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
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
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
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
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
language it is not only lawfull but is the excellency of some Saints who seldome make a Petition but they urge it in Scripture dialect and shew the Word of God to dwell richly in them thus for singing to praise God or sing to God in his owne forme of words in the spirit and understanding what can be more suitable to God and sweet to the soule 5. There is a great deale of difference betweene praying and singing as to the method of performance though praying and praises may be considered in the same duty yet praying and singing require a distinct method for the very words to sing Psalmes and Hymns and Songs import a speciall method of the voice in a set tune and proportion whereas prayer in the method of performance requires no such exactnesse if one should take on him to sing and not in a set forme and tune he would be ridiculous to all hearers but a man hath a larger liberty in prayer and is not tyed to such strait connexions heighths and falls stops and pauses but the nature of this Ordinance calls for it else it cannot be done gracefully though there be grace in the heart And if the Apostle had not meant by singing of Psalmes singing musically he would have onely bid them praise in the generall and have left out the outward expression of it which cannot be acted but in a set forme 6. If singing were not in a musicall manner as before it were the same with prayer for you may sing out a prayer and praise in praying Thus in Davids Psalmes How many Psalmes which were matter only of petition yet were sung with faith and confidence in God For performance the Apostle James distinguisheth them apparently Is any sick let him pray is any merry let him sing Psalmes and the other Apostle Let us pray with the Spirit and understanding and sing with the Spirit c. Now wherein lies the difference In prayer you have variety of workings and considerations there is Deprecation Imprecation Acclamation and Admiring Pleading and urging promise and the like So in singing there are the like the difference is onely in the set and musicall way of expression which requires a more set forme before-hand to rule my outward carriage by in that Ordinance whereas in prayer we are not tyed to such a severity of method and so need not have our words so formed Another plea which is somewhat scurrilous by the ruder sort yet much urged is that we lye when we sing Psalmes and affirme that we cannot but lye when we sing the phrases of many Psalmes As that of David O Lord I am not puffed in minde I am as a weaned childe c. To which I replie in generall that some may not have the frame of these expressions when they sing and so may performe a duty which may be but as a lye to them But 1. In speciall there is no Saint but can in some measure say what ever David saith in that or any other Psalme describing the spirituall qualification of his heart all graces are in every Saint there in the seede and habit and in a proportion though all are not so eminent and apparent in the bud and fruit though no godly man is free from pride yet he cannot be a godly man that is a proud man in actu signato which hath never been humbled and brought out of himselfe thus all along the 119. Psalme that Anatomy of a Saints inward parts when David saith He delights in the Law of God He hopes in Gods mercy His soule longs after God He keepes his Commandements He hates every evill way c. every godly man may sing these and all other Psalmes and speak truth for the reality of these frames are the same in every gracious heart 2. Whatever I finde to be the case of any Saint I may make it mine according to the likenesse of my condition to it and yet not a lye 3. One great use of singing is to commend the excellency of such graces which are and have beene in others to sweeten the harshnesse of other duties and to stirre and quicken the heart to the endeavouring after such like frames therefore some Law-givers have put their Lawes into verse first that the people might take a pleasure in them and sing them as their recreations and be the more insinuated into obedience 4. I can tell no lye so long as in the sincerity of my soule I study my duty and sing with desire after such qualifications from the contemplation of the beauty of them in such holy men though I doe not finde the present frame so high as I breathe after and such men found at present Ob. But this Objection grant it in its full Latitude proves nothing against the nature of the Ordinance of singing but the persons who sing who are not fitly qualified to some expressions Againe others plead Psalmes that are sung are not suitable to my condition Sol. 1. That is nothing still against the Ordinance of singing if it do not fit you it fits others But 2. There is nothing in Scripture-expressions but all Saints at all times may make some use of in the very reading or singing if not so particularly yet as to the generall nature of instruction and edification it is profitable Saints must read all Scripture with faith and understanding though every place may not so directly open their present condition and why may not they sing as well all Psalmes 3. It should be the care of Officers in the Church to be very choice in picking out Psalms fit for the Church according to the nature of the body and times and seasons and I could wish there were more choicenesse observed in that particular yet the Ordinance remaines still the same 4. When I sing any of these Psalmes I should by Faith personate the same state of the Church or the Saints as when I apply promises made to others I doe their conditions as if it were spoken to mee 5. It is for want of Divine study of the nature of these Scripture-expressions and the mystery of them that we say such a Psalme is unsuitable to our conditions for if when I read understandingly I can get profit by them I can the same when I sing them 6. If it doe not reach my condition as to a particular case I am troubled withall or the providence I am eminently under yet it concernes the state of the Church and I may sing them as a Member of the same Body and sympathising with them either in sorrow or joy in afflictions or triumphs which is a speciall way to act the graces of Saints somtimes to sing what concernes others as themselves as to pray for others as themselves this is like Christs heart in heaven Lastly you have opportunity enough to chuse Psalmes for your emergencies It is good to keepe the harmonie of the whole Body in the maine Ob. That which followes next as urged against