CHAP. I. Severall Considerations premised, as an en­trance to the Discourse.

BEFORE I enter on the main que­stions handled in this Discourse, it will not be unnecessary to premise something in general concerning this Controversy, which is such a bone of contention among the Saints, for to make our way clear before us.

And 1. Let this be considered, that there is no­thing in all the N. T. against the baptizing of Infants, not one hint from any express word dropt from Christ or his Apostles; not one phrase, which though never so much strain'd, doth forbid such an act; but there is much for it in divers Scriptures compared to­gether; and what is wanting in the one, is supplyed in another abundantly, as hereafter will appear.

[Page 2]2. The sum of all that our Opposites have to say, though they make a great deal of noise in the World, is only this, that they can find no syllabical precept, or word of command in terms, saying, Go baptize Infants; or any positive example where it is said in so many words, Infants were baptized; only actual be­lievers, as they believed, were baptized: all that they say besides, is only to quarrel with our argu­ments, and make shift to evade the strength of them: but this is their only argument, and their all; for however they talk of the Covenant, and fleshly and spiritual seed, yet this is the Goliahs sword, none like to it; I would therfore fairly encounter with it in the Portall, that I may see all their strength before me.

Concerning which, take in these considerations: First, this argument is built on this false principle, That no direct consequences from Scripture are man­datory, and so obliging, nor of Divine Authority, which all Orthodox Professors and Divines grant, but these which are against Infants baptism; and it is most clear: for,

1. The way to know Scriptures, is by com­paring them together, 1 Cor. 2.13. and this must needs be by their Harmonie, and by deduction from one to another.

2. Without True consequence were as Scripture, no one could speak truth but these that speak just the very expressions of Scripture.

3. There could be no spiritual reasons nor argu­ments used in any Discourse to be of any force or [Page 3] consequence, though from the Scripture; for there can be no arguing from Scripture, but by consequen­ces and deduction; for in all arguments there must be a medium and a conclusion, a proposition and an in­ference.

4. Nothing upon this account can be Scripture but the very letters and syllables in the Bible; no­thing of the meaning or sense is Scripture; for you must draw out the sense and meaning from the let­ters by rational consequence, as the conclusion from a proposition by a fit medium; and how absurd would this prove, that letters should be Scripture, and not the sense? and so it must be according to that Maxim of theirs.

5. This is against all preaching, and expounding Scripture; nothing must be read but the very bare characters for to draw any deductions from; it is to no purpose, though never so direct and full; for if they be not Scripture, they cannot bind consciences; and to what end is preaching, but to open and apply Scripture?

6. The searchings of the Scripture were the most useless undertaking that could be imagined; for what need I search, but read? for no consequence, by comparison of Scripture, is of authority to satisfie my conscience, if I draw a conclusion from a text, and perceive the meaning of it to be thus; if nothing without it be laid down in so many syllables, how many such strange absurdities would follow the de­nying consequences from Scripture, which are purely [Page 4] deducted? and by this principle, that where there are not so many letters put together in one sentence, there is no command, men would soon draw Reli­gion into a very narrow compass.

7. This would be as much against themselves; For,

First, They have no command in so many words, Go and baptize actual or visible believers: if they say such were baptized: it's answered, that is not to the purpose: for it's a verball command required by them to give warrant to an ordinance.

Secondly, That they must prove by consequence also, believers were baptized, Ergo there was a com­mand: Neither,

Thirdly, Can they prove one act concerning their own form of baptizing by any command, but by con­sequences: When they say Infants are not to be ba­ptized, they draw it from consequence thus, because there is no command in their sense; When they af­firm the Covenant is not made with believers now, and their seed, as with Abraham, it's drawn by con­sequence, because, say they, Abraham is no natural father to us, as to the Jews, and because that covenant was a mixt Covenant, &c. When they come to prove baptizing to be by plunging, they argue by consequence, because the word signifies it, because they went where much water was, and went down into the water, &c. though they are mistaken in all their consequences, as I shall hereafter shew; yet this is full ad hominem, and against themselves, [Page 5] who deny consequences to warrant institutions, and yet have nothing for to prove their own way, but what is by consequence from Scripture.

8. It's common among the Apostles to argue in such a method, and to deduce one thing from an­other, to make out what they intended; 2 Cor. 5.14. We thus judge, if Christ died for all, then all are dead; if the first be true, then the latter; so 1 Cor. 15.13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20. and all that Chapter, arguing out the resurrection by fit me­diums: so about the Ordinance of Baptism, Acts 10.47. Can any man forbid water, why these should not be baptized, who have received the holy Ghost as well as we? There was never any command to baptize these that had received the holy Ghost, nor any example of any baptized on these terms; but the Apostle argues from the equivalency of the mercy, and the reason of the state they were in; the same method he uses 1 Cor. 10.15, 16, 17, 18. 1 Tim. 5.17, 18.

9. There will be hardly found a definition of the most doctrinal and high mysteries of the Gospel, but by comparing Scripture with Scripture, and so making it forth by consequence: what perfect de­finition of justification, or of justifying faith, in so many formall expressions in all the N. T. but what must be deducted by comparing Scriptures together to make one result? where are women either by such a wordy expression commanded to receive the Lords Supper? or any example? if they say ( [...]) [Page 6] signifies both sexes, yet it's still by consequence, no command or example: and why not ( [...]) as fit to signifie Infant-Saints, as grown Saints, Infant-holiness, as perfect holiness? it's applyed to both; if they will stick at a syllable, we may stick with them on the same grounds.

10. Deny consequences to have the strength of commands, and you will leave very few duties to be practis'd, or sins to be avoided, in the Old or New Testament: Expound the ten Commandments, the sum of the Law, without consequences, and very few shall be found literal transgressors, but most de­sperate debauched persons. Mat. 5. Christ expounds the whole Law, and by consequences from the in­ward meaning, draws out new considerations of du­ties; and since the Bible is but a short systeme of Religion, every place is fitted to expound each other; and this must be done by rational-spiritual compari­sons and inferences; but enough to the first considera­tion on this head of commands and consequences.

2. Where we have a promise laid as the foun­dation of a duty, that is equivalent to any express command; for as commands in the Gospel do sup­pose promises, to encourage us to act them, and help us in them: so promises made to persons do include commands, especially when the duties commanded are annexed to the promises, as all New Testament Ordinances are, as well as Old.

3. We have as much in the N. T. to prove In­fant-baptism, from the true principles of right to [Page 7] Ordinances, as they have for these whom they ba­ptize; for they baptize grown persons on such and such considerations; and we shall hereafter shew, we baptize on as strong and equivalent grounds; and that's enough to warrant a command, to demonstrate the same substantial grounds of the command to reach the same case.

4. If we can find no positive command in so many words for their baptizing (shewing the same fun­damental grounds) it's requisite they should shew us some express command to the contrary, and some authentique repeal, seeing Infants so long enjoyed such a like Ordinance: upon the same grounds Christ would not have taken away such an antient priviledge, when his grace abounded, and super-abounded, but he would have left some characters of it in the Gospel, and entred some formal discharge in his Word of such persons, and given a warning of it to the Gentile believers to expect it; but he hath both by his words and carriages left clear demon­strations, that he is so far from repealing, as he con­firms it to Infants; let the Scriptures opened here­after speak to this.

The third Consideration premised is this, as all that they urge as to examples of actual believers be­ing baptized, all along the New Testament, especi­ally the Acts, and that if thou believest thou mayst, &c. we can freely grant without any damage to this truth: For,

1. We say as they, professing believers, grown [Page 8] men were first baptized, and so they ought to be, who are to be the first subjects of the administration of an Ordinance, persons able to give an account of their own faith; it was so with Abraham, Gen. 17▪ 24. he was 99 years old when he was circumcised. and he must be first circumcised before he could con­vey a right to his seed; now you may as well argue, Abraham was first circumcised when so old, there­fore old persons are to be circumcised, and none else; as because grown persons were baptized, there­fore not Infants, when they must be first baptized themselves; for Children are baptized by the pro­mise first to them, and in them to their seed.

2. An affirmative position is not exclusive of sub­ordinates; because believers were said to be ba­ptized, Ergo not their seed▪ is not true reasoning; for their seed were comprehended with them in the same promise.

3. A non dicto ad non factum, non valet consequen­tia, as Divines say; because it's not exprest in so many words, therefore it was not done, is no argument; especially when there is enough to shew it was done, though not written; Christ speaks short, that we may search; he expects N. T. Saints to be so ingenu­ous as to take more by a hint, then those of the Old who were not so bred as we now; they had every pin of the Tabernacle appointed; it's not so pun­ctually set down now, either as to Churches, or Go­vernment, but only the main Substantials laid down, and it's left to the ingenuity of the Saints to draw forth the consequences.

Lastly, to premise no more; God hath alwaies ordained some Ordinances; in the administration of which, for the most part, the subject hath been pure­ly passive, to express his own free grace most emi­nently, as Circumcision on Infants: And can we think he hath left no Ordinance now as a visible cha­racter, only to hold forth his meer grace in the N. T. where he reigns by grace? And there is no sign so fit to express it as Baptism, and no subject so capable as poor Infants.

CHAP. II. About the nature of the Covenant made with Abraham.

THE first great thing in this Controversy is, to consider the nature of the Covenant, which is the first foundation of the priviledge to believers, and their seed, as it was first made with Abraham and his seed, in the name of all believers, and their seed, both Jews and Gentiles; for so large is the extent of that Covenant to both, as hereafter shall be proved from New Testament expressions; and if we find the same Covenant reaching Gentile-believers, and their Children, as Abraham and his, we cannot be denied the new external sign and seal of the same [Page 10] Covenant; for though the outward signs may be changed, yet there is no change of the priviledges, if the Covenant remain entire. For the opening of which we shall consider,

• 1. The nature of Abrahams Covenant.
• 2. How persons may be said to be in that Covenant.

For the first, we must begin with that place, Gen. 17. where God began not only to express the Co­venant in larger terms then formerly, but to adde a visible seal to it, viz. that of Circumcision: There be many conjectures about this Covenant; those that differ, conceive it to be a mixt Covenant, made up of spiritual and temporal blessings together, and not of the same purity with the Covenant in the New Testament, and so make a carnal part, and a spiri­tual part of it, and Circumcision to be annexed espe­cially to the former, not so to the latter; this is the true relation of their judgement about this. Let us review the Covenant, and its terms, and we shall soon find the mistake.

First, and chiefly, We affirm this was a Covenant of pure grace, the same in substance with the Co­venant administred now under the Gospel, since Christs coming in the flesh and spirit.

1. It was founded upon pure grace, Gods love to Abraham, and 'tis not any thing in Abraham, or his, to move God more then to the Gentiles.

2. It was a Covenant without works, therefore of pure grace, Rom. 4.1, 2, 3, 4, 5. and all along the Chapter.

[Page 11]3. It was a Covenant made only with a believer upon Gospel terms; the same the New Testament holds forth in the 3, 4, and 5, v. of that Chapter; now faith is the only condition of the Covenant of grace.

4. It was a Covenant made in Christ, and there­fore a pure Covenant of grace, as any can be in the Gospel, Gal. 3.16, 17, 18, and 29.

5. Consider the tenure of this Covenant, Gen. 17.7. I will establish my Covenant between me and thee, and thy seed after thee in their generations, to be a God to thee, and thy seed after thee. Here is the substance and strength of this Covenant, to be a God to Abra­ham and to his seed; and what can be more then to be Jehovah to him? can there be any expression more high, or that can set forth more grace in purity then this? It's more then can be exprest, that God in­gageth his Deity to him; and it is as much as if God had said, whatever I am in mine own Godhead, I will be to thee and thy seed, to make you happy and blessed: this is the first and main thing premised, and it comprehends Christ, grace, glory, all blessings above imagination; the Apostle in Heb. 8.10. useth the same expression as the sum of all, when he speaks of the new Covenant, I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people. We need adde no more, if that were not a Covenant of pure grace, the Gospel knows none other.

That which they have to say why it's a mixt Co­venant, and a temporall, as some of the most ignorant [Page 12] affirm, is from the following expression of Gen. 17.8. And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the Land wherein thou art a stranger, all the Land of Ca­naan, for an everlasting possession, &c. Now, say they, if the promises be mixt, so is the Covenant.

To which I answer, that the Land of Canaan, and such like promises, were but additional, and added ex superabundanti, to the first promise, not at all in­corporated to the bulk and body of the Covenant which was made in Christ, and consisted of more pure considerations; these promises were but fitted to the outward administration of the first promise of grace, and the state of Abrahams family, but there was no mixture; For,

1. The Covenant with Abraham is repeated in the New Testament entire, without any of those ad­ditions, as is proved formerly.

2. The promise of Canaan was typical of Heaven, and so did but more open the first promise, to be their God; shewing them that God would bring him and his to Heaven, and the fulness of his glory, as he would bring them to an outward Canaan; and this was suited to Gods design, in administring that vast promise by types and outward figures: so Abraham closed in with it by faith, as a promise expounding figuratively the substance of the Covenant, Heb. 11.8, 9, 10. so 13, 14, 15, 16. So that the first promise was positive, and shewed the nature of the Covenant; the other was typically expository, Canaan setting out Heaven, and the eternity of their rest with this [Page 13] God in Covenant; and this will no more make a mixt Covenant, then the type and the substance when they meet together will differ in significa­tion.

3. We may as well say, these promises in the New Testament make up a mixt Covenant, and so of a different nature, when God saith in Mat. 6.33. Seek first the Kingdome of God, and all things else shall be added; and 1 Tim. 4.8. Godliness hath the pro­mise of this life, and that which is to come; which are as much mixt as ever the Covenant made with Abra­ham was; whereas all know, these are but accidental appendixes of the promise of grace, and dispensed according to the use he hath for, and the conditions of his Saints: thus Canaan was added to the Cove­nant, as all other things to the Kingdome of God.

4. If this be a mixt Covenant, because Canaan is added, and the like, then how comes it to be the same in the N. T. and to be of force now, when no notice is taken of Canaan, and the temporal pro­mises? Sure in this mixture the promise of free grace was primary, and like oyl, at top; for Abrahams Co­venant the very same for substance, is clear, and without mixture in the Gospel, though it is admini­stred externally, as it was then, and the blessings of Abraham come on the Gentiles, though not of an external Canaan.

If they say that Canaan was added only for the dispensation of the Covenant to the Jews, it's grant­ed; but that it should make a mixture in the Cove­nant, [Page 14] is most false, which is the same for ever, though the outward administration 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 flesh and his cloaths.

But let us come to Circumcision, the seal of this Covenant; it sealed it, say they, as a mixt Cove­nant.

Then 1. It sealed the one part as well as the o­ther; take it in their own sense, that is, it sealed God to be their God, as Canaan; and so it was not a seal meerly to a temporal promise.

2. If the Covenant was so mixt in the nature of it, then Circumcision sealed unequally, though it was added to a mixt Covenant, for it sealed the pro­mise of Canaan to those that never went into Ca­naan, as many that died before that time, and after­wards many that were circumcised died in the Wil­derness, and under Gods wrath, and so sealed no­thing at all, neither part of the Covenant visibly; and that is hard, that to so many there should be neither the fulfilling of spiritual, nor temporal part of the promise.

3. Grant them this Covenant was mixt, then it was either in the substance, or circumstances; if in the substance, then Abrahams Covenant was not Gospel, and believers must seek for another Father, as to the example of faith, and that were to make it rather like Nebuchadnezzars Image of Iron and Clay, then made up of Gospel materials; If in cir­cumstances [Page 15] of administration, and additaments of external types, it's granted, and we have the same promise now, with new outward administrations; if this mixture were in the nature and substance of the Covenant, then it must remain as long as the Co­venant lasted, and so unto this day; for no man is so bold (though many are bold enough) as to say that Abrahams Covenant is abrogated; if it be un­der any other consideration, it's easily waved, and the truth the same: So that Circumcision sealed the Covenant primarily in its nature, as a Covenant of grace, and God being a God to circumcise their hearts, &c. and Canaan, and other things consequent­ly and accidentally, as God made a promise of them, for the better visible administration of the Covenant to them in that external polity. And surely it's beyond an ordinary reach to believe, that God should make a Covenant with Abraham, and for his faith in it should create him the Father of the faithful in all ages, and this Covenant should be brought in the N. T. and renewed, and the tenure of it freshly held forth to believers there, and yet at the first making of it God should mix temporal promises with the spiritual substance of it, and annex a seal that should only or specially seal the temporal part of it, and so poorly confirm the main and essential nature of it, especially when God speaking of Abrahams faith, stiles Circumcision the seal of the righteousness of it, Rom. 4. But of this more in another Chapter.

CHAP. III. The distinction of Abrahams seed into fleshly and spiritual, into natural and believing, considered; whether the In­fants of believers may not be called in the New Testament the seed of Abra­ham?

THE next thing which must have its place of consideration, is that question of Abrahams seed, with whom the promise was made; and upon this hinge hangs all the main weight on both sides; and if we make out Infants of believers in the N. T. to be in Covenant, as Abrahams seed, the contro­versy would be at end: To make out this, the most of the following Chapters are designed; only in this we shall fall more directly on the question it self.

Those that differ from us make many distinctions of a fleshly carnal seed of Abraham, and of a spiri­tual seed, a believing and a natural seed, which di­stinctions are taken out of Rom. 9.7, 8. Gal. 4.23. and Chap. 3.16. and most true, if well applyed; but before I come to open the Scriptures, I would premise these considerations concerning Abraham, and his seed.

[Page 17]1. That Abrahams spiritual seed were as much his fleshly seed also, Isaac as Ishmael, except Proselytes and Servants.

2. The Covenant was administred to all Abra­hams natural and fleshly Children, as if they had been spirituall, and before they knew what faith was, or could actually profess Abrahams faith.

3. It's no contradiction in d fferent respects, to be a seed of the flesh by natural generation, and a Child under the same promise made with the Parent; for they both agreed in Abrahams case; none was a Child of promise, but as he came of Abrahams flesh: and as he came from Abrahams flesh, so every one had the seal of Gods Covenant on his flesh: Thus a spiritual promise was made with Abraham and his carnal seed.

4. There was no distinction of Abrahams fleshly seed and his spiritual seed, in the O. T. but all com­prehended under the same Covenant, until they de­generated from Abrahams faith, and proved them­selves to be meer carnal▪ and rejected the pro­mise.

5. There is a carnal and spiritual seed of Abra­ham, even under the N. T. as our Opposites must ac­knowledge, as well as Infants; so are the most visible Professors which they baptize; which may have no grace; and many prove carnal indeed, through the predominancy of their lusts and corruptions.

6. When there is mention of Abrahams carnal seed in opposition to spiritual seed, it cannot be [Page 18] meant primarily or solely of those that descended from Abrahams flesh: for then Isaac and Jacob were the carnall seed, yea Christ himself, who as concern­ing the flesh came of Abraham; it must be therefore of those of Abrahams seed which degenerated, and slighted the Covenant of the Gospel, and these were properly the carnal seed.

Suitable to this is that distinction of Abraham be­ing a natural and a spiritual Father: For,

First, He was a natural Father to these to whom he was a spiritual Father, as to Isaac and Jacob, and the godly of their posterity.

Secondly, All to whom he was a natural Father were under the Covenant, and had the seal, until they rejected themselves; the promise took in both relations, as to outward administration, Rom. 3.1, 2, 3, 4. And if men truly state things you may argue as much against Abrahams natural seed from enjoy­ing these priviledges, as believers natural seed now, and with as much evidence of truth.

But let us weigh these Scriptures which are brought by our Opposites: First, consider that of Rom. 9.6, 7, 8. They are not all Israel that are of Israel; nei­ther because they are the seed of Abraham are they all Children, but in Isaac shall thy seed be called; that is, they which are the Children of the flesh, these are not the Children of God: but the Children of promise are accounted for the seed.

The Apostle in this Chapter doth with a bleeding heart begin the sad story of the Jews rejection from [Page 19] being a Church, and speaks as one loth to mention it, and therefore brings it in with a passionate and hearty Apology, v. 1, 2, 3. he was in heaviness, he could wish himself [...], accursed from Christ, for his brethren, his Kinsmen according to the flesh, that is, for these that we call Jews according to the flesh.

Q. But what needed all this trouble to have a carnal generation of men cut of? why doth Paul Paul take on so heavily?

Sol. In the 4, and 5, v. he tels you, Who are Israelites, to whom pertains the adoption of glory, and the Covenant, and the giving of the Law, and the service of God, and the promises, whose are the Fathers, of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came: Here is a Catalogue of high priviledges which belonged to the Jews, which they were to be cut off from, which lay on Pauls heart, and was like to sink him.

Ob. Well, might some say, v. 6. then the promise of God is in vain, if they be rejected unto whom the adoption and the promises belong.

Sol. The Apostle anticipates that Objection, Not as though the Word of God hath taken no effect; no, the promise is the same, and immutable; but they are not all Israel which are of Israel; neither be­cause they are the seed of Abraham, are they all Chil­dren, &c. This is the very natural coherence of these words; let us now use our judgements to distinguish and review the place, and we shall find it a weapon whose edge is turned against these that count it their own.

[Page 20]1. The Apostle is sadly troubled for his kinsmen after the flesh, for their rejection; his reason is, be­cause of the Covenant, and the promises made to them, because they were the natural seed of Abra­ham: which holds forth that the promises and the priviledges of the Covenant were made indefinitely to all the Israelites.

2. That it's a most sad thing to be excluded from the outward and general administration of the Co­venant. Why should Paul thus break out in his af­fections, for the loss of outward priviledges, if it were not such a mercy to be under them?

3. The Apostle holds forth, that persons may be under the outward administrations of the Covenant, and yet not get the efficacy of it; v. 6. They are not all Israel that are of Israel; the Covenant was made with Abraham and his seed, all that were of him: and yet all were not Israel, that is, partakers of the in­ward life and efficacy of the Covenant; the Apostle only in these verses endeavours to take off that Ob­jection, that God had broke his Covenant by cast­ing away the Jews, and so distinguisheth of these that were meerly of his flesh, who had the outward administration, but not the inward fruit, and these which were elect in the promise, In Isaac shall thy seed be called; the rest he cals the Children of the flesh, the former the Children of promise, v. 8. and so though they were under the outward dispensation of the Covenant, yet God was not mutable, nor his promise, though he rejected them because of their [Page 21] own degeneration; so that the sum of this place is,

1. That the Covenant was made in general with Abrahams seed, to all that came from him.

2. That in the administration of general and in­definite promises, there is a secret distinction, and a vein of election carried through the administration, that takes hold of some, not of others.

3. That none are the Children of promise, real Saints, but those that have the true effects of the Co­venant in their hearts.

4. That all Children of Believers, though the pro­mise visibly belong to them, as to Abraham and his seed, yet may not follow their Parents faith, and so not be Israel, though of Israel.

But here is nothing at all to demonstrate that Infants, because Children of the flesh, are not under the promise: but rather the contrary; for in Isaac shall thy seed be called, saith God; now he was a Child of Abrahams flesh, as well as these which were cast off, and yet a Child of promise; so God makes his Co­venant indefinitely with believers and their seed, and yet the efficacy of the Covenant may reach but some, an Isaac or a Jacob, an elect vessel▪ and yet the other under the outward administration, until they manifest the contrary: But more of this from that, Acts 2.38, 39.

I come now to that other place so much urged by them, Gal. 3.16. Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made; he saith not, to seeds, as of many, [Page 22] but of one, which is Christ: Now by Christ here can­not be meant barely Christ personal: for then no be­liever should be accounted for the seed but only Christ; it must be meant of Christ mystically or Po­litically considered, as the visible Head of the Church; if to Christ mysticall, then to all the Elect as in him, and so to Infants as well as grown persons, who make up that mystical body: but thus the promise is conveyed under ground as it were, none knows the veins of it▪ thus in the Old Testament flesh and flesh came from Abraham, the Covenant administred to them both by its seal, yet one flesh enjoying the spiritual blessings, the other rejected.

Take the promise to be made to Christ, the seed, as the Head of a visible Church, then still it speaks for us; for Infants of believers were never cast out of the visible Church they were once in; and the promise is made now to them with their Parents, as shall be hereafter proved at large: but if we look no further back then the 14 ^th v. of this Chapter, we shall re­ceive some light to this: It's said in the 13 ^th v. Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the Law, being made a curse for us, &c. that the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Christ: Abrahams blessing what was it, but the promises, and the fruits, and priviledges of the promise and Covenant made to him and his seed? The same blessing is now come on the Gentiles, but through Christ, who took away all obstructions in the passage of the Covenant by his death: Now,

[Page 23]1. This blessing of Abraham was not personal, but to him and his seed.

2. This very blessing is come on Gentile be­lievers, as on Abraham: therefore it must come on believers of the Gentiles, and their seed also: For,

3. It cannot be called Abrahams blessing, except it come on the Gentiles according to the substantial terms of Abrahams Covenant: Now this was the absolute form of Abrahams blessing, I will be a God of thee and thy seed; and this very blessing is come on the Gentiles through Christ, as it came on Abra­ham; and therefore it must be to believing Gentiles, and their seed: else it will neither be Abrahams bles­sing in the form, nor fatness of it; Abrahams blessing will descend on the Gentiles clipt half off, not like it self: And it must needs be a very uncouth saying to all judicious ears, to say, that Abrahams blessing is come on the Gentiles by Christ, as it was on the Jews by Abraham, and exclude half the Subjects at once from any right to it; for so you must, if you cast out the seed of Gentile believers.

And to what end should the Apostle say The blessing of Abraham, and not the promise or Co­venant is come to the Gentiles, but that he intended it to the Gentile believers and their seed, as formerly it came to Abraham and his? This shall be further cleared from Acts 2. and Rom. 11. in their order.

But in Gal. 3.29. the Apostle (say they) describes who are the seed; If you be Christ's, then you are [Page 24] Abrahams seed, and heirs according to promise: So that now no Children born of believing Parents can be the seed; for they must be Christ's, according to that in v. 26. We are all the Children of God through faith in Christ Iesus.

In general, not to omit that which Beza saith on the place, that Claromontanus Bible hath the words thus, and as he thinks more right, [...], If you be one in Christ, then are ye Abrahams seed: This is suitable to the former verse, where he saith, There is neither Iew nor Greek, neither bond nor free, &c. but ye are all one in Christ Iesus; and if ye be all one, then Abrahams seed: From which,

1. It's clear the Apostle is endeavouring to take away all d fference between Jew and Gentile, and to hold forth their unity in Christ, where there is no distinction as formerly: but now the Gentiles being one in Christ, are Abrahams seed, as well as the na­tural and believing Jews.

2. The Apostle here hath no intent to shew the distinction of Abrahams seed as the subject of the out­ward priviledges, and administrations of Ordinances, but to shew that none are spiritually and really A­brahams seed, and heirs of promise, but such as are Christ's, one in him with Abraham: For if this should be the distinction of seed as the subject of outward Ordinances, it would be as much against professing believers as Infants; for there is a carnal profession as well as a fleshly generation, the former more abominable.

The Proposition from this expression, as they draw it, is thus; None but these who are Christ's are Abrahams seed, and none are Christ's but reall be­lievers, and therefore none but they must be ba­ptized.

Thus some say (though weakly) The spiritual seed are now the subject of Baptism, the new Creature, the man in Christ, Baptism knows no flesh, with many such like expressions from this and other pla­ces: But let us weigh things.

1. If none but such are Abrahams seed, and so none but such the subject of Baptism, then visible be­lievers are not the subject of Baptism; for they may not be Christs', or new Creatures, no more then In­fants; hardly one among twenty that are truly in Christ among the most glorious of them, and so not Abrahams seed.

2. None must be baptized at all upon this ac­count; for who knows who is Christ's according to election and saving faith?

If they say We have charitable grounds to be­lieve so of visible Professors, until we see the con­trary;

I answer, This is nothing to the Question, as it is stated, nor as it lies in the text; the text saith, If ye be Christ's, then ye are Abrahams seed: You say none are in Christ but real believers, and you must baptize none but a spiritual seed, and new Creatures, which will require not only a judgement of charity, but infallibility to determine.

[Page 26]2. The Apostle is here describing what the real seed and spiritual seed are, as having an inward right to Christ, and not what the apparent seed of Abrahams was: For,

1. Mark whom he speaks unto; to grown per­sons, the Galatians, who were visible Professors and Believers.

2. He puts them to a trial of themselves, whether they were Christ's or no, after they had made a pro­fession; for they having legaliz'd, and returned to look after Jewish Ordinances and works, he tels them, their Ordinances were nothing, their priviledges nothing, being Jew or Greek, but as they were in Christ: The same he follows on, Chap. 6.15. In Christ neither circumcision nor uncircum­cision availeth any thing, but a new Creature: So that the Apostle here puts an [If] to the professing Ga­latians, If ye be Christ's, then are ye Abrahams seed.

3. If you have no more but the judgement of your charity to distinguish thus of men in Christ, real believers, and Abrahams seed, then we have the same ground of charity to act on Infants of believers: For,

1. They may be Christs as well as grown per­sons.

2. God would have us account them holy, as we shall prove from that, 1 Cor. 7.14.

3. Seeing they have been taken into the same Covenant.

[Page 27]4. Seeing Christ shewed so much respect to In­fants, when brought to him. To judge a visible Pro­fessor to be Christ's and Abrahams seed, I have no­thing but the purblind eye of my probable judge­ment. To judge a believers Infant Christ's, I have a general Scripture assertion, and the ground of an in­definite promise, which is more then all my con­jectures: So that,

1. Visible Professors are not the spiritual seed of Abraham; for they may not be Christ's; therefore there is no spiritual seed but these that have saving faith, which all have not.

2. Infants of believers are as much the spiritual seed of Abraham as visible professing believers, and we have as much ground to judge of the one as the other, until they manifest the contrary; and our judgement on them may have less deceit in it then there is in that we pass on grown persons.

3. If you will distinguish of Abrahams fleshly seed and spiritual under the Gospel, you cannot apply it to Infants, but to professing believers; for the Children of believers are not the fleshly seed of Abraham; but if there be any such distinction, it must be between visible grown Professors, of whom some are spiritual, and Christ's; and others carnal, and born under Mount Sinai, and not Christ's.

4. It's a true rule in Logick, that in every good division, Partes debent inter se opponi, The Parts ought to be opposite: Now to be born from Abraham both as a natural and spiritual Father, was both [Page 28] common, through the promise in the Old Testament, and not universally opposite; and so it may be now; an Infant is born of the flesh of a believer, yet the Covenant makes the believer a spiritual Father in some respects, as well as a natural.

5. The seed takes its denomination from the Co­venant, and its tenure; and if the Covenant be made to Abraham and his seed, and these were at first In­fants of his body, and renewed with believers in the N. T. as we shall prove in the following Discourse: then Infants of believers are the seed now as well as formerly, Abraham only being the first root and Father.

6. Visibility of profession doth no more make a man of the spiritual seed, and so Christ's now under the New Testament, then the Covenant in its out­ward administration in the Old, made all the Jews and their Children really new Creatures, and a spi­ritual seed; for under the one, and the other, per­sons may be carnal.

All these considerations are to shew that these places of Scripture are mistaken, and doe not shew who is the seed as to Ordinances, but who are the seed as to election and salvation; and that Infants may be as well the seed, notwithstanding all these places, as well as visible Professors.

Q. If any say, But we have no warrant to judge of any but by visible profession.

Sol. 1. Let us judge as God would have us, and we shall find as much ground to pass such a judgement on [Page 29] Infants as them; if God call them holy, we may do so, and it will be dangerous then to call them un­clean.

2. The promise is the surer way of judging, seeing at best we can but judge externally, and with hopes; and it's better to rely on God, and to expect what he will do through his promise, at least on some, then to trust my own judgement.

3. The Word owns Infants of believers visibly, as we own visible Professors, as the Scriptures fol­lowing will demonstrate.

For the present, seriously view all these places to­gether, Gen. 17.7. Acts 2.38, 39. Deut. 30.6.11, 12, 13, 14. Rom. 10.1, 6, 7, 8. with Heb. 8.10, 11. Jer. 31.22. Esay 65.23. with many such places, that hold forth the seed to Infants as well in the New Testament as in the Old.

I end this Chapter with this consideration, that if you exclude Infants of believers to be Abrahams seed, upon this ground because they are not the spi­ritual seed: then dash out the name as well of grown Professors to be Abrahams seed, who are no more so really because of that, then these Infants, and we shall quit the one with the other, and then there shall be found no visible subjects of Baptism, either of Infants or grown persons: for they are both, as to election and inward grace, unknown to us to be Abrahams seed; they were both formerly accounted Abrahams seed, grown persons, and Infants especially by the Covenant; and now the one is to be accounted [Page 30] Abrahams seed, viz. grown persons professing, though they may have no right to the inward grace of the Covenant; and Infants who had first right next to Abraham, must be excluded, though they have never so real an interest, because they are In­fants, and cannot speak for themselves: But so much of this; the next Chapter will second this.

CHAP. IV. How any person may be said to be in the Co­venant; the divers considerations about it.

TO the former let this be added, because it seems strange how any can be in Covenant, and yet not partake of salvation: In opening of this, the common distinctions of all Divines must be repeat­ed, that according as there is an internal and exter­nal administration of the Covenant, so there is a two-fold being in the Covenant:

1. Secundum propositum electionis, According to the purpose of election in Gods heart, and his eter­nal decree; so only the elect, and these which have saving faith, are in Covenant: this some call, and not improperly, to be intentionally in Covenant, God principally intending the Covenant to them; others [Page 31] call it spiritually and savingly from the effect.

2. There is a being in Covenant In facie visibilis Ecclesiae, In the face, or according to the judgement of a visible Church, where judgement and charity are mixt together, Rom. 9.4. Deut. 29.10, 12, 13, 14. Iohn 15.2. Iohn 1.11. Psal. 50.5. with variety of Scripture: And of such there are two sorts.

1. Such as stand by their own visible profession, as all first Covenanters doe, so all visible Saints now, and so many Proselytes in the Old Testament, Exod. 12.44, 45. Deut. 29.10, 11. Gen. 12.5. Or else,

2. As in a Political Moral consideration, as in the right of another through a free promise; as if a Prince give a title of honour, or a piece of land to one and his heirs, they are all interested it, yet some prove fools, or traitors, and are afterwards incapa­ble: It's so in this, and was with Abraham and his seed: Now that this distinction holds in the New Testament, I shall thus discover to you.

1. If men deny an external, as well as internal being in Covenant, none can administer an external Ordinance, an outward sign to any; for we must go by external rules in these actings.

2. Visible Professors will have the worst of it; for we must administer no Ordinance to these which are not internally in Covenant; and we have no proof but their own expressions, and our good hopes, and present probable judgement to warrant us, and many visible miscarriages to contradict our judgements and hopes at special times.

[Page 32]3. We set a seal to a blank to all grown persons who are baptized, or receive the Lords Supper, with­out we know them certainly in the Covenant; and that who knows? for our judgement will no more hinder the seal from being a blank to grown Pro­fessors, then to Infants, without they prove real at last.

4. The best evidence you can have from any, of their being in Covenant, is but visible expressions, suppositions, and hopes, and probabilities, all which you must help out by your own charity, and fallible observation; for God hath promised no seal on my spirit for another mans condition; it's a blessed mercy if I get the seal on my own heart for my self.

So that the great Question will be answered from this, which Mr. Tombes and they all urge, That if God made the Covenant with believers, and their seed, they must all be saved, &c. With which I shall but thus parly.

1. Doth God make the Covenant of salvation with every visible Professor whom they baptize? or with every visible Saint? or do they baptize them out of Covenant? Then how come any to fall off, and be damned? or what rule have they to baptize by?

2. Why should it be thought more hainous to set a seal on Infants, as in the Covenant, then on these Professors which afterwards prove not to be in Covenant?

[Page 33]3. Or do they baptize, because that persons are in the Covenant? If not, then upon no spiritual ac­count; if upon their being in Covenant, then either internally or externally; on the first it cannot be absolutely, but as manifested externally; not upon a meer external being in Covenant; for then they may set a seal to a blank: if upon both together, the one externally demonstrated by the other, then it is still by the external being in Covenant that we judge with hopes of the other. There is a trick that some have got, whereby they think to evade this being in Covenant, as the fundamental ground of Baptism, by this distinction; That it is not being in Covenant, but being an actual Believer, gives right: To which I answer,

1. That the Covenant, take it spiritually, is the ground of faith, not faith of the Covenant.

2. If the Covenant be the ground of faith (for who can believe without a promise?) it may well be the ground of an outward priviledge.

3. To separate the Covenant from the convey­ance of actual priviledges, is almost as dangerous as to separate actual faith from the Covenant; for the one gives a right as well as the other.

4. Infants in the Old Testament were thus as really to be esteemed in the Covenant as actual vi­sible Believers are now; and under the external ad­ministration of the Covenant, as the Proselytes, who came in to the Jewish Church, and were the first fruits of the Gentiles.

For that there is an external administration of the Covenant of Abraham, or rather of God in Christ, even in the New Testament, is clear; for that many were baptized who proved hypocrites, and many believed visibly likewise, as Simon Magus, Hymenaeus, Alexander, Philetus, &c. many in all the Churches: and yet these must be accounted the spi­ritual seed, though most wicked, because they can profess their own present sudden faith: and poor In­fants of believers must be accounted the carnal seed, though so long under a Gospel promise; of which you shall not want proof hereafter.

Now that all which are baptized, or have any Ordinance, have it administred fundamentally on the ground of the Covenant externally administred, I prove thus.

1. God administers all his graces by Covenant, much more outward Ordinances.

2. Souls can have no challenge, or interest in God, but by some Covenant or other; God is tied to none, but as he ties himself.

3. If there were not a visible and external admi­nistration of the Covenant, none should know of the invisible design of it unto any; all things would be in the dark to us, as to Gods Covenant, in a vi­sible dispensation.

4. If this invisible design were not secretly carried on in an outward visible dispensation, there could be none condemned by an outward rule; for who can condemn these who are intentionally and invisibly [Page 35] in Covenant, or for Re? And if every one visibly in Covenant be intentionally and spiritually in Cove­nant, it's just the same.

The whole is this; None are in Covenant (say they) but real believers, the spiritual seed, so none to be baptized but such: when it comes to appli­cation of the Ordinance, then none are the spiritual seed but visible believers; and these visible believers can be judged by no way but by an external pro­fession to be in Covenant; and Infants are no vi­sible believers, therefore no spiritual seed; when as the one is as visible by promise, as the other by pro­fession.

CHAP. V. Opening that place in Acts 2.39. [...].

THIS Text I first hold forth as fit to discover the New Testament application of the Covenant of grace, and its continuation to believers and their seed, as to Abraham and his in the Old Testament: It's the first Argument used after Christs Ascension, [Page 36] to provoke the Jews to repent, and submit to Go­spel ordinances; and the first open promulgation of the Covenant both to Jew and Gentile, with the prime priviledges of it; in which is contained the Gospel-Covenant made with believers and their seed.

1. Here is ( [...]) the promise; which can be no other then the promise of remission of sins, and so of salvation; sutable to that in Gen. 17.7. and repeated at large in Jer. 31.34. For it must either be a promise of temporal things, or spiritual; of temporal things it cannot be; for there is no ab­solute promise of these things in the New Testament, but as included in, or following spiritual mercies, as Mat. 6.33. Neither is there a syllable in this Chapter pressing men to look after temporal enjoy­ments, or engaging them to embrace the Gospel by any outward emoluments.

Ob. The great and only interpretation of this promise by these that differ, is, that it hath reference to v. 16. and is meant of the promise of the holy Ghost prophesied of by Joel, Chap. 2.28. which was to be poured forth in the latter daies, and now visibly and eminently begun to be fulfilled at the day of Pentecost.

To which the Answer will be clear and fair, though that be granted; and not at all weaken, but strengthen the former sense: For,

1. That promise is a spiritual promise, and more large and comprehensive of spiritual mercies then [Page 37] any other; the promising of the spirit is as much as to promise all at once, graces, gifts, yea Heaven it self, for all are but the fruits of this promise; Christ in the Old Testament, and the Spirit in the New, contain all the promises in an eminency. When Je­sus Christ was to leave the World, and speak all his heart at once, and leave his last blessing, that should be better then his bodily presence among them, he ex­presses all in this, that he would send the Spirit, Joh. 14.16, 26. Ch. 15.26. 16.7. And of this large pro­mise, as well according to Christ's promise before his Ascension, as Joels Prophesy, the Apostles and Believers received the first fruits in this solemn day of Christs triumph: So that to say it's the promise of the Spirit, is as much as to say it's the promise of all spiritual things: For this read in Gal. 3.14. the Apostle speaking of the fruits of Christs death, saith, It was that the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Iesus Christ, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith: The same phrase that is in this 38. And in the promise of the spirit, which is to be received by faith, is included justification, sanctification, yea all graces, and it's here joyned with the blessing of Abraham: But,

2. If they take the promise of the Spirit in a li­mited and restrictive sense, for the external gifts, as the most do, for the gifts of tongues, and miracles, and prophesy, they both clip the promise, and make the argument and comfort from it invalid, and of no efficacy.

[Page 38]1. It's a mighty wrong to that famous promise of the Spirit, to circumscribe it in these accidental gifts which were especially necessary, and almost only for that season: when it's a promise that reacheth all the latter daies, and is still accomplishing, though all these extraordinary gifts are ceased.

2. This straitned sense is expunged by the man­ner of the expressions of that Prophesy, both in Joel, and this in the Acts, I will pour out of my spirit on all flesh, and on your servants and handmaids will I pour out of my spirit: Which shews the universality and variety of the subjects, and blessings in this pro­mise, that it shall be so large and full a mercy, as if there were to be no limitation of its measure.

3. If it were meant meerly of these gifts, why then there is no more benefit of that promise after the Apostles daies, but that Christ was out of date, and did expire with that age; whereas it is a promise made for all the time of the New Testament, which is exprest by the latter daies, and the last daies, up and down the Scripture.

A parallel promise to this you have in Isa. 44.3. I will pour water on him that is thirsty, and floods on the dry ground; I will pour my spirit on thy seed, and my blessing on thy off-spring: Now the promise of the spirit is alwaies appropriated to the New Testament daies.

And secondly, This cannot be the meaning of this phrase, if we consider to whom the Apostle speaks, to persons pricked in their hearts, wounded for [Page 39] their sins in crucifying of Iesus Christ, crying out, v. 37. Men and Brethren, what shall we do to be saved? Now what comfort could this be to tell them they should have extraordinary gifts? their hearts were bleeding under sin, their eye was on salvation, they saw no hopes of it, nor knew the way to obtain it; the Apostle bids them repent and be baptized; they might have said, What shall we be the better? why (saith the Apostle) You shall receive the gift of the holy Ghost; for the promise is unto you: What pro­mise? of gifts, of tongues and miracles: What is this to our souls? how will this save us? might they well object. It would be but a poor comfort to a wounded soul for to tell him of a promise of gifts, not of spiritual grace; and the holy Ghost is a bet­ter Physician then to apply such a raw improper plaister to a wounded heart, which would hardly heal the skin: this promise is brought in as a cordial, to keep them from fainting, and to give them spirits to believe, and lay hold on Jesus Christ: And truly no other promise but that of free grace, in order to salvation, can be imagined to give them comfort in that condition.

But to put all out of question, That the promise prophesied of in Joel, and quoted here, was the pro­mise of salvation, and the same with the Covenant of Grace, Consult the Original in Joel, and the pa­rallel in this of the Acts; in Joel 2.27. the Prophet founds all the promises that went before, and all that come after, on this, That he is the Lord their God, [Page 40] and none else; which was the very express words in that Covenant made with Abraham: And then af­terwards, viz. in the New Testament, to make out this fully, He will pour out his spirit on all flesh, &c. v. 32. which is a part of that prophesy, and is quo­ted again in v. 21. Whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved; one grace put for all; and salvation being put at the end of the promise, must needs be the aim of it. The same expression you have again repeated, Rom. 10.13.

And in the former v. 38. he exhorts them to re­pent, [...], for the remission of sin; the exhortation is to a Gospel duty; the effect and profit of it was to be remission of sins, and receiving the gift of the holy Ghost; and the promise must needs be answerable, by which all is enforced; and it must needs have been a mighty low and dispropor­tionable way of perswasion, to put them upon such high things in the former verse, and to encourage them only by the narration of a promise of some temporary gifts in the following, when their eye and heart was set on remission of sins, and salvation by Jesus Christ; and nothing but a promise holding forth these mercies could have been considerable to them.

And it's very observable, in that verse he joyns remission of sins with the gift of the holy Ghost; and then adds the promise to both, as the ground of one and the other, and comprehending both: And for that expression of Receiving the gift of the holy [Page 41] Ghost, it may well be noted, that it is [...], the free gift; not [...], the gifts of the holy spirit; noting the very sending of the spirit as a free gift to bestow all mercies on them; and so respecting rather the free and bounteous manner of bestowing the holy Ghost on them, then any limited effects of his reception.

By all which it is demonstrated, that this is no or­dinary, common, no temporal promise, or of meer gifts, though never so extraordinary, but a promise of free grace.

I only adde this to all the rest, as undeniable by the principles of these that differ; it's a promise made not only to these Jews, but it's universally to the Gentiles, and to all the called of God: but all that are called have not received such gifts of the holy Ghost which then were given: but every one that is effectually called doth receive the promise of remission of sins, and the free favour of God, and therefore this promise must be taken mainly in that sense.

But the great difficulty is in the following part of the verse, and about the interest of their Children in this promise; and therefore the next work must be to make out this, that the Children as well as the Parents are included in this promise, as they were in the promise made with Abraham.

1. Let us consider to whom the Apostle speaks: to the Jews, who were prickt in their hearts; The promise is to you and your Children: He speaks to [Page 42] them after the wonted manner of expression in the Old Testament, when ever the promise is mentioned; and useth their own language in which they were trained up in from their Fathers; I will be the God of thee and thy seed, Gen. 17. The promise is to you and your Children: If the Apostle had intended to ex­clude their Children from the same priviledges they had formerly by the Covenant, he would never have spoken in such a known dialect of the Old Testa­ment; and to Jews, who could take it in no other sense but this, that the promise shall run as formerly, to them and their seed.

2. Let us mind on what ground this is brought in, viz. as an argument and strong inducement of them to repent and be baptized, as in the former verse; for the promise is to you and your seed: He en­courageth them from this to receive the Ordinance of Baptism themselves, for the promise was still the same to them and their Children; only now they must first believe and be baptized themselves, ere their Children could be considered in the promise: If the Apostle had not intended to hold forth to them now believing and being baptized, and their Children, the same priviledges they had before as to the promise, it would have been the greatest delu­sion instead of an argument to perswade them to be baptized on this ground, because the promise was to them and their Children; they had been rather de­ceived by it then enlightned; and stumbled by such a proposition more then informed of a New Testa­ment administration.

[Page 43]3. Upon what hinge can this Exhortation turn? where is the vertue and strength it hath to move them to be baptized themselves, but on this con­sideration, that they should not only enjoy blessings themselves, through the promise, but their Children with them? The promise to them was enough for themselves to submit to that Ordinance: but the height of the enforcement is from the riches of the promise, that it was not only to them, but their Children; they might bless themselves and theirs by submitting to the Gospel; else to put in the name of their Children speaking to the Jews, was but to lay a temptation before them, and rather to puzzle them then encourage them: And doubtless the Holy Ghost would never in the first opening of the Go­spel, and encouraging souls to embrace it, use such a language and expression that might deceive those he spake unto: for what could the Jews imagine or conceive upon such a discovery, but that if they themselves did repent and were baptized, the pro­mise should be the same in the N. T. to them and their Children, as it was formerly to Abraham, upon his believing and being circumcised, to him and his seed? there being no expression the Jews were so accustomed to, and more delighted in, then that of the promise to them and their Children: And but to mention their Children with the promise, if it was not meant to hold forth that they were still in the promise, was sufficient to have deceived them, who were never instructed in any other method: [Page 44] The great design of the Apostle was to open the N. T. promise, and by that to encourage the poor wounded Jews to repent and be baptized: And that they might have no cloud on their apprehensions, or dis­couragement, he utters it in lingua vernacula, in the phrase the promise was always exprest in the Old Te­stament.

4. If the intent of the Apostle were not to hold forth the sameness and identity of the priviledge of the promise to the Jews and Gentiles now believing, as was formerly; he would never have mentioned Children when he mentions Baptism, and especially not in the same line with the promise made to the Pa­rents; and with one breath express the promise to both, and make that the strength of his argument to put them on the practice of that Ordinance: And doubtless it had not been so candid a way, nor sutable to the simplicity of the Gospel, to tell them of their Children, just when he tels them of being baptized themselves; and name them immediatly with the pro­mise, if the design was utterly to exclude them both from the promise and Baptism. I have been the longer inculcating these considerations, because there is much in them, and engaged persons can slightly pass over the most eminent places with a meer glance.

Ob. But it's objected, That the latter clause, ( [...]) As many as the Lord shall call, is a limitation of the verse, and no more are under the promise; and so Children, if God shall call them, shall also enjoy the promise.

Sol. For answer to this last Objection, which is the strength of their confidence from this place, we must consider these particulars.

1. That in this verse you have an exact distribution of the world into Jew and Gentile, according to the usual distribution in other Scriptures; the Gentiles being usually called these afar off, and the promise equally distributed among; only he adds (as many as the Lord shall call) to these which are afar, as most proper in that place: but it can in no sense be re­ferred to the former part of the verse, either to Pa­rents or Children: For,

1. He changes the tense in both parts of the verse; in the first part unto the Jews, he speaks de praesenti, of the present application of the promise; Repent you, and be baptized—for the promise is to you and your Children; even now the promise is offered to you; and they were then under the call of God: But when he speaks of the Gentiles, because they were yet afar off, and not at all called, he speaks de futuro, as many as God shall call, even of them also; which is the first express hint of the calling of the Gentiles in all the Acts of the Apostles.

2. How unequal would the distribution be of this verse, not sutable to the laws of expression among rational men? If As many as the Lord shall call, should be a limitation to the former part of the verse, [Page] the word, Children, must needs be redundant and su­perfluous; for Jews and Gentiles comprehend all the world. Now Children must either be one part of the world, or comprehended under one or both names, or be a distinct world by themselves, neither Jews nor Gentiles: And this must needs follow on such a read­ing of the words; for the design of the Apostle is to hold forth the freeness of the promise to Jew and Gentile, and their Children; to these Jews at pre­sent, to the Gentiles and their Children when God should call the Parents, as he did these Jews. Now put Children by themselves, as a third party, and add whom the Lord shall call, and you exclude them from being either Jews or Gentiles, and so excommunicate them from any hopes of calling, or being saved: Now this is,

1. Contrary to that known rule in Logick, That Omnis bona distributio debet esse bimembris; only of two members, and these opposite one to another; to bring in a third marrs all. So that it is most clear, the words must be understood as they are translated; The promise is to you Jews, and your Children at present, and to those afarre off also, and their Children, when God shall call them; else calling can with no sense be applied to any tittle of the former part of the verse, without you make it monstrous, and unlike it self.

2. It's against another rule about distribution, [Page] which is, That Partes divisionis ambulent aequali passu, That the parts of a distribution should be equally set together. Now here will be a mighty inequality, as to the communication of the promise; if the words should be taken in their sense, the Jews will have a greater priviledge then the Gentiles, if Children be not equally added to both; the Jews had the promise made to them and their Children at present; these afar off shall only have the promise to themselves, but not their Children.

3. Consider how comes this word (your Children) to be kept in, for what end and use, if it were not to shew some special priviledge they have with their Pa­rents, when God cals or converts the Parent? what stands it for but a stone of offence to conscientious hearts?

CHAP. VI. Their great Plea from Mat. 3.8, 9. con­cerning John the Baptists Speech to the Pharisees and Sadduces, made vain, and that Text cleared from mistakes.

THAT we may still take off the main Objecti­ons, let us view that place so much stood on, Mat. 3.7, 8, 9. When John saw many of the Pha­risees and Sadduces come to his Baptism, he saith, 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 say within your selves we have Abraham to our Father; for I say that God is able of these stones to raise up Children to Abraham. From this Text they gather, that the pretence of be­ing Abrahams Children could not give them a right to Baptism; and if John denied Abrahams natural seed on that account, much more would he the a­dopted Children.

That this is no such ominous place against Infant-Baptism, Consider,

1. Who they were he speaks unto, the Pharisees and Sadduces, men at age, and degenerated from Abrahams faith, persons that lived on their own works and righteousness; therefore he cals them [Page 46] [...], A generation of Vipers; which was not as they were Abrahams Children, but as they had not walked in Abrahams steps, but were quite degenerated: Thus he did not refuse them because Abraham was their Father, or upon that account that Abrahams seed had not right to the promise; but as only pretending Abraham to be their Father, when they walkt contrary to the principles of Abra­hams faith.

2. This is the same now as to grown visible Pro­fessors, who have related their faith to the Church, and so are baptized upon that account of faith and repentance; yet if afterwards they grow carnal and apostate, and if such should come to receive the Lords Supper, and challenge it because they are baptized, we might say the same as Iohn to the Pharisees and Sadduces; Do not think to say that you are bapti­zed, 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 persons; and yet it doth nothing at all impeach the truth of this position, That Believers and their Infants are in Co­venant, and ought to be judged so until they manifest the contrary; or that if they believed themselves af­terwards, the promise should not be unto them and their Children: And that Text holds not no more then this, That when persons are grown up to years, and come to understanding, they must then stand on their right, and look to make out personal qualifica­tions for new Ordinances.

[Page 47]3. This was at the first institution of the Ordi­nance, when Baptism was newly administred: Now new institutions (as before) require grown persons, and actual visible believers to be the first subject of them; they could not baptize their Children first; for then the Parents would be neglected; and the bringing in of a new Ordinance requires renewing of special acts in these which partake first of it; as if an old Lease which is made in the name of a man and his Children, be at such a season to be renewed upon some certain terms, the man himself must come, and acknowledge his owning these terms, and then it is to him and his, as before: So now in the New Te­stament God renews the Covenant of Abraham, adds a new initiating seal to it; it was before en­tail'd in such a line, which is cut off; it's now of the same nature, only every one must come in his own person first, as Abraham, and enter his own name, and then the promise is to him and his seed: Thus it was in the former place, where when the Jews came to be baptized, they were exhorted first to repent and be baptized themselves; then the pro­mise is to you and your Children: So that this we af­firm,

1. That no man must be baptized, or receive an Ordinance by any fleshly prerogative; but where there is an entail of a promise, there is a spiritual ground of administration.

2. That no person grown up to years of under­standing, hath right to a sealing Ordinance, but upon his own personal qualifications.

[Page 48]3. That persons may have present capacities, and visible right to Ordinances, and yet afterwards cut off themselves, and be found incapable, as Ishmael; and here the Pharisees and Sadduces.

4. That the exception of some persons, upon the account of their degeneration, and personal defects, doth not hinder but the old priviledges of the pro­mise may be conveyed to these which do really em­brace the Gospel, and to their seed; all these are undeniable in themselves: And this Text reacheth no further then to the exclusion of these which had de­monstrated themselves to be only the Children of the flesh, and not of the promise also; which is a demon­stration only à posteriori, from their after actings; and teacheth us that these that boast in outward pri­viledges, without looking after personal qualificati­ons, and holy frames within, may be as well judged carnal, as Heathens and prophane persons.

CHAP. VII. That special place in 1 Cor. 7.14. opened, and argued; Else were your Children unclean, but now they are holy.

THIS place of Scripture, though it seems to stand by it self, yet hath full correspondence and harmony with all other places in the N. T. con­cerning this truth. As the former did hold forth the promise, the Covenant to Believers and their Chil­dren, in distinction from all the world: so doth this leave a character of special qualifications sutable to a subject of such an Ordinance; and when the pro­mise and the qualification shall meet together, there is enough for to capacitate to any Ordinance.

The Apostle is in this verse answering a scruple which might arise in the hearts of the Corinthians concerning abiding together of married persons; the one being a Convert, and a Believer; the other, whether man or woman, an Unbeliever; as it was a common case in the Apostles times, the Husband might be converted, the Wife not; and the Wife converted, and not the Husband; the Word work­ing on the one, not on the other: this begat a doubt in the believing Party, whether he or she might with a good conscience live together in that state.

The Apostle answers it, ver. 12, 13. positively, That they ought not to separate, or leave each other, notwithstanding that the one was an Unbeliever: And he gives in this ver. 14. a strong and peculiar ar­gument, which he makes instar omnium; for the un­believing Husband is sanctified in the believing Wife, &c. Else were your Children unclean, but now they are holy.

The scope of the Apostle here is to hold forth some special Gospel-priviledge annexed to the state: and he frames his argument by no ordinary medium, of the lawfulness of the marriage according to a na­tural, moral or positive rule, but à majori, from an eminent advantage they had together in the Go­spel: For,

1. The unbelieving Husband is sanctified in, or, to, or by the Wife.

2. The Children in such a state are holy, as if they had been both believers.

That the Apostle holds out a Gospel-priviledge, not common to meer unbelievers in their marriage state, is clear;

1. Because the Apostle puts the advantage on the believers side, and there fixeth it; the unbelieving Husband is sanctified in the Wife, as belie­ving; and so contrarily, the unbelieving Wife in the Husband: So Beza affirms, that in two special Copies he finds the words thus read, [...]: neither can it hold sense with the former words but as thus read: And if it had not [Page 51] been the Apostles proper meaning to shew the spe­cial priviledge the believing party hath notwith­standing the unbeliever, he would have only said, the Husband is sanctified to the Wife, and the Wife to the Husband; that would have been the plainest and least ambiguous expression of such a sentence: and the Apostle would never have made an argument of four terms, when three could only satisfie; for all know, that an argument with four terms is most de­ceitful and false.

2. The Apostle doth use higher terms and phrases in this argument, then is ever used in Scripture to ex­press a meer lawfull or common priviledge; as to be sanctified in the Wife, and the Children to be holy; expressions of another dialect then to hold forth a civil, or natural, or legal conjunction; being singled out in Scripture, to hold forth the best state of per­sons and things, in relation to God and his use.

And the Apostle useth two terms, both negative and affirmative; they are not unclean, but holy; the opening of the use of which two words will clear the point under consideration.

The word here ( [...]) unclean, in the Old Testament, is commonly used for those legal polluti­ons and uncleannesses which made men to be sepa­rated from the Congregation, and excommunicated from the priviledge of Ordinances, until they were washed and sanctified: Thus in Levit. 5.2, 3, 4. Chap. 7.19. & 14.7, 8. Isa. 52.1. Hag. 2.13. with many other places, where unclean is opposed to a [Page 52] present sutable capacity for Church-priviledges: But that famous place in Acts 10.14. shews it most clear what the proper use of this word is; he joyns it there with what is common or prophane: When the vi­sion came to him of eating all sorts of Creatures, he saith, Not so Lord; for I have not eaten any thing that is common or unclean ( [...]) This vision was about his going to Cornelius to open the Gospel to him, and bring him into the Church who was a Gen­tile, and so common and unclean, not fit for Gospel-priviledges, as the Jews were thought to be. Now in a civil sense things that are common are not un­clean; but in a religious sense, what is common is ad­judged unclean: Now Cornelius being a Gentile, without the pale of the Jewish Church, he cals him common and unclean, as all the Gentiles were before they came under the promise: but God answered, What God hath clensed, or sanctified, call not thou com­mon: Cornelius was not a Bastard, nor unlawfully be­gotten; but he was not accounted a fit member, he was without the Church; therefore the Apostle cals him common and unclean: Just in the same phrase with the Apostle here, when he saith that Children are not unclean, he must needs mean they are not of common use, or to be excluded from outward pri­viledges of the Church: But that is not all, but he positively saith they are (holy) [...]; not only [...], not unclean: And this latter word is most used to express the Hebrew word [...], which ever signifies what is usui Divino accommodatum, that [Page 53] which is appropriated to a Divine use; which is the proper notion of holiness in the Old and New Testa­ment, and never taken otherwise: For the proof of which, I have compared above three hundred places in the Old Testament according to the Septuagint, and all the N. T. places where the word is used. And this all do grant, even Mr. Tombes himself, that the word generally is taken in Scripture to express a separation of things to God, and he only brings these places wherein he thinks there is another use of it. 1 Tim. 4.5. Every Creature of God is good, and not to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving; for it is sanctified by the Word and Prayer ( [...]) Hence, saith he, is meant only the lawful use of the Creature, in opposition to what is to be refused. It is a wonder, but that God leaves men to blindness when they leave truth, how any man of common understan­ding, finding the Word holy & sanctified, alwaies used in a religious sense, should fly to this place to make an exception. The Apostle saith first, Every Crea­ture which God hath made is good in it self; and none to be refused: that is, all may be lawfully used without any legal pollution, as formerly: But then he goes higher, speaking of a religious use of outward things; They are sanctified by the Word and Prayer; they are all good, and lawful in their use to every man: but they are only sanctified by these holy means, the Word and Prayer. And he might have as well said, that the Word and Prayer are not holy means, but only law­ful to be used; as that the sanctification which is by [Page 54] the Word and Prayer, is to make the Creatures only lawful to be used. If a wicked man eat his meat with­out seeking a blessing on it, or giving thanks, will any one say that he hath not a lawful use of the Crea­ture? but any man may say, it's not sanctified to him. The Apostle in these 2. ver. goes on gradatim, by degrees, from a lawful use to a holy use of the Creatures; All is good, and may be used, but they are sanctified by the Word and Prayer: thus you see the nature of this priviledged place.

But the main place Mr. Tombes alledgeth for ho­liness to be used for what is barely civil or lawful, is that 1 Thes. 4.3, 4, 7. This is the will of God, your sanctification, that you abstain from fornication, and let every one possess his vessel in sanctification and ho­nour; for God hath not called us to uncleanness, but holiness. Here uncleanness is taken, saith he, for for­nication, and holiness for chastity.

To which I answer with Mr. Marshal, That cha­stity among the Heathens is never called sanctifica­tion, but among Believers it is, being a part of the new Creation, and one branch and part of their san­ctification wrought by the Spirit of God. And though Mr. Tombes saith this is but a shift, yet he shall see it demonstrative, if he observe the phrases in the Text, and the nature of sanctification; in the 1, & 2. ver. the Apostle beseecheth and exhorteth them to walk as they had received from him how to walk, and to please God according to the rules of Iesus Christ; and he urgeth it in ver. the 3. with this; [Page 55] It's the will of God, even your sanctification, that is, that you should walk in all holiness, sutable to the bles­sed rules of the Gospel, and as one part and expression of holiness, to abstain from sin: And he instanceth specially in fornication, which was the common and reigning sin among the Gentiles: So that if you view the place you shall find, That

1. He speaks of sanctification in general, in its full latitude, ver. 3. as sutable to all the will and mind of God; This is the will of God, even your sanctification; that is, it is Gods command, and Gods delight to see you sanctified: then he brings in abstinence from fornication (the sin of the times) as one part of that holiness God requires: For sanctification may be considered as it lies in vivification, or in mortifica­tion, which for distinctions sake we may call the two parts of sanctification. Now chastity in it self, as in the Heathens and natural men, is not properly a part of sanctification; some other Epithite becomes it better: Would Mr. Tombes call all the abstinencies and actings of the Heathens by the name of sanctifi­cations, and speak like a Christian and a Divine? Would it be proper to say in his Pulpit (when he was speaking of the nature of holiness and chastity) san­ctified Socrates, holy Aristides? And can he think the Apostle would express that which is common among Heathens, in such a high Gospel-dialect as sanctifi­cation is appropriated alwaies in Scripture to God, Angels, Saints, and their highest graces and work­ings, and to things raised above common use, de­dicated [Page 56] to God and his service, but that he meant it according as the whole tenure of Scripture defines holiness? How much will the phrase of holiness and sanctification be debased and made common, if that sense should be admitted, contrary to the Scripture use of the Word? But that is a weak case that puts men to such extraordinary shifts to maintain.

But to go on a little further; The same word is used by the Apostle in all his salutations, and inscri­ptions of his Epistles to all the Churches; [...], to the Saints or holy ones at Rome, at Corinth, Ga­latia, Ephesus, &c. which when appropriated to per­sons, alwaies signifies a visible Saint: So here, when he cals Children of believing Parents holy, he cannot but mean they are to be accounted as visible Saints, until they do profess the contrary; and I know no reason can be given why the meaning of the Apostle in his Epistles, when he writes [...], to the Saints, should not be as well understood written only to the legitimate, and those that are not bastards at Rome, Corinth, &c. as well as for them to inter­pret the same word so in this place: For [...], when applied to grown men, must signifie visible and Evan­gelical holiness, and must be translated Saints: but when applied to Children, it must only signifie legi­timacy, that they are not Bastards; when all men know, that magis & minus non variant speciem; and the word is of the same import in every place of the New Testament.

Ob. If any shall be so critical as Mr. Tombes is, [Page 57] to enquire how they can be said to be holy: what ho­liness is here meant, whether inherent, or imputative, or visible?

Sol. I answer, It's a holiness of special separa­tion to God, and his use, as a peculiar people: Some call it a federal holiness, from the ground of the pri­viledge; others an Ecclesiastical, or Church holiness, from the account and esteem the Church ought to have of such Children: but the first more fully answers the largest use of the word in Scripture. As for In­fants,

1. They are capable of inherent holiness.

2. They are in Covenant, as we have proved, and so have a holy relation on them.

3. They are capable of separation to Gods use from the womb, and so of being holy to God.

4. By the same reason we account grown men holy, we may account Infants of believers holy; for these that make a profession, may have no inward and inherent holiness; and a bare profession is not ho­liness; we only account them holy by a judicious cha­rity; and we are often deceived, and have cause to repent of our judgements: Infants may be inwardly sanctified, and God hath taken them into the Cove­nant with their Parents, and would have us look on them as separated to himself; which is ground e­nough to build our charity on, as to esteem them holy, as grown persons. There is no difference but this in it; That concerning the holiness of persons at age, we trust our own judgements; and in judging [Page 58] of Infants we trust Gods Word, who hath com­prehended them under the promise with their Pa­rents; there hath been as many deceits in the event, in our judgement of those of riper years, as in that which is acted through a mixture of faith and charity on Infants. And Gods promise, though never so in­definite, is a surer ground for hope, then my pro­bable judgement; which is the most I can have of the generality of Professors of riper years.

Q. But if any one say further, What is this to Baptism? here is no mention of it in this place.

Sol. It's true, Baptism is not mentioned here; but here is mention of a qualified subject for Baptism, which is all that is contended for: And if the Apostle had said they were believers, then these of the con­trary opinion would conclude, here is enough for Baptism; but it's all one, in that he cals them holy, which you see is more then legitimate; and you may translate it with as much propriety, Else were your Children impure, but now they are Saints; that is, so to be esteemed through Gods Covenant, as if they had professed their own faith.

Lastly, As it would be most absurd to imagine the Apostle should use a pure religious word to ex­press a common and ordinary priviledge: so there would be no considerable medium for augmentation in that sense, and no such force in [...] (else were, &c.) which hath force from the specialness of the priviledge to their issue, not only to be lawfully begotten, as the Children of unbelievers are, when [Page 59] lawfully married: but to be in a peculiar state of se­paration to God, and to be accounted fit members with the believing Parent of the visible Church of Christ.

And what a poor and cold answer, as to comfort, would it be, when the believer was scrupled about abiding with his or her unbelieving yoke-fellow, to tell them, Continue together; for your Children shall not be Bastards: but how full of strength and sweet­ness must it be, if taken in the contrary sense? Re­main with your yoke-fellows, though unbelievers; they are sanctified to you, and you shall notwith­standing bring forth a holy seed; a seed of God, as the Old Testament expression; in Covenant, as if you were both believers: this sounds like a medium most demonstrative and consolatory, both for sa­tisfaction and comfort: What plainer testimonie, or fairer character can be written to shew the qua­lification of Infants of believers, then to write them holy, and give them the same name that is given to Christ, and Saints in Heaven and Earth?

CHAP. VIII. The Harmonie that notable Chapter, Rom. 11. hath with the former Scriptures; the 15, 16, 17, verses especially o­pened.

THAT the Adversaries of this truth may see we want not a harmonie of Scriptures to con­firm our judgement, the next place to be considered of is that, Rom. 11. especially ver. 15, 16, 17. of that Chapter; which if well weighed, will demonstrate the holiness and Church-membership of the Children of believing Gentiles, as much as of the Jews Children that descended naturally from Abra­ham.

The scope of the whole Chapter is to discover the breaking off, or casting away of the Jewish Na­tion from being a Church, and the priviledge the Gentiles get by this, & their ingraffing into the same root; and the promise of the restauration of the Jews again, when the fulness of the Gentiles should come in; and every one of these exprest with va­riety of notions, and interlined with many cautions concerning Gods actings in this great dispensation. Concerning the full explication of this Chapter, Mr. Cobbet and Mr. Baxter have done worthily, and [Page 61] have with much clearness argued for Infants Church-membership from it. I shall onely for methods sake, and your satisfaction, open the main and most controverted terms in this Chapter concerning this subject. As,

1. What this breaking off, or casting away of the Jews imports, and from what they are broken off; from the visible or invisible Church, v. 15.

2. What is meant by the first fruits, and the lump, and the root, and the branches; and how it can be affirmed, that if the root be holy, so are the branches, v. 16.

3. What this ingraffing is, and how the Gentiles are said to be ingraffed, and to be partakers of the fatness of the Olive, v. 17. For the first, This casting off, and breaking off, is not from the invisible, but the visible Church.

1. This will maintain falling away from grace, and please the Arminians, the great Enemies of the Gospel of free grace: but this the Apostle prevents, ver. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. by anticipation of that Objection, distinguishing the Elect, and himself as one of them, from being cast off: I say then, hath God cast away his people whom he foreknew? God forbid. I also am an Israelite, &c. If the casting off meant here was from the invisible Church, then Paul and the other Elect among the Jews were cast off from that Church; but God forbid, saith Paul, v. 5. there is a remnant at this present time according to the election of grace, whereof Paul was one; therefore it must be from [Page 62] the visible Church they were broken off: But here the Arminians and Pelagians agree with these that are against Infant-baptism, as they do in many other opinions. Mr. Tombes hath nothing to say in his Examen of Mr. Marshals Sermon, to avoid this ab­surdity, but only this, pag. 64.

The meaning is not (saith he) of some of the branches in the invisible Church; but as when our Saviour Christ using the same similitude, saies, Joh. 15.2. Every branch in me not bearing fruit, he taketh away: The meaning is, not that any branch in him could be fruitless, or taken away; but he calleth that a branch in him, which was so in appearance: so the Apostle speaking of branches broken off, means it not of such as were truly so, but so in appearance. Thus far he.

Which is a granting of what he denies; for to be a branch in appearance, is only to be a visible branch; and no branch that is meerly in appearance so, and not really, is one of the invisible Church, nor can ever be said to be broken from it, but only from his vi­sible state which he hath but ( [...]) v. 15, 16. as a branch in outward priviledges, and seeming graces.

2. The breaking off, &c. it was of the Jewish Nation, of the collective body, though not of every individual, and therefore it must needs be from the visible Church; for as a Nation they were a Church, and the whole Nation was cast away and rejected; now as a Nation they were not all members of the invisible Church, ver. 7, 8. with ver. 17.

[Page 63]3. It's a visible breaking off, therefore cannot be from the invisible Church, ver. 3, 4, 5. 17, 18, 19. For as Mr. Baxter well observes, There can be no vi­sible removing from an invisible term.

4. It's a breaking off the naturall branches, so he cals the Jews: Now the body of the Jewish Church were not naturall branches in a spiritual sense; for they believed not as Abraham did; but only called so as they were naturally descended from his loyns, and were members of the visible Church, and first partakers of the outward priviledges of the Covenant made with him: Thus the Apostle distinguisheth of the body of the Jewish Nation, Rom. 9. where after he had reckoned up all the priviledges of the Israelites in general, ver. 4. Who are Israelites, to whom pertains the adoption and the glory, and the Covenants, &c. ma­king way by this to shew the sadness of their rejecti­on, in ver. the 6. to prevent the same Objection, the Apostle in this Chapter saith, They are not all Israel which are of Israel; that is, not all spiritual, though all natural brances; and these priviledges did visibly belong to all. As for that distinction of Abrahams being a natural and a spiritual Father, it may go for currant until they come to apply it, and then it is most vain; for all that came from Abraham as a na­tural Father, had a title to all these priviledges fore­mentioned, which belonged to the visible Church until they did degenerate, and cast themselves out, as Ishmael and Esau, &c. But of this formerly.

Lastly, If they were broken off from the invisible [Page 64] Church, it must be either from union with Christ, or communion with Christ and his Spirit; for this is the true definition of the invisible Church, that in it souls have real union and communion with God in Christ through the Spirit: but none of the Jews that were broken off had such a union or communion, and therefore could not be broken off from it: But so far they may be said to be broken off from the in­visible Church, as by remote consequence, as they were excluded from all the means of grace, and the Ordinances; which are the usual waies and methods of God to bring souls into communion with him­self.

2. Let us consider what is meant by the first fruits, and the lump, and the root, and the branches: There be many opinions concerning this, especially two must be debated; some think it Christ, as these that follow Origen and the allegorical Fathers: Ego aliam san­ctam radicem nescio, nisi Do­minum no­strum. Origen. But that firstly and primarily by the first fruits, and the lump, and the root, and the bran­ches, cannot be meant Christ neither personally nor mystically, is most clear if we con­sider,

1. Jesus Christ was not the first fruits in regard of the whole lump of the Jewish Nation, and so can­not answer to the first similitude.

2. Jesus Christ cannot be said to be root unto these which were cast away; no branches really in him are cut off, but so were they; for that place of [Page 65] the 15 ^th of John, v. 2. which seemeth to speak of some branches which are in Christ, and yet are taken away for not bearing fruit: it may be better read, and according to the Syriack, thus; Every branch that brings not forth fruit in me, he takes away; that is, that do bring forth some seeming fruit, but not as in Christ as root and principle.

3. In ver. 24. the Jews when they shall be called, it's said, They shall be graffed into their own Olive: Now Christ is not properly their own Olive, but so is Abraham, &c.

4. The Jews are said (as formerly) to be na­tural branches of this root, but so they were not of Christ; but Christ was a natural branch from that stock, Rom. 9.5. Whose are the Fathers; of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came.

Mr. Tombes himself ingenuously confesseth this, pag. 67. of his Examen, That by the root cannot be meant Christ; and gives us the hint of another ar­gument from those expressions, v. 24. of some bran­ches, wild [...], according to nature; and of in­graffing in, [...], contrary to nature, into this Olive; he concludes the root cannot be Christ: for Christ hath no natural or preternatural branches in him; all are wild ere they be ingraffed into him as a living root: And the other expression, v. 18. of our not bearing the root, but the root us, if we boast against the Jews, doth evidently demonstrate, that the root here is not properly meant of Christ, though he be the eternal root of all spiritual happiness, [Page 66] set forth gloriously in many other places of Scri­pture.

Others by the root mean the Covenant: But the best and most genuine sense is to interpret it of Abra­ham; with whom, and with his seed as so many branches, the Covenant was made, and by which both the root and the branches were made holy: And this answers fully to both the similitudes. For,

1. It's an allusion to the Legal rights about the first fruits which were to be offered up to God; and by that all the whole mass, all the fruits that came after were accounted holy: Thus Abraham was the first fruits of the Jews: he believing first, and being in Covenant, all the lump, the whole body of the Jewish Nation were taken in to be a Church, and were accounted holy.

2. As a root it answers to him from whom all the Jews sprang up, and from whom they drew all their Church priviledges, as their breath: Thus the Lord by the Prophet in Isa. 51.1, 2. bids the Jews to look to the rock out of which they were hewen, and the pit out of which they were digged: he means it of Abraham first, as appears by the second verse; Look to Abraham your Father, and to Sarah that bare you; for I called him alone, and blessed and increased him, &c.

Ob. But what kind of consequence is this? and how doth the Apostle make use of this? If the first fruits be holy, so is the lump; and if the root be holy, so are the branches: From what principle doth the Apostle argue?

Sol. The Apostle in the former verse speaks of a receiving in again of the Jewish Nation, and brings in this as a ground to hope for it, There is yet a holy root which hath an influence on the branches; and ar­gues, that if the root be holy, when the branches broken off shall be re ingraffed, they shall be holy likewise. The like phrase you have in v. 28. As touching the Gospel, they are enemies for your sake; but as touching the Election, they are beloved, [...], for their Fathers sake; God having so cast his Election, as to run in that vein most eminently: And some do render it, They are beloved through their Fathers: But this is clear;

1. That Abraham, or as some say, Abraham, Isaac and Iacob were the root.

2. That he argues from the holiness of the root, to the holiness of the branches; that is, from them as Parents, to their posterity as Branches.

3. That this was an usual and common principle of arguing in Scripture, from the Parent to the Po­sterity; for else he had spoken in the dark, and had proved notum per ignotius, if they could not uni­versally reason from it; and if you observe, he writes it as an Axiom of the greatest demonstration, and never stands to prove it further.

4. It had been an argument of no force for to prove the calling in of the Jews, and their happy state upon re-ingraffing, to tell them, If the root be holy, so are the branches; and they are beloved for the Fa­thers sake, if there were not a virtue still in the root [Page 68] to derive holiness to them, when they should be re­ceived in, and ingraffed to their own Olive; he laies all the weight on the root, being still holy and fresh, though the branches be broken off. And what can you make of this as to argumentation? If the root be holy, Ergo the branches: and apply it to Persons, and Parents, but in a moral and imputative considera­tion.

Ob. But holiness is not propagated by nature, from the Parent to his Child; and we all derive sin by nature from our Parents; and are, as the Apostle saith, Eph. 2.2. by nature the Children of wrath, &c. and as David saith, Conceived in sin.

Sol. 1. It's true, we are so; and there is no ho­liness propagated by nature, take it for internal ha­bits; as a wise man doth not convey his wisedome, or a vertuous man his vertues to his Child, neither can a Believer convey his faith and other graces to his Child; and in this sense Abraham is not a root, he begets no Believer; and under this consideration the argument cannot hold; Abraham in this sense is only a root, [...], exemplary only; Christ is [...], effectually, to convey similar graces: But,

2. There is a holiness by gratious estimation or imputation, which flows from Gods Covenant, or some special priviledge given to such a stock, or kin­dred, or Nation; God taking such a family, such a stock, and separates it to himself for some holy use, and so blesseth them: And thus it was with Abra­ham, [Page 69] and is most common in the Scriptures, and ac­cording to the nature of priviledges among men, where the son of a Freeman is free, and the son of a Nobleman a Nobleman; and by way of allusion, (though it doth not hold in all particulars) as in ju­stification, Christs righteousness is imputed, and we accounted holy by it: So as to some special privi­ledges, the root, the Parent being holy, and in the Covenant, his Child hath the advantage of it; not meritoriously from the Parents faith, but virtually through Gods gracious promise to the Believer and his seed. But,

3. This is not by natural generation, for then it should be to all Children; but by grace and pro­portion; it's Gods good pleasure thus to derive the priviledge, and out of special respect to the Parents; and to encourage them in their own faith, and strengthen them in their hopes concerning their seed: thus did God choose out Abraham and his family from all the world, and blessed him; yet it was not from nature his seed were more blessed then all the world besides. But as Dr. Willet saith well on this place, The branches are holy because of this holy root; not by an actual and inherent holiness, but by a pre­rogative of grace grounded on the promise of God made to believing Fathers and their seed; which is the same in the New Testament as in the Old; and in this sense the argument is strong, and enforcing the scope of the Apostle. So that though the generation be na­tural, the derivation of a Title to Church priviledges, [Page 70] and the characteristical note of holiness is given them by grace in the Covenant, which takes in the branches with the root. In no sense besides can this argument be true, without you make the root Christ: which you see cannot be meant in this place without great absurdities.

The third and special term to be opened, is, what this ingraffing is of the Gentiles into the root, and how they are ingraffed? v. 17, 19.

For the understanding of this, Mr. Marshal hath laid down a sure position, which neither Mr. Tombes, who is the most learned Adversary of this Truth, nor any other hath or can shake; and that is, That the ingraffing in of the Gentiles must be sutable to the break­ing off the Jews; as they were broken off, so are we in­graffed: This the Apostle clearly proves in every verse. In v. 17. Thou being a wild Olive, speaking of the Gentiles collectively considered, wert ingraffed, [...], in, amongst them; so Grotius translates it, Positus es inter ramos illius arboris, Thou art set a­mong the branches of that tree; and so referring to the first words of the verse, which is implyed, that some remained still; for but some of the branches were broken off, and the Gentile-believers were in­oculated among them, and by a special adoption were partakers of the same priviledges; according to that of the Poet Ovid: ‘Venerit insitio: fac ramum, ramus adoptet.’ But the best reference is to the former part of the [Page 71] verse, as it speaks of these branches which were bro­ken off; the believing Gentiles were ingraffed, ( [...]) that is, as Beza and the Syriack translates it, pro ipsis, for them, that is, in ramorum defractorum locum, in the room or stead of the branches which were broken off; they were taken away, we ingraf­fed: Others translate it, cum illis, with them, which remained when we were inserted: but either inter­pretation will become the sense of the place.

Now the reasons which flow from this Text con­cerning the subject which we have in hand, may be easier slighted then answered: This position being laid down, We believing Gentiles are ingraffed into Abrahams Covenant, in the room of the natural bran­ches which were broken off: Now,

1. The Jews and their Children were broken off from the Church, their Children being members as well as themselves: therefore believing Gentiles and their Children are ingraffed in, the ingraffing in is sutable to the breaking off: they have nibbled about this reason; but the best of the Adversaries have never said any thing yet, as to satisfie a rational Saint.

2. Some branches were not broken off; for so it's implyed in that he saith, If some were broken off; and if they were not broken off, then not their Children; for it was not only a breaking off per­sonally, but of succession, and of their posterity with themselves: Now if we be ingraffed among these, or with these that are not broken off, we and our [Page 72] Children must likewise be ingraffed in; else there will be a schism between Jew and Gentile, in en­joying the priviledges naturally flowing from the same root: No man will be so bold as to say, that the believing Jews were broken off; and if not they, then not their Children which were then Infants, and had not acted unbelief: For either they must be broken off for their own sins, or their Fathers; not for their Fathers, for some of them were Believers, and not broken off; not for themselves, for some of them were Infants; therefore some Infants were not broken off; for their Fathers continued in the faith; and we believing Gentiles are ingraffed in among them; therefore our Children also.

3. In the latter end, when the Jews shall be in­graffed in again to their own Olive, which is pro­mised in this Chapter, they and their Children shall be taken in, v. 26. And so all Israel shall be saved; and our ingraffing in is still sutable to theirs.

4. The Gentiles are said to partake of the root, and the fatness of the Olive tree, in the same verse: this ( [...]) signifies the full participa­tion and fellowship in all the priviledges and advan­tages of the root, as the Jews had. Now their pri­viledge was not personal to themselves, but to their posterity; and therein lay the fatness of that Olive, in the fulness and large extent of its priviledge and seminal vertue, that it comprehended Parent and Child. So that as the Jews casting off was not only personal, but Politique, that is, of them and theirs; [Page 73] so our ingraffing in their room is; and as they had the fatness of the root and Olive once, so have we: Now we could not be said to be, ( [...]) To have a mutual fellowship with the Jews in the root and fatness of it, if we be only personally ingraffed, and they and theirs broken off oeconomically; if there be a fellowship, it must be at least in substantials: And this was the most eminent and substantial priviledge of the Jews, that they and their posterity were taken into the same Covenant: The Apostle opens this further in Eph 3.6.

And especially, if we remember, that their break­ing off, and our ingraffing, is into the visible Church, as is formerly proved, and must needs be granted; for all that were broken off, were not broken off from election, and the invisible Church; neither are all the Gentiles which are ingraffed in, elected, and really of the invisible Church. So that the result is this;

1. That there is a real ingraffing of the believing Gentiles into the same root from which the unbelie­ving Jews were broken off.

2. This breaking off was from the visible Church, and its priviledges, not from the invisible; so is the ingraffing of us into the visible Church.

3. As their casting out was of them and their po­sterity, so is our graffing in of us and our Children; These conclusions flow naturally from the Text; and all other deductions will be but as dregs after the spirits are extracted.

[Page 74]4. And to adde to the rest this consideration, That if the posterity of the Gentiles be not taken in, as the Jews were, there will be the greatest inequa­lity of the communication of the fatness of the root that can be imagined; and the Jews may rather boast against the believing Gentiles, then they against them; seeing the root conveyed priviledges to them and their posterity, but only personal priviledges to the believing Gentile; to the one a double mercy, to the other only a single.

Ob. But this great Objection may be made; No Believer is now a root as Abraham, he is but only a branch; and therefore it's not to be conceived how it can be argued from this to every Believer, If the root be holy, so are the branches, as it may be to Abra­ham.

Sol. It's granted, every Believer, nor any, cannot properly be called the root, as Abraham was, and in a strict sense: Yet,

1. They are ingraffed into the same root, and convey the same priviledges to their branches, as Isaac, and Jacob, and the twelve Tribes did to their posterities, who were not properly nor absolutely the root, but branches of it; and we all know, that a Slip well inoculated or ingraffed, becomes after­wards a natural branch; and receives as much from the root, as these which grew naturally on it: So that it's as strong to argue on the Gentiles side after ingraffing; If the root be holy, so are the branches; as from Abraham to the Jews, who were natural [Page 75] branches; As an adopted son, him and his have as full a title to the inheritance as a natural son.

There is only this difference between the convey­ance of priviledges of the Jews as natural branches, and the ingraffed Gentiles; That the whole body of the Jews, good and bad, were called branches; now only Believers of the Gentiles, who are called by the Gospel, with their Children, are ingraffed into that root.

2. Though every Believer is not the proper root, but only a branch of that root; yet for being in­graffed, he is naturalized as the Jewish branch, and so must have the same priviledge.

3. There are branches of branches; and the poor­est branch hath some twigs, and spreading sprigs growing from them which are of the same considera­tion, and do receive of the fatness of the root as well as the main branches; and in this sense every branch may be said to be the immediate root of the lesser twigs: Thus Believers ingraffed into the root, are holy, and their Infants that are branches of the branches immediatly sprouting forth from them, are holy also, and under the same consideration; and the argument holds still for the ingraffed branches, as for the natural.

And as Mr. Blake saith well, The branches of An­cestors are roots of posterity; being made a holy branch, in reference to their issue they become a holy root. This might be much more enlarged, but that I would not be voluminous; it's enough that Believers are [Page 76] ingraffed with their Children into the same root, as is formerly proved.

And then the argument holds firm, That these that are in the root, must partake of the fatness of it; and they which are in the Covenant, cannot be denied the priviledges of it.

CHAP. IX. Wherein Mr. Tombes his eight Arguments in his Apology against Mr. Marshal, for the ingraffing in, mentioned v. 17. to be of the Gentiles into the invisible Church by election and saving faith, are examined and answered.

THE great endeavour of these who are of the contrary opinion in opening this Chapter, is, To prove that the ingraffing of the Gentiles into the root is by election and saving faith, and so into the invisible Church; for they see their case is in hazard if it should be meant of the visible Church: And therefore, though enough be spoken before to prove what we affirm; yet because Mr. Tombes hath laid down eight Arguments with so much confidence on [Page 77] the other side as unanswerable; I think it not amiss to bestow one Chapter in the discovery of the un­soundness of his reasons, that the truth may have a fairer passage into your understanding without clouds or demurs.

His first reason is, Apologie p. 71. That ingraffing which is by Gods sole power, it is into the invisible Church: but so is the ingraffing of the Jews, v. 3. Ergo. For God is able to graff them.

Sol. 1. As to argue from Gods power to his will, is alwaies unsound in Divinity and in Reason; God is able, therefore he will: So,

2. To argue from power to election, is of the same nature; for election is seldome or never at­tributed to Gods power, but to his will or good pleasure.

3. To argue from Gods power in general, to the putting of it forth absolutely in such a determi­nate act, is as strange; God is able to graff them in, Ergo it must be into the invisible Church; as if God shewed nothing of his power, but in the workings of saving grace; especially if we consider what a power it is, and only from God: But to take the very prejudice the Jews have even from the letter of the Gospel to bring them but to confess Christ, after so long a darkness, as it was in the beginning of the Gospell: but to make the Gentiles but outwardly own and profess the Gospel, and yet not members [Page 78] of the invisible Church; to take away the very grossness of naturall darkness and ignorance, is a work of mighty power; And to an outward con­version, where persons have been long under the power of darkness, there needs the sole power of God.

4. The Apostle may well put in rather Gods power then his will, when he speaks of the ingraffing in of the Jews; for it will require an act of power to gather them but visibly once again, and bring them into one entire body to make a visible Church, when they are so scattered up and down all Nations; and at such a distance one from another, that it is as the gathering of the bones of dead men; and so it's likened to the resurrection from the dead, v. 15. So that we need go no further to enquire why their in­graffing should be attributed to Gods power, seeing there is need enough of a Divine power but to ga­ther them together from the four winds, to make a collective body, and so to be a visible Church.

Besides, when the Apostle speaks of power in working of saving faith, he doth put other Epithites to set it forth; and not only barely speaks of power which God puts forth in all acts, but exceeding great­ness of power, Eph. 1.21, 22.

Arg. 2. His second Argument is That ingraffing, which is called reconciliation, opposite to casting away, that is by election and giving faith: but so is the in­graffing called v. 15.

Sol. If he means reconciliation in the strictest sense, as it denotes pardon of sins, and being made friends with God by Christs atonement and me­diatorship; which must be his sense if he speak like himself: Then many absurdities may follow.

1. That the Jews and their rejection was the ground of the Gentiles reconciliation unto God.

2. That no reconciliation was obtained for the Gentiles before the Jews were broken off.

3. That those which are reconciled, and their sins pardoned, may be cast off; for so were the Jews; and the Gentiles threatned with the same misery on the same ground, v. 20.

4. As there is external and eternal salvation spo­ken of, 1 Tim. 4.10. so there may be an outward and inward reconciliation; the Gentiles were cast out from the visible Church for so many hundreds of years, without any hope or promise, And strangers to the Commonwealth of Israel, Eph. 2.11, 12. and so visibly cast off; and it was a great reconciliation but to break down the middle wall of partition be­tween Jew and Gentile, as to visible priviledges and Ordinances: And so by the reconciling the world may be more properly meant the bringing them in under the means of the Gospel, and the outward dispensa­tions of the Church; which is Gods common way and method of salvation; and which to some is real and effectual unto inward grace, unto others only to outward priviledges.

And the very phrase, the reconciliation of the world, [Page 80] to Orthodox ears, deafens and dasheth the other in­terpretation; for the body of the Gentile-world (which he means) are not so reconciled as by electi­on and saving grace, though the sound of the Gospel hath gone through all the world.

Ob. 3. Thirdly, saith he, the ingraffing must be meant of that act whereby the branch stands in the tree as a branch: but that is by giving of faith. The minor is proved also, v. 20. they were broken off by unbelief, and we stand by faith, &c.

Sol. It's true, the ingraffing is by faith, as their breaking off was by unbelief: but as their unbelief was shewn in a publique rejection of the Gospel, and by it they and their Children were broken off; so the Gentiles are ingraffed in by publique profession of faith, and acceptation of the Gospel for them­selves and their Children; and this must needs be the Apostles meaning: For,

1. Ver. 18. He bids the Gentiles not to boast a­gainst the branches that were broken off. Now how could they boast against them but for visible privi­ledges? invisible, are out of cognizance to others: Do Saints boast against one another for election and reprobation? these secrets of the Almighty: This Argument Mr. Baxter urgeth with much advantage, in his Book.

2. In v. 19. he explains further what the nature of their boasting might be; thou wilt say, The branches [Page 81] were broken off, that I might be ingraffed: now can any man conceive they should boast because the bran­ches the Jews were broken from election and true faith, that they might be graffed in by a new act of Gods election, and by true and saving faith? So in ver. 20, 21, 22, 23. he exhorts the Gentiles to look to their standing, and to take heed lest they be broken off also; For if God spared not the natural branches, &c. much less will he spare thee: What, are they exhorted to look least they be cut off from Gods election, &c? Will Mr. Tombes turn a downright Arminian, that he may have any plea against the ba­ptizing of poor Infants?

There is a twofold way of ingraffing, either by spiritual implantation into Christ, or by visible pro­fession of faith; and both these should meet in one person, though they may also be separated; a visible Professor may not have saving faith within, yet may have: So here, the ingraffing in is into the visible Church by visible profession; among which some are, some are not invisible members: but the very terminus of ingraffing is not into the invisible, but the visible Church; for neither the Apostle, nor an Angel could tell who were ingraffed into the invisible Church, nor who broken off, but only from the visible Church, first as the proper term, and then by consequence from the invisible; for from this Church none were absolutely broken off that ever were in, and into it few ingraffed.

So that if the ingraffing be visible, the term must [Page 82] be visible also: but the ingraffing is visible, Ergo the term is so: This is according to Mr. Tombes his own form of argumentation, from the term to the in­gaffing; the major is proved before.

Ob. Fourthly, That ingraffing is meant v. 17. whereby the wild Olive is co-partaker of the root and fatness of the Olive; but such is only election and sa­ving faith; be proves the minor, by distinguishing who the root is, which he well affirms to be Abra­ham.

Sol. To which there needs no other Answer then what Mr. Blake hath given him; If the root be Abra­ham, and the ingraffing in be only by election, and deri­vation of saving graces (which he means by the fat­ness of the Olive) then it must be that we are all elect in Abraham as a common root; Abraham may say, Without me you can do nothing.

To which Mr. Tombes only answers by confession, That it would follow if he made Abraham a root as Christ, communicating saving faith: But I make A­braham a root as the Father of Believers, not by be­getting faith, but as an exemplary cause. How poor an evasion is this of so confident a man in his opinion, I submit to judgement.

Let him mind his Argument, and the force of it; That ingraffing is meant whereby the wild Olive is partaker of the fatness of the root: but that is only election and saving grace, &c.

[Page 83]1. Were not the natural branches which were broken off partakers of the fatness of the root? and were they all elected and partakers of saving graces or outward priviledges only? and why then should it be thought absurd for the Gentiles by ingraffing to partake of the fatness of the root only in outward priviledges, seeing it was so with the natural bran­ches, and they all grow on the same root?

2. The old absurdity will arise still from this, That Saints may fall away from election and saving grace.

3. How can he imagine Abraham to be the root, and the fatness of the root to be election and saving graces, and that engraffing the way of being co-partakers with the root, and yet deny Mr. Blakes Argument, That we are elected in Abraham?

1. It's improper to call a root an exemplary cause; there is no harmonie between them; an example conveyes nothing; here is a conveyance of fat­ness.

2. How unsutable to good language is it to say, That such are partakers of the fatness or fulness of an example? can we think the Apostle would so far over-reach?

3. Were the Jews partakers of the fatness of A­braham in the Covenant, meerly as from an Exempla­ry cause? had not they it from him as a natural Fa­ther, God making the Covenant with him and his seed? and do not ingraffed branches afterwards be­come as natural?

He only adds, p. 73. That if it were meant of out­ward priviledges, it were false; for the Gentiles were not partakers of the outward priviledges of Abra­ham.

Sol. Abraham is a root in the New Testament as well as in the Old, and still stands by virtue of the Covenant to Believers and their Children: And though Old Testament Ordinances were taken away with the Jews, and that Church state, yet the root is not taken away; but the New Testament priviledges grow on the same root; and our ingraffing in gives us to be partakers of the fatness of them, as well as it gave to the Jews the participation of former priviledges until they were broken off.

All the rest of his Arguments are much of the same nature; only a touch further of each of them.

Ob. 5. From v. 25. If the breaking off the Jews be by blinding, then the ingraffing is by giving faith; but the former is true, so the latter.

Sol. This is the same in effect with the third Ar­gument: Yet,

1. There is not the same reason, seeing he takes it of giving saving faith; their blinding was judicial, a punishment for their unbelieving, rejecting of the Gospel, though they had not saving faith to embrace the Gospel; the giving of saving faith is not on such terms; neither is saving faith so absolutely [Page 85] antecedent to make a man a member of the visible Church, as blinding is to Gods final rejection.

2. Blindness came but in part on Israel; it fell only on the meer visible members, not the invisible and elect: therefore, the ingraffing must be only of visible members into the visible Church, v. 7. The election hath obtained it, but the rest were blinded.

Arg. 6. If re-ingraffing of the Jews produceth sal­vation, is by turning them from their iniquity, &c. then it is to the invisible Church: but so it is, V. 26, 27. Ergo.

Sol. To which I give this fair Answer, That doubtless according to those promises, when the Jews shall be called in to be a visible Church again, there shall be abundance of more glory be brought in with them, then ever yet the world saw; and the new Heavens and the new Earth, the coming down of the new Jerusalem, and all those glorious things are fitted to fall in with that time. And from these considera­tions many do interpret v. 26. literally, And so shall all Israel be saved. But yet,

1. They shall be ingraffed in as a visible Church; else Abraham and the Fathers would never be men­tioned as roots.

2. They shall be ingraffed in as they were bro­ken off: now they were broken off as a visible Church.

[Page 86]3. All that can be gathered is this, That the ful­ness of salvation, and the virtues of the promises, shall more fully and universally take effect on the Jews, even to the salvation of all of them; and so the invisible and visible Church be more pure, and as one in the earth: but this fulness shall be to them as a visible Church, and on the earth.

Arg. 7. If the re-ingraffing be by virtue of Gods election and love, then it is to the invisible Church: but the former is true, v. 28. Ergo.

Sol. 1. It's said, That as touching election, the Jews are beloved for their Fathers sake; hence it follows, God hath a love of election to Believers, and their natural seed; for so the Jews were the na­tural seed of Abraham. But,

2. It's granted that the calling of the Jews shall be according to Gods election and first love; and that Gods election shall more fully take hold of the Jews at their re-calling, then of any Nation: but yet still the Argument is of no force to prove that their re-ingraffing, and so ours, is only or firstly into the invisible Church; for they are elected as well to be a visible Church, as to be partakers of inward graces; and their re-ingraffing must be specially and firstly into the visible Church from which they were broken off, or else there will be no correspondence between their rejection and re-ingraffing.

The last and weakest Argument is this; If the in­graffing of Jews and Gentiles be the fruit of Gods mer­cy, the breaking off by shutting up in unbelief; then it is into the invisible Church by election, &c. but so it is. Ergo.

Sol. You see he hath spent his stock and strength to be so low at last: This Argument needs no An­swer, but by shewing you the unsoundness of this universal proposition on which the Argument is built. Whatever is a fruit of Gods mercy, is from election, and ingraffing into the invisible Church: Which proposition is most false, universally considered: Are not health, meat and drink, preservation, all outward pri­viledges, fruits of Gods mercy? Is not long-suffering to these that perish, and the affording the means of grace and salvation, the institution of Ordinances, fruits of Gods mercy? and yet must they be given only to elect ones? and do they ingraff to the in­visible Church? but satis est repetere: you have seen the utmost strength of the greatest Antagonist to the Truth we hold out.

Chap. X. The Harmonie of Mat. 19.13, 14. with Mar. 10.13. and Luk. 18.15, 16, 17. concerning the bringing of Infants to Christ, his acts to them, how far it contributes to prove Infant-baptism.

YOU have seen how the Scriptures agree in holding out some special priviledges in the New Testament, as in the Old, to Believers and their seed: Let us now come to view Christs own carriage and actions to Infants; which shews both the special re­spect he had to them, and would have his Ministers and Churches to have likewise. For this, compare Mat. 19.13, 14. Mar. 10.13, 14, 15, 16. with Luk. 18.15, 16, 17. Where, when little Children were brought to Christ, and his Disciples did forbid them, Christ was angry, and charged them not to hinder them; for theirs was the Kingdome of Heaven; and he took them up in his arms, laid his hands upon them, and blessed them. For the opening this place more clear­ly, Consider,

1. Who they were which were brought to Christ.

2. Who brought them.

3. Why the Disciples did forbid them to be brought.

[Page 89]4. Christs reason why he would have them not hindred.

5. Christs actions to and on them, what they a­mount unto.

For the first, who they were which were brought to Christ; in Mark they are called [...], and well translated little Children, or Infants; the word is a diminutive word, and is specially to be applied to Infants. Luk. 1.76. Zacharias useth the same word of John, when he was newly born; And thou Child ( [...]) shalt be called the Prophet of the Highest, &c. Videtur esse aliqua emphasis diminutivi, hoc saltem loco minime negligenda, saith Beza. The same word is given to Christ when he was in the manger, Mat. 2.11. The Wise men found [...], the young Child, or Infant, with Mary, &c. Heb. 11.23. Moses is called [...], when he was hid among the Flags. [...], teste Hippocrate, de primo vitae se­ptennio dici­tur; [...] au­tem de secundo. Gurtl. This word, saith Hippocra­tes, is given to these which are under the age of seven years; and it's mostly used among the Evangelists for to ex­press the tenderest age of man, which is Infancy: So Spanhem. dub. Evang. But in Luke the holy Ghost useth another word of full signification for Infants ( [...]) which word is used for a Babe in the womb, an Embryo, Luk. 1.41. When Elizabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the Babe leaped in her womb; [...]; it's the same word: but more properly it is used for a Child newly born, a sucking Babe that [Page 90] we carry in our arms: Thus 2 Tim. 3.15. Timothy is said to know the Scriptures from a Child, [...], from his Infancy; not when he was an Infant, but from his Infancy; that is, as soon as ever he was past a Babe, and came to understand any thing, he was learnt the Scriptures. The same word, [...], is given also to Christ, when the Wise men found him in swadling clouts, Luk. 2.12. So that this is most clear, that they were Infants, tender young ones, Babes which were brought to Christ; And if the two words did not properly signifie Infants, yet in that it's said they were brought to Christ, would prove it; for the word [...], properly signifies to carry, as it's used mostly in Scripture for. But,

2. Who those were that brought them, it's most probable that their Parents brought them; and these had believed themselves, or made some profession of faith; for they bring them to Christ to be under his blessing, for some special favour to be shewn by Christ to them; it was for a spiritual end they brought them, to be touched by Christ, &c. to have some virtue from him; and who could have such bowels to bring Infants to Christ, but their own Parents? and to abide the frowns of the Disciples, and their checks, but Parents, who love their Children next themselves, and would have them blessed together with them? so that it's more probable it was their Parents which brought them then any others; and that they were believers, who had such a sense of their Infants conditions, and of Christs respects.

And besides, they were then in the Coasts of Judea, where many had profest their faith, and were bapti­zed by John, and longed to have their Infants con­firmed by Jesus Christ; especially when we look on Mat. 19.13. They brought them to Christ to lay his hands on them, and pray over them.

3. If we consider why the Disciples should for­bid them, and rebuked these that brought them; surely it could not be out of any cruelty to Infants, or that the Disciples had no bowels to Infants, or desire they might not be happy with their Parents; their af­fections could not be so straitned and bound up in unnaturalness: but it must be from some such prin­ciple which these of the contrary judgement take up, That they were not capable, and were first to be taught; That only grown men, and Professors of faith, were fit for Ordinances; and therefore they rebuked or chid them, and forbad them to do so any more: As if they had said, What have we to do with Children, as to outward Ordinances? they are not capable, they cannot profess their faith; and we must have persons able to hold forth the Gospel, which must be visible subjects of Christs Kingdome: Doubtless some such grounds they must needs go on, or else they must shew a strange kind of passion against Children, most unbecoming these which had but the rags of natural affection left in them.

4. See Christs affections to them, and the reason of it; When Christ saw it ( [...]) he was much displeased: It's a word that is used to express such a [Page 92] kind of sorrow as breaks the heart; also to stomach any thing, and to have the spirit raised in contempt of an unworthy action or person: Thus Christ was grieved at them, and he looked with contempt on his Disciples, as dealing most unworthily with poor Infants, in forbidding them to be brought to Christ; and therefore he commands them to suffer them to bring Infants to him, and not to forbid them. These two words shews how vehement Christ was, and how much his heart was set towards Infants. You find sometimes that Christ gave some sharp words to his Disciples, and to Peter especially; but never to have his spirit to rise in indignation against them, as when they would forbid Infants to be brought to him; and that which makes Christ so earnest, must needs be of great weight; he was never so moved when they all forsook him, and Peter did forswear him, as when they denied Infants to come to him.

I could wish that these which with so much con­tempt and scurrilous language forbid Infants to be baptized, might read this place with observant spi­rits, and at least grow more sober and less violent in their expressions concerning poor Infants; doubt­less it's a warning to all Christs Disciples.

Now the reason which Jesus Christ gives, is, Of such is the Kingdome of God: The reason shews what the priviledge was they would exclude Infants from, viz. being visibly judged to belong to the Kingdome of God; and Christ saith, Of such is the Kingdome of God. Now take the Kingdome of God [Page 93] either for Heaven and Glory; or secondly, by way of allusion, for the Church, and the state of the Go­spel, it will serve as a full reason: Of such, that is, of Infants, is Gods Kingdome made up, as well as of grown men, and they are as fit subjects as you are: But doubtless he especially means by the Kingdome of God, as well the Kingdome of Grace in a visible Church, as the Kingdome of Glory; because else this could be no reason to convince the Disciples of their errour, for they were against the visible bringing Infants to Christ for to get some outward sign of favour to them; and Christ tels them, they may be as well brought to Christ, and receive a visible sign, as grown persons; for the Kingdom of God is made of such, as of others.

1. Christ shews their interest in one of the high­est priviledges, The Kingdome of God, and that vi­sibly.

2. He speaks it de praesenti; not only respecting their future estate, what they may be; but that even now the Kingdome of God is of such.

3. He useth this as a common instructive principle for the future, never to forbid not only these, but such like Infants to be brought to him: For [...], Of such is the Kingdome of God, Christ would have them take it as a constant principle, That wherever they found such like Infants, they should not reject them, but look on them with Gospel respect.

Ob. These that differ have nothing to say to this, but That Christ means it of such as Children for hu­mility, [Page 94] and meekness, and lowliness; and therefore in the following verse he saith, He that shall not re­ceive the Kingdome of God as a little Child, shall not enter therein.

Sol. It's true, Christ takes an occasion to exhort them to humility and meekness, from the pattern of these little ones. But,

1. Christ shews Infants right to the Kingdome of God, as well as the Disciples, and grown persons, who can profess their own faith.

2. If Christ had meant only to make an example and resemblance, he might have taken Sheep, and Doves more properly; for they are more meek and gentle then Children, who are commonly froward and peevish.

3. This crosseth the end of Christs reason, which was, That Infants should not be hindred from being brought to Christ, For of such is the Kingdome of God, Now if he had meant of such as were only like them in some qualities, not of themselves, there was no­thing at all in Christs reason: And thus must the words be rendred on that account; Suffer Infants to come to me, and do not forbid them; for not of them but of humble persons that resemble them, is the King­dome of God. Men will rather make Christ speak non­sense, then lose their opinions.

4. Can we think Christ could be so displeased with his Disciples for hindring little ones to be brought to him, meetly to shew them as resemblances and patterns to grown men; and adde this reason, For [Page 95] of such is the Kingdome of God, when he had examples more fit to that purpose, even among the meer sen­sible Creatures? No, Christ shews the priviledge of such Infants; and checks his Disciples pride, who would have none but themselves and grown persons to be esteemed as having any visibie interest in the Kingdome of God.

Lastly, Let us view Christs carriage and actions to these Infants; he did not onely shew them as examples, but took them up in his arms, laid his hands on them, and blessed them: all expressions of the most signal love, and favour, and of great import, if duly considered.

1. He took them up in his arms, [...]; the word signifies to embrace with special af­fections; so the French Translation Embrasser, Piscator embrachiare, amplexabunde gesto, Bud. Christ took them up in his arms, and held them forth as Monuments of his love; and doubtless to shew his Disciples, that he would have some outward sign and character of peculiar respect set on them by his Church and Saints: Such a carriage was not out of a natural affection only to these that could not pity themselves, but from a heavenly strain of love which he bore to these little ones, as to the highest pro­fessing Disciple; and must needs be symbolical to his Churches, to take heed how they reject them wholly from any visibie right to the Kingdome of God: Christ was to leave the world shortly, but he leaves it as a rule to his Disciples.

[Page 96]2. Christ laies his hands on them; which was used among the Jews as a form of special blessing, and in the N. T. for eminent ends.

1. For to cure all sorts of diseases by a miraculous power, Luk. 4.40.

2. For consecration of any to a Divine work and service; thus Church Officers were solemnly separa­ted to Christs work, as peculiarly fit for it, Acts 6.6. Acts 13.3. 1 Tim. 4.15. and 5.22. 2 Tim. 1.6.

3. It was used for confirmation after Baptism, and as an outward way whereby the holy Ghost was conveyed; and this is the most common use of it in the Acts of the Apostles, Acts 8.17, 18, 19, and 19.6. where those that were baptized had the Apo­stles hands laid on them, and they received the holy Ghost: And to this purpose may we apply Christs act to these Infants, to confirm the promise solemnly after Baptism. For,

1. It was ever used (except to sick persons) after Baptism.

2. As it presupposeth Baptism to precede, so it's an outward sign of a special significancy, and holds forth as much as if Christ had baptized them; for in that outward rite the holy Ghost was conveyed; and by laying on of hands others received the holy Ghost, as the former Scriptures express; and why not in this act of Christ on them? Take all the cir­cumstances together, and you cannot imagine it to be a complemental act: And if this were as an out­ward sign of their receiving the holy Ghost, What [Page 97] should hinder water that Infants should not be baptized, seeing they have received the holy Ghost as well as we? Acts 10. 47. Christ laid his hands on them, Bene­dictas scilicet manus in quas à Patre suo acceperát omnia bona Coeli & Terrae, saith a learned Divine on this place; He laid those blessed hands on them, in which he had received from the Father all good things in Hea­ven and Earth. This act shews,

1. That Christ would have some outward visible sign of favour set on such Infants by Churches: And Imposition of Hands being one of the choyfest, Christ useth that as most proper to shew his Au­thority.

2. That holds forth, That if they be capable of imposition of hands, they are of an Ordinance of like nature, which especially looks at a subject purely passive.

Ob. If it be Objected, Why did not Christ baptize them as well as lay his hands on them, if he meant to hint out their right to Baptism?

Sol. It's easily answered, That Christ baptized none at all; but he did that which was an Ordinance usually in those Primitive times administred after Baptism, and equal to it, as to its dignity; and so far above Baptism, as it was more extraordinary in its practice: And so we may argue from this to Baptism, either inclusively, or à majori, from the greater; and I have more from this place to confirm me, that if Christ baptized any, he would these Infants; seeing he shews so much respect to them, more then to an [Page 98] grown person; and did to them those acts which were equivalent, if not supereminent to them, then any can have against it. Let any that differ from us, shew anywhere in the Gospel where Christ laid his hands on any but desperate diseased persons to shew his power, or on Infants to shew his love, and confirm their antient priviledges, or upon any person in this latter sense unbaptized.

Ob. 2. If it be said, This was an extraordinary act of Christ, and no ordinary pattern may be drawn from it.

Sol. I answer; Grant it to be extraordinary, yet it argues more strongly, if Christ used an extraordi­nary act to shew his affection and love to Infants, much more may the Church shew ordinary acts to them.

2. Christ shewed this extraordinary carriage, the more to check and convince his Disciples for their extraordinary contempt of poor Infants, who would not allow them an ordinary interest in visible pri­viledges. And it's considerable, that Imposition of Hands was not an usual Ordinance, or administred by any but Christ, before the ascension of Christ, and the sending of the holy Ghost.

3. Though Christs act should be extraordinary, in regard of the imitation of that act by us; yet he grounds it on an ordinary rule and principle; For of such is the Kingdom of God; which he laies down as a fundamental rule. And this is the least that can be gathered from it; That if Christ on this ground set [Page 99] an extraordinary sign on Infants, because the King­dom of God did visibly belong to them; we may on the same principle set an ordinary initiating sign on them, as visible members of that glorious state, as well as on grown visible Professors, who are but probable members, according to the most judicious charity; especially if we will think Christs judgement in such cases equal with our own.

But lest all this should be thought but a meer out­ward act of Christs, that carried nothing of any in­ward design of grace, he blessed them after all, as the fullest expression of his heart; and to demon­strate, that whatever grace he had should be theirs as others: for so the word, [...], signifies, either to speak well of, or to any concerning persons or things; and thus Christ may be thought to speak much of the state and priviledges of these Infants; or else to bless them, by desiring for them, or com­municating to them all sorts of mercies, as blessings; according to that Eph. 1.3. And what can be more then for Christ to take up Infants in his arms, lay his hands on them, as an outward sign, to consecrate them to himself, and to shew their capacity of re­ceiving the holy Ghost, and then to bless them; which comprehends the communication of all gra­ces, and good things? And yet we must with scorn (poor probable Disciples our selves!) deny them a little water; and think it too much to have them named among the lowest sort of visible Saints, when Christ owne them publickly, and saith, that of such at [Page 100] these is the Kingdom of God; and they may have more interest in that Kingdom, then these that exclude them: but I shall rather believe Christs testimony, then any mans froward opinion: It's only a wonder how Saints, that have felt Christs bowels themselves, and read this Text, can be so rigid to Infants of Be­lievers, to whom Christ hath been so kind, and ex­emplary in his carriages; and stampt such visible cha­racters of his love on, even in administration of out­ward signs. To what end should Christ do all this in such a high and peremptory strain of affection, if it were not to teach us charity and respect to In­fants, in these ordinary administrations they are ca­pable of; and to confirm their old state in the Church, by such a new and unwonted carriage; Christ abounding to them who were most under­valued, and could say nothing for themselves? And how harsh is it to conceive, that Christs intent was hereafter to cast them out of the visible Church, and from the participation of all outward signs of sal­vation, when his carriage was thus transcendently loving to them; and so only to give them a light­ning before death? Let mens consciences, not gulph'd in prejudice, judge: This Text, if there were no more, will fly in the Consciences one day of the most confident Contemners of Infants, and their Baptism.

I shall only adde, to satisfie the learned, the con­sent of godly and eminent Authors on this Scri­pture.

Non est ulla historia in toto codice Evangelico, quae frequentius in Templo legatur, quam haec ipsa. Quoties enim Infans ad sacrum baptismatis fontem affertur, toties etiam ex agendis Ecclesiasticis haec historia recitat­ur; sed admodum raró eadem in Ecclesia recitatur. Chemnitius & Polycarpus, Lyserus in Harm. Evan­gel.

And doubtless it's no ordinary note, that three of the Evangelists should so punctually relate this story, without any considerable change of words or sense. All the Objection is, because the word Baptism is not inserted, when as much as that comes to is; and that Christ baptized no grown persons.

Hinc jam illud est quod dixisse Dominum, omnes tres memorant, talium enim est Regnum Coelorum. Non sanè adultorum tantum, qui ut Infantes sese humiliarunt, quod Anabaptista contendunt. Hoc enim sensu, quod dixerat sibi Infantes apportandos esse, tanquam subjecta, ratio minimè cohaereret, &c. Fa­cessat igitur stulta ista vestra sapientia; Sinite Infan­tes mihi adduci, ajo enim non solum horum esse Regnum Coelorum: sed nullum omnino Regni hujus fore par­ticipem, nisi Infantibus his similis evadat.

Si jam ad Ecclesiam pertinent, & ipsorum est Re­gnum Coelorum; eur eis signum Baptismi quo in Ec­clesiam Christi, qui ad eam pertinent, recipi solent, negaremus? Siqui hoedi inter eos sunt, tum excludendi nobis erunt, cum id esse sese prodiderunt; interea ne [Page 102] simus severiores Christo—aut est nostrum bapti­zare plusquam Domini amplecti, imponere manus & benedicere fuit? quae fidei aut charitatis jactura, per Baptismum Christo adducere quos adduci sibi jussit?

Much more then this hath Bucer on Mat. 19.13, 14, 15. full of spiritual consideration.

To this doth Musculus, Calvin, Beza, adde their holy testimonies: But I spare these quotations, be­cause it's ad homines, to men like our selves: Let these which dissent read impartially, and consider if this place should stand alone, without any harmony of other Scriptures, whether there be not more in it for Infant-baptism, then anything they have a­gainst it: I would be so ingenuous with them, as to deal with any of their awaked Consciences.

CHAP. XI. Wherein is considered the method of God in the Old Testament, of administring Or­dinances in Families, and baptizing Housholds in the New Testament; and how far it contributes to Infant-baptism.

IT'S not a slight thing to consider, how that ever since the Fall this hath been an usual method of God in administration of the Covenant, and pri­viledges of grace, to make it run through families and housholds of Believers, as the special veins: Hence families, as they were the first natural societies, so they were the first Churches; the Covenant and the priviledges of it was among them; from Adam to Abraham it went on thus: And when the Co­venant in Abrahams time came to be more ex­presly opened, and fairer expounded, God goes on still in the same method, makes the Covenant with Abraham and his houshold; only the family was enlarged, it became a greater houshold, accor­ding to the vastness of the extent of the Covenant; yet still it was dispensed as to a family. Now if you come to the New Testament, there you see God go­ing on in the same method, as if he had cast by an [Page 104] eternal decree this platform: Baptism, the New Te­stament Ordinance, is administred according to the same design to families and housholds. Let us con­sider what Christ himself saith to Zacheus, Luk. 19. who was a Gentile, and one of the chief Publicans, upon occasion of this mans conversion, to open the nature and continuance of the Covenant to the Gen­tiles in the same form as it was to Abraham; This day is salvation come to thy house, forasmuch as he also is a son of Abraham: Here is the same language used in administration of Circumcision in the Old Testa­ment; and the same reason, forasmuch as he also ( [...]) is a son of Abra­ham: What can be drawn from this place more proper then these conclusions?

1. That as soon as ever he was converted and be­lieved, Christ applies the promise to his house; if there were not something more in it, he would have only said, Salvation is come to thee.

2. It's clear that he opens the Covenant made with Abraham; not only to himself, but his house; and argues from his being a son of Abraham, that therefore the Covenant is not only made with him, but with his house, that is, his seed; it were enough for to call him the son of Abraham, and to say, sal­vation is come to himself: but to mention his house, together with himself, and give this as a reason, be­cause he is the son of Abraham, is as much as to say, the priviledges of the Covenant is the same to you and your house, as it was to Isaac and Jacob, forasmuch [Page 105] as he also is a son of Abraham, as well as they. Now for Christ to speak in this dialect, and to tell them of their housholds, and of favour to them in the begin­ning of the Gospel, and yet at the same time exclude their Infants from all outward signs of the promise, which they ever had in the darkest daies of grace, is a strange policy, unsutable to the simplicity of Jesus Christ.

Concerning this continued method of God, though this Zacheus be a singular, yet he is not the only example, if you read all along the Acts of the Apostles; these which had housholds, the promise runs with a gracious entail. Acts 11.14. Cornelius hath the promise to him and his house. Acts 16.15. Lydia was baptized, and her houshold. Ver. 31. the A­postle exhorts the Jaylor to believe, and he should be saved, and his whole house; Just as God made the Covenant with Abraham, Walk before me, and be thou perfect, Gen. 17.1, 2.7. And I will be a God to thee, and thy seed, or houshold. In ver. 33. its said, he was baptized, and all his ( [...]) he and all that were of him; a most emphatical expression to set forth his Children, who are the natural off-spring, and who are properly a mans own; he changes the general phrase of a house, which may sometimes com­prehend more, and comes more close home; when he saith he was baptized, he saith, all his ( [...]) of him; which cannot be meant of servants, who are our own as goods and lands are, but not of a man: but must firstly and primarily referr to his Children, [Page 106] who are begotten of him; and it may be secondarily to his kindred; in the same phrase you have it tran­slated, Rom. 16.10, 11. The houshold of Aristobulus, the houshold of Narcissus: but it is, [...], & [...]; These of Aristobulus and Narcissus: which must especially be meant of their Children, and these that descended from their loyns.

The only Objection is from the following v. 34. where it is said, That the Jaylor believed with all his house; and so none were baptized but Believers.

To which I answer, That is not a restriction or exception of all that were baptized, but a descripti­on of the power the Word had upon all his house with himself; for he said in the former verse, that he was baptized, and with his those which were begot­ten of him; and in this verse he shews the actual in­fluence of the Word on all his house likewise: So that the words are an after description of the mighty workings of the Gospel, not only to himself, who was baptized, and so his; but on all his house be­sides.

2. Others, and men of good account, do relate [...], with all his house, to the Jaylors rejoycing, not to his believing; and so read it thus, And when he had brought them into his house, he set meat before them, and rejoyced, believing God, with all his house; And it may be as well referred to the one as to the other.

However it's very observable, That when he speaks of [Page 107] the Apostles preaching, and their believing, he names his house in the largest term; v. 32. They preached the Word to him, and all that were ( [...]) to all that were in his house: But when he speaks of baptizing, he saith (that you may be sure his Chil­dren were baptized) that he, and all of him, or all his, were baptized. Now he doth not say, all that believed, but all his were baptized: though there is no doubt but all that believed were baptized also.

But if there were no such emphatical expression, as is by the holy Ghost in the baptizing of the Jaylors house; yet there is enough to make forth an example of Infant-baptism from the very notion of baptizing whole housholds, so frequent in the Gospel.

1. It will be very strange confidence to affirm, that in all these houses there were no Infants, or little Children.

2. There is greater probability, and stronger grounds to believe, when he names housholds, that there were little ones in them, then that there were not.

3. Especially when the word, house, in all lan­guages in the world is most usually put for Children of the house, who maintain and keep it up; and so often in Scripture, Gen. 30.30. and 45.18, 19. N. 3.15. Psal. 115.12, 13. 1 Tim. 5.8.

4. Where whole houses are baptized, there In­fants are not excluded, if they be in the house; and [Page 108] if not excluded, they are included; they cannot be excluded, for they are principal parts of the house; and if only adulti, or grown persons should be meant, when Children are named, that would be to exclude Infants from being Children, as well as from being parts of the houshold.

When Abraham and his house were circumcised, Abrahams Children were the principal parts of the house; and they were first circumcised, and then his servants, and all in his houshold were circumcised also, being Prosessors of the same faith; for Abra­ham had a godly family: Yet upon a different ac­count; the one by vertue of Abrahams Covenant, which was made primarily with him & his Children, with all his family likewise; as they profest Abrahams faith, and served Abrahams God; and so it may be easily conceived how whole housholds were baptized in the New Testament; the Children as in the Fa­thers Covenant; the Servants and others by vertue of the same profession: And in this sense there will be no ambiguity in the phrase of baptizing whole housholds.

Lastly, That the Apostle should borrow an ex­pression always used in the Old Testament to include Children especially, and make use of it in the New to exclude them, would be strange but to conjecture: Now when ever the houshold is spoken of in the Old Testament, it always includes Children. This is still more for the baptizing of Infants, then any thing they can say against it; and compared with all the [Page 109] former Scriptures, may make up a full demonstration to a judicious conscience.

CHAP. XII. Circumcision and Baptism compared; that they have both one spiritual significa­tion; the true nature of them both open­ed, and what influence this consideration hath to prove Infant-baptism.

IT'S well known among these that are against baptizing of Infants, what weight they put on that Ordinance of Baptism, that all other seem light in their eyes, and of no account in respect of that. When they speak of Circumcision, they usually call that a carnal Ordinance, sealing only carnal and tem­porary things, and only reaching the outward man; the one requiring only the flesh for its subject, the other a spiritual man, a new creature, &c. And so much do they idolize (for so I fear it is among many) Baptism, that even faith it self seems little without it: But that I may wash off this paint, and make Ordi­nances look like themselves, let us compare these Or­dinances together, and view them in their dignity, and worth, and significations. And,

[Page 110]1. In general for Circumcision; We all know how much it was prized among the Jews above all other Ordinances, and that it was the last that was taken away with the greatest difficulty; about which the Apostles had more ado, then about the taking away all the Ceremonies; whereby we may judge, the Jews did look on it as the great seal of all their priviledges; which when that was lost, all was lost. Read the Epistle to the Romanes, Chap. 2.3. when he would speak all their outward priviledges at once, he saith, What advantage hath a Jew? what profit of Circumcision, &c? So in the Galatians, Philippians, Ephesians, Colossians, many Chapters are spent to take them off from Circumcision.

2. Circumcision was that Ordinance which was immediatly annexed to the Covenant, and a con­firmation of it, Gen. 17.7, 10. therefore called the Covenant.

3. It was an Ordinance instituted long before the Legal and Mosaical Ceremonies of an elder date: It was not a type of Canaan, but of Christ to come in the flesh of the seed of Abraham, and of the circum­cision of the heart, which Christ was most fully to perfect in the Gospel.

There is only one Gentleman that writ a Book of Baptism, printed in the year 1646. will have Cir­cumcision to be a type of Baptism; which cannot be: For,

1. Types must have something in their outward face to represent another thing more eminent and [Page 111] real: Now Circumcision hath nothing in the out­side to set forth Baptism.

2. It is not so handsom to make one outward sign the antitype of another.

4. Circumcision was as holy an Ordinance as Baptism in the New Testament; for they are both in themselves outward acts, and no holiness more in one then in another, but as they have from institu­tion; only Baptism is more easy to the flesh then Circumcision; and yet not more easy, if that way of dipping should be the only way of baptizing, especi­ally at some seasons, and to some bodies.

5. The N. T. gives as large and honourable cha­racters of Circumcision as it doth of Baptism: thus the Apostle cals it in Rom. 4. The seal of the righteous­ness of faith: A character so resplendent and glo­rious, that the Gospel can give no higher to an Or­dinance. And as much as he saith of Baptism in ef­fect, 1 Pet. 3.21. that Baptism saves through the an­swer of a good conscience, the contrary Opinionists are put to hard shifts to avoyd the strength of this place; and therefore some would evade it thus, saying, That the Apostle doth not call it a seal of the Covenant or Promise, but of the righteousness of faith.

Sol. A miserable evasion! as if the righteousness of faith were not included in the Covenant, or there were any righteousness of faith but what comes by the Covenant▪ and so would make a separation be­tween the promise of righteousness, and the righteous­ness promised.

Others would cloath the Text with this disguise, That it sealed it only to Abraham, whereas it was so to Isaac, and Jacob, and David, and all that were in the Covenant.

This is held forth most clearly in that verse.

1. That Circumcision was a seal of the pure Co­venant of grace, in which righteousness was promised to Abraham and his seed indefinitely.

2. That this seal was applied to all the seed that were but externally and visibly in Covenant, to In­fants; and the same sign that Abraham received upon profession of his faith, his Child received; and therefore he is said to be the Father of Circumcision, as of Faith, ver. 12.

3. Doctor Willet from this place holds forth the sameness of the substance of the Sacraments of the Old and New Testament, both which do seal the righteousness of faith; and lays it as a great errour on the Romanists, who affirm, That the Old Testa­ment Sacraments did not exhibite the graces of the New.

4. This cannot be denied from the place, with­out men will wilfully put out their own eyes, that Circumcision had as glorious a use as Baptism, viz. to seal the righteousness of faith; which must be as well to others that had the true efficacy of the Covenant, as to Abraham himself; and no higher mercy can any Ordinance of the New Testament seal to any.

There were many other circumstantial and acci­dentall [Page 113] uses of circumcision according to the Jewish state, as we will grant Mr. Tombes, as

1. To engage to the performance of the whole Law, Gal. 5.2, 3. Acts 15.10.

2. To be a partition-wall between Jew and Gen­tile, Eph. 2.14.

But when the Apostle would give circumcision his true character, and shew what the primarie, and sub­stantiall use of it was, he calls it a seal of the righteousness of faith.

6. Circumcision and baptism signifie one and the same thing, and so agree in being signs of the same grace; compare Coloss. 2.11, 12, 13. with Rom. 6.3, 4. and 6. v. circumcision signifies the putting off the bodie of the sins of the flesh; baptism is into Christs death, and to testifie the crucifying the old man with him, that the bodie of death might be destroyed, as by the comparing these two places it is most clear, and 3 v. and 6 ver. of Rom. 6. chap. onely baptism hath this larger consideration in it, as that it takes in Christs resurrection with it, and also the quickning of the soul together with him, which was not so fully signi­fied in circumcision, but implied, according as the Apostle argues in the same place, Rom. 6.5. v. for if we have been planted in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection; the one being a consequence of the other; and as circum­cision did cut off the foreskin in token of the de­struction of sin, so baptism by washing, signifies the taking away the pollution of sin; thus, God when he [Page 114] would promise to kill sin, and work all grace, he ex­presseth it by circumcision; I will circumcise thy heart, and the heart of thy seed, Deut. 30.6. And the Apostle, Phil. 3.4. saith, We are of the circumcision, that is, we have the true work of grace in us.

The reason why I urge these considerations, is to hold for the capacitie of Infants, as well for Baptism as Circumcision; there is no reason why they should be thought more unfit and incapable for the one then for the other: For

First, if Circumcision were a seal of the righteous­ness of Faith, and yet applied to Infants, and Ba­ptism can seal no higher mercie, why should it be thought such a strange and unmeet thing to baptize them, more then to circumcise them? they usually say you put a seal to a blank in baptizing Infants; the same might be said as to Circumcision; yet they were cir­cumcised as well as Abraham that profest his own Faith. I must acknowledge I never could yet under­stand why Infants should be thought fit to have that seal applied to them in the Old Testament, which the New calls a seal of the righteousness of Faith, and yet be denied it in the New Testament as incapacious, when Baptism can seal no more. I wish it were se­riously considered;

Especially, Secondly, when Baptism shall signifie the same thing in substance, be both signs of the same grace; the one cutting away sin as with a knife, the other washing it away with water; and yet Infants capable, and most fit to have the administration of the [Page 115] one ordinance, not of the other; if these of the dis­senting judgment, did with more sobriety weigh such considerations as these, they would not with so much foolish contempt write and speak of Infants Ba­ptism.

A knife may be applied to an Infant, as to Abra­ham, though old, and in the heighth of his Faith, and seal the righteousness of it; but water must one­ly be poured on actual believers, and grown persons, such as Abraham, but not on Infants, though it hath no more to seal; as if there were some strange excel­lencie and virtue in the nature of water, that it were too precious to wash the Infants of believers: For, if there be no more virtue in the water that ba­ptizeth, then in the knife that circumcised, you see there is no more glorious use of the one then the other. And what end God should have to put such a Seal on Infants in the Old Testament, and exclude them in the New, when the Ordinances both signifie the same substantial grace, let any Christian heart imagine.

CHAP. XIII. That famous place, Coloss. 2.11, 12. opened; the correspondence between Circumcision and Baptism further cleared.

THe scope of the Apostle in the former verses is to disswade the Christians from Jewish cere­monies, especially from Circumcision; and he doth it especially from the discovery of Christs fulness, and our being compleat in him; that is, you need nothing out of Christ now; but they object we want Cir­cumcision; he tells them they are circumcised in him, 11. v. where the Apostle distinguisheth of a twofold Circumcision, one [...], made with hands, the other [...], made without hands, which he calls the Circumcision of Christ, but it is wrought by him, and is by union with him; and you being circum­cised in Christ, and have the grace signified by out­ward Circumcision, you need no more; but there be two things they might object;

First, that this is nothing to the question; you would take us off from outward Circumcision, by telling us we are inwardly circumcised, whereas the sign and the thing signified should alwaies go together; Abra­ham had this Circumcision and others, and yet were outwardly circumcised.

Secondly, they might object we are not so com­pleat [Page 117] in Christ as Abraham and his seed; for, besides the inward grace, they had an outward sign and Seal to confirm it to them.

The Apostle in the 12 verse answers both at once, they were not onely circumcised inwardly, with Christs Circumcision, but there was an outward sign in the New Testament to be applied to them, of the same consideration; Buried with him in Baptism, &c. This is the summe of the words, let us now consider what may be fairly deducted from them.

Many, and the most of our Divines, do conclude from hence the succession of Baptism in the place or room of Circumcision, that this Ordinance is ap­pointed in the New Testament in lieu of the former, and for the same ends and purposes; which doubtless is true from this place, if men would truly weigh the import of the words, and not fight with their own shadows.

First, this compleatness in Christ is as well to en­joyment of Ordinances, and outward priviledges, as inward graces; else he would never have mentioned Baptism outwardly, when in the former verse he speaks of inward Circumcision; he would have kept still in that strain.

Secondly, observe how he joins them together, and makes them one, the inward circumcision confirmed by the outward baptism, circumcised with the Cir­cumcision of Christ, buried with him in baptism; now this could not be proper, not of any possible connexion, but by putting the outward sign of ba­ptism [Page 118] instead of the outward sign of Circumcision; that is, you are circumcised because baptized; you change but the outward element, or instrument; but the same inward grace is confirmed by both; thus the words are legible, and to be understood, without difficultie; but any other interpretation will be found most rugged, and unsuitable: For,

Thirdly, as the Apostle could not say in the former v. that they were circumcised in Christ, but from the analogie between the outward sign, and the inward grace; that is, if the outward sign of Circumcision had not signified such an inward work; so neither could he have found they were circumcised in Christ, being buried with him in baptism, if that Ordi­nance of baptism did not as an outward sign an­swer to that inward Circumcision, and were in stead of that sign which did directly represent it for­merly.

Fourthly, the nature of the Apostles design holds out this; for he would take them off the practise of Circumcision; and this he doth by discovering of another Ordinance, more suitable to the Go­spel, which should signifie the same thing unto them, in a more large and emphaticall manner, si­gnifying not onely Christs death, but his resurre­ction; so that in the very import of the phrase he cals baptism a Gospel circumcision; and this argu­ment he useth as most effectual to take them off Cir­cumcision, by shewing them they were compleat in Christ in the New Testament, as to inward graces, and [Page 119] outward Ordinances, for though they were not cir­cumcised, they had baptism to supplie the want of it with advantage, so that they should not lose an Or­dinance, but exchange. In whom you are circumcised, &c. buried with him in baptism; if baptism did not seal and confirm the inward Circumcision, it could not be said circumcised in Christ, being buried with him in baptism, and baptism could not seal inward Circum­cision, but as it was of the same use with outward Circumcision, which did most directly signifie the cir­cumcision of the heart; and baptism held the same analogie, and was instituted to the same end; therefore it's called the washing of regeneration. Suppose the Ordinance should again be changed, and the inver­sion should be thus, That baptism should be abolish­ed, and circumcision set up again, and the Apostle should express himself after the same manner; intend­ing to take them off the use of baptism, and to be circumcised; and say ye are compleat in Christ, in whom ye are also baptized with the baptism of Christ, being circumcised with him; would not the de­duction be clear, that circumcision was ordained in­stead of baptism, and to supply the defect of that Ordinance? the same conclusion must be according to the words as from circumcision to baptism.

The summe of all is, That as inward circumcision was signified by the outward circumcision; the circum­cision made without hands, by the circumcision with hands, as the proper and direct sign of it; so is that inward circumcision, as really and fully signified, [Page 120] and confirmed by baptism; and that Ordinance is ap­pointed to represent and seal that, as the outward act of circumcision was formerly: so that circumcision and baptism, as to the thing signified, and the inward intent of their use, are made all one: else it will be very hard to make sense of this place of Scripture.

The Pleas against this interpretation are of little worth, if weighed; some say it's onely meant of the inward circumcision, and inward baptism, which in­terpretation will serve us better then themselves; for if inward graces, and of the same substantial work be done on us, as circumcised and baptized in Christ, it shews the oneness of the outward signs in the same signification.

Mr. Tombes saith in his Examen p. 93. That there is an analogie between circumcision and baptism: yet saith it is rather between circumcision and Christs bu­rial, then between circumcision and baptism, as Chry­sostome, and after him Theophylact on the place.

All which will still make out the truth of our in­terpretation; For,

First, if there be an analogie between them, as is, and must be granted, then there is some proportion and agreement between these two Ordinances; now it's not in the outward administration, nor the exter­nall sign, in that there is no proportion between a knife and water; and therefore it must be in their pro­per signification and reall use, which is the Apostles scope in this place: and therefore he expresseth the inward grace properly signified by the one Ordi­nance, [Page 121] and yet confirmed by the other; Circumcised in him, being buried with him in Baptism.

2. If the analogy be between Circumcision and Christs burial, not between it and Baptism, yet it will come all to one, yea be our advantage: For,

1. That shews that Circumcision did hold forth as much as Baptism, viz. Christs death and bu­rial.

2. That when we are said to be buried with Christ in Baptism, and that is the outward sign to represent our burial with Christ, we are as if we were circum­cised; Circumcision holds analogy with Christs bu­rial, and so doth Baptism with both: And thus take it in what sense you will, the Text will clear it self.

CHAP. XIV. A clear Explication of. Mat. 28.19. with Mar. 16.15, 16. wherein their argu­ment from the first institution is opened and confuted.

LET us at length come to view that prime Text, Math. 28.19. on which these that are against Infant-baptism lay the most weight. As from the very first institution of that Ordinance, Christ gives his Apostles there Commission to teach and baptize; Go ye therefore, and teach all Nations, baptizing them in the Name of the Father, Son and holy Ghost. Hence ( [...]) which they translate, Disciple all Nations, and then baptize them, they argue, None are to be baptized by Christs institution, but these which are first taught, and so made Disciples: But In­fants are not capable to be taught, or to be made Disciples. Ergo, They may not be baptized.

That I may shew the errors of this argument, and so fully clear up the point, the terms with their con­nexion both in the major and minor proposition must be examined from the words of the Text, and that parallel place, Mar. 16.15, 16. which for me­thods sake I shall hold forth in these following con­siderations.

[Page 123]1. For the word [...], we shall not much stand on, whether it be translated to make Disciples, or as it is in our common version, Go teach all Na­tions; for it is sometimes a verb transitive, to teach by writing, or viva voce, with a living voyce; and so it is to be taken here, saith learned Whitaker De Script. and most agreeable with Mar. 16.15. where he bids them Go preach the Gospel to every Crea­ture.

2. The strength of the argument lies (if there be any strength in it) on the absolute supposed con­nexion between discipling and being baptized; there­fore they say, None but these which are capable of teaching, are capable of Baptism; which is Fallacia à dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter, a Fallacy to take that absolutely which is meant only according to some respect. But to shew the idleness of the con­nexion;

1. You find preaching or teaching the Gospel to be separated as to the administration, and necessary and immediate connexion, by Paul himself, 1 Cor. 1.17. Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the Gospel; so he saith in the former verses, He taught many, baptized few.

2. Compare this with Mar. 16.15, 16. which ex­pounds this, you will find believing and being ba­ptized as close connected to salvation, as here Bapti­zing to Teach; He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved. Now if any will stand on the order of words to prove an institution, we may as well argue [Page 124] from Mark, as they from Mathew; None must be baptized but these which are taught; so none that be­lieveth and is not baptized can be saved; and that Baptism is as necessary to salvation as believing; for in order of phrase they are absolutely joyned to­gether: And what a strange inference would that be to make Baptism equal with faith to salvation? and yet we have as much ground to argue from the one place so, as they from the other; without they will admit some other qualifying term to make it up.

3. The order of things is not always, or commonly so exactly exprest in Scripture by the position of the words; for sometimes one thing in the order of words is put before another, which in order of na­ture and consideration is antecedent to it; as Mar. 1.15. Repentance is put before Faith. Rom. 10.9. Con­fession with the mouth is put before believing with the heart, as to salvation; with abundance of other places of Scripture. Thus many things in the Evan­gelists are left out by one, supplied by another; and the same word directly uttered in one, inverted in an­other, especially about the administration of the Lords Supper. For to avoyd tediousness, consult the places your selves. Mat. 26.26, 27. Mar. 14.22, 23. Luk. 22.20. 1 Cor. 11.25.

3. A third consideration to open this Text in Matthew, is from comparing it once more with its pa­rallel, Mar. 16.15. there it is, Go preach the Gospel; here it is, Teach and baptize: Now hence it follows, [Page 125] that their teaching was by holding forth the Gospel: As much as if he had said, Open the Covenant, tell men the riches and fulness of grace: Now if they must teach the Gospel, they must needs instruct them in the Covenant, which was to these that believed, and their seed. Now sutable to this Commission, Peter, when he comes to open the Gospel to the Jews pricked in their hearts, presently holds out the promise to them and their Children; Acts 2.38, 39. and by that to make them both Disciples. So Gal. 3.13. The blessings of Abraham to come on the Gentiles, is one of the main parts of the Gospel. Now if they teach men Gospel, they must preach as Peter did when he had converted the Parent, The promise is to you and to your Children. Thus in Luk. 1.72. this is made one great end of Christs coming, to perform the mercy promised to our Fathers, and to re­member his holy Covenant; so that preaching the Gospel is preaching the Covenant. Now that Infants are in the Covenant as well as grown persons, we have formerly proved.

4. This is no more then was required of Abraham at the time of Circumcision, and yet his Infants were not excluded from the Ordinance. Gen. 17. Walk be­fore me, and be perfect. Chap. 18.19. Abraham 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 sign of the Covenant, until they were taught, and had walked before God in upright­ness, as Abraham.

[Page 126]5. To come home to the word, in their own sense, [...] signifies Make Disciples; now Children are not capable of being made Disciples, say they.

I answer, 1. Some have been made Disciples be­fore they were distinctly taught, as the twelve, whom Christ called, and they followed him, and became his Disciples, and were real Disciples, yet as ignorant as Infants, and were taught afterwards by degrees.

2. One is said to be made a Disciple even in vulgar phrase, as well who is listed in the School to be taught, as one that is teaching or already taught, though he hath not learnt a letter: Thus in all Schools it's a usual phrase at the first entrance of a Child, he is called a new Scholar, or a new Disciple: Thus Infants being entred into Christs School, and given up to be taught in time, and by degrees, may be accounted Disciples; it was so in the former in­stance, and it's no strange expression in civil Schools.

3. Infants are expresly called Disciples in the New Testament, as well as grown and taught men: Thus Acts 15.10. Circumcision is called a yoke put on the neck of the Disciples, that is, on Infants, who were the special Subjects of that Ordinance, and bore the burthen of it, and not properly the Parents; and yet the Parents had the deep sense of it reflecting on them­selves and their little ones, and therefore he cals it a yoke that they nor their Fathers were able to bear; especially because it did bind them and their Children [Page 127] to keep the whole Law; there is no evasion of this; if they say it was meant of the Fathers, and of the do­ctrine of Circumcision, which did bind themselves: yet they must grant the yoke was on their Children as to the act; and that if the doctrine was so bur­thensome, much more the practice, which the poor Infants are under; and they are called indefinitely Disciples, either by themselves, or with their Parents; And the argument is thus: Those were Disciples on whom the yoke of circumcision was laid; but on In­fants was this yoke laid. Ergo Infants are Disciples in the New Testament expression. If you will make any distinction, it must be in the manner of laying on the yoke, viz. on the Parents doctrinally, on the Children actually: but there can be no restriction of the word, Disciples, from these on whom that yoke was laid, as is exprest in that Chapter. Consider,

4. Let us come to the subjects to whom the Gospel is to be preached; and they taught and baptized; it is in Mathew, [...], all Nations; in Mark it is, Preach the Gospel, [...], to every Creature: Now that Infants should be none of all the Nations, and excluded from being of this crea­tion of God, who were included as special subjects when the Church was in but so smal a spot of the world, is from our narrow apprehensions in the Gospel-times of dispensation of grace.

And the argument our Divines bring from this place is strong and most considerable: The Gospel is to be preached to every Creature, all Nations must [Page 128] be discipled; but Infants are a part of this creation, are included in all Nations; therefore they must be made Disciples also. Read the Text again, Mat. 28. Go teach all Nations ( [...]) baptizing them ( [...]) which must needs referre to ( [...]) though the one be masculine, the other the neuter; or else must relate to nothing, for it hath no Relative besides to answer unto: This is very common in Scripture, and the same phrases, as those well know that understand the Greek in Rev. 2.26, 27. and Chap. 19.15. there is [...] with [...], as Mr. Cobbet of N. E. well observes. Consult Acts 15.17. and 26.17. Acts 21.25. Eph. 2.11. Masculines joyned with ( [...]) that signifies all Nations. Now are Infants none of the Nations, or none of the National crea­tion which the Gospel may reach? God forbid.

The words hold forth only the general commissi­on given to the Apostles after Christs death; which was an enlarging of their bounds, who were only formerly circumscribed in Iudea, and charged not to go into the way of the Gentiles: but now the em­pale is broken down, they must preach the Gospel to every creature, teach all Nations, and baptize them: but it doth not hold forth either the proper subjects of Baptism, or the form or manner of bapti­zing, which should not be delivered (according to their own rule of institutions) in general and indefi­nite terms, as, Every Creature, all Nations; and by transitive words, as, Preach the Gospel to them, teach them. If this be the prime institution of baptizing, [Page 129] from which place they exclude Infants, when Christ useth such universal and comprehensive expressions; we shall desire but to deal with them on their ground, and the same Text will serve to prove our positions more demonstratively then theirs: And this Text shews, that Christ gave commission to the Apostles and Ministers to preach and baptize; but in what order to do it, or what should be required to the qua­lification of the subject as absolutely necessary, is not at all discovered in this Scripture; they must look for another Text to exclude Infants besides this, else give up their confidence.

Either this place is the full and exact rule of in­stitution of baptizing, or not; if they say it is, then it would describe the persons, and the manner, the matter and the form of baptizing, and that in the usual phrase with other Scriptures: but here is only a general commission to two great acts, viz. to preach, teach and baptize; and we may say in the same place, that whoever are outwardly taught, or do but hear the Gospel (though they walk never so contrary) must be baptized; for the commission is, Teach and baptize, nothing of the parties enter­tainment of it is mentioned in this Mat. 28. nor of the qualification of the subject with any distinguish­ing character▪ If they say this doth not hold forth all the institutions in every particular, as they must grant, then we may compare other Scriptures with this, to make out the full institution, as these where [Page 130] Infants are mentioned with so much gracious con­sideration, as hath been formerly exprest.

CHAP. XV. Concerning the signification and use of the word Baptism, or to be baptized; the genuine Etymologie of it in the Old and New Testament; the places in the New Testament brought to prove it signifies to plunge the whole body, an­swered.

THE confidence of these that differ hath, been so great, that as they have excommunicated In­fants from the capacity of such a priviledge, which they had so old a title unto; so they have forced this only sense from the word to baptize, that it must sig­nifie to plunge the whole body under water; and deny that to be true Baptism, which is not so ad­ministred; and so make it as essential to the manner, as visible profession to the matter.

For clearing up of this mist, I have diligently en­guired into the propriety of the word, and its use in the Greek Translators of the Old and New Testa­ment, [Page 131] which are the best guides in this case; and if we look narrowly, it will be very hard to find, and very seldome, that ever the word in Scripture is used for the total immersion of the body, or being abso­lutely under water.

The word ( [...]) signifies among all Wri­ters, both Heathen and Ecclesiastical, promiscuously to dip into, or wash with water, by pouring on of it, or sprinkling; and there is nothing more usual in the New Testament expression of it, then to hold forth any kind of washing: It's exprest in Authors by ma­defactare, lavare, abluere, to wet or wash: thus Bu­daeus, Scapula, Pasor and Grotius do interpret the word, though they grant it is, and may be taken more strictly for immersion: but let the Scripture explain it self, Mar. 7.4. it is used for the washing of hands, and of cups, and beds, and brasen vessels, and of ta­bles; which is not by plunging them in the water, so much as washing them by the pouring forth of wa­ter on them; for so it is exprest, when they came from the market they durst not eat ( [...]) without they were baptized, that is, washed; which could not be their whole bodies, without both ex­cessive trouble and danger, for which times and sea­sons must be observed: And besides this (saith the Evangelist) they retained many other things in cu­stome, [...], &c. as the Baptism of cups, that is, lotiones, or the washing of cups; which may be as well done by pouring on water, as by plunging into water, and was and is usually done in [Page 132] all Nations. So in Luk. 11.38. the Pharisees won­dred at Jesus ( [...]) that he was not baptized before dinner, that is, did not wash. And Heb. 9.10. all the Ceremonial washings or sprinklings are called Baptisms; in a metaphori­cal sense it's used for the pouring forth of the spi­rit.

And further, when it is translated to dip, both in the Old and New Testament, it signifies commonly the least touch or tast of any thing that is liquid. So Luk. 16.24. Dives begs that Lazarus might be sent ( [...]) that he might baptize, or dip the top of his finger in wa­ter to cool his tongue; the least drop would have been prized by him. 1 Sam. 14 27. Jonathan is said to dip the end of his rod in an honey-comb, that is, but to take a very little; and the word is ( [...]) so it is used in Exod. 12.22. Joh. 13.26.

But to put it out of question, that there needs no such rigidness; and in pressing this method of plunging from the word Baptism, let us compare it with other phrases. Differt à [...], quod est prosun­dum petere, & pe­nitus submergi. Pasor, Lexic. When the Scri­pture would express a covering of the whole body under water, and so a submersion, or being wholly under water, it useth two other words, as different from baptizing, viz. [...], and [...] and [...]. Compare 1 Cor. 10.2. All the Fathers and the Israelites are said to be baptized in the Cloud, and in the Sea; they had [Page 133] only the dewings of the Cloud, and the sprinklings of the water on them as they past through: But in Exod. 15.4, 5. when he speaks of Pharoah and his Hoast, he doth not say they were baptized in the waters, but useth these two words, [...], they were drowned in the Red Sea, submersi; and he adds, the depths have covered them; and [...], they sank, or as the word is, doused themselves into the bottom as a stone, while the Israelites were but baptized under the gentle droppings of the Cloud, and of the Sea. And the very same di­stinction did the Greek Writers make between ba­ptizing and dousing, or casting under water; expres­sing by baptizing, to be in the water as a Bottle is, or Ship that is seldom or never wholly overwhelmed: And this appears most demonstratively to be their meaning by the verse of the Ancient Oracle of the Athenians, who well knew how to speak and distin­guish Greek.

Whereby it plainly appears that the word (to ba­ptize) signifies any kind of washing, whether by sprinkling or pouring out of water, or dipping into water; and that it is specially distinguished from these words that do signifie a total submersion; and these [Page 134] men do rack the word only to speak for plunging un­der water, excluding the usual and more common sence of it, which is to wash or cleanse.

But let us view the Scriptures which they bring for the maintainance of this signification, Mat. 3.13.16. Jesus after he was baptized, went straight wayes up out of the water, ( [...]) which may be translated, he went up from the waters, [...] signifying more properly ab then ex, from then out; and it is most suitable to translate it so, because all rivers, for most part, lie low, and in valleys, in coming to which we are sayd to descend, and coming from to ascend; thus when Christ ascended, in Act. 1.9. He was ta­ken out of their sight, that is from their sight.

Of the like consideration is that other place, which they lay so much weight on for to hold forth plunging, Act. 8.36, 37, 38. Of Philip and the Eunuch, it is said they went both down into the water ( [...]) which may as well, and better be translated, they went down to or towards the water; it seems they being the upper ground, spied water below them, and so went down to it to be baptized, as it is a common phrase among us, to go down to the water side.

But secondly, should we grant them this interpre­tation, that they went both down into the water, which is a straining 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 shoes; and how can they prove by this place they went in any further, or how far they went; or whether Phi­lip [Page 135] 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. Psal. it is said, They that go down to the sea in ship, see thy wonders; when they go down into the sea in ships, is the ship plunged all over? or are they under water in the ship?

Yet thirdly, it is evident that their going into the water, is distinguished in the same ver. from the Eu­nuchs being baptized; they went down, or to (or according to their own mind) into the water, and he baptized him: so that the going into the water, take it for dipping and ducking, is not baptizing, but some­thing distinct, another act; and if they will prove go­ing down to the water, or into the water, in this place denotes the dipping of the whole body, then he must be dipt before he was baptized; for Philip baptized him after they went into the water.

Again, there is as much from this phrase to prove Philip to be dipt as the Eunuch; and if dipping be baptizing, for the text saith expresly, they both went down to, or in the water, if you interpret it after their own heart, that they both went into the water, Phi­lip was as much in the water as the Eunuch; for there is no exception made, but both went in together, and who should then baptize the Eunuch? if this seem to be an absurdity to them, how can they from this expression, in the severest acception, conclude the Eunuch was dipt? but they both went into the wa­ter [Page 136] together, seeing the Text speaks as much of Phi­lips going into the water, as of the Eunuchs: But if we take it according to the first translation, that they went both down towards the water, there may be some reasonable account given how the one was ba­ptized; which seems to be most probable, by pouring out water upon him.

If any one object further from the next verse, that they ascended out of the water, here is not ( [...] as in the former place, but [...]) out of the water, yet it will not at all help them; for it is said of them both, they came up out of the water, and it speaks as much of Philips dipping himself as the Eunuch; and you may as well argue that Philip was new dipt, as that the Eunuch was baptized by dipping, because they both came up out of the water; besides, one may be said very properly to come out of the water, if he put but his foot into it; and thus you see on what weak foundations these high structures of confidence and rigidness are built.

The third and most triumphant place, which they cry up, and adore for this manner of baptizing by dipping, is John 3.23. And John was baptizing in Aenon near to Salem, because there was much water there.

If we consider impartially, here is but a Geogra­phicall description of this place, of it's situation, nigh Salem, and of the benefit they had of water, in re­gard of the most places besides in the countrey, Ae­non lying nigh the banks of Jordan; and whereas they [Page 137] lay the weight on this, that he gives it as a reason why John was baptizing at Aenon, because there was much water there; it may be a very good reason why he chose that place for the countrey to come in, and be baptized, because they might go many a mile in these hot countreys, and not meet with a drop of water, and it was a great priviledge accounted to these places that banked on Iordan, that they had much water; but what argument is to prove that Iohn plunged all he baptized?

The Argument according to their form must be thus. John baptized in Aenon, because there was much water; Ergo, baptizing is by dipping all the whole body; this is a dangerous and ominous way of argu­ing to those who deny consequences, and deductions, for to warrant duties without express syllabical pre­cept; I hope they will allow us the same priviledge of demonstration, when we say whole houses were baptized, Ergo Infants and Children, who are the pillars of a house; is not this more fair and probable, then that Iohn plunged their whole body, because there was much water? There is none of our conse­quences for Infants baptism so strained and far fetcht, as we have demonstrated formerly; it was necessary for them that had so many of several 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 immerse every one they baptized; you may in England go 20 miles in some countreys, and not find a river to plunge a mans whole body under the [Page 138] water, what would it be in Spain, and the other hot countreys, where water is sold as wine and bear with us, how far might they go ere they could get a river to plunge themselves in? Thus you see how little rea­son they have from these Scriptures to be so perem­ptory and rigid, as to make the essence of baptism to be dipping, or plunging all the body.

The last pretence commonly urged for this dipping, is from the analogie it hath with Christs burial, from that Rom. 6.4. Col. 2.12. Buried with him in baptism; hence say they it is clear one must be dipt under wa­ter, else it will not represent a burial. In this they put all their confidence, and therefore let us seriously view their strength.

Sol. First, let it be considered that they still make use of consequences, to prove institutions, which they will not allow us.

But more particularly, 1. Plunging the whole bo­dy into the water, doth not hold similitude neither with Christs burial, nor the manner of burials in the most part of the world; for first, for Christs burial and the manner of it, was not by throwing under the earth, for Christs body was wrapt in a linnen cloth by Ioseph, and laid in a Tomb, or Sepulchre, hewen out of a rock, for that was the custome of the Jews, è rupe specum excavare condendis corporibus: Matth. 27.60. To cut out a place like a cave, or den, out of a rock to lay their dead bodies in, as is observed by a man of great learning, and diligence; thus when wee sleep in our houses we may be said to be buried, having something over our heads.

Secondly, the manner of burying in Europe is not by plunging the bodie into a pit of dust, but by cast­ing dust or dung on the person: so that their pouring out water on an Infant as a passive subject, seems more to answer the similitude of burying, then the casting into the water, wherein there is some motion of the party himself contributing to his ba­ptizing.

Thirdly, no man is said to be buried who falls in­to the water, or under earth, without he stay there some considerable time.

Fourthly, we are said to be buried with Christ in baptism, in regard of the spiritual union we have with Christ in his death, and burial; and this is as much signified by pouring water on a person (as earth on a dead body) as well, I say, as by plunging.

Let us now consider what remains to be said against this absolute rule, as they would make it; you have seen all their main places for plunging, with what de­monstration, at the best ex probabilibus & incertis, out of probable and uncertain conjectures, which they so much tax us withall, and yet the eye sees not it self.

Let us now go on, and consider what other places of Scripture speak more direct to qualifie this rigid opinion of plunging.

When Iohn began first to administer his office, it is said Mat. 3.5. That Ierusalem, and all Iudea, and all the regions round about Iordan went forth to John, and were baptized of him in Iordan: A man had need have [Page 140] good store of confidence to perswade himself and others, that all these people were baptized by plunging their whole body into Jordan, or that they were dipt in their cloaths, or came with any prepared garments for that purpose; all which are necessary circumstances to be considered; doubtlesse they were many thousands that came forth, for the denomina­tion is from the greater number; all Iudea and Ieru­salem, &c. that is, a very great many, or the greatest number of these Inhabitants; and how they could be thus baptized, men and women, in their cloaths pro­miscuously, or how they could get garments so ready as to make the act decent, or what places they could have, seeing there were so many, for the women and the men, to prepare themselves for the comely admi­nistration of such an Ordinance, I cannot imagine; we hear Iohn baptized so many, but in what manner is uncertain; and that which is so hotly contended for most improbable, all things duely considered.

The like is of that, 2 Acts 41. where 3000 were baptized in one day by the Apostle, which if it were performed by plunging, could not but be accompa­nied with the like inconveniences: so that it is only said they were baptized, not how; and the word, as you have seen, is not so strictly to be appropriated to dipping, but admits of a more large significa­tion.

First, of the same consideration is that place, Acts 8.12. where it is expresly said, that men and women were baptized together, and on a sudden, which can [Page 141] hardly be conceived how it could be done with that gravity the Gospel requires, by plunging in their own proper habits; and such sudden acts could not be done with suitable preparations of garments.

But to come to particular instances, and parallel them together with former places, which are brought to prove this kind of dipping; and let us judge which hath more demonstration. Acts 9.18. Paul was ba­ptized in the house of Iudas; there is nothing of a Iordan or Aenon, a river that he was carried unto; neither can they by any thing prove that Paul was thus dipt, but only their good will to have it so; nei­ther is it probable that every house had a deep pond belonging to it, or a river running through it, or so vast a receptacle or cistern to hold water as to plunge a mans whole bodie in it.

Secondly, consider the Jailors case, Acts 16.33. he was baptized in the prison, and at midnight, he and his house; he washed their stripes, and they washed him in token of remission of sins.

All that the most rationall and profound Critick of that judgement can say, is onely this; That it may be supposed he had some great vessel, which some had in these hot countreys for washing themselves in, and so made use of it himself to be baptized; but what a poor supposition is this? there is nothing either in the text, or from reason to countenance it; who can ima­gine that in these hot countreys where water is so scarce and precious, a poor Jaylor should have such a vessel of so large and vast a continent, which must [Page 142] cost much; or that the State would provide such a vessel in the Prison to bathe and refresh Prisoners who are under suspition, or censures of all sorts of crimes against the State? but no more of that; it's too gross to conceive: And why may not we as well argue thus; The Jaylor was baptized late in the night in the Prison; Ergo not by plunging, but wash­ing or pouring out water on him, as they argue from Joh. 3.33. John was baptizing in Aenon near Salem, because there was much water there; Ergo he bapti­zed by plunging; I leave it to any sober judgement to determine; if the one prove that baptizing may be by dipping, the other proves it may be by some other way.

Thus you see the Scripture is not so peremptory as these men are, but hath left the method of bapti­zing in general, and under a latitude: Neither can they bring one express place which holds it forth ei­ther in precept or president (which they call for from us to shew them for our judgement, and will not be satisfied in all other considerations) and have no more but conjectural consequences to prove their absolute determinations, but what their confidence supplies: And if there be any absolute need of dip­ping, it is to cool the heat of these mens spirits, who deny Baptism to be true, because they have not been plunged.

The sum of all is this; They affirm the word, To baptize, signifies only immersion, plunging or dipping the whole body under water; we deny it, and shew [Page 143] that it signifies to wash by pouring on water, and more often in the Old and New Testament; and that when this word is used in the Scripture, it's op­posed to other words that signifie properly dousing, or casting under water: And I think I may say it without too much rashness, that they can hardly bring one explicit place in the Old or New Testament, where the word, To baptize, is used positively for plunging or dousing under water; and doubtless the most of that judgement know not what the meaning of the words are, else they would not lay the essence of Baptism on a word of such a large use.

The Scriptures being thus cleared, to speak at least, that plunging is not absolutely necessary to constitute the truth of Baptism: Let us now come to consider the morality of this judgement, and the practical conveniencies or inconveniencies of this way of plunging; for if it be the only and pure Gospel-way, it will have no ominous or uncomely aspect on other rules, which are from the same authority, nor any way asperse the Gospel.

1. I know no how to believe that Christ would ordain any Ordinance, and tye souls strictly to it, that cannot be practised universally by all, and but in some places, and at some seasons, without manifold inconveniencies and dangers unto nature: For if only dipping should be baptizing, and every one that believes ought presently to be baptized, how shall they do that live in those hot and dry Countrys where water is so scarce, as it is in many places of the [Page 144] world, who must be forced to go so many miles to come to a River, and yet may only find it a small Brook, with which they can hardly wet their feet in passing over, as it is in many places of the World?

And if there were in every place never so much water, yet how dangerous is it for some bodies who are rheumatick, and subject to Catarrhs and defluxi­ons, in the winter time (for no season should hinder a man from the practice of an Ordinance) in cold and wet to be plunged into the water? it were enough to beget diseases in the most healthy bodies; Christ is more tender of the bodies of his Saints, then to put them into such hazards; and I hope no one will con­ceive Baptism to be a charm to prevent all inconveni­encies and diseases on the body: yet the zeal of these of that way carries on so furiously, that they think it's impossible for them to get any hurt, though they plunge themselves into the water in frost and snow: but it's dangerous to tempt God out of his ordinary way of preservation, when there is no ab­solute necessity for such a practice. Besides, this Or­dinance would be a greater yoke and burthen then Circumcision, if this rule of theirs should be so uni­versally followed; for there was no danger to the Child by that act, though it seemed bloody and hard: But if all persons (for none are excluded by any weakness or indisposition) should be thus bapti­zed, how eminent a danger would many be in? And if it prove so hazardous to the bodies of many healthy ones, that have in winter time but accidentally fallen [Page 145] into the water, though they have not been under water, that it hath cost them their lives, the violence of cold so piercing their bodies and animal spirits (of which we have many experiences) how would it be for others, who labour under daily weakness? And there is no promise that the water shall have no power to hurt those which after this manner are ba­ptized, no more then others. Flesh and blood is the same in all, which is the immediate subject of such an act; and God doth proportion his Ordinances to keep correspondency with his other rules of mercy, and prescriptions for use of means. In a word, if this be the only way of baptizing, happy are those that live in hot Countreys, or have bodies of brass.

It's said, if it be an Ordinance, God will preserve; but that is the question; and that which demonstrates it, is not the only way; if it be a way at all, it is That it crosseth Gods rules for preservation of a mans self; the practice of it at some times being a kind of a degree of self-murther, and very unsutable to the laws of mercy and tenderness, that command the very heart of Christ; and such an absolute un­qualified command doth not look like an Ordinance of the Gospel: For if baptizing be immediatly to be practised after believing (according to their prin­ciples) then what should hinder water that they may not be baptized? Suppose they be sick and weak, sup­pose the season be unsutable, and yet the soul desires to be baptized? You must either go against all rules [Page 146] of nature to plunge that person, or else find out some other way of baptizing; or else a Gospel command must be neglected; for there is nor precept nor pre­sident of delay of that Ordinance (still to their own positions) in all the New Testament; and so both the baptizer and baptized must sin in performance of a duty; for the one sins if he by any pretence destroys his own health; and the other sins in being an in­strument in it. I wish men were considerate of the nature and effects of these things; which if it were more commonly practised, we should have heaps of instances to make good this consideration.

2. It's very much to be observed, that Christ who hath bid us avoid all appearance of evil, should or­dain any Ordinance wherein there must needs be some such appearance fit for flesh and blood to act on; I have so much modesty as only to present 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 Apostle would have women to be vailed or covered in the Congregation, because of the Angels, take it either literally or tropically, to shew the modesty of Church-Assemblies, and to prevent any shadow of temptation; how can we think that it's sutable to Apostolical rule, that women should appear in the open air, out of their wonted habit, in a garment next to nakedness, and so be plunged into water? But I am loth to enter into these secrets.

I only propound this, Whether or no that this [Page 147] baptism by plunging, be not rather a baptizing of mens cloaths, and upper garments, then of the body, if the person baptized be not naked? and if he or she be, how odious a custome would that be? I can­not but think that that part that is baptized, ought to be naked, that the water may immediatly fall on that place; else something else must be baptized primarily, and the flesh secondarily and by consequence.

This is the reason why we only pour water on the face, because it's the principallest part wherein the image of God most appears, and the soul shines forth most eminently, on which all the workings of mens humors and affections leave the visiblest im­pression and symptoms. And it's observable, that the same word in the Greek ( [...]) signifies both the face and the person, because the whole per­son is represented by the face. And thus we baptize the person in baptizing his face, which we can look on, and wash naked, and not be ashamed. Let these men that are so zealous for dipping and plunging the whole body, consider from all this, what warrant they have from Scripture for their so much rigid con­fidence.

CHAP. XVI. An explication of that place, Heb. 10.22. About washing the whole body with pure water; the improper application of it to their manner of baptizing by plunging the whole body.

AFter all strainings and shifts of the Antipedo ba­ptists, this place in Heb. 10.22. is forced in to give evidence for that manner of baptizing, former­ly so much contended for. Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water; from hence they infer baptizing must be by dipping and plunging, or washing the bo­dy throughout.

Let us review it with it's context and we shall find they chew but upon a dry bone. For,

First, the scope of the Apostle in all this chapter, is not in the least to discover the manner of baptizing, but to open two things.

1. The fulness of the satisfaction and merit of Christs offering himself, and being a sacrifice for re­mission of sins, in opposition to all Legal, and sha­dowy offerings, as appears from the 1. v. unto the 29. [Page 149] which was begun to be demonstrated in the former chapters, especially the 9. chap.

2. To encourage souls in their approaches to God on such a glorious account now in the New Testa­ment, so in the 19. ver. Having therefore boldness ( [...]) or freedome, to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way, &c. In this 22. v. he bids them draw nigh with a true heart, and ful assurance of faith, &c.

Secondly, that his scope or intent is not to open the manner of baptizing, is evident; for he writes to those that were baptized already as these Hebrews were; for you have no controversie in this Epistle about circumcision and baptism, as in the Rom. Gall. Phil, Colos. but only concerning Christs priestly Of­fice, especially compared with the Levitical, Aaroni­cal Priesthood, and the virtue of Legal-ceremonial sacrifices, and the sacrifice of Jesus Christ as High-priest, as any one that runs may read; now either they must say these were not baptized before, or else must conclude that his design is not to inform them (and that so transiently) of the nature or manner of administring of that Ordinance.

Thirdly, the Apostle here doth directly instruct the soul how to make confident addresses to God, viz. from the sense of our justification and sanctification together; for so by our hearts being sprinkled from an evil conscience, is meant, and can be meant no other then Christs blood sprinkled on our souls, in the assu­rance of our absolution from sin, and the washing [Page 150] with pure water no more (but by this outward ex­pression) of the purity of our conventions, as to sanctification, that we may not come with scandal of external unholiness, when we pretend to be justified by Christs blood.

Fourthly, the usual word is here left out which ex­presseth that Ordinance; and it is your bodies not ba­ptized but washed ( [...]) which is a clear allusion to that of Levit 16.4. from whence it seems to be excerpted; when Aaron the high-Priest was to enter into the holy place, and before he was to be attired for that work, it is said, He shall wash his flesh in wa­ter, and so put them on; the 70. translate the words thus, [...], He shall wash his whole bodie with water, to signifie the holiness he should have in his person, as from external publick polluti­ons; the very same intent of the Apostle is here, that if we would be confident before God, when we ap­proach unto God, we must come with Christs blood on our consciences, and no known pollution on out conversations; and if we will follow their grounds from comparing these two places, we may conclude that baptism was as much an Ordinance of the Old Testament, as the New, for washing; the body was used in both.

Fifthly, it is a usual phrase in Scripture to express the sanctification of our persons, from inward & outward defilements, by the washing of water and washing the body; & yet not in the least to hint out the manner of baptizing by water, as into the special administration [Page 151] of that Ordinance; thus in Esa. 1.16. when God saith to his backsliding people, wash you, make you clean; must he needs mean, go and be baptized? but that outward expression is put for the reforming of their wayes, and expounded by putting away the evil from their doings or works; thus in Ioh. 13. Christ expresseth justification and sanctification, by washing in general, and then washing the feet; he that is washed, (which is not baptized; for Christ saith he must wash, or else Peter could have no part in him; and Christ did not baptize) such a one need no more but to wash his feet, that is, walk holily; so that here is washing, and washing of the feet, and yet neither meant of bapti­zing nor washing: Thus likewise in the Corinthians it is said, as to their sanctification, Now you are wash­ed, now you are cleansed, now you are justified; he means not Now you are baptized, but of the special purification of their hearts, and lives from their former pollutions of flesh and spirit; which though signified by baptism, yet so remotely, as no man can ga­ther the constant method of external baptism from it.

Sixthly, he saith your bodies washed ( [...]) with clean or pure water; now I hope, as to baptizing, none are so foolish as to stand on it, whe­ther they be baptized after a rain when the water is puddled, or whether only in pure and crystal streams, from an unpuddled spring or ocean; and yet they must be tied to the one as the other, if this Text be their president; and we may as well question from [Page 152] this Text, whether they be rightly baptized, if there be any mud, or slime, or filth in the water, as whether we baptized if all our bodies be not washed; but now this expression to set forth holiness and sanctifi­cation, is most apt and full of life: our hearts and conversations, in drawing nigh unto God, should be as if externally they were washed with clean water, transparent and spotless before him, shining with an Evangelical brightness, and spiritual purity; for it will be very hard to draw nigh to God with a good conscience, and a tainted and besmeared body or con­versation, with unholy acts, whereby God is so much dishonoured; especially to come as the Apostle saith in the former part of the verse, with a true heart and full assurance of faith.

Seventhly, if he had meant by this washing of the body, baptizing, he would not have made such a dis­proportion (according to their own rule) between the sign and thing signified; for he speaks of the heart being only sprinkled, and yet the body washed with clean water; now if baptism doth not signifie and seal justification, as well as sanctification, it is not a seal of the Covenant of grace; and if it do signifie, it cannot go beyond the thing signified in expression and outward representation. And if Christs blood in Heb. 12.24. be called the blood of sprinkling, and it be one of the main things signified and sealed in baptism; well may we answer it by an outward act, without offence or sin.

Eighthly, grant that by washing the body is meant [Page 153] baptizing here (which you see cannot be extorted by violence, or extracted by any chymical virtue) yet it will not serve their turns: For,

First, the body is said to be washed, when any one or more of the principal parts in sight or use are washed; & what is done to any eminent or commanding part, it carries the denomination of the whole with it; for Maries annointing and washing of Christs head and feet in Luke 7.44.45. is interpreted in Iohn 11.2. for the anointing of the Lord, as much as if she had done it to all his body throughout; though it is only exprest in the former place of the anointing and washing his head and feet. This is most usual in Scri­pture.

Secondly if they will go to the strictness of the term of washing the body; then,

First, it must be washed naked, or else it is not a a washnig of the body.

Secondly, it must not be a bare dipping or plunging into water, but some other act must be done with the body, viz. a rinsing or rubbing, as we do pots or cloaths which we wash, which are not said to be wash­ed because dipt under water, but so rinsed as the filth and dirt is taken out; I only urge this to shew the in­evitable inconveniences these men will bring on them­selves by such interpretations of Scripture.

Many other considerations might be added, if this Tract would bear the weight of them.

CHAP. XVII. A short summing up of the former principles, and arguing them from the method of the Apostle Peter about those he baptized, Acts 10.47.

THat we may bring up all unto a full conclusion, let that place be considered, Acts 10.47. and the manner of the Apostles arguing in it, which is most speciall to what we would prove; his argument lies in this, they have received the holy Ghost as well as we: Ergo, what should hinder water? where there is a qualification, there may be an administration of that Ordinance; this is grounded on a common principle; now if we observe,

First, the Apostle changes the usual expression, and faith not, Seeing they have believed as well as we, but seeing they have received the holy Ghost as well as we, What should hinder? The argument is from the equi­valency of the qualification; for whereas he saith all along formerly, they believed and were baptized; and to the Eunuch, Acts 8.37. If thou believest thou maist; but here, seeing they have received the holy Ghost as well as we; this change of phrase shews the qua­lification not to lie in one term or expression, but in the universal equalitie of Gospel manifestation, to [Page 155] some one way, to some another; that if any title in the Gospel can be found properly, either by Gods promise or our judgment, applicable to any person, we may say What should hinder water? now to re­ceive the holy Ghost, is the largest and most vast ex­pression, as to a qualification, that ever could be men­tioned, taking in both real graces and all external gifts and priviledges, which are all conveyed by that holy Spirit, whether common or special, as is before exprest in another Chapter.

We shall desire on the Apostles account to argue from all these pregnant Texts of Scripture concern­ing Infants; and having the same premises we shall not certainly draw a wrong conclusion, when we find the Scriptures giving such titles to Infants, and so ma­ny special carriages of Christ to them, which amounts to as much as is spoken of any that were baptized, why may not we say with Peter, What should hinder Water? as for instance,

If Infants be in the Covenant, that Abrahams promise belongs to them, as we have proved, What should hinder water?

If Infants be holy, What should hinder Water? These which are visible Saints may be baptized; but so are the Infants of believers; for they are called ( [...]) 1 Cor. 7.14. The same name given to denominate all Saints; now to be holy is as much as to be a be­liever; as to receive the holy Ghost is made all one with being a believer; and what then should hinder water?

So again, when the Gentiles and their posterity are ingraffed into the same root, Rom. 11. which is A­braham and the Covenant, and the branches holy as the root, what should hinder water?

If Christ was angry when Infants were forbidden to come to him, and charged his Disciples to suffer them to be brought, who can forbid water? especial­ly when Christ took them up in his arms, laid his hands on, and blessed them, which is as much and more then is done in baptism, what should hinder water to be cast on them? and so we may argue from every place in the former discourse, upon this very prin­ciple; for the Apostle argues neither from precept nor example, but from a parallel qualification, because they had received the holy Ghost; and surely all these places of Scripture concerning Infants; will fully a­mount to make up an equivalent qualification in them to a visible profession of grown persons, and so we may argue on the same ground with Peter; besides, Infants are capable of receiving the holy Ghost as well as grown persons, and why not capable of wa­ter? if they say it is only a visible believer, a visible professor that is the subject; We answer,

You see the Apostle useth several expressions about it, sometimes actively, sometimes passively, sometimes if thou believest; here, seeing they have re­ceived the holy Ghost, but never saith a visible Saint, or a visible believer, or one that actually professeth; and so may we say, seeing the promise is to them, see­ing they are holy, seeing they are called Disciples, see­ing [Page 157] they had Christs hands laid on them, and were blessed, seeing they are capable of receiving the ho­ly Ghost, what should hinder water?

Quest. If they say still there is no command; I answer,

First, there is as much as is said of others that were baptized.

Secondly, there is no command in terms from Christ or his Apostles to baptize professing believers, or those that should receive the holy Ghost; yet they were baptized.

Thirdly, where there is parallel characters to shew qualification, there may be the same outward sign ap­plied; on this principle the Apostle reasons in this Scripture; it is only to be wondred how so many di­rect places of Scripture, which cannot but sparkle in the consciences of those which are diligent and diving into truth, can be so lightly evaded and made nothing of while men pretend to search truth impartially, without deceit or guile.

CHAP. XVIII. Wherein is shewed who is to administer this Ordinance of baptism, according to the rule of the Gospel.

AS these that are contrary to Infant baptism are strict, and most severe in other circumstances, which they think must be in that Ordinance, so they are most slight and rude in their considerations and practise, as to the administrator of that Ordinance, making every male Disciple, or any one that can give an occasional word of exhortation, the minister of this Ordinance, which they do otherwise shut up, as in the most holy place, and put the very substance of the Gospel in it; this is most unsuitable to the Gospel, and makes baptism one of the poorest and lowest Ordinances, and of no such solemnity, seeing every Disciple may baptize another, and he that can speak any thing of the Gospel may do such an act.

But if we trace the rule, we shall see, that as it is an Ordinance of publick cognizance, so it must be admi­nistred by a publick Officer, who hath received com­mission authoritatively from Christ and his Church, and that it was never administred by any one but he that was either ordinarily, or extraordinarily called thereunto; begin with Iohn the Baptist, so called from his work and designment to the administration [Page 159] of that Ordinance; he was extraordinarily called, as the prophesies of him witness, with the circumstances of his birth and behaviour, Luke 1.7. &c. Matth. 3.1, 2, 3.

All the time of Christs ministry, his Disciples by immediate commission from himself baptized, and none else; and we all know how they were called, and who gave them power.

When Christ gave up all his power and authority to be continued to the end of the world, or his second coming, Matth. 28. Go teach all nations, baptizing them, and gave them their general and publick com­mission, he gave it to these that were to be Apostles, and to these that should succeed them in ordinary, and as by settled commission, not to every one that should be made a Disciple; this was a commission to them at large, and yet appropriated to such an order, with­out we will say all are commissioned to teach and ba­ptize.

Afterwards, when the Gospel order of Churches came to be setled, and particular instructions given, as to the foundation and method of administration in Churches, it was never administred by any but those that were for the time extraordinary, or ordinary set­led Officers of the Church, whose names are summed up in 1 Cor. 12.28, 29. and 4. Eph. 11. Apostles, Pro­phets, Evangelists, Pastours and Teachers; besides these, none have office or power to such administrati­on but only these.

Those that are the more sober and intelligent sort [Page 160] of our opposites, grant us this, that the administration of baptism is of publick cognizance; and that ordi­narily it must be administred by those which are in publick and set office; but generally every brother among them of any supposed gift may be a ba­ptizer.

As for Philip and Ananias, who baptized, the first was an Evangelist, an extraordinary officer, as the A­postles, raised and inspirited, and impowred much after the same manner; and if we consult with Acts 8. he had special commission and authority from hea­ven, by a Divine call, to perform that act on the Eu­nuch; and so for Ananias who baptized Paul, as one of their own judgment saith well▪ he was deputed in an extraordinary manner to that ministery, Acts 9. the Lord appearing to him in a vision; and these examples cannot be drawn into an ordinary rule, without the same circumstances be found usual.

And it must needs be so that none but one of the setled officers of the Church who is to preach the Go­spel may be a baptizer.

First, because it is a Church Ordinance; Christ hath now left the keyes to the Church, set in the Church successively such persons, who are actually to admini­ster all Ordinances in it; and if it be a Church Ordi­nance, onely these may administer it who are called to one of these offices in the Church; all grant this, that it is a Church Ordinance, though some take the Church more largely, others more strictly.

Secondly, it is an act of power to baptize, Mat. 28. [Page 161] All power is given to me in heaven and earth; Go teach and baptize; now power is conveyed by a speciall commission and call. For a man to exercise a gift of knowledge by utterance, needs no such solemnity; but to baptize, it being a sealing of a speciall priviledge to others, must come from an office-power, and so cannot ordinarily be administred by a gifted Disciple.

Thirdly, there would be no distinction as to pow­er, between Apostles, Evangelists, Pastors and Teach­ers, in administration of any Ordinance, and every brother of the Church, if their rule stand; this is the common confusion of the most of the contrary judgement, which utterly overthrowes the other of Gospel Churches.

CHAP. XIX. On Christs being baptized by John, when he was about the thirtieth feer of his age; whether any thing can be gathered from it against bapti­Zing of Infants?

THis is the last plea urged from Christs example, that he was not baptized untill about the thir­tieth yeere, therefore none but growne persons ought to be baptized, if there be any force in Christs ex­ample.

To which is answered, 1. In generall, actings are not alwayes to be our examples; for some act he did meerely as Mediatour, God-man, unimitable by us, as to be crucified for our sins; some he did out of speci­all reason, and eminent emergency, as to fast forty dayes and nights in the wildernesse, with many such like, up and downe the Scripture, that are no rules to us; his personall and representative acts, and these which have beene acted upon extraordinary occasion and reason, cannot be drawne into practicall rule of example to us.

2. If we will take Christs example for a rule in this, that he was baptized when so growne up, why th n we may as well take Christs practise, as our ex­ample, in the active sense, he baptized none, therefore none are to baptize; the same holds as strong as the other; if any say the rule afterwards warrant that, [Page 163] so it doth the baptizing of Infants, as hath beene for­merly proved.

3. And more home, Christ was a Saint in the wombe, he professed his faith from a Childe, dispu­ted with the Doctors about Divine things when he was but 12. yeeres old, so that he could be baptized with an infallible eveidence at first, and yet was not baptized untill such an age; hence if we will follow Christs example, though men be knowne to be profes­sours, and never so godly, yet they must not be bap­tized untill just they come to the same stature, and terme of yeares that Christ was baptized in; the rea­son is stronger for the one then the other, because Christ, though he had such a visible, such an infallible right to it, yet did abstaine from the practise of it, untill just such a time, which he chose out as fittest, so that the time hath as much force to make an ex­ample, and bindes as strictly to the observance of it, as the generall consideration of him, as a growne per­son: upon this account no man must be baptized untill he be 29. or full 30. yeares of age.

4. There may be many considerations why Christ was baptized at yeeres:

1. That he might enter on his publique ministery with the more greater solemnity of such an Ordinance, and have a testimony from heaven to him in that Or­dinance, which was given, The Holy Ghost descending on him in the forme of a Dove, Mat. 3. two last verses. Now Christs entrance into his publique ministery, began imediately after his baptisme, how he con­verst [Page 164] for the most part of the former yeares, is very darke in Scripture.

2. It might be also, because he would give a testi­mony to John Baptist, who, though he was designed from the wombe to that worke, yet began to act his office but a little while before, and had soone done. It is a question whether he baptized any considerable time after he baptized Christ; but just as Christ did arise in his ministery, John fell in his.

3. As there is no reason to be given why Christ should live so long, and not take on him his publique ministery, untill such an age, nor may it be urged as such an example to us; so there is no reason perem­ptorily to be given why he was not baptized untill then, and so the rule is uncertaine, and of no value. But this example is contrary to the following rule left for baptizing, according to their owne princi­ples: For,

1. That Ordinance was immediately administred (as they) after believing, and profession; Christ was a known Believer, and Professour before; neither did he make a new profession to John when he came to be baptized; but John rather scrupled it as an act too high for him to performe, as to such a glorious per­son, Mat. 3. suffer it to be done (saith Christ,) &c. It would be a sin for us to delay so long.

2. Christs Baptisme was upon no other grounds then ours, his to fulfill all righteousnesse in our stead, or to wash away unrighteousnesse, the filth of the flesh, and spirit, as an outward signe of it, and so [Page 165] cannot come under the common rule; this I conceive sufficient to be spoken as to that consideration; there onely remaines, that question which will easily be an­swered on the former grounds, if they prove true, as they are demonstrated, The Lord give a blessing to these considerations on your heart.

CHAP. XX. That Baptisme doth not forme a Church.

SO much doe our opposites advance Baptisme, that they make it the only constitutive principle of a Gospel Church, by which men enter into the Church, and are made visible Members onely by its admini­stration, and in their owne method. But we shall soon dethrone that position by the authority and force of Scripture and rationall argumentation.

Onely in generall, I doubt our Divines have un­wittingly given them too much ground to affirme as they doe, calling it an entrance into the Church, an initiating Ordinance, seale, and by their practice of late to set the Font nigh the Church porch; though I would not much stand upon it, how proper it is to call it an initiating Ordinance; (a phrase I have used in this discourse Pro forma) without it be be­cause it is the first seale to be administred in the Order of Sacraments; but it will be easily proved that Baptisme gives no essence or being, either to a Church, or membership.

1. Because a man must be a member, and of a Church, ere he can be Baptized according to the Go­spell rule.

2. Sacraments are Ordinances to be administred in the Church, and to the Church, which supposeth the existence of the Church before; thus 1 Cor. 12. [Page 167] 28. Eph. 4.11, 12, 13. the Lord hath set in, and given all officers to the Church, if so, Sacraments, which must be administred by officers, if rightly.

3. A Church may be without Baptisme, and yet be as true and as reall a Church; as the Isralites were so long in the wildernesse without Circumcision, which was as much an initiating Ordinance, as ever Baptisme was; now nothing can be without its forme, and exist.

4. That cannot be the forme of a Church, or make a man a Member, which remaines the same, and un­touched after excommunication, whereby a man is cut off from membership at present, but now though the Church may take away his membership, they cannot his Baptisme, which is the same still, and is not lost.

5. For this is an absolute rule, that that which gives the forme, or being to a Church, it must cease when the Church ceaseth, or when a Member ceaseth to be a Member, it must cease with it; and that must be renewed, as often as membership is renewed, and so one must be Baptized againe, as often as he re­newes Membership; this is most absurd, yet must fol­low from such a principle.

6. Baptisme is a signe, and seale, therefore gives no being to any thing, but confirmes it; It is a con­sequent act, and supposeth something pre-exi­stent.

Obj. As for that place they so much stand on, Act. 2.41. As many as received the word gladly, [Page 168] were Baptized, and there was added that day about 3000. soules; hence they say they were added by Baptisme.

Sol. The words say not, they were added by Baptisme, but puts a full point, or stop after that sentence, as many as gladly received the word, were Baptized. There that sentence ends. And the Apostle goes on a new account; and saith there were added that day 3000. soules, but doth not at all shew the manner of their adding; so that these words are rather a recapitulati­on, and summing up the number of Church Members added that day, then any description of the way of their taking into the Church: as if one should say, he had 3000 l. in gold added to his estate, he only shews it is so, but not how he came to have that added, so it must be here; and the former reasons prove the im­possibility of such an interpretation.

2. Obj. There is one place more urged to prove Baptisme to be the forme of a Church, and that which makes a Member, which is, 1 Cor. 12.13. We are all Baptized into one body, there Baptisme onely embodyes members.

Sol. To which I answer first, The Apostle speakes there primarily of this Baptisme of the Spirit, not of water; So by one Spirit, we are Baptized into one Body, not so much of Baptisme by water.

But secondly, grant it to be meant of Baptisme by water, yet it proves nothing that Baptisme is the forme of that body, which hath its matter and forme, holinesse, and union before Baptisme; baptized into [Page 169] one body, doth not here shew the essentiall constitu­tion of a Church, but the confirmed union.

For first, we are said in Gal. 3.27. to be Baptized into Christ; now none will conjecture that Baptisme gives the forme of union with Christ, but onely seales it; so into one body, may be as to the unity of communion in the same body.

2. The phrase of Baptizing into, or in one body, shews the body existent, and in perfect being before, else we could not be Baptized in a body, or into a body; for when one is Baptized first, into what body is he, and the second, and third incorporated? untill a body be compleat, they cannot be said to be Baptized into it, or in it; therefore Baptisme can­not constitute the forme of a Church, which is this body, saying, we are Baptized into it, that is, to hold union and communion with such a body.

3. This argument is inserted more to prevent Schisme, then to expresse the way of first embodying or constitution of Churches, as the whole context de­monstrates.

4. It is the same reason with the Lords Supper, and we may as well be said as to the first constitution, to constitute Churches by that Sacrament, as by Baptisme, 1 Cor. 10.16, 17. The cup of blessing we blesse, is it not the Communion of the blood of Christ? the bread that we break, is it not the Communion of the body of Christ? for we being many are one bread, and one body, for we are all partakers of that one bread. So that we may as well be said to be gathered into a Church by [Page 170] the Lords Supper, as by Baptisme, for by it we are made one body, and one Spirit.

But lastly, if Baptisme doth essentially constitute a Church, and is its forme, then all who are Baptized are reall Members of the Church, and must have all priviledges, be they never so loose and vaine; for they have the essentiall qualification, and the perfect form, and what will any desire more? and strange conse­quences must needs follow: you may make whom you will Members, and make them Members before they are Members, and Baptize into a body before there is a body or any knowledge of what frame the body is; you may Baptize and have no Church, for they may never come into Union, and Communion, who are Biptized upon these termes, and then no Church can be constituted; for who shall Baptize first? for he must have an extraordinary Commission, for he can have no ordinary delegation, untill the forme be introduced which makes the Church, and that forme is not, untill a competent number be Baptized, and so Church power must be exercised first without a Church, and politicall power without a body.

It is wonderfull to imagine how these that differ, slight and unchurch all the Congregations, though made up of the purest, and speciallest Saints, without mixtures of humane allay, and meerely in this princi­ple 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 [Page 171] the most resplendent graces of the best Saints must lye buryed, and no Church, if not thus dipt: I hope you see the fallacy, if not the perfect folly of this position, and how Churches stand upon other principles more firme, and sure; though we would not lose any ornament of the Gospell to adorne this body, yet we dare not constitute it of such ingre­dients.

CHAP. I. Concerning the singing of Scripture Psalms Hymns, and spirituall Songs; the lawful­ness of that Ordinance.

THe next publick controversie, which Sa­tan hath raised to disturb the Churches, is about the practise of singing Scri­pture Psalms, on purpose to deprive the Saints of the benefit of that soul-raising, and heart-ravishing Ordinance, by which God is publickly and solemnly praised, and the spirits filled with the glory of God; and because your hearts may be stablished in every truth, and not so easily perswa­ded to part with such a holy Ordinance, I could not but endeavor to clear up this also, which you have in this method.

First, that singing of Psalms, Hymns, and spiri­tual Songs, vocally with the voice and musically, is an Ordinance of the New Testament, constantly to be practised in the Churches of Christ.

Secondly open unto you the three expressions, Psalms, Hymns, and Songs, wherein they agree, and whether there be any difference between them.

Thirdly, shew you that it is the Psalms of David, Asaph, Heman, and the Hymns and spiritual Songs of these holy men, which are recorded in Scripture, that is the matter ordinarily to be sung.

Fourthly, answer the main objections of the dis­senters; these are scattered up and down this small Treatise.

For the first, it is clear from Eph. 5.19. he bids them be filled with the Spirit, [...], speaking to one another; and in Col. 3.16. Teaching and admonishing one another, [...]; What ever these be as to the matter of them yet the singing of them is commanded as an Ordinance, and a special Ordinance for edification; That the Apostle exhorts here to this as an Ordinance, is clear;

First because he speaks to the whole Church, and as a publick dutie, not appropriated to any Office, but as a commandment universal on all;

Secondly, he doth distinguish this Ordinance from that of preaching or teaching doctrinally, which be­longs to the Officer, or occasionally to a gifted bro­ther; for he doth not only say, as in other places, teach and admonish; but in Psalms, and Hymns, and Songs, which shews the manner of the teaching and admonishing, not in the general, but in such a way as by singing with Psalms, &c. and as Mr. Cotton well [Page 167] observes, if the Apostle had meant the ordinary and common way of teaching, he would have said, teach one another out of the Psalms, or from them, rather then in or with them, which is the usual language of the holy Ghost in expressing such a duty; so in Pauls example, Acts 28.23. & so Philip is said to preach Jesus to the Eunuch, ( [...]) from that Scri­pture in Esaiah; and surely he would never have added the word ( [...]) in the following part, singing with melodie in your hearts, if this teaching and ad­monishing were not to be discovered in such a pecu­liar Ordinance. To which places we must add that of the 1. Cor. 14.15, 16. where the Apostle speaks to the Church, as to the orderly administration of that Ordinance 16, 17. v. where he speaks of singing as a distinct dutie, and to be done in publick before the Church; and that phrase of singing with the spirit, and with understanding, is very emphatical, as Di­vines observe; for I cannot sing with the spirit, but I must also with understanding; but the understanding here, must be meant of others who hear me, and joyn with me in that act; however, publick singing was then an Ordinance solemnized in the Church; and we shall hereafter see what kind these Psalms were they sung; Thus Iames 5.13. If any be merry, let him sing Psalmes; though this be particular in the Text, yet it is of the same consideration with the for­mer; and these places hold forth the inst tution; singing is an Ordinance and a special one in the Go­spel.

Secondly, that it is not only meant of an inward frame of rejoycing; but that it is of the voice, is most apparent:

First, from the very words of these Texts; Speak­ing to one another, teaching one another, in Psalms, and Hymns, &c. Now no man can speak to edifie others by inward workings, or silent rejoycings.

2. Besides the melody to be made in our hearts, we must sing with melody, which shews not only the inward frame, but the outward act, and order; for me­lody in the heart were enough to expresse the in­ward grace; but he addes an outward expression, Singing with melody in your hearts; so that it is with the voice as with the heart.

3. Singing in Scripture is ever put in distinction from bare reading or speaking; and commonly signi­fies a modulation of the tongue, or expressing any thing musically and in tune, and so it is a musical speak­ing.

4. There would be the greatest confusion of Or­dinances; for preaching and prayer would be made all one with singing; nay, internal works would be found contrary to outward expressions; and if there be any such thing as preaching, and prayer, and exhortation, it must be different from singing, even to the most igno­rant; for no man will say, when a man meerly speaks or preaches, he sings, without his tone do make them call him a singing preacher or talker, as too many ei­ther out of affectation or custome, have given just cause to suspect.

[Page 169]5. This is undeniable, if there be any such command as to sing, it is visible; for else no man could at any time be said to sing or not sing; it must be an outward act; for else we must say we have only souls for that Ordi­nance, and bodies for all the rest.

6. All that ever sung in the Gospel, as to practice, sung vocally, Matth. 26.30. They went out and sung an Hymn; that must be with an audible voice, Acts 16.25. Paul and Silas sung, and all heard them; and if it be an inward act only, who shall know when men sing or think; or would they have men to be gods to judge when men sing Psalms, and Hymns, and spiri­tual songs inwardly? what need these names outward­ly? A more ungrounded opinion was never invented by the devil, and surely he hath fitted it for the weak­er and most perfectly captivated sorts, of proselytes, who have first lost their reasons, and then their con­sciences.

Can my inward joy teach another? or my private ejaculations admonish another? I wish Satan have not these men at his will: they would have singing to be an Ordinance, but no man to hear them; So that if singing be not a distinct visible Ordinance, then no man can tell what it is to sing at all, but the same with preaching, praying, talking, or only an invisible motion of the soul, known to God only: which is most absurd, when we look on the weight of these places of Scripture mentioned formerly.

Ob. If any object, If singing be with the voice, why not with other instruments, as lute, and harp and or­gans, &c, as in the O. T.

Sol. First, in the New Testament the voice and the heart are only Gods instruments; this holds forth the special way of worship from soul and body, as from one person; artificial instruments are laid aside, not natural ones.

Secondly, the voice is still required, because it is the most immediate Interpreter of the heart, and no out­ward instrument besides is so.

Thirdly, nothing can be exprest so significantly in outward characters, as by the voice; and the best ex­pressions of God we have in words, and the tongue can best make out them.

Fourthly, the union of heart, and tongue, or voice, makes up the compleat expression of Gods praises, without any other consideration; for we have not now any thing as typical to look at; as Lute, and Harp, &c. were in the Old Testament to praises; so ceremonies were to Christs sacrifice; when the sub­stance came, they ceased; there is no need of them now, the spirit being more abundantly poured forth; and they have no significancy; but their needs soul and body alwayes to sing out Divine stories, while in this world.

Fifthly, this hath been prophesied of, and long before the New Testament dayes, by the Prophets, of singing to God with a lively voice, when the voice shall be as Lute, and Harp, and all instruments to God, as in Esa. 52.8. (as Mr. Cotton in that precious Treatise of his, worthy all mens consideration) compared with Rom. 10 14. Psal. 100.1. Psal. 95 1, 2. all places refer­ring prophetically to the Gospel.

Sixthly, if they dare grant this, that there must be no singing by voice, then they cut off themselves from any sort of singing by gift, in Psalms, or Hymns, and spiritual Songs, and any outward way of expressing Gods praises; and must blot out singing in any way publickly as to be looked after, though a person ne­ver so much inspired by the holy Ghost (after their own sense) should extemporarily compose, and breath forth the most glorious Sonnets, or heavenly An­thems; for what is not a duty in it self, and general in the nature of it, is not a duty to the most raised spi­rit, if never so well gifted in such a mystery.

But the wiser sort of the contrary judgment, who consult with Scriptures and the nature of things, will not own the dissent of others as to this, but confess singing of Psalms must be by voice, & lay it on another foundation; that it is Psalms, &c. but not these we sing, that the command speaks of, but Psalms of ano­ther constitution, from a peculiar gift, and so to be looked on by the Church, viz. not to sing Davids Psalms, or Asaphs, or the like; but from the fillings of the Spirit in such a person, and on a sudden break­ing forth for the edification of the Church.

I end this with what Zanchy faith on these places, These words [...], and [...], singing with grace in your hearts, non excludunt vocem oris, verum excludunt hypocrisin & vanitatem, ex qua fere loquuntur ebrii vino (& [...] valet atque [...]) they do not exclude the voice, but hypocri­sie, and vanity, from which men drunk with wine do [Page 172] sing; and in your hearts, is as much as from your hearts, that is, not vainly, or as hypocritically, but as from inward sense: So the Greek Scholiasts, [...].

CHAP. II. What's meant by these three expressions, Psalms, Hymns, Spiritual Songs; how they are used in the Old Testament and the New Testament; from which the matter of singing is cleared.

THE next difference is about the matter of singing, which all must grant to be Psalms, and Hymns, and Spiritual Songs: but what these Psalms were, &c. and how to distinguish them one from another, must be debated ere we can clear the point between these three expressions; some con­stitute one difference, some another.

[...], Psalms, say some, are such Songs which were sung with other Instruments besides the tongue.

[...], Hymns, such as are made only to express the praises, Zan­chius. and set out the excellen­cies of God. [...], Songs, such as con­tain not only praises, but exhortations, prophesies, thanksgiving; and these only sung with the voyce and tongue.

Others difference them thus: Psalms are those which were pen'd by David and others, drawn up into meeter to be sung in the Temple in a musical strain. Hymns are those extemporal praises which break forth upon occasion from a heart filled with the Spirit, Gro­tius. and observant of Gods goodness. Songs or Odes they call such that were premeditated not without some art: These they call the Songs of Moses, De­borah, Hannah, Simeon, Mary, &c.

But we shall find, if we consult the use of the words, the difference will not be conside­rable between them, and that they are used pro­miscuously in the Old Testament, from whence we must learn how they are to be taken in the New: Now,

1. I find they are used in general as the title of Davids Psalms, which are named promiscuously by these three words.

2. That the three Hebrew words, viz. [...] Miz­mor, [...] Schir, [...] Tehillim, to which these these three, [...], do fully answer, are used in the Psalms one for another, without di­stinction; and sometimes two of them joyned to­gether as the title of one Psalm; sometimes all three joyned together in one title; we could heap up ex­amples in this kind. Iudges 5.3. saith Deborah, [...], I will sing, I will sing unto the Lord; it's translated by the 70, [...]; here is two words; the one used for a Psalm, the other for [Page 174] an Ode or Song put to express one act. 1 Chron. 16.9. the two same words are translated thus in the 70, [...], Sing unto the Lord, sing a Hymn unto the Lord. In Psal. 105.3. which is the same Psalm, only inserted into the body of the Book of the Psalms; the former word [...], is rendred by [...], sing Psalms: And thus the same word in the same verse is exprest by these two words, yet hold forth one thing. In Esay 12.5. [...] is rendred [...]. In the title of Psal. 38.1. Mizmor is ren­dred by [...], which is here translated a Song: and in most of the titles one is used for another without di­stinction: and [...] Schir, which is most usually ren­dred by [...], a Song, yet is also rendred by [...], a Psalm. Psal. 45.1. and 47.1. And by [...], a Hymn, Esay 42.10. As for the other word [...], Tehillim, that comprehends fully both Hymns and Songs; it is the general title of the Book of Psalms, where the variety of them are contained. And as some particular Psalms are called in the Greek Hymns or Odes, according to the two former words: so this word is put at top, holding forth the significancy of all the rest, and distinguishing the Psalms from all other Books of Scripture, as these that know the su­perscription of that Book understand; and it signifies the most universal and full way of praising God, especially by singing; and it's exprest by various words, as ( [...]) to praise; ( [...]) to commend or set forth the reputation of another; ( [...]) to glorifie or discover the glory of another; [Page 175] ( [...]) to bless, with many other expressions: So in particular ( [...]) Psal. 145.1. but most especially is this last word ( [...]) which is a word for all Psalms exprest by ( [...]) a Hymn; as 2 Chron. 7.6. and 23.13. Psal. 39.4. 2 Chron. 29.30. Psal. 21.13. Psal. 64.1. and 99.3. where the one word is translated by the other.

For their conjunction of each of them together in one title of a Psalm, is very usual, and often inverted: The title of Psal. 29.1. is in the Hebrew, [...], Mizmor Schir; in the Greek Translation it's [...], A Psalm of a Song, or a Song and a Psalm. So 64.1. and 47.1. and 86.1. but in 65.1. there the title is [...], and translated [...], A Song of a Psalm, or a Song and Psalm. So Psal. 82.1. But unto the title of Psal. 75. the 70 Greek Inter­preters (from whom these words are borrowed in the New Testament) do adde all the three together; [...]; A Psalm to Asaph in or with Hymns; a Song to the Assyrians. By all which we see, and might by many more,

1. That there is not such a critical distinction to be made between a spiritual Psalm, and a Hymn, and Song, but that they are put indifferently one for an­other.

2. Having opened the words with their use (I hope with advantage to those that know the language of the Hebrew with the Septuagint) let us now consider them as the matter to be sung, and what these [Page 176] Psalms, Hymns and Spiritual Songs are; whether Davids, Asaphs, Hemans, and such other which are found in Scripture pen'd by holy men upon special oc­casions, or another of a new composure; the former of which I affirm to be an Ordinance of the New Testament.

1. These are the titles given solely to Davids Psalms, and the other Scripture-Songs, which these holy men, Divinely inspired, breathed forth, and left on record: And as Mr. Cotton excellently argues, What reason can there be why the Apostle should di­rect us in our singing to the very title of Davids Psalms, and other Scripture-Songs, if he meant we should not sing these Psalms and Songs? Either we must exclude Davids Psalms and the rest from being called Psalms, or Hymns or Spiritual Songs, or else they must be sung as well as others.

2. The names are borrowed from the Greek Translaters of the Old Testament, and there is no di­stinction of them in the New; neither can any one tell what they mean, but as by their use in the Old Te­stament: Now these names were used there as pecu­liar characters to express and distinguish the works of David, and the rest, which were penned to be sung in the Church: Let these which are against singing Da­vids Psalms, and of other holy men, shew us any one word or syllable in the New Testament, where any of these words are taken in any other sense then as they were in the Old, and yet we are commanded to sing them in the New; on this ground the case would [Page 177] be soone concluded; when the question is propoun­ded, (granting this is a command for singing) what shall we sing? why, Psalmes, Hymnes, and spirituall Songs; how shall we know what these are? we must looke in Scripture, where these words are used; now we finde them nowhere explained so properly as in the Old Testament; where they are the usuall titles of Davids Psalmes, and the Songs of other Holy men, and no other use of them exprest in the New; why may not we judge then, these are the Psalmes, and Hymnes, and spirituall Songs we are there comman­ded for to sing? But;

3. Come to the New Testament, and there when ever Christ or his Apostles speak of Psalmes, they re­fer us to Scripture Psalmes, Luke 20.42. (Christ saith) As it is written in the Booke of the Psalmes, that is the 110. Psalme, The Lord said unto my Lord, sit thou at my right hand: in Luke 24.44. when Christ would make an exact division of the Old Testament, he divides them into the Law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalmes, distinguishing the Psalmes from all other Scripture, as a peculiar booke by it selfe; And as when we are commanded to read the Law, and the Prophets, we cannot thinke them to be any other then the wri­tings of Moses and Samuel, and the rest of the Pro­phets in the Old Testament; So when we are com­manded to sing Psalmes, not the Law or the Prophets: how can we imagine it unlawfull to sing that part of Scripture which is properly called the Psalmes, as the writings of David, Asaph, &c? So the Apostle, [Page 178] Acts 1.20. speaking of Judas his fall, and ruine, saith, as it was written of him in the Booke of the Psalmes, Let his habitation be made desolate, &c. Psal. 69.26. and in the 16. verse (saith Peter) the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake this concerning Judas, & v. 20. for it is written in the Booke of the Psalmes. Acts 2. Acts 25. and 29. in stead of saying as in the Psalmes, he saith, David speaketh of Christ thus and thus in Psal. 16. Acts 13.33. speaking of Christ againe, he saith, As it is written in the second Psalm, and v. 35. As it is written in another Psalm, which is the 16. By all which is cleare what Christ and the Apostles would have us understand by Psalmes (when we are com­manded to sing them) especially these Psalmes, which are called the Booke of the Psalmes; and there is no other Psalmes spoken of in the New Testament; and the Holy Ghost is the best Expositor of his owne com­mands. Now men must either deny these of Davids, (as before) to be Psalmes, or else they are bound to sing them as for Hymns and Songs; they are com­prehended under this generall word (Psalmes) being all exprest in the Booke of the Psalmes, as hath beene demonstrated.

4. Let us consider the vanity of the contrary opini­on, in regard it utterly makes way for will-worship, which they seeme to be so much against. For first, I am commanded to sing Psalmes, Hymnes, Songs: the Old and New Testament speake of no other Psalmes then of Davids and Asaphs, and of such like inspired per­sons; and they are called the Psalmes by Christ and his [Page 179] Apostles, but you must not sing them (say they.) I ask what Psalmes then must you sing? there is no light in Old Or New Testament to warrant any other; either you must fancy a Psalme, and say Christ meant this way, when he spake of the Booke of the Psalmes, and devise a new way of worship out of your owne braines, or else sing these Psalmes, which Christ and his Apostles call Psalmes. Besides, 2. How can any man perswade himselfe, or others, when he sings, that he sings a Psalme, when he doth not sing that which in Scripture is onely called a Psalme? Or how can any man distinguish, now I sing a Psalme, now a Hymne, now a Song, when there is not one word in the New Testament to distinguish them one from another, or the two latter from the Booke of the Psalmes? if any man from the New Testament can distinguish a Psalm from a Hymne, or a Hymne from an Ode or Song, or any one from another, but as they borrow it from the Old Testament, erit mihi magnus Appollo; he shall be an Oracle I will consu t more then with Scripture. They tell us Davids Psalmes, and the like are not to be sung: Christ and his Apostles call them specially by the name of Psalmes, and command us to sing Psalms. Now let them shew us any other Psalms from Scripture, and we are satisfied; but its hard to be perswaded from such a pretious Ordinance, by a meere Negative, and the workings of a melancholy fancy, or the presumption of a hot braine that he hath a gift of composing Psalmes, and Songs, and Hymnes, for the edification of the Church.

Let us goe on further, and try the Scripture exam­ples; and begin with our Lord Jesus Christ, and his Disciples, after the adminstration of his Supper; its said in Math. 26.30. and Marke 14.26. when they had sung an Hymne (or a Psalme) (as the margent ex­presseth it,) and its all one, they went forth to the mount Olivet; the words are, [...] &c. Take it either as all Translators interpret, ha­ving sung an Hymne, Hymne dicto Arab: They went forth, or they went forth hymning, (or singing of a Psalme,) its not materiall: But 1. Its clear they sung openly with their voice. 2. They sung a Psalme or Hymne; now what this Hymne should be, is the que­stion, whether one of Davids Psalmes, or any in that Booke; to which I answer: 1. Its onely said they sung a Hymne or Psalme, and its most probable, yea de­monstrative, that it was one of these Psalmes, or Hymnes of David and the other Holy men, because Christ himselfe speakes of no other, as before: 2. Because Christ was so much prophesied of in these Psalmes, which were formerly sung prophetically, and with thansgiving for these very acts before-hand. 3. Because Christ did still quote the same Psalmes, to prove both his Divinity and sufferings; so did his A­postles. Now it was no more dishonour, or unsuitable to Christ to sing with his Disciples one or more of these Hymnes or Psalmes, then it was to prove himselfe, and his mediatorship by them, which he doth in all the former places, yea the very nature and manner of his sufferings. 4. We have [Page 181] Scripture ground from Christs expression to believe the one, and onely our owne conjectures that he sung any other Psalmes, or Hymnes; and that Christ both before and after his death should bring his choice proofs of his person, and humiliation, and glory from the booke of the Psalmes, and when he was to suffer it should be found they sung a Psalme, or Hymne, and yet not one of these Psalmes, is very hard to presse on a Scripture conscience, especially when the act exprest is in generall, and the same word used for singing such Psalms, and no other determination of it in the N. Te­stament: let men but weigh things in an equall bal­lance of the Sanctuary and Judge; yea, let them who are so high on the other side, shew us from Scripture what that Hymne, or Psalme was, which Christ and his Disciples sung after the Supper, and give us any place as a comment on it, and but the hint to our de­monstration, and we shall thinke our selves well quit of such a mistake: in the meane while the argument stands thus untouched, Christ and his Disciples sung an Hymne, and Christ and the Apostles speake of no other Hymnes, or Psalmes, but these recorded in the Old Testament, especially these in the booke of the Psalmes; therefore they sung none other. And surely Christ would conforme his practise to his ex­pressions, or would have made some distinction.

The second great example of singing, is that of Paul and Silas, Acts 16.25. where it is said, They sung an Hymne to God, or gave praises in the prison at midnight; we are still on the same account as formerly, and aske [Page 182] what this Hymne was they sung, if not one of these Psalmes of Scripture which they might have chosen for this present condition? If any one can say it was an extemporary ejaculation, let them shew us their proofe; we shew them the Scripture-use of the word, and which was knowne to them; and these that op­pose must have something from the reason of the Text, or use of the Word to contradict us, and con­firme themselves; they did not barely sing, but [...], they sung Hymnes; and doe not wee goe on surer grounds that sing these Psalmes and Hymnes, which in the New Testament Christ and his Apostles doe call so, then what we imagine to bee Psalms, and Hymns, &c. by an unscripturall suppositi­on? so that the summe of all may be drawn up thus to argue.

1. It is our duty to obey Divine commands; It is a command to sing Psalms, Hymns, spirituall Songs; ergo, it is our duty.

2. It is a command to sing Psalmes, Hymnes, spiri­tuall Songs, as to the matter; but there is no other Psalmes, Hymnes, or spirituall Songs mentioned in the Old or New Testament, but these which are pen'd by Holy men, inspired to that end; ergo, it is our duty to sing them.

CHAP. III. An Answer to that Objection concerning singing by a gift, not set Psalmes.

ONe speciall Objection that is made against sing­ing Scripture Psalmes, &c. is that it hinders the exercise of gifts, and so its but formall; all dutyes in the Church must be done from a gift.

Answer. 1. You see here is a duty laid on us, no such limitation as from a gift.

2. The matter is prescribed you, Psalmes, and Hymnes, and Songs, and to these you are especially en­joyned: now the limitation of the matter limits the duty.

3. There is no promise of such a gift in the Gospel, to compose Psalmes, and Hymnes; God hath provi­ded matter sufficient; there is a promise for the spirit of prayer and supplication, Zach. 12. and of prea­ching and prophesying, in Joel, repeated in Acts 2. but no distinct promise for a gift of spirituall Poetry, or Singing; for there are but three things required to sing­ing; fit matter, a voice, and heart; all which may be performed without any such speciall gift of compo­sing; the matter is ready, if the heart and voice be pre­sent.

4. It is a duty laid generally on the whole Church, without any distinction of gifts: all are comman­ded to sing, &c. Here is no hint of a gift requi­red.

[Page 184]5. Christ would not ordaine an Ordinance of such consequence, which the Churches should want the use of; some utterly; and not one among many should know what it meanes; for there is hardly one among a thousand of Saints which hath such a gift of compo­sing Psalmes, and Hymnes, &c. and if it be an Ordi­nance in one Church, all others may want it, and so be deprived of the comfort of such a sweet Ordi­nance for want of a pretended gift, when they have matter enough of praises before them.

6. It is lawfull to make use of the gifts of others, as well as to use our owne; when a man hath a gift of prayer, I joyn with him, and make use of his gifts, &c. So is it much more lawfull to make use of the gifts of holy and blessed men in Scripture, who had that glo­rious gift of composing all sorts of Psalmes, Hymnes, and spirituall Songs, and when we sing them with me­lody in our hearts, we manifest all those treasures of the gifts of the spirit, that breathed in these Psalmes, &c. as if we had from a personall gift composed them our selves; for if we sing them with the same under­standing, with the same inward affection of love, joy, &c. wee sing them with the same spirit.

7. If there were such a gift promised, it would have beene mentioned by Christ or his Apostles, as the gift of tongues and miracles were, and Saints would have been instructed to seeke for it, and these that had it, would have beene commanded to wait on it, as the Elders are on exhortation, teaching, ruling, the [Page 185] Deacons on administring, and distributing, &c. Rom. 12.6, 7, 8, 9, 10.

8. It is Antichristian to introduce an Ordinance to be practised among the Churches, which hath not been commanded by Christ and his Apostles, (these that differ, make much use of the word Antichristian) and cannot but grant this principle to be undeniable; now I assume but to introduce; A way of singing by a gift, with casting off Scripture- Psalmes, and Hymnes, and Songs, was never commanded by Christ or his Apo­stles, ergo, it is Antichristian; the minor hath beene proved before; there is no mention in the writings of Christ or the Apostles, of singing Psalms by a personall gift, or of a gift of composing Psalmes either for our selves or the Church; neither is there mention of any other Psalmes, Hymnes, and Songs, as the matter to be sung, but such as are pen'd in Scripture, and left to be sung by all the Churches. Thus if men will being in a new Ordinance, they must shew their authority from the Word, or else apply the word Antichristian to themselves.

For that expression in 1 Corinth. 14.26. When you come together ( [...]) every one hath a Psalme, hath a Doctrine, &c. from whence they gather they had a gift of composing Psalmes by the Spirit, which they were to sing in the Church if they did it orderly.

To which I further answer, there is not any thing to explaine what Psalme this was.

2. We have more reason to think it was one of these [Page 186] Scripture Psalmes, which the New Testament alwaies calls a Psalm (as he saith, in the second Psalme, and in another Psalme as before) far more reason then they have to say it was a Psalme of their owne composing by a gift; every one hath a Psalme, that is, this and the other have a Psalme, that is, one had this Psalm in Scripture which he thought most proper; ano­ther, another of these Psalms; for [...] is not to be ta­ken universally of all, but singularly; one hath this, another that; thus some; but rather the meaning is, not as if one had this Psalme, and another another; but one hath a Psalme, another a Doctrine, another to speake with tongues, another to prophesie; now thus there was a confusion among them; one would have a Psalme sung, another would have his Doctrine, or word of Construction as most fit, another his Revelation. Now the Apostle onely tells them they might all be done one by one, and in order; he that had a Psalme to be sung, might in its proper place; but this doth not prove that it was a Psalme extemporarily com­posed, or by a personall gift, or that it was not one of the Psalmes in that which the Scripture calls the Booke of the Psalmes.

Object. If any say further, It must needs be from a gift, because it is joyned with other acts which were meerely from a gift, as Doctrine, Tongues, Revelations, Prophecy, Interpretation.

I Answer, Of these things here named, some are accounted extraordinary, and peculiar, as gifts of Tongues, Revelations, fitted for these times; the other [Page 187] ordinary, as Doctrine, Interpretation, Prophesie (though some thinke this last extraordinary also) so having a Psalme, may be accounted ordinary, and not from an extraordinary gift, as the gift of tongues was; how­ever you must not make a particular argument from things of divers considerations and uses.

2. Other Scriptures have determined what a Psalm is, and it may be easily gathered what it is in the Co­rinthians for one to have a Psalme: we prove they had a Psalme; let them prove what that Psalme was, besides these Scripture Psalmes onely mentioned in the New Testament.

It is most evident that the matter of singing is de­termined by the words of the Apostle, in Colos. 3.16, Let the word of God dwell richly in you, &c. which in Eph. 5. is more in generall, Be filled with the Spirit, which doe not make any difference; for the Word and the Spirit must make up the melody in our hearts: but still the word of God is the matter to be sung with the Spirit, as it is the matter for reading, prea­ching, intepretation; but he here names that part of the Word which belongs to the duty he enjoynes, as a speciall part of that Word which ought to dwell richly in them, as to such a duty of singing: So that,

1. If Psalmes, and Hymnes, and Songs, be part of the word of God, then they may be sung.

2. If that part of the Word be more properly fit­ted to the duty commanded then any other, it must be so restrained here.

[Page 188]3. That it is so, appears, because he speakes so par­ticularly, That the Word might dwell in them richly, teaching and admonishing one another; not in generall, as by Preaching, Doctrine, or the like; but in Psalmes, and Hymnes, and spirituall Songs, which must needs be the great duty in the Text, and all before restricted to that.

4. Then the Word of God in generall, or any spe­ciall Word of God may be said to dwell richly in a person, when the spirituall intent, sense, and meaning of it, with the inward spirit, and power of it, upon all occasions doth appeare in the duties commanded by it; and thus you may see the verse in its parts.

1. Here is the duty, singing.

2. The Word of God, the matter.

3. The specialty of the Word so fitted to the nature of that duty, Psalmes, Hymnes, and spirituall Songs.

4. The peculiar way how to be a perfect spirituall Singer; it is to have this word dwell in a man, and richly, having the true sense, sweet experience of this word in the heart, being upon all occasions able to cull out in the language of Scripture, Psalmes, Hymnes, and Songs, suitable to our owne conditions or o­thers.

If the Apostle had meant here a gift of composing new Psalmes, &c. as he would not have used the Old Testament language without an explanation; so he would not have mentioned the word of God in such a close limitation as in Psalmes, and Hymnes, and [Page 189] Songs, which are exegeticall to the word of God to be sung, if he had not intended that part of the Word as fitted for that Ordinance; for no man knowes what these expressions hold forth, but as they are found in the word of God, and as a distinct and emi­nent part of it. It were more proper to say, Let the grace of God dwell in you, or the goodnesse of God, that you may from the sense of it break forth upon all oc­casions to praises. But to name the Word of God, and name it with that modification, as Psalms, Hymns, Songs, which we all know is a part of it, and bid us sing, and deny us in his intention for to sing these Psalmes which are part of that Word, is too unwor­thy a reflection on the Holy Ghost, and the Pen-men of Scripture. And that seemes very strange to affirme, that I may not sing that Word of God which is cal­led by the name of Psalmes, Hymnes, and Songs, when this Word must dwell in me richly to that end and use.

Lastly, the singing of these Psalmes, Hymnes, and Songs, as the Word of God, is most adapt and pro­portioned to the particular use the Apostle intended, by singing in the Church, which was to teach and ad­monish one another. Now no gift of any Saint can be so powerfull, and authoritative to teach, as the Word of God in these Psalmes, which were pen'd by the spirit, as a rule to all Saints, and their gifts; and as the Word of God is made use of severall wayes to teach, and admonish, so this is one speciall way, by Psalmes, Hymnes, Songs. VVhen I sing by a pretended [Page 190] gift, I see cause of jealousie, that it may be more a fancy then the spirit; every man hath cause of suspi­tion, from whence it comes, and ere I can be satisfied I must compare it with, and try it by the Scripture straine of Psalmes, Hymnes, and Songs. But by singing the very words of Scripture with sense, and experi­ence, I teach both by my holy carriage in the action, and the word it selfe commands by its owne autho­rity as when it is read.

But that I may more clearely open this, how that the Word of God in Psalmes, Hymnes, and Songs, is the most fit matter of singing, let us view that part of the Word called by these names, and see how far it will reach this kinde of edification, beyond all that which may come from a present gift to compose mat­ter for such a duty.

1. Besides the spirituall elegancy of phrase, the in­spired style of that part of holy writ, which is beyond ordinary with the height of matter, of no vulgar composure, it having such a standing stamp of Di­vine authority on it, must needes conveigh its sense with more weight and power, then any thing from particular invention, though assisted by a gift of the spirit, which comes but in the second place, and can­not be put in any consideration with that authority as the other, nor inserted among the heavenly Canons and Scripture rules for Saints to build their faith on, or direct their lives.

2. The largenesse, and comprehensivenesse of the scope of the shortest Psalme, is so, that it will give [Page 191] matter to study 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 best gifts are but an enlargement of the first text, and bring forth nothing de novo, no new thing; and all these Saints with all their gifts must be glad to have recourse to that part of the Word, as the rest, for the fulnesse of teaching and admonition.

3. The variety of matter in these Psalmes, &c. is so wonderfull, that they doe provide before-hand by an eternall wisdome, for the conditions of all Saints, either personally, or mystically, that no man sing any thing, but if that Word dwell in him richly, he may finde a suitable Psalme prepared for him, by the fore­sight, and wise, and infallible directions of the Al­mighty; and in this, the Booke of the Psalmes tran­scends all other parts of Scripture, and may be called the Epitome of the whole Bible. In some Scriptures you have little but matter of precept, in others little but historicall relations of persons, and actions; but in the Book of the Psalmes you have the variety of matter contained in all the whole Scripture, most suit­able to the vast duty of singing praises.

1. Matter of all sorts of prophesies referring to the very latter end of the world.

2. All sorts of generall and speciall directions, either for Faith or Life.

3. All sorts of promises fitted to particular condi­tions.

[Page 192]4. All sorts of experiences in what condition a soul may be in, either of tryall or triumph, either to soule or body.

5. All sorts of signes, and characters of heavenly motions and frames to God.

6. All sort of thanksgivings and prayses for spirituall or temporall mercies, with their various discords, which makes up the harmony of the whole. He is a childe in the Scripture, that doth not admire the un­parallel'd variety of truth in that Booke, so that if I were raised by some extraordinary gift to the grea­test enlargement of composing a Psalme, or spirituall Song on a speciall occasion, I should come short of the variety, and fulnesse of the least of these Psalmes, and yet the ignorant standers by might more admire my gift, and there would be more danger in it, then to sing the Scripture Psalmes which have nothing from men to grace them but their owne native majesty and authority. And truly, it is somewhat odde for one to be set up by others, or for any one to be set up himselfe as a spirituall Poet in the Church, and the Church to sing his thoughts, with the neglect of the Word of God, which it furnished with such variety for the conditions of soules.

And as the Word of God in generall is so large, and vast, and various, that all the Saints with their highest emprovements can never come up to the ful­nesse of it, and all the vast folioes that have been writ­ten by commentators of all sorts, have hardly pierced the barke, the shell, the letter, and all Saints of the [Page 193] highest attainement, must digge into it as the onely vi­sible Mine, and we must not exclude the Psalmes as to singing, from that fulnesse and variety, seeing Christ himselfe when he distinguisheth the whole Scripture, gives the Psalmes an equall part.

CHAP. IV. Concerning the Translation of Davids Psalmes, and other spirituall Hymnes, and Songs, with the Answer to the Objection ari­sing from it.

I Have endeavoured to prove the duty; let us con­sider the strength of the maine Objections against it.

Ob. The first in order is that which carps at the Translation, and that into Meetre, as the humane in­vention; the Translation (say they) is corrupt, and especially as into Meetre, and Tune; if you will sing Davids Psalmes, sing them in Hebrew, as they were sung formerly: this they much stick on.

Sol. To which I answer, That in these Psalmes, and Songs, there was a set Meetre, fitted to Tunes, and Voices, and musicall Instruments; none can deny that observes the Dedications of most Psalmes, and those of understanding that can read learned Gomarus may see it fully, and with great exactnesse; where the spi­rituall poesie of these Psalmes is excellently set forth.

[Page 194]2. So farre as there is corruption in the Translation, it is spurious, and not to be approved of but cor­rected.

3. But Translations according to the import of the words and sense of the text, are as much the Word of God, as the Text in the originall; for the cohe­rence of word and sense make up the copy entire and perfect.

4. Which followes, the Translation of the words in Meetre, if it have the full sense of the words, is as much the Word of God as if it were translated in prose, or ordinary sentence for reading; for it is not the way or method, but the sense and meaning of the words, that is the Word of God. So that I may as well say when I sing in such a composition, it is as much the Word of God as when I read the same words in the Bible, onely they are orderly disposed for that action. None must by this reason, pretend to know the Word of God in reading or expounding, but he that knowes the Hebrew, and Greeke; and that must be also in the first perfect copy, immediately transcribed from in­spired understandings; for all things besides are either translations, or additions, or substractions, from which two last comes perfect corruption.

So that a translation for singing, or reading, is the same Word of God as long as it hath the same substan­tiall truth in it; and sing them which way you will, either as they lie in the verse, or as the same verse is digested into staves, and with musicall notes, it is all one as to the nature of singing, and the translation [Page 195] may be as Orthodoxe in Meetre, as in Prose; so that you see what force, efficacie; that objection from the translation carries with it; I confesse there are many defects in the translation into Meetre, but there are the like in some copies in prose, or continued sentence; but as to the nature of the thing, one verse may as well he made two, according to musicall notation, and yet retain the same continued sense, as remain one, on­ly bounded by Arithmeticall figures, as 1, 2, 3, &c.

Ob. But if any one say the Psalmes, as thus transla­ted into Meetre, are but an humane invention, and you worship God onely after a humane forme.

Sol. The Answer is at hand.

1. To know the significancies of the tongues, and how to translate them to edification, is a speciall gift of Gods spirit, 1 Cor. 12.28, 29. 1 Corinth. 14.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.

2. On this ground we read humane inventions when we read the Old or New Testament in any translati­on, but the first copies of Hebrew and Greek, wherein they were first written.

3. Is it not more a humane invention for to sing any thing of my owne composing, then for to sing the very matter, and sense of the Word of God in my owne tongue? and yet its usuall among these that are against this Ordinance, to cry aloud, It is a humane invention, Antichristian.

4. The translation of the Scripture for to be read, is as much a humane invention, as in poësie to be sung; out this is an Objection urged for want of a better.

Ob. The next grand Objection is, that we may as well use a set forme of Prayer, as of singing Psalmes; the one is as lawfull as the other, the one stints the spi­rit as much as the other.

Sol. 1. There is no Divine holds that a set forme of Prayer is absolutely unlawfull, for then no man may meditate before-hand what he ought to pray for, nor consult with his owne mouth, or Gods promises; for if I meditate on what I neede, and what God hath promised, I forme such petitions, and tye my selfe to them as necessary to be petitioned for, and it may be I may have no occasion for a long while to begge any thing of God, but the substance of these premeditated considerations of my want.

2. Here lyes the unlawfulnesse of set forme of Prayer, that it is composed by one, and imposed by another, to which I am limited, let my wants be what they will, requiring further additions when I neither study my owne wants, nor am permitted to urge them to God in my prayer.

3. This is a more suitable Objection against those that pretend to sing by a gift, and doe make Psalmes, or Hymnes, or Songs, for themselves and others, with neglect of inspired Psalmes, and Hymnes. So singing of Psalmes, and using a set forme of Prayer, are very nigh of kin, and hold much correspondency.

4. But to sing the very words of these Scriptures with understanding, is a command, as hath beene for­merly proved; and if you take a set forme of pray­ing, for praying Scripture words, and speaking to [Page 197] God in that language, it is not only lawfull, but is the excellency of some Saints, who seldome make a Peti­tion, but they urge it in Scripture dialect, and shew the Word of God to dwell richly in them; thus for singing to praise God, or sing to God in his owne forme of words in the spirit, and understanding, what can be more suitable to God, and sweet to the soule?

5. There is a great deale of difference betweene praying and singing, as to the method of performance, though praying and praises may be considered in the same duty, yet praying and singing require a distinct method; for the very words, to sing Psalmes, and Hymns, and Songs, import a speciall method of the voice in a set tune, and proportion, whereas prayer in the method of performance requires no such exact­nesse; if one should take on him to sing, and not in a set forme, and tune, he would be ridiculous to all hearers: but a man hath a larger liberty in prayer, and is not tyed to such strait connexions, heighths, and falls, stops, and pauses; but the nature of this Ordi­nance calls for it, else it cannot be done gracefully, though there be grace in the heart. And if the Apo­stle had not meant by singing of Psalmes, singing mu­sically, he would have onely bid them praise in the ge­nerall, and have left out the outward expression of it, which cannot be acted but in a set forme.

6. If singing were not in a musicall manner, (as be­fore) it were the same with prayer, for you may sing out a prayer, and praise in praying. Thus in Davids [Page 198] Psalmes. How many Psalmes which were matter only of petition, yet were sung with faith, and confidence in God? For performance, the Apostle James distin­guisheth them apparently, Is any sick? let him pray; is any merry? let him sing Psalmes; and the other Apo­stle, Let us pray with the Spirit, and understanding, and sing with the Spirit, &c. Now wherein lies the differ­ence? In prayer you have variety of workings, and considerations; there is Deprecation, Imprecation, Ac­clamation, and Admiring, Pleading, and urging promise, and the like. So in singing, there are the like; the dif­ference is onely in the set, and musicall way of expres­sion, which requires a more set forme before-hand to rule my outward carriage by, in that Ordinance, whereas in prayer we are not tyed to such a severity of method, and so need not have our words so for­med.

Another plea which is somewhat scurrilous, by the ruder sort, yet much urged, is, that we lye when we sing Psalmes, and affirme that we cannot but lye when we sing the phrases of many Psalmes. As that of Da­vid, O Lord I am not puffed in minde, I am as a weaned childe, &c.

To which I replie, in generall, that some may not have the frame of these expressions, when they sing, and so may performe a duty which may be but as a lye to them. But,

1. In speciall, there is no Saint but can in some measure say what ever David saith in that or any o­ther Psalme, describing the spirituall qualification of [Page 199] his heart; all graces are in every Saint there in the seede, and habit, and in a proportion, though all are not so eminent and apparent in the bud and fruit; though no godly man is free from pride, yet he can­not be a godly man that is a proud man in actu signa­to, which hath never been humbled, and brought out of himselfe; thus all along the 119. Psalme, that A­natomy of a Saints inward parts, when David saith, He delights in the Law of God, He hopes in Gods mer­cy, His soule longs after God, He keepes his Commande­ments, He hates every evill way, &c. every godly man may sing these and all other Psalmes, and speak truth; for the reality of these frames are the same in every gracious heart.

2. Whatever, I finde to be the case of any Saint, I may make it mine according to the likenesse of my condition to it, and yet not a lye.

3. One great use of singing is to commend the excel­lency of such graces which are and have beene in o­thers, to sweeten the harshnesse of other duties, and to stirre and quicken the heart to the endeavouring after such like frames: therefore some Law-givers have put their Lawes into verse first, that the peo­ple might take a pleasure in them, and sing them as their recreations, and be the more insinuated into obe­dience.

4. I can tell no lye so long as in the sincerity of my soule I study my duty, and sing with desire after such qualifications, from the contemplation of the beauty of them in such holy men, though I doe not finde the [Page 200] present frame so high as I breathe after, and such men found at present.

Ob. But this Objection, grant it in its full Latitude, proves nothing against the nature of the Ordinance of singing, but the persons who sing, who are not fitly qualified to some expressions.

Againe, others plead, Psalmes that are sung are not suitable to my condition.

Sol. 1. That is nothing still against the Ordinance of singing; if it do not fit you, it fits others. But,

2. There is nothing in Scripture-expressions but all Saints at all times may make some use of in the very reading or singing; if not so particularly, yet as to the generall nature of instruction, and edification, it is pro­fitable; Saints must read all Scripture, with faith and understanding; though every place may not so di­rectly open their present condition; and why may not they sing as well all Psalmes?

3. It should be the care of Officers in the Church, to be very choice in picking out Psalms fit for the Church, according to the nature of the body, and times, and seasons; and I could wish there were more choice­nesse observed in that particular; yet the Ordinance remaines still the same.

4. When I sing any of these Psalmes, I should by Faith personate the same state of the Church, or the Saints, as when I apply promises made to others, I doe their conditions, as if it were spoken to mee.

5. It is for want of Divine study of the nature of [Page 201] these Scripture-expressions, and the mystery of them, that we say such a Psalme is unsuitable to our conditi­ons; for if when I read understandingly, I can get profit by them, I can the same when I sing them.

6. If it doe not reach my condition, as to a particu­lar case I am troubled withall, or the providence I am eminently under; yet it concernes the state of the Church, and I may sing them as a Member of the same Body, and sympathising with them either in sor­row or joy, in afflictions or triumphs; which is a speciall way to act the graces of Saints, somtimes to sing what concernes others as themselves, as to pray for others as themselves; this is like Christs heart in heaven.

Lastly, you have opportunity enough to chuse Psalmes for your emergencies. It is good to keepe the harmonie of the whole Body in the maine.

Ob. That which followes next as urged against this truth, is, that its confusion to sing together, and that but one should sing at one time.

Sol. Still this is not against the Ordinance of sing­ing. But,

1. Singing is more melodious and suitable, when performed by many, then one severall instrument at one time; and so severall voice make the greater Har­mony: the exellency of singing lies in the Church, which is made up of divers voices.

2. Christ and his Disciples sung together, Mat. 26.30. [...], they sung, Paul and Silas Act. 16.25. sung together in the Prison, not one after another, but toge­ther.

Ob. But if any one say, when one prayes, all may be said to pray, though he doth but consent; it may be so in singing of Psalmes.

It is Answered, 1. All Ordinances must be consider­ed according to their proper nature; some Ordinan­ces are so to be administred, as that onely one at once can performe it, as publique prayer, and preaching, and yet there must be a; distinction even in these: my silence in prayer ought to be when I pray with ano­ther, and yet I may be said to pray as well as he which is the mouth of the whole, because my heart is with him in the same petitions, and my desires go equally With him; but it is not so in preaching, where silence must be likewise from the nature of the Ordinance; yet though I consent fully with the matter, and agree in all that is said with never so much affection; yet I cannot be said to preach, but onely he that speaketh preacheth. So now as to singing there is a difference likewise of another consideration; if onely one sing, none else can be said to sing, though they joyne with the matter, and agree to it in their hearts; for its an outward act, and terminated in the person that per­formes it; and though in my silent conjunction, I may really praise God, yet I can in no sense be proper­ly said to sing with others, without I do use my Voice and Organs as they doe. This consideration will give light to men that minde the nature and distinction of Ordinances in their outward administraions.

2. That which is the confusion of other Ordinances, is the beauty of this; for two to preach, or pray to­gether [Page 203] at the same time and place, were the greatest confusion imaginable; but for a hundred to sing to­gether is most harmonious, and pleasant; so far from the breach of order, that harmony is most discovered by it.

3. It hath been the custome of the Churches alwayes thus to practise; and there is nothing in the nature of the Ordinance, or Divine precept, or example a­gainst it. I shall conclude this with a word from An­tiquity, concerning this practise.

Euseb. in his Eccles. Hist. l. 3, cap. 33. quotes two Epistles of Plinius Secundus to Trajan the Emperour, testifying that Christians were wont to gather them­selves before day to sing Psalmes and Hymnes toge­ther: the same doth Philo Judaeus testifie, who lived in the Apostles time, as the same Euseb. saith, lib. 2. cap. 22. Now in the time of Plinius and Trajan, did John the beloved Disciple live, saith Zanch. in Eph. 5.18.29. whereby it appeares an Apostolicall institution.

Tertul. in his Apol. c. 19. saith, that it was a usuall custome among the Christians, after their Love▪ Feasts, canere de Scripturis Sanctis, to sing of the Scriptures; his meaning is, doubtlesse, out of or from the Scri­ptures: In the Westerne Churches this hath beene the constant practice, though much corrupted by the Ro­man additions to Saints method; but yet that blessed Ordinance is now more specially recovered, and made pure for Saints according to primitive institution.

CHAP. V. The great abuses of the Roman and Episcopall Church about this Ordinance, whereby many stick not to call it Antichristian, hath been;

1. THe introducing musicall Instruments together with, as Organs, Harps, Viols, &c. whereas in the New Testament God requires the Voice as the onely Organ of the heart in worship.

2. They had a meere order of Singers to whom they gave pensions unto for that purpose, and exclu­ded the Church from the persons of that duty, which is of so Universall a concernment.

3. They would sing in Latin, and with such straines of their Voices that the words might not be under­stood.

4. They spent most of the time in singing, and gave not other Ordinances, as preaching, and praying, their due time of excercise. Thus have precious Ordi­nances been abused by the corruptions of men; but are now restoring unto their purity, and will every day be more gloriously practised in the Churches.

CHAP. VI. How we may be said to teach and admonish one another, in Psalmes, Hymnes, and Songs, according to that of Col. 3.16, 17.

MAny thinke there can be no such use of singing, as to teach and admonish one another by it; but if we consider, there are many lessons to be learnt one another from this publique conjunct, singing Scri­pture-Psalmes.

1. They teach one another, and by the very act ad­monish one another to get the same frames these Holy men had in the penning the Psalmes, and in the variety, and spirituality of them; to get Davids frame, in singing Davids Psalmes: and so for the rest.

2. Its by this they teach one another the Unity and Harmony that is and should be among Saints as one bodie, that their happinesse and joyes are bound up together, and so the misery of one, is the misery of the whole; and this is a glorious lesson to know their Union together, as a body equally concerned in the glory, or shame of one another, equally interested in the praises of God; there is no duty practised in all the Gospell that doth fully expresse the Communion of Saints, and represent Heaven, as the Saints singing together; the Lords Supper doth represent the Com­munion of Saints very lively, but not so as mutuall [Page 206] singing, when all at once, not by consent onely, but expresly speak the same thing in the same moment, in the Lords Supper, though afterwards they were all one bread, yet they all doe not receive it at the same instant of time, but take successively the Elements; but in singing they all joyne perfectly at once to sound Gods prayses, 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 Hal­lelujah, Hallelujah.

3. They teach one another this lesson also, viz. with what alacrity and cheerefulnesse they should perform all their duties together; with sweetnesse of love, and joy they ought to walke together.

4. They teach one another how to carry them­selves in all conditions with joyfull and praysing frames of spirit, for matter of the Psalmes; and are various, not onely affording matter of exultation, and gratulation; but also reciting the sadnesse and low condition of the Church; yet all are fit matter to be sung; Lachrymae must be sung, sad things with a spirituall joyfull heart in God and his promises; mer­cy, and judgement in the same song, exprest in melo­dy of the Voice, and Heart; and it shewes a soule is not in a right temper when he cannot sing over his condition.

5. They teach one another by singing, and admo­nish one another to avoid any thing that may hinder their joyes in Communion, and breake their Har­mony in spirituall actings; all which and many more [Page 207] are great exhortations, and are taught naturally by Saints mutuall singing together.

CHAP. VII. Concerning singing with a mixt multitude.

MAny who grant singing to be an Ordinance a­mong Saints, yet stumble to sing in promiscuous manner with others; especially because there are so many Psalmes of such composition that doth not seem to concerne a mixt multitude.

For opening of this, I must lay downe this gene­rall position; that prayer and praises are naturall duties belonging to all men, men as men; though on­ly the Saints, can doe them best, and spiritually; it is upon all men by the Law of Creation, to seek to God for what they want, and to thank him for what they have: this is due unto God, owning him as a Crea­tour, and Benefactour; and though singing be a part of instituted worship, yet its onely an addition of Order, & a regulation of a naturall duty. And as there is no man but is bound to pray for mercies, so none are exempted from praising God for mercies, though they sing in a lower tune then Saints. Thus David calls in all creatures to blesse and praise God, as a na­naturall duty according to their severall capacities, Psal. 136. Psal. 117. Psal. 107. Psal. 103. Ps. 20, 21.22. Praises, its the naturall duty of all, the proper duty [Page 208] of Saints, the perfect act of Angels.

Ob. You will say they cannot performe it aright, and gloryfie soules.

Sol. 1. Their want of ability doth not discharge them from such a duty engraven on their Consciences, and arising from the naturall respects they have to God as a Creatour; to performe which, God gave full power at first.

2. Let every man doe his duty conscientiously, he may afterwards come to doe it spiritually; though I should lose the sense of a duty in my conscience, yet the duty lyes on my conscience from Gods authority, and my relation to him.

1. By the same rule every one should abstaine from performance of a duty for want of present ability, whereas the duty must be done, and the strength ex­pected from Heaven, and waited for according to the Divine manner of dispensation.

2. 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 sin in joyning with any one in that act to performe, which is the duty of another, as mine, though he may want the present abi­lity.

For duties must be measured according to the rule, not the abilities of the performer; now its no duty for any man to receive the Lords Supper, or be a Member of a Church in order to Communion, with­out he finde himselfe in some measure fitted by grace; these fealing Ordinances of the Gospel, suppose, and [Page 209] require some other qualification, and are peculiar to visible Saints; but where there is a naturall Character, or an Ordinance as to the substance of it at least equal­ly concerning all; there it is no sin to joyne in the administration of it; and if we consider of it warily, unregenerate men are great sharers in the mercies of the Churches; besides their owne particu!ar, that they may well afford their voice without sin, and we joyne with them in setting forth Gods praises: But more closely, and particularly.

1. When the Church and Saints of God are ga­thered together to worship him, in singing; it is no more unlawfull to sing with others that stand by and joyne their voices, then when in prayer they stand by, and give their consent, we doe not so much joyne with them as they doe owne Gods actings a­mong us; it is no sin in them to joyne with us in such a duty, neither can it be any sin in us to sing, though others very carnall will outwardly praise God with us.

2. The carriage of Saints in their heartie and reall expressions of prayses may convince others in the coldnesse, and lownesse of their spirit, and stirre them up to some spirituall apprehensions.

3. Though it be lawfull to joine with them in such a duty generally considered, yet it were to be wished in a mixt multitude, there were more care in the choice of Psalmes, to fit them to the very duty of praise and thanks, which is so really belonging to all the Congregation; and that must be lamented, that the [Page 210] choice of Psalmes, to a mixt multitude, is not so con­sidered as it ought to be, which makes the Ordinance so much slighted in its publique administration. But however the incapacity of others to their duty, should not hinder me from performing mine, especially when I cannot, nor ought not to hinder others from such an act.