2. We have not Warrant in all the Scripture, to apply the Seal of Baptism unto those Children, whose Parents are in a state of unfitness for the Lords Supper. Those, Acts 2. 41. who were Baptized, continued breaking Bread also, ver.42. 'Tis granted, That those Children were Circumcised amongst the Jews, whose Parents were for a time debarred from the Passover, ⟨image ?⟩but that was only upon accident of Ceremonial Uncleanness, which alters not the case; for, Unless the father were in a state of fitness for the Passover, he was not fit to have his child circumcised. The like may be said concerning the Gospel-Passover, and the Gospel-Circumcision. Neither do we read, that in the Primitive times Baptism was of a greater latitude, as to the Subject thereof, then the Lords Supper: but the contrary. The lCatechumeni were not to be Baptized, before they were sit for the Lords, Supper. And thence, when through the darkness of the times, the Lords Supper was not administered except at Easter, (as 'tis called) the mBaptism of the Catechumeni was deferred until then also. In the Dawnings of Reformation in England, our Juell could plead against Harding, that nBaptism was as much to be reverenced, as the Sacrament of the Body the Blood of Christ. Nay, in former Ages, some Churches have been so far from extending Baptism, further then the Lords, Supper, as that they have committed a grievous Error, in administering the Lords Supper unto Infants. So it hath been in the Churches of oBohemia, and in pRussia: And this was maintained by Austin, and Innocentius, and qall the Churches in their time. Which Testimonies we produce, to show, that former Ages have been far from looking upon the Lords Supper, as being of a more sacred nature then the other Ordinance of Baptism. Indeed of late there have been those who have made Baptism of a far larger extent then the Lords Supper. This hath been one practical Difference between Congregational-men and Presbyterians (whom the Lord unite in the Truth) in that the Congregational-men would baptize the Children of none but such, whose Parents were sit for the Lords Supper: when-as the Presbyterians would Baptize the Children of such, whose Parents were not sit for the Lords Supper; and their promiscuous Administration of that Ordinance, was very grievous unto their Congregational Brethren. See Beverly against Timson.
2. We have not Warrant in all the Scripture, to apply the Seal of Baptism unto those Children, whose Parents are in a state of unfitness for the Lords Supper. Those, Acts 2. 41. who were Baptized, continued breaking Bread also, ver.42. 'Tis granted, That those Children were Circumcised amongst the Jews, whose Parents were for a time debarred from the Passeover, ⟨image ?⟩but that was onely upon accident of Ceremonial Uncleanness, which alters not the case; for, Unless the father were in a state of fitness for the Passeover, he was not fit to have his childe circumcised. The like may be said concerning the Gospel-Passeover, and the Gospel-Circumcision. Neither do we reade, that in the Primitive times Baptism was of a greater latitude, as to the Subject thereof, then the Lords Supper: but the contrary. The lCatechumeni were not to be Baptized, before they were sit for the Lords, Supper. And thence, when through the darkness of the times, the Lords Supper was not administred except at Easter, (as 'tis called) the mBaptism of the Catechumeni was deferred until then also. In the Dawnings of Reformation in England, our Juell could plead against Harding, that nBaptism was as much to be reverenced, as the Sacrament of the Body the Blood of Christ. Nay, in former Ages, some Churches have been so far from extending Baptism, further then the Lords, Supper, as that they have committed a grievous Errour, in administring the Lords Supper unto Infants. So it hath been in the Churches of oBohemia, and in pRussia: And this was maintained by Austin, and Innocentius, and qall the Churches in their time. Which Testimonies we produce, to shew, that former Ages have been farre from looking upon the Lords Supper, as being of a more sacred nature then the other Ordinance of Baptism. Indeed of late there have been those who have made Baptism of a far larger extent then the Lords Supper. This hath been one practical Difference between Congregational-men and Presbyterians (whom the Lord unite in the Truth) in that the Congregational-men would baptize the Children of none but such, whose Parents were sit for the Lords Supper: when-as the Presbyterians would Baptize the Children of such, whose Parents were not sit for the Lords Supper; and their promiscuous Administration of that Ordinance, was very grievous unto their Congregational Brethren. See Beverly against Timson.
- lCatechumeni ad Baptis•erism nunquam admittend• sunt. Concil. Araus. c.19.
- mConcil. Ger• dist.4.
- nJuels Reply to Harding. p.553.
- oDa• Chytra
- pPaul. Odorbor. de relig. Russor.
- qSee Fulk. Annot. on Joh. 3.5.
