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
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
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
Covenant all the lump the whole body of the Jewish Nation were taken in to be a Church and were accounted holy 2. As a root it answers to him from whom all the Jews sprang up and from whom they drew all their Church priviledges as their breath Thus the Lord by the Prophet in Isa 51.1 2. bids the Jews to look to the rock out of which they were hewen and the pit out of which they were digged he means it of Abraham first as appears by the second verse Look to Abraham your Father and to Sarah that bare you for I called him alone and blessed and increased him c. Ob. But what kind of consequence is this and how doth the Apostle make use of this If the first fruits be holy so is the lump and if the root be holy so are the branches From what principle doth the Apostle argue Sol. The Apostle in the former verse speaks of a receiving in again of the Jewish Nation and brings in this as a ground to hope for it There is yet a holy root which hath an influence on the branches and argues that if the root be holy when the branches broken off shall be re ingraffed they shall be holy likewise The like phrase you have in v. 28. As touching the Gospel they are enemies for your sake but as touching the Election they are beloved 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for their Fathers sake God having so cast his Election as to run in that vein most eminently And some do render it They are beloved through their Fathers But this is clear 1. That Abraham or as some say Abraham Isaac and Iacob were the root 2. That he argues from the holiness of the root to the holiness of the branches that is from them as Parents to their posterity as Branches 3. That this was an usual and common principle of arguing in Scripture from the Parent to the Posterity for else he had spoken in the dark and had proved notum per ignotius if they could not universally reason from it and if you observe he writes it as an Axiom of the greatest demonstration and never stands to prove it further 4. It had been an argument of no force for to prove the calling in of the Jews and their happy state upon re-ingraffing to tell them If the root be holy so are the branches and they are beloved for the Fathers sake if there were not a virtue still in the root to derive holiness to them when they should be received in and ingraffed to their own Olive he laies all the weight on the root being still holy and fresh though the branches be broken off And what can you make of this as to argumentation If the root be holy Ergo the branches and apply it to Persons and Parents but in a moral and imputative consideration Ob. But holiness is not propagated by nature from the Parent to his Child and we all derive sin by nature from our Parents and are as the Apostle saith Eph. 2.2 by nature the Children of wrath c. and as David saith Conceived in sin Sol. 1. It 's true we are so and there is no holiness propagated by nature take it for internal habits as a wise man doth not convey his wisedome or a vertuous man his vertues to his Child neither can a Believer convey his faith and other graces to his Child and in this sense Abraham is not a root he begets no Believer and under this consideration the argument cannot hold Abraham in this sense is only a root 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 exemplary only Christ is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 effectually to convey similar graces But 2. There is a holiness by gratious estimation or imputation which flows from Gods Covenant or some special priviledge given to such a stock or kindred or Nation God taking such a family such a stock and separates it to himself for some holy use and so blesseth them And thus it was with Abraham and is most common in the Scriptures and according to the nature of priviledges among men where the son of a Freeman is free and the son of a Nobleman a Nobleman and by way of allusion though it doth not hold in all particulars as in justification Christs righteousness is imputed and we accounted holy by it So as to some special priviledges the root the Parent being holy and in the Covenant his Child hath the advantage of it not meritoriously from the Parents faith but virtually through Gods gracious promise to the Believer and his seed But 3. This is not by natural generation for then it should be to all Children but by grace and proportion it 's Gods good pleasure thus to derive the priviledge and out of special respect to the Parents and to encourage them in their own faith and strengthen them in their hopes concerning their seed thus did God choose out Abraham and his family from all the world and blessed him yet it was not from nature his seed were more blessed then all the world besides But as Dr. Willet saith well on this place The branches are holy because of this holy root not by an actual and inherent holiness but by a prerogative of grace grounded on the promise of God made to believing Fathers and their seed which is the same in the New Testament as in the Old and in this sense the argument is strong and enforcing the scope of the Apostle So that though the generation be natural the derivation of a Title to Church priviledges and the characteristical note of holiness is given them by grace in the Covenant which takes in the branches with the root In no sense besides can this argument be true without you make the root Christ which you see cannot be meant in this place without great absurdities The third and special term to be opened is what this ingraffing is of the Gentiles into the root and how they are ingraffed v. 17 19. For the understanding of this Mr. Marshal hath laid down a sure position which neither Mr. Tombes who is the most learned Adversary of this Truth nor any other hath or can shake and that is That the ingraffing in of the Gentiles must be sutable to the breaking off the Jews as they were broken off so are we ingraffed This the Apostle clearly proves in every verse In v. 17. Thou being a wild Olive speaking of the Gentiles collectively considered wert ingraffed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in amongst them so Grotius translates it Positus es inter ramos illius arboris Thou art set among the branches of that tree and so referring to the first words of the verse which is implyed that some remained still for but some of the branches were broken off and the Gentile-believers were inoculated among them and by a special adoption were partakers of the same priviledges according to that of the Poet Ovid Venerit insitio fac ramum ramus adoptet But the best reference is to the
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
of the Apostles arguing in it which is most speciall to what we would prove his argument lies in this they have received the holy Ghost as well as we Ergo what should hinder water where there is a qualification there may be an administration of that Ordinance this is grounded on a common principle now if we observe First the Apostle changes the usual expression and faith not Seeing they have believed as well as we but seeing they have received the holy Ghost as well as we What should hinder The argument is from the equivalency of the qualification for whereas he saith all along formerly they believed and were baptized and to the Eunuch Acts 8.37 If thou believest thou maist but here seeing they have received the holy Ghost as well as we this change of phrase shews the qualification not to lie in one term or expression but in the universal equalitie of Gospel manifestation to some one way to some another that if any title in the Gospel can be found properly either by Gods promise or our judgment applicable to any person we may say What should hinder water now to receive the holy Ghost is the largest and most vast expression as to a qualification that ever could be mentioned taking in both real graces and all external gifts and priviledges which are all conveyed by that holy Spirit whether common or special as is before exprest in another Chapter We shall desire on the Apostles account to argue from all these pregnant Texts of Scripture concerning Infants and having the same premises we shall not certainly draw a wrong conclusion when we find the Scriptures giving such titles to Infants and so many special carriages of Christ to them which amounts to as much as is spoken of any that were baptized why may not we say with Peter What should hinder Water as for instance If Infants be in the Covenant that Abrahams promise belongs to them as we have proved What should hinder water If Infants be holy What should hinder Water These which are visible Saints may be baptized but so are the Infants of believers for they are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Cor. 7.14 The same name given to denominate all Saints now to be holy is as much as to be a believer as to receive the holy Ghost is made all one with being a believer and what then should hinder water So again when the Gentiles and their posterity are ingraffed into the same root Rom. 11. which is Abraham and the Covenant and the branches holy as the root what should hinder water If Christ was angry when Infants were forbidden to come to him and charged his Disciples to suffer them to be brought who can forbid water especially when Christ took them up in his arms laid his hands on and blessed them which is as much and more then is done in baptism what should hinder water to be cast on them and so we may argue from every place in the former discourse upon this very principle for the Apostle argues neither from precept nor example but from a parallel qualification because they had received the holy Ghost and surely all these places of Scripture concerning Infants will fully amount to make up an equivalent qualification in them to a visible profession of grown persons and so we may argue on the same ground with Peter besides Infants are capable of receiving the holy Ghost as well as grown persons and why not capable of water if they say it is only a visible believer a visible professor that is the subject We answer You see the Apostle useth several expressions about it sometimes actively sometimes passively sometimes if thou believest here seeing they have received the holy Ghost but never saith a visible Saint or a visible believer or one that actually professeth and so may we say seeing the promise is to them seeing they are holy seeing they are called Disciples seeing they had Christs hands laid on them and were blessed seeing they are capable of receiving the holy Ghost what should hinder water Quest If they say still there is no command I answer First there is as much as is said of others that were baptized Secondly there is no command in terms from Christ or his Apostles to baptize professing believers or those that should receive the holy Ghost yet they were baptized Thirdly where there is parallel characters to shew qualification there may be the same outward sign applied on this principle the Apostle reasons in this Scripture it is only to be wondred how so many direct places of Scripture which cannot but sparkle in the consciences of those which are diligent and diving into truth can be so lightly evaded and made nothing of while men pretend to search truth impartially without deceit or guile CHAP. XVIII Wherein is shewed who is to administer this Ordinance of baptism according to the rule of the Gospel AS these that are contrary to Infant baptism are strict and most severe in other circumstances which they think must be in that Ordinance so they are most slight and rude in their considerations and practise as to the administrator of that Ordinance making every male Disciple or any one that can give an occasional word of exhortation the minister of this Ordinance which they do otherwise shut up as in the most holy place and put the very substance of the Gospel in it this is most unsuitable to the Gospel and makes baptism one of the poorest and lowest Ordinances and of no such solemnity seeing every Disciple may baptize another and he that can speak any thing of the Gospel may do such an act But if we trace the rule we shall see that as it is an Ordinance of publick cognizance so it must be administred by a publick Officer who hath received commission authoritatively from Christ and his Church and that it was never administred by any one but he that was either ordinarily or extraordinarily called thereunto begin with Iohn the Baptist so called from his work and designment to the administration of that Ordinance he was extraordinarily called as the prophesies of him witness with the circumstances of his birth and behaviour Luke 1.7 c. Matth. 3.1 2 3. All the time of Christs ministry his Disciples by immediate commission from himself baptized and none else and we all know how they were called and who gave them power When Christ gave up all his power and authority to be continued to the end of the world or his second coming Matth. 28. Go teach all nations baptizing them and gave them their general and publick commission he gave it to these that were to be Apostles and to these that should succeed them in ordinary and as by settled commission not to every one that should be made a Disciple this was a commission to them at large and yet appropriated to such an order without we will say all are commissioned to teach and baptize Afterwards when the Gospel
order of Churches came to be setled and particular instructions given as to the foundation and method of administration in Churches it was never administred by any but those that were for the time extraordinary or ordinary setled Officers of the Church whose names are summed up in 1 Cor. 12.28 29. and 4. Eph. 11. Apostles Prophets Evangelists Pastours and Teachers besides these none have office or power to such administration but only these Those that are the more sober and intelligent sort of our opposites grant us this that the administration of baptism is of publick cognizance and that ordinarily it must be administred by those which are in publick and set office but generally every brother among them of any supposed gift may be a baptizer As for Philip and Ananias who baptized the first was an Evangelist an extraordinary officer as the Apostles raised and inspirited and impowred much after the same manner and if we consult with Acts 8. he had special commission and authority from heaven by a Divine call to perform that act on the Eunuch and so for Ananias who baptized Paul as one of their own judgment saith well he was deputed in an extraordinary manner to that ministery Acts 9. the Lord appearing to him in a vision and these examples cannot be drawn into an ordinary rule without the same circumstances be found usual And it must needs be so that none but one of the setled officers of the Church who is to preach the Gospel may be a baptizer First because it is a Church Ordinance Christ hath now left the keyes to the Church set in the Church successively such persons who are actually to administer all Ordinances in it and if it be a Church Ordinance onely these may administer it who are called to one of these offices in the Church all grant this that it is a Church Ordinance though some take the Church more largely others more strictly Secondly it is an act of power to baptize Mat. 28. All power is given to me in heaven and earth Go teach and baptize now power is conveyed by a speciall commission and call For a man to exercise a gift of knowledge by utterance needs no such solemnity but to baptize it being a sealing of a speciall priviledge to others must come from an office-power and so cannot ordinarily be administred by a gifted Disciple Thirdly there would be no distinction as to power between Apostles Evangelists Pastors and Teachers in administration of any Ordinance and every brother of the Church if their rule stand this is the common confusion of the most of the contrary judgement which utterly overthrowes the other of Gospel Churches CHAP. XIX On Christs being baptized by John when he was about the thirtieth feer of his age whether any thing can be gathered from it against baptiZing of Infants THis is the last plea urged from Christs example that he was not baptized untill about the thirtieth yeere therefore none but growne persons ought to be baptized if there be any force in Christs example To which is answered 1. In generall actings are not alwayes to be our examples for some act he did meerely as Mediatour God-man unimitable by us as to be crucified for our sins some he did out of speciall reason and eminent emergency as to fast forty dayes and nights in the wildernesse with many such like up and downe the Scripture that are no rules to us his personall and representative acts and these which have beene acted upon extraordinary occasion and reason cannot be drawne into practicall rule of example to us 2. If we will take Christs example for a rule in this that he was baptized when so growne up why th n we may as well take Christs practise as our example in the active sense he baptized none therefore none are to baptize the same holds as strong as the other if any say the rule afterwards warrant that so it doth the baptizing of Infants as hath beene formerly proved 3. And more home Christ was a Saint in the wombe he professed his faith from a Childe disputed with the Doctors about Divine things when he was but 12. yeeres old so that he could be baptized with an infallible eveidence at first and yet was not baptized untill such an age hence if we will follow Christs example though men be knowne to be professours and never so godly yet they must not be baptized untill just they come to the same stature and terme of yeares that Christ was baptized in the reason is stronger for the one then the other because Christ though he had such a visible such an infallible right to it yet did abstaine from the practise of it untill just such a time which he chose out as fittest so that the time hath as much force to make an example and bindes as strictly to the observance of it as the generall consideration of him as a growne person upon this account no man must be baptized untill he be 29. or full 30. yeares of age 4. There may be many considerations why Christ was baptized at yeeres 1. That he might enter on his publique ministery with the more greater solemnity of such an Ordinance and have a testimony from heaven to him in that Ordinance which was given The Holy Ghost descending on him in the forme of a Dove Mat. 3. two last verses Now Christs entrance into his publique ministery began imediately after his baptisme how he converst for the most part of the former yeares is very darke in Scripture 2. It might be also because he would give a testimony to John Baptist who though he was designed from the wombe to that worke yet began to act his office but a little while before and had soone done It is a question whether he baptized any considerable time after he baptized Christ but just as Christ did arise in his ministery John fell in his 3. As there is no reason to be given why Christ should live so long and not take on him his publique ministery untill such an age nor may it be urged as such an example to us so there is no reason peremptorily to be given why he was not baptized untill then and so the rule is uncertaine and of no value But this example is contrary to the following rule left for baptizing according to their owne principles For 1. That Ordinance was immediately administred as they after believing and profession Christ was a known Believer and Professour before neither did he make a new profession to John when he came to be baptized but John rather scrupled it as an act too high for him to performe as to such a glorious person Mat. 3. suffer it to be done saith Christ c. It would be a sin for us to delay so long 2. Christs Baptisme was upon no other grounds then ours his to fulfill all righteousnesse in our stead or to wash away unrighteousnesse the filth of the flesh and spirit as an outward