<!DOCTYPE ETS PUBLIC "-//UMDLPS//DTD EEBOPROOF 2.0//EN">
<ETS>
<TEMPHEAD>
<REVDESCR>
<CHANGE>
<DATE>2011-10-19</DATE>
<RESPSTMT>
<NAME>Leah Yurasek</NAME>
<RESP>MURP</RESP>
</RESPSTMT>
<ITEM>Checklist: x Add TEMPHEAD, change DATE, validate x Add DIV TYPEs, validate x Review structure, use BODY or rarely GROUP x Check PB placement and completeness, ensure sequence of N="" x Proof title page(s) x Check HEAD TRAILER ARGUMENT EPIGRAPH OPENER CLOSER SIGNED SALUTE BYLINE x Check ^, oe, abq, italic I / J, _Initals, &amp;c. x Check &num; # @ -- UNCLEAR LB FIGURE x Check q; startq endq Q&#62; x Correct illegibles from proofsheet x Check illegible page, para, line, span, word, dollar signs x Final validate Corrected [ ] illegible groups out of [ ]. Converted [ ] illegible groups to GAP DESC="illegible". DONE</ITEM>
</CHANGE>
</REVDESCR>
</TEMPHEAD>
<EEBO>
<IDG S="marc" R="UM" ID="A94166">
<STC T="W">S6291</STC>
<STC T="T">E1443_1</STC>
<BIBNO T="umi">99868500</BIBNO>
<VID>169965</VID>
</IDG>
<GROUP>
<TEXT LANG="eng">
<FRONT>
<DIV1 TYPE="title page">
<PB REF="1" MS="y">
<P>A CHRISTIAN, SOBER &amp; PLAIN EXERCITATION ON The two grand practicall Con|trover&s;ies of the&s;e Times; INFANT-BAPTISM, AND SINGING OF PSALMS.</P>
<P>Wherein all the Scriptures on both &s;ides are recited, opened and argued, with bre|vity and tenderne&s;s: and whatever hath been largely di&s;cu&s;&s;ed by others, briefly contract|ed in a &s;pecial method for the edifica|tion of the SAINTS.</P>
<P>By <HI>Cuthbert Sidenham,</HI> Teacher to a Church of Chri&s;t in <HI>Newca&s;tle</HI> upon <HI>Tine.</HI></P>
<P><HI>LONDON,</HI> Printed for <HI>Robert White,</HI> and are to be &s;old by <HI>Francis Tyton</HI> at the <HI>three Daggers</HI> in <HI>Fleet-&s;treet,</HI> near the <HI>Inner-Temple-gate.</HI> 1653.</P>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 TYPE="imprimatur">
<PB REF="2">
<P>Are to be &s;old by <HI>VVilliam London</HI> in <HI>Newca&s;tle. 1653.</HI></P>
<PB REF="2">
<GAP DESC="duplicate" EXTENT="1 page">
</DIV1>
<DIV1 TYPE="dedication">
<PB REF="3">
<PB REF="3">
<HEAD>To his dear and honoured Bro|ther, Mr. <HI>William Durant,</HI> my faithful Fellow-labourer in the Go&s;pel; And the Church of Chri&s;t, over whom the Holy Gho&s;t hath made us Joynt-over&s;eers.</HEAD>
<OPENER><SALUTE>Dearly Beloved,</SALUTE></OPENER>
<P><HI>_I</HI> Pre&s;ent you the&s;e fir&s;t-fruits of my poor labours, as a pledge of my love, and te&s;timony of my unfeigned de&s;ires, and longings after your &s;ettlement, and com|fort together. I am indeared to you in the bowels of Chri&s;t, and for his &s;ake ow my &s;elf unto you: My highe&s;t ambition in this world is, to &s;ee you &s;tabli&s;hed in truth, and flouri&s;hing in the glorious graces of the Go&s;pel. I have treated on the&s;e two &s;ubjects, becau&s;e I know they are the tempting errours of the&s;e Times, and have the faire&s;t glo&s;&s;es &s;et on them, and have too much influence to di&s;turb the Peace and Order of Churches: The fir&s;t e&s;pecially,
<PB REF="4"> which eats out mens affections, and creeps at the heart like a gangrene in&s;en&s;ibly; an opinion which hath been always ominous, and of a won|derful &s;trange influence, accompanied with the mo&s;t dangerous retinue of errours, &s;ince the fir&s;t Embrio of it was brought forth; whether by a judgement of God, or from its natural and &s;e|cret connexion with other principles of dark|ne&s;s, I will not determine; only God hath &s;hew|ed &s;ome black characters on it in every Nation where it hath prevailed; though we cannot but &s;ay, many Saints are innocently under the power of it.</P>
<P>For the &s;econd, I hope when mens hearts come in Tune, their voyces will likewi&s;e: The former denies more Fundamental Principles, as the Co|venant in its extent, and &s;ubjects; the freene&s;s of Grace; the riches of its workings in the New Te&s;tament; and contracts the Go&s;pel; leaving more Grace vi&s;ible in the Legal and Old Te&s;ta|ment di&s;pen&s;ation, then in the New.</P>
<P>I have only &s;ummed up what others expre&s;s more at large, with &s;omething new, and never yet touched, that I know of: And as to the me|thod,
<PB REF="4"> all is new, and made fit for your u&s;e, if Chri&s;t &s;et it home on you. I have nothing el&s;e to add, but to tell you, you have been yet kept pure in the mid&s;t of many Di&s;tractions, and the vio|lence of de&s;perate Opinions: Take heed of plau|&s;ible errours that come painted to you with the name of the mo&s;t glorious truths: Lo&s;e not your glory at la&s;t; try and weigh every tittle that is propounded: It's my de&s;ire you may have the glorious Title given to you the <HI>Bereans</HI> had, to be (<GAP DESC="foreign">) men of better breeding then to take up any thing on tru&s;t, though from the A|po&s;tles them&s;elves, untill you know how they were in&s;pired: Compare Scripture with Scri|pture; do not di&s;tract your &s;elves in the Go&s;pel&punc; lay truths together, they will &s;hine in their proper glory: Part not &s;o ea&s;ily with antient enta l d priviledges: Have &s;o much pity to your Chil|dren, as not to blot their names out of Heaven by your own hands, until God do it by &s;overaignty; do not bury them alive: Tho&s;e that know the riches of &s;uch a priviledge, will not ea&s;ily part with it upon &s;uch poor terms as mo&s;t propo&s;e. I plead for poor Infants; and it's but charity to &s;peak for tho&s;e who&s;e tongues are tied. I intend brevity in this, as in all the following Di&s;cour&s;e.
<PB REF="5"> <HI>The Lord fill you with wi&s;dom and under|&s;tanding, and give you to know what his per|fect will is, and hearts to obey it: And thrive like Saints of the New Te&s;tament, that lie at Chri&s;ts brea&s;ts night and day.</HI> The&s;e are the de&s;ires of</P>
<CLOSER><SIGNED><HI>Your unworthy Teacher,</HI> Cuthbert Sidenham.</SIGNED></CLOSER>
</DIV1>
</FRONT>
<BODY>
<DIV1 N="1" TYPE="chapter">
<PB N="1" REF="5">
<HEAD><HI>CHAP. I.</HI> Severall Con&s;iderations premi&s;ed, as an en|trance to the Di&s;cour&s;e.</HEAD>
<P>_BEFORE I enter on the main que|&s;tions handled in this Di&s;cour&s;e, it will not be unnece&s;&s;ary to premi&s;e &s;omething in general concerning this Controver&s;y, which is &s;uch a bone of contention among the Saints, for to make our way clear before us.</P>
<P>And 1. Let this be con&s;idered, that there is no|thing in all the N. T. again&s;t the baptizing of Infants, not one hint from any expre&s;s word dropt from Chri&s;t or his Apo&s;tles; not one phra&s;e, which though never &s;o much &s;train'd, doth forbid &s;uch an act; but there is much for it in divers Scriptures compared to|gether; and what is wanting in the one, is &s;upplyed in another abundantly, as hereafter will appear.</P>
<P N="2"><PB N="2" REF="6">2. The &s;um of all that our Oppo&s;ites have to &s;ay, though they make a great deal of noi&s;e in the World, is only this, that they can find no &s;yllabical precept, or word of command in terms, &s;aying, Go baptize Infants; or any po&s;itive example where it is &s;aid in &s;o many words, Infants were baptized; only actual be|lievers, as they believed, were baptized: all that they &s;ay be&s;ides, is only to quarrel with our argu|ments, and make &s;hift to evade the &s;trength of them: but this is their only argument, and their all; for however they talk of the Covenant, and fle&s;hly and &s;piritual &s;eed, yet this is the <HI>Goliahs</HI> &s;word, none like to it; I would therfore fairly encounter with it in the Portall, that I may &s;ee all their &s;trength before me.</P>
<P>Concerning which, take in the&s;e con&s;iderations: Fir&s;t, this argument is built on this fal&s;e principle, That no direct con&s;equences from Scripture are man|datory, and &s;o obliging, nor of Divine Authority, which all Orthodox Profe&s;&s;ors and Divines grant, but the&s;e which are again&s;t Infants bapti&s;m; and it is mo&s;t clear: for,</P>
<P N="1">1. The way to know Scriptures, is by com|paring them together, 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 2.13. and this mu&s;t needs be by their Harmonie, and by deduction from one to another.</P>
<P N="2">2. Without True con&s;equence were as Scripture, no one could &s;peak truth but the&s;e that &s;peak ju&s;t the very expre&s;&s;ions of Scripture.</P>
<P N="3">3. There could be no &s;piritual rea&s;ons nor argu|ments u&s;ed in any Di&s;cour&s;e to be of any force or
<PB N="3" REF="6"> con&s;equence, though from the Scripture; for there can be no arguing from Scripture, but by con&s;equen|ces and deduction; for in all arguments there mu&s;t be a medium and a conclu&s;ion, a propo&s;ition and an in|ference.</P>
<P N="4">4. Nothing upon this account can be Scripture but the very letters and &s;yllables in the Bible; no|thing of the meaning or &s;en&s;e is Scripture; for you mu&s;t draw out the &s;en&s;e and meaning from the let|ters by rational con&s;equence, as the conclu&s;ion from a propo&s;ition by a fit medium; and how ab&s;urd would this prove, that letters &s;hould be Scripture, and not the &s;en&s;e? and &s;o it mu&s;t be according to that Maxim of theirs.</P>
<P N="5">5. This is again&s;t all preaching, and expounding Scripture; nothing mu&s;t be read but the very bare characters for to draw any deductions from; it is to no purpo&s;e, though never &s;o direct and full; for if they be not Scripture, they cannot bind con&s;ciences; and to what end is preaching, but to open and apply Scripture?</P>
<P N="6">6. The &s;earchings of the Scripture were the mo&s;t u&s;ele&s;s undertaking that could be imagined; for what need I &s;earch, but read? for no con&s;equence, by compari&s;on of Scripture, is of authority to &s;atisfie my con&s;cience, if I draw a conclu&s;ion from a text, and perceive the meaning of it to be thus; if nothing without it be laid down in &s;o many &s;yllables, how many &s;uch &s;trange ab&s;urdities would follow the de|nying con&s;equences from Scripture, which are purely
<PB N="4" REF="7"> deducted? and by this principle, that where there are not &s;o many letters put together in one &s;entence, there is no command, men would &s;oon draw Reli|gion into a very narrow compa&s;s.</P>
<P N="7">7. This would be as much again&s;t them&s;elves; For,</P>
<P>Fir&s;t, They have no command in &s;o many words, Go and baptize actual or vi&s;ible believers: if they &s;ay &s;uch were baptized: it's an&s;wered, that is not to the purpo&s;e: for it's a verball command required by them to give warrant to an ordinance.</P>
<P>Secondly, <HI>That</HI> they mu&s;t prove by con&s;equence al&s;o, believers were baptized, <HI>Ergo</HI> there was a com|mand: Neither,</P>
<P>Thirdly, Can they prove one act concerning their own form of baptizing by any command, but by con|&s;equences: When they &s;ay Infants are not to be ba|ptized, they draw it from con&s;equence thus, becau&s;e there is no command in their &s;en&s;e; When they af|firm the Covenant is not made with believers now, and their &s;eed, as with <HI>Abraham,</HI> it's drawn by con|&s;equence, becau&s;e, &s;ay they, <HI>Abraham</HI> is no natural father to us, as to the Jews, and becau&s;e that covenant was a mixt Covenant, &amp;c. When they come to prove baptizing to be by plunging, they argue by con&s;equence, becau&s;e the word &s;ignifies it, becau&s;e they went where much water was, and went down into the water, &amp;c. though they are mi&s;taken in all their con&s;equences, as I &s;hall hereafter &s;hew; yet this is full <HI>ad hominem,</HI> and again&s;t them&s;elves,
<PB N="5" REF="7"> who deny con&s;equences to warrant in&s;titutions, and yet have nothing for to prove their own way, but what is by con&s;equence from Scripture.</P>
<P N="8">8. It's common among the Apo&s;tles to argue in &s;uch a method, and to deduce one thing from an|other, to make out what they intended; 2 <HI>Cor.</HI> 5.14. <HI>We thus judge, if Chri&s;t died for all, then all are dead;</HI> if the fir&s;t be true, then the latter; &s;o 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 15.13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20. and all that Chapter, arguing out the re&s;urrection by fit me|diums: &s;o about the Ordinance of Bapti&s;m, <HI>Acts</HI> 10.47. <HI>Can any man forbid water, why the&s;e &s;hould not be baptized, who have received the holy Gho&s;t as well as we?</HI> There was never any command to baptize the&s;e that had received the holy Gho&s;t, nor any example of any baptized on the&s;e terms; but the Apo&s;tle argues from the equivalency of the mercy, and the rea&s;on of the &s;tate they were in; the &s;ame method he u&s;es 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 10.15, 16, 17, 18. 1 <HI>Tim.</HI> 5.17, 18.</P>
<P N="9">9. There will be hardly found a definition of the mo&s;t doctrinal and high my&s;teries of the Go&s;pel, but by comparing Scripture with Scripture, and &s;o making it forth by con&s;equence: what perfect de|finition of ju&s;tification, or of ju&s;tifying faith, in &s;o many formall expre&s;&s;ions in all the N. T. but what mu&s;t be deducted by comparing Scriptures together to make one re&s;ult? where are women either by &s;uch a wordy expre&s;&s;ion commanded to receive the Lords Supper? or any example? if they &s;ay (<GAP DESC="foreign">)
<PB N="6" REF="8"> &s;ignifies both &s;exes, yet it's &s;till by con&s;equence, no command or example: and why not (<GAP DESC="foreign">) as fit to &s;ignifie Infant-Saints, as grown Saints, Infant-holine&s;s, as perfect holine&s;s? it's applyed to both; if they will &s;tick at a &s;yllable, we may &s;tick with them on the &s;ame grounds.</P>
<P N="10">10. Deny con&s;equences to have the &s;trength of commands, and you will leave very few duties to be practis'd, or &s;ins to be avoided, in the Old or New Te&s;tament: Expound the ten Commandments, the &s;um of the Law, without con&s;equences, and very few &s;hall be found literal tran&s;gre&s;&s;ors, but mo&s;t de|&s;perate debauched per&s;ons. <HI>Mat.</HI> 5. Chri&s;t expounds the whole Law, and by con&s;equences from the in|ward meaning, draws out new con&s;iderations of du|ties; and &s;ince the Bible is but a &s;hort &s;y&s;teme of Religion, every place is fitted to expound each other; and this mu&s;t be done by rational-&s;piritual compari|&s;ons and inferences; but enough to the fir&s;t con&s;idera|tion on this head of commands and con&s;equences.</P>
<P N="2">2. Where we have a promi&s;e laid as the foun|dation of a duty, that is equivalent to any expre&s;s command; for as commands in the Go&s;pel do &s;up|po&s;e promi&s;es, to encourage us to act them, and help us in them: &s;o promi&s;es made to per&s;ons do include commands, e&s;pecially when the duties commanded are annexed to the promi&s;es, as all New Te&s;tament Ordinances are, as well as Old.</P>
<P N="3">3. We have as much in the N. T. to prove In|fant-bapti&s;m, from the true principles of right to
<PB N="7" REF="8"> Ordinances, as they have for the&s;e whom they ba|ptize; for they baptize grown per&s;ons on &s;uch and &s;uch con&s;iderations; and we &s;hall hereafter &s;hew, we baptize on as &s;trong and equivalent grounds; and that's enough to warrant a command, to demon&s;trate the &s;ame &s;ub&s;tantial grounds of the command to reach the &s;ame ca&s;e.</P>
<P N="4">4. If we can find no po&s;itive command in &s;o many words for their baptizing (&s;hewing the &s;ame fun|damental grounds) it's requi&s;ite they &s;hould &s;hew us &s;ome expre&s;s command to the contrary, and &s;ome authentique repeal, &s;eeing Infants &s;o long enjoyed &s;uch a like Ordinance: upon the &s;ame grounds Chri&s;t would not have taken away &s;uch an antient priviledge, when his grace abounded, and &s;uper-abounded, but he would have left &s;ome characters of it in the Go&s;pel, and entred &s;ome formal di&s;charge in his Word of &s;uch per&s;ons, and given a warning of it to the Gentile believers to expect it; but he hath both by his words and carriages left clear demon|&s;trations, that he is &s;o far from repealing, as he con|firms it to Infants; let the Scriptures opened here|after &s;peak to this.</P>
<P>The third Con&s;ideration premi&s;ed is this, as all that they urge as to examples of actual believers be|ing baptized, all along the New Te&s;tament, e&s;peci|ally the <HI>Acts,</HI> and that if thou believe&s;t thou may&s;t, &amp;c. we can freely grant without any damage to this truth: For,</P>
<P N="1">1. We &s;ay as they, profe&s;&s;ing believers, grown
<PB N="8" REF="9"> men were fir&s;t baptized, and &s;o they ought to be, who are to be the fir&s;t &s;ubjects of the admini&s;tration of an Ordinance, per&s;ons able to give an account of their own faith; it was &s;o with <HI>Abraham, Gen.</HI> 17&punc; 24. he was 99 years old when he was circumci&s;ed. and he mu&s;t be fir&s;t circumci&s;ed before he could con|vey a right to his &s;eed; now you may as well argue, <HI>Abraham</HI> was fir&s;t circumci&s;ed when &s;o old, there|fore old per&s;ons are to be circumci&s;ed, and none el&s;e; as becau&s;e grown per&s;ons were baptized, there|fore not Infants, when they mu&s;t be fir&s;t baptized them&s;elves; for Children are baptized by the pro|mi&s;e fir&s;t to them, and in them to their &s;eed.</P>
<P N="2">2. An affirmative po&s;ition is not exclu&s;ive of &s;ub|ordinates; becau&s;e believers were &s;aid to be ba|ptized, <HI>Ergo</HI> not their &s;eed&punc; is not true rea&s;oning; for their &s;eed were comprehended with them in the &s;ame promi&s;e.</P>
<P N="3">3. <HI>A non dicto ad non factum, non valet con&s;equen|tia,</HI> as Divines &s;ay; becau&s;e it's not expre&s;t in &s;o many words, therefore it was not done, is no argument; e&s;pecially when there is enough to &s;hew it was done, though not written; Chri&s;t &s;peaks &s;hort, that we may &s;earch; he expects N. T. Saints to be &s;o ingenu|ous as to take more by a hint, then tho&s;e of the Old who were not &s;o bred as we now; they had every pin of the Tabernacle appointed; it's not &s;o pun|ctually &s;et down now, either as to Churches, or Go|vernment, but only the main Sub&s;tantials laid down, and it's left to the ingenuity of the Saints to draw forth the con&s;equences.</P>
<PB N="9" REF="9">
<P>La&s;tly, to premi&s;e no more; God hath alwaies ordained &s;ome Ordinances; in the admini&s;tration of which, for the mo&s;t part, the &s;ubject hath been pure|ly pa&s;&s;ive, to expre&s;s his own free grace mo&s;t emi|nently, as Circumci&s;ion on Infants: And can we think he hath left no Ordinance now as a vi&s;ible cha|racter, only to hold forth his meer grace in the N. T. where he reigns by grace? And there is no &s;ign &s;o fit to expre&s;s it as Bapti&s;m, and no &s;ubject &s;o capable as poor Infants.</P>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 N="2" TYPE="chapter">
<HEAD><HI>CHAP. II.</HI> About the nature of the Covenant made with <HI>Abraham.</HI></HEAD>
<P>THE fir&s;t great thing in this Controver&s;y is, to con&s;ider the nature of the Covenant, which is the fir&s;t foundation of the priviledge to believers, and their &s;eed, as it was fir&s;t made with <HI>Abraham</HI> and his &s;eed, in the name of all believers, and their &s;eed, both Jews and Gentiles; for &s;o large is the extent of that Covenant to both, as hereafter &s;hall be proved from New Te&s;tament expre&s;&s;ions; and if we find the &s;ame Covenant reaching Gentile-believers, and their Children, as <HI>Abraham</HI> and his, we cannot be denied the new external &s;ign and &s;eal of the &s;ame
<PB N="10" REF="10"> Covenant; for though the outward &s;igns may be changed, yet there is no change of the priviledges, if the Covenant remain entire. For the opening of which we &s;hall con&s;ider,
<LIST>
<ITEM>1. The nature of <HI>Abrahams</HI> Covenant.</ITEM>
<ITEM>2. How per&s;ons may be &s;aid to be in that Covenant.</ITEM>
</LIST></P>
<P>For the fir&s;t, we mu&s;t begin with that place, <HI>Gen.</HI> 17. where God began not only to expre&s;s the Co|venant in larger terms then formerly, but to adde a vi&s;ible &s;eal to it, <HI>viz.</HI> that of Circumci&s;ion: There be many conjectures about this Covenant; tho&s;e that differ, conceive it to be a mixt Covenant, made up of &s;piritual and temporal ble&s;&s;ings together, and not of the &s;ame purity with the Covenant in the New Te&s;tament, and &s;o make a carnal part, and a &s;piri|tual part of it, and Circumci&s;ion to be annexed e&s;pe|cially to the former, not &s;o to the latter; this is the true relation of their judgement about this. Let us review the Covenant, and its terms, and we &s;hall &s;oon find the mi&s;take.</P>
<P>Fir&s;t, and chiefly, We affirm this was a Covenant of pure grace, the &s;ame in &s;ub&s;tance with the Co|venant admini&s;tred now under the Go&s;pel, &s;ince Chri&s;ts coming in the fle&s;h and &s;pirit.</P>
<P N="1">1. It was founded upon pure grace, Gods love to <HI>Abraham,</HI> and 'tis not any thing in <HI>Abraham,</HI> or his, to move God more then to the Gentiles.</P>
<P N="2">2. It was a Covenant without works, therefore of pure grace, <HI>Rom.</HI> 4.1, 2, 3, 4, 5. and all along the Chapter.</P>
<P N="3"><PB N="11" REF="10">3. It was a Covenant made only with a believer upon Go&s;pel terms; the &s;ame the New Te&s;tament holds forth in the 3, 4, and 5, v. of that Chapter; now faith is the only condition of the Covenant of grace.</P>
<P N="4">4. It was a Covenant made in Chri&s;t, and there|fore a pure Covenant of grace, as any can be in the Go&s;pel, <HI>Gal.</HI> 3.16, 17, 18, and 29.</P>
<P N="5">5. Con&s;ider the tenure of this Covenant, <HI>Gen.</HI> 17.7. <HI>I will e&s;tabli&s;h my Covenant between me and thee, and thy &s;eed after thee in their generations, to be a God to thee, and thy &s;eed after thee.</HI> Here is the &s;ub&s;tance and &s;trength of this Covenant, to be a God to <HI>Abra|ham</HI> and to his &s;eed; and what can be more then to be <HI>Jehovah</HI> to him? can there be any expre&s;&s;ion more high, or that can &s;et forth more grace in purity then this? It's more then can be expre&s;t, that God in|gageth his Deity to him; and it is as much as if God had &s;aid, whatever I am in mine own Godhead, I will be to thee and thy &s;eed, to make you happy and ble&s;&s;ed: this is the fir&s;t and main thing premi&s;ed, and it comprehends Chri&s;t, grace, glory, all ble&s;&s;ings above imagination; the Apo&s;tle in <HI>Heb.</HI> 8.10. u&s;eth the &s;ame expre&s;&s;ion as the &s;um of all, when he &s;peaks of the new Covenant, <HI>I will be to them a God, and they &s;hall be to me a people.</HI> We need adde no more, if that were not a Covenant of pure grace, the Go&s;pel knows none other.</P>
<P>That which they have to &s;ay why it's a mixt Co|venant, and a temporall, as &s;ome of the mo&s;t ignorant
<PB N="12" REF="11"> affirm, is from the following expre&s;&s;ion of <HI>Gen.</HI> 17.8. <HI>And I will give unto thee, and to thy &s;eed after thee, the Land wherein thou art a &s;tranger, all the Land of</HI> Ca|naan, <HI>for an everla&s;ting po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ion, &amp;c.</HI> Now, &s;ay they, if the promi&s;es be mixt, &s;o is the Covenant.</P>
<P>To which I an&s;wer, that the Land of <HI>Canaan,</HI> and &s;uch like promi&s;es, were but additional, and added <HI>ex &s;uperabundanti,</HI> to the fir&s;t promi&s;e, not at all in|corporated to the bulk and body of the Covenant which was made in Chri&s;t, and con&s;i&s;ted of more pure con&s;iderations; the&s;e promi&s;es were but fitted to the outward admini&s;tration of the fir&s;t promi&s;e of grace, and the &s;tate of <HI>Abrahams</HI> family, but there was no mixture; For,</P>
<P N="1">1. The Covenant with <HI>Abraham</HI> is repeated in the New Te&s;tament entire, without any of tho&s;e ad|ditions, as is proved formerly.</P>
<P N="2">2. The promi&s;e of <HI>Canaan</HI> was typical of Heaven, and &s;o did but more open the fir&s;t promi&s;e, to be their God; &s;hewing them that God would bring him and his to Heaven, and the fulne&s;s of his glory, as he would bring them to an outward <HI>Canaan;</HI> and this was &s;uited to Gods de&s;ign, in admini&s;tring that va&s;t promi&s;e by types and outward figures: &s;o <HI>Abraham</HI> clo&s;ed in with it by faith, as a promi&s;e expounding figuratively the &s;ub&s;tance of the Covenant, <HI>Heb.</HI> 11.8, 9, 10. &s;o 13, 14, 15, 16. So that the fir&s;t promi&s;e was po&s;itive, and &s;hewed the nature of the Covenant; the other was typically expo&s;itory, <HI>Canaan</HI> &s;etting out Heaven, and the eternity of their re&s;t with this
<PB N="13" REF="11"> God in Covenant; and this will no more make a mixt Covenant, then the type and the &s;ub&s;tance when they meet together will differ in &s;ignifica|tion.</P>
<P N="3">3. We may as well &s;ay, the&s;e promi&s;es in the New Te&s;tament make up a mixt Covenant, and &s;o of a different nature, when God &s;aith in <HI>Mat.</HI> 6.33. <HI>Seek fir&s;t the Kingdome of God, and all things el&s;e &s;hall be added;</HI> and 1 <HI>Tim.</HI> 4.8. <HI>Godline&s;s hath the pro|mi&s;e of this life, and that which is to come;</HI> which are as much mixt as ever the Covenant made with <HI>Abra|ham</HI> was; whereas all know, the&s;e are but accidental appendixes of the promi&s;e of grace, and di&s;pen&s;ed according to the u&s;e he hath for, and the conditions of his Saints: thus <HI>Canaan</HI> was added to the Cove|nant, as all other things to the Kingdome of God.</P>
<P N="4">4. If this be a mixt Covenant, becau&s;e <HI>Canaan</HI> is added, and the like, then how comes it to be the &s;ame in the N. T. and to be of force now, when no notice is taken of <HI>Canaan,</HI> and the temporal pro|mi&s;es? Sure in this mixture the promi&s;e of free grace was primary, and like oyl, at top; for <HI>Abrahams</HI> Co|venant the very &s;ame for &s;ub&s;tance, is clear, and without mixture in the Go&s;pel, though it is admini|&s;tred externally, as it was then, and the ble&s;&s;ings of <HI>Abraham</HI> come on the Gentiles, though not of an external <HI>Canaan.</HI></P>
<P>If they &s;ay that <HI>Canaan</HI> was added only for the di&s;pen&s;ation of the Covenant to the Jews, it's grant|ed; but that it &s;hould make a mixture in the Cove|nant,
<PB N="14" REF="12"> is mo&s;t fal&s;e, which is the &s;ame for ever, though the outward admini&s;tration be different; things may be added, yet not mixt, as a mans cloaths to his body, and yet there is no mixture between a mans fle&s;h and his cloaths.</P>
<P>But let us come to Circumci&s;ion, the &s;eal of this Covenant; it &s;ealed it, &s;ay they, as a mixt Cove|nant.</P>
<P>Then 1. It &s;ealed the one part as well as the o|ther; take it in their own &s;en&s;e, that is, it &s;ealed God to be their God, as <HI>Canaan;</HI> and &s;o it was not a &s;eal meerly to a temporal promi&s;e.</P>
<P N="2">2. If the Covenant was &s;o mixt in the nature of it, then Circumci&s;ion &s;ealed unequally, though it was added to a mixt Covenant, for it &s;ealed the pro|mi&s;e of <HI>Canaan</HI> to tho&s;e that never went into <HI>Ca|naan,</HI> as many that died before that time, and after|wards many that were circumci&s;ed died in the Wil|derne&s;s, and under Gods wrath, and &s;o &s;ealed no|thing at all, neither part of the Covenant vi&s;ibly; and that is hard, that to &s;o many there &s;hould be neither the fulfilling of &s;piritual, nor temporal part of the promi&s;e.</P>
<P N="3">3. Grant them this Covenant was mixt, then it was either in the &s;ub&s;tance, or circum&s;tances; if in the &s;ub&s;tance, then <HI>Abrahams</HI> Covenant was not Go&s;pel, and believers mu&s;t &s;eek for another Father, as to the example of faith, and that were to make it rather like <HI>Nebuchadnezzars</HI> Image of Iron and Clay, then made up of Go&s;pel materials; If in cir|cum&s;tances
<PB N="15" REF="12"> of admini&s;tration, and additaments of external types, it's granted, and we have the &s;ame promi&s;e now, with new outward admini&s;trations; if this mixture were in the nature and &s;ub&s;tance of the Covenant, then it mu&s;t remain as long as the Co|venant la&s;ted, and &s;o unto this day; for no man is &s;o bold (though many are bold enough) as to &s;ay that <HI>Abrahams</HI> Covenant is abrogated; if it be un|der any other con&s;ideration, it's ea&s;ily waved, and the truth the &s;ame: So that Circumci&s;ion &s;ealed the Covenant primarily in its nature, as a Covenant of grace, and God being a God to circumci&s;e their hearts, &amp;c. and <HI>Canaan,</HI> and other things con&s;equent|ly and accidentally, as God made a promi&s;e of them, for the better vi&s;ible admini&s;tration of the Covenant to them in that external polity. And &s;urely it's beyond an ordinary reach to believe, that God &s;hould make a Covenant with <HI>Abraham,</HI> and for his faith in it &s;hould create him the Father of the faithful in all ages, and this Covenant &s;hould be brought in the N. T. and renewed, and the tenure of it fre&s;hly held forth to believers there, and yet at the fir&s;t making of it God &s;hould mix temporal promi&s;es with the &s;piritual &s;ub&s;tance of it, and annex a &s;eal that &s;hould only or &s;pecially &s;eal the temporal part of it, and &s;o poorly confirm the main and e&s;&s;ential nature of it, e&s;pecially when God &s;peaking of <HI>Abrahams</HI> faith, &s;tiles Circumci&s;ion the &s;eal of the righteou&s;ne&s;s of it, <HI>Rom.</HI> 4. But of this more in another Chapter.</P>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 N="3" TYPE="chapter">
<PB N="16" REF="13">
<HEAD><HI>CHAP. III.</HI> The di&s;tinction of <HI>Abrahams</HI> &s;eed into fle&s;hly and &s;piritual, into natural and believing, con&s;idered; whether the In|fants of believers may not be called in the New Te&s;tament the &s;eed of <HI>Abra|ham?</HI></HEAD>
<P>THE next thing which mu&s;t have its place of con&s;ideration, is that que&s;tion of <HI>Abrahams</HI> &s;eed, with whom the promi&s;e was made; and upon this hinge hangs all the main weight on both &s;ides; and if we make out Infants of believers in the N. T. to be in Covenant, as <HI>Abrahams</HI> &s;eed, the contro|ver&s;y would be at end: To make out this, the mo&s;t of the following Chapters are de&s;igned; only in this we &s;hall fall more directly on the que&s;tion it &s;elf.</P>
<P>Tho&s;e that differ from us make many di&s;tinctions of a fle&s;hly carnal &s;eed of <HI>Abraham,</HI> and of a &s;piri|tual &s;eed, a believing and a natural &s;eed, which di|&s;tinctions are taken out of <HI>Rom.</HI> 9.7, 8. <HI>Gal.</HI> 4.23. and <HI>Chap.</HI> 3.16. and mo&s;t true, if well applyed; but before I come to open the Scriptures, I would premi&s;e the&s;e con&s;iderations concerning <HI>Abraham,</HI> and his &s;eed.</P>
<P N="1"><PB N="17" REF="13">1. That <HI>Abrahams</HI> &s;piritual &s;eed were as much his fle&s;hly &s;eed al&s;o, <HI>I&s;aac</HI> as <HI>I&s;hmael,</HI> except Pro&s;elytes and Servants.</P>
<P N="2">2. The Covenant was admini&s;tred to all <HI>Abra|hams</HI> natural and fle&s;hly Children, as if they had been &s;pirituall, and before they knew what faith was, or could actually profe&s;s <HI>Abrahams</HI> faith.</P>
<P N="3">3. It's no contradiction in d fferent re&s;pects, to be a &s;eed of the fle&s;h by natural generation, and a Child under the &s;ame promi&s;e made with the Parent; for they both agreed in <HI>Abrahams</HI> ca&s;e; none was a Child of promi&s;e, but as he came of <HI>Abrahams</HI> fle&s;h: and as he came from <HI>Abrahams</HI> fle&s;h, &s;o every one had the &s;eal of Gods Covenant on his fle&s;h: Thus a &s;piritual promi&s;e was made with <HI>Abraham</HI> and his carnal &s;eed.</P>
<P N="4">4. There was no di&s;tinction of <HI>Abrahams</HI> fle&s;hly &s;eed and his &s;piritual &s;eed, in the O. T. but all com|prehended under the &s;ame Covenant, until they de|generated from <HI>Abrahams</HI> faith, and proved them|&s;elves to be meer carnal&punc; and rejected the pro|mi&s;e.</P>
<P N="5">5. There is a carnal and &s;piritual &s;eed of <HI>Abra|ham,</HI> even under the N. T. as our Oppo&s;ites mu&s;t ac|knowledge, as well as Infants; &s;o are the mo&s;t vi&s;ible Profe&s;&s;ors which they baptize; which may have no grace; and many prove carnal indeed, through the predominancy of their lu&s;ts and corruptions.</P>
<P N="6">6. When there is mention of <HI>Abrahams</HI> carnal &s;eed in oppo&s;ition to &s;piritual &s;eed, it cannot be
<PB N="18" REF="14"> meant primarily or &s;olely of tho&s;e that de&s;cended from <HI>Abrahams</HI> fle&s;h: for then <HI>I&s;aac</HI> and <HI>Jacob</HI> were the carnall &s;eed, yea Chri&s;t him&s;elf, who as concern|ing the fle&s;h came of <HI>Abraham;</HI> it mu&s;t be therefore of tho&s;e of <HI>Abrahams</HI> &s;eed which degenerated, and &s;lighted the Covenant of the Go&s;pel, and the&s;e were properly the carnal &s;eed.</P>
<P>Suitable to this is that di&s;tinction of <HI>Abraham</HI> be|ing a natural and a &s;piritual Father: For,</P>
<P>Fir&s;t, He was a natural Father to the&s;e to whom he was a &s;piritual Father, as to <HI>I&s;aac</HI> and <HI>Jacob,</HI> and the godly of their po&s;terity.</P>
<P>Secondly, All to whom he was a natural Father were under the Covenant, and had the &s;eal, until they rejected them&s;elves; the promi&s;e took in both relations, as to outward admini&s;tration, <HI>Rom.</HI> 3.1, 2, 3, 4. And if men truly &s;tate things you may argue as much again&s;t <HI>Abrahams</HI> natural &s;eed from enjoy|ing the&s;e priviledges, as believers natural &s;eed now, and with as much evidence of truth.</P>
<P>But let us weigh the&s;e Scriptures which are brought by our Oppo&s;ites: Fir&s;t, con&s;ider that of <HI>Rom.</HI> 9.6, 7, 8. <HI>They are not all</HI> I&s;rael <HI>that are of</HI> I&s;rael; <HI>nei|ther becau&s;e they are the &s;eed of</HI> Abraham <HI>are they all Children, but in</HI> I&s;aac <HI>&s;hall thy &s;eed be called; that is, they which are the Children of the fle&s;h, the&s;e are not the Children of God: but the Children of promi&s;e are accounted for the &s;eed.</HI></P>
<P>The Apo&s;tle in this Chapter doth with a bleeding heart begin the &s;ad &s;tory of the Jews rejection from
<PB N="19" REF="14"> being a Church, and &s;peaks as one loth to mention it, and therefore brings it in with a pa&s;&s;ionate and hearty Apology, v. 1, 2, 3. he was in heavine&s;s, he could wi&s;h him&s;elf <GAP DESC="foreign">, accur&s;ed from Chri&s;t, for his brethren, his Kin&s;men according to the fle&s;h, that is, for the&s;e that we call Jews according to the fle&s;h.</P>
<P><HI>Q.</HI> But what needed all this trouble to have a carnal generation of men cut of? why doth <HI>Paul Paul</HI> take on &s;o heavily?</P>
<P><HI>Sol.</HI> In the 4, and 5, v. he tels you, <HI>Who are I&s;raelites, to whom pertains the adoption of glory, and the Covenant, and the giving of the Law, and the &s;ervice of God, and the promi&s;es, who&s;e are the Fathers, of whom as concerning the fle&s;h Chri&s;t came:</HI> Here is a Catalogue of high priviledges which belonged to the Jews, which they were to be cut off from, which lay on <HI>Pauls</HI> heart, and was like to &s;ink him.</P>
<P><HI>Ob.</HI> Well, might &s;ome &s;ay, v. 6. then the promi&s;e of God is in vain, if they be rejected unto whom the adoption and the promi&s;es belong.</P>
<P><HI>Sol.</HI> The Apo&s;tle anticipates that Objection, Not as though the Word of God hath taken no effect; no, the promi&s;e is the &s;ame, and immutable; <HI>but they are not all</HI> I&s;rael <HI>which are of</HI> I&s;rael; neither be|cau&s;e they are the &s;eed of <HI>Abraham,</HI> are they all Chil|dren, &amp;c. This is the very natural coherence of the&s;e words; let us now u&s;e our judgements to di&s;tingui&s;h and review the place, and we &s;hall find it a weapon who&s;e edge is turned again&s;t the&s;e that count it their own.</P>
<P N="1"><PB N="20" REF="15">1. The Apo&s;tle is &s;adly troubled for his kin&s;men after the fle&s;h, for their rejection; his rea&s;on is, be|cau&s;e of the Covenant, and the promi&s;es made to them, becau&s;e they were the natural &s;eed of <HI>Abra|ham:</HI> which holds forth that the promi&s;es and the priviledges of the Covenant were made indefinitely to all the I&s;raelites.</P>
<P N="2">2. That it's a mo&s;t &s;ad thing to be excluded from the outward and general admini&s;tration of the Co|venant. Why &s;hould <HI>Paul</HI> thus break out in his af|fections, for the lo&s;s of outward priviledges, if it were not &s;uch a mercy to be under them?</P>
<P N="3">3. The Apo&s;tle holds forth, that per&s;ons may be under the outward admini&s;trations of the Covenant, and yet not get the efficacy of it; v. 6. <HI>They are not all</HI> I&s;rael <HI>that are of</HI> I&s;rael; the Covenant was made with <HI>Abraham</HI> and his &s;eed, all that were of him: and yet all were not <HI>I&s;rael,</HI> that is, partakers of the in|ward life and efficacy of the Covenant; the Apo&s;tle only in the&s;e ver&s;es endeavours to take off that Ob|jection, that God had broke his Covenant by ca&s;t|ing away the Jews, and &s;o di&s;tingui&s;heth of the&s;e that were meerly of his fle&s;h, who had the outward admini&s;tration, but not the inward fruit, and the&s;e which were elect in the promi&s;e, <HI>In</HI> I&s;aac <HI>&s;hall thy &s;eed be called;</HI> the re&s;t he cals the Children of the fle&s;h, the former the Children of promi&s;e, v. 8. and &s;o though they were under the outward di&s;pen&s;ation of the Covenant, yet God was not mutable, nor his promi&s;e, though he rejected them becau&s;e of their
<PB N="21" REF="15"> own degeneration; &s;o that the &s;um of this place is,</P>
<P N="1">1. That the Covenant was made in general with <HI>Abrahams</HI> &s;eed, to all that came from him.</P>
<P N="2">2. That in the admini&s;tration of general and in|definite promi&s;es, there is a &s;ecret di&s;tinction, and a vein of election carried through the admini&s;tration, that takes hold of &s;ome, not of others.</P>
<P N="3">3. That none are the Children of promi&s;e, real Saints, but tho&s;e that have the true effects of the Co|venant in their hearts.</P>
<P N="4">4. That all Children of Believers, though the pro|mi&s;e vi&s;ibly belong to them, as to <HI>Abraham</HI> and his &s;eed, yet may not follow their Parents faith, and &s;o not be <HI>I&s;rael,</HI> though of <HI>I&s;rael.</HI></P>
<P>But here is nothing at all to demon&s;trate that Infants, becau&s;e Children of the fle&s;h, are not under the promi&s;e: but rather the contrary; for <HI>in</HI> I&s;aac <HI>&s;hall thy &s;eed be called,</HI> &s;aith God; now he was a Child of <HI>Abrahams</HI> fle&s;h, as well as the&s;e which were ca&s;t off, and yet a Child of promi&s;e; &s;o God makes his Co|venant indefinitely with believers and their &s;eed, and yet the efficacy of the Covenant may reach but &s;ome, an <HI>I&s;aac</HI> or a <HI>Jacob,</HI> an elect ve&s;&s;el&punc; and yet the other under the outward admini&s;tration, until they manife&s;t the contrary: But more of this from that, <HI>Acts</HI> 2.38, 39.</P>
<P>I come now to that other place &s;o much urged by them, <HI>Gal.</HI> 3.16. <HI>Now to</HI> Abraham <HI>and his &s;eed were the promi&s;es made; he &s;aith not, to &s;eeds, as of many,
<PB N="22" REF="16"> but of one, which is Chri&s;t:</HI> Now by Chri&s;t here can|not be meant barely Chri&s;t per&s;onal: for then no be|liever &s;hould be accounted for the &s;eed but only Chri&s;t; it mu&s;t be meant of Chri&s;t my&s;tically or Po|litically con&s;idered, as the vi&s;ible Head of the Church; if to Chri&s;t my&s;ticall, then to all the Elect as in him, and &s;o to Infants as well as grown per&s;ons, who make up that my&s;tical body: but thus the promi&s;e is conveyed under ground as it were, none knows the veins of it&punc; thus in the Old Te&s;tament fle&s;h and fle&s;h came from <HI>Abraham,</HI> the Covenant admini&s;tred to them both by its &s;eal, yet one fle&s;h enjoying the &s;piritual ble&s;&s;ings, the other rejected.</P>
<P>Take the promi&s;e to be made to Chri&s;t, the &s;eed, as the Head of a vi&s;ible Church, then &s;till it &s;peaks for us; for Infants of believers were never ca&s;t out of the vi&s;ible Church they were once in; and the promi&s;e is made now to them with their Parents, as &s;hall be hereafter proved at large: but if we look no further back then the 14^t^h v. of this Chapter, we &s;hall re|ceive &s;ome light to this: It's &s;aid in the 13^t^h v. <HI>Chri&s;t hath redeemed us from the cur&s;e of the Law, being made a cur&s;e for us, &amp;c. that the ble&s;&s;ing of</HI> Abraham <HI>might come on the Gentiles through Chri&s;t: Abrahams</HI> ble&s;&s;ing what was it, but the promi&s;es, and the fruits, and priviledges of the promi&s;e and Covenant made to him and his &s;eed? The &s;ame ble&s;&s;ing is now come on the Gentiles, but through Chri&s;t, who took away all ob&s;tructions in the pa&s;&s;age of the Covenant by his death: Now,</P>
<P N="1"><PB N="23" REF="16">1. This ble&s;&s;ing of <HI>Abraham</HI> was not per&s;onal, but to him and his &s;eed.</P>
<P N="2">2. This very ble&s;&s;ing is come on Gentile be|lievers, as on <HI>Abraham:</HI> therefore it mu&s;t come on believers of the Gentiles, and their &s;eed al&s;o: For,</P>
<P N="3">3. It cannot be called <HI>Abrahams</HI> ble&s;&s;ing, except it come on the Gentiles according to the &s;ub&s;tantial terms of <HI>Abrahams</HI> Covenant: Now this was the ab&s;olute form of <HI>Abrahams</HI> ble&s;&s;ing, <HI>I will be a God of thee and thy &s;eed;</HI> and this very ble&s;&s;ing is come on the Gentiles through Chri&s;t, as it came on <HI>Abra|ham;</HI> and therefore it mu&s;t be to believing Gentiles, and their &s;eed: el&s;e it will neither be <HI>Abrahams</HI> ble&s;|&s;ing in the form, nor fatne&s;s of it; <HI>Abrahams</HI> ble&s;&s;ing will de&s;cend on the Gentiles clipt half off, not like it &s;elf: And it mu&s;t needs be a very uncouth &s;aying to all judicious ears, to &s;ay, that <HI>Abrahams</HI> ble&s;&s;ing is come on the Gentiles by Chri&s;t, as it was on the Jews by <HI>Abraham,</HI> and exclude half the Subjects at once from any right to it; for &s;o you mu&s;t, if you ca&s;t out the &s;eed of Gentile believers.</P>
<P>And to what end &s;hould the Apo&s;tle &s;ay The ble&s;&s;ing of <HI>Abraham,</HI> and not the promi&s;e or Co|venant is come to the Gentiles, but that he intended it to the Gentile believers and their &s;eed, as formerly it came to <HI>Abraham</HI> and his? This &s;hall be further cleared from <HI>Acts</HI> 2. and <HI>Rom.</HI> 11. in their order.</P>
<P>But in <HI>Gal.</HI> 3.29. the Apo&s;tle (&s;ay they) de&s;cribes who are the &s;eed; <HI>If you be Chri&s;t's, then you are</HI>
<PB N="24" REF="17"> Abrahams <HI>&s;eed, and heirs according to promi&s;e:</HI> So that now no Children born of believing Parents can be the &s;eed; for they mu&s;t be Chri&s;t's, according to that in v. 26. <HI>We are all the Children of God through faith in Chri&s;t Ie&s;us.</HI></P>
<P>In general, not to omit that which <HI>Beza</HI> &s;aith on the place, that <HI>Claromontanus</HI> Bible hath the words thus, and as he thinks more right, <GAP DESC="foreign">, <HI>If you be one in Chri&s;t, then are ye</HI> Abrahams <HI>&s;eed:</HI> This is &s;uitable to the former ver&s;e, where he &s;aith, <HI>There is neither Iew nor Greek, neither bond nor free, &amp;c. but ye are all one in Chri&s;t Ie&s;us; and if ye be all one, then</HI> Abrahams <HI>&s;eed:</HI> From which,</P>
<P N="1">1. It's clear the Apo&s;tle is endeavouring to take away all d fference between Jew and Gentile, and to hold forth their unity in Chri&s;t, where there is no di&s;tinction as formerly: but now the Gentiles being one in Chri&s;t, are <HI>Abrahams</HI> &s;eed, as well as the na|tural and believing Jews.</P>
<P N="2">2. The Apo&s;tle here hath no intent to &s;hew the di&s;tinction of <HI>Abrahams</HI> &s;eed as the &s;ubject of the out|ward priviledges, and admini&s;trations of Ordinances, but to &s;hew that none are &s;piritually and really <HI>A|brahams</HI> &s;eed, and heirs of promi&s;e, but &s;uch as are Chri&s;t's, one in him with <HI>Abraham:</HI> For if this &s;hould be the di&s;tinction of &s;eed as the &s;ubject of outward Ordinances, it would be as much again&s;t profe&s;&s;ing believers as Infants; for there is a carnal profe&s;&s;ion as well as a fle&s;hly generation, the former more abominable.</P>
<PB N="25" REF="17">
<P>The Propo&s;ition from this expre&s;&s;ion, as they draw it, is thus; None but the&s;e who are Chri&s;t's are <HI>Abrahams</HI> &s;eed, and none are Chri&s;t's but reall be|lievers, and therefore none but they mu&s;t be ba|ptized.</P>
<P>Thus &s;ome &s;ay (though weakly) The &s;piritual &s;eed are now the &s;ubject of Bapti&s;m, the new Creature, the man in Chri&s;t, Bapti&s;m knows no fle&s;h, with many &s;uch like expre&s;&s;ions from this and other pla|ces: But let us weigh things.</P>
<P N="1">1. If none but &s;uch are <HI>Abrahams</HI> &s;eed, and &s;o none but &s;uch the &s;ubject of Bapti&s;m, then vi&s;ible be|lievers are not the &s;ubject of Bapti&s;m; for they may not be Chri&s;ts', or new Creatures, no more then In|fants; hardly one among twenty that are truly in Chri&s;t among the mo&s;t glorious of them, and &s;o not <HI>Abrahams</HI> &s;eed.</P>
<P N="2">2. None mu&s;t be baptized at all upon this ac|count; for who knows who is Chri&s;t's according to election and &s;aving faith?</P>
<P>If they &s;ay We have charitable grounds to be|lieve &s;o of vi&s;ible Profe&s;&s;ors, until we &s;ee the con|trary;</P>
<P>I an&s;wer, This is nothing to the Que&s;tion, as it is &s;tated, nor as it lies in the text; the text &s;aith, <HI>If ye be Chri&s;t's, then ye are</HI> Abrahams <HI>&s;eed:</HI> You &s;ay none are in Chri&s;t but real believers, and you mu&s;t baptize none but a &s;piritual &s;eed, and new Creatures, which will require not only a judgement of charity, but infallibility to determine.</P>
<P N="2"><PB N="26" REF="18">2. The Apo&s;tle is here de&s;cribing what the real &s;eed and &s;piritual &s;eed are, as having an inward right to Chri&s;t, and not what the apparent &s;eed of <HI>Abrahams</HI> was: For,</P>
<P N="1">1. Mark whom he &s;peaks unto; to grown per|&s;ons, the <HI>Galatians,</HI> who were vi&s;ible Profe&s;&s;ors and Believers.</P>
<P N="2">2. He puts them to a trial of them&s;elves, whether they were Chri&s;t's or no, after they had made a pro|fe&s;&s;ion; for they having legaliz'd, and returned to look after Jewi&s;h Ordinances and works, he tels them, their Ordinances were nothing, their priviledges nothing, being Jew or Greek, but as they were in Chri&s;t: The &s;ame he follows on, Chap. 6.15. <HI>In Chri&s;t neither circumci&s;ion nor uncircum|ci&s;ion availeth any thing, but a new Creature:</HI> So that the Apo&s;tle here puts an <HI>[If]</HI> to the profe&s;&s;ing <HI>Ga|latians, If ye be Chri&s;t's, then are ye</HI> Abrahams <HI>&s;eed.</HI></P>
<P N="3">3. If you have no more but the judgement of your charity to di&s;tingui&s;h thus of men in Chri&s;t, real believers, and <HI>Abrahams</HI> &s;eed, then we have the &s;ame ground of charity to act on Infants of believers: For,</P>
<P N="1">1. They may be Chri&s;ts as well as grown per|&s;ons.</P>
<P N="2">2. God would have us account them holy, as we &s;hall prove from that, 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 7.14.</P>
<P N="3">3. Seeing they have been taken into the &s;ame Covenant.</P>
<P N="4"><PB N="27" REF="18">4. Seeing Chri&s;t &s;hewed &s;o much re&s;pect to In|fants, when brought to him. To judge a vi&s;ible Pro|fe&s;&s;or to be Chri&s;t's and <HI>Abrahams</HI> &s;eed, I have no|thing but the purblind eye of my probable judge|ment. To judge a believers Infant Chri&s;t's, I have a general Scripture a&s;&s;ertion, and the ground of an in|definite promi&s;e, which is more then all my con|jectures: So that,</P>
<P N="1">1. Vi&s;ible Profe&s;&s;ors are not the &s;piritual &s;eed of <HI>Abraham;</HI> for they may not be Chri&s;t's; therefore there is no &s;piritual &s;eed but the&s;e that have &s;aving faith, which all have not.</P>
<P N="2">2. Infants of believers are as much the &s;piritual &s;eed of <HI>Abraham</HI> as vi&s;ible profe&s;&s;ing believers, and we have as much ground to judge of the one as the other, until they manife&s;t the contrary; and our judgement on them may have le&s;s deceit in it then there is in that we pa&s;s on grown per&s;ons.</P>
<P N="3">3. If you will di&s;tingui&s;h of <HI>Abrahams</HI> fle&s;hly &s;eed and &s;piritual under the Go&s;pel, you cannot apply it to Infants, but to profe&s;&s;ing believers; for the Children of believers are not the fle&s;hly &s;eed of <HI>Abraham;</HI> but if there be any &s;uch di&s;tinction, it mu&s;t be between vi&s;ible grown Profe&s;&s;ors, of whom &s;ome are &s;piritual, and Chri&s;t's; and others carnal, and born under Mount <HI>Sinai,</HI> and not Chri&s;t's.</P>
<P N="4">4. It's a true rule in Logick, that in every good divi&s;ion, <HI>Partes debent inter &s;e opponi,</HI> The Parts ought to be oppo&s;ite: Now to be born from <HI>Abraham</HI> both as a natural and &s;piritual Father, was both
<PB N="28" REF="19"> common, through the promi&s;e in the Old Te&s;tament, and not univer&s;ally oppo&s;ite; and &s;o it may be now; an Infant is born of the fle&s;h of a believer, yet the Covenant makes the believer a &s;piritual Father in &s;ome re&s;pects, as well as a natural.</P>
<P N="5">5. The &s;eed takes its denomination from the Co|venant, and its tenure; and if the Covenant be made to <HI>Abraham</HI> and his &s;eed, and the&s;e were at fir&s;t In|fants of his body, and renewed with believers in the N. T. as we &s;hall prove in the following Di&s;cour&s;e: then Infants of believers are the &s;eed now as well as formerly, <HI>Abraham</HI> only being the fir&s;t root and Father.</P>
<P N="6">6. Vi&s;ibility of profe&s;&s;ion doth no more make a man of the &s;piritual &s;eed, and &s;o Chri&s;t's now under the New Te&s;tament, then the Covenant in its out|ward admini&s;tration in the Old, made all the Jews and their Children really new Creatures, and a &s;pi|ritual &s;eed; for under the one, and the other, per|&s;ons may be carnal.</P>
<P>All the&s;e con&s;iderations are to &s;hew that the&s;e places of Scripture are mi&s;taken, and doe not &s;hew who is the &s;eed as to Ordinances, but who are the &s;eed as to election and &s;alvation; and that Infants may be as well the &s;eed, notwith&s;tanding all the&s;e places, as well as vi&s;ible Profe&s;&s;ors.</P>
<P><HI>Q.</HI> If any &s;ay, But we have no warrant to judge of any but by vi&s;ible profe&s;&s;ion.</P>
<P><HI>Sol.</HI> 1. Let us judge as God would have us, and we &s;hall find as much ground to pa&s;s &s;uch a judgement on
<PB N="29" REF="19"> Infants as them; if God call them holy, we may do &s;o, and it will be dangerous then to call them un|clean.</P>
<P N="2">2. The promi&s;e is the &s;urer way of judging, &s;eeing at be&s;t 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 promi&s;e, at lea&s;t on &s;ome, then to tru&s;t my own judgement.</P>
<P N="3">3. The Word owns Infants of believers vi&s;ibly, as we own vi&s;ible Profe&s;&s;ors, as the Scriptures fol|lowing will demon&s;trate.</P>
<P>For the pre&s;ent, &s;eriou&s;ly view all the&s;e places to|gether, <HI>Gen.</HI> 17.7. <HI>Acts</HI> 2.38, 39. <HI>Deut.</HI> 30.6.11, 12, 13, 14. <HI>Rom.</HI> 10.1, 6, 7, 8. with <HI>Heb.</HI> 8.10, 11. <HI>Jer.</HI> 31.22. <HI>E&s;ay</HI> 65.23. with many &s;uch places, that hold forth the &s;eed to Infants as well in the New Te&s;tament as in the Old.</P>
<P>I end this Chapter with this con&s;ideration, that if you exclude Infants of believers to be <HI>Abrahams</HI> &s;eed, upon this ground becau&s;e they are not the &s;pi|ritual &s;eed: then da&s;h out the name as well of grown Profe&s;&s;ors to be <HI>Abrahams</HI> &s;eed, who are no more &s;o really becau&s;e of that, then the&s;e Infants, and we &s;hall quit the one with the other, and then there &s;hall be found no vi&s;ible &s;ubjects of Bapti&s;m, either of Infants or grown per&s;ons: for they are both, as to election and inward grace, unknown to us to be <HI>Abrahams</HI> &s;eed; they were both formerly accounted <HI>Abrahams</HI> &s;eed, grown per&s;ons, <HI>and Infants e&s;pecially by the Covenant;</HI> and now the one is to be accounted
<PB N="30" REF="20"> <HI>Abrahams</HI> &s;eed, <HI>viz.</HI> grown per&s;ons profe&s;&s;ing, though they may have no right to the inward grace of the Covenant; and Infants who had fir&s;t right next to <HI>Abraham,</HI> mu&s;t be excluded, though they have never &s;o real an intere&s;t, becau&s;e they are In|fants, and cannot &s;peak for them&s;elves: But &s;o much of this; the next Chapter will &s;econd this.</P>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 N="4" TYPE="chapter">
<HEAD><HI>CHAP. IV.</HI> How any per&s;on may be &s;aid to be in the Co|venant; the divers con&s;iderations about it.</HEAD>
<P>TO the former let this be added, becau&s;e it &s;eems &s;trange how any can be in Covenant, and yet not partake of &s;alvation: In opening of this, the common di&s;tinctions of all Divines mu&s;t be repeat|ed, that according as there is an internal and exter|nal admini&s;tration of the Covenant, &s;o there is a two-fold being in the Covenant:</P>
<P N="1">1. <HI>Secundum propo&s;itum electionis,</HI> According to the purpo&s;e of election in Gods heart, and his eter|nal decree; &s;o only the elect, and the&s;e which have &s;aving faith, are in Covenant: this &s;ome call, and not improperly, to be intentionally in Covenant, God principally intending the Covenant to them; others
<PB N="31" REF="20"> call it &s;piritually and &s;avingly from the effect.</P>
<P N="2">2. There is a being in Covenant <HI>In facie vi&s;ibilis Eccle&s;iae,</HI> In the face, or according to the judgement of a vi&s;ible Church, where judgement and charity are mixt together, <HI>Rom.</HI> 9.4. <HI>Deut.</HI> 29.10, 12, 13, 14. <HI>Iohn</HI> 15.2. <HI>Iohn</HI> 1.11. <HI>P&s;al.</HI> 50.5. with variety of Scripture: And of &s;uch there are two &s;orts.</P>
<P N="1">1. Such as &s;tand by their own vi&s;ible profe&s;&s;ion, as all fir&s;t Covenanters doe, &s;o all vi&s;ible Saints now, and &s;o many Pro&s;elytes in the Old Te&s;tament, <HI>Exod.</HI> 12.44, 45. <HI>Deut.</HI> 29.10, 11. <HI>Gen.</HI> 12.5. Or el&s;e,</P>
<P N="2">2. As in a Political Moral con&s;ideration, as in the right of another through a free promi&s;e; as if a Prince give a title of honour, or a piece of land to one and his heirs, they are all intere&s;ted it, yet &s;ome prove fools, or traitors, and are afterwards incapa|ble: It's &s;o in this, and was with <HI>Abraham</HI> and his &s;eed: Now that this di&s;tinction holds in the New Te&s;tament, I &s;hall thus di&s;cover to you.</P>
<P N="1">1. If men deny an external, as well as internal being in Covenant, none can admini&s;ter an external Ordinance, an outward &s;ign to any; for we mu&s;t go by external rules in the&s;e actings.</P>
<P N="2">2. Vi&s;ible Profe&s;&s;ors will have the wor&s;t of it; for we mu&s;t admini&s;ter no Ordinance to the&s;e which are not internally in Covenant; and we have no proof but their own expre&s;&s;ions, and our good hopes, and pre&s;ent probable judgement to warrant us, and many vi&s;ible mi&s;carriages to contradict our judgements and hopes at &s;pecial times.</P>
<P N="3"><PB N="32" REF="21" MS="y">3. We &s;et a &s;eal to a blank to all grown per&s;ons who are baptized, or receive the Lords Supper, with|out we know them certainly in the Covenant; and that who knows? for our judgement will no more hinder the &s;eal from being a blank to grown Pro|fe&s;&s;ors, then to Infants, without they prove real at la&s;t.</P>
<P N="4">4. The be&s;t evidence you can have from any, of their being in Covenant, is but vi&s;ible expre&s;&s;ions, &s;uppo&s;itions, and hopes, and probabilities, all which you mu&s;t help out by your own charity, and fallible ob&s;ervation; for God hath promi&s;ed no &s;eal on my &s;pirit for another mans condition; it's a ble&s;&s;ed mercy if I get the &s;eal on my own heart for my &s;elf.</P>
<P>So that the great Que&s;tion will be an&s;wered from this, which Mr. <HI>Tombes</HI> and they all urge, That if God made the Covenant with believers, and their &s;eed, they mu&s;t all be &s;aved, &amp;c. With which I &s;hall but thus parly.</P>
<P N="1">1. Doth God make the Covenant of &s;alvation with every vi&s;ible Profe&s;&s;or whom they baptize? or with every vi&s;ible 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?</P>
<P N="2">2. Why &s;hould it be thought more hainous to &s;et a &s;eal on Infants, as in the Covenant, then on the&s;e Profe&s;&s;ors which afterwards prove not to be in Covenant?</P>
<P N="3"><PB N="33" REF="21">3. Or do they baptize, becau&s;e that per&s;ons are in the Covenant? If not, then upon no &s;piritual ac|count; if upon their being in Covenant, then either internally or externally; on the fir&s;t it cannot be ab&s;olutely, but as manife&s;ted externally; not upon a meer external being in Covenant; for then they may &s;et a &s;eal to a blank: if upon both together, the one externally demon&s;trated by the other, then it is &s;till by the external being in Covenant that we judge with hopes of the other. There is a trick that &s;ome have got, whereby they think to evade this being in Covenant, as the fundamental ground of Bapti&s;m, by this di&s;tinction; That it is not being in Covenant, but being an actual Believer, gives right: <HI>To which I an&s;wer,</HI></P>
<P N="1">1. That the Covenant, take it &s;piritually, is the ground of faith, not faith of the Covenant.</P>
<P N="2">2. If the Covenant be the ground of faith (for who can believe without a promi&s;e?) it may well be the ground of an outward priviledge.</P>
<P N="3">3. To &s;eparate the Covenant from the convey|ance of actual priviledges, is almo&s;t as dangerous as to &s;eparate actual faith from the Covenant; for the one gives a right as well as the other.</P>
<P N="4">4. Infants in the Old Te&s;tament were thus as really to be e&s;teemed in the Covenant as actual vi|&s;ible Believers are now; and under the external ad|mini&s;tration of the Covenant, as the Pro&s;elytes, who came in to the Jewi&s;h Church, and were the fir&s;t fruits of the Gentiles.</P>
<PB N="34" REF="22">
<P>For that there is an external admini&s;tration of the Covenant of <HI>Abraham,</HI> or rather of God in Chri&s;t, even in the New Te&s;tament, is clear; for that many were baptized who proved hypocrites, and many believed vi&s;ibly likewi&s;e, as <HI>Simon Magus, Hymenaeus, Alexander, Philetus, &amp;c.</HI> many in all the Churches: and yet the&s;e mu&s;t be accounted the &s;pi|ritual &s;eed, though mo&s;t wicked, becau&s;e they can profe&s;s their own pre&s;ent &s;udden faith: and poor In|fants of believers mu&s;t be accounted the carnal &s;eed, though &s;o long under a Go&s;pel promi&s;e; of which you &s;hall not want proof hereafter.</P>
<P>Now that all which are baptized, or have any Ordinance, have it admini&s;tred fundamentally on the ground of the Covenant externally admini&s;tred, I prove thus.</P>
<P N="1">1. God admini&s;ters all his graces by Covenant, much more outward Ordinances.</P>
<P N="2">2. Souls can have no challenge, or intere&s;t in God, but by &s;ome Covenant or other; God is tied to none, but as he ties him&s;elf.</P>
<P N="3">3. If there were not a vi&s;ible and external admi|ni&s;tration of the Covenant, none &s;hould know of the invi&s;ible de&s;ign of it unto any; all things would be in the dark to us, as to Gods Covenant, in a vi|&s;ible di&s;pen&s;ation.</P>
<P N="4">4. If this invi&s;ible de&s;ign were not &s;ecretly carried on in an outward vi&s;ible di&s;pen&s;ation, there could be none condemned by an outward rule; for who can condemn the&s;e who are intentionally and invi&s;ibly
<PB N="35" REF="22"> in Covenant, or for <HI>Re?</HI> And if every one vi&s;ibly in Covenant be intentionally and &s;piritually in Cove|nant, it's ju&s;t the &s;ame.</P>
<P>The whole is this; None are in Covenant (&s;ay they) but real believers, the &s;piritual &s;eed, &s;o none to be baptized but &s;uch: when it comes to appli|cation of the Ordinance, then none are the &s;piritual &s;eed but vi&s;ible believers; and the&s;e vi&s;ible believers can be judged by no way but by an external pro|fe&s;&s;ion to be in Covenant; and Infants are no vi|&s;ible believers, therefore no &s;piritual &s;eed; when as the one is as vi&s;ible by promi&s;e, as the other by pro|fe&s;&s;ion.</P>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 N="5" TYPE="chapter">
<HEAD><HI>CHAP. V.</HI> Opening that place in <HI>Acts 2.39.</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign">.</HEAD>
<P>THIS Text I fir&s;t hold forth as fit to di&s;cover the New Te&s;tament application of the Covenant of grace, and its continuation to believers and their &s;eed, as to <HI>Abraham</HI> and his in the Old Te&s;tament: It's the fir&s;t Argument u&s;ed after Chri&s;ts A&s;cen&s;ion,
<PB N="36" REF="23"> to provoke the Jews to repent, and &s;ubmit to Go|&s;pel ordinances; and the fir&s;t open promulgation of the Covenant both to Jew and Gentile, with the prime priviledges of it; in which is contained the Go&s;pel-Covenant made with believers and their &s;eed.</P>
<P N="1">1. Here is (<GAP DESC="foreign">) the promi&s;e; which can be no other then the promi&s;e of remi&s;&s;ion of &s;ins, and &s;o of &s;alvation; &s;utable to that in <HI>Gen.</HI> 17.7. and repeated at large in <HI>Jer.</HI> 31.34. For it mu&s;t either be a promi&s;e of temporal things, or &s;piritual; of temporal things it cannot be; for there is no ab|&s;olute promi&s;e of the&s;e things in the New Te&s;tament, but as included in, or following &s;piritual mercies, as <HI>Mat.</HI> 6.33. Neither is there a &s;yllable in this Chapter pre&s;&s;ing men to look after temporal enjoy|ments, or engaging them to embrace the Go&s;pel by any outward emoluments.</P>
<P><HI>Ob.</HI> The great and only interpretation of this promi&s;e by the&s;e that differ, is, that it hath reference to v. 16. and is meant of the promi&s;e of the holy Gho&s;t prophe&s;ied of by <HI>Joel, Chap.</HI> 2.28. which was to be poured forth in the latter daies, and now vi&s;ibly and eminently begun to be fulfilled at the day of Penteco&s;t.</P>
<P>To which the An&s;wer will be clear and fair, though that be granted; and not at all weaken, but &s;trengthen the former &s;en&s;e: For,</P>
<P N="1">1. That promi&s;e is a &s;piritual promi&s;e, and more large and comprehen&s;ive of &s;piritual mercies then
<PB N="37" REF="23"> any other; the promi&s;ing of the &s;pirit is as much as to promi&s;e all at once, graces, gifts, yea Heaven it &s;elf, for all are but the fruits of this promi&s;e; Chri&s;t in the Old Te&s;tament, and the Spirit in the New, contain all the promi&s;es in an eminency. When Je|&s;us Chri&s;t was to leave the World, and &s;peak all his heart at once, and leave his la&s;t ble&s;&s;ing, that &s;hould be better then his bodily pre&s;ence among them, he ex|pre&s;&s;es all in this, that he would &s;end the Spirit, <HI>Joh.</HI> 14.16, 26. <HI>Ch.</HI> 15.26. 16.7. And of this large pro|mi&s;e, as well according to Chri&s;t's promi&s;e before his A&s;cen&s;ion, as <HI>Joels</HI> Prophe&s;y, the Apo&s;tles and Believers received the fir&s;t fruits in this &s;olemn day of Chri&s;ts triumph: So that to &s;ay it's the promi&s;e of the Spirit, is as much as to &s;ay it's the promi&s;e of all &s;piritual things: For this read in <HI>Gal.</HI> 3.14. the Apo&s;tle &s;peaking of the fruits of Chri&s;ts death, &s;aith, <HI>It was that the ble&s;&s;ing of</HI> Abraham <HI>might come on the Gentiles through Ie&s;us Chri&s;t, that we might receive the promi&s;e of the Spirit through faith:</HI> The &s;ame phra&s;e that is in this 38. <HI>And in the promi&s;e of the &s;pirit, which is to be received by faith, is included ju&s;tification, &s;anctification, yea all graces, and it's here joyned with the ble&s;&s;ing of</HI> Abraham: But,</P>
<P N="2">2. If they take the promi&s;e of the Spirit in a li|mited and re&s;trictive &s;en&s;e, for the external gifts, as the mo&s;t do, for the gifts of tongues, and miracles, and prophe&s;y, they both clip the promi&s;e, and make the argument and comfort from it invalid, and of no efficacy.</P>
<P N="1"><PB N="38" REF="24">1. It's a mighty wrong to that famous promi&s;e of the Spirit, to circum&s;cribe it in the&s;e accidental gifts which were e&s;pecially nece&s;&s;ary, and almo&s;t only for that &s;ea&s;on: when it's a promi&s;e that reacheth all the latter daies, and is &s;till accompli&s;hing, though all the&s;e extraordinary gifts are cea&s;ed.</P>
<P N="2">2. This &s;traitned &s;en&s;e is expunged by the man|ner of the expre&s;&s;ions of that Prophe&s;y, both in <HI>Joel,</HI> and this in the <HI>Acts, I will pour out of my &s;pirit on all fle&s;h, and on your &s;ervants and handmaids will I pour out of my &s;pirit:</HI> Which &s;hews the univer&s;ality and variety of the &s;ubjects, and ble&s;&s;ings in this pro|mi&s;e, that it &s;hall be &s;o large and full a mercy, as if there were to be no limitation of its mea&s;ure.</P>
<P N="3">3. If it were meant meerly of the&s;e gifts, why then there is no more benefit of that promi&s;e after the Apo&s;tles daies, but that Chri&s;t was out of date, and did expire with that age; whereas it is a promi&s;e made for all the time of the New Te&s;tament, which is expre&s;t by the latter daies, and the la&s;t daies, up and down the Scripture.</P>
<P>A parallel promi&s;e to this you have in <HI>I&s;a.</HI> 44.3. <HI>I will pour water on him that is thir&s;ty, and floods on the dry ground; I will pour my &s;pirit on thy &s;eed, and my ble&s;&s;ing on thy off-&s;pring:</HI> Now the promi&s;e of the &s;pirit is alwaies appropriated to the New Te&s;tament daies.</P>
<P>And &s;econdly, This cannot be the meaning of this phra&s;e, if we con&s;ider to whom the Apo&s;tle &s;peaks, <HI>to per&s;ons pricked in their hearts, wounded for
<PB N="39" REF="24"> their &s;ins in crucifying of Ie&s;us Chri&s;t, crying out,</HI> v. 37. <HI>Men and Brethren, what &s;hall we do to be &s;aved?</HI> Now what comfort could this be to tell them they &s;hould have extraordinary gifts? their hearts were bleeding under &s;in, their eye was on &s;alvation, they &s;aw no hopes of it, nor knew the way to obtain it; the Apo&s;tle bids them <HI>repent and be baptized;</HI> they might have &s;aid, What &s;hall we be the better? why (&s;aith the Apo&s;tle) <HI>You &s;hall receive the gift of the holy Gho&s;t; for the promi&s;e is unto you:</HI> What pro|mi&s;e? of gifts, of tongues and miracles: What is this to our &s;ouls? how will this &s;ave us? might they well object. It would be but a poor comfort to a wounded &s;oul for to tell him of a promi&s;e of gifts, not of &s;piritual grace; and the holy Gho&s;t is a bet|ter Phy&s;ician then to apply &s;uch a raw improper plai&s;ter to a wounded heart, which would hardly heal the skin: this promi&s;e is brought in as a cordial, to keep them from fainting, and to give them &s;pirits to believe, and lay hold on Je&s;us Chri&s;t: And truly no other promi&s;e but that of free grace, in order to &s;alvation, can be imagined to give them comfort in that condition.</P>
<P>But to put all out of que&s;tion, That the promi&s;e prophe&s;ied of in <HI>Joel,</HI> and quoted here, was the pro|mi&s;e of &s;alvation, and the &s;ame with the Covenant of Grace, Con&s;ult the Original in <HI>Joel,</HI> and the pa|rallel in this of the <HI>Acts;</HI> in <HI>Joel</HI> 2.27. the Prophet founds all the promi&s;es that went before, and all that come after, on this, <HI>That he is the Lord their God,
<PB N="40" REF="25"> and none el&s;e;</HI> which was the very expre&s;s words in that Covenant made with <HI>Abraham:</HI> And then af|terwards, <HI>viz.</HI> in the New Te&s;tament, to make out this fully, <HI>He will pour out his &s;pirit on all fle&s;h, &amp;c.</HI> v. 32. which is a part of that prophe&s;y, and is quo|ted again in v. 21. <HI>Who&s;oever &s;hall call on the name of the Lord &s;hall be &s;aved;</HI> one grace put for all; and &s;alvation being put at the end of the promi&s;e, mu&s;t needs be the aim of it. The &s;ame expre&s;&s;ion you have again repeated, <HI>Rom.</HI> 10.13.</P>
<P>And in the former v. 38. he exhorts them to re|pent, <GAP DESC="foreign">, <HI>for the remi&s;&s;ion of &s;in;</HI> the exhortation is to a Go&s;pel duty; the effect and profit of it was to be remi&s;&s;ion of &s;ins, and receiving the gift of the holy Gho&s;t; and the promi&s;e mu&s;t needs be an&s;werable, by which all is enforced; and it mu&s;t needs have been a mighty low and di&s;propor|tionable way of per&s;wa&s;ion, to put them upon &s;uch high things in the former ver&s;e, and to encourage them only by the narration of a promi&s;e of &s;ome temporary gifts in the following, when their eye and heart was &s;et on remi&s;&s;ion of &s;ins, and &s;alvation by Je&s;us Chri&s;t; and nothing but a promi&s;e holding forth the&s;e mercies could have been con&s;iderable to them.</P>
<P>And it's very ob&s;ervable, in that ver&s;e he joyns remi&s;&s;ion of &s;ins with the gift of the holy Gho&s;t; and then adds the promi&s;e to both, as the ground of one and the other, and comprehending both: And for that expre&s;&s;ion of <HI>Receiving the gift of the holy
<PB N="41" REF="25"> Gho&s;t,</HI> it may well be noted, that it is <GAP DESC="foreign">, <HI>the free gift;</HI> not <GAP DESC="foreign">, <HI>the gifts of the holy &s;pirit;</HI> noting the very &s;ending of the &s;pirit as a free gift to be&s;tow all mercies on them; and &s;o re&s;pecting rather the free and bounteous manner of be&s;towing the holy Gho&s;t on them, then any limited effects of his reception.</P>
<P>By all which it is demon&s;trated, that this is no or|dinary, common, no temporal promi&s;e, or of meer gifts, though never &s;o extraordinary, but a promi&s;e of free grace.</P>
<P>I only adde this to all the re&s;t, as undeniable by the principles of the&s;e that differ; it's a promi&s;e made not only to the&s;e Jews, but it's univer&s;ally to the Gentiles, and to all the called of God: but all that are called have not received &s;uch gifts of the holy Gho&s;t which then were given: but every one that is effectually called doth receive the promi&s;e of remi&s;&s;ion of &s;ins, and the free favour of God, and therefore this promi&s;e mu&s;t be taken mainly in that &s;en&s;e.</P>
<P>But the great difficulty is in the following part of the ver&s;e, and about the intere&s;t of their Children in this promi&s;e; and therefore the next work mu&s;t be to make out this, that the Children as well as the Parents are included in this promi&s;e, as they were in the promi&s;e made with <HI>Abraham.</HI></P>
<P N="1">1. Let us con&s;ider to whom the Apo&s;tle &s;peaks: to the Jews, who were prickt in their hearts; <HI>The promi&s;e is to you and your Children:</HI> He &s;peaks to
<PB N="42" REF="26"> them after the wonted manner of expre&s;&s;ion in the Old Te&s;tament, when ever the promi&s;e is mentioned; and u&s;eth their own language in which they were trained up in from their Fathers; <HI>I will be the God of thee and thy &s;eed,</HI> Gen. 17. <HI>The promi&s;e is to you and your Children:</HI> If the Apo&s;tle had intended to ex|clude their Children from the &s;ame priviledges they had formerly by the Covenant, he would never have &s;poken in &s;uch a known dialect of the Old Te&s;ta|ment; and to Jews, who could take it in no other &s;en&s;e but this, that the promi&s;e &s;hall run as formerly, to them and their &s;eed.</P>
<P N="2">2. Let us mind on what ground this is brought in, <HI>viz.</HI> as an argument and &s;trong inducement of them to repent and be baptized, as in the former ver&s;e; <HI>for the promi&s;e is to you and your &s;eed:</HI> He en|courageth them from this to receive the Ordinance of Bapti&s;m them&s;elves, for the promi&s;e was &s;till the &s;ame to them and their Children; only now they mu&s;t fir&s;t believe and be baptized them&s;elves, ere their Children could be con&s;idered in the promi&s;e: If the Apo&s;tle had not intended to hold forth to them now believing and being baptized, and their Children, the &s;ame priviledges they had before as to the promi&s;e, it would have been the greate&s;t delu|&s;ion in&s;tead of an argument to per&s;wade them to be baptized on this ground, becau&s;e the promi&s;e was to them and their Children; they had been rather de|ceived by it then enlightned; and &s;tumbled by &s;uch a propo&s;ition more then informed of a New Te&s;ta|ment admini&s;tration.</P>
<P N="3"><PB N="43" REF="26">3. Upon what hinge can this Exhortation turn? where is the vertue and &s;trength it hath to move them to be baptized them&s;elves, but on this con|&s;ideration, that they &s;hould not only enjoy ble&s;&s;ings them&s;elves, through the promi&s;e, but their Children with them? The promi&s;e to them was enough for them&s;elves to &s;ubmit to that Ordinance: but the height of the enforcement is from the riches of the promi&s;e, that it was not only to them, but their Children; they might ble&s;s them&s;elves and theirs by &s;ubmitting to the Go&s;pel; el&s;e to put in the name of their Children &s;peaking to the Jews, was but to lay a temptation before them, and rather to puzzle them then encourage them: And doubtle&s;s the Holy Gho&s;t would never in the fir&s;t opening of the Go|&s;pel, and encouraging &s;ouls to embrace it, u&s;e &s;uch a language and expre&s;&s;ion that might deceive tho&s;e he &s;pake unto: for what could the Jews imagine or conceive upon &s;uch a di&s;covery, but that if they them&s;elves did repent and were baptized, the pro|mi&s;e &s;hould be the &s;ame in the N. T. to them and their Children, as it was formerly to <HI>Abraham,</HI> upon his believing and being circumci&s;ed, to him and his &s;eed? there being no expre&s;&s;ion the Jews were &s;o accu&s;tomed to, and more delighted in, then that of the promi&s;e to them and their Children: And but to mention their Children with the promi&s;e, if it was not meant to hold forth that they were &s;till in the promi&s;e, was &s;ufficient to have deceived them, who were never in&s;tructed in any other method:
<PB N="44" REF="27"> The great de&s;ign of the Apo&s;tle was to open the N. T. promi&s;e, and by that to encourage the poor wounded Jews to repent and be baptized: And that they might have no cloud on their apprehen&s;ions, or di&s;|couragement, he utters it <HI>in lingua vernacula,</HI> in the phra&s;e the promi&s;e was always expre&s;t in the Old Te|&s;tament.</P>
<P N="4">4. If the intent of the Apo&s;tle were not to hold forth the &s;amene&s;s and identity of the priviledge of the promi&s;e to the Jews and Gentiles now believing, as was formerly; he would never have mentioned Children when he mentions Bapti&s;m, and e&s;pecially not in the &s;ame line with the promi&s;e made to the Pa|rents; and with one breath expre&s;s the promi&s;e to both, and make that the &s;trength of his argument to put them on the practice of that Ordinance: And doubtle&s;s it had not been &s;o candid a way, nor &s;utable to the &s;implicity of the Go&s;pel, to tell them of their Children, ju&s;t when he tels them of being baptized them&s;elves; and name them immediatly with the pro|mi&s;e, if the de&s;ign was utterly to exclude them both from the promi&s;e and Bapti&s;m. I have been the longer inculcating the&s;e con&s;iderations, becau&s;e there is much in them, and engaged per&s;ons can &s;lightly pa&s;s over the mo&s;t eminent places with a meer glance.</P>
<P><HI>Ob.</HI> But it's objected, That the latter clau&s;e, (<GAP DESC="foreign">) <HI>As many as the Lord &s;hall call,</HI> is a limitation of the ver&s;e, and no more are under the promi&s;e; and &s;o Children, if God &s;hall call them, &s;hall al&s;o enjoy the promi&s;e.</P>
<PB REF="27">
<P><HI>Sol.</HI> For an&s;wer to this la&s;t Objection, which is the &s;trength of their confidence from this place, we mu&s;t con&s;ider the&s;e particulars.</P>
<P N="1">1. That in this ver&s;e you have an exact di&s;tribution of the world into Jew and Gentile, according to the u&s;ual di&s;tribution in other Scriptures; the Gentiles being u&s;ually called the&s;e <HI>afar off,</HI> and the promi&s;e equally di&s;tributed among; only he adds <HI>(as many as the Lord &s;hall call)</HI> to the&s;e which are afar, as mo&s;t proper in that place: but it can in no &s;en&s;e be re|ferred to the former part of the ver&s;e, either to Pa|rents or Children: For,</P>
<P N="1">1. He changes the ten&s;e in both parts of the ver&s;e; in the fir&s;t part unto the Jews, he &s;peaks <HI>de prae&s;enti,</HI> of the pre&s;ent application of the promi&s;e; <HI>Repent you, and be baptized&mdash;for the promi&s;e is to you and your Children;</HI> even now the promi&s;e is offered to you; and they were then under the call of God: But when he &s;peaks of the Gentiles, becau&s;e they were yet afar off, and not at all called, he &s;peaks <HI>de futuro,</HI> as many as God &s;hall call, even of them al&s;o; which is the fir&s;t expre&s;s hint of the calling of the Gentiles in all the Acts of the Apo&s;tles.</P>
<P N="2">2. How unequal would the di&s;tribution be of this ver&s;e, not &s;utable to the laws of expre&s;&s;ion among rational men? If <HI>As many as the Lord &s;hall call,</HI> &s;hould be a limitation to the former part of the ver&s;e,
<PB REF="28"> the word, <HI>Children,</HI> mu&s;t needs be redundant and &s;u|perfluous; for Jews and Gentiles comprehend all the world. Now Children mu&s;t either be one part of the world, or comprehended under one or both names, or be a di&s;tinct world by them&s;elves, neither Jews nor Gentiles: And this mu&s;t needs follow on &s;uch a read|ing of the words; for the de&s;ign of the Apo&s;tle is to hold forth the freene&s;s of the promi&s;e to Jew and Gentile, and their Children; to the&s;e Jews at pre|&s;ent, to the Gentiles and their Children when God &s;hould call the Parents, as he did the&s;e Jews. Now put Children by them&s;elves, as a third party, and add <HI>whom the Lord &s;hall call,</HI> and you exclude them from being either Jews or Gentiles, and &s;o excommunicate them from any hopes of calling, or being &s;aved: Now this is,</P>
<P N="1">1. Contrary to that known rule in Logick, That <HI>Omnis bona di&s;tributio debet e&s;&s;e bimembris;</HI> only of two members, and the&s;e oppo&s;ite one to another; to bring in a third marrs all. So that it is mo&s;t clear, the words mu&s;t be under&s;tood as they are tran&s;lated; The promi&s;e is to you Jews, and your Children at pre&s;ent, and to tho&s;e afarre off al&s;o, and their Children, when God &s;hall <HI>call them;</HI> el&s;e <HI>calling</HI> can with no &s;en&s;e be applied to any tittle of the former part of the ver&s;e, without you make it mon&s;trous, and unlike it &s;elf.</P>
<P N="2">2. It's again&s;t another rule about di&s;tribution,
<PB REF="28"> which is, That <HI>Partes divi&s;ionis ambulent aequali pa&s;&s;u,</HI> That the parts of a di&s;tribution &s;hould be equally &s;et together. Now here will be a mighty inequality, as to the communication of the promi&s;e; if the words &s;hould be taken in their &s;en&s;e, the Jews will have a greater priviledge then the Gentiles, if Children be not equally added to both; the Jews had the promi&s;e made to them and their Children at pre&s;ent; the&s;e afar off &s;hall only have the promi&s;e to them&s;elves, but not their Children.</P>
<P N="3">3. Con&s;ider how comes this word <HI>(your Children)</HI> to be kept in, for what end and u&s;e, if it were not to &s;hew &s;ome &s;pecial priviledge they have with their Pa|rents, when God cals or converts the Parent? what &s;tands it for but a &s;tone of offence to con&s;cientious hearts?</P>
<DIV2 TYPE="part">
<HEAD>OBIECTION.</HEAD>
<P>All they an&s;wer to this, is, that the Apo&s;tle names their Children to comfort their Parents, becau&s;e they had wi&s;hed Chri&s;ts blood on their Children, and &s;o to give them hopes they might yet be &s;aved, if God &s;hould call them.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 TYPE="part">
<HEAD>SOLUTION.</HEAD>
<P>To &s;ee the &s;ad &s;hifts of errour, is wonderful: Can any man imagine, that the Parents could doubt more,
<PB REF="29"> or &s;o much of their Childrens being accepted and &s;a|ved, when God &s;hould call them who were innocent, and only under the &s;udden ra&s;h cur&s;e of their Parents, when they &s;aw that the promi&s;e was to them&s;elves, and Chri&s;t offered pardon to them&s;elves, who were the actual murtherers of the Lord Je&s;us.</P>
<P N="2">2. Such a con&s;ideration would rather &s;adden them then refre&s;h them, to mention the calling of their Children: For they might more doubt of that, then of any thing, whether God would call them or no, and be as far to &s;eek as ever they were, that they would have but cold comfort upon this account; this was enough to break their hearts if that were in their eye; the old way of conveying the promi&s;e is cut off, no promi&s;e but to <HI>called</HI> ones; our poor Children are un|called, and God knows whether ever they may be called of God: Thus might they rea&s;on: But when he includes them in the &s;ame promi&s;e with Parents, and exhorts the Parents to repent, upon this ground, that the promi&s;e is to them and their Children; this &s;avours like a Go&s;pel-comforting-exhortation, and could not be but of great efficacy upon their &s;pirits.</P>
<P N="4">4. What &s;trange my&s;terious tautologies would be in this one ver&s;e? if that la&s;t &s;entence &s;hould refer to all the former <HI>expre&s;&s;ions,</HI> we mu&s;t read it thus to make out their &s;en&s;e.</P>
<P>The promi&s;e is to you Parents of the Jews, when
<PB REF="29" MS="y"> God &s;hall call you (and they were then under the call) and to your grown Children, when God &s;hall call them; and to all which are afar off, when God &s;hall call them: Can any man with his under&s;tanding about him think the Holy Gho&s;t &s;hould faulter &s;o much in common expre&s;&s;ion of his mind, when there was no need of adding or calling to any part, but to the&s;e that were afar off, who were never yet under Gods Go&s;pel call?</P>
<P>La&s;tly, the word, Children, may and mu&s;t be under|&s;tood of Little Ones, Infants, not of adult and grown per&s;ons, for the&s;e rea&s;ons,</P>
<P N="1">1. The word here (<GAP DESC="foreign">) properly &s;ignifies an off-&s;pring, any thing brought forth, though it be but of a day, of a moment old: Thus when a woman is &s;aid to be in pain, and to bring forth, this word is u&s;ed, <HI>John</HI> 16.21. <HI>Luke</HI> 1.31. <HI>Mat.</HI> 1.26. <HI>Luke</HI> 1.57.</P>
<P N="2">2. It's an indefinite word, and therefore may not be re&s;trained to grown Children, except God had ex|pre&s;t it in a peculiar phra&s;e.</P>
<P N="3">3. It mu&s;t needs be e&s;pecially meant of Little Ones, becau&s;e they are di&s;tingui&s;hed from them&s;elves, who were men of years. Now when we di&s;tingui&s;h between Men and Children, we &s;uppo&s;e the one adult, the other under age, and not grown up; and it is contrary to all ways of expre&s;&s;ion to think otherwi&s;e.</P>
<P N="4"><PB REF="30">4. It cannot be rationally conjectured otherwi&s;e becau&s;e the Apo&s;tle doth joyn them with their Pa|rents in the &s;ame promi&s;e, and not leave them to &s;tand by them&s;elves, as grown per&s;ons mu&s;t.</P>
<P>So that all things weighed, this Text of Scripture, if there were no more, holds forth the famene&s;s of the promi&s;e to Believers of the Go&s;pel, both Jew and Gentile, and their Children, as ever it was to <HI>Abra|ham,</HI> and his natural &s;eed.</P>
</DIV2>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 N="6" TYPE="chapter">
<PB N="45" REF="30">
<HEAD><HI>CHAP. VI.</HI> Their great Plea from <HI>Mat. 3.8, 9.</HI> con|cerning <HI>John</HI> the Bapti&s;ts Speech to the Phari&s;ees and Sadduces, made vain, and that Text cleared from mi&s;takes.</HEAD>
<P>THAT we may &s;till take off the main Objecti|ons, let us view that place &s;o much &s;tood on, <HI>Mat.</HI> 3.7, 8, 9. <HI>When</HI> John <HI>&s;aw many of the Pha|ri&s;ees and Sadduces come to his Bapti&s;m, he &s;aith, O generation of Vipers, who hath forewarned you to flee from the wrath to come? bring forth fruits meet for repentance: And think not to &s;ay within your &s;elves we have</HI> Abraham <HI>to our Father; for I &s;ay that God is able of the&s;e &s;tones to rai&s;e up Children to</HI> Abraham. From this Text they gather, that the pretence of be|ing <HI>Abrahams</HI> Children could not give them a right to Bapti&s;m; and if <HI>John</HI> denied <HI>Abrahams</HI> natural &s;eed on that account, much more would he the a|dopted Children.</P>
<P>That this is no &s;uch ominous place again&s;t Infant-Bapti&s;m, Con&s;ider,</P>
<P N="1">1. Who they were he &s;peaks unto, the Phari&s;ees and Sadduces, men at age, and degenerated from <HI>Abrahams</HI> faith, per&s;ons that lived on their own works and righteou&s;ne&s;s; therefore he cals them
<PB N="46" REF="31"> <GAP DESC="foreign">, <HI>A generation of Vipers;</HI> which was not as they were <HI>Abrahams</HI> Children, but as they had not walked in <HI>Abrahams</HI> &s;teps, but were quite degenerated: Thus he did not refu&s;e them becau&s;e <HI>Abraham</HI> was their Father, or upon that account that <HI>Abrahams</HI> &s;eed had not right to the promi&s;e; but as only pretending <HI>Abraham</HI> to be their Father, when they walkt contrary to the principles of <HI>Abra|hams</HI> faith.</P>
<P N="2">2. This is the &s;ame now as to grown vi&s;ible Pro|fe&s;&s;ors, who have related their faith to the Church, and &s;o are baptized upon that account of faith and repentance; yet if afterwards they grow carnal and apo&s;tate, and if &s;uch &s;hould come to receive the Lords Supper, and challenge it becau&s;e they are baptized, we might &s;ay the &s;ame as <HI>Iohn</HI> to the Phari&s;ees and Sadduces; Do not think to &s;ay that you are bapti|zed, or that you have had godly Parents; for you are a generation of Vipers, you have cut off your own right by contrary actings in your own per&s;ons; and yet it doth nothing at all impeach the truth of this po&s;ition, That Believers and their Infants are in Co|venant, and ought to be judged &s;o until they manife&s;t the contrary; or that if they believed them&s;elves af|terwards, the promi&s;e &s;hould not be unto them and their Children: And that Text holds not no more then this, That when per&s;ons are grown up to years, and come to under&s;tanding, they mu&s;t then &s;tand on their right, and look to make out per&s;onal qualifica|tions for new Ordinances.</P>
<P N="3"><PB N="47" REF="31">3. This was at the fir&s;t in&s;titution of the Ordi|nance, when Bapti&s;m was newly admini&s;tred: Now new in&s;titutions (as before) require grown per&s;ons, and actual vi&s;ible believers to be the fir&s;t &s;ubject of them; they could not baptize their Children fir&s;t; for then the Parents would be neglected; and the bringing in of a new Ordinance requires renewing of &s;pecial acts in the&s;e which partake fir&s;t of it; as if an old Lea&s;e which is made in the name of a man and his Children, be at &s;uch a &s;ea&s;on to be renewed upon &s;ome certain terms, the man him&s;elf mu&s;t come, and acknowledge his owning the&s;e terms, and then it is to him and his, as before: So now in the New Te|&s;tament God renews the Covenant of <HI>Abraham,</HI> adds a new initiating &s;eal to it; it was before en|tail'd in &s;uch a line, which is cut off; it's now of the &s;ame nature, only every one mu&s;t come in his own per&s;on fir&s;t, as <HI>Abraham,</HI> and enter his own name, and then the promi&s;e is to him and his &s;eed: Thus it was in the former place, where when the Jews came to be baptized, they were exhorted fir&s;t to repent and be baptized them&s;elves; then <HI>the pro|mi&s;e is to you and your Children:</HI> So that this we af|firm,</P>
<P N="1">1. That no man mu&s;t be baptized, or receive an Ordinance by any fle&s;hly prerogative; but where there is an entail of a promi&s;e, there is a &s;piritual ground of admini&s;tration.</P>
<P N="2">2. That no per&s;on grown up to years of under|&s;tanding, hath right to a &s;ealing Ordinance, but upon his own per&s;onal qualifications.</P>
<P N="3"><PB N="48" REF="32">3. That per&s;ons may have pre&s;ent capacities, and vi&s;ible right to Ordinances, and yet afterwards cut off them&s;elves, and be found incapable, as <HI>I&s;hmael;</HI> and here the Phari&s;ees and Sadduces.</P>
<P N="4">4. That the exception of &s;ome per&s;ons, upon the account of their degeneration, and per&s;onal defects, doth not hinder but the old priviledges of the pro|mi&s;e may be conveyed to the&s;e which do really em|brace the Go&s;pel, and to their &s;eed; all the&s;e are undeniable in them&s;elves: And this Text reacheth no further then to the exclu&s;ion of the&s;e which had de|mon&s;trated them&s;elves to be only the Children of the fle&s;h, and not of the promi&s;e al&s;o; which is a demon|&s;tration only <HI>&agrave; po&s;teriori,</HI> from their after actings; and teacheth us that the&s;e that boa&s;t in outward pri|viledges, without looking after per&s;onal qualificati|ons, and holy frames within, may be as well judged carnal, as Heathens and prophane per&s;ons.</P>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 N="7" TYPE="chapter">
<PB N="49" REF="32">
<HEAD><HI>CHAP. VII.</HI> That &s;pecial place in <HI>1 Cor. 7.14.</HI> opened, and argued; <HI>El&s;e were your Children unclean, but now they are holy.</HI></HEAD>
<P>THIS place of Scripture, though it &s;eems to &s;tand by it &s;elf, yet hath full corre&s;pondence and harmony with all other places in the N. T. con|cerning this truth. As the former did hold forth the promi&s;e, the Covenant to Believers and their Chil|dren, in di&s;tinction from all the world: &s;o doth this leave a character of &s;pecial qualifications &s;utable to a &s;ubject of &s;uch an Ordinance; and when the pro|mi&s;e and the qualification &s;hall meet together, there is enough for to capacitate to any Ordinance.</P>
<P>The Apo&s;tle is in this ver&s;e an&s;wering a &s;cruple which might ari&s;e in the hearts of the <HI>Corinthians</HI> concerning abiding together of married per&s;ons; the one being a Convert, and a Believer; the other, whether man or woman, an Unbeliever; as it was a common ca&s;e in the Apo&s;tles times, the Husband might be converted, the Wife not; and the Wife converted, and not the Husband; the Word work|ing on the one, not on the other: this begat a doubt in the believing Party, whether he or &s;he might with a good con&s;cience live together in that &s;tate.</P>
<PB N="50" REF="33">
<P>The Apo&s;tle an&s;wers it, ver. 12, 13. po&s;itively, That they ought not to &s;eparate, or leave each other, notwith&s;tanding that the one was an Unbeliever: And he gives in this ver. 14. a &s;trong and peculiar ar|gument, which he makes <HI>in&s;tar omnium;</HI> for the un|believing Husband is &s;anctified in the believing Wife, &amp;c. <HI>El&s;e were your Children unclean, but now they are holy.</HI></P>
<P>The &s;cope of the Apo&s;tle here is to hold forth &s;ome &s;pecial Go&s;pel-priviledge annexed to the <HI>&s;tate:</HI> and he frames his argument by no ordinary medium, of the lawfulne&s;s of the marriage according to a na|tural, moral or po&s;itive rule, but <HI>&agrave; majori,</HI> from an eminent advantage they had together in the Go|&s;pel: For,</P>
<P N="1">1. The unbelieving Husband is &s;anctified in, or, to, or by the Wife.</P>
<P N="2">2. The Children in &s;uch a &s;tate are holy, as if they had been both believers.</P>
<P>That the Apo&s;tle holds out a Go&s;pel-priviledge, not common to meer unbelievers in their marriage &s;tate, is clear;</P>
<P N="1">1. Becau&s;e the Apo&s;tle puts the advantage on the believers &s;ide, and there fixeth it; the unbelieving Husband is &s;anctified in the Wife, as belie|ving; and &s;o contrarily, the unbelieving Wife in the Husband: So <HI>Beza</HI> affirms, that in two &s;pecial Copies he finds the words thus read, <GAP DESC="foreign">: neither can it hold &s;en&s;e with the former words but as thus read: And if it had not
<PB N="51" REF="33"> been the Apo&s;tles proper meaning to &s;hew the &s;pe|cial priviledge the believing party hath notwith|&s;tanding the unbeliever, he would have only &s;aid, the Husband is &s;anctified to the Wife, and the Wife to the Husband; that would have been the plaine&s;t and lea&s;t ambiguous expre&s;&s;ion of &s;uch a &s;entence: and the Apo&s;tle would never have made an argument of four terms, when three could only &s;atisfie; for all know, that an argument with four terms is mo&s;t de|ceitful and fal&s;e.</P>
<P N="2">2. The Apo&s;tle doth u&s;e higher terms and phra&s;es in this argument, then is ever u&s;ed in Scripture to ex|pre&s;s a meer lawfull or common priviledge; as to be &s;anctified in the Wife, and the Children to be holy; expre&s;&s;ions of another dialect then to hold forth a civil, or natural, or legal conjunction; being &s;ingled out in Scripture, to hold forth the be&s;t &s;tate of per|&s;ons and things, in relation to God and his u&s;e.</P>
<P>And the Apo&s;tle u&s;eth two terms, both negative and affirmative; <HI>they are not unclean, but holy;</HI> the opening of the u&s;e of which two words will clear the point under con&s;ideration.</P>
<P>The word here (<GAP DESC="foreign">) <HI>unclean,</HI> in the Old Te&s;tament, is commonly u&s;ed for tho&s;e legal polluti|ons and uncleanne&s;&s;es which made men to be &s;epa|rated from the Congregation, and excommunicated from the priviledge of Ordinances, until they were wa&s;hed and &s;anctified: Thus in <HI>Levit.</HI> 5.2, 3, 4. <HI>Chap.</HI> 7.19. &amp; 14.7, 8. <HI>I&s;a.</HI> 52.1. <HI>Hag.</HI> 2.13. with many other places, where <HI>unclean</HI> is oppo&s;ed to a
<PB N="52" REF="34"> pre&s;ent &s;utable capacity for Church-priviledges: But that famous place in <HI>Acts</HI> 10.14. &s;hews it mo&s;t clear what the proper u&s;e of this word is; he joyns it there with what is common or prophane: When the vi|&s;ion came to him of eating all &s;orts of Creatures, he &s;aith, <HI>Not &s;o Lord; for I have not eaten any thing that is common or unclean</HI> (<GAP DESC="foreign">) This vi&s;ion was about his going to <HI>Cornelius</HI> to open the Go&s;pel to him, and bring him into the Church who was a Gen|tile, and &s;o common and unclean, not fit for Go&s;pel-priviledges, as the Jews were thought to be. Now in a civil &s;en&s;e things that are common are not un|clean; but in a religious &s;en&s;e, what is common is ad|judged unclean: Now <HI>Cornelius</HI> being a Gentile, without the pale of the Jewi&s;h Church, he cals him common and unclean, as all the Gentiles were before they came under the promi&s;e: but God an&s;wered, <HI>What God hath clen&s;ed,</HI> or &s;anctified, <HI>call not thou com|mon: Cornelius</HI> was not a Ba&s;tard, nor unlawfully be|gotten; but he was not accounted a fit member, he was without the Church; therefore the Apo&s;tle cals him common and unclean: Ju&s;t in the &s;ame phra&s;e with the Apo&s;tle here, when he &s;aith that Children are not unclean, he mu&s;t needs mean they are not of common u&s;e, or to be excluded from outward pri|viledges of the Church: But that is not all, but he po&s;itively &s;aith they are <HI>(holy)</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign">; not only <GAP DESC="foreign">, <HI>not unclean:</HI> And this latter word is mo&s;t u&s;ed to expre&s;s the Hebrew word <GAP DESC="foreign">, which ever &s;ignifies what is <HI>u&s;ui Divino accommodatum,</HI> that
<PB N="53" REF="34"> which is appropriated to a Divine u&s;e; which is the proper notion of holine&s;s in the Old and New Te&s;ta|ment, and never taken otherwi&s;e: For the proof of which, I have compared above three hundred places in the Old Te&s;tament according to the Septuagint, and all the N. T. places where the word is u&s;ed. And this all do grant, even Mr. <HI>Tombes</HI> him&s;elf, that the word generally is taken in Scripture to expre&s;s a &s;eparation of things to God, and he only brings the&s;e places wherein he thinks there is another u&s;e of it. 1 <HI>Tim.</HI> 4.5. <HI>Every Creature of God is good, and not to be refu&s;ed, if it be received with thanksgiving; for it is &s;anctified by the Word and Prayer</HI> (<GAP DESC="foreign">) <HI>Hence,</HI> &s;aith he, <HI>is meant only the lawful u&s;e of the Creature, in oppo&s;ition to what is to be refu&s;ed.</HI> It is a wonder, but that God leaves men to blindne&s;s when they leave truth, how any man of common under&s;tan|ding, finding the Word <HI>holy</HI> &amp; <HI>&s;anctified,</HI> alwaies u&s;ed in a religious &s;en&s;e, &s;hould fly to this place to make an exception. The Apo&s;tle &s;aith fir&s;t, <HI>Every Crea|ture which God hath made is good in it &s;elf; and none to be refu&s;ed:</HI> that is, all may be lawfully u&s;ed without any legal pollution, as formerly: But then he goes higher, &s;peaking of a religious u&s;e of outward things; <HI>They are &s;anctified by the Word and Prayer; they are all good, and lawful in their u&s;e to every man: but they are only &s;anctified by the&s;e holy means, the Word and Prayer.</HI> And he might have as well &s;aid, that the Word and Prayer are not holy means, but only law|ful to be u&s;ed; as that the &s;anctification which is by
<PB N="54" REF="35"> the Word and Prayer, is to make the Creatures only lawful to be u&s;ed. If a wicked man eat his meat with|out &s;eeking a ble&s;&s;ing on it, or giving thanks, will any one &s;ay that he hath not a lawful u&s;e of the Crea|ture? but any man may &s;ay, it's not &s;anctified to him. The Apo&s;tle in the&s;e 2. ver. goes on <HI>gradatim,</HI> by degrees, from a lawful u&s;e to a holy u&s;e of the Creatures; <HI>All is good, and may be u&s;ed, but they are &s;anctified by the Word and Prayer:</HI> thus you &s;ee the nature of this priviledged place.</P>
<P>But the main place Mr. <HI>Tombes</HI> alledgeth for ho|line&s;s to be u&s;ed for what is barely civil or lawful, is that 1 <HI>The&s;.</HI> 4.3, 4, 7. <HI>This is the will of God, your &s;anctification, that you ab&s;tain from fornication, and let every one po&s;&s;e&s;s his ve&s;&s;el in &s;anctification and ho|nour; for God hath not called us to uncleanne&s;s, but holine&s;s. Here uncleanne&s;s is taken,</HI> &s;aith he, <HI>for for|nication, and holine&s;s for cha&s;tity.</HI></P>
<P>To which I an&s;wer with Mr. <HI>Mar&s;hal,</HI> That cha|&s;tity among the Heathens is never called &s;anctifica|tion, but among Believers it is, being a part of the new Creation, and one branch and part of their &s;an|ctification wrought by the Spirit of God. And though Mr. <HI>Tombes</HI> &s;aith this is but a &s;hift, yet he &s;hall &s;ee it demon&s;trative, if he ob&s;erve the phra&s;es in the Text, and the nature of &s;anctification; in the 1, &amp; 2. ver. the Apo&s;tle be&s;eecheth and exhorteth them <HI>to walk as they had received from him how to walk, and to plea&s;e God according to the rules of Ie&s;us Chri&s;t;</HI> and he urgeth it in ver. the 3. with this;
<PB N="55" REF="35"> <HI>It's the will of God, even your &s;anctification, that is, that you &s;hould walk in all holine&s;s, &s;utable to the ble&s;|&s;ed rules of the Go&s;pel,</HI> and as one part and expre&s;&s;ion of holine&s;s, to ab&s;tain from &s;in: And he in&s;tanceth &s;pecially in fornication, which was the common and reigning &s;in among the Gentiles: So that if you view the place you &s;hall find, That</P>
<P N="1">1. He &s;peaks of &s;anctification in general, in its full latitude, ver. 3. as &s;utable to all the will and mind of God; <HI>This is the will of God, even your &s;anctification;</HI> that is, it is Gods command, and Gods delight to &s;ee you &s;anctified: then he brings in ab&s;tinence from fornication (the &s;in of the times) as one part of that holine&s;s God requires: For &s;anctification may be con&s;idered as it lies in vivification, or in mortifica|tion, which for di&s;tinctions &s;ake we may call the two parts of &s;anctification. Now cha&s;tity in it &s;elf, as in the Heathens and natural men, is not properly a part of &s;anctification; &s;ome other Epithite becomes it better: Would Mr. <HI>Tombes</HI> call all the ab&s;tinencies and actings of the Heathens by the name of &s;anctifi|cations, and &s;peak like a Chri&s;tian and a Divine? Would it be proper to &s;ay in his Pulpit (when he was &s;peaking of the nature of holine&s;s and cha&s;tity) &s;an|ctified <HI>Socrates,</HI> holy <HI>Ari&s;tides?</HI> And can he think the Apo&s;tle would expre&s;s that which is common among Heathens, in &s;uch a high Go&s;pel-dialect as &s;anctifi|cation is appropriated alwaies in Scripture to God, Angels, Saints, and their highe&s;t graces and work|ings, and to things rai&s;ed above common u&s;e, de|dicated
<PB N="56" REF="36"> to God and his &s;ervice, but that he meant it according as the whole tenure of Scripture defines holine&s;s? How much will the phra&s;e of holine&s;s and &s;anctification be deba&s;ed and made common, if that &s;en&s;e &s;hould be admitted, contrary to the Scripture u&s;e of the Word? But that is a weak ca&s;e that puts men to &s;uch extraordinary &s;hifts to maintain.</P>
<P>But to go on a little further; The &s;ame word is u&s;ed by the Apo&s;tle in all his &s;alutations, and in&s;cri|ptions of his Epi&s;tles to all the Churches; <GAP DESC="foreign">, <HI>to the Saints</HI> or holy ones at <HI>Rome,</HI> at <HI>Corinth, Ga|latia, Ephe&s;us, &amp;c.</HI> which when appropriated to per|&s;ons, alwaies &s;ignifies a vi&s;ible Saint: So here, when he cals Children of believing Parents holy, he cannot but mean they are to be accounted as vi&s;ible Saints, until they do profe&s;s the contrary; and I know no rea&s;on can be given why the meaning of the Apo&s;tle in his Epi&s;tles, when he writes <GAP DESC="foreign">, <HI>to the Saints,</HI> &s;hould not be as well under&s;tood written only to the legitimate, and tho&s;e that are not ba&s;tards at <HI>Rome, Corinth, &amp;c.</HI> as well as for them to inter|pret the &s;ame word &s;o in this place: For <GAP DESC="foreign">, when applied to grown men, mu&s;t &s;ignifie vi&s;ible and Evan|gelical holine&s;s, and mu&s;t be tran&s;lated Saints: but when applied to Children, it mu&s;t only &s;ignifie legi|timacy, that they are not Ba&s;tards; when all men know, that <HI>magis &amp; minus non variant &s;peciem;</HI> and the word is of the &s;ame import in every place of the New Te&s;tament.</P>
<P><HI>Ob.</HI> If any &s;hall be &s;o critical as Mr. <HI>Tombes</HI> is,
<PB N="57" REF="36"> to enquire how they can be &s;aid to be holy: what ho|line&s;s is here meant, whether inherent, or imputative, or vi&s;ible?</P>
<P><HI>Sol.</HI> I an&s;wer, It's a holine&s;s of &s;pecial &s;epara|tion to God, and his u&s;e, as a peculiar people: Some call it a federal holine&s;s, from the ground of the pri|viledge; others an Eccle&s;ia&s;tical, or Church holine&s;s, from the account and e&s;teem the Church ought to have of &s;uch Children: but the fir&s;t more fully an&s;wers the large&s;t u&s;e of the word in Scripture. As for In|fants,</P>
<P N="1">1. They are capable of inherent holine&s;s.</P>
<P N="2">2. They are in Covenant, as we have proved, and &s;o have a holy relation on them.</P>
<P N="3">3. They are capable of &s;eparation to Gods u&s;e from the womb, and &s;o of being holy to God.</P>
<P N="4">4. By the &s;ame rea&s;on we account grown men holy, we may account Infants of believers holy; for the&s;e that make a profe&s;&s;ion, may have no inward and inherent holine&s;s; and a bare profe&s;&s;ion is not ho|line&s;s; we only account them holy by a judicious cha|rity; and we are often deceived, and have cau&s;e to repent of our judgements: Infants may be inwardly &s;anctified, and God hath taken them into the Cove|nant with their Parents, and would have us look on them as &s;eparated to him&s;elf; which is ground e|nough to build our charity on, as to e&s;teem them holy, as grown per&s;ons. There is no difference but this in it; That concerning the holine&s;s of per&s;ons at age, we tru&s;t our own judgements; and in judging
<PB N="58" REF="37"> of Infants we tru&s;t Gods Word, who hath com|prehended them under the promi&s;e with their Pa|rents; there hath been as many deceits in the event, in our judgement of tho&s;e of riper years, as in that which is acted through a mixture of faith and charity on Infants. And Gods promi&s;e, though never &s;o in|definite, is a &s;urer ground for hope, then my pro|bable judgement; which is the mo&s;t I can have of the generality of Profe&s;&s;ors of riper years.</P>
<P><HI>Q.</HI> But if any one &s;ay further, What is this to Bapti&s;m? here is no mention of it in this place.</P>
<P><HI>Sol.</HI> It's true, Bapti&s;m is not mentioned here; but here is mention of a qualified &s;ubject for Bapti&s;m, which is all that is contended for: And if the Apo&s;tle had &s;aid they were believers, then the&s;e of the con|trary opinion would conclude, here is enough for Bapti&s;m; but it's all one, in that he cals them holy, which you &s;ee is more then legitimate; and you may tran&s;late it with as much propriety, <HI>El&s;e were your Children impure, but now they are Saints;</HI> that is, &s;o to be e&s;teemed through Gods Covenant, as if they had profe&s;&s;ed their own faith.</P>
<P>La&s;tly, As it would be mo&s;t ab&s;urd to imagine the Apo&s;tle &s;hould u&s;e a pure religious word to ex|pre&s;s a common and ordinary priviledge: &s;o there would be no con&s;iderable medium for augmentation in that &s;en&s;e, and no &s;uch force in <GAP DESC="foreign"> <HI>(el&s;e were, &amp;c.)</HI> which hath force from the &s;pecialne&s;s of the priviledge to their i&s;&s;ue, not only to be lawfully begotten, as the Children of unbelievers are, when
<PB N="59" REF="37"> lawfully married: but to be in a peculiar &s;tate of &s;e|paration to God, and to be accounted fit members with the believing Parent of the vi&s;ible Church of Chri&s;t.</P>
<P>And what a poor and cold an&s;wer, as to comfort, would it be, when the believer was &s;crupled about abiding with his or her unbelieving yoke-fellow, to tell them, Continue together; for your Children &s;hall not be Ba&s;tards: but how full of &s;trength and &s;weet|ne&s;s mu&s;t it be, if taken in the contrary &s;en&s;e? Re|main with your yoke-fellows, though unbelievers; they are &s;anctified to you, and you &s;hall notwith|&s;tanding bring forth a holy &s;eed; a &s;eed of God, as the Old Te&s;tament expre&s;&s;ion; in Covenant, as if you were both believers: this &s;ounds like a medium mo&s;t demon&s;trative and con&s;olatory, both for &s;a|tisfaction and comfort: What plainer te&s;timonie, or fairer character can be written to &s;hew the qua|lification of Infants of believers, then to write them holy, and give them the &s;ame name that is given to Chri&s;t, and Saints in Heaven and Earth?</P>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 N="8" TYPE="chapter">
<PB N="60" REF="38">
<HEAD><HI>CHAP. VIII.</HI> The Harmonie that notable Chapter, <HI>Rom. 11.</HI> hath with the former Scriptures; the <HI>15, 16, 17,</HI> ver&s;es e&s;pecially o|pened.</HEAD>
<P>THAT the Adver&s;aries of this truth may &s;ee we want not a harmonie of Scriptures to con|firm our judgement, the next place to be con&s;idered of is that, <HI>Rom.</HI> 11. e&s;pecially ver. 15, 16, 17. of that Chapter; which if well weighed, will demon&s;trate the holine&s;s and Church-member&s;hip of the Children of believing Gentiles, as much as of the Jews Children that de&s;cended naturally from <HI>Abra|ham.</HI></P>
<P>The &s;cope of the whole Chapter is to di&s;cover the breaking off, or ca&s;ting away of the Jewi&s;h Na|tion from being a Church, and the priviledge the Gentiles get by this, &amp; their ingraffing into the &s;ame root; and the promi&s;e of the re&s;tauration of the Jews again, when the fulne&s;s of the Gentiles &s;hould come in; and every one of the&s;e expre&s;t with va|riety of notions, and interlined with many cautions concerning Gods actings in this great di&s;pen&s;ation. Concerning the full explication of this Chapter, Mr. <HI>Cobbet</HI> and Mr. <HI>Baxter</HI> have done worthily, and
<PB N="61" REF="38"> have with much clearne&s;s argued for Infants Church-member&s;hip from it. I &s;hall onely for methods &s;ake, and your &s;atisfaction, open the main and mo&s;t controverted terms in this Chapter concerning this &s;ubject. As,</P>
<P N="1">1. What this breaking off, or ca&s;ting away of the Jews imports, and from what they are broken off; from the vi&s;ible or invi&s;ible Church, v. 15.</P>
<P N="2">2. What is meant by the fir&s;t fruits, and the lump, and the root, and the branches; and how it can be affirmed, that if the root be holy, &s;o are the branches, v. 16.</P>
<P N="3">3. What this ingraffing is, and how the Gentiles are &s;aid to be ingraffed, and to be partakers of the fatne&s;s of the Olive, v. 17. For the fir&s;t, This ca&s;ting off, and breaking off, is not from the invi&s;ible, but the vi&s;ible Church.</P>
<P N="1">1. This will maintain falling away from grace, and plea&s;e the Arminians, the great Enemies of the Go&s;pel of free grace: but this the Apo&s;tle prevents, ver. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. by anticipation of that Objection, di&s;tingui&s;hing the Elect, and him&s;elf as one of them, from being ca&s;t off: <HI>I &s;ay then, hath God ca&s;t away his people whom he foreknew? God forbid. I al&s;o am an I&s;raelite, &amp;c.</HI> If the ca&s;ting off meant here was from the invi&s;ible Church, then <HI>Paul</HI> and the other Elect among the Jews were ca&s;t off from that Church; but <HI>God forbid,</HI> &s;aith <HI>Paul,</HI> v. 5. there is a remnant at this pre&s;ent time according to the election of grace, whereof <HI>Paul</HI> was one; therefore it mu&s;t be from
<PB N="62" REF="39"> the vi&s;ible Church they were broken off: But here the <HI>Arminians</HI> and <HI>Pelagians</HI> agree with the&s;e that are again&s;t Infant-bapti&s;m, as they do in many other opinions. Mr. <HI>Tombes</HI> hath nothing to &s;ay in his <HI>Examen</HI> of Mr. <HI>Mar&s;hals</HI> Sermon, to avoid this ab|&s;urdity, but only this, pag. 64.</P>
<P><HI>The meaning is not</HI> (&s;aith he) <HI>of &s;ome of the branches in the invi&s;ible Church; but as when our Saviour Chri&s;t u&s;ing the &s;ame &s;imilitude, &s;aies,</HI> Joh. 15.2. Every branch in me not bearing fruit, he taketh away: <HI>The meaning is, not that any branch in him could be fruitle&s;s, or taken away; but he calleth that a branch in him, which was &s;o in appearance: &s;o the Apo&s;tle &s;peaking of branches broken off, means it not of &s;uch as were truly &s;o, but &s;o in appearance.</HI> Thus far he.</P>
<P>Which is a granting of what he denies; for to be a branch in appearance, is only to be a vi&s;ible branch; and no branch that is meerly in appearance &s;o, and not really, is one of the invi&s;ible Church, nor can ever be &s;aid to be broken from it, but only from his vi|&s;ible &s;tate which he hath but (<GAP DESC="foreign">) v. 15, 16. as a branch in outward priviledges, and &s;eeming graces.</P>
<P N="2">2. The breaking off, &amp;c. it was of the Jewi&s;h Nation, of the collective body, though not of every individual, and therefore it mu&s;t needs be from the vi&s;ible Church; for as a Nation they were a Church, and the whole Nation was ca&s;t away and rejected; now as a Nation they were not all members of the invi&s;ible Church, ver. 7, 8. with ver. 17.</P>
<P N="3"><PB N="63" REF="39">3. It's a vi&s;ible breaking off, therefore cannot be from the invi&s;ible Church, ver. 3, 4, 5. 17, 18, 19. For as Mr. <HI>Baxter</HI> well ob&s;erves, <HI>There can be no vi|&s;ible removing from an invi&s;ible term.</HI></P>
<P N="4">4. It's a breaking off the naturall branches, &s;o he cals the Jews: Now the body of the Jewi&s;h Church were not naturall branches in a &s;piritual &s;en&s;e; for they believed not as <HI>Abraham</HI> did; but only called &s;o as they were naturally de&s;cended from his loyns, and were members of the vi&s;ible Church, and fir&s;t partakers of the outward priviledges of the Covenant made with him: Thus the Apo&s;tle di&s;tingui&s;heth of the body of the Jewi&s;h Nation, <HI>Rom.</HI> 9. where after he had reckoned up all the priviledges of the I&s;raelites in general, ver. 4. <HI>Who are I&s;raelites, to whom pertains the adoption and the glory, and the Covenants, &amp;c.</HI> ma|king way by this to &s;hew the &s;adne&s;s of their rejecti|on, in ver. the 6. to prevent the &s;ame Objection, the Apo&s;tle in this Chapter &s;aith, <HI>They are not all</HI> I&s;rael <HI>which are of</HI> I&s;rael; that is, not all &s;piritual, though all natural brances; and the&s;e priviledges did vi&s;ibly belong to all. As for that di&s;tinction of <HI>Abrahams</HI> being a natural and a &s;piritual Father, it may go for currant until they come to apply it, and then it is mo&s;t vain; for all that came from <HI>Abraham</HI> as a na|tural Father, had a title to all the&s;e priviledges fore|mentioned, which belonged to the vi&s;ible Church until they did degenerate, and ca&s;t them&s;elves out, as <HI>I&s;hmael</HI> and <HI>E&s;au, &amp;c.</HI> But of this formerly.</P>
<P>La&s;tly, If they were broken off from the invi&s;ible
<PB N="64" REF="40"> Church, it mu&s;t be either from union with Chri&s;t, or communion with Chri&s;t and his Spirit; for this is the true definition of the invi&s;ible Church, that in it &s;ouls have real union and communion with God in Chri&s;t through the Spirit: but none of the Jews that were broken off had &s;uch a union or communion, and therefore could not be broken off from it: But &s;o far they may be &s;aid to be broken off from the in|vi&s;ible Church, as by remote con&s;equence, as they were excluded from all the means of grace, and the Ordinances; which are the u&s;ual waies and methods of God to bring &s;ouls into communion with him|&s;elf.</P>
<P N="2">2. Let us con&s;ider what is meant by the fir&s;t fruits, and the lump, and the root, and the branches: There be many opinions concerning this, e&s;pecially two mu&s;t be debated; &s;ome think it Chri&s;t, as the&s;e that follow <HI>Origen</HI> and the allegorical Fathers:<NOTE PLACE="marg">Ego aliam &s;an|ctam radicem ne&s;cio, ni&s;i Do|minum no|&s;trum. <HI>Origen.</HI></NOTE> But that fir&s;tly and primarily by the fir&s;t fruits, and the lump, and the root, and the bran|ches, cannot be meant Chri&s;t neither per&s;onally nor my&s;tically, is mo&s;t clear if we con|&s;ider,</P>
<P N="1">1. Je&s;us Chri&s;t was not the fir&s;t fruits in regard of the whole lump of the Jewi&s;h Nation, and &s;o can|not an&s;wer to the fir&s;t &s;imilitude.</P>
<P N="2">2. Je&s;us Chri&s;t cannot be &s;aid to be root unto the&s;e which were ca&s;t away; no branches really in him are cut off, but &s;o were they; for that place of
<PB N="65" REF="40"> the 15^t^h of <HI>John,</HI> v. 2. which &s;eemeth to &s;peak of &s;ome branches which are in Chri&s;t, and yet are taken away for not bearing fruit: it may be better read, and according to the <HI>Syriack,</HI> thus; <HI>Every branch that brings not forth fruit in me, he takes away;</HI> that is, that do bring forth &s;ome &s;eeming fruit, but not as in Chri&s;t as root and principle.</P>
<P N="3">3. In ver. 24. the Jews when they &s;hall be called, it's &s;aid, <HI>They &s;hall be graffed into their own Olive:</HI> Now Chri&s;t is not properly their own Olive, but &s;o is <HI>Abraham, &amp;c.</HI></P>
<P N="4">4. The Jews are &s;aid (as formerly) to be na|tural branches of this root, but &s;o they were not of Chri&s;t; but Chri&s;t was a natural branch from that &s;tock, <HI>Rom.</HI> 9.5. <HI>Who&s;e are the Fathers; of whom as concerning the fle&s;h Chri&s;t came.</HI></P>
<P>Mr. <HI>Tombes</HI> him&s;elf ingenuou&s;ly confe&s;&s;eth this, pag. 67. of his <HI>Examen, That by the root cannot be meant Chri&s;t;</HI> and gives us the hint of another ar|gument from tho&s;e expre&s;&s;ions, v. 24. of &s;ome bran|ches, wild <GAP DESC="foreign">, <HI>according to nature;</HI> and of in|graffing in, <GAP DESC="foreign">, <HI>contrary to nature,</HI> into this Olive; he concludes the root cannot be Chri&s;t: for Chri&s;t hath no natural or preternatural branches in him; all are wild ere they be ingraffed into him as a living root: And the other expre&s;&s;ion, v. 18. of our not bearing the root, but the root us, if we boa&s;t again&s;t the Jews, doth evidently demon&s;trate, that the root here is not properly meant of Chri&s;t, though he be the eternal root of all &s;piritual happine&s;s,
<PB N="66" REF="41"> &s;et forth gloriou&s;ly in many other places of Scri|pture.</P>
<P>Others by the root mean the Covenant: But the be&s;t and mo&s;t genuine &s;en&s;e is to interpret it of <HI>Abra|ham;</HI> with whom, and with his &s;eed as &s;o many branches, the Covenant was made, and by which both the root and the branches were made holy: And this an&s;wers fully to both the &s;imilitudes. For,</P>
<P N="1">1. It's an allu&s;ion to the Legal rights about the fir&s;t fruits which were to be offered up to God; and by that all the whole ma&s;s, all the fruits that came after were accounted holy: Thus <HI>Abraham</HI> was the fir&s;t fruits of the Jews: he believing fir&s;t, and being in Covenant, all the lump, the whole body of the Jewi&s;h Nation were taken in to be a Church, and were accounted holy.</P>
<P N="2">2. As a root it an&s;wers to him from whom all the Jews &s;prang up, and from whom they drew all their Church priviledges, as their breath: Thus the Lord by the Prophet in <HI>I&s;a.</HI> 51.1, 2. bids the Jews to <HI>look to the rock out of which they were hewen, and the pit out of which they were digged:</HI> he means it of <HI>Abraham</HI> fir&s;t, as appears by the &s;econd ver&s;e; <HI>Look to</HI> Abraham <HI>your Father, and to</HI> Sarah <HI>that bare you; for I called him alone, and ble&s;&s;ed and increa&s;ed him, &amp;c.</HI></P>
<P><HI>Ob.</HI> But what kind of con&s;equence is this? and how doth the Apo&s;tle make u&s;e of this? <HI>If the fir&s;t fruits be holy, &s;o is the lump; and if the root be holy, &s;o are the branches:</HI> From what principle doth the Apo&s;tle argue?</P>
<PB N="67" REF="41">
<P><HI>Sol.</HI> The Apo&s;tle in the former ver&s;e &s;peaks of a receiving in again of the Jewi&s;h Nation, and brings in this as a ground to hope for it, <HI>There is yet a holy root which hath an influence on the branches; and ar|gues, that if the root be holy, when the branches broken off &s;hall be re ingraffed, they &s;hall be holy likewi&s;e.</HI> The like phra&s;e you have in v. 28. <HI>As touching the Go&s;pel, they are enemies for your &s;ake; but as touching the Election, they are beloved,</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign">, <HI>for their Fathers &s;ake; God having &s;o ca&s;t his Election, as to run in that vein mo&s;t eminently:</HI> And &s;ome do render it, <HI>They are beloved through their Fathers:</HI> But this is clear;</P>
<P N="1">1. That <HI>Abraham,</HI> or as &s;ome &s;ay, <HI>Abraham, I&s;aac</HI> and <HI>Iacob</HI> were the root.</P>
<P N="2">2. That he argues from the holine&s;s of the root, to the holine&s;s of the branches; that is, from them as Parents, to their po&s;terity as Branches.</P>
<P N="3">3. That this was an u&s;ual and common principle of arguing in Scripture, from the Parent to the Po|&s;terity; for el&s;e he had &s;poken in the dark, and had proved <HI>notum per ignotius,</HI> if they could not uni|ver&s;ally rea&s;on from it; and if you ob&s;erve, he writes it as an Axiom of the greate&s;t demon&s;tration, and never &s;tands to prove it further.</P>
<P N="4">4. It had been an argument of no force for to prove the calling in of the Jews, and their happy &s;tate upon re-ingraffing, to tell them, <HI>If the root be holy, &s;o are the branches; and they are beloved for the Fa|thers &s;ake,</HI> if there were not a virtue &s;till in the root
<PB N="68" REF="42"> to derive holine&s;s to them, when they &s;hould be re|ceived in, and ingraffed to their own Olive; he laies all the weight on the root, being &s;till holy and fre&s;h, though the branches be broken off. And what can you make of this as to argumentation? <HI>If the root be holy,</HI> Ergo <HI>the branches:</HI> and apply it to Per&s;ons, and Parents, but in a moral and imputative con&s;idera|tion.</P>
<P><HI>Ob.</HI> But holine&s;s is not propagated by nature, from the Parent to his Child; and we all derive &s;in by nature from our Parents; and are, as the Apo&s;tle &s;aith, <HI>Eph.</HI> 2.2. <HI>by nature the Children of wrath, &amp;c.</HI> and as <HI>David</HI> &s;aith, <HI>Conceived in &s;in.</HI></P>
<P><HI>Sol.</HI> 1. It's true, we are &s;o; and there is no ho|line&s;s propagated by nature, take it for internal ha|bits; as a wi&s;e man doth not convey his wi&s;edome, 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 &s;en&s;e <HI>Abraham</HI> is not a root, he begets no Believer; and under this con&s;ideration the argument cannot hold; <HI>Abraham</HI> in this &s;en&s;e is only a root, <GAP DESC="foreign">, <HI>exemplary only;</HI> Chri&s;t is <GAP DESC="foreign">, <HI>effectually, to convey &s;imilar graces:</HI> But,</P>
<P N="2">2. There is a holine&s;s by gratious e&s;timation or imputation, which flows from Gods Covenant, or &s;ome &s;pecial priviledge given to &s;uch a &s;tock, or kin|dred, or Nation; God taking &s;uch a family, &s;uch a &s;tock, and &s;eparates it to him&s;elf for &s;ome holy u&s;e, and &s;o ble&s;&s;eth them: And thus it was with <HI>Abra|ham,</HI>
<PB N="69" REF="42"> and is mo&s;t common in the Scriptures, and ac|cording to the nature of priviledges among men, where the &s;on of a Freeman is free, and the &s;on of a Nobleman a Nobleman; and by way of allu&s;ion, (though it doth not hold in all particulars) as in ju|&s;tification, Chri&s;ts righteou&s;ne&s;s is imputed, and we accounted holy by it: So as to &s;ome &s;pecial privi|ledges, the root, the Parent being holy, and in the Covenant, his Child hath the advantage of it; not meritoriou&s;ly from the Parents faith, but virtually through Gods gracious promi&s;e to the Believer and his &s;eed. But,</P>
<P N="3">3. This is not by natural generation, for then it &s;hould be to all Children; but by grace and pro|portion; it's Gods good plea&s;ure thus to derive the priviledge, and out of &s;pecial re&s;pect to the Parents; and to encourage them in their own faith, and &s;trengthen them in their hopes concerning their &s;eed: thus did God choo&s;e out <HI>Abraham</HI> and his family from all the world, and ble&s;&s;ed him; yet it was not from nature his &s;eed were more ble&s;&s;ed then all the world be&s;ides. But as Dr. <HI>Willet</HI> &s;aith well on this place, <HI>The branches are holy becau&s;e of this holy root; not by an actual and inherent holine&s;s, but by a pre|rogative of grace grounded on the promi&s;e of God made to believing Fathers and their &s;eed; which is the &s;ame in the New Te&s;tament as in the Old;</HI> and in this &s;en&s;e the argument is &s;trong, and enforcing the &s;cope of the Apo&s;tle. So that though the generation be na|tural, the derivation of a Title to Church priviledges,
<PB N="70" REF="43"> and the characteri&s;tical note of holine&s;s is given them by grace in the Covenant, which takes in the branches with the root. In no &s;en&s;e be&s;ides can this argument be true, without you make the root Chri&s;t: which you &s;ee cannot be meant in this place without great ab&s;urdities.</P>
<P>The third and &s;pecial term to be opened, is, what this ingraffing is of the Gentiles into the root, and how they are ingraffed? v. 17, 19.</P>
<P>For the under&s;tanding of this, Mr. <HI>Mar&s;hal</HI> hath laid down a &s;ure po&s;ition, which neither Mr. <HI>Tombes, who is the mo&s;t learned Adver&s;ary of this Truth,</HI> nor any other hath or can &s;hake; and that is, <HI>That the ingraffing in of the Gentiles mu&s;t be &s;utable to the break|ing off the Jews; as they were broken off, &s;o are we in|graffed:</HI> This the Apo&s;tle clearly proves in every ver&s;e. In v. 17. <HI>Thou being a wild Olive,</HI> &s;peaking of the Gentiles collectively con&s;idered, wert ingraffed, <GAP DESC="foreign">, <HI>in, amongst them;</HI> &s;o <HI>Grotius</HI> tran&s;lates it, <HI>Po&s;itus es inter ramos illius arboris,</HI> Thou art &s;et a|mong the branches of that tree; and &s;o referring to the fir&s;t words of the ver&s;e, which is implyed, that &s;ome remained &s;till; for but &s;ome of the branches were broken off, and the Gentile-believers were in|oculated among them, and by a &s;pecial adoption were partakers of the &s;ame priviledges; according to that of the Poet <HI>Ovid:</HI>
<Q>Venerit in&s;itio: fac ramum, ramus adoptet.</Q> But the be&s;t reference is to the former part of the
<PB N="71" REF="43"> ver&s;e, as it &s;peaks of the&s;e branches which were bro|ken off; the believing Gentiles were ingraffed, (<GAP DESC="foreign">) that is, as <HI>Beza</HI> and the <HI>Syriack</HI> tran&s;lates it, <HI>pro ip&s;is,</HI> for them, that is, <HI>in ramorum defractorum locum,</HI> in the room or &s;tead of the branches which were broken off; they were taken away, we ingraf|fed: Others tran&s;late it, <HI>cum illis,</HI> with them, which remained when we were in&s;erted: but either inter|pretation will become the &s;en&s;e of the place.</P>
<P>Now the rea&s;ons which flow from this Text con|cerning the &s;ubject which we have in hand, may be ea&s;ier &s;lighted then an&s;wered: This po&s;ition being laid down, <HI>We believing Gentiles are ingraffed into</HI> Abrahams <HI>Covenant, in the room of the natural bran|ches which were broken off:</HI> Now,</P>
<P N="1">1. The Jews and their Children were broken off from the Church, their Children being members as well as them&s;elves: therefore believing Gentiles and their Children are ingraffed in, the ingraffing in is &s;utable to the breaking off: they have nibbled about this rea&s;on; but the be&s;t of the Adver&s;aries have never &s;aid any thing yet, as to &s;atisfie a rational Saint.</P>
<P N="2">2. Some branches were not broken off; for &s;o it's implyed in that he &s;aith, <HI>If &s;ome were broken off;</HI> and if they were not broken off, then not their Children; for it was not only a breaking off per|&s;onally, but of &s;ucce&s;&s;ion, and of their po&s;terity with them&s;elves: Now if we be ingraffed among the&s;e, or with the&s;e that are not broken off, we and our
<PB N="72" REF="44"> Children mu&s;t likewi&s;e be ingraffed in; el&s;e there will be a &s;chi&s;m between Jew and Gentile, in en|joying the priviledges naturally flowing from the &s;ame root: No man will be &s;o bold as to &s;ay, 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 mu&s;t be broken off for their own &s;ins, or their Fathers; not for their Fathers, for &s;ome of them were Believers, and not broken off; not for them&s;elves, for &s;ome of them were Infants; therefore &s;ome Infants were not broken off; for their Fathers continued in the faith; and we believing Gentiles are ingraffed in among them; therefore our Children al&s;o.</P>
<P N="3">3. In the latter end, when the Jews &s;hall be in|graffed in again to their own Olive, which is pro|mi&s;ed in this Chapter, they and their Children &s;hall be taken in, v. 26. <HI>And &s;o all</HI> I&s;rael <HI>&s;hall be &s;aved;</HI> and our ingraffing in is &s;till &s;utable to theirs.</P>
<P N="4">4. The Gentiles are &s;aid to partake of the root, and the fatne&s;s of the Olive tree, in the &s;ame ver&s;e: this (<GAP DESC="foreign">) &s;ignifies the full participa|tion and fellow&s;hip in all the priviledges and advan|tages of the root, as the Jews had. Now their pri|viledge was not per&s;onal to them&s;elves, but to their po&s;terity; and therein lay the fatne&s;s of that Olive, in the fulne&s;s and large extent of its priviledge and &s;eminal vertue, that it comprehended Parent and Child. So that as the Jews ca&s;ting off was not only per&s;onal, but Politique, that is, of them and theirs;
<PB N="73" REF="44"> &s;o our ingraffing in their room is; and as they had the fatne&s;s of the root and Olive once, &s;o have we: Now we could not be &s;aid to be, (<GAP DESC="foreign">) <HI>To have a mutual fellow&s;hip with the Jews in the root and fatne&s;s of it,</HI> if we be only per&s;onally ingraffed, and they and theirs broken off oeconomically; if there be a fellow&s;hip, it mu&s;t be at lea&s;t in &s;ub&s;tantials: And this was the mo&s;t eminent and &s;ub&s;tantial priviledge of the Jews, that they and their po&s;terity were taken into the &s;ame Covenant: The Apo&s;tle opens this further in <HI>Eph</HI> 3.6.</P>
<P>And e&s;pecially, if we remember, that their break|ing off, and our ingraffing, is into the vi&s;ible Church, as is formerly proved, and mu&s;t needs be granted; for all that were broken off, were not broken off from election, and the invi&s;ible Church; neither are all the Gentiles which are ingraffed in, elected, and really of the invi&s;ible Church. So that the re&s;ult is this;</P>
<P N="1">1. That there is a real ingraffing of the believing Gentiles into the &s;ame root from which the unbelie|ving Jews were broken off.</P>
<P N="2">2. This breaking off was from the vi&s;ible Church, and its priviledges, not from the invi&s;ible; &s;o is the ingraffing of us into the vi&s;ible Church.</P>
<P N="3">3. As their ca&s;ting out was of them and their po|&s;terity, &s;o is our graffing in of us and our Children; The&s;e conclu&s;ions flow naturally from the Text; and all other deductions will be but as dregs after the &s;pirits are extracted.</P>
<P N="4"><PB N="74" REF="45">4. And to adde to the re&s;t this con&s;ideration, That if the po&s;terity of the Gentiles be not taken in, as the Jews were, there will be the greate&s;t inequa|lity of the communication of the fatne&s;s of the root that can be imagined; and the Jews may rather boa&s;t again&s;t the believing Gentiles, then they again&s;t them; &s;eeing the root conveyed priviledges to them and their po&s;terity, but only per&s;onal priviledges to the believing Gentile; to the one a double mercy, to the other only a &s;ingle.</P>
<P><HI>Ob.</HI> But this great Objection may be made; No Believer is now a root as <HI>Abraham,</HI> he is but only a branch; and therefore it's not to be conceived how it can be argued from this to every Believer, <HI>If the root be holy, &s;o are the branches,</HI> as it may be to <HI>Abra|ham.</HI></P>
<P><HI>Sol.</HI> It's granted, every Believer, nor any, cannot properly be called the root, as <HI>Abraham</HI> was, and in a &s;trict &s;en&s;e: Yet,</P>
<P N="1">1. They are ingraffed into the &s;ame root, and convey the &s;ame priviledges to their branches, as <HI>I&s;aac,</HI> and <HI>Jacob,</HI> and the <HI>twelve Tribes</HI> did to their po&s;terities, who were not properly nor ab&s;olutely the root, but branches of it; and we all know, that a Slip well inoculated or ingraffed, becomes after|wards a natural branch; and receives as much from the root, as the&s;e which grew naturally on it: So that it's as &s;trong to argue on the Gentiles &s;ide after ingraffing; <HI>If the root be holy, &s;o are the branches;</HI> as from <HI>Abraham</HI> to the Jews, who were natural
<PB N="75" REF="45"> branches; As an adopted &s;on, him and his have as full a title to the inheritance as a natural &s;on.</P>
<P>There is only this difference between the convey|ance 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 <HI>Believers of the Gentiles,</HI> who are called by the Go&s;pel, with their Children, are ingraffed into that root.</P>
<P N="2">2. Though every Believer is not the proper root, but only a branch of that root; yet for being in|graffed, he is naturalized as the Jewi&s;h branch, and &s;o mu&s;t have the &s;ame priviledge.</P>
<P N="3">3. There are branches of branches; and the poor|e&s;t branch hath &s;ome twigs, and &s;preading &s;prigs growing from them which are of the &s;ame con&s;idera|tion, and do receive of the fatne&s;s of the root as well as the main branches; and in this &s;en&s;e every branch may be &s;aid to be the immediate root of the le&s;&s;er twigs: Thus Believers ingraffed into the root, are holy, and their Infants that are branches of the branches immediatly &s;prouting forth from them, are holy al&s;o, and under the &s;ame con&s;ideration; and the argument holds &s;till for the ingraffed branches, as for the natural.</P>
<P>And as Mr. <HI>Blake</HI> &s;aith well, <HI>The branches of An|ce&s;tors are roots of po&s;terity; being made a holy branch, in reference to their i&s;&s;ue they become a holy root.</HI> This might be much more enlarged, but that I would not be voluminous; it's enough that Believers are
<PB N="76" REF="46"> ingraffed with their Children into the &s;ame root, as is formerly proved.</P>
<P>And then the argument holds firm, That the&s;e that are in the root, mu&s;t partake of the fatne&s;s of it; and they which are in the Covenant, cannot be denied the priviledges of it.</P>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 N="9" TYPE="chapter">
<HEAD><HI>CHAP. IX.</HI> Wherein Mr. <HI>Tombes</HI> his eight Arguments in his <HI>Apology</HI> again&s;t Mr. <HI>Mar&s;hal,</HI> for the ingraffing in, mentioned <HI>v. 17.</HI> to be of the Gentiles into the invi&s;ible Church by election and &s;aving faith, are examined and an&s;wered.</HEAD>
<P>THE great endeavour of the&s;e 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 &s;aving faith, and &s;o into the invi&s;ible Church; for they &s;ee their ca&s;e is in hazard if it &s;hould be meant of the vi&s;ible Church: And therefore, though enough be &s;poken before to prove what we affirm; yet becau&s;e Mr. <HI>Tombes</HI> hath laid down eight Arguments with &s;o much confidence on
<PB N="77" REF="46"> the other &s;ide as unan&s;werable; I think it not ami&s;s to be&s;tow one Chapter in the di&s;covery of the un|&s;oundne&s;s of his rea&s;ons, that the truth may have a fairer pa&s;&s;age into your under&s;tanding without clouds or demurs.</P>
<P>His fir&s;t rea&s;on is, <HI>Apologie p.</HI> 71. <HI>That ingraffing which is by Gods &s;ole power, it is into the invi&s;ible Church: but &s;o is the ingraffing of the Jews,</HI> v. 3. Ergo. <HI>For God is able to graff them.</HI></P>
<P><HI>Sol.</HI> 1. As to argue from Gods power to his will, is alwaies un&s;ound in Divinity and in Rea&s;on; God is able, therefore he will: So,</P>
<P N="2">2. To argue from power to election, is of the &s;ame nature; for election is &s;eldome or never at|tributed to Gods power, but to his will or good plea&s;ure.</P>
<P N="3">3. To argue from Gods power in general, to the putting of it forth ab&s;olutely in &s;uch a determi|nate act, is as &s;trange; God is able to graff them in, <HI>Ergo</HI> it mu&s;t be into the invi&s;ible Church; as if God &s;hewed nothing of his power, but in the workings of &s;aving grace; e&s;pecially if we con&s;ider what a power it is, and only from God: But to take the very prejudice the Jews have even from the letter of the Go&s;pel to bring them but to confe&s;s Chri&s;t, after &s;o long a darkne&s;s, as it was in the beginning of the Go&s;pell: but to make the Gentiles but outwardly own and profe&s;s the Go&s;pel, and yet not members
<PB N="78" REF="47"> of the invi&s;ible Church; to take away the very gro&s;&s;ne&s;s of naturall darkne&s;s and ignorance, is a work of mighty power; And to an outward con|ver&s;ion, where per&s;ons have been long under the power of darkne&s;s, there needs the &s;ole power of God.</P>
<P N="4">4. The Apo&s;tle may well put in rather Gods power then his will, when he &s;peaks of the ingraffing in of the Jews; for it will require an act of power to gather them but vi&s;ibly once again, and bring them into one entire body to make a vi&s;ible Church, when they are &s;o &s;cattered up and down all Nations; and at &s;uch a di&s;tance one from another, that it is as the gathering of the bones of dead men; and &s;o it's likened to the re&s;urrection from the dead, v. 15. So that we need go no further to enquire why their in|graffing &s;hould be attributed to Gods power, &s;eeing there is need enough of a Divine power but to ga|ther them together from the four winds, to make a collective body, and &s;o to be a vi&s;ible Church.</P>
<P>Be&s;ides, when the Apo&s;tle &s;peaks of power in working of &s;aving faith, he doth put other Epithites to &s;et it forth; and not only barely &s;peaks of power which God puts forth in all acts, but exceeding great|ne&s;s of power, <HI>Eph.</HI> 1.21, 22.</P>
<P><HI>Arg.</HI> 2. His &s;econd Argument is <HI>That ingraffing, which is called reconciliation, oppo&s;ite to ca&s;ting away, that is by election and giving faith: but &s;o is the in|graffing called</HI> v. 15.</P>
<PB N="79" REF="47">
<P><HI>Sol.</HI> If he means reconciliation in the &s;tricte&s;t &s;en&s;e, as it denotes pardon of &s;ins, and being made friends with God by Chri&s;ts atonement and me|diator&s;hip; which mu&s;t be his &s;en&s;e if he &s;peak like him&s;elf: Then many ab&s;urdities may follow.</P>
<P N="1">1. That the Jews and their rejection was the ground of the Gentiles reconciliation unto God.</P>
<P N="2">2. That no reconciliation was obtained for the Gentiles before the Jews were broken off.</P>
<P N="3">3. That tho&s;e which are reconciled, and their &s;ins pardoned, may be ca&s;t off; for &s;o were the Jews; and the Gentiles threatned with the &s;ame mi&s;ery on the &s;ame ground, v. 20.</P>
<P N="4">4. As there is external and eternal &s;alvation &s;po|ken of, 1 <HI>Tim.</HI> 4.10. &s;o there may be an outward and inward reconciliation; the Gentiles were ca&s;t out from the vi&s;ible Church for &s;o many hundreds of years, without any hope or promi&s;e, <HI>And &s;trangers to the Commonwealth of</HI> I&s;rael, <HI>Eph.</HI> 2.11, 12. and &s;o vi&s;ibly ca&s;t off; and it was a great reconciliation but to break down the middle wall of partition be|tween Jew and Gentile, as to vi&s;ible priviledges and Ordinances: And &s;o by the reconciling the world may be more properly meant the bringing them in under the means of the Go&s;pel, and the outward di&s;pen&s;a|tions of the Church; which is Gods common way and method of &s;alvation; and which to &s;ome is real and effectual unto inward grace, unto others only to outward priviledges.</P>
<P>And the very phra&s;e, <HI>the reconciliation of the world,</HI>
<PB N="80" REF="48"> to Orthodox ears, deafens and da&s;heth the other in|terpretation; for the body of the Gentile-world (which he means) are not &s;o reconciled as by electi|on and &s;aving grace, though the &s;ound of the Go&s;pel hath gone through all the world.</P>
<P><HI>Ob.</HI> 3. <HI>Thirdly,</HI> &s;aith he, <HI>the ingraffing mu&s;t be meant of that act whereby the branch &s;tands in the tree as a branch: but that is by giving of faith. The minor is proved al&s;o,</HI> v. 20. <HI>they were broken off by unbelief, and we &s;tand by faith, &amp;c.</HI></P>
<P><HI>Sol.</HI> It's true, the ingraffing is by faith, as their breaking off was by unbelief: but as their unbelief was &s;hewn in a publique rejection of the Go&s;pel, and by it they and their Children were broken off; &s;o the Gentiles are ingraffed in by publique profe&s;&s;ion of faith, and acceptation of the Go&s;pel for them|&s;elves and their Children; and this mu&s;t needs be the Apo&s;tles meaning: For,</P>
<P N="1">1. Ver. 18. He bids the Gentiles not to boa&s;t a|gain&s;t the branches that were broken off. Now how could they boa&s;t again&s;t them but for vi&s;ible privi|ledges? invi&s;ible, are out of cognizance to others: Do Saints boa&s;t again&s;t one another for election and reprobation? the&s;e &s;ecrets of the Almighty: This Argument Mr. <HI>Baxter</HI> urgeth with much advantage, in his Book.</P>
<P N="2">2. In v. 19. he explains further what the nature of their boa&s;ting might be; thou wilt &s;ay, The branches
<PB N="81" REF="48"> were broken off, that I might be ingraffed: now can any man conceive they &s;hould boa&s;t becau&s;e the bran|ches 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 &s;aving faith? So in ver. 20, 21, 22, 23. he exhorts the Gentiles <HI>to look to their &s;tanding, and to take heed le&s;t they be broken off al&s;o; For if God &s;pared not the natural branches, &amp;c. much le&s;s will he &s;pare thee:</HI> What, are they exhorted to look lea&s;t they be cut off from Gods election, &amp;c? Will Mr. <HI>Tombes</HI> turn a downright <HI>Arminian,</HI> that he may have any plea again&s;t the ba|ptizing of poor Infants?</P>
<P>There is a twofold way of ingraffing, either by &s;piritual implantation into Chri&s;t, or by vi&s;ible pro|fe&s;&s;ion of faith; and both the&s;e &s;hould meet in one per&s;on, though they may al&s;o be &s;eparated; a vi&s;ible Profe&s;&s;or may not have &s;aving faith within, <HI>yet may have:</HI> So here, the ingraffing in is into the vi&s;ible Church by vi&s;ible profe&s;&s;ion; among which &s;ome are, &s;ome are not invi&s;ible members: but the very <HI>terminus</HI> of ingraffing is not into the invi&s;ible, but the vi&s;ible Church; for neither the Apo&s;tle, nor an Angel could tell who were ingraffed into the invi&s;ible Church, nor who broken off, but only from the vi&s;ible Church, fir&s;t as the proper term, and then by con&s;equence from the invi&s;ible; for from this Church none were ab&s;olutely broken off that ever were in, and into it few ingraffed.</P>
<P>So that if the ingraffing be vi&s;ible, the term mu&s;t
<PB N="82" REF="49"> be vi&s;ible al&s;o: but the ingraffing is vi&s;ible, <HI>Ergo</HI> the term is &s;o: This is according to Mr. <HI>Tombes</HI> his own form of argumentation, from the term to the in|gaffing; the major is proved before.</P>
<P><HI>Ob. Fourthly, That ingraffing is meant</HI> v. 17. <HI>whereby the wild Olive is co-partaker of the root and fatne&s;s of the Olive; but &s;uch is only election and &s;a|ving faith;</HI> be proves the minor, by di&s;tingui&s;hing who the root is, which he well affirms to be <HI>Abra|ham.</HI></P>
<P><HI>Sol.</HI> To which there needs no other An&s;wer then what Mr. <HI>Blake</HI> hath given him; <HI>If the root be</HI> Abra|ham, <HI>and the ingraffing in be only by election, and deri|vation of &s;aving graces</HI> (which he means by <HI>the fat|ne&s;s of the Olive) then it mu&s;t be that we are all elect in</HI> Abraham <HI>as a common root;</HI> Abraham <HI>may &s;ay, Without me you can do nothing.</HI></P>
<P>To which Mr. <HI>Tombes</HI> only an&s;wers by confe&s;&s;ion, <HI>That it would follow if he made</HI> Abraham <HI>a root as Chri&s;t, communicating &s;aving faith: But I make</HI> A|braham <HI>a root as the Father of Believers, not by be|getting faith, but as an exemplary cau&s;e.</HI> How poor an eva&s;ion is this of &s;o confident a man in his opinion, I &s;ubmit to judgement.</P>
<P>Let him mind his Argument, and the force of it; <HI>That ingraffing is meant whereby the wild Olive is partaker of the fatne&s;s of the root: but that is only election and &s;aving grace, &amp;c.</HI></P>
<P N="1"><PB N="83" REF="49">1. Were not the natural branches which were broken off partakers of the fatne&s;s of the root? and were they all elected and partakers of &s;aving graces or outward priviledges only? and why then &s;hould it be thought ab&s;urd for the Gentiles by ingraffing to partake of the fatne&s;s of the root only in outward priviledges, &s;eeing it was &s;o with the natural bran|ches, and they all grow on the &s;ame root?</P>
<P N="2">2. The old ab&s;urdity will ari&s;e &s;till from this, <HI>That Saints may fall away from election and &s;aving grace.</HI></P>
<P N="3">3. How can he imagine <HI>Abraham</HI> to be the root, and the fatne&s;s of the root to be election and &s;aving graces, and that engraffing the way of being co-partakers with the root, and yet deny Mr. <HI>Blakes</HI> Argument, <HI>That we are elected in</HI> Abraham?</P>
<P N="1">1. It's improper to call a root an exemplary cau&s;e; there is no harmonie between them; an example conveyes nothing; here is a conveyance of fat|ne&s;s.</P>
<P N="2">2. How un&s;utable to good language is it to &s;ay, That &s;uch are partakers of the fatne&s;s or fulne&s;s of an example? can we think the Apo&s;tle would &s;o far over-reach?</P>
<P N="3">3. Were the Jews partakers of the fatne&s;s of <HI>A|braham</HI> in the Covenant, meerly as from an Exempla|ry cau&s;e? had not they it from him as a natural Fa|ther, God making the Covenant with him and his &s;eed? and do not ingraffed branches afterwards be|come as natural?</P>
<PB N="84" REF="50">
<P>He only adds, p. 73. <HI>That if it were meant of out|ward priviledges, it were fal&s;e; for the Gentiles were not partakers of the outward priviledges of</HI> Abra|ham.</P>
<P><HI>Sol. Abraham</HI> is a root in the New Te&s;tament as well as in the Old, and &s;till &s;tands by virtue of the Covenant to Believers and their Children: And though Old Te&s;tament Ordinances were taken away with the Jews, and that Church &s;tate, yet the root is not taken away; but the New Te&s;tament priviledges grow on the &s;ame root; and our ingraffing in gives us to be partakers of the fatne&s;s of them, as well as it gave to the Jews the participation of former priviledges until they were broken off.</P>
<P>All the re&s;t of his Arguments are much of the &s;ame nature; only a touch further of each of them.</P>
<P><HI>Ob.</HI> 5. From v. 25. <HI>If the breaking off the Jews be by blinding, then the ingraffing is by giving faith; but the former is true, &s;o the latter.</HI></P>
<P><HI>Sol.</HI> This is the &s;ame in effect with the third Ar|gument: Yet,</P>
<P N="1">1. There is not the &s;ame rea&s;on, &s;eeing he takes it of giving &s;aving faith; their blinding was judicial, a puni&s;hment for their unbelieving, rejecting of the Go&s;pel, though they had not &s;aving faith to embrace the Go&s;pel; the giving of &s;aving faith is not on &s;uch terms; neither is &s;aving faith &s;o ab&s;olutely
<PB N="85" REF="50"> antecedent to make a man a member of the vi&s;ible Church, as blinding is to Gods final rejection.</P>
<P N="2">2. Blindne&s;s came but in part on <HI>I&s;rael;</HI> it fell only on the meer vi&s;ible members, not the invi&s;ible and elect: therefore, the ingraffing mu&s;t be only of vi&s;ible members into the vi&s;ible Church, v. 7. The election hath obtained it, but the re&s;t were blinded.</P>
<P>Arg. 6. <HI>If re-ingraffing of the Jews produceth &s;al|vation, is by turning them from their iniquity, &amp;c. then it is to the invi&s;ible Church: but &s;o it is,</HI> V. 26, 27. Ergo.</P>
<P><HI>Sol.</HI> To which I give this fair An&s;wer, That doubtle&s;s according to tho&s;e promi&s;es, when the Jews &s;hall be called in to be a vi&s;ible Church again, there &s;hall be abundance of more glory be brought in with them, then ever yet the world &s;aw; and the new Heavens and the new Earth, the coming down of the new <HI>Jeru&s;alem,</HI> and all tho&s;e glorious things are fitted to fall in with that time. And from the&s;e con&s;idera|tions many do interpret v. 26. literally, <HI>And &s;o &s;hall all</HI> I&s;rael <HI>be &s;aved.</HI> But yet,</P>
<P N="1">1. They &s;hall be ingraffed in as a vi&s;ible Church; el&s;e <HI>Abraham</HI> and the Fathers would never be men|tioned as roots.</P>
<P N="2">2. They &s;hall be ingraffed in as they were bro|ken off: now they were broken off as a vi&s;ible Church.</P>
<P N="3"><PB N="86" REF="51">3. All that can be gathered is this, That the ful|ne&s;s of &s;alvation, and the virtues of the promi&s;es, &s;hall more fully and univer&s;ally take effect on the Jews, even to the &s;alvation of all of them; and &s;o the invi&s;ible and vi&s;ible Church be more pure, <HI>and as one in the earth:</HI> but this fulne&s;s &s;hall be to them as a vi&s;ible Church, and on the earth.</P>
<P>Arg. 7. <HI>If the re-ingraffing be by virtue of Gods election and love, then it is to the invi&s;ible Church: but the former is true,</HI> v. 28. Ergo.</P>
<P><HI>Sol.</HI> 1. It's &s;aid, That as touching election, the Jews are beloved for their Fathers &s;ake; hence it follows, God hath a love of election to Believers, and their natural &s;eed; for &s;o the Jews were the na|tural &s;eed of <HI>Abraham.</HI> But,</P>
<P N="2">2. It's granted that the calling of the Jews &s;hall be according to Gods election and fir&s;t love; and that Gods election &s;hall more fully take hold of the Jews at their re-calling, then of any Nation: but yet &s;till the Argument is of no force to prove that their re-ingraffing, and &s;o ours, is only or fir&s;tly into the invi&s;ible Church; for they are elected as well to be a vi&s;ible Church, as to be partakers of inward graces; and their re-ingraffing mu&s;t be &s;pecially and fir&s;tly into the vi&s;ible Church from which they were broken off, or el&s;e there will be no corre&s;pondence between their rejection and re-ingraffing.</P>
<PB N="87" REF="51">
<P>The la&s;t and weake&s;t Argument is this; <HI>If the in|graffing of Jews and Gentiles be the fruit of Gods mer|cy, the breaking off by &s;hutting up in unbelief; then it is into the invi&s;ible Church by election, &amp;c. but &s;o it is.</HI> Ergo.</P>
<P><HI>Sol.</HI> You &s;ee he hath &s;pent his &s;tock and &s;trength to be &s;o low at la&s;t: This Argument needs no An|&s;wer, but by &s;hewing you the un&s;oundne&s;s of this univer&s;al propo&s;ition on which the Argument is built. <HI>Whatever is a fruit of Gods mercy, is from election, and ingraffing into the invi&s;ible Church:</HI> Which propo&s;ition is mo&s;t fal&s;e, univer&s;ally con&s;idered: Are not health, meat and drink, pre&s;ervation, all outward pri|viledges, fruits of Gods mercy? Is not long-&s;uffering to the&s;e that peri&s;h, and the affording the means of grace and &s;alvation, the in&s;titution of Ordinances, fruits of Gods mercy? and yet mu&s;t they be given only to elect ones? and do they ingraff to the in|vi&s;ible Church? but <HI>&s;atis e&s;t repetere:</HI> you have &s;een the utmo&s;t &s;trength of the greate&s;t Antagoni&s;t to the Truth we hold out.</P>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 N="10" TYPE="chapter">
<PB N="88" REF="52">
<HEAD><HI>Chap. X.</HI> The Harmonie of <HI>Mat. 19.13, 14.</HI> with <HI>Mar. 10.13.</HI> and <HI>Luk. 18.15, 16, 17.</HI> concerning the bringing of Infants to Chri&s;t, his acts to them, how far it contributes to prove Infant-bapti&s;m.</HEAD>
<P>YOU have &s;een how the Scriptures agree in holding out &s;ome &s;pecial priviledges in the New Te&s;tament, as in the Old, to Believers and their &s;eed: Let us now come to view Chri&s;ts own carriage and actions to Infants; which &s;hews both the &s;pecial re|&s;pect he had to them, and would have his Mini&s;ters and Churches to have likewi&s;e. For this, compare <HI>Mat.</HI> 19.13, 14. <HI>Mar.</HI> 10.13, 14, 15, 16. with <HI>Luk.</HI> 18.15, 16, 17. <HI>Where, when little Children were brought to Chri&s;t, and his Di&s;ciples did forbid them, Chri&s;t 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 ble&s;&s;ed them.</HI> For the opening this place more clear|ly, Con&s;ider,</P>
<P N="1">1. Who they were which were brought to Chri&s;t.</P>
<P N="2">2. Who brought them.</P>
<P N="3">3. Why the Di&s;ciples did forbid them to be brought.</P>
<P N="4"><PB N="89" REF="52">4. Chri&s;ts rea&s;on why he would have them not hindred.</P>
<P N="5">5. Chri&s;ts actions to and on them, what they a|mount unto.</P>
<P>For the fir&s;t, who they were which were brought to Chri&s;t; in <HI>Mark</HI> they are called <GAP DESC="foreign">, and well tran&s;lated <HI>little Children,</HI> or Infants; the word is a diminutive word, and is &s;pecially to be applied to Infants. <HI>Luk.</HI> 1.76. <HI>Zacharias</HI> u&s;eth the &s;ame word of <HI>John,</HI> when he was newly born; <HI>And thou Child</HI> (<GAP DESC="foreign">) <HI>&s;halt be called the Prophet of the Highe&s;t,</HI> &amp;c. <HI>Videtur e&s;&s;e aliqua empha&s;is diminutivi, hoc &s;altem loco minime negligenda,</HI> &s;aith <HI>Beza.</HI> The &s;ame word is given to Chri&s;t when he was in the manger, <HI>Mat.</HI> 2.11. <HI>The Wi&s;e men found</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign">, <HI>the young Child,</HI> or Infant, <HI>with</HI> Mary, &amp;c. <HI>Heb.</HI> 11.23. <HI>Mo&s;es</HI> is called <GAP DESC="foreign">, when he was hid among the Flags.<NOTE PLACE="marg"><GAP DESC="foreign">, te&s;te <HI>Hippocrate,</HI> de primo vitae &s;e|ptennio dici|tur; <GAP DESC="foreign"> au|tem de &s;ecundo. <HI>Gurtl.</HI></NOTE> This word, &s;aith <HI>Hippocra|tes,</HI> is given to the&s;e which are under the age of &s;even years; and it's mo&s;tly u&s;ed among the Evangeli&s;ts for to ex|pre&s;s the tendere&s;t age of man, which is Infancy: So <HI>Spanhem. dub. Evang.</HI> But in <HI>Luke</HI> the holy Gho&s;t u&s;eth another word of full &s;ignification for Infants (<GAP DESC="foreign">) which word is u&s;ed for a Babe in the womb, an Embryo, <HI>Luk.</HI> 1.41. <HI>When</HI> Elizabeth <HI>heard the &s;alutation of</HI> Mary, <HI>the Babe leaped in her womb;</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign">; it's the &s;ame word: but more properly it is u&s;ed for a Child newly born, a &s;ucking Babe that
<PB N="90" REF="53"> we carry in our arms: Thus 2 <HI>Tim.</HI> 3.15. <HI>Timothy</HI> is &s;aid <HI>to know the Scriptures from a Child,</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign">, <HI>from his Infancy;</HI> not when he was an Infant, but from his Infancy; that is, as &s;oon as ever he was pa&s;t a Babe, and came to under&s;tand any thing, he was learnt the Scriptures. The &s;ame word, <GAP DESC="foreign">, is given al&s;o to Chri&s;t, when the Wi&s;e men found him in &s;wadling clouts, <HI>Luk.</HI> 2.12. So that this is mo&s;t clear, that they were Infants, tender young ones, Babes which were brought to Chri&s;t; And if the two words did not properly &s;ignifie Infants, yet in that it's &s;aid they were brought to Chri&s;t, would prove it; for the word <GAP DESC="foreign">, properly &s;ignifies <HI>to carry,</HI> as it's u&s;ed mo&s;tly in Scripture for. But,</P>
<P N="2">2. Who tho&s;e were that brought them, it's mo&s;t probable that their Parents brought them; and the&s;e had believed them&s;elves, or made &s;ome profe&s;&s;ion of faith; for they bring them to Chri&s;t to be under his ble&s;&s;ing, for &s;ome &s;pecial favour to be &s;hewn by Chri&s;t to them; it was for a &s;piritual end they brought them, to be touched by Chri&s;t, &amp;c. to have &s;ome virtue from him; and who could have &s;uch bowels to bring Infants to Chri&s;t, but their own Parents? and to abide the frowns of the Di&s;ciples, and their checks, but Parents, who love their Children next them&s;elves, and would have them ble&s;&s;ed together with them? &s;o that it's more probable it was their Parents which brought them then any others; and that they were believers, who had &s;uch a &s;en&s;e of their Infants conditions, and of Chri&s;ts re&s;pects.</P>
<PB N="91" REF="53">
<P>And be&s;ides, they were then in the Coa&s;ts of <HI>Judea,</HI> where many had profe&s;t their faith, and were bapti|zed by <HI>John,</HI> and longed to have their Infants con|firmed by Je&s;us Chri&s;t; e&s;pecially when we look on <HI>Mat.</HI> 19.13. <HI>They brought them to Chri&s;t to lay his hands on them, and pray over them.</HI></P>
<P N="3">3. If we con&s;ider why the Di&s;ciples &s;hould for|bid them, and rebuked the&s;e that brought them; &s;urely it could not be out of any cruelty to Infants, or that the Di&s;ciples had no bowels to Infants, or de&s;ire they might not be happy with their Parents; their af|fections could not be &s;o &s;traitned and bound up in unnaturalne&s;s: but it mu&s;t be from &s;ome &s;uch prin|ciple which the&s;e of the contrary judgement take up, That they were not capable, and were fir&s;t to be taught; That only grown men, and Profe&s;&s;ors of faith, were fit for Ordinances; and therefore they rebuked or chid them, and forbad them to do &s;o any more: As if they had &s;aid, What have we to do with Children, as to outward Ordinances? they are not capable, they cannot profe&s;s their faith; and we mu&s;t have per&s;ons able to hold forth the Go&s;pel, which mu&s;t be vi&s;ible &s;ubjects of Chri&s;ts Kingdome: Doubtle&s;s &s;ome &s;uch grounds they mu&s;t needs go on, or el&s;e they mu&s;t &s;hew a &s;trange kind of pa&s;&s;ion again&s;t Children, mo&s;t unbecoming the&s;e which had but the rags of natural affection left in them.</P>
<P N="4">4. See Chri&s;ts affections to them, and the rea&s;on of it; <HI>When Chri&s;t &s;aw it</HI> (<GAP DESC="foreign">) <HI>he was much di&s;plea&s;ed:</HI> It's a word that is u&s;ed to expre&s;s &s;uch a
<PB N="92" REF="54"> kind of &s;orrow as breaks the heart; al&s;o to &s;tomach any thing, and to have the &s;pirit rai&s;ed in contempt of an unworthy action or per&s;on: Thus Chri&s;t was grieved at them, and he looked with contempt on his Di&s;ciples, as dealing mo&s;t unworthily with poor Infants, in forbidding them to be brought to Chri&s;t; and therefore he commands them to &s;uffer them to bring Infants to him, and not to forbid them. The&s;e two words &s;hews how vehement Chri&s;t was, and how much his heart was &s;et towards Infants. You find &s;ometimes that Chri&s;t gave &s;ome &s;harp words to his Di&s;ciples, and to <HI>Peter</HI> e&s;pecially; but never to have his &s;pirit to ri&s;e in indignation again&s;t them, as when they would forbid Infants to be brought to him; and that which makes Chri&s;t &s;o earne&s;t, mu&s;t needs be of great weight; he was never &s;o moved when they all for&s;ook him, and <HI>Peter</HI> did for&s;wear him, as when they denied Infants to come to him.</P>
<P>I could wi&s;h that the&s;e which with &s;o much con|tempt and &s;currilous language forbid Infants to be baptized, might read this place with ob&s;ervant &s;pi|rits, and at lea&s;t grow more &s;ober and le&s;s violent in their expre&s;&s;ions concerning poor Infants; doubt|le&s;s it's a warning to all Chri&s;ts Di&s;ciples.</P>
<P>Now the rea&s;on which Je&s;us Chri&s;t gives, is, <HI>Of &s;uch is the Kingdome of God:</HI> The rea&s;on &s;hews what the priviledge was they would exclude Infants from, <HI>viz.</HI> being vi&s;ibly judged to belong to the Kingdome of God; and Chri&s;t &s;aith, <HI>Of &s;uch is the Kingdome of God.</HI> Now take the Kingdome of God
<PB N="93" REF="54"> either for Heaven and Glory; or &s;econdly, by way of allu&s;ion, for the Church, and the &s;tate of the Go|&s;pel, it will &s;erve as a full rea&s;on: Of &s;uch, that is, of Infants, is Gods Kingdome made up, as well as of grown men, and they are as fit &s;ubjects as you are: But doubtle&s;s he e&s;pecially means by <HI>the Kingdome of God,</HI> as well the Kingdome of Grace in a vi&s;ible Church, as the Kingdome of Glory; becau&s;e el&s;e this could be no rea&s;on to convince the Di&s;ciples of their errour, for they were again&s;t the vi&s;ible bringing Infants to Chri&s;t for to get &s;ome outward &s;ign of favour to them; and Chri&s;t tels them, they may be as well brought to Chri&s;t, and receive a vi&s;ible &s;ign, as grown per&s;ons; for the Kingdom of God is made of &s;uch, as of others.</P>
<P N="1">1. Chri&s;t &s;hews their intere&s;t in one of the high|e&s;t priviledges, <HI>The Kingdome of God,</HI> and that vi|&s;ibly.</P>
<P N="2">2. He &s;peaks it <HI>de prae&s;enti;</HI> not only re&s;pecting their future e&s;tate, what they may be; but that even now the Kingdome of God is of &s;uch.</P>
<P N="3">3. He u&s;eth this as a common in&s;tructive principle for the future, never to forbid not only the&s;e, but &s;uch like Infants to be brought to him: For <GAP DESC="foreign">, <HI>Of &s;uch is the Kingdome of God,</HI> Chri&s;t would have them take it as a con&s;tant principle, That wherever they found &s;uch like Infants, they &s;hould not reject them, but look on them with Go&s;pel re&s;pect.</P>
<P><HI>Ob.</HI> The&s;e that differ have nothing to &s;ay to this, but That Chri&s;t means it of &s;uch as Children for hu|mility,
<PB N="94" REF="55"> and meekne&s;s, and lowline&s;s; and therefore in the following ver&s;e he &s;aith, <HI>He that &s;hall not re|ceive the Kingdome of God as a little Child, &s;hall not enter therein.</HI></P>
<P><HI>Sol.</HI> It's true, Chri&s;t takes an occa&s;ion to exhort them to humility and meekne&s;s, from the pattern of the&s;e little ones. But,</P>
<P N="1">1. Chri&s;t &s;hews Infants right to the Kingdome of God, as well as the Di&s;ciples, and grown per&s;ons, who can profe&s;s their own faith.</P>
<P N="2">2. If Chri&s;t had meant only to make an example and re&s;emblance, he might have taken Sheep, and Doves more properly; for they are more meek and gentle then Children, who are commonly froward and peevi&s;h.</P>
<P N="3">3. This cro&s;&s;eth the end of Chri&s;ts rea&s;on, which was, That Infants &s;hould not be hindred from being brought to Chri&s;t, <HI>For of &s;uch is the Kingdome of God,</HI> Now if he had meant of &s;uch as were only like them in &s;ome qualities, not of them&s;elves, there was no|thing at all in Chri&s;ts rea&s;on: And thus mu&s;t the words be rendred on that account; <HI>Suffer Infants to come to me, and do not forbid them; for not of them but of humble per&s;ons that re&s;emble them, is the King|dome of God.</HI> Men will rather make Chri&s;t &s;peak non|&s;en&s;e, then lo&s;e their opinions.</P>
<P N="4">4. Can we think Chri&s;t could be &s;o di&s;plea&s;ed with his Di&s;ciples for hindring little ones to be brought to him, meetly to &s;hew them as re&s;emblances and patterns to grown men; and adde this rea&s;on, <HI>For
<PB N="95" REF="55"> of &s;uch is the Kingdome of God,</HI> when he had examples more fit to that purpo&s;e, even among the meer &s;en|&s;ible Creatures? No, Chri&s;t &s;hews the priviledge of &s;uch Infants; and checks his Di&s;ciples pride, who would have none but them&s;elves and grown per&s;ons to be e&s;teemed as having any vi&s;ibie intere&s;t in the Kingdome of God.</P>
<P>La&s;tly, Let us view Chri&s;ts carriage and actions to the&s;e Infants; he did not onely &s;hew them as examples, but <HI>took them up in his arms, laid his hands on them, and ble&s;&s;ed them:</HI> all expre&s;&s;ions of the mo&s;t &s;ignal love, and favour, and of great import, if duly con&s;idered.</P>
<P N="1">1. He took them up in his arms, <GAP DESC="foreign">; the word &s;ignifies to embrace with &s;pecial af|fections; &s;o the French Tran&s;lation <HI>Embra&s;&s;er, Pi&s;cator embrachiare, amplexabunde ge&s;to,</HI> Bud. Chri&s;t took them up in his arms, and held them forth as Monuments of his love; and doubtle&s;s to &s;hew his Di&s;ciples, that he would have &s;ome outward &s;ign and character of peculiar re&s;pect &s;et on them by his Church and Saints: Such a carriage was not out of a natural affection only to the&s;e that could not pity them&s;elves, but from a heavenly &s;train of love which he bore to the&s;e little ones, as to the highe&s;t pro|fe&s;&s;ing Di&s;ciple; and mu&s;t needs be &s;ymbolical to his Churches, to take heed how they reject them wholly from any vi&s;ibie right to the Kingdome of God: Chri&s;t was to leave the world &s;hortly, but he leaves it as a rule to his Di&s;ciples.</P>
<P N="2"><PB N="96" REF="56">2. Chri&s;t laies his hands on them; which was u&s;ed among the Jews as a form of &s;pecial ble&s;&s;ing, and in the N. T. for eminent ends.</P>
<P N="1">1. For to cure all &s;orts of di&s;ea&s;es by a miraculous power, <HI>Luk.</HI> 4.40.</P>
<P N="2">2. For con&s;ecration of any to a Divine work and &s;ervice; thus Church Officers were &s;olemnly &s;epara|ted to Chri&s;ts work, as peculiarly fit for it, <HI>Acts</HI> 6.6. <HI>Acts</HI> 13.3. 1 <HI>Tim.</HI> 4.15. and 5.22. 2 <HI>Tim.</HI> 1.6.</P>
<P N="3">3. It was u&s;ed for confirmation after Bapti&s;m, and as an outward way whereby the holy Gho&s;t was conveyed; and this is the mo&s;t common u&s;e of it in the Acts of the Apo&s;tles, <HI>Acts</HI> 8.17, 18, 19, and 19.6. where tho&s;e that were baptized had the Apo|&s;tles hands laid on them, and they received the holy Gho&s;t: And to this purpo&s;e may we apply Chri&s;ts act to the&s;e Infants, to confirm the promi&s;e &s;olemnly after Bapti&s;m. For,</P>
<P N="1">1. It was ever u&s;ed (except to &s;ick per&s;ons) after Bapti&s;m.</P>
<P N="2">2. As it pre&s;uppo&s;eth Bapti&s;m to precede, &s;o it's an outward &s;ign of a &s;pecial &s;ignificancy, and holds forth as much as if Chri&s;t had baptized them; for in that outward rite the holy Gho&s;t was conveyed; and by laying on of hands others received the holy Gho&s;t, as the former Scriptures expre&s;s; and why not in this act of Chri&s;t on them? Take all the cir|cum&s;tances together, and you cannot imagine it to be a complemental act: And if this were as an out|ward &s;ign of their receiving the holy Gho&s;t, <HI>What
<PB N="97" REF="56"> &s;hould hinder water that Infants &s;hould not be baptized, &s;eeing they have received the holy Gho&s;t as well as we?</HI> Acts 10. 47. Chri&s;t laid his hands on them, <HI>Bene|dictas &s;cilicet manus in quas &agrave; Patre &s;uo acceper&aacute;t omnia bona Coeli &amp; Terrae,</HI> &s;aith a learned Divine on this place; <HI>He laid tho&s;e ble&s;&s;ed hands on them, in which he had received from the Father all good things in Hea|ven and Earth.</HI> This act &s;hews,</P>
<P N="1">1. That Chri&s;t would have &s;ome outward vi&s;ible &s;ign of favour &s;et on &s;uch Infants by Churches: And Impo&s;ition of Hands being one of the choyfe&s;t, Chri&s;t u&s;eth that as mo&s;t proper to &s;hew his Au|thority.</P>
<P N="2">2. That holds forth, That if they be capable of impo&s;ition of hands, they are of an Ordinance of like nature, which e&s;pecially looks at a &s;ubject purely pa&s;&s;ive.</P>
<P><HI>Ob.</HI> If it be Objected, Why did not Chri&s;t baptize them as well as lay his hands on them, if he meant to hint out their right to Bapti&s;m?</P>
<P><HI>Sol.</HI> It's ea&s;ily an&s;wered, That Chri&s;t baptized none at all; but he did that which was an Ordinance u&s;ually in tho&s;e Primitive times admini&s;tred after Bapti&s;m, and equal to it, as to its dignity; and &s;o far above Bapti&s;m, as it was more extraordinary in its practice: And &s;o we may argue from this to Bapti&s;m, either inclu&s;ively, or <HI>&agrave; majori,</HI> from the greater; and I have more from this place to confirm me, that if Chri&s;t baptized any, he would the&s;e Infants; &s;eeing he &s;hews &s;o much re&s;pect to them, more then to an
<PB N="98" REF="57"> grown per&s;on; and did to them tho&s;e acts which were equivalent, if not &s;upereminent to them, then any can have again&s;t it. Let any that differ from us, &s;hew anywhere in the Go&s;pel where Chri&s;t laid his hands on any but de&s;perate di&s;ea&s;ed per&s;ons to &s;hew his power, or on Infants to &s;hew his love, and confirm their antient priviledges, or upon any per&s;on in this latter &s;en&s;e unbaptized.</P>
<P><HI>Ob.</HI> 2. If it be &s;aid, This was an extraordinary act of Chri&s;t, and no ordinary pattern may be drawn from it.</P>
<P><HI>Sol.</HI> I an&s;wer; Grant it to be extraordinary, yet it argues more &s;trongly, if Chri&s;t u&s;ed an extraordi|nary act to &s;hew his affection and love to Infants, much more may the Church &s;hew ordinary acts to them.</P>
<P N="2">2. Chri&s;t &s;hewed this extraordinary carriage, the more to check and convince his Di&s;ciples for their extraordinary contempt of poor Infants, who would not allow them an ordinary intere&s;t in vi&s;ible pri|viledges. And it's con&s;iderable, that Impo&s;ition of Hands was not an u&s;ual Ordinance, or admini&s;tred by any but Chri&s;t, before the a&s;cen&s;ion of Chri&s;t, and the &s;ending of the holy Gho&s;t.</P>
<P N="3">3. Though Chri&s;ts act &s;hould be extraordinary, in regard of the imitation of that act by us; yet he grounds it on an ordinary rule and principle; <HI>For of &s;uch is the Kingdom of God;</HI> which he laies down as a fundamental rule. And this is the lea&s;t that can be gathered from it; That if Chri&s;t on this ground &s;et
<PB N="99" REF="57"> an extraordinary &s;ign on Infants, becau&s;e the King|dom of God did vi&s;ibly belong to them; we may on the &s;ame principle &s;et an ordinary initiating &s;ign on them, as vi&s;ible members of that glorious &s;tate, as well as on grown vi&s;ible Profe&s;&s;ors, who are but probable members, according to the mo&s;t judicious charity; e&s;pecially if we will think Chri&s;ts judgement in &s;uch ca&s;es equal with our own.</P>
<P>But le&s;t all this &s;hould be thought but a meer out|ward act of Chri&s;ts, that carried nothing of any in|ward de&s;ign of grace, he ble&s;&s;ed them after all, as the fulle&s;t expre&s;&s;ion of his heart; and to demon|&s;trate, that whatever grace he had &s;hould be theirs as others: for &s;o the word, <GAP DESC="foreign">, &s;ignifies, either to &s;peak well of, or to any concerning per&s;ons or things; and thus Chri&s;t may be thought to &s;peak much of the &s;tate and priviledges of the&s;e Infants; or el&s;e to ble&s;s them, by de&s;iring for them, or com|municating to them all &s;orts of mercies, as ble&s;&s;ings; according to that <HI>Eph.</HI> 1.3. And what can be more then for Chri&s;t to take up Infants in his arms, lay his hands on them, as an outward &s;ign, to con&s;ecrate them to him&s;elf, and to &s;hew their capacity of re|ceiving the holy Gho&s;t, and then to ble&s;s them; which comprehends the communication of all gra|ces, and good things? And yet we mu&s;t with &s;corn (poor probable Di&s;ciples our &s;elves!) deny them a little water; and think it too much to have them named among the lowe&s;t &s;ort of vi&s;ible Saints, when Chri&s;t owne them publickly, and &s;aith, that <HI>of &s;uch at
<PB N="100" REF="58"> the&s;e is the Kingdom of God;</HI> and they may have more intere&s;t in that Kingdom, then the&s;e that exclude them: but I &s;hall rather believe Chri&s;ts te&s;timony, then any mans froward opinion: It's only a wonder how Saints, that have felt Chri&s;ts bowels them&s;elves, and read this Text, can be &s;o rigid to Infants of Be|lievers, to whom Chri&s;t hath been &s;o kind, and ex|emplary in his carriages; and &s;tampt &s;uch vi&s;ible cha|racters of his love on, even in admini&s;tration of out|ward &s;igns. To what end &s;hould Chri&s;t do all this in &s;uch a high and peremptory &s;train of affection, if it were not to teach us charity and re&s;pect to In|fants, in the&s;e ordinary admini&s;trations they are ca|pable of; and to confirm their old &s;tate in the Church, by &s;uch a new and unwonted carriage; Chri&s;t abounding to them who were mo&s;t under|valued, and could &s;ay nothing for them&s;elves? And how har&s;h is it to conceive, that Chri&s;ts intent was hereafter to ca&s;t them out of the vi&s;ible Church, and from the participation of all outward &s;igns of &s;al|vation, when his carriage was thus tran&s;cendently loving to them; and &s;o only to give them a light|ning before death? Let mens con&s;ciences, not gulph'd in prejudice, judge: This Text, if there were no more, will fly in the Con&s;ciences one day of the mo&s;t confident Contemners of Infants, and their Bapti&s;m.</P>
<P>I &s;hall only adde, to &s;atisfie the learned, the con|&s;ent of godly and eminent Authors on this Scri|pture.</P>
<PB N="101" REF="58">
<P><HI>Non e&s;t ulla hi&s;toria in toto codice Evangelico, quae frequentius in Templo legatur, quam haec ip&s;a. Quoties enim Infans ad &s;acrum bapti&s;matis fontem affertur, toties etiam ex agendis Eccle&s;ia&s;ticis haec hi&s;toria recitat|ur; &s;ed admodum rar&oacute; eadem in Eccle&s;ia recitatur.</HI> Chemnitius &amp; Polycarpus, Ly&s;erus in Harm. Evan|gel.</P>
<P>And doubtle&s;s it's no ordinary note, that three of the Evangeli&s;ts &s;hould &s;o punctually relate this &s;tory, without any con&s;iderable change of words or &s;en&s;e. All the Objection is, becau&s;e the word <HI>Bapti&s;m</HI> is not in&s;erted, when as much as that comes to is; and that Chri&s;t baptized no grown per&s;ons.</P>
<P><HI>Hinc jam illud e&s;t quod dixi&s;&s;e Dominum, omnes tres memorant, talium enim e&s;t Regnum Coelorum. Non &s;an&egrave; adultorum tantum, qui ut Infantes &s;e&s;e humiliarunt, quod Anabapti&s;ta contendunt. Hoc enim &s;en&s;u, quod dixerat &s;ibi Infantes apportandos e&s;&s;e, tanquam &s;ubjecta, ratio minim&egrave; cohaereret, &amp;c. Fa|ce&s;&s;at igitur &s;tulta i&s;ta ve&s;tra &s;apientia; Sinite Infan|tes mihi adduci, ajo enim non &s;olum horum e&s;&s;e Regnum Coelorum: &s;ed nullum omnino Regni hujus fore par|ticipem, ni&s;i Infantibus his &s;imilis evadat.</HI></P>
<P><HI>Si jam ad Eccle&s;iam pertinent, &amp; ip&s;orum e&s;t Re|gnum Coelorum; eur eis &s;ignum Bapti&s;mi quo in Ec|cle&s;iam Chri&s;ti, qui ad eam pertinent, recipi &s;olent, negaremus? Siqui hoedi inter eos &s;unt, tum excludendi nobis erunt, cum id e&s;&s;e &s;e&s;e prodiderunt; interea ne
<PB N="102" REF="59"> &s;imus &s;everiores Chri&s;to&mdash;aut e&s;t no&s;trum bapti|zare plu&s;quam Domini amplecti, imponere manus &amp; benedicere fuit? quae fidei aut charitatis jactura, per Bapti&s;mum Chri&s;to adducere quos adduci &s;ibi ju&s;&s;it?</HI></P>
<P>Much more then this hath <HI>Bucer</HI> on <HI>Mat.</HI> 19.13, 14, 15. full of &s;piritual con&s;ideration.</P>
<P>To this doth <HI>Mu&s;culus, Calvin, Beza,</HI> adde their holy te&s;timonies: But I &s;pare the&s;e quotations, be|cau&s;e it's <HI>ad homines,</HI> to men like our &s;elves: Let the&s;e which di&s;&s;ent read impartially, and con&s;ider if this place &s;hould &s;tand alone, without any harmony of other Scriptures, whether there be not more in it for Infant-bapti&s;m, then anything they have a|gain&s;t it: I would be &s;o ingenuous with them, as to deal with any of their awaked Con&s;ciences.</P>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 N="11" TYPE="chapter">
<PB N="103" REF="59">
<HEAD><HI>CHAP. XI.</HI> Wherein is con&s;idered the method of God in the Old Te&s;tament, of admini&s;tring Or|dinances in Families, and baptizing Hou&s;holds in the New Te&s;tament; and how far it contributes to Infant-bapti&s;m.</HEAD>
<P>IT'S not a &s;light thing to con&s;ider, how that ever &s;ince the Fall this hath been an u&s;ual method of God in admini&s;tration of the Covenant, and pri|viledges of grace, to make it run through families and hou&s;holds of Believers, as the &s;pecial veins: Hence families, as they were the fir&s;t natural &s;ocieties, &s;o they were the fir&s;t Churches; the Covenant and the priviledges of it was among them; from <HI>Adam</HI> to <HI>Abraham</HI> it went on thus: And when the Co|venant in <HI>Abrahams</HI> time came to be more ex|pre&s;ly opened, and fairer expounded, God goes on &s;till in the &s;ame method, makes the Covenant with <HI>Abraham</HI> and his hou&s;hold; only the family was enlarged, it became a greater hou&s;hold, accor|ding to the va&s;tne&s;s of the extent of the Covenant; yet &s;till it was di&s;pen&s;ed as to a family. Now if you come to the New Te&s;tament, there you &s;ee God go|ing on in the &s;ame method, as if he had ca&s;t by an
<PB N="104" REF="60"> eternal decree this platform: Bapti&s;m, the New Te|&s;tament Ordinance, is admini&s;tred according to the &s;ame de&s;ign to families and hou&s;holds. Let us con|&s;ider what Chri&s;t him&s;elf &s;aith to <HI>Zacheus, Luk.</HI> 19. who was a Gentile, and one of the chief Publicans, upon occa&s;ion of this mans conver&s;ion, to open the nature and continuance of the Covenant to the Gen|tiles in the &s;ame form as it was to <HI>Abraham; This day is &s;alvation come to thy hou&s;e, fora&s;much as he al&s;o is a &s;on of</HI> Abraham: Here is the &s;ame language u&s;ed in admini&s;tration of Circumci&s;ion in the Old Te&s;ta|ment; and the &s;ame rea&s;on, <HI>fora&s;much as he al&s;o</HI> (<GAP DESC="foreign">) <HI>is a &s;on of</HI> Abra|ham: What can be drawn from this place more proper then the&s;e conclu&s;ions?</P>
<P N="1">1. That as &s;oon as ever he was converted and be|lieved, Chri&s;t applies the promi&s;e to his hou&s;e; if there were not &s;omething more in it, he would have only &s;aid, <HI>Salvation is come to thee.</HI></P>
<P N="2">2. It's clear that he opens the Covenant made with <HI>Abraham;</HI> not only to him&s;elf, but his hou&s;e; and argues from his being a &s;on of <HI>Abraham,</HI> that therefore the Covenant is not only made with him, but with his hou&s;e, that is, his &s;eed; it were enough for to call him the &s;on of <HI>Abraham,</HI> and to &s;ay, &s;al|vation is come to him&s;elf: but to mention his hou&s;e, together with him&s;elf, and give this as a rea&s;on, be|cau&s;e he is the &s;on of <HI>Abraham,</HI> is as much as to &s;ay, the priviledges of the Covenant is the &s;ame to you and your hou&s;e, as it was to <HI>I&s;aac</HI> and <HI>Jacob, fora&s;much
<PB N="105" REF="60"> as he al&s;o is a &s;on of</HI> Abraham, <HI>as well as they.</HI> Now for Chri&s;t to &s;peak in this dialect, and to tell them of their hou&s;holds, and of favour to them in the begin|ning of the Go&s;pel, and yet at the &s;ame time exclude their Infants from all outward &s;igns of the promi&s;e, which they ever had in the darke&s;t daies of grace, is a &s;trange policy, un&s;utable to the &s;implicity of Je&s;us Chri&s;t.</P>
<P>Concerning this continued method of God, though this <HI>Zacheus</HI> be a &s;ingular, yet he is not the only example, if you read all along the <HI>Acts of the Apo&s;tles;</HI> the&s;e which had hou&s;holds, the promi&s;e runs with a gracious entail. <HI>Acts</HI> 11.14. <HI>Cornelius</HI> hath the promi&s;e to him and his hou&s;e. <HI>Acts</HI> 16.15. <HI>Lydia</HI> was baptized, and her hou&s;hold. Ver. 31. the A|po&s;tle exhorts the Jaylor to believe, and he &s;hould be &s;aved, and his whole hou&s;e; Ju&s;t as God made the Covenant with <HI>Abraham, Walk before me, and be thou perfect,</HI> Gen. 17.1, 2.7. <HI>And I will be a God to thee, and thy &s;eed,</HI> or hou&s;hold. In ver. 33. its &s;aid, he was baptized, and all his (<GAP DESC="foreign">) <HI>he and all that were of him;</HI> a mo&s;t emphatical expre&s;&s;ion to &s;et forth his Children, who are the natural off-&s;pring, and who are properly a mans own; he changes the general phra&s;e of a hou&s;e, which may &s;ometimes com|prehend more, and comes more clo&s;e home; when he &s;aith he was baptized, he &s;aith, all his (<GAP DESC="foreign">) of him; which cannot be meant of &s;ervants, who are our own as goods and lands are, but not <HI>of a man:</HI> but mu&s;t fir&s;tly and primarily referr to his Children,
<PB N="106" REF="61"> who are begotten of him; and it may be &s;econdarily to his kindred; in the &s;ame phra&s;e you have it tran|&s;lated, <HI>Rom.</HI> 16.10, 11. <HI>The hou&s;hold of</HI> Ari&s;tobulus, <HI>the hou&s;hold of</HI> Narci&s;&s;us: but it is, <GAP DESC="foreign">, &amp; <GAP DESC="foreign">; <HI>The&s;e of</HI> Ari&s;tobulus <HI>and</HI> Narci&s;&s;us: which mu&s;t e&s;pecially be meant of their Children, and the&s;e that de&s;cended from their loyns.</P>
<P>The only Objection is from the following v. 34. where it is &s;aid, <HI>That the Jaylor believed with all his hou&s;e;</HI> and &s;o none were baptized but Believers.</P>
<P>To which I an&s;wer, That is not a re&s;triction or exception of all that were baptized, but a de&s;cripti|on of the power the Word had upon all his hou&s;e with him&s;elf; for he &s;aid in the former ver&s;e, that he was baptized, and with his tho&s;e which were begot|ten of him; and in this ver&s;e he &s;hews the actual in|fluence of the Word on all his hou&s;e likewi&s;e: So that the words are an after de&s;cription of the mighty workings of the Go&s;pel, not only to him&s;elf, who was baptized, and &s;o his; but on all his hou&s;e be|&s;ides.</P>
<P N="2">2. Others, and men of good account, do relate <GAP DESC="foreign">, <HI>with all his hou&s;e,</HI> to the Jaylors rejoycing, not to his believing; and &s;o read it thus, <HI>And when he had brought them into his hou&s;e, he &s;et meat before them, and rejoyced, believing God, with all his hou&s;e;</HI> And it may be as well referred to the one as to the other.</P>
<P>However it's very ob&s;ervable, That when he &s;peaks of
<PB N="107" REF="61"> the Apo&s;tles preaching, and their believing, he names his hou&s;e in the large&s;t term; v. 32. <HI>They preached the Word to him, and all that were</HI> (<GAP DESC="foreign">) <HI>to all that were in his hou&s;e:</HI> But when he &s;peaks of baptizing, he &s;aith (that you may be &s;ure his Chil|dren were baptized) <HI>that he, and all of him, or all his, were baptized.</HI> Now he doth not &s;ay, <HI>all that believed, but all</HI> his <HI>were baptized:</HI> though there is no doubt but all that believed were baptized al&s;o.</P>
<P>But if there were no &s;uch emphatical expre&s;&s;ion, as is by the holy Gho&s;t in the baptizing of the Jaylors hou&s;e; yet there is enough to make forth an example of Infant-bapti&s;m from the very notion of baptizing whole hou&s;holds, &s;o frequent in the Go&s;pel.</P>
<P N="1">1. It will be very &s;trange confidence to affirm, that in all the&s;e hou&s;es there were no Infants, or little Children.</P>
<P N="2">2. There is greater probability, and &s;tronger grounds to believe, when he names hou&s;holds, that there were little ones in them, then that there were not.</P>
<P N="3">3. E&s;pecially when the word, <HI>hou&s;e,</HI> in all lan|guages in the world is mo&s;t u&s;ually put for Children of the hou&s;e, who maintain and keep it up; and &s;o often in Scripture, <HI>Gen.</HI> 30.30. and 45.18, 19. <HI>N.</HI> 3.15. <HI>P&s;al.</HI> 115.12, 13. 1 <HI>Tim.</HI> 5.8.</P>
<P N="4">4. Where whole hou&s;es are baptized, there In|fants are not excluded, if they be in the hou&s;e; and
<PB N="108" REF="62"> if not excluded, they are included; they cannot be excluded, for they are principal parts of the hou&s;e; and if only <HI>adulti,</HI> or grown per&s;ons &s;hould be meant, when Children are named, that would be to exclude Infants from being Children, as well as from being parts of the hou&s;hold.</P>
<P>When <HI>Abraham</HI> and his hou&s;e were circumci&s;ed, <HI>Abrahams</HI> Children were the principal parts of the hou&s;e; and they were fir&s;t circumci&s;ed, and then his &s;ervants, and all in his hou&s;hold were circumci&s;ed al&s;o, being Pro&s;e&s;&s;ors of the &s;ame faith; for <HI>Abra|ham</HI> had a godly family: Yet upon a different ac|count; the one by vertue of <HI>Abrahams</HI> Covenant, which was made primarily with him &amp; his Children, with all his family likewi&s;e; as they profe&s;t <HI>Abrahams</HI> faith, and &s;erved <HI>Abrahams</HI> God; and &s;o it may be ea&s;ily conceived how whole hou&s;holds were baptized in the New Te&s;tament; the Children as in the Fa|thers Covenant; the Servants and others by vertue of the &s;ame profe&s;&s;ion: And in this &s;en&s;e there will be no ambiguity in the phra&s;e of baptizing whole hou&s;holds.</P>
<P>La&s;tly, That the Apo&s;tle &s;hould borrow an ex|pre&s;&s;ion always u&s;ed in the Old Te&s;tament to include Children e&s;pecially, and make u&s;e of it in the New to exclude them, would be &s;trange but to conjecture: Now when ever the hou&s;hold is &s;poken of in the Old Te&s;tament, it always includes Children. This is &s;till more for the baptizing of Infants, then any thing they can &s;ay again&s;t it; and compared with all the
<PB N="109" REF="62"> former Scriptures, may make up a full demon&s;tration to a judicious con&s;cience.</P>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 N="12" TYPE="chapter">
<HEAD><HI>CHAP. XII.</HI> Circumci&s;ion and Bapti&s;m compared; that they have both one &s;piritual &s;ignifica|tion; the true nature of them both open|ed, and what influence this con&s;ideration hath to prove Infant-bapti&s;m.</HEAD>
<P>IT'S well known among the&s;e that are again&s;t baptizing of Infants, what weight they put on that Ordinance of Bapti&s;m, that all other &s;eem light in their eyes, and of no account in re&s;pect of that. When they &s;peak of Circumci&s;ion, they u&s;ually call that a carnal Ordinance, &s;ealing only carnal and tem|porary things, and only reaching the outward man; the one requiring only the fle&s;h for its &s;ubject, the other a &s;piritual man, a new creature, &amp;c. And &s;o much do they idolize (for &s;o I fear it is among many) Bapti&s;m, that even faith it &s;elf &s;eems little without it: But that I may wa&s;h off this paint, and make Ordi|nances look like them&s;elves, let us compare the&s;e Or|dinances together, and view them in their dignity, and worth, and &s;ignifications. And,</P>
<P N="1"><PB N="110" REF="63">1. In general for Circumci&s;ion; We all know how much it was prized among the Jews above all other Ordinances, and that it was the la&s;t that was taken away with the greate&s;t difficulty; about which the Apo&s;tles had more ado, then about the taking away all the Ceremonies; whereby we may judge, the Jews did look on it as the great &s;eal of all their priviledges; which when that was lo&s;t, all was lo&s;t. Read the Epi&s;tle to the <HI>Romanes,</HI> Chap. 2.3. when he would &s;peak all their outward priviledges at once, he &s;aith, <HI>What advantage hath a Jew? what profit of Circumci&s;ion, &amp;c?</HI> So in the <HI>Galatians, Philippians, Ephe&s;ians, Colo&s;&s;ians,</HI> many Chapters are &s;pent to take them off from Circumci&s;ion.</P>
<P N="2">2. Circumci&s;ion was that Ordinance which was immediatly annexed to the Covenant, and a con|firmation of it, <HI>Gen.</HI> 17.7, 10. therefore called the Covenant.</P>
<P N="3">3. It was an Ordinance in&s;tituted long before the Legal and Mo&s;aical Ceremonies of an elder date: It was not a type of <HI>Canaan,</HI> but of Chri&s;t to come in the fle&s;h of the &s;eed of <HI>Abraham,</HI> and of the circum|ci&s;ion of the heart, which Chri&s;t was mo&s;t fully to perfect in the Go&s;pel.</P>
<P>There is only one Gentleman that writ a Book of Bapti&s;m, printed in the year 1646. will have Cir|cumci&s;ion to be a type of Bapti&s;m; which cannot be: For,</P>
<P N="1">1. Types mu&s;t have &s;omething in their outward face to repre&s;ent another thing more eminent and
<PB N="111" REF="63"> real: Now Circumci&s;ion hath nothing in the out|&s;ide to &s;et forth Bapti&s;m.</P>
<P N="2">2. It is not &s;o hand&s;om to make one outward &s;ign the antitype of another.</P>
<P N="4">4. Circumci&s;ion was as holy an Ordinance as Bapti&s;m in the New Te&s;tament; for they are both in them&s;elves outward acts, and no holine&s;s more in one then in another, but as they have from in&s;titu|tion; only Bapti&s;m is more ea&s;y to the fle&s;h then Circumci&s;ion; and yet not more ea&s;y, if that way of dipping &s;hould be the only way of baptizing, e&s;peci|ally at &s;ome &s;ea&s;ons, and to &s;ome bodies.</P>
<P N="5">5. The N. T. gives as large and honourable cha|racters of Circumci&s;ion as it doth of Bapti&s;m: thus the Apo&s;tle cals it in <HI>Rom.</HI> 4. <HI>The &s;eal of the righteou&s;|ne&s;s of faith:</HI> A character &s;o re&s;plendent and glo|rious, that the Go&s;pel can give no higher to an Or|dinance. And as much as he &s;aith of Bapti&s;m in ef|fect, 1 <HI>Pet.</HI> 3.21. that Bapti&s;m &s;aves through the an|&s;wer of a good con&s;cience, the contrary Opinioni&s;ts are put to hard &s;hifts to avoyd the &s;trength of this place; and therefore &s;ome would evade it thus, &s;aying, That the Apo&s;tle doth not call it a &s;eal of the Covenant or Promi&s;e, but of the righteou&s;ne&s;s of faith.</P>
<P><HI>Sol.</HI> A mi&s;erable eva&s;ion! as if the righteou&s;ne&s;s of faith were not included in the Covenant, or there were any righteou&s;ne&s;s of faith but what comes by the Covenant&punc; and &s;o would make a &s;eparation be|tween the promi&s;e of righteou&s;ne&s;s, and the righteou&s;|ne&s;s promi&s;ed.</P>
<PB N="112" REF="64">
<P>Others would cloath the Text with this di&s;gui&s;e, That it &s;ealed it only to <HI>Abraham,</HI> whereas it was &s;o to <HI>I&s;aac,</HI> and <HI>Jacob,</HI> and <HI>David,</HI> and all that were in the Covenant.</P>
<P>This is held forth mo&s;t clearly in that ver&s;e.</P>
<P N="1">1. That Circumci&s;ion was a &s;eal of the pure Co|venant of grace, in which righteou&s;ne&s;s was promi&s;ed to <HI>Abraham</HI> and his &s;eed indefinitely.</P>
<P N="2">2. That this &s;eal was applied to all the &s;eed that were but externally and vi&s;ibly in Covenant, to In|fants; and the &s;ame &s;ign that <HI>Abraham</HI> received upon profe&s;&s;ion of his faith, his Child received; and therefore he is &s;aid to be the Father of Circumci&s;ion, as of Faith, ver. 12.</P>
<P N="3">3. Doctor <HI>Willet</HI> from this place holds forth the &s;amene&s;s of the &s;ub&s;tance of the Sacraments of the Old and New Te&s;tament, both which do &s;eal the righteou&s;ne&s;s of faith; and lays it as a great errour on the Romani&s;ts, who affirm, That the Old Te&s;ta|ment Sacraments did not exhibite the graces of the New.</P>
<P N="4">4. This cannot be denied from the place, with|out men will wilfully put out their own eyes, that Circumci&s;ion had as glorious a u&s;e as Bapti&s;m, <HI>viz.</HI> to &s;eal the righteou&s;ne&s;s of faith; which mu&s;t be as well to others that had the true efficacy of the Covenant, as to <HI>Abraham</HI> him&s;elf; and no higher mercy can any Ordinance of the New Te&s;tament &s;eal to any.</P>
<P>There were many other circum&s;tantial and acci|dentall
<PB N="113" REF="64"> u&s;es of circumci&s;ion according to the Jewi&s;h &s;tate, as we will grant Mr. <HI>Tombes,</HI> as</P>
<P N="1">1. To engage to the performance of the whole Law, <HI>Gal.</HI> 5.2, 3. <HI>Acts</HI> 15.10.</P>
<P N="2">2. To be a partition-wall between Jew and Gen|tile, <HI>Eph.</HI> 2.14.</P>
<P>But when the Apo&s;tle would give circumci&s;ion his true character, and &s;hew what the primarie, and &s;ub|&s;tantiall u&s;e of it was, he calls it a &s;eal of the righteou&s;ne&s;s of faith.</P>
<P N="6">6. Circumci&s;ion and bapti&s;m &s;ignifie one and the &s;ame thing, and &s;o agree in being &s;igns of the &s;ame grace; compare <HI>Colo&s;&s;.</HI> 2.11, 12, 13. with <HI>Rom.</HI> 6.3, 4. and 6. v. circumci&s;ion &s;ignifies the putting off the bodie of the &s;ins of the fle&s;h; bapti&s;m is into Chri&s;ts death, and to te&s;tifie the crucifying the old man with him, that the bodie of death might be de&s;troyed, as by the comparing the&s;e two places it is mo&s;t clear, and 3 v. and 6 ver. of <HI>Rom.</HI> 6. chap. onely bapti&s;m hath this larger con&s;ideration in it, as that it takes in Chri&s;ts re&s;urrection with it, and al&s;o the quickning of the &s;oul together with him, which was not &s;o fully &s;igni|fied in circumci&s;ion, but implied, according as the Apo&s;tle argues in the &s;ame place, <HI>Rom.</HI> 6.5. v. for if we have been planted in the likene&s;s of his death, we &s;hall be al&s;o in the likene&s;s of his re&s;urrection; the one being a con&s;equence of the other; and as circum|ci&s;ion did cut off the foreskin in token of the de|&s;truction of &s;in, &s;o bapti&s;m by wa&s;hing, &s;ignifies the taking away the pollution of &s;in; thus, God when he
<PB N="114" REF="65"> would promi&s;e to kill &s;in, and work all grace, he ex|pre&s;&s;eth it by circumci&s;ion; <HI>I will circumci&s;e thy heart, and the heart of thy &s;eed,</HI> Deut. 30.6. And the Apo&s;tle, <HI>Phil.</HI> 3.4. &s;aith, <HI>We are of the circumci&s;ion,</HI> that is, we have the true work of grace in us.</P>
<P>The rea&s;on why I urge the&s;e con&s;iderations, is to hold for the capacitie of Infants, as well for Bapti&s;m as Circumci&s;ion; there is no rea&s;on why they &s;hould be thought more unfit and incapable for the one then for the other: For</P>
<P>Fir&s;t, if Circumci&s;ion were a &s;eal of the righteou&s;|ne&s;s of Faith, and yet applied to Infants, and Ba|pti&s;m can &s;eal no higher mercie, why &s;hould it be thought &s;uch a &s;trange and unmeet thing to baptize them, more then to circumci&s;e them? they u&s;ually &s;ay you put a &s;eal to a blank in baptizing Infants; the &s;ame might be &s;aid as to Circumci&s;ion; yet they were cir|cumci&s;ed as well as <HI>Abraham</HI> that profe&s;t his own Faith. I mu&s;t acknowledge I never could yet under|&s;tand why Infants &s;hould be thought fit to have that &s;eal applied to them in the Old Te&s;tament, which the New calls a &s;eal of the righteou&s;ne&s;s of Faith, and yet be denied it in the New Te&s;tament as incapacious, when Bapti&s;m can &s;eal no more. I wi&s;h it were &s;e|riou&s;ly con&s;idered;</P>
<P>E&s;pecially, Secondly, when Bapti&s;m &s;hall &s;ignifie the &s;ame thing in &s;ub&s;tance, be both &s;igns of the &s;ame grace; the one cutting away &s;in as with a knife, the other wa&s;hing it away with water; and yet Infants capable, and mo&s;t fit to have the admini&s;tration of the
<PB N="115" REF="65"> one ordinance, not of the other; if the&s;e of the di&s;|&s;enting judgment, did with more &s;obriety weigh &s;uch con&s;iderations as the&s;e, they would not with &s;o much fooli&s;h contempt write and &s;peak of Infants Ba|pti&s;m.</P>
<P>A knife may be applied to an Infant, as to <HI>Abra|ham,</HI> though old, and in the heighth of his Faith, and &s;eal the righteou&s;ne&s;s of it; but water mu&s;t one|ly be poured on actual believers, and grown per&s;ons, &s;uch as <HI>Abraham,</HI> but not on Infants, though it hath no more to &s;eal; as if there were &s;ome &s;trange excel|lencie and virtue in the nature of water, that it were too precious to wa&s;h the Infants of believers: For, if there be no more virtue in the water that ba|ptizeth, then in the knife that circumci&s;ed, you &s;ee there is no more glorious u&s;e of the one then the other. And what end God &s;hould have to put &s;uch a Seal on Infants in the Old Te&s;tament, and exclude them in the New, when the Ordinances both &s;ignifie the &s;ame &s;ub&s;tantial grace, let any Chri&s;tian heart imagine.</P>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 N="13" TYPE="chapter">
<PB N="116" REF="66">
<HEAD><HI>CHAP. XIII.</HI> That famous place, <HI>Colo&s;&s;. 2.11, 12.</HI> opened; the corre&s;pondence between Circumci&s;ion and Bapti&s;m further cleared.</HEAD>
<P>THe &s;cope of the Apo&s;tle in the former ver&s;es is to di&s;&s;wade the Chri&s;tians from Jewi&s;h cere|monies, e&s;pecially from Circumci&s;ion; and he doth it e&s;pecially from the di&s;covery of Chri&s;ts fulne&s;s, and our being compleat in him; that is, you need nothing out of Chri&s;t now; but they object we want Cir|cumci&s;ion; he tells them they are circumci&s;ed in him, 11. v. where the Apo&s;tle di&s;tingui&s;heth of a twofold Circumci&s;ion, one <GAP DESC="foreign">, made with hands, the other <GAP DESC="foreign">, made without hands, which he calls the Circumci&s;ion of Chri&s;t, but it is wrought by him, and is by union with him; and you being circum|ci&s;ed in Chri&s;t, and have the grace &s;ignified by out|ward Circumci&s;ion, you need no more; but there be two things they might object;</P>
<P>Fir&s;t, that this is nothing to the que&s;tion; you would take us off from outward Circumci&s;ion, by telling us we are inwardly circumci&s;ed, whereas the &s;ign and the thing &s;ignified &s;hould alwaies go together; <HI>Abra|ham</HI> had this Circumci&s;ion and others, and yet were outwardly circumci&s;ed.</P>
<P>Secondly, they might object we are not &s;o com|pleat
<PB N="117" REF="66"> in Chri&s;t as <HI>Abraham</HI> and his &s;eed; for, be&s;ides the inward grace, they had an outward &s;ign and Seal to confirm it to them.</P>
<P>The Apo&s;tle in the 12 ver&s;e an&s;wers both at once, they were not onely circumci&s;ed inwardly, with Chri&s;ts Circumci&s;ion, but there was an outward &s;ign in the New Te&s;tament to be applied to them, of the &s;ame con&s;ideration; Buried with him in Bapti&s;m, &amp;c. This is the &s;umme of the words, let us now con&s;ider what may be fairly deducted from them.</P>
<P>Many, and the mo&s;t of our Divines, do conclude from hence the &s;ucce&s;&s;ion of Bapti&s;m in the place or room of Circumci&s;ion, that this Ordinance is ap|pointed in the New Te&s;tament in lieu of the former, and for the &s;ame ends and purpo&s;es; which doubtle&s;s is true from this place, if men would truly weigh the import of the words, and not fight with their own &s;hadows.</P>
<P>Fir&s;t, this compleatne&s;s in Chri&s;t is as well to en|joyment of Ordinances, and outward priviledges, as inward graces; el&s;e he would never have mentioned Bapti&s;m outwardly, when in the former ver&s;e he &s;peaks of inward Circumci&s;ion; he would have kept &s;till in that &s;train.</P>
<P>Secondly, ob&s;erve how he joins them together, and makes them one, the inward circumci&s;ion confirmed by the outward bapti&s;m, circumci&s;ed with the Cir|cumci&s;ion of Chri&s;t, buried with him in bapti&s;m; now this could not be proper, not of any po&s;&s;ible connexion, but by putting the outward &s;ign of ba|pti&s;m
<PB N="118" REF="67"> in&s;tead of the outward &s;ign of Circumci&s;ion; that is, you are circumci&s;ed becau&s;e baptized; you change but the outward element, or in&s;trument; but the &s;ame inward grace is confirmed by both; thus the words are legible, and to be under&s;tood, without difficultie; but any other interpretation will be found mo&s;t rugged, and un&s;uitable: For,</P>
<P>Thirdly, as the Apo&s;tle could not &s;ay in the former v. that they were circumci&s;ed in Chri&s;t, but from the analogie between the outward &s;ign, and the inward grace; that is, if the outward &s;ign of Circumci&s;ion had not &s;ignified &s;uch an inward work; &s;o neither could he have found they were circumci&s;ed in Chri&s;t, being buried with him in bapti&s;m, if that Ordi|nance of bapti&s;m did not as an outward &s;ign an|&s;wer to that inward Circumci&s;ion, and were in &s;tead of that &s;ign which did directly repre&s;ent it for|merly.</P>
<P>Fourthly, the nature of the Apo&s;tles de&s;ign holds out this; for he would take them off the practi&s;e of Circumci&s;ion; and this he doth by di&s;covering of another Ordinance, more &s;uitable to the Go|&s;pel, which &s;hould &s;ignifie the &s;ame thing unto them, in a more large and emphaticall manner, &s;i|gnifying not onely Chri&s;ts death, but his re&s;urre|ction; &s;o that in the very import of the phra&s;e he cals bapti&s;m a Go&s;pel circumci&s;ion; and this argu|ment he u&s;eth as mo&s;t effectual to take them off Cir|cumci&s;ion, by &s;hewing them they were compleat in Chri&s;t in the New Te&s;tament, as to inward graces, and
<PB N="119" REF="67"> outward Ordinances, for though they were not cir|cumci&s;ed, they had bapti&s;m to &s;upplie the want of it with advantage, &s;o that they &s;hould not lo&s;e an Or|dinance, but exchange. <HI>In whom you are circumci&s;ed,</HI> &amp;c. <HI>buried with him in bapti&s;m;</HI> if bapti&s;m did not &s;eal and confirm the inward Circumci&s;ion, it could not be &s;aid <HI>circumci&s;ed in Chri&s;t, being buried with him in bapti&s;m,</HI> and bapti&s;m could not &s;eal inward Circum|ci&s;ion, but as it was of the &s;ame u&s;e with outward Circumci&s;ion, which did mo&s;t directly &s;ignifie the cir|cumci&s;ion of the heart; and bapti&s;m held the &s;ame analogie, and was in&s;tituted to the &s;ame end; therefore it's called the wa&s;hing of regeneration. Suppo&s;e the Ordinance &s;hould again be changed, and the inver|&s;ion &s;hould be thus, That bapti&s;m &s;hould be aboli&s;h|ed, and circumci&s;ion &s;et up again, and the Apo&s;tle &s;hould expre&s;s him&s;elf after the &s;ame manner; intend|ing to take them off the u&s;e of bapti&s;m, and to be circumci&s;ed; and &s;ay ye are compleat in Chri&s;t, in whom ye are al&s;o baptized with the bapti&s;m of Chri&s;t, being circumci&s;ed with him; would not the de|duction be clear, that circumci&s;ion was ordained in|&s;tead of bapti&s;m, and to &s;upply the defect of that Ordinance? the &s;ame conclu&s;ion mu&s;t be according to the words as from circumci&s;ion to bapti&s;m.</P>
<P>The &s;umme of all is, That as inward circumci&s;ion was &s;ignified by the outward circumci&s;ion; the circum|ci&s;ion made without hands, by the circumci&s;ion with hands, as the proper and direct &s;ign of it; &s;o is that inward circumci&s;ion, as really and fully &s;ignified,
<PB N="120" REF="68"> and confirmed by bapti&s;m; and that Ordinance is ap|pointed to repre&s;ent and &s;eal that, as the outward act of circumci&s;ion was formerly: &s;o that circumci&s;ion and bapti&s;m, as to the thing &s;ignified, and the inward intent of their u&s;e, are made all one: el&s;e it will be very hard to make &s;en&s;e of this place of Scripture.</P>
<P>The Pleas again&s;t this interpretation are of little worth, if weighed; &s;ome &s;ay it's onely meant of the inward circumci&s;ion, and inward bapti&s;m, which in|terpretation will &s;erve us better then them&s;elves; for if inward graces, and of the &s;ame &s;ub&s;tantial work be done on us, as circumci&s;ed and baptized in Chri&s;t, it &s;hews the onene&s;s of the outward &s;igns in the &s;ame &s;ignification.</P>
<P>Mr. <HI>Tombes</HI> &s;aith in his <HI>Examen</HI> p. 93. That there is an analogie between circumci&s;ion and bapti&s;m: yet &s;aith it is rather between circumci&s;ion and Chri&s;ts bu|rial, then between circumci&s;ion and bapti&s;m, as <HI>Chry|&s;o&s;tome,</HI> and after him <HI>Theophylact</HI> on the place.</P>
<P>All which will &s;till make out the truth of our in|terpretation; For,</P>
<P>Fir&s;t, if there be an analogie between them, as is, and mu&s;t be granted, then there is &s;ome proportion and agreement between the&s;e two Ordinances; now it's not in the outward admini&s;tration, nor the exter|nall &s;ign, in that there is no proportion between a knife and water; and therefore it mu&s;t be in their pro|per &s;ignification and reall u&s;e, which is the Apo&s;tles &s;cope in this place: and therefore he expre&s;&s;eth the inward grace properly &s;ignified by the one Ordi|nance,
<PB N="121" REF="68"> and yet confirmed by the other; <HI>Circumci&s;ed in him, being buried with him in Bapti&s;m.</HI></P>
<P N="2">2. If the analogy be between Circumci&s;ion and Chri&s;ts burial, not between it and Bapti&s;m, yet it will come all to one, yea be our advantage: For,</P>
<P N="1">1. That &s;hews that Circumci&s;ion did hold forth as much as Bapti&s;m, <HI>viz.</HI> Chri&s;ts death and bu|rial.</P>
<P N="2">2. That when we are &s;aid to be buried with Chri&s;t in Bapti&s;m, and that is the outward &s;ign to repre&s;ent our burial with Chri&s;t, we are as if we were circum|ci&s;ed; Circumci&s;ion holds analogy with Chri&s;ts bu|rial, and &s;o doth Bapti&s;m with both: And thus take it in what &s;en&s;e you will, the Text will clear it &s;elf.</P>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 N="14" TYPE="chapter">
<PB N="122" REF="69">
<HEAD><HI>CHAP. XIV.</HI> A clear Explication of. <HI>Mat. 28.19.</HI> with <HI>Mar. 16.15, 16.</HI> wherein their argu|ment from the fir&s;t in&s;titution is opened and confuted.</HEAD>
<P>LET us at length come to view that prime Text, <HI>Math.</HI> 28.19. on which the&s;e that are again&s;t Infant-bapti&s;m lay the mo&s;t weight. As from the very fir&s;t in&s;titution of that Ordinance, Chri&s;t gives his Apo&s;tles there Commi&s;&s;ion to teach and baptize; <HI>Go ye therefore, and teach all Nations, baptizing them in the Name of the Father, Son and holy Gho&s;t.</HI> Hence (<GAP DESC="foreign">) which they tran&s;late, Di&s;ciple all Nations, and then baptize them, they argue, None are to be baptized by Chri&s;ts in&s;titution, but the&s;e which are fir&s;t taught, and &s;o made Di&s;ciples: But In|fants are not capable to be taught, or to be made Di&s;ciples. <HI>Ergo,</HI> They may not be baptized.</P>
<P>That I may &s;hew the errors of this argument, and &s;o fully clear up the point, the terms with their con|nexion both in the major and minor propo&s;ition mu&s;t be examined from the words of the Text, and that parallel place, <HI>Mar.</HI> 16.15, 16. which for me|thods &s;ake I &s;hall hold forth in the&s;e following con|&s;iderations.</P>
<P N="1"><PB N="123" REF="69">1. For the word <GAP DESC="foreign">, we &s;hall not much &s;tand on, whether it be tran&s;lated to make Di&s;ciples, or as it is in our common ver&s;ion, <HI>Go teach all Na|tions;</HI> for it is &s;ometimes a verb tran&s;itive, to teach by writing, or <HI>viva voce,</HI> with a living voyce; and &s;o it is to be taken here, &s;aith learned <HI>Whitaker De Script.</HI> and mo&s;t agreeable with <HI>Mar.</HI> 16.15. where he bids them <HI>Go preach the Go&s;pel to every Crea|ture.</HI></P>
<P N="2">2. The &s;trength of the argument lies (if there be any &s;trength in it) on the ab&s;olute &s;uppo&s;ed con|nexion between di&s;cipling and being baptized; there|fore they &s;ay, None but the&s;e which are capable of teaching, are capable of Bapti&s;m; which is <HI>Fallacia &agrave; dicto &s;ecundum quid ad dictum &s;impliciter,</HI> a Fallacy to take that ab&s;olutely which is meant only according to &s;ome re&s;pect. But to &s;hew the idlene&s;s of the con|nexion;</P>
<P N="1">1. You find preaching or teaching the Go&s;pel to be &s;eparated as to the admini&s;tration, and nece&s;&s;ary and immediate connexion, by <HI>Paul</HI> him&s;elf, 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 1.17. <HI>Chri&s;t &s;ent me not to baptize, but to preach the Go&s;pel;</HI> &s;o he &s;aith in the former ver&s;es, <HI>He taught many, baptized few.</HI></P>
<P N="2">2. Compare this with <HI>Mar.</HI> 16.15, 16. which ex|pounds this, you will find believing and being ba|ptized as clo&s;e connected to &s;alvation, as here Bapti|zing to Teach; <HI>He that believeth and is baptized, &s;hall be &s;aved.</HI> Now if any will &s;tand on the order of words to prove an in&s;titution, we may as well argue
<PB N="124" REF="70"> from <HI>Mark,</HI> as they from <HI>Mathew;</HI> None mu&s;t be baptized but the&s;e which are taught; &s;o none that be|lieveth and is not baptized can be &s;aved; and that Bapti&s;m is as nece&s;&s;ary to &s;alvation as believing; for in order of phra&s;e they are ab&s;olutely joyned to|gether: And what a &s;trange inference would that be to make Bapti&s;m equal with faith to &s;alvation? and yet we have as much ground to argue from the one place &s;o, as they from the other; without they will admit &s;ome other qualifying term to make it up.</P>
<P N="3">3. The order of things is not always, or commonly &s;o exactly expre&s;t in Scripture by the po&s;ition of the words; for &s;ometimes one thing in the order of words is put before another, which in order of na|ture and con&s;ideration is antecedent to it; as <HI>Mar.</HI> 1.15. Repentance is put before Faith. <HI>Rom.</HI> 10.9. Con|fe&s;&s;ion with the mouth is put before believing with the heart, as to &s;alvation; with abundance of other places of Scripture. Thus many things in the Evan|geli&s;ts are left out by one, &s;upplied by another; and the &s;ame word directly uttered in one, inverted in an|other, e&s;pecially about the admini&s;tration of the Lords Supper. For to avoyd tediou&s;ne&s;s, con&s;ult the places your &s;elves. <HI>Mat.</HI> 26.26, 27. <HI>Mar.</HI> 14.22, 23. <HI>Luk.</HI> 22.20. 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 11.25.</P>
<P N="3">3. A third con&s;ideration to open this Text in <HI>Matthew,</HI> is from comparing it once more with its pa|rallel, <HI>Mar.</HI> 16.15. there it is, <HI>Go preach the Go&s;pel;</HI> here it is, <HI>Teach and baptize:</HI> Now hence it follows,
<PB N="125" REF="70"> that their teaching was by holding forth the Go&s;pel: As much as if he had &s;aid, Open the Covenant, tell men the riches and fulne&s;s of grace: Now if they mu&s;t teach the Go&s;pel, they mu&s;t needs in&s;truct them in the Covenant, which was to the&s;e that believed, and their &s;eed. Now &s;utable to this Commi&s;&s;ion, <HI>Peter,</HI> when he comes to open the Go&s;pel to the Jews pricked in their hearts, pre&s;ently holds out the promi&s;e to them and their Children; <HI>Acts</HI> 2.38, 39. and by that to make them both Di&s;ciples. So <HI>Gal.</HI> 3.13. The ble&s;&s;ings of <HI>Abraham</HI> to come on the Gentiles, is one of the main parts of the Go&s;pel. Now if they teach men Go&s;pel, they mu&s;t preach as <HI>Peter</HI> did when he had converted the Parent, <HI>The promi&s;e is to you and to your Children.</HI> Thus in <HI>Luk.</HI> 1.72. this is made one great end of Chri&s;ts coming, <HI>to perform the mercy promi&s;ed to our Fathers, and to re|member his holy Covenant;</HI> &s;o that preaching the Go&s;pel is preaching the Covenant. Now that Infants are in the Covenant as well as grown per&s;ons, we have formerly proved.</P>
<P N="4">4. This is no more then was required of <HI>Abraham</HI> at the time of Circumci&s;ion, and yet his Infants were not excluded from the Ordinance. <HI>Gen.</HI> 17. <HI>Walk be|fore me, and be perfect. Chap.</HI> 18.19. <HI>Abraham</HI> was to command his Children, and teach them to keep the ways of the Lord: and yet his Children were not to be kept from the &s;ign of the Covenant, until they were taught, and had walked before God in upright|ne&s;s, as <HI>Abraham.</HI></P>
<P N="5"><PB N="126" REF="71">5. To come home to the word, in their own &s;en&s;e, <GAP DESC="foreign"> &s;ignifies <HI>Make Di&s;ciples;</HI> now Children are not capable of being made Di&s;ciples, &s;ay they.</P>
<P>I an&s;wer, 1. Some have been made Di&s;ciples be|fore they were di&s;tinctly taught, as the twelve, whom Chri&s;t called, and they followed him, and became his Di&s;ciples, and were real Di&s;ciples, yet as ignorant as Infants, and were taught afterwards by degrees.</P>
<P N="2">2. One is &s;aid to be made a Di&s;ciple even in vulgar phra&s;e, as well who is li&s;ted 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 u&s;ual phra&s;e at the fir&s;t entrance of a Child, he is called a new Scholar, or a new Di&s;ciple: Thus Infants being entred into Chri&s;ts School, and given up to be taught in time, and by degrees, may be accounted Di&s;ciples; it was &s;o in the former in|&s;tance, and it's no &s;trange expre&s;&s;ion in civil Schools.</P>
<P N="3">3. Infants are expre&s;ly called Di&s;ciples in the New Te&s;tament, as well as grown and taught men: Thus <HI>Acts</HI> 15.10. Circumci&s;ion is called a yoke put on the neck of the <HI>Di&s;ciples,</HI> that is, on Infants, who were the &s;pecial Subjects of that Ordinance, and bore the burthen of it, and not properly the Parents; and yet the Parents had the deep &s;en&s;e of it reflecting on them|&s;elves and their little ones, and therefore he cals it a yoke that they nor their Fathers were able to bear; e&s;pecially becau&s;e it did bind them and their Children
<PB N="127" REF="71"> to keep the whole Law; there is no eva&s;ion of this; if they &s;ay it was meant of the Fathers, and of the do|ctrine of Circumci&s;ion, which did bind them&s;elves: yet they mu&s;t grant the yoke was on their Children as to the act; and that if the doctrine was &s;o bur|then&s;ome, much more the practice, which the poor Infants are under; and they are called indefinitely <HI>Di&s;ciples,</HI> either by them&s;elves, or with their Parents; And the argument is thus: Tho&s;e were Di&s;ciples on whom the yoke of circumci&s;ion was laid; but on In|fants was this yoke laid. <HI>Ergo</HI> Infants are Di&s;ciples in the New Te&s;tament expre&s;&s;ion. If you will make any di&s;tinction, it mu&s;t be in the manner of laying on the yoke, <HI>viz.</HI> on the Parents doctrinally, on the Children actually: but there can be no re&s;triction of the word, <HI>Di&s;ciples,</HI> from the&s;e on whom that yoke was laid, as is expre&s;t in that Chapter. Con&s;ider,</P>
<P N="4">4. Let us come to the &s;ubjects to whom the Go&s;pel is to be preached; and they taught and baptized; it is in <HI>Mathew,</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign">, <HI>all Nations;</HI> in <HI>Mark</HI> it is, <HI>Preach the Go&s;pel,</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign">, <HI>to every Creature:</HI> Now that Infants &s;hould be none of all the Nations, and excluded from being of this crea|tion of God, who were included as &s;pecial &s;ubjects when the Church was in but &s;o &s;mal a &s;pot of the world, is from our narrow apprehen&s;ions in the Go&s;pel-times of di&s;pen&s;ation of grace.</P>
<P>And the argument our Divines bring from this place is &s;trong and mo&s;t con&s;iderable: The Go&s;pel is to be preached to every Creature, all Nations mu&s;t
<PB N="128" REF="72"> be di&s;cipled; but Infants are a part of this creation, are included in all Nations; therefore they mu&s;t be made Di&s;ciples al&s;o. Read the Text again, <HI>Mat.</HI> 28. <HI>Go teach all Nations</HI> (<GAP DESC="foreign">) <HI>baptizing them</HI> (<GAP DESC="foreign">) which mu&s;t needs referre to (<GAP DESC="foreign">) though the one be ma&s;culine, the other the neuter; or el&s;e mu&s;t relate to nothing, for it hath no Relative be&s;ides to an&s;wer unto: This is very common in Scripture, and the &s;ame phra&s;es, as tho&s;e well know that under&s;tand the Greek in <HI>Rev.</HI> 2.26, 27. and <HI>Chap.</HI> 19.15. there is <GAP DESC="foreign"> with <GAP DESC="foreign">, as Mr. <HI>Cobbet</HI> of <HI>N. E.</HI> well ob&s;erves. Con&s;ult <HI>Acts</HI> 15.17. and 26.17. <HI>Acts</HI> 21.25. <HI>Eph.</HI> 2.11. Ma&s;culines joyned with (<GAP DESC="foreign">) that &s;ignifies <HI>all Nations.</HI> Now are Infants none of the Nations, or none of the National crea|tion which the Go&s;pel may reach? God forbid.</P>
<P>The words hold forth only the general commi&s;&s;i|on given to the Apo&s;tles after Chri&s;ts death; which was an enlarging of their bounds, who were only formerly circum&s;cribed in <HI>Iudea,</HI> and charged not to go into the way of the Gentiles: but now the em|pale is broken down, they mu&s;t preach the Go&s;pel to every creature, teach all Nations, and baptize them: but it doth not hold forth either the proper &s;ubjects of Bapti&s;m, or the form or manner of bapti|zing, which &s;hould not be delivered (according to their own rule of in&s;titutions) in general and indefi|nite terms, as, <HI>Every Creature, all Nations;</HI> and by tran&s;itive words, as, <HI>Preach the Go&s;pel to them, teach them.</HI> If this be the prime in&s;titution of baptizing,
<PB N="129" REF="72"> from which place they exclude Infants, when Chri&s;t u&s;eth &s;uch univer&s;al and comprehen&s;ive expre&s;&s;ions; we &s;hall de&s;ire but to deal with them on their ground, and the &s;ame Text will &s;erve to prove our po&s;itions more demon&s;tratively then theirs: And this Text &s;hews, that Chri&s;t gave commi&s;&s;ion to the Apo&s;tles and Mini&s;ters to preach and baptize; but in what order to do it, or what &s;hould be required to the qua|lification of the &s;ubject as ab&s;olutely nece&s;&s;ary, is not at all di&s;covered in this Scripture; they mu&s;t look for another Text to exclude Infants be&s;ides this, el&s;e give up their confidence.</P>
<P>Either this place is the full and exact rule of in|&s;titution of baptizing, or not; if they &s;ay it is, then it would de&s;cribe the per&s;ons, and the manner, the matter and the form of baptizing, and that in the u&s;ual phra&s;e with other Scriptures: but here is only a general commi&s;&s;ion to two great acts, <HI>viz.</HI> to preach, teach and baptize; and we may &s;ay in the &s;ame place, that whoever are outwardly taught, or do but hear the Go&s;pel (though they walk never &s;o contrary) mu&s;t be baptized; for the commi&s;&s;ion is, Teach and baptize, nothing of the parties enter|tainment of it is mentioned in this <HI>Mat.</HI> 28. nor of the qualification of the &s;ubject with any di&s;tingui&s;h|ing character&punc; If they &s;ay this doth not hold forth all the in&s;titutions in every particular, as they mu&s;t grant, then we may compare other Scriptures with this, to make out the full in&s;titution, as the&s;e where
<PB N="130" REF="73"> Infants are mentioned with &s;o much gracious con|&s;ideration, as hath been formerly expre&s;t.</P>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 N="15" TYPE="chapter">
<HEAD><HI>CHAP. XV.</HI> Concerning the &s;ignification and u&s;e of the word <HI>Bapti&s;m,</HI> or to be baptized; the genuine Etymologie of it in the Old and New Te&s;tament; the places in the New Te&s;tament brought to prove it &s;ignifies to plunge the whole body, an|&s;wered.</HEAD>
<P>THE confidence of the&s;e that differ hath, been &s;o great, that as they have excommunicated In|fants from the capacity of &s;uch a priviledge, which they had &s;o old a title unto; &s;o they have forced this only &s;en&s;e from the word <HI>to baptize,</HI> that it mu&s;t &s;ig|nifie to plunge the whole body under water; and deny that to be true Bapti&s;m, which is not &s;o ad|mini&s;tred; and &s;o make it as e&s;&s;ential to the manner, as vi&s;ible profe&s;&s;ion to the matter.</P>
<P>For clearing up of this mi&s;t, I have diligently en|guired into the propriety of the word, and its u&s;e in the Greek Tran&s;lators of the Old and New Te&s;ta|ment,
<PB N="131" REF="73"> which are the be&s;t guides in this ca&s;e; and if we look narrowly, it will be very hard to find, and very &s;eldome, that ever the word in Scripture is u&s;ed for the total immer&s;ion of the body, or being ab&s;o|lutely under water.</P>
<P>The word (<GAP DESC="foreign">) &s;ignifies among all Wri|ters, both Heathen and Eccle&s;ia&s;tical, promi&s;cuou&s;ly to dip into, or wa&s;h with water, by pouring on of it, or &s;prinkling; and there is nothing more u&s;ual in the New Te&s;tament expre&s;&s;ion of it, then to hold forth any kind of wa&s;hing: It's expre&s;t in Authors by <HI>ma|defactare, lavare, abluere,</HI> to wet or wa&s;h: thus <HI>Bu|daeus, Scapula, Pa&s;or</HI> and <HI>Grotius</HI> do interpret the word, though they grant it is, and may be taken more &s;trictly for immer&s;ion: but let the Scripture explain it &s;elf, <HI>Mar.</HI> 7.4. it is u&s;ed for the wa&s;hing of hands, and of cups, and beds, and bra&s;en ve&s;&s;els, and of ta|bles; which is not by plunging them in the water, &s;o much as wa&s;hing them by the pouring forth of wa|ter on them; for &s;o it is expre&s;t, when they came from the market they dur&s;t not eat (<GAP DESC="foreign">) without they were baptized, that is, wa&s;hed; which could not be their whole bodies, without both ex|ce&s;&s;ive trouble and danger, for which times and &s;ea|&s;ons mu&s;t be ob&s;erved: And be&s;ides this (&s;aith the Evangeli&s;t) they retained many other things in cu|&s;tome, <GAP DESC="foreign">, &amp;c. as the Bapti&s;m of cups, that is, <HI>lotiones,</HI> or the wa&s;hing of cups; which may be as well done by pouring on water, as by plunging into water, and was and is u&s;ually done in
<PB N="132" REF="74"> all Nations. So in <HI>Luk.</HI> 11.38. the Phari&s;ees won|dred at Je&s;us (<GAP DESC="foreign">) that he was not baptized before dinner, that is, did not wa&s;h. And <HI>Heb.</HI> 9.10. all the Ceremonial wa&s;hings or &s;prinklings are called Bapti&s;ms; in a metaphori|cal &s;en&s;e it's u&s;ed for the pouring forth of the &s;pi|rit.</P>
<P>And further, when it is tran&s;lated to dip, both in the Old and New Te&s;tament, it &s;ignifies commonly the lea&s;t touch or ta&s;t of any thing that is liquid. So <HI>Luk.</HI> 16.24. <HI>Dives</HI> begs that <HI>Lazarus</HI> might be &s;ent (<GAP DESC="foreign">) that he might baptize, or dip the top of his finger in wa|ter to cool his tongue; the lea&s;t drop would have been prized by him. 1 <HI>Sam.</HI> 14 27. <HI>Jonathan</HI> is &s;aid to dip the end of his rod in an honey-comb, that is, but to take a very little; and the word is (<GAP DESC="foreign">) &s;o it is u&s;ed in <HI>Exod.</HI> 12.22. <HI>Joh.</HI> 13.26.</P>
<P>But to put it out of que&s;tion, that there needs no &s;uch rigidne&s;s; and in pre&s;&s;ing this method of plunging from the word <HI>Bapti&s;m,</HI> let us compare it with other phra&s;es.<NOTE PLACE="marg">Differt &agrave; <GAP DESC="foreign">, quod e&s;t pro&s;un|dum petere, &amp; pe|nitus &s;ubmergi. <HI>Pa&s;or, Lexic.</HI></NOTE> When the Scri|pture would expre&s;s a covering of the whole body under water, and &s;o a &s;ubmer&s;ion, or being wholly under water, it u&s;eth two other words, as different from baptizing, <HI>viz.</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign">, and <GAP DESC="foreign"> and <GAP DESC="foreign">. Compare 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 10.2. All the Fathers and the I&s;raelites are &s;aid to be baptized in the Cloud, and in the Sea; they had
<PB N="133" REF="74"> only the dewings of the Cloud, and the &s;prinklings of the water on them as they pa&s;t through: But in <HI>Exod.</HI> 15.4, 5. when he &s;peaks of <HI>Pharoah</HI> and his Hoa&s;t, he doth not &s;ay they were baptized in the waters, but u&s;eth the&s;e two words, <GAP DESC="foreign">, <HI>they were drowned in the Red Sea, &s;ubmer&s;i;</HI> and he adds, <HI>the depths have covered them;</HI> and <GAP DESC="foreign">, <HI>they &s;ank,</HI> or as the word is, <HI>dou&s;ed them&s;elves into the bottom as a &s;tone, while the I&s;raelites were but baptized under the gentle droppings of the Cloud, and of the Sea.</HI> And the very &s;ame di|&s;tinction did the Greek Writers make between ba|ptizing and dou&s;ing, or ca&s;ting under water; expre&s;|&s;ing by baptizing, to be in the water as a Bottle is, or Ship that is &s;eldom or never wholly overwhelmed: And this appears mo&s;t demon&s;tratively to be their meaning by the ver&s;e of the Ancient Oracle of the <HI>Athenians,</HI> who well knew how to &s;peak and di&s;tin|gui&s;h Greek.</P>
<Q><L><GAP DESC="foreign">.</L>
<L>Baptize or wa&s;h him, <HI>utris in&s;tar,</HI> as a Bottle in</L>
<L>water, but do not drown him, or utterly plunge</L>
<L>him.</L></Q>
<P>Whereby it plainly appears that the word <HI>(to ba|ptize)</HI> &s;ignifies any kind of wa&s;hing, whether by &s;prinkling or pouring out of water, or dipping into water; and that it is &s;pecially di&s;tingui&s;hed from the&s;e words that do &s;ignifie a total &s;ubmer&s;ion; and the&s;e
<PB N="134" REF="75"> men do rack the word only to &s;peak for plunging un|der water, excluding the u&s;ual and more common &s;ence of it, which is to wa&s;h or clean&s;e.</P>
<P>But let us view the Scriptures which they bring for the maintainance of this &s;ignification, <HI>Mat.</HI> 3.13.16. <HI>Je&s;us after he was baptized, went &s;traight wayes up out of the water,</HI> (<GAP DESC="foreign">) which may be tran&s;lated, <HI>he went up from the waters,</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign"> &s;ignifying more properly <HI>ab</HI> then <HI>ex,</HI> from then out; and it is mo&s;t &s;uitable to tran&s;late it &s;o, becau&s;e all rivers, for mo&s;t part, lie low, and in valleys, in coming to which we are &s;ayd to de&s;cend, and coming from to a&s;cend; thus when Chri&s;t a&s;cended, in <HI>Act.</HI> 1.9. <HI>He was ta|ken out of their &s;ight,</HI> that is from their &s;ight.</P>
<P>Of the like con&s;ideration is that other place, which they lay &s;o much weight on for to hold forth plunging, <HI>Act.</HI> 8.36, 37, 38. Of <HI>Philip</HI> and the Eunuch, it is &s;aid they <HI>went both down into the water</HI> (<GAP DESC="foreign">) which may as well, and better be tran&s;lated, <HI>they went down to or towards the water;</HI> it &s;eems they being the upper ground, &s;pied water below them, and &s;o went down to it to be baptized, as it is a common phra&s;e among us, to go down to the water &s;ide.</P>
<P>But &s;econdly, &s;hould we grant them this interpre|tation, that <HI>they went both down into the water,</HI> which is a &s;training of the words, yet it can never be proved from this, that their whole body was dipt all over, a man may go into the water, and yet not be over his &s;hoes; and how can they prove by this place they went in any further, or how far they went; or whether <HI>Phi|lip</HI>
<PB N="135" REF="75"> did not take up water, and poured it on him; or whether he duckt him under water, or dipt onely his head; nothing can be proved from this place; but if they conjecture one thing, we may another, with as much evidence. In the 107. P&s;al. it is &s;aid, <HI>They that go down to the &s;ea in &s;hip, &s;ee thy wonders;</HI> when they go down into the &s;ea in &s;hips, is the &s;hip plunged all over? or are they under water in the &s;hip?</P>
<P>Yet thirdly, it is evident that their going into the water, is di&s;tingui&s;hed in the &s;ame ver. from the Eu|nuchs being baptized; they went down, or to (or according to their own mind) into the water, and he baptized him: &s;o that the going into the water, take it for dipping and ducking, is not baptizing, but &s;ome|thing di&s;tinct, another act; and if they will prove go|ing down to the water, or into the water, in this place denotes the dipping of the whole body, then he mu&s;t be dipt before he was baptized; for <HI>Philip</HI> baptized him after they went into the water.</P>
<P>Again, there is as much from this phra&s;e to prove <HI>Philip</HI> to be dipt as the Eunuch; and if dipping be baptizing, for the text &s;aith expre&s;ly, <HI>they both went down to,</HI> or <HI>in the water,</HI> if you interpret it after their own heart, that they both went into the water, <HI>Phi|lip</HI> was as much in the water as the Eunuch; for there is no exception made, but both went in together, and who &s;hould then baptize the Eunuch? if this &s;eem to be an ab&s;urdity to them, how can they from this expre&s;&s;ion, in the &s;evere&s;t acception, conclude the Eunuch was dipt? but they both went into the wa|ter
<PB N="136" REF="76"> together, &s;eeing the Text &s;peaks as much of <HI>Phi|lips</HI> going into the water, as of the Eunuchs: But if we take it according to the fir&s;t tran&s;lation, that they went both down towards the water, there may be &s;ome rea&s;onable account given how the one was ba|ptized; which &s;eems to be mo&s;t probable, by pouring out water upon him.</P>
<P>If any one object further from the next ver&s;e, that they a&s;cended out of the water, here is not (<GAP DESC="foreign"> as in the former place, but <GAP DESC="foreign">) <HI>out of the water,</HI> yet it will not at all help them; for it is &s;aid of them both, they came up out of the water, and it &s;peaks as much of <HI>Philips</HI> dipping him&s;elf as the Eunuch; and you may as well argue that <HI>Philip</HI> was new dipt, as that the Eunuch was baptized by dipping, becau&s;e they both came up out of the water; be&s;ides, one may be &s;aid very properly to come out of the water, if he put but his foot into it; and thus you &s;ee on what weak foundations the&s;e high &s;tructures of confidence and rigidne&s;s are built.</P>
<P>The third and mo&s;t triumphant place, which they cry up, and adore for this manner of baptizing by dipping, is <HI>John</HI> 3.23. <HI>And John was baptizing in Aenon near to Salem, becau&s;e there was much water there.</HI></P>
<P>If we con&s;ider impartially, here is but a Geogra|phicall de&s;cription of this place, of it's &s;ituation, nigh <HI>Salem,</HI> and of the benefit they had of water, in re|gard of the mo&s;t places be&s;ides in the countrey, <HI>Ae|non</HI> lying nigh the banks of <HI>Jordan;</HI> and whereas they
<PB N="137" REF="76"> lay the weight on this, that he gives it as a rea&s;on why <HI>John</HI> was baptizing at <HI>Aenon,</HI> becau&s;e there was much water there; it may be a very good rea&s;on why he cho&s;e that place for the countrey to come in, and be baptized, becau&s;e they might go many a mile in the&s;e hot countreys, and not meet with a drop of water, and it was a great priviledge accounted to the&s;e places that banked on <HI>Iordan,</HI> that they had much water; but what argument is to prove that <HI>Iohn</HI> plunged all he baptized?</P>
<P>The Argument according to their form mu&s;t be thus. <HI>John</HI> baptized in <HI>Aenon,</HI> becau&s;e there was much water; <HI>Ergo,</HI> baptizing is by dipping all the whole body; this is a dangerous and ominous way of argu|ing to tho&s;e who deny con&s;equences, and deductions, for to warrant duties without expre&s;s &s;yllabical pre|cept; I hope they will allow us the &s;ame priviledge of demon&s;tration, when we &s;ay whole hou&s;es were baptized, <HI>Ergo</HI> Infants and Children, who are the pillars of a hou&s;e; is not this more fair and probable, then that <HI>Iohn</HI> plunged their whole body, becau&s;e there was much water? There is none of our con&s;e|quences for Infants bapti&s;m &s;o &s;trained and far fetcht, as we have demon&s;trated formerly; it was nece&s;&s;ary for them that had &s;o many of &s;everal parts to baptize, to go where there may be much water, when they could get hatdly a drop many miles round about, and yet not immer&s;e every one they baptized; you may in <HI>England</HI> go 20 miles in &s;ome countreys, and not find a river to plunge a mans whole body under the
<PB N="138" REF="77"> water, what would it be in <HI>Spain,</HI> and the other hot countreys, where water is &s;old as wine and bear with us, how far might they go ere they could get a river to plunge them&s;elves in? Thus you &s;ee how little rea|&s;on they have from the&s;e Scriptures to be &s;o perem|ptory and rigid, as to make the e&s;&s;ence of bapti&s;m to be dipping, or plunging all the body.</P>
<P>The la&s;t pretence commonly urged for this dipping, is from the analogie it hath with Chri&s;ts burial, from that <HI>Rom.</HI> 6.4. <HI>Col.</HI> 2.12. <HI>Buried with him in bapti&s;m;</HI> hence &s;ay they it is clear one mu&s;t be dipt under wa|ter, el&s;e it will not repre&s;ent a burial. In this they put all their confidence, and therefore let us &s;eriou&s;ly view their &s;trength.</P>
<P><HI>Sol.</HI> Fir&s;t, let it be con&s;idered that they &s;till make u&s;e of con&s;equences, to prove in&s;titutions, which they will not allow us.</P>
<P>But more particularly, 1. Plunging the whole bo|dy into the water, doth not hold &s;imilitude neither with Chri&s;ts burial, nor the manner of burials in the mo&s;t part of the world; for fir&s;t, for Chri&s;ts burial and the manner of it, was not by throwing under the earth, for Chri&s;ts body was wrapt in a linnen cloth by <HI>Io&s;eph,</HI> and laid in a Tomb, or Sepulchre, hewen out of a rock, for that was the cu&s;tome of the Jews, <HI>&egrave; rupe &s;pecum excavare condendis corporibus:</HI> Matth. 27.60. <HI>To cut out a place like a cave,</HI> or den, <HI>out of a rock to lay their dead bodies in,</HI> as is ob&s;erved by a man of great learning, and diligence; thus when wee &s;leep in our hou&s;es we may be &s;aid to be buried, having &s;omething over our heads.</P>
<PB N="139" REF="77">
<P>Secondly, the manner of burying in <HI>Europe</HI> is not by plunging the bodie into a pit of du&s;t, but by ca&s;t|ing du&s;t or dung on the per&s;on: &s;o that their pouring out water on an Infant as a pa&s;&s;ive &s;ubject, &s;eems more to an&s;wer the &s;imilitude of burying, then the ca&s;ting into the water, wherein there is &s;ome motion of the party him&s;elf contributing to his ba|ptizing.</P>
<P>Thirdly, no man is &s;aid to be buried who falls in|to the water, or under earth, without he &s;tay there &s;ome con&s;iderable time.</P>
<P>Fourthly, we are &s;aid to be buried with Chri&s;t in bapti&s;m, in regard of the &s;piritual union we have with Chri&s;t in his death, and burial; and this is as much &s;ignified by pouring water on a per&s;on (as earth on a dead body) as well, I &s;ay, as by plunging.</P>
<P>Let us now con&s;ider what remains to be &s;aid again&s;t this ab&s;olute rule, as they would make it; you have &s;een all their main places for plunging, with what de|mon&s;tration, at the be&s;t <HI>ex probabilibus &amp; incertis,</HI> out of probable and uncertain conjectures, which they &s;o much tax us withall, and yet the eye &s;ees not it &s;elf.</P>
<P>Let us now go on, and con&s;ider what other places of Scripture &s;peak more direct to qualifie this rigid opinion of plunging.</P>
<P>When <HI>Iohn</HI> began fir&s;t to admini&s;ter his office, it is &s;aid <HI>Mat.</HI> 3.5. <HI>That Ieru&s;alem, and all Iudea, and all the regions round about Iordan went forth to</HI> John, <HI>and were baptized of him in Iordan:</HI> A man had need have
<PB N="140" REF="78"> good &s;tore of confidence to per&s;wade him&s;elf and others, that all the&s;e people were baptized by plunging their whole body into <HI>Jordan,</HI> or that they were dipt in their cloaths, or came with any prepared garments for that purpo&s;e; all which are nece&s;&s;ary circum&s;tances to be con&s;idered; doubtle&s;&s;e they were many thou&s;ands that came forth, for the denomina|tion is from the greater number; all <HI>Iudea</HI> and <HI>Ieru|&s;alem,</HI> &amp;c. that is, a very great many, or the greate&s;t number of the&s;e Inhabitants; and how they could be thus baptized, men and women, in their cloaths pro|mi&s;cuou&s;ly, or how they could get garments &s;o ready as to make the act decent, or what places they could have, &s;eeing there were &s;o many, for the women and the men, to prepare them&s;elves for the comely admi|ni&s;tration of &s;uch an Ordinance, I cannot imagine; we hear <HI>Iohn</HI> baptized &s;o many, but in what manner is uncertain; and that which is &s;o hotly contended for mo&s;t improbable, all things duely con&s;idered.</P>
<P>The like is of that, 2 <HI>Acts</HI> 41. where 3000 were baptized in one day by the Apo&s;tle, which if it were performed by plunging, could not but be accompa|nied with the like inconveniences: &s;o that it is only &s;aid they were baptized, not how; and the word, as you have &s;een, is not &s;o &s;trictly to be appropriated to dipping, but admits of a more large &s;ignifica|tion.</P>
<P>Fir&s;t, of the &s;ame con&s;ideration is that place, <HI>Acts</HI> 8.12. where it is expre&s;ly &s;aid, that men and women were baptized together, and on a &s;udden, which can
<PB N="141" REF="78"> hardly be conceived how it could be done with that gravity the Go&s;pel requires, by plunging in their own proper habits; and &s;uch &s;udden acts could not be done with &s;uitable preparations of garments.</P>
<P>But to come to particular in&s;tances, and parallel them together with former places, which are brought to prove this kind of dipping; and let us judge which hath more demon&s;tration. <HI>Acts</HI> 9.18. <HI>Paul</HI> was ba|ptized in the hou&s;e of <HI>Iudas;</HI> there is nothing of a <HI>Iordan</HI> or <HI>Aenon,</HI> a river that he was carried unto; neither can they by any thing prove that <HI>Paul</HI> was thus dipt, but only their good will to have it &s;o; nei|ther is it probable that every hou&s;e had a deep pond belonging to it, or a river running through it, or &s;o va&s;t a receptacle or ci&s;tern to hold water as to plunge a mans whole bodie in it.</P>
<P>Secondly, con&s;ider the Jailors ca&s;e, <HI>Acts</HI> 16.33. he was baptized in the pri&s;on, and at midnight, he and his hou&s;e; he wa&s;hed their &s;tripes, and they wa&s;hed him in token of remi&s;&s;ion of &s;ins.</P>
<P>All that the mo&s;t rationall and profound Critick of that judgement can &s;ay, is onely this; That it may be &s;uppo&s;ed he had &s;ome great ve&s;&s;el, which &s;ome had in the&s;e hot countreys for wa&s;hing them&s;elves in, and &s;o made u&s;e of it him&s;elf to be baptized; but what a poor &s;uppo&s;ition is this? there is nothing either in the text, or from rea&s;on to countenance it; who can ima|gine that in the&s;e hot countreys where water is &s;o &s;carce and precious, a poor Jaylor &s;hould have &s;uch a ve&s;&s;el of &s;o large and va&s;t a continent, which mu&s;t
<PB N="142" REF="79"> co&s;t much; or that the State would provide &s;uch a ve&s;&s;el in the Pri&s;on to bathe and refre&s;h Pri&s;oners who are under &s;u&s;pition, or cen&s;ures of all &s;orts of crimes again&s;t the State? but no more of that; it's too gro&s;s to conceive: And why may not we as well argue thus; The Jaylor was baptized late in the night in the Pri&s;on; <HI>Ergo</HI> not by plunging, but wa&s;h|ing or pouring out water on him, as they argue from <HI>Joh.</HI> 3.33. <HI>John</HI> was baptizing in <HI>Aenon</HI> near <HI>Salem,</HI> becau&s;e there was much water there; <HI>Ergo</HI> he bapti|zed by plunging; I leave it to any &s;ober judgement to determine; if the one prove that baptizing may be by dipping, the other proves it may be by &s;ome other way.</P>
<P>Thus you &s;ee the Scripture is not &s;o peremptory as the&s;e men are, but hath left the method of bapti|zing in general, and under a latitude: Neither can they bring one expre&s;s place which holds it forth ei|ther in precept or pre&s;ident (which they call for from us to &s;hew them for our judgement, and will not be &s;atisfied in all other con&s;iderations) and have no more but conjectural con&s;equences to prove their ab&s;olute determinations, but what their confidence &s;upplies: And if there be any ab&s;olute need of dip|ping, it is to cool the heat of the&s;e mens &s;pirits, who deny Bapti&s;m to be true, becau&s;e they have not been plunged.</P>
<P>The &s;um of all is this; They affirm the word, <HI>To baptize,</HI> &s;ignifies only immer&s;ion, plunging or dipping the whole body under water; we deny it, and &s;hew
<PB N="143" REF="79"> that it &s;ignifies to wa&s;h by pouring on water, and more often in the Old and New Te&s;tament; and that when this word is u&s;ed in the Scripture, it's op|po&s;ed to other words that &s;ignifie properly dou&s;ing, or ca&s;ting under water: And I think I may &s;ay it without too much ra&s;hne&s;s, that they can hardly bring one explicit place in the Old or New Te&s;tament, where the word, <HI>To baptize,</HI> is u&s;ed po&s;itively for plunging or dou&s;ing under water; and doubtle&s;s the mo&s;t of that judgement know not what the meaning of the words are, el&s;e they would not lay the e&s;&s;ence of Bapti&s;m on a word of &s;uch a large u&s;e.</P>
<P>The Scriptures being thus cleared, to &s;peak at lea&s;t, that plunging is not ab&s;olutely nece&s;&s;ary to con&s;titute the truth of Bapti&s;m: Let us now come to con&s;ider the morality of this judgement, and the practical conveniencies or inconveniencies of this way of plunging; for if it be the only and pure Go&s;pel-way, it will have no ominous or uncomely a&s;pect on other rules, which are from the &s;ame authority, nor any way a&s;per&s;e the Go&s;pel.</P>
<P N="1">1. I know no how to believe that Chri&s;t would ordain any Ordinance, and tye &s;ouls &s;trictly to it, that cannot be practi&s;ed univer&s;ally by all, and but in &s;ome places, and at &s;ome &s;ea&s;ons, without manifold inconveniencies and dangers unto nature: For if only dipping &s;hould be baptizing, and every one that believes ought pre&s;ently to be baptized, how &s;hall they do that live in tho&s;e hot and dry Countrys where water is &s;o &s;carce, as it is in many places of the
<PB N="144" REF="80"> world, who mu&s;t be forced to go &s;o many miles to come to a River, and yet may only find it a &s;mall Brook, with which they can hardly wet their feet in pa&s;&s;ing over, as it is in many places of the World?</P>
<P>And if there were in every place never &s;o much water, yet how dangerous is it for &s;ome bodies who are rheumatick, and &s;ubject to Catarrhs and defluxi|ons, in the winter time (for no &s;ea&s;on &s;hould hinder a man from the practice of an Ordinance) in cold and wet to be plunged into the water? it were enough to beget di&s;ea&s;es in the mo&s;t healthy bodies; Chri&s;t is more tender of the bodies of his Saints, then to put them into &s;uch hazards; and I hope no one will con|ceive Bapti&s;m to be a charm to prevent all inconveni|encies and di&s;ea&s;es on the body: yet the zeal of the&s;e of that way carries on &s;o furiou&s;ly, that they think it's impo&s;&s;ible for them to get any hurt, though they plunge them&s;elves into the water in fro&s;t and &s;now: but it's dangerous to tempt God out of his ordinary way of pre&s;ervation, when there is no ab|&s;olute nece&s;&s;ity for &s;uch a practice. Be&s;ides, this Or|dinance would be a greater yoke and burthen then Circumci&s;ion, if this rule of theirs &s;hould be &s;o uni|ver&s;ally followed; for there was no danger to the Child by that act, though it &s;eemed bloody and hard: But if all per&s;ons (for none are excluded by any weakne&s;s or indi&s;po&s;ition) &s;hould be thus bapti|zed, how eminent a danger would many be in? And if it prove &s;o hazardous to the bodies of many healthy ones, that have in winter time but accidentally fallen
<PB N="145" REF="80"> into the water, though they have not been under water, that it hath co&s;t them their lives, the violence of cold &s;o piercing their bodies and animal &s;pirits (of which we have many experiences) how would it be for others, who labour under daily weakne&s;s? And there is no promi&s;e that the water &s;hall have no power to hurt tho&s;e which after this manner are ba|ptized, no more then others. Fle&s;h and blood is the &s;ame in all, which is the immediate &s;ubject of &s;uch an act; and God doth proportion his Ordinances to keep corre&s;pondency with his other rules of mercy, and pre&s;criptions for u&s;e of means. In a word, if this be the only way of baptizing, happy are tho&s;e that live in hot Countreys, or have bodies of bra&s;s.</P>
<P>It's &s;aid, if it be an Ordinance, God will pre&s;erve; but that is the que&s;tion; and that which demon&s;trates it, is not the only way; if it be a way at all, it is That it cro&s;&s;eth Gods rules for pre&s;ervation of a mans &s;elf; the practice of it at &s;ome times being a kind of a degree of &s;elf-murther, and very un&s;utable to the laws of mercy and tenderne&s;s, that command the very heart of Chri&s;t; and &s;uch an ab&s;olute un|qualified command doth not look like an Ordinance of the Go&s;pel: For if baptizing be immediatly to be practi&s;ed after believing (according to their prin|ciples) then what &s;hould hinder water that they may not be baptized? Suppo&s;e they be &s;ick and weak, &s;up|po&s;e the &s;ea&s;on be un&s;utable, and yet the &s;oul de&s;ires to be baptized? You mu&s;t either go again&s;t all rules
<PB N="146" REF="81"> of nature to plunge that per&s;on, or el&s;e find out &s;ome other way of baptizing; or el&s;e a Go&s;pel command mu&s;t be neglected; for there is nor precept nor pre|&s;ident of delay of that Ordinance (&s;till to their own po&s;itions) in all the New Te&s;tament; and &s;o both the baptizer and baptized mu&s;t &s;in in performance of a duty; for the one &s;ins if he by any pretence de&s;troys his own health; and the other &s;ins in being an in|&s;trument in it. I wi&s;h men were con&s;iderate of the nature and effects of the&s;e things; which if it were more commonly practi&s;ed, we &s;hould have heaps of in&s;tances to make good this con&s;ideration.</P>
<P N="2">2. It's very much to be ob&s;erved, that Chri&s;t who hath bid us avoid all appearance of evil, &s;hould or|dain any Ordinance wherein there mu&s;t needs be &s;ome &s;uch appearance fit for fle&s;h and blood to act on; I have &s;o much mode&s;ty as only to pre&s;ent this, how women, take it in what habit you will, can be baptized publickly, where all may come with men, and by men, without appearance of evil. And if the Apo&s;tle would have women to be vailed or covered in the Congregation, becau&s;e of the Angels, take it either literally or tropically, to &s;hew the mode&s;ty of Church-A&s;&s;emblies, and to prevent any &s;hadow of temptation; how can we think that it's &s;utable to Apo&s;tolical rule, that women &s;hould appear in the open air, out of their wonted habit, in a garment next to nakedne&s;s, and &s;o be plunged into water? But I am loth to enter into the&s;e &s;ecrets.</P>
<P>I only propound this, Whether or no that this
<PB N="147" REF="81"> bapti&s;m by plunging, be not rather a baptizing of mens cloaths, and upper garments, then of the body, if the per&s;on baptized be not naked? and if he or &s;he be, how odious a cu&s;tome would that be? I can|not but think that that part that is baptized, ought to be naked, that the water may immediatly fall on that place; el&s;e &s;omething el&s;e mu&s;t be baptized primarily, and the fle&s;h &s;econdarily and by con&s;equence.</P>
<P>This is the rea&s;on why we only pour water on the face, becau&s;e it's the principalle&s;t part wherein the image of God mo&s;t appears, and the &s;oul &s;hines forth mo&s;t eminently, on which all the workings of mens humors and affections leave the vi&s;ible&s;t im|pre&s;&s;ion and &s;ymptoms. And it's ob&s;ervable, that the &s;ame word in the Greek (<GAP DESC="foreign">) &s;ignifies both the face and the per&s;on, becau&s;e the whole per|&s;on is repre&s;ented by the face. And thus we baptize the per&s;on in baptizing his face, which we can look on, and wa&s;h naked, and not be a&s;hamed. Let the&s;e men that are &s;o zealous for dipping and plunging the whole body, con&s;ider from all this, what warrant they have from Scripture for their &s;o much rigid con|fidence.</P>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 N="16" TYPE="chapter">
<PB N="148" REF="82">
<HEAD><HI>CHAP. XVI.</HI> An explication of that place, <HI>Heb. 10.22.</HI> About wa&s;hing the whole body with pure water; the improper application of it to their manner of baptizing by plunging the whole body.</HEAD>
<P>AFter all &s;trainings and &s;hifts of the Antipedo ba|pti&s;ts, this place in <HI>Heb.</HI> 10.22. is forced in to give evidence for that manner of baptizing, former|ly &s;o much contended for. <HI>Let us draw near with a true heart in full a&s;&s;urance of faith, having our hearts &s;prinkled from an evil con&s;cience, and our bodies wa&s;hed with pure water;</HI> from hence they infer baptizing mu&s;t be by dipping and plunging, or wa&s;hing the bo|dy throughout.</P>
<P>Let us review it with it's context and we &s;hall find they chew but upon a dry bone. For,</P>
<P>Fir&s;t, the &s;cope of the Apo&s;tle in all this chapter, is not in the lea&s;t to di&s;cover the manner of baptizing, but to open two things.</P>
<P N="1">1. The fulne&s;s of the &s;atisfaction and merit of Chri&s;ts offering him&s;elf, and being a &s;acrifice for re|mi&s;&s;ion of &s;ins, in oppo&s;ition to all Legal, and &s;ha|dowy offerings, as appears from the 1. v. unto the 29.
<PB N="149" REF="82"> which was begun to be demon&s;trated in the former chapters, e&s;pecially the 9. chap.</P>
<P N="2">2. To encourage &s;ouls in their approaches to God on &s;uch a glorious account now in the New Te&s;ta|ment, &s;o in the 19. ver. <HI>Having therefore boldne&s;s</HI> (<GAP DESC="foreign">) <HI>or freedome, to enter into the holie&s;t by the blood of Je&s;us, by a new and living way,</HI> &amp;c. In this 22. v. he bids them draw nigh with a true heart, and ful a&s;&s;urance of faith, &amp;c.</P>
<P>Secondly, that his &s;cope or intent is not to open the manner of baptizing, is evident; for he writes to tho&s;e that were baptized already as the&s;e Hebrews were; for you have no controver&s;ie in this Epi&s;tle about circumci&s;ion and bapti&s;m, as in the <HI>Rom. Gall. Phil, Colo&s;.</HI> but only concerning Chri&s;ts prie&s;tly Of|fice, e&s;pecially compared with the Levitical, Aaroni|cal Prie&s;thood, and the virtue of Legal-ceremonial &s;acrifices, and the &s;acrifice of Je&s;us Chri&s;t as High-prie&s;t, as any one that runs may read; now either they mu&s;t &s;ay the&s;e were not baptized before, or el&s;e mu&s;t conclude that his de&s;ign is not to inform them (and that &s;o tran&s;iently) of the nature or manner of admini&s;tring of that Ordinance.</P>
<P>Thirdly, the Apo&s;tle here doth directly in&s;truct the &s;oul how to make confident addre&s;&s;es to God, <HI>viz.</HI> from the &s;en&s;e of our ju&s;tification and &s;anctification together; for &s;o by our hearts being &s;prinkled from an evil con&s;cience, is meant, and can be meant no other then Chri&s;ts blood &s;prinkled on our &s;ouls, in the a&s;&s;u|rance of our ab&s;olution from &s;in, and the wa&s;hing
<PB N="150" REF="83"> with pure water no more (but by this outward ex|pre&s;&s;ion) of the purity of our conventions, as to &s;anctification, that we may not come with &s;candal of external unholine&s;s, when we pretend to be ju&s;tified by Chri&s;ts blood.</P>
<P>Fourthly, the u&s;ual word is here left out which ex|pre&s;&s;eth that Ordinance; and it is your bodies not ba|ptized but wa&s;hed (<GAP DESC="foreign">) which is a clear allu&s;ion to that of <HI>Levit</HI> 16.4. from whence it &s;eems to be excerpted; when <HI>Aaron</HI> the high-Prie&s;t was to enter into the holy place, and before he was to be attired for that work, it is &s;aid, <HI>He &s;hall wa&s;h his fle&s;h in wa|ter, and &s;o put them on;</HI> the 70. tran&s;late the words thus, <GAP DESC="foreign">, <HI>He &s;hall wa&s;h his whole bodie with water,</HI> to &s;ignifie the holine&s;s he &s;hould have in his per&s;on, as from external publick polluti|ons; the very &s;ame intent of the Apo&s;tle is here, that if we would be confident before God, when we ap|proach unto God, we mu&s;t come with Chri&s;ts blood on our con&s;ciences, and no known pollution on out conver&s;ations; and if we will follow their grounds from comparing the&s;e two places, we may conclude that bapti&s;m was as much an Ordinance of the Old Te&s;tament, as the New, for wa&s;hing; the body was u&s;ed in both.</P>
<P>Fifthly, it is a u&s;ual phra&s;e in Scripture to expre&s;s the &s;anctification of our per&s;ons, from inward &amp; outward defilements, by the wa&s;hing of water and wa&s;hing the body; &amp; yet not in the lea&s;t to hint out the manner of baptizing by water, as into the &s;pecial admini&s;tration
<PB N="151" REF="83"> of that Ordinance; thus in <HI>E&s;a.</HI> 1.16. when God &s;aith to his back&s;liding people, wa&s;h you, make you clean; mu&s;t he needs mean, go and be baptized? but that outward expre&s;&s;ion is put for the reforming of their wayes, and expounded by putting away the evil from their doings or works; thus in <HI>Ioh.</HI> 13. Chri&s;t expre&s;&s;eth ju&s;tification and &s;anctification, by wa&s;hing in general, and then wa&s;hing the feet; he that is wa&s;hed, (which is not baptized; for Chri&s;t &s;aith he mu&s;t wa&s;h, or el&s;e <HI>Peter</HI> could have no part in him; and Chri&s;t did not baptize) &s;uch a one need no more but to wa&s;h his feet, that is, walk holily; &s;o that here is wa&s;hing, and wa&s;hing of the feet, and yet neither meant of bapti|zing nor wa&s;hing: Thus likewi&s;e in the <HI>Corinthians</HI> it is &s;aid, as to their &s;anctification, <HI>Now you are wa&s;h|ed, now you are clean&s;ed, now you are ju&s;tified;</HI> he means not Now you are baptized, but of the &s;pecial purification of their hearts, and lives from their former pollutions of fle&s;h and &s;pirit; which though &s;ignified by bapti&s;m, yet &s;o remotely, as no man can ga|ther the con&s;tant method of external bapti&s;m from it.</P>
<P>Sixthly, he &s;aith your bodies wa&s;hed (<GAP DESC="foreign">) with clean or pure water; now I hope, as to baptizing, none are &s;o fooli&s;h as to &s;tand on it, whe|ther they be baptized after a rain when the water is puddled, or whether only in pure and cry&s;tal &s;treams, from an unpuddled &s;pring or ocean; and yet they mu&s;t be tied to the one as the other, if this Text be their pre&s;ident; and we may as well que&s;tion from
<PB N="152" REF="84"> this Text, whether they be rightly baptized, if there be any mud, or &s;lime, or filth in the water, as whether we baptized if all our bodies be not wa&s;hed; but now this expre&s;&s;ion to &s;et forth holine&s;s and &s;anctifi|cation, is mo&s;t apt and full of life: our hearts and conver&s;ations, in drawing nigh unto God, &s;hould be as if externally they were wa&s;hed with clean water, tran&s;parent and &s;potle&s;s before him, &s;hining with an Evangelical brightne&s;s, and &s;piritual purity; for it will be very hard to draw nigh to God with a good con&s;cience, and a tainted and be&s;meared body or con|ver&s;ation, with unholy acts, whereby God is &s;o much di&s;honoured; e&s;pecially to come as the Apo&s;tle &s;aith in the former part of the ver&s;e, <HI>with a true heart and full a&s;&s;urance of faith.</HI></P>
<P>Seventhly, if he had meant by this wa&s;hing of the body, baptizing, he would not have made &s;uch a di&s;|proportion (according to their own rule) between the &s;ign and thing &s;ignified; for he &s;peaks of the heart being only &s;prinkled, and yet the body wa&s;hed with clean water; now if bapti&s;m doth not &s;ignifie and &s;eal ju&s;tification, as well as &s;anctification, it is not a &s;eal of the Covenant of grace; and if it do &s;ignifie, it cannot go beyond the thing &s;ignified in expre&s;&s;ion and outward repre&s;entation. And if Chri&s;ts blood in <HI>Heb.</HI> 12.24. be called the blood of &s;prinkling, and it be one of the main things &s;ignified and &s;ealed in bapti&s;m; well may we an&s;wer it by an outward act, without offence or &s;in.</P>
<P>Eighthly, grant that by wa&s;hing the body is meant
<PB N="153" REF="84"> baptizing here (which you &s;ee cannot be extorted by violence, or extracted by any chymical virtue) yet it will not &s;erve their turns: For,</P>
<P>Fir&s;t, the body is &s;aid to be wa&s;hed, when any one or more of the principal parts in &s;ight or u&s;e are wa&s;hed; &amp; what is done to any eminent or commanding part, it carries the denomination of the whole with it; for <HI>Maries</HI> annointing and wa&s;hing of Chri&s;ts head and feet in <HI>Luke</HI> 7.44.45. is interpreted in <HI>Iohn</HI> 11.2. for the anointing of the Lord, as much as if &s;he had done it to all his body throughout; though it is only expre&s;t in the former place of the anointing and wa&s;hing his head and feet. This is mo&s;t u&s;ual in Scri|pture.</P>
<P>Secondly if they will go to the &s;trictne&s;s of the term of wa&s;hing the body; then,</P>
<P>Fir&s;t, it mu&s;t be wa&s;hed naked, or el&s;e it is not a a wa&s;hnig of the body.</P>
<P>Secondly, it mu&s;t not be a bare dipping or plunging into water, but &s;ome other act mu&s;t be done with the body, <HI>viz.</HI> a rin&s;ing or rubbing, as we do pots or cloaths which we wa&s;h, which are not &s;aid to be wa&s;h|ed becau&s;e dipt under water, but &s;o rin&s;ed as the filth and dirt is taken out; I only urge this to &s;hew the in|evitable inconveniences the&s;e men will bring on them|&s;elves by &s;uch interpretations of Scripture.</P>
<P>Many other con&s;iderations might be added, if this Tract would bear the weight of them.</P>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 N="17" TYPE="chapter">
<PB N="154" REF="85">
<HEAD><HI>CHAP. XVII.</HI> A &s;hort &s;umming up of the former principles, and arguing them from the method of the Apo&s;tle <HI>Peter</HI> about tho&s;e he baptized, <HI>Acts 10.47.</HI></HEAD>
<P>THat we may bring up all unto a full conclu&s;ion, let that place be con&s;idered, <HI>Acts</HI> 10.47. and the manner of the Apo&s;tles arguing in it, which is mo&s;t &s;peciall to what we would prove; his argument lies in this, <HI>they have received the holy Gho&s;t as well as we: Ergo,</HI> what &s;hould hinder water? where there is a qualification, there may be an admini&s;tration of that Ordinance; this is grounded on a common principle; now if we ob&s;erve,</P>
<P>Fir&s;t, the Apo&s;tle changes the u&s;ual expre&s;&s;ion, and faith not, <HI>Seeing they have believed as well as we,</HI> but <HI>&s;eeing they have received the holy Gho&s;t as well as we, What &s;hould hinder?</HI> The argument is from the equi|valency of the qualification; for whereas he &s;aith all along formerly, <HI>they believed and were baptized;</HI> and to the Eunuch, <HI>Acts</HI> 8.37. <HI>If thou believe&s;t thou mai&s;t;</HI> but here, <HI>&s;eeing they have received the holy Gho&s;t as well as we;</HI> this change of phra&s;e &s;hews the qua|lification not to lie in one term or expre&s;&s;ion, but in the univer&s;al equalitie of Go&s;pel manife&s;tation, to
<PB N="155" REF="85"> &s;ome one way, to &s;ome another; that if any title in the Go&s;pel can be found properly, either by Gods promi&s;e or our judgment, applicable to any per&s;on, we may &s;ay What &s;hould hinder water? now to re|ceive the holy Gho&s;t, is the large&s;t and mo&s;t va&s;t ex|pre&s;&s;ion, as to a qualification, that ever could be men|tioned, taking in both real graces and all external gifts and priviledges, which are all conveyed by that holy Spirit, whether common or &s;pecial, as is before expre&s;t in another Chapter.</P>
<P>We &s;hall de&s;ire on the Apo&s;tles account to argue from all the&s;e pregnant Texts of Scripture concern|ing Infants; and having the &s;ame premi&s;es we &s;hall not certainly draw a wrong conclu&s;ion, when we find the Scriptures giving &s;uch titles to Infants, and &s;o ma|ny &s;pecial carriages of Chri&s;t to them, which amounts to as much as is &s;poken of any that were baptized, why may not we &s;ay with <HI>Peter, What &s;hould hinder Water?</HI> as for in&s;tance,</P>
<P>If Infants be in the Covenant, that <HI>Abrahams</HI> promi&s;e belongs to them, as we have proved, <HI>What &s;hould hinder water?</HI></P>
<P>If Infants be holy, <HI>What &s;hould hinder Water?</HI> The&s;e which are vi&s;ible Saints may be baptized; but &s;o are the Infants of believers; for they are called (<GAP DESC="foreign">) 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 7.14. The &s;ame name given to denominate all Saints; now to be holy is as much as to be a be|liever; as to receive the holy Gho&s;t is made all one with being a believer; and what then &s;hould hinder water?</P>
<PB N="156" REF="86">
<P>So again, when the Gentiles and their po&s;terity are ingraffed into the &s;ame root, <HI>Rom.</HI> 11. which is <HI>A|braham</HI> and the Covenant, and the branches holy as the root, what &s;hould hinder water?</P>
<P>If Chri&s;t was angry when Infants were forbidden to come to him, and charged his Di&s;ciples to &s;uffer them to be brought, who can forbid water? e&s;pecial|ly when Chri&s;t took them up in his arms, laid his hands on, and ble&s;&s;ed them, which is as much and more then is done in bapti&s;m, what &s;hould hinder water to be ca&s;t on them? and &s;o we may argue from every place in the former di&s;cour&s;e, upon this very prin|ciple; for the Apo&s;tle argues neither from precept nor example, but from a parallel qualification, becau&s;e they had received the holy Gho&s;t; and &s;urely all the&s;e places of Scripture concerning Infants; will fully a|mount to make up an equivalent qualification in them to a vi&s;ible profe&s;&s;ion of grown per&s;ons, and &s;o we may argue on the &s;ame ground with <HI>Peter;</HI> be&s;ides, Infants are capable of receiving the holy Gho&s;t as well as grown per&s;ons, and why not capable of wa|ter? if they &s;ay it is only a vi&s;ible believer, a vi&s;ible profe&s;&s;or that is the &s;ubject; We an&s;wer,</P>
<P>You &s;ee the Apo&s;tle u&s;eth &s;everal expre&s;&s;ions about it, &s;ometimes actively, &s;ometimes pa&s;sively, &s;ometimes if thou believe&s;t; here, &s;eeing they have re|ceived the holy Gho&s;t, but never &s;aith a vi&s;ible Saint, or a vi&s;ible believer, or one that actually profe&s;&s;eth; and &s;o may we &s;ay, &s;eeing the promi&s;e is to them, &s;ee|ing they are holy, &s;eeing they are called Di&s;ciples, &s;ee|ing
<PB N="157" REF="86"> they had Chri&s;ts hands laid on them, and were ble&s;&s;ed, &s;eeing they are capable of receiving the ho|ly Gho&s;t, what &s;hould hinder water?</P>
<P><HI>Que&s;t.</HI> If they &s;ay &s;till there is no command; I an&s;wer,</P>
<P>Fir&s;t, there is as much as is &s;aid of others that were baptized.</P>
<P>Secondly, there is no command in terms from Chri&s;t or his Apo&s;tles to baptize profe&s;&s;ing believers, or tho&s;e that &s;hould receive the holy Gho&s;t; yet they were baptized.</P>
<P>Thirdly, where there is parallel characters to &s;hew qualification, there may be the &s;ame outward &s;ign ap|plied; on this principle the Apo&s;tle rea&s;ons in this Scripture; it is only to be wondred how &s;o many di|rect places of Scripture, which cannot but &s;parkle in the con&s;ciences of tho&s;e which are diligent and diving into truth, can be &s;o lightly evaded and made nothing of while men pretend to &s;earch truth impartially, without deceit or guile.</P>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 N="18" TYPE="chapter">
<PB N="158" REF="87">
<HEAD><HI>CHAP. XVIII.</HI> Wherein is &s;hewed who is to admini&s;ter this Ordinance of bapti&s;m, according to the rule of the Go&s;pel.</HEAD>
<P>AS the&s;e that are contrary to Infant bapti&s;m are &s;trict, and mo&s;t &s;evere in other circum&s;tances, which they think mu&s;t be in that Ordinance, &s;o they are mo&s;t &s;light and rude in their con&s;iderations and practi&s;e, as to the admini&s;trator of that Ordinance, making every male Di&s;ciple, or any one that can give an occa&s;ional word of exhortation, the mini&s;ter of this Ordinance, which they do otherwi&s;e &s;hut up, as in the mo&s;t holy place, and put the very &s;ub&s;tance of the Go&s;pel in it; this is mo&s;t un&s;uitable to the Go&s;pel, and makes bapti&s;m one of the poore&s;t and lowe&s;t Ordinances, and of no &s;uch &s;olemnity, &s;eeing every Di&s;ciple may baptize another, and he that can &s;peak any thing of the Go&s;pel may do &s;uch an act.</P>
<P>But if we trace the rule, we &s;hall &s;ee, that as it is an Ordinance of publick cognizance, &s;o it mu&s;t be admi|ni&s;tred by a publick Officer, who hath received com|mi&s;&s;ion authoritatively from Chri&s;t and his Church, and that it was never admini&s;tred by any one but he that was either ordinarily, or extraordinarily called thereunto; begin with <HI>Iohn</HI> the Bapti&s;t, &s;o called from his work and de&s;ignment to the admini&s;tration
<PB N="159" REF="87"> of that Ordinance; he was extraordinarily called, as the prophe&s;ies of him witne&s;s, with the circum&s;tances of his birth and behaviour, <HI>Luke</HI> 1.7. &amp;c. <HI>Matth.</HI> 3.1, 2, 3.</P>
<P>All the time of Chri&s;ts mini&s;try, his Di&s;ciples by immediate commi&s;&s;ion from him&s;elf baptized, and none el&s;e; and we all know how they were called, and who gave them power.</P>
<P>When Chri&s;t gave up all his power and authority to be continued to the end of the world, or his &s;econd coming, <HI>Matth.</HI> 28. <HI>Go teach all nations, baptizing them,</HI> and gave them their general and publick com|mi&s;&s;ion, he gave it to the&s;e that were to be Apo&s;tles, and to the&s;e that &s;hould &s;ucceed them in ordinary, and as by &s;ettled commi&s;&s;ion, not to every one that &s;hould be made a Di&s;ciple; this was a commi&s;sion to them at large, and yet appropriated to &s;uch an order, with|out we will &s;ay all are commi&s;&s;ioned to teach and ba|ptize.</P>
<P>Afterwards, when the Go&s;pel order of Churches came to be &s;etled, and particular in&s;tructions given, as to the foundation and method of admini&s;tration in Churches, it was never admini&s;tred by any but tho&s;e that were for the time extraordinary, or ordinary &s;et|led Officers of the Church, who&s;e names are &s;ummed up in 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 12.28, 29. and 4. <HI>Eph.</HI> 11. Apo&s;tles, Pro|phets, Evangeli&s;ts, Pa&s;tours and Teachers; be&s;ides the&s;e, none have office or power to &s;uch admini&s;trati|on but only the&s;e.</P>
<P>Tho&s;e that are the more &s;ober and intelligent &s;ort
<PB N="160" REF="88"> of our oppo&s;ites, grant us this, that the admini&s;tration of bapti&s;m is of publick cognizance; and that ordi|narily it mu&s;t be admini&s;tred by tho&s;e which are in publick and &s;et office; but generally every brother among them of any &s;uppo&s;ed gift may be a ba|ptizer.</P>
<P>As for <HI>Philip</HI> and <HI>Ananias,</HI> who baptized, the fir&s;t was an Evangeli&s;t, an extraordinary officer, as the A|po&s;tles, rai&s;ed and in&s;pirited, and impowred much after the &s;ame manner; and if we con&s;ult with <HI>Acts</HI> 8. he had &s;pecial commi&s;sion and authority from hea|ven, by a Divine call, to perform that act on the Eu|nuch; and &s;o for <HI>Ananias</HI> who baptized <HI>Paul,</HI> as one of their own judgment &s;aith well&punc; he was deputed in an extraordinary manner to that mini&s;tery, <HI>Acts</HI> 9. the Lord appearing to him in a vi&s;ion; and the&s;e examples cannot be drawn into an ordinary rule, without the &s;ame circum&s;tances be found u&s;ual.</P>
<P>And it mu&s;t needs be &s;o that none but one of the &s;etled officers of the Church who is to preach the Go|&s;pel may be a baptizer.</P>
<P>Fir&s;t, becau&s;e it is a Church Ordinance; Chri&s;t hath now left the keyes to the Church, &s;et in the Church &s;ucce&s;sively &s;uch per&s;ons, who are actually to admini|&s;ter all Ordinances in it; and if it be a Church Ordi|nance, onely the&s;e may admini&s;ter it who are called to one of the&s;e offices in the Church; all grant this, that it is a Church Ordinance, though &s;ome take the Church more largely, others more &s;trictly.</P>
<P>Secondly, it is an act of power to baptize, <HI>Mat.</HI> 28.
<PB N="161" REF="88"> <HI>All power is given to me in heaven and earth; Go teach and baptize;</HI> now power is conveyed by a &s;peciall commi&s;&s;ion and call. For a man to exerci&s;e a gift of knowledge by utterance, needs no &s;uch &s;olemnity; but to baptize, it being a &s;ealing of a &s;peciall priviledge to others, mu&s;t come from an office-power, and &s;o cannot ordinarily be admini&s;tred by a gifted Di&s;ciple.</P>
<P>Thirdly, there would be no di&s;tinction as to pow|er, between Apo&s;tles, Evangeli&s;ts, Pa&s;tors and Teach|ers, in admini&s;tration of any Ordinance, and every brother of the Church, if their rule &s;tand; this is the common confu&s;ion of the mo&s;t of the contrary judgement, which utterly overthrowes the other of Go&s;pel Churches.</P>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 N="19" TYPE="chapter">
<PB N="162" REF="89">
<HEAD><HI>CHAP. XIX.</HI> On Chri&s;ts being baptized by <HI>John,</HI> when he was about the thirtieth feer of his age; whether any thing can be gathered from it again&s;t bapti|Zing of Infants?</HEAD>
<P>THis is the la&s;t plea urged from Chri&s;ts example, that he was not baptized untill about the thir|tieth yeere, therefore none but growne per&s;ons ought to be baptized, if there be any force in Chri&s;ts ex|ample.</P>
<P>To which is an&s;wered, 1. In generall, actings are not alwayes to be our examples; for &s;ome act he did meerely as Mediatour, God-man, unimitable by us, as to be crucified for our &s;ins; &s;ome he did out of &s;peci|all rea&s;on, and eminent emergency, as to fa&s;t forty dayes and nights in the wilderne&s;&s;e, with many &s;uch like, up and downe the Scripture, that are no rules to us; his per&s;onall and repre&s;entative acts, and the&s;e which have beene acted upon extraordinary occa&s;ion and rea&s;on, cannot be drawne into practicall rule of example to us.</P>
<P N="2">2. If we will take Chri&s;ts example for a rule in this, that he was baptized when &s;o growne up, why th n we may as well take Chri&s;ts practi&s;e, as our ex|ample, in the active &s;en&s;e, <HI>he baptized none,</HI> therefore none are to baptize; the &s;ame holds as &s;trong as the other; if any &s;ay the rule afterwards warrant that,
<PB N="163" REF="89"> &s;o it doth the baptizing of Infants, as hath beene for|merly proved.</P>
<P N="3">3. And more home, Chri&s;t was a Saint in the wombe, he profe&s;&s;ed his faith from a Childe, di&s;pu|ted with the Doctors about Divine things when he was but 12. yeeres old, &s;o that he could be baptized with an infallible eveidence at fir&s;t, and yet was not baptized untill &s;uch an age; hence if we will follow Chri&s;ts example, though men be knowne to be profe&s;|&s;ours, and never &s;o godly, yet they mu&s;t not be bap|tized untill ju&s;t they come to the &s;ame &s;tature, and terme of yeares that Chri&s;t was baptized in; the rea|&s;on is &s;tronger for the one then the other, becau&s;e Chri&s;t, though he had &s;uch a vi&s;ible, &s;uch an infallible right to it, yet did ab&s;taine from the practi&s;e of it, untill ju&s;t &s;uch a time, which he cho&s;e out as fitte&s;t, &s;o that the time hath as much force to make an ex|ample, and bindes as &s;trictly to the ob&s;ervance of it, as the generall con&s;ideration of him, as a growne per|&s;on: upon this account no man mu&s;t be baptized untill he be 29. or full 30. yeares of age.</P>
<P N="4">4. There may be many con&s;iderations why Chri&s;t was baptized at yeeres:</P>
<P N="1">1. That he might enter on his publique mini&s;tery with the more greater &s;olemnity of &s;uch an Ordinance, and have a te&s;timony from heaven to him in that Or|dinance, which was given, <HI>The Holy Gho&s;t de&s;cending on him in the forme of a Dove, Mat.</HI> 3. two la&s;t <HI>ver&s;es.</HI> Now Chri&s;ts entrance into his publique mini&s;tery, began imediately after his bapti&s;me, how he con|ver&s;t
<PB N="164" REF="90"> for the mo&s;t part of the former yeares, is very darke in Scripture.</P>
<P N="2">2. It might be al&s;o, becau&s;e he would give a te&s;ti|mony to <HI>John Bapti&s;t,</HI> who, though he was de&s;igned from the wombe to that worke, yet began to act his office but a little while before, and had &s;oone done. It is a que&s;tion whether he baptized any con&s;iderable time after he baptized Chri&s;t; but ju&s;t as Chri&s;t did ari&s;e in his mini&s;tery, <HI>John</HI> fell in his.</P>
<P N="3">3. As there is no rea&s;on to be given why Chri&s;t &s;hould live &s;o long, and not take on him his publique mini&s;tery, untill &s;uch an age, nor may it be urged as &s;uch an example to us; &s;o there is no rea&s;on perem|ptorily to be given why he was not baptized untill then, and &s;o the rule is uncertaine, and of no value. But this example is contrary to the following rule left for baptizing, according to their owne princi|ples: For,</P>
<P N="1">1. That Ordinance was immediately admini&s;tred (as they) after believing, and profe&s;&s;ion; Chri&s;t was a known Believer, and Profe&s;&s;our before; neither did he make a new profe&s;&s;ion to <HI>John</HI> when he came to be baptized; but <HI>John</HI> rather &s;crupled it as an act too high for him to performe, as to &s;uch a glorious per|&s;on, <HI>Mat.</HI> 3. <HI>&s;uffer it to be done</HI> (&s;aith Chri&s;t,) <HI>&amp;c.</HI> It would be a &s;in for us to delay &s;o long.</P>
<P N="2">2. Chri&s;ts Bapti&s;me was upon no other grounds then ours, his to fulfill all righteou&s;ne&s;&s;e in our &s;tead, or to wa&s;h away unrighteou&s;ne&s;&s;e, the filth of the fle&s;h, and &s;pirit, as an outward &s;igne of it, and &s;o
<PB N="165" REF="90"> cannot come under the common rule; this I conceive &s;ufficient to be &s;poken as to that con&s;ideration; <HI>there onely remaines,</HI> that que&s;tion which will ea&s;ily be an|&s;wered on the former grounds, if they prove true, as they are demon&s;trated, <HI>The Lord give a ble&s;&s;ing to the&s;e con&s;iderations on your heart.</HI></P>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 N="20" TYPE="chapter">
<PB N="166" REF="91">
<HEAD><HI>CHAP. XX.</HI> That Bapti&s;me doth not forme a Church.</HEAD>
<P>SO much doe our oppo&s;ites advance Bapti&s;me, that they make it the only con&s;titutive principle of a Go&s;pel Church, by which men enter into the Church, and are made vi&s;ible Members onely by its admini|&s;tration, and in their owne method. But we &s;hall &s;oon dethrone that po&s;ition by the authority and force of Scripture and rationall argumentation.</P>
<P>Onely in generall, I doubt our Divines have un|wittingly given them too much ground to affirme as they doe, calling it an entrance into the Church, an initiating Ordinance, &s;eale, and by their practice of late to &s;et the Font nigh the Church porch; though I would not much &s;tand upon it, how proper it is to call it an initiating Ordinance; (a phra&s;e I have u&s;ed in this di&s;cour&s;e <HI>Pro forma</HI>) without it be be|cau&s;e it is the fir&s;t &s;eale to be admini&s;tred in the Order of Sacraments; but it will be ea&s;ily proved that Bapti&s;me gives no e&s;&s;ence or being, either to a Church, or member&s;hip.</P>
<P N="1">1. Becau&s;e a man mu&s;t be a member, and of a Church, ere he can be Baptized according to the Go|&s;pell rule.</P>
<P N="2">2. Sacraments are Ordinances to be admini&s;tred in the Church, and to the Church, which &s;uppo&s;eth the exi&s;tence of the Church before; thus 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 12.
<PB N="167" REF="91"> 28. <HI>Eph.</HI> 4.11, 12, 13. the Lord hath &s;et in, and given all officers to the Church, if &s;o, Sacraments, which mu&s;t be admini&s;tred by officers, if rightly.</P>
<P N="3">3. A Church may be without Bapti&s;me, and yet be as true and as reall a Church; as the <HI>I&s;ralites</HI> were &s;o long in the wilderne&s;&s;e without Circumci&s;ion, which was as much an initiating Ordinance, as ever Bapti&s;me was; now nothing can be without its forme, and exi&s;t.</P>
<P N="4">4. That cannot be the forme of a Church, or make a man a Member, which remaines the &s;ame, and un|touched after excommunication, whereby a man is cut off from member&s;hip at pre&s;ent, but now though the Church may take away his member&s;hip, they cannot his Bapti&s;me, which is the &s;ame &s;till, and is not lo&s;t.</P>
<P N="5">5. For this is an ab&s;olute rule, that that which gives the forme, or being to a Church, it mu&s;t cea&s;e when the Church cea&s;eth, or when a Member cea&s;eth to be a Member, it mu&s;t cea&s;e with it; and that mu&s;t be renewed, as often as member&s;hip is renewed, and &s;o one mu&s;t be Baptized againe, as often as he re|newes Member&s;hip; this is mo&s;t ab&s;urd, yet mu&s;t fol|low from &s;uch a principle.</P>
<P N="6">6. Bapti&s;me is a &s;igne, and &s;eale, therefore gives no being to any thing, but confirmes it; It is a con|&s;equent act, and &s;uppo&s;eth &s;omething pre-exi|&s;tent.</P>
<P><HI>Obj.</HI> As for that place they &s;o much &s;tand on, <HI>Act.</HI> 2.41. <HI>As many as received the word gladly,
<PB N="168" REF="92"> were Baptized, and there was added that day about</HI> 3000. <HI>&s;oules;</HI> hence they &s;ay they were added by Bapti&s;me.</P>
<P><HI>Sol.</HI> The words &s;ay not, they were added by Bapti&s;me, but puts a full point, or &s;top after that &s;entence, <HI>as many as gladly received the word, were Baptized.</HI> There that &s;entence ends. And the Apo&s;tle goes on a new account; and &s;aith <HI>there were added that day</HI> 3000. <HI>&s;oules,</HI> but doth not at all &s;hew the manner of their adding; &s;o that the&s;e words are rather a recapitulati|on, and &s;umming up the number of Church Members added that day, then any de&s;cription of the way of their taking into the Church: as if one &s;hould &s;ay, he had 3000 l. in gold added to his e&s;tate, he only &s;hews it is &s;o, but not how he came to have that added, &s;o it mu&s;t be here; and the former rea&s;ons prove the im|po&s;&s;ibility of &s;uch an interpretation.</P>
<P N="2">2. <HI>Obj.</HI> There is one place more urged to prove Bapti&s;me to be the forme of a Church, and that which makes a Member, which is, 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 12.13. <HI>We are all Baptized into one body,</HI> there Bapti&s;me onely embodyes members.</P>
<P><HI>Sol.</HI> To which I an&s;wer fir&s;t, The Apo&s;tle &s;peakes there primarily of this Bapti&s;me of the Spirit, not of water; So by one Spirit, we are Baptized into one Body, not &s;o much of Bapti&s;me by water.</P>
<P>But &s;econdly, grant it to be meant of Bapti&s;me by water, yet it proves nothing that Bapti&s;me is the forme of that body, which hath its matter and forme, holine&s;&s;e, and union before Bapti&s;me; baptized into
<PB N="169" REF="92"> one body, doth not here &s;hew the e&s;&s;entiall con&s;titu|tion of a Church, but the confirmed union.</P>
<P>For fir&s;t, we are &s;aid in <HI>Gal.</HI> 3.27. <HI>to be Baptized into Christ;</HI> now none will conjecture that Bapti&s;me gives the forme of union with Chri&s;t, but onely &s;eales it; &s;o into one body, may be as to the unity of communion in the &s;ame body.</P>
<P N="2">2. The phra&s;e of Baptizing into, or in one body, &s;hews the body exi&s;tent, and in perfect being before, el&s;e we could not be Baptized in a body, or into a body; for when one is Baptized fir&s;t, into what body is he, and the &s;econd, and third incorporated? untill a body be compleat, they cannot be &s;aid to be Baptized into it, or in it; therefore Bapti&s;me can|not con&s;titute the forme of a Church, which is this body, &s;aying, we are Baptized into it, that is, to hold union and communion with &s;uch a body.</P>
<P N="3">3. This argument is in&s;erted more to prevent Schi&s;me, then to expre&s;&s;e the way of fir&s;t embodying or con&s;titution of Churches, as the whole context de|mon&s;trates.</P>
<P N="4">4. It is the &s;ame rea&s;on with the Lords Supper, and we may as well be &s;aid as to the fir&s;t con&s;titution, to con&s;titute Churches by that Sacrament, as by Bapti&s;me, 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 10.16, 17. <HI>The cup of ble&s;&s;ing we ble&s;&s;e, is it not the Communion of the blood of Chri&s;t? 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.</HI> So that we may as well be &s;aid to be gathered into a Church by
<PB N="170" REF="93"> the Lords Supper, as by Bapti&s;me, for by it we are made one body, and one Spirit.</P>
<P>But la&s;tly, if Bapti&s;me doth e&s;&s;entially con&s;titute a Church, and is its forme, then all who are Baptized are reall Members of the Church, and mu&s;t have all priviledges, be they never &s;o loo&s;e and vaine; for they have the e&s;&s;entiall qualification, and the perfect form, and what will any de&s;ire more? and &s;trange con&s;e|quences mu&s;t 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 the&s;e termes, and then no Church can be con&s;tituted; for who &s;hall Baptize fir&s;t? for he mu&s;t have an extraordinary Commi&s;&s;ion, for he can have no ordinary delegation, untill the forme be introduced which makes the Church, and that forme is not, untill a competent number be Baptized, and &s;o Church power mu&s;t be exerci&s;ed fir&s;t without a Church, and politicall power without a body.</P>
<P>It is wonderfull to imagine how the&s;e that differ, &s;light and unchurch all the Congregations, though made up of the pure&s;t, and &s;pecialle&s;t Saints, without mixtures of humane allay, and meerely in this princi|ple they are not Baptized in their forme, nor plunged under water, which with them is onely Baptizing; and under this principle, Faith, and Repentance, and
<PB N="171" REF="93"> the mo&s;t re&s;plendent graces of the be&s;t Saints mu&s;t lye buryed, and no Church, if not thus dipt: I hope you &s;ee the fallacy, if not the perfect folly of this po&s;ition, and how Churches &s;tand upon other principles more firme, and &s;ure; though we would not lo&s;e any ornament of the Go&s;pell to adorne this body, yet we dare not con&s;titute it of &s;uch ingre|dients.</P>
</DIV1>
</BODY>
</TEXT>
<TEXT LANG="eng">
<FRONT>
<DIV1 TYPE="title page">
<PB REF="94">
<PB REF="94">
<P>A GOSPEL-ORDINANCE CONCERNING The &s;inging of Scripture-P&s;alms, Hymns and Spiritual Songs; the lawfulne&s;s of that Ordinance.</P>
<P><HI>LONDON,</HI> Printed for <HI>R. W.</HI> and are to be &s;old at the <HI>three Daggers</HI> in <HI>Fleet&s;treet.</HI> 1653.</P>
</DIV1>
</FRONT>
<BODY>
<DIV1 N="1" TYPE="chapter">
<PB REF="95">
<PB N="165" REF="95">
<HEAD><HI>CHAP. I.</HI> Concerning the &s;inging of Scripture P&s;alms Hymns, and &s;pirituall Songs; the lawful|ne&s;s of that Ordinance.</HEAD>
<P>_THe next publick controver&s;ie, which Sa|tan hath rai&s;ed to di&s;turb the Churches, is about the practi&s;e of &s;inging Scri|pture P&s;alms, on purpo&s;e to deprive the Saints of the benefit of that &s;oul-rai&s;ing, and heart-ravi&s;hing Ordinance, by which God is publickly and &s;olemnly prai&s;ed, and the &s;pirits filled with the glory of God; and becau&s;e your hearts may be &s;tabli&s;hed in every truth, and not &s;o ea&s;ily per&s;wa|ded to part with &s;uch a holy Ordinance, I could not but endeavor to clear up this al&s;o, which you have in this method.</P>
<P>Fir&s;t, that &s;inging of P&s;alms, Hymns, and &s;piri|tual Songs, vocally with the voice and mu&s;ically, is an Ordinance of the New Te&s;tament, con&s;tantly to be practi&s;ed in the Churches of Chri&s;t.</P>
<PB N="166" REF="96">
<P>Secondly open unto you the three expre&s;&s;ions, P&s;alms, Hymns, and Songs, wherein they agree, and whether there be any difference between them.</P>
<P>Thirdly, &s;hew you that it is the P&s;alms of <HI>David, A&s;aph, Heman,</HI> and the Hymns and &s;piritual Songs of the&s;e holy men, which are recorded in Scripture, that is the matter ordinarily to be &s;ung.</P>
<P>Fourthly, an&s;wer the main objections of the di&s;|&s;enters; the&s;e are &s;cattered up and down this &s;mall Treati&s;e.</P>
<P>For the fir&s;t, it is clear from <HI>Eph.</HI> 5.19. he bids them be filled with the Spirit, <GAP DESC="foreign">, &s;peaking to one another; and in <HI>Col.</HI> 3.16. <HI>Teaching and admoni&s;hing one another,</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign">; What ever the&s;e be as to the matter of them yet the &s;inging of them is commanded as an Ordinance, and a &s;pecial Ordinance for edification; That the Apo&s;tle exhorts here to this as an Ordinance, is clear;</P>
<P>Fir&s;t becau&s;e he &s;peaks to the whole Church, and as a publick dutie, not appropriated to any Office, but as a commandment univer&s;al on all;</P>
<P>Secondly, he doth di&s;tingui&s;h this Ordinance from that of preaching or teaching doctrinally, which be|longs to the Officer, or occa&s;ionally to a gifted bro|ther; for he doth not only &s;ay, as in other places, teach and admoni&s;h; but in P&s;alms, and Hymns, and Songs, which &s;hews the manner of the teaching and admoni&s;hing, not in the general, but in &s;uch a way as by &s;inging with P&s;alms, &amp;c. and as Mr. <HI>Cotton</HI> well
<PB N="167" REF="96"> ob&s;erves, if the Apo&s;tle had meant the ordinary and common way of teaching, he would have &s;aid, teach one another out of the P&s;alms, or from them, rather then in or with them, which is the u&s;ual language of the holy Gho&s;t in expre&s;&s;ing &s;uch a duty; &s;o in <HI>Pauls</HI> example, <HI>Acts</HI> 28.23. &amp; &s;o <HI>Philip</HI> is &s;aid to preach Je&s;us to the Eunuch, (<GAP DESC="foreign">) from that Scri|pture in E&s;aiah; and &s;urely he would never have added the word (<GAP DESC="foreign">) in the following part, &s;inging with melodie in your hearts, if this teaching and ad|moni&s;hing were not to be di&s;covered in &s;uch a pecu|liar Ordinance. To which places we mu&s;t add that of the 1. <HI>Cor.</HI> 14.15, 16. where the Apo&s;tle &s;peaks to the Church, as to the orderly admini&s;tration of that Ordinance 16, 17. v. where he &s;peaks of &s;inging as a di&s;tinct dutie, and to be done in publick before the Church; and that phra&s;e of &s;inging with the &s;pirit, and with under&s;tanding, is very emphatical, as Di|vines ob&s;erve; for I cannot &s;ing with the &s;pirit, but I mu&s;t al&s;o with under&s;tanding; but the under&s;tanding here, mu&s;t be meant of others who hear me, and joyn with me in that act; however, publick &s;inging was then an Ordinance &s;olemnized in the Church; and we &s;hall hereafter &s;ee what kind the&s;e P&s;alms were they &s;ung; Thus <HI>Iames</HI> 5.13. <HI>If any be merry, let him &s;ing P&s;almes;</HI> though this be particular in the Text, yet it is of the &s;ame con&s;ideration with the for|mer; and the&s;e places hold forth the in&s;t tution; &s;inging is an Ordinance and a &s;pecial one in the Go|&s;pel.</P>
<PB N="168" REF="97">
<P>Secondly, that it is not only meant of an inward frame of rejoycing; but that it is of the voice, is mo&s;t apparent:</P>
<P>Fir&s;t, from the very words of the&s;e Texts; <HI>Speak|ing to one another, teaching one another, in P&s;alms, and Hymns,</HI> &amp;c. Now no man can &s;peak to edifie others by inward workings, or &s;ilent rejoycings.</P>
<P N="2">2. Be&s;ides the melody to be made in our hearts, we mu&s;t &s;ing with melody, which &s;hews not only the inward frame, but the outward act, and order; for me|lody in the heart were enough to expre&s;&s;e the in|ward grace; but he addes an outward expre&s;sion, <HI>Singing with melody in your hearts;</HI> &s;o that it is with the voice as with the heart.</P>
<P N="3">3. Singing in Scripture is ever put in di&s;tinction from bare reading or &s;peaking; and commonly &s;igni|fies a modulation of the tongue, or expre&s;sing any thing mu&s;ically and in tune, and &s;o it is a mu&s;ical &s;peak|ing.</P>
<P N="4">4. There would be the greate&s;t confu&s;ion of Or|dinances; for preaching and prayer would be made all one with &s;inging; nay, internal works would be found contrary to outward expre&s;sions; and if there be any &s;uch thing as preaching, and prayer, and exhortation, it mu&s;t be different from &s;inging, even to the mo&s;t igno|rant; for no man will &s;ay, when a man meerly &s;peaks or preaches, he &s;ings, without his tone do make them call him a &s;inging preacher or talker, as too many ei|ther out of affectation or cu&s;tome, have given ju&s;t cau&s;e to &s;u&s;pect.</P>
<P N="5"><PB N="169" REF="97">5. This is undeniable, if there be any &s;uch command as to &s;ing, it is vi&s;ible; for el&s;e no man could at any time be &s;aid to &s;ing or not &s;ing; it mu&s;t be an outward act; for el&s;e we mu&s;t &s;ay we have only &s;ouls for that Ordi|nance, and bodies for all the re&s;t.</P>
<P N="6">6. All that ever &s;ung in the Go&s;pel, as to practice, &s;ung vocally, <HI>Matth.</HI> 26.30. <HI>They went out and &s;ung an Hymn;</HI> that mu&s;t be with an audible voice, <HI>Acts</HI> 16.25. <HI>Paul</HI> and <HI>Silas</HI> &s;ung, and all heard them; and if it be an inward act only, who &s;hall know when men &s;ing or think; or would they have men to be gods to judge when men &s;ing P&s;alms, and Hymns, and &s;piri|tual &s;ongs inwardly? what need the&s;e names outward|ly? A more ungrounded opinion was never invented by the devil, and &s;urely he hath fitted it for the weak|er and mo&s;t perfectly captivated &s;orts, of pro&s;elytes, who have fir&s;t lo&s;t their rea&s;ons, and then their con|&s;ciences.</P>
<P>Can my inward joy teach another? or my private ejaculations admoni&s;h another? I wi&s;h Satan have not the&s;e men at his will: they would have &s;inging to be an Ordinance, but no man to hear them; So that if &s;inging be not a di&s;tinct vi&s;ible Ordinance, then no man can tell what it is to &s;ing at all, but the &s;ame with preaching, praying, talking, or only an invi&s;ible motion of the &s;oul, known to God only: which is mo&s;t ab&s;urd, when we look on the weight of the&s;e places of Scripture mentioned formerly.</P>
<P><HI>Ob.</HI> If any object, If &s;inging be with the voice, why not with other in&s;truments, as lute, and harp and or|gans, &amp;c, as in the O. T.</P>
<PB N="170" REF="98">
<P><HI>Sol.</HI> Fir&s;t, in the New Te&s;tament the voice and the heart are only Gods in&s;truments; this holds forth the &s;pecial way of wor&s;hip from &s;oul and body, as from one per&s;on; artificial in&s;truments are laid a&s;ide, not natural ones.</P>
<P>Secondly, the voice is &s;till required, becau&s;e it is the mo&s;t immediate Interpreter of the heart, and no out|ward in&s;trument be&s;ides is &s;o.</P>
<P>Thirdly, nothing can be expre&s;t &s;o &s;ignificantly in outward characters, as by the voice; and the be&s;t ex|pre&s;sions of God we have in words, and the tongue can be&s;t make out them.</P>
<P>Fourthly, the union of heart, and tongue, or voice, makes up the compleat expre&s;sion of Gods prai&s;es, without any other con&s;ideration; for we have not now any thing as typical to look at; as Lute, and Harp, &amp;c. were in the Old Te&s;tament to prai&s;es; &s;o ceremonies were to Chri&s;ts &s;acrifice; when the &s;ub|&s;tance came, they cea&s;ed; there is no need of them now, the &s;pirit being more abundantly poured forth; and they have no &s;ignificancy; but their needs &s;oul and body alwayes to &s;ing out Divine &s;tories, while in this world.</P>
<P>Fifthly, this hath been prophe&s;ied of, and long before the New Te&s;tament dayes, by the Prophets, of &s;inging to God with a lively voice, when the voice &s;hall be as Lute, and Harp, and all in&s;truments to God, as in <HI>E&s;a.</HI> 52.8. (as Mr. <HI>Cotton</HI> in that precious Treati&s;e of his, worthy all mens con&s;ideration) compared with <HI>Rom.</HI> 10 14. <HI>P&s;al.</HI> 100.1. <HI>P&s;al.</HI> 95 1, 2. all places refer|ring prophetically to the Go&s;pel.</P>
<PB N="171" REF="98">
<P>Sixthly, if they dare grant this, that there mu&s;t be no &s;inging by voice, then they cut off them&s;elves from any &s;ort of &s;inging by gift, in P&s;alms, or Hymns, and &s;piritual Songs, and any outward way of expre&s;sing Gods prai&s;es; and mu&s;t blot out &s;inging in any way publickly as to be looked after, though a per&s;on ne|ver &s;o much in&s;pired by the holy Gho&s;t (after their own &s;en&s;e) &s;hould extemporarily compo&s;e, and breath forth the mo&s;t glorious Sonnets, or heavenly <HI>An|thems;</HI> for what is not a duty in it &s;elf, and general in the nature of it, is not a duty to the mo&s;t rai&s;ed &s;pi|rit, if never &s;o well gifted in &s;uch a my&s;tery.</P>
<P>But the wi&s;er &s;ort of the contrary judgment, who con&s;ult with Scriptures and the nature of things, will not own the di&s;&s;ent of others as to this, but confe&s;s &s;inging of P&s;alms mu&s;t be by voice, &amp; lay it on another foundation; that it is P&s;alms, &amp;c. but not the&s;e we &s;ing, that the command &s;peaks of, but P&s;alms of ano|ther con&s;titution, from a peculiar gift, and &s;o to be looked on by the Church, <HI>viz.</HI> not to &s;ing <HI>Davids</HI> P&s;alms, or <HI>A&s;aphs,</HI> or the like; but from the fillings of the Spirit in &s;uch a per&s;on, and on a &s;udden break|ing forth for the edification of the Church.</P>
<P>I end this with what <HI>Zanchy</HI> faith on the&s;e places, The&s;e words <GAP DESC="foreign">, and <GAP DESC="foreign">, &s;inging with grace in your hearts, <HI>non excludunt vocem oris, verum excludunt hypocri&s;in &amp; vanitatem, ex qua fere loquuntur ebrii vino (&amp;</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign"> <HI>valet atque</HI><GAP DESC="foreign">) they do not exclude the voice, but hypocri|&s;ie, and vanity, from which men drunk with wine do
<PB N="172" REF="99"> &s;ing; and in your hearts, is as much as from your hearts, that is, not vainly, or as hypocritically, but as from inward &s;en&s;e: So the Greek Scholia&s;ts, <GAP DESC="foreign">.</P>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 N="2" TYPE="chapter">
<HEAD><HI>CHAP. II.</HI> What's meant by the&s;e three expre&s;sions, <HI>P&s;alms, Hymns, Spiritual Songs;</HI> how they are u&s;ed in the Old Te&s;tament and the New Te&s;tament; from which the matter of <HI>&s;inging</HI> is cleared.</HEAD>
<P>THE next difference is about the matter of &s;inging, which all mu&s;t grant to be P&s;alms, and Hymns, and Spiritual Songs: but what the&s;e P&s;alms were, &amp;c. and how to di&s;tingui&s;h them one from another, mu&s;t be debated ere we can clear the point between the&s;e three expre&s;&s;ions; &s;ome con|&s;titute one difference, &s;ome another.</P>
<P><GAP DESC="foreign">, <HI>P&s;alms,</HI> &s;ay &s;ome, are &s;uch Songs which were &s;ung with other In&s;truments be&s;ides the tongue.</P>
<P><GAP DESC="foreign">, <HI>Hymns,</HI> &s;uch as are made only to expre&s;s the prai&s;es,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Zan|chius.</NOTE> and &s;et out the excellen|cies of God. <GAP DESC="foreign">, <HI>Songs,</HI> &s;uch as con|tain not only prai&s;es, but exhortations, prophe&s;ies, thank&s;giving; and the&s;e only &s;ung with the voyce and tongue.</P>
<PB N="173" REF="99">
<P>Others difference them thus: <HI>P&s;alms</HI> are tho&s;e which were pen'd by <HI>David</HI> and others, drawn up into meeter to be &s;ung in the Temple in a mu&s;ical &s;train. <HI>Hymns</HI> are tho&s;e extemporal prai&s;es which break forth upon occa&s;ion from a heart filled with the Spirit,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Gro|tius.</NOTE> and ob&s;ervant of Gods goodne&s;s. <HI>Songs</HI> or <HI>Odes</HI> they call &s;uch that were premeditated not without &s;ome art: The&s;e they call the Songs of <HI>Mo&s;es, De|borah, Hannah, Simeon, Mary, &amp;c.</HI></P>
<P>But we &s;hall find, if we con&s;ult the u&s;e of the words, the difference will not be con&s;ide|rable between them, and that they are u&s;ed pro|mi&s;cuou&s;ly in the Old Te&s;tament, from whence we mu&s;t learn how they are to be taken in the New: Now,</P>
<P N="1">1. I find they are u&s;ed in general as the title of <HI>Davids P&s;alms,</HI> which are named promi&s;cuou&s;ly by the&s;e three words.</P>
<P N="2">2. That the three Hebrew words, <HI>viz.</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign"> <HI>Miz|mor,</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign"> <HI>Schir,</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign"> <HI>Tehillim,</HI> to which the&s;e the&s;e three, <GAP DESC="foreign">, do fully an&s;wer, are u&s;ed in the P&s;alms one for another, without di|&s;tinction; and &s;ometimes two of them joyned to|gether as the title of one P&s;alm; &s;ometimes all three joyned together in one title; we could heap up ex|amples in this kind. <HI>Iudges</HI> 5.3. &s;aith <HI>Deborah,</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign">, <HI>I will &s;ing, I will &s;ing unto the Lord;</HI> it's tran&s;lated by the 70, <GAP DESC="foreign">; here is two words; the one u&s;ed for a P&s;alm, the other for
<PB N="174" REF="100"> an Ode or Song put to expre&s;s one act. 1 <HI>Chron.</HI> 16.9. the two &s;ame words are tran&s;lated thus in the 70, <GAP DESC="foreign">, <HI>Sing unto the Lord, &s;ing a Hymn unto the Lord.</HI> In <HI>P&s;al.</HI> 105.3. which is the &s;ame P&s;alm, only in&s;erted into the body of the Book of the P&s;alms; the former word <GAP DESC="foreign">, is rendred by <GAP DESC="foreign">, <HI>&s;ing P&s;alms:</HI> And thus the &s;ame word in the &s;ame ver&s;e is expre&s;t by the&s;e two words, yet hold forth one thing. In <HI>E&s;ay</HI> 12.5. <GAP DESC="foreign"> is rendred <GAP DESC="foreign">. In the title of <HI>P&s;al.</HI> 38.1. <HI>Mizmor</HI> is ren|dred by <GAP DESC="foreign">, which is here tran&s;lated <HI>a Song:</HI> and in mo&s;t of the titles one is u&s;ed for another without di|&s;tinction: and <GAP DESC="foreign"> <HI>Schir,</HI> which is mo&s;t u&s;ually ren|dred by <GAP DESC="foreign">, <HI>a Song,</HI> yet is al&s;o rendred by <GAP DESC="foreign">, <HI>a P&s;alm. P&s;al.</HI> 45.1. and 47.1. And by <GAP DESC="foreign">, <HI>a Hymn, E&s;ay</HI> 42.10. As for the other word <GAP DESC="foreign">, <HI>Tehillim,</HI> that comprehends fully both Hymns and Songs; it is the general title of the Book of P&s;alms, where the variety of them are contained. And as &s;ome particular P&s;alms are called in the Greek Hymns or Odes, according to the two former words: &s;o this word is put at top, holding forth the &s;ignificancy of all the re&s;t, and di&s;tingui&s;hing the P&s;alms from all other Books of Scripture, as the&s;e that know the &s;u|per&s;cription of that Book under&s;tand; and it &s;ignifies the mo&s;t univer&s;al and full way of prai&s;ing God, e&s;pecially by &s;inging; and it's expre&s;t by various words, as (<GAP DESC="foreign">) <HI>to prai&s;e;</HI> (<GAP DESC="foreign">) <HI>to commend or &s;et forth the reputation of another;</HI> (<GAP DESC="foreign">) <HI>to glorifie or di&s;cover the glory of another;</HI>
<PB N="175" REF="100"> (<GAP DESC="foreign">) <HI>to ble&s;s,</HI> with many other expre&s;&s;ions: So in particular (<GAP DESC="foreign">) <HI>P&s;al.</HI> 145.1. but mo&s;t e&s;pecially is this la&s;t word (<GAP DESC="foreign">) which is a word for all P&s;alms expre&s;t by (<GAP DESC="foreign">) <HI>a Hymn;</HI> as 2 <HI>Chron.</HI> 7.6. and 23.13. <HI>P&s;al.</HI> 39.4. 2 <HI>Chron.</HI> 29.30. <HI>P&s;al.</HI> 21.13. <HI>P&s;al.</HI> 64.1. and 99.3. where the one word is tran&s;lated by the other.</P>
<P>For their conjunction of each of them together in one title of a P&s;alm, is very u&s;ual, and often inverted: The title of <HI>P&s;al.</HI> 29.1. is in the Hebrew, <GAP DESC="foreign">, <HI>Mizmor Schir;</HI> in the Greek Tran&s;lation it's <GAP DESC="foreign">, <HI>A P&s;alm of a Song, or a Song and a P&s;alm.</HI> So 64.1. and 47.1. and 86.1. but in 65.1. there the title is <GAP DESC="foreign">, and tran&s;lated <GAP DESC="foreign">, <HI>A Song of a P&s;alm, or a Song and P&s;alm.</HI> So <HI>P&s;al.</HI> 82.1. But unto the title of <HI>P&s;al.</HI> 75. the 70 Greek Inter|preters (from whom the&s;e words are borrowed in the New Te&s;tament) do adde all the three together; <GAP DESC="foreign">; <HI>A P&s;alm to</HI> A&s;aph <HI>in or with Hymns; a Song to the A&s;&s;yrians.</HI> By all which we &s;ee, and might by many more,</P>
<P N="1">1. That there is not &s;uch a critical di&s;tinction to be made between a &s;piritual P&s;alm, and a Hymn, and Song, but that they are put indifferently one for an|other.</P>
<P N="2">2. Having opened the words with their u&s;e (I hope with advantage to tho&s;e that know the language of the Hebrew with the Septuagint) let us now con&s;ider them as the matter to be &s;ung, and what the&s;e
<PB N="176" REF="101"> P&s;alms, Hymns and Spiritual Songs are; whether <HI>Davids, A&s;aphs, Hemans,</HI> and &s;uch other which are found in Scripture pen'd by holy men upon &s;pecial oc|ca&s;ions, or another of a new compo&s;ure; the former of which I affirm to be an Ordinance of the New Te&s;tament.</P>
<P N="1">1. The&s;e are the titles given &s;olely to <HI>Davids P&s;alms,</HI> and the other Scripture-Songs, which the&s;e holy men, Divinely in&s;pired, breathed forth, and left on record: And as Mr. <HI>Cotton</HI> excellently argues, What rea&s;on can there be why the Apo&s;tle &s;hould di|rect us in our &s;inging to the very title of <HI>Davids P&s;alms,</HI> and other Scripture-Songs, if he meant we &s;hould not &s;ing the&s;e P&s;alms and Songs? Either we mu&s;t exclude <HI>Davids P&s;alms</HI> and the re&s;t from being called P&s;alms, or Hymns or Spiritual Songs, or el&s;e they mu&s;t be &s;ung as well as others.</P>
<P N="2">2. The names are borrowed from the Greek Tran&s;laters of the Old Te&s;tament, and there is no di|&s;tinction of them in the New; neither can any one tell what they mean, but as by their u&s;e in the Old Te|&s;tament: Now the&s;e names were u&s;ed there as pecu|liar characters to expre&s;s and di&s;tingui&s;h the works of <HI>David,</HI> and the re&s;t, which were penned to be &s;ung in the Church: Let the&s;e which are again&s;t &s;inging <HI>Da|vids P&s;alms,</HI> and of other holy men, &s;hew us any one word or &s;yllable in the New Te&s;tament, where any of the&s;e words are taken in any other &s;en&s;e then as they were in the Old, and yet we are commanded to &s;ing them in the New; on this ground the ca&s;e would
<PB N="177" REF="101"> be &s;oone concluded; when the que&s;tion is propoun|ded, (granting this is a command for &s;inging) what &s;hall we &s;ing? why, P&s;almes, Hymnes, and &s;pirituall Songs; how &s;hall we know what the&s;e are? we mu&s;t looke in Scripture, where the&s;e words are u&s;ed; now we finde them nowhere explained &s;o properly as in the Old Te&s;tament; where they are the u&s;uall titles of <HI>Davids</HI> P&s;almes, and the Songs of other Holy men, and no other u&s;e of them expre&s;t in the New; why may not we judge then, the&s;e are the P&s;almes, and Hymnes, and &s;pirituall Songs we are there comman|ded for to &s;ing? But;</P>
<P N="3">3. Come to the New Te&s;tament, and there when ever Chri&s;t or his Apo&s;tles &s;peak of P&s;almes, they re|fer us to Scripture P&s;almes, <HI>Luke</HI> 20.42. (Chri&s;t &s;aith) As it is written in the Booke of the P&s;almes, that is the 110. <HI>P&s;alme, The Lord &s;aid unto my Lord, &s;it thou at my right hand:</HI> in <HI>Luke</HI> 24.44. when Chri&s;t would make an exact divi&s;ion of the Old Te&s;tament, he divides them into the Law of <HI>Mo&s;es,</HI> the Prophets, and the P&s;almes, di&s;tingui&s;hing the <HI>P&s;almes</HI> from all other Scripture, as a peculiar booke by it &s;elfe; And as when we are commanded to read the Law, and the Prophets, we cannot thinke them to be any other then the wri|tings of <HI>Mo&s;es</HI> and <HI>Samuel,</HI> and the re&s;t of the Pro|phets in the Old Te&s;tament; So when we are com|manded to &s;ing P&s;almes, not the Law or the Prophets: how can we imagine it unlawfull to &s;ing that part of Scripture which is properly called the <HI>P&s;almes,</HI> as the writings of <HI>David, A&s;aph,</HI> &amp;c? So the Apo&s;tle,
<PB N="178" REF="102"> <HI>Acts</HI> 1.20. &s;peaking of <HI>Judas</HI> his fall, and ruine, &s;aith, as it was written of him in the Booke of the <HI>P&s;almes, Let his habitation be made de&s;olate,</HI> &amp;c. <HI>P&s;al.</HI> 69.26. and in the 16. <HI>ver&s;e</HI> (&s;aith <HI>Peter</HI>) the Holy Gho&s;t by the <HI>mouth of David</HI> &s;pake this concerning <HI>Judas,</HI> &amp; <HI>v.</HI> 20. for it is written in the Booke of the <HI>P&s;almes. Acts</HI> 2. <HI>Acts</HI> 25. and 29. in &s;tead of &s;aying as in the <HI>P&s;almes,</HI> he &s;aith, <HI>David</HI> &s;peaketh of Chri&s;t thus and thus in <HI>P&s;al.</HI> 16. <HI>Acts</HI> 13.33. &s;peaking of Chri&s;t againe, he &s;aith, <HI>As it is written in the &s;econd P&s;alm,</HI> and <HI>v.</HI> 35. <HI>As it is written in another P&s;alm,</HI> which is the 16. By all which is cleare what Chri&s;t and the Apo&s;tles would have us under&s;tand by <HI>P&s;almes</HI> (when we are com|manded to &s;ing them) e&s;pecially the&s;e <HI>P&s;almes,</HI> which are called the Booke of the <HI>P&s;almes;</HI> and there is no other <HI>P&s;almes</HI> &s;poken of in the New Te&s;tament; and the Holy Gho&s;t is the be&s;t Expo&s;itor of his owne com|mands. Now men mu&s;t either deny the&s;e of <HI>Davids,</HI> (as before) to be <HI>P&s;almes,</HI> or el&s;e they are bound to &s;ing them as for Hymns and Songs; they are com|prehended under this generall word <HI>(P&s;almes)</HI> being all expre&s;t in the Booke of the <HI>P&s;almes,</HI> as hath beene demon&s;trated.</P>
<P N="4">4. Let us con&s;ider the vanity of the contrary opini|on, in regard it utterly makes way for will-wor&s;hip, which they &s;eeme to be &s;o much again&s;t. For fir&s;t, I am commanded to &s;ing <HI>P&s;almes, Hymnes, Songs:</HI> the Old and New Te&s;tament &s;peake of no other <HI>P&s;almes</HI> then of <HI>Davids</HI> and <HI>A&s;aphs,</HI> and of &s;uch like in&s;pired per|&s;ons; and they are called the <HI>P&s;almes</HI> by Chri&s;t and his
<PB N="179" REF="102"> Apo&s;tles, but you mu&s;t not &s;ing them (&s;ay they.) I ask what <HI>P&s;almes</HI> then mu&s;t you &s;ing? there is no light in Old Or New Te&s;tament to warrant any other; either you mu&s;t fancy a <HI>P&s;alme,</HI> and &s;ay Chri&s;t meant this way, when he &s;pake of the Booke of the <HI>P&s;almes,</HI> and devi&s;e a new way of wor&s;hip out of your owne braines, or el&s;e &s;ing the&s;e <HI>P&s;almes,</HI> which Chri&s;t and his Apo&s;tles call <HI>P&s;almes.</HI> Be&s;ides, 2. How can any man per&s;wade him&s;elfe, or others, when he &s;ings, that he &s;ings a <HI>P&s;alme,</HI> when he doth not &s;ing that which in Scripture is onely called a <HI>P&s;alme?</HI> Or how can any man di&s;tingui&s;h, now I &s;ing a <HI>P&s;alme,</HI> now a <HI>Hymne,</HI> now a <HI>Song,</HI> when there is not one word in the New Te&s;tament to di&s;tingui&s;h them one from another, or the two latter from the Booke of the <HI>P&s;almes?</HI> if any man from the New Te&s;tament can di&s;tingui&s;h a <HI>P&s;alm</HI> from a <HI>Hymne,</HI> or a <HI>Hymne</HI> from an Ode or <HI>Song,</HI> or any one from another, but as they borrow it from the Old Te&s;tament, <HI>erit mihi magnus Appollo;</HI> he &s;hall be an Oracle I will con&s;u t more then with Scripture. They tell us <HI>Davids P&s;almes,</HI> and the like are not to be &s;ung: Chri&s;t and his Apo&s;tles call them &s;pecially by the name of <HI>P&s;almes,</HI> and command us to &s;ing <HI>P&s;alms.</HI> Now let them &s;hew us any other <HI>P&s;alms</HI> from Scripture, and we are &s;atisfied; but its hard to be per&s;waded from &s;uch a pretious Ordinance, by a meere Negative, and the workings of a melancholy fancy, or the pre&s;umption of a hot braine that he hath a gift of compo&s;ing <HI>P&s;almes,</HI> and <HI>Songs,</HI> and <HI>Hymnes,</HI> for the edification of the Church.</P>
<PB N="180" REF="103">
<P>Let us goe on further, and try the Scripture exam|ples; and begin with our Lord Je&s;us Chri&s;t, and his Di&s;ciples, after the admin&s;tration of his Supper; its &s;aid in <HI>Math.</HI> 26.30. and <HI>Marke</HI> 14.26. <HI>when they had &s;ung an Hymne</HI> (or a <HI>P&s;alme</HI>) (as the margent ex|pre&s;&s;eth it,) and its all one, <HI>they went forth to the mount Olivet;</HI> the words are, <GAP DESC="foreign"> &amp;c. Take it either as all Tran&s;lators interpret, ha|ving &s;ung an <HI>Hymne,</HI> Hymne <HI>dicto Arab: They went forth,</HI> or <HI>they went forth hymning,</HI> (or &s;inging of a <HI>P&s;alme,</HI>) its not materiall: But 1. Its clear they &s;ung openly with their voice. 2. They &s;ung a <HI>P&s;alme</HI> or <HI>Hymne;</HI> now what this <HI>Hymne</HI> &s;hould be, is the que|&s;tion, whether one of <HI>Davids P&s;almes,</HI> or any in that Booke; to which I an&s;wer: 1. Its onely &s;aid they &s;ung a <HI>Hymne</HI> or <HI>P&s;alme,</HI> and its mo&s;t probable, yea de|mon&s;trative, that it was one of the&s;e <HI>P&s;almes,</HI> or <HI>Hymnes</HI> of <HI>David</HI> and the other Holy men, becau&s;e Chri&s;t him&s;elfe &s;peakes of no other, as before: 2. Becau&s;e Chri&s;t was &s;o much prophe&s;ied of in the&s;e <HI>P&s;almes,</HI> which were formerly &s;ung prophetically, and with than&s;giving for the&s;e very acts before-hand. 3. Becau&s;e Chri&s;t did &s;till quote the &s;ame <HI>P&s;almes,</HI> to prove both his Divinity and &s;ufferings; &s;o did his A|po&s;tles. Now it was no more di&s;honour, or un&s;uitable to Chri&s;t to &s;ing with his Di&s;ciples one or more of the&s;e <HI>Hymnes</HI> or <HI>P&s;almes,</HI> then it was to prove him&s;elfe, and his mediator&s;hip by them, which he doth in all the former places, yea the very nature and manner of his &s;ufferings. 4. We have
<PB N="181" REF="103"> Scripture ground from Chri&s;ts expre&s;&s;ion to believe the one, and onely our owne conjectures that he &s;ung any other <HI>P&s;almes,</HI> or <HI>Hymnes;</HI> and that Chri&s;t both before and after his death &s;hould bring his choice proofs of his per&s;on, and humiliation, and glory from the booke of the <HI>P&s;almes,</HI> and when he was to &s;uffer it &s;hould be found they &s;ung a <HI>P&s;alme,</HI> or <HI>Hymne,</HI> and yet not one of the&s;e <HI>P&s;almes,</HI> is very hard to pre&s;&s;e on a Scripture con&s;cience, e&s;pecially when the act expre&s;t is in generall, and the &s;ame word u&s;ed for &s;inging &s;uch <HI>P&s;alms,</HI> and no other determination of it in the N. Te|&s;tament: let men but weigh things in an equall bal|lance of the Sanctuary and Judge; yea, let them who are &s;o high on the other &s;ide, &s;hew us from Scripture what that <HI>Hymne,</HI> or <HI>P&s;alme</HI> was, which Chri&s;t and his Di&s;ciples &s;ung after the Supper, and give us any place as a comment on it, and but the hint to our de|mon&s;tration, and we &s;hall thinke our &s;elves well quit of &s;uch a mi&s;take: in the meane while the argument &s;tands thus untouched, Chri&s;t and his Di&s;ciples &s;ung an <HI>Hymne,</HI> and Chri&s;t and the Apo&s;tles &s;peake of no other <HI>Hymnes,</HI> or <HI>P&s;almes,</HI> but the&s;e recorded in the Old Te&s;tament, e&s;pecially the&s;e in the booke of the <HI>P&s;almes;</HI> therefore they &s;ung none other. And &s;urely Chri&s;t would conforme his practi&s;e to his ex|pre&s;&s;ions, or would have made &s;ome di&s;tinction.</P>
<P>The &s;econd great example of &s;inging, is that of <HI>Paul</HI> and <HI>Silas, Acts</HI> 16.25. where it is &s;aid, <HI>They &s;ung an Hymne to God, or gave prai&s;es in the pri&s;on at midnight;</HI> we are &s;till on the &s;ame account as formerly, and aske
<PB N="182" REF="104"> what this <HI>Hymne</HI> was they &s;ung, if not one of the&s;e <HI>P&s;almes</HI> of Scripture which they might have cho&s;en for this pre&s;ent condition? If any one can &s;ay it was an extemporary ejaculation, let them &s;hew us their proofe; we &s;hew them the Scripture-u&s;e of the word, and which was knowne to them; and the&s;e that op|po&s;e mu&s;t have &s;omething from the rea&s;on of the Text, or u&s;e of the Word to contradict us, and con|firme them&s;elves; they did not barely &s;ing, but <GAP DESC="foreign">, they &s;ung <HI>Hymnes;</HI> and doe not wee goe on &s;urer grounds that &s;ing the&s;e <HI>P&s;almes</HI> and <HI>Hymnes,</HI> which in the New Te&s;tament Chri&s;t and his Apo&s;tles doe call &s;o, then what we imagine to bee <HI>P&s;alms,</HI> and <HI>Hymns,</HI> &amp;c. by an un&s;cripturall &s;uppo&s;iti|on? &s;o that the &s;umme of all may be drawn up thus to argue.</P>
<P N="1">1. It is our duty to obey Divine commands; It is a command to &s;ing <HI>P&s;alms, Hymns, spirituall Songs; ergo,</HI> it is our duty.</P>
<P N="2">2. It is a command to &s;ing <HI>P&s;almes, Hymnes, spiri|tuall Songs,</HI> as to the matter; but there is no other <HI>P&s;almes, Hymnes,</HI> or <HI>&s;pirituall Songs</HI> mentioned in the Old or New Te&s;tament, but the&s;e which are pen'd by Holy men, in&s;pired to that end; <HI>ergo,</HI> it is our duty to &s;ing them.</P>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 N="3" TYPE="chapter">
<PB N="183" REF="104">
<HEAD><HI>CHAP. III.</HI> An An&s;wer to that Objection concerning &s;inging by a gift, not &s;et <HI>P&s;almes.</HI></HEAD>
<P>ONe &s;peciall Objection that is made again&s;t &s;ing|ing Scripture <HI>P&s;almes,</HI> &amp;c. is that it hinders the exerci&s;e of gifts, and &s;o its but formall; all dutyes in the Church mu&s;t be done from a gift.</P>
<P>An&s;wer. 1. You &s;ee here is a duty laid on us, no &s;uch limitation as from a gift.</P>
<P N="2">2. The matter is pre&s;cribed you, <HI>P&s;almes,</HI> and <HI>Hymnes,</HI> and <HI>Songs,</HI> and to the&s;e you are e&s;pecially en|joyned: now the limitation of the matter limits the duty.</P>
<P N="3">3. There is no promi&s;e of &s;uch a gift in the Go&s;pel, to compo&s;e <HI>P&s;almes,</HI> and <HI>Hymnes;</HI> God hath provi|ded matter &s;ufficient; there is a promi&s;e for the &s;pirit of prayer and &s;upplication, <HI>Zach.</HI> 12. and of prea|ching and prophe&s;ying, in <HI>Joel,</HI> repeated in <HI>Acts</HI> 2. but no di&s;tinct promi&s;e for a gift of &s;pirituall Poetry, or Singing; for there are but three things required to &s;ing|ing; fit matter, a voice, and heart; all which may be performed without any &s;uch &s;peciall gift of compo|&s;ing; the matter is ready, if the heart and voice be pre|&s;ent.</P>
<P N="4">4. It is a duty laid generally on the whole Church, without any di&s;tinction of gifts: all are comman|ded to &s;ing, &amp;c. Here is no hint of a gift requi|red.</P>
<P N="5"><PB N="184" REF="105">5. Chri&s;t would not ordaine an Ordinance of &s;uch con&s;equence, which the Churches &s;hould want the u&s;e of; &s;ome utterly; and not one among many &s;hould know what it meanes; for there is hardly one among a thou&s;and of Saints which hath &s;uch a gift of compo|&s;ing <HI>P&s;almes,</HI> and <HI>Hymnes,</HI> &amp;c. and if it be an Ordi|nance in one Church, all others may want it, and &s;o be deprived of the comfort of &s;uch a &s;weet Ordi|nance for want of a pretended gift, when they have matter enough of prai&s;es before them.</P>
<P N="6">6. It is lawfull to make u&s;e of the gifts of others, as well as to u&s;e our owne; when a man hath a gift of prayer, I joyn with him, and make u&s;e of his gifts, &amp;c. So is it much more lawfull to make u&s;e of the gifts of holy and ble&s;&s;ed men in Scripture, who had that glo|rious gift of compo&s;ing all &s;orts of <HI>P&s;almes, Hymnes,</HI> and <HI>&s;pirituall Songs,</HI> and when we &s;ing them with me|lody in our hearts, we manife&s;t all tho&s;e trea&s;ures of the gifts of the &s;pirit, that breathed in the&s;e <HI>P&s;almes,</HI> &amp;c. as if we had from a per&s;onall gift compo&s;ed them our &s;elves; for if we &s;ing them with the &s;ame under|&s;tanding, with the &s;ame inward affection of love, joy, &amp;c. wee &s;ing them with the &s;ame &s;pirit.</P>
<P N="7">7. If there were &s;uch a gift promi&s;ed, it would have beene mentioned by Chri&s;t or his Apo&s;tles, as the gift of tongues and miracles were, and Saints would have been in&s;tructed to &s;eeke for it, and the&s;e that had it, would have beene commanded to wait on it, as the Elders are on exhortation, teaching, ruling, the
<PB N="185" REF="105"> Deacons on admini&s;tring, and di&s;tributing, &amp;c. <HI>Rom.</HI> 12.6, 7, 8, 9, 10.</P>
<P N="8">8. It is Antichri&s;tian to introduce an Ordinance to be practi&s;ed among the Churches, which hath not been commanded by Chri&s;t and his Apo&s;tles, (the&s;e that differ, make much u&s;e of the word <HI>Antichri&s;tian</HI>) and cannot but grant this principle to be undeniable; now I a&s;&s;ume but to introduce; A way of &s;inging by a gift, with ca&s;ting off Scripture-<HI>P&s;almes,</HI> and <HI>Hymnes,</HI> and <HI>Songs,</HI> was never commanded by Chri&s;t or his Apo|&s;tles, <HI>ergo,</HI> it is Antichri&s;tian; the minor hath beene proved before; there is no mention in the writings of Chri&s;t or the Apo&s;tles, of &s;inging <HI>P&s;alms</HI> by a per&s;onall gift, or of a gift of compo&s;ing <HI>P&s;almes</HI> either for our &s;elves or the Church; neither is there mention of any other <HI>P&s;almes, Hymnes,</HI> and <HI>Songs,</HI> as the matter to be &s;ung, but &s;uch as are pen'd in Scripture, and left to be &s;ung by all the Churches. Thus if men will being in a new Ordinance, they mu&s;t &s;hew their authority from the Word, or el&s;e apply the word <HI>Antichri&s;tian</HI> to them&s;elves.</P>
<P>For that expre&s;&s;ion in 1 <HI>Corinth.</HI> 14.26. <HI>When you come together (<GAP DESC="foreign">) every one hath a P&s;alme, hath a Doctrine,</HI> &amp;c. from whence they gather they had a gift of compo&s;ing <HI>P&s;almes</HI> by the Spirit, which they were to &s;ing in the Church if they did it orderly.</P>
<P>To which I further an&s;wer, there is not any thing to explaine what <HI>P&s;alme</HI> this was.</P>
<P N="2">2. We have more rea&s;on to think it was one of the&s;e
<PB N="186" REF="106"> Scripture <HI>P&s;almes,</HI> which the New Te&s;tament alwaies calls a <HI>P&s;alm</HI> (as he &s;aith, in the &s;econd <HI>P&s;alme,</HI> and in another <HI>P&s;alme</HI> as before) far more rea&s;on then they have to &s;ay it was a <HI>P&s;alme</HI> of their owne compo&s;ing by a gift; every one hath a <HI>P&s;alme,</HI> that is, this and the other have a <HI>P&s;alme,</HI> that is, one had this <HI>P&s;alm</HI> in Scripture which he thought mo&s;t proper; ano|ther, another of the&s;e <HI>P&s;alms;</HI> for <GAP DESC="foreign"> is not to be ta|ken univer&s;ally of all, but &s;ingularly; one hath this, another that; thus &s;ome; but rather the meaning is, not as if one had this <HI>P&s;alme,</HI> and another another; but one hath a <HI>P&s;alme,</HI> another a <HI>Doctrine,</HI> another to &s;peake with tongues, another to prophe&s;ie; now thus there was a confu&s;ion among them; one would have a <HI>P&s;alme</HI> &s;ung, another would have his <HI>Doctrine,</HI> or <HI>word of Construction</HI> as mo&s;t fit, another his <HI>Revelation.</HI> Now the Apo&s;tle onely tells them they might all be done one by one, and in order; he that had a <HI>P&s;alme</HI> to be &s;ung, might in its proper place; but this doth not prove that it was a <HI>P&s;alme</HI> extemporarily com|po&s;ed, or by a per&s;onall gift, or that it was not one of the <HI>P&s;almes</HI> in that which the Scripture calls the Booke of the <HI>P&s;almes.</HI></P>
<P>Object. If any &s;ay further, It mu&s;t needs be from a gift, becau&s;e it is joyned with other acts which were meerely from a gift, as <HI>Doctrine, Tongues, Revelations, Prophecy, Interpretation.</HI></P>
<P>I An&s;wer, Of the&s;e things here named, &s;ome are accounted extraordinary, and peculiar, as gifts of <HI>Tongues, Revelations,</HI> fitted for the&s;e times; the other
<PB N="187" REF="106"> ordinary, as <HI>Doctrine, Interpretation, Prophe&s;ie</HI> (though &s;ome thinke this la&s;t extraordinary al&s;o) &s;o having a <HI>P&s;alme,</HI> may be accounted ordinary, and not from an extraordinary gift, as the gift of tongues was; how|ever you mu&s;t not make a particular argument from things of divers con&s;iderations and u&s;es.</P>
<P N="2">2. Other Scriptures have determined what a <HI>P&s;alm</HI> is, and it may be ea&s;ily gathered what it is in the <HI>Co|rinthians</HI> for one to have a <HI>P&s;alme:</HI> we prove they had a <HI>P&s;alme;</HI> let them prove what that <HI>P&s;alme</HI> was, be&s;ides the&s;e Scripture <HI>P&s;almes</HI> onely mentioned in the New Te&s;tament.</P>
<P>It is mo&s;t evident that the matter of &s;inging is de|termined by the words of the Apo&s;tle, in <HI>Colo&s;.</HI> 3.16, <HI>Let the word of God dwell richly in you,</HI> &amp;c. which in <HI>Eph.</HI> 5. is more in generall, <HI>Be filled with the Spirit,</HI> which doe not make any difference; for the Word and the Spirit mu&s;t make up the melody in our hearts: but &s;till the word of God is the matter to be &s;ung with the Spirit, as it is the matter for reading, prea|ching, intepretation; but he here names that part of the Word which belongs to the duty he enjoynes, as a &s;peciall part of that Word which ought to dwell richly in them, as to &s;uch a duty of &s;inging: So that,</P>
<P N="1">1. If <HI>P&s;almes,</HI> and <HI>Hymnes,</HI> and <HI>Songs,</HI> be part of the word of God, then they may be &s;ung.</P>
<P N="2">2. If that part of the Word be more properly fit|ted to the duty commanded then any other, it mu&s;t be &s;o re&s;trained here.</P>
<P N="3"><PB N="188" REF="107">3. That it is &s;o, appears, becau&s;e he &s;peakes &s;o par|ticularly, <HI>That the Word might dwell in them richly, teaching and admoni&s;hing one another;</HI> not in <HI>generall,</HI> as by Preaching, Doctrine, or the like; but in <HI>P&s;almes,</HI> and <HI>Hymnes,</HI> and <HI>spirituall Songs,</HI> which mu&s;t needs be the great duty in the Text, and all before re&s;tricted to that.</P>
<P N="4">4. Then the Word of God in generall, or any &s;pe|ciall Word of God may be &s;aid to dwell richly in a per&s;on, when the &s;pirituall intent, &s;en&s;e, and meaning of it, with the inward &s;pirit, and power of it, upon all occa&s;ions doth appeare in the duties commanded by it; and thus you may &s;ee the ver&s;e in its parts.</P>
<P N="1">1. Here is the duty, &s;inging.</P>
<P N="2">2. The Word of God, the matter.</P>
<P N="3">3. The &s;pecialty of the Word &s;o fitted to the nature of that duty, <HI>P&s;almes, Hymnes,</HI> and <HI>spirituall Songs.</HI></P>
<P N="4">4. The peculiar way how to be a perfect &s;pirituall Singer; it is to have this word <HI>dwell</HI> in a man, and richly, having the true &s;en&s;e, &s;weet experience of this word in the heart, being upon all occa&s;ions able to cull out in the language of Scripture, <HI>P&s;almes, Hymnes,</HI> and <HI>Songs,</HI> &s;uitable to our owne conditions or o|thers.</P>
<P>If the Apo&s;tle had meant here a gift of compo&s;ing new <HI>P&s;almes,</HI> &amp;c. as he would not have u&s;ed the Old Te&s;tament language without an explanation; &s;o he would not have mentioned the word of God in &s;uch a clo&s;e limitation as in <HI>P&s;almes,</HI> and <HI>Hymnes,</HI> and
<PB N="189" REF="107"> <HI>Songs,</HI> which are exegeticall to the word of God to be &s;ung, if he had not intended that part of the Word as fitted for that Ordinance; for no man knowes what the&s;e expre&s;&s;ions hold forth, but as they are found in the word of God, and as a di&s;tinct and emi|nent part of it. It were more proper to &s;ay, <HI>Let the grace of God dwell in you,</HI> or <HI>the goodne&s;&s;e of God,</HI> that you may from the &s;en&s;e of it break forth upon all oc|ca&s;ions to prai&s;es. But to name the Word of God, and name it with that modification, as P&s;alms, Hymns, Songs, which we all know is a part of it, and bid us &s;ing, and deny us in his intention for to &s;ing the&s;e P&s;almes which are part of that Word, is too unwor|thy a reflection on the Holy Gho&s;t, and the Pen-men of Scripture. And that &s;eemes very &s;trange to affirme, that I may not &s;ing that Word of God which is cal|led by the name of <HI>P&s;almes, Hymnes,</HI> and <HI>Songs,</HI> when this Word mu&s;t dwell in me richly to that end and u&s;e.</P>
<P>La&s;tly, the &s;inging of the&s;e <HI>P&s;almes, Hymnes,</HI> and <HI>Songs,</HI> as the Word of God, is mo&s;t adapt and pro|portioned to the particular u&s;e the Apo&s;tle intended, by &s;inging in the Church, which was to teach and ad|moni&s;h one another. Now no gift of any Saint can be &s;o powerfull, and authoritative to teach, as the Word of God in the&s;e <HI>P&s;almes,</HI> which were pen'd by the &s;pirit, as a rule to all Saints, and their gifts; and as the Word of God is made u&s;e of &s;everall wayes to teach, and admoni&s;h, &s;o this is one &s;peciall way, by <HI>P&s;almes, Hymnes, Songs.</HI> VVhen I &s;ing by a pretended
<PB N="190" REF="108"> gift, I &s;ee cau&s;e of jealou&s;ie, that it may be more a fancy then the &s;pirit; every man hath cau&s;e of &s;u&s;pi|tion, from whence it comes, and ere I can be &s;atisfied I mu&s;t compare it with, and try it by the Scripture &s;traine of <HI>P&s;almes, Hymnes,</HI> and <HI>Songs.</HI> But by &s;inging the very words of Scripture with &s;en&s;e, and experi|ence, I teach both by my holy carriage in the action, and the word it &s;elfe commands by its owne autho|rity as when it is read.</P>
<P>But that I may more clearely open this, how that the Word of God in <HI>P&s;almes, Hymnes,</HI> and <HI>Songs,</HI> is the mo&s;t fit matter of &s;inging, let us view that part of the Word called by the&s;e names, and &s;ee how far it will reach this kinde of edification, beyond all that which may come from a pre&s;ent gift to compo&s;e mat|ter for &s;uch a duty.</P>
<P N="1">1. Be&s;ides the &s;pirituall elegancy of phra&s;e, the in|&s;pired &s;tyle of that part of holy writ, which is beyond ordinary with the height of matter, of no vulgar compo&s;ure, it having &s;uch a &s;tanding &s;tamp of Di|vine authority on it, mu&s;t needes conveigh its &s;en&s;e with more weight and power, then any thing from particular invention, though a&s;&s;i&s;ted by a gift of the &s;pirit, which comes but in the &s;econd place, and can|not be put in any con&s;ideration with that authority as the other, nor in&s;erted among the heavenly Canons and Scripture rules for Saints to build their faith on, or direct their lives.</P>
<P N="2">2. The largene&s;&s;e, and comprehen&s;ivene&s;&s;e of the &s;cope of the &s;horte&s;t P&s;alme, is &s;o, that it will give
<PB N="191" REF="108"> matter to &s;tudy and ponder on, and give advantage to enlarge our thoughts and affections on more then any particular gift of any Saint now can be rationally conceived to afford; for commonly the be&s;t gifts are but an enlargement of the fir&s;t text, and bring forth nothing <HI>de novo,</HI> no new thing; and all the&s;e Saints with all their gifts mu&s;t be glad to have recour&s;e to that part of the Word, as the re&s;t, for the fulne&s;&s;e of teaching and admonition.</P>
<P N="3">3. The variety of matter in the&s;e <HI>P&s;almes,</HI> &amp;c. is &s;o wonderfull, that they doe provide before-hand by an eternall wi&s;dome, for the conditions of all Saints, either per&s;onally, or my&s;tically, that no man &s;ing any thing, but if that Word dwell in him richly, he may finde a &s;uitable <HI>P&s;alme</HI> prepared for him, by the fore|&s;ight, and wi&s;e, and infallible directions of the Al|mighty; and in this, the Booke of the <HI>P&s;almes</HI> tran|&s;cends all other parts of Scripture, and may be called the Epitome of the whole Bible. In &s;ome Scriptures you have little but matter of precept, in others little but hi&s;toricall relations of per&s;ons, and actions; but in the Book of the <HI>P&s;almes</HI> you have the variety of matter contained in all the whole Scripture, mo&s;t &s;uit|able to the va&s;t duty of &s;inging prai&s;es.</P>
<P N="1">1. Matter of all &s;orts of prophe&s;ies referring to the very latter end of the world.</P>
<P N="2">2. All &s;orts of generall and &s;peciall directions, either for Faith or Life.</P>
<P N="3">3. All &s;orts of promi&s;es fitted to particular condi|tions.</P>
<P N="4"><PB N="192" REF="109">4. All &s;orts of experiences in what condition a &s;oul may be in, either of tryall or triumph, either to &s;oule or body.</P>
<P N="5">5. All &s;orts of &s;ignes, and characters of heavenly motions and frames to God.</P>
<P N="6">6. All &s;ort of thank&s;givings and pray&s;es for &s;pirituall or temporall mercies, with their various di&s;cords, which makes up the harmony of the whole. He is a childe in the Scripture, that doth not admire the un|parallel'd variety of truth in that Booke, &s;o that if I were rai&s;ed by &s;ome extraordinary gift to the grea|te&s;t enlargement of compo&s;ing a <HI>P&s;alme,</HI> or <HI>spirituall Song</HI> on a &s;peciall occa&s;ion, I &s;hould come &s;hort of the variety, and fulne&s;&s;e of the lea&s;t of the&s;e <HI>P&s;almes,</HI> and yet the ignorant &s;tanders by might more admire my gift, and there would be more danger in it, then to &s;ing the Scripture <HI>P&s;almes</HI> which have nothing from men to grace them but their owne native maje&s;ty and authority. And truly, it is &s;omewhat odde for one to be &s;et up by others, or for any one to be &s;et up him&s;elfe as a &s;pirituall Poet in the Church, and the Church to &s;ing his thoughts, with the neglect of the Word of God, which it furni&s;hed with &s;uch variety for the conditions of &s;oules.</P>
<P>And as the Word of God in generall is &s;o large, and va&s;t, and various, that all the Saints with their highe&s;t emprovements can never come up to the ful|ne&s;&s;e of it, and all the va&s;t folioes that have been writ|ten by commentators of all &s;orts, have hardly pierced the barke, the &s;hell, the letter, and all Saints of the
<PB N="193" REF="109"> highe&s;t attainement, mu&s;t digge into it as the onely vi|&s;ible Mine, and we mu&s;t not exclude the <HI>P&s;almes</HI> as to &s;inging, from that fulne&s;&s;e and variety, &s;eeing Chri&s;t him&s;elfe when he di&s;tingui&s;heth the whole Scripture, gives the <HI>P&s;almes</HI> an equall part.</P>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 N="4" TYPE="chapter">
<HEAD><HI>CHAP. IV.</HI> Concerning the Tran&s;lation of <HI>Davids P&s;almes,</HI> and other <HI>&s;pirituall Hymnes,</HI> and <HI>Songs,</HI> with the An&s;wer to the Objection ari|&s;ing from it.</HEAD>
<P>I Have endeavoured to prove the duty; let us con|&s;ider the &s;trength of the maine Objections again&s;t it.</P>
<P><HI>Ob.</HI> The fir&s;t in order is that which carps at the Tran&s;lation, and that into Meetre, as the humane in|vention; the Tran&s;lation (&s;ay they) is corrupt, and e&s;pecially as into Meetre, and Tune; if you will &s;ing <HI>Davids P&s;almes,</HI> &s;ing them in Hebrew, as they were &s;ung formerly: this they much &s;tick on.</P>
<P><HI>Sol.</HI> To which I an&s;wer, That in the&s;e P&s;almes, and Songs, there was a &s;et Meetre, fitted to Tunes, and Voices, and mu&s;icall In&s;truments; none can deny that ob&s;erves the Dedications of mo&s;t P&s;almes, and tho&s;e of under&s;tanding that can read <HI>learned Gomarus</HI> may &s;ee it fully, and with great exactne&s;&s;e; where the &s;pi|rituall poe&s;ie of the&s;e P&s;almes is excellently &s;et forth.</P>
<P N="2"><PB N="194" REF="110">2. So farre as there is corruption in the Tran&s;lation, it is &s;purious, and not to be approved of but cor|rected.</P>
<P N="3">3. But Tran&s;lations according to the import of the words and &s;en&s;e of the text, are as much the Word of God, as the Text in the originall; for the cohe|rence of word and &s;en&s;e make up the copy entire and perfect.</P>
<P N="4">4. Which followes, the Tran&s;lation of the words in Meetre, if it have the full &s;en&s;e of the words, is as much the Word of God as if it were tran&s;lated in pro&s;e, or ordinary &s;entence for reading; for it is not the way or method, but the &s;en&s;e and meaning of the words, that is the <HI>Word</HI> of God. So that I may as well &s;ay when I &s;ing in &s;uch a compo&s;ition, it is as much the <HI>Word of God</HI> as when I read the &s;ame words in the Bible, onely they are orderly di&s;po&s;ed for that action. None mu&s;t by this rea&s;on, pretend to know the Word of God in reading or expounding, but he that knowes the Hebrew, and Greeke; and that mu&s;t be al&s;o in the fir&s;t perfect copy, immediately tran&s;cribed from in|&s;pired under&s;tandings; for all things be&s;ides are either tran&s;lations, or additions, or &s;ub&s;tractions, from which two la&s;t comes perfect corruption.</P>
<P>So that a tran&s;lation for &s;inging, or reading, is the <HI>&s;ame Word of God</HI> as long as it hath the &s;ame &s;ub&s;tan|tiall truth in it; and &s;ing them which way you will, either as they lie in the ver&s;e, or as the &s;ame ver&s;e is dige&s;ted into &s;taves, and with mu&s;icall notes, it is all one as to the nature of &s;inging, and the tran&s;lation
<PB N="195" REF="110"> may be as Orthodoxe in Meetre, as in Pro&s;e; &s;o that you &s;ee what force, efficacie; that objection from the tran&s;lation carries with it; I confe&s;&s;e there are many defects in the tran&s;lation into Meetre, but there are the like in &s;ome copies in pro&s;e, or continued &s;entence; but as to the nature of the thing, one ver&s;e may as well he made two, according to mu&s;icall notation, and yet retain the &s;ame continued &s;en&s;e, as remain one, on|ly bounded by Arithmeticall figures, as 1, 2, 3, &amp;c.</P>
<P><HI>Ob.</HI> But if any one &s;ay the P&s;almes, as thus tran&s;la|ted into Meetre, are but an humane invention, and you wor&s;hip God onely after a humane forme.</P>
<P><HI>Sol.</HI> The An&s;wer is at hand.</P>
<P N="1">1. To know the &s;ignificancies of the tongues, and how to tran&s;late them to edification, is a &s;peciall gift of Gods &s;pirit, 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 12.28, 29. 1 <HI>Corinth.</HI> 14.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.</P>
<P N="2">2. On this ground we read humane inventions when we read the Old or New Te&s;tament in any tran&s;lati|on, but the fir&s;t copies of Hebrew and Greek, wherein they were fir&s;t written.</P>
<P N="3">3. Is it not more a humane invention for to &s;ing any thing of my owne compo&s;ing, then for to &s;ing the very matter, and &s;en&s;e of the Word of God in my owne tongue? and yet its u&s;uall among the&s;e that are again&s;t this Ordinance, to cry aloud, It is a humane invention, Antichri&s;tian.</P>
<P N="4">4. The tran&s;lation of the Scripture for to be read, is as much a humane invention, as in po&euml;&s;ie to be &s;ung; out this is an Objection urged for want of a better.</P>
<PB N="196" REF="111">
<P><HI>Ob.</HI> The next grand Objection is, that we may as well u&s;e a &s;et forme of Prayer, as of &s;inging P&s;almes; the one is as lawfull as the other, the one &s;tints the &s;pi|rit as much as the other.</P>
<P><HI>Sol.</HI> 1. There is no Divine holds that a &s;et forme of Prayer is ab&s;olutely unlawfull, for then no man may meditate before-hand what he ought to pray for, nor con&s;ult with his owne mouth, or Gods promi&s;es; for if I meditate on what I neede, and what God hath promi&s;ed, I forme &s;uch petitions, and tye my &s;elfe to them as nece&s;&s;ary to be petitioned for, and it may be I may have no occa&s;ion for a long while to begge any thing of God, but the &s;ub&s;tance of the&s;e premeditated con&s;iderations of my want.</P>
<P N="2">2. Here lyes the unlawfulne&s;&s;e of &s;et forme of Prayer, that it is compo&s;ed by one, and impo&s;ed by another, to which I am limited, let my wants be what they will, requiring further additions when I neither &s;tudy my owne wants, nor am permitted to urge them to God in my prayer.</P>
<P N="3">3. This is a more &s;uitable Objection again&s;t tho&s;e that pretend to &s;ing by a gift, and doe make P&s;almes, or Hymnes, or Songs, for them&s;elves and others, with neglect of in&s;pired P&s;almes, and Hymnes. So &s;inging of P&s;almes, and u&s;ing a &s;et forme of Prayer, are very nigh of kin, and hold much corre&s;pondency.</P>
<P N="4">4. But to &s;ing the very words of the&s;e Scriptures with under&s;tanding, is a command, as hath beene for|merly proved; and if you take a &s;et forme of pray|ing, for praying Scripture words, and &s;peaking to
<PB N="197" REF="111"> God in that language, it is not only lawfull, but is the excellency of &s;ome Saints, who &s;eldome make a Peti|tion, but they urge it in Scripture dialect, and &s;hew the Word of God to dwell richly in them; thus for &s;inging to prai&s;e God, or &s;ing to God in his owne forme of words in the &s;pirit, and under&s;tanding, what can be more &s;uitable to God, and &s;weet to the &s;oule?</P>
<P N="5">5. There is a great deale of difference betweene praying and &s;inging, as to the method of performance, though praying and prai&s;es may be con&s;idered in the &s;ame duty, <HI>yet praying and &s;inging</HI> require a di&s;tinct method; for the very words, to &s;ing P&s;almes, and Hymns, and Songs, import a &s;peciall method of the voice in a &s;et tune, and proportion, whereas prayer in the method of performance requires no &s;uch exact|ne&s;&s;e; if one &s;hould take on him to &s;ing, and not in a &s;et forme, and tune, he would be ridiculous to all hearers: but a man hath a larger liberty in prayer, and is not tyed to &s;uch &s;trait connexions, heighths, and falls, &s;tops, and pau&s;es; but the nature of this Ordi|nance calls for it, el&s;e it cannot be done gracefully, though there be grace in the heart. And if the Apo|&s;tle had not meant by &s;inging of P&s;almes, &s;inging <HI>mu|&s;ically,</HI> he would have onely bid them prai&s;e in the ge|nerall, and have left out the outward expre&s;&s;ion of it, which cannot be acted but in a &s;et forme.</P>
<P N="6">6. If &s;inging were not in a mu&s;icall manner, (as be|fore) it were the &s;ame with prayer, for you may &s;ing out a prayer, and prai&s;e in praying. Thus in <HI>Davids</HI>
<PB N="198" REF="112"> P&s;almes. How many P&s;almes which were matter only of petition, yet were &s;ung with faith, and confidence in God? For performance, the Apo&s;tle <HI>James</HI> di&s;tin|gui&s;heth them apparently, <HI>Is any &s;ick? let him pray; is any merry? let him &s;ing P&s;almes;</HI> and the other Apo|&s;tle, <HI>Let us pray with the Spirit, and under&s;tanding, and &s;ing with the Spirit,</HI> &amp;c. Now wherein lies the differ|ence? In prayer you have variety of workings, and con&s;iderations; there is <HI>Deprecation, Imprecation, Ac|clamation,</HI> and <HI>Admiring, Pleading,</HI> and <HI>urging promi&s;e,</HI> and the like. So in &s;inging, there are the like; the dif|ference is onely in the &s;et, and mu&s;icall way of expre&s;|&s;ion, which requires a more &s;et forme before-hand to rule my outward carriage by, in that Ordinance, whereas in prayer we are not tyed to &s;uch a &s;everity of method, and &s;o need not have our words &s;o for|med.</P>
<P>Another plea which is &s;omewhat &s;currilous, by the ruder &s;ort, yet much urged, is, that we <HI>lye</HI> when we &s;ing P&s;almes, and affirme that we cannot but <HI>lye</HI> when we &s;ing the phra&s;es of many P&s;almes. As that of <HI>Da|vid, O Lord I am not puffed in minde, I am as a weaned childe,</HI> &amp;c.</P>
<P>To which I replie, in generall, that &s;ome may not have the frame of the&s;e expre&s;&s;ions, when they &s;ing, and &s;o may performe a duty which may be but as a lye to them. But,</P>
<P N="1">1. In &s;peciall, there is no Saint but can in &s;ome mea&s;ure &s;ay what ever <HI>David</HI> &s;aith in that or any o|ther P&s;alme, de&s;cribing the &s;pirituall qualification of
<PB N="199" REF="112"> his heart; all graces are in every Saint there in the &s;eede, and habit, and in a proportion, though all are not &s;o eminent and apparent in the bud and fruit; though no godly man is free from pride, yet he can|not be a godly man that is a proud man <HI>in actu &s;igna|to,</HI> which hath never been humbled, and brought out of him&s;elfe; thus all along the 119. <HI>P&s;alme,</HI> that A|natomy of a Saints inward parts, when <HI>David</HI> &s;aith, <HI>He delights in the Law of God, He hopes in Gods mer|cy, His &s;oule longs after God, He keepes his Commande|ments, He hates every evill way,</HI> &amp;c. every godly man may &s;ing the&s;e and all other P&s;almes, and &s;peak truth; for the reality of the&s;e frames are the &s;ame in every gracious heart.</P>
<P N="2">2. Whatever, I finde to be the ca&s;e of any Saint, I may make it mine according to the likene&s;&s;e of my condition to it, and yet not a lye.</P>
<P N="3">3. One great u&s;e of &s;inging is to commend the excel|lency of &s;uch graces which are and have beene in o|thers, to &s;weeten the har&s;hne&s;&s;e of other duties, and to &s;tirre and quicken the heart to the endeavouring after &s;uch like frames: therefore &s;ome Law-givers have put their Lawes into ver&s;e fir&s;t, that the peo|ple might take a plea&s;ure in them, and &s;ing them as their recreations, and be the more in&s;inuated into obe|dience.</P>
<P N="4">4. I can tell no lye &s;o long as in the &s;incerity of my &s;oule I &s;tudy my duty, and &s;ing with de&s;ire after &s;uch qualifications, from the contemplation of the beauty of them in &s;uch holy men, though I doe not finde the
<PB N="200" REF="113"> pre&s;ent frame &s;o high as I breathe after, and &s;uch men found at pre&s;ent.</P>
<P><HI>Ob.</HI> But this Objection, grant it in its full Latitude, proves nothing again&s;t the nature of the Ordinance of &s;inging, but the per&s;ons who &s;ing, who are not fitly qualified to &s;ome expre&s;&s;ions.</P>
<P>Againe, others plead, P&s;almes that are &s;ung are not &s;uitable to my condition.</P>
<P><HI>Sol.</HI> 1. That is nothing &s;till again&s;t the Ordinance of &s;inging; if it do not fit you, it fits others. But,</P>
<P N="2">2. There is nothing in Scripture-expre&s;&s;ions but all Saints at all times may make &s;ome u&s;e of in the very reading or &s;inging; if not &s;o particularly, yet as to the generall nature of in&s;truction, and edification, it is pro|fitable; Saints mu&s;t read all Scripture, with faith and under&s;tanding; though every place may not &s;o di|rectly open their pre&s;ent condition; and why may not they &s;ing as well all P&s;almes?</P>
<P N="3">3. It &s;hould be the care of Officers in the Church, to be very choice in picking out P&s;alms fit for the Church, according to the nature of the body, and times, and &s;ea&s;ons; and I could wi&s;h there were more choice|ne&s;&s;e ob&s;erved in that particular; yet the Ordinance remaines &s;till the &s;ame.</P>
<P N="4">4. When I &s;ing any of the&s;e P&s;almes, I &s;hould by Faith per&s;onate the &s;ame &s;tate of the Church, or the Saints, as when I apply promi&s;es made to others, I doe their conditions, as if it were &s;poken to mee.</P>
<P N="5">5. It is for want of Divine &s;tudy of the nature of
<PB N="201" REF="113"> the&s;e Scripture-expre&s;&s;ions, and the my&s;tery of them, that we &s;ay &s;uch a P&s;alme is un&s;uitable to our conditi|ons; for if when I read under&s;tandingly, I can get profit by them, I can the &s;ame when I &s;ing them.</P>
<P N="6">6. If it doe not reach my condition, as to a particu|lar ca&s;e I am troubled withall, or the providence I am eminently under; yet it concernes the &s;tate of the Church, and I may &s;ing them as a Member of the &s;ame Body, and &s;ympathi&s;ing with them either in &s;or|row or joy, in afflictions or triumphs; which is a &s;peciall way to act the graces of Saints, &s;omtimes to &s;ing what concernes others as them&s;elves, as to pray for others as them&s;elves; this is like Chri&s;ts heart in heaven.</P>
<P>La&s;tly, you have opportunity enough to chu&s;e P&s;almes for your emergencies. It is good to keepe the harmonie of the whole Body in the maine.</P>
<P><HI>Ob.</HI> That which followes next as urged again&s;t this truth, is, that its confu&s;ion to &s;ing together, and that but one &s;hould &s;ing at one time.</P>
<P><HI>Sol.</HI> Still this is not again&s;t the Ordinance of &s;ing|ing. But,</P>
<P N="1">1. Singing is more melodious and &s;uitable, when performed by many, then one &s;everall in&s;trument at one time; and &s;o &s;everall voice make the greater Har|mony: the exellency of &s;inging lies in the Church, which is made up of divers voices.</P>
<P N="2">2. Chri&s;t and his Di&s;ciples &s;ung together, <HI>Mat.</HI> 26.30. <GAP DESC="foreign">, they &s;ung, <HI>Paul</HI> and <HI>Silas</HI> Act. 16.25. <HI>&s;ung together in the Pri&s;on,</HI> not one after another, but toge|ther.</P>
<PB N="202" REF="114">
<P><HI>Ob.</HI> But if any one &s;ay, when one prayes, all may be &s;aid to pray, though he doth but con&s;ent; it may be &s;o in &s;inging of P&s;almes.</P>
<P>It is An&s;wered, 1. All Ordinances mu&s;t be con&s;ider|ed according to their proper nature; &s;ome Ordinan|ces are &s;o to be admini&s;tred, as that onely one at once can performe it, as publique prayer, and preaching, and yet there mu&s;t be a; di&s;tinction even in the&s;e: my &s;ilence in prayer ought to be when I pray with ano|ther, and yet I may be &s;aid to pray as well as he which is the mouth of the whole, becau&s;e my heart is with him in the &s;ame petitions, and my de&s;ires go equally With him; but it is not &s;o in preaching, where &s;ilence mu&s;t be likewi&s;e from the nature of the Ordinance; yet though I con&s;ent fully with the matter, and agree in all that is &s;aid with never &s;o much affection; yet I cannot be &s;aid to preach, but onely he that &s;peaketh preacheth. So now as to &s;inging there is a difference likewi&s;e of another con&s;ideration; if onely one &s;ing, none el&s;e can be &s;aid to &s;ing, though they joyne with the matter, and agree to it in their hearts; for its an outward act, and terminated in the per&s;on that per|formes it; and though in my &s;ilent conjunction, I may really prai&s;e God, yet I can in no &s;en&s;e be proper|ly &s;aid to &s;ing with others, without I do u&s;e my Voice and Organs as they doe. This con&s;ideration will give light to men that minde the nature and di&s;tinction of Ordinances in their outward admini&s;traions.</P>
<P N="2">2. That which is the confu&s;ion of other Ordinances, is the beauty of this; for two to preach, or pray to|gether
<PB N="203" REF="114"> at the &s;ame time and place, were the greate&s;t confu&s;ion imaginable; but for a hundred to &s;ing to|gether is mo&s;t harmonious, and plea&s;ant; &s;o far from the breach of order, that harmony is mo&s;t di&s;covered by it.</P>
<P N="3">3. It hath been the cu&s;tome of the Churches alwayes thus to practi&s;e; and there is nothing in the nature of the Ordinance, or Divine precept, or example a|gain&s;t it. I &s;hall conclude this with a word from An|tiquity, concerning this practi&s;e.</P>
<P><HI>Eu&s;eb.</HI> in his <HI>Eccle&s;. Hi&s;t.</HI> l. 3, cap. 33. quotes two Epi&s;tles of <HI>Plinius Secundus</HI> to <HI>Trajan</HI> the Emperour, te&s;tifying that Chri&s;tians were wont to gather them|&s;elves before day to &s;ing P&s;almes and Hymnes toge|ther: the &s;ame doth <HI>Philo Judaeus</HI> te&s;tifie, who lived in the Apo&s;tles time, as the &s;ame <HI>Eu&s;eb.</HI> &s;aith, <HI>lib.</HI> 2. <HI>cap.</HI> 22. Now in the time of <HI>Plinius</HI> and <HI>Trajan,</HI> did <HI>John</HI> the beloved Di&s;ciple live, &s;aith <HI>Zanch.</HI> in <HI>Eph.</HI> 5.18.29. whereby it appeares an Apo&s;tolicall in&s;titution.</P>
<P><HI>Tertul.</HI> in his <HI>Apol. c.</HI> 19. &s;aith, that it was a u&s;uall cu&s;tome among the Chri&s;tians, after their Love&punc; Fea&s;ts, <HI>canere de Scripturis Sanctis,</HI> to &s;ing of the Scriptures; his meaning is, doubtle&s;&s;e, out of or from the Scri|ptures: In the We&s;terne Churches this hath beene the con&s;tant practice, though much corrupted by the <HI>Ro|man</HI> additions to Saints method; but yet that ble&s;&s;ed Ordinance is now more &s;pecially recovered, and made pure for Saints according to primitive in&s;titution.</P>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 N="5" TYPE="chapter">
<PB N="204" REF="115">
<HEAD><HI>CHAP. V.</HI> The great abu&s;es of the <HI>Roman</HI> and <HI>Epi&s;copall</HI> Church about this Ordinance, whereby many stick not to call it Antichristian, hath been;</HEAD>
<P N="1">1. THe introducing mu&s;icall In&s;truments together with, as Organs, Harps, Viols, &amp;c. whereas in the New Te&s;tament God requires the Voice as the onely Organ of the heart in wor&s;hip.</P>
<P N="2">2. They had a meere order of Singers to whom they gave pen&s;ions unto for that purpo&s;e, and exclu|ded the Church from the per&s;ons of that duty, which is of &s;o Univer&s;all a concernment.</P>
<P N="3">3. They would &s;ing in Latin, and with &s;uch &s;traines of their Voices that the words might not be under|&s;tood.</P>
<P N="4">4. They &s;pent mo&s;t of the time in &s;inging, and gave not other Ordinances, as preaching, and praying, their due time of excerci&s;e. Thus have precious Ordi|nances been abu&s;ed by the corruptions of men; but are now re&s;toring unto their purity, and will every day be more gloriou&s;ly practi&s;ed in the Churches.</P>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 N="6" TYPE="chapter">
<PB N="205" REF="115">
<HEAD><HI>CHAP. VI.</HI> How we may be &s;aid to teach and admoni&s;h one another, in <HI>P&s;almes, Hymnes,</HI> and <HI>Songs,</HI> according to that of <HI>Col. 3.16, 17.</HI></HEAD>
<P>MAny thinke there can be no &s;uch u&s;e of &s;inging, as to teach and admoni&s;h one another by it; but if we con&s;ider, there are many le&s;&s;ons to be learnt one another from this publique conjunct, &s;inging Scri|pture-P&s;almes.</P>
<P N="1">1. They teach one another, and by the very act ad|moni&s;h one another to get the &s;ame frames the&s;e Holy men had in the penning the P&s;almes, and in the variety, and &s;pirituality of them; to get <HI>Davids</HI> frame, in &s;inging <HI>Davids P&s;almes:</HI> and &s;o for the re&s;t.</P>
<P N="2">2. Its by this they teach one another the Unity and Harmony that is and &s;hould be among Saints as one bodie, that their happine&s;&s;e and joyes are bound up together, and &s;o the mi&s;ery of one, is the mi&s;ery of the whole; and this is a glorious le&s;&s;on to know their Union together, as a body equally concerned in the glory, or &s;hame of one another, equally intere&s;ted in the prai&s;es of God; there is no duty practi&s;ed in all the Go&s;pell that doth fully expre&s;&s;e the Communion of Saints, and repre&s;ent Heaven, as the Saints &s;inging together; the Lords Supper doth repre&s;ent the Com|munion of Saints very lively, but not &s;o as mutuall
<PB N="206" REF="116"> &s;inging, when all at once, not by con&s;ent onely, but expre&s;ly &s;peak the &s;ame thing in the &s;ame moment, in the Lords Supper, though afterwards they were all one bread, yet they all doe not receive it at the &s;ame in&s;tant of time, but take &s;ucce&s;&s;ively the Elements; but in &s;inging they all joyne perfectly at once to &s;ound Gods pray&s;es, as if they had but one Lip, and one Voice. This is the perfect Emblem of Heaven, no jerring, all with one Voice and Heart crying <HI>Hal|lelujah, Hallelujah.</HI></P>
<P N="3">3. They teach one another this le&s;&s;on al&s;o, <HI>viz.</HI> with what alacrity and cheerefulne&s;&s;e they &s;hould perform all their duties together; with &s;weetne&s;&s;e of love, and joy they ought to walke together.</P>
<P N="4">4. They teach one another how to carry them|&s;elves in all conditions with joyfull and pray&s;ing frames of &s;pirit, for matter of the P&s;almes; and are various, not onely affording matter of exultation, and gratulation; but al&s;o reciting the &s;adne&s;&s;e and low condition of the Church; yet all are fit matter to be &s;ung; <HI>Lachrymae</HI> mu&s;t be &s;ung, &s;ad things with a &s;pirituall joyfull heart in God and his promi&s;es; mer|cy, and judgement in the &s;ame &s;ong, expre&s;t in melo|dy of the Voice, and Heart; and it &s;hewes a &s;oule is not in a right temper when he cannot &s;ing over his condition.</P>
<P N="5">5. They teach one another by &s;inging, and admo|ni&s;h one another to avoid any thing that may hinder their joyes in Communion, and breake their Har|mony in &s;pirituall actings; all which and many more
<PB N="207" REF="116"> are great exhortations, and are taught naturally by Saints mutuall &s;inging together.</P>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 N="7" TYPE="chapter">
<HEAD><HI>CHAP. VII.</HI> Concerning &s;inging with a mixt multitude.</HEAD>
<P>MAny who grant &s;inging to be an Ordinance a|mong Saints, yet &s;tumble to &s;ing in promi&s;cuous manner with others; e&s;pecially becau&s;e there are &s;o many P&s;almes of &s;uch compo&s;ition that doth not &s;eem to concerne a mixt multitude.</P>
<P>For opening of this, I mu&s;t lay downe this gene|rall po&s;ition; that prayer and prai&s;es are naturall duties belonging to all men, men as men; though on|ly the Saints, can doe them be&s;t, and &s;piritually; it is upon all men by the Law of Creation, to &s;eek to God for what they want, and to thank him for what they have: this is due unto God, owning him as a Crea|tour, and Benefactour; and though &s;inging be a part of in&s;tituted wor&s;hip, yet its onely an addition of Order, &amp; a regulation of a naturall duty. And as there is no man but is bound to pray for mercies, &s;o none are exempted from prai&s;ing God for mercies, though they &s;ing in a lower tune then Saints. Thus <HI>David</HI> calls in all creatures to ble&s;&s;e and prai&s;e God, as a na|naturall duty according to their &s;everall capacities, <HI>P&s;al.</HI> 136. <HI>P&s;al.</HI> 117. <HI>P&s;al.</HI> 107. <HI>P&s;al.</HI> 103. <HI>P&s;.</HI> 20, 21.22. Prai&s;es, its the naturall duty of all, the proper duty
<PB N="208" REF="117"> of Saints, the perfect act of Angels.</P>
<P><HI>Ob.</HI> You will &s;ay they cannot performe it aright, and gloryfie &s;oules.</P>
<P><HI>Sol.</HI> 1. Their want of ability doth not di&s;charge them from &s;uch a duty engraven on their Con&s;ciences, and ari&s;ing from the naturall re&s;pects they have to God as a Creatour; to performe which, God gave full power at fir&s;t.</P>
<P N="2">2. Let every man doe his duty con&s;cientiou&s;ly, he may afterwards come to doe it &s;piritually; though I &s;hould lo&s;e the &s;en&s;e of a duty in my con&s;cience, yet the duty lyes on my con&s;cience from Gods authority, and my relation to him.</P>
<P N="1">1. By the &s;ame rule every one &s;hould ab&s;taine from performance of a duty for want of pre&s;ent ability, whereas the duty mu&s;t be done, and the &s;trength ex|pected from Heaven, and waited for according to the Divine manner of di&s;pen&s;ation.</P>
<P N="2">2. Its 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 &s;in in joyning with any one in that act to performe, which is the duty of another, as mine, though he may want the pre&s;ent abi|lity.</P>
<P>For duties mu&s;t be mea&s;ured according to the rule, not the abilities of the performer; now its no duty for any man to receive the Lords Supper, or be a Member of a Church in order to Communion, with|out he finde him&s;elfe in &s;ome mea&s;ure fitted by grace; the&s;e fealing Ordinances of the Go&s;pel, &s;uppo&s;e, and
<PB N="209" REF="117"> require &s;ome other qualification, and are peculiar to vi&s;ible Saints; but where there is a naturall Character, or an Ordinance as to the &s;ub&s;tance of it at lea&s;t equal|ly concerning all; there it is no &s;in to joyne in the admini&s;tration of it; and if we con&s;ider of it warily, unregenerate men are great &s;harers in the mercies of the Churches; be&s;ides their owne particu!ar, that they may well afford their voice without &s;in, and we joyne with them in &s;etting forth Gods prai&s;es: But more clo&s;ely, and particularly.</P>
<P N="1">1. When the Church and Saints of God are ga|thered together to wor&s;hip him, in &s;inging; it is no more unlawfull to &s;ing with others that &s;tand by and joyne their voices, then when in prayer they &s;tand by, and give their con&s;ent, we doe not &s;o much joyne with them as they doe owne Gods actings a|mong us; it is no &s;in in them to joyne with us in &s;uch a duty, neither can it be any &s;in in us to &s;ing, though others very carnall will outwardly prai&s;e God with us.</P>
<P N="2">2. The carriage of Saints in their heartie and reall expre&s;&s;ions of pray&s;es may convince others in the coldne&s;&s;e, and lowne&s;&s;e of their &s;pirit, and &s;tirre them up to &s;ome &s;pirituall apprehen&s;ions.</P>
<P N="3">3. Though it be lawfull to joine with them in &s;uch a duty generally con&s;idered, yet it were to be wi&s;hed in a mixt multitude, there were more care in the choice of P&s;almes, to fit them to the very duty of prai&s;e and thanks, which is &s;o really belonging to all the Congregation; and that mu&s;t be lamented, that the
<PB N="210" REF="118"> choice of P&s;almes, to a mixt multitude, is not &s;o con|&s;idered as it ought to be, which makes the Ordinance &s;o much &s;lighted in its publique admini&s;tration. But however the incapacity of others to their duty, &s;hould not hinder me from performing mine, e&s;pecially when I cannot, nor ought not to hinder others from &s;uch an act.</P>
<TRAILER>FINIS.</TRAILER>
<PB REF="118">
</DIV1>
</BODY>
</TEXT>
</GROUP>
</EEBO>
</ETS>
