Divinity-knots vnloosed: or a cleare discovery of truth; by resolving many doubts, according to scripture, orthodox divines, and sound reason, so as weake capacities may receive satisfaction therein. To which purpose, a number of points are explained by familiar simile's. A treatise intended specially for the instruction of young Christians in Rothstorne parish in Cheshire: but published for a further extent of the benefit thereof, to the Israel of God. By Adam Martindale, one of the meanest labourers in the Lords harvest.

3. Argument.

All that belong to the externall Co∣venant of God ought to be Bapti∣zed:

But, The Infant-seed of beleeving and repenting Parents belong to the ex∣ternall Covenant of God:

Therefore, They ought to be baptized.

The Proposition is proved, Acts 2.39. where Peter urgeth the repenting Jewes to be baptized on this ground, because the pro∣mise (that is, the externall Covenant of grace, or rather the externall part of the Covenant of grace) was to them and their Children: If this was a good reason then, it is so still. And that the Infant-seed of be∣leeving and repenting Parents, belongeth to the externall Covenant of God, is as plain, 1 Cor. 7.14. To understand which place, consi∣der that there be onely three sorts or kinds of holinesse, of which Children can be ca∣pable, which we may call (till better names be found out for them) personall, conjugall, and federall: The first cannot be here in∣tended, for many a Beleever hath unsancti∣fied and gracelesse Children, which could not be, if one beleeving Parent should so sanctifie the other, that the Seed should be internally holy. Not the second, Viz. Con∣jugall, or Marriage holinesse, and if the Apostle had onely meant such Children were lawfully begot in Wedlock, not adul∣terously, or in Fornication; for he makes such an opposition between uncleanesse and this holinesse as will not admit this inter∣pretation: Else (saith he) were your Chil∣dren uncleane, but now they are holy: Unclean∣nesse

and holinesse are here opposed; so that if by [holy] he meane onely lawful∣ly begotten [uncleane] must needs signifie unlawfully begotten: And then the Apo∣stle saith thus much in effect, that when neither party beleeveth, they live and beget Children in adultery, or fornication; but this cannot be his meaning, for it is not true, Marriage being honourable, and a bed undefiled, not to Belevers onely, but to all mena. It remaineth then, that they be Covenant-wise, or federally holy, or set apart to God. For the Lord having taken a beleever and his seed, into Covenant with himselfeb, though his Wife be an unbe∣leever, her infidelity cannot make Gods Covenant ineffectuall.

For further proofe, let us view againe that Scripture in the second of Acts, Vers. 39. The promise is to you, and TO YOƲR CHILDREN: This is spoken to Evangelicall repenting Parents, and agrees to all such.

Add hereunto, that many absurdities (and those no small ones) will follow, if we deny Children (because such) to be un∣capable of the externall Covenant; as,

[Absurdity 1] First, That we have lost by the com∣ming of Christ: for before he came in the flesh, if a Gentile had joyned himselfe to

the Jewish Church, he had taken hold of the Covenant for himselfe and his Seed, but now onely for himselfe; and is not a mans tenure much worsned, if he formerly held to him and his heyres for ever, and now onely for terme of life: Surely the clearenesse of dispensation, and freedome from burdensome Ceremonies appertaining to the Covenant of grace cannot make n∣mends for this losse: A man had better undergoe many inconveniences with his owne Land, then to have a morec ommo∣dious piece for terme of life only.

[Absurdity 2] Secondly, The whole blessing of Abra∣ham should not then come on the Gentiles, according to Gal. 3.14. but onely part of it, for his priviledges were not personall on∣ly, but hereditary, i.e. belonging to his Seed.

[Absurdity 3] Thirdly, Christ should be lesse kind to his Church now then when he was on the Earth, for then he acknowledged, that In∣fants were not debarred, for their infancy, from the Covenant; but saith, Of such is the Kingdome of Heavenc : I know some may answer when Christ saith [of such] he meaneth not Children, but such as they are: Viz. such as are harmelesse, humble, and meek, like them: But the reply is easie, that he intended to take in both; for the

Originall word, which is here translated [such] when it is referred to a patterne, doth not exclude, but include it.

I can give you many instances where the word must needs be so taken: where Christ sayth, Who so shall receive one SƲCH Child in my Name, receiveth med ; were it not ridiculous to say, Christs intent was to tell them, that if they received any o∣ther Child like that, in his Name, they re∣ceived him; but if they received that very Child which he shewed them, they received him not: It is sayd, John 4.23. That the true worshippers shall worship the Father, in spirit and in truth; for the Father seeketh SƲCH to worship him. Here the word (such) cannot signifie such as are onely like to them that worship in spirit and truth (for such counterfeits are hypocrites, whose service God abhors) but they that doe so worship. Compare also the first Verse of the second Chapter to the Romans with the second Verse of the same, and you shall see that such things are the same things. In the same sense this word is taken in sundry other placese.

Thinke withall what reason you can give, why Christ should be so angry as Mark telleth us he wasf, when his Disciples re∣buked

them that brought Children to him, that he should pray over themg : Was this the sole cause, Viz. that they were like those that belong to him in conditions? Then wheresoever the like vertues are found, they that hold them forth must al∣so be admitted, and Christ would have been displeased, had they been rebuked: And upon this ground (as Master Cotten rightly affirmeth) Christ might as well have sayd, Suffer Doves and Lambs to come to me, for of such (that is, such meek and harmelesse ones as they are) is the King∣dome of Heaven. But surely that opinion would savour strongly of the idle, that should set Christ in a posture of readinesse to receive Doves or Lambs, to pray over them, and to be displeased with his Disci∣ples, had they rebuked such as brought them, which yet he must have done had he been uniforme in his working according to reason, and those imitable vertues the sole cause why he received them.

65. Doubt. There is a great deale of rea∣son in that which you say, and I acknowledge my selfe much engaged to you for condiscending to my capacity, in avoyding tearmes of Art as much as may be: But I observe, you made much use of Acts 2.39. and I doubt whether it can

carry all the weight you lay on it, for there be no lesse then three strong exceptions against it.

[Exception 1] First, All to whom Peter spake were Jewes by Nation, to whom indeed this promise be∣longed: Keepe you to Beleevers in Abrahams line, and you may say to them, The promise is to you and to your Children: but you cannot affirme the same of others, for there is no such promise.

[Exception 2] Secondly, Others expound the place thus; The promise is to you if you repent, and to your Children, and to those that are afarre off (that is Gentiles) even so many as the Lord our God shall call, if they repent: Or thus, who∣soever God calleth (be it your selves, your Children, or any of the Gentiles) to them the promise belongeth.

[Exception 3] Thirdly, Some affirme, this is no the pro∣mise of Gen. 17. (as you seeme to take it) but of Joel 2. which the speech concerneth all along this Chapter; and the sense is, The promise (Viz. of extraordinary gifts of the spirit, to speake to people of strange languages, in their Mother tongues, as wee doe this day) is to you, and to your Children, and to as many as are afar off; even as many as the Lord our God shall call: to wit, to Preach to such people as he hath called us.

Resol. Admit they were all Jewes by Na∣tion (although I see no necessity to grant it:) Is not the partition-wall yet broken downe? What then signifie these Scriptures in the Margent? If it be, what mean learn∣ed men to cumber us with such distinctions or restrictions, as Beleevers in Abrahams line, and Beleevers out of his line?

2. The limitation, Even as many, &c. limits onely the immediate clause, And to all that are afarre off: not the whole sen∣tence; the sense being this, The promise is to you and to your Children (absolutely) but not to you and your Children alone, but to such also are afar off, if the Lord call them to repentance; nor doe I speake this for mine owne advantage, but the scope of the place proves it; for else Peter might better have sayd, the promise is to all that repent, then to proclaime the Covenant of God to repenters and their Seed, and when all is summed up, there is no pro∣mise to the penitents seed at all; were not here a faire slourish about nothing, to say, so much of mercy offered to their seed, and yet their seed receives no benefit at all? Yes (you will say) their seed may also repent, and then have the priviledges the Parents had: But I would faine know under what

notion the Child of a Beleever becomes capable of these Covenant-priviledges, whether as a Beleever, or as the Child of a Beleever? If it be sayd, as a Beleever; then it cannot be as the Son of a Beleever; for had all his kindred been Turkes, or Hea∣thens, he might (yea ought to) be re∣ceived when it appeareth that himselfe be∣leeveth: If as the Child of a Beleever, why may he not be received in infancy? For he can never be more the Child of a Be∣leever, then he is the first minuite of his life.

3. This promise cannot be that of the second of Joel (though I grant that is in∣sisted on in this Chapter) for it runs not in the same tearmes: That in Joel is to the Sons and Daughters immediately; this to the Parents, and secundarily to the Chil∣dren like, Gen. 17.7. Much lesse will the coherence allow it. For when the poore creatures were pricked in their hearts, cry∣ing out, Men and Brethren what shall wee doe? Was it suitable to tell them, the must repent and be baptized all of them; and then if it should please God to call them to be Preachers, they might expect the ex∣traordinary gifts of the spirit inabling them to Preach to people of strange lan∣guages,

or if he called their Children, or any of the Gentiles to the like worke, they might expect the like assistance? Were this salve for a wounded conscience, groaning under the burden of sin? If there were no Women amongst them (which yet is to me very doubtfull) we may neverthelesse sup∣pose upon good probability: 1. that ma∣ny of them (if not the most) were never called to be Preachers: 2. On the other side, experience tels us, that in some places (as New England for example) Ministers that have been sent to people of strange tongues (as appeares by the blessing of God upon their indeavours) have not attained to their speech by immediate inspiration, but in time acquired the knowledge there∣of, by industry and conversing among them: Nor 3. can ministeriall abilities appease an awakened conscience, but the revelation of free pardon; and so must Peters speech be expounded, Repent and be baptized every one of you for the remission of sins, and yee shall receive the gift of the holy Ghost (a gift fre∣quently bestowed on ordinary hearers in those dayesh) and his maine argument to of grace) is to you and to your Children. Thus move them to repent and be baptized, is this The promise (i.e. the externall Covenant

I hope these objections have received their full answers: I would onely add this more concerning them; though they be brought by one party, and for one cause they doe vehemently interfere, and fight one against another, insomuch that no two of them can stand together: For the first supposeth the promise to be the Covenant of grace, & advanceth Jews above Gentiles in the in∣joyment of it, making the Priviledges of the Jews hereditary, but of the Gentiles meer∣ly personall: The second likewise supposeth it to be the Covenant of grace, but utterly quasheth the pretended difference between Beleevers in Abrahams line, and Beleevers out of his line, which the first exception urged: The third denyeth it to be a Co∣venant of grace: So then take which you will, and it overthroweth the other two; and yet these multiformous creatures must all be drawne in one yoak (though they looke so many severall wayes) to the pre∣judice of the truth; but it is impossible a cause should prosper under so many and manifest contradictions.

Serpentes avibus geminantur, tigribus agni.

66. Doubt. How can an Infant be in Covenant with God, when as it doth not con∣sent

to its owne baptisme; and a Covenant re∣quires the consent of both parties?

Resol. 1. It is a mistake to thinke that baptisme brings a soule within Covenant, whereas it is an evidence of a mans being in Covenant with God (externall I meane all along) before he was baptizedi, as Cir∣cumcision also wask.

2. Gods Covenants doe not need a re∣stipulation on the creatures part: He made a Covenant with Abrahams seed, while yet he had no childl ; yea he did not onely Covenant with Noah and his seed, but with every living creaturem, and yet these could not restipulate. When men Covenant both parties must consent, because else the one knowes not the others mind, nor hath power to worke him to his purpose: but God performes all; he becomes their God and makes them his peoplen.

67. Doubt. How can Children be law∣fully baptized, seeing Faith is requiredo which Infants have not?

Resol. Things must be understood ac∣cording to the capacity of the persons spo∣ken to: Paul saith, if any would not work neither must he eatep. Must therefore In∣fants, and they which are disabled by sick∣nesse or age, either worke or perish? In like

manner, Christs words which you quote seeme to import, that he which beleeveth not must not be baptized; but looke at the precedent Verse, and you shall see such are pointed as, as can heare the Word Preach∣ed, which Infants cannot: Infants be∣leeve in their Parents, as Levi payd tythes in Abraham, and Parents bringin their Children to Christ, the children themselves are sayd to come to himq.

If you allow not this, consider what dangerous Doctrine, and uncharitable judgement, you must needs by consequence entertaine: Viz. that all which dye Infants are damned; for it you say an Infant can∣not be baptized, because it hath not faith; by the same reason you must conclude also, that because it wanteth faith it cannot be saved; for the Text you alleadge, is farre more expresse for that, then the other: He that beleeveth not shall be domned.

68. Doubt. Some conceive, 1 Cor. 7.14. proveth a Child to be out of Covenant, except one of the next and immediate Parents be a Beleever? I pray you tell me your apprehension thereof.

Resol, Truely I think it doth not; for although in such a case as theirs, when the Gospell was newly sowne amongst them,

and all their Ancestours had been heathens, one of the Parents must needs be a Beleever, or the Child be destitute of federall holi∣nesse; yet I judge far otherwise, concern∣ing the seed of beleeving (though remote) Parentsr.

69. Doubt. How may the Papists be an∣swered, which contend for Christs reall pre∣sence in the Host, seeing Christ sayd expresly, This is my body, and his words must needs be true?

Resol. We confesse, he is present truely (though not corporally, but Sacramen∣tally) in the same sense that Paul saith, The Rock was Christs ; that is a figure of Christ.

70. Doubt. If a man must examine him∣selfe, and so eate of that bread and drinke of that Cupt, why should any other examine him?

Resol. It is not intended exclusively, as if none else might, but that himselfe must except he will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, and eate and drinke damnation to himselfeu : The word which is translated [so] is an Adverbe of likenesse, and there∣fore it cannot be rendred, Let a man exa∣mine himselfe, and so (that is, without more adoe) let him eate, &c But thus, Let a man examine himselfe, and so (that is, in that

frame of selfe-examination) let him eate of that bread, &c.

Notes

• a

  Heb. 13.4
• b

  Gen. 17.7 as before.
• c

  Mat. 19.13. Mark 10.14. Luk. 18.15
• 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• d

  Mat. 18.5
• e

  Mat 9.8 Act. 16.24 Gal. 5.23.
• f

  Mark 10.14. The Greek word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, importeth indignation, or grievous vexation of spirit, and so is used, Mat. 20.24 & 26.8. Mark 10.41 & 14.4 Luk. 13.14
• g

  Mat. 19.13.
• This is cleare to him that understands the axiome. A quateus ad omne va¦let conse∣quentia.
• 1 Exception taken off.
• Eph. 2.12, 13, &c. Acts 10.34, 35. Gal. 5.13, 14. Rom. 2.26.27, 28, 29, & 4.9. 1 Cor. 7.19 Gal. 6.15.
• 2 Exception removed.
• 3 Exception replied unto.
• h

  Acts 8.15 16, 17. & 10.44, 45, 46. & 19.2. cum 6.
• Horat.
• i

  Acts 2.38 39. & 8.37. cum 38. & 16.14, 15.
• k

  Gen. 12.1, 2, 3. cum Chap. 17.7 Josh. 5.3. cum Jer. 31 32.
• l

  Gen. 12.15. & 17. Chapters. Acts 7.5.
• m

  Gen. 9.9 10.
• n

  Jer. 31.31, 32. Heb. 8.10.
• o

  Mark 16.16.
• p

  2 Thes. 3 10.
• q

  Mat. 19.1••, 14. Mark 10.13, 14. Luke 18.1••, 16.
• Nec stan∣tem a parte affirmativa cogit 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, locus, 1 Cor 7.14. ubi Apostolus dicendo libe∣ros cujusvis parentis fide∣lis (majo∣ribus omni∣bus ethni∣cis) esse Sanctos li∣beros ambo∣rum paren∣tum imme∣diatorum (reliquis omnibus majoribus membris) 〈◊◊〉〈◊◊〉 esse 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 〈…〉〈…〉 Apollo∣aium Ca. 2. p. 38.
• r

  Exo. 20.6 Gen. 17.7. Psa. 89.29. & 103.17.18.
• s

  1 Cor. 10.4.
• t

  1 Cor. 11.28.
• u

  Ver. 27, 29. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,