Divinity-knots unlooſed.
CHAP. I Of the Scriptures, and by the way, of the light of Nature.
1. Doubt. IF the Scripture be a perfect ruleaa2 Tim. 3.16, 17. Pſa. 19.7. Deu. 12.32 Pro. 30.6. Iſa. 8.20. Revel. 22.18, 19., how can the light of nature be of any uſe in ſpirituall matters?
Reſol. A rule may be ſayd to be perfect, in three caſes:
- 1. When there is a perfect enumeration of, and proviſion for, all particulars that poſſibly can fall under it,
- 2. When it runs in generall tearmes, and is comprehenſive enough to include whatſoever is to be taken within it.
- 3. When it particularizeth the principall, and expreſſeth the reſt more generally.
As for example:
**This homly Simile (though it may ſeeme ridiculous to critick wits) is of great uſe, if well conſidered, for the clearing of this queſtioned truth, to the capacity of weak Chriſtians, for whoſe ſake this worke was undertaken.In a Leaſe, we account the rules perfect, which a Tenant is to walke by, in occupying the ground which is letten him, if 1. it give him particular leave to paſture, mow, and ſow, or ſecondly, ſay in generall tearmes, he is to have it to all tenantly uſes, or give way that the Tenant ſhall have it for tillage, and all other tenantly uſes.
Now the Scriptures are perfect in the laſt ſenſe; they deliver particular rules for all the maine poynts of Faith and practice; but matters of circumſtance, and inferi•ur alley are comprehended perfectly, though more generally: And therefore as he that holdeth his Living to all Tenantly uſes, had need of ſo much judgement as to drawe this generall into particulars: So when the Scripture entreth not upon the particulars, but in the generall commandeth order, decencie, and edificationbb1 Cor. 14.26.40., we had need of the light of nature, aſſiſted by the ſpirit of God, to judge according to the generall dictates of Scripture, what in ſuch a time, and ſuch a caſe, may make for order, decencie, or edifying.
2. Doubt. How can Miniſters tell us what the Word imports in the Originall of any text they quote, ſeeing themſelves (as ſome with probability3 affirme) never ſaw the Originall?
Reſolution. By the Originall we doe not meane the firſt Copies that were written, but faithfull tranſcripts of them in the ſame language, and theſe none can deny us to have ſeene, except they will deny withall, that our Bibles in Engliſh (which are tranſlations thereof) are the word of God, which the Objecter ſeemeth not to doe. And yet, although we hold that no tongue can ſo fully expreſſe the ſenſe of ſome places, as that wherein it was written; nor is of the ſame authority, but as it agrees therwith; we freely confeſſe, that in the Characters and Printing, there may be errour (which may be rectifyed by comparing one Booke and place with another:) And without the ſpirit of God to aſſure us, no knowledge of the Originall is ſufficient to give us full aſſurance that it is Gods wordcc1 Cor. 2.14., but by the helpe of the holy Spiritdd1 John 2.20, 27., the Scriptures may ſufficiently informe an illiterate man for his ſalvation.
CHAP. II. Of God.
3. Doubt. IF God be unchangeableaaJam. 1.17, how can he be ſayd to repentbbGen. 6 6. 1 Sam. 15.11..
Reſol. It is ſpoken according to our capacity, for though God doe never repentccNum. 23.19. 1 Sam. 15.29., (that is, change his counſell) yet he doth as if he did repent, when he undoth what he had before doneddGen. 6.6, 7.. Nor may God be charged with changeableneſſe, though the courſe of his providence be turned, but the change is in us. You know the Sun by the ſame quality, and in the ſame ſeaſon, will ſoften Wax and harden clay, yea, will ſoften the earth when it is frozen, and harden it at other times, and yet the Sun never altereth his quality, but is ſtill the ſame: So though God be gracious to ſome, and ſevere to otherseeRom. 9.18. Ezek. 18.; yea, ſevere and gracious to the ſame perſon at diverſe times, and in different reſpectsffEzek. 18 21, 22, 23, 24, &c.; yet he is one and the ſame for everggExod. 3.14..
4. Doubt. If God be a ſpirit, how is hee ſayd to have hands, eyes, wings, & c. ?
Reſol. This is onely ſpoken, as the former,5 according to our capacity, that by the hand of God we may note his powerhhIſa. 59.1., by his eye, wiſedomeiiPſal. 11.4., by his wings, protectionkkPſa. 57.1..
5. Doubt. If God be indiviſible and ſimple, how can the ſacred eſſence be diſtinguiſhed into three perſons?
Reſol. I ſee your skill in Logick is ſmall, or elſe it were eaſie to know how to diſtinguiſh betwixt things, that cannot be divided: I can diſtinguiſh betweene the eſſence and exiſtence of the ſame thing, betwixt inſeparable accidents, and their ſubjects, or (to ſpeake Common-road language) between a body and its ſubſtance, forme figure, &c. and yet not divide them. So it is no repugnancie in reaſon it ſelfe, that the God-head be one entire entityll1 Cor. 8.4, 6., and yet conſidered in a perſonall reſpect may be diſtinguiſhed into the Father, Sonne, and holy GhoſtmmMat. 3.16, 17. 1 Joh. 5.7..
6. Doubt. I finde in the 45. of Iſaich, Verſ. 21. that Chriſt ſaith, there is no GOD but himſelfe, notwithſtanding wee heare him ſaying as much by his Father, John 17.3. how can both be the onely true God?
Reſol. GOD and CHRIST differ not eſſentially, but onely perſonally; the Father is GOD, ſo is the Son; yet they6 are not two Gods, but one: There is no other God but that God which the Father is, nor any God, but that which Chriſt is, and this word (onely) is not excluſive of any perſon of the Trinity (for every perſon is the onely God) but of all others, whether reputed Gods, or Creaturesnn1 Cor. 8.4, 5, 6.
CHAP. III. Of Gods Decree, and creation.
7. Doubt. TO what purpoſe ſhould I ſeek the good of my ſoule? If I he elected I ſhall be ſaved, if not I cannot.
Reſol. It is not for you to ſearch the Cabinet of Gods counſellaaDeut. 29.29., but to beleevebbJohn 3.18.36., and repentccLuke 13.3, 5.; which if you doe, you are not to queſtion your ſalvationddEph. 2.8 2 Tim. 1.9 2 Cor. 7.10. Saving Faith (though it be not a cauſe) is a fruit of electioneeActs 13.48., for God hath reſpect to the meanes, as well as the end, and conjoyneth them in his decreeffEph. 1.4.5. & 2.10.: and therefore we may conclude, that beleeving we are juſtifiedggRom. 3.28., which is an aſſured argument we were predeſtinatedhhRom. 8.29, 30., and ſhall be ſavediiTit. 3.7.. But on the other hand, they that are hardened by ſinkkPſa. 95.8. Heb. 3.13., are rejected of GodllRom. 9.18., and ſhall be damnedmm1 Cor. 6.9, 10. Gal. 5.19, 20, 21..
78. Doubt. If God predeſtinate the meanes as well as the end, ſeeing ſin is the meanes tending to damnation, whom he predeſtinates to damnation, doth not he predeſtinate them to ſin? And if ſo, how can he be free from it?
Reſol. In Predeſtination two things are to be conſidered:
- 1. Gods preterition, paſſing by, or non•electing of a perſon.
- 2. Predamnation, or fore-condemning a perſon to perdition.
The former is of the meere pleaſure of God, for there can be no other reaſon given, why this man is choſen, and that refuſed. Now thoſe whom God thus paſſeth by, through want of that aſſiſtance which he is not bound to give, fall finally from God, and ſo conſidered, are pre-damned, or fore-ordained to deſtruction. God doth not force, or cauſe men to ſinne, but leave them to it: For ſin being no poſitive thing, but a privation of what ſhould be: Viz. of obedience, ariſeth from the inſufficiency of the Creature, left to it ſelfe: If a King by his wiſedome could foreſee, that diverſe of his Subjects would prove Traytors, and be hanged, unleſſe he prefer them, and doth forbeare to gratifie them ſo far, onely becauſe it is not his pleaſure ſo to doe, can he8 be juſtly accuſed of the Treaſon which after they commit? I beleeve no polititian wil affirma it: Muſt we then be ſo bold as to charge him who is of purer eyes, then to behold iniquity, to be in any ſort the cauſe thereof, becauſe he doth not uphold us againſt it?
9. Doubt. If God doe not onely paſſe by men, but predamne them to Hell alſo by this his decree (as you ſhewed in the reſolution of the laſt Doubt) how can his juſtice be cleared, ſeeing man had then not actually ſinned?
Reſol. Men ſin in〈◊〉, not from eternity: yet are their ſins from eternity, and to eternity with God. For with him things are not paſt, preſent, and to come, as with us, but alwayes preſent, in one infinite moment. And therefore the Lord who ſeath all the ſins of a reprobate by one pure, individuall act, from, and to all eternity, may as well piſſe an act of damnation againſt them,〈◊〉they were actually committed.
10. Doubt. Might not God as well damne men in a capacity of holineſſe, as thus to leave them to ſin, and then condemne them for it?
Reſol. It is a curious and unprofitable queſtion, to diſpute whether he might not without wrong to the Creature, have done ſo: Perhaps Rom. 9, 20, 21, 22. will prove9 he might, but ſuch a caſe never did, not will fall out: However to our capacity, the juſtneſſe of God ſhould not ſhine ſo perſpicuouſly, if he ſhould damne a Creature that never ſinned; for then ſhould he inflict undeſerved puniſhment, whereas in the courſe he now takes, he onely denyeth undeſerved ſavours, and layeth on them deſerved penalties.
11. Doubt. But if Gods decree binde not men to a neceſſity of ſinning, how came ſin into the World, ſeeing Men and Angels were made holy, and the whole Creation is by GOD himſelfe pronounced goodnnGen. 1.31?
Reſol. GODS decree doth no otherwiſe bind man to a neceſſity of ſinning, then the withdrawing of the upholding hand from a ſtaffe reared up, binds it to a neceſſity of falling; Viz, in a privative way. I ſhewed before, that ſin is only privative; that is, a defect of ſome thing required, as darkneſſe is nothing elſe but a defect of light: and theſe privations doe not neceſſarily require cauſes, or creation; light was indeed createdooGen. 2.3., but darkneſſe was before on the face of the deepeppVerſ. 2.. Now though God made Angels and Men holy, he made them not Gods, that they ſhould ſtand of themſelves without his help, which when10 he withheld from man, and ſome of the Angels, they faltered in their obedience, and ſo became ſinfull.
CHAP. IV. Of Providence.
12. Doubt. HOw can God by his providence diſpoſe of ſecond cauſes that things can come to paſſe contingently, freely, or miraculouſly, when he hath fore-ordained how they ſhall be in his immutable will?
Reſol. There is a twofold neceſſity. 1. In Gods decree, ſo all things that are, fall out neceſſarily and cannot be otherwiſe, 2. In Naturall cauſes, ſo fire neceſſarily burnes, water neceſſarily wets &c. Now to us things are ſaid to fall out neceſſarily, when we apprehend a ſufficient next cauſe. But this ſometimes is not, ſometimes appeares not before the effect, from whence the notions [Contingent free, miraculous] have their riſe.
As for example.
When an Infant is formed in the wombe, though in reſpect of Gods decree, it is neceſſarily a male, or neceſſarily a female, and11 ſo in time will prove: Yet to us from whom the next cauſe of this diſtinction in the womb is hid, it is contingent whether it be Male or Female.
13. Doubt. How can God ſtrengthen and governe all Creatures in their actings, and be free from ſinne, ſeeing many actions are ſinfull?
Reſol. You muſt diſtinguiſh betwixt the action, and the evill in it; ſome ſins are actuall, but none actions. Therefore as a skilfull Minſtrell playing on a jarring Inſtrument cauſeth it to ſound, but its owne badneſſe cauſeth it to ſound jarringly: So God cauſeth us to act, but that we act ſinfully, the cauſe is in our ſelves. To kill a man is not ſimply evill, ſometimes it is not onely lawfull, but a dutyaaJer. 48.10.; but killing a man upon ſuch tearmes, without a juſt cauſe or call. Sin lyeth in the morall circumſtances, not the phyſicall ſubſtance of the action.
14. Doubt. If God be perfectly glorious, how can he glorifie himſelfe in the workes of his providence, ſeeing nothing can be added to that which is perfect?
Reſol. We may conſider the glory of God theſe two wayes.
1. As it is eſſentiall to him, and ſo it is ineffably perfect.
122. As it is revealed to us, and this becauſe of our weakneſſe, is onely in part, and by degrees. A Moſes can but view the back partsbbExod. 33 23.; a Paul but ſee in partcc1 Cor. 13 9, 10., and darkly as in a glaſſeddIbid. ver. 12.: And GOD is ſayd to glorifie himſelfe, when by the great works of his providence, he lets us ſee further into his glorious attributes.
15. Doubt. If the providence of God offer to men occaſions to ſin, how is God free from the iniquity committed by reaſon thereof?
Reſol. As a King that executeth juſtice, though he know ſome wicked fellowes will thereat, take occaſion to be Traytours to him, is not to be blamed: So GODS workes being holy, though wicked men abuſe them through their owne perverſneſſe, and make them occaſions to ſin, he is not unrighteous, but puniſheth them in juſt judgement, ſuffering them to fall by their owne folly.
16. Doubt. When GOD by his providence makes wicked men ſcourges to his people, how can they be blamed for doing what GOD would have done?
Reſol. Though wicked men can doe nothing to the people of GOD, but what he gives way toeePſal. 124.6. Pſal. 129.1, 2.3. Acts 4, 27, 28.: Yet foraimuch as they indeavour to exceed their CommiſſionffPſal. 83.4 Iſa. 37.27, 28, 29, 33.,13 and aime not at Gods glory, but their owne endsggIſa. 10.6, 7, &c., ſhewing hoſtility and not pitty to Gods peoplehhPſ, 137.7. Lam. 2.17.; they ſhall anſwer for their ambitious maliceiiIſa. 10.12; though God by his wiſedome will cauſe the wrath of man to praiſe him, and the remainder of wrath he will reſtrainekkPſ. 76.10..
CHAP. V. Concerning the fall of Man.
17. Doubt. HOw could taſting the forbidden fruit bee ſo great an offence, as to deſerve damnation?
Reſol. Some give this reaſon, that this act of our Parents, was a breach of each of Gods Commandements in particular, and indeavour to make it appeare by an induction, though for mine owne part, I think it holds in ſome, not in all, but this I deſire to ſpeak with modeſty and ſubmiſſion: However it cannot be denyed, but the breach of the leaſt of Gods Commandements maketh us guilt of allaaJames 2 10.: And the violation of his Law, who is infinite, deſerveth infinite puniſhment, which becauſe it cannot be in extent (we being finite)14 muſt be in duration. Nor doth the ſmall value of the fruit abate any thing, but rather aggravate it, for (as Maſter Byfield ſayth well) their ſin was greater, that upon ſo ſmall an advantage would adventure eternall happineſſe.
18. Doubt. But how comes it to paſſe, that Adams fault and puniſhment is derived to his whole poſterity?
Reſol. Adam ſtood in Covenant with God as Man, not as a Man; that is, as a publique, not a private perſon: and therefore as he received the Covenant of works, and for a time ſtood by it for himſelfe and all mankind, ſo for himſelfe and all mankinde he fell from itbbRom. 5.12. to 20. 1 Cor. 15.22..
19. Doubt. Would it not have made more for GODS glory to have kept men from ſin, to ſerve him in holineſſe?
Reſol. No: For by this meanes man is a fit object for the rich mercy or juſt judgement of God, which by occaſion hereof GOD manifeſteth to his owne glory.
20. Doubt. Some affirme that ſin diſhonoureth God, other ſay he cannot be diſhonoured; whether of theſe is true Doctrine?
Reſol. They may both be true in a different ſenſe; for the word (diſhonour) may be taken two wayes:
151. To degrade or make one unhonourable, that before was honourable; but in this ſenſe it is rarely (if at all) found in Scripture.
2. To diſreſpect ot ſl•ight one that is honourable, and ſtill remaines worthy to be honoured: In the former ſenſe God cannot be diſhonoured, but in the latter hee mayccMal. 1. •Rom. 2.2; even as Children by their diſobedience doe not render their Parents diſhonourableddMat. 1 4, 5, 6,, but diſhonouredeeMic. 7..
21. Doubt. How can men in juſtice become lyable to eternall puniſhment for ſin committed in time, and it may bee in a ſhort time?
Reſol. 1. They are committed againſt an eternall God, and therefore are alwayes (as it were) in committing before, and againſt him.
2. If men might live eternally, they would ſin eternally; and God puniſheth according to the rebellion of their wils.
3. Though puniſhed in Hell, thay ſtill retaine their enmity againſt God, and therefore juſtly is their penalty continued.
CHAP. VI. Of the Law of God, and of the two Covenants.
22. Doubt. IF the Covenant of workes be for ſubſtance comprehended in the ten Commandements, how can Chriſtians which are free from the Law be bound to obſerve them?
Reſol. The Law of the Ten Commandements containeth the matter of the Covenant of workes, but is not the Covenant formally, any more then the Copy of a Leaſe written by a private hand,Simile, having never been ſealed and delivered according to Law, is the Leaſe it ſelfe: The matter of the Covenant without the forme, cannot ſufficiently conſtitute it. Now the forme of the Covenant of workes is the condition whereupon the duty is undertaken: Viz. Doe this and live; Life is promiſed upon perfect obedience, damnation threatned upon the leaſt diſobedience. The Goſpell indeed requireth the ſame things, but not upon the ſame tearmes, for whereas the ſame Covenant of workes ſaith, Doe this and live, the Goſpell ſaith, Live and do this. 17Chriſt hath freed us from the Law, as it is a compeller and condemner, but not as it is a directory, or (to ſpeake properly) we are freed from the Covenant of workes as it is ſuch, but not from the things therein contained: even as a Servant which obeyed his Maſter out of ſlaviſh feare, or for wages, if his Maſter adopt him, and make him his heyre, though he ſtill be bound to doe the ſame things, yet foraſmuch as he acteth from different Principles, Viz. of love, thankfulneſſe, and〈◊〉reverence, he is perfectly free from that Covenant which (as a Servant) he made with his Maſter. In like manner the adopted Sonnes of God, (though they are to act the ſame things that the Law of works required) yet in as much as they doe them not to be juſtified and live, but becauſe they are juſtified, and doe live; nor are bound to them under the penalty of revenging wrath, but fatherly chaſtiſement) are perfectly ſet at liberty from the Covenant of workes.
23. Doubt. If the Covenant on Mount Sinai was a Covenant of grace (as it muſt needs be, becauſe in it was forgiveneſſe of ſins) How can Chriſt be ſayd to be a Mediator of a better Covenant then Moſes? better and worſe ſeeme to intimate there be two Covenants of grace.
18Reſol. They are not called better and worſe in reſpect of the matter or ſubſtance of them, but in the manner of diſpenſation. When we compare two Bookes of the ſame nature together (as ſuppoſe they treat of Grammar, Logick, or Phyloſophy) the one treating in a prolix, darke, and confuſed manner, the other in a briefe, methodicall, and plaine way, and ſay this is better then that, we doe not meane that the ſubject matter of the one is better then the other, but onely the excellency is in the method and expreſſion. So when the Covenant of Grace, as it is handed to us by Chriſt, is preſerred before the ſame, as it is ſet forth by Moſes in types and ſhedowes, we muſt underſtand it of the perſpicuity and compendiouſneſſe of the adminiſtration, together with the freedome from burdenſome Ceremonies, not of the Covenant it ſelfe, for that is one and the ſame to them and usaa1 Cor. 10 1, 2, 3, 4..
24. Doubt. How can the Jewes Covenant and ours, be all one, when as in theirs, forgiveneſſe was not for every ſin (namely, not for preſumptuouſneſſebbNum. 15.30., nor uncircumciſionccGen. 17.14.) nor of all their ſin at once, but by degrees ſucceſſively, for when they had offered Sacrifice for one tranſgreſſion, they lay under the next till19 Sacrifice was againe offered: But Chriſt hath at once payd a full price, and acquitted us from all our ſins?
Reſol. With reverence to the learned Author from whom this doubt ariſeth, I beleeve it is a great miſtake to ſay, the Jewes Covenant had not remi2ſion of all ſins. That the preſumptuous ſinner and uncircumciſed perſon muſt be cut off, the places forequoted prove, but this cutting off was excommunication, or a loſſe of their part in the externall Covenant of God, till the one repented, the other became circumciſed, and cannot be underſtood of an unpardonable condition, for that either uncircumciſion, or preſumption (eſpecially this ſort of preſumption in the Text alleadged, being oppoſed onely to ignorance) was unpardonable, and therefore all damned that were defiled with them (as it muſt needs follow) is not onely unproved, but diſproved by ScriptureddJoſ. 5.2, 3, 4, &c. Rom. 2.26. 2 Sam. 12.13. 2 Chro. 33.10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16.. Nor is there any more force in that which is alleadged concerning the graduality of forgiveneſſe, for the Sacrifices did not of themſelves make the attonement, but as Ordinances typifying Chriſt they did (as it were) Sacramentally apply and ſeale the pardon of ſin to the conſcience, as they ſhould from time to time offend and20 ſtand in need of pardon; but that Chriſt did at once beare the ſins of Beleevers, as well Jewes before his comming, as Gentiles ſince, is plaine by that clauſe ſo much ſtood upon by the reverend Author, The Lord hath layd on him the iniquity of us alleeIſa. 53.6., and many other placesffRev. 13.8 Gal. 4.4, 5. Iſa. 53.5..
25. Doubt. How could the Covenant on Sinai be a Covenant of grace, ſeeing the Apoſtle calls it a killing Letter, and a miniſtration of death and condemnationgg2 Cor. 3.6, 7, 9.?
Reſol. I conceive the Apoſtles meaning was not that the whole Covenant on Sinai beginning, Exod. 20. and ending with Levit. 26. was a killing letter, &c. For the Sacrifices and Ceremonies typifyed Chriſt, and ſealed forgiveneſſe of ſins, and reconciliation to God**If you obſerve this diſtinction, you may eaſily anſwer to all arguments built upon any other Scripture, which ſeems to aſſert that the Jewes lived under a Covenant of workes.. But Moſes is there to be conſidered, as he was the Miniſter of the Decalogue, or ten Commandements, without reſpect had to the Types and Ordinances whereby Chriſt was ſignified; and that this is not my private opinion, but the ſenſe of the place, may appeare by two reaſons.
1. We are told (Verſ. 7.) that this miniſtration of death was engraven on ſtones, but onely the ten Commandements were ſo engravenhhExo. 34.1.28.; therefore he onely meaneth them.
212. The Apoſtle here ſpeaks of a miniſtration about which Moſes was imployed when his face ſhoneii2 Cor. 3.7.13.: But this glory was vouchſafed him when he received the ten Commandements alonekkExo. 34.28, 29, 30., therefore them onely he meaneth; and to ſpeak the truth, the Contents of the two Tables being received alone, as Moſes brought them down in his hands, not as in ſubordination to Chriſt the Mediator, but as a ſervant of God the Creator, proclaiming his exact and rigid Law, muſt needs be a Covenant of workes; though the ſame being received in ſubordination to Chriſt (which was truly (though more dimly) held forth in theſe Ceremoniall obſervances) hinders not, but that Iſrael lived under a Covenant of grace.
26. Doubt. When the Apoſtle blameth the Galatians for revolting from the Goſpell to the Law, what Law meaneth he, the morall or Ceremoniall?
Reſol. With ſubmiſſion to better judgements, I beleeve he meanes the whole Covenant on Sinai containing both the Morall and Ceremoniall Law, which was a Covenant of grace, when Morall duties were preſſed in ſubordination and obedience to Chriſt the King of the Church, and22 Ceremoniall, as typifying him to come: But when their imperfect obedience of the morall LawllGal. 3.10, 11, 12, 18. & 4.21., and rotten Ceremonies long before aboliſhedmmGal. 4.9.10. & 5.6., were cryed up, and reſted in for juſtification and life eternall, they became an unſupportable yok of bondagennGal. 5.1, 3 Acts 15.10, binding men under a Covenant of worksooGal. 5.3., and making the death of Chriſt (as to them) of none effectppGal. 2.21. & 5.2..
CHAP. VII. Of Chriſt the Mediator.
27. Doubt. HOW could Chriſt be ſent by his Father, and yet be equall to him, ſeeing the Scripture ſaith, He is greater that ſends, then he which is ſent?
Reſol. Chriſt as God is equall to his Father, but as Mediator (in which capacity, he was ſent) an inferiour to himaaPhil. 2, 6, 7..
28. Doubt. If Chriſt payd a full price to his Father for the redemption of mankind, how can the ſalvation of the Elect be attributed to the grace of God?
Reſol. Had it not been for the grace and mercy of God, Chriſt had not been beſtowed23 on usbbJoh. 3.16; nor needed God to have given way that Chriſt ſhould be ſurety for us, though he had been moved to that end, although when God had accepted him as ſurety, and layd the whole debt upon him, till he was fully ſatisfied; he is bound in faithfulneſſe and juſtice it ſelfe to forgive us our ſinscc1 Joh. 1.9. A creditor needs not to take a Surety for a debt already due, unleſſe himſelfe pleaſe, and if he doe, it is a curteſie to the Debtor (for if he will he may lay him by it, till he pay or rot) yet if he doe accept of a Surety, and lay the debt upon him, and be accordingly payd and ſatisfied, he cannot require it again, but is bound in juſtice, Law, and conſcience to acquit the principall: In like manner, God without wrong to mankinde might have bound them over to eternall puniſhment in their owne perſons, without accepting any other to be bound for them; but having accepted of Chriſt to enter bond with them, and received the whole ſumme from him, acknowledging the receit thereof under his owne hand and ſeale, he cannot in righteouſneſſe charge it againe upon us.
29. Doubt. If Chriſt have fully ſatisfied his Fathers juſtice for the Elect, ſo that all (and onely) they that are in Chriſt have their24 ſins pardoned, how can any man aske for giveneſſe of ſins? If they be in Chriſt it ſeems to be ſuperfluous, if not, ſinfull; for whatſoever one that is out of Chriſt doth is ſinfull.
Reſol. Whether men be in Chriſt or no, they ought to pray for pardon of ſinddMat. 6.12 Luke 11.4. Acts 8.22.: for although thoſe which are in Chriſt be free from damnation, yet not from correction for their failingscc2 Sam. 12 14 Pſal. 89.30, 31, 32, 33, 34.. And therefore have cauſe to pray that God would neither hide his face from them, nor afflict them for it. And though a man be in the ſtate of nature, yet prayer being an Ordinance of God, and a duty incumbent to every oneffPſal. 79.6 Jer. 10.25., in the uſe whereof God is pleaſed to let forth himſelfe and vouchſafe a diſcovery of ChriſtggActs 10.30., every one ſhould beware of ſleighting it; for although the prayer of a wicked perſon be ſinfull, and therefore may be thought unprofitable, ſo is their hearing of the Word without FaithhhHeb. 4.3., and yet they muſt heare that they may have FaithiiRom. 10.14, &c.: Yes its generally ſayd, whatſoever is not of Faith is ſinkkRom. 14.23.; and without Faith it is impoſſible to pleaſe GodllHeb. 11.6,, inſomuch that the plowing of the wicked is iniquitymmPro. 23.4. And yet I doe not thinke any man holdeth that faithleſſe men are to forbeare every thing, and wicked men plowing. No more muſt25 naturall men forbeare praying, becauſe they cannot pray as they ought, but rather be more ſerious and frequent that God in his owne Ordinance may meet with them, and work upon their hearts effectually.
30. Doubt. I can eaſily grant that we may pray for aſſurance of pardon, but for the pardon it ſelfe we may not, becauſe every Elect perſon (and reprobates are excluded from pardon) hath all his ſinnes paſt, preſent, and to come, layd upon Chriſt: And therefore though be be in the height of his ſinnes, he ſtands in no more need of pardon then a Saint in Heaven: Hence it is, that ſome Goſpell-Preachers of theſe dayes expound [forgive us our debts or ſins] to ſignifie no more but [manifeſt to us that our fins are forgiven us] And when David begs pardon of ſinne, it was either becauſe he lived under an imperfect Covenant, wherein remiſſion was obtained ſucceſſively, as ſacrifice was offered; or elſe he was under a temptation, as in another caſe, when be charged GOD to have forgotten to be graciousnnPſal. 77.7, &c.?
Reſol. Thoſe which make this objection doe ordinarily diſtinguiſh (in the pardon of ſin) betwixt Gods decree to forgive, and the manifeſtation hereof; but they26 leave out a third thing, without which the enumeration is imperfect, to wit the execution of this decree; from want whereof, all theſe miſtakes ariſe: For the actuall pardoning of ſin conſiſts neither in the decree nor manifeſtation of pardon, but it is a thing diſtinct from them both, following the one, and leading the other in the order of nature and time.
For when a Malefactor is condemned, and his Soveraigne purpoſeth in his heart to pardon him, this intention of his (ſuppoſe it be unalterable) is but a purpoſe to pardon, not to pardon formally; nor yet though the manifeſtation thereof be added, except it be in a judiciall way, for though it be never ſo well knowne that the King intends to forgive him, yet he is not forgiven till his pardon be ſealed, and confirmed according to Law: and then his aſſurance and ſelfe ſatisfaction ariſeth from the ſight or knowledge thereof. In like manner, though God hath choſen the Elect before the World was, that they ſhould receive in Chriſt the forgiveneſſe of ſins, and this his decree unalterable (and as to God before whom all things are preſent) they are already pardoned, in the ſame manner that Chriſt is called the Lambe ſlaine from27 the beginning of the World for the certainty and efficacy thereof, though he was actually put to death till the fulneſſe of time, yet (as to them) the pardon hath not actuall exiſtence, till God give them Faith in Chriſt, whereby they receive the actonement; but till they beleeve, they want not onely the aſſurance of forgiveneſſe, but forgiveneſſe it ſelfe, for they are Children of wrathooJoh. 3.36 Eph. 2.3., and condemned perſonsppJoh. 3.19. This conſidered, I cannot but greatly wonder, that any learned man ſhould without warrant of Scripture, and againſt the ſtreame of Commentators, expound [forgive] to ſignifie [declare forgiveneſſe] (a thing vaſtly different, though ſubordinate to it) upon one ſlender reaſon, not to be owned by ſuch a man. For what though a man ought to pray in Faith, and this Faith demonſtrates that our ſins are already pardoned; (which is the ſtrength of the reaſon brought) ſeeing I have proved beforeqqDoubt. 30. anſwered., that a Beleever is not free from correction, though from condemnation be is. As for David I have beforerrIn the Reſolution of the 25. Doubt. overthrowne the pretended difference between the Covenant of Crace under which he lived, and that whereunder we live: Nor can I think that he was under any temptation when he writ28 the 25. and 51. Pſalmes, in which he frequently beggeth pardon: I readily grant that ſome paſſages of the 77. Pſalme, were ſpoken in ſuch a temper, for himſelfe tells us ſoſſVerſ. 10.: but that any thing in theſe PſalmettViz. 25. & 51. was ſo ſpoken, is impoſſible to be proved, either by themſelves or any other Scripture, which is a ſtrong argument to me that he was himſelfe, and did not perſonate a Beleever in his ſinfull doubtings, when he ſpoke thus; eſpecially conſidering that he ſeldome or never leaves any Errour on record without ſome daſh or brand to know it by: And therefore till ſome man ſhew me as good ground to prove him under a temptation when he asked forgiveneſſe, as when he ſayd, God had forſaken him; I ſee no reaſon why the places ſhould be parallel'd, and the one expounded by the other.
CHAP. VIII. Of Free-will.
31. Doubt. HOw can any be ſaid to have Free-will, whereas naturall men are taken captive by Satan at his willaa2 Tim. 2.26., and thoſe which come to Chriſt are drawne by the FatherbbJoh. 6.44?
29Reſol. The will of man may be depraved by corruption, or regulated by grace; but deſtroyed or violently forced by neither: One may be ſo powerfully perſwaded by reaſons and importunity that he cannot ſay nay, and yet not neceſſitated to yeild or deny, but acteth freely: So in the will of man, though corruption be ſo forcible and prevalent in its inſtigations in the unregenerate, that they cannot but will and act iniquity, yet is not the will violently hurried and dragged (like a Beare to the ſtake, as we ſay) but complyingly, as when a blind man is led by another; and when as grace acts the will, it doth not take it priſoner, or carry it headlong, but perſwades it; for when Chriſt draweth, his people become willingccPſal. 110.3., and run after himddCan. 1.4..
32. Doubt. Let mee underſtand you thorowly; Doe you meane that man ſince the fall hath Free will to good or evill, ſo that he wants no power, but will onely, to beleeve and repent?
Reſol. By no meanes, no more then a mad, or poſſeſſed man can diſpoſe of his owne ſtrength for his owne good: For though I hold that the will of man is not loſt, nor abſolutely determined this way,30 or that, by any inevitable neceſſity in cauſes purely naturally, yet withall I aſſerted, that by the fall of man, the will is wholly depraved, and as long as corruption is the guide, it muſt needs act corruptly, and not otherwiſe. To make this plaine, conſider one of the Simile's I uſed concerning a blind man led by another: You know a blind man followeth his leader freely (that is, he is not haled or dragged away forcibly) which notwithſtanding I hope no man will ſay, that a blind man which relyeth wholly on the guidance of his leader, can goe whither he will, and eſcape all dangerous places of himſelfe, but according to his guide ſo is his going. So the will of man acts freely, but it ſeeth not by its owne eyes, but is guided by the underſtanding, which becauſe of corruption is a falſe guide to it; and therefore untill God by his ſpirit ſanctifie the underſtanding, to be a faithfull guide to the will, it muſt needs act perverſly, though freely.
33. Doubt. If a man in his naturall condition cannot doe good or evill as himſelfe willeth, why is he blamed for it, or exhorted to amend?
Reſol. If a man by his owne unthriftineſſe make away his eſtate, is he not ſtill31 ſuable for his debts, though unable to pay them? And when God gave us ability to doe his will, and we loſt it through our owne default, are we not ſtill debtors to his juſtice? May not he blame us for making oure ſelves uncapable? And whereas the Scripture calleth on us for amendment, it is to convince us of our wants and inſufficiencie, that we may the more ſeriouſly ſeek to him, that hath promiſed to eaſe and heale them. The Prophet bids us make our ſelves new heartseeEzek. 18 31., and yet David deſires God to doe itffPſal. 51.10.: So then it muſt be our aime, but Gods actggRom. 9.16..
CHAP. IX Of Calling, Juſtification, Adoption, Sanctification, Faith, Repentance, and good Workes.
34. Doubt. IF God love his people when they are in their blood (i. e. in the height of their ſinne) what need they to be called juſtified, adopted, and ſanctified? For if God love them he will ever love them, and therefore they muſt needs be ſaved, though they were never called, &c.
32Reſol. I might aske you a like queſtion; If God loved the WorldaaJoh. 3.16, why ſhould he give his Son for it, ſeeing whom he once loveth he ever loveth? The truth is, the LORD loveth his Elect whileſt they are finners, but not as they are ſinners. A man may like a piece of Land, which as yet brings forth nothing but thornes and bryers, not becauſe ſuch, or that of it ſelfe it will grow better, but that by his owne worke he can make it fruitfull: So God loveth an Elect ſinner, but it is with reſpect to his owne graces in time to be planted in thembbEph. 1.4. & 2.10.: And therefore it is neceſſary that thoſe which God from eternity loves, be in time called by the Word and Spirit (except ſuch as are incapable) they being created in Chriſt Jeſus unto good workes, &c.ccSee the Scripture laſt cited..
35. Doubt. If we be juſtified freelyddRom. 32.4., how can God have reſpect to Faith, in juſtifying us?
Reſol. As a hand receiving a gift, hinders not but the gift may be free, though perhaps ſuch a thing as cannot be received without a hand to take it; even ſo Chriſt for our juſtification is freely beſtowed on us, though we cannot poſſibly receive him without Faith, howſoever he may be tendered33 to us. But that all cauſe of objection againſt the freeneſſe of this worke on Gods part, may be abundantly removed, even Faith it ſelfe (the hand which receiveth Chriſt and all his benefitseeJoh. 1.12.) is freely given usffEph. 2.8..
36. Doubt. What need we ſanctification, repentance, or good workes, if we be juſtified by Faith aloneggRom. 3.28?
Reſol. Faith which juſtifieth is not alone, though Faith alone juſtifie (instrumentally I meane, elſe it is God that juſtifiethhhRom. 8.33) for as the fruit-bearing tree is not without leaves, though the fruit ſoring not from the leaves, either by intervention or concurrence, but from the tree immediately: So a lively and juſtifying Faith purifieth the heartiiActs 15.9 from which ſanctification and good workes have their riſe. And therefore that Faith which in due time doth not ſhew it ſelfe in workes, is not a ſaving, but a dead FaithkkJam. 2.17 18, 19, 20; though they neither prevent, not aſſiſt Faith in the act of juſtification.
37. Doubt. If Chriſt and all his benefits belong to Beleevers, how can Heaven be conferred on perſons as a reward for their good workes?
Reſol. Heaven is not beſtowed on any by way of juſt recompence of his workes, for34 the beſt are unprofitable ServantsllLuke 17.10.; how then can their workes purchaſe Heaven? But God who can as well reward according to workes in mercymmPſal. 62.12.: as Juſtice doth abundantly repay them for all their paines and ſervice, by putting them in poſſeſſion of that Kingdome which he ever intended them, without reſpect had to the worth of their workes,Simile. or repentance. A Father at his death doth abundantly reward his Sonne for his obedience, when be gives him his Lands, although he had long before, out of meere Fatherly offection ſtated them on him: So God uſeth to reward thoſe that ſerve him with the ſame things which before he had freely promiſed them. Upon Abrahams obeying of God, and non-reſuſing to offer up his onely Son, God promiſed him a large reward; and this is, that he ſhall have a numerous and happy ſeed, wherein alſo all Nations ſhould be bleſſednnGen. 22.15, 16, 17, 18.: And yet that which is here bequeathed to Abraham, as a reward of his obedience, was before this time ſteated on him by free promiſeooGen. 12.2 & 15.5.. In the ſame manner and order God rewards his people for their obedience and ſervice to him done, when he beſtowes on them that heavenly Kingdome which hee purpoſed ſhould be their inheritance before the world was.
3538. Doubt. What need we to beleeve, ſeeingpp2 Tim. 2.13. GOD will be faithfull though we beleeve not?
Reſol. The Originall Word which is tranſlated [we beleeve notqq〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.] is not only ſuch a word as denotes the preſent timerr1 Viz. being the preſent tenſe., but alſo it, and another of affinity with itſſ〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉., are frequently uſed for the heſitations and ſtaggerings of the faithfull; and doth not import a privation of the habit of Fiath by infidelity (for that is damnablettMark 16.16. Joh. 3.36. Mat. 17, 20 Mark. 9.24 & 16.11, 14. Luke 24.11, 41.) But onely a negation (or rather a ſuſpending) of Faiths acting in ſome juncture of time, which the Text quoted in the Margent will ſufficiently cleare, eſpecially to him that is able to peruſe the Greeke Copy: And therefore I can ſee no more in the Text alleadged but only thus much; If we beleeve not, that is, if for the preſent (or ſometimes) we by reaſon of weakneſſe, diſcontinue or intermit actuall beleeving, not being able to hold to a conſtant courſe in acting Eaith on the promiſes of God, we muſt not meaſure God by our ſelves, as if he ſtarted aſide from us, as often as we from him, but will ſtill remaine faithfull, which if he ſhould not doe, it could be no leſſe to him, who by an excellency is called faithful, and is faithfulneſſe in the abſtract, then a denyall of himſelfe.
3639. Doubt. How can we be ſayd to have faith, and yet cannot worke miraclesuuMat. 17.20.?
Reſol. The ordinary anſwer is (as I take it) that Chriſt in the place cited, meaneth not Faith in the generall, much leſſe juſtifying Faith in ſpeciall, but a certaine ſort of Faith (ſpecifically different from the ſaving) whoſe adequate and was miracle-working, whereof he was then treating; which diſtinction other Scriptures will ſufficiently warrantwwMat. 7.22. 1 Cor. 13.2: But a learned man of theſe dayes hath a more ſubtile notion, which is, that Faith is a reſting on a promiſe, without which it is not Faith, but preſumption: And ſo the ſenſe is, that whatſoever God promiſeth, we may beleeve and hope for, and accordingly will the iſſue be, how difficult ſoever it appeare.
40. Doubt. If the perſons and actions of Beleevers be not perfectly free from ſinne, how can either of them be accepted with God, which bates and abborres it?
Reſol. God indeed hates and abhors the ſins of the Elect, yet their ſins being layd upon Chriſt, nothing hinders why their perſons and actions may not be accepted through him.
41. Doubt. If no ſin can be ſo great, but upon repentance it may be pardoned, how comes37 the ſinne againſt the holy Ghoſt to he unpardonable?
Reſol. No ſin for the matter of it can be ſo great but it may be pardoned, but that wicked action, which conſidered ſimply, might be forgiven, may through the concurrence of aggravating circumſtances become unpardonable. Two men may be guilty of the ſame kind of tranſgreſſion (if reſpect be had only to the materiality of it) and yet the one ſin againſt the holy Ghoſt, the other not. Paul blaſphemed and was forgivenxx1 Tim. 1.13., the Scribes and Phariſees blaſphemed and could never be forgivenyyMat. 12.24, 31, 32. Mark 3, 22 28, 29., for he did it of ignorance, they out of ſpite and malice: So that as bad an act may be forgiven, as forgiveneſſe is denyed to: But the maine reaſon why this ſin where it is found cannot be pardoned, is, that they being convinced of the truth, and yet ſtill reſiſting it, are given up to deluſions to beleeve lyeszz2 Theſ. 2.10, 11, 12. Simile. , and ſo goe on to damnation. For as a wound which would be found curable enough, if good Salve were in due time applyed thereto, may be the death of the man, if he be diſtracted and will ſuffer nothing to be layd to it; ſo though no tranſgreſſion can be ſo vile as to be ſimply unpardonable, yet if it be accompanied with ſuch circumſtances,38 that impenitency muſt needs follow (as here it alwayes doth) it can never be forgiven. Deering on Heb. p. ult.But on the other ſide (as ſaith learned Maſter Deering) he that carefully repenteth and trembleth at the thought of this ſin, is farre from it is the Eaſt is from the Weſt.
CHAP. X. Of Perſeverance, and Aſſurance.
42. Doubt. IS it not a ready courſe to make men careleſſe of their wayes, when they are taught they can never fall away from grace?
Reſol. No, but rather a great encouragement to be diligentaa1 Pet. 1.5 13. 2 Pet. 1.10, for he that would not ſerve God out of love, though he noching benefited himſelfe thereby, is not yet in the ſtate of grace, and then what have ſuch to doe with perſeverance? But he that is truely godly, finding himſelfe to be delivered from his enemies, will ſerve him without feare, in holineſſe and righteouſneſſe before him all the dayes of his lifebbLuke 1.74, 75.; and if he falter herein (though God will39 never utterly caſt him off) he will be offended and chaſtiſe him, with corporall and ſpirituall ſcourges.
43. Doubt. I have heard ſome in theſe dayes ſpeake much againſt trying a mans ſelſe by Scripture markes and ſignes, calling it a kindling of ſparkes of our owne, and I much deſire to know whether it be ſafe ſo to try my ſelfe?
Reſol. Under favour, it is (to ſay no worſe) a great miſtake, to call the worke of the ſpirit within us (or any arguments drawne from thence according to the teſtimony of the Spirit and word of Grace) ſparkes of our kindling, for they are ſparkes of Gods kindling; this ſort of teaching being a Scripturall teachingcc2 Cor. 13.5. 1 Joh. 3.14 Jam. 3.17., and (if rightly uſed) may be of ſingular uſe and comfort; for they are as way-markes, diſcovering to us, whither our courſes tend: And you know it is a great deal of ſatisfaction to a Traveller, that he is in his way, when he findeth ſuch a place of note, as his Map tels him he muſt paſſe thorow, before he arrive at his journeys end.
44. Doubt. Yet I underſtand not the right uſe of theſe notes, or tryals; and therefore I beſeech you proceed further?
Reſol. I ſhall goe on in my laſt compariſon,40 and ſhew you the rules. Suppoſe than a Chriſtian to be the Traveller, Heaven the place to which his way lyeth, & theſe notes or ſignes remarkables in the way: Then,
Firſt, As the remarkables (be they Hills, Rocks, &c,) muſt be ſo fully and truely deſcribed, that the Traveller may know when he comes at them, neither doubting of them, nor miſtaking other things for them. So whatſoever grace is pitcht upon, we muſt have diſtinct knowledge of it, what it is, and how diſcernable from counterfeits, before we can aſſuredly ſay we are come to it.
Secondly, A diligent Traveller comming to ſuch a place as aſſures him to be in his way, ſtayes not there, but goeth on towards his journeys end: No more muſt Chriſtians ſtay becauſe they find they have gone aright ſo farre, but proceed from ſtrength to ſtrength, and grow in grace.
Thirdly, A Traveller ſhould not diſpaire as if he were out of his way, though he find not his way-marke (which perhaps is a good diſtance off) as ſoone as he ſets out; but hope that although it yet appeareth not, or very dimly; yet in due time, hee ſhall perfectly diſcerne and recover it: So though one that deſires to feare God, and41 beleeve in him, doe not at firſt ſo clearely as he deſireth diſcerne ſome graces in himſelfe, he ſhould not diſpaire, but goe on hoping in the Lord till he be pleaſed to ſpeake peaceddPſa. 85.8 Iſa. 40.31. & 50.10..
Fourthly, If a Traveller have once attained to a cleare ſight of ſuch a remarkable place as afterward he looſeth the ſight of, by going through ſome valley (a mountaine interpoſed) he is ſtill to hope, and hold on, till he againe recover the ſight thereof: So though Chriſtians, which formerly have found the precious fruits of the ſpirit in themſelves, fall afterwards into temptation, or mountaines of difficulty ariſe, they are to remember how it hath been with them, hoping in God, and continuing in the uſe of meanes, till they recover their comfort againe.
45. Doubt. If men be dead in ſinne till they be regenerate, and alive ever after, what need is there of markes or ſignes? He that is alive, knowes that he lives, and a dead man can make no uſe of them.
Reſol. The compariſon halteth, for though the ſpirituall life and death in many things reſemble the naturall, in many things they differ; eſpecially concerning the matter in hand: It is almoſt a miracle42 of madneſſe, for a living man to think himſelfe dead; and yet in ordinary experience, we find many weake Chriſtians in whom there is the life of grace, which cannot for a long time be aſſured thereof: It is impoſſible that a dead man ſhould either know himſelfe to be dead, or thinke he is alive; but we read of diverſe ſpiritually dead that have ſo judged of themſelves, as Caine, Judas, and many in humane Stories**Read the Story of Spira., amongſt whom Julian the Apoſtate deſerves the firſt place, who having in a Battell received his deaths wound, belched out this deſperate blaſphemy, Viciſti Galilaee, meaning Chriſt as an enemy had vanquiſhed him. And too frequently to our griefe doe we meet with Hereticks, Hypocrites, Civilians, &c. which have deaths brand upon them, and yet are confident their caſe is as good as any mans; inſomuch that no arguments (without the ſpeciall aſſiſtance of Gods ſpirit) are ſufficient to convince them of the contrary.
2. Though life were eaſie to be perceived, yet growth is many times more difficult, and this Doctrine of tryall doth as well enquire into the growth, as truth, of gr•ce.
46. Doubt. How ſhould there be any certainty43 in trying a mans ſelfe by theſe notes, when an eminent Preacher of theſe dayes hath proved that neither univerſall obedience, nor love to the Brethren (which are accounted two of the plaineſt) have any certainty in them? Not the firſt, becauſe there is no ſuch thing in any meere man, as univerſall obedience: Nor the ſecond, becauſe this love hath ſuch qualifications as men ſhall hardly finde in themſelves**See 1 Cor 13. Ver. 4.5, &c.: Or if ſuch love can be found, yet we cannot know we love the Brethren, except we know that thoſe whom we love, are the Brethren; it is not ſufficient to love them under the notion of Brethren; for ſo Papiſts love one another — And therefore Love to the Brethren is rather a note to know others then our ſelves, for the Apoſtle doth not ſay, Hereby I know, but Hereby we know, &c.
Reſol. By univerſall obedience we doe not meane exact obedience to the Law in every part of it, without ſwerving or interruption, but unblamable walking in a Goſpelſenſe, which indeed is rather univerſall in will then act, for though When they would doe good, evill is preſent with themeeRom. 7.21., ſo that they doe not the good which they would, but the evill which they would notffVer. 19.; yet they delight in the Law of the Lord after the inward manggVer. 2•.. And this their obedience is called univerſall,44 in as much, as a Chriſtian doth not pick nor chooſe among Gods Commandements, but hath reſpect to them all without exception or difference, indeavouring to walke up to them, or as neare as may be: Now ſuch univerſall obedience as this muſt be in a ChriſtianhhJam. 2.10, and where it is, muſt needs be a good ſigne of an happy eſtateiiPſ. 119.6..
As for Love to the Brethren, methinke [1 John 3.14. ] is ſo plaine, that he which ſaith, we cannot know our condition hereby, doth directly give John (or rather the holy Ghoſt) the Lye: And what if love have ſuch qualifications as are ſpoken of, 1 Cor. 13. Cannot the tree be knowne, untill it beare fruit, it were abſurd arguing to ſay (in the ſeaſon when a plant is new ſet) this is no Apple-tree, becauſe we ſee no Apples on it. And when it appeares that we unfeignedly love the Brethren, in whom we apprehend the Image of God, ſhining in the graces of his ſpirit (not out of any byreſpect, but love to the God they ſerve) may we not conclude we love them, becauſe the fruits of this love doe not preſently appeare? Is it reaſon to ſay there is no love, becauſe it hath no fruits to our diſcerning, or rather to ſay here is love, and in Gods•ime we ſhall ſee fruits.
45Nor need we to know infallibly, that they are the Brethren whom we love; if they profeſſe and practiſe the true Religion, we are bound (till the contrary appeare) to take them for Brethren; and if we love them under that notion, though they be not ſuch, our humane judgement indeed is miſtaken, but our love is nevertheleſſe true: Charity hopeth all thingskk1 Cor. 13.7.: But what thinke you did the reverend Author meane, when he tels us, Papiſts love one another under the notion of Brethren? Doth he thinke it alone, to love him which (as farre as the judgement of man can reach) is a true Saint, and one which the Word of God proves to be an Idolater? Was it alone, to love Judas for his Maſters ſake, while he was undiſcovered, and to love a blaſphemous Scribe or Phariſee, under the notion of a Brother? The Papiſts wilfully ſhut their eyes againſt the truth, and therefore out of ſinfull ignorance, take thoſe to be the Brethren, which (for the preſent) neither ſo are, nor can be, and love them under a wilfully-miſtaken notion of Brethren: But we, according to the rules of love, modeſty, and prudence (neither condemning any without manifeſt cauſe, nor prying into Gods ſecrets, nor blindfolding46 our owne knowledge) take thoſe for Brethren, which for the preſent may be (and we hope are) the Brethren; and though we be miſtaken, it is no ſin of ours, who were never made the judges of the heart, but are to reſt ſatisfied in mens outward profeſſion and converſation: Nor can this be a ſigne to know others, and not our ſelves; for we cannot know whether others love the Brethren except we knew their hearts. And though it be not ſayd (1 John 3.14.) I know I am, &c. But We know we are, &c. That makes nothing againſt me, but rather for me: Had John ſpoken in the ſingular Number [I know] it might have been thought to be ſome ſpeciall perſons priviledge; but he ſaith [We] that is [you and I] writing to ordinary Chriſtians, as is very probable: And the ſame perſons are made the ſubjects al along; for ſaith he, We know that we are tranſlated from death to life, becauſe we love the Brethren. So that the ſame perſons that loved the Brethren, did thereby know that themſelves were tranſlated from death to life.
CHAP. XI. Of Chriſtian Liberty, and Liberty of Conſcience: ALSO, Of the civill Magistrate, and Churchcenſures.
47. Doubt. IF Chriſtians muſt not be the ſervants of menaa1 Cor. 7.23., how come Rulers to have any power over us?
Reſol. The meaning is not, that we muſt not ſerve men at all (for that would contradict the Verſes immediately ſore goingbb1 Cor. 7.20, 21, 22. and almoſt infinite other places) but doe not ſo ſerve men, that it hinder you in the ſervice of God.
48. Doubt. If every one muſt beare his owne burdenccGal. 6.5., and be judged according to his workesffRom. 2.6, why ſhould any man (Magiſtrate, or other) trouble or interrupt him, though he be hereticall or blaſphemous, but leave him to God, and his owne conſcience?
Reſol. The vileſt ſinner on earth may48 plead thus: But the truth is, that though the principall and ultimate judgement of every mans cauſe be left to Chriſt to be determined by him at the day of judgement: Yet God out of his ſingular wiſedome hath appointed, that open wickedneſſe (whether it be matter of opinion or practice) be judged and puniſhed alſo by Authority Eccleſiaſticall and Civill, and if either ſort neglect their duty herein, themſelves become culpableggNeh. 13.16, 17, 18. 1 Kin. 9.22 1 Cor. 5. tot. Rev. 2.14.15, 20..
49. Doubt. But what good is this reſtraint like to worke, but to make men either more violent, when they ſee their Tenet oppoſed, or elſe Hypocrites (if they be reſtrained) for God onely can change the heart?
Reſol. This alſo any notorious wretch may ſay for himſelfe; but truſt repoſed in men by God muſt be diſcharged, and the iſſue left to him.
50. Doubt. But if my conſcience be erronous, what courſe can I take? If I go againſt the truth, I ſinhh2 Theſ. 2.10., and if I goe againſt my conſcience I ſin alſoiiRom. 14. ult. 1 Cor, 8.7. &c.?
Reſol. It is true, and therefore the way is to pray and ſeeke for ſatisfaction, that your conſcience may comply and cloſe with the truth.
CHAP. XII. Of Religious Worſhip, and of the sabbath-day.
51. Doubt. TO what purpoſe ſhould Chriſtians pray for any thing, ſeeing God hath promiſed they ſhall want nothing? Can God forget his promiſe? Or needs he any remembrancer?
Reſol. Prayer is a duty incumbent to all men, eſpecially Chriſtians, and the way wherein God is pleaſed to make out ſuch promiſesaaMat. 7.7.; and therefore you muſt not thinke that Gods abſolute promiſes tye him to give ſuch and ſuch things, whether they will aske or nobbJam. 4.2., but that he will enable his people to pray, that they may receive the promiſed merciesccIſa. 51.9.? He having reſolved he will be ſought unto for the accompliſhment of his promiſesddEzek. 36.37..
52. Doubt. Some ſcruple the ſinging of Davids Pſalmes, ſaying they were onely penned for the preſent occaſion, and conceive that the Pſalmes mentioned in the New Teſtament were not Davids, but ſuch as men aſſiſted by the ſpirit50 of God, compoſed for the particular occaſionee1 Cor. 14.26.: But what thinke you of it?
Reſol. Though Davids Pſalmes were penned for the particular occaſion, yet the uſe of them ſtill remained, and ſome of them were ſung many Ages afterff2 Chron. 20.21. & 29.30., nor can it be proved that they ever ceaſed to be Gods Ordinance.
As for the New Teſtament, we often read the word [Pſalmes] therein, and for the moſt part in ſuch a ſenſe, that Davids Pſalmes muſt needs be thereby meantggLuke 20.42. Acts 1.20. & 13.33. Eph. 5.19. Col. 3.16. and elſewhere. , but never (to my remembrance) in the ſenſe you ſpeake of; for ſuch occaſionall compoſures are rather called Hymnes, or Spirituall ſongs, and diſtinguiſhed from PſalmshhEph. 5.19. Col. 3.16.. To that place you cite, Viz. 1 Cor. 14.26. I anſwer:
Firſt, The Apoſtle there ſpeakes of abuſes and d ſorders, and therefore it is hard thence to prove a duty: It is rough Logick to ſay, the Apoſtle reproves them that they had each of them a Pſalm; therefore Chriſtians muſt (or may) have each of them a Pſalme.
Secondly, Admit that Paul reproves them not for any faultineſſe in the matter of their worſhip, but the manner of performance (which I confeſſe is likely to be51 his meaning) our opinion may well ſtand with it; for he might well meane Davids Pſalmes, and ſo the ſenſe will be this, Every one chooſeth what Pſalme himſelfe pleaſeth, &c.
Thirdly, Suppoſe he meant any other kind of Pſalmes then Davids, yet he excludes not them, neither in this place, nor elſewhere.
Fourthly, If thoſe which had the extraordinary gifts of the ſpirit, to compoſe ſuch ſpirituall Songs, as aboveſayd, made leſſe uſe of Davids Pſalmes, by reaſon of their owne extraordinary abilities, it were no warrant to us, which pretend to no ſuch gifts, to neglect, ſuch excellent helpes as Davids Pſalmes are.
53. Doubt. How doe you know that this day which we celebrate, is the firſt day of the weeke which the Apoſtles kept, and is called the Lords day?
Reſol. As well as the Jewes in Chriſts time, that they kept the ſeventh, or you that you are baptized: We muſt not think our Anceſtors were ſo ſilly, that they could not count ſeven.
54. Doubt. I, but that is not all, let them account as well as they can, the time will vary much in the revolution of one thouſand,52 ſix hundred, forty eight yeares; and therefore how can this be ſayd to be the ſame, conſidering with all, that in Countreys farre diſtant it may he night in one, when it is day in another?
Reſol, I confeſſe, I am neither Aſtronomer, nor Geographer, nor doe I thinke we ſtand in need of ſuch Calculations: Let yeares revolve whither they can, the dayes of the week will ſtill follow one another in the ſame order they doe. The Jewes Sabbath was above twice as old as ours is, when Chriſt was on the Earth, and the courſe of the Sunne twice interrupted in the meane timeiiJoſ. 10.13 2 King. 20.11.: Yet Chriſt never reproved them for obſerving a wrong day, but he, and his, obſerved it, till it was changedkkLuke 23.56., which they would not have done, had there been any errour in the Jewes account. The diſtance of place (I confeſſe) may alter the time much, yet I verily beleeve that hee, which in all his travells (or whereſoever GOD placeth him) ſhall obſerve a day weekly, beginning with the firſt, and ſo holding on, keepes it ſeaſonably: And if this be not allowed, I ſee not how the Patriarcks in their Pilgrimages, or Proſelytes, which dwelt in all parts of the WorldllActs 2.9. & 8.27.; (to ſay nothing of the diſtance which ſome conceive, was between Canaan it ſelfe, and53 Paradiſe, where the Sabbath was inſtituted) could obſerve the ſeventh day Sabbath in its ſeaſon.
55. Doubt. Might we not, as Maſter Calvin wiſhed, appoint a part of each day, or as others think, any other day (ſo it be one in ſeven) in ſtead of the firſt day of the weeke, ſeeing that day is not poſitively ſet downe to be kept?
Reſol. Though I reverence Maſter Calvin as highly as any man that was alive this hundred yeares; yet I cannot comply with him nor any men elſe, in judging another time ſo fit for Gods ſervice, as that which by the Apoſtles themſelves was ſet apartmmAct. 20.7 1 Cor. 16.2, whoſe example (they being inſpired by the holy Ghoſt) may as well in this, as many other things ſupply the want of a preceptnnPhil. 3.17.
56. Doubt. How ſhould I know when to begin and conclude the Lords day?
Reſol. It it a great queſtion among Divines: For mine owne part (with ſubmiſſion) I thinke it begins at the dawning of the day, when Chriſt aroſeooMat. 28.1: I know it is ſayd (Gen. 1.) The evening and the morning; and not The morning and the evening; nor dare I ſay it is an Hiſtero proteron, for the often inculcating of it ſeemes to point54 at ſome Myſtery: But this I ſay, that though it be granted that the naturall day and particularly the Sabbath, containing foure and twenty houres, had its revolution from evening to evening; yet nothing hinders why the Chriſtian Sabbath may not be from morning to morning; for ſeeing the Lords day is kept in memory of Chriſts reſurrection, why ſhould it not as well begin at the houre and minuite, as be celebrated on the day that he roſe from the dead?
CHAP. XIII. Of Oathes.
57. Doubt. HOw can ſwearing by the Name of GOD be a ſinne, ſeeing it is not onely allowed, but commandedaaDeu. 6.13 & 10.20.?
Reſol. Swearing by the Name of GOD, ſo it be with reverence, and upon juſt ground, is not a ſin but a worſhip of God, tending to his honour, by making him the Judge of ſecrets, but ſwearing cuſtomarily, raſhly, and vainely, is a breach of the third55 Commandement; and the like may be ſayd of other worſhips: But the meaning of the places you cite, is this, When thou ſhalt be lawfully called to ſweare, thou ſhalt ſweare by none other but God alone; for to him that worſhip appertaineth.
58. Doubt. But how can theſe paſſages ſtand with flat prohibitions on the other ſide, SWEARE NOT AT ALLbbMat. 5.34, and ABOVE ALL THINGS MY BRETHREN SWEARE NOTccJam. 5.12?
Reſol. Very well, for the ſenſe is, Sweare not at all by the Creature; Not by Heaven, Earth, Jeruſalem, or thine head, ſaith ChriſtddMat. 9.34 &c.. Not by Heaven, Earth, or any other Oath, ſaith the Apoſtle JamesccJam. 5.12: The generall expreſſion, Sweare not at all, muſt be expounded by the particulars enumerated: Others ſay, the Scribes and Phariſees taught, It was lawfull to ſweare in their ordinary Communication, ſo they were not perjured, and Chriſt heads himſelfe againſt their Doctrine, forbidding ſwearing in ordinary courſe, to which James ſubſcribeth in the place quoted. Both expoſitions are agreeable to ſound doctrine though they cannot both be ſenſe of the places. But that Chriſt ſhould forbid all ſwearing, cannot be the ſenſe of it, for God56 himſelfe appointed an Oath to decide controverſies,Exod. 22.7 &c. 1 Kin. 8.31 Ezra 10.5. Nehe. 5.12 & 13.25. Iſa. 65.16. 2 Cor. 1.23 Heb. 6.16. 2 Cor. 11.31. which being neither typicall nor grounded on ſpeciall reaſon, peculiar to thoſe times, but of common equity, concerning us as well in the dayes of the Goſpell cannot be abrogated. Compare the Scriptures in the Margent.
CHAP. XIV. Of the Church, and Communion of Saints.
59. Doubt. WHethr is there ſuch a thing as an univerſall viſible Church?
Reſol. The Church wherein God hath ſet Apoſtles (1 Cor. 12.28. ) can be no other. Ʋniverſall it muſt needs be, becauſe comprehending univerſall Officers; and it can neither be the inviſible on Earth, nor the tryumphant; for Apoſtles (as ſuch) belong to neither of them (though as Saints they doe) for Judas was an ApoſtleaaMat. 10.2, 3, 4., but appertained neither to the inviſible Church on Earth, nor the tryumphant in HeavenbbJoh. 17.12. Acts 1.16..
5760 Doubt. How is it poſſible that Beleevers through the World ſhould hold Communion, when they are of ſo many different opinions?
Reſol. Diverſity of opinion is a great enemy to Communion, and therefore it ſhould be our deſire and endeavour to be all of one heart and judgementcc1 Cor. 1.10.: Yet it is poſſible, Communion may be held in the maine, amongſt thoſe which are not of one mind in all thingsddPhil. 3.15, 16..
CHAP. XV. Of the Sacraments.
61. Doubt. HOw can Infants be capable of Baptiſm, when the Scripture no where commands it, nor tels of any that were Baptized?
Reſol. Though the Scripture lay downe neither Precept nor Preſident in expreſſe tearmes; a Doctrine that may be proved by undenyable Scripture-conſequence may not be rejected. Chriſt overthrew the opinion of the Sadduces by ScriptureaaMat. 22.29, to 34., although he alleadged nothing expreſly againſt58 their errour, but onely by way of conſequence: Howbeit the confutation was ſo cleare, that the multitude underſtood, and admired it, his enemies were put to ſilence, and a freſh party prepared themſelves to give an onſet.
62. Doubt. Yet methinkes a matter of ſo great importance, and ſo much contended for, ſhould be proved by one place at leaſt of expreſſe Scripture?
Reſol. Though the leaſt part of Goſpell-truth is worthy to be contended for, ſo it be in love and modeſty; and the delay of Baptiſme without juſt cauſe, is a ſleighting of Gods gracious tender, yet the diſpute being onely concerning a circumſtance of time, we account it nothing ſo weighty as if it concerned the ſubſtance and eſſence of Baptiſme. Nevertheleſſe it cannot be denyed, but even weightier matter then Baptiſme it ſelfe are not to be found in expreſſe tearmes in the Scripture: The Myſtery concerning Trinity of Perſons, in Unity of Eſſence is no where read, Totidem verbis (as we ſay) in the Word of God, howbeit it is ſufficiently proved, 1 John 5.7. and no leſſe then blaſphemy to deny it: Neither is it ſaid in any place expreſly, that the holy Ghoſt is God, though undenyably proved,59 1 Cor. 3.16. Acts 5.3, 4. Or how doth it appeare that Women did, or ought to receive the Lords Supper? Or that the Son of a Beleever, being a growne perſon, was (or ought to be) Baptized, which notwithſtanding our oppoſers hold and practice: They muſt not anſwer me, that whole Families were baptized, among whom it is probable there were ſome ſuch; for it may be eaſily replyed, It is as probable, that in ſome of the Families mentioned, there was at leaſt one Infant, or perſon in minority, which if we ſhall ſuppoſe, ſeeing the whole Family was baptized, it muſt needs be baptized alſo, which they will in no wiſe grant, though it be the more probable of the two.
63. Doubt. I ſhall ſay nothing concerning the Trinity, or of the Deity of the holy Ghoſt (your ſelfe having proved them both ſufficiently, though (I confeſſe) onely by ſtrong conſequence, not in expreſſe tearmes, which I never before obſerved) but to me the Scripture is plaine enough, that Women may receive the Lords Supper, becauſe they may examine themſelvesbb1 Cor. 11 28., and we read of Women that have had Faith, Repentance, Knowledge, and Charity, as well as men: And as eaſie is it to prove, that a Beleevers Son (when himſelfe is a Beleever)60 muſt be baptized, ſeeing Faith makes capableccMark 16.16.; but I finde not the like proofe for Pedobaptiſme?
Reſol, Miſtake me not, I did not deny the things you plead for; onely I ſay they cannot be found in expreſſe tearmes, but muſt be made out by conſequence, and this you ſhall finde is equally ſtrong for Pedobaptiſme as for them, which (to ſatisfie your doubt) I ſhall briefly ſhew you in theſe few Arguments.
1. Argument.
Diſciples are to be Baptized, Beleevers Children are Diſciples: Ergo, They are to be Baptized.
That Diſciples are to be Baptized, no man can doubt, that underſtands, Matth. 28.19. which Scripture is moſt naturally rendred**〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.: Go, diſciple all Natinos, baptizing them, &c. And thoſe which deny the lawfulneſſe of Childrens baptiſme, doe not onely acknowledge this, but urge it much againſt us, as ſuppoſing that Infants cannot be Diſciples; And therefore all the ſtreſſe of the argument lyeth in the proofe61 of the Minor, which may be done thus. Peter blaming ſuch as urged Circumciſion, and obſervance of Moſes Law, hath this paſſageddActs 15.10., Why tempt yee God, to put a yoake on the neck of the Diſciples, &c. To the underſtanding whereof you muſt note, that the falſe Teachers taught the Brethren that they muſt be Circumciſed, becauſe of the Law of Moſes commanding iteeActs 15.1 (for no other Law could bind them to it) and this Law did not onely require that adult perſons, but that all their Males eight days old ſhould be circumciſedffGen. 17.12.. So that theſe Patrons of Circumciſion muſt needs lay this unſupportable yoak, as well on Beleevers Children, as Beleevers themſelves, and yet they are all called Diſciples; I conclude therfore, ſeeing Chriſt commands that Diſciples muſt be baptized, and Peter includeth Beleevers Children in the number of Diſciplet, Such Children are to be baptized.
2. Argument.
If Baptiſme be come into the roome of Circumciſion, Infants may be as capable of it, as they were of Circumciſion:
62But, Baptiſme is come in the room of Circumciſion:ggCol. 2.12 Therefore, &c.
3. Argument. —
64. Doubt. Stay a little, before you proceed to any other Argument, I deſire you would vindicate the aſſumption of the laſt, from juſt exceptions: How can Baptiſme be come in the place of Circumciſion? When firſt, they were both on foot together a long ſeaſon: Secondly, Males onely were Circumciſed, but Females are alſo baptized: Thirdly, Circumciſion muſt be adminiſtred ſtrictly on the eight day; but no ſuch rule is obſerved in baptizing Children: Fourthly, Circumciſion was to confirme Canaan, and certaine temporall bleſſings to Abraham, and his ſeedhhGen. 17.8, 9, 10., for ſuch was the Covenant of God with himiiGen. 17.4, &c. & 15 18, &c..
Reſol. To theſe your foure allegations I ſhall ſhape you out as many particular anſwers.
1. 1 Exception removed.They might be both on foot at once, and yet one ſucceed in the place of another. Solomon was anoynted King, his Father being yet alivekk1 King. 1 39, 43, 44, &c.; in like manner was Eleazar made Prieſt, before his Fathers deathllNum. 20.26.;63 yet who doubts but they were their Fathers ſucceſſours? Goſpell-Ordinances came in the roome of typicall CeremoniesmmJoh. 4.22 23, 24. Heb. 10.1., though they were in being at one timennAct 16.2. So Circumciſion was in being, but even expiring, when baptiſme was inſtituted.
2. 2 Exception taken away.Males onely were circumciſed becauſe they onely were capable, but Women were alſo included in the Covenant, for it was made to Abraham and his ſeed, whereof the Females were a very conſiderable part, and though they were not perſonally circumciſed (becauſe uncapable) they were not excluded from Circumciſion, but included in the Circumciſion of the Males. A Church or Family was accounted circumciſed, when the Males were circumciſed. The whole houſhold muſt eate the Paſchall LambeooExod. 12.3, 4., and yet no uncircumciſed perſon muſt eate thereofppVer. 48., ſurely then Women in Iſrael were not reputed uncircumciſed: But now for Baptiſme, Women are not onely virtually, and conſtructively, but actually, properly, perſonally, and formally capable thereof, as well as men: In a word, we read that Lydia (a Female) was baptizedqqActs 16.15.; and that an Infant may be, it hath been (and by Gods help ſhall be ſurther) proved: and then why not a Female Infant?
643. 3 Exception taken of.Whatſoever in the time of the Law was not eſtabliſhed on ſuch grounds as concerne our times alſo, but was either typicall, or grounded on ſpeciall reaſon, peculiar to thoſe times, we never judged our ſelves obliged thereby: Of which fort of precepts, that concerning the preciſe obſervation of the eight day is one.
Maſter Tombes himſelfe (if my memory faile not, for I have not his Book now at hand) doth acknowledge that the eight day typ fied the reſurrection, which confeſſion is indeed ingenious, but not all the proofe we have; for the Scriptures ſhew that the eight day was exactly limited, becauſe of the Mothers Ceremonially uncleaneneſſe the firſt ſeven dayes, which muſt be paſt ere the Child could enjoy this Ordinance whereof we ſpeakerrLev. 12. Verſ. 2. compared with ver. 3.. If any man ſhall here reply, this can be no reaſon, becauſe ſhee was uncleane three and thirty dayesſſVer. 4.: I anſwer, firſt, that though ſhee was uncleane ſoking, yet not with the ſame kind of uncleaneſſe, for elſe the ſpirit of God would not have divided them, but have ſayd, ſhe ſhall be uncleane forty days, nor have called them by diſtinct names, the one, ſeparation of infirmityttLev. 12.2.; the other, blood of purifyinguuIbid. v. 4.. Secondly, though it65 were the ſame uncleaneſſe, it did not prejudice the reaſon, becauſe the eight day was an intermiſſion betwixt the ſeven, and three and thirty dayes, as the word [then] ſhewes, And ſhee ſhall then (that is, after the eight day is over, and the Child Circumciſed) continue in the blood of her purifying, three and thirty dayes, &cwwVer. 4.. To conclude, there is good reaſon that as they were to take the firſt opporrunity, wherein the Ordinance of Circumciſion could be orderly adminiſtred (which in ordinary caſes was the eight day) ſo ſhould we take the firſt fit opportunity for the Baptiſme of our Infants, and not defer it when it may be orderly adminiſtred, but the ſtrict obſervance of the eight day by ſpeciall reaſon concerned the Jews, but not us.
4. 4 Exception anſwered.In the Covenant made with Abraham ſome things be peculiarly promiſed to him, and his Seed, as thoſe you recited; but ſome things common to all the faithfull with him, as that paſſage [To be a God to thee, and thy Seed after theexxGen. 17.7.] Now Circumciſion confirmed both ſorts of promiſes to his Seed after the fleſh, but onely the ſpirituall mercies to Proſelytes, which were his Children onely by Faith and profeſſion, not by generation: It is not to be imagined,66 that every Circumciſed bond-ſervant had an inheritance in Canaan beſtowed on him: Neither reaſon nor Hiſtory make for ſuch an aſſertion (much leſſe that Proſelytes, dwelling in farre Countreys, muſt have poſſeſſions in the Land which God gave onely to the Sons of JacobyyGen. 28.3.) though they had right to their holy thingszzExod. 12 48.. Underſtand therefore, that when we ſay Baptiſme ſucceedeth Circumciſion, we meane onely ſo far as Circumciſion was a ſeale and argument of a mans being in the ſpirituall (though externall) Covenant of God, and not as it confirmed temporall rights and priviledges. Having thus vindicated the aſſumption according to your deſire, I ſhall proceed, and lay you downe more Arguments.
3. Argument.
All that belong to the externall Covenant of God ought to be Baptized:
But, The Infant-ſeed of beleeving and repenting Parents belong to the externall Covenant of God:
Therefore, They ought to be baptized.
67The Propoſition is proved, Acts 2.39. where Peter urgeth the repenting Jewes to be baptized on this ground, becauſe the promiſe (that is, the externall Covenant of grace, or rather the externall part of the Covenant of grace) was to them and their Children: If this was a good reaſon then, it is ſo ſtill. And that the Infant-ſeed of beleeving and repenting Parents, belongeth to the externall Covenant of God, is as plain, 1 Cor. 7.14. To underſtand which place, conſider that there be onely three ſorts or kinds of holineſſe, of which Children can be capable, which we may call (till better names be found out for them) perſonall, conjugall, and federall: The firſt cannot be here intended, for many a Beleever hath unſanctified and graceleſſe Children, which could not be, if one beleeving Parent ſhould ſo ſanctifie the other, that the Seed ſhould be internally holy. Not the ſecond, Viz. Conjugall, or Marriage holineſſe, and if the Apoſtle had onely meant ſuch Children were lawfully begot in Wedlock, not adulterouſly, or in Fornication; for he makes ſuch an oppoſition between uncleaneſſe and this holineſſe as will not admit this interpretation: Elſe (ſaith he) were your Children uncleane, but now they are holy: Uncleanneſſe68 and holineſſe are here oppoſed; ſo that if by [holy] he meane onely lawfully begotten [uncleane] muſt needs ſignifie unlawfully begotten: And then the Apoſtle ſaith thus much in effect, that when neither party beleeveth, they live and beget Children in adultery, or fornication; but this cannot be his meaning, for it is not true, Marriage being honourable, and a bed undefiled, not to Belevers onely, but to all menaaHeb. 13.4. It remaineth then, that they be Covenant-wiſe, or federally holy, or ſet apart to God. For the Lord having taken a beleever and his ſeed, into Covenant with himſelfebbGen. 17.7 as before., though his Wife be an unbeleever, her infidelity cannot make Gods Covenant ineffectuall.
For further proofe, let us view againe that Scripture in the ſecond of Acts, Verſ. 39. The promiſe is to you, and TO YOƲR CHILDREN: This is ſpoken to Evangelicall repenting Parents, and agrees to all ſuch.
Add hereunto, that many abſurdities (and thoſe no ſmall ones) will follow, if we deny Children (becauſe ſuch) to be uncapable of the externall Covenant; as,
Abſurdity 1Firſt, That we have loſt by the comming of Chriſt: for before he came in the fleſh, if a Gentile had joyned himſelfe to69 the Jewiſh Church, he had taken hold of the Covenant for himſelfe and his Seed, but now onely for himſelfe; and is not a mans tenure much worſned, if he formerly held to him and his heyres for ever, and now onely for terme of life: Surely the cleareneſſe of diſpenſation, and freedome from burdenſome Ceremonies appertaining to the Covenant of grace cannot make nmends for this loſſe: A man had better undergoe many inconveniences with his owne Land, then to have a morec ommodious piece for terme of life only.
Abſurdity 2Secondly, The whole bleſſing of Abraham ſhould not then come on the Gentiles, according to Gal. 3.14. but onely part of it, for his priviledges were not perſonall only, but hereditary, i.e. belonging to his Seed.
Abſurdity 3Thirdly, Chriſt ſhould be leſſe kind to his Church now then when he was on the Earth, for then he acknowledged, that Infants were not debarred, for their infancy, from the Covenant; but ſaith, Of ſuch is the Kingdome of HeavenccMat. 19.13. Mark 10.14. Luk. 18.15: I know ſome may anſwer when Chriſt ſaith [of ſuch] he meaneth not Children, but ſuch as they are: Viz. ſuch as are harmeleſſe, humble, and meek, like them: But the reply is eaſie, that he intended to take in both; for the70 Originall word**〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉., which is here tranſlated [ſuch] when it is referred to a patterne, doth not exclude, but include it.
I can give you many inſtances where the word muſt needs be ſo taken: where Chriſt ſayth, Who ſo ſhall receive one SƲCH Child in my Name, receiveth meddMat. 18.5; were it not ridiculous to ſay, Chriſts intent was to tell them, that if they received any other Child like that, in his Name, they received him; but if they received that very Child which he ſhewed them, they received him not: It is ſayd, John 4.23. That the true worſhippers ſhall worſhip the Father, in ſpirit and in truth; for the Father ſeeketh SƲCH to worſhip him. Here the word (ſuch) cannot ſignifie ſuch as are onely like to them that worſhip in ſpirit and truth (for ſuch counterfeits are hypocrites, whoſe ſervice God abhors) but they that doe ſo worſhip. Compare alſo the firſt Verſe of the ſecond Chapter to the Romans with the ſecond Verſe of the ſame, and you ſhall ſee that ſuch things are the ſame things. In the ſame ſenſe this word is taken in ſundry other placeseeMat 9.8 Act. 16.24 Gal. 5.23..
Thinke withall what reaſon you can give, why Chriſt ſhould be ſo angry as Mark telleth us he wasffMark 10.14. The Greek word〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, importeth indignation, or grievous vexation of ſpirit, and ſo is uſed, Mat. 20.24 & 26.8. Mark 10.41 & 14.4 Luk. 13.14, when his Diſciples rebuked71 them that brought Children to him, that he ſhould pray over themggMat. 19.13.: Was this the ſole cauſe, Viz. that they were like thoſe that belong to him in conditions? Then whereſoever the like vertues are found, they that hold them forth muſt alſo be admitted, and Chriſt would have been diſpleaſed, had they been rebuked: And upon this ground (as Maſter Cotten rightly affirmeth) Chriſt might as well have ſayd, Suffer Doves and Lambs to come to me, for of ſuch (that is, ſuch meek and harmeleſſe ones as they are) is the Kingdome of Heaven. But ſurely that opinion would ſavour ſtrongly of the idle, that ſhould ſet Chriſt in a poſture of readineſſe to receive Doves or Lambs, to pray over them, and to be diſpleaſed with his Diſciples, had they rebuked ſuch as brought them, which yet he muſt have done had he been uniforme in his working according to reaſon**This is cleare to him that underſtands the axiome. A quateus ad omne valet conſequentia., and thoſe imitable vertues the ſole cauſe why he received them.
65. Doubt. There is a great deale of reaſon in that which you ſay, and I acknowledge my ſelfe much engaged to you for condiſcending to my capacity, in avoyding tearmes of Art as much as may be: But I obſerve, you made much uſe of Acts 2.39. and I doubt whether it can72 carry all the weight you lay on it, for there be no leſſe then three ſtrong exceptions againſt it.
Exception 1Firſt, All to whom Peter ſpake were Jewes by Nation, to whom indeed this promiſe belonged: Keepe you to Beleevers in Abrahams line, and you may ſay to them, The promiſe is to you and to your Children: but you cannot affirme the ſame of others, for there is no ſuch promiſe.
Exception 2Secondly, Others expound the place thus; The promiſe is to you if you repent, and to your Children, and to thoſe that are afarre off (that is Gentiles) even ſo many as the Lord our God ſhall call, if they repent: Or thus, whoſoever God calleth (be it your ſelves, your Children, or any of the Gentiles) to them the promiſe belongeth.
Exception 3Thirdly, Some affirme, this is no the promiſe of Gen. 17. (as you ſeeme to take it) but of Joel 2. which the ſpeech concerneth all along this Chapter; and the ſenſe is, The promiſe (Viz. of extraordinary gifts of the ſpirit, to ſpeake to people of ſtrange languages, in their Mother tongues, as wee doe this day) is to you, and to your Children, and to as many as are afar off; even as many as the Lord our God ſhall call: to wit, to Preach to ſuch people as he hath called us.
73Reſol. 1 Exception taken off.Admit they were all Jewes by Nation (although I ſee no neceſſity to grant it:) Is not the partition-wall yet broken downe? Eph. 2.12, 13, &c. Acts 10.34, 35. Gal. 5.13, 14. Rom. 2.26.27, 28, 29, & 4.9. 1 Cor. 7.19 Gal. 6.15.What then ſignifie theſe Scriptures in the Margent? If it be, what mean learned men to cumber us with ſuch diſtinctions or reſtrictions, as Beleevers in Abrahams line, and Beleevers out of his line?
2. 2 Exception removed.The limitation, Even as many, &c. limits onely the immediate clauſe, And to all that are afarre off: not the whole ſentence; the ſenſe being this, The promiſe is to you and to your Children (abſolutely) but not to you and your Children alone, but to ſuch alſo are afar off, if the Lord call them to repentance; nor doe I ſpeake this for mine owne advantage, but the ſcope of the place proves it; for elſe Peter might better have ſayd, the promiſe is to all that repent, then to proclaime the Covenant of God to repenters and their Seed, and when all is ſummed up, there is no promiſe to the penitents ſeed at all; were not here a faire ſlouriſh about nothing, to ſay, ſo much of mercy offered to their ſeed, and yet their ſeed receives no benefit at all? Yes (you will ſay) their ſeed may alſo repent, and then have the priviledges the Parents had: But I would faine know under what74 notion the Child of a Beleever becomes capable of theſe Covenant-priviledges, whether as a Beleever, or as the Child of a Beleever? If it be ſayd, as a Beleever; then it cannot be as the Son of a Beleever; for had all his kindred been Turkes, or Heathens, he might (yea ought to) be received when it appeareth that himſelfe beleeveth: If as the Child of a Beleever, why may he not be received in infancy? For he can never be more the Child of a Beleever, then he is the firſt minuite of his life.
3. 3 Exception replied unto.This promiſe cannot be that of the ſecond of Joel (though I grant that is inſiſted on in this Chapter) for it runs not in the ſame tearmes: That in Joel is to the Sons and Daughters immediately; this to the Parents, and ſecundarily to the Children like, Gen. 17.7. Much leſſe will the coherence allow it. For when the poore creatures were pricked in their hearts, crying out, Men and Brethren what ſhall wee doe? Was it ſuitable to tell them, the muſt repent and be baptized all of them; and then if it ſhould pleaſe God to call them to be Preachers, they might expect the extraordinary gifts of the ſpirit inabling them to Preach to people of ſtrange languages,75 or if he called their Children, or any of the Gentiles to the like worke, they might expect the like aſſiſtance? Were this ſalve for a wounded conſcience, groaning under the burden of ſin? If there were no Women amongſt them (which yet is to me very doubtfull) we may nevertheleſſe ſuppoſe upon good probability: 1. that many of them (if not the moſt) were never called to be Preachers: 2. On the other ſide, experience tels us, that in ſome places (as New England for example) Miniſters that have been ſent to people of ſtrange tongues (as appeares by the bleſſing of God upon their indeavours) have not attained to their ſpeech by immediate inſpiration, but in time acquired the knowledge thereof, by induſtry and converſing among them: Nor 3. can miniſteriall abilities appeaſe an awakened conſcience, but the revelation of free pardon; and ſo muſt Peters ſpeech be expounded, Repent and be baptized every one of you for the remiſſion of ſins, and yee ſhall receive the gift of the holy Ghoſt (a gift frequently beſtowed on ordinary hearers in thoſe dayeshhActs 8.15 16, 17. & 10.44, 45, 46. & 19.2. cum 6.) and his maine argument to of grace) is to you and to your Children. Thus move them to repent and be baptized, is this The promiſe (i.e. the externall Covenant76 I hope theſe objections have received their full anſwers: I would onely add this more concerning them; though they be brought by one party, and for one cauſe they doe vehemently interfere, and fight one againſt another, inſomuch that no two of them can ſtand together: For the firſt ſuppoſeth the promiſe to be the Covenant of grace, & advanceth Jews above Gentiles in the injoyment of it, making the Priviledges of the Jews hereditary, but of the Gentiles meerly perſonall: The ſecond likewiſe ſuppoſeth it to be the Covenant of grace, but utterly quaſheth the pretended difference between Beleevers in Abrahams line, and Beleevers out of his line, which the firſt exception urged: The third denyeth it to be a Covenant of grace: So then take which you will, and it overthroweth the other two; and yet theſe multiformous creatures muſt all be drawne in one yoak (though they looke ſo many ſeverall wayes) to the prejudice of the truth; but it is impoſſible a cauſe ſhould proſper under ſo many and manifeſt contradictions.
Serpentes avibus geminantur,Horat. tigribus agni.
66. Doubt. How can an Infant be in Covenant with God, when as it doth not conſent77 to its owne baptiſme; and a Covenant requires the conſent of both parties?
Reſol. 1. It is a miſtake to thinke that baptiſme brings a ſoule within Covenant, whereas it is an evidence of a mans being in Covenant with God (externall I meane all along) before he was baptizediiActs 2.38 39. & 8.37. cum 38. & 16.14, 15., as Circumciſion alſo waskkGen. 12.1, 2, 3. cum Chap. 17.7 Joſh. 5.3. cum Jer. 31 32..
2. Gods Covenants doe not need a reſtipulation on the creatures part: He made a Covenant with Abrahams ſeed, while yet he had no childllGen. 12.15. & 17. Chapters. Acts 7.5.; yea he did not onely Covenant with Noah and his ſeed, but with every living creaturemmGen. 9.9 10., and yet theſe could not reſtipulate. When men Covenant both parties muſt conſent, becauſe elſe the one knowes not the others mind, nor hath power to worke him to his purpoſe: but God performes all; he becomes their God and makes them his peoplennJer. 31.31, 32. Heb. 8.10..
67. Doubt. How can Children be lawfully baptized, ſeeing Faith is requiredooMark 16.16. which Infants have not?
Reſol. Things muſt be underſtood according to the capacity of the perſons ſpoken to: Paul ſaith, if any would not work neither muſt he eatepp2 Theſ. 3 10.. Muſt therefore Infants, and they which are diſabled by ſickneſſe or age, either worke or periſh? In like78 manner, Chriſts words which you quote ſeeme to import, that he which beleeveth not muſt not be baptized; but looke at the precedent Verſe, and you ſhall ſee ſuch are pointed as, as can heare the Word Preached, which Infants cannot: Infants beleeve in their Parents, as Levi payd tythes in Abraham, and Parents bringin their Children to Chriſt, the children themſelves are ſayd to come to himqqMat. 19.1•, 14. Mark 10.13, 14. Luke 18.1•, 16..
If you allow not this, conſider what dangerous Doctrine, and uncharitable judgement, you muſt needs by conſequence entertaine: Viz. that all which dye Infants are damned; for it you ſay an Infant cannot be baptized, becauſe it hath not faith; by the ſame reaſon you muſt conclude alſo, that becauſe it wanteth faith it cannot be ſaved; for the Text you alleadge, is farre more expreſſe for that, then the other: He that beleeveth not ſhall be domned.
68. Doubt. Some conceive, 1 Cor. 7.14. proveth a Child to be out of Covenant, except one of the next and immediate Parents be a Beleever? I pray you tell me your apprehenſion thereof.
Reſol, Truely I think it doth not;**Nec ſtantem a parte affirmativa cogit〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, locus, 1 Cor 7.14. ubi Apoſtolus dicendo liberos cujuſvis parentis fidelis (majoribus omnibus ethnicis) eſſe Sanctos liberos amborum parentum immediatorum (reliquis omnibus majoribus membris) 〈◊◊〉eſſe〈◊〉. 〈…〉Apolloaium Ca. 2. p. 38. for although in ſuch a caſe as theirs, when the Goſpell was newly ſowne amongſt them,79 and all their Anceſtours had been heathens, one of the Parents muſt needs be a Beleever, or the Child be deſtitute of federall holineſſe; yet I judge far otherwiſe, concerning the ſeed of beleeving (though remote) ParentsrrExo. 20.6 Gen. 17.7. Pſa. 89.29. & 103.17.18..
69. Doubt. How may the Papiſts be anſwered, which contend for Chriſts reall preſence in the Hoſt, ſeeing Chriſt ſayd expreſly, This is my body, and his words muſt needs be true?
Reſol. We confeſſe, he is preſent truely (though not corporally, but Sacramentally) in the ſame ſenſe that Paul ſaith, The Rock was Chriſtſſ1 Cor. 10.4.; that is a figure of Chriſt.
70. Doubt. If a man muſt examine himſelfe, and ſo eate of that bread and drinke of that Cuptt1 Cor. 11.28., why ſhould any other examine him?
Reſol. It is not intended excluſively, as if none elſe might, but that himſelfe muſt except he will be guilty of the body and blood of the</