 31 needless, in regard of the divers learned Treatises of this kind already published, I shall only desire them to believe, that (as, however those Pharezzes were first brought forth, yet this Zarah put forth the hand before most of them, the Pulpit being for most part delivered of the one, before the Press was of the other s●● they shall meet with somewhat here, which they may yet call New. Amongst other passages I shall humbly take leave to Apologise for one, which possibly may rise in the stomach of some, viz. the Holding forth of Confirmation (as it is called) in the primitive simplicity of it, for an Apostolical Ordinance. This (I confess) I cook the first hint of from learned and judicious M. Calvin, as he himself, though he would a Non inficior, in co nonnihil hallucinari Hieronymum, quod Apostolicam esse observationem dicit, viz. Confi●mationem. Calv instit. l. 4 c. 19 S. 4. not from St. b Hieron contra Lucif. Jerome, yet after upon second thoughts, did from S● c Heb. 6. 2. Hic unus locus abundè testatur hujus Ceremoniae (sc. Impositionis manuum in Confirmatione) originem fluxisse ab Apostolis. Cat. Com. in ep. ad Heb. ca 6. v. 2. Paul. And finding it a point so useful, not only in the present controversy o● Paedobaptism, but also for the healing of some of the chief differences of the times, viz▪ about mixed. Communion, and Church▪ Covenant, I could not but hold forth that little light concerning it, which I have received from some others, such as were in their times magna Ecclesiae lumina, d Rev. 1. 16. 20. stars of the first magnitude, e Joh. 5. 35. burning and shining Lamps. If any shall not hereby see what others have done, and myself imagine to do, I shall only crave of them, first to take off that film of prejudice which possibly the gross corruption of this supposed Ordinance in the former practice of it, both in the Church of Rome, and amongst ourselves, may have drawn over their eyes, and then I shall freely leave them to believe and report what they see. For myself, let the World know, all that herein I desire and aim at, to be only this, That If there be any thing Apostolical in this Ordinance, it may be revived and received: otherwise if merely prudential, (as an explicit Church-Covenant (so far forth as distinct from the Covenant of Grace) is supposed to be) than how far to be embraced or rejected, I leave it to those who have Authority and Ability, to judge: With the submissive tender of which humble motion, I shall fit down, and rest Yours in the service of Christ, joh. Brinsley. Yarmouth June 26. Anno 1645. THE Doctrine and Practice OF PAEDOBAPTISM Asserted and Vindicated. HEB. 6. 2. The Doctrine of Baptisms. Baptism, it is a Sacrament, a Sacrament of the New Testament, the first Sacrament of the New Testament, instituted by Christ, to be dispensed by his Ministers; upon these particulars I have already insisted. It remains now that we come The Subject of Baptism. in the next place to the Subject of Baptism, which because at the present it is made the subject of great debate and controversy, I shall therefore take leave to dwell a little the longer upon it. Q. Who may and aught to be baptised. Q. The Question is, Who they are that may and aught to be baptised? A. Such as are in Covenant with God. A. To this we may return a general answer; viz. Such as are in Covenant with God. Baptism it is a seal of the Covenant, even as Circumcision was; which is therefore called by the name of the Covenant [My Covenant Gen. 17. 13. 14 shall be in your flesh.] So is Baptism a seal of the Covenant, viz. the Covenant of Grace, and of that Covenant Baptism a seal of the Covenant already made. already made. Mark that: A Covenant is first agreed upon, the writings drawn, before it be sealed. Thus men must first be in Covenant with God, before Gen. 17. 1. 2. they partake of this Seal. Thus it was in Circumcision, God first maketh a Covenant with Abraham and his Seed; then for the confirmation of it he commandeth Vers. 9 10. him and his to be circumcised. And thus it is in Baptism, persons must first be in Covenant with God before they be baptised. They must be such as lie under Act. 2. 38. the promise. [Repent and be baptised (saith Peter to the Jews) for the promise is to you and to your children.] Persons to be baptised must be [such as are in Covenant] Such; understand it as we will, Inclusively, Exclusively: All such, and only such. Both true. All such as are in Covenant, may and ought ●o be baptised. 1. All such, of what Nation, sex, age, condition soever; jew or Gentile, male or female, young or old, bond or free, etc. being in Covenant with God, they both may, and aught to partake of this Seal of the Covenant. When God instituted the Sacrament of Circumcision, Abraham and all his family were circumcised. [In the ●en. 17. 26. 27 self same day was Abraham circumcised, and all the men of his house.] And the like we read of Baptism: As it came in the ro●me of Circumcision, being the initial seal of the Covenant as Circumcision was, so it was administered after the same manner, to the whole family. Where the head of the family believed, presently we read that they, and all theirs were baptised. Thus we read in that 16. of the Acts; first of Lydia, v. 15. God having opened her heart, she was baptised and her household.] Then of the jailor, v. 33. being wrought upon by the Apostles Ministry, [he came and was baptised, he and all his.] Thus, be they what they will, being once in Covenant, they may and aught to be baptised. So runs the Apostles Commission, [Go teach all Nations, Mat. 28. 19] R. And will you have the ground and reason of it, why the administration of this Ordinance should be so universal, consider but these two things; 1. The universality of man's sin and misery: and secondly, The universality of Gods offer of grace and mercy. 1. Man's sin and misery universal. 1. Man's misery is universal. [All have sinned. Rom. 3. 23.] And sinning died. [Death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned, Rom. 5. 12.] Such is the condition of all the sons of men by nature. They are all concluded, and shut up under sin and death; so shut Gal. 3. 22. up, as without the free grace of God in Christ pardoning their sins, and healing their natures, they cannot possibly be saved. Even Infants that never sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, viz. by committing Rom. 5. 14. actual sin, yet being sinners by nature, by nature Eph. 2. 3. children of wrath, they stand in need of Christ as well as any other. And consequently they stand in Tit. 3. 5. need of this laver of regeneration, this Sacrament of initiation, whereby their spiritual washing from the guilt and spot of sin, and their engrafting into Christ may be sealed up unto them, and declared unto others. All sorts of persons stand in need of Christ, and consequently of this Sacrament which sealeth up their interest in Christ. 2. The tender of God's grace and mercy universal. 2. And secondly, as man's misery is universal, so is the tender of God's grace and mercy, held forth to all men, [Go teach all Nations, Mat. 28.] [Go preach the Gospel to every creature, Mark 16. 15.] Thus Christ sent forth his Apostles; and thus he now sendeth forth his Ministers, with Commission to offer Christ and salvation by Christ, to all that will receive him, believe on him, submit to him. And reaching forth the thing signified, he also reacheth forth the sign, even this Sacrament of Baptism, which is therefore to be administered alike unto all, because Christ is offered alike unto all, (I mean Gal. 3. 28. all sorts of persons) and is alike to all. [There is neither jew, nor Greek, (i. e. Gentile) there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female, for ye are all one in Christ jesus.] Being all alike in Christ, they ought alike to be 1▪ Cor. 12. 13. baptised into him. [By one spirit we are all baptised into one body, whether we be jews or Gentiles, etc.] Thus all that are in Covenant ought to be baptised. 2. Only such as are in Covenant may be baptised. 2. And (in the second place.) Only they. This being a seal of the Covenant ought not to be administered unto any, but unto those which are, or in the judgement of charity may be thought to be within the Covenant. By this rule must the Church proceed in dispencing of this Ordinance, not by the judgement of Infallibility, The Church's rule, the rule of charity. and Certainty, but of Charity. To know infallibly who is within the Covenant, this none can do but God, and a man's own soul. The Church's rule is the rule of charity. Those who by the law of charity may be thought, and are to be reputed within the Covenant of Grace, they, all they, and only they may, and aught to partake of this Ordinance. Q Who may be thought to be within the Covenant. Q. Here then the great Question now falls in: Who they are that in the judgement of charity are to be thought to be within the Covenant? A. All that profess the faith of Christ, and their children. A. Hereunto we answer: All that profess the faith of Christ and their children. Both these the eye of charity looketh upon as Christians, and being such, it cannot deny them the badge of their Christianity, the seal of that Covenant wherein they are presumed to be. Professors of the faith baptiseable. As for the former of these, we shall meet with no great difference about them. Persons professing the faith of Christ may, and aught to be baptised. For this Scripture is express: when the Eunuch put the question to Philip, Act. 8. 36. [See here is water▪ what doth hinder me to be baptised?] Philip returns him this answer: If thou believest with all Vers. 37. thine heart, thou mayest. Those three thousand Converts Act. 2. 41. upon the receiving of Peter's word, his doctrine, they were baptised. Thus Simon Magus, and the rest of Samaria, upon their believing, i. e. making Act. 12. 1●. a profession of faith, they were baptised both men and women. Thus all that profess the faith of Christ (professing it with their mouths, and not denying it in their lives) they have a right unto Baptism. And why? Because in judgement of charity they are to be reputed Christians, and to be within the Covenant. General profession makes a Christian. True it is, if we speak of Christians in truth, in reality, than they only are Christians who have received Christ into their hearts by faith and love, in whose hearts Christ is form. [He is not a jew▪ (saith the Apostle) which is one outwardly.] And so may we say, He Rom. 2. Gal. 4. 19 is not a Christian that is one outwardly, that hath only the name and profession of a Christian. Yet in a large sense, they which make so much as a general profession Act. 11▪ 26. of Christ, of faith in Christ, and subjection to Christ, they are to be accounted Christians. And by virtue thereof they may and aught to be baptised. Upon this profession Mat. 3. john the Baptist baptised those that came unto him. And so did the Apostles those which came unto them, Act 5. and 8. however in some of them, that profession was hypocritical and unsound, as in Simon Magus, Ananias & Saphira, etc. yet the Apostles looking upon them with an eye of charity, and judging of them according to their profession, they admitted them unto this Ordinance. Neither do we read of any whom they refused, or yet brought to an exacter scrutiny and trial, touching the inward work of grace in their hearts, who did make such a profession and confession. Persons come to years of discretion how they ought to be admitted to Baptism. And thus ought all those who are come to years of discretion before they are baptised, be admitted to it. As viz. Pagans and Infidels, such as are borne and brought up without the pale of the Church, not descended from Christian parents. Before they be admitted to this Sacrament, they ought first to be instructed in the faith of Christ, in the principles and rudiments of Christian Religion. Being thus instructed than they are to declare and testify their voluntary embracing of that faith, together with their repentance, by open Profession and Confession. Such was the manner of john's baptism▪ having to deal with unbelieving Jews: He Mat. 3. 6. Act. 19 4. baptised them confessing their sins, and professing their faith in the Messiah: Thus the Apostles having to deal with unbelieving Gentiles, heathens, they first preached to them as john the Baptist did, and then baptised them upon the confession of their sins, and profession of their faith. And such was the practice of the Pri●●●i●e Church in like cases. Having to deal with Infidels, they first catechised them, instructed them in the principles of Christian Religion (whence they were called by the name of Catechumeni, persons that were to be catechised.) That being done, and they brought to some measure of knowledge, than they declared and testified their repentance and faith by an open and public confession in the congregation where they were to be baptised. And this they did (as it seemeth) by answering unto some questions which were propounded to them by the Minister. To which practice St. Peter seemeth to allude, 1 Pet. 3. 21. where speaking of Baptism, he calleth it, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the answer of a good conscience towards The answer of a good conscience in Baptism, what. God.] So our translation renders it; though (as Beza notes upon the place) not so fully expressing the force of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which properly signifieth an Interrogating, a Questioning. So the vulgar Latin there renders it, Interrogatio bonae conscientiae, the Interrogation of a good conscience. Which though it be somewhat obscure, yet it will lead us to the right understanding of that phrase. Beza translates it, Stipulatio bon● conscientiae, the stipulation of a good conscience. Now stipulation properly it is an answer to an Interrogation; when one being demanded concerning a thing, he returns answer, and by his answer engageth himself to do somewhat that is demanded and required of him. Such a Stipulation there was in Baptism, where the party to be baptised being demanded by the Minister concerning his repentance and faith, he made answer before the congregation, professing both, and obliging himself to both. Such an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 such a stipulation we find betwixt Philip and the Eunuch, Act. 8. 37. 38. The Eunuch desiring Baptism, Philip interrogates him concerning his faith, [If thou believest, etc.] To this the Eunuch answereth, [I believe that jesus is the Son of God.] And such was the practice of the Primitive times. Those which tendered themselves to Baptism, being Adulti, able to answer for themselves, (of which sort then there were many) they had certain questions propounded to them, to which they made answer; as, Credis? Credo. Abrenuncias? Abrenuncio. Dost thou believe? (saith the Minister) I do believe (saith the party) Dost thou renounce the Devil and his pomps? etc. I do renounce them. Such was their manner then of Baptising persons come Beza Annot. in 1 Pet. 3. 21. to years of discretion; which as Beza notes upon that place of Peter) after ages out of a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a perverse imitation, drew down and applied to the Baptism of Infants; but not so fitly, they being not able to answer for themselves. And this was the stipulation which St. Peter there speaketh of, and to which he attributes that saving property, [it saveth us,] which is the fruit and effect not of the outward Baptism, the putting away the filth of the flesh, bodily washing: but the inward Baptism testified by the answer or stipulation of a good conscience towards God. To which agreeth that of Tertullian cited there by Beza as an apt gloss upon that Text. Anima non lavatione, sed responsione sanatur. In Baptism the soul is healed not by washing, but by answering; even by that answer of a good conscience. Thus were their Adulti, persons come to years of discretion baptised then. And after the same manner ought they to be baptised now. But I will not dwell upon this, wherein we are all agreed. Baptism of Infants. The main business we have to deal with, and that which I chiefly aimed at, when I fell upon this Subject, is touching the Baptism of Infants; whether they, or any of them may be baptised. Here the Anabaptists and we are at variance. We allow it to some, they deny it to all. Whence it is they are called by the name both of Anabaptists and Catabaptists; because they oppose the Baptism of all Infants, as a thing not only inconvenient, but unlawful; and in case any of them be baptised in their infancy, they look upon that Baptism as a nullity, and so impose upon them a Rebaptisation when they come to years of discretion. Anabaptism a dangerous error. With this Error of theirs I am now to encounter. An Error not only opposing the constant and universal practice of all the Churches of God in the world, but dangerous and pernicious to them, tending directly not only to the unchurching, but unchristianing of them. Of such consequence is this doctrine of theirs, that if it be true, there are but a few Christians to be found this day in the world. To vindicate the truth of God, and the practice of the Churches; as also for the staying of unstable souls, who are subject in these unsettled times to be carried away into this Error amongst others: Come we as plainly as we can to join issue with them, putting it to the trial, whether any Infants be baptizeable or no. Q. Whether Infants be baptizeable, or no. So I shall state the controversy, and that to prevent impertinent disputes, and collateral differences, which otherwise might fall in betwixt us, and the Semi-Anabaptist, or else some others of our Brethren, who deny baptism unto some Infants, though borne of believing parents, upon other grounds, which now I forbear to mention. My quarrel here is with the complete Anabaptist, who holdeth that Infant's quâ Infants are not baptizeable, let their parents be never so holy, and the administration in all other respects never so pure, and regular. To meet with them, I propound the question in these terms. The Question stated. Q. Whether children of the holiest parents, and in the purest Churches, may and aught to be baptised in their infancy? Of this Question we maintain the Affirmative, that they may, and aught; they the Negative, that they neither aught, nor may. It remains then that we come to see what can be said of either side. I shall begin with the Affirmative, showing you what grounds, what warrant we have for our doctrine and practice. Then come to the Negative, showing what they can say by way of opposition against it. Infan●s of believing parents are subjects capable of Baptism. Begin with the former, pleading for ourselves, and all the Churches of Christ; whose very practice in all ages, in all places of the world for so many hundred years together ought not to be despised by us. But letting that pass. Infants of believing parents are subjects capable of baptism. This we might prove by divers Proved by arguments. arguments. Take but two or three of the principal; and those no new ones. New arguments in this cause are not to be expected, only the improving of old ones, the driving home of those nails which have been heretofore fastened in the head of this Sisera by the Masters of the Assemblies. 〈…〉 Children may be baptised, because within the Covenant. The first whereof is that which I have already laid down in the description of baptism, where I make the subject of baptism to be persons that are in covenant. From hence we argue, that if children of believing parents be within the Covenant than they may be baptised: But they are within the Covenant; Therefore they may be baptised. The former of these is evident (and I think it will not be denied.) To whomsoever the covenant itself belongeth, to them belongeth this seal of the Covenant. Abraham's posterity being in Covenant, they were to receive the seal of the Covenant, viz. the sign of circumcision. Thus Christians the spiritual seed of faithful Abraham, being in Covenant with God, they are capable of baptism, this initial seal, which sealeth up unto them, and testifieth unto others their entrance into Covenant. The main difference here betwixt us and the Anabaptist will lie about the second of these; viz. Whether Infants of believing parents be in Covenant or no? This Infants of believing parents, are to be reputed in Covenant. they deny, alleging that the Covenant, being a Covenant of Grace, it doth not run along with the blood, it is not transmitted from the parent to the child, neither is it entailed upon any family, any kindred. No, That which is borne of the flesh is flesh] (say they.) As for children, they are all alike borne children of wrath; neither are the children of believing parents herein privileged. [There is no difference (saith the Apostle) for all have sinned, and are deprived of the glory of God.] No Rom. 3. 22. 23. difference here between the children of Christians, and Pagans; Believers, and Infidels; the one is no more in Covenant then the other by nature. Neither are men brought into Covenant by natural generation, but by spiritual Regeneration. They must first be borne again; otherwise they have nothing to do with the Covenant. Thus they. But with what truth, it will appear by these Proved by 3 Arguments. two or three arguments. Arg. 1. Taken from Act. 2. 38. 39 Children of believing parents are within the covenant. What else (in the first place) means that of the Apostle St. Peter in that known place? Act. 2. where he telleth those new Converts, that The promise was to them, and to their children, v. 39 and thereupon inviteth them to come and be baptised, as you have it in the verse foregoing. [The promise is unto you and to your children.] Explication. For the explicating of that Text, and for the vindicating of it from the cavils and evasions of our Adversaries, I shall open and unfold unto you these two things: 1. What is there meant by the Promise; and secondly, what by their Children. Q 1. What meant by the Promise. 1. For the former of these, we find the An abaptists nibbling at it; some of them referring it to the words immediately foregoing, viz. [The receiving of the Holy Vers. 38. Ghost.] This is the promise (say they) here spoken of, A. viz. of the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit. But against them the evidence is clear. The Promise here spoken of is the great Promise of the Gospel, called here by way 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. of emphasis, [The Promise,] viz. the promise of Remission of sins, which he willeth them to seek, in, by, and through Christ. This promise he here holdeth forth unto them; and for the bearing up of their drooping dejected spirits, he tells them that that Promise belonged to them, and their children. Not the promise of the Holy Ghost in those extraordinary gifts, which was peculiar to that age, and to some peculiar persons therein, not common to all that were baptised into the name of jesus Christ. Q. 2. What by children. But what is here meant by their Children? To this the Anabaptist answers, not Children in age, young Infants. Who then? Why either children by regeneration, (So Calvin tells us some of them expound Calv. ad lo●. Not children by Regeneration, Or Succession. the word there in a metaphorical sense, purposely to evade and elude the force of it:) Or else (as the greatest part of them carry i●) children by succession, their posterity that should come after them being come to years of discretion. So they allege the word (Children) to be often used in Scripture. Act. 3. 25. Ye are the children of the Prophets. Act. 13. 26. Men and brethren, Children of the stock of Abraham.] Thus would they have the word here understood. [You and your Children] i. e. (say they) the lineally descended sons of Abraham, men and women of full age. But children in Age. A. But to this cavil of theirs we reply. The word (Children) there must be taken literally and properly, and be understood of Infants, Children in age. Vid. Robinson Bap. of Infants Arg. 5. For proof of this, I find the scope and drift of the place brought in by some, which seemeth (I confess) to favour this construction. But in as much as I find that variously carried according to divers apprehensions of it, I shall pass it by, fastening upon that which I conceive to be more demonstrative and convincing. I take it from the words themselves, Wherein we may take notice of three several ranks or conditions of persons to The Promise said to belong to three sorts of persons. whom the Apostle here affirms this promise to belong. 1. The jews themselves there present; 2. Their Children; 3. Those which were a far off; But who were they? Q. Who were those a far off; Calvin; Piscator. A Lapide. Q. Who were those a far off? The opening of that clause will conduce much to the clearing of the former. [Them which are a far off.] This I know Expositors generally, both Protestant and Papist, understand of the Gentiles, who were then afar off, at a great distance from Not the Gentiles, as it is usually expounded. Ephes. 2 17. the jew in point of Religion. For countenance of this exposition, they bring in that known place of the Apostle, Eph. 2. 17. where speaking of the jews & Gentiles, he describeth each by a Periphrasis, the one a people a far off, the other near. The Gentiles before the coming of vers. 13. Christ they were a far off. [The who sometimes were a far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. 13. of that 2. Eph.] Thus they expound Peter by Paul, generally looking upon these texts in 2. Ephes. as a Comment upon that in the 2. of the Acts. Beza ad loc. But herein I find Mr. Beza dissenting from them, and that (as I conceive) not without good ground and warrant. By those a far off in that place (saith he) cannot be Proved by two reasons. understood the Gentiles. Why not? Take a double reason for it, each convincing. Peter was not yet fully instructed in this mystery touching the calling of the Gentiles. Act. 10. Verse 13. 28. 34. 1. The calling of the Gentiles was as yet in a great part a mystery to Peter himself, A secret which was not yet clearly unfolded unto him. So much we may collect from that vision presented to him, Act. 10. whereby taking away the difference betwixt the clean beasts and unclean, bidding him slay and eat, etc. The Lord taught him not to put a difference betwixt jew and Gentile. So as it is evident, Peter was not so well instructed in this mystery before, as that he should tell the jews so expressly, that the promise belonged as well to the Gentiles, as to them. 2. Suppose Peter had understood this mystery, yet No fit time to preach this doctrine. was this no fit time to have preached and published this doctrine to these weak jews, being then but novices, beginning to look towards Christ; to whom it might rather have been a stumbling-block to keep them back, than any encouragement to bring them to Christ. To hear that the Gentiles were alike interested in the Promise with them, it could be no argument to persuade them to come in unto Christ. Upon these grounds he concludes (and I think very rationally) that by those a far off cannot be meant the Gentiles. But the posterity of the jews, a far off in time. Who then? Why the posterity of these jews, who were to succeed them in the ages to come, who were then afar off in time. Mark it. Not Gentiles a far off in state and condition, but jews afar off in time, such as were to be born in afterages. That the phrase here must be so understood, Beza well evinceth it from the original: where he takes notice of a remarkable difference betwixt Paul's words, and Peter's: Paul speaking of the Gentiles in that 2 Ephes. he calleth them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but Peter's words here are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the one importing a distance of state, the other of time. And so indeed the Greek phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 properly signifieth; such as are a far off in time, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (as Piscator makes it out) longè post futuris (as Beza translates it) such as were to be born a long time after. What meant by Children. Now then (to wind up what I have ravelled) If by those a f●r off, be meant not the Gentiles, but the jews afar off in time, then by their Children here must be understood, not their Posterity which was to come after; but their present issue, the children that already were, or should be born of their bodies, what ever they were, whether of riper, or younger years, even Infants. To them (saith the Apostle) as well as you, belongeth this promise, this great promise, the promise of the Messiah, of life and salvation by Christ. So ran the promise made to Abraham: It took in his seed, his children: and to you shall that promise be made good, in case you repent and believe, and so approve yourselves the children of faithful Abraham, the promise will reach both you and your children. So then, (to close up this Argument) the promise belonging unto the children of believers, they are also in Covenant, and being in Covenant, the Seal of the Covenant is appliable unto them. Object. [As many as the Lord our God shall call] how to be understood. Here I am not ignorant of that beaten muse which the Anabaptists generally think to creep out at, that evasion whereby they think to elude the force of this argument. They find it (as they conceive) in the last clause of the verse, which they make use of as the Seaman of his Rudder in the Stern, whereby he turns about the whole Ship; so they think hereby to turn about the whole Argument. This promise (say they) it belonged to them, and their children, and to those a far off, but how? viz. upon their Calling, So run the words; [As many as the Lord our God shall call.] Now indeed (say they) be they who, or what they will, they may lay claim to the promise, being once called, out not else. A. To this we answer, That this Cavil of theirs, what force soever there may seem to be in it, yet it cannot reach the Argument in hand, inasmuch as that clause stands in reference only to the clause next foregoing, viz. [Those which are afar off] not reaching to the former, [them and their children.] As for them, the words run roundly and absolutely, putting them and their children together, without any note of distinction betwixt them, (as it is observable in all the original copies that I can meet with) extending the promise alike unto both, and that without any limitation or restriction, [The promise is unto you and your children] Not to as many of them as the Lord shall call, (as they would restrain it) but indefinitely to all of them; and [to those which are afar off, even as many as the Lord shall call,] as many of them that should succeed in after-generations, as the Lord should effectually call to repent and believe, they should partake in the same privilege, The Promise should reach to them and to their children. So that let our adversary make what improvement he can of this allegation, unless he stretch it beyond the staple, and extend the words of the Apostle further than ever they were intended, and further than with any congruity they can reach, it cannot so much as touch, much less shake the Argument now laid down. I pass to a 2d, a second Argument to prove Infants of believing Parents to be within the Covenant. Arg. 2. Some Infants were in Covenant under the Old Testament. Infants of believing parents were in Covenant under the Old Testament, therefore they are so under the New. As for the Antecedent, the former part of this Enthymeme, viz. That some Children were in Covenant under the Old Testament, I think it will not be denied. If it should, the evidence is clear●▪ wherefore else were they circumcised? God did not put that this his Seal, to a Blank. [This is my Covenant] (saith the Lord) viz. a Gen. 17. 10, 11 sign, a seal, a token of the Covenant, not to be administered unto any but such as were presumed to be in Covenant with God. Now from hence we infer, Therefore some are in covenant now. Proved by 3 Arguments. If they were in Covenant then, than they are in Covenant now; If under the Old Testament, then under the New. This inference I shall evince and make good by three arguments. Otherwise Infants should be losers by the coming of Christ. Arg. 1. Otherwise, Children now under the New Testament should be in a worse condition than they were under the Old; & so in stead of receiving benefit by the coming of Christ, they should be endamaged by it; They should be losers by Christ, which is monstrous to conceive. Nisi fortè arbitramur Christum in suo adve●●u Patris gratiam imminu●sse aut decurtasse, quod execrab●li blasphem●â non vacat. Calv. Instit, l 4. c. 16. S. 4. That the Fathers were gainers by the coming of Christ, brought into a better condition, Papists maintain: but that their Children should be losers by it, methinks Anabaptists should not dare to affirm. But so they must be, and great losers too, if whereas they were in Covenant before his coming, since his coming they should be excluded. Certainly, little cause had john the Baptist to have sprung for joy in his mother's womb at the presence of Christ in his conception, had his birth been so disadvantageous to him, and others in that condition. Far be it from us to give way to such a thought. The coming of Christ, it Luk. 2. 10. was joyous to all, to all nations, all sexes, all conditions, all ages; advantageous to all, even to Infants. Robinson, bap. of Infants. It is well observed, Christ did not only take the nature of man upon him, but the ages of man also, viz. Childhood, Youth, Manhood. He passed through all these estates, to show that he was the Saviour, the Redeemer of all, and that some of all these estates should have benefit by him, and amongst others, Children; to whom he showed a peculiar affection when he was upon earth, (as God willing I shall show you hereafter.) A plain evidence that he came not to disadvantage them in the great business of salvation, but to promote and further it. 2. Again (secondly) if Infants should be in Covenant The grace of God should be more large under the Old Testament, ●hen the New. under the Old Testament, and not under the New, than the grace of God under the Old Testament should be more large then under the New; and under the New more straight then under the Old. Under the Old Testament, the Covenant was, [I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed.] The grace of God then extended not to the Parent only, but to the Child. Now, if this grace should now be restrained only to the Parent, not reaching unto the Child, than the grace of the New Testament should be more straight then of the Old, which cannot be imagined without great wrong and injury to Christ himself, and his Gospel. As for Christ, we know he brought grace Joh. 1. 17. along with him, (as the Sun doth his beams.) Grace and Truth came by (and with) jesus Christ.] Grace, and that ample grace. Such is the grace of the New Testament, reaching and spreading further than that of the Old. [The grace of God which bringeth salvation, hath appeared Tit. 2. 12. to all men] (saith the Apostle) i. e. to all sorts, ages, and conditions of men. Therein is this grace more ample than it was under the Law. There the grace of God in an ordinary dispensation it was appropriated to the jews. They were then the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, God's favourites, to whom his grace in Christ was manifested. But now that grace hath appeared to all men. The grace of the Gospel is more ample, and every ways greater grace than that before, or under the Law [God having provided Heb. 11. 40. some better thing for us] (saith the Apostle.) The privileges of the Gospel are more, and greater, and better, than those under the Law. Surely therefore, Infants being in Covenant then, they are not excluded now. Which if they be, Infants no where cast out of the Covenant. 3. Let it be showed (in the third place) by what act they are excluded. If once they were in Covenant, let it be showed when, and how they came to be ejected: how this Magna Charta, this Great Charter, granted first to Abraham, came to be forfeited, or when it was called in. How they who were once of God's family, and wore his livery, came to be cashiered: How they, who were once members of the mystical Body, came to be cut off. If our adversaries can show us a special warrant for the calling in of this act of grace towards them (as they must, before we can give way to it) a special and express order to prohibit Infants from laying any further claim to that privilege under the Gospel, which for so many ages they had been peaceably possessed of under the Law; then we will hearken to them. Otherwise we must hold Infants to be in statu quo, in the same, or in a better state and condition now, than they were in under the Old Testament. Being in Covenant with God then, they are in Covenant with him now. And being in Covenant, they have right to this initial seal of the Covenant. I know what the Anabaptist will here reply to this Argument. Give me leave to meet with it, that I may clear the way as I go. Replic. These are two distinct Covenants. That Infants should be in Covenant under the New Testament, because they were so under the old, it followeth not (say they;) why? In as much as these are two distinct Covenants, not the same. For this (say Jer. 31. 31. Heb. 8. 6. they) Scripture is express; calling this Covenant which we have under the Gospel, a New Covenant, and a better Covenant, established upon better promises, etc. As The old Covenant abolished. Heb. 7. 18. for that old Covenant it is antiquated, and abrogated, being (as the Apostle tells us) disannulled by reason of the weakness and unprofitableness thereof.] That Covenant than is now determined, neither have we any thing to do with it under the Gospel. This is a new Covenant, nor like the former. A. The old Covenant, what. A. For answer to this, in as much as it will make much to the clearing of this doctrine, and tend greatly to the satisfaction of those who desire it, give me leave briefly to show you what the old Covenant was, which is there opposed to this new Covenant, and said to be abrogated, and abolished, etc. Where, let God himself be his own Interpreter In that 31. of jeremy, v. 32. cited by the Apostle, Heb. 8. v. 9 the words are express. [Behold the days come (saith the Lord) that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, etc.] What Covenant? why mark what follows. Not according to the Covenant which I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of Egypt, etc.] Mark it. This Not that made with Abraham, but the Covenant at Mount Sina which were was the old Covenant so much spoken of in that Epistle to the Hebrews. Not that Covenant which God made with Abraham, Gen. 17. But that Covenant which he made with Israel at their coming out of Egypt, Exod. 19 These were two distinct Covenants: distinct, I say, whether in kind, or only in manner of administration, Two distinct Covenants. I will not contend. A point worthy to be observed, as letting in much light to the controversy now in hand. Six differences betwixt them. Many remarkable differences there are betwixt them. To glean some of the handfuls that others have let fall. 1. (In the first place) they differ in time. The Covenant Vid. Mr. Robinson Bap. of Infants, p. 77. made with Abraham was long before that other Covenant, even four hundred and thirty years. So the Apostle tells us expressly, Gal. 3. 17. The Covenant In time. that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the Law which was four hundred and thirty years after cannot disannul. So long was this Covenant after that Covenant made with Abraham. Place. 2. As they differ in time, so in place. The one made at Mount Sina, Exod. 19 the other first made with Abraham in Vr of the Caldees, Gen. 12. after renewed, and confirmed in Canaan, Gen. 15. and 17. Manner of making and dispensing. Exod. 19 3. They differ in the manner both of their making, and dispensing. The Law was given after a terrible manner, to declare the justice of God against the violaters and transgressors of that Covenant. But the Covenant made with Abraham, was made with all sweetness of love and mercy, breathing forth nothing but free grace. And for the manner of their dispensation; that legal Covenant it was dispensed under types and figures, and ceremonial observances. It had Ordinances of divine service, and a worldly Sanctuary, etc. (as the Apostle speaketh, Heb. 9 1.) But the Covenant made with Abraham was more plainly and simply dispensed, having no other Ceremony annexed to it, but only Circumcision, which was a seal of that Covenant. 4. Again they differ in their Conditions. The condition Conditions. Mr Robinson ibid. of that legal Covenant at Mount Sina, was even the same for substance with that which God made with Adam in Paradise. [Do this and live.] A legal condition; promising life, all earthly and heavenly blessings, upon the condition of perfect obedience to all the Commandments. Whereupon this Covenant, through man's corruption, and inability to keep it, it is said to be weak. [It was weak through the flesh, Rom. 8. 3. and unprofitable, Heb. 7. 18. It was disannulled for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof.] But now the condition of that Covenant made with Abraham was Evangelicall, viz. Faith, and Evangelicall obedience. Rom. 4. 11. Faith; Circumcision the seal of that Covenant was to Abraham a seal of the righteousness of Faith; sealing up unto him righteousness and life, not upon the condition of doing, working, but believing, which was accounted to him for Righteousness, (as the Apostle sets it Vers. 9 22. forth, Rom. 4.) Obedience; not exactness, but uprightness, Gen. 17. 1. Walk before me, and be upright, or sincere. End and use. 5. Again (fifthly) they differ in the end, and use of them. That legal Covenant, it was given chiefly because of transgressions. So the Apostle tells us, Gal. 3. 19 wherefore then serveth the Law, it was added because of transgressions. viz. to discover them, to bridle and restrain men from them, to denounce punishments for them (for that is a threefold use of the Law, 1. Detegit. 2. Fraenat. 3. Punit.) to convince men of sin, and of their misery by reason of sin, that so they might come to see the need they have of Christ, and be driven to him, according to that of the Apostle, Gal. 3. 24. The Law was our Schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ. But that other Covenant made with Abraham, it was to assure him, and his seed of their interest in the Messiah, and the promise of life through him. Continuance. Sixtly, and lastly, They differ in their duration and continuance. That legal Covenant it was but temporary, to continue but till Christ should come. So saith the Apostle, Gal. 3. 19 The law was added because of transgressions, until the seed should come to whom the promise was made.] i. e. until Christ should come. Then that legal Covenant as a Covenant with the Church, ceased. But the Covenant made with Abraham it was an everlasting Covenant. So the Lord tells him, Gen. 17. 7. I will establish my Covenant between me and thee, and thy seed after thee for an everlasting Covenant, etc. So than you see that these Covenants were two distinet Covenants. That Covenant which God made with Israel at Mount Sina, it was not the same with that which he had made with Abraham before. And of that Covenant it is that the Apostle there speaketh in the 7. and 8. chap. of the Hebrews. Not of the Covenant made with Abraham, which was an Evangelicall Covenant, and for substance the same with that which we are now under; But of the Covenant made at Mount Sina, that legal Covenant. That is the Covenant which the Apostle there compareth with the new Covenant, and of which he telleth us that it is now disannulled and abolished. Q. The Covenant at Mount Sina, why called the old Covenant, and first Covenant A. 1. In opposition to the Covenant of Grace under the New Testament. Q. Why but (saith our Adversary) how could that be called the old Covenant, and the first Covenant, when as it was 430. years after the Covenant made with Abraham? This was rather the first Covenant, and old Covenant. A. To this it is answered: That legal Covenant is called the old Covenant, 1. In opposition to the Covenant of the Gospel under the new Testament, which because it was revived and renewed, and confirmed by the coming of Christ, the promised seed, it is therefore peculiarly called the new Covenant, and that legal Heb 8. 13. Covenant in opposition to it, is called the old Covenant. Waxing old. 2. The old Covenant, because it waxed old, and through age decayed. So saith the Apostle of it in the place last named. Heb. 8. last. [In that he saith a new Covenant, he hath made the first old, new that which decayeth, and waxeth old is ready to vanish aw●y.] The same for substance with the first Covenant made with Adam in state of innocency. 3. The old Covenant, and the first Covenant, because for substance it was partly the same with that first Covenant which God made with Adam in state of innocence. The Law (the moral part of it) published upon Mount Sina, it was no other but the same Law that was given to Adam at the first. What was there written in Tables of stone was but a counterpane of 2 Cor. 3. 3. what was written in the fleshy Tables of the heart of man at the beginning. And being so, well might it be called the old Covenant, and the first Covenant, being before the Covenant of Grace made with Abraham, I, or with Adam either. The old Covenant disannulled. You see then what the old Covenant is, that legal Covenant whereof Moses was the Mediator. And of this Covenant it is true, it is disannulled, abrogated, so as there is now no more use of the Law as a Covenant to the Church. Mark that, as a Covenant: Other uses there are of it many, which are still in force as much as ever: But it is no longer a Covenant. This Covenant is disannulled. But so is not that Evangelicall Covenant Not the Covenant with Abraham. made with Abraham, which is (as I told you) an Everlasting Covenant, and for substance the very same with that which Believers are now under; viz. the Covenant of Grace promising life and salvation upon the condition of believing. So much the Apostle tells us expressly, Gal. 3. v. 8. The Scripture (i. e. the Spirit of God speaking in Scripture) foreseeing that God would justify the heathen (the Gentiles) through faith, preached before the Gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all Nations be blessed.] Mark it. When God made this Covenant with Abraham, declaring and promising that in his seed all the Nations of the earth should be blessed, he then preached the Gospel to him, making a Covenant with him concerning Christ, and salvation by Christ. So much Zacharias in his song acknowledgeth, Luke 1. 72, 73. where speaking of the exhibiting and sending of Christ into the world, he calls it, An holy Covenant, the oath which God swore unto our father Abraham. The Covenant made with Abraham then was no other but the Covenant of Grace, even the same Covenant that we are now under. All the difference is, the Covenant now is new drawn, and so put into another form, set forth and expressed more clearly and fully, then that with Abraham was, (even as our evidences and conveyances, now they are more large and full than they were wont to be in the days of our forefathers, though in effect the same) but for substance they are one and the same. And being so, (to close up this second Argument) that Covenant is an everlasting Covenant, (I will make Jer. 32. 40. an everlasting Covenant with them, saith the Lord, speaking of the renewing of the Covenant of Grace with them, jer. 32. 40.) A Covenant that is not waxed old (as that legal Covenant did) that is not, nor ever shall be disannulled, but is in force still as much as ever. And consequently children of Believers being once in Covenant, they are still in Covenant. And being in Covenant, they have a right to this seal of the Covenant. Arg. 3. Proving some Infants to be within the Covenant: Arg. 3. I pass now to a third Argument to prove children of Believers to be within the Covenant. I take it from that known place of the Apostle, 1 Cor. 7. where he tells us expressly that the children of holy Because they are holy. and believing parents, (ay, if but one of them be a believer) are Holy. [Else were your children unclean, but now they are holy, v. 14. A Text which neither Papist nor Anabaptist can look upon, but it will make their eyes dazzle. In this Text the Papist (unless he shut his eyes) cannot but see, that children of believing parents may be in a state of salvation, though they die without Baptism. Why? because they are to be accounted holy by birth. And in this text the Anabaptist (if he will not (as he said) Quaerere festucam, seek straws to put out his own eyes withal, as indeed in this point they do) cannot but see that Infants of believing parents are within the Covenant, and consequently have a right to the seal of the Covenant, and that because they are holy. Q. How Infants of believing parents are said to be holy. A. Not free from original sin. Q. Holy? but how holy? what are all the Infants of believing parents inwardly inherently holy, truly sanctified by the Grace and Spirit of Christ? and born such? A. Not so. Herein, what ever the Anabaptists hold about original sin, which most of them deny, (for that is their doctrine (I will not say of all, but of many, of most of them) that, no Infants are conceived and borne in original sin, (point blank to that of David, Ps. 51. 5.) neither are children of wrath by nature, etc. we freely acknowledge it, that in this there is no difference. The child of a believer is as well conceived in sin as any other, all being alike sinners by nature, and guilty of eternal condemnation. In this sense children of believing parents are not said to be holy. Not but that God may and sometimes doth sanctify children from, and in the womb, as it is said of jeremy and john the Baptist. But that is not the holiness which the Apostle there speaketh of. But visibly holy. What then? why an outward, visible holiness. Herein the Anabaptists (most of them) and we agree. But what outward Holiness is it? whether a Civil or Religious holiness. Here is the difference. The Anabaptist to evade the blow of this Text, taketh the former way, understanding the Apostle there to speak only of a Civil Evasion. holiness, opposite to a Civil uncleanness. [Now are Not only with a Civil Holiness. your children holy.] i. e. (say they) they are legitimate, no bastards. Thus generally they construe that place. And for countenance of that interpretation they bring that Text of the Prophet Malachy, Mal. 2. 15. where the Prophet tells us, that at the first, God made but one man and one woman, joining them together in marriage, viz. that he might seek a godly seed (or holy seed) i. e. such as should be borne in lawful marriage: And by that they interpret this Text of the Apostle, [Now are your children holy,] i. e. legitimate, lawfully begotten, not spurious, no bastards. A. Vide P. Mart. & Parae. ad l●oc. To this we reply, that this interpretation (however it must be acknowledged to have some considerable advocates for it, both ancient and modern) yet it cannot be the sense of the Apostle in that place. We shall not need to spend much time about it. The error will soon appear if we do but oppose the parts of the Apostles dis-junction there one against the other. [Else were your children unclean, but now they are holy] That is, (say they) else were they bastards, but now they are legitimate. Now the former of these is not true, viz. that in case the unbelieving wife were not sanctified by the believing husband, but both were unbelievers, than their children should be unclean, i. e. Bastards. This is not true. For the children of Pagans, where both parents are Infidels, yet being borne in lawful wedlock, they are no more bastards than the children of Christians are, but are as legitimate, and as free from civil uncleanness as any other. So that (whatever sense be put upon that place of the Prophet Malachy) yet this cannot be the sense of the Apostle in this place, where he speaketh of a holiness that was peculiar to believers, not common to Infidels as well as them. The case is clear to them who will not here shut their eyes against the light. Evasion. 2. Others there are of them who would elude the force of that place another way. They will tell us that Nor only sanctified to the use of the parents. Paul in telling them their children were holy, he meant no more, but that they were sanctified unto them. Even as the unbelieving wife (say they) is sanctified to the believing husband, i. e. sanctified to his use, even so, and no otherwise, are their children said to be holy, i. e. sanctified to the use of their parents in the duties of relation; so as the parents may both own them, and keep them, and use them as children, and that in a Christian and comfortable way. A. A. But to this it is as soon answered as to the former. (Besides that these children cannot be said to be sanctified to both parents, the one being an unbeliever, to Tit. 1. 15. whom nothing is pure▪ nothing holy, besides that,) There is a broad difference between being sanctified to the use of one, and being holy. To a believer all things are sanctified. [Every creature of God is go●●, for it is sanctified by the Word, and Prayer, 1 Tim. 4. 5.] [To the pure all things are pure, Tit. 2. 15.] 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Pure, but not Holy. This cannot be said of all creatures that they should be holy, holy in themselves, as here it is said of the children of believing parents, who are said to be not only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not only sanctificati, but sancti, not only sanctified to the use of the parent, but holy, holy in themselves. Q. But what holiness then is it that that the Apostle here means? But holy in respect of federal holiness. A. Why, briefly; It must be a federal holiness, the holiness of the Covenant. So Calvin, Beza, P. Martyr, Paraeus, and almost the whole stream of Protestant Expositors carry it. As for Papists indeed, they here Vid. A Lapid. ad loc. join hands with the Anabaptist. Not enduring to hear of the holiness of Children, holiness by birth, because that being admitted, their absolute necessity of Baptism, whereof they are rigid and cruel patrons, must fall to the ground. But amongst Protestant Interpreters it is generally received. And that not without good warrant from the word, which usually calleth them holy who are borne under a holy Covenant. The Covenant itself is holy; so called by Zacharias in that place prealleadged, 1. Luke 72. And so are they which are borne under it. Thus were the jews holy. [Thou art a holy people unto the Lord thy God.] Ye have it often repeated in Deut. 7. 6 c. 14▪ 2. 21. that book of Deuteronomy, i. e. under a holy Covenant, And in this respect they were all alike holy. It is that which Corah and his company tell Moses and Aaron. Num. 16. 3. [All the Congregation is holy every one of them.] A truth in itself, though not as they intended it. They were all holy in respect of a federal holiness, though not so holy as Moses and Aaron whom God had sanctified and set apart to special and peculiar services. The Jews being in Covenant they were said to be a holy people, and a holy seed. So you have it Ezra 9 2. where it is said that the Holy seed had mingled themselves with the people of the land.] And in this sense the Apostle (speaking in the known phrase, and language of the Scripture) calleth the children of believing parents holy, viz. so holy as the children of the jews formerly were. This was the privilege of the jews; they were a holy seed, they and their children: In that differing from Gentiles that were out of Covenant. [We (saith the Apostle) Gal. 2. 15. who are jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles.] the Gentiles being out of Covenant, their children were borne sinners, i. e. aliens and strangers to the Covenant. But it was otherwise with the jews, their children were holy, borne such, viz. in respect of a federal holiness. In this privilege do believing Gentiles now partake with them, (the partition wall being now broken down,) Eph. 2. 14. they being incorporated into the same body with them, being made Burgesses of the same heavenly jerusalem with them, they are also infranchized and made partakers of the same privileges and prerogatives that they were. Amongst which this is one, that they and their seed are holy: that is, they are no longer Pagans' and Heathens, but Christians, members of the Church, in Covenant with God, so to be taken, so to be reputed. The Anabaptist injurious to Infants. Where, before we pass any further, take notice how injurious the Anabaptist is unto the children of believers, whom they bereave of this spiritual privilege, this excellent Prerogative, casting them out amongst the children of Heathens and Infidels: peremptorily affirming, That there is no difference betwixt the one and the other: The one as holy as the other, the one no more in Covenant then the other; and consequently the one hath no more right to the seal of the Covenant than the other. Infants of Believers and Infidels differ. No difference? True, by nature we yield it, there is none. [There is no difference (saith the Apostle) for all have sinned, Rom. 3. 22.] ay, and all have alike sinned; all alike guilty of Adam's sin by a just imputation; and all alike tainted and stained with Adam's corruption by a real communication. But hath Grace made no difference? 1 Cor. 4. 7. [Who maketh thee to differ from another? (saith the Apostle.) Not nature, but grace. This made the jew to differ from the Gentile, and the children of the one from the children of the other: And this is that makes as believers themselves, so their children to differ from Infidels: Of whom the Apostle saith that they are holy. And what? Is there yet no difference? Will our Adversaries say the same of the children of Infidels and Pagans, that they are Holy? But we shall not need to wonder at this, that they equalise them with the children of Pagans and Infidels, when as they do not stick to compare them with Dogs and Cats, boldly affirming, (so some of that way have lately done) that the one hath as much right to Baptism as the other. To which blasphemy of theirs, I shall return no other reply but that of Michael to the Devil, when Judas 9 he strove with him, The Lord rebuke thee.] Thus you see this first and grand Argument for the Baptism of Infants sufficiently supported. If Infants of believing parents be in Covenant, than they have right to this Seal of the Covenant: But they are in Covenant. This we have made good by three subordinate Arguments. 1. The Promise belongeth unto them. 2. If they were in Covenant under the Old Testament, than also under the New. 3. They are holy. To these many other might yet be added. That of the Apostle to his Romans seconds that to his Corinthians. If the root be holy, so are the branches, Rom. 11. 16.] Holy parents, a holy seed. The one being in Covenant so is the other. 1 Thess. 4. 13. Again, if they be not in Covenant they are without hope (as Paul saith of unbelieving Gentiles) there being no way whereby salvation can be obtained but by the Covenant of free grace in jesus Christ. But to exclude all Infants dying in their infancy from salvation, I think is greater cruelty than the Anabaptist will own. Nay clean contrary to their doctrine, who by denying Original sin, (as many of them do) put all Infants dying in their infancy into a state of salvation, (larger charity than the Scripture will maintain) and if saved, than they must first be in Covenant. Q. Whether 〈◊〉 Infants of believing parents be in Covenant. Q. But what then (it may be said) are all Infants of believing parents in Covenant? A. I answer in the outward visible Covenant they are. As for the Covenant itself, to speak properly, and strictly it depends upon God's election. Neither doth it A. Visibly they are. belong to any but those who are elected. But this is to us a secret. Now the rule is, De ●ccultis non judicat Ecclesia. [Secret things belong unto the Lord, but things revealed Deut. 29 29. to us and our children.] Amongst which this is one, [I will be thy God, and the God of thy Seed.] And this are we to hope and believe touching all the children of believers, that they are Gods children as well as theirs, until the contrary be some ways manifested. Q. How the Covenant is transmitted. Q. But how cometh this Covenant to be transmitted from the parent to the child? what doth it run along with the blood? Is it transmitted by the way of natural generation? A. Not by natural generation. A. Not so. This (what ever our Adversaries in this particular would fasten upon us, both Anabaptists and Papists (for in this they are agreed) we renounce and disclaim. Foedus non transfundit●r per carne●, saith P. Mart. in 1. Cor. 7. 14. P. Martyr rightly. The Covenant is not propagated, and transmitted by the way of natural generation. No. [That which is borne of the flesh, is flesh.] The parent communicates his nature and the corruption of it unto his child, But by virtue of the promise. but nothing of Grace. That is the free gift of God. And this it is that bringeth the child of the believer into Covenant as well as the parent, even the free and gracious promise of God made both to the parent, and to the child: making over the heavenly inheritance unto both as joint heirs of the Kingdom of God. To draw to a conclusion of this first Argument. You see that Infants of believers are in Covenant, and how they come to be so. Now being in Covenant, they have right to this initial seal of the Covenant. Repl. Infants have no right to the Lords Supper. Repl. But to this the Anabaptist will yet once more reply, that by the same reason they should have right to the other Sacrament as well as this, to the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, that being also a seal of the Covenant. A. They have a right to it, though not in it. A. To this I answer briefly. A right they have to both the seals of the Covenant, both to Baptism and the Lords Supper. Though for the present they be not capable of the latter, yet they have a right in it, or rather a right to it. I●s adrem, though not I●s in re. A right to it, though not in it. Even as a child under age, an Infant lying in the cradle, being an heir, he hath right to such a house or land, which yet he cannot for the present take up, and make use of. Even such a right have the children of believers in, or to the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, a right to it, and a right to partake of it, when they are capable of it, which for the present they are not. Q. Infants, why not capable of both Sacraments. Q. And why not as capable of the one Sacrament, as of the other? A. Because the one is a Passive, the other an active Ordinance. A. I answer, because the one is a passive, the other an active Ordinance in reference to the receivers. Baptism is a passive Ordinance, even as Circumcision was, which required nothing in the person to be actually done by him, but only to suffer the flesh of his foreskin to be cut: So in Baptism now, the person baptised is a mere patient in the act of baptising: But it is otherwise in the Lord's supper. Even as in the Passeover there was somewhat more required than a bare suffering, viz. a taking, and eating, etc. Even so in the Lord's supper, the Communicant is more than a mere patient, he must be active in that Ordinance. Take and eat, take and drink, both in remembrance of Christ. This must the Communicant do in the act of receiving. Besides, in way of preparation to it he must examine himself, and that as for other things, so for his ability to discern the Lords body. Which because Infants cannot do, therefore they are debarred from that Sacrament, though received to the other. Baptism is a passive ordinance, wherein the person baptised is a mere patient. Such is a man in the beginning of the new birth, the first act of conversion, a mere patient; As in Generation, so in Regeneration. Now Baptism, we know, is a Sacrament of our Regeneration, and consequently Infants are capable of this Sacrament, thoughnot of the other, even as Infants under the Old Testament were capable of Circumcision at eight days old, when they were not capable of eating the Passeover, though they had a right to the one, as well as the other. But I shall dwell no longer upon it. I pass to a second general Argument. Arg. 2. from Gen. 17. 12. [He that is eight days old shall be circumcised.] Arg. 2. Infants were circumcised, ergo, may be baptised. AN Argument which I question not but it would alone bear the weight of this whole Controversy, if it were laid upon it. It is taken from the analogy and proportion betwixt Baptism and Circumcision: the one a Sacrament of the Old Testament, the other of the New. The Argument is framed thus: Infants under the Old Testament were circumcised; therefore Infants under the New Testament may be baptised. The Proposition or former part of this Enthymeme, the words which I have now read hold forth unto your, That Infants were circumcised▪ So runs the Order and Injunction here in the Text. [He that is eight days old, shall be circumcised etc.] Wherein for the opening of the words, we may take notice of the Ordinance itself, and the time assigned for the administration of it. The Ordinance, Circumcision; the time, the eight day. Briefly of each. Circumcision, what. 1. For the Ordinance itself, Circumcision, you know what it was. The first Sacrament of the Old Testament signifying and sealing up to the people of the jews their entrance into Covenant with God; Thence called by the name of the Covenant. [My Covenant shall be in your Gen. 17. 13. flesh, Gen. 17.] For further opening of it, I might show you both what was the sign, and what the thing signified by it. v. 11. The outward sign, the cutting away the foreskin of the flesh. The thing signified by it; Generally, their entrance into Covenant▪ More particularly, their justification ●nd Sanctification. justification, in the remission of all their sins, and gracious acceptation of their persons in and through the blessed seed, being now marked out for God. Sanctification, in the mortifying of their lusts. And hence it was, that that mark was set upon that part of the body, to represent both the pardoning and mortifying of all their sinful lusts; both which were hereby not only signified, but sealed up unto them. Divers mysteries shadowed out by Circumcision. Many other uses there were of this Sacrament. Divers mysteries were shadowed out and signified by it: As, 1. The Corruption of their natures, viz. That they were by carnal generation unclean, and impure, out of Covenant with God, deserving to be cut off, and cast from the presence of God, as that foreskin was from the presence of men. Heb. 9 22. 2. The means of their Redemption, viz. by the shedding of blood, without which there is no remission, no redemption. It is a general observation: All blood shed in the Old Testament, was typical; and so was this. The blood shed in Circumcision, a type of the blood of Christ shed in his Passion. 3. The nature of Mortification, which is a painful exercise making the heart bleed, and making it bleed by affliction of spirit; and a cutting off, and casting away of sin, as in Circumcision there was a cutting off, and casting away the foreskin of the flesh. 4. Their obligation and duty, viz. That they should be ready to shed their blood for God, who had taken them into Covenant with himself. Ends of the Institution. These and divers other mystical significations it had; besides divers other ends of the Institution. As 1. It was to them the initial seal of the Covenant, making them visible members of the Church. 2. It was a note of distinction, to difference and distinguish them from all other nations and people. 3. It was an obligation upon them, binding them to the observation of the whole Law, not only Moral, but Ceremonial. 4. It was to them a pledge and assurance of their right to, and interest in the earthly Canaan, which was the type of a heavenly. These and many more ends and uses might be reckoned up, but I shall not dwell upon them. The time appointed for administering of Circumcision, the eight day. Pass we to the second thing, (which is here principally aimed at) viz. the Circumstance of Time, when this Sacrament was to be administered, and that was upon the eight day. [He that is eight days old.] Filius ●ct● di●rum, the son of eight days, (so the Original hath it) i. e. a Child of eight days old: That was the day appointed for the administering of this Sacrament, the eight day: which was precisely commanded▪ and as precisely observed, upon what day soever it fell, ay, though upon Joh. 7. 22, 23. the Sabbath day. [Moses gave you Circumcision (saith our Saviour to the jews) and ye on the Sabbath day circumcise a man;] viz. that the Law of Circumcision might not be broken. Thus it was. Q. Why the eight day? Q. But the question may be touching the reason of it; why God would have it so? why he chooseth out that time, that day? why no sooner? why no later? A. For answer, Know we it is not good, nor safe to be too curious in our inquiries after God, in seeking a reason of all his Injunctions and Commands. He that is the Lord of time, may dispose of time as he pleaseth, neither is he bound to give an account of it. Yet in as much as there is a reason in all his actions, make we a sober and modest enquiry after it here. Q. Why no sooner A. Divers reasons alleged. Some Physical Perer. ad loc. ex Plutarcho. Q. 1. Why no sooner? Why not before the 8th. day? A. Divers reasons I find given for it; some physical or natural, others spiritual and mystical: In a physical way, The Physician will tell us, that the seventh day is a Cryticall day, and so a dangerous day, in special to Infants; so as till that day be past, no wound, no incision can safely be made in the body of a tender Infant. Other mystical. In a mystical way; Augustine will tell us, that this had reference to the resurrection of Christ, who rose again the eight day, by whom we have the true Circumcision. The Master of the Sentences, and others after him, will tell us, that this eight day shadowed out the last day. Octava dies eterna dies, (saith Luther.) The eight day an Luther ad loc. emblem of Eternity, which cometh not within the compass of the seven days, which are the measurers of time. Then shall we have a full and perfect Circumcision, having put off this sinful flesh. The Hebrew Doctors have yet another conceit. The eight day was assigned (say they) to the end that a Sabbath (which to the Jews was a sign of their Sanctification) Exod. 31. 13. might pass over the head of the Infant, before it was circumcised, which it doth ever in eight days. But I will not avouch any of these. Two reasons insisted on. More plainly and simply, take a double reason for it. The one natural, the other ceremonial and mystical. R. 1. The natural Reason. 1. God puts off Circumcision to the eight day, because before that, the child being tender could not without hazard or hardship endure so painful a wound. From whence we might (by the way) take up a double observation, each useful. Obs. 1. God proportions trials to strength. Obs. 1. See here the truth of that which St. Paul tells us, 1 Cor. 10. 13. That God will not suffer his people to be tempted, (tried above their strength, above what they are able to bear. He knoweth their frames and their tempers, and he will deal with them accordingly. [He Psal. 103. 14. knoweth our frame (saith the Psalmist) and he remembreth that we are but dust. And therefore what ever sense and reason may dictate, God will deal tenderly with his people, the people that are in Covenant with him, not 1 Pet. 1. 6. afflicting them but when and where neediss, and in such a measure as they shall be able to bear it. Giving them such breathe, such intervals, and intermissions as he shall see fitting for them. Thus deals he here with these young Covenanters, the Hebrew Infants, he giveth them a breathing time betwixt their Birth and Circumcision, that so they might recover the soarnesse of the one, before he put them upon a new smart. Even so tenderly is God pleased to deal with his people: He will not suffer them to have sorrow upon sorrow but where need is. Paul writing to his Philippians tells them of Epap●roditus his sickness, [He was sick nigh unto death, but Phil. 2. 27. (saith he) God had mercy on him; and not on him only, but on me also, lest I should have sorrow upon sorrow. Herein God deals with them, as the wary Physician with his patient; who if he be driven to repeat his Phlebotomy, his blood letting, yet he affords his patient such intermission as the case will permit. Thus though God do sometimes follow his people with a succession of trials, their need requiring it, yet he allows them such respites, and such breathe as he in his wisdom seeth fit f●r them. True it is, flesh and blood sometimes thinks otherwise. It is jobs complaint as touching himself, that [God multiplied his wounds without cause, and that he would not suffer him to take his breath, job 9 17, 18] But this was jobs infirmity, (as Asaph saith of himself in a Psal. 77. 10. like case) a fit of passion. Certainly God is no delighted in the miseries of his creatures, much less in the sufferings of his people, and therefore they shall have such intermissions as he seeth fit for them, that so they may not sink under their burdens. Obs. 2. God will have mercy rather than sacrifice. Obs. 2. See here the truth of that which the Prophet Hosea tells us, Hos 6 6▪ The Lord desireth mercy, and not sacrifice, i. e. mercy rather than sacrifice. God requireth that the Hebrew Infants should be circumcised, but he will not have them circumcised before the eight day; before that, they were not able to bear it. It might be a hazard, at least a hardship to them, and therefore he requires it not. Nay, he requires the contrary. By no means upon what pretence soever, they might not administer it before that day. Applic. Applic. Which may serve both as a warrant, and direction unto us about our baptising of Infants. A warrant for baptising by sprinkling. 1. As a warrant, viz. to bear out our manner of baptising Infants by sprinkling rather then dipping. Dipping being a Ceremony which in these colder Climates cannot be used without eminent hazard and danger unto children. Now the Rule is. Necessity and charity dispense with ceremonial observances. Such is this rite, this manner of baptising, a Ceremony. Now the duties of the Ceremonial Law were ever to give way to the Moral, and so must they still. To preserve life is a duty of the Moral Law; no Ceremony but must give way to it. He that would not have Infants circumcised, will not have them baptised to the hazard of their lives. A direction about the time for baptising Infants. 2. Here is a direction to parents about the time for baptising their children. Therein let them not be over hasty in thrusting their children upon this Ordinance so soon as ever they are borne, though not without some hazard and danger to their persons. But let them be content to wait God's time. Q. God's time, I, but when is that? God's time, the time convenient. A. When it is most convenient. That is God's time. Therefore it was that God made choice of the eight day for Circumcision, because that day was most convenient. In Baptism now there is no set day appointed, it may be administered sooner or later, before the eight day, or after. But the time convenient, that is the day. Q. Time convenient; when is that? A. Why when the child may safely and conveniently receive it, and when the Ordinance may be had according to Christ's Institution. Now is the time convenient, which is God's time; and this time Christians should wait for. Children dying without Baptism, whether endangered. Q. But what if the child die in the mean time? is it not hereby damnified or endangered? A. To this we answer by making the like Querie out of the Text. What if an Hebrew child died before the eight day? The same case of danger might have been objected, because the child died without the seal of the Covenant: yet were not the Jews upon that pretext of necessity to hasten the time, to baptise before the eight day. But in this case they must leave their children unto that God who hath not tied himself (though he hath done us) to Ordinances and means, but is able inwardly to supply what is outwardly wanting. And the like aught Christians to do where Baptism cannot be conveniently had, with safety to the child, and according to the Ordinance of Christ, there are they to commit and commend it unto that God, who both can and will make good his Covenant, though unsealed. Obj. Gen. 17. 14. The uncircumcised man-child was to be cut off. Obj. Why but it is objected: The uncircumcised man-child was to be cut off: So you have it v. 14. [The uncircumcised manchild shall be cut off from his people.] i. e. separated from the fellowship of the Saints both here and hereafter. Now by proportion it may seem there may be the like danger in a child unbaptised. Arg. 1. It reached not to Infants under eight days old. A. To this we answer, that that Text, should it be understood of children, yet is it not to be extended to Infants under eight days old. Such as died before they could receive this Ordinance according to the Institution, they were not within the compass of this commination and threatening. No more are children which are taken away before they can be made partakers of Baptism according to Christ's Institution, this endangereth them not. Not yet to children, but to persons of age contemning or neglecting that Ordinance. Jun. & Trem, ad loc. 2. But (secondly) that place is not properly to be understood of Infants, but of persons come to years of discretion. Not of Infants merely wanting Circumcision, but of persons neglecting and contemning that Ordinance. The words in the Original import no more. Praeputiatus mas. The uncircumcised male, (so junius conceives the word there to be taken, with reference only to the sex, not to the age;) Such a one shall be cu● off; when? not in his Infancy, but afterwards, when he cometh to years of discretion. If then he shall neglect Circumcision, so approving of his parents neglect, than he shall be cut off. That this is the sense of the place, junius maketh it good by two arguments. Proved by two Arguments. 1. From the word in the Original which (saith he) is to be rendered not passively, (as our Translation readeth it) [Whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised:] but actively; [Who shall not circumcise his foreskin▪] Not Circumcidetur, but Circumciderit. Not, shall not be Circumcised, but shall not Circumcise, or cause to be circumcised the foreskin of his flesh, viz. when he is come to years of discretion, If then he shall contemn or neglect this Ordinance, etc. 2. From the Reason which God himself there giveth why the uncircumcised person should be cut off, viz. Because he hath broken my Covenant. Iritum fecit faedus meum. He hath made void my Covenant. Now this is not incident to children. And therefore the punishment should not be 〈◊〉 where the offence▪ could not be committed. If the Infant were not circumcised, it was the Parent's fault in omitting it, not the Infants in wanting it. And in this case the Parent might be cut off, not the Child. The Exod. 4. 24. truth whereof we see in Moses; his child being uncircumcised, the Lord proceeds not against the child, but him. Not the want, but contempt or neglect of ●●●ti●me. And surely thus standeth the case in Baptism: If persons being come to years of discretion shall remain unbaptised, either contemning or neglecting of this Ordinance of God; in this case God threatens them with a Cutting off. But as for Infants, let their Parents look to it: If there be any default, any contempt, any neglect in them, let them see to it; God will have a controversy with them they may smart for it. But as for Infants themselves, I have more charity then to fear their miscarriage for their Parents neglect. No: As the father shall not bear the iniquity of the son, so neither shall the son bear the iniquity of the father. The soul that sinneth Ez●l that shall die. The uncircumcised male should be cut off: Non Infans, sed adultus: not being an Infant, but being come to years of understanding. It is not the want, but the neglect, the contempt of an Ordinance, that is dangerous and damnable. Not the want of Circumcision, nor yet the want of Baptism, where it cannot be had according to the Institution of Christ. This is our rule, which we may not transgress upon any pretence whatever. (Better no Ordinance, then to corrupt an Ordinance.) The Israelites might not upon any pretext or opinion of necessity hasten the circumcising of their Children before the time appointed, the eight day. This was the time convenient. There was the natural reason of this Institution. 〈…〉 R. 2. Besides this, I told you of a Ceremonial Reason: Infants were not to be circumcised before the eight day: Why? Because till then they were counted as in their blood polluted and unclean. So was it with the rest of the Creatures, being new borne, they were accounted unclean for seven days, the eight day they might be offered up unto the Lord, and not before. So you have it, Leu. 22. And as it was with other Creatures, so Leu. 22. 27. with mankind: For the first seven days the male-child was accounted as unclean; the eight day it might be circumcised Leu. 12. 2▪ 3. and so offered up unto the Lord. And what see we here? Obs. God will have no communion with impure creatures. Obs. God will have no communion with impure and unholy creatures. There is the substance of this shadow. God is in himself a pure and a holy God; being so, hewil have no communion with polluted & defiled creatures, Ezek. 16. 6. men that are in their blood, the blood of their nativity, in whom the corruption of nature rules and reigns. Thence Isa. 1. 16. is that of the Prophet; Wash ye, make ye clean etc. then come and reason with me. Infants under the Law were first to be washed and cleansed from the blood of their nativity, their Birth-uncleannesse before they came to receive the seal of God's Covenant. Who ever would strike Covenant with God, or partake of the seals of his Covenant, they must be pure and holy. Appl. Psal. 50. 16. Let not such meddle with the seals of the Covenants Appl. O labour we all to be such, Otherwise never take the Covenant of God in our mouths. Quid tibi? [What hast thou to do to take my Covenant in thy mouth, etc. Ps. 50.] Never boast that we are in Covenant with God; dare not to meddle with the seals of the Covenant, which so long as we continue in an unreformed, unsanctified state and condition, we have no right unto. The Infant during the time of the Ceremonial uncleanness of it, it had no right to this seal of the Covenant, Circumcision. No more have you, who ever you are, so long as you lie under a spiritual uncleanness, not purged, and cleansed, and washed from your filthiness, you have no right to this Ordinance of God, the Sacrament of the Lords supper. And therefore take you heed how you intrude upon what you have no right unto: But first get your soul's washen; first with the blood, then with the spirit of Christ: with the blood of Christ washing away the guilt of your fins unto justification; with the spirit of Christ washing away the pollution and power of sin unto Sanctification. Being thus washen, then, and not before, have you right to have communion with God, and so may comfortably partake in the means of your Communion, amongst which the Sacrament of the Lords supper is one, being a seal of the Covenant. And thus have I resolved unto you the first branch of this question: Why the Hebrew Infants were not to be circumcised before the eight day; Why no sooner? Q. 2. The latter branch yet remains. Why no later? Q. 2. Why no later? They might not do it before, neither might they defer it beyond that day. The Text is express for the one as well as the other; [He that is eight days old shall be circumcised,] i. e. upon the eight day: So you have it explained, Leu. 12. Leu. 12. 3. Not but that in cases of necessity it might be deferred: So was it in the wilderness for forty years together. The reason whereof you have insinuated, Iosh. 5. Their children were uncircumcised, for (saith the Text) Josh. 5. 7. they had not circumcised them by the way.] Being in itinere, every day marching and journeying from place to place, and subject to daily encounters with the Enemy, they could not conveniently be circumcised. In this case then, (the case of necessity) it might be deferred; otherwise it was to be administered precisely upon the eight day. And why not upon the 9 10. 20.? why not the next month, the next year? A. Reasons alleged. 1. Natural. Peter. ad loc. A. For this I find divers reasons alleged: one physical or natural, the other moral or mystical. 1. In a Physical way (say some) this was a more convenient time then afterwards; inasmuch as afterwards the body of the Infant growing more firm and solid, his Circumcision would have been more painful and grievous to him: Now God is not delighted in the smart and torment of his creatures, much less of the people that are in Covenant with him. Letting that pass: Moral and Mystical Reasons. Paraeus ad loc. 〈…〉 Parent's 〈…〉. Other Reasons yielded are moral or mystical. Of them I find Paraeus reckoning up three: 1. God would not have it any longer deferred, for the consolation of the parents; that they might have an early assurance of God's grace and favour towards their Infants, viz. that he had received them into Covenant, and did look upon them as confederates with himself, and with his people. Appl. A special Privilege, and so to be accounted by all that profess the name of Christ; who ought to use all means to have the Covenant sealed up, as to themselves, so to their Children, not omitting the first opportunity that God offereth them for that purpose. Were it a temporal estate, an inheritance that were to be settled upon posterity, and to be confirmed by some Decree in Chancery under Seal, in this case a careful and provident parent would not let slip the first sealing day. No more should Christian parents willingly balk the first opportunity for the sealing up of the Covenant of Grace, and therein of the heavenly inheritance, unto their children. The sooner it is done, the more comfortable to the parent. 〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉 sake, 〈◊〉 might fleigh▪ 2. As God did this for the Parents, so for the Ordinances sake, viz. that that might not be slighted, might not be neglected. Had there been a liberty left for parents to have deferred and put off the circumcising of their children so long as they pleased, the Ordinance by this means would have been brought into contempt, and have been reputed as unnecessary, as needless. Now God cannot endure that any ordinance of his should fall into disrespect and disrepute among his people. Be it Word, be it Sacrament, be it Prayer. etc. God would have the due estimation of them all maintained. Take heed of slighting Ordinances. Applic. And take we heed how any of us have a hand in impairing it. How any of us be any occasion of laying any ordinance of God under disrepute and disesteem. This is done to the Word, when men come to hear i●, as if they cared not whether they came or no: Come sometimes (it may be) for fashion's sake, if they Word. like the person of the Preacher; otherwise their own house, or their neighbour's house, is as good to them as God's house, the Public Congregation. When they do come, yet they care not how late they come, when the Sermon is begun, half done. Thus is it with some, who suffer every sleight occasion to detain them, As we see it too ordinary in divers cases, and particularly in that which I cannot but touch upon, your Baptizing; where civil ceremony, and outward solemnity stealeth away the time from Religious service: And what is this but to bring a disrepute, a disrespect upon this ordinance of God? as if it were not a thing of any such necessity as it is pretended to be. Baptism. The like I may say of Baptism, when children are detained from it week after week, month after month. What doth this imply, but that Baptism surely either is not proper for Infants, or at least it is not of any such necessity, but that they may be well enough without it? The Lord's supper. And so for the Lords supper. When Christians upon sleight grounds shall absent themselves, laying aside that ordinance, not coming to the Sacrament year after year: What is this but to bring a disesteem upon that ordinance? as if it were not of any such worth, of any such necessity as it is pretended to be. In the fear of God every of us take we heed of every of these, or the like. Take heed how we be any occasion of bringing an evil report upon any of the ways of God: But by all means be careful to uphold the reverence and estimation that is due to his ordinances. This was one end why God would not have Circumcision deferred beyond the eight day, that he might preserve that ordinance from neglect and contempt. 3. A third Reason alleged by my Author, is: This To order the administration of Baptism afterwards. God did (saith he) not without a reference and respect unto Baptism under the New Testament, which was to succeed in the room and place of Circumcision. Herein taking order also for the administration of the Sacrament, viz. that it should be administered unto Infants, though not precisely upon the eight day▪ (that was Ceremonial, and being so, it is ceased as touching any obligation) yet in time s●tting and convenient. That was the substance and morality of that command, and that still abides; By virtue whereof Infants in their infancy both may, and aught to be baptised. And so I am fallen upon the later part of the Enthymeme. The Consequence of the Argument proved. Infants under the Old Testament were circumcised: [Therefore under the New Testament they may and aught to be baptised.] Q. But how prove you this Consequence, (saith the Anabaptist.) Baptism succeeds Circumcision. A. Why, the ground of it is this: Because Baptism succeeds and cometh in the room and place of Circumcision, answering to it. Q. How prove we that? Col. ●. 11. 12. explained. A. From the Apostle himself, Col. 2. 11, 12. In whom also ye are circumcised, etc. v. 11. Buried with him in Baptism, v. 12.] For the opening of which Text, know we briefly what the Apostles scope and drift there is, viz. to prove against the Jews that Circumcision is not now necessary nor useful unto Christians under the Gospel. The reason he giveth for it, is, because Christians have a more excellent Circumcision then that of Moses. That you have, v. 11. proved and made good by three Arguments. 1. From the Author of their Circumcision; Not Moses, who was but a servant, nor any other man, but Christ himself. [In (or by) whom ye are circumcised: [By the circumcision of Christ.] 2. From the kind of it. It was not an outward, but an inward circumcision, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; a circumcision not made with hands, as that Mosaical circumcision was; but made without hands, viz. the circumcision of the heart, of the inward man by the spirit of Christ. 3. From the fruit and effect of it, which is far different from that Legal circumcision. There was only the cutting off of one small part of the body, the foreskin of the flesh: but here is a cutting or putting off the whole body of sin: [In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ▪] Why but the jews here might object: This Reason is of no force; that because Christians were spiritually circumcised, therefore they should not need the outward circumcision: For so was Abraham, and yet he received the outward circumcision; He had the inward grace, and yet he received the outward sign. And thus Christians, though they be made partakers of this great benefit by Christ, yet they may stand in need of an outward seal to assure them of their partaking herein. To this the Apostle answers, v. 12. showing that Christ hath not left his people under the New Testament destitute of such an outward sign and seal: For hoever Circumcision be taken away, yet there is another Sacrament substituted and appointed in the room and place of it, a more excellent and lively Sacrament then ever Circumcision was, a Sacrament resembling it, and answering to it, viz. Baptism. [Buried with him in Baptism] viz. Sacramentally, Baptism being a Sacrament of Regeneration, signifying and sealing up both our mortification, and vivification. [Being buried with him in (or by) Baptism; wherein also ye are risen with him.] Thus then Baptism succeeds Circumcision, and supplies the place of it. Q. Whether Circumcision was a type of Baptism. Q. What then (saith the Anabaptist) was Circumcision a type of Baptism? That cannot be (saith one of them) for then one Type might type out another, and so be a Type of a Type. A. Not so, yet Baptism succeedeth it, and answereth to it A. To this we answer, that we do not say that Circumcision properly was a type of Baptism: Both Circumcision and Baptism are types of one and the same thing, viz. the mystery of our Regeneration, which is the truth of those types. But this we say, that the one succeeded the other; Baptism succeeded Circumcision, Baptism an Antitype to Circumcision. came in the room and place of it, withal answering to it, and so may be called an antitype to it. This we say with warrant from S. Peter, who saith the same of Baptism, 1 Pet. 3. ●1. and the Ark wherein Noah was saved, 1 Pet. 3. [The like figure whereunto even Baptism doth now save us.] The like figure, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the antitype, i. e. Typus correspondens, (as Beza explaineth it) a Type answering to a Type. That deliverance in and from the flood, and our Baptism, they are two several types, both typifying and shadowing out one and the same thing, viz. our deliverance by Christ: but that being the former type, carried with it a resemblance of this; and this coming after, answereth unto that. Even so may we say of Circumcision and Baptism: Baptism is to Circumcision 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, an antitype, though not properly typified by it, yet a type coming in the place of it, and answering to it. Obj. Answering to it? (saith the Anabaptist) True, in some things it doth, but not in all: Nay in many things there is a vast difference betwixt them. And therefore (say they) to reason from Circumcision to Baptism, can be no convincing Argument. Baptism and Circumcision compared. A. In way of reply to this, it will be both expedient and necessary to bring the Type and the Antitype, Baptism and Circumcision, (as I may say) face to face, to compare the one with the other, that so we may see both wherein they differ, and wherein they agree. We will begin with the former. Wherein they differ. Wherein they differ. That there are differences betwixt them, we yield it: But yet these differences we shall find for the most part circumstantial; For substance we shall still find them one and the same. The differences are many. 1. In outward Ceremony. 1. They differ in the outward ceremony or sign; which in the one, was a cutting off the foreskin of the flesh; in the other, the washing of the body with water. 2. In some circumstances about the subject. 2. In some circumstances about the subject, As 1. Circumcision was to be administered only to the males, Baptism to male and female. 2. Circumcision was enjoined only to Abraham's posterity, to his seed according to the flesh. As for others, however they might come in and join themselves with Abraham, and be confederates with him, yet were they not enjoined to Gen. 17. 9 be circumcised: The command reached only to Abraham and his seed. But Baptism, that extendeth to all, both jews and Gentiles. [Go teach all nations baptising them.] i. e. not administering Baptism to the jews only, as Circumcision was, but to all nations, jews and Gentiles. 3. Time of administration. 3. In the circumstance of Time appointed for their administration. Circumcision was to be administered precisely upon the eight day, neither sooner, nor later, (as I have showed you:) But in Baptism there is a liberty left, no set day appointed. 4. Manner of signification. 4. In their manner of signification. Circumcision looked at Christ to come; Baptism, at Christ already come: The one signifying and sealing the remission of sins by and through the blood of Christ to be shed; the other, through that blood already shed. 5. Matter sealed. 5. In the matter sealed. Circumcision sealed up unto Abraham and his seed a temporal promise, viz. touching the Land of Canaan: So you have it, v. 8. of this Gen. 17. 8. Chap. [I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the Land wherein thou art a stranger, all the Land of Canaan.] Not that this was the only thing which Circumcision sealed up, (as the Anabaptists would have it) or yet the main thing; For in the verse foregoing, God promiseth Abraham to be his God, and the God of his seed. This ver. 7. was the grand promise, the main of the Covenant which Circumcision sealed up. As for that temporal inheritance, it was but an accessary, an appendix, an additament. But Baptism sealeth up only spiritual and heavenly benefits, Grace and Glory. 6. Duration. 6. And lastly, (to name no more) they differ in their duration and continuance. Circumcision was but a temporary ordinance, the temporary seal of an everlasting Covenant, Gen. 19 7. 13. being to continue in force only till the coming of Christ, in whom all the Ceremonies of the Old Testament determined. Paul speaking of the whole pedagogy of the Law, the Legal Covenant, tells us, It was Gal. 3. 19 added because of Transgressions, until the seed should come to whom the Promise was made:] i. e. till Christ should Rom. 10. 4. come who was the end of the Law. But Baptism, it is a perpetual ordinance. Such is the Gospel itself, an everlasting Gospel (as it is called Rev. 14. 6.) And such are all Gospel ordinances, everlasting ordinances, to continue in force till the second coming of Christ at the end of the world. All these differences we confess and acknowledge: And we think our Adversaries cannot truly assign any more, at least not material. Now for these differences, he that looketh upon them shall see them to be but circumstantial, so as for substance these two may still remain one and the same, and so we shall find them, the one in all materials answering the other. That will appear Wherein they agree. by comparing of them in the things wherein they agree. 1. In ends and uses. And here we shall find them agreeing (first) in the main and principal ends and uses, for which they were instituted and ordained. As 1. Each of them a Seal of the Covenant. So was Each a seal of the same Covenant. Vers. 11. Circumcision. [It shall be a token of the Covenant between me and you.] And so is Baptism a Token and Seal of the Covenant: And that of the same Covenant that Rom. 4. 11. Circumcision was, viz. the Covenant of Grace, sealing up to the believer his interest in the grace and favour of God through Christ. Each a Seal of the Covenant, of the same Covenant. 2. Each an Initial Seal, the first Seal of the Covenant; Each an initial Seal. each sealing up an entrance into Covenant. So did Circumcision, and so doth Baptism. Each a note of distinction. 3. Each a note of distinction, to difference and distinguish God's people from all other people. So did Circumcision; it was the distinguishing mark, distinguishing Gal. 2. 15. betwixt jews by nature, and sinners of the Gentiles. And so doth Baptism now to Christians, distinguishing them from Pagans, Turks and Infidels. Each an obligation to obedience. 4. Each of them an Obligation, binding to the same condition, the condition of Obedience, & that, Evangelicall obedience. Such was the condition of the Covenant Gen. 17. 1. which God made with Abraham. [Walke before me and be thou perfect,] i. e. upright, or sincere. Hereunto was he obliged by his Circumcision. And hereunto are Christians obliged by their Baptism to the same condition. Thus they agree in their main ends and uses. In their signification, shadowing out the same mysteries. 2. We shall find them agreeing in their signification. Each shadowing out the same mysteries. As 1. The corruption of nature. This was shadowed out in Circumcision, by cutting off the foreskin of the flesh. The corruption of nature. And the same mystery is shadowed out in Baptism, by the washing of the body with water. The mystery of Redemption. 2. The mystery of our Redemption through the shedding of the blood of Christ. That was shadowed out in Circumcision by the shedding of blood: And the same is shadowed out in Baptism by the water; both representing and signifying the blood of Christ. The mystery of Regen e●tion. 3. The mystery of our spiritual regeneration. This was shadowed out by Circumcision, wherein the cutting off the foreskin of the flesh signified the mortifying of sinful lusts: And the same is signified in Baptism, where by the washing of the body with water, is signified the washing of the soul from the stain and pollution of sin by the spirit of Christ. Whence it is called a Tit. 3. 5. Laver, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, The laver of Regeneration, the washing of the new birth. Thus each of them holdeth forth the same mysteries. 3. Agreements in the Subject. 3. We shall find them agreeing in the Subject. Each of them being to be administered to all, and only Confederates; such, all such, only such as are within the compass of the Covenant. So was Circumcision to Abraham and all his posterity, to Infants as well as others, they being also confederates. And even so is it with Baptism: it is to be administered to all, and only such as may in the judgement of charity be reputed confederates; amongst which Infants also are to be reckoned (as I have already proved it at large.) Upon this ground were they circumcised, because within the Covenant; and upon this ground they may and aught to be baptised. Replic. Circumcision was grounded upon an express command. Repl. But to this the Anabaptist replieth, that it was not the Covenant that made Infants capable of Circumcision. What then? Why, an express Command from God. Even that in the Text: [He that is eight days old shall be circumcised.] Here is an express Mandamus (say they) an express order for the Circumcision of Infants; and by virtue hereof it was, that they were circumcised: not because they were in Covenant, but because God had given an express command concerning it. Sol. That command was grounded upon the Covenant. A. To this we answer. It is true, here is an express command for the Circumcision of Infants: but it is with reference to the Covenant, which was the ground of this Injunction, and the ground of Infant's circumcision. This it was that made Infants capable of Circumcision; not merely this Mandamus, this Command in the Text, (as abstracting Anabaptists would have it) without reference to the Covenant, but their being in Covenant. They were confederates with God: God had taken them into Covenant, and therefore he would have the seal of his Covenant set upon them. So much may be clearly collected (as from divers other passages in this Chapter, so) from the 10. 13. & 14. verses, where Circumcision is still called by the name of the Covenant: [My Covenant shall be in your flesh▪ etc.] Clearly importing that this was the ground of their Circumcision, even the Covenant, not simply the Command. Note. As for the Command here in the Text, it is to be noted, that it only determines the time, assigns the day upon which Infants were to be circumcised, limiting it to the eight day. But as for their Circumcision itself, that was ordered before, being comprehended in the Covenant itself, which was the ground of their Circumcision. Repl. Here is a command for Circumcision, not the like for baptism of Infants. Repl. Why but (saith the Anabaptist) however, here is an express mandamus, an express order and command for the circumcision of Infants. Now (say they) could you show us the like for the baptism of Infants, than the controversy were at an end. But such command, such injunction, or direction there is none. Sol. No prohibition to forbid the seal of the Covenant to Infants under the New Testament, more than under th● Old. A. To this Allegation of theirs (Godwilling) I shall answer more fully hereafter. For the present I shall only retort it upon them, and demand of them to show us a Prohibition, or Inhibition, where it is any ways forbidden that children should partake of the seal of the Covenant under the New Testament, as well as under the Old; That they who were circumcised then, should be baptised now. That Baptism succeeded, and came in the room of Circumcision, we have sufficiently proved it already, and I think our adversaries being pressed upon it, they will not, they cannot deny it. Now if it came in the place of Circumcision, than it tieth upon our Adversaries to show what special proviso, what caeveat is put in to debar children from the one, who had so undoubted a right to, and so long a continued possession of the other. How they come to be cut off from this privilege which was once so firmly entailed upon them: Which if they cannot show, then must we still conclude it to be their right. All material differences betwixt Circumcision and Baptism held forth in the Word. As for other alterations wherein Baptism differs from Circumcision, we can show good warrant for them out of the Scriptures: As viz. 1. Why, whereas Circumcision was administered only to males, Baptism should be administered to both sexes, both to male and female. For this, we have both the practice of the Apostles to warrant it, (At Philip's Baptising of both sexes. preaching to the Samaritans, they believing his doctrine, were baptised both men and women, Act. 8. 11.) and we have the Apostles reason for it, Gal. 3. 28. [As many of you as have been baptised into Christ, have put on Christ; For in Christ jesus there is neither male, nor female, etc.] Of all Nations. 2. So secondly, for baptising of all Nations. Whereas Circumcision was restrained peculiarly to one Nation, Baptism is to be tendered to all. For this we have our Mat. 28. 19 Saviour's own commission and warrant, [G●e teach all Nations baptising them;] i. e. Not jews only, but Gentiles also. And we have the Apostles reason for it also Gal. 3. 28. Act. 10. 35. in the place forenamed: [For in Christ jesus there is neither jew nor Greek, etc.] Upon any day. 3. So again for the circumstance of time. That we do not tie the administration of Baptism to any certain day, as it was in Circumcision, but administer it before the eight day, or after: For this also we have the Apostles warrant, who tells us that it is not for Christians now to observe days as the Jews did; reckoning up this amongst those weak and beggarly rudiments, as Gal. 4. 9 10. he calls them. [Ye observe months and days, and times and years.] Herein Christians have a liberty, a liberty purchased for them by the blood of Christ; and that liberty Gal 5. 1. they must stand fast in. Thus in what ever other changes and alterations herein we meet with, we can still show good warrant No warrant for this alteration that Infants should not be baptised as well as Circumcised. for it out of Scripture. Now if our Adversaries can do the like for this great alteration, why Baptism should not be administered to Infants as well as Circumcision was, then indeed we will hearken to them. In the mean time it is not for them to press us for a special warrant, an express and particular order and command in this case. This we conceive to be altogether needless; having such a standing order and direction touching Circumcision, showing us to whom this seal of the Covenant belongs, and to whom it is to be administered; viz. to all that are in Covenant, Infants as well as others, what needeth any new order in this particular? This order for the substance of it is perpetual of force under the New Testament as well as under the Old. Further answer to this question I shall defer till hereafter, conceiving this sufficient for the present. One allegation is yet behind which our Adversaries by way of reply here cast in our way, I shall only touch briefly, and so dismiss this second Argument with it. Replic. By a like reason children should now eat the Lord's Supper because they eat the Passeover. Repl. If this be a good Argument (say they) that Infants may be baptised, because they were Circumcised, then by a like reason they should now be admitted to the Lords Table, because under the Old Testament they eat the Passeover. The reason (say they) is a like for both. So as if it hold in the one, why not in the other? Sol. children's eating of the Supper an ancient practice. Ans. To part of this I have in part answered already; give me leave now to do it a little more fully. For children's eating of the Lord's Supper, whether lawful or no, it hath been, and yet is a Question. Anciently it is well known it was allowed and practised in the Roman Aug. l. de Eccl. Dogm. c. 52. & Eph. 23. Cyprian de Lapsis Serm. 5 and African Churches. Those ancient Doctors Augustine and Cyprian are Advocates in this cause, pleading not only for the lawfulness, but expediency of it. At this day the practice is (or at least lately was, as Peter P. Martyr Com. in 1 Cor. 11. 24. Martyr informs me) retained amongst the Grecian, Bohemian, Moravian Churches. How warrantable this hath been, or may be, is disputable. P. Martyr for his In istâ causâ pro neutrâ parte vehementer contenderim. P. M. ibid. Non enim damnare ausim Ecclesiam veterem, etc. ibid. part professeth that he will not be zealous in siding with either part in this quarrel. As for the custom of those ancient Churches in admitting them, he will not, he dare not condemn it; and as for the practice of other Churches in debarring them, he cannot but allow it. The latter not so warrantable is amongst us, and most of the Churches at this day, and that upon good ground (as we conceive) concluded to be the more safe, the more warrantable. For their admission Scripture will not bear it out. As for that place cited and made use of by those Ancients as a ground for this practice, Joh. 6. 53. Except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of man, and drink his Blood ye have no life in you,] it maketh nothing for it; our Saviour there speaking not of a Sacramental, but a Spiritual Communion, a Spiritual feeding upon him, which is done by faith, fetching refreshment & nourishment from Christ, by the application of his merits unto the soul. Much in Scripture that seemeth to make against it. Paul telleth us of divers Qualifications requisite in Communicants; and divers actions to be performed by them in, and about the supper of the Lord, which Infants are not capable of, as viz. (besides the eating and drinking of the Elements which young Infants cannot do) the examining 1 Cor. 11. v. 24 25, 26, 28, 29. of themselves, the discerning of the Lords body, the showing forth the Lords death, the doing what they do in remembrance of him etc. All these actions are actually to be performed by worthy Communicants. So as there is just reason why Infants though they be baptised, yet they should not be admitted to the Supper of the Lord; this being as you see an active Ordinance, consisting mostly in doing, [Do this as oft as you eat it, etc.] Q. But what say we then to the Argument? Infants eat the Passeover, why not then the Lords Supper, as well as be baptised, because they were circumcised? A. 1. To this we answer (i) should it be granted that Infants did partake of the one, yet we see good reason why they should not be admitted to the other, being not subjects capable of the aforesaid Qualifications. Children did not eat the Passeover. 2. But (secondly) how can it be proved that Infants did eat the Passeover? I know it is an opinion that hath been received (swallowed down I suppose without chewing, as many other of this nature have been) and that by some of note; but upon what ground, I know Aret. Censura contrà Paedobaptist. not: Scripture I am sure will not make it out. True, we find an order that there should be a Lamb for a house, and in case that one family were too little to eat it up, Exod. 12. 3. 4. the next family was to be joined to it; they must take it according to the number of the souls, (saith the Text) Joseph. de B●llo Judai. l. 7. c. 17. reckoning (say the Hebrews) ten to a Lamb: But that must be understood not universally of all the persons in a family, but only such as were meet to eat thereof. Amongst Aynsworth Annot. ad loc. which (say the Hebrews) sick persons and young children were not to be reckoned, (no more than persons uncircumcised and unclean) being not fit to eat thereof. 1. Not fit to partake in the outward elements: This could not young Infants do, eat the flesh and unleavened bread, much less that unpleasing salade of sour or Exod. 12. 8. bitter herbs which was to be eaten with it. These were no fit food for Infants. 2. Much less (in the second place) could they understand the mystery and meaning thereof, which (as it seemeth) they ought to do, before they were admitted Bucan. de Baptism. sect 36. to communicate therein. So much (at least with great probability) is collected from the 26. v. of that 〈…〉 d. 12. 26. Chapter, where it is said, It shall come to pass when your children shall say unto you, What mean you by this service? Ye shall say, It is the sacrifice of the Lords Passeover, etc.] So it seemeth that none were to partake of this Sacrament, but such as were of age and capacity to interrogate concerning the meaning of it: And that they were to be instructed concerning it, before such time as they were admitted to it. So much the jewish Doctors will tell us concerning this Feast, viz. That such children as were able to go up with their parents from the Gates of jerusalem Aynsworth ib. to the Temple, they were to appear before the Lord, that being first catechised in the Commandments, they might celebrate the Feast. The Argument retorted. So that this Argument may now be retorted, and returned with great advantage against the Adversary, (as Bucan. de Baptismo loc. 47. q. 36. Tilen. de Baptismo Disp. 2 Thes. 24. I find it by some of our modern Divines.) Infants under the Law were circumcised the eight day, but not admitted to the eating of the Passeover, until they were of capacity to understand the mystery and meaning of it. Even so n●w under the Gospel, Infants of believing parents may and aught to be baptised, but not admitted to the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, until they be able to understand the mystery and meaning of that Sacrament, to discern the Lords Body. Which parallel being duly weighed, it maketh very much for the clearing of the warrantableness of the Churches practise in both these particulars, both in administering unto Infants the one Sacrament, and in withholding from them the other. But I will no longer dwell upon it. Objections Answered. MAny other Arguments might yet be produced for the vindicating of this cause, but I will not overload it, or tyre your patience. Probably we shall yet meet with some more in returning Answer to the Objections of the Adversary. That is the second Act which I propounded to myself, and promised to you, when I first undertook this Subject. Let me discharge myself of it with as much brevity as conveniently I may; not reckoning up all the shadows of Arguments that are made use of, of which there are divers not worth the naming much less the answering, but only some of the chief and principal which may seem to carry the greatest show of strength and reason with them. Obj. 1. Paedobaptism a humane, Antichristian, ●ovell invention. Arg. 1. In the first place, against the Baptism of Infants, it is alleged, that it is but a humane, and that a novel invention, a mere device of Antichrist, and that of a very late impression, not practised in the Church till at least a thousand years after Christ; first brought in by Pope * Innocentius 3. qui vivit An. 1215. A. R. In his vanity of childish baptism. Sol. Gross or wilful ignorance. Innocent. Thus it is confidently charged by some, who blush not to bring in M. Luther to vouch this their bold assertion. A. But herein how grossly (if not wilfully) ignorant they are, it is but too apparent. Certainly they who in good earnest charge Paedobaptism with novelty, show Pag. 72. 73. themselves to be little seen in antiquity. I told you heretofore that in Augustine's, nay in * Cyprianus floruit Anno Dom. 250. Cyprians time (who lived in the third Centurie, within less than three hundred years after Christ) Children were admitted to the Sacrament of the Lords Supper: Surely then much more to Baptism, without which they were not capable of the Eucharist, no more than an uncircumcised Antiquity pleading for Paedobaptism. person was of the Passeover. In this cause the testimony of those Ancients are commonly cited. Augustine speaking of Infant's baptism calleth it a Common Aug. Epl. 28. l. 3. de P●c. Merit. & Remiss. e. 6. 7. 8. 9 ubi totam ferè Cypriani Epistolam recitat. & alibi passim: vide Pamel. Annot. in Cyprian. Ep. 69. Cyprian us Epist. 69. Orig. in Levi. Hom. 8. in Lu. in Epist. ●d Rom. c. 6. custom of the Church; showing that it was universally received in his time. Cyprian in an Epistle sent from himself, and divers other Presbyters, his Colleagues met together in a Council to the number of sixty six, to his friend Fidus, pleads for it, averring and proving that it was not necessary that Baptism should be deferred till the eight day as Circumcision was. To the same purpose Origen before them (who lived in the beginning of the third Centurie, not much above two hundred years after Christ) mentioneth this as a received custom in the Church, approving of it, and giving a reason for it, viz. because even Infants are not free from spiritual pollution and uncleanness, no though they have lived but one day Civil. Hieros'. Catech. mist. Greg▪ Naz. Orat. 3. in Sanctum lavacrum Ambros. in Luc. Concil. Mile. can. 2. citat per Pam. in Annot. super Epistol. Cypr. 69. upon earth. So that this cannot be justly charged with novelty that hath these, and many more of the Ancients speaking of it, and for it. Obj. Why but Tertullian, who was as ancient as any of them, the first Writer of note of the Latin Church, he was of another mind, disallowing and condemning this practice. A. To this it is answered by P. Martyr, that so he did some other things, which yet the word hath not Tertull lib. de Baptism. P. Martyr. lo●. Com. clas 4. lo. 8. sect. 5. condemned, as viz. second marriages, etc. so as his authority in this case is not so much to be regarded, he being then (when he wrote that book) fallen from the Church, and from the orthodox faith (fallen into Montanisme) specially seeing he denied Baptism not only to Infants, but to all others until they were well stricken in years, viz. to young men, nay to young widows: But even from him (as the foresaid Author observes) it may be collected that baptism of Infants was then in use in the Church, otherwise he would never have reprehended the practice of it. So it was, and before his time. So much is testified by some of the Greek Fathers who Irenaeus contra heretic. l▪ 2. c. 39 Just. mar. quae. 56. cum allis citat. per Pamel. ub● susuprà. Repl. Paedobaptism an Ecclesiastical constitution. were before him, viz. Irenaeus and justine Martyr (who lived in the second Centurie, about an hundred and fifty years after Christ) both making mention of it. Repl. But it is replied that though it be acknowledged to be ancient, yet still is it a humane invention, no divine Apostolical Ordinance, but a mere Ecclesiastical constitution. So saith the Papist, and so saith the Anabaptist, in this not unlike Sampsons' foxes, joined together by the tails, whilst their heads look several ways; both asserting the same position though to different ends, the one to establish humane traditions, the other to undermine a divine Ordinance. But how prove they what they say? Why the Authors prealledged some of them say as much in express words. Origen calleth it a Ceremony, or Tradition of the Church. Augustine, a custom of the Church. Sol. Paedobaptism how called a Ceremony. A. To grant all, what advantage can hence be taken? Baptism of Infants is a Ceremony. Why, so in a large & yet proper acceptation of the word may all Religious Rites be called, not only of humane but divine institution. Thus not only the Sacrifices, but the Sacraments under the Old Testament were Ceremonies. And so may the Sacraments of the New Testament, Baptism and the Supper of the Lord be called, and that without any offence to those who understand the language of the Ancients, or the proper signification of the * Ceremonia, ● Cere Italiae oppido, ubi sacra Romanorum ●ēpore tumultus Gallici summa circâ reservata erant, Liv. l. 5. word. Repl. But it is called a Tradition. A. So are some Apostolical institutions, and doctrines and that by the Apostle himself. Repl. Why, but it is called a Ceremony and Tradition of the Church. A. True, but how? not of the Church as the Author, How a Tradition. 1 Cor. 11. 2. 2 Thes. 2. 15. How a Ceremony and tradition of the Church. Origen in Ep ad Rom. l. 5. August. contrà Do●●. l. 4 c 24 & de Gen. ad lit. l. 10. c. 23. f●tent● Pamelio ubi suprà. but as the Subject of it. A Ceremony, a Rite religiously observed by the Church, and a Tradition delivered to the Church, viz▪ from the Apostles themselves. So much the forenamed Doctors do expressly aver. So saith Origen▪ so saith Augustine. The Church received this Tradition of baptising of Infants from the Apostles. And Augustine's rule is a reason for it little less than demonstrative; Quod univers a tenet Ecclesia, etc.] That which is universally received and practised by the Church, and had not its first institution from some Council, but hath been ever retained, may well be believed to be an Apostolical Tradition.] Repl. Pope Higinus the author of it. Repl. But say some the more learned Anabaptists (at least pretenders to it) though this be ancient, and a very ancient custom, yet the pedigree of it doth not arise so high as to claim kindred of the Apostles. The first father of it was a Bishop of Rome, Pope Higinus by name. Sol. A. If so, then by their own confession it cometh somewhat near to the Apostles times; this Higinus being the eight Bishop of Rome, living in the days of the Emperor Euseb. l▪ 4. c. 9 Antoninus Pius, about a hundred and forty years after Christ. P. Mart. loc. come Clas. 4. lo 8. sect. 5. 2. But (in the second place) let P. Martyr in this return them answer, that upon search he findeth no such thing in the Decretals. Only this he finds, that that Bishop was the first that made a law concerning Godfathers and Godmothers (as we call them) in Baptism. (An Ecclesiastical constitution, though not necessary, yet Utile sane Institutum. P. M. ibid. Vide Bu●an. de B●ptismo, loc. 48. q. 47. in the judgement of that great Divine, and divers others, both lawful and profitable.) Hereof that Bishop is supposed to be the Author. What then? shall it be thence collected that he was the first author of Infant's baptism. Nay rather (as P. Martyr observes) in as much as he made such a provision for Infants that were to be baptised, appointing them some to be guardians unto them in their pupillage, who should by solemn promise be engaged to take care of them, either instead of their parents, or together with them, for their religious educacation in that Faith whereinto they were baptised, it is most probable that the baptising of them was a thing in use before, and so no other but an Apostolical Ordinance by them ordained, and from them transmitted to the Church, where the practice of it hath been uninterruptedly continued ever since. Arg. 2. No precept or precedent for Paedobaptism in the New Testament. Arg▪ 2. But (saith the Anabaptist) this is strange, that this should be conceived to be Apostolical, and of divine authority, when as we have neither precept nor precedent for it in all the New Testament. Here is their great and common argument, wherewith they shake and disquiet the minds of many conscientious and simple hearted Christians, who desire to see (what all Christians ought to do) the pillar of fire, the light of the word going before them for their direction and warrant, in what ever they do in or about any Ordinance of God. Give me leave therefore to join issue with them about it. Sol. Not necessary that there should be any express precept or precedent in the New Testament. A. 1. Minding them (in the first place) that it is not necessary that there should be any express either precept or precedent for this practice in the New Testament. Let it be demanded of them, what express precept do they find there for the observation of a Christian Sabbath? what either precept or precedent do they meet with for women's receiving of the Lord's Supper? yet both are agreed upon, that they may be done, aught to be done. And the like we may say for the baptism of Infants, should it be granted (as indeed it must) that there is no express syllabicall either command or example in the New Teftament for it, yet it is warrantable. How so? In as much as it findeth so clear a ground, so firm a bottom in the Old Testament. Even as it is in those two other particulars. The observation of a Sabbath, though it hath no express command in the New Testament, yet it hath one in the Old, viz. in the fourth Commandment, which for the substance of it is moral, and so unrepealeable, of perpetual observation. For women's receiving of the Lord's Supper, though we find neither command nor example for it in the New Testament, yet we find that in the Old which will bear it out, viz. their eating of the Passeover to which this Sacrament answereth. Even so is it in the baptism of Infants, though the New Testament be silent in it, yet the Old Testament holdeth it forth clearly enough, viz. in the Sacrament of Circumcision, to which Baptism answereth. There we have both precept and example, and those so clear and express, as that it is not necessary that we should have them renewed again in the New Testament. A. ●. The New Testament hath not left us wholly destiture of either. A. 2. But (in the second place) come we to see what the New Testament will afford us as touching each of these; it for precept, then for precedent. In both we shall find that the Spirit of God hath not left us so naked, so destitute as they imagine. For precept. 1. For precept. Though we have not any express literal command, or particular direction concerning the baptising of Infants, yet we have an implicit, & a general one, which comprehendeth, & taketh them in. This you shall find in that known place Mat. 28. 19 where our Blessed Saviour upon his last farewell to the world, renewing and enlarging his Disciples Commission, he bids them, Go teach all Nations, baptising them, etc. For the clear and right understanding of which M●t. 28. 19 explained. words, we must know that we have not in them the first institution of Baptism, (which must be observed against our Adversaries, who look upon those words under that notion.) No, Baptism was instituted, and administered long before both by john the Baptist, and other of the Disciples. Only our Saviour here (as I said) reneweth and enlargeth to his Apostles their former Commission, giving unto them one particular direction touching the subject, the persons, whom they were in the course of their Ministry to apply themselves unto, viz. Non ut hactenù● solos Judaeos. H. Grot. Annot. in lo●. to all Nations, i. e. not only to the jews as formerly they had done, but to the Gentiles also. Go teach and baptise them, i. e. Go and do unto them, all of them, as heretofore hath been done to one of them. Go teach them, instruct them, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Disciple them, make the● Disciples; which being done, then baptise them, and theirs. Thus was it before done unto the jews, and to all that were proselytes amongst them. The parents embracing the faith of Abraham, they were circumcised with their Children also. The like course our Saviour here order his Disciples now to take with all Nations: Go teach and baptise them all. By your teaching and instructing of them labour to bring them to the knowledge and faith of Christ, to bring them into Covenant, which being done, then administer the Seal of the Covenant to them and theirs. Not to the Parents only: If so, certainly our Saviour would have put in a special caveat to interdict and forbid them the baptising of children, that they should not administer the S●ale of the Covenant to them, as formerly had been accustomed amongst the Jews. Repl. Teach and baptise. Repl. Why but (say they) there should need no such caveat, when as the very words of the Commission are so expressly against this practice. Go teach and baptise, i. e. first teach and then baptise. So as none are capable of the one, but such as are capable of the other; none capable of Baptism, but such as are capable of Instruction; they must first be taught, then baptised. Sol. How to be understood. A. To this it is truly answered, that there can no such thing be collected out of these words. [Go teach all Nations, baptising them.] i. e. Teach all Nations, and baptise all Nations. As before was done to one Nation, so do ye now to all. As the word was preached to the jews only, so do ye now preach it to all Nations. As the Seal of the Covenant was administered only to that one Nation, so do ye now administer it to all Nations. More than this cannot be inferred from it. Not that all must necessarily be first instructed before they were baptised. That cannot be gathered from the words there, as will easily appear by the changing but of Note. one word in this Commission. Suppose the words to run thus, [Go teach all Nations circumcising them.] Suppose (I say) that our Saviour had given such a Commission to his Apostles, that whereas before circumcision was proper only to the jew, now they should press it upon all Nations, and should have delivered them their Commission in these words, [Go teach all Nations circumcising them] would any thence infer that therefore none should be circumcised, but only such as were first instructed, and so consequently Infants should not be circumcised. This inference (I suppose) every one will disclaim. And why not the other? Go teach all Nations, baptising them, i. e. Teach all Nations, and baptise all Nations; Teach those that are teachable, and baptise those that are baptizeable. More than this cannot be made of it. Now that Infants are a part, and a considerable part of a Nation, none will deny; and that they are baptize●ble, I have already proved. So as here we have, though not an express, yet an implicit ●arrant and command, which being rightly understood (what ever use the Adversary makes of it to the contrary) will be sufficient to bear ou● this practice. Precedents in ●he New Testament for Paedobaptism. In the second place inquire we what precedents, what examples the New Testament will hold forth unto us. And here again, (as in the former) it must be acknowledged that as for any particular persons who were baptised in their Infancy, we have not any left upon record; yet have we that which is equivalent, some general records, holding forth unto us (at least with great probability) that this was the practice of the Church in the Infancy of it, even in the Apostles times. For this, see two evidences. The baptising of whole families. 1. The former is that common one, not to be fleighted, viz. the baptising of whole families, whereof we find frequent mention in Scripture. Paul telleth us of himself that he baptised the household of Stephanas, 1 Cor. 1. 16. Lydia being converted, she was baptised and her household, Act. 16. 15. The like we read of the jailor in the same Chapter, being converted, he was baptised (saith the Text) and all his, v. 33. Thus was this Sacrament then ordinarily administered to whole families, to whole households: Even as Circumcision was under the Old Testament. Abraham believing, and entering Covenant with God, he and his whole family were circumcised, from the oldest to the youngest, as you have it, Gen. 17. 23. 27. And thus where the head of a family became a proselyte, ordinarily he and his were circumcised. Even so under the New Testament, where the parent or head of the family embraced the faith, the whole family was baptised. Now in all these families, it cannot rationally be imagined but that there should be some Children. Repl. Repl. To this our Adversaries reply, that this phrase will not carry it, no more than that will prove that Infants eat the Passeover, because it is said that the whole family was to eat it, Exod. 12. 3. 4. Or that Infants have actual faith, because it is said that C●is●us believed with all his house, Act. 18. 8. Answ. But this muse is soon stopped: In as much as the phrase comprehends ●ll, and only such in the family, as are capable of the thing spoken of. Now this Infants are not of either of those Acts, whether of eating the Passeover, or of believing; and therefore the phrase there must be restrained to persons of riper age. But of Baptism they are, as hath been already sufficiently proved: In as much as this Sacrament being a Sacrament of Initiation and Regeneration, a Seal of our Incision, and engrafting into Christ, is only a passive Ordinance, as Circumcision was. And therefore, when it is said that those of Abraham's family were circumcised, and those of Stephana's and Lydiaes, and the jailours' families were baptised, we are to understand it of children, as well as any other. Note. No children of believing parents baptised afterwards To render this conjecture more probable, that Infants than were baptised in their Infancy, let it be observed and considered that we no where find any mention made of any children of believing parents who were baptised afterwards. An argument sufficient, if not to convince, yet to stop the mouth of the Adversaries. They press us to show where we read of any children that were baptised in their Infancy, and unless we can show them some particular instances for it, they will not believe that any were. Now to retort this negative argument upon themselves; let it be demanded of them, where they find any mention in Scripture of any children of believing parents, who were baptised when they came to years of discretion, and not before? That they were baptised, I presume they will not deny; and if so, let them show where, and when. For this let all the sacred Register be searched, from the time that john the Baptist began his Ministry, to the time that john the Evangelist ended his, (which was above sixty years, during which time millions of children of believing parents were grown up to maturity) and if in all that time they can but show any one instance of any child borne of a believing parent, whose Baptism was deferred till he came to years of discretion, and that then he was baptised, we will then acknowledge that there is some strength in their negative allegation. In the mean time, having such general instances of the baptising of whole families, sure we are we have more reason to believe that Infants were comprehended, and are to be reckoned in that number, than they have any for the contrary. The Apostolical practice of confirmation. Heb. 6. 2. 2. For a second evidence that this was the Apostolical practice, I will not go far from this word in the Text which I have now in hand. Possibly we may find somewhat that maketh for this practice nearer hand than we were aware of: Even in the words immediately following, [The doctrine of Baptisms, and [laying on of hands.] 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Hic locus ad Paed●baptismi approbationem Calvin Com. in loc. facit. (It is calvin's hint upon it.) This place maketh for the baptism of Infants. How so? To show you how, give me leave to touch upon that clause a little. Though it be a long, yet I hope it will be a useful Parenthesis, serviceable not only to our present, but to some other purposes of great, and special concernment. Laying on of hands. [The doctrine of Baptisms, and laying on of hands.] What is here meant by the latter of these? I confess it is not agreed by Expositors. To boult out the truth as near as we may, [laying on of hands] in itself we know it was, and is a Ceremony; a Ceremony of very ancient use in the Church of God, and that in divers cases. To let pass the former; In the New Testament we meet with a twofold imposition of hands: The one miraculous In the New Testament twofold. and extraordinary, the other ordinary. The former was practised by the Apostles, and other extraordinary persons in the Primitive times, and that in two Extraordinary and miraculous. cases: 1. In conferring of extraordinary gifts of the Spirit. Of this you may read Act. 8. 17. 18. and elsewhere. 2. In bestowing some temp●rall blessing, as viz. Healing of the sick. Of this speaks St. james, jam. 5. 14. [Is any sick among you let him call for the Elders of the Church, and let them pray over him.] Not only pray [for] him, (as Beza, and the Geneva render it) but [over] him. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (saith the Original) supper eum, over or upon; i. e. holding their hands over, or laying them upon the sick person. So was it frequently practised before, as by our Saviour himself, so by other of the Apostles, (as the Mat. 9 18. Mar. 5. 23. Mar. 16. 18. Luk. 4. 40. Act. 28. 8. Evangelists inform us) in healing of the sick; working some miraculous cures upon the bodies of men, they imposed their hands upon them. In both these cases was this Ceremony then used. You may see them both together in that act of Ananias, his, Act. 9 17. where coming unto Saul (or Paul) he put his hands on him, and said, Brother saul, the Lord hath sent me that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost.] But this was extraordinary, and consequently but temporary, to continue only so long as that miraculous power was continued to the Church; which ceasing, the Ceremony from thence forth in these cases is of no more use. Ordinary, used in two cases, In the second place, there is another imposition of hands, which was, and is more ordinary. And that again in two cases: In the case of Ordination, and Confirmation. In Ordination▪ 1. In case of Ordination, the ordaining of Ministers, Church-officers, setting them apart to their Ministerial office and function. This, for the greater solemnity of it, was performed with this significant Ceremony, the laying on of hands. Thus were the seven Deacons ordained, Act. 6. 6. [When the Apostles had prayed, they laid their hands on them, v. 6.] Thus were Paul and Barn●bas separated to the work which God had called them (viz. to the exercise of their Ministry amongst Acts 13. 3. the Gentiles.) [When they had fasted and prayed, they (viz. the Prophets and Teachers in the Church of Antioch spoken of in the ●. v.) laid then hands on them, and sent them away.] Thus was Timothy himself ordained by Paul, 2 Tim. 1. 6. And thus did Timothy ordain others. And thence is the whole action denominated from this Ceremony, and called a laying on of hands 1 Tim. 5. 22. [Lay hands suddenly on no man,] saith Paul to Timothy, speaking of the Ordination of Ministers. 2. Secondly, in case of Confirmation. So it is usually In confirmation▪ (how fitly I will not dispute) called. Let▪ not the name prejudice any against the thing: which (without question) is of very ancient use in the Church of God. That Hujus moris sae●è mentionem fa●iunt veteres, vid. Calv. Instet. l. 4. 4. c. 19 s 4. Confirmation whether an Apostolical ordinance. Hieron contra Luc●f●r. Non inficior▪ in eo no●●ihil ●●llucinari I presume will be granted at all hands. Neither can it be denied, there being so many of the Ancients making mention of it. But whether Apostolical; o● no▪ that is the Question. I know many have looked upon it merely as an Ecclesiastical constitution. Of this opinion was Calvin in his former time, who in his book of Institutions declares his dissallowance of Ieromes authority and judgement in this particular, in holding this forth for an Apostlicall Ordinance. But others I find of another mind. ay, Calvin himself in his latter time; who coming to write upon the words of the Text, upon second Hieronimum, quod Apostolicam esse observationem dicit. Calv▪ Inst. lib. 4. c. 19 s. 4. thoughts (which are the more to be regarded; secundae cogitationes) he retracts what before he had dubiously averred; affirming and that positively, and confidently, that this Ordinance was no other but Apostolical; grounding it upon these words, [the doctrine of Baptism, Hic u●us locus abunde testatur hujus ceremoniae originem fluxisse ab Apostolis: quae tamen pos●eà in superstitie nem versa fuit: ut mundus semper ferè ●b optimis Institutis ad ●orruptelas degenerate. Calv. Com. in Heb. 6. 2. Beza Annot. ad loc. Piscator observ. ad loc. Chemnitius Exam. Concil. Trid. de confir. Hemin. Com. ad loc. Ursin▪ Catech. Pro●●g. 2. Dr. Fulk Ann. in Rhem. ad lo. Dr. Willet synops. Contr▪ 16 and laying on of hands.] Hic unus locus abunde testator, etc.] This one place (saith he) doth abundantly testify, that this Ceremony (viz. the Imposition of hands in confirmation) how ever in after times it was superstitiously perverted and abused (as the best Institutions are apt to degenerate into foul corruptions,) yet it had its first original from the Apostles themselves.] Of this mind are divers others (as of the Ancients, so) of our modern Divines of note, viz. Beza, Piscator, Chemnitius, Hemingius, Vrsine, Dr. Fulk, Dr. Willet; and many others, men of singular both Learning and Piety, who all expound this Text in this sense. I know there are some few * Mr. Cartwright Annot. in Rhem. ad loc. D. Ames Bell. Eneru. de confirm. cap. 1▪ others (whose names and memories I honour) who are of a different judgement▪ who being distasted with the corruption of this Ordinance as practised in the Church of Rome, and amongst ourselves, and so possibly prejudiced against it, carry the Text another way, conceiving that by [laying on of hands] here, we are rather to understand the totum Ministerium, the whole Ministry of the Church, which was wont to be ordained by Imposition of hands. A usual trope or metonymy (say they) one Ceremony put for the whole Service. But to this supposition I must profess I cannot freely subscribe: In as much (1.) as I cannot look upon this as one of the fundamentals of Christian Religion, as these six heads here named, (and this amongst the Metonymic a●juncti Cart. Ibid. Laying on of hands here cannot be understood of Ordination. R. 1. Ordination none of the first Rudiments. Ista impositio manuum ad prima fidei fundamenta spectabat in primitiva Ecclesia. C●●et ad loc. Fundamentum quartum fuit Impositio manuum: Paiaeus ad loc. rest) are by some conceived to be, and that not without some colour from the Apostles own words, [n●t laying again the foundation etc. v. 1.] Nor yet can I look upon it as one of those 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (as the Apostle hath it, v. 12. of the Chapter foregoing) those prima elementa, those first rudiments and principles of Christian Religion (as the Apostle calleth all these six in the 1. v. of this Chapter, [the principles of the doctrine of Christ; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the word of the beginning of Christ, the A, B, C, (as it were) of Christianity) one of those heads of Catechism that children, novices, should be first taught and instructed in; as part of that milk which the Apostle in the 12. v. of the Chapter foregoing tells us is fit for Babes. If this be milk, viz. the doctrine of Church-Discipline, Church Officers, Church-government, etc. what shall we call or count strong meat? Certainly (were there no other argument) the sad differences of the times about this point, and that betwixt those who are no Babes, but strong men, judicious and conscientious, learned and holy men, show this doctrine to be nothing less than milk. R 2. Laying on of hands here hath reference to baptism. Manuum Impositionem ●ū Baptisma conjungit etc. Cal. ad loc. Gen. 7. 9 10. 2. Besides (in the second place) the very putting of these two together [Baptism, and laying on of hands] seemeth in calvin's judgement to import some reference and relation that the one should have to the other. A point that is observable how the Apostle here bringeth forth these doctrines (even as the creatures went into the Ark) by pairs: Repentance and Faith; Baptisms and laying on of hands; Resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgement; each having a near reference and relation to his mate. So it is in the two other pairs: Repentance and Faith; Resurrection and judgement, the one relates to the other. And so it seemeth to be here, Doctrine of Baptism, and laying on of hands; the latter seemeth to have a reference to the former; so as what shall we, or can we understand by it, but that ancient and universal practice of the Church, viz. Confirmation rightly administered and used? Confirmation what? Q. But what was, or is this Confirmation? A. Here not to regard what the Church of Rome holdeth forth unto us concerning it, as viz. that is a Sacrament; a Sacrament in some respect superior to Baptism; that it is the consummation of Baptism, so as without it Baptism is incomplete and imperfect; that in and by this Sacrament the Holy Ghost is conferred, and given for strength and corroboration against spiritual enemies; that it ought to be performed with such Ceremonies as Chrisma, Fa●ci●, Alapa, etc. are in use amongst them, most of which are very superstitious and ridiculous toys, none of them (imposition of hands only excepted) finding any footing in Scripture. Thus have they dealt with this Ordinance, even as Mical sometime dealt with David, when having conveyed him away, she put an Image in his room, with a pillow of goat's hair for a bolster under the head of it, 1 Sa●. 19 12. 13. Even thus (I say) have they dealt with this Ordinance; taking away the Ordinance itself as it was first instituted, they have substituted an Image in the room of it, which they have bolstered up with Ceremony▪ and inventions of their own (no better then la●a Caprina) all to deceive the vulgar. So as their confirmation as by them used, is no more that which was first instituted, and which the word holdeth forth unto us, than that Ship Argos was the same that it was first built, when as by often repairing it had scarce a piece of the first materials, Alexander Halensis & Bonaventura fatentur ingenuè Sacramen●um confirmationis, ●t est sacramentum, neque 〈◊〉 Domino, neque ab Apostolis institutum & dispensatum fuisse, quià in Scripturâ non legitur, sed posteà in concilio Meldensi inventum esse scribunt. Whitak contrà Du●aeu▪ ●. 8. sect. 61. left in it. And so much is ing●●ously▪ confessed and acknowledged by some of their own▪ as is observed against them by our learned Whitaker. And therefore▪ to leave them▪ plough we with our own Heifers; consult we with the Author's aforesaid. * Calvin, Beza, Chemnit. Pis●. Pareus, ubi sup●à. The original and primitive use of confirmation. Some of them will inform us, how that in the Primiti●e Church there were two sorts of Cat●ch●meni (as they called them) persons that were catechised and instructed in the principles of Christian Religion. The first sort were Extranei, such as wer● without; strangers to the C●v●nant, Heathens, Infidels by birth, borne out of the Church. Now as for these, the manner was; they were first taught and instructed in the faith, so as in their own persons they might make an open confession of it, which accordingly they did before they were admitted unto Baptism. The other were the children of believing parents, who being borne in the Church, and looked upon as members of it, they were baptised in their Infancy. Now they▪ not being able to make such a confession in their own persons before Baptism, when they were grown up and come to years of discretion, they were then catechised and instructed in that faith whereinto they had been baptised; which being done, they gave an account of that faith in the public congregation▪ ratifying that Covenant which they had entered in Baptism; and so they were admitted and received in ●●●les●am adul●orum, to further degre●● of communion with the Church; as viz. to partake of the Lords Supper etc. For the greater solemnity of which admission, and that Solennis precandi rit●s: Calv. in Text. ex August. the action might be had in more respect and reverence, it was performed with this ceremony, the laying on of hands upon the person so received, who was dismissed with a solemn benediction▪ Confirmation a useful Ordinance to the Church in divers respects. This was (as it is conceived by them) the simplicity of this Ordinance in the first institution and primitive practice of it. An Ordinance (as Calvin and the forenamed Authors conceive of it▪ of great and singular use unto the Church of God. And surely so it would be, were it but restored to primitive purity. 1. By this means the exercise of catechising would be brought in use and credit, whereof the Church of Chemnit. Co. in Mark 10. 14 God hath ever had singular need, and use. Calv. Inst●t. lib▪ 〈…〉 19 s. 13 2. By this means the unity of the faith would be maintained, especially there being one and the same form of catechising generally observed. Calvin Ibid. 3. By this means parents would be quickened up to look to the religious education of their children, which otherwise many of them never regard. And 4. Children themselves would be put on to seek after knowledge, that they may be able to give an account of that faith whereinto they were baptised, when they shall be called to do it before the public congregation. 5. By this means persons ignorant or scandalous might be kept out from communion with the Church in that sacred Ordinance of the Supper of the Lord. A sovereign remedy against mixed communion. In which respect, of what consequence it might be for the healing of our present breaches, may be easily apprehended. I shall not need to tell you, what a stumbling block in the way of many, our mixed communion (as they call it) hath been, and is. At this stone many have tripped▪ and some have fallen, and others are daily in danger of it. Now, of all remedies for the healing and preventing hereof, I know none more promising, than this Ordinance being duly practised according to the institution of it. By this means that sacred Ordinance might be freed and kept pure from that pollution, (so much (and that not without cause) complained of) through a promiscuous participation; and so this scandal being removed, we might hope that many who are upon this ground departed from the unity of the Church, at least have broke off communion with it, might in a little time be reduced, and brought home again; and others who are staggering might be confirmed and established. The difference about Church-Covenant reconciled. 6. And lastly, by this means also that difference of the times about the formality of a Church-Covenant in receiving in of members▪ (as they call them) would soon be compremized, and taken up: There being here the utinam verò morem retineremus quem ●pud veteres fuisse admonui pri●squam haec Sacramenti la●va nasceretur. Calv. Inst. de Confirm. l. 4 c. 19 s. 13. Talem ergo▪ manuum impos●ion●m, quae▪ simplicity loco bene dictionis fire, laud, & resti▪ tu●am hodiè in pu●um usum ●●lim▪ Calv. Iust. l. 4. ●. 19▪ 3. 4. substance of what is there desired and contended for, and that better bottomed (as I conceive) then the former. In all which regards (besides many other) for my own part I cannot but join with Calvin and Chemnitius, and divers other of our Divines, in desiring the restitution and restoring of this Ordinance to the Church, which through the gross corruption of it in the Church of Rome, and too apparent abuse of it amongst ourselves (it being generally turned into a mere formality) hath grown into great dislike and distaste. Certainly, what ever any through prejudice may think of it, were this Ordinance stripped of those rags which superstition hath put upon it, and restored to naked purity and simplicity, the Church of God should have no cause to be ashamed to own it▪ specially seeing the Apostle himself in the words of the Text seems to give such countenance to it, laying it down for one of those first principles concerning the nature and use whereof children Hodieretinenda pura institutio est: superstitio autem corrigenda. Calv. ad Tex▪ Nostri saepè ostenderunt, ritum confirmationis remotis inutilibus, superstitiosis, & cum Scripturâ pugnantibus ●●aditionibus, pie & ad Ecclesiae aedificatio●em, juxtà scripturae consen●um usurpari polle, Chem. Exam. de Confirm▪ Ob nugas Pon●ificias in pri●â Evangelii reformatione totu● actus confirmationis est abrogatus, quae res●●ssis is●is 〈◊〉 Pontificiis non male retineri potu●sset. Che●●it. Harm. in Mark. 10. 16. should be instructed and taught. Confirmation presupposeth Paedobaptism Q. But all this while, what is this to the purpose in hand? what maketh this for P●d●baptisme, the baptism of Infants? A. Surely yes, very much. This being granted that there was such an Ordinance in use in the Apostles times practised after the manner that you have heard, it may from thence be demonstratively inferred, that some children were then baptised in their Infancy. To what purpose else should this subsequent act serve? wherefore should there be such a public confession, and such a solemn restipulation, and engagement after Baptism, were it not that Baptism was administered unto them in their Infancy, before they came to years of discretion. Otherwise, had they been able to anser for themselves, and to stipulate in their own persons when they were baptised (as those that were adulti did) what need would there have been of such a subsequent solemnity, to bring them actum agere, to do that again which they had once done before. But I will not dwell any longer upon it. You see now what Precept, and what Precedents the Spirit of God in the New Testament will afford us for the countenancing, and bearing out of this practice, the baptising of Infants. True it is, express and particular they are not; nor yet so demonstrative and convincing, but that the Adversary may take up some cavils against them. Yet are they such evidences as may give satisfaction to those who are willing to receive it. However, sure we are, they make more for the warrant▪ blenesse of this practice, than aught that the Adversary can produce, will against it. Object. Infants are not capable of repentance & faith, ergo not of Baptism. Not so (say they) for as for Infants they are not subjects capable of Baptism. And why not? Why, because they are not capable of those qualifications which should dispose them to the receiving of this Sacrament. And what are they? why, Repentance and Faith. These are the conditions which the Spirit of God requireth in all persons that are to be baptised; Repentance. [Repent Acts 2. 38. ye therefore and be baptised] (saith ●eter to the jews.) Faith [if thou believest with all thine heart thou mayest.] Acts 8. 3●. (saith Philip to the Eunuch concerning his Baptism.) Ans. In persons of years actual repentance & faith is requisite before baptism, not so in Infants. A. To these Texts of Scripture it is soon answered, that here both Peter and Philip had to deal with persons of years, and those such as had no other title to the Covenant, but such as their own actual repentance and faith conferred upon them. Now had we to deal with such, we should run the same course, not admitting them unto this Sacrament, but upon the testification of their Repentance and Faith. But in the mean time, this is ill applied to Infants, the children of believing parents, who have a title to, and interest in the Covenant, and consequently a right to the seal of the Covenant, by virtue of their father's charter. Repl. Repl. But it will be replied; This is a general, universal condition, required of all that are to be baptised; They must first believe▪ Our Saviour's own words (say the) are express for it. [He that believeth and is baptised shall be saved, Mark 16. 16. So that it seemeth Mark 16. 16. cleared. faith is a condition absolutely requisite in persons to be baptised, and must go before Baptism. Here is one of the great arguments, which the Adversary putteth a great deal of confidence in. But what strength (or rather weakness) is in it, will soon appear. Sol. P. Matt. loc. Com. Clas. 4. loc. 11. sect. 13. A. In the 1. place, it is truly answered by P. Martyr, and others, that Ordo verborum non necessario infert ordinem rerum, The order of words doth not necessarily infer the same order in things. For instance, Mark 1. 4. it is said, [john did baptise and preach the baptism of Repentance.] Here is baptising put before preaching, (which may serve to balance that in the last of Matth. 19 Go teach all Nations baptising them; where teaching is put before baptising;) yet will it not thence follow, that john baptised before he preached. So here in those words of our Saviour▪ believing is put before baptising in the order of the words. Yet it will not thence follow that faith must always go before baptism in the reality of the thing. Should we thus precisely stand upon the order of Siquis urgeat 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (quicunque crediderit & baptizatus fuerit) reponemus ei, si placet syllabas numerare, dictum Chri. Joh. 3. Nisi quis renatus fuerit ex Aqua & Spirit. Aret. Censura contra Anab. words, what should we say to that of our Saviour, joh. 3. 5. [Except a man be borne of water, and of the Spirit, etc. (a Text which is brought to balance that other) where water is put before the spirit. A. 2. In the second place, we grant it; Faith and actual faith is requisite in persons capable of it, before they be admitted to Baptism. And of such & only such▪ is that place to be understood; [He that believeth and is baptised shall be saved.] Which cannot extend unto Infants, as the latter part of the verse will sufficiently evidence. [He that believeth not shall be damned▪] Which to apply to Infants, and so for want of actual faith (which they are not capable of) to exclude them from all hopes of salvation, I presume it were greater cruelty than the Anabaptists will willingly own. The place itself being consulted with maketh it clear; showing that this is spoken of all and only such as were capable of the Gospel preached to them, and consequently capable of faith; as the verse foregoing explains it, v. 15. [Go ye into all the world, and preach the Gospel to every creature.] And what Gospel should they preach? Why, even this; [He that believeth, and is baptised shall be saved, etc.] Which must be restrained to those who were capable of hearing, and receiving that Gospel; not extended to Infants, who though they be not capable of actual faith, yet are they capable of salvation, and consequently of Baptism. Bucan. loc. cō. loc. 48 q. 35. s 7 Tilen. syntag. de Baptismo Disput▪ 2. s. 30. This place I find paralleled and compared with that of the Apostle to the Thessalonians, 2 Thes. 3. 10. where he giveth order that those which would not work should not be relieved; [We commanded you that if any man would not work, he should not eat.] What then shall become of Infants, and sick, and impotent persons? must they be starved? Not so. That place must be restrained to such as are able to work, but will not. So here, [He that believeth, and is baptised, shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.] What then shall become of Infants▪ may they not be baptised, and so must be damned? Not so. The place is to be restrained to such persons as are capable of faith, may believe, but will not. The parent's faith how available for Infants. A. 3. In the third place it is answered by some; that Infants though they have no faith of their own, yet the faith of their parents may be sufficient for them. Even as the sin of another (their first parent) was enough Sharp. Cu●su● Theolog. de Bap ismo Control. ●. to make them sinners, reputed such by a just imputation; so the faith of another (of their next parents) may be enough to make them believers, reputed such by a gracious acceptation. Of this opinion was Augustine Vid. P. Mart. loc. come. clas. 4 and the ancient Church. And not without some truth; in as much as the faith of the parent is sufficient to bring the child within the compass of the Covenant, and so to make it baptizeable. However (as P. Martyr states it rightly) in point of salvation, every one (who is capable of it) must be saved by his own faith. [The just shall Heb▪ 2. 4. live by his faith.] Not the faith of another. Infant's n●● wholly uncapable of faith. A. 4. But (in the fourth place) it may be truly affirmed concerning▪ Infant's that they are not wholly uncapable of faith. True, of the outward profession, and inward exercise of it, they are. But not altogether of the grace itself. This, (at least the seed and root of it) may be infused and implanted in the soul even in Infancy, by the secret work of the Spirit regenerating and sanctifying of it. So as though Infants have not faith actually, by way of manifestation or exercise; yet virtually they may, by way of inchoation and inclination. Thus may Infants have a gracious disposition which in time will come to be fides formata, form in the habit and act of De fide Infant●um faederatoru●, idem dic●●us quod de ipsorum ratione. Utraque ipsis inest acta primo, non secundo: in sement, non in mess: in radi●è, non in fructu: inter●â spiritus virtute, non externâ operis ●emonstr●tione: Tilen. Sy●t. de Bapt. Disp. 2. sect. 27 Infants que madmodum dicuntur habere rationem ità h●be●● fi●●m dici possunt. Imò firmiori quadam ratione, quum sit De● occulta & secret● elect. o. Aret. contr. Anabap. faith. A truth which is well illustrated by some by comparing faith and reason together, which Infants may be conceived to be both alike. Infants have not the use of reason, they cannot reason and discourse, etc. yet a principle of reason they have, being endued with a reasonable soul, which hath an inclination to discourse, and afterwards actually doth it. And from hence they are called reasonable creatures, though for present they have no more understanding than the bruit creatures, nay seemingly not so much as some of them of like age seem to have. A young Lamb will sooner know the dam, than a child the mother. Even so is it with faith. Infants have not the use and exercise of faith, yet may they have an inward principle of faith, the seed and beginning of faith, wrought in the heart by the secret work of the Spirit, an inclination to believe, and to show forth their faith when they come to years of maturity. And from hence may they be called, * Quâdan locutione possunt dici parvuli sidelium fideles, quemadmodum nonnunquam Infantes rationales appellamus; non quod reipsâ valeant ratio●inari, verum quod animam habeant, quae, cum per aetatem fieri poterit ratiocinabitur, etc. P. Matt. loc. Com. Clas. 4. loc. 8▪ de Baptismo, sect. 14▪ Infants of believing parents no Infidels. Infidelis ●ifariam dicitur, negatiuè, & positiuè, Til. disp. 2. de Baptism. sect. 28. Believers. A. 5. However, (in the fifth place) Infants of believing parents, though they have neither actual nor yet habitual faith, yet are they not to be looked upon as Infidels, and unbelievers. For the opening and clearing of which, we must know that there is a twofold infidelity, viz. positive and negative. positive or privative, the habit of Infidelity; when men being capable of faith, and having means of faith offered to them, yet will not believe, but continue in unbelief. Negative. Carentia fidei, a mere absence of faith, but without any contrary habit of infidelity. Now the former of these are properly called Infidels, and unbelievers. Not so the other. As for Infants, though they may be called nonbelievers, yet properly unbelievers they are not. Neither doth this simple absence of faith being in a subject as yet not capable of it▪ exclude them either from salvation, or from baptism. True, the former doth both. That positive or privitive Infidelity, the habit of unbelief, shutteth men out of the Kingdom, both of Grace and Glory. The Israelites Heb. 3. last. could not enter into Canaan (a type of both) because of their unbelief. Not so this negative unbelief. Infants of believing parents, though for the present they be destitute of faith, yet are they not thereby shut out of the Kingdom of Glory, nor yet to be debarred from the privilege of the Kingdom of Grace, which are agreeable to their condition. Neither are they to be reckoned, or reputed as Infidels. Being born of believing parents, they are an holy seed, members of the Church within the Covenant; which is all that is to be looked at in the dispencing of this Ordinance. Not the inward sanctification of the heart, whether present or future; but the outward state and condition of the person. This is that which the Ministers of the Gospel are to be regulated by in the administration of this Sacrament. The rule for dispensing Sacraments, not the inward, but outward state. Which (by the way) let it be taken notice of against some more moderate Anabaptists, who will not stick to indulge thus much unto us, that did they know what Infants do belong to God's election of grace, or were after that manner endued with the spirit, they would not be against the baptising of them. For this, let them know, that this is not the rule which we are to walk by. Not the inward, but the outward state. Suppose a Minister had the spirit of discerning, and could discern the inward state of men (as certainly our Saviour did judas his, and possibly the Apostles did some of those who were baptised of them) yet were he not to withhold the outward privilege from any for want of inward grace, they having right and title thereunto by virtue of their visible state, their being under the Covenant outwardly. But I hasten to a conclusion of this point. One or two objections more, and I have done. Obj. Infants not capable of benefit by Baptism. Obj. Infants are not subjects capable of any benefit by baptism, and therefore why should they be baptised? Answ. To this I have in part answered heretofore. Let me now do it a little more fully, yet briefly. A. 1. As much as by Circumcision. 1. Demanding of the Adversaries, what benefit Infants under the Old Testament had by Circumcision? Let them show me the one, I will show them the other. A. 2. Baptism beneficial to the parents. 2. Though Baptism at present should not be beneficial unto Infants themselves, yet to their parents it may be; serving exceedingly for their consolation, when they shall see their children thus marked out for God, having Gods distinguishing mark, his Seal set upon them; which is to them an assurance that God is not only their God, but the God of their seed: That he doth acknowledge them in Covenant, and will make good the Covenant unto theirs, in case they do not afterwards by some act of their own ponereobicem, put a bar in the way, so nullifying the Covenant, and frustrating Gods gracious intentions towards them. Thus it is useful to the parent. A. 3. Baptism beneficial to children for the present. 3. Neither (in the third place) is it altogether unuseful to the child, who by this means: 1. Is distinguished from Heathens, and Infidels, and marked out for God's special service. Rom. 6. 4. 5. 2. Is hereby visibly engrafted into Christ, and acknowledged as a visible member of the Church: And consequently hereby cometh to have a share, and interest in the communion of Saints; being now daily remembered at the Throne of Grace by all those who pray for the welfare of the Church. 3. Besides this (in the third place) who knoweth how, and in what way God may be pleased to concur, and work together with his Ordinance? Certainly, herein God's ways are (as the Apostle saith of them) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, past our finding out. And therefore stand not Rom. 11. 34. in this case to reason with flesh and blond, to consult with sense and reason about it. Had those women in the Gospel so done, surely they would never have brought their children unto Christ to be touched of him. But in this set faith on work (as they did) and let that command obedience, obedience in submitting unto this Ordinance of God. A. 4. Baptism beneficial in the future. 4. In the 4. and last place: Though this Ordinance have not any present effect upon Infants, yet afterwards it may have: viz. when they shall come to apprehend this stipulation, and engagement between God and them: then this Sacrament will be useful unto them, as in other respects, so specially as a strong obligation upon them, to bind them for ever to the service of that God, who was pleased to take them into his service, before ever they were able to do him any service: To take and acknowledge them as his, before they knew themselves: To take and seal them for his children, before they were capable to know their father. A peculiar favour, and so a peculiar obligation. Obj. How shall Infants afterwards know that they are baptised. Obj. But how shall children afterwards know that they are made partakers of this Ordinance? An objection which possibly may take much with some. Those who are thus baptised in their Infancy, how shall they know, and be assured that they are baptised? Even as an Israelite knew that he was circumcised: A. I answer; Even as the Israelites knew, were assured that they were circumcised. Repl. Not so (saith the Adversary.) Circumcision was a permanent, Baptism is a transient sign. The one left an impression behind it, not so the other. The Israelites carried a sensible mark in their flesh to mind them of their Circumcision. A. True: Such a sensible mark they had. But Viz. by the testimony of others. how did they know, that that mark was given them for any such religious end, and purpose? That they received it as a Sacrament, a seal of the Covenant betwixt The inhabitants of Colchis, the Ethiopians, the Trogloditae, and the Egyptians. Alex ab Alex. l. 2. c. 25 Her. l. 2. Diodor. Sicul. l. 2. c. 1. It. l. 4. c. 3. Witnesses in Circumcision. Vide goodwin's Moses and Aaron. l. 6 c. 1. God and them. Other Nations there were (and that many) who used Circumcision (even as the Turks do at this day) but not to any such intent, not as a Sacrament. How did the Israelites know that theirs was given them with such an intent? Why, herein they were to give credit unto the testimony of others, viz. their parents, and other witnesses. Amongst whom (as it seemeth) some were specially appointed for that purpose. So much the jewish Doctors will inform us of; describing to us the manner of Circumcision, they will tell us, that when a child was to be circumcised, one who supplied the place of a witness (whom they called by the name of Baal. Berith, and Sandak, that is, the master of the Covenant) he held the child in his arms whilst it was circumcised, that so he might bear witness both of the Circumcision, and of the name given the child at that time. Such was the use of the latter jews. And it seemeth that the practice was ancient, as ancient as the Prophet Isaies' time. So that learned pair of Expositors, junius and Tremellius interpret that place of that Prophet, Is. 8. 2. where the Prophet tells us, that he took unto him faithful * i e. Vir●s nominatim advocatos ut ●est●rentur nomen illud filio meo imposi●ū in Ecclesia, quum circumcid●retur. Jun. & Tremel. ad loc Vers. 1. 3. The original of witness in Baptism. A●q▪ ex hoc ●itu prof●ctum ●sse illum nostrum constat, quo certi homine● speciatim, maxi●è ve●o i● calamitosis temporibus (ut ista futura erant) adhibentur testes accessus ad Christum, & ad Ecclesiam per Baptismum & nominis in Baptismo indite. Hos vulgus compatres, et commat●es, Graeci olim 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, appellarunt. Jun. & Tr●ib. Repl. A humane testimony is no ground for faith. Sol. A humane testimony sufficient for a humane faith. witnesses: viz. Vzziah the Priest, and Zachariah.] Witnesses to what? Why to the Circumcision of his Son, of whom he speaketh in the verse before and after. Such as might bear witness that he gave him that name in his Circumcision, which the Lord had appointed him: viz. Maher-shalal hash baz. Which, whether it was a thing really done, or only represented to the Prophet in a vision, is not material. It seemeth however, that this was a practice then in use in those times. And from hence (as judicious Authors with good probability conjecture) came that custom so anciently and universally received amongst the Churches (till of very late times): viz. The having of Godfathers and Godmothers (as we call them) in Baptism. Some persons specially appointed to bear witness of the receiving of such a person into the Church of God by Baptism, and of the Name then given unto him. But this by the way. From these did children amongst the Israelites receive the testimony of their Circumcision. Which they were induced the more to give credit to, because they saw the same practised upon others daily. And even such a testimony have children now concerning their Baptism, besides the testimony of the whole Congregation, which many have, and others ought to have. Repl. But this is but a humane testimony, and consequently fallible. How shall I build my faith upon it? A. I answer. A Humane testimony is sufficient to build a Humane faith upon. True, a Divine faith must have a Divine testimony, But to a humane faith a humane testimony may suffice. Now such is this faith. To believe that I was Baptised; this is but a humane faith, being concerning a matter of humane fact. Repl. What if a man should believe that he is baptised when he is not? Sol. Such an error being invincible shall not ●●nder salvation. Repl. But what if I should be deceived herein? as it is possible I may be? think and believe that I was baptised, when as I was not. A. To this I answer, that such an error being invincible, shall not be prejudicial in point of salvation. In this case the apprehension of the thing shall be in stead of the thing itself. As in the case of persons dying before they can have the Sacrament of Baptism administered unto them: In this case it is determined that the desire of Baptism (viz. by Parents for their children, by persons of age for themselves) shall supply the want of it. So said Ambrose concerning the Emperor Valentinian, who coming to him to be baptised, died by the way; Baptizatus voto & voluntate licet non reipsâ per aquae lavacrum. Am. lib. de vitâ Valent. 2 Co●. 8. 12. He was baptised (saith he) in vow a●d desire, though not by the washing of water; which he concluded to be as effectual as if he had been made partaker of the thing itself. And it is no more than what the Apostle will bear him out in, who tells us, That where there is a willing mind, it is accepted according to that a man hath, and not according to that which he hath not. Desire of Baptism, (where it cannot be had) is baptism in God's acceptation, Minime salvari possunt qu● nec re, nec voto baptismi Sacramen um susciperint: qu● verò saltem voto Sacramentum baptismi sus●eperint, e●s● non re s●lvari poss●nt Thom. pars. 3. q. 68 Act. 2. con supplying the want of this Sacrament. So much even Papists (however standing much upon the absolute necessity of Baptism) will yield. Even so here. In the case of such an invincible error and mistake, (which is only possible, not probable, much less ordinary) the very apprehension of the thing as done, with the application of the thing signified by it, shall be effectual unto the person to all intents and purposes, as if he had been really made partaker of that Sacrament. And thus have I endeavoured as briefly, and yet as fully as I could, to give satisfaction to all the chief Arguments or Objections which are brought against this Doctrine and Practice of Baptising of Infants. An antidote against Rebaptization. Only let me yet speak one word or two, to the Anabaptist properly so called. For you must know, that of this Sect (as usually in all Sects it is) there are divers sorts. Amongst other, some Catabaptists, others Anabaptists. The former opposeth the Baptism of Infants, as a thing not meet, not lawful, at least not expedient to be done; yet being done, he alloweth it as valid and of force. The other looking upon this Baptism as a mere nullity, holdeth an absolute necessity of Rebaptization. Now to these latter let me speak a word, and but a word. Minding them of that old Rule, which taketh place in many cases: Fieri quod non licet, factum valet: A thing which ought not to be done, yet being done, it may be of force and valid. For instance. David ought not to 2 Sam. 12. 9 10. have taken the wife of V●iah to his wife. The Lord by his Prophet chargeth it upon him, as a sin, and a great sin; yet being done, the Marriage was lawful, and ought not to be dissolved. Amongst us, Clandestine marriages (as we call them) they are not allowable, but prohibited, yet being done, they are valid, and may not be undone. To come nearer the point in hand. In the case of Baptism, Parents ought not to tender their children to be baptised by any Romish Priest in a superstitious way; yet being done, Baptism so administered ought not to be reiterated, but to be held as true, and valid. A case stated by many of the Ancients; in case any were baptised by Heretics, so that the true matter and form of Baptism was observed, in this case the determination of the Church (against the opinion of Concil. Laod. can. 7. Arelat. can. 8. Leo Ep. 7. 7. citati per Chemnitium in Exam. de Confirmat. Cyprian) was that they were not to be rebaptised; only they were to be catechised, and interrogated concerning the faith whereinto they were baptised, and so by imposition of hands in confirmation, they were to be received into communion with the Church. Even so it is here. Suppose the baptism of Infants not to be regular, that they ought not to be baptised until they be able to understand the meaning of this Sacrament, and make a profession of the faith in their own persons (an opinion which some moderate spirits are somewhat inclinable to) yet being baptised, their baptism is valid, and ought not to be repeated. Even as it is with the baptism of a profane or ignorant person; nay suppose a jew, a Turk, an Infidel, a Pagan. In case such a one should out of some by and sinister respect, whether to save his life, or procure his liberty, or for lucre, or honour, or the like, should tender himself to Baptism: In this case he ought not to be admitted. Divine ordinances are not to be prostituted to any such base or sinister designs. Yet put the case that by favour, or by some other indirect way, he do obtain it. In this case his baptism is not to be accounted a nullity. Neither ought he (in case afterwards he shall be enlightened, and come truly and seriously to embrace the faith) to be rebaptised; only he is then to make a right use of that baptism, which was administered to him rightly for the substance of it, however by him obtained in an undue way and manner. Even so here. Supposing Infants to be baptised before they are meet to partake of that Ordinance, yet being for substance rightly baptised, they ought not now to be rebaptised, but only labour to make a right and holy use of that baptism, which was truly, though 〈◊〉 conferred upon them. Which if rightly considered, and duly weighed, I presume it might be of use to some who are not fully satisfied in the point of Paedobaptism, as touching the expediency or lawfulness of it, viz. to stay them from running into that dangerous and destructive error of Anabaptism, properly so called, I mean of Rebaptisation, the repeating of baptism; which being once for substance rightly administered, ought not for some defect in the manner, or mistake in circumstance be reiterated. But thus much for this point; which I have dwelled the longer upon, if it might be, to settle wavering and unstable minds, and to keep them from being seduced, and drawn away to the embracing of this spreading error of the times, which hath also begun to put up head in this place: However, liberare animam, to deliver my own soul, by the discharge of my duty towards God and you; withal, making it manifest, that if God shall permit this error to spring and spread further amongst us, yet it may never be said, that these Tares were sown, and grew up whilst the Husbandmen Mat. 13. 25. slept. MARK. 10. vers. 13. to 16. And they brought young Children unto him, that he should touch them, etc. YOU know what Subject it is I have lately fallen upon, viz. the Doctrine of Baptism; and therein of Paedobaptism, the Baptism of Infants. This doctrine and practice I have already in part endeavoured to assert, and vindicate against the Anabaptists of the times. In further prosecution thereof I have now taken up this portion of Scripture, which is commonly made use of in this cause, as an argument to evince the warrantableness of children's baptism. A portion of Scripture well known. No one passage in the Bible more frequently read in our public Congregations (so it hath been,) but very seldom explicated. So Chemnitius observed it in the Chemnit. Har. ad loc. German Churches in his time; and the observation holdeth as true in ours. Scarce a Lords day but this history hath been read (I mean in great Congregations,) but it may be scarce once in an age opened. Give me leave now to do it, and I will do it with as much brevity as conveniently I may; intending rather to gloss upon every thing in it, then to insist upon any thing. A 3. fold Act in this Hist. The words are a history, consisting of three parts, three sensual acts. The first of those devout persons who brought and presented these children unto Christ: v. 13. The second of the disciples repelling these Infants, and rebuking those which brought them; ibid. The third of our Saviour's rebuking his Disciples, inviting, embracing, and blessing these Infants; v. 14, 15, 16. we shall look upon them severally. 1. Act. The act of those which brought these children to Christ: where 4. particulars. Begin with the first, the act of those devout persons which brought these children; wherein divers particulars offer themselves to our consideration. As 1. who brought them: 2 whom they brought: 3. to whom they brought them: 4. to what end they brought them: A word of each. 1. Who were the bringers. I. Who brought them; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (saith the text.) They brought;] who they were, none of the Evangelists expressed. Most probably, the Parents, the Mothers of these children. They brought them, which they did out of a tender and motherly affection which they bore unto their children; desiring their good, their welfare, [they brought them.] 2. Whom they brought: viz. Infants. II. And whom did they bring? Children. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (saith our Evangelist:) pueros, puerulos; children, young children. So our translation renders it; and such they were. Not children grown up, as some of the Anabaptists would willingly have it, but Infants. Cleared by 3▪ arguments. Luk. 18. 15. 1. So St Luke expressly calleth them; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Infants, sucking children. 2. So much also is employed in the first word of the text; they brought, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, adferebant, non adduce●ant. They brought them, not led them; not led them by the hand, but brought them in their arms, Thus they brought them. 3. And after the same manner Christ received, and embraced them. [He took them in his arms.] 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (saith our Evangelist) ulnis amplexus: even as mothers do their children. All evidencing and clearing the condition of the persons that were brought. They were Children, Babes, Infants. 3. To whom they were brought. III. And to whom did they bring them? Unto him, unto Christ. Thus others before had brought divers aged persons unto him, who had received benefit by him. And thereupon these tender mothers they do as much for their children; [they bring them to Christ.] 4 To what end. IU. And to what end did they bring them. [That he might touch them (saith our Evangelist:) that he might put his hands upon them and pray, (saith St. Math. 19 13. Matthew:) that is, that by laying his hands upon them he might bless them. Such benedictions Parents were anciently wont to seek for their children, and children for themselves. Thus did Jacob and Esau, Gen. 27. each seek a blessing at the hands of their father Isaac. And thus did Joseph seek a blessing for his two sons Gen. 28. Ephraim and Manasses; bringing them to his father Jacob, that he might lay his hands upon them, and bless them; i. e. pray for them, and in the name of God pronounce a blessing upon them. Such a blessing (it seemeth) the people of God were frequently wont to seek for their children at the hands of those whom they apprehended to be endued with prophetical and extraordinary spirits. And thus these mothers, looking upon Christ as a Prophet, a great Prophet, the great Prophet, they bring their Infants unto him, that they might receive a benediction from him. The words being thus briefly opened, we may take up a double observation from them. 1. That Infants are subjects capable of benefit by Christ. 2. That it is the best office that Parents can perform unto their Children, to bring them unto Christ. Briefly of each. Obser. 1 Infants capable of benefit by Christ. Infants are subjects capable of benefit by Christ: So much certainly these devout persons who here brought these children to him apprehended and believed. Wherefore else should they have brought them, had they not apprehended them to have been subjects capable of benefit by him. And surely such they are; capable, and that not only of temporal, but of spiritual benefit: viz. of Remission of sins, of Regeneration, Justification, Sanctification, Glorification. Object. Infants do not actually believe. But how can this be (saith the Anabaptist) seeing that Infants do not actually believe? They cannot lay hold upon Christ by faith; how then shall they receive any benefit by him? Answ. Christ can touch them, though not touched by them. To this I answer; Though they cannot lay hold upon Christ, yet Christ can lay hold upon them. Though they cannot touch him, yet he can touch them. And this is sufficient. Mark the Text: [They brought children unto Christ that he should touch them.] Not that they should touch him, but that he should touch them. Christ can, and often doth touch them by a verivall contract, communicating spiritual benedictions and blessings unto them, who are not able to touch him, I mean actually to believe on him. This is the case of Infants; they are not sensible of the need they have of Christ, neither can they seek a blessing for themselves, they cannot by an actual faith lay hold upon him: yet is this no impediment unto them. For all this, Christ may, and often doth communicate himself unto them; apprehending them, though not apprehended by them. In adultis, in persons come to years of discretion, and to the use of reason, both these meet together, even a mutual apprehension, the one resulting from the other. Believers they apprehend Christ, and they are apprehended of Christ. This is that which Paul desireth for himself, Phil. 3. I follow after (saith he) if I may Phil. 3. 12. apprehend that for which I am also apprehended of Jesus Christ.] Paul was apprehended of Christ; viz. by his free grace accepting of him; and his desire is, that he might more and more apprehend God's love and favour in Christ, viz. by faith and experience. Thus do Christians when they are come to years of discretion, apprehend Christ; then they touch him, as that Woman in the Gospel did, who came and touched Mat. 9 the hem of his Garment, drawing virtue from him by her faith. Thus indeed Infants cannot apprehend him; they cannot touch him. In the mean time it is enough that they are apprehended of Christ, touched by him. So were these Infants here in the Text. [They brought Children unto Christ that he should touch them.] Applica. Stand not to reason with flesh & blood about this mystery. Appli: Stand no● then to reason with flesh and blood about the manner of Christ's coming and communicating himself, and his grace unto Infants. This doth the Anabaptist, and because sense▪ and reason cannot resolve his doubt, viz. How Baptism should be made effectual unto Infants, seeing they do not actually believe; therefore he will not believe lief that it can be any ways beneficial to them, what is this but to take up Thomas his Resolution? john 20. Unless I shall see the print of the nails, and put my fingers into them, etc. I will not believe. These Women (or who ever they were that brought these Children unto Christ) they were of another mind. They knew not which way virtue should go out from Jesus Christ unto their Infants; yet they bring them, render them unto him, only desiring that he would touch them, which if he would vouchsafe to do, they doubt not but their Infants should be the better for it. Surely what ever flesh and blood, carnal sense and reason (which are no competent judges in divine and spiritual mysteries) may suggest. The Sacrament of Baptism is not un useful, nor always ineffectual unto Infants. God can, and (no question) often doth concur with his Ordinance, communicating the inward grace with the outward sign, working that grace of Regeneration in Infan●s, whereof Baptism is a Sign and Seal. If for our parts we cannot conceive how, or after what manner God should work this work in them, let not that stagger our belief, Considering that there are many other things which are above our sense and reason, yet not above our faith. We believe that they are, though we know not in what way they are effected. Who is there that knoweth the way of his own natural birth? how the body is framed and fashioned in the womb? how, and when the soul cometh to be infused into it? Even such is the way of God in many of his works. So saith the Preacher, Eccles. 11. [As thou knowest not what is the way of the Spirit, nor how Eccles. 11. 5 the bones do grow in the womb of her that is with child, so thou knowest not the works of God.] Such are many of his works, many of his ways, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, untraceable Rom. 11. 33. ways, ways past finding out. And such in particular is the way of God in the work of Regeneration; a mysterious way, the manner of it being above sense and reasons comprehension. So much our Saviour tells Nicodemnus. joh. 3. [The wind bloweth where it listeth▪ etc. So is every one that is borne of the Spirit.] The wind bloweth variously, sometimes in this quarter, sometimes in that, and who can give a reason of it. Such is the work of the Spirit. A mysterious work. If we cannot give a reason of it, and set forth the manner of its working, let not this our ignorance prejudice our faith. What we cannot comprehend, yet let us apprehend. What we cannot see, yet believe. So did these devout persons here in the Text. Having seen the power of Christ exercised upon others, they doubt not but their children also were capable of benefit by him; so as if he would but touch them, they should far the better for it; and thereupon they bring them unto him. I have done with the former observation. As briefly of the latter. Obser. The best office Parents can do for their Children, to bring them to Christ. Reason ●. It is the best office that Parents can perform unto their children, to bring them unto Christ.] So these mothers here thought of it. They knew not how to perform a better office unto these their Infants, then to present them unto Christ. And therein they were not deceived. 1. In as much as (Christ,) jesus Christ is the storehouse Christ a storehouse of blessings. 1 Ephes. 3. and Treasury of all blessings. Blessed be God the Father of our Lord jesus Christ (faith the Apostle) who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly things in Christ.] Spiritual blessings (which are the best blessings) they are laid up in Christ, to be dispensed by him. God his Father hath made him (as I may say) his high-Almoner to distribute his bounty to the sons of men. Whetherthen can poor necessitous creatures repair better than unto Christ? And such are Infants naturally. Reason 2. Infant's necessitous creatures. 2. Let that be a second Reason; viz the great necessity that Infants have of jesus Christ. Without him they are lost creatures, for ever lost. Such they come in to the world, in a lost condition; being all sinners by nature. Sinners by Imputation, having the sin of their first Parents charged upon them: Sinners by real communication, being heirs of their forefather's corruption. Now this being their condition, they stand in need of a Saviour, a susceptor, one that may undertake for them, and stand betwixt the wrath of God and them. And who can do this but the Saviour of the world, the Lord Christ? Now put these together, Christ's Alsufficiencie, and their necessity; we shall see ground and reason enough for this Assertion, that it is the best office that Parents can do to their Children, to bring them unto Christ. Applica. Let it be applied briefly by way of Conviction, Instruction. Use 1. The preposterous care of carnal Parents. By way of Conviction. Let carnal Parents here take notice of the preposterousness of their care and solicitude for their children in seeking all other things for them, in the mean time neglecting this. Other things they will lay out, and lay up for them, necessaries and conveniencies for the outward man. They shall not want either food or raiment▪ It may be they will give them civil nurture and education, bringing them up in some honest trade or occupation, whereby they may live like men in the world: And they will do what they can to gather a portion for them, to leave them an Inheritance. But in the mean time, as for bringing them to Christ, and interesting them in him, this they never think of. And what is this but with Martha to be solicitous about many things, but Luke 10. 41. whereas there is but one thing necessary, to overlook that▪ Surely such is the interesting of children in Jesus Christ. Other things may be for conveniency, this for necessity. Be convinced then of▪ your folly herein, you who are so indulgent towards, and provident for your children, that you think all the care you can take for them for their temporal welfare, to be little enough; but in the mean time take no thought to bring them unto Christ, to have union and communion with him. Hereby you may express a natural, but no Christian affection; that is true Christian affection, which putteth forth itself in bringing others unto Christ. The worst office to keep children from Christ. 2. But what shall we then think (in the second place) of those who are so far from bringing their children unto Christ, that they rather keep them off from him. Prejudicing them against the wa●es of Christ, by their own 〈◊〉 examples▪ Cruel, unnatural Parents! So we account them, who Levit. 20. ●. offered up their children into Moloc●. What are they who (as much as in them lieth) offer them up unto S●●●●? Use 2. Instruction. To excite Parents to this duty. 〈…〉 Parent's here take notice of their 〈◊〉 and be excited to discharge it: endeavouring (what in them lieth) to bring their children unto Christ. The best office, the truest act of charity you can perform to them. So we look Matt. 9 2. 〈…〉 act of those who brought that poor Paraliticke, the man ●icke of the Palsy unto Christ▪ He could not come himself, they bring him. The greatest piece of charity they could possibly have showed 〈◊〉 Suppose it, that they had otherwise contributed largely and liberally to his necessities, giving him meat and drink, and apparel, and money; all this had been nothing in comparison of 〈◊〉 they now did for him. What ever 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, what 〈◊〉 natural affection the most tender hearted Parents in the world can show to their children, should they provide never so well for them in all other 〈◊〉 yet this is more than all, to bring them to Christ▪ The truest and highest preferment that a Parent can prefer his child unto, to prefer him unto Christ. Old Barzillai could not do more for his 2 Sam. 19 37. son 〈◊〉 than to prefer him unto David, to be his follower, his attendant. He well knew that David could do more for him than himself could. Upon the same ground prefer we our children unto Christ▪ They cannot serve a better Master, none so able to do for them as he▪ Little it is that we 〈…〉 Much we have done 〈…〉 and transmitting our corrupted nature to them, thereby laying them under guilt, and making them children of wrath. This have we done against them to make them miserable. Now all that we can do for them, cannot free them from that condition. O labour to bring and present them unto him that can, even unto jesus Christ. Quest. How shall Parents bring their children to Christ, and what they are to do to that end. Answ. A threefold direction. But which way shall this be done? How shall Parents bring their children unto Christ? or what shall they do to this end? Take some directions briefly. I shall reduce them to three heads. Something is to be done for them before they are borne▪ Something when they are borne, in their Infancy▪ Something when they come to years of understanding. Before they are borne. 1. Before they are born, whilst they are yet in the womb, Parents should have a care to sanctify their children. Sanctify them? How? Why (as all other Sanctify them in the womb by prayer. Psal. 127▪ 3. things are to be sanctified) by prayer, and thanksgiving. Children are an heritage of the Lord, and the fruit of the womb is his reward (saith the Psalmist.) Being so, they should be blessed in the womb▪ First, by blessing God for them, for the hopes of them Secondly, by commending them unto his blessing. This doing Then (in the second place) let Parents make sure (as much as in them lieth) that they may be borne Make sure they may be borne under the Covenant. under the promise, under the Covenant. As for the Planet it matters not: if they be but borne under the Promise, we may look upon them as a hopeful seed▪ Q. But what shall or what can the Parent do to bring the Child under the Promise? A. Make sure he be under it himself; make sure his own interest in the Covenant, that God is his God in Christ▪ Being so, then may he have a comfortable hope that God will be the God of his seed also. So 〈◊〉 the Covenant. [I will be thy God, and the God of thy ●eed.] This are Parents to do for their children whilst they are yet in the womb before they are borne. When they are borne. Secondly, when they are born; then first give them up unto God. Even as these mothers here in the Text, Give them to God again they bring their children unto Christ, putting them into his Hands, his Arms. Thus should Parents deal with their children, having received them from God, they should give them unto God again; putting them into his hands, casting them upon his arms; putting them into the hands of his Fatherly providence, to be ordered and disposed of by him, according to his good pleasure. Casting them upon the Arms of his everlasting mercy in jesus Christ, begging for them a gracious acceptation. For the assurance whereof. Bring them to Baptism. Secondly, their next care must be to tender them to the Ordinance, the Sacrament of Baptism, to get the Seal of the Covenant set upon them; to get them Whether mothers are bound to present their children with their own hands. marked out for salvation; a care which lieth most properly upon the Parents. Not that they are absolutely bound to present them with their own hands. True it is, these mothers here they bring their children unto Christ in their own Arms (as is most probable,) and so Christ taketh them into his. But as for the l●●ter of th●se, I know you will readily yeeldit, that it is not binding, that because Christ took these children into his Arms to bless them; therefore Ministers should necessarily take children into their Arms to Baptise them. No more do I conceive, the former to be; that because these Mothers brought their own children unto Christ, therefore all Mothers ought to bring their children to the Sacrament of Baptism, and there present them to the Ordinance in their own Arms. Sure I am, in Circumcision it was otherwise. But herein, if any seem to be contentious, I will not contest with them; only I will say with 1 Cor. 11. 16. the Apostle in anothercase; we have no such custom, ●or (for aught I know) the Churches of God. The chief care lieth upon the Parents, specially upon the father. Exod. 4. 24▪ But in the mean time, the chief care lieth upon the Parents; and that specially and chiefly upon the Father. So did the care of Circumcision. Thence was it, that God was ready to slay Moses for neglecting of it, suffering his son to be uncircumcised. Quest. What if the mother be unwilling? Q. But what if the other Parent, the Mother be unwilling withal, not willing the child should be Baptised? It is a case which possibly may fall out in these dividing times. Now in this case what should the husband do? Should he please his wife, and neglect this Ordinance. Answ. The case of Moses and Zippora. A. It was the very case (as Junius, and divers other good Expositors conceive it) betwixt Moses and Zipporah. Zipporah not being as yet fully instructed in the Religion of God, or not fully brought off to it▪ and withal an indulgent mother, was unwilling that her child should be Circumcised. Hereupon Moses her husband in gratiam uxoris, to please and content his wife, defers the Circumcising of him. But what the issue was the story tells you, and yourselves may easily make the application. Let not Parents defer this Ordinance upon carnal reasonings. Let not Parents then either neglect, or defer this Ordinance beyond what is meet, where it may be had according to Christ's Institution. Herein let them not stand to reason with flesh and blood about it (as the Anabaptist doth; what good, what benefit a poor Infant shall receive) from, or by this Sacrament, seeing it apprehends nothing, understandeth not what is done to it. A. No more did the Circumcised Infant, it only felt the smart of Circumcision, (as Infants now do the coldness of the water) but the mystery and meaning it apprehended not, yet was not Circumcision thereupon to be deferred, till it came to years of understanding. No more ought this Sacrament, which cometh in the room of Circumcision. What though sense and reason cannot tell us how this ordinance should be beneficial, yet submit to it, resting upon God in the use of it. Knowing and remembering that in sacred actions of this nature, we are to captivate our own understandings, bringing them into obedience unto Christ, dealing with him not by reason, but by faith. So much our Saviour intimates unto us in the 15. of this Chapter, where he tells us, that, whosoever shall not receive the Kingdom of God, as a little child, he shall not enter therein.] Children, we see how they yield up themselves unto their Parents pleasures, believing, submitting, and obeying, without disputing and reasoning. Thus should christians yield up themselves to the pleasure of their Lord and Master Christ, believing his words, submitting to his commandments, though to reason never so unreasonable. Thus did Abraham when he was 99 years old submit to Circumcision, though to Gen. 17. 24. reason, a ridiculous uncomely ceremony. What ever reason dictates, yet neglect not this ordinance of God, the bringing of our children, and consecrating them unto God by the Sacrament of Baptism: which if it should not be for the present beneficial unto the child, yet to the Parents it may be, being to them a sign and seal for the confirmation of their faith in believing the promise made to them, and to their seed. Object. The Promise is sufficient, though unsealed. Chemnit. Har. ad loc. But what needeth this? Is not the promise itself sufficient? And cannot God as well make it good unto our children without this Sacrament? So Chem●itius brings in some reasoning against this act of these women in the Text, as if it savoured more of superstition, then of devoution, viz. that they could not be contented with Christ's praying for their children, but they would needs have him to touch them. The Centurion (say they) was of another mind. He doth not bring his servants unto Christ, or desire Christ to go unto him. Only speak the word (saith he) and Math. 8. 8. my servaant shall be whole.] And this act of his (say they) it was far more commendable than this of the women here, who brought their children unto Christ that he should touch them. From whence they argue, that Parents having the word, the word of promise, they shall not need this Sacrament for their children. Ans. Means afforded for the help of our infirmity and strengthening our faith are not to be neglected. To this we reply, it is true, God can make good the promise unto them, saving them without this Sacrament, as our Saviour could and sometimes did heal those which were diseased without touching of them, or coming near to them. But seeing God is pleased so far to condescend unto our weakness, as to give us a sign for the confirmation of our faith, in this case to sleight it, to neglect it, to refuse it, what is it but to tempt God? It was Ahaz his case ye know. The Lord bids him ask a sign for the confirmation of his faith in the promise. He refuseth Isaiah. 7. 12. it as a thing needless. [I will not ask a sign, neither will I tempt the lord] Nay Ahaz, in not ask it at God's command, therein thou didst tempt the Lord, not to believe God's word without his seal; not to believe the promise without a sign, this is indeed to tempt God. But where God affordeth a sign for the help of our infirmity, there to refuse it, to neglect it, is both presumption and rebellion. 3. When children come to years of discretion. The 3. head is yet behind, what parents are to do for their children when they come to years of understanding, in way of bringing them to Christ. Here again two things. 1. Instruct them in the knowledge of Christ. 2 Tim. 3. 15. 1. Instruct them in the knowledge of Christ. Instilling into them, so soon as they are capable of them, the principles of Christian Religion▪ Thus was Timothy brought up; From a child he knew the holy scriptures, etc. And thus should Christian parents bring Ephes. 6. 4. up their children; bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, (as Paul exhorts his Ephesians:) teaching them to know God and jesus Christ; commanding them to walk in the ways of God. This Gen. 18. 19 will Abraham do: [I know (saith the Lord) that he will command his children, etc. and they shall keep the way of the lord] Leading them to Christ by example. In the second place, go with them, go before them, leading them unto Christ by their own examples. It is that which taketh place with children more than all precepts and instructions whatsoever: And without this the other will do little good. Would we then have our children brought home unto Christ, be we ourselves followers of him. Not dealing by our children as old Barzillai did by his son Chimham, whom 2 Sam. 19 39▪ he leaves to follow David, when himself departed from him. Even thus do some parents. They could be content their children should follow Christ, and be religious, whilst in the mean time themselves turn their backs upon him, and his Religion; walking loosely, making no conscience either of sins, or duties. Now what is this but to prejudice their children against that way, wherein they would have them to walk? Would we have our children come unto Christ, go with them, as these mothers here did, lead them, and show them the way by our own example. And thus I have done with the first branch of the text; the first act; viz. of these mothers, or who ever they were that brought these children unto Christ. And his disciples rebuked those that brought them:] Act. 2. The act of the disciples double. Come we now to the second act in this History, viz. the act of the Disciples, prohibiting these Infants, not without a check a rebuke to those that came, and tendered them. So all the three Evangelists have it. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, increpebant eos, saith Matthew and Luke, [they rebuked them.] Not the Infants themselves, but the bringers of them. So our Evangelist explains it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; They rebuked those which 1. Repelling the Infan●●▪ brought them.] Thus these Infants were repulsed, and these devout persons rebuked. Each will yield us something worth the observation. Obser. Satan's peculiar-ill will to children. 1. In the former take we notice of a peculiar ill-will Satan beareth to children; he hath an evil eye upon them, endeavouring by all means to keep them from coming to Christ, and so to hinder their salvation. How Satan hinders children from coming to Christ. This Satan doth many ways. 1. Through the indulgency of Parents suffering them to have their own wills. 2. Through evil education, poisoning their tender years, giving them such a ●ang then, as they shall retain all their life after. 3. Sometimes 2 King 23. 12. under a pretext of Religion. Thus of old he instigated not only the heathen, but even Gods own people to offer up their children in sacrifice to Molock, unto devils. And even thus doth he instigate those of the Church of Rome at this day, to sacrifice their children, to put them into monasteries before they know what they do, which is little less than to offer them up unto Satan. 4. By keeping them from the ordinances. Thus he instigated the disciples here to repel th●se Infants from coming near to Christ. And▪ he it is that hath of late times instigated the Anabaptists to take up this quarrel, to prohibit the Baptism of Infants, which is as much as in them lieth to keep them from coming unto Christ. Reason 1. And wherefore should Satan have such an evil eye at them? Why he looketh upon them as the seminary, the ●ur●●rie of the Church, out of which God taketh those plants wherewith he plants his 〈◊〉 and therefore Satan hath an ill-will to them, that so he might hinder the increase of the Church. 〈…〉. Let Parents take notice of it, and be so much the more careful and vigilant in watching over their children, Parents should be the more vigilant not neglecting any means for their spiritual good; which if they shall do, what do they but leave them as a prey unto Satan, who will be ready enough to pray upon them. My purpose is only to touch things as I go. These Infants are repelled, and those which brought Rebuking those which brought them. Obser. 2. Good undertake subject to discouragements, cast in sometimes Reason. 1. By God for the trial of his people, & exercise of their graces. Matth. 15. them are checked, rebuked. Thus good intentions and pious undertake sometimes, ofttimes meet with impediments and discouragements; which sometimes God casts in the way of his people, sometimes Satan. 1. God, for their probation and trial, the trial of their faith; as also for the exercise of that and other graces in them, which by the exercise of them come to be strengthened and increased. To this end it was that our blessed Saviour gave such harsh entertainment to that poor Cananitish woman that came to him in the behalf of her daughter; First, bidding his disciples dismiss her, [send her away.] v. 23. Then himself shaking her off, telling her he had nothing to do with her, or for her. [I am not sent v. 24. but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.] Then giving her tam, and course language, calling her a dog. [It is not meet to take the children's bread, and cast it unto v. 26. dogs.] All this he did for her probation and trial, to try and exercise her faith. These ends God hath in it. Reason 2. By Satan to dishearten them. 2. Satan hath other ends, viz. to discourage, dishearten the people of God, to beat them off, and make them desist, and leave off their undertake▪ and therefore he endeavoureth to crush them in the Nnmb. 32▪ shell, and nip them in the bud. Applica. Forearm against discouragements. Take we notice of it, and make use of it, that being forewarned, we may also be fore-armed, against what ever discouragements we shall meet with. Not disheartened by them. Alas, these are no new or wont things, but such as God's people have frequent experience of. Let them not dull or rebate the edge of our endeavours, but rather whet, and set them. Sour sauces in the beginning of a meal, they whet the appetite. Even such use make we of what ever impediments and discouragements shall encounter us in the entrance upon any pious, relgious undertaking. Let them be rather as whets, to set an edge upon our resolutions. Let not new-comers to Christ be discouraged. And in particular, let it be useful to new beginners, new comers to Christ, young Christians. At first conversion, when they do but begin to look towards God and Christ, they oftentimes meet with such entertainment, as these Infants here did. They find course usage from the world; Course language (it may be,) or an overly carriage from friends and acquaintance; mocks and checks from others: And happily God himself (or Satan by his permission) may strew some Murices, some Caltraps, some crosses in their way. But let not all discourage, still hold on. In the end, what ever the world doth, be you assured, Christ will smile upon you, and embrace you, as here he doth these Infants. To pass on. These Infants were repulsed, and those which brought them checked. But by whom? By the Disciples of Christ. [His Disciples rebuked those which brought them.] What see we here? Observe. Holy men may stand in the way of▪ religious undertake. Even good men, holy and gracious men, may sometimes be impedements to pious and Religious undertake.] It was Peter that assayed to persuade his Master not to go up to Jerusalem. [Master favour thyself.] Here was an assay to hinder the best work that ever was done, (the work of our Redemption,) and that by Matt. 16. 22. an eminent Saint, an eminent Apostle. Here in the Text the Apostles, whose office it was to win and bring all sorts o● persons unto Christ, yet they prohibit these children, and rebuke those which brought them. Thus good men sometimes may be back-friends to good causes. This God permits; this Satan incites to; this holy men yield to. See a Reason for each. Reason 1. God permits it. First, God permits it to the end that our faith (as the Apostle speaketh) should not stand in the wisdom of men; nor yet in the holiness of men. That we may learn not to make either the judgement, or Practise of man our Rule; our Rule to believe by, our Rule to walk by. Secondly, Satan incites to it, the rather making use Satan incites to it; making use of such instruments because least suspected. of these Instruments, because least suspected, and consequently most prevalent. Thus at the first he made use of the Woman in tempting the Man. Adam could not naturally suspect his own flesh; he could not suspect that poison should be reached forth to him by such a hand. None so likely to persuade with him, as his wife was. Upon a like ground it is, that Satan maketh use of pious and godly persons, in crossing and hindering some pious undertake. Thus he made use of Peter, to take off his Master. So much our Saviour there expresseth, [Get thee behind Matt. 16. 23. me Satan▪] It was Satan that spoke in, and by Peter; making use of him as his Instrument in suggesting and conveying that temptation. And wherefore of him? Why, he thought if any could prevail with Christ, Peter might assoon, or sooner than any. Holy men yield to it. because they know but in part. 1 Cor. 13. 9 3. As God permits, and Satan incites, so▪ holy men sometimes yield, and become instruments to God, and Satan in these services (or rather disservices) in hindering of good: and that because they know but in part. It was so with the Disciples here. In prohibiting these children, they act according to their knowledge. They did not know their Master's mind concerning them; and thereupon they did what they did. Thus is it with good and holy men, they are sometimes Remoraes, back-stayes to a work, that tends to the glory of Christ, and good of his Church. Whence is it? not from any ill-will they bear to either; but because they are not fully informed touching the mind of Christ▪ they are not perfectly Acts 19 25. instructed in the way of the Lord; wherein they walk according to their light. Applica. Make not the judgement or practice of others, a rule to believe, or walk by. Make use of it briefly, even that which I have already given you a hint of. Learn we hence, not to pin our faith or obedience upon other men's sleeves, not to make the judgement or practice of others (whatever they be) a Rule, a Standard for us to believe, or walk by. A very common error in these unsettled times. How many well-meaning souls are there every where, that bottom their faith upon the wisdom, or upon the piety and holiness of men? Take we heed of it; Knowing that if we shall sail by this Compass, we may be on ground before we are aware. Rom. 3. You know who spoke it. Let God be true, and every man a liar. God only is infallible, and his Word an infallible Rule. As for men, the wisest, the learnedest, the holiest, they are all liars, and that both actively, and passively, subject to deceive, and be deceived. Take we heed therefore of trying truth by this touchstone, of weighing truth in this balance, by these weights; To the Word, to the Word. That will not, that cannot deceive. Humane judgement, humane practice may, though in persons never so eminent. Take heed then how we be prejudiced against truth, because such or such assent not to it. Take heed how we let in error, because such or such embrace, and entertain it. Surely, it is one of the prevailing Arguments of the times, that hath misled and seduced many, to the receiving and embracing of divers dangerous errors; even the good opinion and high esteem which they have had of some who have gone in those ways. Anabaptists misled with an opinion of the piety of their leaders▪ I will instance but in one, that which the Text leadeth me to, viz. The error of the Anabaptists in denying Baptism unto children: An error which spreadeth far and nigh in the Kingdom, to the present disquietment, to the future danger of the Church. Many in all places carried away with it. And what is it that so prevails with them for the sucking in of this error? why, surely nothing more than the high opinion which they have of those who stand up in this cause; an opinion of their singular piety, zeal, knowledge. They are knowing Christians▪ forward and Zealous Christians, close walking Christians, such as desire to come to the Rule, and to follow Christ close. Such they apprehend them to be. (And I will not deny, but some such may be found amongst them.) And hereupon they make their judgements, and practise a standard, a pattern to themselves. Surely (say they) it cannot be but that they should be in the right; A knowing people, a praying people, etc. Ans. To meet with this Error, do but look upon this instance in the Text, and see who they were that prohibited these children from coming unto Christ, and rebuked those which brought them. They were not Scribes and Pharisees. They were not superstitious, or blind, ignorant, or yet wicked and profane persons. No, they were Disciples, followers of Christ, those who by reason of their constant attendance upon Christ, and familiar acquaintance with him, one would have thought should have understood his mind sooner than any, yet they fall into this very error; they would not have children brought unto Christ, for which they are reproved of their Lord and Master. I doubt not, but even amongst that Sect which I am now speaking against, there may be some pious, devout, humble Christians, (though I fear not many, for in most of them you shall see a spirit of pride and disdain, and bitterness against all that do not walk by their light, but some such I hope there are) some Disciples of Christ, who do follow Christ according to their light, in the simplicity and uprightness of their hearts. Now what though they debar children from coming unto Christ, and rebuke th●se which bring them, finding fault with the received practice of all the Churches in Baptising of Infants? What then? Shall we presently hearken unto them? Nay rather hearken unto Christ; so do these women here in the text. The disciples prohibit, rebuke them, bid them be gone with their children. But Christ he encourageth them, he invits them. And to him they hearken not to his disciples. Suppose the adversaries to children's Baptism be some of them disciples of Christ, never so pious, never so zealous, never so eminent for grace, for holiness, yet harken we rather to their master, then to them; to him inviting, rather than to them prohibiting. [The disciples rebuked those which brought them.] Object. The ground of this act of the disciples, not malice, or envy, but 1 Cor. 13. 4. But upon what ground did the disciples this. What did they it out of malice? Out of envy? Were they unwilling that these Infants should receive any benefit from Christ? Surely not so. Charity envies not: Grace is communicative, willing and desirous that others should have a share in the same Christ, and in the same benefits by Christ; whence was it then? Surely out of Ignorance, & out of blind-zeale. 1 Out of ignorance, ignorance of these two things. Ignorance, of two things. 1. Of the need that these Infants had of Christ. 1. They did not apprehend what need these Infants had of Christ. Not being troubled (as is most probably) with any bodily infirmity, they did not see what should occasion this their address. [The whole need not the physician but the sick.] Had they been sick Matth. 9 12. and diseased, questionless the disciples would have admitted them as readily as they had done others; but being sound and hail, they put them back, as apprehending them to have no need of Christ. 2. As they apprehended that they had no need of Christ, so (probably) they did not conceive how 2. How they were capable of receiving benefit by him. they were capable of any benefit by him▪ Those which came unto Christ, ordinarily they came for one of these ends, to be benefited by him either in their bodies, or in their souls. In their bodies by his miracles; in their ●oules by his doctrine. Now as for the former of these, these Infants had no need of it; and for the latter they were not capable of it; and consequently the disciples could not see what they should be the better for coming to Christ, and thereupon Applica. The Anabaptists grounds in denying Baptism unto Infants, the same with these of the disciples. 1. Because Infants have no need of it. repel them, keep them back▪ And are not these the very grounds, the chief grounds that the Anabaptists go upon at this day, in debatting children from the Sacrament of Baptism? 1. They have no need of Baptism (say they.) And 2. They are not capable of benefit by it. 1. They have no need of Baptism. How so? In as much as they are free from original sin, (that is the doctrine of the complete Anabaptist.) Infants (say they) do not stand charged with Adam's sin. And as for any sin of their own, whether original, Dying Anab▪ integ Ereunen ● Od●go●▪ or actual, they are not guilty of it. Original sin in Infants (faith one of their books) it was but a Romish invention, 〈◊〉 and set a foot by those Antichristian factors, that so they might have an occasion to extol, and de●●●e their queen of heaven, the virgin Mary, whom alone amongst all the posterity of Adam, they exempt from that common condition. Now being free from sin (say they) from the guilt of sin, and from the stain of sin, what need have they of this laver, which is ordained for the washing away of sins? Act 22. 16. [Arise and be baptised, and wash away thy sins,] (saith Ananias to Paul.) The pool of bethesda that miraculous hath, it was proper for lepers, and cripples, and such other diseased bodies; as for others they received no benefit by it. And so is it with this spiritual, this heavenly bath, it is appointed for leprous, sinsick-soules, not for Infants who are not troubled with any such maladies. 2. They are not capable of benefit by Baptism. Again secondly, as they have no need of Baptism, so what benefit can they receive by it, or from it, being void, and destitute of understanding, of reason, and consequently of faith, upon which depends the efficacy of this, and all other the ordinances of God. Heb. 4. 2. This it is that qualifieth a person for the Sacrament Act. 8. 37. of Baptism, his faith in Christ. If thou believest, thou mayest] (saith Philip to the Eunuch.) And this it is that draweth virtue, and benefit from the ordinance, which without this is rendered wholly ineffectually. These are their reasonings; and are they not (for substance) the very same with the supposed reasonings of the disciples here in the text? They would not have the Infants brought unto Christ, Why? They had no need of him, being in perfect health, free from sickness; and they could receive no benefit by him, being void of understanding. Even thus saith the Anabaptist, what should children be brought to Baptism? They have no need of it, being free from sin▪ neither can they have any benefit by it, being void of faith. Both err, not knowing the scriptures. Now to both these we may say, as our blessed Saviour once did to the Sadduces in an other case, when they represented to him their misapprehensions touching the Doctrine of the Resurrection. [Ye err (saith he) not knowing the scriptures, nor the power Matth. 22. 29▪ Matth. 22. 29 So did the disciples. of God.] Surely so did the disciples here in repulsing these Infants, they erred not knowing the scriptures. Psal. 8. 2. The scriptures would have told them, that out of the mouths of babes and suckling's God hath ordained himself praises, Psal. 8. The scripture would have told them, Psal. 22. 9, that God maketh Infants to hope whilst they hang upon their mother's breasts, and that he is their God from their mother's 〈◊〉 Psal 22. The scripture could have told them what their Lord and master had said; All that joh. 6. 7. the Father giveth me, shall come unto me, and him that cometh unto me I will in no wife cast out, Joh. 6. As also what he had done, and that but a little before this act Matth. 18. 2. of theirs. How he had expressed his affection to Infants, by taking one, and setting it in the midst amongst them, propounding him as a pattern for their imitation. This they either knew not, or remembered not, or considered not. Thus they erred not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of Jesus Christ, how he was able to communicate his virtue to Infants, as well as any others. So do the Anabaptists Psal. 51. Ephes. 2. Even so do the Anabaptists at this day. They err, not knowing the scriptures, which will inform them, that children are conceived in sin, and brought forth in iniquity; and are by nature children of wrath, and consequently, have need of Christ, and of this ordinance of Christ: Nor yet knowing the power of God, how he is able to make this ordinance effectual unto them, though for the present destitute of actual faith. Here is the first ground of this error in the disciples; ignorance, misapprehension. 2. Blind zeal for their masters The second is not much unlike, viz. their blinde-Zeale; zeal for their master; 1. For his honour; 2. For his ease, both which probably they had an eye at. Honour. First, his Honour. They thought it dishonourable to their Lord and Master, that he should be troubled with such Clients. Non vacat exiguis.— Had they been Kings and Princes, or persons of quality, such as those three Wisemen of the East were, that brought Matt. 2. Presents to him in his Cradle. Had they been persons that came to do him homage, to put any temporal honour upon him; had they brought a Crown to put upon his head, to make him a King. Now Calvin. Harm. ad l●c. (saith Calvin) in all likelihood they should have been welcome, none more. For, ●his it was that had dazzled the Disciples eyes; even a misapprehension of a temporal kingdom, which they expected, and Matt. 20. 21. Acts 1. 6. hoped their Master would take upon him. Whereupon, what ever made and tended that way, they were ready to embrace it. In the mean time, not understanding that the Kingdom of Christ was not john 18. 36. of this world; which if they had, in likelihood they would not have repulsed these Infants as they did, as if it would have been a disparagement to their Lord and Master, to have any thing to do with them. Ease. 2. They had an eye herein to his ease; they saw that their master wanted no work, no employment already, so many of all sorts flocking unto him, as that he had scarce leisure to take his repast for them. Now if Infants also should be admitted, they feared he would be overcharged, over-burdened. These were their thoughts (as Expositors most rationally, and probably conjecture.) Certainly however, Observe. Two dangerous counsellors and guides. some carnal reasoning it was, seconded with a blind-Zeale, that made them do what they did. [Two dangerous things to consult with, and to be led by in the matters of Christ] 1. A dangerous thing to consult with carnal reason; Carnal reason. To make sense and reason sit as Judges upon Christ, and upon the mysteries of the Kingdom of God. Surely, this it is that hath brought a world of errors into the world. Men will not submit to the judgement of the Word, but they will call in carnal reason to advise with. Hence are most of the errors in the Church of Rome at this day. Their Bread-worship, wherein they think they do a special honour unto Christ, in falling down before the consecrated Host, being Transubstantiated, turned into the Body of Christ (as they conceive.) Their Saint-worship, wherein again they think they do great honour unto Christ, in not coming unto him immediately, but making use of Court-favourite's, Saints or Angels as their mediators to make their way, and present their Petions for them. This do they by this means fancy a new Christ unto themselves, taking from him that which properly belongeth to him, and attributing to him that which is heterogeneal, not agreeable, but dishonourable to his nature. From the same fountain spring many of the errors of the times. Socinian and Arminian errors generally all of them. anabaptistical errors many of them. They judge of divine mysteries, decrees, ordinances, not by faith submitting to the Word, but by sense and reason. A dangerous Counsellor in these matters, not to be harkened to without, much less against the Word. 2. And as reason is a dangerous Counsellor, so blinde-zeale is a dangerous guide. This was that Ignis-fatuus Blind-zeale. that led Paul's Countrymen (the Jews) wild, that led them into those bogs and quicksands of legal Ceremonies, and ran them on ground upon the main of their own legal righteousness. They had a Zeal of Rom. 10. 20▪ God, (or for God) but not according to knowledge,] (as the Apostle tells them.) And this it is that misleadeth many poor devout souls in the Church of Rome, (whose case is to be pitied,) putting them upon all their superstitious will-worship, wherein they take a great deal of pains to go to heaven, more than the most of us do. They have a Zeal of God, of Christ, but not according to knowledge. And surely, this is the grand-seducer amongst us at this day, that which misleadeth a multitude of well-meaning souls in this Kingdom, Anabaptists, Antinomians, Separatists. They stand for Christ, whom they desire to have exalted, and (as they think) for the ordinances of Christ, which they desire to have set up with the greatest purity and simplicity. And herein they show themselves Zealous, I, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (as Paul said of himself Gal. 1▪ 1●▪ before his conversion) more exceedingly Zealous; but alas, their zeal is not according to knowledge. Even as the Disciples here, they have a Zeal for their Master, as for his ease, so for his honour; and thereupon they keep back these Infants from coming to him. But it was not according to knowledge, a blinde-Zeale. By this means (contrary to their intentions) they came to dishonour him whom they intended to honour. For wherein lieth the honour of a Prince more than in the multitude of Subjects? [In the Prov. 14. 28. multitude of people, is the King's honour.] No one thing more honourable unto Christ, than to have multitudes of all sorts of persons, both old and young, repairing and resorting to him, and receiving benefit by him. To keep back any of these from coming to him, is an act not more injurious to the persons so repulsed, than dishonourable unto him. Like issues and fruits of blinde-Zeale are but too observable amongst some of the Sectaries of the times, who in pretending to advance and exalt Christ, do in truth debase and dishonour him. In pretending to set up his Ordinances, they rather pull them down▪ destroying what they pretend, and intent to build. Of such dangerous consequence is it to be led by such a guide. A fiery hot mettalled horse wanting his eyes is but dangerous to the Rider, specially if the reins be cast upon his neck. And such is blind-Zeale to a well-meaning, but ignorant soul, being given way to, it will run a man upon precipices, and downfalls, which shall neither be honourable unto God, nor safe to himself. All of us take heed of this Guide. Be Zealous, but let it be 1. in a good matter. And 2ly. in a right manner. To that end regulating our zeal by the Word. Psal. 119. 133. vers. 105. It is David's prayer, [Lord order my steps in thy Word.] And it was his practice, to make the Word a light unto his feet, and a lantern unto his paths.] Herein let him be our pattern; knowing that they are not good intentions that will bear out unwarrantable practices. The Disciples intention here (no question) it was good, but yet their act reprovable. They rebuke others, and Christ rebuketh them. So it followeth. Vers. 14. But when jesus saw it, he was displeased, and said unto them, suffer little children to come unto me, etc. Acts 3. Our Saviour's Arbitration; wherein 3. particulars. COme we now to the third and last Act in this History. In the two former, we have the controversy betwixt the Disciples, and those which brought these Infants. In this, we have our Saviour's arbitration, and decision of that controversy. Wherein we may take notice of three particulars; Our Saviour's Affection, Speech, Action. What he thought of this act of his Disciples; what he said to it; what he did upon it. 1. His Affection. [He was displeased.] 2. His Speech to his Disciples; wherein we have a Charge, and a Reason for it. His Charge, [Suffer little children to come unto me, etc.] The Reason of that Charge, first propounded; [for of such is the Kingdom of God;] then confirmed and illustrated by an argument a majori, from the greater to the less; [Veriby, I say unto you, whosoever doth not receive the Kingdom of God as a little child, etc.] 3ly, His Act, which is threefold, all towards these Infants. 1. His susception, [he took them in his arms.] 2ly, His Imposition of hands, [he laid his hands upon them. 3ly, His Benediction, [he blessed them.] Of these in their order. His affection, what he thought of this act of his Disciples. Begin with the first, wherein the History expresseth our Saviour's affection, what he thought of this act of his Disciples. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 [when he saw it, he was displeased; (much displeased) (saith our new Translation.) Indign tulit, saith the vulgar, he took it ill at their hands. Indignatus est (saith Beza) he looked upon it with indignation. What see we here? Obser. Good intentions will not bear out unwarrantable actions. 2 Sam. 6. 6. Mat. 16. 23. Good intentions will not bear out un-warrant able actions.] Uzzah had no ill thought in putting his hand to the Ark, yet you know how it was taken. Peter had no evil meaning in advising his Master to favour himself▪ yet you know what a tart rebuke he received, [Get thee behind me Satan.] The Disciples here, in keeping back these Infants, they had an eye at their Masters both ease, and honour; yet they have no thanks for their labour. Their Master is so far from accepting of that their officious service, that he distastes it, he was much displeased with it. Applica. Let not Will-worship look for acceptation with God. Let Will-worship never look for better acceptance at the hands of God. Voluntary services which men perform unto God without the rule, what ever the intentions of the performers may be; or what ever show of wisdom or holiness in the things themselves, God will never own them, never accept them. I doubt not, but it was a devout and Religious intention that first hatched and bredmost of that Will-worship, which is to be found in the Church of Rome at this day. Their Bread-worship, their Saint-worship, their Image-worship, they intended the honour of Christ in all. All their pompious and costly Ceremonies, they were introduced upon this ground, to put honour upon Religion. The intention good, but the services unwarrantable, being without, or against the rule, and consequently shall find no better entertainment at the hand of Christ, than this act of the Disciples did. Would we be sure our services shall find acceptation, be first sure of a warrant (Gods warrant) for what we do. Otherwise, what ever show of love, or wisdom there may seem to be in them, we shall but lose our labour. Instead of pleasing God, displeasing him. So saith the Text of this act of the Disciples here; [When Jesus saw it, he was displeased.] And wherefore displeased? what was it that he The ground of Christ's displeasure. took so ill at their hands? A. For answer; See a threefold ground of this displeasure, even a threefold injury involved in this one act of the Disciples. viz. A threefold injury offered by his Disciples. An injury 1. to the Children; 2 lie, to those which brought them. 3 lie, to Christ himself. Touch upon each. To the Infants, in keeping them from Christ. Observe. The greatest injury. Use 1 This injury charged upon Anabaptists. First, Here was an injury offered to these poor Infants, whom the Disciples in keeping them from Christ, prejudiced, and (as much as in them lay) hindered in the matter of their salvation. A greater injury they could not have done them. Appl. Let Anabaptists look to it, who debar children from Baptism. Herein what do they but as much as in them lieth, debar them from coming unto Christ? debar them from union and communion with him? The greatest cruelty that can be exercised upon these innocent Lambs. Non est hoc Christianum (saith Ferus in Mat▪ c. 19 v. 13. one writing upon this History) sed planè Herodianum, vel▪ si mavi● Aegyptiacum. This is so far from Christian charity, that it is rather Herodian, or (if you will) Egyptian cruelty. Cruelty exercised not only upon the bodies, but upon the souls also of poor Infants. Certainly, what ever the Anabaptists thinks of it, this is a thing which Christ cannot take well at their hands. He that was so displeased with his Disciples for keeping back these children for coming to him upon earth, will not be well pleased with any that shall have any hand in hindering them from coming to him being now in Heaven. No one thing that Christ taketh worse at the hands of any, than to be hindrances to others in coming to himself. Use 2. Take need of hindering the salvation of any; Mat. 18. 6. In the fear of God take we heed of it, of being any ways accessary to so great an evil. Express and dreadful is that Commination of our Saviour's, Mat. 18 vers. 6. Who so shall offend one of these little ones which believe on me, it were better that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the midst of of the sea.] Off end one of these little ones, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Scandalise them, lay stumbling-blockes in their way for them to stumble at, to impede and hinder them in their salvation. No one thing that Christ taketh more heinously than this. So much may be collected from the punishment there mentioned. Better that a millstone were tied about his neck, etc.] That, it Hicro●●. ad loc. seemeth, (as Jerome noteth upon it) was the usual punishment where with the jews were wont in those times to punish the most Capital offenders, viz. Tie a stone about their necks, and so plunge them into the water. No crime more heinous in the eye of God, than this; the scandalising, offending any that do but begin to look towards Christ, and towards heaven; so to offend them, as that they should be put off from Christ, as that the work of their salvation should any ways be hindered. All of us beware john 1. 41. 42. of it. If we can any ways be furtherances to others in bringing them to Christ, this do we. So did Andrew to his brother Simon, having himself found the Messia, verse 45. 46. he brings his brother to him. So did Philip to Nathaniel. So did the Samaritan woman to other of john 4. 28, 29. her friends and neighbours. Do we the like. The best office that we can perform to any. But take heed of hindering them, whether by our evil counsel, Which may be done three ways. or evil example, or else by the abuse of our Christian liberty in things indifferent. Every of these three ways men may be, and often are hindered from coming unto Christ. First, By evil counsel. Thus the Scribes and Pharisees hindered many from coming unto Christ, in By evil counsel. the days of his flesh, from believing on him, viz. by their pernicious counsels, and wicked suggestions, whereby they set them off what they could. Secondly, By evil example. So did some of the scandalous Jews, who made their boast of the Law, but By evil example. no conscience of it; they thereby brought an evil report upon the ways of God, making the name of God evil spoken of among the Gentiles, (as the Apostle Rom. 2. 23. 24. chargeth it upon them) Rom. 2. And thus do scandalous Christians at this day, who do Gentes agere subnomine Christi, bear the name of Christians, but live like Heathens, walking counter to their profession, they make the name of God evil spoken of amongst those which are wicked, confirming and hardening them in their wickedness. Even as the Spaniards in the Indies, who by their horrid cruelties which they exercised upon the Natives there, they so prejudiced them against Christ, and his Religion, as that they professed their willingness rather to go to hell with their own Countrymen, then to heaven with the Spaniards. 3. By the abuse of Christian liberty in things indifferent. By the abuse of Christian liberty. Hereby also Christians come to give offence unto others, laying stumbling blocks in their way. Of this I shall speak some what more fully hereafter. Every of us take heed of every of these. Knowing that we cannot do a greater wrong or injury to any, then to be any ways a cause, or occasion of hindering them from coming unto Christ. Here was the first error in this act of the disciples; they were hereby injurious to these Infants themselves. 2. Injury to those who brought these Infants, discouraging of them. 2. They were injurious to those that brought them. By checking, and rebuking of them, they did as much as in them lay to take off the edge of their good affections towards Christ, to weaken them, to dishearten, and discourage them. A thing very improper for the disciples to do. It being their office to confirm, and strengthen those which were weak. That is the charge which our blessed Saviour giveth unto Peter. Luk. 22. 32. When thou art converted strengthen thy brethren. This they should have done. No wonder then that our Saviour was displeased with them; to see and hear them disheartening, checking, those whom they should have encouraged, and strengthened. Applica. Take heed of discouraging or offending the weak brethren; job 4. 3, 4. This also take we heed of. If we can any ways promote, and further the work of grace in any, by encouraging, strengthening; this do we. So did holy Job in his time, (as Eliphaz giveth the attestation to him.) Job 4. Behold thou hast instructed many, and thou hast strengthened the weak hands; Thy words have upholden him that was fallen, and thou hast strengthened the feeble knees.] The like do we according to ability and opportunity. But take heed of disheartening, discouraging, weakening. It is a thing which jesus Christ will not do, [A bruised reed shall he not break, and the Isaiah 42. 3. Math. 12. 20. smoking flax will he not quench.] Take heed how we do it, or be any ways accessary to it. Take heed of being any ways offensive to our weak brother. Whether it be 1. By word, as the disciples here; or 2 lie. By evil example, as Peter by his Judaizing, and dislembling; 2 Gal. 12. 13. or else 3 lie. By the abuse of our Christian liberty in the use of things indifferent. Specially by the abuse of Christian liberty. 1 Cor. 8. 9 This ofttimes proves matter of scandal unto others. And such scandals take we heed of. It is Paul's caveat to his Corinthians, 1 Cor. 8. Take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumbling-block to them that are weak.] In this case Christians must restrain, and abridge themselves, not doing what otherwise they may do: exemplary is that resolution of the Apostle in the last v. of that Chapter. [If meat v. last. scandilize my brother, (offend him, so as to make him to offend, which is properly to scandalise) I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, that I may not scandalise my brother.] Christians in this should be very tender, very careful how they offend, or grieve their weak brother by the use of their Christian liberty; much more how they cause, or occasion him to offend. [It is good (saith the Apostle to his Romans) Rom. 14. 2●. neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak▪] Three several words expressing (as I conceive) one and the same thing, but not without an emphasis, insinuating the great and special care that Christians should have for giving any kind of scandal to their weak brethren, whereby either to grieve their spirits, or distract and unsettle their judgements, or much more to cause them to offend, by stopping them in, or turning them aside out of their way. This take we heed of, do all that we can to further others in their way, take heed of hindering, stopping, diverting them. Cherish and blow up the sparks of grace in others what we can; but beware of casting a drop of water upon them, either to damp or quench them. This was the disciples fault here in the text. Instead of welcoming and encouraging, and furthering these newcomers unto Christ, they beat them off. A thing which their Lord and master taketh ill at their hands. [He was displeased with it.] Here was the second injury involved in this act of the disciples: They were injurious to the persons which brought 3. Injury to Christ himself; hindering his Kingdom. these children: Thirdly they were herein injurious to their Lord and master, Christ himself; and that in going about to straiten his jurisdiction, and lessen his Kingdom. Of this Kingdom, Infants and children are a considerable part. Now to keep them from coming unto Christ, what a dimunition was it to his Kingdom? Applic. Charged upon Anabaptists. Surely this wrong do Anabaptists unto Christ in debarring children from Baptism, and denying them to be members of the Church, and to have any right to the Covenant of grace. Herein how injurious are they to the Kingdom of Christ? In cutting off so considerable a part from all communion with the head, and body; Christ, and his Church. The story tells us of the Israelites, when they had done the great execution upon the Benjamites. [They sat down and wept, repenting them for Benjamin their brother, because there was a Tribe cut off from Israel that day, Judg. last.] And what less doth the Anabaptist in cutting off Infants from communion with Christ and his Church? In so doing there is a Tribe cut off from Israel; which though it be the Tribe of Benjamin; the youngest Tribe, yet is it not the least, but a very great and considerable part of this body. This act of theirs calls for repentance. To which leaving them. Use 2. Take heed of being back-friends to this Kingdom by withdrawing ourselves or others from visible communion with the Church. Heb. 10. 38. Take we heed lest any of us come under the same guilt, in any other kind lest we be any ways back-friends to the Kingdom of Christ, by with- drawing ourselves, or others from visible communion with the misteriall body of Christ. Ourselves. [If any man withdraw himself, my soul shall have no pleasure in him, Heb. 10.] Others, by seducing them, drawing them from visible communion with Christ in his Ordinances. What is this but a dismembering of the body of Christ? A thing which he cannot but be sensible of. I wish they may so be, who stand guilty of it. David when he had but cut off the lap from 1 Sam. 24. 5, 6. Saul's garment (the skirt of his role) his heart smote him. What is it then to cut off a lamb from the body of Christ? Take we heed of having any hand in it. Let all seek the enlargement of this Kingdom; Specially Ministers, Luk. 14. 21. Can we do any thing to enlarge, and increase the Kingdom of Christ, this do we. And as all aught to do it, so the Ministers of Christ in special; whom Christ hath sent forth with the same commission, as that great feast-maker in the Gospel did his servant, ordering him to go into the streets and lanes, and high ways, and hedge rows, and to bring in all that he met with, compelling them to come in, that his house might be filled.] This are we the Ministers of Christ to do. Invite, persuade, command, compel, (I mean in a spiritual way, making use of spiritual 2 Gor. 10. 4. Inviting and compelling men to come unto Christ. weapons, which are the weapons of our warfare, viz. the sword of the spirit put into our mouths) compel men, all sorts of persons to come in unto jesus Christ, that they may have communion with him, and benefit by him. Quest. Whether men may be forced to visible communion. Answ. No, they must come willingly Psal. 110. 3. But what then, must men be forced to come unto Christ? To have communion with him in his Ordinances, though against, or without, their wills? Not so. Thy people shall be willing (or come willingly) in the day of thy power.] They which come to Christ must come willingly. So did they which brought these Infants here in the text. This is the main work of the ministers of Christ, to work upon the wills of men, of unwilling to make them willing; to bring off their wills to desire and seek communion with Christ; that they may come, and come willingly. Object. Are all to be admitted who offer themselves to visible communion Answ. Yes, unless there be some just obstacle. But what if they do come, and come willingly, offering, and tendering themselves to visible communion with Christ? are they now to be received, admitted to the Ordinances? Surely yes. Unless there be some just obstacle to hinder them. That was the case of these Infants here in the text. They were brought unto Christ, and the●e was no just obstacle to hinder them, and therefore the disciples ought not to have kept them back. No more (for aught I know) ought the Ministers of Christ to repel, and reject any who come willingly unto Christ, desiring communion with him in his ordinances, I mean in the Sacraments, whether Baptism, or the Lord's Supper. There being no just obstacle, no just exception against them, they ought not to keep them back. True it is, where there is a just obstacle, as, viz. where the person is ignorant, or scandalous, in this case there ought to be a suspension from these ordinances: Sacred things ought not to be prostituted to all comers. But otherwise, I see not how the ministers of Christ can debar any from visible communion with Christ, who offer themselves to it, without incurring the displeasure of their Lord and master, as here the disciples did, by putting back these Infants against whom no just exception lay. [When he saw it, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he was much displeased, saying, suffer little children to come unto me, etc.] 2. Our Saviour's speech to h●s disciples: Where And so I am fallen upon the second particular observable in this History, which informs us what our Saviour said to his disciples upon this act of theirs. Where we may first take notice of the charge he 1. His charge to them. giveth them, viz. that they should freely permit children to come unto him. [Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not.] A double charge, or rather one and the same charge expressed, 1. Positively, [suffer little children, etc.] Then Negatively, [And forbid them not.] The latter is but an enforcement of the former. Put them together, they hold forth unto us this main truth. Observe. The grace of Christ reacheth unto infant's. That the grace of Christ extendeth even ●●to Infants. Infants have a right to, and interest in Christ, and are capable of benefit by him as well as others. Wherefore else should Christ call them unto himself? So he did (as St. Luke noteth it) But Jesus Luk. 8. 16. called them unto him.] Them, i. e. the Infants; So the Greek expresseth it. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And wherefore else should he give so strict a charge concerning them, that they should have free access unto him? Had he no interest in them, nor they in him. Surely the grace of Christ reacheth them as well as others. Reason. Otherwise no hope of salvation for them. 1 Cor. 15. 22. It must needs be so, otherwise there were no hope of salvation for them. In Adam (the first Adam) all died. The root dying, all the branches died in it, and with it. So as now the whole posterity of Adam are all concluded and shut up under death. [Death Rome 5. 12. passed upon all, for that all have sinned, (saith the Apostle.) All subject to a temporal, lying under the power of a spiritual, bound over unto an eternal death. Such amongst other) is the condition of Infants; which appeareth in that they are subject to temporal death as well as others. [Death reigned Rome▪ 5. 14. from Adam unto Moses even ●ver them which had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression.] i. e. over Infants who had not sinned as Adam did, actually in their own persons. Yet death reigned over them, they were subject to a temporal death as well as others. A plain evidence that they were, and are guilty of eternal death as well as others. Now there is no way, no means of deliverance, no way to be freed and exempted from this common condition, but by Christ. [Even as in Adam 1▪ ●o●▪ 15. 22. all died, so in Christ shall all bemade alive,] (saith the Apostle) i. e. all that are in him. Even as all that were in the first Adam died in him; so all that are in the second Adam (Christ) shall be quickened in him. Or, all that are made alive, they are made alive in Christ, and by Christ. Freed from eternal death joh. 14. 6. by his merit; from spiritual death by his Spirit; from temporal death by his Power. [I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life.] No life, but in, by, and through the second Adam, Christ. So as if Infants ever come to eternal life, they must come by, and through Christ, as Act. 4. 12. well as others. There being no name by which Salvation can be expected, but only the name of jesus Christ. Object. Infant's cannot come unto Christ, ●rg● not capable of benefit by him. joh. 6. 37. But how can Infants, have any interest in Christ, or receive any benefit by him, when as they cannot come unto him? This our blessed Saviour saith, all that his Father hath given him must do, and shall do. [All that the Father giveth me, shall come unto me, etc.] Now, what is it to come unto Christ? Why to believe on him. So our Saviour himself explaineth it Veers. 35. vers. 35. [He that cometh unto me shall never hunger, and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.] The latter explains the former. To come unto Christ, is to believe on him. Now this Infants cannot do. How then can they be said to have any interest in Christ, or receive any benefit by him? Sol. 1. Answ. To this it is answered diversely. Some in the (first place) conceive that in this case the faith of the Parents is sufficient. Hereby the children of believers (say they) are brought unto Christ, even as these children here; they were brought unto Christ The faith of the Parent conceived sufficient▪ in the arms of their Parents▪ so are Infants (say they) brought home unto Christ, in the arms of their Parent's faith, laying hold upon the Covenant of grace, both for themselves, and their children. Secondly, Others conceive that even Infants are Infant's may have a seed of Faith. subjects capable of faith; if not of actual, yet of habitual faith. Germane fidei, a seed of faith; the Spirit of God working in them promodulo, according to their capacities. Hereof I have spoken more fully heretofore. Thirdly, For the present (in the third place) let Being given to Christ, they shall be brought to him one way or other. it be sufficient that some of them are given unto Christ in God's eternal Election. And being given unto him, they shall come unto him one way, or other. (All that the Father giveth me, shall come unto me.) If they live to years of discretion, they shall come unto him (as I may say) upon their own feet, by an actual faith. In the mean time they are brought unto him by a secret work of the Spirit, working upon their natures in a hidden and mysterious way, for the changing and renewing of them. Herein if we know not the way, yet let not us question the thing, seeing we have so plain an expression from the mouth of truth itself. Suffer little children to come unto me and, forbid them not.] Applica. To Anabaptists. Applic. A Charge, and a Prohibition, both so direct against the Anabaptists of the times, as if they had been purposely intended against them. Whether our blessed Saviour did foresee what errors would spring up in these last times, and so intended to make this as a Provision against them, I will not say. But sure I am, a more direct Provision could not have been made. In denying Baptism unto Infants, what do Anabaptists less than the Disciples here did? even (as much as in them lieth) forbid children to come unto Christ. Which act of theirs, how distasteful it was to him, the first words of this verse express, [He was displeased:] And how contrary to his mind, the like practice is in any other, the latter words explain. [Suffer little children to come unto me, & forbid them not.] For of such is the Kingdom of God.] Pass we now to our Saviour's Reason▪ whereby he convinceth his Disciples The reason of this charge▪ of their error, in repulsing these Infants, keeping them back from coming unto him; and consequently (as much as in them lay) debarring them from entering into that Kingdom; to which they have as good a right and title as any others. [For of such is the Kingdom of God.] Kingdom of God, 3. fold. The Kingdom of God, (by way of Explication) in phrase of Scripture is threefold, his Kingdom of Power, Grace, Glory. You have them all three put together in that pithy doxology; the close of the Lords Prayer; [Thine is the Kingdom, the Power, and the Glory▪] Of Power. First, God's Kingdom is his Kingdom of Power; even the powerful government which God exerciseth, in, and over the world, and all the Creatures in it, all which are subject to his Providence, even the least, and most contemptible amongst them. The Sparrow Matt. 10. 29, 30. upon the house top; the hair of our head, both of them numbered and ordered. This universal Government is God's Kingdom. [The Lord hath prepared his Throne in Psal. 103. 19 the Heavens, and in his Kingdom ruleth over all.] Psal. Psal. 145. 13. 103. viz. his Kingdom of Power. [Thy Kingdom is an everlasting Kingdom, (saith the Psalmist, Psal. 148.) What Kingdom? why, his Kingdom of Vers. 11. power. So he explains himself, vers. 11. [They shall speak of the glory of thy Kingdom, and talk of thy Power. [ Of grace. Secondly, God's Kingdom is his Kingdom of Grace; even that special gracious government, which he exerciseth over his Elect; whom having Predestinated to Grace, and Glory, he calleth out of the world, to have union and communion with Jesus Christ the head of this Kingdom, guiding and governing them by his Word and Spirit. Of this Kingdom, we find Mat. 6. 13. frequent mention in the new Testament. [Seek first the Kingdom of God (saith our blessed Saviour) viz. his Kingdom of Grace. So the following words explain it. [The K ngdome of God, and his Righteousness;] viz. Righteousness of justification, and Sanctification, wherein this Kingdom of Grace consisteth. Rom. 14. 17. Luke 17. 21. [The Kingdom of God is Righteousness, (saith the Apostle,) [The Kingdom of God is within you, (faith our Saviour.) His Kingdom of Grace. Of glory. Thirdly, God's Kingdom is his Kingdom of Glory; even that glorious and blessed estate, wherein himself reigneth, and shall reign, with millions of Saints and Angels unto all eternity, full of heavenly glory and Luke 12. 32. felicity. Of this speaketh our Saviour. [Fear not little flock, it is your Father's will to give you a Kingdom; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Kingdom, viz. the Kingdom of Heaven, which is the Kingdom of God. [Know ye not 1 Cor. 6. 9 (saith the Apostle) that the un-righteous shall not inherit the Kingdom of God.] A threefold Kingdom. Quest. Now of which of these shall we understand our Saviour here in the Text? Answ. To this I might answer; not of one, but of all. Take it which way we will, we shall find a Infant's subjects of all these. truth in it. [Of such is the Kingdom of God.] First, His Kingdom of power. Infants they are subjects of this Kingdom. Over them God exerciseth Of God's Kingdom of power. a Providence, a special providence, and that both in the womb, and from the womb. David acknowledgeth both as touching himself. [Thou hast covered me Psal. 139. 13. in my mother's womb: Psal. 139. Thou art he that took me out of the womb: Psal. 22. vers. 9 I was cast upon Psal. 22. 9 10. thee from the womb: vers. 10. etc.] It is God that preserveth Infants in the womb; It is he that bringeth out of the womb, in both which his Power and and Providence are wonderfully manifested. And he it is that taketh care of them afterwards, providing for them, as he doth for other of his Creatures. He Psal. 147. 9 that heareth the young Ravens when they cry, much more heareth the cries of poor helpless Infants. [God hath heard the voice of the Lad,] saith the Angel to Hagar Gen. 21. 17. concerning her son Ishmael. Thus the cries of poor Infants come up to heaven, prevailing oftentimes for themselves, sometimes for others. So did jon. 4. 11. the Infants at Nineveh, Ionas▪ 4 vers. last. Thus the Kingdom of God's power belongeth, and reacheth unto Infants. A consideration not unuseful unto Parents in respect of their children. But I will not dwell upon it. The phrase in the Text, (though it taketh in this, yet) it riseth higher. Secondly, In the second place, Infants, as they are subjects of God's kingdom of Power, all of them; so of Of the Kingdom of Grace. his Kingdom of Grace, some of them. [Of such is the Kingdom of God,] viz. his Kingdom of Grace, which consisteth as well of Infants, as any others. They may Children of believing Parents, members of the Church 1 All of them of the Church visible. Rom. 11. 16. Explained. vers. 21. Dr. Willet ad loc. be subjects of this Kingdom, members of the Church. First, Of the Church visible. So are all the children of believing Parents. The Parents themselves being subjects of this Kingdom, visible members of this mystical body, such are their children also. So the Apostle concludes it, Rom. 11. If the root be holy, so are the Branches.] Where, by the Root we are to understand, the Patriarches Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob: By the Branches, the people of the Jews, their lineal offspring, their natural branches, as they are called v. 21. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. From which expression, it is well collected by some, that by the Root in that place, cannot be meant Christ (as Origen of old, and our Anabaptists at this day would have it▪) in as much as Christ hath no such natural Branches. His Branches are all Insititious, engrafted, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Branches not by nature, but by Grace. The Root there is Abraham, and other of the Patriarches, the Jews Progenitors: who are so called, not in regard of Calvin ad loc. their persons (as Calvin well noteth upon it;) but in regard of the Promise which was made to them, and to their seed. In respect of that Promise, that Root was holy; holy, in respect of a federal holiness, the holiness of the Covenant. Now the Root being such (saith the Apostle) such are the Branches. Their progenitors being in Covenant, such was their Posterity. Such were the children of Abraham then, and such are the children of believers now. The one being holy, so is the other. Holy, not in respect of any inherent quality of holiness, but in respect of outward privileges, and prerogatives of grace, grounded upon the Promise made to the faithful and their seed. The former cannot, but the latter may, and doth descend from Parent unto the child. A wise man doth not always Prov. 17. 21. beget a wise son, communicating his wisdom Acts 22. 28. to his child; But a freeman begets a free man. The child being borne free by virtue of his father's Charter. Thus, though inward holiness is not transmitted from the Parent to the child, yet external holiness may, federal holiness may. Thus jews begat jews, and Christians now beget Christians. Who yet are such (let that be still taken notice of) not by virtue of natural generation, but by virtue of the Covenant, the Promise which is made unto the faithful, and their seed. Thus the Root being holy, so also are the Branches. The Parents being in Covenant, so are their children to be accounted. They are all of them members of the Church visible. Some of them of the Church Invisible. Secondly, I, and some of them of the Church Invisible, not only belonging to God's Election of grace, but subjects of his Kingdom of grace: Such as Christ exerciseth a gracious government upon, and in; Regenerating, Justifying, Sanctifying them, induing them with his holy Spirit. That Christ doth exercise such an operation in, and upon some Infants, it must not be denied. Two instances are usually brought to prove it, the one of jeremy, the other of john the Baptist, both which are said to be sanctified in the jere. 1. 5. womb. So was jeremy. [Before thou camest out of the womb, I sanctified thee.] But this (I confess) I dare not build upon. By [Sanctification.] I take there to be meant only a separation unto a special use and service. So the next words seem to expound it. [I sanctified thee, and ordained thee a Prophet unto the Nations.] That seemeth to 〈◊〉 the 〈…〉 spoken of. Not any infusion of any 〈◊〉 of grace into Calvin ad loc. his soul, (that faith Mr. Calvin, is nimis argutum, the Text will not bear it,) but only a designation▪ a setting of him 〈◊〉 unto his prophetical office. To wave that. The latter is clear. John the Baptist, he was sanctified in, (or from) the womb, and that by the secret work of the Spirit upon his soul. The Luke 1. 15. Text is express. [He shall be filled with the holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb.] This God did to him. The like he can do for others, and no question frequently doth it; Communicating his Spirit even to Infants, though not in so large a measure as to the Baptist, yet in such a measure as may be sufficient for them, sufficient to make them, and prove them subjects of this Kingdom of God, his Kingdom of Grace. Of the kingdom of glory. ay, Thirdly, to give them a right to, and interest in his Kingdom of glory. That also is the Kingdom of God, and of such is the Kingdom. A truth which necessarily follows upon the former. Being subjects of God's Kingdom of grace, they have also right to Psal. 84. 11. Rom. 8. 23. 2 Cor. 1. 22. Ephes. 1. 14. his Kingdom of glory. [He shall give grace and glory, Psal. 84.] Grace as the first-fruits, Glory, as the full crop; the one a pledge, a seal and earnest of the other. But upon this I will not insist. I presume I shall meet with none so uncharitable as to deny or question it. Come we rather to make some Application of this Truth. Applica. A warrant for Baptising nfants. Use 1. Here is first a Warrant for what the Church of God in all Ages hath practised, the Baptising of Infants. This the Church hath done, and this it doth. ay, but quo jure? (saith the Anabaptist) what warrant hath it for it? why, Christ's own warrant, who here telleth us, that of such is the Kingdom of God; the Kingdom of Grace, and Kingdom of Glory. Now being subjects of this Kingdom, they have right to the privileges of subjects; amongst which, this seal of the Covenant is none of the least. Replica. The Anabaptists evasion. Not [Them] but▪ [Such] Repl. I, but (saith the Anabaptist) we mistake the Text. How so? Why, the Text doth not say to [them] belongeth, or [theirs] is the kingdom of God, but of [such] is the kingdom of God; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, meaning thereby (say they) not those, or any other Infants, but such as are like unto them in some qualifications. So divers Interpreters expound it. Theodor. Aquin. Stella. Non istorum, sedtalium; Not of these, but of such. Such as are like to those Infants. Like them, non aetate ●ed moribus, not in age, but in manners, in some imitable qualities, as viz. Innocency, Simplicity, etc. So much (say they) may be collected from the verse after the Text, where our Saviour explaineth his own meaning, what he meaneth by [such] viz. such in humility, [Whosoever shall not receive the Kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein.] Such are the children (say they) to whom our Saviour here avers the Kingdom of heaven to belong. And thus they think to elude and evade the force of this Argument, and the evidence of this Text, triumphing in this subter fuge. Solu▪ Cleared. Answ. But all in vain; as will easily appear, if we do but consider the true intent of our Saviour in this place, as also the true sense and meaning of the word. 1. From our Saviour's intent. First, for the former, our Saviour's intent. The text is clear. He was displeased with the disciples for repelling of these Infants, and he giveth this as a reason to convince them of their error, [For of such is the kingdom of God:] viz. those Infants, and others like unto them in age: otherwise his Argument had been of no force. [For of such &c.] 2. From the proper sense of the word [such.] For the word (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,) [such▪] it cannot be conceived to exclude these Infants, but to take them in, as primarily and properly here intended. So the word is commonly used (as in our ordinary speech, so) in phrase of Scripture, Parallel instances are very Nehem. 6. 11 obvious. Should [such] a man as I fly, (saith Nehemiah meaning himself.) Paul writing to Philemon, Philem. v. 9 [For love's sake (saith he) I rather beseech thee, being [such a one as Paul the aged] 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Such a Rom. 1. last. one, meaning himself. [Those which do [such] things (saith the same Apostle) are worthy of death.] 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; such things, viz. those things 〈◊〉 5. 21. before specified in the Chapter, and things of like nature, as himself expoundeth it, Gal. 5. 21. Thus the word is commonly used inclusively, still taking in the thing, or person itself, to which any other is equalised, or coupled. If need were, more instances might be mustered up: But I shall save that labour. In the mean time challenging our Adversaries to show any one place in all the Scriptures where the word is so used as they would interpret it in this text; viz. Where the word (such) is put exclusively, excluding the person or thing itself, to which any other is compared; but so as still it intends either directly and peculiarly the same person and thing instanced in, or else that, and others like unto it. So without question must it be understood here in the text. Of [such;] i. e. these Infants, and others like unto them, whether in age or condition. So as there can be no advantage justly taken from the word. The argument retorted. Chemnit. Musculus ad loc. 2. Nay (as it is well pressed by some) it maketh the more strongly against the adversary. [Of [such] is the kingdom of God, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Non horum, sed talium; Not of [these,] but of [such.] Plainly importing, that the Kingdom of God did belong not only to those particular Infants then and there brought unto him, but unto them, and others that should at any time be brought unto him after the like manner. The word [such] is of larger extent, then [them.] Had our Saviour here said, to [them] belongeth the kingdom of God: Then might the Anabaptist here have found a more colourable evasion; alleging that Christ who knew all things, might know them to be elected, and so might say that, theirs was the kingdom of God; but that it could not from thence be inferred, that any other of like condition could claim the like right to it. But saying [such,] now he taketh in others with them, even all that should be offered and presented unto him after the like manner. Conclude we it then: This Argument ordinarily taken up by Divines from this text of scripture, for the maintenance of Infant's Baptism, it is of force and validity, carrying out the cause against all opposition. They to whom belongeth the kingdom of God, who are subjects and members of the kingdom of Grace, and heirs of the kingdom of Glory, they have right to this seal of the Covenant, whereby this their interest may be confirmed and sealed up unto them. This by way of Instruction. Use 2. Comfort & hope to believing Parents touching their Infants dying without Baptism. In the second place, here is a ground of comfort and hope unto believing parents as touching their children, whom God is pleased to take ab utero ad ut●rum, from the grave of the womb, to the womb of the grave; cropping them in the bud, taking them hence before ever they know the right hand from the left; it may be, before such time as they could be made partakers of the seal of the Covenant. Yet let not such parents mourn as men without hope. Let them not perplex themselves with a doubtful anxiety touching their eternal state, and condition. The text in this case yields a ground of comfortable hopes. [Of such is the kingdom of God] saith our Saviour here concerning these Infants, who were as yet only intentionally tendered to him, not actually touched by him. Is it so that we have done the like for our Infants? Presented and tendered them unto Christ, and to this Ordinance in the unfeigned desires and intentions of our hearts, doubt not but the kingdom of heaven is theirs, theirs as well as any Gal. 3. 28. others. You know who spoke it, [In Christ Jesus there is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither male, not female, (and I may add, neither young, nor old) for they are all one in Christ Jesus.] Being given unto Christ, they shall come unto him, be brought unto him one way or other; and coming unto him they shall be all alike saved by him, made partakers of the same Kingdom with him. And thus much for this Reason, as it is here simply propounded. Vers. 15. Verily I say unto you, whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein. Our Saviour's Reason amplified. COme we now to look upon this our Saviour's reason as it is illustrated and amplified in the verse following; viz. by an Argument a majori Piscat. Anal. in loc. (so Piscator conceives of it;) an Argument from the greater to the less. As if he had said: Wonder not at this that I have said▪ that the kingdom of God belongeth to Infants. I tell you more; whosoever would enter into this Kingdom must become an Infant, an Infant by way of resemblance; imitating, and being made like unto such a one in some imitable and observable qualities. Otherwise he never shall, he never can enter into this Kingdom. [Whosoever, etc.] The words make up but one entire proposition, or conclusion. In effect the same with that which we meet with Matth. 18. 3. Where our Saviour (upon an other occasion) taking a little child, and setting him in the midst of his disciples, he propounds him Mat. 18. 3. Observe. All that would enter into God's Kingdom must be come as little children. to them as a pattern for their imitation; telling them. [Verily I say unto you, except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the Kingdom of God.] Behold here then a pattern for every one of us. As many of us as would enter into God's Kingdom (his Kingdom of grace and glory,) we must become as little children. Explic. joh. 3. Resembling Children in some imitable qualities. Q. As little children? How shall this be? What must aged persons (according to Nicodemus his conceit of the doctrine of Regeneration) repuerascere, turn children again? A. Yes. This aged persons ofttimes do in a natural way. Bis pueri senes. Old men are twice children. And all Christians must do it in a supernatural and spiritual way. They must be twice children. As once by nature▪ so once by grace: and that by the imitation of children in some of their imitable qualities. Q. But what qualities are these? Wherein must Christians be like unto children? A. To single out some particulars, some of the chief. 1. Without malice. 1. A first is that which the Apostle himself propounds to, and presseth upon his Corinthians, 1 Cor. 14. Where he showeth them both wherein they should not be like unto children, and wherein they should. Non mentibus, sed moribus: wherein not. Not in understanding. Herein he would have 1 Cor. 14. 20. them not children, but men. [Brethren, be not children in understanding, etc. But in understanding be men,] 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Perfecti, perfect, Adul●●, of ripe age. Wherein then? why in malice. [How ●e it in malice ●e ye children.] Children they are free from malice, and envy; there is not so much as a spark of this fire in those breasts. Herein a pattern for Christians, even for all that would enter into the Kingdom of God. Let them in this become as children, laying aside malice. 1 Pet. ●. 1. So St. Peter presseth it, [Wherefore laying aside all malice, etc. As new borne babes desire the sincere milk of the word.] New borne babes are void of malice. So should all Christians be. Not seeking, not wishing evil to any; wishing, and doing what good they can to all, but hurt to none. As children concerning malice. 2. Without Guile. Secondly, as children concerning guile. So the Apostle Peter there goeth on. [Laying aside malice, guile.] Such are infants, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; there is no guile, no fraud, no deceit, no hypocrisy in them. They do not pretend one thing, and intent another. They do not go about to overreach, or circumvent others; but in all their actions there is a plainehearted Matth. 10. 16 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉▪ ab 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Cui nihil est admixtum. Rom. 16. 19 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. ●. In their actions. 1 Thes. 4. 6. simplicity. And such should Christians be. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Simple as doves. So our Saviour presseth it upon his Disciples. ay, simple as children, [Simple concerning evil, (as Paul explains it) without guile, and that; 1. In their actions; not circumventing, defrauding others. So the Apostle presseth it upon his Thessalonians, 1▪ Thes. 4. That no man go beyond, or defraud his brother in any matter.] As, viz. in buying and selling, and bargaining, etc. 2. Without guile in their words? This is the character which Peter gives of his Master. [Who did no 2. In words. 1 Pet. 2. 22. sin, neither was there guile found in his mouth.] So should it be with Christians; there should be no guiles in their mouths, in their words, in their promises, testimonies, etc. So Paul chargeth it upon his Ephesians. [Therefore putting away lying, speak the Ephes. 4. 25. truth every man to his neighbour.] Truth is the Christians girdle. [The girdle of truth.] And in this sense Ephes. 6. 14. the Proverb holdeth true. Ungirt, unblessed. 3. Without guile in their hearts and spirits. It In heart, Psal. 32. 2. is one branch of David's description of a blessed man. [Blessed is the man in whose spirit there is no guile.] Such is the spirit of a child. There is no guile, no hypocrisy in it. It is such a one as it seemeth to be. And O that it were so with all Christians! That they were in this respect as children. As children for sincerity; without guile. Here is the second of these properties. Children for humility. Mat. 18. 4. 3. A third follows. As children concerning pride. Children for humility. This I take from our Saviour himself in the place forenamed. Whosoever shall humble himself as this little child, etc.] Children, we see how humble, how lowly they are. Their spirits are not haughty, high minded. There are no proud, ambitious, vain glorious, aspiring thoughts in them. They are as well content with their rags, as with their robs; with a cottage as a palace; A child sitting in the dust, an Emblem of humility and contentation. often sitting in the dust. An emblem of humilitîe. A child sitting in the dust, and as well contented there as if it were a throne. Such should Christians be; of humble and lowly spirits. Such a frame of spirit we find in the man after Gods own Psal. 131. 1. 2 heart [Lord, mine heart is not haughty, etc. Surely I have behaved myself as a child, etc.] It is not for Christians to have haughty hearts, or lofty eyes; so as to have high thoughts of themselves, jere. 45. last. or▪ seek high things for themselves. [And seekest thou great things for thyself? (Saith the Lord to 〈◊〉 seek them not.] This will not children, this should not Christians do. Their spirits should lie low, so as they may be willing to embrace the Dust, if God shall bring them thither. This carnal wicked men sometimes do by constraint. So shall Babylon do. [Come down and sit in the dust, O Virgin daughter of Isa. 47. 1. Babylon.] Babylon a Virgin; (So called, because than not deflowered by the enemy. Even as Cities that were never sacked nor conquered, but have enjoyed a long continued peace, they are called Virgin, Mayden-Townes; as Venice in Italy, Dordrecht in Holland: so Babylon there, in that respect is called a Virgin;) She shall sit in the dust, saith the Prophet (which is long since accomplished in typical, and ere long shall be in mystical Babylon.) And this Gods own sometimes do, [They which were brought up in Scarlet, embrace Lam. 4. 5. dunghills;] It is said of the precious sons of Zion, the Nobles of Israel, Lam. 4.) and this they ought to do willingly, when God calls them to it. In this (as I said) like children, who if their Parents set them in the dust, they are willing withal. Is it so, that God is pleased at any time to bring any of his children from high estates, to mean and low conditions, to set them in the dust; I, suppose with Job upon the dunghill, yet should they herein submit to the will of their heavenly Father: Ever having their spirits as low as their conditions. Herein again should Christians Col. 3. 12. be as children: Children in humility, putting 1 Pet. 5. 5. on this as a robe, being clothed with it, as the Apostles both Peter, and Paul press the exhortation. Contentation. Fourthly, to this (in the fourth place) let me join another quality not much different from the former, and that is Contentation. A quality very observable in young children. If they have but enough to suffice nature, how contented shall we see them. If they have but clothes to keep them warm, be they rich, or mean. If they have but food to satisfy their hunger, and drink to allay their thirst, how quiet are they. What their Parents give them, they receive it, and are contented with it. Oftentimes put to bed with a little. In this again should Christians be as children, Content with their heavenly Father's portion, whatever it be; be it much, be it little. It is the Apostles Phil. 4. 11. lesson; A lesson which himself had taken out. [I have learned in whatsoever state I am, therewithal to be ● Tim 6. 8. contented.] And a lesson which he reads others. [Having food and raiment, let us therewith be content.] A lesson which very nature can teach, and sometimes hath learned. Natura paucis. Nature is content with a little. Mere natural men how contented do we find them oftentimes in their mean conditions? And shall not grace do it much more? Innocency. Fifthly, Again, children are Innocent, harmless creatures. So we use to call them. [Innocents'.] And it is no other language, than what the Spirit itself is jere. 2. 34. pleased sometimes to make use of. [In thy skirts is found the blood of the poor innocents'.] So it is charged upon Jerusalem, Jer. 2. And who were these poor Innocents'? Calvin and some others, understand it of the Prophets of God, whom they had slain cruelly, and causlessely. But it may seem rather to be meant of Infants. So the same Prophet else where seemeth to expound himself; chap. 19 where charging upon jere. 19 4. Vers. 5. Diodat. ad loc Jerusalem the same sin, [They have filled this place (saith he) with the blood of Innocents'.] And who were they? The next verse explains it, viz. little children whom they offered up unto Molech: These were the Innocents', with whose blood they had filled the valley of Gehinnon. Such are children, and such should Christians be. Innocents', though not to God-ward, (which yet they must endeavour) yet to manward. Heb. 7. 27. Harmless; So was our heavenly pattern. Holy, harmless, etc. In this should Christians labour to resemble him; being innocent as Doves, (so our Saviour Mat. 10. 16. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ab 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, sine cornibus. Scap. presseth it in the place forenamed.) ay, innocent as children: Having innocent hands, and innocent tongues. Two properties of a man that shall ascend the hill of the Lord. So David maketh them. [Who shall ascend into thy Hill? Psal. 24. He that hath clean Psal. 24. 4. (or innocent hands.) vers. 4.] Who shall abide in thy Tabernacle, who shall dwell in thy holy hill? Psal. 15.] Psal. 15. 3. He that backbiteth not with his tongue, etc. vers. 3.] Such hands, such tongues have Infants, both innocent. And such should the hands and tongues of Christians be. Forgiving & forgetting injuries. Sixthly, To these I might yet add many more. Children are apt to forgive and forget injuries. If they be angry, yet they hold it not, they are easily appeased and reconciled. And in this respect again, should Christians be as children, viz. apt and ready to forgive, and forget wrongs and injuries. A lesson which our blessed Saviour frequently inculcates upon his disciples. [If thy brother trespass against thee, forgive him; and if he trespass seven times in a day, yet forgive him.] Luke 17. 3, 〈◊〉 In this should Christians Patrizare, resemble their heavenly Father. Being ready to forgive; so is he. [Thou O Lord ar● good, and ready to forgive, Psal. 86.] Psal. 86. 5▪ Not retaining their anger. So doth not he. [He will not always chide, neither will he keep his anger for ever, Psal. 103. 9 Psal. 103.] Anger rests not in God's bosom against his children; Let it not rest in ours against our brethren. Eph. 4. 26. Let not the Sun go down upon your wrath, (saith the Apostle) Ephe. 4.] In this be like unto children. Seventhly, Again, children being wronged and Making use of cries and tears for their weapons▪ Exod. 2. 6. injured by others, what are their weapons? Why, their cries, and their tears. This was Moses his Rhetoric, wherewith he took Phara●hs daughter▪ when she opened the Ark; [lo the Babe wept.] In this should Christians be as children in all their straits and difficulties, making use of these weapons, their prayers, and their tears, crying to their Heavenly Father. But passing by this, name but one more. Eighthly, And that is a very observable one, Obedience to their heavenly Father. viz. their obedience; Obedience to their Parents, to whom they submit, and subject themselves to be ordered by their commands, being afraid of their threatenings, standing in awe of their frowns, readily believing, and firmly building upon their promises. And herein should Christians be as children; yielding such an absolute obedience to their heavenly Father. Submitting to his commands, trembling at his threats, awed by his frowns, readily believing, and confidently resting upon his promises. All this, without any Ifs and Ands; without disputing about them, or demurring upon them. This is that which our Saviour here principally driveth at in the Text. [Whosoever shall not receive the Kingdom of God as a little child.] viz. receive the mysteries of this Kingdom; yielding an humble and submiss obedience to the will of God revealed in his Word. Therein making more use of Faith, than either of sense, or reason. So do children, they believe what is told them, what is promised them, specially if it be by their Parents; therein (as I may say) making more use of their belief, than their reason. And this must Christians do, in apprehending heavenly mysteries; they must captivate sense and reason, bringing them both to the obedience of faith; yielding an absolute and universal▪ both credence, and obedience unto God, in what ever he shall make known to them, to be according to his will. In all these (besides many other qualities, for the Argument is very fruitful, would we follow it so far as we might,) ought Christians to imitate and resemble children. Applica. Inquire whether we be such. But do we thus resemble them? Let that be the first use that we make of it. Bring we it home to ourselves; enquiring whether we be all like children, in all the forenamed particulars, viz. without malice as children; without guile as children; hand-guile, tongue-guile, heart-guile. Without pride, as children; innocent and harmless as children, apt and ready to forgive and forget injuries as children; ready to pour forth cries and tears into the bosom of our Father, as children; as ready to yield obedience to our heavenly Father; as children to their natural Parents. Are we such? O that every of our hearts could now Echo back again, and say, such we are. Such in our measure, such at least in unfeigned desire, and serious endeavour. But, alas, is it not far otherwise with some amongst us? Are there not some whose hearts are full fraught with rancour, malice, envy? their hearts, hands, tongues full of guile, full of deceitfulness, full of hypocrisy? Is there not a spirit of pride in some of us, filling their hearts with ambitious, vainglorious thoughts; making them think highly of themselves, and meanly of others; puffing them up, and exalting them above measure? Is there not in some of us a spirit of discontent, so as we are not contented with God's dispensations and dealings; but upon all occasions, if we have not what we would have, our hearts are ready to repine and murmur? Are there not some amongst us, who care not what wrong, what injury they do to others, so they may but benefit and advantage themselves? Are there not others of an implacable spirit? Being once offended, once provoked, they will never be reconciled; never forgive, much less forget injuries? Are there not some who do not know what it is to un-load their cares, their fears, their sorrows into the bosom of their heavenly Father, by pouring forth their souls before him? And are there not others who walk stubbornly against God, not regarding either precepts, or promises, or threatenings; Isa. 48. 4. no, they are obstinate: Their neck is an iron sinew, and their browbrasse; (as the Lord complains against the people of the Jews.) Surely, such there are, some of every of these sorts to be found amongst us. And is this to be like unto Children. In this to receive the Kingdom of God as little children? Let the All who are not such shut out of God's Kingdom. Conviction take place with those to whom it belongeth; who may here see themselves shut out of the Kingdom of God. Mark the Text.] Verily I say unto you, whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein.] As for such than who are un-like unto children, it may be every ways un-like, un-lesse happily therein, wherein they ought not to resemble them, viz. in knowledge, and understanding. [Brethren, be not children in understanding (saith the Apostle.) Herein happily they are too like unto children, having no more understanding in spiritual matters, the mysteries of God's kingdom, than they. But in all other imitable qualities, they are altogether un-like them. Now let not such flatter themselves with vain hopes, of ever entering into God's Kingdom. No, it cannot be. He that joh. 14. 6. is Truth itself here speaketh it; and he speaketh it both earnestly, and peremptorily. So much will appear from a review of the words. First, earnestly. So much that Asseveration, which we meet with in the entrance of the Text, imports. [Verily I say unto you.] Amen; which in the beginning of a sentence hath the force of a vehement Asseveration, importing a serious and earnest affirmation, or negation. Secondly, Peremptorily. [He shall not enter.] There is an Emphasis in the original, which our Translation here hath not expressed. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Two negatives put together, which in the Greek tongue do vehementius negare, confirm the negation or denial of a thing (like two witnesses to a Testimony) making it more peremptory, more certain. [He shall not enter.] Nequam ingredietur. He shall [in no wise] enter. So we find it translated elsewhere, and so it ought to be here. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, [In no wise] or [by no means.] joh. 6. 37. Thus is the Kingdom of God both locked, and bolted against all such. Locked, and that by him who R●●e. 3. 7. hath the key of David, who shutteth and no man openeth. Bolted, and that with a double boult. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, He shall in no wise enter. Thus hath Christ put it out of doubt. [Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein.] Use 2. Be we as children. Use 2. Let this then (in the second place) be a motive to every of us, setting on this useful exhortation, that we would labour to be such. Would we enter into the kingdom of God, of Grace here, of Glory hereafter; Be we as children. It is a Copy (you see, which our blessed Saviour himself hath set before us. Let us write after it; propounding this pattern to ourselves, study to imitate it. Be we as children. As children without malice, as children without guile, as children for humility, as children for contentation, as children for innocency, forgiving and forgetting injuries as children; upon all occasions complaining to our heavenly Father as children; Obedient as children Imitate we them in every of these. Specially in the last. That the Text leadeth us to more particularly. Receive we the kingdom of God as little Children. Receive the Kingdom of God as children. The [kingdom of God] (as I told you) is here, his Kingdom of grace, and glory. His kingdom of grace. The government which he exerciseth in and over his Elect upon earth, whom he guideth and governeth by his Word, and Spirit. His Kingdom of glory: That blessed state which he hath provided for his Elect hereafter. Now receive we both these as little children, viz. humbly, submissively. His kingdom of Grace. First, Thus receive we his kingdom of grace. Yielding up ourselves (as little children do themselves to their Parents, and Governors) to be instructed and ordered by him, according to his good will and pleasure. Resigning up our understandings, and our judgements unto him. So do little children; they yield themselves as an abratatabula, white paper for To be taught by God. their teachers to write any thing upon, what they please; receiving their instructions quietly, submissively, without quarrelling or cavalling. Even thus receive we the Kingdom of God, the mysteries of his Kingdom. Such truths as God hath been pleased to reveal unto us in his Word, let us receive them, entertain them quietly, readily, with a holy submission of our understandings, and judgements; not standing to quarrel with, or cavil against any truth of God, because we cannot apprehend the reason of it. Herein look upon our pattern. Children do not apprehend the reason of things which are taught, and told them; yet they receive them, and believe them. The like do we in the mysteries of God's Kingdom. 1. Captivating our understandings and judgements, yielding up both unto God, to receive, and believe what To be ordered by him. ever is held forth unto us in the Word. And then 2ly. In like manner yield up our wills and affections. Let Gods will, be our will; to which let us stoop and submit, though contrariant, and crossing to our wills. So doth the child. Though happily it may be crossed in what it would have, and do; yet it submits, it yields. Even so do we. Yield we up ourselves (as to be instructed, so) to be ordered by God; to be in what state and condition he pleaseth; to do, and to suffer what he will have us to do. In life. Thus behave we ourselves in life; even as a child. So did David as himself telleth us, Psal. 131. [Surely Psal. 131. 2. I behaved and quieted myself as a Child that is weaned, etc.] A child in the weaning is froward, and tangle, than nothing will please it but the breast. But being once weaned; then usually it is quiet, and contented with any thing. In this be we as children; not like children in the weaning, so as if we have not what we would have, nothing shall please us. But like children weaned; behaving ourselves quietly, and contentedly; yielding up ourselves to the ordering of our heavenly Father. In death. And thus behave we ourselves in death. Therein also as children. Children, Infants, as they are ordered by their Mothers, or Nurses in the day, so they are put to bed by them at night, when, and where, and after what manner they please; for the most part falling asleep in the Nurse's lap. Even thus do we resign up ourselves unto God our heavenly Father, to be disposed of him, as in life, so in death: to be put to bed, the bed of the grave; when, and where, and after what manner he pleaseth. Falling a sleep in 1 Pet. 4. last his lap, in his arms, committing our souls unto him as to a faithful Creator, and merciful Redeemer. Thus receive we God's Kingdom of Grace, his government here upon earth. And secondly, Thus receive we his Kingdom of His Kingdom of Glory. Glory. Still as little children. Receiving it in God's way, and upon his terms. Thus do little children take things from their Parents hands, upon their Parents Receiving it upon God's terms. Rome 6. 23. terms, and in what way they will have them. And thus receive we this Kingdom of God. Receive it, first upon God's terms, viz. as a free gift; freely bestowed upon us, without any merit, any desert of our own. Thus do little children receive every thing at their Parents hands. All of gift. Never dreaming of any merit, any desert in themselves. Secondly, Receive it in God's way: in what ever way he shall in his Providence lay out to bring us to In God s way heaven by. Even as the Israelites, so they might but come to Canaan, they care not what way they go; be it through the sea, or through the wilderness. What if God will lay out unto us the like way to bring us to our heavenly Canaan; a troublesome and tedious way, yet balk it not. [I press forwards towards the Phil. 3 11. 14. mark, (saith the Apostle). 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, If by any means I might attain the Resurrection of the dead.] Herein yield we up ourselves unto God to be led by him, as sheep. Psal. 77. ●0. So it is said of Israel. [The Lord led them as a flock, (as a flock of sheep, as the word signifieth▪) by the hands of Moses and Aaron.] Or (to hold to the Text) as Children. Children are led by the hand, or carried in the arms of their Parents, whether they will have them. Even so yield we up ourselves to the will of our heavenly Father. So he may but bring us to heaven, let him lead us, and carry us which way he pleaseth. What ever the terms be, what ever the way be; let us accept of this gift at his hands. Receiving the Kingdom of God as little children. And thus I have done with this Speech of our Saviour to his Disciples. Vers. 16. And taking them up in his Arms, he laid his hands on them, and blessed them. Christ's act towards these Infants, threefold. COme we now to the last branch of this Story, which informs us what our blessed Saviour did to these Infants. Herein we may take notice of a threefold act; the two former introductory to the latter. 1. His Susception. 2ly, His Imposition of hands. 3ly, His Benediction. [1. He took them up in his Arms. 2ly, He laid his hands upon them. 3ly, And blessed them.] Thus do these Petitioners receive what they desired, and more. That which was desired for these children, was only a touch of our Saviour's hands. So the 13th ver. of this Chapter expresseth it. [They brought children unto Christ, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that he should [touch] them.] Now this he doth for them, and more. [He embraced them in his Arms, laid his hands upon them, and blessed them.] Obser. God sometimes doth for his people above their desires. Ephes. 3. 20. Thus God is pleased sometimes, oftentimes to do for his people above their desires. This he can do. [Now unto him that is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think; (saith the Apostle.) God can do for his people exceeding abundantly above their desires, or thoughts. There being in him abundance Malac. 2. 15. of Spirit, as the Prophet Malachi hath it. [Did not he make one? yet he had abundance of Spirit. (So the Geneva readeth it, Residuum Spiritus (saith Montanus) a residue (as our new translation hath it) an overplus of spirit, that is, of power and virtue to have done more than he did. Whereas God at the first made but one woman for one man, it was not for want of power; he could have made more if he had pleased. He hath no measure of his power, but his will▪ [If thou wilt, thou canst,] saith the leper to our Matth. 8. 2. Saviour. So as out of this plenitude, and abundance of power God is able to supply all the wants of his people; ●o do for them above their desires: which also sometimes he doth. Solomon having his choice to ask what he would, he begs wisdom from God; [Lord give me an understanding heart.] 1 King. 3. 12, 13. God giveth him that and more, viz▪ riches, and honour: [I have also given thee that whic● thou hast not asked.] The poor Paralytic in the Gospel is brought unto Christ for a bodily cure: Christ doth that for him, and more; sending him away with a double cure; the one of his body, the other of his Soul. [Son, thy sins are forgiven thee: Take up thy bed and Matth. 9 v. ●▪ v. 6. walk.] Thus Christ dealt with others; and thus ordinarily he dealeth by all that come unto him: doing for them above their desires, and thoughts. The ground whereof is, his abundant mercy. That Reason. He is abundant in mercy▪ 1 Pet. 1. 3. is the epithet St. Peter giveth it: [According to his abundant mercy.▪] Rich mercy: So the Apostle St. Paul, [God who is rich in mercy.] God is rich, as Ephes. 2. 4. in power, so in mercy. The one maketh him able, the other willing to do for his people above their desires. As a man having a large purse, and a large heart, he giveth to a poor beggar more than he asks: He asks a penny, he gives him two. Thus God dealeth with poor suppliants that come unto him in the sense of their wants suing for mercy. He often doth for them what they desire, and more. Being, as rich in himself, so rich unto them. [God is rich unto Rom. 10. 12. them that call upon him,] (saith the Apostle.) God is rich; having an abundant fullness of all goodness Luk. 12. 21. of himself. And he is rich not to himself, (as the covetous ●iser is,) but unto others: Being ready and-willing to communicate, and let out his goodness unto all that seek it, (even as the fountain that is ready to communicate of its water to all that come for it, and bring vessels to receive james 1. 5. 1 Tim. 6. 17. it.) And that not sparingly, (saith St. James.) He giveth us richly all things to enjoy (saith the Apostle.) Applica. Come unto God and jesus Christ. 1. By prayer. A meditation which may serve as a forcible motive, and inducement to make us come unto God, and to Jesus Christ. Unto God by prayer: Unto jesus Christ by faith. ●▪ Come we to th● throne of Grace for a supply of our wants▪ what we ask, joh. 16. 23. being fit for us, we shall receive. [Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, it shall be given you, Matth. 7▪ 7 (saith our Saviour.) [Ask, and it shall be given you;] It, what you ask, and more: God giveth, and he giveth not sparingly▪ but liberally [: Therefore come we, and come boldly. [: If any man l●●k wisdom, let james 1. 5. him ask it of God▪ (saith St. James;) why? For he giveth to all men liberally.] 2. By faith. 2. Come we unto Jesus Christ by faith▪ ●●e shall finde more in him, and from him, than ever we thought of So did these mothers (or whoever) that brought these their children unto Christ. They found more tenderness, more love, more affection in him, than they could have expected. They come for a touch; he embraceth, blesseth them. Such over▪ flow of mercy there are in God▪ and in Jesus Christ towards poor sinners. The prodigal coming to his father, little did he dream of such affection, such entertainment as he met with. His thoughts were, if he might but get a room in his father's house, to eat bread with his servants, that was all he could look for, and more than he was worthy of. But see what he found: No sooner doth his father see him a far off, but he runs to meet him, Luk. 15. 20▪ 22. Jils upon his neck, and kisseth him, bringeth forth the best robe▪ and killeth th● fatted calf for him. Such over▪ flow of unexpected, undeserved mercy and compassion there are in our God towards poor penitent sinners. Upon there returning and coming home to God they shall find abundant mercy, abundant compassion, more than ever they could have promised to themselves▪ considering their own unworthiness of the least mercy. And therefore come we unto God, and come we unto Jesus Christ. But this I take up by the way, from the joint consideration of the words. Come we now to look upon particulars▪ And therein begin with the first act. viz. The act of susception; The first act, viz. Suception. [He took them up in his arms.] 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Complexans ●os, (saith the vulgar latin) Embracing Piscator schol▪ ad locum. them. But the word (by Piscator's leave) in proper signification importeth more. Not any kind of embracement, but an embracement peculiar to children; whom others use to take in their arms. Thus Simeon embraced our Saviour, when his Parents came to present him in the Temple, Simeon took Luk 2. 28. him up in his arms; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Which is but a periphrasis, of the word in the text, giving us the true sense and meaning of it. Surely even as Simeon there embraced our Saviour, so d●d our Saviour here embrace these children: In ulnas suscepit. He took them in his arms.] These children were Infants. From whence (by the way) it is rightly concluded against the Anapabtists, that these children which were brought unto Christ, they were young Suidae. children; not children capable of Instruction, but Infants, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Little children, such as were brought in the arms of their parents unto him, and by him taken into his arms. But letting that pass, Obser. Christ's singular affection to Infants. ●n That which we shall here take notice of, is, the singular affection of jesus Christ towards these Infants; which he expresseth by this act of his: Takeing them into his arms,] that so he might (as it were) lav them in his bosom, nigh to his heart; Chemnit. Har. ad loc. t●nquam charistima▪ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (as Chemnitius glosseth upon it) as a dear and choice treasure which he made special account, and reckoning of. Thus do 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Zenoph. Pad. 7. tender mothers (not knowing how better to do it▪) express their affection to their babes; taking and carrying them in their arms, as near their heart as may be; embracing, and hugging them. And how could Christ have expressed greater affection to these babes than he did? Applic. Papists and Anabaptists, herein unlike unto Christ. And did he show such affection to them? How then dare any show such disaffection towards them, as to shut them out of the Church, whether triumphant, or militant? Triumphant; So doth the Papist all children dying without Baptism. Militant: So doth the Anabaptist, who denies Baptism unto Infants, because (as they would have it) they are no members of the Church. And what rigour? What unwarrantable, uncharitable, and unchristian rigour is this? What is this, but even (as it were) to pull Infants out of the arms of Jesus Christ? Surely, he who took these Infants into his arms upon earth, doth as much to some of them being now in heaven, and will do the like to such as are tendered to him as these were; viz. brought to him in the arms of their Parent's faith. He will receive them, embrace them, take them into the arms of his mercy. And there let believing Parents leave them (I mean, their Infants deceased) in a comfortable hope, and persuasion of finding them there another day. I shall go to him, but he shall not return to 2 Sam. 12. 23. me (saith David of his child.) This for the dead. As for the living, take heed how we shut them out of the Church: Seing we here find them in Christ's bosom, take heed how we cast them out of the Church's bosom, by denying unto them the Church's privilege, the badge and seal of their Christianity. This for Infants. Use 2. Be encouraged to come unto Christ. As for ourselves, be we all encouraged to come unto Jesus Christ. He that had arms to receive these poor Infants being brought 〈◊〉 him, he will have arms to receive us coming unto him. [Him joh. 6. 37. that cometh unto me I will in no wise cast out.] He v. 40. that [cometh] unto me, that is, [believeth] on me; coming to me as a Saviour, and a Lord▪ to be saved and governed by me, [I will not cast him ou●.] There is a meiosis in the phrase, less said, but more intended. I will not cast him out, that is, I will receive, I will embrace him. Surely jesus Christ hath lost none of his affection, none of his compassion▪ What he had, he hath: he carried his ●●wels, and his arms to heaven with him. And therefore come we unto him. Q How shall we come. A. Not by any power of our own. joh. 6. 44. Q. How shall w●e come▪ A. 1. Not by any power of our own. Thus none can come unto Christ. [No 〈◊〉 cometh unto me, except my Father which hath sent me draw him.] Even as these children could not have come unto Christ, had not their Parents brought them. Thus unless our heavenly Father bring us, lead us, draw its, (that is, effectually persuade our hearts to believe on him, working upon them by his word and spirit) we will never come▪ can never come unto Christ; being of ourselves both unwilling, and unable. 2. Not in any confidence of self-worthiness. 2. Not yet (secondly) in any confidence of any worthiness in ourselves, as if we should be the rather received and embraced of Christ for any thing that we● bring with us. No, this also we doctrinally renounce, and that as clearly, as firmly, as any 〈◊〉 whatever; averring that he which ●ill come unto Christ, must come emptie-handed, bringing with him nothing of his own. So say they, and so say we▪ Nothing save only an eye, and a hand, (which yet are not our own neither.) An eye to look up unto Christ, a hand to receive him, both which are done by faith. ●. Bring faith with us▪ Hab. 2. 4. 3. And this (in the third place▪) every of us must bri●g with us. Every one his own faith▪ [The just shall live by his faith.] Whatever the case of Infants be, sure we are, in persons of age thus it must be. These Infants here they are brought unto Christ that he should 〈◊〉 them. But the woman with the Matth. 9 20. 21. Mark 6. 56 c. 3. ●0. bloody issue she cometh unto Christ that she might touch him, (as also other sick persons usually did.) Whether Infants may be saved by their Parent's faith, or no, it is disputable▪ But as for us▪ it is out of doubt; it is our own faith must benefit us. Even as it is with a child in the womb▪ and out of it. In the womb it is nourished by the meat which the mother eats▪ but not so out of the womb; than it must live by the meat which itself eateth. Whether it be so with children in their infancy▪ whether they they live by the faith of their Parents, it is a question which I will not peremptorily dedetermine▪ (I know it was the opinion of the Ancient Church.) But afterwards when they come to years of discretion▪ then they must live by their own faith. Then they must come unto Christ (as I may say) upon their own leas, though still led by the hand of another. And thus let us come. So coming, doubt not but ●e that had arms to receive these Infants being brought to him in the arms of others, will also have arms, arms of mercy and tender compasson▪ to receive, to embrace us, coming unto him, believing on him▪ submitting to him. Pass we now to the second and third acts, in both which I will be very brief hasting to a conclusion of this subject. [He laid his hands upon them, and blessed them▪] Wherein we have, first the outward ceremony or sign, Imposition of hands: [He laid his hands upon them.] Then the thing signified, the grace conferred, Benediction: [He blessed them.] Briefly of each. Act 2. Imposition of hands. A ceremony of ancient use in case of 1. Benedicti●en. 48. 14. [He laid his hands on them▪] A ceremony of very ancient use amongst the people of God, and that in divers cases: Specially in two. 1. In the case of benediction, and blessing. Thus the Patriarch Jacob being to bless the sons of Joseph, Ephraim and Manasses, he laid his hands upon their heads, praying for, and pronouncing a blessing upon them. And thus our Saviour here blessing these children, he laid his hands upon them. 2. Consecration. 2. In case of Consecration. When a person, or thing was to be set a p●rt to some special use, and service; this was done by imposition of hands. Thus the sacrifices under the Law were consecrated by Exod. 29. 10. Numb. 8. 11. the Priests. [Aaron and his sons laid their hands upon the head of the sacrifice;] which they did (amongst other ends) in a way of consecration. Destinarunt illud Osiander ad loc. ut ●ieret sacrifici●m, (saith Osiander upon it;) destinating and setting apart that creature to be a sacrifice. And as their sacrifices were thus consecrated, so were (at least) some of their Church-officers also. Numb. 8. 10. So we read that the Levites were to be consecrated by imposition of hands, Numb. 8. Thus was it under the Old Testament. And thus we find it under the New. Our blessed Saviour (our great high Priest) being to consecrate the Sacrament of the Lords Supper▪ he Mat. 26. 26. 1 Cor. 11. 23. 24. took the Bread, and he took the Cup (saith the Text.) Either taking them into his hand, or laying his hand upon them, setting them apart from a common, to a sacred use. And in like manner were the officers of the Church, the Ministers of Acts 6. 6. Acts 13. 3. ● Tim. 4. 14. the Gospel consecrated; set apart to their Ministerial Offices, by Imposition of hands. A useful Ceremony, though not simply necessary, yet expedient. A useful Ceremony in both these cases. Whether necessary, or no, it is made a question? Papists contend for it as absolutely necessary, making it the outward sign in two of their Sacraments, (so they call them, and make them) viz. Confirmation, and Ordination. In the latter of these (not to speak of the former now, which I have touched upon already,) we generally allow it, approve it as very convenient▪ not only warrantable but useful, warrantable by the practice of the Apostles, and the Church of God in all Ages. Useful, both in respect of the solemnity, and significancy of it, suiting well with the business that it is applied to, (Ordination; wherein there is a charge) laid upon the person ordained, and the person set apart unto a special use and service. Warrantable and useful we allow it; yet leaving it as an indifferent Ceremony, as not being of the essence of Ordination, (much less of Confirmation,) which may be performed without it, viz. by Fasting, and Prayer. And so not absolutely necessary, there being no express precept in Scripture 〈◊〉 enforce it. As for that obvious Text in 1 Tim. 5. 22. Vide Piscator: sup. Mat. 19 vers. 15. Timot●y, where the Apostle willeth him not to 〈◊〉 on hands suddenly upon any man. It showeth indeed, what the usual Rite and Ceremony than was not what of necessity it must be. But of this enough. The signification of this Ceremony, viz. the conferring of some gift; either The case which the Text leadeth us to, is the former of these, the case of Benediction. And with this the Ceremony suiteth well. Importing a putting, or conferring▪ of some gift upon another; whether by bestowing of it, or praying for it. By bestowing, etc. First, By bestowing it. Thus our blessed 〈◊〉 blessed these children: Not only praying for, but Thus Christ blessed. bestowing a blessing upon them. (D●●●ene dic●re 〈◊〉 be●efacere;) which was in his power, in his hands to do. And therefore he laid his hands upon them. Blessed hands, hands full of blessing. In●● which was, and is committed the dispensation of all blessings, both heavenly, and earthly▪ This is that which our Saviour saith of himself, Mat. Mat. 21. 18. 28. (All power is given unto vice, both in heaven, and in earth.) This he spoke after his 〈◊〉 Not but that he had this power 〈◊〉 how ●ve● from thence▪ forth he was to exercise it more freely than formerly. Before this he had all power in his hands; a power to confer and bestow what blessings, and where he pleased. Not unfitly then did he lay on hands upon these Infants here, being about to bless them; he having all blessings in his hands. By praying for it, and pronouncing it. Secondly, But so have not others, why then should they lay on hands? I answer, though they cannot confer them, yet they may pray for them. ay, more. In the name of God pronounce them, and make promise of them: And therefore to confirm the persons in the apprehension of obtaining what is so prayed for, so pronounced, so promised; therefore they lay on hands upon them. Thus Jacob in the place forenamed, laid on hands Gen. 48. upon the sons of Joseph, praying for, and pronouncing a blessing upon them. Thus Moses laid hands upon Josuah, who thereupon was filled Deut. last▪ vers. 9 with the spirit of wisdom, as you have it, Deut. last. Not that Moses could put his spirit upon Joshuah, but he praying for it, God conferred it. And thus the Apostles in their time laid their hands upon divers, who thereupon received the holy Ghost, as it is said of those Disciples, Acts 19 Not Act. 19 6. that they of themselves could confer the holy Ghost, but God did it by their Ministry. But I promised to be brief. Act. 3. Christ blessing of these Infants. A word or two of the last branch of the Text, and so I will dismiss it, and you for the present, viz. the thing signified by this Ceremony. [He laid his hands upon them, and blessed them.] He blessed them. How? why, by praying for a blessing, pronouncing a blessing, conferring a blessing upon them▪ All this he could do, having authority to bless, and having all power in his hands to confer, not only temporal, but spiritual, and heavenly blessings. joh. 17. 2. [Thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.] Quest. But the question is, what blessing it Quest. What blessing Christ bestowed on these Infants. was that Christ here bestowed upon these Infants. Christ hath many blessings (saith the Anabaptist,) right-hand, and lefthand blessings. In the days of his flesh, he healed the sick, cleansed the lepers, made the dumb to speak, the blind to see, etc. And who knoweth (say they) but some such blessing it might be that Christ here bestowed upon them, some temporal blessing? Answ. Not only a temporal, but a spiritual and eternal blessing. Answ. To this we answer, that possibly it might be so. He might, possibly, and probably prav that they might live and grow in stature, in wisdom, and favour, and the like. But surely, this blessing of his imports more▪ The Text telleth us here, that Christ laid his [hands] on them. Not one hand, but both. Christ's blessings when he was upon earth, seldom went single. Seldom did he bestow a lefthand without a right-hand blessing. Seldom did he cure any in their bodies, but he cured them also in their souls. And surely such was his blessing here. More than a bare temporal blessing; chiefly, and principally a spiritual▪ and heavenly blessing▪ even the blessing of God's Kingdom. This he had before avowed to belong unto them. [Of such is the Kingdom of God;] and the blessing of this Kingdom he here conferred upon them. Observe. Christ's blessing, the best blessing. He blessed them.] And what could he have done more for them? or for any? This was the best thing that Isaac could do to, or for his son Jacob, to bless him. And what could Christ have done better for these Infants▪ He blessing them, they were blessed. I have blessed him, and he shall Gen. 27. 33. be blessed, saith Isaac concerning his son. And those whom Christ blesseth▪ they shall be blessed. Applica. Seek this blessing. Applic. O seek we after this blessing, the root of all blessings. Seek it for our selves, and seek it for our Children. Without this, our blessing of them, our providing for them▪ will be little worth. Let it be our care and endeavour to bring them to Christ; to know him, to believe on him, that he may bless them. If he bless them, they shall be blessed. And thus I have (as briefly as I could) run over this portion of Scripture, both in a Doctrinal, and Practical way; showing you still (by the way) what it maketh for that end to which it hath been ordinarily made use of amongst us, viz. the Baptism of Infants. Such they were that were here brought to Christ. Such they were, whom the Disciples here (out of no ill intent) attempt to keep back from ●●ming t● Christ. Such they were whom Christ here inviteth to come unto him; prohibiting his Disciples, or any other to hinder them. Such they were to whom he avoweth the Kingdom of God, both of Grace, and Glory, to belong. Such they were whom he here embraceth, luy●●h his hands on, blesseth. Object. Christ did not Baptise these Infants Answ. Object. But (saith the Anabaptist) what is all this to the point in hand? All this while we do not read that Christ Baptised these Infants? Answ. True. No more did he any others. [jesus himself baptised not.] john 4. 2. But yet he expressed a singular and peculiar affection to them; Invites them to communion with himself, avows the Kingdom of God to be theirs; and confers upon them the blessing of that Kingdom. And hath Christ thus honoured some of this tender age▪ What shall new be done to them, He●. 6. 6. whom the King of Heaven delighteth to honour? Doth he invite them to communion with himself▪ Who shall keep them back, by debarring them of the means of that communion? Doth he avow, and confer the thing signified, who shall then deny them the sign? FINIS.