when we look on Mat. 19.13 They brought them to Christ to lay his hands on them and pray over them 3. If we consider why the Disciples should forbid them and rebuked these that brought them surely it could not be out of any cruelty to Infants or that the Disciples had no bowels to Infants or desire they might not be happy with their Parents their affections could not be so straitned and bound up in unnaturalness but it must be from some such principle which these of the contrary judgement take up That they were not capable and were first to be taught That only grown men and Professors of faith were fit for Ordinances and therefore they rebuked or chid them and forbad them to do so any more As if they had said What have we to do with Children as to outward Ordinances they are not capable they cannot profess their faith and we must have persons able to hold forth the Gospel which must be visible subjects of Christs Kingdome Doubtless some such grounds they must needs go on or else they must shew a strange kind of passion against Children most unbecoming these which had but the rags of natural affection left in them 4. See Christs affections to them and the reason of it When Christ saw it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he was much displeased It 's a word that is used to express such a kind of sorrow as breaks the heart also to stomach any thing and to have the spirit raised in contempt of an unworthy action or person Thus Christ was grieved at them and he looked with contempt on his Disciples as dealing most unworthily with poor Infants in forbidding them to be brought to Christ and therefore he commands them to suffer them to bring Infants to him and not to forbid them These two words shews how vehement Christ was and how much his heart was set towards Infants You find sometimes that Christ gave some sharp words to his Disciples and to Peter especially but never to have his spirit to rise in indignation against them as when they would forbid Infants to be brought to him and that which makes Christ so earnest must needs be of great weight he was never so moved when they all forsook him and Peter did forswear him as when they denied Infants to come to him I could wish that these which with so much contempt and scurrilous language forbid Infants to be baptized might read this place with observant spirits and at least grow more sober and less violent in their expressions concerning poor Infants doubtless it 's a warning to all Christs Disciples Now the reason which Jesus Christ gives is Of such is the Kingdome of God The reason shews what the priviledge was they would exclude Infants from viz. being visibly judged to belong to the Kingdome of God and Christ saith Of such is the Kingdome of God Now take the Kingdome of God either for Heaven and Glory or secondly by way of allusion for the Church and the state of the Gospel it will serve as a full reason Of such that is of Infants is Gods Kingdome made up as well as of grown men and they are as fit subjects as you are But doubtless he especially means by the Kingdome of God as well the Kingdome of Grace in a visible Church as the Kingdome of Glory because else this could be no reason to convince the Disciples of their errour for they were against the visible bringing Infants to Christ for to get some outward sign of favour to them and Christ tels them they may be as well brought to Christ and receive a visible sign as grown persons for the Kingdom of God is made of such as of others 1. Christ shews their interest in one of the highest priviledges The Kingdome of God and that visibly 2. He speaks it de praesenti not only respecting their future estate what they may be but that even now the Kingdome of God is of such 3. He useth this as a common instructive principle for the future never to forbid not only these but such like Infants to be brought to him For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Of such is the Kingdome of God Christ would have them take it as a constant principle That wherever they found such like Infants they should not reject them but look on them with Gospel respect Ob. These that differ have nothing to say to this but That Christ means it of such as Children for humility and meekness and lowliness and therefore in the following verse he saith He that shall not receive the Kingdome of God as a little Child shall not enter therein Sol. It 's true Christ takes an occasion to exhort them to humility and meekness from the pattern of these little ones But 1. Christ shews Infants right to the Kingdome of God as well as the Disciples and grown persons who can profess their own faith 2. If Christ had meant only to make an example and resemblance he might have taken Sheep and Doves more properly for they are more meek and gentle then Children who are commonly froward and peevish 3. This crosseth the end of Christs reason which was That Infants should not be hindred from being brought to Christ For of such is the Kingdome of God Now if he had meant of such as were only like them in some qualities not of themselves there was nothing at all in Christs reason And thus must the words be rendred on that account Suffer Infants to come to me and do not forbid them for not of them but of humble persons that resemble them is the Kingdome of God Men will rather make Christ speak non-sense then lose their opinions 4. Can we think Christ could be so displeased with his Disciples for hindring little ones to be brought to him meetly to shew them as resemblances and patterns to grown men and adde this reason For of such is the Kingdome of God when he had examples more fit to that purpose even among the meer sensible Creatures No Christ shews the priviledge of such Infants and checks his Disciples pride who would have none but themselves and grown persons to be esteemed as having any visibie interest in the Kingdome of God Lastly Let us view Christs carriage and actions to these Infants he did not onely shew them as examples but took them up in his arms laid his hands on them and blessed them all expressions of the most signal love and favour and of great import if duly considered 1. He took them up in his arms 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the word signifies to embrace with special affections so the French Translation Embrasser Piscator embrachiare amplexabunde gesto Bud. Christ took them up in his arms and held them forth as Monuments of his love and doubtless to shew his Disciples that he would have some outward sign and character of peculiar respect set on them by his Church and Saints Such a carriage was not out of a
of those of Abrahams seed which degenerated and slighted the Covenant of the Gospel and these were properly the carnal seed Suitable to this is that distinction of Abraham being a natural and a spiritual Father For First He was a natural Father to these to whom he was a spiritual Father as to Isaac and Jacob and the godly of their posterity Secondly All to whom he was a natural Father were under the Covenant and had the seal until they rejected themselves the promise took in both relations as to outward administration Rom. 3.1 2 3 4. And if men truly state things you may argue as much against Abrahams natural seed from enjoying these priviledges as believers natural seed now and with as much evidence of truth But let us weigh these Scriptures which are brought by our Opposites First consider that of Rom. 9.6 7 8. They are not all Israel that are of Israel neither because they are the seed of Abraham are they all Children but in Isaac shall thy seed be called that is they which are the Children of the flesh these are not the Children of God but the Children of promise are accounted for the seed The Apostle in this Chapter doth with a bleeding heart begin the sad story of the Jews rejection from being a Church and speaks as one loth to mention it and therefore brings it in with a passionate and hearty Apology v. 1 2 3. he was in heaviness he could wish himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 accursed from Christ for his brethren his Kinsmen according to the flesh that is for these that we call Jews according to the flesh Q. But what needed all this trouble to have a carnal generation of men cut of why doth Paul Paul take on so heavily Sol. In the 4 and 5 v. he tels you Who are Israelites to whom pertains the adoption of glory and the Covenant and the giving of the Law and the service of God and the promises whose are the Fathers of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came Here is a Catalogue of high priviledges which belonged to the Jews which they were to be cut off from which lay on Pauls heart and was like to sink him Ob. Well might some say v. 6. then the promise of God is in vain if they be rejected unto whom the adoption and the promises belong Sol. The Apostle anticipates that Objection Not as though the Word of God hath taken no effect no the promise is the same and immutable but they are not all Israel which are of Israel neither because they are the seed of Abraham are they all Children c. This is the very natural coherence of these words let us now use our judgements to distinguish and review the place and we shall find it a weapon whose edge is turned against these that count it their own 1. The Apostle is sadly troubled for his kinsmen after the flesh for their rejection his reason is because of the Covenant and the promises made to them because they were the natural seed of Abraham which holds forth that the promises and the priviledges of the Covenant were made indefinitely to all the Israelites 2. That it 's a most sad thing to be excluded from the outward and general administration of the Covenant Why should Paul thus break out in his affections for the loss of outward priviledges if it were not such a mercy to be under them 3. The Apostle holds forth that persons may be under the outward administrations of the Covenant and yet not get the efficacy of it v. 6. They are not all Israel that are of Israel the Covenant was made with Abraham and his seed all that were of him and yet all were not Israel that is partakers of the inward life and efficacy of the Covenant the Apostle only in these verses endeavours to take off that Objection that God had broke his Covenant by casting away the Jews and so distinguisheth of these that were meerly of his flesh who had the outward administration but not the inward fruit and these which were elect in the promise In Isaac shall thy seed be called the rest he cals the Children of the flesh the former the Children of promise v. 8. and so though they were under the outward dispensation of the Covenant yet God was not mutable nor his promise though he rejected them because of their own degeneration so that the sum of this place is 1. That the Covenant was made in general with Abrahams seed to all that came from him 2. That in the administration of general and indefinite promises there is a secret distinction and a vein of election carried through the administration that takes hold of some not of others 3. That none are the Children of promise real Saints but those that have the true effects of the Covenant in their hearts 4. That all Children of Believers though the promise visibly belong to them as to Abraham and his seed yet may not follow their Parents faith and so not be Israel though of Israel But here is nothing at all to demonstrate that Infants because Children of the flesh are not under the promise but rather the contrary for in Isaac shall thy seed be called saith God now he was a Child of Abrahams flesh as well as these which were cast off and yet a Child of promise so God makes his Covenant indefinitely with believers and their seed and yet the efficacy of the Covenant may reach but some an Isaac or a Jacob an elect vessel and yet the other under the outward administration until they manifest the contrary But more of this from that Acts 2.38 39. I come now to that other place so much urged by them Gal. 3.16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made he saith not to seeds as of many but of one which is Christ Now by Christ here cannot be meant barely Christ personal for then no believer should be accounted for the seed but only Christ it must be meant of Christ mystically or Politically considered as the visible Head of the Church if to Christ mysticall then to all the Elect as in him and so to Infants as well as grown persons who make up that mystical body but thus the promise is conveyed under ground as it were none knows the veins of it thus in the Old Testament flesh and flesh came from Abraham the Covenant administred to them both by its seal yet one flesh enjoying the spiritual blessings the other rejected Take the promise to be made to Christ the seed as the Head of a visible Church then still it speaks for us for Infants of believers were never cast out of the visible Church they were once in and the promise is made now to them with their Parents as shall be hereafter proved at large but if we look no further back then the 14th v. of this Chapter we shall receive some light to this It 's said in the 13th v. Christ hath
a visible Church 3. All that can be gathered is this That the fulness of salvation and the virtues of the promises shall more fully and universally take effect on the Jews even to the salvation of all of them and so the invisible and visible Church be more pure and as one in the earth but this fulness shall be to them as a visible Church and on the earth Arg. 7. If the re-ingraffing be by virtue of Gods election and love then it is to the invisible Church but the former is true v. 28. Ergo. Sol. 1. It 's said That as touching election the Jews are beloved for their Fathers sake hence it follows God hath a love of election to Believers and their natural seed for so the Jews were the natural seed of Abraham But 2. It 's granted that the calling of the Jews shall be according to Gods election and first love and that Gods election shall more fully take hold of the Jews at their re-calling then of any Nation but yet still the Argument is of no force to prove that their re-ingraffing and so ours is only or firstly into the invisible Church for they are elected as well to be a visible Church as to be partakers of inward graces and their re-ingraffing must be specially and firstly into the visible Church from which they were broken off or else there will be no correspondence between their rejection and re-ingraffing The last and weakest Argument is this If the ingraffing of Jews and Gentiles be the fruit of Gods mercy the breaking off by shutting up in unbelief then it is into the invisible Church by election c. but so it is Ergo. Sol. You see he hath spent his stock and strength to be so low at last This Argument needs no Answer but by shewing you the unsoundness of this universal proposition on which the Argument is built Whatever is a fruit of Gods mercy is from election and ingraffing into the invisible Church Which proposition is most false universally considered Are not health meat and drink preservation all outward priviledges fruits of Gods mercy Is not long-suffering to these that perish and the affording the means of grace and salvation the institution of Ordinances fruits of Gods mercy and yet must they be given only to elect ones and do they ingraff to the invisible Church but satis est repetere you have seen the utmost strength of the greatest Antagonist to the Truth we hold out Chap. X. The Harmonie of Mat. 19.13 14. with Mar. 10.13 and Luk. 18.15 16 17. concerning the bringing of Infants to Christ his acts to them how far it contributes to prove Infant-baptism YOU have seen how the Scriptures agree in holding out some special priviledges in the New Testament as in the Old to Believers and their seed Let us now come to view Christs own carriage and actions to Infants which shews both the special respect he had to them and would have his Ministers and Churches to have likewise For this compare Mat. 19.13 14. Mar. 10.13 14 15 16. with Luk. 18.15 16 17. Where when little Children were brought to Christ and his Disciples did forbid them Christ was angry and charged them not to hinder them for theirs was the Kingdome of Heaven and he took them up in his arms laid his hands upon them and blessed them For the opening this place more clearly Consider 1. Who they were which were brought to Christ 2. Who brought them 3. Why the Disciples did forbid them to be brought 4. Christs reason why he would have them not hindred 5. Christs actions to and on them what they amount unto For the first who they were which were brought to Christ in Mark they are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and well translated little Children or Infants the word is a diminutive word and is specially to be applied to Infants Luk. 1.76 Zacharias useth the same word of John when he was newly born And thou Child 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 shalt be called the Prophet of the Highest c. Videtur esse aliqua emphasis diminutivi hoc saltem loco minime negligenda saith Beza The same word is given to Christ when he was in the manger Mat. 2.11 The Wise men found 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the young Child or Infant with Mary c. Heb. 11.23 Moses is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when he was hid among the Flags 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 teste Hippocrate de primo vitae septennio dicitur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 autem de secundo Gurtl This word saith Hippocrates is given to these which are under the age of seven years and it 's mostly used among the Evangelists for to express the tenderest age of man which is Infancy So Spanhem dub Evang. But in Luke the holy Ghost useth another word of full signification for Infants 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which word is used for a Babe in the womb an Embryo Luk. 1.41 When Elizabeth heard the salutation of Mary the Babe leaped in her womb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it 's the same word but more properly it is used for a Child newly born a sucking Babe that we carry in our arms Thus 2 Tim. 3.15 Timothy is said to know the Scriptures from a Child 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from his Infancy not when he was an Infant but from his Infancy that is as soon as ever he was past a Babe and came to understand any thing he was learnt the Scriptures The same word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is given also to Christ when the Wise men found him in swadling clouts Luk. 2.12 So that this is most clear that they were Infants tender young ones Babes which were brought to Christ And if the two words did not properly signifie Infants yet in that it 's said they were brought to Christ would prove it for the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 properly signifies to carry as it 's used mostly in Scripture for But 2. Who those were that brought them it 's most probable that their Parents brought them and these had believed themselves or made some profession of faith for they bring them to Christ to be under his blessing for some special favour to be shewn by Christ to them it was for a spiritual end they brought them to be touched by Christ c. to have some virtue from him and who could have such bowels to bring Infants to Christ but their own Parents and to abide the frowns of the Disciples and their checks but Parents who love their Children next themselves and would have them blessed together with them so that it 's more probable it was their Parents which brought them then any others and that they were believers who had such a sense of their Infants conditions and of Christs respects And besides they were then in the Coasts of Judea where many had profest their faith and were baptized by John and longed to have their Infants confirmed by Jesus Christ especially
natural affection only to these that could not pity themselves but from a heavenly strain of love which he bore to these little ones as to the highest professing Disciple and must needs be symbolical to his Churches to take heed how they reject them wholly from any visibie right to the Kingdome of God Christ was to leave the world shortly but he leaves it as a rule to his Disciples 2. Christ laies his hands on them which was used among the Jews as a form of special blessing and in the N. T. for eminent ends 1. For to cure all sorts of diseases by a miraculous power Luk. 4.40 2. For consecration of any to a Divine work and service thus Church Officers were solemnly separated to Christs work as peculiarly fit for it Acts 6.6 Acts 13.3 1 Tim. 4.15 and 5.22 2 Tim. 1.6 3. It was used for confirmation after Baptism and as an outward way whereby the holy Ghost was conveyed and this is the most common use of it in the Acts of the Apostles Acts 8.17 18 19 and 19.6 where those that were baptized had the Apostles hands laid on them and they received the holy Ghost And to this purpose may we apply Christs act to these Infants to confirm the promise solemnly after Baptism For 1. It was ever used except to sick persons after Baptism 2. As it presupposeth Baptism to precede so it 's an outward sign of a special significancy and holds forth as much as if Christ had baptized them for in that outward rite the holy Ghost was conveyed and by laying on of hands others received the holy Ghost as the former Scriptures express and why not in this act of Christ on them Take all the circumstances together and you cannot imagine it to be a complemental act And if this were as an outward sign of their receiving the holy Ghost What should hinder water that Infants should not be baptized seeing they have received the holy Ghost as well as we Acts 10. 47. Christ laid his hands on them Benedictas scilicet manus in quas à Patre suo acceperát omnia bona Coeli Terrae saith a learned Divine on this place He laid those blessed hands on them in which he had received from the Father all good things in Heaven and Earth This act shews 1. That Christ would have some outward visible sign of favour set on such Infants by Churches And Imposition of Hands being one of the choyfest Christ useth that as most proper to shew his Authority 2. That holds forth That if they be capable of imposition of hands they are of an Ordinance of like nature which especially looks at a subject purely passive Ob. If it be Objected Why did not Christ baptize them as well as lay his hands on them if he meant to hint out their right to Baptism Sol. It 's easily answered That Christ baptized none at all but he did that which was an Ordinance usually in those Primitive times administred after Baptism and equal to it as to its dignity and so far above Baptism as it was more extraordinary in its practice And so we may argue from this to Baptism either inclusively or à majori from the greater and I have more from this place to confirm me that if Christ baptized any he would these Infants seeing he shews so much respect to them more then to an grown person and did to them those acts which were equivalent if not supereminent to them then any can have against it Let any that differ from us shew anywhere in the Gospel where Christ laid his hands on any but desperate diseased persons to shew his power or on Infants to shew his love and confirm their antient priviledges or upon any person in this latter sense unbaptized Ob. 2. If it be said This was an extraordinary act of Christ and no ordinary pattern may be drawn from it Sol. I answer Grant it to be extraordinary yet it argues more strongly if Christ used an extraordinary act to shew his affection and love to Infants much more may the Church shew ordinary acts to them 2. Christ shewed this extraordinary carriage the more to check and convince his Disciples for their extraordinary contempt of poor Infants who would not allow them an ordinary interest in visible priviledges And it 's considerable that Imposition of Hands was not an usual Ordinance or administred by any but Christ before the ascension of Christ and the sending of the holy Ghost 3. Though Christs act should be extraordinary in regard of the imitation of that act by us yet he grounds it on an ordinary rule and principle For of such is the Kingdom of God which he laies down as a fundamental rule And this is the least that can be gathered from it That if Christ on this ground set an extraordinary sign on Infants because the Kingdom of God did visibly belong to them we may on the same principle set an ordinary initiating sign on them as visible members of that glorious state as well as on grown visible Professors who are but probable members according to the most judicious charity especially if we will think Christs judgement in such cases equal with our own But lest all this should be thought but a meer outward act of Christs that carried nothing of any inward design of grace he blessed them after all as the fullest expression of his heart and to demonstrate that whatever grace he had should be theirs as others for so the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies either to speak well of or to any concerning persons or things and thus Christ may be thought to speak much of the state and priviledges of these Infants or else to bless them by desiring for them or communicating to them all sorts of mercies as blessings according to that Eph. 1.3 And what can be more then for Christ to take up Infants in his arms lay his hands on them as an outward sign to consecrate them to himself and to shew their capacity of receiving the holy Ghost and then to bless them which comprehends the communication of all graces and good things And yet we must with scorn poor probable Disciples our selves deny them a little water and think it too much to have them named among the lowest sort of visible Saints when Christ owne them publickly and saith that of such at these is the Kingdom of God and they may have more interest in that Kingdom then these that exclude them but I shall rather believe Christs testimony then any mans froward opinion It 's only a wonder how Saints that have felt Christs bowels themselves and read this Text can be so rigid to Infants of Believers to whom Christ hath been so kind and exemplary in his carriages and stampt such visible characters of his love on even in administration of outward signs To what end should Christ do all this in such a high and peremptory strain of affection if it were not to teach
us charity and respect to Infants in these ordinary administrations they are capable of and to confirm their old state in the Church by such a new and unwonted carriage Christ abounding to them who were most undervalued and could say nothing for themselves And how harsh is it to conceive that Christs intent was hereafter to cast them out of the visible Church and from the participation of all outward signs of salvation when his carriage was thus transcendently loving to them and so only to give them a lightning before death Let mens consciences not gulph'd in prejudice judge This Text if there were no more will fly in the Consciences one day of the most confident Contemners of Infants and their Baptism I shall only adde to satisfie the learned the consent of godly and eminent Authors on this Scripture Non est ulla historia in toto codice Evangelico quae frequentius in Templo legatur quam haec ipsa Quoties enim Infans ad sacrum baptismatis fontem affertur toties etiam ex agendis Ecclesiasticis haec historia recitatur sed admodum raró eadem in Ecclesia recitatur Chemnitius Polycarpus Lyserus in Harm Evangel And doubtless it 's no ordinary note that three of the Evangelists should so punctually relate this story without any considerable change of words or sense All the Objection is because the word Baptism is not inserted when as much as that comes to is and that Christ baptized no grown persons Hinc jam illud est quod dixisse Dominum omnes tres memorant talium enim est Regnum Coelorum Non sanè adultorum tantum qui ut Infantes sese humiliarunt quod Anabaptista contendunt Hoc enim sensu quod dixerat sibi Infantes apportandos esse tanquam subjecta ratio minimè cohaereret c. Facessat igitur stulta ista vestra sapientia Sinite Infantes mihi adduci ajo enim non solum horum esse Regnum Coelorum sed nullum omnino Regni hujus fore participem nisi Infantibus his similis evadat Si jam ad Ecclesiam pertinent ipsorum est Regnum Coelorum eur eis signum Baptismi quo in Ecclesiam Christi qui ad eam pertinent recipi solent negaremus Siqui hoedi inter eos sunt tum excludendi nobis erunt cum id esse sese prodiderunt interea ne simus severiores Christo aut est nostrum baptizare plusquam Domini amplecti imponere manus benedicere fuit quae fidei aut charitatis jactura per Baptismum Christo adducere quos adduci sibi jussit Much more then this hath Bucer on Mat. 19.13 14 15. full of spiritual consideration To this doth Musculus Calvin Beza adde their holy testimonies But I spare these quotations because it 's ad homines to men like our selves Let these which dissent read impartially and consider if this place should stand alone without any harmony of other Scriptures whether there be not more in it for Infant-baptism then anything they have against it I would be so ingenuous with them as to deal with any of their awaked Consciences CHAP. XI Wherein is considered the method of God in the Old Testament of administring Ordinances in Families and baptizing Housholds in the New Testament and how far it contributes to Infant-baptism IT 'S not a slight thing to consider how that ever since the Fall this hath been an usual method of God in administration of the Covenant and priviledges of grace to make it run through families and housholds of Believers as the special veins Hence families as they were the first natural societies so they were the first Churches the Covenant and the priviledges of it was among them from Adam to Abraham it went on thus And when the Covenant in Abrahams time came to be more expresly opened and fairer expounded God goes on still in the same method makes the Covenant with Abraham and his houshold only the family was enlarged it became a greater houshold according to the vastness of the extent of the Covenant yet still it was dispensed as to a family Now if you come to the New Testament there you see God going on in the same method as if he had cast by an eternal decree this platform Baptism the New Testament Ordinance is administred according to the same design to families and housholds Let us consider what Christ himself saith to Zacheus Luk. 19. who was a Gentile and one of the chief Publicans upon occasion of this mans conversion to open the nature and continuance of the Covenant to the Gentiles in the same form as it was to Abraham This day is salvation come to thy house forasmuch as he also is a son of Abraham Here is the same language used in administration of Circumcision in the Old Testament and the same reason forasmuch as he also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a son of Abraham What can be drawn from this place more proper then these conclusions 1. That as soon as ever he was converted and believed Christ applies the promise to his house if there were not something more in it he would have only said Salvation is come to thee 2. It 's clear that he opens the Covenant made with Abraham not only to himself but his house and argues from his being a son of Abraham that therefore the Covenant is not only made with him but with his house that is his seed it were enough for to call him the son of Abraham and to say salvation is come to himself but to mention his house together with himself and give this as a reason because he is the son of Abraham is as much as to say the priviledges of the Covenant is the same to you and your house as it was to Isaac and Jacob forasmuch as he also is a son of Abraham as well as they Now for Christ to speak in this dialect and to tell them of their housholds and of favour to them in the beginning of the Gospel and yet at the same time exclude their Infants from all outward signs of the promise which they ever had in the darkest daies of grace is a strange policy unsutable to the simplicity of Jesus Christ Concerning this continued method of God though this Zacheus be a singular yet he is not the only example if you read all along the Acts of the Apostles these which had housholds the promise runs with a gracious entail Acts 11.14 Cornelius hath the promise to him and his house Acts 16.15 Lydia was baptized and her houshold Ver. 31. the Apostle exhorts the Jaylor to believe and he should be saved and his whole house Just as God made the Covenant with Abraham Walk before me and be thou perfect Gen. 17.1 2.7 And I will be a God to thee and thy seed or houshold In ver 33. it s said he was baptized and all his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he and all that were of him a most emphatical expression to set forth
seed and spiritual under the Gospel you cannot apply it to Infants but to professing believers for the Children of believers are not the fleshly seed of Abraham but if there be any such distinction it must be between visible grown Professors of whom some are spiritual and Christ's and others carnal and born under Mount Sinai and not Christ's 4. It 's a true rule in Logick that in every good division Partes debent inter se opponi The Parts ought to be opposite Now to be born from Abraham both as a natural and spiritual Father was both common through the promise in the Old Testament and not universally opposite and so it may be now an Infant is born of the flesh of a believer yet the Covenant makes the believer a spiritual Father in some respects as well as a natural 5. The seed takes its denomination from the Covenant and its tenure and if the Covenant be made to Abraham and his seed and these were at first Infants of his body and renewed with believers in the N. T. as we shall prove in the following Discourse then Infants of believers are the seed now as well as formerly Abraham only being the first root and Father 6. Visibility of profession doth no more make a man of the spiritual seed and so Christ's now under the New Testament then the Covenant in its outward administration in the Old made all the Jews and their Children really new Creatures and a spiritual seed for under the one and the other persons may be carnal All these considerations are to shew that these places of Scripture are mistaken and doe not shew who is the seed as to Ordinances but who are the seed as to election and salvation and that Infants may be as well the seed notwithstanding all these places as well as visible Professors Q. If any say But we have no warrant to judge of any but by visible profession Sol. 1. Let us judge as God would have us and we shall find as much ground to pass such a judgement on Infants as them if God call them holy we may do so and it will be dangerous then to call them unclean 2. The promise is the surer way of judging seeing at best we can but judge externally and with hopes and it 's better to rely on God and to expect what he will do through his promise at least on some then to trust my own judgement 3. The Word owns Infants of believers visibly as we own visible Professors as the Scriptures following will demonstrate For the present seriously view all these places together Gen. 17.7 Acts 2.38 39. Deut. 30.6.11 12 13 14. Rom. 10.1 6 7 8. with Heb. 8.10 11. Jer. 31.22 Esay 65.23 with many such places that hold forth the seed to Infants as well in the New Testament as in the Old I end this Chapter with this consideration that if you exclude Infants of believers to be Abrahams seed upon this ground because they are not the spiritual seed then dash out the name as well of grown Professors to be Abrahams seed who are no more so really because of that then these Infants and we shall quit the one with the other and then there shall be found no visible subjects of Baptism either of Infants or grown persons for they are both as to election and inward grace unknown to us to be Abrahams seed they were both formerly accounted Abrahams seed grown persons and Infants especially by the Covenant and now the one is to be accounted Abrahams seed viz. grown persons professing though they may have no right to the inward grace of the Covenant and Infants who had first right next to Abraham must be excluded though they have never so real an interest because they are Infants and cannot speak for themselves But so much of this the next Chapter will second this CHAP. IV. How any person may be said to be in the Covenant the divers considerations about it TO the former let this be added because it seems strange how any can be in Covenant and yet not partake of salvation In opening of this the common distinctions of all Divines must be repeated that according as there is an internal and external administration of the Covenant so there is a two-fold being in the Covenant 1. Secundum propositum electionis According to the purpose of election in Gods heart and his eternal decree so only the elect and these which have saving faith are in Covenant this some call and not improperly to be intentionally in Covenant God principally intending the Covenant to them others call it spiritually and savingly from the effect 2. There is a being in Covenant In facie visibilis Ecclesiae In the face or according to the judgement of a visible Church where judgement and charity are mixt together Rom. 9.4 Deut. 29.10 12 13 14. Iohn 15.2 Iohn 1.11 Psal 50.5 with variety of Scripture And of such there are two sorts 1. Such as stand by their own visible profession as all first Covenanters doe so all visible Saints now and so many Proselytes in the Old Testament Exod. 12.44 45. Deut. 29.10 11. Gen. 12.5 Or else 2. As in a Political Moral consideration as in the right of another through a free promise as if a Prince give a title of honour or a piece of land to one and his heirs they are all interested it yet some prove fools or traitors and are afterwards incapable It 's so in this and was with Abraham and his seed Now that this distinction holds in the New Testament I shall thus discover to you 1. If men deny an external as well as internal being in Covenant none can administer an external Ordinance an outward sign to any for we must go by external rules in these actings 2. Visible Professors will have the worst of it for we must administer no Ordinance to these which are not internally in Covenant and we have no proof but their own expressions and our good hopes and present probable judgement to warrant us and many visible miscarriages to contradict our judgements and hopes at special times 3. We set a seal to a blank to all grown persons who are baptized or receive the Lords Supper without we know them certainly in the Covenant and that who knows for our judgement will no more hinder the seal from being a blank to grown Professors then to Infants without they prove real at last 4. The best evidence you can have from any of their being in Covenant is but visible expressions suppositions and hopes and probabilities all which you must help out by your own charity and fallible observation for God hath promised no seal on my spirit for another mans condition it 's a blessed mercy if I get the seal on my own heart for my self So that the great Question will be answered from this which Mr. Tombes and they all urge That if God made the Covenant with believers and their seed they must all be
saved c. With which I shall but thus parly 1. Doth God make the Covenant of salvation with every visible Professor whom they baptize or with every visible Saint or do they baptize them out of Covenant Then how come any to fall off and be damned or what rule have they to baptize by 2. Why should it be thought more hainous to set a seal on Infants as in the Covenant then on these Professors which afterwards prove not to be in Covenant 3. Or do they baptize because that persons are in the Covenant If not then upon no spiritual account if upon their being in Covenant then either internally or externally on the first it cannot be absolutely but as manifested externally not upon a meer external being in Covenant for then they may set a seal to a blank if upon both together the one externally demonstrated by the other then it is still by the external being in Covenant that we judge with hopes of the other There is a trick that some have got whereby they think to evade this being in Covenant as the fundamental ground of Baptism by this distinction That it is not being in Covenant but being an actual Believer gives right To which I answer 1. That the Covenant take it spiritually is the ground of faith not faith of the Covenant 2. If the Covenant be the ground of faith for who can believe without a promise it may well be the ground of an outward priviledge 3. To separate the Covenant from the conveyance of actual priviledges is almost as dangerous as to separate actual faith from the Covenant for the one gives a right as well as the other 4. Infants in the Old Testament were thus as really to be esteemed in the Covenant as actual visible Believers are now and under the external administration of the Covenant as the Proselytes who came in to the Jewish Church and were the first fruits of the Gentiles For that there is an external administration of the Covenant of Abraham or rather of God in Christ even in the New Testament is clear for that many were baptized who proved hypocrites and many believed visibly likewise as Simon Magus Hymenaeus Alexander Philetus c. many in all the Churches and yet these must be accounted the spiritual seed though most wicked because they can profess their own present sudden faith and poor Infants of believers must be accounted the carnal seed though so long under a Gospel promise of which you shall not want proof hereafter Now that all which are baptized or have any Ordinance have it administred fundamentally on the ground of the Covenant externally administred I prove thus 1. God administers all his graces by Covenant much more outward Ordinances 2. Souls can have no challenge or interest in God but by some Covenant or other God is tied to none but as he ties himself 3. If there were not a visible and external administration of the Covenant none should know of the invisible design of it unto any all things would be in the dark to us as to Gods Covenant in a visible dispensation 4. If this invisible design were not secretly carried on in an outward visible dispensation there could be none condemned by an outward rule for who can condemn these who are intentionally and invisibly in Covenant or for Re And if every one visibly in Covenant be intentionally and spiritually in Covenant it 's just the same The whole is this None are in Covenant say they but real believers the spiritual seed so none to be baptized but such when it comes to application of the Ordinance then none are the spiritual seed but visible believers and these visible believers can be judged by no way but by an external profession to be in Covenant and Infants are no visible believers therefore no spiritual seed when as the one is as visible by promise as the other by profession CHAP. V. Opening that place in Acts 2.39 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 THIS Text I first hold forth as fit to discover the New Testament application of the Covenant of grace and its continuation to believers and their seed as to Abraham and his in the Old Testament It 's the first Argument used after Christs Ascension to provoke the Jews to repent and submit to Gospel ordinances and the first open promulgation of the Covenant both to Jew and Gentile with the prime priviledges of it in which is contained the Gospel-Covenant made with believers and their seed 1. Here is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the promise which can be no other then the promise of remission of sins and so of salvation sutable to that in Gen. 17.7 and repeated at large in Jer. 31.34 For it must either be a promise of temporal things or spiritual of temporal things it cannot be for there is no absolute promise of these things in the New Testament but as included in or following spiritual mercies as Mat. 6.33 Neither is there a syllable in this Chapter pressing men to look after temporal enjoyments or engaging them to embrace the Gospel by any outward emoluments Ob. The great and only interpretation of this promise by these that differ is that it hath reference to v. 16. and is meant of the promise of the holy Ghost prophesied of by Joel Chap. 2.28 which was to be poured forth in the latter daies and now visibly and eminently begun to be fulfilled at the day of Pentecost To which the Answer will be clear and fair though that be granted and not at all weaken but strengthen the former sense For 1. That promise is a spiritual promise and more large and comprehensive of spiritual mercies then any other the promising of the spirit is as much as to promise all at once graces gifts yea Heaven it self for all are but the fruits of this promise Christ in the Old Testament and the Spirit in the New contain all the promises in an eminency When Jesus Christ was to leave the World and speak all his heart at once and leave his last blessing that should be better then his bodily presence among them he expresses all in this that he would send the Spirit Joh. 14.16 26. Ch. 15.26 16.7 And of this large promise as well according to Christ's promise before his Ascension as Joels Prophesy the Apostles and Believers received the first fruits in this solemn day of Christs triumph So that to say it 's the promise of the Spirit is as much as to say it 's the promise of all spiritual things For this read in Gal. 3.14 the Apostle speaking of the fruits of Christs death saith It was that the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Iesus Christ that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith The same phrase that is in this 38. And in the promise of the spirit which is to be received by faith is included justification sanctification yea all graces and it 's here joyned with the blessing
sense things that are common are not unclean but in a religious sense what is common is adjudged unclean Now Cornelius being a Gentile without the pale of the Jewish Church he cals him common and unclean as all the Gentiles were before they came under the promise but God answered What God hath clensed or sanctified call not thou common Cornelius was not a Bastard nor unlawfully begotten but he was not accounted a fit member he was without the Church therefore the Apostle cals him common and unclean Just in the same phrase with the Apostle here when he saith that Children are not unclean he must needs mean they are not of common use or to be excluded from outward priviledges of the Church But that is not all but he positively saith they are holy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not unclean And this latter word is most used to express the Hebrew word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which ever signifies what is usui Divino accommodatum that which is appropriated to a Divine use which is the proper notion of holiness in the Old and New Testament and never taken otherwise For the proof of which I have compared above three hundred places in the Old Testament according to the Septuagint and all the N. T. places where the word is used And this all do grant even Mr. Tombes himself that the word generally is taken in Scripture to express a separation of things to God and he only brings these places wherein he thinks there is another use of it 1 Tim. 4.5 Every Creature of God is good and not to be refused if it be received with thanksgiving for it is sanctified by the Word and Prayer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hence saith he is meant only the lawful use of the Creature in opposition to what is to be refused It is a wonder but that God leaves men to blindness when they leave truth how any man of common understanding finding the Word holy sanctified alwaies used in a religious sense should fly to this place to make an exception The Apostle saith first Every Creature which God hath made is good in it self and none to be refused that is all may be lawfully used without any legal pollution as formerly But then he goes higher speaking of a religious use of outward things They are sanctified by the Word and Prayer they are all good and lawful in their use to every man but they are only sanctified by these holy means the Word and Prayer And he might have as well said that the Word and Prayer are not holy means but only lawful to be used as that the sanctification which is by the Word and Prayer is to make the Creatures only lawful to be used If a wicked man eat his meat without seeking a blessing on it or giving thanks will any one say that he hath not a lawful use of the Creature but any man may say it 's not sanctified to him The Apostle in these 2. ver goes on gradatim by degrees from a lawful use to a holy use of the Creatures All is good and may be used but they are sanctified by the Word and Prayer thus you see the nature of this priviledged place But the main place Mr. Tombes alledgeth for holiness to be used for what is barely civil or lawful is that 1 Thes 4.3 4 7. This is the will of God your sanctification that you abstain from fornication and let every one possess his vessel in sanctification and honour for God hath not called us to uncleanness but holiness Here uncleanness is taken saith he for fornication and holiness for chastity To which I answer with Mr. Marshal That chastity among the Heathens is never called sanctification but among Believers it is being a part of the new Creation and one branch and part of their sanctification wrought by the Spirit of God And though Mr. Tombes saith this is but a shift yet he shall see it demonstrative if he observe the phrases in the Text and the nature of sanctification in the 1 2. ver the Apostle beseecheth and exhorteth them to walk as they had received from him how to walk and to please God according to the rules of Iesus Christ and he urgeth it in ver the 3. with this It 's the will of God even your sanctification that is that you should walk in all holiness sutable to the blessed rules of the Gospel and as one part and expression of holiness to abstain from sin And he instanceth specially in fornication which was the common and reigning sin among the Gentiles So that if you view the place you shall find That 1. He speaks of sanctification in general in its full latitude ver 3. as sutable to all the will and mind of God This is the will of God even your sanctification that is it is Gods command and Gods delight to see you sanctified then he brings in abstinence from fornication the sin of the times as one part of that holiness God requires For sanctification may be considered as it lies in vivification or in mortification which for distinctions sake we may call the two parts of sanctification Now chastity in it self as in the Heathens and natural men is not properly a part of sanctification some other Epithite becomes it better Would Mr. Tombes call all the abstinencies and actings of the Heathens by the name of sanctifications and speak like a Christian and a Divine Would it be proper to say in his Pulpit when he was speaking of the nature of holiness and chastity sanctified Socrates holy Aristides And can he think the Apostle would express that which is common among Heathens in such a high Gospel-dialect as sanctification is appropriated alwaies in Scripture to God Angels Saints and their highest graces and workings and to things raised above common use dedicated to God and his service but that he meant it according as the whole tenure of Scripture defines holiness How much will the phrase of holiness and sanctification be debased and made common if that sense should be admitted contrary to the Scripture use of the Word But that is a weak case that puts men to such extraordinary shifts to maintain But to go on a little further The same word is used by the Apostle in all his salutations and inscriptions of his Epistles to all the Churches 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the Saints or holy ones at Rome at Corinth Galatia Ephesus c. which when appropriated to persons alwaies signifies a visible Saint So here when he cals Children of believing Parents holy he cannot but mean they are to be accounted as visible Saints until they do profess the contrary and I know no reason can be given why the meaning of the Apostle in his Epistles when he writes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the Saints should not be as well understood written only to the legitimate and those that are not bastards at Rome Corinth
remnant at this present time according to the election of grace whereof Paul was one therefore it must be from the visible Church they were broken off But here the Arminians and Pelagians agree with these that are against Infant-baptism as they do in many other opinions Mr. Tombes hath nothing to say in his Examen of Mr. Marshals Sermon to avoid this absurdity but only this pag. 64. The meaning is not saith he of some of the branches in the invisible Church but as when our Saviour Christ using the same similitude saies Joh. 15.2 Every branch in me not bearing fruit he taketh away The meaning is not that any branch in him could be fruitless or taken away but he calleth that a branch in him which was so in appearance so the Apostle speaking of branches broken off means it not of such as were truly so but so in appearance Thus far he Which is a granting of what he denies for to be a branch in appearance is only to be a visible branch and no branch that is meerly in appearance so and not really is one of the invisible Church nor can ever be said to be broken from it but only from his visible state which he hath but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 15 16. as a branch in outward priviledges and seeming graces 2. The breaking off c. it was of the Jewish Nation of the collective body though not of every individual and therefore it must needs be from the visible Church for as a Nation they were a Church and the whole Nation was cast away and rejected now as a Nation they were not all members of the invisible Church ver 7 8. with ver 17. 3. It 's a visible breaking off therefore cannot be from the invisible Church ver 3 4 5. 17 18 19. For as Mr. Baxter well observes There can be no visible removing from an invisible term 4. It 's a breaking off the naturall branches so he cals the Jews Now the body of the Jewish Church were not naturall branches in a spiritual sense for they believed not as Abraham did but only called so as they were naturally descended from his loyns and were members of the visible Church and first partakers of the outward priviledges of the Covenant made with him Thus the Apostle distinguisheth of the body of the Jewish Nation Rom. 9. where after he had reckoned up all the priviledges of the Israelites in general ver 4. Who are Israelites to whom pertains the adoption and the glory and the Covenants c. making way by this to shew the sadness of their rejection in ver the 6. to prevent the same Objection the Apostle in this Chapter saith They are not all Israel which are of Israel that is not all spiritual though all natural brances and these priviledges did visibly belong to all As for that distinction of Abrahams being a natural and a spiritual Father it may go for currant until they come to apply it and then it is most vain for all that came from Abraham as a natural Father had a title to all these priviledges forementioned which belonged to the visible Church until they did degenerate and cast themselves out as Ishmael and Esau c. But of this formerly Lastly If they were broken off from the invisible Church it must be either from union with Christ or communion with Christ and his Spirit for this is the true definition of the invisible Church that in it souls have real union and communion with God in Christ through the Spirit but none of the Jews that were broken off had such a union or communion and therefore could not be broken off from it But so far they may be said to be broken off from the invisible Church as by remote consequence as they were excluded from all the means of grace and the Ordinances which are the usual waies and methods of God to bring souls into communion with himself 2. Let us consider what is meant by the first fruits and the lump and the root and the branches There be many opinions concerning this especially two must be debated some think it Christ as these that follow Origen and the allegorical Fathers Ego aliam sanctam radicem nescio nisi Dominum nostrum Origen But that firstly and primarily by the first fruits and the lump and the root and the branches cannot be meant Christ neither personally nor mystically is most clear if we consider 1. Jesus Christ was not the first fruits in regard of the whole lump of the Jewish Nation and so cannot answer to the first similitude 2. Jesus Christ cannot be said to be root unto these which were cast away no branches really in him are cut off but so were they for that place of the 15th of John v. 2. which seemeth to speak of some branches which are in Christ and yet are taken away for not bearing fruit it may be better read and according to the Syriack thus Every branch that brings not forth fruit in me he takes away that is that do bring forth some seeming fruit but not as in Christ as root and principle 3. In ver 24. the Jews when they shall be called it 's said They shall be graffed into their own Olive Now Christ is not properly their own Olive but so is Abraham c. 4. The Jews are said as formerly to be natural branches of this root but so they were not of Christ but Christ was a natural branch from that stock Rom. 9.5 Whose are the Fathers of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came Mr. Tombes himself ingenuously confesseth this pag. 67. of his Examen That by the root cannot be meant Christ and gives us the hint of another argument from those expressions v. 24. of some branches wild 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to nature and of ingraffing in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 contrary to nature into this Olive he concludes the root cannot be Christ for Christ hath no natural or preternatural branches in him all are wild ere they be ingraffed into him as a living root And the other expression v. 18. of our not bearing the root but the root us if we boast against the Jews doth evidently demonstrate that the root here is not properly meant of Christ though he be the eternal root of all spiritual happiness set forth gloriously in many other places of Scripture Others by the root mean the Covenant But the best and most genuine sense is to interpret it of Abraham with whom and with his seed as so many branches the Covenant was made and by which both the root and the branches were made holy And this answers fully to both the similitudes For 1. It 's an allusion to the Legal rights about the first fruits which were to be offered up to God and by that all the whole mass all the fruits that came after were accounted holy Thus Abraham was the first fruits of the Jews he believing first and being in
former part of the verse as it speaks of these branches which were broken off the believing Gentiles were ingraffed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is as Beza and the Syriack translates it pro ipsis for them that is in ramorum defractorum locum in the room or stead of the branches which were broken off they were taken away we ingraffed Others translate it cum illis with them which remained when we were inserted but either interpretation will become the sense of the place Now the reasons which flow from this Text concerning the subject which we have in hand may be easier slighted then answered This position being laid down We believing Gentiles are ingraffed into Abrahams Covenant in the room of the natural branches which were broken off Now 1. The Jews and their Children were broken off from the Church their Children being members as well as themselves therefore believing Gentiles and their Children are ingraffed in the ingraffing in is sutable to the breaking off they have nibbled about this reason but the best of the Adversaries have never said any thing yet as to satisfie a rational Saint 2. Some branches were not broken off for so it 's implyed in that he saith If some were broken off and if they were not broken off then not their Children for it was not only a breaking off personally but of succession and of their posterity with themselves Now if we be ingraffed among these or with these that are not broken off we and our Children must likewise be ingraffed in else there will be a schism between Jew and Gentile in enjoying the priviledges naturally flowing from the same root No man will be so bold as to say that the believing Jews were broken off and if not they then not their Children which were then Infants and had not acted unbelief For either they must be broken off for their own sins or their Fathers not for their Fathers for some of them were Believers and not broken off not for themselves for some of them were Infants therefore some Infants were not broken off for their Fathers continued in the faith and we believing Gentiles are ingraffed in among them therefore our Children also 3. In the latter end when the Jews shall be ingraffed in again to their own Olive which is promised in this Chapter they and their Children shall be taken in v. 26. And so all Israel shall be saved and our ingraffing in is still sutable to theirs 4. The Gentiles are said to partake of the root and the fatness of the Olive tree in the same verse this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies the full participation and fellowship in all the priviledges and advantages of the root as the Jews had Now their priviledge was not personal to themselves but to their posterity and therein lay the fatness of that Olive in the fulness and large extent of its priviledge and seminal vertue that it comprehended Parent and Child So that as the Jews casting off was not only personal but Politique that is of them and theirs so our ingraffing in their room is and as they had the fatness of the root and Olive once so have we Now we could not be said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To have a mutual fellowship with the Jews in the root and fatness of it if we be only personally ingraffed and they and theirs broken off oeconomically if there be a fellowship it must be at least in substantials And this was the most eminent and substantial priviledge of the Jews that they and their posterity were taken into the same Covenant The Apostle opens this further in Eph 3.6 And especially if we remember that their breaking off and our ingraffing is into the visible Church as is formerly proved and must needs be granted for all that were broken off were not broken off from election and the invisible Church neither are all the Gentiles which are ingraffed in elected and really of the invisible Church So that the result is this 1. That there is a real ingraffing of the believing Gentiles into the same root from which the unbelieving Jews were broken off 2. This breaking off was from the visible Church and its priviledges not from the invisible so is the ingraffing of us into the visible Church 3. As their casting out was of them and their posterity so is our graffing in of us and our Children These conclusions flow naturally from the Text and all other deductions will be but as dregs after the spirits are extracted 4. And to adde to the rest this consideration That if the posterity of the Gentiles be not taken in as the Jews were there will be the greatest inequality of the communication of the fatness of the root that can be imagined and the Jews may rather boast against the believing Gentiles then they against them seeing the root conveyed priviledges to them and their posterity but only personal priviledges to the believing Gentile to the one a double mercy to the other only a single Ob. But this great Objection may be made No Believer is now a root as Abraham he is but only a branch and therefore it 's not to be conceived how it can be argued from this to every Believer If the root be holy so are the branches as it may be to Abraham Sol. It 's granted every Believer nor any cannot properly be called the root as Abraham was and in a strict sense Yet 1. They are ingraffed into the same root and convey the same priviledges to their branches as Isaac and Jacob and the twelve Tribes did to their posterities who were not properly nor absolutely the root but branches of it and we all know that a Slip well inoculated or ingraffed becomes afterwards a natural branch and receives as much from the root as these which grew naturally on it So that it 's as strong to argue on the Gentiles side after ingraffing If the root be holy so are the branches as from Abraham to the Jews who were natural branches As an adopted son him and his have as full a title to the inheritance as a natural son There is only this difference between the conveyance of priviledges of the Jews as natural branches and the ingraffed Gentiles That the whole body of the Jews good and bad were called branches now only Believers of the Gentiles who are called by the Gospel with their Children are ingraffed into that root 2. Though every Believer is not the proper root but only a branch of that root yet for being ingraffed he is naturalized as the Jewish branch and so must have the same priviledge 3. There are branches of branches and the poorest branch hath some twigs and spreading sprigs growing from them which are of the same consideration and do receive of the fatness of the root as well as the main branches and in this sense every branch may be said to be the immediate root of the lesser twigs Thus Believers ingraffed into the
root are holy and their Infants that are branches of the branches immediatly sprouting forth from them are holy also and under the same consideration and the argument holds still for the ingraffed branches as for the natural And as Mr. Blake saith well The branches of Ancestors are roots of posterity being made a holy branch in reference to their issue they become a holy root This might be much more enlarged but that I would not be voluminous it 's enough that Believers are ingraffed with their Children into the same root as is formerly proved And then the argument holds firm That these that are in the root must partake of the fatness of it and they which are in the Covenant cannot be denied the priviledges of it CHAP. IX Wherein Mr. Tombes his eight Arguments in his Apology against Mr. Marshal for the ingraffing in mentioned v. 17. to be of the Gentiles into the invisible Church by election and saving faith are examined and answered THE great endeavour of these who are of the contrary opinion in opening this Chapter is To prove that the ingraffing of the Gentiles into the root is by election and saving faith and so into the invisible Church for they see their case is in hazard if it should be meant of the visible Church And therefore though enough be spoken before to prove what we affirm yet because Mr. Tombes hath laid down eight Arguments with so much confidence on the other side as unanswerable I think it not amiss to bestow one Chapter in the discovery of the unsoundness of his reasons that the truth may have a fairer passage into your understanding without clouds or demurs His first reason is Apologie p. 71. That ingraffing which is by Gods sole power it is into the invisible Church but so is the ingraffing of the Jews v. 3. Ergo. For God is able to graff them Sol. 1. As to argue from Gods power to his will is alwaies unsound in Divinity and in Reason God is able therefore he will So 2. To argue from power to election is of the same nature for election is seldome or never attributed to Gods power but to his will or good pleasure 3. To argue from Gods power in general to the putting of it forth absolutely in such a determinate act is as strange God is able to graff them in Ergo it must be into the invisible Church as if God shewed nothing of his power but in the workings of saving grace especially if we consider what a power it is and only from God But to take the very prejudice the Jews have even from the letter of the Gospel to bring them but to confess Christ after so long a darkness as it was in the beginning of the Gospell but to make the Gentiles but outwardly own and profess the Gospel and yet not members of the invisible Church to take away the very grossness of naturall darkness and ignorance is a work of mighty power And to an outward conversion where persons have been long under the power of darkness there needs the sole power of God 4. The Apostle may well put in rather Gods power then his will when he speaks of the ingraffing in of the Jews for it will require an act of power to gather them but visibly once again and bring them into one entire body to make a visible Church when they are so scattered up and down all Nations and at such a distance one from another that it is as the gathering of the bones of dead men and so it 's likened to the resurrection from the dead v. 15. So that we need go no further to enquire why their ingraffing should be attributed to Gods power seeing there is need enough of a Divine power but to gather them together from the four winds to make a collective body and so to be a visible Church Besides when the Apostle speaks of power in working of saving faith he doth put other Epithites to set it forth and not only barely speaks of power which God puts forth in all acts but exceeding greatness of power Eph. 1.21 22. Arg. 2. His second Argument is That ingraffing which is called reconciliation opposite to casting away that is by election and giving faith but so is the ingraffing called v. 15. Sol. If he means reconciliation in the strictest sense as it denotes pardon of sins and being made friends with God by Christs atonement and mediatorship which must be his sense if he speak like himself Then many absurdities may follow 1. That the Jews and their rejection was the ground of the Gentiles reconciliation unto God 2. That no reconciliation was obtained for the Gentiles before the Jews were broken off 3. That those which are reconciled and their sins pardoned may be cast off for so were the Jews and the Gentiles threatned with the same misery on the same ground v. 20. 4. As there is external and eternal salvation spoken of 1 Tim. 4.10 so there may be an outward and inward reconciliation the Gentiles were cast out from the visible Church for so many hundreds of years without any hope or promise And strangers to the Commonwealth of Israel Eph. 2.11 12. and so visibly cast off and it was a great reconciliation but to break down the middle wall of partition between Jew and Gentile as to visible priviledges and Ordinances And so by the reconciling the world may be more properly meant the bringing them in under the means of the Gospel and the outward dispensations of the Church which is Gods common way and method of salvation and which to some is real and effectual unto inward grace unto others only to outward priviledges And the very phrase the reconciliation of the world to Orthodox ears deafens and dasheth the other interpretation for the body of the Gentile-world which he means are not so reconciled as by election and saving grace though the sound of the Gospel hath gone through all the world Ob. 3. Thirdly saith he the ingraffing must be meant of that act whereby the branch stands in the tree as a branch but that is by giving of faith The minor is proved also v. 20. they were broken off by unbelief and we stand by faith c. Sol. It 's true the ingraffing is by faith as their breaking off was by unbelief but as their unbelief was shewn in a publique rejection of the Gospel and by it they and their Children were broken off so the Gentiles are ingraffed in by publique profession of faith and acceptation of the Gospel for themselves and their Children and this must needs be the Apostles meaning For 1. Ver. 18. He bids the Gentiles not to boast against the branches that were broken off Now how could they boast against them but for visible priviledges invisible are out of cognizance to others Do Saints boast against one another for election and reprobation these secrets of the Almighty This Argument Mr. Baxter urgeth with much advantage in his
Book 2. In v. 19. he explains further what the nature of their boasting might be thou wilt say The branches were broken off that I might be ingraffed now can any man conceive they should boast because the branches the Jews were broken from election and true faith that they might be graffed in by a new act of Gods election and by true and saving faith So in ver 20 21 22 23. he exhorts the Gentiles to look to their standing and to take heed lest they be broken off also For if God spared not the natural branches c. much less will he spare thee What are they exhorted to look least they be cut off from Gods election c Will Mr. Tombes turn a downright Arminian that he may have any plea against the baptizing of poor Infants There is a twofold way of ingraffing either by spiritual implantation into Christ or by visible profession of faith and both these should meet in one person though they may also be separated a visible Professor may not have saving faith within yet may have So here the ingraffing in is into the visible Church by visible profession among which some are some are not invisible members but the very terminus of ingraffing is not into the invisible but the visible Church for neither the Apostle nor an Angel could tell who were ingraffed into the invisible Church nor who broken off but only from the visible Church first as the proper term and then by consequence from the invisible for from this Church none were absolutely broken off that ever were in and into it few ingraffed So that if the ingraffing be visible the term must be visible also but the ingraffing is visible Ergo the term is so This is according to Mr. Tombes his own form of argumentation from the term to the ingaffing the major is proved before Ob. Fourthly That ingraffing is meant v. 17. whereby the wild Olive is co-partaker of the root and fatness of the Olive but such is only election and saving faith be proves the minor by distinguishing who the root is which he well affirms to be Abraham Sol. To which there needs no other Answer then what Mr. Blake hath given him If the root be Abraham and the ingraffing in be only by election and derivation of saving graces which he means by the fatness of the Olive then it must be that we are all elect in Abraham as a common root Abraham may say Without me you can do nothing To which Mr. Tombes only answers by confession That it would follow if he made Abraham a root as Christ communicating saving faith But I make Abraham a root as the Father of Believers not by begetting faith but as an exemplary cause How poor an evasion is this of so confident a man in his opinion I submit to judgement Let him mind his Argument and the force of it That ingraffing is meant whereby the wild Olive is partaker of the fatness of the root but that is only election and saving grace c. 1. Were not the natural branches which were broken off partakers of the fatness of the root and were they all elected and partakers of saving graces or outward priviledges only and why then should it be thought absurd for the Gentiles by ingraffing to partake of the fatness of the root only in outward priviledges seeing it was so with the natural branches and they all grow on the same root 2. The old absurdity will arise still from this That Saints may fall away from election and saving grace 3. How can he imagine Abraham to be the root and the fatness of the root to be election and saving graces and that engraffing the way of being co-partakers with the root and yet deny Mr. Blakes Argument That we are elected in Abraham 1. It 's improper to call a root an exemplary cause there is no harmonie between them an example conveyes nothing here is a conveyance of fatness 2. How unsutable to good language is it to say That such are partakers of the fatness or fulness of an example can we think the Apostle would so far over-reach 3. Were the Jews partakers of the fatness of Abraham in the Covenant meerly as from an Exemplary cause had not they it from him as a natural Father God making the Covenant with him and his seed and do not ingraffed branches afterwards become as natural He only adds p. 73. That if it were meant of outward priviledges it were false for the Gentiles were not partakers of the outward priviledges of Abraham Sol. Abraham is a root in the New Testament as well as in the Old and still stands by virtue of the Covenant to Believers and their Children And though Old Testament Ordinances were taken away with the Jews and that Church state yet the root is not taken away but the New Testament priviledges grow on the same root and our ingraffing in gives us to be partakers of the fatness of them as well as it gave to the Jews the participation of former priviledges until they were broken off All the rest of his Arguments are much of the same nature only a touch further of each of them Ob. 5. From v. 25. If the breaking off the Jews be by blinding then the ingraffing is by giving faith but the former is true so the latter Sol. This is the same in effect with the third Argument Yet 1. There is not the same reason seeing he takes it of giving saving faith their blinding was judicial a punishment for their unbelieving rejecting of the Gospel though they had not saving faith to embrace the Gospel the giving of saving faith is not on such terms neither is saving faith so absolutely antecedent to make a man a member of the visible Church as blinding is to Gods final rejection 2. Blindness came but in part on Israel it fell only on the meer visible members not the invisible and elect therefore the ingraffing must be only of visible members into the visible Church v. 7. The election hath obtained it but the rest were blinded Arg. 6. If re-ingraffing of the Jews produceth salvation is by turning them from their iniquity c. then it is to the invisible Church but so it is V. 26 27. Ergo. Sol. To which I give this fair Answer That doubtless according to those promises when the Jews shall be called in to be a visible Church again there shall be abundance of more glory be brought in with them then ever yet the world saw and the new Heavens and the new Earth the coming down of the new Jerusalem and all those glorious things are fitted to fall in with that time And from these considerations many do interpret v. 26. literally And so shall all Israel be saved But yet 1. They shall be ingraffed in as a visible Church else Abraham and the Fathers would never be mentioned as roots 2. They shall be ingraffed in as they were broken off now they were broken off as
in vulgar phrase as well who is listed in the School to be taught as one that is teaching or already taught though he hath not learnt a letter Thus in all Schools it 's a usual phrase at the first entrance of a Child he is called a new Scholar or a new Disciple Thus Infants being entred into Christs School and given up to be taught in time and by degrees may be accounted Disciples it was so in the former instance and it 's no strange expression in civil Schools 3. Infants are expresly called Disciples in the New Testament as well as grown and taught men Thus Acts 15.10 Circumcision is called a yoke put on the neck of the Disciples that is on Infants who were the special Subjects of that Ordinance and bore the burthen of it and not properly the Parents and yet the Parents had the deep sense of it reflecting on themselves and their little ones and therefore he cals it a yoke that they nor their Fathers were able to bear especially because it did bind them and their Children to keep the whole Law there is no evasion of this if they say it was meant of the Fathers and of the doctrine of Circumcision which did bind themselves yet they must grant the yoke was on their Children as to the act and that if the doctrine was so burthensome much more the practice which the poor Infants are under and they are called indefinitely Disciples either by themselves or with their Parents And the argument is thus Those were Disciples on whom the yoke of circumcision was laid but on Infants was this yoke laid Ergo Infants are Disciples in the New Testament expression If you will make any distinction it must be in the manner of laying on the yoke viz. on the Parents doctrinally on the Children actually but there can be no restriction of the word Disciples from these on whom that yoke was laid as is exprest in that Chapter Consider 4. Let us come to the subjects to whom the Gospel is to be preached and they taught and baptized it is in Mathew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all Nations in Mark it is Preach the Gospel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to every Creature Now that Infants should be none of all the Nations and excluded from being of this creation of God who were included as special subjects when the Church was in but so smal a spot of the world is from our narrow apprehensions in the Gospel-times of dispensation of grace And the argument our Divines bring from this place is strong and most considerable The Gospel is to be preached to every Creature all Nations must be discipled but Infants are a part of this creation are included in all Nations therefore they must be made Disciples also Read the Text again Mat. 28. Go teach all Nations 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 baptizing them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which must needs referre to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 though the one be masculine the other the neuter or else must relate to nothing for it hath no Relative besides to answer unto This is very common in Scripture and the same phrases as those well know that understand the Greek in Rev. 2.26 27. and Chap. 19.15 there is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Mr. Cobbet of N. E. well observes Consult Acts 15.17 and 26.17 Acts 21.25 Eph. 2.11 Masculines joyned with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that signifies all Nations Now are Infants none of the Nations or none of the National creation which the Gospel may reach God forbid The words hold forth only the general commission given to the Apostles after Christs death which was an enlarging of their bounds who were only formerly circumscribed in Iudea and charged not to go into the way of the Gentiles but now the empale is broken down they must preach the Gospel to every creature teach all Nations and baptize them but it doth not hold forth either the proper subjects of Baptism or the form or manner of baptizing which should not be delivered according to their own rule of institutions in general and indefinite terms as Every Creature all Nations and by transitive words as Preach the Gospel to them teach them If this be the prime institution of baptizing from which place they exclude Infants when Christ useth such universal and comprehensive expressions we shall desire but to deal with them on their ground and the same Text will serve to prove our positions more demonstratively then theirs And this Text shews that Christ gave commission to the Apostles and Ministers to preach and baptize but in what order to do it or what should be required to the qualification of the subject as absolutely necessary is not at all discovered in this Scripture they must look for another Text to exclude Infants besides this else give up their confidence Either this place is the full and exact rule of institution of baptizing or not if they say it is then it would describe the persons and the manner the matter and the form of baptizing and that in the usual phrase with other Scriptures but here is only a general commission to two great acts viz. to preach teach and baptize and we may say in the same place that whoever are outwardly taught or do but hear the Gospel though they walk never so contrary must be baptized for the commission is Teach and baptize nothing of the parties entertainment of it is mentioned in this Mat. 28. nor of the qualification of the subject with any distinguishing character If they say this doth not hold forth all the institutions in every particular as they must grant then we may compare other Scriptures with this to make out the full institution as these where Infants are mentioned with so much gracious consideration as hath been formerly exprest CHAP. XV. Concerning the signification and use of the word Baptism or to be baptized the genuine Etymologie of it in the Old and New Testament the places in the New Testament brought to prove it signifies to plunge the whole body answered THE confidence of these that differ hath been so great that as they have excommunicated Infants from the capacity of such a priviledge which they had so old a title unto so they have forced this only sense from the word to baptize that it must signifie to plunge the whole body under water and deny that to be true Baptism which is not so administred and so make it as essential to the manner as visible profession to the matter For clearing up of this mist I have diligently enguired into the propriety of the word and its use in the Greek Translators of the Old and New Testament which are the best guides in this case and if we look narrowly it will be very hard to find and very seldome that ever the word in Scripture is used for the total immersion of the body or being absolutely under water The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
signe of it and so cannot come under the common rule this I conceive sufficient to be spoken as to that consideration there onely remaines that question which will easily be answered on the former grounds if they prove true as they are demonstrated The Lord give a blessing to these considerations on your heart CHAP. XX. That Baptisme doth not forme a Church SO much doe our opposites advance Baptisme that they make it the only constitutive principle of a Gospel Church by which men enter into the Church and are made visible Members onely by its administration and in their owne method But we shall soon dethrone that position by the authority and force of Scripture and rationall argumentation Onely in generall I doubt our Divines have unwittingly given them too much ground to affirme as they doe calling it an entrance into the Church an initiating Ordinance seale and by their practice of late to set the Font nigh the Church porch though I would not much stand upon it how proper it is to call it an initiating Ordinance a phrase I have used in this discourse Pro forma without it be because it is the first seale to be administred in the Order of Sacraments but it will be easily proved that Baptisme gives no essence or being either to a Church or membership 1. Because a man must be a member and of a Church ere he can be Baptized according to the Gospell rule 2. Sacraments are Ordinances to be administred in the Church and to the Church which supposeth the existence of the Church before thus 1 Cor. 12. 28. Eph. 4.11 12 13. the Lord hath set in and given all officers to the Church if so Sacraments which must be administred by officers if rightly 3. A Church may be without Baptisme and yet be as true and as reall a Church as the Isralites were so long in the wildernesse without Circumcision which was as much an initiating Ordinance as ever Baptisme was now nothing can be without its forme and exist 4. That cannot be the forme of a Church or make a man a Member which remaines the same and untouched after excommunication whereby a man is cut off from membership at present but now though the Church may take away his membership they cannot his Baptisme which is the same still and is not lost 5. For this is an absolute rule that that which gives the forme or being to a Church it must cease when the Church ceaseth or when a Member ceaseth to be a Member it must cease with it and that must be renewed as often as membership is renewed and so one must be Baptized againe as often as he renewes Membership this is most absurd yet must follow from such a principle 6. Baptisme is a signe and seale therefore gives no being to any thing but confirmes it It is a consequent act and supposeth something pre-existent Obj. As for that place they so much stand on Act. 2.41 As many as received the word gladly were Baptized and there was added that day about 3000. soules hence they say they were added by Baptisme Sol. The words say not they were added by Baptisme but puts a full point or stop after that sentence as many as gladly received the word were Baptized There that sentence ends And the Apostle goes on a new account and saith there were added that day 3000. soules but doth not at all shew the manner of their adding so that these words are rather a recapitulation and summing up the number of Church Members added that day then any description of the way of their taking into the Church as if one should say he had 3000 l. in gold added to his estate he only shews it is so but not how he came to have that added so it must be here and the former reasons prove the impossibility of such an interpretation 2. Obj. There is one place more urged to prove Baptisme to be the forme of a Church and that which makes a Member which is 1 Cor. 12.13 We are all Baptized into one body there Baptisme onely embodyes members Sol. To which I answer first The Apostle speakes there primarily of this Baptisme of the Spirit not of water So by one Spirit we are Baptized into one Body not so much of Baptisme by water But secondly grant it to be meant of Baptisme by water yet it proves nothing that Baptisme is the forme of that body which hath its matter and forme holinesse and union before Baptisme baptized into one body doth not here shew the essentiall constitution of a Church but the confirmed union For first we are said in Gal. 3.27 to be Baptized into Christ now none will conjecture that Baptisme gives the forme of union with Christ but onely seales it so into one body may be as to the unity of communion in the same body 2. The phrase of Baptizing into or in one body shews the body existent and in perfect being before else we could not be Baptized in a body or into a body for when one is Baptized first into what body is he and the second and third incorporated untill a body be compleat they cannot be said to be Baptized into it or in it therefore Baptisme cannot constitute the forme of a Church which is this body saying we are Baptized into it that is to hold union and communion with such a body 3. This argument is inserted more to prevent Schisme then to expresse the way of first embodying or constitution of Churches as the whole context demonstrates 4. It is the same reason with the Lords Supper and we may as well be said as to the first constitution to constitute Churches by that Sacrament as by Baptisme 1 Cor. 10.16 17. The cup of blessing we blesse is it not the Communion of the blood of Christ the bread that we break is it not the Communion of the body of Christ for we being many are one bread and one body for we are all partakers of that one bread So that we may as well be said to be gathered into a Church by the Lords Supper as by Baptisme for by it we are made one body and one Spirit But lastly if Baptisme doth essentially constitute a Church and is its forme then all who are Baptized are reall Members of the Church and must have all priviledges be they never so loose and vaine for they have the essentiall qualification and the perfect form and what will any desire more and strange consequences must needs follow you may make whom you will Members and make them Members before they are Members and Baptize into a body before there is a body or any knowledge of what frame the body is you may Baptize and have no Church for they may never come into Union and Communion who are Biptized upon these termes and then no Church can be constituted for who shall Baptize first for he must have an extraordinary Commission for he can have no ordinary delegation untill
melody of the Voice and Heart and it shewes a soule is not in a right temper when he cannot sing over his condition 5. They teach one another by singing and admonish one another to avoid any thing that may hinder their joyes in Communion and breake their Harmony in spirituall actings all which and many more are great exhortations and are taught naturally by Saints mutuall singing together CHAP. VII Concerning singing with a mixt multitude MAny who grant singing to be an Ordinance among Saints yet stumble to sing in promiscuous manner with others especially because there are so many Psalmes of such composition that doth not seem to concerne a mixt multitude For opening of this I must lay downe this generall position that prayer and praises are naturall duties belonging to all men men as men though only the Saints can doe them best and spiritually it is upon all men by the Law of Creation to seek to God for what they want and to thank him for what they have this is due unto God owning him as a Creatour and Benefactour and though singing be a part of instituted worship yet it s onely an addition of Order a regulation of a naturall duty And as there is no man but is bound to pray for mercies so none are exempted from praising God for mercies though they sing in a lower tune then Saints Thus David calls in all creatures to blesse and praise God as a nanaturall duty according to their severall capacities Psal 136. Psal 117. Psal 107. Psal 103. Ps 20 21.22 Praises it s the naturall duty of all the proper duty of Saints the perfect act of Angels Ob. You will say they cannot performe it aright and gloryfie soules Sol. 1. Their want of ability doth not discharge them from such a duty engraven on their Consciences and arising from the naturall respects they have to God as a Creatour to performe which God gave full power at first 2. Let every man doe his duty conscientiously he may afterwards come to doe it spiritually though I should lose the sense of a duty in my conscience yet the duty lyes on my conscience from Gods authority and my relation to him 1. By the same rule every one should abstaine from performance of a duty for want of present ability whereas the duty must be done and the strength expected from Heaven and waited for according to the Divine manner of dispensation 2. It s not unlawfull to joine in any act with others or to countenance them in it which is really their duty as well as our owne I cannot sin in joyning with any one in that act to performe which is the duty of another as mine though he may want the present ability For duties must be measured according to the rule not the abilities of the performer now it s no duty for any man to receive the Lords Supper or be a Member of a Church in order to Communion without he finde himselfe in some measure fitted by grace these fealing Ordinances of the Gospel suppose and require some other qualification and are peculiar to visible Saints but where there is a naturall Character or an Ordinance as to the substance of it at least equally concerning all there it is no sin to joyne in the administration of it and if we consider of it warily unregenerate men are great sharers in the mercies of the Churches besides their owne particu ar that they may well afford their voice without sin and we joyne with them in setting forth Gods praises But more closely and particularly 1. When the Church and Saints of God are gathered together to worship him in singing it is no more unlawfull to sing with others that stand by and joyne their voices then when in prayer they stand by and give their consent we doe not so much joyne with them as they doe owne Gods actings among us it is no sin in them to joyne with us in such a duty neither can it be any sin in us to sing though others very carnall will outwardly praise God with us 2. The carriage of Saints in their heartie and reall expressions of prayses may convince others in the coldnesse and lownesse of their spirit and stirre them up to some spirituall apprehensions 3. Though it be lawfull to joine with them in such a duty generally considered yet it were to be wished in a mixt multitude there were more care in the choice of Psalmes to fit them to the very duty of praise and thanks which is so really belonging to all the Congregation and that must be lamented that the choice of Psalmes to a mixt multitude is not so considered as it ought to be which makes the Ordinance so much slighted in its publique administration But however the incapacity of others to their duty should not hinder me from performing mine especially when I cannot nor ought not to hinder others from such an act FINIS
c. as well as for them to interpret the same word so in this place For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when applied to grown men must signifie visible and Evangelical holiness and must be translated Saints but when applied to Children it must only signifie legitimacy that they are not Bastards when all men know that magis minus non variant speciem and the word is of the same import in every place of the New Testament Ob. If any shall be so critical as Mr. Tombes is to enquire how they can be said to be holy what holiness is here meant whether inherent or imputative or visible Sol. I answer It 's a holiness of special separation to God and his use as a peculiar people Some call it a federal holiness from the ground of the priviledge others an Ecclesiastical or Church holiness from the account and esteem the Church ought to have of such Children but the first more fully answers the largest use of the word in Scripture As for Infants 1. They are capable of inherent holiness 2. They are in Covenant as we have proved and so have a holy relation on them 3. They are capable of separation to Gods use from the womb and so of being holy to God 4. By the same reason we account grown men holy we may account Infants of believers holy for these that make a profession may have no inward and inherent holiness and a bare profession is not holiness we only account them holy by a judicious charity and we are often deceived and have cause to repent of our judgements Infants may be inwardly sanctified and God hath taken them into the Covenant with their Parents and would have us look on them as separated to himself which is ground enough to build our charity on as to esteem them holy as grown persons There is no difference but this in it That concerning the holiness of persons at age we trust our own judgements and in judging of Infants we trust Gods Word who hath comprehended them under the promise with their Parents there hath been as many deceits in the event in our judgement of those of riper years as in that which is acted through a mixture of faith and charity on Infants And Gods promise though never so indefinite is a surer ground for hope then my probable judgement which is the most I can have of the generality of Professors of riper years Q. But if any one say further What is this to Baptism here is no mention of it in this place Sol. It 's true Baptism is not mentioned here but here is mention of a qualified subject for Baptism which is all that is contended for And if the Apostle had said they were believers then these of the contrary opinion would conclude here is enough for Baptism but it 's all one in that he cals them holy which you see is more then legitimate and you may translate it with as much propriety Else were your Children impure but now they are Saints that is so to be esteemed through Gods Covenant as if they had professed their own faith Lastly As it would be most absurd to imagine the Apostle should use a pure religious word to express a common and ordinary priviledge so there would be no considerable medium for augmentation in that sense and no such force in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 else were c. which hath force from the specialness of the priviledge to their issue not only to be lawfully begotten as the Children of unbelievers are when lawfully married but to be in a peculiar state of separation to God and to be accounted fit members with the believing Parent of the visible Church of Christ And what a poor and cold answer as to comfort would it be when the believer was scrupled about abiding with his or her unbelieving yoke-fellow to tell them Continue together for your Children shall not be Bastards but how full of strength and sweetness must it be if taken in the contrary sense Remain with your yoke-fellows though unbelievers they are sanctified to you and you shall notwithstanding bring forth a holy seed a seed of God as the Old Testament expression in Covenant as if you were both believers this sounds like a medium most demonstrative and consolatory both for satisfaction and comfort What plainer testimonie or fairer character can be written to shew the qualification of Infants of believers then to write them holy and give them the same name that is given to Christ and Saints in Heaven and Earth CHAP. VIII The Harmonie that notable Chapter Rom. 11. hath with the former Scriptures the 15 16 17 verses especially opened THAT the Adversaries of this truth may see we want not a harmonie of Scriptures to confirm our judgement the next place to be considered of is that Rom. 11. especially ver 15 16 17. of that Chapter which if well weighed will demonstrate the holiness and Church-membership of the Children of believing Gentiles as much as of the Jews Children that descended naturally from Abraham The scope of the whole Chapter is to discover the breaking off or casting away of the Jewish Nation from being a Church and the priviledge the Gentiles get by this their ingraffing into the same root and the promise of the restauration of the Jews again when the fulness of the Gentiles should come in and every one of these exprest with variety of notions and interlined with many cautions concerning Gods actings in this great dispensation Concerning the full explication of this Chapter Mr. Cobbet and Mr. Baxter have done worthily and have with much clearness argued for Infants Church-membership from it I shall onely for methods sake and your satisfaction open the main and most controverted terms in this Chapter concerning this subject As 1. What this breaking off or casting away of the Jews imports and from what they are broken off from the visible or invisible Church v. 15. 2. What is meant by the first fruits and the lump and the root and the branches and how it can be affirmed that if the root be holy so are the branches v. 16. 3. What this ingraffing is and how the Gentiles are said to be ingraffed and to be partakers of the fatness of the Olive v. 17. For the first This casting off and breaking off is not from the invisible but the visible Church 1. This will maintain falling away from grace and please the Arminians the great Enemies of the Gospel of free grace but this the Apostle prevents ver 1 2 3 4 5. by anticipation of that Objection distinguishing the Elect and himself as one of them from being cast off I say then hath God cast away his people whom he foreknew God forbid I also am an Israelite c. If the casting off meant here was from the invisible Church then Paul and the other Elect among the Jews were cast off from that Church but God forbid saith Paul v. 5. there is a