A Christian, sober and plain exercitation on the two grand practical controversies of these times : infant baptism and singing of psalms

j&F'TT

BAP
S568

&Wk

<ar

.

£*

Q_

.#

«5

-^_"

lc

^f

Q.

*

-o

JO

!

■^

IE

XS ^

0.

w

^_

*S> &

o

ta

5

c
<

4

l^ g

Zi

fc

£

t'5
CO

^* PM

cq

%**

55

^

>>
-Q

^

%

-o

0)
■•-•

c

(D
V)
0)

s

So

t»

^ 1

— -

S^

1

/n3^.^~~

•*

A &)

{CHRISTIAN,?

Sober & Plain

EXERCITATIOH

Sober & Plain jf

| ON

| The two grand practical Con- %
troverfics of thefe Times 5

t N F AN T-B A P T I S M,f

* talis

* AND

t SINGING OF PSALMS** ffl

4 Wherein all the Scriptures on both Rdci^
& are recited , opened and argued , with bre- 4»
^ vity and tenderneft ; and whatever hath been
<& largely difcuffed by others, briefly contract-

us*

ed in a fpecial method for the edifica-

^

tion of the Skint s.

<$*• . *£" I

_ — . ; ; _ , , __ y -

5 By Cuthbm Sidenham, Teacher to a ChtirC.H %

* of Chrift in Nemaftle upon 77/^.

* LONDON .. ... $
^, Printed for ifo&r* ff&V*, and are to be fold by «£

^ trantisTyton at the three Daggers in Fleet- (lreti3MK tie X
^ l»ner-Temple»gate. i 6 $ 4*

a

> - ;

To his dear and honoured Bro-
ther Mr. William VurMt, my faithful
fello w- labourer imhe Gofpel •• And the
Church of Chrift, over whom the Holy
Ghoft hath made us joync-overfeers.

Dearly Beloved , ^ *?.

■-* Prefem jott thefe firft- fruits of
mi por labours, as a fledge if
my love, and teflimony of mf
unfeigned de fires and longings
after jour fettkmtnt^ and coin-
fort together. I am indeartd ts
you in the bowels of Chrift, and for his fate 00
myMfuntopu • CMyhigheft ambition in this.
pcrldis, to fee you fiablijhed in truth , and
ffourilhwg in the glorious graces of the CoffeL
1 have treated on thefe two fubjetfs, becaulel
Uow they are the fimping errours of thefe
Times, andhavethefaireftgloffesfeten them,
and have too much influence tedifturbthe Peace
md Order of Churches : Thefrfi efpeiall-j.

'.■

The Epiitic Dedicatory,
which eats out mem affeiHons , and creeps at
the hurt Itke a gangrene infenflbly % an opinion
which hath been always? ominous, and of a won-
deYfttl jlrange infiit'enM> accemfanitd with tht
moft dangerow mirmoferroursy fince the frjt
Bmb\io *of: it was: brought fart b^ whether by a
jttdgemvt ofGody or from its natural and Je-
er et connexion with other principles of dark*
nefs, 1 will not determine 5 only G$d hathfbew-
edfome black characters on it m every Nation
tebe?e it hath prevailed t, though we cannot but
fay, many Saints are innocently under the power
ofiu

Fvrthefccond, I hope when mens hearts come
mTnne, their voices mill likewise : The former
denies more Fundamental Principles^ as the Co-
venant in its extent, andfubjefys • thefreenefs
tf Grace $ the riches of its workings in the Jttew
Teftament • and contracts the Gojpel^ leaving
more Grace vifibleinthe Legal and old Tejlt*
man difpenfation, then in the New.

I lhave only fummed up what others exprefs
more at large, with fomething new, and never
pt toncbed, that t know of : And as to the me-
thod,

The Epiftlc Dedicatory.
thody all is new, and made fit for par life, if
Cbrifi fet it home on you. 1 have nothing elfe to
add, hut to tell you you have been jet kept pure
in the midfl of many Diflr affions % and the vio*
lence of defperatc Opinions : Take heed of 'plan*
fib le err ours that come painted to yon with the
name of the moft glorious truths : Loft not your
glory at laft * try and weigh every tittle that is
propounded : It's mj defire you may have the
glorious Titlegiventoyou the Bcrcans/W, to
he {ivyivi&&r) men of better breeding then to
take up atiy thing on truft, though from the A-
pofiles thtmfelves , untill you know how they
wereinfpired : Compare Scripture with Scri-
pure; donotdi/lraffyourfehesintke Gofpel$
lay truths together, they willjhine in their proper
glory : Part not foeafily with antient entaitd
priviledges : Have fo much pity to your ChiU
drtn\ & not to blot their names out of Heaven
by your own hands, until God do it by fever aign-
ty • do not bury them alive : Thofe that know the
riches offuch a priviledge, will not eafily part
with it upon fuch poor terms as moft propofe.
1 plead for poor Infants $ and it's but charity to
/peak for thofe whofe tongues are tied. I intend
brevity in thti^s in all the following Dihourfc.

Wi The

The fcpiftle Dedicatory ~.
The Lordfiil you with wifdom and under-
stand ing,and give you to know w«hat his per *
feft will is3and hearts to obey k : And thrive
like Saints of the New Tefta went, that lie
at Chriftsbreafts night and day. Tbefe are
the de fires of

Your unworthy Teacher,

Cuthhert Sifynhaw*

C HAP.

o>

H A

P. I.

:.

an en-

Sever d Confider attorn premifed, as
trance to the THfcourfe.

£ F O R E I enter on the main que-
stions handled in this Difcourfe , it
will not be unneceffary to prernife
fomething in general concerning this
Contr overlie, which is fuch a bone off
contention among the Saints, for to make our way
clear before us.

And i. Let this be confidered, that there is no-
thing in all the N.T.againft the baptizing of Infants,
not one hint from any exprefs word dropt from
Chrift or his Apoftlesj not one phrafe, which though
never fo much ftrain'd, doth forbid fuch an acl ; but
there is much for it in divers Scriptures compared to-
gether ; and what is wanting in the one, is fupplyed
in another abundantly, as hereafter will appear.

A 4 a. The

ft)

l 2 ' JbC fum °f aH *" our °PP°&es have to fa y,
T hough they mike a great deal of noife in the World,
"only this, that they can find no fyliabical precept,
«r word of command in terms, faying, Qo baptize
Wants ; or any positive eximple where ic is faid in (o
many words, Infants were baptized ; only aclual be-
Itevers, as they believed, were baptized : ail that
they fay befides, is only to quarrel with Qur argu-
ments, and make Qiift to £vjde the ftrength of them,
put this is their onlyargumenr, and their AH; for
however they talk of the Covenant, and fleOily and
ipintual feed, yet this is the qoliabs [word, none like
to it I would therefore fairly encounter with ic in the
Portal, that I may fee all their ftrength before me.
Concerning which, taie in the'econfiderations;
Firft, th:s argument is bu.ic on thisfaife- principle,
That nodireclcotifcquences from Scripture are man-
datory, arid fo obliging, nor of Divine Authority,
which all Orthodox Profi-ffors and Divines grant,
butchefe which are a^amft Infants bap.ifro; and ic
« moft clear .- for,

i. The way to know Scriptures, is by com-
paring them together ,i Cor. 2. 1 3. and this mutt
needs be by their Harmc/me-, sad by deduction from
one to another.

2. Without Trne confequeflce were as ccripture;
no one could fptak trbth t>uc thefe that fneak jult
the very express of Scripture.

3. There could be no fpifitual reafons nor argu-
ments ufed in any Difcourfeto be of any force or

con-

(?)
confequence, though from the Scripture ; forthere
can be no arguing from Saipture,but by confequen-
ces add dedu&ion; for in ail arguments there muft be
a medium and a conclufion, a proportion and an in-
ference.

4. Nothing upon this account can be Scripturc
buuhe very letters and fyllables in the Bible j no-
thing of the meaning or fenfe is Scripture ; for you
muft draw out the fenfe and meaning from the let-
ters by rational confequence , as the condufion from
a proportion by a fit medium; and how abfurd
would this prove , that letters (hould be Scripture,
and not the fenfe / and fo it muft be according to
that Maxim of theirs.

5. This is againft all preaching, and expounding
Scripture ; nothing muft be read but the very bare
characters for to draw any deductions from • it is to
no purpofe, though never fo direcland full ; for if
they be not Scripture, they cannot bind confcienccs ;
and co what end is preaching, but to open and sup-
ply Scripture ?

6. The fearchings of the Scripture were the mod
ufclefs undertaking that could be imagined ; for
what need I fearch, but read ? for no confequence,
by comparifon of Scripture, is of authority to fatisfie
my conference* if I draw a conclufion from a text,
and perceive the meaning of it to be thus; if nothing
without it be laid down in fo many fyllables, how
many fuch ftrange abfurdities would follow the de-
nying conferences from Scripture, which a,re purely

de«

(4)
deduced > and by this principle, that where there
are not fo many letters put together in one fentence,
there is no command, men would foon draw Reli-
gion into a very narrow compafs.

7. This would be as much againft themfelves •
For,

Firft, They have no command in fo many words,
Go and baptize a&ual or vifible believers : if they
hy fuch were baptized : h's anfwercd,that is not to
the purpofe : lor it's a verbal command required by
them to give warrant to an ordinance.

Secondly, That they muft prove by confluence
alfo, believers were baptized, £rgo there was 1 com-
mand : Neither,

Thirdly, Can rhsy prove oneacl concerning tfjeir
own form of baptizing by any comrmnd,bjit bycnn-
fequences : When they lay Infants are not to be ba-
ptized, they draw it from confrquence thus,becaufe
there is no command 'in their fejife $ When they af-
firm the Covenant i? ru>t made with. believers now,
and their feed, 5s with Abraham, it's drawn by con-
fequence, becaufe, (ay they, Abrabtw is no natnral
father to us, as to thf jewsaod becaufe that covenant
was a mixc Covenant^ &c When they come to
prove baptizing to be by plunging, they argue by
confequence, becaafe the wtjrd (igniries ir, becaufe
they went where much water was, and went down
into the water,, &:. though they ate miftaken ia all
their confluences, as I lhail hereafter (hew; yet
this is full ad hommw*. and againft themfelves,

who

(5)
who deny confequences to warrant infiirution*,
and yet have nothing for to prove their own wvy,
-butivhat is by confequeneefroTn Scripture.

8. It's common among the Apoftles to argue id
fuch a method, and to deduce one thing from an-
other, to make out what they intended ; 2 CV.5.
1 4. We thus judge , ;/ Chrift died for all , then
all are dead; if the firft be true, then the latter; fo
l Cor. 15. 13, 14, 15,16,17,18, ip, 20. and all
that Chapter, arguing out the refurre&ion by fit me-
diums : fo about the Ordinance of Baptifm,^^?j 10.
47. Can any man for bid w at ery Why thefe Jhould not be
baptized , who have received the holy Ghofla4 well as
We ? There was never any command to baptize thefe
that had received the holy Ghoft, nor any example
of any baptized on thefe terms ; but the ApoftJe
argues from the equivalency of the mercy, and the
Teafonoftheftate they were in* the fame method
he ufes 1 Cor. 10, 1$, 16, 17, 18. 1 Tim. $*
17, iS.

9> There will be hardly found a definition of the
moft do&rinal and high myfteties of the Gofpel,
but by comparing Scripture with Scripture, and fo
making it forth by confequence ; what perfect de-
finition of juftification, or of juftifying faith, info
many formal expreffiors in all the N. T. but what
mud be deduced by comparing Scriptures together
(to make one refuk? where are women either by
fuch a wordy exprefiion commanded to receive the
I-ords Suppcrfor any example?if they fay (*rsp»w»0

fig-

■ (?)

figmfies both fexes, yet it's ftill by confluence, no

command or example .- and why not (Zy,&) u

ft tofigmfie Infant Saints, as grown Saints, Infint-

r°^ ' ■ W68 ho,inefe ? ''« »PPlyedto both •

io. Deny confluences to have the fireoathof
commands, and you wiiJ leave very few duties to be
refit? frt<,be,avLoided, in the OJd or New
IS?' XpTd the tc" Commandments, the
<«n of the Law, without confequance*, and very few
S , VrVf"1, «an,8refl-ors, but ,ft0fty de!
fperate douched perfens. Af<*,5. Cbrift expounds
the whole law, and by confequences from ihe in-
ward me^mng, draws out neweonfiderations of du-
ties; and .fince the Bible is but a W.fyfteme of

S, a f °*l by *«'«»l-fpiria«l compart
{om «nd m erene^sj butenough tptheM confide,
ration on thu head of commands and confequences
.?'W^ wehaue apromife; laid as tbe&un-'
dat.onof.duty, that i» equivalent to anyexprefc
command ; for as commands in the Gofpel do fup.
po/e promife.*, to encourage us to ad them.and help
nsinthem .- Jo promifes made to perfons do include
commands efpecially when the duties commanded
are annexed to the promifes, a, a|| New Tefiament
Ordinances are, as well as Old.

tJt'wlu-'f *smucnintheN.T. to prove In-
tant-oaptifm, from the true principles of right to

Ordinances,

Ordinances, is they have for tbefe whom they ba-
ptize; for they baptize grown perfons on fuch and
f«ch confiderations : and we (hail hereafter fhew^
we baptize on as ftrong and equivalent grounds; and
thatYenotfgh to warrant a command,todemonftrate
the tame fubftantial grounds of the command CO
reach the fame cafe*

-'4,-If we can find no pofitive command in fo many
words for their baptizing (fhewing the fame fcn-
damental grounds) it's reqnifite they fhould (Lew
as fome exprefs command to, the contrary, and fome
*uthentique repeal, feeing Infants fo long enioyed
fuch a like Ordinance ; upon the fame grounds
Chrift would not have taken away foch an antient
priviledge , when his grace abounded , and fuper-
abounded,but he would have left fome characters of
it in the Gofpel* and entred fome formal discharge
in his Word of fuch perfons^ and given a warning of
ft to the Gentile believers to expect it • but he hath
both by his words and carriages left clear demon-
fhations, that he is fo far from repealing, as he con-
firms ir to Infants ; let the Scriptures opened here-
after fpeak to this.

The third confideration premifed is this, as all
that they urge as to examples of aclual believers, bee.
ing baptized, all along the New Teftamentj efpeci-
aliy the^#/, and that if thou bdieveft thoumayft,
&e. we can freely grant without any damage to
this truth : For,

i. We fay as they* profeffiog believers grown

men

(*)

men were fide baptized, and (a they augbuabr,
who are tobethefoftfabjecVofbhe a^awniflurjon
of anOrdinaflavpeffomabletogivean account of
Ihei r own faith ^ it was fo wi ch Ahr^m^ Qw. J 7.
24. hewaaop years old when he was circumcifed,
snd he rauft be rirft circumcifed before he could con-
vey a right to his feed -, now you, may a* well argue,
AbtAhtrnvite firft circumcifed when fo ©14, there-
fore old perfons ate to be circumcifed, and none
t\k\ asbeeaufe grown perfons were baptized, there-
fore not Infants* when they muft be foil baptized
rhemfelves ; for Chiidrerraiebaptized by the pro-
ft firft co them, and in tbemco -theic teed.
1 . ftfl affirmative pofrion is net exclufive of fub-
0><!Rnares ; becanfe belkvens were laid to be ba-
pc^ed, Ergo nor iheir ked, is not true reaioning ;
1 r heir fetd were comprehended with them in the
fame promifc.

3 A non&Be ad Hon fafttsm, non valet confeqHBn-
f&i 1$ Divines fay; becaute it'^ncc eapreft in fo man
*Wrirf$,the eforeit was not done, is no argument:
e^c i3i-ly when there ia enough to Shew it was done,
though no^ written ; Chrift i'peaks fhorr,. shac we
irwy feareh • he expe&s N.T. Saints to be fo ingenu-
es to take more by a hint, then thofe of the Old
who were not fobred as we now ; they had every
plnof the Tabernacle appointed; it's. not fo putv
dually fee down now, either as to Churchts, or Go-
vernment, but only the main Subftantiah laid down.
3rd b?$ left to the mgeroiiry of else Saint* to draw
forth the tonfequencc*," Laftljr,-

(?)
Laftty,to premite no more; God hath alway*
ordained fomeOrdiriar*ce$ • in rtie udminiftration of
which, for the moft part, the it^^hath been pure-
ly paflive, to expreis his own free grace modem?*
nently, as Circkmclfion on Infants 5 And can we
think he hath left no Ordinance now as avifible cha-
racler, only to hold forth his meer grace in the N.T.
where he reigns by grace ? And there i*no fign fo
fit to exprefs it as Baptifm, and no fubjeel fo capable
as poor Infants.

— —

Chap. IL

Jhout the nature of theCoyenant made with
Abraham.

E fird great tfting in this Controvert i$> to*
confidmhe nature of the Covenant, which is,
the firtY foundation of the priviiedge to believer^
and their feed,as it ws? frft n^ade with Abraham and
hVs fjed, in the orfmfe of all belt- vers 2nd their feetf
bbth J c ws and Genciks • fotio large is the extent ctf
that Cov rum to both, as hertafter (hill be proved
firoft New lefts meikexpreffioris -j and if w* fmd the
fame Covering reaching Gentile-believers , and
their Children, as Abraham a*d his, we cannot be
denied the new external fign and fcal of the fame

Covenant^

(10J

Covenant; for though the outward figns may be
changed, yet (here is no change of the priviiedges,
if the Covenant remain entire. For the opening of
Which we fhall confider,

1. Ihe naure of Abraham* Covenant.

2. How perfons may be faid to be in that
Covenant,

For the firft, we muft begin with that placer</#w.
17. where God began not only to exprefs the Co-
venant in larger terms then formerly, but to add a
yifiblefeaitoit, vi*» that of Circumcifion '.There
be many conje&nrcs about this Covenant; thole
that differ, conceive it to.be a mixt Covenant, made
up of fpiritua! and temporal biemngs together, and
not of the fame purity with the Covenant ip theNew
Teft ament, and To make a carnal par<^ and»a fpiri-
tual part ofir,and Circumcifion to bef annexed efpe-
cially to the former, not fo to the latter ; this is the
true relation of their judgement about this. Ltt us
review the Covenant, and its terms, and we Ihall
foon find she miftake.

Firft i and chiefly, We affirm this was a Covenant
of pure grace, the fame in fubftar.ee with the Co-
venant adminiftred now under the Gofpel, fines
Chrifts coming in the fliili and fpirit.

i , Jt was founded upon pure grace, Gods love to
'Abraham^ and 'cis not any thing in ^Abraham* Qt
his, to move God more then to the Gentiles.

2* It was a Covenant without works, therefore
of pure gr&ce, Rom. 4.* ,2>3> 4*5 • *°d *^ along the
€hap:er* $. It

fli)

3. It was a Covenant made only with a believer
upon Gofpel terms; the fame the New Tefhment
holds forthin rhe 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 Chrift, and there-
fore a pure Covenant of Gracf , as any can be in the
Gofpel, Gal.$. 16,17,18, and 20.

5. Confider the tenure of this Covenant, Gen.ij*
7. 1 W*// eftablifb my Covenant heme en me and tbte0
and thy feed after thee in their generations) to be a Cjod
to thee^ and thy feed after thee. Here is the fabftance
and ftrcngth of this Covenanr,to be a God to Abra-
ham and to his feed^and what can be more then to be
Jehovah to him ? can there be any esprefiion more
high, or that can let forth more graced purity then
this? It's more then can be expreft, that God in-
gagethhis Deity to him 5 and ic is as much as if God
had laid, whatever I am in mine own Godhead, I
will be to thee and tfw ^d, to make you happy and
bleffed ; this is the firftand main thing premifed^
and it comprehends Chrift,grace,glory, all bleffinas
above imagination ; the Apoftle in Heb.%*io* ufeth
tfae fame expreffion as the ium of all, when he fpeaks
of the new Covenant, Imtt be to them a god, and
tbeyjkall be to me a people. We need adde no more,
ifthatwerenota Covenant of pure grace, the Go-
fpel knows none other.

That whkh they have to fay why it's a mixt Co-
venamr?snd a temporalis forne of the moft ignorant

B affinnj

affi

rflij is from the following expreffion of GW.17.8.

And I will give unto thee^andto. thj feed after theejhe
Land wherein thou art a ftr anger, all the LandbfCz-
minfor an ever lofting yoflejfion>&c* Now fay they,
if the promifes be mixt, fo is the Covenant.

To which I anfwer, that the Land of Canaan, and
fuch like promifes, were but additional, and added
exfuperabundanti, to the firft promife, not at all in-
corporated to the bulk and body of the Covenant
which was made in Chrift,and confided of more pure
confederations • thefe promifes were but fitted to
the oucward administration of the firft promife of
gracf , and the ftate of Abrahams family, but there
was no mixture; For,

i. The Covenant with Abraham is repeated in
the New Teftsment entire, without any of thofe ad-
ditions, as is proved formerly.

2. The promife of Canaan was typical of Heaven,
and fo did but more open the fit ft promife, to be
their God;(bewing them that God would bring him
and his to Heaven , and the fulnefs of his glory, as he
would bring them to an outward Canaan; and this
was fuited to Gods defigty in admimftring that vail:
promife by types and outward figures : fo ^Abraham
clofed in with it by faith, as a promife expounding
figuratively the fubftance of the Covenant , Heb. 1 1.
8,9,10. lb 13, 14, 15, 1 *5. Sothatthefirft promife
was po(itive,and (hewed the nature of the Covenant;
the other was typically expofitory , Canaan letting
out Heaven, and the eternity of their reft with this

God

God in Covenant* and this will no more maSsed
mixt Covenant , then the type and the fubftan£e
when the? meet together will differ in fignifica-
tion.

3. We may as well fay, thefe promifes in the
New Teftament make up a mixt Covenant, and fo of
a different nature, when God faith in Mat. 6. 33.
Seekjirft the Kingdom ofGod> and /ill things elf e [ball
be added; and I Tm.\* 8. GoMintfs hath the pro-
mife of this life> and that which is to come \ which are
as much mixt as ever the Covenant made with Abra~
ham was ; whereas all know, thefe are but accidental
appendixes of the promife ofgnc;, and difpenfed
according to the ufe he hath for, and the conditions
of his Saints : thus Qanaan was added to the Cove-
nant, as all other things to the Kingdom of God

4. If this be a mixt Covenant, becaufe Canaan ii
added, and the like, then how comes it to be the
fame in the N. T.and to be of force now, when no
notice is taken of Canaan, and the temporal pro-
mifes ? Sure in this mixture the promife of free grace
was primary,and like oyl at top 3 for Abrahams Co*
venant the very fame for fublhnce, is clear, and
without mixture in the Gofpel, though itisadmiw-*
ftied externally, as it was then, and the blefltngs of
Abraham come on the Gentiles, though not of ait
externa) Canaan.

If they fay that Canaan was added only for the
difpenfation of the Covenant to ths Jew^it's grant*
ed ; but that it (hould make a mixture in the Go vo-

nant, is mofl: falfe,which is the fame for ever,though
the oucward adminiftration be different ; things
may be added, yec not mixt, as a mans cioaths ro his
body, and yet there is no mixture between a mans
flcfh and his cioaths.

But let us come to Circumcifion , thefcal of this
Covenant; i: fealed it, fay they, as a mixt Cove-
nant.

Then. i. It fealed the one part as well as the o-
ther .• take it in their own fenfe, chat is, it fealed
God to be their God, as fcanam ; and fo it was not
a feal meerly to a temporal promilc,

2. if the Covenant was fo mixt in the nature of
ir, then Circumcifion fealed unequally, though it
was added t6 a mixt Covenant, for it fealed the pro-
miie of Canaan to thofe that never went into £V
naan, as many that died before that time,and after-
wards many that were circumcifed died in the Wil-
dernefe, and under Gods wrath, and fo fealed no-
thing at ail,neither part of the Covenant viiibly;and
that is hard, that to fo many there foould be neither
the fulfilling of fpifitual, nor temporal part of the
promife.

3. Grant them this Covenant was mixt, then it
was either in the fubttance,* or circumftances;if in
the fubftance, then Abrahams Covenant was not
Gofpel, and believers muft feek for another Father,
as to the example of faith, and that were to make it
rather like Nebuchadnezzar s Image of Iron and
Clay, then made upof Gofpel materials; If in cir-

cumftances

ds)

cumfhnces of adminiftration, and additamcnts of
external types, it's granted, and we have the fame
promife now, with new outward adminiftration ;
if this mixture were in the nature and fubftance of
the Covens nt,then is mult remain as long as the Co-
venant lafted, and 10 unto this day ; for no man is
fobold C though many are bold enough) as to fay
that Abrahams Covenant is abrogated ; if it be un-
der any other consideration, it's eafily waved, and
the truth the fame : So that Circumcifion feaied the
Covenant primarily in its nature, as a Covenant of
grace, and God being a God to circumcife their
hearts &c.and Canaan, and other things confequent-
!y and accidentally,as God made a promife of them,
for the better vifible adminiilration of the Covenant
to them in that external polity. And fareJy its beyond
an ordinary reach to believe, that God fhould make
a Covenant with Abraham* and for his faith in it
fhould create him the Father of the faithful in all
ages, arid this Covenant fhould be brought in the
N.T. and renewed, and the tenure of it frefhly held
forth to believers there, and yet at the fait making
of ic God fhould mix temporal promifes with the
fpiritualffubftance of it, and annex a feal that fhould
only or fpeci ally feal the temporal part of it, and
fb poorly confirm the main and efTential nature of ir,
efpecialfy when God fpeaking of Abrahams faith^
iliks Circumcifion the feal of the righteoufnefs of it,
^«w.4.But ofthisiqpre in another Chapter.

B 5 Ch a >•

g h a p. in.

Yhe diflinBion of Abrahams feed into
fiejhly and Jpiritual, into natural and
bdk^vingy confidered • whether the In-
fants ofbelieajers may not he called in
the New Teflament} the feed of Abra-
ham,
I

T'H E next thing which muft have its place of
confederation, is that queftion of Abrahams
feed, with whom the promiie was made ; and upon
this hinge hangs all the main weight on both fides;
and if we make out Infant? of believers in the N.T.
to be in Covenant, as Abrahams ktd9 the contro-
yerfie would be at end i Id make ouc thi$,the moft
of the following Chapters are defigned ; only in this
we (hall fall mOre dire&ly on the queftion it felf.

Thofe that differ from us make many diftindions
pfarkflily carnal feed of Abraham* andofafpiri-
tual feed, a believing and a natural (ced, which di-
ftin6l:ions are taken out of Rom. Q. 7, 8. Gal.. 4. 23 ,
and Chap. 3. 16. and moft true, it well applyed;
but before I come to open the Scriptures, I would
premif&chefe confederations concerning Abraham
and his feed.

I. That

(*7)
i. That Abrahams fpiritual feed were as much
his flefhly feed alfo, Ifaac as IJbmael, except Profe-
Jytei and Servants. _

2. The Covenant was adminiftred to all Abra-
hams natural and flefhy Children,as if they had been
fpiritual, and before they knew what faith was, or
could actually profefs ^Abrahams faith.

3. It's no contradiction in different refpc&s, to
be a feed of the flefh by natural generation, and a
Child under the fame promife made with the Parent;
for they both agreed in Abrahams cafe ; none was a
Child of promife, but as he came of Abrahams flefh>
and as he came from Abrahams flefh, fo every one
had the fealof Gods Covenant onhisflefti : Thus a
fpiritual promife was made with Abraham and his
carnal feed.

4. There was no diftinclion of Abrahams fledily
feed and his fpiritual feed, in the O.T . but all com-
prehended under the fame Covenant, untill they de-
generated from ^Abrahams faith,and proved ihernr
felvesto be meer carnal, and rejected the pro-
mife,

5. There is a carnal and fpiritual feed of Abra-
ham, even under the N. T4 as our oppofites mufl: ac-
knowledgers well as Infants; fo are the mod vifible
Profeffors which they baptize ; which may have no
grace; and many prove carnal indeed, through the
predominancy of their Jufts and corruptions.

cv When there is mention of Abrahams carnal
f?e<l !B opposition to fpiritual feed, it cannot be

fi 4 meant

fi3)
meant primarily orfolefyof thofe that de Untied
from Abrahams fcih : for then //Wand facet? were
the carnal feed,yea Chrift himfeJf> who as concern,
ing the flefo came of Abraham $ ir mud be therefore
of thofe of Abrahams feed which degenerated and
flighted the Covenant of the Gofpd, and thefe were
properly the carnaUeed.

Salable to this Is that diftirftion of Abraham be-
ing ft natural and a fpiricual Fat her : F«fe

Fttft, HewasanwunlFathertottiefcto whom
he Wa$ a gtitfafal £afe, as t* &?$fc* and /W, and
the go% of *hdr fofterity.

Secondly, All ko whom he wa§ a natural Father
wereundel &fc Covenant, afldWtbe feal> *rtriil
tlity^e^eitlfefHrelves; cbcptetaifc wA in both
relation?, as to outward admtniltration; &vm. j-.if
^3:4- Aftd if rfren &m Hate tkft*s,you may a*£ue
as much *gifa(k Abrahams immtM&& from enjoy -
rng Yhefe privflc^e-, as believers natural feed now,
and with asrr net of tritfi.

Burner ik weigh tte%Strip:mves*h&hw bright
by our Oppolices : Fi.ft, confider that of Rom. 9.
6>7 8 They sre wet cvl iftfcel ft*t rfj*r*f Iff ael ; mi-
t'jfrlrecaufe the j are the feed of Abraham arethej afl
'Children, bmvn thy ffedlvcafied i rfaft&

the j Vehicb are the CtxMren ohte ftefo9 thefe are not
the Children ofGJ : J to the Chufcen vffromife are
accounted for thejefd,

The Apoftle in chH Chapter doth wirh a bleeding
heart begin the farfftory of the jtws t ejefifofi torn

being

(19)
being a Church, and fpeaksas one loth to mention
it, and therefore brings it in with a paffionate and
beany Apology, V, i, 2, 3. he was in heavinefs, he
could Willi himfelf dvjfcfc*, accurfed from Chrift,
For his brethren, his Kinfmen according to the flefli,
that is, for thefe that we call Jews according to the

flcftl.

J^But what needed all this trouble to have a
carnal generation of men cut off? why doth Taul
rate on fo heavily ?

SoU In the 4, and $ , v. he tels you, who are
Israelites y to whom pertaim the adoption of glory ,
and the Covenant y and the giving of the Law ± and the
fervice ofQod, Andthefromifesjvhofearethe Fathers^
fifwhom as Concerning theflejh Chrift 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 fink him.

Ob. Well, might fome fay, v. 6. then the promife
of God is in vain, if they be rejected unto whom the
adoption and the promifes belong.

Sol, The Apoftle anticipates that Obje£tion,Not
as though the Word of God hath taken no effecl;
no, the promife is the fame, and immutable $ but
they are not all Ifrael which are oflhid ; neither be-
caufe they are the ked of Abraham&tt they all Chil-
dren, &c. This is the very natural coherence of thefe
words ; let us now ufe our judgements to diftinguifh
and review the place, and we fliallfind it a weapon
whofe edge is turned againft thefe that count it their
own. 1. The

I. The Apoftle is fadly troubled for his kinfmen
after the fiefb, for their rejeflion ; his reafon is,be-
caufe of the Covenant, and the prormfes made to
them, becaufe they were the natural feed of Abra-
ham : which holds forth that the promifes and the
priviledges of the Covenant were made indefinitely
toallthelfraeliies.

a. That it's a moft fad thing to be excluded from
the outward and geoeral adnvniftracion of the Co-
venant. Why foould /W thus break out in his af-
fections, for the lofs of outward priviledges, if
it were not fuch a mercy to be under them ?

3. The Apoftfe holds forth, thatperfons maybe
under the outward adminiliracions of the Covenant,
and yet not get the efficacy of it ; v.6. They are not
«lt Ihtel tb*t are of Mrtti -, the Covenant was made
with Abraham and his feed,al! that were of him:and
yet ail were not Ifracl, that is, partakers of the in-
ward life and efficacy of the Covenant ; the Apoftle
only in thefe verfes endeavours to takeo{£ that Ob-
jection, that God had broive his Covenant by call-
ing away the Jews, and fo tfiflingm'flhech of thefe
that were meeilyoi hi* &fh, whohadthe outward4
adminiftraticn, but not the inwaid fruit, and thefe
which were ele# in the promife,in Ifaac [ball thy feed
becalledi the reft hecaisthe Children of the flefli,
the former the Children of promife, v. 8. and fo
though they were under the outward difpenfation of
the Covenant, yet God was not mutable, nor his
j?rouufe, though he rejccled them, fwaufe qf their

(2i;

own degeneration ; fo that the torn of this place

' i. That the Covenant was made in general with
Abrahams feed, to all that came from him.

2. That in the adminiftratioa of general and in-
definite promifes, there is a fccret diftinaton, and a
vein of eleflion carried through the admimftration,
that takes hold of fome, not of others.

q. That none are the Children of promife, real
Saints, but thofe that have the true effeds of the Co-
venant in their hearts.

4. That all Children of Believers, though the pro-
mife vifibly belong to them, as to Abraham and his
feed, yet may not folio w their Parents faith,and fo
not be Ifraet, though of Ifrael,

But here is nothing at all to demonltrate that
Infants, becaufe Children of the flefh, are not under
thepromife:but rather the contrary ;for wMtcfia/l
thjfeidbecaHedt(%\t\\God t now he wai a Child of
AbrahamsMn, as well as thefe which were caft oft,
and yet a Child of promife 5 fo God makes his Co-
venant indefinitely with believers and their feed,
and vet the efficacy of the Covenant may reach but
fome, an Jfaac or a Iacob, an elefi veflel, and yet the
other under the outward adminiftration, until they
manifest the contrary i But more oi this from that,

I come'now to that other place fo much urged by
thems^/.5si0. Jty» to Abraham andbufeed were
the promifes made ; befaith not, to feeds, 0s of many.

bm

(*2)

$ut of one, rvhlch h Chrifl : Now by Chrift here can-
not be meant barely Chrift perfonal: fcr then no be-
liever (hould'be accounted for the feed but oneJy
Chrift ; it muft be meant of Chrift myftica!iy,or Po-
litically cotifidered,as the vifible Head of the Church;
if to Chrift my ftica), then to ail the Elecl as in hiro,
and fo to Infants aswell»as grown pedbns, who
make tip that rnyftical body$ but thus the ptomife
is conveyed under ground as it were, none knows
the veins of it : thus in the Old Teftament fleih and
flc(h came from Abraham fht Covenant adminiftred
to them both by ks feal, yet one fle(h enjoying the
fpiritualblefli^^s, the o; her rejected.

Take the promife to be made to Chrift, the ktd9
as the Head of a vifibk Church,then ftill it fpea&s for
us; for Infants of believers were never call out of
the viable Church sribey were once in jand the promife
is made now to tihem with their Patents, as (hail be
hereafter proved at large : but if we look no farther
back then the 14. v. of t&s Chapter, we {hail re-
ceive fome light to th« : It's faid in the 1 3 .v. Cbrifi
hath redeemed ttifrom the owfe of the LaVcf being
■mA&e a enrfefer «*, &c that the bieffi*gtf Abraham
might came -en the Gentiks through Cbrift : Abrahams
t>!efling what was it, but the promifes,and the fruits,
and priviledg** of the premie aftd Covenant made
to him and his feed ?The fame bleflingisnovv cc5sȣ
on the Gentiles, but through Ctwift, who toolcaway
all obftru&ions in the p*#«ge ,fcf cte Covenant by
to death; Now,

1. This

i. This blefling of Abraham was not perfonaJ,
but to him and his ked.

2 This very blefling is come on Gentile be-
lievers, is on Abraham : therefore it rnuft come
on believers of the Gentiles, and their feed alfo:
For,

3. It cannnot be called Abrahams bkfRngy except
it come on the Gentiles according to the fubftantiai
terms of Abraham* Covenant : Now this was the
abfolute form of Abrahams blefling, I Will be a Goi
of thee and thy feed ; and this very blefling is come
on the Gentiles through Chrift, as it came on Abra-
ham ; and therefore it raufi: be to believing Gentiles,
and their feed: elfe it will neither be Abrahams blef-
ling in the fornyior fatnefs of it ; Abrahams blefling
willdefcend on the Gentiles dipt half off, not like
it felf : And it mull: needs be a very uncouth faying
to all judicious ears, to fay, that Abrahams blefling
is come on the Gentiles by Chrift, as it was on the
Jews by Abraham, and exclude half the Subjects at
once from any right to it; for fo you muft, if you
cattout the feed of Gentile believers.

And to what end fhouldthe Apofifefay, The
blefling of sAbrabam^ and not the promile or Co-
venant is come to the Gentiles, but,that he intended
it to the Gentile believers and their feed,as formerly
it came to Abraham and his ? This (hall be further
cleared from «^?/2. and Rom.i 1. in their order.

But in gal. 3. lg.the Apoftle (fay they,) defcribes
who are the feed ; Ifjott be Chr*ft'f* then jou are

Abrahams

Abrahams /£*?/, and heirs according to promife : So
that now no Children born of believing Parents cad
be the feed ; for they muft be Chrift% according to
that in v. 26. fVe are all the Children of God through
faith in Chriftfefw.

In general, not to omit that which Beta faith
on the place, that CUramontanm Bible hath the
words thus, and as he thinks more right, ** 3 h *& &
Xe*r£ Ifyen be one m Chrift, then areje Abrahams
feed : This is (uitable to the former verfe, where he
faith^ There u neither left nor Greek, neither bond nor
free^ &c. but ye are all one in Chrifi lefts ; and if ye
be alloney then Abrahams/***/ : From which*

1. Unclear the Apoftle is endeavouring co take
away all difference between Jew and Gentile, and
to hold forth their unity in Chrift, where there is no
diftinclion as formerly : but now the Gentiles being
one in Chrift, are Abrahams fctd, as well as the
natural and believing Jews*to a

a* The Apoftle here hath no intent to (hew the
diftiri&ionof Abrahams feed as the fubje&of the
outward privikdges, and administrations of Ordi-
nances, bur to (hew that none are fpirtcually and re-
ally ^Abrahams feed, and heirs of promife, but fuch
as are Quid's, one in him with Abraham : For if this
fhould be the diftinclion of feed as the fubjeel of
outward Ordinances, it would be as much againft
profiling believers as Infants • for there is a carnal
profeffion as well as a fiefhly generation, the former
mote abominable. tiiltelojL

US)

the tropofition from this expreffion, as .they
draw ir^s thus • None but thefe who are ChriiVsare
Abrahams ked, and none are Chrifts's but real be*
liever% and therefore none bat they muft be b*i
jptized.

Thus fome fayf though weakly) The fpiritual feed
arc now the fubjeftof Baptifm, the new Creature/
the man in Chrift, Baptifm knows no flefti, with
many fuch like expreflions from this and other pla-
ces : But fee us weigh things.

i* If none but fuch are Abrahams feed, and fo
none but fuch the fubjeft of Baptifm,then vifible be-
lievers are not the fubjed of Baptifm ; for they may
not be Chrift's, or new Creatures,no more then In-
fants ; hardly one among twenty that are truly in
Chrift among the moft glorious of them, and fo not
Abrahams feed.

2. None muft be baptized at all upon this ac-
count; for who knows who is Chrifts according m
eledion and faving faith ?

If they fay, We have charitable grounds to be-
lievefo of vifible Profeffors, until we fee the con-
wary;

Ianfwer, This is nothing to the Queftion, as us

reflated, nor as it lies in the text ; the text faith,
If)' be thrifts, thenje are Abrahams/^ : You fay
none ate in Chrift but real believers, and you muft
baptize none but a fpiritual feed,and newCreaturesj
which will require not only a judgement of charity*

but infallibility to determine,

2, The

(*5)
2. The Apsflle isi*cre deieribiog what the real
feed and fpi ritual feed are , as having an inwaid
right toChrift, and not what the apparent feed of
Abrahams was ; For ,

1. Mark whom he fpeaks unto ; to grown pes-
fons, the galatkvs, who were vifible Profeffors and
Believer?.

2. He puts them to a trial of themfelves, whether
they were Chrift's or no, after they had made a pro -
feffion ; for they having legaliz'd, and returned to
look after Jewifti Ordinances and works, he
tells them, their Ordinances were nothing, their
priviledges nothing, being Jew or Greek, but as
they were in Chrift : The fam,e he follows cn,Chap«
6. l%. In Chrift neither circtmcifion nor metr-enm*
ciSoyt^vailetbany thingtbut a new Creature ; So that
rhe Apoftle here puts an [" if] co the profeffing Ga-
Utiani , // ye be Chrifi's 9 then art ye Abrahams
fe*A.

S* If you have no more but the judgement o£
your charity to dilUnguifo thus of meaifl Chrift|teal
believe4£,and Abrahams feed,then we have che ferae
ground of charity to act on Infants of believers;
for, rr' ■-

i. They maybe Chriftsas well as grown per-
sons.

%. God would have us accwat them holy, as we
(hall prove from that, i Cor.j, 14.

3. Seeing ciiey have been taken into the fame
Covenant.

4. Seeing

1 <*>

4* Seeing Chrift (hewed fomuch refpe^tolsio
fonts, when brought to him. To /udgc a tifible Pro-
feflbr to be Chrift's, and Abrahams feed, I have no-
thing but the purblind eye of my probable judge-
fnent.To judge a believers Infant Chrift's, I have s
general Scripture affertion, and the ground of an in*
definite promife * which is more then all my con*
jeclures ; So that,

i. Vifible Profeifors are not the fpiritual feed o£
Abraham ; for they may not be Chrift's ; therefore
there is no fpiritilal feed but thefe that have faving
faith, which all have not .

2. Infants of believers are as much the fpirkwaS
feed of Abraham as vifible profefsing believers, and
we have as much ground to judge of the one as tH
other 9 until they manifeft the contrary ; and out
judgement on them may have lefs deceit in it then
there is in that we pafs on grown perfons. ,:

3. If you will diftinguifb of Abrahams fleCbfy
feed and fpiritual under the Gofpel, you cannot
apply it to InfantS| but to profefsing believers ; for
the Children of believers are not the flefniy feed of
Abraham^ but if there be any fuch diftinclion, ig
muft be between vifible grown Profcitors, of whom
fome are fpiritual, and Chrift's; and others earn*!*
and born under Mount Sinaisund not Chrifts;

4. It's a true rule in Logick, that in every good
divifionjP^r^ s debent inter fe cpponi}Tht Parts ought
to be oppofite : Now to be born front Abraham
both as a natural and fpiritual Father, was both

C so 1a n?oftp

f28)

common,through the promife in theOld Teftamcnrj
and not umverfally oppofite ; and fo it may be now;
an Infant is born of the fle(h of a believer, yetthe
Covenant makes the believer a fpiritual'Fatherin
iome ftfpe&s, as well as a natural.

5. The feed takes its denomination from the Co-
vertattt>and its tenure ; and if the Covenant be im&e
to Abraktm and his ked, and thefe were at firft In-
fants of hi* body, and renewed with believers in the
NX as we (hail prove in the following Difcoorfe:
then Infants of believers are the feed now as well
as formerly, Abraham only being the firft root and
Father.

6. Vifibility of profefrion doth no more make a
man of the fpiritual ktd^ and fo Chrift's now under
the New Teltamenr, then the Covertant in its out-
ward adminiftratioriin the Old, made all the Jew*
and their Children really new Crettiires, and a fpi-
ritual feed; for under the one, and the other, pcr-
fons may be carnal.

AH thefe confideratibns are to (hew that thefe
places of Scripture are iniftaken , and do not (hew
who is the kxd as td Ordinances, butwhoarfcdie
feed as to etedion and falvation ; and that Infant*
may beas well the feed, notwithstanding all thefe
places,as well as vifible ProfeflTors.

^If any fayr ;Bm we have ho warrant to judge
of any but by vifibfe pfofefsion.

Sol 1. Let us judge as God would nave us, and we
(hall find as much gtotfnd to pafe fnch a judgement on.

Infants

(*9)
Infants as them; if God call them holy, we may do
fo9 and it will be dangerous then to call them un-
clean.

2. The promife is the furer way of Judging, feeing
at beft we can but judge externally, and with hopes 5
and it's better to rely on God* and to expeft what
he will do through his promife, at lead on fome,
then to truft my own judgement.

3. The Word owns Infants of believers vi(iblya
as we own vifible PfofetTors, as the Scriptures fol-
lowing will demonftrate.

For the prefent, ferioufly view all thefe places to-
gerher, </<?». 17. 7. *Atts 2. 38,39. Deut. jp.tf.ii *
12,13,14. Rom. 10. 1,6,7,8. with Heb. 8.io5li9
Ier.31. 22. Efay 65. 23. with many fuch places,
that hold forth the ktd to Infants as well in the
New Teftament as in the Old.

I end this Chapter with this confederation , thac
if you exclude Infants of belie vers to be Abrahams
feed, upon this ground,becaufe they are not the fpi-
ritual feedtthen dafh out the name as well of grown
Profeflbrs to be Abrahams feed,who are no more fo
really becaufe of that, then thefe Infants, and we
(hall quit the one with the other, and then there
flasll be found no vifible fubjecls of Baptrfm, either
of Infants or grown perfons : for they are both, as
to election and inward grace, unknown to us to be
Abrahams feed ; they were both formerly accounted
Abrahams leed5grown perfons, and Infants efpecialty
by thi C+wnant 5 and now the one fs to be accounted
C z Abrahams

Abraham kzd , viz. grown perfonj profefling-
though they may have no tight to the inward grace
of the Covenant; and Infants who had fir ft right
next to Abraham, muft be excluded, though they
have never fo real an intereft, becaufe they are In-
fants, and cannot fpeak for themfelves: But fo much
of this j the next Chapter will fecond this.

Chap. IV-

How any perjon may be /aid to be in the Co*
<venant^the dhvers confederations about

it.

mil 3 "fl

TO the former let this be added , becaufe it
feems flange how any can be in Covenant^ and
3?et not partake of falvation : In opening of this,the
common diftindtions of all Divines muft be repeat-
ed, that according as there is an internal and exter-
nal adminiftration of the Covenant, fo there is a
twofold being in the Covenant :

i. Secundum propvfetum eleftionk, According to
the purpofe of ek&ion in Gods hearty and his eter-
nal decree; fo only the eleel, and thefe which have
f3ving faitbyare in Covenant ; this fome call, and not
improperly, to be intentionally in Covenant, God
principally intending the Covenant so them 5 others

cili

call it (pi ritually and favingiy from the effefJ.

2. There is a being in Covenant *'» facie viftbilk
Ecclefit, In the face, or according to the judgement
of a vifible Church,where judgement and charity are
mixc together, Rom.94. Deut. 29, ro, 12, 13, 14.
hh. 15.2, John l. 11. Pfal. 50.5. wirh variety of
Scripture : And of fuch there are two forts.

1. Such as (land by their own vifible profefsion,
as all firft Covenanters do, fo all vifible Saints now,
and fo many Profdytes in the Old Teftament,^^.
12.44,45* De$tt.2g.io9n. Gen.i2.$. Orelfe,

2. As in a Political Moral confidcration, as in
the right of another through a free proraife ; as if a
Prince give a title of honour, or apiece of land to
one andjhis heirs,they are all interefted init,yet fome
prove fools, or traitors, and are afterwards incapa-
ble : It's fo in this, and was with ^Abraham and his
feed 1 Now that this diftinflion holds in the New
Teftament, I (hall thus difcover to you;

1. If men deny an external, as well as internal
being in Covenant, none can adrainifter an external
Ordinance, an outward fign to any ; for we muft go
by external rules in thefe a&ings.

3. Vifible Profeffors will have the worft of it.;
for we muft adminifter no Ordinance to thefe which
are not internally in Covenant ; and we have no
proof but their own exprefsions, and our good
hopes, and prefent probable judgement to warrant
us, and many vifible mifcarriap ?s to contradict out:
judgements and hopes at fpeci i times.

Cj 3- Wc

(32j
3.Wefetafeaitoablank to all grown perfons
who are baptized, or receive the Lords Supper,with-
outw© know them certainly in the Covenant; and
that who knows? for our judgement will no 'more
hinder the feal from being a blank to grown Pro-
Feffoi* then to Infants, without they prove real at
Jaft.

4. The beft evidence you can have from any of
their being in Covenant, is but vifiblc exprefsion.%
fuppofitions, and hope?, and probabilities, ail which
you mnft help out by your own charity, and fallible
obfeivation ) for G04 hath promifed no feal on my
fpirit for another mans condition > it's** bleffed
mercy if I get the feal on ray own heart for my

So that the great Qwftion willfce anfwered from
this, which Mr. Tombes and they all urge, That if
God made the Covenant with believers, and their
feed, they muR all be fived, &c. With which I ftiail
but thus pirly.

1. Doth God make the Covenant of falvuion
Vvith eve?y vifible Proi'dYor whom they baptize ? or
with eveiyvifible 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 fTiouy it be thought more hainous to
feta feal on Infa^s, as in the Covenant, thenoa
uSefe Profeffors wU$ after wards prove not co be in
Covenant f

z. Or

(33)

$. Or do they baptize, becaufe that perfons are
in the Covenant ? If not, then upon no Spiritual ac-
count ; if upon their being in Covenant, then either
internally or externally ; on the fiift ic cannot be
abfolucely, but as manifested externally ; not upon
a meer external being inCovenantjfor then they may
feta feal to a blank : if upon both together, the
one externally demonftrated by the other, then it is
ftiil by the external being in Covenant that we judge
with hopes ofthe other. There is a trick that fome
have got> whereby they think to evade this being in
Covenants the fundamental ground of Baptifm,by
this diftinclion ? That ic is not being in Covenant,
but being an aflual Believer, gives right ; To which
lanfmr.

i. That the Covenant, take it fpintually, is the
ground of faith, not faith of the Covenant.

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

3. To feparate the Covenant from the convey-
ance of a^ual privileges, isalmoft as dangerous as
to feparate acluai faith from the Covenant s for the
one gives a right as well as the other.

4. Infants in the Old Teftaraenc were thus as
really to be efteemed in the Covenant, as aftual vu
fible Believers are now ; and under the external ad-
minittration of the Covenant, as the Profely tc*,who
came in tothejewifib Church, and wer| tjte nut

! Ca for

(34)
For that there is an external adminiftration of
the Covenant of Abraham, or rather of God m
Chriit, even in the New Teftamenr, is clear 5 for
that many were baptized who proved hypocrite^
and many believed vifibly likewife,as Simon Magus %
Hjmenatu, Alexander, Philetus, &c. many in all the
Churches; and yet thefe muft be accounted the fpi-
ritual feed, though moft wicked, becaufe they can
profefs their own prefent (udden faith: and poor In-
fants of believers muft be accounted the carnal feed,
though fo long under a Gofpel promife ; of which
you (hall not want proof hereafter! V r *t ?i 3»o '*

Now that alt which are baptized, or have any
Ordinance, have ic adtniniftred fundamentally oh
the ground of the Covenant externally adminiftrcd,
I prove thus.

I. God adminifters all his graces by Covenant,
much more outward Ordinances.

*. Souls can have no challenge or intereft in
God, but by fome Covenant or other ; God is tied
to none, but as he ties himfelf.

?„ If there were not a vifibie and external admi-
piftration of the Covenant, none jbould know of
the irivifible defign of it unto any : ail things would
be in the dark to us, as to Gods Covenant, in a vi-
sible difpenfat ion.

4. If this invifible defign were not fecretly carried
on in an outward vifibie difpen lation, there could be .
none condemned by an outward rule : for who can
condemn thefe who are intentionally, and invifibly

in

on

in Covenant* oifotRe? And if every one vifibfy
in Covenant be intentionally and fpiritually in Cove-
nant,it's jaft the fame.

The whole is this; None are in Covenant (fty
they ) but real believers, the Spiritual feed, fonone
Co be baptized but fuch : when it comes to appli-
cation of the Ordinance, then none are the fpirrtual
feed but vifible believers ; and thefe vifible believers
can be judged by no way but by an external pro-
fefliontobein Covenant; and Infants are no vi-
fible believers, therefore no fpiritual feed ; | when as
the one is as vifible by promife, as the other by pro-
feffion.

__ ! ■*

Chap. V.
Opening that place in Acts 2. 39.

'Tfjuv $ %bv \m,fyxia> xj rots Tiwoft vywv , x) ****

1,, **

*W s fti (V.

TH I S Text I firft hold forth as (it to difcover the
New Tcftament application of the Covenant
of grace, and its continuation to believers and their
feed, as to Abraham and his in the Old Teftament :
Its the firft Argument ufed after Chrifts afcenfion,

to

tm

to provoke the Jews to repent, and fufrmit to Go-
fpel' ordinances; and the firft open promulgation
of the Covenant both to Jew and Gentile, with the
prime priviledges of it; in which is contained the
Gofpel-Covenant made with believers and their
feed.

r. Here is f I fW>Wi*J) the promife j which
can be no other then the promife of remiffion offins,
and fo of falvation; futable to that \nGe*.ij.y.tiid
repeated at large in ?er. 3 r. 34. For it mnft either
be a promife of temporal things, Of fpiritual j of
temporal things it cannot be; for there is do ab-
fo lute promife of thefe things in the NewTtftamenr,
but as included in, or following fpiritual mercies,
as Uiiat. 6. 33 Neither is there a fy; liable itL.this
Chapterpreflingmentolook after temporal enjoy-
ments, or engaging them to embrace the Gofpel by
any outward emoluments.

Ob. The great and only interpretation of this
promife by thefe that differ, is, that ft hath reference
to v. i5. and is meant of the promife of the holy
Ghoft prophefled of by foil, Chap. 2.28. which
was to be poured forth in the latter daies, and bow
vifibly and eminently begun to be fulfilled at the day
ofPentecoft.

To which the Anfwer will be cleat* and fair,thou$rr
that be granted ; and not at ail weaken-,: but
Strengthen the former fenfe ; For,

1. Thatpromiieis afpiritwai prdmife, tnd.mDie

large and comprehenfive of fpiritual mwG&VA'

" any

(37)
any other; the promising of thetpiritisas much as
to promife all at once, graces, gift?, yea Heaven it
felf, for all are but the fruits of this promife ; Chtift
in the Old Teftamenr, and the Spirit in the New,
contain all the promifes in an eminency. When Jc-
fus Chrift was to leave the World, and fpeak all his
heart at once, and leave his lad bleffing, that fhould
be better then his bodily prefence among them,he ex*
prefles all in this, that he would fend the Spirit, Job.
14. 16,26. Ci.15.26* 16."/, And of this large pro-
mife, as well according to Chrift's promife before
his Afcenfion, as Joels Prophefie, the Apoftles and
Believers received the flrft fruits in this folemn day
of Chrifts triumph : So that to fay it's the promife
of the Spirit, is as much as to fay it's the promife of
all fpiritual things : For this read in Gal. 3. 14. the
Apoftle fpeaking of the fruits of Chrift* death, faith,
It Was that the bleffing of Abraham might come on the
Gentiles through leftts C^rt?* f^at ®e might receive
the promife of the Spirit through faith; The fame
phrafe that is in this 3 8 . And in the promife of the
jpirit, Which is to be received by faith* is included
jvftification,fan5iification; yea all gr aces % and its here
joynedwith the bleffing of Abraham : But,

2, If they take the promife of the Spirit in a \U
mitedandreftriclivefenfe, for the external gifts, as
the moftdo, for the gifts of tongues, and miracles,
and prophefie, they both clip the promife, and make
the argument and comfort from it invalid, and of
no efficacy,

1. It's

OS)

i . It's a mighty wrong to that famous prom ifc of
the Spirit, tocircumfcnbeicin thefe accidental gifts
which were efpecially neceffary, and almoft only for
that feafon : when it's a promife that reacheth all
the latter days, and is ftill accomplishing, though all
thefe extraordinary gifts are ceafed.

2. This ftrairned fenfe is expunged by the man*
neroftheexpreflions of that Prophetic, both in jfo/,
tnd this in the nAEls, I will four out of my fpirit on
*U fiejby and on your fervantt and handmaids will /
four out ofntj fpirit : Which (hews the univerfality
and variety of the fubjecls, and bleflings in this pro*
mife, that it fhili be fo large and full a mercy ; as if
there were to be bo limitation of its meafure.

3. If it were meant meerly of thefe gifts, why
then there is no more benefit of that promife after
the Apoftles days, but thatChrift was out of date,
and did expire with that age ; whereas it is a promife
made for all the time of the New Teftamenr, which
is expreft by the latter days, and the lafl days, up
and down the Scripture . r^rfjo oft

A parallel promife ro this you have in I/a. 44. 3.
I will pour water on him that is thirfty% and foods on
the dry ground ; 1 Will pour my fair it on tkjfeedy and
m) kteffing on thjoff-fpring : Now the promife of the
fpirit is always appropriated to the New Tcftamenc
day?,*

And Secondly, This cannot be the meaning o£
this phrafe, if iye confider to whom the Apoftlfi
fpeaks, to perfons pricked itrtheir hearts, Tty**ded for

their

(19)

their fins in crucifying oflefus Cbrift, trying out ^,37.
Otfe n and Brethren, What Jhall we do to be faved ?
Now what comfort could this be to tell them they
fhould have extraordinary gifts ? their hearts were
bleeding under (in, their eye was on falvation, they
faw no hopes of it, nor knew the way to obtain it ;
the Apoftle bids them repent and be baptized $ they
might have faid, What (hall we be the better ? why
(faith the Apoftle) Ton {ball receive the gift efthe
holy Gkoft; for the promife u unto you ; What pro-
mile? of gifts, of tongues and miracles : What is
this to our fouls ? how will this fave us? might they
well objecl. It would be but a poor comfort to a
wounded foul for to tell him of a promife of gifts,
not of fpiritual grace 5 and the holy Ghoft is 1 bet-
ter Pbyfician then to apply fuch a raw improper
plaifterto a wounded heart, which would hardly
heal the skin : this promife is brought in as a cordial,
to keep them from fainting, and to give them fpirits
to believe, and lay hold on Jefus Ghrift ; And truly
no other promife but that of free grace, in order to
falvation, can be imagined to give them comfort ift
that condition.

But to put ail out ofqueftion? That the promife
prophefied of in Joel, and quoted here, was the pro-
mife of falvation, and the kme with the Covenant
of Grace, Confult the Original in Joel, and the pa-
rallel in this of the Atts ; inloeli.JJ. the Prophet
founds all the promifes that went before, and all that
come after* on Shis, That he k the Lord their God^

and

(4o)
m&wme el/e • which was ihe very exprefs words in
chat Covenant made with t^brahum : And then af-
terwards, viz. in the New Teftament, to make out
this fully 9 HeVpiltpouretttbufpiritonaUfleJb, <$>c.
v. 32. which is a part of that prophefie, and is quo-
ted again in v. 21 . Whofoever fhaU caR on the name of
tkeLordfaillbefavedi one grace put for air; and
(alvation being put at the end of the promite, muft
needs be the aim of it. The fame exprefiio» you
have again repeated, Rom, 1 oi 1 3 .

And in the former v. 3 8. he exhorts them to re-
pent , eitapwdufyTiav^ for the renvffien of fin $
th exhortation is to a Gofpelduty; the effect and
profit of k was to be remi(fion of fins, and receiving
the gift of the holy Ghoft ; and the prormfe muft
needs be anfwerable, by which all is enforced ; and
it muft needs have been a mighty low and difpropor-
tionable way of perfwafion, to put them upon foch
high things in the former verfe, and to encourage
them only by the narration of a promife of fome
temporary gifts in the folIowing,when their eye and
heart was kt on -re million of (ins, and falvation by
Jefus Chrtft ; and nothing but a promife holding
forth thefe mercies could have been confideraWe to
them.

And it's very obfervable, in chat verfe he joyns
remiffion of fins with the gift of the holy Ghoft 5
and then adds fte promife to both, as the ground of
one and the other, and comprehending both : And
for that expreffion of Receiving tb* gift of the holy

Ghoft,

f(*0
Cjbift, it may well be noted, that it is a»4*<& # A>-
Zixv & -n^ixcLTzf cly\*s the free gift ; not ^^aaVf**^
the gifts of the heiyfpimt ; rioting the very fending
ofthe fpiritasafree gift to beftow all mercies on
them ; and fo refpeding rather the free and bounte-
ous manner of beftowing the holy Ghofton them*
then any limited effecls of his reception.

By all which it is demonftrated, that this is no or-
dinary, common, no temporal promife, or of mecr
gifts, though never fo extraordinary, but a promife
of free grace.

I only add this to all the reft, as undeniable by this
principles of thefe that differ; it's a promife made
not only to thefe Jews, but it's univerfally to the
Gentiles, and to all the called of Cod : but all that
are called have not received fuch gifts of {be
holy Ghoft which then were given ; but everyone
that is effectually called doth receive the promife of
remtflion or fins, and the free favour of God, an4
therefore this promife mud be taken mainly in that
fenfe* ,

• But the great difficulty is in the following part of
the verfe, and about the intereft of their Children
in this promife; and therefore the next work mull
be to make out this, that the Children as well as the
Parents are included in this promife, as they were in
the promife made with Abraham.

I. Let us confider to whom the Apoftle fpeaks:
to the Jews, who wereprickt in their hearts; The
promife U ti> jon and pur Children ; He (peaks to

them

(42)

them after the wonted manner of expreffion in the
Old Teftament,when ever the promife is mentioned;
and ufeth their own language in which they were
trained up in from their Fathers; IVeillfathe (jodof
the and thy feed, Gen. 17. ThefromifeutoyoH and
your Children ; If the Apofte had intended to ex-
elude their Children from the fame privi ledges they
had formerly by the Covenant, he would never have
fpokenin fucha known diale&ofthe Old Tefta-
ftient : and to jews, who could take it in no other
fenfe but this, that the promife (hall run as formerly,
to them and their feed.

2. Lee us mind on what ground this is brought
in, viz. as an argument and ftrong inducement of
them to repent and be baptized,- as in the former
VCtfe ; for the promife is tdymandyour feed 2 He en*
ceurageth them from this to receive the Ordinance
ofBaptifmthemfelves, for the promife was ftill the
fame to them and their Children * only now they
mnft firft believe and be baptized themfelves, ere
their Children could be confidered in the promife ;
If the Apoftle had not intended to hold forth to
them now believing and being baptized, and theit
Children, the fame privi ledges they had before as to
the promife, it would have been the greateft delu-
sion inftead of an argument to perfwade them to be
baptized on this ground, becaufe the promife was to
them and their Children ; they had been rather de-
ceived by it then enlightned ; and (tumbled by fact*
a proportion more then informed of a New Tefta-
mem adminiftmion* 3« ^potf

,^3>

3 . Upon what hinge can this Exhortation turn ?
Where is the vertue and ftrength it hath to move
them to be baptized themfelves, bat on this con-
federation, that they fliould not only enjoy blefiings
themfclves, through the promife, but their Children!
with them ? The promife to them was enough for
themfelves to fubmit to that Ordinance .* but the
height of the enforcement is from the riches of the,
promife, that it was not only to them, but their
Children- they might blefs themfelves and theirs by
fubmittingto theGofpel; elfeto put in the namd
of their Children fpeaking to the Jews, was but to
Tay a temptation before them, and rather to puzzle
them then encourage them : And doubtlefs the Holy
Ghoft would never in the firft opening of the Go-
fpeJ, and encouraging fouls to embrace kt ufe fuch s
language and expreltion that might deceive thofe he
fpake unto i for what could the Jews imagine or
conceive upon fuch a difcovery , but that if they
themfelves did repent and were baptized, the pro-
mife fliould be the fame in theN. T. to them and
their Children , as it was formerly to Abraham,
upon hvs believing and being circumcifed3 to him
2lnd his ke&t there being no exprefiion the Jewg
were fo accuftqmed to, and more delighted in, died
that of theptomife to them and their Children? And .
but to mention their Children with the ptoraife, if
it was not meant to hold forth that they were ftill its
die promife, was fufficient to have deceived thern9
who were never inftrucleil in any other method;

D Ths

C44J
The great defign of the Apoftle was to open the NX
promife,and by that to encourage the poor wounded
Jews to repent and be baptized : And that they
might have no cloud on their apprehenfions, ordif-
couragemenr, he utters it xnlingtMvernacuU, in the
phrafe the promife was always expreft in the Old Te-
ftament.

4. If the intent of the Apoftle were not to hold
forth the fsmeoefs and identity of the priviiedge of
the promife to thejews and Gentiles now believing,
3s was formerly; he would never have mentioned
Children when he mentions Baptifm, and efpecially
not in the fame line with the promife made to thePa-
rents ; and with one breath exprefs the promife to
both* and make that the ftrength of his argument to
put them on the pradice of that Ordinance : And
doubtlefs it had not been fo candid a way,nor futablc
to the fimplicity of the Gofpel, to tell them of their
Children, juft when he tels them of being baptized
the mfelves; and name them immediatly with the pro*
rmtie, if the defign was utterly to exclude them both
from the promife and Baptifm. I have been the lon-
ger inculcating thefe confederations, becaufe there is
much in them, and engaged perfons can (lightly pafs
over the rnoft eminent places with a meer glance.

Ob. But it's objected, That the latter claufe*
(ojmav qfAsteti'tTiTctt o x^ei©- ) Js many as the Lord
jha/Icail, is a limitation of the verfc,and no more are
under the promife j and fo Child ren,if God (ball call
them, ftiaii alfo enjoy the promife*

Sol.

Sol. For anfwer to this Jaft obje&ion, which is the
ftrerrgth of their confidence from this place, we muft
confider thefe particulars.

I. That in this verfe you have an exacl diftributiori
of the world into Jew and Gentile, according to the
ufualdiftributionin other Scriptures; the Gentiles
being ufually called thefe afar of ; and the promife
equally diftributed among 5 only he adds (as many as
the Lord {hall call) to thefe which are afar, as moft
proper in that place : but it can in no fenfe be re-
ferred to the former part of the verfe, either to Pa-
rents or Children : For,

1. He changes the tenfe in both parts of the verfe/
in the firft part unto the Jews, he fpeaks depr&fenti^
of the prcfent application of the promife; Repent y on,

and be baptized for the promife u to you and your

Children ; even now the promife is offered to you ^
and they were then under the call of God •< But when
he fpeaks of the Cicntiles,becaufe they were yet afat
OfF,and not at all called, he fpeaks defuturo^ as many
as God (hall call, even of them alfo ; which is the
firftesprefs hint of the catling of the Gentiles m
all the Ads of the Apoftles. ^

i» How unequal would the diftribntfon be of this
verfe, "hot futablc to the laws of exprefsion among
rational men? li As many as the Lord Jkall catt \
flibuld b?« limitation to the former pare of the vsrfe.

the word, Children, muft needs be redundant and fu-
perfiuous ; for Jews and Gentiles comprehend all
the world. Now Children muft either be one pare
of the world j or comprehended under one or both
names, or be a diftinfl world by themfelvel, neither
Jews nor Gentiles : And this muft needs follow on
fucha reading of the words*; for thedefigndf the
A polite is to hold forth the freenefs of the promife
to Jew and Gentile, and their Children ; to thefe
Jews at p'refent, to the Gentiles arid their Children
when God (hould call the Parents, as he did thefe
Jews. Now put Children by themfelves, as a third
party , and add whom the Lord Jhall call, and you ex-
clude them from being either Jews or Gentile?, and
lo excommunicate them from any hopes of calling,
or being faved ; Now this is,

i. Contrary to that known rule in Logick, That
Omnii bom diflribttiio debet ejfe bimembm ; only of
two members and thefe oppofite one to another 5 to
bring in a third mars all. So that it is moft clear,the
words muft be nnderftood as they are trarflated^The
promife is to you Jews, and your Children at pre-
sent, and to thole afar offalio, and their Children,
when GQ(hi\\ca8them] t\k calling cm with no
fenfe beapplied to any tittle of the formerpartof
the verte, without you make it monftrous, and unlike
itfelf.

3. ItVagsinft another rule about diftriWion,

which

*

which i$,That Partes Mvifionis ambulent <zqnali pajftt,
That the parts of a diftribution fhculd be equally fee
together. Now here will be a mighty inequality* as
to the communication of the promife ; if the words
(hould be taken in their fenfe, the Jews will have a
greater priviledgc then the Gentiles, if Children be
not equally added to both ; the Jews had the pro-
mife made to them and their Children at prefent;
thefe afar off (hall only have the promife to thern-
felves, but not their Children.

3 . Confider how comes this word (your Children)
to be kept in, for what end and ufe, if it were not to
(hew fome fpecial priviledge they have with their
Parents, when God cals or converts the Parent ?
what (lands it for but a Hone of offence to confeicn-
tious hearts ?

Objection.

Ail they infwer to this, is, that the Apoftle names
their Children to comfort their Parents, becaufe they
had wi(hed Chrifts blood on their Children, and io
to give them hopes they might yet be faved, if God
(hould call them.

SOLUT ION.1

To fee the fad (hifes of errour, is wonderful : Can
any man imagine, that the Parents could doubt more,

D 3 o%

or fo much of their Childrens being accepted and for
ved,when God fhould call them who were innocent,
and only under the fudden raflicurfeof their Pa-
rents, when they faw that the promife was to them-
felves, and Chrift offered pardon to themfelves,who
were the adual murtherers of the Lord Jefus.

%. Such a confidcration would rather fadden then?
then refrefh them, to mention the calling of their
Children ; For they might more doubt of that, then
of any thing, whether God would call them or no,
and be as far to feek as ever they were,that they would
have but cold comfort upon this account ; this was
enough to break their hearts if that were in their eye;
the old way of conveying the ptomife is cut off, no
promife but to called ones ; our poor Children are
uncalled, and God knows whether ever they may be
called of God : Thus might they reafon : But when
he includes them in the fame promife with Parents,
and exhorts the Parents to repent, upon this ground,
that the promife is to them and their Children ; this
favours like a Gofpd-camforting-exhorcation, and
could not be but of great efficacy upon their fpirics.

4» What Qrange myfterious tautologies would be
in this one verfe ? if. that Uft fentence fhould refer to
all the former exprejfions, we rnuft read it thus to
make out their fenfe.

The promife is to yott Parents of th$ Jews, when

God

God (lull call you fand they were then under the
call) and to your grown Children, when God ftnll
call them ; and to all which are afar off, when God
(hall call them : Can any man with his underftanding
about him think the Holy Ghoft foould faulter (o
much in common expreflion of his mind, i%hen there
was no need of adding or calling to any part, but to
thefe that were afar off, who were never yet under
Gods Gofpel call?

Laftlyi the word,Children,may and muft b$ under-
flood of Little Ones,Infants,not of adult and grown
perfons, for thefe reafons,

i. The word here (twois ) properly fignifies an
off-fpring, any thing brought forth, though it be but
of a day, of a moment old ; Thus when a woman is
faid to be in pain,and to bring f orth,this word is ufed >
John i6*« 21. Luke.1. 31. Mat. i.t6,Lukei. 57.

2. It's an indefinite word, and therefore may not
be retrained to grown Children, except God had
expreft it in a peculiar phrafe.

3. It muft needs be efpecially meant of Little Ones,
becaufethey are diftingui&ed from them felves, who
were men of years. Now when we diftinguiih be-
tween Men and Children, we fuppofe the one aduk,
the other under age,and not grown up* and it is con-
trary to all ways of expreflion to think other wife,
D4 4. It

4.Xtcarmotbe rationally conjectured otberwife,
bccaufethe Apoftle doth joyn them with their Pa-
rents in the fame promife, and not leave them to
ftand by themfelves, as grown perfons rnult*

So that all things weighed, this Text of Scripture,
jf there were no more, holds forth the famencfs of
the promife to Believers of the Gofpel, both Jew
and Gentile! and their Children, aseyer it was to
nAbrnhAm% and his natural feed.

e

HAP,

(41J
Chap. VL

Their great Plea from Mat. j. 8,9. con-
cerning John the Baptift'S Speech to the
Sharif ees and S adduce s} made <vain ■'
and that Text cleared from miftakes.

TH A T we may dill take off the main QbjeAt-
ons, let us view that place fo much flood on,
Mat. 3, 7, 8, 9. when lohn /*W «m»jj e//^ Tha-
rifees and S adduces come to hii Baptifm t he faith, Q
generation of Vipers, Who hath forewarned jou to flee
from the Wrath to comet bring forth fruits meet for
repentance ; And think^not to fay within your [elves
we'have Abraham to our Father ; for Ifaj that God Us
$kh of thefe fiones to raife up Children to Abraham:
From this Text they gather, that the pretence of be-
ing Abrahams Children could not give them aright
to Baptifm ; and if John denied Abrahams natural
feed on that account, much more would he the
adopted Children.

That this is no fuch ominous place againft Infant^
Baptifm, Confider,

I. Who they were he fpeaks unto, the Phari fees
and Sadduces, men at age, and degenerated from
Abrahams faith, perfons that lived on their own
works and righteoufnefs ; therefore he cals them

(4«)

$ovfpctt*lKthav, A generation of Vipers i which
was not as they were Abrahams Children,buc a* they
had not walked in Abrahams fteps, but were quite
degenerated : Thus he did not refufe them beeaufe
Abraham was their Father, or upon that account
thtt Abrahams feed had not right to thepromife;
but as only pretending Abraham to be their Father,
when they walkt contrary to the principles of Abra-
hamsfaich.

2. This is the fame now as to grown vifible Fro-
feffors, who have related their faith to the Church,
and fo are baptized upon that account of faith, and
repentance s yet if afterwards they grow carnal and
apoftate,*nd if fuch ftiould come to receive the Lords
Supper, and challenge it beeaufe they are baptized,
we might fay the fame as Iohnto the Pharifees and
Sadduces : Do not chink to fay that you are b*j*tl-
zed,or that you ha vs had godly Patents j for you are
i generation of Vipet?, you have cut off your own
right by contrary actings in your own perfons ; and
yet it doth nothing at all impeachthe truth of this
pofition, That believers and their Isfants are 01 Co-
venanted ongbt to be judged fo until they roantfeft
the contrary ; or that if they believed themfelves af-
terward*, the promife fhoufd not be unto them and
their Children : And that Text holds not no mors
then this, That when perfons are grown up to years,
andrcome to undemanding, they maft then ftafld oil
their right, and loekeomtkeoutpeifonal qaalifict-
tions for new Or4minces;

3i This

f47)
3. This was at the firft inftitution of the Or di-
nahce, when Baptifm Was newly adminiftred : Now
new inftitutions (as before,) require grown perfons,
and aftual vifible believers to be the firft fubjecTof
them ; they could not baptize their Children firft ;
for then the Parents would be neglected $ and the
bririging in of a newOrdinance requites renewing of
fpecial a&s in thefe which partake firft of it ; as if an
old Leafe which is made in the name of a man and
his Children, be at fuch a feafon to be renewed upon
fome certain termssthe man himfelf muft come, and
acknowledge his owning thefe terms, and then it is
to him and his, as before : So now in the New ft*
(lament God renews the Covenant of Abraham ,
adds a new initiating feal to it; it was before en-
tail'd in fuch a line/which is cut off • it's now of the
fame nature, only every one muft come in bis own
perfon firft, as Abraham, and enter his own name,
and then the promife is to him and his feed :
Thus it was in the former place, where when the
Jews came to be baptized, they were exhorted firft
to repent and be baptized themfelves ; then the pro-
mife U tojoH and your Chil&nn : So that this we %(-
firm,

1. That no man muft be baptized, or receive an
Ordinance by any fleflhly prerogative ; but where
there is an entail of a promife, there is a fpiritua!
ground of adminift ration.

2. That no perfon grown up to years of under*
ftanding,hath right to a fealing Ordinance, but upon
his own perforsal qualification^' 3, That

M8)

3. That petfons may have prefent capacities, and
vifible right to Ordinances, and yet afterwards jcuz
off themfelves, and be found incapable, as Ijhmaeli
and here the Pharifees and Sadduces.

4. That the exception of fomeperfons upon the
account of their degeneration, and perfonai defers,
doth not hinder but the old priviledges of the pro-
mife may be conveyed to thefe which do really em-
brace the Gofpet, and to their feed $ all thefe are
undeniable in themfelves : And this Text reachethno
further then to the exclusion of thefe which hadde-
monfirated themfelves to be only the Children of the
fteft^andnot of the promife alfo : which is a demon-
stration only a pofterioriy from their after actings;
and teacheth us that thefe that boaft in outward pri-
viledges, without looking after perfonai qualified;
ons, and holy frames .within* may be as well judge4
carnal, as Heathens and profhane perfgns.

CffA?«

Chap. VII.

That fpecial place in x Cor. 7. 14. opened,
and argued-, Elfe were your Children
unclean, but now they are holy.

THIS place of Scripture, though it feems to
ftand by k felf,yet hath full correipohdence and
harmony with all other places in the N. T. con-
cerning this truth. As the former did hold forth the
promife, the Covenant to Believers and their Chil-
dren, in diftinclion from all the world : fo doth this
leave a character of fpecial qualifications furable to
a fubjecl of fuch an Ordinance; and when the pro-
mife and the qualification fhalJ meet together, there
is enough for to capacitate to any Ordinance.

The Apoftle is in this verfe anfwering a fcruple
which might arife in the hearts of the Corinthians
concerning abiding together of married perfons }
the one being a Convert, and a Believer ; the other,
whether manor woman, an Unbeliever ; as ic was
a common cafe in the Apoftles times, the Husband
might be converted, the Wife not ; and the Wife
converted, and not the Husband ; the Word work-
ing on the one , not on the other 5 this begat a
doubt in the believing Party ,whether he or (he might
with t good conference live together in that ftate.

Th§

The Apoftie anfwers it, ver. U, 13- pofitively,
that they oughtnot to feparate, or leave each other,
notwthiftanding that the one was an Unbe lever 1
Andhegivesin this ver. 14. a ftrong and peculiar ar-
gument, which he makes wftar omnium^ for the un-
believing Husband is fanftified in the believing
Wife,&c. Elfe were jour Children Mclean, but now

they are holy. .. e .

The fcopeofthe ADoftle here is to hold forth
fome fpecial Gofpel-priviledge annesed to thcfiatei
and he frames his argument by no ordinary medium,
of the lawiulnefs of the marriage according to a na-
tural, moral or poficive rule, but i m*jon, from
an eminent advantage they had together in the Oo-
fpel : For, A#6 . .

1. The unbelieving Husband is fanttifted m, or,

to, or by the Wife.

2. TheChiidrenin fuchattateareholy,asitthey

had been both believers. . . pr.A.

That the Apoftie holds out a Gofpel-puviiedge,
not common to meet unbelievers in their marriage-

ftate, is clear ; . .

t. Becaulethe Apoftie puts the advantage on the
believers fide, and there feetb it ; the unbelieving
Husband is ianftified in the Wile, as believing*
and fo comrarily , the unbelieving W ifc m Jthe
Husband: So Beza affirms, that in two fpecial po-
nies he finds the words thus read, ^^%^
i,n3*ityl^: neither can it bold fenfe with the
former words but ti thus read > And if it had not

been the Apoftle* proper meaning to fhew the fpc-
cial priviledge the believing party hath notwith-
ftanding the unbeliever, he would have only faid,
the Husband is fanftified to the Wife, and the Wife
to the Husband ; that would have been the plaineft
and ieaft ambiguous expreffion of fuch afentence:
and the Apofte would never have made an argument
of four terms, when three could only fatisfie ; for all
know, that an argument with four terms is mod de-
ceitful and falfe.

2* The Apoftle doth ufe higher terms and phrafes
in this argument, then is ever ufed in Scripture to ex-
prefs a meer lawful or common priviledge ; as to be
fanilified in the Wife,and the Children to be holy ;
expreflions of another dialed: then to hold forth a
civil, or natural, or legal conjunction ; being tingled
out in Scripture, to hold forth the beft ftate of per-
fons and things, in relation to God and his ufe.

And the Apoftle ufeth two terms, both negative
and affirmative ; they are not unclean, but holy ; the
opening of the afe of which two words will clear
the point under consideration,

The word here (dndtep™) unclean, in the Old
Teftament, is commonly ufed for thofe legal polluti-
ons and uncleanneiTes which made men to be fepa-
rated from theCongregation, and excommunicated
from the priviledge of Ordinances, until they were
waihed and fanclified ; Thus in Levn. 5. 2, 3,4.
Chap. j. 19.& 14.7, 8. //rf.52.1. H^.2.ij,with
many other pkces, where unclean is oppofed to *

pre-

(5*)

firefeht futable capacity for Chnrch-privlledges; But
hat famous place in Ms. 10. 1 4- (hews it mod cleat
what the proper ufe of this word is ; he loynsit there
with what is common or prophane : When the v.-
fion came to him of eating all forts of Creatures, he
faith, Not ft Lord; for Ihave noieattnjnj thmg that
iscommJor mclL (W*^ Th«sv.fion was
about his going to C«W to open the Gofpel ttf
him, and bring him into the Church who was a Gen-
tile and fo common and unclean, not fit for Gofpel-
tfriviledges, as the lews were thought to be. Now
fn a civif fenfe things that are common are not un-
clean ; but in a religious fehfc, what is common is ad-
judged unclean ; Now Cornell being a Gennle,
without the pale of the Iewifo Church, he cak h,m
common and unclean.as alt the Gentiles ; were ^efotf
they came under the promife ; but God anfwered,
What God hath clenfedfit fanned, call not thvcvm*
iJ„: Cornell was not a Baftard.no. .unlawfully be.
gotten ; but he was not accounted a he m™bcr,Jhe
was without the Church ; therefore the ApoftleaK
him common and unclean : lf™.^Z$S*-
with the Apoftle here; when he fatch that Children
are not unde*«, he mult needs mean they are not of
c^mmonufe.brtobe eluded from outward Pn-
viedeesof the Church : But that is not all, but he
pSely faith; they, are fWjl ^i "« gfe

ufed to eiprefs the Hebrew word ^ ,«h-ch j«
lignifies what is $* Dm* aenm^dxihn ^*

An)

which is appropriated to a Divine ufe ; which Is trie*
proper notion of holinefs in the Old and New Tefta-
ment, and never taken otherwife : For the proof of
which, I have compared above three hundred places
in the Old Teftament according to the Septuaginc*
and all the N. T. places where the word is ufed.
And this all do granr^ even Mt.Tombes himfelf, that
the word generally is taken in Scripture to exprefs a
reparation of things to God, and he only brings thefe
places wherein he thinks there is another ufe of ir
I Tim. 4. 5. Every filature of God is good, and not
to be refufed, if it be received With thanksgiving ; for
it is fanUified by the Word and Prayer (wdtyj )
Hence i faith he, is meant only the lawful ufe ef th$
Creature , in oppofition to what is to be refufedi It is 8
wonder,but that God leaves men to blindnefs when
they leave truth$how any man of common underftan-
ding,finding the Word holy &/d»#*/k<J, always ufed
in a religious fenfe, fhould fly to this place to make
an exception. The Apoftle faith firft, Every Crea^
ture Which God hath made is good in it f elf, and none to)
be refufed : that is, all may be lawfully ufed without
any legal pollution, as formerly : But then he goes
higher, fpeaking of a religious ufe of outward things^
They are fanned by the VVord and Prayer ; they are
ail good, and lawful in their ufe to every man ; but they
are only fanttified by thefe holy meatfsy the FTordand
Prayer. And he might have as well faid, that the
Word and Prayer are not holy means, but only law-
ful to bs ufed 3 as that the faaclification which is by
E tfef©

(54)

the Word and Frayer, is to make the Creatures only
kvvful to be ufed if a wicked man eat his meat with-
out feeking a blefling on it, of giving thanks, will
any one fay that he hath not a lawful ufe of the Crea-
tue? but any man may fay, it's not farcified to
him. The Apoflle in thefe 2; ver. goes ongraditim,
by degrees, from a lawful uie to a holy ufe of the
Creatures 5 All* good, and may be fifed, but they are
fanBifsd by the Word and "Prayer : thus you fee the
nature of this priviledged place.

But the main place Mr. Tombes aliedgeth for ho-
linefstobe ufed for what is barely civil or lawful,
U that 1 Thef. A- 3 ,4,7- ?** * *he m« of God , your
fm^f cation, that you abftain from formcatton, an*
Jet every onepoffefs his vejfel in fanttification and ho-
nor;''fir God hath not called M to uncleannefs % but
holmtfs. Here mcleannefsutaken^itifotei fir for-
nkation.andhotinefs forchaftity.

To which I anfwer with Mr, Marjbal , That cha-
tty among the Heathens is never called ianaifica-
tion but among Believers it is, being a part of the
new Creation, and one branch and part of then fan-
aification wrought by the Spirit or God. And
tbouah 'Mr. Tombes faith this isbuc alMt, yet he
lm*! fee it demoftfttative, if he obfetve thephrafes
in the Text, and the nature of fina»ficatton ; in the
3 &i ver. the Aooftie befeechech and exhorteth
them to walk as they had received from b'm^to
walk* and to fleafe god according to the rules of fejus
fhrifti and he urged* ir in ver, the 3; with ch«;

($5)

h'stbeVoillofGoh even yonr finEiification, thatis^
that yoHfbQHttvedkjnallholinefs, futab/etatheb/ef-
fed rules of the gofpel, and as one part and eKpreffiofc
of hohnefs,. toabftainfromfin; And he inftanceth
fpccialfy in fornication, which was the common and
reigning fin among the Gentiles: So that if you
view the place you (hill find, That,

I. Hefpeaksoffanclificauon in genera!, in its full
latitude, ver. 3 as futable to ail the will and mind of
God ; This is the VeHlof God^venyourfanmjicauoni
that is,it is Gods command, and Gods delight to fee
you fanclified: then he brings in abftinence from
fornication (the fin of the times) as one part of tfiac
holinefsGod requires; For fan<Sihcation may b@
considered as it lies in vivification , orinmortifo*/
tion, which for dtftinclions fake we may call the two
pares of fanclifkation. Now chafticy in it felf, as in
the Heathens and natural men, is not properly a part
of fenaification ; fome other tpithite becomes ic
better: Would Mr. Tombs call all the abftinencies
and admgs of the Heathens by the name of fandifi.
cations, and fpeak like a Chriftian and a Divine?
Would it be proper to fay in his Pulpitf when he was
fpeaktng of the nature of holinefc and chafticy) fan-
cied Socwtesfroly Arises} And can he think the
Apoftle would exprefs chat which is common among
Heathens , in fuch a high Gofpel-dialea as fanclifi-
cation is appropriated aiwayes in Scripture to God,
Angels, Satncs, and their higheft graces and work-
sngv and to things railed above common ufe, de-
£ 2' dlcmi"

dilated to God and his fervice, but that he meant it
according as the whole tenure of Scripture defines
holinefs .? How much will the phrafe of holinefs and
fan&iflcation be debafed and made cormnon, if that
fenfe ftiould be admitted, contrary to the Scripture
ufe of the Word ? But that is a weak cafe that puts
men to fuch extraordinary fhifts to maintain.

But to go on a little further ; The fame word is
ufed-by the Apoftle in all his falutations, and infer i-
pcions of his Epiftlcs to all the Churches ; **'f *#**§
to the Saints or holy ones at Rome, at Corinth, Cja-
latia%Ephefm , &c. which when appropriated to per*
fons, always fignifies a vifible Saint : So here, when
he calls Children of believing Parents holy,he cannot
but mean they are to be accounted as vifible Saintsf
until they do profefs the contrary ; and I know no
reafon can be given why the meaning of the Apoftle
in his Epiftles, when he writes *w*«k*Wj to th*
Saints, Qiouid not be as well underftood written
only to the legitimate.and thofe that are not baftards
at Rome, Corimh%&c as well as for them to inter-
pret the farrie word fo in this place : Tor *7<«'i when
applied to grown men,mutt (ignifie vifible and Evan-
gelical holinefs, and mult be tranflated Saints : but
when- applied to Children, it muft only fignifie legi-
timacy, that they are not Baftards ; when ail men
know, that magis & minmtae* variant f pec iem 5 and
the word is of the lame import in every place of che
New Teftament.

Ok If any (hall be fo critical as Mt.Tmfosis ,

to

($7 J
to enquire how they can be faid to be holy:what ho-
linefs is heremeant,whetherinherenr,or imputative,
or vifible >

Sol. I anfwer , It's a holinefs of fpecial fepara*
tion to God, and his ufe, as a peculiar people : Some
call it a federal holinefs, from the ground of the pri-
viledge ; others an Ecclefiaftical,or Church holinefs,
from the account and efteem the Church ought co
htveof fuch Children.but the firft more fully anfwers
the largeft ufe of the word in Scripture. As for In-
fants,

i. They are capable of inherent holinefs.

2. They are in Covenants we have proved, and
fo have a holy relation on them >

3. They are capable of feparation to Gods ufe
from the womb, and fo of being holy to God.

4. By the fame reafon we account grown men
holy, we may account Infants of believers holy ; for
thefe that make a profeffion,may have no inward and
inherent holinefs ; and a bare profeffion is not ho*
linefs; we only account them holy by a judicious cha*
rity • and we are often deceived, and have caufe to
repent of our judgements s Infants may be inwardly
fanclified, and God hith taken them into the Cove-
nant with their Parents, and would have us look on
them as ieparated to himfelf; which is ground e-
nough to build our charity on, as to efteem them
holy, as grown perfons. There is no difference buc
this in it ; That concerning the holinefs of perfons
at age.we truft our own judgements j and in judging

£ 1 of

of infants we truft Gods Word, who hath com-
prehended them under the promifewith their Pa-
rents ; there hath been as many deceits in the event,
in oar judgement of thofe of riper years, p in that
which is a&ed through a mixture of faith and charity
on Infant*. And Gods promife, though never fo in-
definite, is a furer ground for hope, then my pro-
bable judgement- which is the moft \ can have of
the generality of ProfrfTors of riper years.

j^ But if any one fay further, What is this to
Baptifm? here is no mention of it in this place.

Sol. It's true, baptifm is not mentioned here ;
but here is mention of a qualified fubjecl for Baptffm,
which is all that is contended for: And if the Apoftle
bad faid they were believers, then thefe of the con-
trary opinion would conclude, here is enough for
Baptifm; but its all one in that he calls them holy,
which you fee is more then legitimate; and you may
tranflate it with as much propriety, 8lfe were your
Children impure, but now t before Saints ; that is, fo
to be efteemed through Gods Covenant, as if they
had profeffed their own faith.

Laftly, As k would be moft abfurd to imagine
the Apoftle (rioqld ufe a pure religious word to ex-
prefs a common and ordinary priviledge : fo there
would be no confiderable medium for augmentation
in that fenfe^and no fuch force in &#**& (elfe were,
&c.) which hath force from the fpecialnefs of the
toriviledge to their iffue, not only to be lawfully
begotten, as the Children of unbelievers are, when

lawfully

(59)
lawfully married : but to be in a peculiar ftate of fe-
parationtoGod, and to be accounted fie members
with the believing Parent of the vifible Church of
Chrift.

And what a poor and cold anfwer, as to comfort,
would it be, when the believer was fcrupled about
abiding with his or her unbelieving yoke-fellow, to
tell them,Continue together; for your Children (hall
not be Baftards : but how full of ftrength and fweet-
nefs muft it be, if taken in the contrary fenfe ? Re-
main with your yoke-fellQws, though unbelievers ;
they are fandified to you , and you (ball notwfch-
ftanding bring forth a holy feed ; a feed of God, as
the Old Teftament expreffion ; in Covenant, as if
you were both believers ; this founds like a medium
mod demonftrative and confolatory , both for fa-
tisfaclion and comfort; What plainer teftimony,
or fairer character can be written to die w the qua-
lification of Infants of believers, then to write them
holy, and give them the fame name that is given to
Chrift, and Saints in Heaven and Earth ?

rsn

.

E 4 Chap,

*-ir, ; <*

t Chap. VIII.

The Harmonie that notable Chapter ,Rom.
11. hath with the former Scriptures .
the \jy \6] \7> <verfes efpeclally o-
peneL

THAT the Adverfaries of this truth may fee
we want not a harmonie of Scriptures to con-
firm our judgement, the next place to be considered
Ofisthat3 Rom n.efpecially ver. 15,16 17. of that
Chapter; which if well weighed, will demonftrate
the holinefs and Church meroberfliip of theChildr^en
of believing Gentiles , as much as of the Jews
Children that defcended naturally from *Abr&
ham.

The fcope of the whole chapter is to difcover
the breaking off, or cafting away of the lewifh Na-
tion from being a Church, and the priviledgethe
Gentiles get by thi?, & their ingrafting into the fame
root; and the promjfeof the reftauration of the
lews again, when the fulnefs of the Gentiles ftiould
come in; and every one of thefe expreft with va-
riety of notions, and interlined with many cautions
concerning Gods aclings in this great difpenfation.
Concerning the full explication of this Chapter ,
tylt.Cc£fa$ mdMf< Btxter have done worthily, and

have

(6t)

have with much clearnefs argued for Infants Church-
memberfhp from ir. I (hall oneiy for methods
fake, and your fatisfadtion, open the main and moft
controverted terms in this Chapter concerning this
fubje^. As,

1. What this breaking off, or cafting away of tha
lews imports, and from what they are broken off;
from the vifible or invifible Church, v. 15.

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

3. What this ingrafting is, and how the Gentiles
are /aid to be ingrafted, and to be partakers of the
fatnefs of the Olive, v.17. For the fMt, This cafting
off, and breaking off, is not from the invifible, but
the vifible Church.

1. This will maintain falling away from grace,
and pleafe the Arminians, the great Enemies of the,
Gofpel of free grace : but this the Apoftle prevents,
ver. 1,2,3,4,5. by anticipation of that Objection,
diftinguifliing the EIe#, and himfelf as one 01 them,
from being caft off : I fay then, hath God caft away his
people Whom he foreknew ? God for hid. 1 alfo am an
I/raelite, &c. If the cafting off meant here was from
the invifible Church, then IWand the other Elecl
among the Jews were caft off from that Church; but
God forbid, faith Paul, v. 5. there is a remnant at this
prefent time according to the ele&ion of grace,
whereof Pml was one 5 therefore it rauft be from

. the

{6%)

the vifible Church they were broken off : But here
iht Armenians and Pelagians agree with thefe that
are againft Infant-baptifm, as they do in many other
opinions. Mr. Tombes hath nothing to fay in his
Examenoi Mr. Marfoals Sermon, to avoid this ab»
furdity, but only this, pag. 64,

The meaning is not (faith hz)offome of the branches
in the invifible Church\but as When our Saviour Chrifi
ufing the fame fwilitude Jays ^q\\ 1 5, 2. Every branch
in me not bearing fruit,he taketh tw&y.The meting
ut not that any branch in him could be fruit lefisor tak$n
away ; but he calleth that a branch in himt which Wai
fo in appearance : fo the slpoftfe Jpeakjng of branches
broken of, means it not of fuch m Were truly fbjtut fo
in appearance. Thus far he.

Which is a granting of what he denies ; for to be
a branch in appearance,i§ only to he a vifibtebranch;
and no branch that \$ meerly in appearance fo, and
not realIy,t5one of the invifible Church, nor caj* ever
be faid to be broken from it, but only from bis vi-
fible ftate which he hath,but £** ****** ) y* i$.i&
as a branch in outward priviledges , andfeeming
graces. . m^,. -

2. The breaking off, &c. it was of the Jewifh
Nation, of the collective body, though not of every
individual, arid therefore it muft needs be from the
yifiblc Church ; for as a Nation they were a Church,
and the whole Nation was call: away and rejected •
pow as a Nation they were not all members 0? the
invifible Churcfe, vcr. 7, 8. witk-ver. 17.

3« ItS

3. Its a vifible breaking off, therefore cannot be
from the invifible Church, ver. 3,4, 5. 17,18,19.
For as Mr. Baxter well obferves, There can be no vi-
fble removing from an invifible term.

4. Its a breaking off the natural branches, fo he
calls the Jews : Now the body of the Jewifh Church
were not natural branches in a fpiritual fenfe ; for
they believed not as Abraham did ; but only called
fo as they were naturally defcended from his ioyns,
and were members of the vifible Church, and flift
partakers ofthe outward priviledges of theCovenanc
made with him : 1 has the Apoftle diftinguiflhech of
the body of the JewiOi Nation, Rom. 9. where after
he had reckoned up al the priviledges of the Ifraelites
in general, ver.4, Who are lfraelhesjofthom pertains
the adoption andthe glory, and the Covenant s^&c, ma-
king way by this to (hew the fadnefs of their rejecli-
on, in ver. the 6. to prevent the fame Obje&ion, the
Apoftle in this Chapter faith, They are not all Iirael
which are of Ifrael ; that is, not all fpiritual, though
all natural branches; and thefe priviledges did vifibiy
belong to all. As for that diftinftion of Abrahams
being a natural and a fpiritual Father, it may go for
currant until they come to apply it, and then it is
moft vain ; for all that came from Abraham as a na-
tural Father, had a title to all thefe priviledges fore-
mentioned , which belonged to the vifible Church
until they did degenerate, and call: themfelves out,
as Ijhmael and Efau^&c. But of this formerly.

Laftly3 If they were broken off from the invifible

Churchp

f*4)

Church, it muftbe either from union with Chrift,or
communion wirh Chrift and his Spirit; for this is
the true definition of the invifibie Church, that in it
fouls have real union and commmunion with God in
Chrift through the Spirit : but none of the Jews that
were broken off had fucha union or communion ,
and therefore could not be broken off from it : But
fo far they may be faid to be brokrn off from the in-
vifibie Church , as by remote confequence , as they
were excluded from all the means of grace, and the
Ordinances ; which are the ufual ways and methods
of Ood to bring fouls into communion with him-

feif. *m:

a. Let us confider what is meant by the firft fruit*,
and the lump,and the root,and the branches : There
be many opinions concerning this, efpecially two
mud be debated ; fome think it Chrift,
E&aliamfkn. as thefe that follow Origen , and the
atmraikcm allegorical Fathers : But tha* firftly
nefcwpfiDQ- and priraari|y ^ the firft fruiK an(i

varum no. . . \ 1 L j t. V

prhm, Orig. tne lumP> and the root, and the bran-
ches, cannot be irieaqt Chrift neither
perfonally not myftically, is mod: clear if we con-
sider,

i. Iefus Chrift was not the firft fruits in regard
of the whole lump of the Icwifh Nation,and fo can-
not anfwer to the firft fimilitude.

2. Iefus Chrift cmnot be Taid to be root unto
thefe which were caft away ; no branches really in
him arecut off, but fo were they; for that place of

the

(65)

the 15. of Jdhn, ver. 2. which feemeth tofpeakof
fome branches which are in Chrift, and yet are taken
away for not bearing fruit : it may be better read ,
and according to the Syriackj thus ; Every branch
that brings not forth fruit in me, he takes aVvay j that
is,that do bring forth fome kerning fruit, but not as
in Chrift as root and principle.

3. In ver; 24. the lews when they fhall be called*
its faid, They {ball be graffed into their own Olive:
Now Chrift is not properly their own Olive, but fo
is Abraham, &c.

4, T4ie lews are laid (as formerly ) to be rja*
tural branches of this root, but fo they were not of
Chrift ; but Chrift was a natural branch from that
ftock, Rom.9.$. tvhofe are the Fathers } of Whom as
concerning the fie Jh Chrift came.

Mr. Tombes himfelf ingenuoufly confelTeth this <
page 67* of'his&Mxff**, That by the root cannot be
meant £hrift ; and gives us the hint of another ar-
gument from thofe expreffions, v.24. of fome bran-
ches, wild *? &w3 according to nature ; and of in-
grafting in, *k£.$vn9t contrary to nature^ into this
OJive ; he concludes the root cannot be Chrift : for
Chrift bath no natural or preternatural branches in
him ; all are wild ere they be ingraffed into him as s
living root : And the other expreflion , v. 1 8. of
our not bearing the root* but the root us, if we boaft
againft the lews, doth evidently demonftrate, thac
the root here is not properly meant of Chriftjthough
he bg the eternal root of all fpiricual happinefs*

f?t

(66)

fee forth gloriouily in many other places of Scrip-
ture.

Others by the root mean the Covenant : But the
bell and moft genuine fenfe is to interpret ic of Abra-
ham ; with whom, and with his feed, as To many
bianches,che Covenant was made ,and by which both
the root and the branches were made holy : And
this anfwers fully to both the fimiiitude? . For?

j. It's an dilution to the Legal rights about the
fiift fruits which were to be offered up to God ; and
by that all the whoie rnafs, all the fruits that came
after were accounted holy: Thu> Abraham was the
firft fruits of che jews : he believing firft, and being
in Covenant, aii che lump^ the whole body of the
Jewiih Nation were taken in to be a Church, and
were accounted holy.

?. As a root it anfwers to him from whom all
the jews (prang up, and from whom they drew all
their Church pnviledges, as their breath; Thus the
Lend by the Prophet in J fa. 51=1, 2. bids the Jews
to lopbi to the rock^ont of which they Vvere hewen, and
the pt cut of which the) were digged : he means it of
jtf&r&baw&t&i as appears by the iecond verfe^ Look^
to Abraham your Father^ and to Sarah that borcjou ;
for I called him alone \and blejfed and increafed hiwfitQ*

Qb« But what kind oi onfequence isthis? and
how doth the A pott k make u(e of this ? // the firft
ffms bs hlyy fo id the lamp j and if the root b* holy,
fo are the branches i Ftom what prktcpk doth the
Ap*>$)e ar$ue ?'

Sol

(&7)

Sol. Tfae Apoftte in the former verfe fpeaksof
a receiving in again of the Jewifh Nation,and brings
in this as a ground to hope for it, There is yet a holy
root Which hath an influence on the brunches ; andar*
gneu that if the root be holy, When the branches broken
off [ball be re-ingraffedjhey /hall be holy likitoife* The
like phtafe you have in v.28. As touching the Gofpel,
they are enemies for your fake 5 but as touching the
JEletlion, they are beloved, A* w>* »»7»#tf, for their
Fathers Jake; G W having focafl his EleElion^ as to
run in that vein mofi eminently : And forne do render
it, They are beloved through their Fathers : But this
is clear ;

1. That Abraham, or as Tome fay, Abraham ,
Jfaac and Jacob were the root.

2. That he argues from the hoiinefs of the rooty
totheholinefsof the branches: that is, from them
as Parents, to their pofterity as Branches.

3. That this was an ufual and common principle
of arguing in Scripture, from the Parent to the Po*
fterity ; for elfehe had fpokenin the dark, and had
proved notum fer ignotins^ if they could not uni-
verfally reafon fromlt ; and if you obferve,he writes
it as an Axiom of the greateft demonftration % and
never (lands to prove it further,

4. It had been an argument of no force for to
prove the calling in of the Iews,and their happy ftate
upon re-ingraffing, to tell them, If the root be holy^
fo are the branches ; and they are beloved for the F&*
tbersfake , if there were not a virtue ftill in the root

to

(62)
to derive holinefs to them, when they fhoufd be re-
ceived in, and ingraffed to their own Olive ; he Jays
ail the weight on the root,being ftill holy and frefh,
chough 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 PerfonSj
and Parents jbuc in a moral and imputative confedera-
tion.

Ob. But holinefs is not propagated by nature,,
from the Parent to his Child ; and we all derive fin
by nature from our Parents; and are, as the Apoftle
faith, Eph. 2.2. by nature the Children oflfrrath, &c.
and as David fakh, Conceived in Jin,

Sol. 1 • It's true, we are (0 ; and there is no ho-
linefs propagated by nature, take it for internal ha-
bits 5 as a wife man doth not convey his wifdom,
or a venuous man his venues to his Chiid,neither carr
a Believer convey hisfairhand other graces to his
Child ; and in this fenfe Abraham is not a roor^he
begets no believer; and under thisconftderacion the
argument cannot bold j Abraham in this fenfe is
only a root, ■&&&*yp*iuu»s ^exemplary only $ Chrift
IS fcrtfta**ftj| efetlaally , to convey (itn-Uar graces :
Bur,

2. There is a holinefs by gracious eftimationoc
imputation, which flows from Gods Covenanr, or
fome fpecial privi ledge given to fuch a ftoek, or kin-
dred, or Nacion 5 God taking fuch a family* fuch a
(lock, znd feparates it to Ikhtifclf for fome holy ufe,
and fobkffcth them: And thus k was with Abra-
ham.

<69)
bsm, and is molt common in the Scriptures, and ac-
cording to the nature of privileges among men i
where the fon <&f a Freeman is free, and the fon of 3
Nobleman a Nobleman * and by way of allalion 5
( though it doth not hold in all particulars) as in ju-
stification, Ghrifts righteoufnefs is imputed, and we
accounted holy by it : So as to fome fpecial privi-
ledges, the root, the Parent being holy, and in the
Covenant, his Child hath the advantage oi it ; not
meritorioufly from the Parents faith, but virtually
through Gods gracious promife to the Believer and
his feed. But,

3. This is not by natural generation, for then k
ftiould be to all Children; but by grace and pre-
portion 5 its Gods good pleafure thus to derive the
priviledge, and out of fpecial refpeft to the Parents!
and to encourage them in their own faith , and
ftrengthen them in their hopes concerning their ktdi
thus did God choofe out Abraham and his family
from all the world, and bleffed him ; yet it was noc
from nature his ktd were more bleffed then all the
world beddes. But as Dr. Willet faith well on thrs
place, The branches are holy becaufe ef this holy root 5
not fa an aEtnal and inherent holinefs^ but by a pre-
rogative of grace grounded on the promife efGod made
to Relieving Fathers and their feed ; Which is the fame
in the New Teftament as in the Old ; and in this fenfe
the argument is Ctrong, and enforcing the fcope ok
cheApoftle. So that though the generation .be na-
suraljthe derivation of a Title to Church priviledges.

(7*)
5 nd the characleriftical note of holinefs is given them
by grace in the Covenant,which takes in the branches
ivuh the root. In no fenfe befidescsn this argument
be true, without you make the rootChrift: which
you fee cannot be meant in this place without great
abfurdities.

The third and fpecial term to be opened, is, wha*
rhising^ffingisof the Gentiles into the root, and
how they are ingraflfed ? v. 17, 19,

For the underftanding{>f this, Mr. MarfiaHhmh
laid down a fare pofition, which neither Mr.Tombes,
Who is the mo ft learned Adverjary of this Truth, nor
any other hath or can (hake ; and that isjTkat them-
^raffing in of the Gentiles muft be fut Able to the break-
ing off the J eves ; as they were broken ojf,fo are We in-
graffed : This the Apoftle clearly proves in every
tfeiie.In v Ay. Thou being a Voilde Olive, fpeaking of
the Gentiles collectively confidered, wert ingrafted,
h&vTzit^ lYiyamongHthem 3 fo Grotius trarvftates it,
Pofitus es inter ramos illius arboris. Thoaart fee a-
rnong the branches of that tree ; and fo referring to
the ftrft words of the verfe, which is implyed, that
fome remained ftill ; for bu: fome of the branches
were broken crT, and the Gentile- believers were in-
oculated among them , and by a fpecial adoption
were partakers of the fame priviledges 5 according
to that of the Poet Ovid4.

Venerh infitio : fa ramtsm^ ramus adoftet,

Bm the beft referenceis to the former part of the

verfei

wife* as it fpeaks of thefe branches wh<eh were bro-
ken off; the believing Gentiks were ingraffed*
( w a'w) chat is, as 2fc^<aand the ^W^trantlatef
it,praipfis, for them, that is, i* ramorum defraUonm
locum, in the room or ftead of the branches which
were broken off; they were taken away, we ingraf-
fed ; Others cranflate \x,cum illts, with them, which
remained when we were inferced : but either inter-
pretation will become the fenfe of the place.

Now the reafons which flow from this Test con-
cerning the fubjeel which we have in hand, may be
eafier flighted then anfwered : This pofition being
laid down, We believingG entiles are ingraffed into
Abrahams Covenant, in the room of the natural 'bran-
ches Which Were broken ojf: Now3

i. The Jews and their children were Broken off
from the Church, their children bdng members as
well as the mfelves; therefore believing (gentiles and
their children are ingraffed in, the ingrafting in is
finable to the breaking off : they have nibbled abpue
this reafon ; but the beft of the Adverfaries have
never iai'd any thing yet , as to fatishe a rational
Sainr.i^rij

2. Some branches were not broken off ,• for fo. Its
implyed9 in that he faitba If fame were broken off-
and if they were not broken off, then not their
children ; for ic was not only a breaking off per-
Tonally, but of fucceffion,and of their poftericy witfi
themfelves ; Now if we be ingraffed among chefe^
otwitfuhsfe that are not broken off, we and our

t i CUMku

(7*)
CrTifdren mutt iikewife be ingrafted in; elfe there
will be a fchifm between J< w and Gentile, in en-
joying the pnviledges naturally flowing from the
fame root : No man will be lo bold as to fay, chit
the believing Jews were broken off$ and if not they,
then not thd Children which were then Infanrs,
and had not afhd unbelief : For either they muftbe
broken off for their own fins, or their Fathers ; not
for their Farhers, for fomc of them were believers ,
and not broken off$ not for themielves, for fome of
them were Infancy therefore fome Infants were not
broken off ; for their Fathers continued in the faith $
and we believing Gentiles are ingrsffed in among
them $ therefore our Children alio.

3. In the latter end, when the Jews fhall be in*
graffed in again to their own Olive, which is pro-
rntfed in ths Chapter, they and their Children (hall
t*e taken m,v.26. And fo all Ihzd/hallbefaved ; and
cur ingrafting »o is ffiill iutabla to theirs.

4. The Gentiles are faid to partake of the root,
and the fatnefs of the Olive tree5 in the tame verfe .•
this (^vfyJomnsfpitys) fignifles the full participa-
tion and fellowfhip in all the pnviledges and advan*
tegeWftferoor, as the lews had. Nowiheirpii-
vtlejge was not perfonal co chemlclvts, but to their
p< ILnry , and therein lay the a nets of tnar Olive,
in he 'Ulnelsand large ext^n of it< pnviledgeand
ferninal verrue, char, k corr.prenendtd Parent and
Ch>ld. So hf a* the lews catting off was not only
pcrional, but Politique* that is, of them and theirs 3

fo

fo our ingraffing in their room is • and as they had
the farnefs of the root and Olive once, fo have we I
Now we could not be <aid rp be, ( ^hotvovU # l\^y
%£mhn\&'%\h9ii£) To haze a mutual felIoVefhip
with the Jews m the root and fatnefs of it , if w be
orly perfonally ingraffcd,and they and theirs brokin
off economically $ if there be a fellowfhtp, itmuft
be at lead in fubftantials : And this was the moll:
eminent and fubftantial privilcdge of the lews, that
they and their pofterity were taken into the fame
Covenant:The Apoftle opens this further in 276.3. 6.
And efpecially, if we remember, that their break-
ing off, and our ingraffing, is into the vifible Church,
as is formerly proved, and muft 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 ingrafted in, elected, and
really of the invisible Church. So that the refultts
this ;

1 . That there is a real ingraffing of the believing
Gentiles into the fame root from which the unbelie-
ving lews were broken off.

2. This breaking off was from the vifible Church,
and its priviledges, not from the in vifible j io is the
ingraffing of us into the vifible Church.

3 . Aa th^ir cafting out was of chem and their po-
fterity, fo is our grafting in of us and our Children •
Thefe conclufions flow nacurally from the Tex: ; and
all other deductions will be but as dregs after the
fpirits are exuafied*

4. And

r?4;

4. And to add to the reft this confederation ,
That if the pofterity of the Gentiles be not taken ihs
*s the Jews were, there will be the greateft inequa-
lity of the communication of the fatnefs of the root
that can be imagined; and the Jews may rather
boaft againft the believing Gentiles,?hen theyagainft
them • feeing the root conveyed privileges tothem
$nd their pofterity, but only perional priviiedgesco
she believing Gentile • to the oneadouble mercy,
£0 the other only a (ingle.

Ob. But this great Objection may be made •; Mb
believer is now a root $3 Abraham, he is but only a
branch y and therefore its not to be conceived how
It can be argued from this to evety believer, Iff the
root be holj^fo are the branches^ as it may be to Abra*
bam.

Sol. It's granted, every believer, nor any, cannfct
properly be called the root, as A,brah#w. Was* and
snaftridfenie : Yet,

1, They are ingrsftVd into the fame root, -and
convey the faftie priv ledges vo their branches, H
if^c% and facob3 and the twelve Tnbes'did toctoetr
poftericier. who were not property nor absolutely
the root, but branch-:* oi it ; and we sll know, that
a Slip well inoculated or ingrafted, becomes after-
wards a natural branch ; and receives as much from
£he root, as thefe wh'ch gre& nacuialiy On it : So
lEhac its as ftrong to argue on the Gentiles fide after
Ingrafting 3 // the root be holj^ fo are the brattchei.;
a$ from Abraham to the Jews, who were natural

branches

f75)

branchcsjAs an adopted fonjhim and his have as full
a title to the inheritance as a natural fon.

There is only this difference between the convey-
ance of priviledges of the Jews as natural branches ,'
and the ingrafted Gentiles ; That fhe whole body
of the Jews, good and bad, were called branches;
now only Believers of the <j entiles jWho are called by
theGofpel, with their children, are ingrafted into
that root.

2. Though every Believer is not the proper root,
but only a branch of that root 5 yet for being in-
grafted, he is naturalized as the Jewifh branch, and
fo muft have the fame privi ledge.

3. There are branches of branches; and the poor-
est branch hath fome twigs, and fpteading fprigs
growing from them which are of the fame confidera-'
tion, and do receive of the fatnefs of the root as well
as the main branches ; and in this fenfe every branch
may be faid to be the immediate root of the lefler
twi£s; Thus believers ingrafted into the root, are
holy, and their Infants that are branches of the
branches immediatly fprouting forth from rhem,aie
holy alfo,and under the fame confederation ; and the
argument holds dill for the ingrafted branches, as
for the natural.

And as Mr. Blake faith well, The branches of An*
cefiors are roots ofpofterity ; being made a holy branchy
in reference to their iflue jhey become a holy root. This
might be much more enlarged , but that I would
not be voluminous 5 its enough that believers are

F 4 ingrafted

(16)
jngraffed with cheir Children into the fame roor, «
is formerly proved.

And then the argument holds firm,T hat thefe that
lire in the roo^routt partake of the fatnefs of it 5 and
ehey which are ft\ the Coyenant,cinnoc be denied the
ptiviledges of it.

Ghab. IX.

Wherein Mr. T ombes his eight Arguments
in his Apology agamft AfhMarfhal;,

for the tngrafjing injnentioned v. 17 . to
he of the Gentiles into the in^vijihle
fhw ch hy election and jawing faith ] are

examined and anfwered. \

>5tff

npHE great endeavor qi thefe who are of the
A contrary opinion in opening this Chapter, is,
Toprovetharihe insffrMfttg of the Gentiles into the
root is by election and faving faith , and fo inro the
jnviGble Church j for they fee their cafe is in hazard
if itfhouldbe meant of the viable Church: And
therefore,though enough be fpoken before to prove
what we affirm ; yet becaufe hdz.Tombes hath laid
down eight Arguments with (omuch confidence on

the

(77)
theotherflde as unanswerable ; I think it riot ami fs
to beftowone Chapter in rhe difcovery of the un-
foundnef&of hisreaions, that the truth may have a
fairer pafTage into your understanding without
clouds or demurs.

His firft reafon is, Apologie />. 71 . That ingrafting
'tyhtch is by Cjods fole poVeer , tt is into the invifibh
Church : but fo is the ingrafting of the Jews, ver. 3.
Ergo. For god is able tp graft them.

SoL 1. As to argue from Gods power to his will,
is always unfound in Divinity and in Reafon; God
is able, therefore he will : So,

2. To argue from power to ekclion, is of the
fame nature ; for election is feldom or never at-
tributed to Gods power, but to his will or good
pleafure.

3. To argue from Gods power in general, to
the putting of it forth abfoluteiy in fuch a determi-
nate ad, is as ltrange ; God is able to grarT them in,
Ergo it muft be into the invisible Church 5 as if God
flhewed nothing of his power, but in the workings
of faving grace ; efpecially if we confider what a
power it is, and only from God : But to take the
very prejudice the lews have even from the letter of
the Gofpel to bring them but to confefs Chrilt,after
fo long a darknefs, as it was in the beginning of the
Gofpel i but to make the Gentiles but outwardly
own and profefs the Gofpel, andyec not members

of

(78)

of the invifible Church; to tike away the very
grofnefs of natural! darknefs and ignorance , is a
work of mighty power; And to an outward con-
verfion, where perfons have been long under the
power of darknefs, there needs the fole power oi
Cod.

4. The Apoftle may well put in rathet Gods
power then his will, when he fpeaks of the ingrtffing
in of the Jews 5 for it will require an a& of power to
gather them but vifibly oncaagain, and bring them
into one entire body to make a vifible Church,when
they are (o Scattered up and down all Nations ; and
at fuch a diftance one from another, that it is as the
gathering of the bones of dead men ; and fo its
likened to the refurredion from the dead, v. 15. So
that we need go no further to enquire why their in-
graffing (hould be attributed to Gods power, feeing
there is need enough of a Divine power but to ga-
ther them together from the four winds, to make a
collective body, and fo to be a vifible Church.

Befides, when the Apoftie fpeak; of power ia
working of faving faith, hedoth put other Epithites
to fct k forth : and not only barety fpeaks of power
which God puts forth in all afh,but exceeding great*
nefs of power, Eph, 1.21,21.

Arg^ a. His fecond Argument is, That ingraffing,
Which u called reconciliation, oppofite to cafiing dtoay%
that is bj eleUion anA giving faith 1 bnt fo it-the m*.
^v.15.

Sol

(79)

SoL If he means reconciliation in the ftritTefl:
ferife, as it denotes pardon of fin?, and being made
friends witk God by Chrifts attonement and me-
diatotfihip : which muft be his fenfeif he fpeaklike
himfelf : Then many abfurdities may follow.

i. 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 lews were broken off.

3. That thofe which are reconciled, and their fins
pardoned, may be caft off- for fo were the lews ; and
the Gentiles threatned with the fame mifery on the
fame ground, v. 20.

4. As there is external and eternal falvation fyo-
kenof, 1 Tint. 4. jo. fo there may be an outward
and inward reconciliation ; the Gentiles were caft
out from the vifible Church for fo many hundreds of
years, without any hope or promife, *An& ftr anger $
to the Commonwealth of Ifrael, Efbef.i.xi ,12. and
fo vifibly caft off; and it was a great reconciliation
but to break down the middle wall of partition be-
tween lew and Gentile, as to vifible priviledges and
Ordinances: And foby the reconciling the world may?
be mote properly meant the bringing them in under
the means of the Gofpel, and the outward difpenfa*
tions of the Church 5 which is Gods common wsy
and method of falvation ; and which to fome is real
arid effectual unto inward grace, unto others only to
outward priviledges.

And the very phn-fe^tfc reconciliation of the Vvorld^

to

(So)
to Orthodox ear*, deafens and dafhe th the other in-
terpretation ; for the body of the Gentile. world
( which he mean ) are nor fo reconciled as by ext-
ern and favim; grace- though the found of theGoipe:
hath gone through all the world.

Ob. 3. Thirdly faith he, the in?raffing mud be
meant of th*t aft whereby the branch /Und* m theJree
as a branch: but that is by giving of faith. The minor
^P^vedalfo v.20. they Veere broken off by unbelief,
and We ft and b) faith, &c. . J'

Sol. Irs true, the ingrafting is by fa th, as their
creaking off was by unbelief : but as their unbtl.ef
was (hewn in a publquerejeaionof the GofpeJ,ind
by k they and their Children were broken off fo
the Gentiles are ingraffed in by pub] ique prof eflion
Of faith, and acceptation of the Golpel for chem-
ielves and thetr Children ; and this rnuft needsbe the
Apoltfes meaning : For,

i. Ver.iS. He bids the Genriies not to boaft a-
gainfr the branches that were broken off. Now how
could they boaft againft them but for vifiblepr ivi-
ledges ? invifible, are out of cognizance to others :
Do Saints boal> againft one another for election and
reprobation? chefe fecre.s of- the Almighty : This
Argurnen: Mri?^^urgeth with much advantage,
in his Book. *l

2. Inp.rp. he explains further what the nature of
their boafting might be 5. thou wilt (ay/The branches

were

I

were broken off, that I might be ingraffed : nowcm
*riy man conceive they fhould boaft: bccaufe the bran-
ches the Tews were broken from election and true
faith, char they might begraffedin by a new a£ of
Gods election, and by true and faving faith I So in
/er 20,21,22,23. he exhorts the Gentiles to look,
o their flanging, and to t*k* heed left the; be broken
yff alfo ; For if God fpared not the natural branches
ire, much lef will he /pare thee : What, are they
shorted to look leaft they be cut off from Gods
jle**ion &c? Will Mr.Tombes turn a downright
Arminian that he may have any plea againft the ba-
pcizmg of poor infants/

* There is a twofold way of ingraffing, either by
jpintualimplanrationintoChrift, or by vifible pro-
^efljon of tairh ; aad both thefe ihould meet in one
perfon, rhowgh they may alL be feparated ; a vifibla.
Profcffor may noc have faving faith within, yet may
bave t So here, the ingrafting in is into the vifible
Church by v.iiblc profeflion; among which fome arey
orne are not in vifible members;but the very terminus
^f ingrafgng is not into the invifible, but the vifible
Church,- fur neirhc r rhc Apottle, nor an Angel could
fell who were ingraffed into the invifible Church,nOE
yho broken off , buc only from the vifible Church*
trft as the^ proper term, and then by confequencg
From the invifible ; for from this Church none were
ibfolutely broken off that ever were in, and into it
few ingrafted.

So that' if theingraffingbe vifible, the term muft

be

be viable alfo ; but the ingrarnag is viftale, &£* the
term is fo : This is according to MtTombes his own
form of argumentation, from the term to the in-
grsffing ; the major is proved before.

Ob. Fourthly, That ingraffng is meant y v. 17.
Whereby the wild OUve is wpar taker of the root and
fatnefs of the Olive ; hut fitch is only eleclion and fa-
ying faith; he proves the minor, by diftinguifrung
who the root is, which he well affirms to be ssibra-
ham.

SoL To wrficrt there needs no other Anfwer then
what Mr Blake hath given him < If the root be Abra-
ham, arid the in gracing in be only by e left ion 9and deri-
vation of faving graces ( whi» ;:h he means by the fat-
nefs of the Olive) then it muft be that wears all
ehbl in Abraham as a common root • Abraham may
fay. Without me you can do nothing.

To which Mr.Tomkes only 3niwers by confeflion,
That it wsuld follow tf he made Abraham a root m
Chtift, communicating faving faith : Butlmakth-
br ahara a root as the Father of Believers , not by be*
getting faith 7 but as an exemplary caufe. How poor
an evsfion is (his of lo confident a man in his opinion,
I iubroix to judgement.

Let him mind his Argument, and the force of it r
That txgraffing is meant whereby the wild Olme is
pari/ik^r of the fatnefs of the root % but that is$nly
MeFtioti tifid f&ving. gr$c$j &§*

C83)

t. Were not the natural branches which were
broken off partakers of the fatnefs of the root ? and
were they all elecled and partakers of faving grace*,
or outward priviledges only?and why then (houidtc
be thought abfurd for the Gentiles by ingrafting to
partake of the fatnefs of the root only in outward
priviledges, feeing it was fo with the natural bran-
ches, and they all grow on the fame root ?

2. The old abfurdity will arife Hill from this ,
That Saints may fall away from eleUion and faving
grace.

3. How can he imagine Abraham to be the root,
and the fatnefs of the root to be ektlion and faving
graces , and chat engrafting the way of being co-
partakers with the root, and yet deny Mr. Blake s
Argument, Thai We are eleUedin Abraham ?

1 . Its improper to call a root an exemplary caufe ;
there is no harmonie between them ; an example
cooveyes nothing * here is a conveyance of fat-
nefs.

2. How unfutable to good language is it to fay,
That luch are partakers of the fatnefs or fulnefs of
an example > can we think the Apoftle would fo fas
over* reach?

3. Were the lews partakers of the fatnefs of A,
braham in the Covenant3meerly as from an Exempla-
ry caufe ? had not they it from him as a natural Fa-
ther, God making the Covenant with him and his
feed ? and do not inguffed branches afterwards be-
come as natural ?

He'

(84)
He only adds, p.7$. That if it were meant of out-
toard priviledges, it V?£re falfe • fur the Cj entiles
Were not partakers of the outward priv Hedges ^Abra-
ham.

Sol. ^Abraham is a root in the New f eftament as
well as in the Old, and ftill (lands by virtue of the
Covenant to Believers and their Children: And
though Old Teftament Ordinances were taken away
with the lews, and that Church ftate, yet the root is
not taken away$ but the New Teftament priviledges
grow on the fame root ; and our ingrarling in gives
us to be pattakers of the facnefs of them, as we Has
it gave to the lews the participation of former pri-
viledges until they were broken off.

All the reft of his Arguments are much of the fame
natsre j only a touch further of each of them.

Ob. 5. From v. 25. If the breaking offthe.fews be by
blinding, then the ingraffing is by giving faith ; but the
former is true, fo the Utter*

Sol. This is the fame in cffetl, with the. third Ar-
gument : Yer,

, 1 There is not the famereafon, feeing He takes
it of giving faying faich ; their blinding was judicial*
apunifh'nunt lor their unbelieving, rejecting of the
Gofpel,though they had not faving faith to embrace
the Gofpel 3 the giving of laving faith is not on
fneh terms j neither is faving fairh fo abfolutely

antecedent

( K )

antecedent to make a viran a member ofthe viflbte
Church, as blinding is to Gods hnaf rcjefliofi.

2. Blmdnefs came btr inpan'on Ifrael ■ it fell
Onely on rhe meerv.fibjr members, not the inv<(ible
and cleft : therefore the ingraffin^ muft be onely of
vifible members into che v Wok tStoiA, v. 7 The
elcaion hath obtained ft- buc the rctt were
blinded.

ATg.6jfrt-i*gr4ffing of the Jem pofoceth frf-
vatton, u by tuning them from their in am t), &c.
then it u to the inmfible Church : but fo it U; V.26V
*7- Ergo. ' '

a ft£ rT° which r §ive thJs fair Anfwer , That
doubdefs according to chofe romifeswhen the Tews
Oia be called in to be a vifible Church again, there
(bill be abundance of more glory be brought in with
them, then ever yet the w<>rJd faw5 and the new
Heavens and the new Earth,the coming down of the

new Jer*fatem%*nd all chdft- glorious things are firted

to fall in with that time. And from thefe confiders-

tionsmany do interpret v 26. h.*i\\hAtififi*ll'

all lfraei be faved. But yet,

1 They (hall be ingrsfled in as a vifible Church i

elie <L*f£rrfWand the Fathers would never be men-

tioned as roots.
2. Hfey (hull be ingraflcd in as they were bro-

Ken off : nbwr they were broken- off as a vifible

Chuich,

G' I kit

cm*

*. AJ! that can be gathered is this, That the ful*
mfi offal vat ion, and the virtues of the promife?#
(hall more fully and univerially taie effed: en the
Jew? , even to the falvation of all of them ; and fo

the invifibie and vifible Church be mote, puce,
and as one in the earth ' but this fulnefs (hail be to.
them as a vifibte Church, and on the earth.

Ar£. 7* If the re-ingraffing be by vertue of Gods
eft ft ion and love J hen it is to the invijttt Church • but
the former is true p. i%* Ergo.
■

Sol. i. It's Taids That as touching election, the
Jews are beloved for their Fathers fake; hence it
follows , God hath a love of eleclion tq ikliever?,
and their natural kcd ; for fo the Jews were the na-
tural feed of Abraham. Bur,

2. It's granted that the calling of the Jews (ball
be according to Gods ele&ion and firft love -y and
that Gods election (hail more fully take hold of the
Jews at their re-calling, then of any Nation : but
yet (till the Argument h of no force to prove that
their re-ingrafting, and fo ours, is only or firftly into
the invifibie Church ; for they are elected as well to
be a vifible Church, as to be partakers of inward
graces ; and their re-ingrafting muft be fpecially and
firftly into the vifible Church from which they were
broken off, or elfe there will be no correfpondence
between their rejection and re-ingtaffing.

The

(87)
The laft and weikeft Argument is this ; If the in-
gaffing of Jews and (J entiles be the fruit of gods mer-
cy r the breaking off by fhutting up in unbelief i then it
is into the invtfikle Church by elettion, &c* butfo it
is- Ergo.

Sol. You fee he hath fpent his flock and ftrength
to be fo low at laft : This Argument needs no An-
fwer,but by (hewing you the unfoundnefs of this
univerfal proportion on which the Argument is built.
Whatever i* a fruit of gods mercy \is from eleclion9 and
iagraffng into the invifible Church .* Which propor-
tion is moft falfe, univetfally confidered : Are not
bea!th,raeat and drink,prefervition, all outward pri-
viledges,fruits of Gods mercy i Is not long-furTering
to thefethat perifh, and the affording the means of
grace and falvation, the inftitution of Ordinances,
fruits of Gods mercy ? and yet muft they be given
onclytp eleclones? and do they ingraffto the in-
vifible Church ? but fatis eft repetere : you have feed
the utmoft ftrength of the greateft Antagonift to the
Truth we hold out.

Chap:

Chap- X-

The tiarmonie of Mat. 19. 1^14. with
Mar. 10. 13. and Luk. 18. 15,16,17.

concerning the bringing of Infants to
thrift } hu afis to them , how far it
contributes to prove Infant-baptijm. -

YO U have feen how the Scriptures agree in
holding out fome fpecial priviledges in tbeNJew
Teltament,as in the OJd,to Believers and rheir kcd:
Let us now come to view Chnfts own carnage and
a&ions to Infancs • which (Ik ws both the Special re-
jfpeft he had to them, and would have his Mmifters
and Churches to have like wife. Foi thi«, compart
Mat. 19. 13, 14. Mar. 10. 13, 14,15, 1(5. with
Luk: 1 8. 1 5 , 1 6, 1 7. Where Jtehen little C hddren Were
brought to Chrift,and his'Dtfctples did fyrbid them,
Chrifi Vim angry ^and charged them not to hinder themy
for theirs Was the Kingdom of Heaven ; and he tool^
them up in his arms, laid his hands upon them^ and
bleffed them. For the opening this place more clear-
ly, Confider,

1 . Who they were which were brought to Chrtft.

2. Who brought them.

3. Why the Difciples Hi forbid them to be
brought.

4*Chrift9

(8© ;

4 Chrifts reafon why he would have them not
hindred.

5. Chrifls anions to and on them, what they %-
mount unto.

For the firft, who they were which were brought
to (Thrift ; in CMarl^ they are called vnufl^ and well
Mandated little Children, or Infants ; the word is a
diminutive word, and is fpecially to be applied to
Infants, Lul^i.j6.Zacharia4 ufeth the fame word
of John, when he was newly born; sAnd thou Child
(iwf'uv ) /bait be called the Prophet of the Highefi ,
SccVidetureffe allqua emphafis dimintttivijooc fzltem
loco mtmme negligenda^ taith Beza. The fame word
is given to Chnft when he was in the manger, Mat.
2. 1 1. The Wife men found w Mop 9 the young Child*
or infant, With Marv, &c. Htl.11.23. ^Mofesh
called vnuJiov, when he was hid among
XUufht, tefie the FlagS> This word, faith Hippocra-
5SK£- T ",S S«ventothefewhlch are under
vnnio did* the age ofleven years ; and us moftly
tnr, iwt an- ufed among he Evangelifts fortoex-
tm defecundo. pref$ the tendered age of man , which
Gurti> is Infancy : So Spanhem.dub. Svang.

put in Luke the holy Ghoft ufeth another wood of
full figniflcation for Infants (^ £%iw) which word
is ufed for a Babe in the womb, an Embryo, Luk. 1.
qi.fVhen Elizabeth heard the falutation of Mary, the
Babe leaped in her Vpomb >3 Igtc'i^o^ to a?«V©- h t»
xo/Atct dv7n$ ; it's the fame word ; but more properly
it is ufed for a Child newly born, a fucking Babe thac

G 3 we

cm

we carry in our arms : Thas 2 Tim $.i$:Timoth]
is laid to know the Scriptures from a Cutely &* #«#*$
fromhis Infancy ; not when he was an Infant , but
from his Infancy ; chat is, as foon as ever he was pafl;
a Babe, and came to underftand any thing, he was
learnt the Scripcures.The fame word, £pe'p©-4ts given
aifo to Chrift, when the Wife men found him in
fwadling clouts, La^.n. So that this is moft clear,
that they were Infants, tender young ones, Babes
which were brought to Chrift; And if the two words
did not properly (Ignifie Infant?, yet in that it's faid
ghey were brought to Chrift,wotf id prove it; for the
word &&C<?4?i&> , properly (ignifies to carry, as k's
ufed moftly in Scripture for. But,

2.Who thofe were that brought them , it's moft
probable that their Parents brought them 5 and thefe
had believed rhemfelves,or madeforrie proreffion of
fatth ; for they bring them to Chrift to be under his
bieflingj for fomc Special favour to be fhewn by
Chirft to themjit wis for a fpiritual end they brought
them, to be touched by Chrift. &c. to have fome
virtue from him ; and who could have fuch bowels
to bring Infants to Chrilr,butrheir own Parents ?
and to abide the frowns ot the Difriples, and their
checks, but Parents , who love their Children next
themfelves, and would have them ble {Ted together
with them? fo that its more probable it was their
Parents which brought them then any others ; and
that they were Believers,who had fuch a fenfe ot their
Infants condition?, and of Chrifts refpetSs.

And

And befides.they were then m the Coafts otjvdtj^
where many had profeft their faith, and were bapti-
zed by -fob*, and longed to have their Infants con-
firmed by Jefus Chrift ; efpecially when we look on
^,19.15, They brought them to Chriji to lay h^
hands <m them, and pray over them.

r . If we confider why the Difciples fliould for-
bid them,and rebuked thefe that brought thern/urejy
it could not be out of any cruelty to Infants ,. or that
the Difciples had no bowels to Infants,6r deiire they
might not be happy with their Parents ; their af-
fections could not be fo ftraightned and bound up in
unnaturalnefs : but it mud be from forae fuch prin-
ciple which thefe of the contrary judgement take up,
That they were not capable , and were firft to be
taught j That onely grown men, and ProfeiTofcs cf
faith, were fit for Ordinances ; and therefore they
rebuked or chid them, and forbad them to do io any
more : As if they had faid, What have we to do wish
Children, as to outward Ordinances ? they are not
capable, they cannot profefs their faith; and we
muft have perfons able to hold forth the Gofpel,
which muft be vifible fubje&s of Chrifts Kingdom :
Doubtlefs fome fuch grounds they muft needs goon,
or elfe they muft (hew a ftrange kinde of paffion
againft Children, moft unbecoming thefe which had
but the rags of natural affeclion left in them..

4. See Chrifts affections to them, and the reafon
of it; When Chrifi fa\\> it (nywfoi&l) he Vffds much
difpleafed: It's a word that is ufed to exprefs fuch a

C 4 kinde

kinde of ibrtow as breaks the heart • aifo to llornach
any thing, and to have die ipirit raited in contcmpc
of an unworthy adion or perfon : Thus Chrilt was
grieved at them, and he looked with contcmpc on
his Difc^-Ici, as dealing moft unworthily wirh poor
I$Tants, in forbidding them to be brought to Crinft ;
and therefore he commands them to i'uffcr them to
bring Infants to him, and not to forbid trpem. Thefe
£wo words (hews how vehement Chr ft was and how
'xnuch his heart was let towards infants., You finde
Sometimes that Chrilt gave fo me (harp wordstohfs
Difciples, and to Peter efpecialiy ; but never to have
bis fpiric to rife in indignation againft them,as when
they would forbid Infants to be brought rohim •
and that which makes drift fo earneft, mud needs
be pf« great weight; he was never to moved when
they all forfook him, and Peter did forfwear htm, as
when they der-yed Infants to come to rum.

I c ujd wiih chat the ie which with l^rnuch con-
tempt and fcurnlous ianginge forbid Infants to be
baptized, might resd this place jwjthi obfervant fpi-
rics , and at, lead: grow more. fober and kfc violent
in' iheir e^pffl^qns concerning poof Infants ; doubt-
!efs it's a warning to all Ciuiifo Difciplqs.

Npv the reaion which Jefus Chnft gives, is, Of
fuck & the Kingdom ofuoa ■ The reafonfhews what
the ptivilepge was they would exclude Infants
from, vfat being vifibly judged to bcl&gig to the
Kingdom of God; and Chr.iHaith, Of fuchuthe
Kingdom of God- Now take tfee Kingdom or Qod

cither

(«; ;

either for Heaven and Glory ; or fecondly, by way
of allufion, for the Church, and the ftate of the Go-
fpeJ, it will ferve as a full reafon ; Of fuch, that is, of
Infants, is Gods Kingdom made up, as well as of
grown men, and they are as fie fubjecls as you are :
But doubclefs he efpecially means by the Kingdom
of God, as well the Kingdom of Grace in a vifiblc
Church, as the Kingdom of Glory ; becaufe elfethis
could be no reafon to convince the Difciples of their
errour, for they were againft the vifible bringing
Infants to Chrift for to get fome outwsfrd (ign of
favour to them ; and Chnft tels them, they may be
as well brought to Chrift , and receive a vifible figi^
as grown perfons » for the Kingdom of God is made
of Inch, as of others.

i. Chrift (hews their intereft inoneofthehjgh-
eft priviledges, The Kingdom cfGed, and chat vi-
(Sbly.

2. He fpeaks it de prafenti ; not onely refpeSing
their future eftate, what they may be ; but that even
new the Kingdom of God is of fuch.

5 . He ufeth this as a common inftru&ivc principle
for the future , never to forbid not onely thefe, but
fuch like Infants to be brought to him : For ™W •
Of fuch it the Kingdom of Gob , Chrift would have
them take it as a conftant principle, That wherever
they found fuch like Infants, they fhould not reje6l
them, but look on them with Gofpel refpect.

Ohj. Ihefe that differ have nothing to fay to this,
but, That Chrift means it of fuch as children for hu-
mility,

mility, and mecknefs , and lowlinefs ; and therefore
in the following verfe he faith, He that (hall not re-
ceive the Kingdom of Gad as a little Child , Jhallmt
enter therein,

Sol. Ir/s true, Chrift takes an occafion to fcxhort
them to humility and meeknefs, from the pattern of
Ihefe little ones. But,

i. Chrift (hews Infants right to the Kingdom of
God, as well as the Difciples, and grown perfons,
who can profefs their own faith.

i. If Chrift had mejrtt onty to mike an example
andrefemblance, he might have taken Sheep , and
Doves more property ; for they are more meek and
gentle then Children , who are commonly froward
and peevidi.

3. This croflfeth the end of Chrift* reafon, which
wis, That Infants ftiould not be kindred from being
brought to Chrift, For of fuch is the Kingdom of God.
Now if he had mianr or fuch as were onely like them
in forhe qualities , nor of themfeives, there was no-
thing at all in Cbrifts reafon : And thusmuft the
words be rcndred on that account ; Suffer Infants
to come to me, and d* not for bid them ; for not of them %
hnt of humble per fans that refemblethm, is the King-
dom of God. Men will rather make Chrift fpeak non-
fenfe, then lofe their opinion*.

4. Can we think Chrift could be fy difpleafed with
his Difciples for hindring little ones to be brought
to him, meerly to fbew them as refemblaneesand
patterns to grown men; iftt MM ehfeftafon, For

(95)
offuch u the Kingdom of God, when he had examples
more fie to that purpofe, even among the meer Jen-
fible Creatures r No, Chrift (hews the priviledge of
fuch Infants ; and checks his Difciples pride , who
would have none but themfelves and grown perfons
to be eftcemed as having any vifible inter eft in the
Kingdom of God.

Laftly, Let us view Chrifts carnage and aclions to
thefe Infants; he did not onely fhew them as
examples, but tookjhem up in his arms, laid his hands
on them, and blejfed them j all expreflions of the mod:
fignal love, and favour, and of great import, if duly
confidiered.

ii He took them up in his arms, httymutm^^-
dvTzt . the Word fignifies to embrace with fpecial af-
fections; fo the French Tranflttion Embracer
Ti/cator embrachiare , amplexabttnde geflo , Bud.
Chrift took them up in his arms, and held them forth
as Monuments of his love ; and doubtlefs to (hew hi:?
Difciples, that he would have fome outward fign and
charafter of peculiar refpeel fet on them by his
Church and Saints : Such a carriage was not out of
a natural afTeclion only to thefe that could not pity
themfelves, but from a heavenly ftrain of love which
he bore to thefe little ones, as to the higheft pro-
feffing Difciplc ; and muft needs be fyfflbolical to
his Churches , to take heed how they reject them
Wholly from any vifible right to the Kingdom of
God : Chrift was to leave the world (hortly , but
he leaves it as a rule to his Difciples

2. Chrift

(96)

2. Chrift laves his hands on them ; which was ufed,
among the Jmtii as a form of fpecial biefling, and in
the N.T. for eminent ends.

1 . For to cure all forts of difcafes by a miraculous
power, Luk 4.4^.

2. For confecration of any to a Divine work and
fervice ; thus Church* Officers were folemnly fepari-
ted to Chrills work, as peculiarly fie for it, <4£ls6%6.
tsfftslis* 1 Tim.q 15, and5.2i. iTVwi.6.

3. It was ufed tor confirmation after Saptifm,
and as an outward way whereby the holy Ghoft was
conveved; and this is the moft common ufeof it in
the A£b of the Apofties, %dtts% 17 18, 19. and
1 9. c. where thofe that were baptized had the Apo-
ftles hands laid on them, and they received the holy
Ghoft s And to this purpofe may we apply Chnfts
acStothefe Infants, toconfirm the promife folemnly
after Biptifm. For,

I, It was ever ufed (except to lick perfons) after
Baptifm.

3. As it prefuppofeth Baptifm to precede , fo it's
an outward fign of a iptcial fignificancy, and holds
forth as much as if Chrift had baptized them ; for in
that outward rite the holy Ghoft was conveyed; and
by laying on of hands others received the holy
Ghoft, as the former Scriptures exprefs; and why
not in this acl of Chrift on them ? Take all the cir-
cumftances together, and you cannot imagine it to
be a complemental a# : And if ths were as am out-
ward fign of their receiving the holy Ghoft, wha$

Jboald

(91)

JhouldhinierJtoater that Infants Jhould not be baptized,
feeing they have received the holy Ljhofi as Weil as Voe ?
Adfcjo.47. Ch» ift laid his hands, on them , Bene-
diUas fcilicet manus in quas a Patre [ho accepetat
omnia bona Cceli & 7 err *, faith a learned Divine on
this place j Helaidthofe bleffed hands on them jn Which
he had received from the Father JI good things in Hea»
yen and Earth. This aclflhews,

1. That Chrift would have fomc ourwtfrd yifible
fign of favour fet on fuch I nfants by C burehes : And
Impofition of Hands being one of the cho^feft ,
Chnft ufeth that as moft proper to fbew his Au-
thority.

2. That holds forth, That if they be capable of
impofition of hands, they are of an Ordinance of
like nature,which efpecially looks ac a fubjecl: purely
paflive.

Ob]. If it be ObjecledjWhy did not Chrift baptize
them as well as lay his hands on them, if he meant to
hint out their right to Baptifm ?

;SoL It's eafily anfwered, That Chrift baptized
none at all; but he did that which was an Ordinance
ufuaily in thofe Primitive times adminiftred aitec
Baptifm, and equal to it,as to its dignity ; and fo far
above Baptifm, as it was more extraordinary in its
practice: And fo we may argue from chis to Baptifm,
either inclufivelyjor amajorif from the greater ; and
I have more from this place to confirm me,' that if
Chrift baptized any, he would thefe Infants ; feeing
he (hews fo much re/peS to them,more then to any

grown

(98)
grown perfon ; ami did to them thofe afts which
were equivalent, if not fupcreminent to them, then
any can have againft it. Let any that differ frpm us,
(hew anywhere in the Gofpel where Chrift laid his
hands on any but defperate difeafed perfons to
(hew his power , or on Infants to (hew his love,
and confirm their antient priviledges, or upon any
perfon in this latter fenfe unbaptiz,ed.

Ob). 2. If it be faid , This was an extraordinary
acl of Chrift, and no ordinary pattern may be drawn

Sol. I anfwer ; Grant it to be extraordinary, yet
it argues more ftrongly, if Chrift ufed an extraordi-
nary acl to (hew his affe&ion and love to Infant?*
much more may the Church (hew ordinary aSs to
them.

2. Chrift (hewed this extraordinary carriage, the
more to check and convince his Difciples for their
extraordinary contempt of poor Infants,who would
not allow them an ordinary intereft in vifible pri-
viledge?. And kVconliderable, that Impciitionof
Hands was not an ufual Ordinance,or adminiftred by
any but Chrift.before the afcenfion of Chrift, and the
tending of the holy Ghoft.

3. Though Chrifts acl: fhould be extraordinary,
in regard of the imitation of that .acl by us ; yet he
grounds it on an ordinary rule and principle ; For of
[uchii the Kingdom ojGod$ which he lays down as
a fundamental rule. And this is the lead that can be
gathered from it 5 That if Chrift on this ground fee

an

(99)
an extraordinary fign on infants , becaufe the King-
dom of God did vifibly belong to them ; we may on
the fame principle fet an ordinary initiating ligri on
them, as vifible members of chat glorious Hate , as
well as on grown vitible Profeflbrs, who are but
probable members, according to the moil judicious
charity 5 efpecially if we will think Chrifts judge-
ment in fuch cafes equal with our own*

But left all this (hould be thought but a meer out-
ward a& of Chrifts, that carried nothing of any in-
ward defign of grace, bebleffed them after all, as
the fulleft cxpreftion of his heart ; and to demon-
(hate, that whatever grace he had (hould be theirs
as others ; for fo the word, Ivhoyei Jura, , fignifies,
either to fpeak well of, or to any concerning perfons
or things; and thus Chrift may be thought to fpeak
much of the ftate and priviledges of thefe Infants^or
ehe to blefs them, by defiring for them , or com-
municating to them all forts of mcrcie?,as ble flings ;
according to that Epb. 1.3. And what can be more
then for Chrift to take up Infants in his arms, lay
his hands on them, ss an outward fign, to confecrate
them to himfelf, and to (hew their capacity of re-
ceiving the holy Ghoft , and then to blefs them ;
which comprehends the communication of all gra*
ces, and good things? And yet we muft with fcorn
(poor probable Difciples our felves ) deny them a
little water; and think it too much to have them
named among the ioweftfort of vifible Saints, when
Chrift owns them publickly, and faith, that of fuck as

thefe

(1 00)

~tkfe is the Kingdom of God; and they may have more
incereft in that Kingdom, then thefe rhar exclude
them : but I (hall rather believe Chrifts teftimony,
then any mans froward opinion .* It's only a wonder
how Saints, that have felt Chrifts bowels themfelvts,
and read this Text, can be fo rigid to Infants of Be-
lievers, to Whom Chrjft hath been fo kinde, and ex-
emplary in hrs carriages ; and ftampt fuch vifiblecha*
raelers of his lave on, even in adminiftration or out-
ward figns. To what end fhouid Chrift do all this
in fuch a high and peremptory ftrafn of affclion ,
if it were not to teach us charity and refpeel: to In-
fants, in thsfe ordinary adrriiniftrations they are ca-
pable of; and to confirm their old ftate in the
Church, by fuch a new and unwonted carriage;
Chrift abounding to them who were mefl: under-
valued, and could fay nothing for themfelves? And
bow harfti is k to conceive, that Chrifts intent was
hereafter to caft them out of the vifible Church, and
from the participation of all outward figns of fa!-
virion , when hi* carriage was thus tranfeendently
loving to them ; and fo only to give them a light-
ning before death ? Let mens confeiences , not
gulph'd in prejudice, judge : This Text, if there were'
no more, will fly in the Confeiences one day of the
moft confident Contemners of Infants, and their
B^ptifrn.

I (ball only add, to fatisfie the learned, the con-
fer^ of godly and eminent Authors on this Scrip-
cure*

2V>

NoneftuJUhiftoriain toto cohice Ev^ngelko, qui
frequent ins in Templo legator, quam b$c ipfa. Quoties
enim Infant ad facrum baptifmatit fontem ajfertur^
toties etiam ex agendis Ecclefiaftkis h<zc hiftorU recitar
tur ; fed admodum raro eadem in Scclefia recitatur.
Chemnitius '& Polycarpus, Lyferus in Harm, Evan-
gel.

Anddoubtlefs it's no ordinary note, that three of
the Evangeliftslhould fo punctually relate thisftory,
without any considerable change of words or ;fen(e<>
All the Obje&ion is,becaufethe word Baptifm is not
infertcd, when as much as that comes to is ; and tint
Chrift baptized no grown perfons.

Hinc jam illud eft quod dixijfe Dominant omnes
trei momorant, talium enim eft regnum ffcslorum%
N on fane adult or urn tantum% qui ut Infantes fife hu-
miliarunt^ quod Anabaptiftdt, contendunt. Hoc enim
finfu^ quod dixerat fibi Infantes apportandos effe9
tanquam fubjecla, ratio minim} cohzreret, &c Fa-
cejfat igiturftulta iftaveftrafapientia $ Smite In fax**
tes mihi adduci, aio enim nonfolum horum ejfe Regnum
Cwlorum '.fed nullum omnino Regni loujusfare particU
pern, mft Infantibm his ftmilis evadat.

Si jam ad Ecclefiam pertinent, & ipforum eft Me*
gnum Coslorum : cur eisftgnum Baptifmi, quo in Mc~
clefiam Qhri^i^qui ad earn pertinent, recipi filent^ ne-
garemus > Siqui hcedi inter eos funt, turn excludendi
neks erunt, cum id ejfe fife prodidemnt ; inter ea n%
H first®

(roi)

Jimus fever tores Chrifto- ant eft nofirum bapti-

zare plujquam Domini amplelli, imponere mantis er
bene dicer ejtiit ? qm fia >ei ant char it at is jattstra , per
Baptifmam Chrijto adducere qms addnci ftbijujjlt f

Much more then this hath Bucer on Mat. i 9. 1 $,
14, 15. full of fpintuai consideration.

To this doth Mujcnlus, Calvin, Heza, add their
holy teftimonies ; But 1 fpare thefe quotations, be-
caufe it's ad homines, to men like our ielves : Let
thefe which difTent read impartially, andconfiderif
this place (hcutdftand alone, without any harmony
of other Scriptures, whether there be not more in
ic for Infant-baptifm, then any thing they have a-
gainft iz : I would be fo ingenuous with them, as to
deal with any of their awaked Consciences.

Mi £

»xs ■

HO t?

.IfJt*

Chap:

Chap. XL

Wherein is conjidered the method of God iti
the Old Teftament, of admtntfiring Or-
dinances in Families jj arid haptt^img
Houfliolds in the New-Teflament j and
how far it contributes to Infant-baptifm*

ITS not a flight thing to cohfider, how tha£
everfince the Fall this hath been anufual method
of God in adminiftration of the Covenant, and pri-
viledges of grace, to make it run through families
and houfholds of Believers, as the fpecial veins |
Hence families, as they were the firft natural focieties,
fo they were the full Churchesjthe Covenant and the
privileges of it was among thgm- from vfdam to
Abraham it went on thus : And when the Co-
venant in Abrahams time came to be more ex*
prefly opened, and fairer expounded, God goes on
fttll in the fame method, makes the Covenant with
Abraham and hishoufhold; only the family wa§
enlarged ,' it became a greater houflhold , accord-
ing to the vaftnefs of the exrent of the Covenant;,
yetftillitwasdifpenfedastoafamily. Now if yon
come to the New Teftament, there you fee God go-
ing on in the fame method, as if he had caft by art,
H i eternaif

rio4j

ererna! decree this platform : Baptifm,the New Tc-
ftament Ordinance, is adminiftred according to the
fame de.fign.ro families and houflbold?; Let us con-
fide* what Chrift himfelf faith toZacheus, Luke 19.
who was a Gentile, and one of the chief Publicans,
upon occafion of this mans converfion, to open the
nature and continuance of the Covenant to the Qen-
tiles in the fame form as ic was to Abraham $ This
day isjalvation come to they hoitfe y forafmuch as he alfo
it a fin of Abraham : Hereis the iame language ufed
in adminifiracionof Circumcifion in the Old' Tefta.
merit ; and the fame reafon, for a/much as healfo
( tectSow tcjctvTv's fo'i*:ACgta(i '6hv J is a fin of Abra-
ham : What can be drawn from this place more
proper then the/e conclufions ?

i.< Tha" as foon as ever he was converted and be-
lieved, Quill applies the promife to hishoufe ; if
there were not fornething more in ir, he would have
only faid, Solvation is come to thee.

2. ItV clear that he opens the Covenant made
with Abraham ; not only to himfelf, but his houfe j
and argues from his being a fonof Abraham^ that
therefore the Covenant is not only made with him,
bat with his houfe, that is, his feed: it were enough
for co call' him the fon of Abraham, and to fay, fal-
vatio's fs come to himfelf : but to mention his houfe,
together with himfeF, and give this as a reafon, be-
daufe he is the fon of aAbr,iham, is as much as to fay,
the priviledgesof the Covenant is the fame to you
arid your houfe,3s ic vi&sto-Jfaacvcii Jacob for a/much

as

m healfo is a [on of Abraham, as well <u they. Now
for Chrift to fpeakin this diak£,and to tell them of
their houftiofds, and of favour to them m the begin-
ning of the GofpeJ, and yet at the fame time exclude
thetr Infanrs from all outward Hgns of rhe promife,
which they ever had in the darkeft days of grace, is
aftrange policy, unfutabletothe fimplicityof Jefus
Chrift.-

Concerning this continued method of God,
though this Zacheus be a lingular, yet he is not the
only example, it you read all along the ACls of the
Apoftles;thde which had houftiolds,the promtfe runs
with a gracious entail. Atls n, 14. Cornelius hath
the promife to him and his houfe. ABs 16. 1 5. Lydia
was baptized, and her houfliold. Ver. 31. rhe A-
poftle exhorts the Jaylor to believe, and hefhould
be favedj and his whole houfe ; luft as Cod made the
Covenant with Abraham , Walkjbefore me^andbe thou
perfeftfien. 1 7. 1 , 2,7. And I Will be a god to thee,
andthjfeed}ot houfliold. In ver. 3 3 . its faid, be was
baptized, and all his (Jv-w 4) 0/ *w?j he and all that
were of him ; a moft emphatical expreffion to fee
forth his Children, who are the natural on>fpnng,
and who are properly a mans own • he changes the
general phrafc of a houfe,which may fometimes con*
prehend more, aed comes more clpfe home ; ween
he faith, he was baptized, he faith, all his (*>£} of
him , which cannot be meant of fervants, who are
our own as goods and lands are, but not of a man :
but mud firftly and primarily refer to his Children,

H 3 who

(io6)

who are begotten of htm ; and it may be fecondarily
to his kindred ; in the fame phrafe you have it tran-
flated, Rom. 16. xo, n. The Houfbold of Ariftobulus,
the houjhold of NarciiTus ; but it is* t^ U t 'Ah&~
J&a*, & a*} mt tftfxfapi . xbefe of Ariftobulus and
NarciiTus -.which mutt efpecially be meant of their
Children, and thefe that defended frora their
Joyns.

The only Obje&ion is from the following v. 3 4«
where it is faid, That the fajlor believed With all his

Joufe $ and fonone were baptized but Btiiev^rs.
To which I anfwer, That is not a reftriclion or
exception of ail that were baptized, but a ddcripti-
on of Che power the Wordhad upen all his houfe
withhimfelf j for he faid in the former verfe,thac he
was baptized, and with his thofe which were begotr
eenofhim; and in this verfe he (hews the adual in-
fluence of the Word on all his boufe likewi/e .• So
£hat the words are an after defcription of the mighty
Workings of the -Gofpel, not only to himfetf, who
was baptized 3 and fo his; buc on all hisboule be-
tides.

s, Qihers, and men of good account, do relate
ttv'qiMi, with afl hi* hufe^io the j aylors rejoycing,
not to his believing ; ana fo read it thus, And when
he had brought them into hid houfe, he fet meat before
lhem% and rt\o)cedy believing Cod^ with ail his houfe j
And it may be as well [dared to the one as to the
other.

However it-s very obfemblejbat wh$n he fpeaks of

the

fx°7)
the Apoftles preaching, and their bdieving,h<* names
his houfe nuheiargelt term ; v. 32. They preached
the Word to him, and all that were foiimt.Wm
to all that Vw em his houfe : But when he fpeaks of
bapnzmg, hefaich( that you may be fare his Chil-
dren were baptized) that he, and all of him, or all
his, -were baptized. Now he doth not fay, all that
believed, but all his Were baptized J though there
is no doubt but all that believed were baptised

alfo.

But if there were no fuch emphatical expremon,
as is by the holy Ghoft in the baptizing oj: the
Jaylors houfe; yet there is enough to make forth an
example of Infant- baptifm from the very notion of
baptizing whole houftiolds, fo frequent in the
Gofpei.

1 . It will be very Grange confidence to affirm ,
that in all thefe houfes there were no Infants, or
little Children.

2. There is greater probability, and Ctronger
grounds to believe, when he names houfholds that
there were little ones in them, then that there were

not.

3. Efpecially when the word, houfe, in all lan-
guages in the world is moft ufually put tor Children
of the houfe, who maintain and keep it up : and (o
often in Scripture, Qen> 30. 30. and 45, 18, 19 2\£
3.15. ffaU 115.12,13' x Tint. 5'8-

4. Where whole houfes are baptized, there In-
fants are not excluded, if they be in thehcufe ; and

H4 if

if not excluded, they are included; they cannot be
excluded, for they are ptincipal parts of the houfe;
and if only' adult>y or grown perfons fhould be
meant, when Children are named, thst would be to
exclude Infants from being Chikjren, as well as front
being parts of the houfhold.

When Abraham and his houfe* were circumcifed,
Abrahams Children were the principal pares of the
houfe ; and they were fir ft circumcifed, and then his
fervant?, and alt in hi* houfliold were circumcifed
alfo, being ProfefTors of the fame faith ; for <*Abr*-
ham had a godly family : Yet upon a different ac-
count; the one by vertue of Abrahams Covenant,
which was made primarily with him and hisChil-
dren,wkh aljhkfamilyT«kewife,as they profeft A-
brahams faith, and ferved Abrahams God ; and foit
may be eafiiy conceived; how whole houftiolds were
baptized in c he New Teftament , the Children as in
theFachersCuvenan: $ the Servants and others by
Venue of r he fame profeffion ; And in this fenfe there
will be no ambiguity in the phrafe of baptizing
whole houfhold*.

Laftiy, That the Apoftle fhouid borrow an ex-
^reftion alway> nfed in the Old Teftanent to include
^Children tipccially, and make ufe of it in the New
to exclude them,vrou!d be Strange but co conjecture:
Now when ever the houfhold is f poke 9 of in the Old
Teftamenc, i: always includes Children, This is ftill
more for the biprizing of Infants, then anything
they can fay againftir ; «nd compared with all the

former

(IQ9)
former Scriptare«,may make up a full demonfiratjoo
to a judicious conlcience.

'

Chap- X II.

C'trcumcijion and fBaptifin compared; that
they harve both one fpiritual fignifica-
tion ; the true nature of them both open-
ed, and what influence this confideration
hath toprorue lnfanubaptifm.

IT 'S well known among thefe that are agalnft
baptizing of Infants, what weight they put on
that Ordinance of Baptifm, that all other feern light
in their eyes, and of no account in refpecYofthar.
When they fpeak of Circumctfion, th^y ufualiy call
that a carnal Ordinance, fealing only carnal and tem-
porary things, and only reaching the outward man •
the one requiring only the flefh for its fubjeft, the
other a fpiritual man, a new creature, &c. And fo
much do they idolize(fotfoIfear it is among many)
Baptifnvhat even faith it felf feems little without it;
But that I may wa(h off this paint, and make Ordi-
nances look like themfelvesjet us compare thefe Or-
dinances together, and view them in their dignity*
and worth, and fignifications. And,

i. In

(no)

I. In general for Circumcifion ; We all know
how much it was prized among the lews above all
other Ordinances, and that it was the laft that was
taken away with the gresteft difficulty ; about which
the Apoftles had more ado, then about the taking
iway all the Ceremonies ; whereby we may judge,
the lews did look on it as the great feal of all their
priviledges ; which when that was loft, all was loft.
Read the Epiftle to the Romans, Chip a. 3. when he
would fpeak all their outward priviledges at once,
he faith,. What advantage hatha Jtw} what profit of
Circumcifion 9&c ? So in the Galatians., Phthppians^
JZphefians 9 Colojftans. many. Chapcers are (pent to
take them oft from Circumcifion.

2. Circumcifion was that Ordinance which was
immediately annexed to the Covenant, and a con-
firmation of it, ^7^.27.7,10. therefore called the
Covenant.

3. It was an Ordinance inftituted long before the
Legal and Mofaical Ceremonies of an elder date : It
was not a type oi Canaan , but of Chrift to come in
the flefti of the ked of Abraham, and of rhe circum-
cifion of the heart, which Chrift was moft fully to
perfeclin the Gofpel.

There is or;iy one Gentleman that writ a Book of
Baptifm, printed in the year 1646 will have Cir-
cumcifion to be a typ* of Baptiim, which cannot be :
For,

1. Types mnfthave fomeching in their outward
face to reprefent another thing more eminent and

real?

real °. Now Circumcifion hath nothing in the out-
fide to fee fonh Baptifm.

2. It is not fo handfom to make one outward (igq
the antitype of another.

4, Circumcifion was as holy an Ordinance as
Baptifm in the New Teftament • for they are both
in themfdves outward a6ts, and no holinefs more in
one then in another, but as they have from inftitu-
tion : only Baptifm is more eafie to the fkfh then
Circumcifion ; and yet not more eafie, if that way of
dipping ftiould be the only way of baptizing, efpeci-
ally at fome feafons, and to fome bodies.

5. TheN.t. gives as large and honourable cha-
racters of Circumcifion, as it doth of Baptifm ; thus
the Apoftlecals it in Rom.q The Jed of the right eouf-
mfs of frith : A character fo refplendent and glo-
rious, that the Gofpel can give no higher to an Or-
dinance. And as much as he faith of Baptifm in ef-
fect, 1 pet* 3.*i.that baptifm faves through the an-
fwer of a good confeience, the contrary Opinionifts
are put to hard (Lifts to avoyd the ftrength of this
place j and therefore fome would evade it thus ,
faying, That the Apoftle doth not call it a feal of the
Covenant or Proraife, but of the righteoufnefs of
faith.

Sol. A miferable evafion I as if the righteoufnefs
of faith were not included in the Covenant, or there
were any righteoufnefs of faith but what comes by
the Covenant, and fo would make a feparation be-
tween the promife of righteoufneft, and the righte-
oufnefs promifedo Others

Others would cloatli the Text with this difguize,.
That it fealcd it only to Abraham, whereas it was fo
to lfaac% and Jacob, and Dawd, and-ail that were in
the Covenant.

This is held forth molt clearly in that verfe,

i. That Circurneifion was a Teal of the pure Co- ,
venant of grace,in Which righteoufne (s was promifed
to Abraham and his feed indefinitely.

2 That this feal was applied to all the feed that r
were but externally and vifibly in Covenant, to In-
fants ; and the fame fign that Abraham received
upon profeflion of his faith, rm Child received ; and
therefore He is faid to be the Father of Circurneifion,
as of Faith; ver. xz

5. Doctor wilkt from this place holds fo?th the
fsrhenefs of the fbbftance of the Sacraments of the
Old and New Teftamenr, both wfiich do feal the
righteoufne fs of hith ; and lays it asagreaterrour
on the Romanics, who affirm, That the Ofd Teita-
ment Sacrament's did not exhibite the graces of the
New. - • •

4. This cannot be denied from the place, with-
out men will -wilfully put out their own eyes, that
Circurneifion had as glorious a ufe as Baptifm, vizXQ
, feal the righteoufnefs of faith ; which muft be as well
to others that had the tjuetflicacy of the Covenant;
as to Abraham himfelf; and no higher mercy can
sny Ordinance of the New Teftarnenc feal to
any.

* There were mam/ other circumftan'tial and acer-

dent*!

f"3)

dental ufes of circumcifion according to the Jewidi
ftatc,as we will grant Mr. Tombes, a«,

i . To engage to the performance of the whole
Law, gd. 5.2,3. tAfts 15.10.

2. To be a partition-wall between Jew and Gen-
tile, Eph. 2. 14.

But when the Apoftle would give circumcifion his
true character, and (hew what the primary, and fub-
ftantial ufe of it was, he calls it a fcal Of the
righteoufnefs of faith.

6, Circumcifion and baptifm fignifie one and the
fame thing, and fo agree in being figns of the lame
grace,- compare Colof. 2. 1 1> 12, 12. with Rom, 6*
3,4. and c».v. circumcifion fignjfies the putting oft the
body ofthefinsoftheflefhjbaprifm is into Chriftsr
death, and to teftifie the crucifying the old man with
him, that the body of death might be deftroyed,
as by the comparing thefe two places it is moll clear,
and ^.v.and 6.ver. of /?0*»*6.chap.oneiy baptifm hath
this larger confederation in it, as that it takes in
Chrifts refurreclion with it, and alfo the quickning of
the Foul together with him,which was not fo fully fig-
nifiedin Circumcifion, but implied, according as the
Apoftle argues in the fame place, Romt6- S-y. for if
we have been planted in the likencfs of his death*
we fhall be alfo in the Jikenefs of his refurreclion; the
one being a confequence of the other; and as circum-*
cifion didcuteffthe foreskin in token of the de-
ftruclion of fin, fo baptifm by wafhing, fignifies the
taking away the pollution of fin ; thus God whenh*

would

( H4)

would ptomife to kill fio, and work all grace, he e*
meffeth it by eircumcifions/ will etrcumcifi thy heart,
lultbe hem oftbjftd. Deur jo.6. And the Apoftle
TW/.J.4. faith, fViaretfthtctrcuaictfio^ttM is,
we have the true work of grace in us.

Thereafon why I urge thefeconfiderationj, is to
hold for the capacity of Infantas well foi : baptifm
„circumcifion;there is noreafon why they fliould be
thought more uufir and incapable for the one then

^nMSilSSte were a ieal of the righteouf.
nefcof Faith, and yet applied to Infants, and ba-
Jtifm can feal nohighe, mercy, why (hould it be
Sought fuch a ftrange and unmeet thing to _ bapfze
ihemmore then to citcutneife them I • thej , ufual ly to
vou put a feal to a blank in bapt.ztnglnfantsjthe fame
8$ be faidas to Circumcifion , yet they were ,c£
eumcifed as well as Abraham ttet profefth.sown
S I muft acknowledge I never could yet under-
End why Infants (hould be thought fit to have that
KppSd to them in the Old T«^£g* £
Ww calls a feal of the righteoufnefs pf Faith, and
«' be denied it in the New Teftament .as incapacious,
Sten Sprite, can feal nomore. I with it were fan,

^at^ond.y, when Baptifm (hall Ggnifie
the fan* ttung in ^fiance, be both figns of the fame
grace; the one cutting away fin as with a kn.re, tne
other watbing it away with water ; and yet Infant,
upland ™ft * <° h"e tbe »dminift""°n °f ^

one ordinance*, not of the other; ifthefe of the dif-
fering judgment, did with more fobriety weigh fuch
confederations as thefe, they would not with fo much
foolifh contempt write and fpeak of Infants Ba-
ptifm.

A knife may be applied to an Infant, as to Abr&~
ham, though old , and in the heigth of his Faith, and
fcal the righteoufnefs of it ; but water muft one-
ly be pouted on actual believers, and grown perfons,
fuch as Abraham, but not on Infant?, though it hath
no more to fealj as if there were fome ftrange excel-
lency and vertue in the nature of water, that it were
too precious to wafli the Infants of believers : For,
if there be no more vertue in the water that ba-
ptizeth, then in the knife that circumcifed, you fee
there is no more glorious uie of the one then the
other. And what end God (hould have to put fuch a
Seal on Infants in the Old Teftament, and exclude
them in the New, when tht Ordinances both fignifie
the fame fubftantial grace, let any Christian hear!:
imagine. :f?^

Chap,

(II*)

Chap. XIII.
TbatfatnotM place, Colof.z.i), \iropemd:
the correspondence between Circumcifion
and Baptifm further cleared.

THe fcopeof the Apoftlcin the former veries is
to diffwade the Chriftians from Jew.ifh cere-
mon?e$,efpe<:ially from Circumcifion ♦ and he doth iz
efpeciafly frocn the difcovery of Chritis fulnek, and
our being compleat in him^that is, you need nothing
cut of Chrift now 5 but they objeot we wane Cir-
cumcifion 5 he tells them they are circumcifed in him,
i i. v. where the Apoftle diftinguifheth of a twofold
circumcifion, one ^^Wtm^ made with hand?, the
other ^«£2^'"'?©", made without hand?, which he
calls the Circomcifion of Chrift, but it h wrought by
Wm, and is byuniqn with himjand you beingcifcura-
riftd in Chrift, and have the grace fignirkd t>y out-
ward Circurnafion, you need no mote i but there be
two things they might ebjeel ; > £4f*ql

^iifljthar this is nothing to the qiuftion:you would
take us eff from outward Circulation, by telling us
we are inwardly circumcifed, whereas the fign and
the thing ngnifted fhould always go together; Abra»
bam had this Circumcifion and other*, and yet were
outwardly circumcifed.
Secondly, they might objeft we arentot fo corn-
pleat

("7)

pleat in Chtiftas Abraham and his feed,* for,befides
the inward grace, they had an outward fign and Seal
to confirm ic to them.

The Apoftle in the it verfe anfwers both at dncfc,
(hey were not onely circumcifed inwardly, ,with
Chrifts Circumcifion, but there was an outward fign
in the New Teftament to be applied to them, of the
fame confederations Buried with him in Bapnfm,&c*
This is thefummeof the words, let us now eonfidec
what may be fairly deducted from them.

Many, and the mod of our Divines, do conclude
from hence the fucceffion of Baptifm in the place
or room of Circumcifion, that this Ordinance is ap-
pointed in the New Teftament in lieu of the formers
and for. the fame ends and purpofes; which doubtlefs
•is true from this place j if men would truly weigh the
import of the words, and not fight with their own
fhadows.

Firft, this compleatnefs in Chrill is as well to en-
joyment of Ordinances, and outward priviledges^ai
inwsrd graces ; elfe he would never have mentioned
Baptifm outwardly , when in the former verfe he
fpeaks of inward Circumcifion * he would have kept
ftill in that ftrsin.

Secondly, obferve how he joins them together^ncj
makes them one; the inward circumcifion confirmed
by the outward baptifm, circumcifed with the. Cir-
cumcifion of thrift 4 buried with him in baptifm *
now this could not be proper , nor of any poOibls
connexion but by putting the outward fign of tau

i

Pttfm inftead of the outward fign of Circumcifion ;
*hat is j you are circumcifed becaufe baptized ; you
change but the outward element, or inflrument 3
but the fame inward grace is confirmed by both; chus
the words are legible, andco beunderftood without
difficulties but any other interpretation wMbe found
moft rugged, and unfiiitable : For,

Thirdly, as the Apoftle could not fay in the former
v. that they were circumcited in Chnft bur from the
analogie between the outward fign, and rhe inward
grace; chat is,if the outward fign of Circumcifion bad
not fignified (uch an inward work ; <o neither could
he have found chcy were circumcifed in Chnft,
being buried with him in baptifm, if that Ordi-
nance of baptifm did not as an outward fign an*
fwer to that inward Circumcifion, and were infteai
of that fign which did directly reprefent ic for-
merly.

Fourthly, the nature of the Apoftlesdefign holds
©at this ; for he would take them off the praflife
of Circumcifion- and this he doth by difcovering
of another Ordinance, more fuitabie to the Go-
fpcl, which (hould fignifie the fame thing unto
them, in a more large and emphattctll manner, Sig-
nifying not onely Chrtlts death, but his refurre-
dton ; fo that in the very import of the phraie he
cals baptifm a Gofpel circumcifion ; and this argu-
ment he ufech as molt effectual to take them off Cir-
cumcifion, by fhcwmg them rhey were cornpkar in
thrift hi th^ New Teltament,« to inward graces,*nd

outward

(^9)
outward Ordinances, for though thev were aot cir«
cumcifed, they had baptifm to fupplie rhe wane or ic
with advantage, fo that thty (hould nor loft* n? Or-
dinance, but exchange. In whom }o& are ctrenmcifed^
&c. buried with him in baptifm ? if baptifm did hot
feal and confirm the inward Circumci(ion,ic could not
be faid circumcifedin Chrift% being buried with him irt
baptifm, and baptifm could not leal inward Circum-
cifion , but as it was of the Came ufe with outward
Circumcifion, which did mod directly fignifie the city
cumcifion of the heart ; and baptifm held the fame
analogie,and was inftituted to the fame end; therefor^
it's called the waftiing of regeneration. Suppofe the.
Ordinance ftlould again be changed, and the foyer**,
(ion (houid be thus, That baptifm (bould be atjolifti-
ed, and citcumcifion fee up again, and theApoftle
(bould cxprefs himfclf after the fame mannerjintend-
ing to rake them off the uk of baptifni, and to be
circumcifed $ and fay ye are compieat in CJirift, jra
whom ye are alfo baptized with the baptifm of
Chn(t9being circumcifed with himjwoutd not the de-
duction be clear, thit circumcifion was ordained in**
ftead of baptifm , and to fupply the defect of that
Ordinance? the fame conclufion mull be accotding to
the words as from circumcifion to baptifm.

The fumme of all is. That as inward circumcifion
was figntfied by the outward circumcifion the circunv
ciiion made without hands, by the circumcifion with
handsj. as the proper and direcl fign of it ; fo is thac
inward dajamcifion ■{■ as really and fully fignified*

I £ and

(120)

and confirmed by baptifm; and that Ordinance 2s ap-
pointed to reprefent and feal thar,u the outward ad
of circumcifion was formerly: fo that circumcifion and
baptifm, as co the thing fignified , and the inward in-
tent of their ufe,are made alt one ; elfe it will be very
hard to make fenfe of this place of Scripture.

The Pleas againft this interpretation are of little
worth, if weighed ; fome fay it's onely meant of the
inward circumcifion, and inward baptifm, which in-
terpretation will fcrve us better then themfelves; for
if inward graces, and of the fame fubftantial work be
done on us, as circumci fed and baptized in Chrift, it
flie ws the onenefs of the outward figns in the fame
fignification.

Mt^Tombes faith in his Examen p,o$. That there
is an analogic between circumcifion and baptifm: yet
faith it is rather between circumcifion and Chrifts bu-
rial, then between circumcifion and baptifm, as Chrj-
foftom^ and after him Theophjlatt on the place.

All which will (till make out the truth of our in-
terpretation ; For,

Firft, if there be an analogie between them, as is,
and mull be granted, then there is fome proportion
and agreement between thefe two Ordinances; now
it's not in the outward adminift ration, nor the exter-
nal! fign , in that there is no proportion between s
knife and water;and therefore it mud be in their pro-
per fign ification and reallufe, which is the Apoftles
(cope in this place : and therefore he exprefleth the
inward grace properly fignified by the one Ordi-
nance*

(in)
nance, and yet confirmed by the other; Circumelfei
in him, being buried With him in Baptifm.

2. If the analogy be between Circumciiion and
Chrift* buriaf, not between it and Bapcifm,yet it will
come all to one, yea be our advantage ; For,

i. That fhews that Circumcifion did hold forth
as much as Baptifm, viz,. Chrifts death and bu-
rial.

2. That when we are faid to be buried with Chrift
in Baptifm, and that is the outward fign to reprefenc
our burial with Chrift, we are as if we were cireur&r
cifed i Circumcifion holds analogy with Chrifts bu-
rial , and fo doth Baptifm with both ; And thus
take it in what fcnfe you will , the Text will clc« it
fcif.

.&G

I ^ Chap,

(Ill) u

Chap. XIV.

A char Explication of Mat. 28. 19. with
Mar* 1 4. 15, -i 6-. wherein their argu-
ment from the fir fl injiitution is opened
atdfonfuted.

LET* us at Icngth'torae ro viewtfcat prime Text,
fJW«*A.»8. r^ on which theie chat areagainft
ftfib^baiptifrti lay thtf moft weight* As from eh?
very fifftinftitutionof, that Owdkttrtc^, Chrift gives
tiis Apoftles there Commi{Tt<™ to teach and baptize;.
Co Jfe tfaefore, and teach all ?^ations^aptiz,;ng them
in the mine of the Father^ Son and holy Cjho]}* Wence
(lAStmfc&Ti) which they tranflate, Dilciple all
Nations, and then baptize them, they argue, None
are to be baptized by Chrifts inftitiirion , but thefe
which are firft taughr, and Co made Difciples: But In-
fants are not capable to be taught, or to be made
pifciples. Ergo, They may not be baptized.

TfeatjJ may flaew the errors of this argument, and
foTulty clear up the point , the terms with their con-
nexion both in the major and minor proportion
muft be examined from the words of the Text, and
that parallel place, Mar. \6. 15, 16. which for me-
thods fake I (hall hold forth in thefe following con-
Gderatioro,

I. For

1. For the word /w«t^MTstVatT«, we (hall not much
ftand on, whether it be tranflated to make Difciples,
or as it is in our common verflon , Go teach all Na-
tions ; for it is fometimes a verb tianfidve $ to teach
by writing, or viva voce , with a living voyce ; and
fo it is to be taken here , faith learned whitak$r De
Script, and moft agreeable with CMar. 16. 15.
whete he bids them go preach the Gofpel to every
Creature, 1

2. The ftrength of the argument lies (if there be
any ftrength in it ) on theabfolute (uppofed con-
nexion ber ween di-opling and being baptized;there-
fore they fay , None but thefe which are capable of

' teaching , are capable of B*rxi(m ; which is Fallacia
a diBo feemdum q,uidaddiBumfimpliciter% a Fallacy
to take thac abfoluccly which is meant only according
to fome refped. but to (hew the idlencfs of the con-
nexion ;

1. You find preaching or teaching the Gofpel to
be feparated as to ihe admimft ration, and neceffary
and immediate connexion, by Paul himfelf , 1 Cor.
1 . 17. Chrift fent me not to baptize y bm to preach the
Gojpel ; 10 he faith in the former verfes , He taught
manyi baptized few,

2. Compare this with Mar. 16.15,16. which ex-
pounds this, you will find believing and being ba-
ptized as clofe connected to faIvation,as here Bapti-
zing to Teach; He that believeth and is baptized. Jhall
befavtd. Now if any will ftand on the order of
words CO prove 1a infticution, we may as well argue

from

(124)

from Ma^p they from Mmbtw ; None muA b»
Jieveth.ind is not baptized, csn behaved • and rhir
Lp^'er40f.pbrLafethey"e "bfolutely joyned' °

dc to make Uaptifm equal W)th faith to falvation »
tad yet we have as much ground to argne from Zm
Pne place fo as they front the other s?«k£*J
JJH adm,t fome other quahfying term to m,K

fnfjf °rder ^f things is not al<vsy«, or commonlv

t^Yo^f '* SCtiptUre by the P°fitlon' «f *»
words, for fometimes one thing m-the order of

Ztl!^?ote anotber> wh*h ™S

tore and coofidentionij antecedent to it5 as Mar.i
15. Repentance is pot before Faith,fow. to. «. Con-
feffion wuh the mouth i< put before belief with
nll« „ ' ™o/il™£n * with abundance of other
places of Scripture. Thus many things in the Evan-
gehftsare left out by one,fuPPkd bylnother and
the fame word diteSly utt«c*in 6n/in«r ed in an-
other Really about the admmiftration of Se
i-Ofds Supper. For to avoyd tedioufnels^onlult the
placesyour fejV«. Mau ,6.26, 17.Mar.14X
*3- t^k: it. 20. 1 Cor. 11. 15. ' X '

3^Athirdcon(iderarion to open this Text in
Mm fwtom companngit once more with itspa-

he elf <r ,5-'^^ereit < ^Preach the G»/ei;
** <t is, Tetck*»il,*p„v : Now hence it follows,

th?t

(12$)

that their teaching was by holding forth the GofpeL
As much as if he had faid, Open the Covenant, tell
men the riches and fulnefs of grace : Now if they
muft teach the Gofpel,they mud needs inftrud: them
in the Covenant, which was to thefe that believed,
and their feed. Nowfutableto this Commiflion,
Peter, when he comes to open the Gofpel to the
Jews pricked in their hearts, prefently holds out the
promifeto them and their Children, ABsT.^S^ 30.
and by that to make them both Difciples. So Gal.
3.13, The bleflings of Abraham to come on the
Gentiles, is one of the main parts of the Gofpel.
Now if they teach men Gofpel, they mud preach as
Peter did when he had converted the Parent > The
Promife is to you and to pur Children. Thus in Luk- %*
72. this is made one great end of Chrifts coming , to
perform the mercy promifedto our Fathers, , and to re-
member his holy Covenant ; fo that preaching the
Gofpel is preaching the Covenant.Now that Infants
are in the Covenant as well as grown perfons, we
have formerly proved.

4. This is no more then was required of Abraham
at the time of Circumcifion, and yet his Infants were
not excluded from the Ordinance, gen. 17. Walkjbe-
fore me , and be perfett. Chap. 18. 10. 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 fign of the Covenant, until they
were taught, and had walked before God in upright-
nefs3 \%v4brah^m.

5- 1°

(1 16}

J. To come home to the word- in their own
fenfe, lu^taofdm fignifies Make DifiipUs-,; now
Children are not capable of being made Difci^les,
fay they.

I anfvver , i . Some have been made Difriples be-
fore they were diftinclly taught,as the twelve, whom
Chrift cai!ed,and they followed him,tnd became his
Difcip!e% and were real Difciples,yeca$ ignorant as
Infants, and were taught afterwards by degrees

2. One isfaid to be made a Difcipleeven in vulgar
phrafc , as well who is lifted in the School co be
taught , as one that is teaching or already taught ,
though he hath not learnt a letter : Thus in ail
Schools lis a qfual phrafe at the firft entrance of a
Child, he is called a new Scholar, or a new Difciple :
Thus Infants being entred into Quids School , and
given up to be caught in time, and by degrees , may
be accounted Dticipl s ; it was fo in the former in-
fiance, and ii*& no firange exprcflion in civil
Schools.

3. Infants are exprcfly called Difciples iothe New
Teftamenr, as well as grown and taught men : Thus
es4%s 15.10. Circumcifion •§ called a yoke p»to»the
neck of th&Di/ciples s that »s, on Iofaaos,.whc*weKe
the fpecral SubjecV of that Ordinance, and bote the
burthen of if, and not properly the Parents ; aadyet
the Parents had 1 he deep fenfe of ic refle&ing on them-
felves and their little pass, and die*eforfi he calls ic»
yoke that they nor. their Fathers were able to bea< ;
especially becaufe it did bind them and then Children

to

(127)

to keep the whole Law* there is no evafion of this-, if
they fay it was meant of the Fathers, and of the do
clrine of Circurncifion , which. did bind themfeives;
yec they muft grant the yoke was on their Children
as to the aft ; and that if the dp&rine was fo bur-
thenfome, much more the praclice , which the poor
Infants are under; and they are called indifirmeiy
Difciples t6thet by themfelves,or with their Parents*
And the argument is thus : Thofe were Difciples on
whom the yoke of circurncifion was laid ; but on In-
fants was this yoke laid. Ergo Infants are Difciples
intheNewTeflarnentexpreflipo. If you will make
any diftin&ion,it mud be in the manner of lay ing on
the yoke , vU. on the Parents doclrinally , on the
Children actually : but there can be no reftridion of
the word, Difciples, from tbefe on whom that yoke
was laid, as is expreft in that Chapter. Confider ,

4 Let us come to the fubjeds to whom the Gofpel
is to be preached • and they taught and baptized $ ic
is in Mttbeto , ?wn£ 7* %&pn> all 7{ations; in Marl^
it is, Pretch the Gofpel, **V» *tiV«, to every
Creature i Now that Infants (bould be none of all
(be Nations , and excluded from being of this crea-
tion of God , who were included as fpecial fubje^ls
when the Church was in but fo fmal a fpot of the
world , is from our narrow apprehenfions in the
Gofpel times of difpenfation of Grace.

And the argument our Divines bring from this
place is ftrong and moft confiderable : The Gofpel
If to be preached to every Creature, all Nations muft

(I2g)

be difcipled - but Infants are a part of this creation^
are included in ail Nations ;• therefore the^ muft be
made Difciples alfo.Read the Text again; Mat, 28.
go teach all Tfations (?wT*Tce6$M ) bay tiding
them (Jvixs ) which muft needs refer to (** Zdw)
though the one be mafculine,the other; the neuter; or
elfe muft relate to nothing, forithirhno Relative
befides to anfwer unto .- This is very common in
Scripture, and the fame phrafes,as thevfe well know
that undeiftand the Greek in Rev, 2. 2 6,t 7. and Chap,
ip. i^.thereise^tfwithrtfT^jasMr.C^ffofiV. E.
Well obferves. Cohfult ABs 15.17. and 26, 17.
Atts 21. 25. Eph. 2. 11. Mafculinesjoyned with
(id-w ) that fign'ifesdfl Nations. Now are Infants
none of the Nations, or none of the National crea-
tion which the Gofpel may reach ? God forbid.

The words hold forth only the general commifli-
on given to the Apoftles after Chrifts death 5 which
was an enlarging of their bounds,; who were only
formerly circumfcrlbedin Ittdca, and charged not to
go into the way of the Gentiles : but now the em-
pale is broken down, they muft preach the Gofpel
to every creature, teach all Nations, and baptize
them; but it doth not hold forth either the proper
fubje&s of B aptifm ,crr t!h'4 form or manner of bapti-
zing, which (hould not be delivered ("according to
their own rule of inftitutionsj in general and indefi-
nite terms, as, Every,(>eatHre,dflNXtiotJs-}indby
tranGtive words, as, Prfach the Gofpel to them , teach
thm. If this be the prime inftitution of biptizfof,

from

(1*9)
from which place they exclude Infants, when Chrift
ufeth fuch univerfal and comprehensive expreflions -
we fhall defire but to deal with them on their ground 3
and the fame Text will ferve to prove our positions
more demonftratively then theirs : And this Texc
(hews, that Chrift gave commiffion to the Apoftles
and Minifters to preach and baptize ; but in what
order to do it,or what (hould be required co the qua-
lification of thefubjed as abfolutely neceiTary, is not
at all difcovered in this Scripture; they muft look for
another Text to exclude Infants betides this,eife give
up their confidence.

Either this placets the full and exa& rule of u£
flitutionof baptizing, or not; if they fay it is, then
it would defcribe the perfons, and the manner , the
matter and the form of baptizing , and that in the
ufual phrafe with other Scriptures : but here is only
a general commiflion to two great aSs, viz,, to
preach , teach and baptize ; and we may fay in the
fame place , that whoever are outwardly taught, or
do buc hear the Gofpel ( though they walk never
fo contrary ) muft be baptized ; for the commiffion
is , Teach and baptize, nothing of the parties enter-
tainment of it is mentioned in this Mat, 28. nor of
the qualification of the fubjecl with any diftinguifih-
ing character. If they fay this doth not hold forth
all the institutions in every particular , as they muft
grant, then we may compare other Scriptures with
this, to make out the full institution , as thefe where

Infants

(130)
Infants ire mentioned with fo much gracious eon«
fider ation, as hath been formerly t xprcii- 46*

Chap. XV.

Concerning the fignification and uje of the
word Baptifm y or to be baptised • the
genuine Etymologie of it in the Old and
New Teftament ; the places in the
New Teftament brought to projie it
fignifies to plunge the u?hole body 7 an-
jwered.

TH E confidence of thefe that diflfcr hathieen
fo great, that as rhey have excommunicated In-
fants from the ct parity of ftfeh a privtledge , which
ihey had fo old a titfe unco ; fothey have iorced this
only fenfe from the word to baptize , that it tnuft fig-
nur*e to plunge the whole body under water $ and
deny that to betrue Baptiim , which is not fo ad-
rrviniftred ; and fo make it as efifentia! ro the maimer,
as vifibfe profeffion to the matter.

For clearing up of -this* mift , I iiave diligently en-
yuiredinto the propriety of the word , and itstffein
lire Greek Tranfco*§ of the Old" ami New Tefta-
ment?

05*)

merit, which are the beftguides in this cafe 5 and if
we look narrowly , it will be very hard to find, and
Very feldome , that ever the word in Scripture is ufed
for the total imraerfion of the body, 01 being abso-
lutely under water

The word (&<riK*i) fignlfies artiong all Wri-
ters both Heathen and Ecclefiaftical, promifcuoufly
to d«p into,or wafli with water, by pouring on of ir,
or Iprinkling • and there is nothing more ufual in the
New Teftament expreflion of it, then to hold forth
any kind of wafliing ; It's expreft in Authors by ma*
def*&aret lavare, abluere, to wet or wafli : thus Bn*
d&iis , ScapuU , Pafor and Grotiw do interpret the
word,though they grant it is, and may be taken more
ftrtclly for imrnertion : but let the Scripture explain
it k\f9Mar. j. 4. it is ufed for the wafliing of hands,
and of cups, and beds,and brazen veffels, and of ta-
bles ; which is not by plunging them in the water ,
fo much as wafliing them by the pouring forth of wa-
ter on them ; for fo it is expreft , when they came
from the market tbey dufft not eat (*irp*faidtyfi)
without they were baptized, that is, waflbed ; which
could not be their whole bodies, without both ex-
ceffive trouble and danger , for which times and lea-
fons rauft be obferved ': And befides this ( faith the
Evangelift ) they retained many other things in cu-
ftome 9 &*!fti*F** fixym, &c. as the Baptifm of
cups , that is, lotiont 3 toi the wafliing of cups ; which
may be as well done ' y pouring on water 3 as by
plunging into water-, and was and is ufual \y done in

alf

all Nations. So in Lnk- i i. 3 V the Pharifees won-
dred at Jefus (%v « votm kCatfldn ©rfrS «piV* J that
he was not baptized before dinner, that is, did not
tvafli. Arid Hel>. 9. 1 o. all the Ceremonial wafhings
or fprinklings are called Baptifms ; in a metaphori-
cal fenfe it's ufed for the pouring forch of the fpi-
fir.

And further, when it is tf anil tted to dip, both in
theOIdandNewTeftament, ic Signifies commonly
the lead touch or tad of any thing that is liquid. So
Luke 16. 24, Dives begs that Lazams might be
fent ( I** MAm. to <**? w t* Sclktu Aif aurtv <a*t©-) that
he might baptize, or dip the top of his finger in wa-
ter to cool his tongue ; the leaft drop would have
been prized by bim, I Sam. 14* 17. finathan is fiid
to dip the end of his rod in an hony-comb, that is,
but to take a very little; and the word is (dviM^)
(oithnkAingxoJ. 12.22. Joh.\*.. 26.

But to put it out of queftion , that there needs no
fuch rigidnefs ; and in prefsing this method of
plunging, from the word Baptifm^ let us compare it
with other phrafes. When the Scri-
Differt a Amttt, pture would exprefs a covering of
quod 4 prof"*- the whole body under water, and fo
S5 ISSlST * **^ ™ being wholly under
Paforj Lextc. water, it uleth two other words, as
different from baptizing » viz.
HA-MTarriZifyi* aad«Au£«u and /£«£$. Compare L Car.
10. 2. All the Fathers and the Israelites are fatd to
be baptized in the Cloud, and in the Set; they bad

only

(us;

only the dewingsofthe Cloud,and thefprinklings o?
the water on them as they paft through.- But in Exod,
1 5-4,5' when he fpeaks ofPbaroah ard hisHoalt^ he
doth not fay they were baptized in the waters, but
ufeth thefe two words, *&7e7i6vnnv iv efw^pj SaWwvj
*#*v w*r* drowned in the Red Sea^ fubmerfi ; and hed
adds, the depths have covered them ; and >&Tt&£ m
guSwiamtiSof, they fank, or as the word is I
dbufed themselves into the bottom as a ft one j while the
Ifraelites Were but baptized under the gentle droppings
of the Cloud, and of the Sea. And the very fame di-
itinftion did the Greek Writers make between bap-
tizing and doufing, or carting under water ; espref-
fing by baptizing, to be in the water as a Bottle if j/ck
Ship that is feldom or never wholly overwhelmed i
And this appears mod demonstratively to be. their,
meaning by the verfe of the Ancient Oracle of the
Athenians, who well knew how to fpeakand diftiir
giiifti Greek.

A?jlg; gdifttUfa, fovea Jim i %4w$ l&.
Baptize or \\>ajh hibi>\itm inftar as a Botttlein
water % but do not drown him, or utterly plungo
him.

Whereby it plainly appears thk the word ( to bap-
tize) (ignifies any kind of wafhing , whether by
fprinkling or pouring out of water, or dipping into
watered that it is Specially diftinguifhed from thefe
words that do (Tgoifie a totalfubmeifion 5 and thsfe

men do rsck the word only to fpeak for plunging
under water, excluding the ulual and more common
fence of if, which is to waGi or cleanfe.

Bee lee us view the Scriptures which they bring for
rhe maintainsnee of this fignification, yJ/rff.3. 13,16.
jeftts after he was baptize Ajteent firaight Wajesup out
of the Water ^ ( tlviQuhm ra vJkrQ- ) which may be
crai .flited, he went up from the waters, ^ fignifying
more properly ab then ex , from then out ; and it is
mod fiiitable to trar.flate it fo,becaufe all rivers,for
moft parr,!ie low,and in valleys, in corning to which
we are (aid to defcend, and coming from to afcend ;
thus when Chrift afcended, in Att.J.9. He Wat ta-
ken cut of thrir fight, that is, from their fight.
Of the like consideration is :hat other place, which
h^ fo much weight on for to hold forth plang-
^$8 8. 36,37,3 8. Of Philip and the Eunuch,it is
v $?ent both down Into the Water ( *?* " v«k? )
may as well, and better be trarflated, they
mn totr towards ths Water {\t feems they being
pn the upper grcund/pied water below them,and fo
0 it co be baptized, as it is a common
:o go dOvvn to the water (ide;
fhould we grant them this interpre-
tation* that ttoej Went both down into the water which
..rig of the wprds,yet it can never be proved
t their whole body was dipt all over;
nay go into the W2ter5and yet not be over his
. i how can they prove by this place they went
how tar tfoy went; or whether Phi-

* C *35 )
//pdid not take up water,, and poured it on him ; ©4
whether be duckc him under water, or dipt oneiy his
head ; nothing can be proved from this place $ but if
they conjecture one thing, we may another, with as
much evidence. In the 1 07. Pfal. it is faid, They thrt
go down to thefea injhipsrfeethy wonders $ when they,
go down into the Tea in Giips, is the fhip plunged all
over ? or are they under water in the fhip ?

Yet thirdly, it is evident that their going into the
water^ is diftinguifhed in the fame ver. from the Eu-
nuchs being baptized 5 they went down, or to (or
according to their own mind,) into the water3and he
baptized him : fo that the going into the water,take
it for dipping and ducking,is not baptizing,but fome-
thing diltincl>another acl| and if they will prove go-
ing down to the water,or into the wacer,in this place
denotes the dipping of the whole body , then he muft
be dipt before he was baptized ; for Thilip baptized
him after they went into the water. ^

Again, there is as much from this phrafe to prove
Philip to be dipt as the Eunuch $ and if dipping be
baptizing, for the text faith exprefly,: they both Went.
down to ,or in the water ^ you interpret it after their
qwn heart, that they both went into the water, <Phh>,
Up was as much in the water as the Eunuch; for therq
is no exception made,but both went in together,and
whofhould then baptize the Eunuch? if thisfeeni
to be aa abfurdity to them3 how can they from thi|
ejxpreflion, jiuhe. (evereft acception, conclude tjW
Eunuch was dipt i but they both went into rtie wa»

(116 J •

ret together, feeing the Text fpeaks as much of Phi-
lips going into the water, as of the Eurrachs : But if
we take it according to the fiift tranfhtion, that they
went both down towards the water, there may be
fome rcafonable account givsn how the one was bap-
tized | which feems to be moft probable, by pouring
out water upon him.

If any one object further from the next verfe,tbaE
they afcended out of the water, here is net ( ^ro as
in the former place,but ** w £<&w ) out of the water ,
yet ic m\\ not ac all- help them; for it is faid of chtm
both, they came up out of the water, and it fpeaks
as much of Philips dipping hrmfelf as the Eunuchjand
you may as well argue that Philip was new dipt, as
that the Eunuch was baptized by dipping, becaufe
they both came up out of the water;befides>one may
be faid very properly to come out of the water, if he
put but his foot into it ; and thus you fee on what
weak foundations thefe high ftructures of confidence
and rigidnefs are built.

The third and molt triumphant place, which they
cry up, and adore for this manner of baptizing by
d ippi ng, is John 3.23. And John was baftiKing in
tA^non near to Salem, becaufe there Was much water
there.

If we confider impartially, here is but a Geogra-
phical defcription of this place, of its fruation, nigh
Salem , and of the bene fie they had of water, in re-
gard of the moft places befides in the countrey, c/4;-
nen lying nigh the banks of fordan-^ni whereas they

Jay

mm

lay the weight on this, that he gives k as a reafon
why Iohn was baptizing at ^nonjotemfc there was
much water there; it may be a very good reafon Why
he chofe that place for the countrey to come in, and
be baptized, becaufe they might go many a mile in
thefe hot countreys, and noc meet with a drop of
water, and it was a great priviledge accounted to
thefe places that banked on Iordan, that they had
much water ; but what argument is this to prove that
John plunged all he baptized ?

The Argument according to their form muft be
thus ;Iohn baptized in *s£non, becaufe there was much
water 5 Ergo, baptizing is by dipping all the whole
body a this is a dangerous and ominous way of argu-
ing to thofe who deny confequences,and deductions,
for to warrant duties without exprefs fyllabical pre-
cept ; I hope they will allow us the fame priviledge
of demonftration, when we fay, whole houfes were
baptized, 8rgo9 Infants and Children, who are the
pillars of a houfejis not this more fair and probable,
then that loh* plunged their whole body, becaufe
there was much water ? There is none of our confe*
quences for Infants baptifmfo (trained and far fetchr,
as we have demonftrated formerly 5 it was neceffary
for them that had fo many of feveral parts to baptize,
to go where there may be much water, when they
could get hardly a drop many miles round about,and -
yet not imrnerfe every one they baptized ; you may
in SngJartd go 20 miles in fome countreys, and not
fin4 a river co plunge a mans whole body under the
K 1 water.

water, what would it be in Spain, and the other hot
countr eys,where water is fold as wine and bear with
us how far might they go ere they could get a river
to plunge themfelves in.?Thus you fee how little rea-
fon they have from thefe Scriptures to be foprerem-
jirory and rigid,as to make the efTence of baptifm to
be dipping, or plunging all the body.
The laft pretence commonly urged for this dipping,
is from the analogie it hath with (Thrifts burial, from
that Rom 6.4. £0/2.12 Buried with htm in baptifm \
hence fay they it is clear one muft be dipt under wa-
ter,elfe it will not reprcfent a burial. In this they
put all their confidence,and therefore let us ferioufly
view their ftrengtb.

Sol. Fir ft, let it be confidered that they ftill make
ufe of confquences, to prove indicutions, which they
will not allow u?o ■

" But more particularly, i, Plunging the wbote bo-
dy into the water, doth not hold (tolitode neither
with Chrids burial, nor the manner of burials in the
moftpart of the world ; for firft, for Chrifts burial
and the manner of tc,was not by throwing under the
earth, for Chrifls body was wrapt in a linnen cloth
by Tofsph, and laid ifi a Tomb , or Sepulchre ,
hewenoutofa rock, for that wasthecuftomeof the
Jews, e rape (pecum excavare condendis corporibus :
•Matth. 27.60. To cut out apUce like a cave, or den,
out of* rocl^ to lay their dead bodies int as is obferved
by a man of great learning,and diligence: thus when
we fleep in our houfes we may be (aid to be buried,
having fomeching over $11? heads. Secondly,

(n9)

Secondly, the manner of burying in Europe is not
by plunging the body into a pic of durt, but by call-
ing duft or dung on the perfon: fo that rheir pouring
out water on an Infant asapsffive fub/ecl, feems
more to anfwer the . Cmilitude of burying, then
the calling into the water, wherein there is fome
motion of the party himfelf contributing to his ba-
ptizing.

Thirdly, no man is faid to be buried who falls in-
to the water, or under earth, without he (lay there
fome considerable time.

Fourthly, we are faid to be buried with ChriCI in
baptifm, in regard of the ipiritual union we have
withChrift in his death, and burial; and this is as
much fignified by ppuring water on a perfon(as earth
on a dead body) as well, I fay, as by plunging.
Let us now confider what remains to be faid againft
this abfolute rule, as they would make it ; you have
feen all their main places for plunging,with what de-
monftration, at the beft ex probabilibtu & incertis^
out of provable and uncertain conjeclures, which
they fo much tax us wichall, and yet the eye fees noc
itfelf.

Let us now go on, and confider what other places
oi Scripture fpeak more direcl to qualifie this rigid
opinion of plunging.

Whzn,John began firft to adminifter his officii t Is

h\dMat.$.$, That Ierufalem, and all Judea, and all

the regions round about lor dan went forth to John^and

were baptized of him in Jordan : A man had need have

K 4 good

rnan.v th6uun6 that came forth, far «£ dJjE J

nimb'efof ASK? great T y' 0I the «"«<*
nimoer o thefe InhaDKants ; and how they could be

gv bapnzed men and womer-jn their cloths pro

imfcnonfly.or how d,ey could get garments foS

« to make the aS decent, « wVpl," K oujd

have, tong there were fo many, forth? wc^en and

the qv wo prepare the mfc|v« lor the cojotMS-

Biftrttion or forf, an Ordinance, I cannot du£.

^r#bw^^b^Sw

M "PC-rtam; and that wbicbii fo hotly contended
{0r'-'f [m;-^b!^ilchingsd,el confidS
Thehkco! thac , ^4r where jio* were

£ef w,th rhe like .rcpnvfe. .- fo that it i,S
laid they, were; bapt^d, naf how . and the word as
you have .een, , n* ,, {$g - £ ^"J/j

od^ng^utadmicsofamoreiargT^fica-

jbardiy be conceived how it could fee done vwtjn that
gravity the Go (pel requires, by plunging in their
own proper habits; and fuchfadden acls could not
be done with fuitabje preparations of garments.

But to come to particular, inltances, and parallel
them together with former plsces,which are brought
to prove this kind of dipping; and let us judge which
hath more demonftration. ABs 9.18. Paul was bap-
tized in the houfe of Judas ; there is nothing of a
Jordan or yEnon, 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 fo 3 nei-
ther is it probable that every houfe had a deep pond
belonging to it, or a river running through if, or fo
vaft a receptacle or cittern to hold water as to plunge
3 mans whole body in it.

SecondlyjConfider the Jailors cafe, ABs 16.33. nc
was baptized in the prifon, and at midnight, he and
his houfe; he wa(hed their (tripes, and they waQied
him in token of remiffion of fins.

All that the moft rational and profound Critick of
that judgement can fay, is onely this » That it may
be fuppofed he had fome great vetTeI,whtch feme had
in theie hot countreys for wafhing themfelves tn,ard
fo made ufe of it himfelfto be baptized ; but what a
poor fuppofirion in this?there is nothing either in the
texr,or from reafon to countenance it 3 who can ima-
gine that in thefe hot countreys, where water is fo
fcarce aid precious,* poor Jay lor (hould have (uch a
veifel of fo largs and vaft a continent, which mud

coft

■Cm*)

coft much ; oc that the State would provide foch a
veflel in the Pri'fon to bathe and refredi Prifoners
who are under fufpition, or cenfures of all forts of
crimes againft the State ? but no more of that ; its
too grofs to conceive : And why may not we as
well argue thus ; The Jay ior wa> baptized late in the
night in the Prifon ; Ergo pot by plunging,buc wafh-
ing or pouring out water on him,as they argue from
fob 3.33. John was baptizing in ^£no» near Salem,
becaufe there was much water there • Ergons bapti-
zed'by plunging ; I leare it to any fober judgement
ro determine ; if the one prove that baptizing may
be by dipping, the other proves it may be by fome
other way.

T hus you fee the Scripture is not fo peremptory
as thefe men are, but hath left the method of bapti-
zing in genera), and under a latitude : Neither can
they bring one exprefs.ptoce which holds it forth ei-
ther in precept or president ( whkh they call for
from u? to (hew them for our judge menr, and will
not be fatisfied in all other confederations) and have
no more but conjectural confequences to prove their
abfolute determination^, but what their confidence
fupplies ; N And if there be any abfolute need of dip-
ping, it is to cool the heat of thefe mens fpirits, who
deny Eaptifm to be true,becaufe they have not been
plunged.

The fum of all is this • They affirm the word/ To
&?/****,( jgnifies only immerfion,plunging or dipping
the whole body under water ; we deny it, and fhew

that

r i43 ^

tfoat it (ignifies to wafh by pouring on water, and
more often in the Old and New Tefhment ; and
that when this word is ufed in the Scripture, itsop-
pofed toother words thatdgnifie properly doufing,
or calling under water: And I think I may fay it
without too much rafhnefs.that they can hardly bring
one explicit place in the Old or New Teftament,
where the word, To baptize, is v&d pofitively for
plunging or doufing under water ; and doubtlefs the
moft of that judgement know not what the meaning
of the words are, elfe they would not lay the effence
of Baptifmona word of fuchalarge ufe.

The Scriptures being thus cleared , to fpeak at lead:,
that plunging is not abfolutely neceffary to conftirute
the truth of Baptifm : Let us now come to confider
the morality of this judgement , and the practical
conveniencies or inconveniencies of this way of
phmging ; for if it be the only and pure Gofpel-
Way, it will have no ominous or uncomely afpeclon
other rules, which are from the fame authority, nor
any way afperfe the Gofpei.

i.I know not how to believe that Chrift would
ordain any Ordinance, and tye fouls ftriclly to it,
that cannot be pradifed univerfally by all, and but
in fome places,and at fome feafons,without manifold
inconveniencies and dangers unto nature : For if
only dipping fhouid be baptixing^nd every one that
believes ought prefently to be baptized, how (hall
they do that live in thofe hot and dry Countryes
where water is fo (careers it is in many places of the

worldj,

044)

world, whomufi: be forced to go fo many miles to
come to a River, and yet may only find itafmall
Brook, with which they can hardly wet their feet in
pifllng over, as it is in many places of the World ?

And if there were in every place never fo much
water, yet how dangerous is it for fome bodies who
are rheumatick, and fubjeel to Catarrhs and deflexi-
ons, in the winter time ("for no feafon (hould hinder
a man from the praclice of an Ordinance,) in cold and
wet to be plunged into the water ? it were enough
to beget difeafes in the moft healthy bodies; Chrift is
more tender of the bodies of his Saints, then co put
them into fuch hazards ; and I hope no one will con-
ceive baptifm to be a chirm to prevent all inconveni*
encies and difeafes on the body : yet thezeal of
thefe of that way carries on fo furioufly, that they
think its impofftble foi them co get any hurt, though
they plunge chemfeives into the water in froft and
fnow: but its dangerous to tempt God out of his
ordinary way ofprefervation, when there is no ah-
folute necefficy for fuch a practice. Befide**this'Or<-
dinance would be a greater yoke and burthen then
Circumcifion^ if this rule of theirs (houtd?be founi-
verfally followed ; for there was no danger Co the
child by tint act, though ic feemed bloody and
hard: But if all perfons ( for none are excluded b^
any weaknefs or indifpofition) Giould be thus bapti-
sed* how eminent ^danger would many bean ?. And
if it prove fo hazardous^o.thebodiesof manybcakhy
ones, that have in winter time but accidentally fallen

into

into the water, though they have not been under
water, that it hath coft them their lives, the violence
of cold fo piercing th-jir bodies an<! animal fpirits(oii
which we have many experiences ) how would it be
for others, who labour under daily weaknefs > And
there is no prormfe, that the water (hall have no
power to hurt thofe which after this manner are ba-
ptized* no more then others. Flefh and blood is the
fame in all, which is the immediate fubjeel of fuch an
ad ; and God doth proportion his Ordinances to
keep correfpondency with his other rules of mercy,
and prefcriptions for ufe of means. In a word, if*
this be the only way of baptizing , happy are
thofe that live in hot Countrey s, or have bodies of
braf?„

Its faid,if it be an Ordinance, God will preferve •
but that is the qeeftion* and that which demonstrates
it, is not the only way ; if it be a way at all, it i? B
Thac it croffeth Gods rule* for prefervation of a
mansfelf; the pra^iceof it atfome times being?
kind of a decree of felf-murther, and very unfutable
to the laws of mercy and tendernefs, that command4
the very heart of Chrift ; and fuch anabfolute un-
qualified command doth not look like an Ordinance
of theGofpel; For if baptizing be immediatlyto
be pradifed after believing^ according to their prin-
ciplesjthen what (hould hinder water that they may
not be baptized ?Suppofe they be fick and weak, nip-
pofe the feafon be unfutable, and yet the foal defires
so be baptized r Yob mull either go agatnft all rules

of

(H6)
of nature to plunge that perfon,or elfe find out fome;
other way of baptizing ; or elfe a Gofpel command-
mull be neglecled ; for there is nor precept,nor pre-
sident of 4elay of that Ordinance ( ftjil to their own
pofitions)in ail the New Teftament; and fo both the
baptizer and baptized mutt fin in performance of
a duty^for the one fins if he by any pretence deftroys
his own health ; and the other fins in being an in-'
ftrument in ir. I wifti men were confederate of the
nature and effects of thefe things ; which if it were
more communly pra&ifed, we (hould have heaps of
inftances to make good this consideration.

2. Its very much to be obferved, that Chrift who
hath bid us avoid all appearance of evil, (houldor-
diin any Ordinance wherein there muft needs be
fome fuch appearance fit for fleflb and blood to ad
on ; I have fo much modefty as only to prefent 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.
ispcitle would have women to be vailed or covered
huhe Congregation, tacaufeofche Angels, takeic,
either literally or tropically, to (hew the modefty of
Church- nlfcmblies, and to prevent any fhadow of
temptation j how can we think that its iutable to
Apoftolical rule, that women fhoald appear in the
6penair> out of their wonted habit, in agarmene,
sexc to nakednefs , and fo be plunged into water*?
mi 1 am loth to enter into thefe fecrets.

I only propound this, Whether or 00 that this

1 .: ; ^'apti'te1

(147)
bapiifm by plunging, be not rather a baptizing of
mens cloaths,and upper garments,then of the body,
if the perfon baptized be not naked ? and if he or
fhe be, how odious a cuftome would that be ? I can-*
not but think that that part that is baptized,ought to
be naked,that the water may immediatly fall on that
placejclfe fomething elfe mull be baptized primarily,
and the flefti fecondarily and by confeqoence.

This is'the reafon why we only pour water on
the face, becaufe its the principalleft part wherein
the image of God moft appears, and the foul (nines
forth moll eminently, on which ail the workings of
mens humors and afte&ions leave the vifibleft im-
preffion and fymptomes. And itsobfervable, that
the fame word in the Greek (a&'wnw) fignifies
both the face and the perfon, becaufe the whole per-
fon is reprefented by the face. And thus we baptize
the perfon in baptizing his face, which we can look
on, and waft naked, and not be afhamed. Let :hefe'
men that are fo zealous for dipping and plunging the
whole body,con(ider from all this,what warrant they
have from Scripture for their fo much rigid conft*
dence.

C h a f\

( MS)
Chap. XVI.

An explication of that place } Heb.io; 22.
About wafnrigthe whole body with pure
water-, the improper application of it to
their manner of baptizing Iff plunging
the whole body.

' n. Ftetallthaihrng-andfoiftsoftjieAntipedoba-
/Wifts.this place in Heb.w.v. « forced in to
-iv evidence foe that mir.net of baptizing, former-
ly fo much contended for. Ltttu irO> warmth*
ir«e heart in full ajfurance <rf fa.tb, havingowr heart,
fbrlnkledfrom an evil confeiener ,w» d 'ogr bodm wfied
iuhpure water; from hence they f«j^'nf
muftbe by dipping and ' plunging, or wafti.ngthe
boiv throughout. I|C ,

t et us review it with its context, and we fta.l find
fhev chew but upon a dry bone. For,

f irftthe fcope of the Apoftle in all this chapter,*
iot in the leaftto difcover the manner of baptizing,
liuc to open two things. . ,

1 The fulnefs of the fatisfaflion and merit of
C-briftt offering himfelf, and being a facr.fice for re-
miffion of fins, in oppoficion to all Legal, and On.
dowy o«erinp,jrf«ppem from the i.v.unco the a^

(149)

which was began to be demonflrated fa the former
chapters, efpeciaily the 9. chap.

2. To encourage fouls in their approaches to God
onfuch a glorious account now in the NewTefta-
ment, fointheip. ver. Having therefore boldntfs
(**nnefcur) or freedom, to enter into the holiefl by
the blood of ^efmy by a new and living Vvay^ &c. In
this 22. v. he bids them draw nigh with a true heart,
and full affurance of faith, &c.

Secondly, that his fcope or intent is not to open
the manner of baptizing, is evident- for he writes to
thofethat were baptized already as thefe Hebrews
were ; for you have no coocroverfie in this Epifife
about circumcifion and bapcifm, as in the Rom. gM
"Phil. Colof. but only concerning Chrids pried ly Of-
fice, efpecially compared with the levitical, Aironi-
cal Priefthood, and the virtue of Legal-ceremonisl
facfificec, and the facrifice of Jefus Chrift as High-
pried, as any one that runs may read ; now either
they muft fay thete were not baptized before, or elfe
muft conclude that his defign is not to inform them
(and that fo cranfiencljr; of the nature or manner of
admimftring of that Ordinance.

Thirdly, the Apoftle here doth dkttiiy inftruel the
fouihowtomake confident addrefles to God^viz,
rrom the fenfe of our judication and fana^cation
together . for fo by our hearts being fprinkled from
an evil confcience,is meant, <& can be meantno othe£
then Chrifts blood fprinkled on our fouls, in theaffu-
tmcQof our abfohitidn- from fio, and the waging

with pure water no more ( but by this outward ex-
prefiion ) of the purity of our conventions, as to
fandification, that we may not come with fcandal of
external unholinefs, when we pretend to be juftified
by Chrifts blood.

Fourthly,the ufual word is here left out which ex-
prefleth that Ordinance-and it is your bodies not ba-
ptized but wafhed (asa^Vc/) which is a clear allufion
to that of Levit. 16. 4. from whence it feems to be
excerpted, when Aaron the high Prieft was to enter
into the holy place, and before he was to be attired
for that work, it is faid, He /hail ^a(h hu fiejb in wa-
ter, andfo put them on ; the 70. tranflate the words
thus, As^7*u JA.77 m v in <m(Jiot He fhaK wajh his whole
body with water > to fignifie «the holinefs he ftiould
Jiaveinhisperfon, as from external publick polluti-
ons ; the very fame intent of the Apoftle is here,thac
if we would be confident before God, when we ap-
proach unto God, we muft come with Chrifts blood
on our confidences, and no known pollution on our
converfations ; and if we will follow their grounds
from comparing thefe two places, we may conclude
that baptifm was as much an Ordinance of the Old
Teftamenr,as the New, for wafhing ; the body was
ufedinboth.
Fifthly,it is a ufual phrafe in Scripture to exprefs the
fancMcation of our perfons,from inward & outward
defllements,by the wafhing of water and wafhing tht
bodyj& yet not in the leaft to hint out the manner of
baptizing by water ,as into the fpecial adminiftration

of

of that Ordinance; thus in gfa.1.16. when God faith
to his backfliding people,wa(h you,make you clean 3
muft he needs mean, go and be baptized ? but thai
outward expreffion is put for the reforming of thd?
wayes,and expounded by putting away the evil from
their doings or works; thus in fob: i 3. Chrift expreff-
eth juftification and fanclifkation, by walhing in ge-
neral, and then walhing the feet ; he that is wafhed,
(which is not baptized;for Chrift faith he muft wa(ha
or dkPeter could have no part in him;and Chrift did
not baptize ) fuch a one need no more but to Wa(h
his feet, that is, walk holily ; fo that here is wafting^
and waflhing of the feet, and yet neither meant of
baptizing nor waftiing : Thus likewife in the CiMffi
thians it is faid,as to their fandification,iV(?^7^^
#*/W, nowyouarecleatifedinoTVpuarejttftifieds he
means not Now you are baptized, but of the fpecial
purification of their hearts, and lives from their for-
mer pollutions of flefh and fpirit ; which though fig*
nified by baptifm,yet fo remotely, as no man can ga-
ther the conftant method of exterual baptifm from
it.

Sixthly, he faith your bodies wafhed ( &&n 0
Qctp&) with clean or pure water ; now I hope, as to
baptizing, none are fo fooliQi as to ftand on it3whe-
ther they be baptized after a rain when the water is
puddled,or whether only in pure & chryftal ftrearns3
from an unpuddled fpring or ocean • and yet thep
muft be tied to the one as the other, if this Text be
their prefident* and we may as well queftion {torn

L $ tssss

this Text, whether they be rightly baptized, if there
be any mud,or flime,or filch in the water, as whether
we be baptized if all our bodies be not wafhed ; but
now this expreffion to fet forth holinefs and fan&ifi-
cation, is mod apt and full of life : our hearts and
conventions, in drawing nigh unto God,fhouldbe
as if externally they were wafhed with clean water,
tranfparent and fpotlefs before him, (Lining with an
Evangelical brightnefs, and fpiritual purity ; for it
will be very hard to draw nigh to God with a good
confcience, and a tainted and befroearedbodyor
converfation, with unholy ads, whereby Godisfo
much di(lionoured;efpeciaily to corners the Apoftle
faith in the former part of the \eifetwith a true heart
and full affurance of faith.

Seventhly, if he had meant by this wafhing of the
body, baptizing, he would not have made fuch a dif-
proportion ( according to their own rule ) between
thefign and thing fignifiedjfor he fpeaksof the heart
being only fprinkled, and yet the body wafhed with
clean water ; now if bapcifm doth not fignifie and
feal juftificacion ,as well as fan&ification,it is not a fea!
of the Covenant of grace ; and if it do fignifie, it
cannot go beyond the thing fignified in expreffion
and outward reprefentation. And if Chrifts blood
in Heb. 1 2-24.be called the blood of fprinkling, and
it be one of the main things fignified and fealed in
baptiim ; well may we anfwer it by an outward aft,
without offence or fin.

Eighthly,grant that by wafhing the body is meant

baptizing

(m )

baptizing here ( which you fee cannot he extorted
by violence, or extracted by any chymical virtue )
yet it will not ferve their turns : For,
Firft,> he body is faid to be wa(hed,when any one or
more of the principal parts in fight or ufe, are wafh-
' ed ; and what is done to any eminent or command-
ing part, it carries the denomination of the whole
with it ; for Maries anointing and wafliing of
Chrifts head and feet in Luke 7.44>45-is interpreted
in John 1 1 . 2, for the anointing of the Lotd,as much
as if (he had done it to all his body throughout;
though it is only expreft in the former place of the a-
nointing and wafliing his head and feet, This is moft
ufual in Scripture.

Secondly, if they will go to the Itriclnefs of the
term of wafliing the body ; then,

Firft, it mull: be vvailhed naked, or elfe it is not a
wafliing of the body.

Secondly,it mult not be a bare dipping or plunging
into water, bat fome other aft muft be done with the
body,w*. a rinfing or rubbing, as we do pots or
cloaths which we wafli, which are not faid to be
waflied,beciufe dipt under water, but fo rinfed as the
filth and dirt is taken out ; I only urge this to (hew
inevitable inconveniences thefe men will bring on
themfelves by fuch interpretations of Scripture.

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

L 5 Chap^

Chap. XVIL

AfhoYtfummlng up of the former principle^
and arguing them from the method of
the Apojlle Peter about tho/e be baptised,
Adts 10.47.

n^Hat we may bring up ail unto a full conclusion,
+ let that pike be confidered, ^#/ 10.47. an(*
the manner of the A pottles arguing in it, which is
mod fpecial to what we would prove ; his argument
lies in this, they have received the holy Ghoft as well as
"tot: Ergo,whu fhould hinder waterPwhere there is a
qualification, there may be an administration of that
Ordinancejthisis grounded on a common principle;
now if we obferve,

Firft/he Apoftle changes the ufual expre(fion,and
faith not, Seeing they have believed as well as we^ but
feeing they have received the holy Ghoft as well as Vte ,
What fhould tinder f The argument is from the equi-
valency of the qualification •'■ for whereas he faith all
along formerly ,^7 believed and were baptized ; and
to the Eunuch,^^.8.37./f/W believeft thou maift;
but here, feeing they have received the holy Cjhoft as
well as We ; this change of phrafe (hews the qua-
lification not to lie in one term or expreffion,but in
the univerfal equality of Gofpel manifeftacion, to

fome

(1$$)

fome one way, to fome another « that if any title in
the Gofpel can be found properly, either by Gods
promife or our judgement, applicable to any perfon,
we may fay, What fhould hinder water ? now to re-
ceive the holy Ghoft, is the largeft and mod vaft ex-
preffion,as to a qualification,that ever could be men-
tioned, taking in both real graces and all external
gifts and priviledges, which are all conveyed by that
holy Spirit, whether common or fpecial, as is before
expreft in another Chapter.

We (hall defire on the Apoftles account to argue
from all thefe pregnant Texts of Scripture concern-
ing Infants ; and having the fame premifes we (hall
not certainly draw a wrong conclufion,when we find
the Scriptures giving fuch titles to Infants,and fo ma-
ny fpecial carriages of Chrift to thera,which amounts
to as much as is fpoken of any that were baptized,
why may not we fay with Teter, What Jhould hinder
water ? as for inftance,

If Infants be in the Covenant, that ^Abrahams
promife belongs to them, as we have proved, What
Should binder Water f

If Infants be \\o\yjvhat Jhould hinder water? Thefe
which are vifible Saints may be baptized ; but fo are
the Infants of believers; for they are called (*>*)
i Cor.y.v\9 The fame name given to denominate all
Saints ; now to be holy is as much as to be a be-
lievers to receive the holy Ghoft is made all one
with being a believer ; and what then fhould hinder
water?

So

dm

So again/when the Gentiles and their pofcerity are
ingraffed into the fame roor, Rom. i 1 . which is A, •
brAham and the Covenant, and the branches holy as
the root, what fliould. hinder water I

If Ghrift wais angry when Infants were forbidden
toccrme to hint, and charged his' Difcipies to fuffer
them to be brought, who can forbid water ? efpeci al-
ly when Chrift took them up in his arms, laid his
.bands on,and blefled ihem^which is as muchand more
then is done in baptifm, what (bould hinder water
to be call on them? and (o wc may argue from every
place in the former difcourfe, upon this very prin-
ciple; fortheApoftte argues neither from precept
inore2ample5but from a parallel qualification3becaufe
ehey had received the holy Ghoftjand (urely all thefe
places of Scripture concerning Infants, will fully a-
mount to rwtas up an equivalent qualification in
them to a v.fible profeflicm of grown perfons.and fo
we may argue on the fame ground with Teter ; be-
fidesjlnfants arexaf able oi receiving the holy Ghoft
as we'll as grown peifons, and why not capable of
water? if they fay it is only a vifible believer,a vifible
profelTor that i? the fubjecl; Weanfwer,

You fee the Apoltle uieth feveral expreffions
sboutir, fometimes adively, fometiraes paffively,
fometimessf thou beiievd^here.feeing they have re-
ceived the holy Ghoft,bu? never fairh a vifible Sainr,
or a vifible believer, or one that aduaily profeffetb ;
and fomay we fay,feeiug the promtfe is to them/ee-
ing they are holy,feeing they are called Difciples,fee-

ing

(*57)

ing they had Chrifts hands laid oh them, and were
bleffed, feeing ihey are capable of receiving the ho-
ly Ghoft, what fliould hinder water I

guefi. If they fay ftill there is no command 5 I
infwer,

Firft,there is as much as is faid of others that were
baptized.

Secondly, there is no command in terms from
Chrift or his Apoftles to baptize profefling believers,
or thofe that fhould receive the holy Ghoftjyet they
were baptized.

Thirdly, where there is parallel character? to Qiew
qualification ,there may be the fame outward fign ap-
plied ; on this principle the Apoftk reafons in this
Scripture ; it is only to be wondred how fo many
direct places of Scripture, which cannot but fparkle
in the confidences of thofe which are diligent and
diving into truth, can be fo lightly evaded and made
nothing of, while men pretend to fearch truth impar-
tially, without deceit or guile.

Chap:

058)

Chap. XVIII.

Wherein Ufhewed who is to adminijler this
Ordinance of baptifm, according to the
rule of the Gofpel.

AS thefe that are contrary to Infant baptifm are
(trie!:, and moft fevere in other ci rcumftances,
which they think muft be in that Ordinance, (o they
are mod (light and rude in their confederations and
pra&ife, astotheadminiftrator of that Ordinance,
making every male Difciple,or any one that can give
an occafional word of exhortation, the minifterof
this Ordinance, which they do otherwife (hut up, as
in the moft holy place, and put the very fubftance of
the Gofpel in it; this is moft unfutable to the Gofpel,
and makes baptifm one of the pooreft and loweft
Ordinances, and of no fuch folemnity, feeing every
Difciple may baptize another, and he that can fpeak
any thing of the Gofpel may do fuch an acl.

But if we trace the rule,we (hall fee, that as it is an
Ordinance ofpublick cognizance,fo it muft beadmi^
niftred by a publick Officer, who hath received com-
miffion authoritatively from Chrift and his Church,
and that it was never adrniniftred by any one but he
that was either ordinarily, or extraordinarily called
thereunto • begin with lohn the Baptift, fo called
from his work and defignment to the adminiftration

of

of that Ordinance; he was extraordinarily called, as
the proprieties of him witnefs,with the circumftances
of his birth and behaviour, Luk,. i. 7J&C Matth.

All the time of Chrifts miniftry, his Difciplcs by
immediate commiffion from himfelf baptized, and
noneelfe : and we all know how they were called,
and who gave them power.

When Chrift gave up all his power and authority
to be continued to the end of the world,or his fecond
coming, Matth. 28. Go teach all nations, baptizing
them9tnd gave them their general and publick com-
miflion, he gave it to thefe that were to be Apoftles,
ind to thefe that fcould fucceed them in ordinary,
md as by fettled commiffion, not to every one that
Should be made a Difciple ; this was a commiflion to
them at large,and yet appropriated to fuch an or-
der, without we will fay all arecommiffionedto
:each and baptize.

Afterwards, when the Gofpel order of Churches
came to be fetled,and particular inftrudions giren?as
:o the foundation and method of adminiftration in
Churches, it was never adminiftred by any but thofe
:hat were for the time extraordinary, or ordinary
fecled Officers of the Church, whofe names arefum-
med up in 1 Cor. 1 2.28,29. *fld Ephq. 1 1. Apoftles,
Prophets, Evangelifts, Paftorsand Teachers j befides
;hefe,none have office or power to fuch admmiftrad-
>n but only thefe.

Thofe that we the more fober and intelligent fort

of

(itfo)

of our oppo(ites,grant us this,that the adminiftration
of baptifnus of publick cognizance ; and that ordi-
narily it muff be adminiftted by tbofe which are in
publick and fee office ; but generally every brother
among them of any fuppofed gift may be a bap*
tizer.

As for Philip and Ananias , whobaptized,the firft
was an Evangelift, an extraordinary efficer,as the A-
poftles, raifed and infpirited, and impowred much
after the fame manner;and if wc confuk with ABs 8.
he had fpecial commiflion arid authority from hea-
ven, by a Divine call, to perform that acl on the Eu-
nuch 3 and fo for Ananias who baptized Paulas one
of their own judgement faith well,he was deputed in
an extraordinary manner to that miniftery, Aft. 9. the
Lord appearing to him in avifion; and thefe ex-
amples cannot be drawn into an ordinary rule, with-
out the fame circumftances be found ufual.

And it mud needs be fo that none but one of the
fetied officers of the Church, who is to preach the
Gofpel, may be a bapcizer.

Fiifl,becaufe it is a Church Ordinance y Chrift hath
now left the keyes to the Church, fet in the Church
fucceffively fuch perfons who are actually to admini-
fter ail Ordinances in it 5 and if it be a Church Ordi-
nance, onely thefe may adminifter it who are called
to one of thefe offices in the Church ; all grant this,
that it is a Church Ordinance, though forne take the
Church more largely, others more ftriclly.

Secondly,kis an acl of power to baptize,^'.*8.

All

All power is given to me in heaven and earth; go teach
and baptize ; now power is conveyed by a fpeciall
commiffion and call. For a man to exercife a gift of
knowledge by utterance, needs no fuchfolemnity ;
but to baptize, it being a fealing of a fpecial privi-
ledge to others,muft come from an office- power,and
fo cannot ordinarily be adminiftred by a gifted
Difciple,

Thirdly, there would be no diftin&ion as to pow-
cr,between Apoftles,Evangelifts,Paftors and Teach-
ers, in administration of any Ordinance, and every
brother of the Church, if their rule Hand ; this is
the common confufion of the moft of the contrary
judgement, which utterly overthrows the other of
Gofpel Churches,

Chap:

Chap. XIX.'
On Chrifts being baptized bj Johnjvhen he was
about the thirtieth year of his age 5 whether
any thing can be gathered from it againji
baptizing of Infants *

THis is the lift plea urged from Chrifts example,
that he was not baptized untilr about the thir-
tieth year, therefore none but grown perfons ought
to be baptized, if there be any force in Chrifts ex-

ample. , -.

To which isanfwered, t. Ift general, aftingsare
not^always to be our examples j for fame acl he did
meerly as Mediator, God-man, unimitablebyus,as
to be crucified for our fins ; fome he did out of fpeci-
ilreafon, and eminent emergency, as to fait forty
dayes and nights in the wildernefs, with many luch
like, up and down the Scripture, that ate no rules to
as j his perfonal and reprefentative afl% and thefe
whxh have been acled upon extraordinary occafion
and reafon, cannot be drawn into practical rule of
example to us. • . .

a. If we will take Chrifts example for a rule in
thi* that he was baptized when fo grown up, why
then we may as well take Chrifts praffife, as our ex-
ample, in the adive fenfe, be baptized none, therefore
none are to baptize ; the fame holds asftrong as the
other i if any fay the rule afterward warrants that,

fo it doth the biptizing of Infants, as hath been for-
merly proved.

3. And more home, Chrift was a Saint in the
womb, he profeffedhis faith from a childe, difpu.
ted with the Doclors about Divine things when he
was but 12. years old, fo that he could be baptized
with an infallible evidence at firft, and yet was not
baptized untill fuch an age ; hence if we will follow
Chnfts example,though men be known to be profef-
fors, and never fo godly, yet they muft not be bap-
tized untill juft they come to the fameftature, and
term of years that Chrift was baptized in,- therea-
fon is ftronger for the one then the other, becaufc
Chrift, though he had fuch a vifible, fuch an infallible
right to it, yet did abftain from the pradiife of
jt,untill juft fuch a time, which he chofe out as fltteft,
fo that the time hath as much force to make an ex-
ample, and binds as ftriaiy to the obfervance of it,
as the general confideration of him, as a grown per-
fon: upon this account no man muft be baptized
untill he be 29. or full 30. years of age.

4. There may be many confiderations why Chrift
was baptized at years.

1 • That he might enter on his publique miniftry
with the more greater folemnity of fuch an Ordi-
nance, and have a teftimony from heaven to him in
that Ordinance, which was gm^TheHo/j ghofi des-
cending on him in the form of a Dove, Mm. I. two laft
v. Now Chrifts entrance into his publique miniftry*
began immediately after his baptifm, how he con-

verft

0*4)
verft for the moil: part of the former years, is very
dark in Scripture.

2. It might be alfo, becaufe he would give a tefti-
mony to fohn Baftift, who, though he was defigned
from the womb to that work, yet began to afl bis
office but a little while before, and had foon done.
It is a queftion whether he baptized anycortfderable
time after he baptized Chrift } but juft as Chr ift did
arife in his miniftry, John fell in his.

3. As there is no reafon to be given why Chrilt
fhould live fo long, and not take on him his pubhquc
miniftry, untill fuch an age, nor may it be urged as
fuch an example to us ; fo there is no rsafon perem-
ptorily to be given why he was not baptized untill
■then,- and fo the rule is uncertain, and of no value.
But this example is contrary to the following rule
left for baptizing, according to their own princi-
ples ; For, ■ . ..

i. That Ordinance was immediatly admin»ftred(as
tbaO after believing, and profeffion ; Chrift wasa
known Believer>and Profeffor before;r,eitber did be
make a new profeflion to ?^» when he came to be
baptized ; but John rather fcrupled if as an att too
high for him to perform* as to fuch a glorious per-
for, M*t.$.f*ffer it to be done (faiih Chntt) &C It
i would be a fin for us to delay fo long.

- Chrifts Baptifm was upon no other grounds
then our*, his to fulfill all tighteoufnefs in our ftead,
or to watfi away unrighceoufnefe , the filth ot
the <kfln, and fpirit, as an outward fign of rr, and io

cannot come under the common rule • this I conceive
fufficient to be fpoken as to that confideration; there
onely remains, that queftion which will eafily be an-
fwered on the former grounds , if they prove if ue-
as they are dcmonftrated, The Lord give a hlejjing u
thefe confidtrAtkns onyonr heart*

M ChaK

(166)

Chap. XX.
That Baptifm doth not form a Church.

SO much do our oppofites advance Baptifm , that
they make it the only conftitutive principle of a
Gofpel Chgrch,by which men enter into the Churchy
and are made vifible Members onely by its admini-
ftration,and in their own method. But we (hall foon
dethrone that pofition by the authority and force of
Scriprure and rational argumentation.

Onely in general, I doubt our Divines have un-
wittingly given them too much ground to affirm as
they do , calling it an entrance into the Church, an
iniriating Ordinance , feal , and by their practice of
late to let the Font nigh the Church porchj though I
would not much ftand upon it , how proper it is to
call it an initiating Ordinance : ( a phrafe I have
nfed in this difcourfe Pro forma) without it be be-
taufe it is the firft feal to be adminiftred in the Order
of Sacraments ; but it will be eafily proved that
Baptifm gives no effence or being either to a Church,
or memberfhip.

i. Becaufcaman muft be a member, and of a
Churcbjere he can be Baptized according to the Go»
ipell rule.

2. Sacraments are Ordinances to be adminiftred
ill the Church, and to the Church , which fuppofeth
trie exiikr.ee of the Church beforqthus i Cor. 12.28*

ifbif.

(i67)

Ephef. 4. 11, is, 13, the Lord hath fct inland give*
all officers to the Church, if fo, Sacraments , whicr
muft be adminiftred by officers, if rightly.

3- A Church may be without Baptifm , and ye*
be as true and as real a Church ; as the Ifralltes were
fo long in the wildernefs without Circumcifion
which was as much an initiating Ordinance, as evei
Baptifm was; now nothing can be without its form
and exift

4. That cannot be the form of a Church or make
a man a Member, which remains the fame, and un-^
touched after excommunication, whereby a man is
cut off from memberfhip at. prefent, but now though
the Church may take away his membership , they
cannot his Baptifm, which is the fame (till , and i$
not loft.

5. Forthisisanabfolute rule, that that which
givesthe form, or being to a Church, icmuftceafe
when the Church ceafeth, or when a Membet ceafeth
to be a Member, it mult ceafe with it ; and that mull:
be renewed, as^often as membership is renewed, and
fo one rauft be Baptized again , as ofcen as he re-*
news Memberfhip • this is moftabfurd, yet muft fol-
low from fuch a principle.

6. Baptifm is a fign, and feal, therefore gives
no being to any thing, but confirms it • It is a con-
sequent aft , and fuppofeth fornething prc-exM
ftent.

Ob). As for that place they fo much (land on ;
<AU, 2,41, As many as received the Veord gladly ,,

M 2 weri

Were Baptized, and there Was added that day about
3000. fouls ; hence they fay they were added by
Baptifm.

Sot.Thz words fay not,they were added by Baptifm,
but puts a full point, or Hop after that fentence , as
mmy as gladly received the Voordjtoere Baptiz.ed.Thcic
chat fentence ends. And the Apoftle goes on a new
account ; and faith, there ti> ere added that day 3000.
fouls yb\xi doth not at all (hew the manner of their
adding; fo that thefe words are rather a recapitulati-
on, and fumming up the number of Church Members
added that day,then any defcription of the way of
their taking into the Church : as if one (hould fay, he
had 3000 li. in gold addedto his eftate,he only (hews
it is fo,but not how he came to have that added,fo it
•mud be here ; and the former reafons prove the im-
poffibiiity of fuch an interpretation.

2. Ob). There is one place more urged to prove
Baptifm to be the form of a Church, and that
which makes a Member, which is, 1 Cor. n.i^yye
are all BaptUed into one body , there? Baptifm onely
embodyes members.

Sol. To which I anfwer flrft, The Apoftfe fpeaks
there primarily of this Baptifm of the Spirit, not
of watery So by one Spirir, we are Baptized into one
Body, not fo much of Baptifm by water.

But fecondly, grant it to be meant of Baptifm by
water , yet it proves nothing that Baptifm is the
fotmof that body, which hath its matter and form
liofiaefs, and unign before baptifm \- baptized intc

on<

(16P)

one body, doth not here (Lew the eiTemial ccnftitu-
tion of a Church, but the confirmed union.

For firft, we are faid in Gal. 3. 27. to be Baptized
intoCkrift; now none will conjedure thac baptifrn
gives the form of union with Qhrift , but oneiy
feals it ; fo into one body, may be as to the unity of
communion in the fame body.

2. The phrafe of baptizing into, or in one body,
(hews the body exiftent,and in perfecl being before,
elfe we could not be baptized in a body , or into a
body ; for when one is baptized firft , into whan
body is he, and the fecond, and third incorporated ?
until! a body be compleac, they cannot be faid to be
baptized into it, or in it ; therefore baptifrn can-
not conftitute the form of a Church , which is this
body, faying, we are baptized into it,that is, to hold
union and communion with fuch a body.

3. This argument is inferted more to prevent
Schifm, thentoexprefsthe. way of firft embodying
or conftitution of Churches,as the whole context de-
monftrates.

4. ft is the fame reafon with the Lords Supper ,
and we may as well be faid as to the firft conftitution,
to conftitute Churches by thac Sacrament , as by
baptifrn, 1 Cer.iQ. 1 6,17. The cup ofblejfing We blefs*
u it not the Communion of the blood of Chnft} the break
that rve breaks k it not the Communion of the body of
Chrifi tfor rve being many are one bread, and one body,
for We are all partakers of that one bread. So thac we
may as well be faid to be gathered into a Church by

M 3 the

(i7o)

the Lords Supper , as by Baptifm , for by it we are
made one body, and one Spirit.

But laftly, if Baptiftn doth elTentially conftitute
a Church, and is its form , then all who are Baptize'd
are reall Members of the Church, and muft have all
priviledgcs,be they never fo loofe and vain ; for they
bave the elTentiall qualification, and the pcrfecl form,
and what will any defire more ? and ftrange confe-
rences muft needs follow : you may make whom
you will Members, and make them Members before
&hey 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 baptized upon there terms , and then no
Church can be conftituted ; for who (hall baptize
fir ft? for he muft have an extraordinary Commifsion,
for he can have no ordinary delegation, until! the
form be introduced which makes the Church, and
that form is not, untill a competent number be
baptized, and Co Church power muft be csercifed
firft without a Church, and political power without
fcboiyt

It is wonderful ro imagine how thefe that differ ,
flight and unchurch all the Congregations , though
rnade up of the pureft, and (pecialleft Saints, without
mixtures of humane allay, and meerly in this princi-
, pie they are not baptized in their Form , nor plunged
under water, which with them is onely^ baptizing
and under this principle, Faith, and Repentance., and

the

P70
the mod refplendent graces of the beft Saints muft
lye buried, and no Church , if not thus dipt •* I
hope you fee the fallacy , if not the perfed folly of
this poficion , and how Churches ftand upon other
principles more firm , and fare; though we would
not lofe any ornament of the Gofpel to adorn
this body,yec we dare not constitute it of fuch ingre-
dients.

M4 AGOSPEL

GOSPEL^ORDINANCE

CONCERNING

The finging of Scripture-

Pfalms, Hymns and Spiritual

Songs ^ the lawfulnefs of that

Ordinance.

LONDON^

Printed for R. m and are to be fold at the

three Dttggers in fleetftreet. 1654.

•

fi7S)

Chap. I.

Concerning the finging of Scripture-® '[alms ;

Hymns yand fpiritual Songs ; the lawful-

nefs of that Ordinance.

|He next publick controverfie which Sa-
tan hath raifed to difturb the Churches,
is about the pracWeof tinging Scri-
pture-Pfalms , on purpofe to deprive
the Saints of the benefit of that foul-
raifing,andheartTraviftiing Ordinance,by which God
is publickly and folemnl y praifed,and the fpirits filled
with the glory of God; and becaufe your hearts may
be (tablifhed in every truth*and not (o eafily perfwa-
ded to part with fuch a holy Ordinance, I could not
but endeavor to clear up this alfc9 which you have in
this method.

Firft, that tinging of Pfalms, Hymns, andfpirU
tual Songs, vocally with the voice,and mufically,is an
Ordinance of the New Teftament, conftantly to be
pra&ifed in the Churches of Chrift,

Secondly,

(i76)

Secondly , Open unto you the three exprefsions,
Pfalms, Hymns, arid Songs, wherein they agree, and
whether there be any difference between them.

Thirdly,(hew you that it is the Pfalms of David,
Afaphi Heman , and the Hymns and fpiritual Songs
of thefe holy men, which are recorded in Scripture ,
thac is the matter ordinarily to be fung.

Fourthly, anfvver the main objections of the dif-
fenters ; thefe are fcattered up and down this fmall
Treatife.

For the firft.it isejearfrom Epk$Ag.he bids them be
filled withtheSpirit^^Ts^fpeakingto one another,
andin Col. 3.13 .Teaching and admonijhing one another ,
<Ai<PaTHOi,Ti{3'>t) fo'3-5T«;'Ti; io.vT*{ <£stAp.jfr i&vyivolt ttifoAcuf

ftsnvpcMws ; What ever thefe be as to the matter of
them, yet the finging of chem is commanded as an
Ordinance, and a fcccia'l Ordinance for edification $
That the Apoftle exhorts here to this as an Ordi-
nance, is clear ;

Firft,becaufe he fpeaks to the whole Churcb,and as a
publick duti*,not appiopriated to arty Office, but as
a commandment univeiTd on al!.

Secondly, he doth difUnguiftuhis Ordinance from
that of preaching or teaching doclrinally, which be-
longs to the Officer, or ocafionally to a gifted bro-
ther ; for he doth not only fay , as in other plices ,
teach and admoni(h : but in Pfalms, and Hymns, and
Songs, which (hews the manner of the teaching and
admonilhing, not in the general , bu: in fuch a way
as by finging with Pfalms,&c, and as Mr, Cotton well

obferves,

077)

©bfervesjif the Apoftle had meant the ordinary and
common way of teaching, he would have faid, teach
one another out of the Pfalms, or from them, rather
then in,orwiththem,whichistheufual language pf
the holy Ghoft in exprefsing fuch a duty ; fo in Pauls
example, ^#.28.23«&fo Thiliph faid to preach Jefus
to the Eunuch, ( dm r?i4y ^^Tav7m)hom that Scri-
pture in Eiaiah;andfurely he would never have added
the word (Mwtu) in the following part , finging
with melodie in your hearts, if this teaching and ad*
monifhing were not to be difcovered in fuch a pecu-
hr Ordinance. To which places we muft add that of
tbfc i Cor. 14. 15, 16. where the Apoftle fpeaks to
the Church, as to the orderly adminiftration of that
Ordinance, it?, 17. v. where he fpeaks of finging as a
diftincl dutie, and to be done in publick before the
Church ; and that phrafe of finging with the fpirit ,
and with underftanding , is very emphatical , as Di-
vines obferve ; fori cannot fing with the fpirit, but I
muft alfo with underftanding- but theunderftanding
here, muft be meant of others who hear me,and joyrs
with me in that acl ; however , publick finging was
then an Ordinance folemnized in the Church $ and
we (hall hereafter fee what kind chefe Pfalms were
they fung ; Thus fames 5. 1 3. If any be merry, let him
fing Pfalms $ though this be particular in the Text,
yet it is of the fame confideration with the for-
mer ; and thefe places hold forth the inftitution •
finging is an Ordinancejand a fpecial one in the Go-

fpd. .

Secondly,

(i?8)

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

Firft,from the very words of thefe Texts ; Speak:
ing to one mother ; teaching one another , in Pfalmj, ana
Hymns, Sec. Now no man can fpeakto cdifie others
by inward workings, • or (ilent re joycings.

2. Befides the melody to be made in our hearts,
we muft (ing with melody, which (hews not only the
inward frame,buc the outward acl,and order;for me-
lody in the heart were enough to exprefs the in-
ward grace ; but he adds an outward exprefsion s
Singingwith melody in your hearts ; fo that it is with
the voice as with the heart.

5. Singing in Scripture is ever put in diftinclion
from bare reading or fpeakingj and commonly Signi-
fies a modulation of the tongue, or exprefsing any
thing mulically and in cune,and (0 k is a mufical fpeak-
ing.

4. There would be the greateft confufion of Or-
dinances^ preaching and prayer would be made all
one with fingingjnay .internal works would be found
contrary to outward exprefiions; and if there be any
fuch thing as preaching,and prayer,and exhortarionjt
muft be different from linging,even to the mod igno-
rant;for no man will lay-, when a man meerly fpeaks
or preaches, he fings, without his. tone do make them
call him 3 finging preacher or talker, as too many ei-
ther out of affectation or cuftome, have given juft
caufe to fufpecl.

5. This

5. This is undeniable,if there be any fuch command
as to fing,it is vifible;forelfe no man could ac any time
be faid to fing or not fing; it mud be an outward ad;
for elfe we muft fay we have only fouls for that Or-
dinance, and bodies for all the reft,

<?. All that ever fung in the GofpeI,as to praSice,
fang vocally ^Mattk 2*5.30. Thej went out and fung
an Hjmnftox. muft be with an audible voice,^#.i6*
i^rPanl and Silas fung, and all heard them • and if it
be an inward acl only, who (hall know when men
fing or think^or would they have men to be gods, to
judge when men fing Pfalms, and Hymns, and fpiri-
tual fongs inwardly .? what needthefe names outward-
ly? A more ungrounded opinion was never invented
by the deviJ,and furely he hath fitted it for the weak.*
er and moft perfectly captivated forts of profelytes,
who have rirlt left their reafons, and then their con.
fciences.

Can my inward joy teach another > or my private
ejaculations admonifh another ? I wifh Satan have
not thefe men at his will : they would have finging to
be an Ordinance, but no man to hear them 5 So that
if finging be not a diftinclvifible Ordinance, then no
man can tell what it is to fing ac all, but the fame
with preaching,praying, talking, or only an invifible
motion of the ioul, known to God only ; which is
moftabiurd, when we look on the weight of thefe
slacesof Scripture mentioned formerly.

Ob. If any objeel, If finging be with the voice, why
lot with other inftruments, as Lute, and Harp, anct
Organs, &c. as in the O. Te SoL

Sol. M In ■■*» ^w Teft.mcnt the voice and the
W are only Gods infttumencs; this holds forth the
£c a my of worfhip from foul and body as from
0Pne^errony;artificial inftruments are la.d .fide , not

"TclTJhe voice is ftill required.becaufe it « the

wardinfttumentbefidesisfo. ■ £„.„,!„ :„

Thirdly, nothing can be espreft fo fignifictttly tn
JSS'd»rrfkS «by the vo.ce , «»*• "J*
prefsions of God we have in words,and the tongue
can beft mike out them. 7,.^ ftrVoice,

fourthly, theunion of heart, nd t< ongue^o rvoce

rsarp, cci. wc ,Ariir:ft«f,ctifiCe- when the fab-
ceremomesweretoChnltsiacr.nce, «

ftance came, they ceafed ; *"« ^J^'S
row the fpirit being mote abundantly pourea tortn
nd they"have no fignificancy ;buc there.needs foul and
body alwayes to fing out D.vine ftor.es, wh,!e » this

world

"FiLy, this hath been p^rf^Jj
before the New Teftament dayes , by the Ftopw" ,
o finging to God with a lively voice,when the vo.c=
(h ibeafLute.andHarp^daUinftrumenKtoGod

.. :„ F/i«8 (as W.Cotton in that precious Treat le
ir% prophetically to the Gofpel. >«"»¥*

(\Z1)

Sixthly, if they dare grant this* that there muft be
no finging by voice, then they cue off them felves from
any fort of finging by gift, in PfaIms,or Hymns, and
fpiritual Songs, and any outward way of cxprefs ng
Gods praifes ; and muft blot out finging in any way
publickly as to be looked after, though a perloh ne-
ver fo much infpired by the holy Ghoft ( after their
own fenjjpjfoould extemporariiy compofe,and breath
forth the moft glorious Sonnets , or heavenly An-
thems ; for what is not a duty in it felf , and general
in the nature of it,is not a duty to the rhoft raifed fpi-
rit,if never fo well gifted in fuch a myfterie.

Butthe wifet fort of the contrary judgement, who
confultwith Scriptures and the nature ofthings3will
not own the diffent of others as to this, butconfefs
finging of Pfalms muft be by voice, & lay it on another
foundation ; that it is Pfalm>, &c. but not thefe we
fing, that the command fpeaks of, but Pfalms of ano-
ther constitution , from a peculiar gift, and fo to be
looked on by the Church , vhu not to fing Davids
Pfalms, or Afaphsy or the like ; but from the fillings
of the Spirit in fuch a perfon,and on a fudden break-
ing forth for the edification of the Church.
1 end this with what Zanchy faith on thefe places 5
Thefe words <* x«VT'> an<l <=* ** kol^Ha vpav^ finging
with grace in your hearts, non exclttdunt vocem oris^
verum exclttdunt hypocrijin & vamtatem, ex qua fere
loqumtur ebrii vino (& b %^\<l valet at que «* T^
H&Jiiais ) they do not exclude the voice, but hypocri-
fie, and vanity, from which men drunk with wine do

NT fing/

fing ; and in y out hearts, is as much as from your
heaits,that isnotvainlyvoras hypocritically, but as
from inward fenfe : So the Greek Scholiafts ,

Chap. II.

What's meant by thefe three exprfysions >
Pfaims, Hymns, Spiritual*Songs .
how they are ufed in the Old Teflament
and the New 'Tefiament 5 from which
the matter of finging is cleared*

TH E next difference is about the matter of
finging, which all muft grant to be Pfaims,
and Hymns , and Spiritual Songs .• but what thefe
Pfaims were, &c. and how to dtftinguifa them one
from another, muft be debated ere we can clear the
point between thefe three exprefsionfi ; forae eon-
ititute one difference, fome another.

"Vfthpoi^ Tfa/ms, fay fome, are fuch Songs which

were fung with other Inftrumems betides the tongue,

SVfiMfi Hjmns^ fuch as aie made only to

jZ&Yi" exprefs the praifes,and fee out the excellcn-

• . ciesof God. £&«?**» Sengs , fuch as con-

CblUS. um noc on|y praties, but exhortations.

prophefies, thankfgiving . and thefe onlj

fang with the voyce and tongue.

Othei

Others difference them thus : Pfatms are thole

which were pend by David wd others , drawn isp*

into meeter to be fung in the Temple in a mufiea!

(train. Hymns are thofe excemporal praifes

Gro- wnic^ kreak ^orcn uPon occa^on ^r01" *

hearc filled with the Spirir, and obfervanc o£
ttUS* Gods goodnefs. Songs or Odes they call
fuch chit were premeditated not withouc
fome art : Thefe tb<ty call the Songs of Mofts , De-
borah, Hannah^ Simeon-, Maryt &c*

Bnc we (hail find , if we confute the ufe of
the words, the difference will not be consider-
able between them -and that they are ufed pre-
mifcuoufly in the Old Teftamenf, from whence ivc
muft leatn how they are to be taken in the New i
Now,,

i. I find they are ufed in general as the title 6£
Davids P films , which are named promt Icuoufiyiy
thefe three words.

2. That the three.Hebrew words,v/^.^»tO Mif£
mr9W Schir.dmnTehi/Iim, to which thefe
three, ^V^/r^/a^, do fully an(wer, are
u4id in the Pfalms one for another 5 withouc diftin-
dion ; and fometimes two of them joyned toge*
ther as the title of one Pfalm ; fometimes all three
Joyned together in one title f we could heap up tr-
amples inthis kind » Judges 5. J. faith Debroab i
m-\& f-TVtfK, / Mlfing, Imllfing unto the Urd;
it's transited by the 70 ; **»/*«« $4**0 here is
two words f the one ufed for a Pfalm, the dther fo<£

ns4;

an Ode or Song pat to exprefs one act. i Chrcn.\6*
£ji.the two fame words are tranflated thus m the 70.
dmn fyvyvnJAT*, Sing unto the Lord, fiHg an Hymn
unto the Lord. \nPfal. 105. 3. which is the fame
Pfaira, only inferred into the body of the Book of
the Plalms , the former word tptOT, is rendred by
4*> ast£, fmg Pfalms : and thus the fame word in
the fame verfe is expreft by thefe two words, yet
tidid forth one thing. In Efay 12.5. "pET is rendred
iJuv'i<rcLTz, In the title oiPfaL 38. i.Mizmor is ren-
dred by &<?», which is here tranflated a Song : and in
moft of the cities one is ufed for another without di«
ftinclion ^and *Vfcr Schir, which is moft uiually ren-
dwd by »Jn a Song , yet is alio rendred bv 4*V®"
aT/tlm, PfaU^ I. and47. 1. And by*J>^ , a
Hymn, If ay 42. 10. As for the other word D^nr,
Tehi/hm, that comprehends fully both Hymn- and
Songs j it is the general title of the Book of Pfalmc,
where the variety of the m are contained. And as fome
particular Pfalms are called in the Greek Hymns or
Odes, according to the two former words: fo this
word is put at top holding forth the fignificancy of
all the reft, and diftinguifhing the Pfalms from all
other Books of fcripture as thefe that know th«fu-
perfcriptionof that Book underftandj and itfigmfles
the moft univerfal and full way of praifing God ,
efpecialiy by tinging ; and 11% expreft by various
words ^ as (*ivtiv, Imuviw ) to praife ; (ifapitiZw ) to
commend or fet forth the refutation of another ;
( A?*^" )togiorifit ordifcover the glory of another $

( ivhtfw ) to hkfs, with many other expreffions ;
So in particular ( Wftetv ) Pfal. 145. 1. but moft
cfpeciaily is this laft word ( p-"frnn ) which is a
word for all Pfalms expreft by ( uf*w ) a Hymn ; as
2 Chrpn.7.6. and 23.13. Pfal. 39.4. 2 Cbren. 29.
3©. ■ <PfaL 21. 13. Pfal. 64. i. and 99. 3 • where
rheonc word is tranflated by the other.

For their conjunction of each of them together in
one a title of aPfalm,is very ufual,and often inverted:
The title of Tfal- 29. 1. is in the Hebrew, TUHDtfD.
Mizmor Schir; in the Greek Tranflation its •Uk^h.^
a Jits, APfalmofaSong, or a Song and al* [aim* So
64. 1. and 47. i. and 26. 1. but in 6y 1. there the
title is 1D?0 "VW, and tranflated #<h $$&*% A
SongofaPfalm, oraSengand Pfa/m. So<P/^/.82.i.
But unto the title of Pfal. 75. the 70 Greek Inter-
preters ( from whom thefe words are borrowed in
the New TeftamentJ do add all the three together 5

£ Am'?tor . ^ /y^/w /<> Afaph *» ar W**£ Hyww * a
Song to the Affyrians, By all which we fee, and might
by many more, ;jae

1. That there is not fuch a critical diftinclion to
be made between a fpiritual Pfalm, and a Hymn, and
Song, but that they are put indifferently one for an-
other,

2. Having opened the words with their ufe (I
hope with advantage to thofe that know the language
of the Hebcew with the Septuagint) let us now con-
sider them as the matter to be fung, and what thefe

N $ Pfalms,

Pfalr^Sj Hymns and Spiritual Songs ate; whether
Davids, Afafh*) HetnAns, and fuck other which are
foundin Scripture ^>en*d by holy men upon fpecial cc-
caftons,or another of a new campofure ; the former
of which I affirm to be an Ordinance of the New
Teftament.

i. Thefe are the ticks given folely to Davids
jpjaZins , and the other Scripture- Songs, which chefe
holy men, Divinely infpired, breathed forth, and kit
on record: And as Mr. Cotton excellence argues,
What reafon can there be why the Apoltle CbouAddi-
rec3us in our tinging to the very ti:k of Davids
Pfdlms , and other Script ure-Song?, it' he meant we
flaould not (ing thefe Vfakns and Songs ? Either we
xnuft exclude 'Davids Tfalms.znd the reft from being
called Pfalms, orHymns,ot Spiritual 'Songs, or elfe
£hey mult be fung as well as other e.

2. The names are borrowed from the Greek
Tranflatorsof the Old Teftament,and there is no di-
fltinclion of them in the New ; neither can any one
tell whit they meanjbut as by their ufe in the CMd Te-
ilament : Now thefe names were ufed there a&pecu*-
!iar characters to exprefsand diftinguifb the works of
Am'^Und the reft .which were penned to* be fang in
the Church : Let thefe which ate againft finging £)a-
vids TfalmSyiTid of other holy men, (hew us any one
word or fyllable in the New Teftarnent , where my
of thefe words are taken in any other feate theft as
they were in the Old, and yet we are commanded to
Cing them in the New ; onthis ground the<afe would

be

(1*7)
be foon concluded ; when the queftion is propound-
ed, ( granting this is a command for finging ) what
fhaiiwe fing ? why,Pfalms, Hymns, and fpiritual
Songs ; how (hall we know what thefe are ? we muft
look in Scripture, where thefe words are ufed ; now
we find them nowhere explained fo properly as in
the Old Teftament $ where they are the ufual titles
oi^Davids Pfalms,and the fongs of other Holy men,
and no other ufe of them expreft in the New ; why
may not we judge then , thefe are the Pfalrns, and
inns, and fpiritual Songs we are there command-
:o fing > But ,

Come to the New Teftament,and there when
ever Chrift or his Apoftles fpeak of Pfalms , they re-
fer us to Scripture Pfalms, Luke ao,4i.(Chrift faithj
As it is written in the Book of the Pfalms, that is the
1 1 o. Pfalm,The Lord faid unto my Lord, fit thou at my
right hand: in Luke 24.44. when Chrift would make
anexacldivifion of the Old Teftament, he divides
them into the Law of Mofes, the Prophets, and the
Pfalms , diftinguifhing the Pfalms from all other
Scripture, as a peculiar book by it lelf ; And as when
we arecommandedto readthe Law3andthe Prophets,
we cannot think them to be any other then the wri-
tings of Mofes and Samuel ', and the reft of the Pro-
phets in the Old Teftament ; So when we are com-
manded to fing Pfalms,not the Law or the Prophets:
how can we imagine it unlawful to fing that part of
Scripture which is properly called the Tfalms, as the
writings of DavU9 Afafh, &c ? So the Apoftle,

N 4 j*Q.

4&s i.20.fpeaking of Judas his fall, and ruin, faith, .
as it was written of him in the Book of the Pfalms,
Let his h ablution be made At folate, &c.7y!60. 16. and
in the \6v*rfe (faith Peter) the Holy Ghoft by the
month of David fpake this concerning fudas,^. v.io*
for it is written in the Book of the Pfalms. *ABs 2,
esffis 2 ? . and 2p.in ftead of faying as in the Pfalms, >
he faith, DdWfpeaketh ofChnftthus and thus in
Pfal.i6.ABs 13*3*$* fpeaking of Chritl again ; he
faith,/// it is Written in the feconfrp fdlmfftt v.^yAs
it is written in Another Pfa/m, which is the 1 6. By all
which is clear what Chrift and the Apoftiesv^gBd
have us underftand by Pfalms (when we are'tom
fllanded to fing them)efpecially thefe P/k/w^whfch
are called the Book of the Pfalms ; and there is no
other Pfalms fpoken of in the New Teftamenc ; and
the Holy-Ghoft is the beftExpoficor of his own com-
mands. »>3aw men muft either deny the/e of Davids,
(is before) to be "Pfalms , or eifechey are bound
to fing them as for Hymns and Songs 5 they ate com-
prehended under this general word {fPfalmi ;J being
all exprelt in the Book of the Pfalms 3 as hath been
demonftrated. ■*

4, Let us confider the vainicy of the contrary opini-
on,in regardit utterly makes way for will*worflaipy-
which they feem to be fornnch agairft. For fir ft , I
&m commanded to fing Pia!msr Hymns, Songs r the
Old and New Teftamenc fpea,k of no other Bklmt
then of D.dvidsindAfapbs>8£ of fuchiike infplred per-
fansj^nd tfcey are called she Ffalms by Chnft *nd his

ApO-

(1*9)

Apoft!es,but you muft not ling them (fay they. JI ask
what Pfalms then muft you {ing * there is no fight in
Old or New Teftament to warrant any other; either
you muft fancy a P film , and (ay Chrift meant this
way, when he fpake of the Book of the Pfalms,
and devife a new way of wor(hip out of your own
brains, or elfe (ing the it Pfalms , which Chrift and
his Apoftles call Pfalms. Befides, 2. How can any
man perfwade himfelf, or others, when he tings, that
he (ings a Pfalm, when he doth not (ing that which
in Scripture is onely called a Pfalm ? Or how can any
man diftinguifa, now I (ing a Pfalm , now a Hymn ,
now a Song, when there is not one word in the New
Teftament to diftinguifib them one from another, or
the two latter from the Book of the Pfalms ? if any
man from the New Teftament can diftinguifh a Pfalm
from a Hymn, or a Hymn from an Ode or Song, or
any one from another.but as they borrowit from the
Old Teftement t mt mihi magnus nAfollo ; he (hall
be an Oracle I will coniult more then with
Scripture. They ceil us Davids Pfalms, and the like
are not to be fungi Chrift and his Apoftles call them
fpecially by the name of Pfalms, and command as to
(ing Pfalms.Now let them (hew us any other Pfalms
from Scripture, and we are fatisfied ; but it's hard
to be perfwaded from fuch a precious Ordinance, by
a meer Negative, and the workings of a melancholy
fancy, or the preemption or a hot brain that he hath
a gift of compofing Pfalms, and Songs, and Hymns,
for the edification of the Church,

Let

(19*)

tet us go on further, and cry the Scripture exam-
ples ; and begin with onr Lord Jefus Chj iff, and his
Difciples ; after the adminiftration of his Supper ;
its faid in Math. 26.30. and Mark 14.26. when they
had fang an Hymn, for a Pfitlm) (as the margeV ex-
prefleth irjand its all ontjkey went forth to the mount
Olivet ; the words are, «S ipvfottvfiie kSi^M «* t5
«#* &c.Take it either as all Trarflatorsintei prepa-
ying fung an Hymn, Hymn mUo Arab : The] went
forth, ox they Vcent forth hymning, for ringing of a
PfalmJ its not mareria! : But 1 . Irs clear they fung
openly with their voice. 2. TheyJanga Pfaimot
Hymn ; now what this Hymn ftiourd he , is the que-
ftion,whether one of Davids Pj 'aims, or any in ehat
Book ; to which I anfwet: I. Irs onely faid they fung
an Hymn orTy aim, and its moft probable, yea de-
monnrative, that it was one of thefe Pfalms , or
Hymns of David and the other Holy men, becaufe
Chrift himfelf fpeaks of no other , as before t
2. Becaufe Chrift was Jo much prophefied of in thefe
Pfalms, which were formerly fnrrg prophetically,
and with thankfgivingfor thefe very acls before-hsrrd.
5. Becaufe Chrift did itill quote the fame Pfalms^
prove both his Divinity and faf&fthgs ; fo did his A-
poftles. New it was no more dishonour, or
unfuitable to Chrift to fmg wirh his Difciples one
or more of thefe 'Hymns or Pfalms , then it
was to prove himfel;:, and his rnedistorfhip by
them, which he doth in all chef (inner phces, ye* the
very nature and manner of his Af&riflgs. 4.We>ftave

Scripture

Scripture ground from Chrifts expreHIon to believe

the one,ar.d onely cur own conjecluses that be fung

any other ^Pfalms^ or Hymns ; and th*t Chrift both

before and aft er his death fhould bring his choice

proofs of his perfon, and humiliation,and glory from

the book of the Tftdnu^ and when he was to* fufTer

it (hould be found they fung a Pfalm> or Hynw-> and

yet not one of thefe Pfaltnsjs very hard to prefs on a

Scripture confeience, efpecially when the a&cxprtft

is in general,and the fame word ufed for finging fuch

Tftlmsjmd no other determination of it in tbe New

Teftaroent; let men but weigh things in an equal bai-

knee of the Sanctuary and Judge; yea, let them who

are fo high on the other fide, (hew us from Scripture

what that Hjmn% or Pfalm was, which Quill and

his Difciples fung after the Supper , and give us any

place as a comment on it>and but the hint to our de-

monftration,and we (hall think our felvcs well quit

of fuch a roiftake : in the mean while the argument

Hands thus untouched, Chrift and his Difciples fung

an Hymriy and Chrift and the Apoftles fpeak of no?

other Hjwns> or Tfalms , but thefe recorded in the,

Old Te(tament,eipecially thefe in the book of 'rjie .

P films } therefore they fung none other. And furejy

Chrift would conform his praclife to his expreflions,

or would have made fome diftinclion.

The fecond great example of finging is that oiPmi

and Silas% Atts v6. 25* where it is faid, Thy fung m

Hymn to Qodjrr gave praifes in tkefrifon at midnight -x

we are (till on the fame account as formerly, and ask

what

Op*)

whit this Hymn was they fang, if not one of thefe
Pfalms of Scripture which they might have chofen
for this prefent condition ? If any one can fay it was
an exemporary ejaculation, let them (hew us their
proof;we (hew them the Scripture ufe of the word,
and which was known to them ; and thefe that op-
pofe muft have fomething from thereafon of the
Text, or ufe of the Word to contradict us, and con-
firm themfelves ; they did not barely (ing , bat
tipuvTovkov, they fung Hymns; and do not we
go on furer grounds that ting thefe Pfalms and
Hymns ; which in the New Tcftament Ghrift and his
Apofties do call fo, then what we imagine to be
Pfalms.ind Hymns ^z. by an unfcripturaJ fuppofiti.
on? fo that the fumm of all may be drawn up thus to
argue, j, -; $riT

i; Ic is our duty to obey Divine commands; It is t
command to fing Pfdms^Hymnsffirittml Songster ge^
it is our duty. tgifr^aiti

a. It is a command to fing Tfdms, Hymns^ fciri*
tud Songs ^ as to the matter ; but there is no other
Pfylms, Hymns > or tyiritud Songs mentioned in the
01dorNewTtftamenr,bu: thefe which arepen'dby
Holy men,infpired to that end j frg*,it is our duty to

P

Km)

C H A P, HI.

An Anfmrto that objecHen concern** bneine

fit- .

ONtrfpecial Objedion that is made againft fing-
tog Scripture Pfalm,, &c. is that it hinders the
exercife of gifts, and fo its but formal ; all duties in
the Church muft be done from a gifc.

Anfwer. i You fee here is a duty laid on uuio fuch
limitation as from a gift.

2, The matter is prefcribed you, P/*/«,f and
fa>m/,and-^/9and to thefc you are efpeciaily en-
joyned : now the limitation of the matter limits the
daw.

g.There is no promife of fuch a gift in the Gofoe!
tocompofcP/4/«M, uAHjm*. God hathprovi-'
ded matter fufficient ; there is a promife for the fpirit
of prayer and Application, Zack.u. and of prea-
ching andj>rophefying, in jW, repeated in Afc 2.
but no diftma promife for a gift of fpiritual Poetrir v
or Singm&for there are but three things required to
Iwging fit matter, a voice, and heart • all which may
be performed without any fuch fpecial gift of com-
poimg , the matter Is ready, if the heart and Yoicebe
pre lent,

4. It is a duty laid generally on the whale Charca."
w.thout any d.ftinft.on of gifts 5 all ate commanded
to ling, &c. Here is no hint of a gift requited.

5. Cbrift

(m)

x. Chrift would not ordain an Ordinance of fuch
confequcnce,which the Churches (html d wane the ufe
of- tome utterly , and not one among many (hould
know what it means;for there is hardly one among a
thoufandof Saints which hattvfuch a gift of aompo-
fing Tfalms , and Hymns, &c. and if it be an Ordi-
nance in one Church,all others may want it,tndfo he
deprived of the comfort of fuch a fweec Ordi-
nance for want of a pretended gift, when they hare
mutef enough of pratfes before them.

rf. Ic is lawful to make ufe of the gifts of others, as
well as to ufe our own ; when a man hath* gift of
prayer,! joyn vvithhim,and make ufe of bisgifts,&c.
!*> is it much more lawful to make ufe of the gifes of
holy and blefled men in Scripture,who had that glo-
rious gift of competing all forts of Pfalms, Hjm*s>
and fpiritual Songsttnd when we fing them with me-
lody in our hearts, we manifeft ail thofe treafcresof
the g*fct of che fpirtr,- that brearhed mzhdt-ffalms,
&c. as if we had from a pet fonil gifecompofed them
our feives ; for if we fing them with the fametmder.*
fhiidmg , with the lame inward affedion of
love, joy, &c. we fing the® with the fame

Py Yf there were fuch a gift promifed/it would have
Meamenuontdby Chrift orhw Apoftles,» the gift
of tongues and miracles were,aud Saints would have
bOTtnftrucled to feck for tt, andthefe that had ft ,
would have been commanded to wait on it, as tht
BVderi are on exhortation, cexching, rilling , the

Deacons

090
Deaconson adffiiniftring, and diftributing,&c. Rom
12.6/7,8,9,10.

8. It is Anticbriftian to introduce an Ordinance to
be pradifed among the Churches, which hath not been
commanded by Chrift and his Apoftles, ( thefe that
differ, make much uie of the word Antkhriflian) and
cannot bur grant this principle to be undeniab!e;now
I affume bu: to introduce; A way of Tinging by a gift,
with catting off Scripture-*?/*/*^, and Hymns, and
Songs,vm never commanded by Chrift or his Ape-
ilk&yergo, itisAntichriftian . the minor hath been
proved bcfore3-there is no mention in the writings of
Chiift or the Apoitles/>f finging Pfidmby* perfonai
gift, or of a gift of compofing Ffalms either for our
lelves or the Church; neither is there mention of any
ochcr <Pjalms, Hjmns, and Songs, as the matter to be
tang; but fuch as are pen'd in Scripture i and left to
b&Iurig by ail the Churches. Thus it men will bring
in a new Ordinance, they mutt (hew their authority
from the Wordpor elfe apply the word ^ntichrlflUn
tothemfelves.

For that espreffion in i Corinth. 14.26. When job
come together fiwr®-^^,,^; everJ ont
hath * yfdm , hath acDoarineytcc. from whence
they gather they had a gift of compofing Pfalms by
the apicit, which they were to fing in the Church if
they did it orderly. j

To which I further anfwer, there is not any thins
to explain what Pfalm this was.
2.Wefeave mor^reafon to ^hink it was one of thefe

Scripture

(m)

Scripture Pfalms, which the New Teftamcnt always
calls a Pfalm (as he faith, in the fecond <?/*/. and m
another P/Vmas before) far more reafon then they
have to fay it was a Pfalm of their own compohng
by a gift ; every one hath a Pfalmi that is , this
and the other have a P/*/»v that «, one had this,
Pfalm inScripture which he thought moft proper^n-
othcr,another of thefe P films Jot Iw©- »s not to be
taken univerfaily of all,buc fingularly ; one hath this,
another that; thus fome 5 but rather the meaning is,
not as if one had this Pfalm, and another another ;
but one hath a Pfalm, another a Z>*#r*W,another to
fpeak with tongues, another to prophede 5 now thus
there was a confufion among them; one would have
a 'Ffnlm fung, another would have his Dottrtne, or
wordofCortftrftftiott as moft fit^nother his Revelation.
Now the Apoftleonely tells them they might ail be
done one by one, and in order 5 he that had iTjWaj
to be fung, might in its proper place , but thiadoch
not prove thac it was a Pfalm extemporanly com-
pofed, or by aperfonal gift, or that it was not ona
01 the Pfalms in that which the Scripture calls the
Book of the Pfalms. «

Objea .If any fay furthest muft needs be from a
gift, becaufeit is joyned with other afls which were
meerly from a gih&s Do8rinesTongues .Revelations ,
Trophecjjnteryretation.

1 Aniwer, Of theie things here named, foroe are
accounted extraordinary, and peculiar, as gifts of
Te»z«esJievelationsfittQ<l for thefe times j the other
* ordina*

forae think this laft extraordinary alfo) to having a
PJalm, maybe accounted ordinary, and not from
an extraordinary gift, as the gift of tongues was ,
however you muft not make a particular argument
from things of divers confederations and ufes.

2.0ther Scriptures have determined what a ^falm
is, and it may be eafily gathered what it is in the Co.
rintbians for one to have a Pfalm i we prove they
had a Pfiim ; let them prove what that <Pfalm was.
befidesthefe Scripture-/*/*//^ onely mentioned in
the New Teftament;

It is mod evident that the matter of finging is de-
termined by the words of the Apoftle,in Mffl^>$A&
LettkewordofGoddwellrichlyinyoti^c. which \n
Efh. 5. i*more in general, Be filled with the Spirit,
which do not make any difTereneejfor theWord andj
the Spirit muft makeup the melody in our hearts 8
but -IbJl- the word of God is the matter to be fung
with the Spirit, as ic is the matter for reading, prea-
chtng,mterpretation ; but he here names that part of
the Word which belongs to the duty heenjoyns*
as a fpecial part of that Word which ought to dwell
richly in them, as to fuch a duty of finging : So
that,

1. If 7>y«Aw,and #;»»/, and Songs fa part of the
word of God, then they may be fung.

2. If that part of the Word be more properly fit-
ted to the duty commanded then any other, it muft
be fo reftramed here,

tf 3: That

(19%)

}. That it k (o, appears, becaufehe fpeak9 fo par-
ticularly* That the Word wight d^ell in them rlchl),
teaching andadmonifhing one another pox. in generates
by Preaching, Doctrine", or the like : but in Pfafms,
and Hymns, and fpiritual Songs, which mull; needs
be the great duty in the Text,and ail before reftridled
to char.

4. Then the word of God in generator any fpe-
cial Word of God may be faid to dwell richly in a
perfon, when the fpiritual intenr, fenfe, and meaning
of it, with the inward fpirir, and power of ic upon
all occafions doth appear in the duties commanded
by it ; and thus you may fee the verfe in its parts.

1 . Here is the duty, finging.

2. The Word of God, the matter

3 . The fpecialty of the Word fo fitted to rfee nature
of that duty , Pfalms , Bjmns , and jpiritttal
Songs-

4. The peculiar way how ro be a perfect fpiritual
Snger; it is to have this word dwell in a man, and
richly .having the true fenfe, fweet experience of this
word in the heart, being upon all occafions able to
cull out in the language of Scripture, Pf*lmst Hymn^
and Sonvs, futable to our own conditions or c*
thers.

If the Apoftlehad meant here a gift of compofing
new Pfalms, &c.as he would not have ufedtheOld
Teftament language without an explanation ; fo he
would* not have mentioned the word of God iri fuch
aclofe limitation as in Tfalms^ and Hjmns, and

Songs,

(199)

Songs ^ whicti are eiegecica! to the word of God to
be fung,if he had not inr ended that put of the Word
as fitted for that Ordinance; for no man knowa
what thefe expreflions hold forth, but as they are
found in the word of God ^ and as a diftincl and emi,
nentpartofit. It were more proper to fay, Let the
grace of God dwell in you? or thegoodnefs of God. thaC
you may from the fenfe of it break forth upon alf-oc-
cafions to praifcs. But to name the Word of Go<f„
and nam$ ft with that modification's Pfalms,Hymn*,
Songs, which we all know is a part of it, and bid us
fing, and deny us in his intention for to fing thefe
Pfalms which are part of that Word, is too unwor-
thy a refleaion on the Holy Gboft, and the Pen-men
of Scripture. And that feems very ftrange to afrlrrh3
that I may not fing that Word of God which is cal-
led by the name of TJatms, Hymns, and ^«£/,when
this Word muft dwell in me richly to that end and
ufe.

Laftly, thefinging of thefe Pfalms, Hymns, and
Songs, is the Word of God, is molt adapt and pro-
portioned to the particular ufe the Apoftie intended,
by finging in the Church, which was to teach and ad-
monifh one another- Now no gift of any Saint can
be fo powerful, and authoritative to teach, as the
Word of God in thefe Pfalms, which were pen'd bf
the fpirir, as a rule to all Saints, and their gifts ; ao4
as the Word of God is made ufe of feveralways
to teach, and admonifii, fo this is one fpecial way,by
Pfalms^Hjmns Jongs, When I fing by a pretended
0 * gift,

/20(>J

gift* I fee caufe ofjealoufie, that it may be more a
fancy then the fpirit ; every man hath caufe of fufpi-
tion from whence it comes, and ere I can be fatisfied,
Imuft compare it with, and try it by the Scripture
ftrainof PfalrnsyHymns>*n& Songs, But by finging
the very words of Scripture with fenfe, and experi-
ence, I teach both by my holy carriage in the action,
*nd the word it felf commands by its own authority,
as when it is read.

But that I may more clearly open this* how that
the Word of God in P/atmt, Hymns, and Songs ^ is
the mod fie matter of finging, let us view that part
of the Wotfd called by thefe names, and fee how far
it will reach this kind of edification^ beyond all that
which may come from a prefent gift to compofc mat-
ter tor fuch a duty. i ijito'-'lCI^H

i. Befides the ipi ritual elegancy of phrafe, the in-
fpircd ftyte of that part of holy writ,whkh is beyond "
ordinary with the height of matter, of no vulgar
compofure, it having fuch attending ftampof Di-
vine authority on ir5 rouft needs conveigh its fenfe
with more weight and power, then any thing from
particular invention, though aififtcd by a gift of the
fpirir, which comes but in the fecond place, and can-
not be put in any confideration with lhac authority
as the other, nor inferred among the heavenly Ca-
nons and Scripture rules for Saints to build their faith
on, or dired their lives.

2. The Jargeneis, and comprehenfivenefs of the
fcope of the&orteft Pfalsn, is fo^ that it will give

matter

( 20I )

matter to ftudy and ponder on, and give advantage
to enlarge our thoughts and affetfions on more then
any particular gift ofany Saint now can be rationally
conceived to afford ; for commonly the befl gifts are
but an enlargement ofthefirft: text, and bring forth
nothing^ novo, no new thing , and all theie Saints
with all their gifts muft be glad to have recourfe to
that part of the Word, as the reft, for the fulnefsof
teaching and admonition.

3- The variety of matter in thefe Tfatms&c. is fo
wonderful, that they do provide before- hand by an
eternal wifdom, for the conditions of all Saints,
either perfonally, or myftically,that no man (ing any
thing, but if that Word dwell in him richly, he may
hnde a fuitabie Pfalm prepared for him,by the fore-
"ghr, and wife, and infallible diredions of the Al-
mighty, and in this, the Book of the Pfdmntm-
kends all other parts of Scripture,and may be called
the Epitome of the whole Bible. In fome Scriptures
vou have Jittle but matter of ptecepr, in others little
but hiltorical relations of perfons, and anions- but
in the Book of the Pfalms you have the variety of
matter concerned in ail the whole Scripture, moft
fuitabie to the vaft duty of ringing praifes.

i. Matter of all forts of prophefies referring to the
very latter end of the world.

; 2. All forts of general and fpecial direclions, either
for Faith or Life,

3> All forts of promifes fitted to particular condi-
tsorj&,

O 3 4. All

( 3Q>)

4. All forts of experiences in what condition a (boi
may be in, either of trya! or triumph, either to foul
or body.

5. All forts of figns? and characters of heavenly
motions arid frames to God.
' 6. All fort of thankfgivings and pray fes for fpiriru-
si or temporal mercies, with their various diicords,
which makes up the harmony of the whole. He is a
jttiildcinthe Scrippure,thatdoth not admire the un-
paralleled variety of truth in that Bocft; fo that if I
were raifed by fome extraordinary gift to the great-
eft enlargement of composing a cPfa/mJ or Jptrityal
Song on a (pecial occafton, I fhouldcomc fliortof
the variety,and fulnefs of the leaft of thefe Pfalms,
and yet the ignorant (landers bymight more admire
my gift,and there would be more danger in ir/hen to
ring the Scriprure- ?/*//»; which have nothing from
rnen to grace rhem but their own native mayfly and
authority* And truly, it is fomewhat odd for one
go be fee up by others, or for any one tofcefetup
himfelf as a fpiritual Poet in the Church, and the
Church to fing his thoughts, with the neglect of the
Ward of God, which is furnifhed with iuch variety
for the conditions of fouls

And as the Word of God in general is fo large,
andvaft, and various, that all the Saints with their
higheft emprovements can never come up to the ful-
nefs of itf and all the valt folio's that have been writ-
ten by commentators of ail fort*9bave hardly pierced
she bark, the (hell, the letter, and all Saints of the
! higheft

( *03 )
higheftattainmenr, mull: dig in to it as thecnely vi-
able Mine, and we muft not exclude the Pfalms as co
Kinging from that fulnefs and variety, feeing Chrift
himfeif when he diftinguiftmh the whole Scripture,
gives the Tfalms an equal part.

Chap. IV.
Concerning the Tranflation of Davids Pfalms5
and other fpiritual Hymns, and Songs,
xvitfj the Anfaer to the objection artftng
from it*

IHave endeavoured to prove the duty ; let as con*-
(ider the ftrength of the main Objections againft

it,

Ob. The firfl: in order is that which carps at the
Tranflation, and that into Meetre,as the humane in-
vention ; the Tranflation ( fay they ) is corrupt and
efpecially as into Meetre, and Tune 5 if you will (ing
Davids Pfams, fing them in Hebrew, as they were
fung formerly ' this they much flick on.

Sol. To whicji I anfwer,That in thefe Pfalms,and
Songs, there was a fet Meetre, fitted to Tunes, and
Voices, and mufical Instruments ; none can deny that
obferves the Dedications of moft Pfalms, and thofe
of undeiftanding that can read learned Gomartu may
fee it fully, and with great exaclnefs ; where the fpi-
ritual prefie of thefcPfalms is excellently fet forth.
O 4 2. So

( *°4)

7. So far as there is coriuption in the Tranflation,
it is fpurious, and not to be approved of> but cor-
rected.

3. But Tranfhtions according to the import of the
words and fenfe of the text, are as much the Word
of God, as the Text in the original ; for the cohe-
rence of word and fenfe make up the copy entire and
perfect.

4. Which follows, the Trarfhtion of the words in
Meetre^if itfyave the full fenfe of the words,is as much
the Word of God,as it it were tranflatedin profe, or
ordinary fentence for reading 5 for it is not Ae way
or method, but the fenfe and meaning of the words,
that is the Word irf God. So that I may as well fay
tvhen I fing in fuch a compofkion, it is as much the
Word of God as when I read the fame words in the
Bible,onely they are orderly difpofed for that a&on.
None mull by this reafon,pretend to know the Wor4
of God in reading or expounding>but he that knows
the Hebrew,and Greefe ; 3nd rhat mull be al(o in the
firft perfect copy, immediately rrarfcribed from in-
spired underftandingsjfor all things befides arc either
tranflations,or add!tion$,orfubftraclions,ffQrn which
two laft comes perfeel corruption. •

So that a crarfliton for figging, or reading is the
fame Work of God ^ long as it harh the fame iubftan-
tiaf truth in it; anci (ing rhem which way you will,
either as they lie in the verfe, or as the fame verfe is
digefted into ftaves, and with mufical notes, it is -all
one as to the nature of finging, and the ttatoflition

may

may be as Orthodox in Meetre, as in Profe • fothat
you fee what force, efficacy, that objection from the
tranflacion carries with it ; Iconfcfs there are many
defers in the tranflation into Meetre, bur there arc
the like in fome copies in profe,or continued fentence;
but as to the nature of the thing, one verfe may as
well be made two,according toimifical notation,and
yet retain the fame continued fen fe, as remain one,
only bounded by Arithmetical figures, as 1,2,3. &c\

Ob. But if any one fay the Pfaims, as thus tranfla-
ted info Meetre, are but an humane invention, and
you worfhipGod onelyafcera humaneforrn.

SoL The Anfwer is at hand.

1. To know the fignificancies of the tongues, and
how to translate them to edification, is a fpecial gift
ofGodsfpirit, 1 Qor. 12.28,29. 1 Corinth* M.ia2>

2. On this ground we read humane inventions when
we read the Old or New Teftament in any transiti-
on, but the firft copies of Hebrew and Greek,wherein
they were firft written.

3 . Is it not more a humane invention for to ling
any thing of my own compofing,then for tofing the
very matter, andfenfeofthe Word of God in my
own tongue f and yet its ufual among thefe that
are againft this Ordinance,to cry aloud,! t is a humane
invention, Antichriftian.

4. The tranflation of the Scripture for to be read,
is as much a humane invention's in pocfie tobefung;
but this is an Objection urged for want of a better.

Ok

(206)

Ob. The next grind Ob je&ion j*f that we may as
well ufe a fet form of Prayer, as of finging P/alms •
rhe one is as lawful as the otber,the one (lines the fpi-
ric as much as the other.

SoL i .There is no Divine holds that a fet form of
Prayer is abfolutely unlawful, for then no man may
meditate before hand what he ought to pray for,nor
confult with his own mouth, or Gods promifes • for
if'I meditate on what I need, and what God hath
promifed, I form fuch petitions, and tyemyfdfto
them as neceiTary to be petitioned for, and it jaay be
I may have no occafion for a long while to be^ any
thing of God,but the fubftance of thefe premeditated
confiderations or my want.

2. Here lies the unlawfulnefs of fet form of Prayer,
that it is compofed by one, and impofed by another,
to which I am limited, let ray Wants be what they
wiil,requiring further additions when I neither ftudy
my own wants, nor am permitted to urge them to
God in my prayer.

3. This is a more Curable Objection againfl: thofe
that pretend to fing by a gift, and do make Pfalms,
or Hymns, or Songs, for themfelvfts and others, with
ipeglecl of inspired Pfalrm, and Hymns. So finging
of £fa;mss and ufing a fet form of Prayer, are very
nigh of kin, and hold much correfpondency.

4. But to (ing the very words of thefe Scriptures
wichunderftanding,<s a command, as hath been for-
sperly proved ; and if you take a ietrfbrm o^ pray-
ing, for praying Scriptuie-wWs^aud fpeakingto

God

jCod in that language, it is noe only Jawful,but is the
excellency of fome Saints, who fel^iom make a Peti-
tion, but they urge it in Scripture- dialect, and (hew
the Word of God to dwell richly in them ; thus for
finging to praife God, or ting to God in his owe
form of words in the fpirit,and under(tanding,whac
can be more fqtable co God , and fweet to the
foul >

5. There is a great deal of difference between
praying andfinging,as to the method of performance,
though praying and praifes may be considered in the
fame duty, yet praying and Jingingte quite a diftinft
method; for the very words, to fing Pfalm% and
Hymns, and Songs, import a fpecial method of the
voice in a fet tune, and proportion, whereas prayer
in the method of performance requires no fuch exacl*
nefs ; if one (hould take on him to fing, and not in a
fee form, and tune, he would be ridiculous to all
hearers : but a man hath a larger liberty in prayer,and
is not tyed to fuch ftrait connexion?, heighths, and
falls, flops, and paufes ; but the nature of this Ordi-
nance calls for it, elfe it cannot be done gracefully,
though there be grace in the heart- And if the Apo^
ftle had not meant by finging of Pfalms, finging «*»-
JtcallyMz would have onely bid them praife in the ge-
neral, and have Iefe out the outward expreffion of it,
which cannot be a&ed but in a fet form .

6.1f finging Were not in a mufical manner, fas be*
fore J it were the fame with pray er, for you may fing
out a prayer, and praife in praying. Thus mDavidst

Halms.

Oo8)

Pfalms. How many Pfalms which were matter only
of petition, yet were fung with faith and confidence
in (Sod? For performance, the Apoftle James diftin-
guifheth them apparently, Is any fickj let UmprAy\U
Any merry?let himjing Pfalms ; and the other Apo-
ftle, Let us pray With the Spirit ytnd under ft andingyand
fing with the Spirit ,&c. Now wherein lies the diffe-
rence ? In prayer you have varieiy of workings, and
considerations; there is Deprecation^ Imprecation, dc*
clamatioHtind Admiring* Pleading^nd urging promifet
and the like. So in fmging, there are the like; the dif.
ference is onely in thefet, and mufical way of expref-
fion, which requires a more fet form before- hand to
rule my outward carriage by, in that Ordinance ;
whereas in prayer we are not tyed to fucba feverity
of method, and fo need not have our words fo form,
ed.

Another p!ea,whicb is fomewhat fcurrilous,by the
ruder forr, yet much urged, is, that we lye when we
fing Pfalms, and affirm chat we cannot but lye when
we fing the phrafes of many Pfalms, As that of Da-
vid,0 Lord I am not puffed in mind? Jam as a Weaned
child, &c.

To which I reply, in general, that fome miynoe
have the frame of thefe expreflions, when they fing,
and fo may perform a duty which may be but as a lye
to them. buc>

i. In fpecial, there is no Saint but can in f<#ne
meafure fay what ever David faith in that or any o-
ther Watajdefcribingthe fpiricual qualification of,

his

his heart; all graces are in every Saint there mtjie
feed, and habit, and in a proportion, though all are
not fo eminent and apparent in the bud and fruit ;
though no godly man is free from pride, yet he can-
not be a godly man that is a proud man in attuftgna*
to, which hath never been humbled, and brought out
ofhimfelf; thus all along the 119. Tfalm, thatA-
natomy of a Saints inward parts, when David hith,
He delights in the Law ofGody He hops ra Geds mer-
cy ,His foul longs after God > He keeps his C0i*M*"<lm
rnents. He hates every evil way , &c. every godly man
may fing thefe and all other Pialms,and fpeak truth *
for the reality of thefe frames are the fame in every
gracious heart.

2. Whatever I finde tobethe cafe of any Saint, I
may make it mine according to the likeoefs of ray
condition to it, and yet not a lye,
3. One great ufe of finging is to commend the excel*
lency of fuch graces which are and have been in o-
thers to fweeten the harflinefs of other duties, and
to ftir and quicken the heart to the endeavouring
after fuch like frames ; therefore fome Law-givers
have put their Laws into verfe firft, that the people
might take a pleafure in them, and Gng them as
their recreations, and be the more insinuated into 0-
bedience.

4. 1 can tell no lye fo long as in the fincertty of my
foul I fludy my duty, and fing with defire after fuch
qualifications, from the contemplation of the beauty
of them in fuch holy men, though I do not find she

pre-

(210)

prefent frame fo high as I breath after, and fuch men
found ac prefent.

Ob, But this Objedion jgrant it in its full Latitude,
proves nothing againft the nature of the Ordinance
of finging, but the per fons who ting, who are not fit-
ly qualified to forne exprefiions.

Again, others plead, Pfalms that are fung are not
futable to my condition.

Sol. i. That is nothing Hill againft the Ordinance
of finging ; if it do not fit you,fc fits others. But,

i.There is nothing in Scripture- exprcifion&but all
Saints at all times may make fome ufe of in the very
reading or finging; if not fo particularly , yet as to the
general nature of in(truclion,and edification,it is pro-
fitable ; Saints mud read all Scripture, with faith and
undemanding ; though every place may not fo di-
reclly open their prefent condition; and why may
not they ling as well all Pfalms .?

3 It (hould be the care of Officers in the Church,to
be very choice in picking out Pfalms fie for the ]
Church, according to the nature of the body, and
times, and feafons; and I could wifh there were
jnore choicenefs oblerved in that particular ; yet the
Ordinance remains (till the fame.
. 4. When I (ing any of thefe Pfalms, I foould by
faith perfonate the fame (late of the Church, or the
Saints, as when I apply promifes made to others,
I do their conditions , as if it were fpoken to
me.
5. It is for want of Divine ftudy of the nature of

thsfc

(Ill)

thefe Scrrpturecxpreffions, and the myftery of them
that we fay fuch a Pfalra is unfuitable to our conditi-
ons ; for if when I read undetftandingfy, lean get
profit by themjean the fame when I fing them,

6.li it do not reach my condition, as to a particu-
lar cafe I am troubled withali,oi the providence I am
eminently under j yet it concerns the ftate of the
Church , and I may fing thetn as a Member of the
fame Body,and fympathifing with them either tn for-
row ot joy, in afflictions or triumphs; which is a
fpecial way ro ac! the graces of Saints, fometimes to
fing what concerns others as themfelves, as to pray
for others as themfelves ; this is like Chrifts heart in
heaven.

Laftly , you have opportunity enough to chufe
Pfalms for your emergencies. It is good to keep the
harmony of the whole Body in the main.

Ob. That which follows next as urged againft this
truth, is, that its confufion to fing together, and thac
but one (hould fing at one time.

Sol. Still this is not againft the Ordinance of find-
ing. But,

i . Singing is more melodious and fuitable, wherf
performed by many, then onefeveral inftrumen: ac
one timejand fo feveral voices make the greater Har-
mony: the excellency of fingingliesin theChurchf
which is made up of divers voices.

2. Chrift and his Difciples fung together, Mat ^6.
30. tfci'aOTcmftthey fung, Taut and Silas Ac!.. 1 6 2?.
fung together in thePrifon, not one after another, but
together. Ok

(2u;

O^.But if any one fay,when one pra^s^ali may be
laid to pray,tbough he doth but confenr;ic way be fo
in finging of Pfalms.

It is Anfwered,i. All Ordinances muft be confider-
cd according to their proper nature^ fome Ordinan.
ces are To to be adm»niftred,as that onely one at once
can perform it, as publike prayer, and preaching,
and yet there muft be a distinction even in thefe : my
filence in prayer ought to be when I pray with ano-
ther ,and yec t may be faid to pray as well as he which
is the mouth of the whole, becaufe my heart is with
him in the fame petitions, and my defires go equally
with him ; but it. i» not fo in preaching, where fileoce
muft be likewife from the nature of the Ordinance ;
yetthough I content fully with the matter,and agree
in all that is faid with never fo much affection , yet
I cannot be faid to preach,but onely he that fpeaketh
preacheth. So now as to finging there is a difference
likewife of another confide ration $ if onely one (ing,
none elfe can be faid to (ing, though they joyn with
the matter,and agree to ic in their hearts ; for its an
ouwatd a6t,and terminated in the perfon that per-
form^ it ; and though in my filcnt conjunction, I msy
really ptaife God, yct,I can in no fenfe be proper-
ly laid to fing with others,without I do ufe my Voicd
and Organs as they do. This confederation will give
light to men that rrffnde the nature and diftinclion of
Ordinances in their outward adminiftrations.

a.That which iAhe confufion of ether Ordinances,,
is the beauty of this $ for two to preach, or pray to-
gether

gether at the fame time and place, were the greateif
confufion imaginable $ but for a hundred to (ing to-
gether is trioft harmonious, andpleafant; fo far from
the breach of order,that harmony is moit difcovered
by it.

3. It hath been the cuftome of the Churches always
thus to pra&ife ; and there is nothing in ghe nature
or the Ordinance, or Divine precepr, or example a-
gainft it. I (hall conclude this with a word from An*
tiquit y, concerning this prtctife,
; Eufehin his EcchfiHtfl. Jib.^cap.J 3. quotes twtf
Epiftles oiPUniu* Secun&tu to Trajan (he Emperor*
teftifying that Chriftians were wont to gather them-
felves before day to fing Pfalms and Hymns toge-
ther : the fame doth Philo fadim tcftifie^ who lived
in the Ap9ftles time, as the fame gufeh faith, liki.
cap.22. Now in the time of Plinins and Trajan, did
fyhn the beloved Difciple live, Mth ZanchAn Sph.^
18.29. whereby it appears an Apoftolicai inftitution;
Tertul. in his ApoU. 19. faith, that it was a ufuall
cuftome among theChriftians,after their Lovc-Feafk,
cajtere de Scriptnris Santin^ to fing of the Scriptures •
his meaning is, doubtlefs, out of, or from the Scri-
ptures : In the Weftern Churches this hath been the
conftant praaice^though much corrupted by the Re~
*m» additions to Saints methodjbut yet that bleffed
Ordinance is now more fpecially recovered, and
made pure for Saints according to primitive inftituti-

\ Chaf

(*M>

Chap. V.

The great abnfes rf the Roman and Epifcppal
Church about thts Ordinance^ whereby many
flick not to call it Antichriflim^ hath hee»*y

i. 'TtHe introducing mufical Inftruments together
A with, as Organs, Harps, Viols, &c. whertitaf
in the New Teftament God requires the Voice as ihe
onely Organ of the heart in woifhip.

2. They had a meer order of Singers to whom
they gave penfiqns unto for that purpofe, and eiclu-
ded the Church from the perions of that duty, which
is of fo Univerfal a concernment.

3. They would hrig in Latin,and with fuch ftraisi*
of their Voices, that the words might not be undcr-
llood.

4. They (pent molt of the time in (inging^nd gave
not other Ordinances, as preaching^ and praying,
their due time of exejcTe. Thus have precious Ordi-
nances been abufed by the corruptions of men $ buc J
are now reftoring unto their purity 3 and will every
day be more glorioufly pr&Siie^in the Churches.

Cha*.
1 Ah

( *i$ )

Chap. VI.
How we way he faid to teach and admgnifh one
another, in Pfalms, Hymns, and Songs,
according to that of C ol . 3 . 1 6^ 1 7 .

MAny think there can be no fuch ufe of linging,
as to teach and admonifh one another by it 5
but if we confider,there ate many leffons to be Icarnc
one another from this publique conjun& , finging
Scripture. Pfalms.

i. They teach one another,and by the very aft ad-
monifti one another ro get the fame frames thefe
Holy men had in the penning the PfaJms, and in, the
variety, and fpirituality of them ; to get Davids
frame, in finging Davids Tfalms : and fo for the
reft.

2. Us by this they teach one another the Unity and
Harmony that is and fhouid be among Saints as one
body, that their happinefs and joys are bound up
together, and fo the mifery of one, is the mifery of
the whole ; and this is a glorious leffon to know their
Union together, a* a body equally concerned in the
glory, or ftiame of one another, equally interefted in
:he praifes of God ; there is no duty praclifed in all
■he Gofpel that doth fully exprefs the Communion
;>f Saints, and reprefent Heaven,as the Saints finging
:ogether; the Lords Supper doth reprelcnt the Com-
nunion of Saints very lively, but not fo as mutual!
Pa finging,

finging, when all at once, not by confeot onelyi but
cxprefly fpeak the fame thing in the Time moment $
in the Lords Supper,though afterwards they were all
one bread, yet they all do not receive it at the (ame
inftantofcime, but take fucceflively the Elements ;
but in Tinging they all joyq perfedly at once to
found Gods prayies,as if they had but one Lip, and
one Voice. This is the perfecl Embleme of Heaven,
r>o jarring, all with one Voice and Heart cryjng Hal-
ielftjabtHa/Uffijah*

3, They teach one another this leflbn a!fo,T*£.with
what alacrity and cheerfulnefs they fhould perform
all their duties together ; with fweetnefs of love,and
joy they ought to walk together.

4. They teach one another how to carry them-
selves in all conditions with joyful! and prayfing
frames of fpirit, for matter of the Pfalms ; ana
arevarious, not onely affording matter of exultation,
and graculacion ; but alio reciting the fadnefs and
low condition of the Church ; yet ari are fit matter to
be fung ; Lachryms. mult be Jung, fs4 things with a
fpiritualjoy full heart in God an&hispromifes; mer-
cy, and judgement in rhe fame fong, exprelt in melo-
dy of the Voice, and Heart ; and it ftiews afoul is
not in a right temper when he cannot (ing over his j
condition
an a u 5. They teach one another by tmging,and adrno-
nidi one another to avoid any thing ihac may hinder
their joys in Communion, and break their Har*
raony in Jpirkuaiaclmgs ; all which, and many more

arc

are great exhortations, and are taught naturally by
Saints mutual finging together.

Chap. VII,
Concerning fwging with a mixt multitude.

MAny who grant finging to be an Ordinance a-
mong Saints, yet ftumble to fing in promifcu-
ous manner with others ; efpecially becaufe there are
fo many Pfalms of fach compofition that doth not
feem to concern a mist multitude.

For opening of this, I muft lay down this gene-
rail pofition • that prayer and praifes are natural
duties belonging to all men,men as men ; though on-
ly the Saints can do them beft, and Spiritually ; it is
upon all men by the Law of Creation.to feekto God
for what they want, and to thank him for what they
have : this is due unto God, owning him as » Crea-
tor, and Benefaclor ; and though finging be a part
©f inftituted worftiip , yet its onely an addition of
Order & a regulation of a natural duty. And as there
is no man but is bound to pray for mercies, fo none
are exempted from praifing God for mercies, though
they fing in a lower tune then Saints, Thus David
calls in all creatures to blefs and praife God, as a na-
tural duty according co their feveral capacities,
BfitL t s6,Pfal. i i7.P/*/.i07. P/al. i ©£. P f 20.21 ,22!
Praifes, its the natural duty of al!> the proper duty
of Saints, the perfect acl of Angels. ob.

(>i8)
Ok You will fay they cannot perform it night,
and glorifie fouls.

Sol. i. Their want of ability doth not discharge
them from fuch a duty engraven cm theirConfciences
and arifing from the natural refpecls they have to
God as a Creator ; to perform which, God gave full
power; at folt.

2.Het every man do his dury coirfcientioufly.he may
afterwards come go do it fpirkually ; though I
(houki lofe the f«nie of a duty m my confcieRce, yet
the dory lyes on my conscience from Gods autjbork.y,
and my relation ro him*

i. By the fame rule every one fhould abftain-from
performance of a du^y for want of prefeuc ability,
whereas the dury rnufi be done, and the ftrength ex-
peeled from Heaven, and waited for according to the
Divine manner of difpenfation.

2. Its not unlawful! to joyn in any acl with others,
or to countenance them in it, which is really their
duty as weJJ as our own;! cannot fin in joyning. with
aoy one in chat acl to perform, . which is the dmy of
another,as niine,tiiaughhe may want the prefent ahi*

For duties mud be meakired according to the
rule, not the abJuuesof the pet&wner ; now its no
duty for any man to receive the Lords Supper, or be
a Member of a Church in order toCommunion^witb-
outhe find himfelf in fome mtafure fitted b^mm;}
theie iealing Ord^ces'ei ih£\iS¥pel> iup^ofe^d
require fome o&her qualification, and ate gec^arto

viable

(2tp)

vifible Saints^but where there is a natural CharacTer*
or an Ordinance as to the fubftance of ic at leaft e-
cjualjy concerning alljthere'it is no fin to joyn in the
administration orit 5 and if weconfider of it warily,
umegenerate men are great (tiarersin the mercies ot
the Churches ; befides their own pa'rticular,that they
may well afford their voice without fin, and we joyn
with them in fetting forth Gods praifes ; But more1
clofely, and particularly.

1. When the Church and Saints of God are ga-
thered together to worfliip him, infinging- it is no
more unhwfull to fing with others that ftand by
and joyn their voices , then when in prayer they
ftand by, and give their content, we do not fo much
joyifr with them as they do own Gods agings a-
mong us : it is no fin in them to joyn with us in inch
a duty, neither can it be any fin in us to fing, though
others very carnal will outwardly praife God with
us.

2. The carriage of Saints in their hearty and real!
expreflions of prayfes may convince others in the
coldnefs, andiownefsof their fpirit, and ftir them
up to fome fpiritual apprehenfion**

3. Though it be lawful to joyn with them in fuch
at duty generally considered, yet it were to be wifhed
in a mixt multitude, there were more care in the
choice of Pfalms , to fit them to the very duty of
praife and thanks, which is fo really belonging to all
theCongregation:and that mud be lamented,that the
choice of Pfalms, to a mixc multitude, is not fo con-

fidered

(tio)
fidered as ic ought to be, which makes the Ordinance
fo much (lighted in itspubliqueadminiftration, But
however, the incapacity of others to their duty,
fhould not hinder me from performing mine7efpeci-
ally when I cannot, nor ought not to hinder others'
frorrifuch in aft.

FI^CI s*