354 The Birth-Briviledge and Covenant-holirre.fl°e Ch, 4 ufe this f j+cech in the land of Judah , and in the cities thereof, when 1 Jima bring again their captivity. The ,Lord bleffe thee, O habi Cation ofjuflice, andmountaine ofholineffe. Children are within this number, they are the inheritage of the Lord, Pfal. 127. ,a, and confequently admitted by our Saviour Chrift to this privi ledge of a bleffìng. Mafter 2 ombe makes a great triumph of a fpeech of mine, paged . of my anfiver, where I fay we do not think that this blefiing was baptizing or that thefe defired, or. that Chrift intended their Baptifme ; only we affirme that a Me- diurn hence may be taken from whence we may inferre the right of Infants to Baptifme ; They that are admitted to one Church- priviledge, may not be denied another, whereof they are equally capable ; But Infants are here admitted,and order taken for their admiflion to one Church- priviledge, of which they are no other- wife capable then of Baptifme. So that here is no direst prefi- dent for Baptifme in particular, but for Church - priviledges of which Infants are capable. None that are intereffed ,n the Church of( hrift which is his Kingdome , may be denied an ad- miffion to it by Baptifme. A ground it is not immediate expreffe, but by neceffaryconfequence : Upon this Mailer Tombes makes his obfervation, Apolog. page 15r. Mailer Blake fayes, this all of Chrifts is no direa prefident for Baptifme but for Church -privi ledges, of Which Infants are cap able ; Iflarke this (feech, if But] be ad&erfative, then Mailer Blake grants that Infams are capable of Church- priviledges ; not of 23apti /me , which overthrows all his di fpute. If my fpeech were as worthy of an Afterisk as Matter Tombes his obfervation is of an Oblifque , I would they were both marked ; the Reader would foon marke , that Mr. Tombes leaves out that which would fully explaine my meaning and wholly takes off the force of his reply.T his.a& of Chrift is no di- eft precept for Baptifme in particular,but of Church- priviledges in general. If Mr. Tombes can but affume and make goo d with our Socinian-Antibaptifts (who in the parts where I live , begin to triumph over Antipadobaptifts, beating them down with their own weapons) that Baptifme is no Church - priviledge ; then I (hall confeffe that he bath wrested this Argument out of my hands , antthat this Text as to this Argument falls otherwife it is of force and an undeniable confequence. Concerning the reafon given of admiflion_of Infants in that pro -.1
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=