A Soul-Searching Catechism, Catechism 1 · Part 1
Of Sins againſt Knowledge and Conſcience.
Q. WHat is it to ſin againſt knowledge or Conſcience?
A. It is when we take the fulfilling of a luſt, or the performance of a duty into conſideration, and conſider motives againſt the ſin or to the duty; and notwithſtanding all theſe motives that would ſtop us, yet we commit the ſin, Dan. 5.22. Rom. 1.24. or omit the duty, Jam. 4.17.
Q. Whether are all ſins againſt Knowledge and Conſcience alike, or are ſome greater then others?
A. The more a perſon conſiders the iſſues and events of ſuch a ſin before he commits it, Rom. 1.32. and the more conſultations thou haſt about it, Dan. 6.14. and the more warnings thou haſt againſt it, whether from God, Conſcience or men, and yet doſt commit it; the more hainous is thy ſin, Mark 14.21. Mat. 17.18, 19. Yea, the more ſorrow and reluctancy in committing ſuch an evil, argues thou ſinneſt againſt greater knowledge, Mark 6.26. for this diſpleaſure of minde, ariſes, from the deep apprehenſion of the evil then a doing from which thy knowledge would ſtop thee, but it cannot.
Q. Whether are ſins committed againſt Conſcience and Knowledge pardonable?
A. Yes, 1. Becauſe they are not the ſin againſt the Holy Ghoſt.
2. Becauſe for the moſt voluntary ſins, a Sacrifice was to be offered, Levit. 6.8. There were Sacrifices to be offered for him that denyed a thing that was given him to keep, in the day of Reſtitution; but if perſons perſecute the Truth againſt light, and maliciouſly, then there is no pardon for that ſin, Heb. 6.4, 5. and 10.26, 27, 28, 29. Yet though ſins againſt Conſcience are pardonable, yet this circumſtance, that ſuch a ſin was deliberately committed againſt light, makes the ſoul more guilty than ordinarily the ſin committed therewith.
Qu. Wherein is the greatneſs of ſins againſt Knowledge ſoon?
A. In divers reſpects, as 1. In ſuch ſins there is a great contempt of the power of Knowledge, and Juſtice of God, Numb. 15.30. Deut. 29.19. Numb. 15.32, 33.
2. In ſuch ſins there is more of the Will, 1 Sam. 13.12. hence Saul for ſinning againſt Conſcience was caſt off, 1 Sam. 13.12. compared with 1 Sam. 15.14, 26.
3. In ſuch ſins, there is a greater reſiſtance of that light the Spirit kindles in us, Acts 5.3. Ananias and Sapphira lying againſt that light the Spirit ſet up in them, were ſmit with ſudden death for ſinning ſo againſt their knowledge, Acts 7.51.
4. In ſins againſt Knowledge there are fewer pretences, Matth. 22.12. Joh. 15.22. In ſins of ignorance men pretend they know not duty; but here's no place for ſuch pretence, Ioh. 9.41.
5. We may ſee the greatneſs of ſuch ſins, from the ſtripes proportioned to them, Luke 12.48. Rom. 1.15. ſuch are beaten with many ſtripes.
6. In that by ſuch ſins we do at once quench the fire of the Spirit, and loſe the feelings of Gods Love, Pſal. 51.11, 12.
Q. Why do men venture upon ſins againſt knowledge, ſeeing they are dangerous?
A. 1. Union of the heart to ſome luſt, either of gain or pleaſure, Matth. 15.10. compared with verſe 15.
2. Lothneſs to take up the Croſſes that lye in the way of duty. Hence perſons lye, and do other evils againſt conſcience, 1 Sam. 13.12. Iob. 36.21.
3. Preſumptuous hope of Mercy, Deut. 29.19. Rom. 2.4, 5. Pſal. 68.21.
Q. Whether may not a child of God fall into ſins againſt his knowledge and conſcience?
A. 1. There are ſome failings in duty, and ſtirrings of luſt in godly men, which are committed with knowledge, but not againſt it; for it is not in the power of knowledge to prevent them, Rom. 7.15, 18. theſe evils ariſe on a ſuddain.
2. A godly man may ſin againſt his knowledge through ſtrength of paſſion, and ſuddain furreption, before he hath time to compoſe his heart; Conſcience in the act of it checks him, yet he cannot keep it back: ſo Peter denyed Chriſt, and Ionah, his Conſcience told him he ſhould not be angry, when God asked him if he did well to be angry, Ionah 4.9.
3. A godly man may fall ſometimes into deliberate ſins againſt knowledge, when that which he knows habitually, he doth not actually think of; the violence of the temptation blinding the judgment, and beating back the voice of Conſcience: ſo David is ſet forth (as a ſmarting ſpectacle of miſery, leſt any man ſhould venture as he did) to have fallen into the ſins of adultery and murder, againſt knowledge; Davids mind was ſo taken up with Bathſheba, that he little thought of what he knew.
4. A godly man exceeding ſeldom or never falls into a deliberate ſin againſt knowledge, when he doth actually and deliberately think, and judge of what he knows, 1 Ioh. 3.9.
Q But if ſinning againſt knowledge be ſo dangerous, is it not beſt to remain in ignorance?
A. Ignorance, when it is againſt a mans Will, may excuſe from ſo much guilt, Luke 12.48. yet will it not excuſe wholly; Acts 17.30. But when it is an ignorance of wicked diſpoſition, that a man is either willingly ignorant, 2 Pet. 3.5. or winks and cloſes up his eyes againſt the light, Iſa. 30.10, 11. Matth. 13.13, 14. Ioh. 3.20. ſo that they will not read ſuch Books, nor hear ſuch Preachers, nor confer with ſuch men as might diſcover truth to them; God is wont not only Judicially to harden ſuch in their blindneſs, Matth. 13.14. compared with Iohn 12.40. but will alſo one day reckon with ſuch wilful ignorants, as if all their ſins had been committed againſt Knowledge.
Q. What are the Covenants principally conſiderable, which God made with his people?
A. Beſides divers other Covenants which he made, as with Noah, and with every living creature, both fowl, and beaſt, that there ſhould be no more a flood to drown the Earth, of which Covenant he made the Rain-bow a token, Gen. 9, 9, 10, 11. as alſo a Covenant made with David, that his ſeed ſhould ſtill rule over Iſrael; with the Levites, that they ſhould be his Miniſters, Jer. 33.20, 21, 25, 26. And a Covenant to give the Land of Canaan to the Jews, Pſal. 105.9, 10. there are two other Covenants, moſt conſiderable.
Q. Which are they?
A. 1. A carnal typical Covenant, or Teſtament, called old, Heb. 8.13. ſecond, Heb. 9.1. worſe, Heb. 8.6. which was dedicated with the blood of beaſts, Exod. 24.6, 7, 8. compared with Heb. 9.19. This was with all Iſrael, in the day when God took them by the hand to lead them out, of the Land of Egypt, Heb. 8.9. 2. A ſpiritual or new Covenant.
Q. What did this old Covenant ſignifie?
A. 1. An obligation of the Jews to the Moſaical Law in general Exod. 19.5, 6, 7, 8. Exod. 24.6, 7, 8. in the perfect obſervation whereof, (it's thought) they were to have Canaan here, and Heaven hereafter; but failing in one point, they were under a curſe, Gal. 3.10. the Ceremonial part of it alſo ſhadowed our redemption by Chriſt, Heb. 9.18, 19.
Q. What was the proper effect of this old Covenant?
A. Bondage and ſlaviſh fear for not performing what this old Covenant did require: this was ſignified by Hagar the bond-woman, Gal. 4.24, 25. and this Mount Sinai in Arabia, a place without the bounds of the Land of promiſe, and by the fleſhly Jeruſalem, which was in bondage with her children; all three which reſemblances ſignifie, that the old Covenant begot children to bondage, not only under the unſupportable burthen of the Ceremonial Law, Acts 15.10. (which was a yoak of bondage, Gal. 4.1, 2, 3. alſo chap. 5.1.) but alſo under the bondage of the curſe, and of Gods wrath, for not performing what the Law requires; for which cauſe the Law is ſaid to work wrath, Rom. 4.15. to be a miniſtration of death, 2 Cor. 3.7. and to ſlay the ſoul, Rom. 7.11. Now, as when a Pitcher falls upon the ſtones, it's the weakneſs of the Pitcher not, of the ſtones, that it is broken: So the reaſon why the Law miniſters death, is not becauſe of the weakneſs of the Law, but the weakneſs of our fleſh, Rom. 8.3.
Q. What is the other Covenant called?
A. It's that Covenant which the Scripture cals the ſecond Covenant, Heb. 8.7. & 9.1, 18. Heb. 10.9. or the new Covenant, 1 Cor. 11.25. Heb. 8.13, & 9.15. or the better Covenant, Heb. 7.22. as being eſtabliſhed upon better Promiſes, Heb. 8.6. of which Chriſt was ſurety, Heb. 7.22.
Q. What is this new Covenant?
A. It is Gods free Promiſe, whereby he promiſeth, not only pardon of ſins, and eternal life to them that are elect, or do believe the ſame; but alſo doth promiſe to to take away the ſtony heart, and to give them a new heart and a new ſpirit, and to put his Laws in their minds, and to write them in their hearts, ſo that all of them, from the leaſt to the greateſt know the Lord; yea, vouchſafes to be their God, and takes them to be his people.
Q. What are the Articles, or Branches in particular of this new Covenant?
A. They are theſe: 1. Forgiveneſs of ſins, Heb. 8.12. I will be merciful to their unrighteouſneſs, and their ſins and iniquities will I remember no more. So that the Elect have not onelyonly redemption from Original ſin, but from all tranſgreſſion under the firſt Teſtament, Heb. 9.15. by ſprinkling clean water upon them, Ezek. 26.25. Chriſts blood.
2. A ſecond branch is eternal life, Rom. 5.15. Heb. 9.15. Chriſt is the Mediatour of the new Teſtament, that by the means of death (that is, of Chriſts death) they which are called might receive the promiſe of eternal inheritance: in this inheritance no bond-ſlave of Satan doth partake; which appears, Gal. 4.30. in the type, in that the ſon of the Bond-woman, which was Iſhmael, did not partake with the ſon of the Free-woman, which was Iſaac; the meſſage from God being, Caſt out the Bond-woman and her ſon; for the ſon of the Bond-woman ſhall not be heir with the ſon of the Free-woman.
The third Branch is, ſoftning of the hearth, Ezek. 11.19. that whereas in the natural ſtate the heart was ſo hard, that neither promiſe, threat, nor command, mercy miſery moved; Now this ſtony heartedneſs is taken away, that the ſoul melts under the ſenſe of Chriſts ſufferings, it's own infirmities, and Gods mercies.
The fourth Branch is, Newneſs whereby Chriſt doth not onelyonly cleanſe the ſoul from all filthineſs in the reigne thereof, Ezek. 36.25, 26. compared with Rom. 6.12, 15. but alſo puts a new ſpirit, or a new frame of a Spirit within; which the Seripture calls tranſformation, or change of minde, Rom. 12.2.
The fifth Branch is, the putting of his laws in the hearts of the elect, Heb. 8.10, 11. ſo that they ſhall not teach every man his neighbour, or every man his brother, ſaying, Know the Lord, for all ſhall know the Lord from the leaſt to the greateſt; which is not meant of Notional knowledge (as if perſons in covenant with God ſtood in no need of being taught by Paſtors, parents, or neighbors) but of affective knowledge, that is, ſuch a knowledge as carries affection with it, whereby they reliſh and ſavour good things. For this, ſee John 17.3. John 6.45. 1 Theſſ. 4.9. 1 John 2.27. this is ſuch a teaching as God teaches the Bees to work in their kind, whereby he puts an inſtinct in them ſo to work.
The ſixth Branch is, the writing of his law in our hearts, Jer. 31.33. The pen wherewith he writes them, is his own Spirit, though the miniſtration be of men, 2 Cor. 3.3. Now this writing is nothing but the inclination of the will to cloſe with Gods law in the bredth of it, the which branch Ezekiel expreſſeth thus, Ezek. 36.27. I will cauſe you to walk in my ſtatutes, and you ſhall keep my judgements: ſo that whereas in the natural ſtate there was an enmity betwixt the heart and the law, the Spirit ſo bends the will, that the heart and the law become ſutable, anſwering one another, as the Seal and the Wax.
The ſeventh Branch is, I will be their God, and they ſhall be my people: whereby God promiſeth to communicate to us not only every good thing, Pſalm 84.1.2. but alſo himſelf, and that we that were enemies and ſtrangers, ſhall be his people, Rom. 9.25.26. Hoſ. 1.10.
Q. Who was the Mediator of this new Covenant?
A. Jeſus Chriſt, Heb. 9.15. Firſt, the promiſes were made to Abrahams ſeed, not Seeds, but Seed; one Seed, which was Chriſt, Gal. 3.15, 16. And by vertue of our union with Chriſt, we come to be heirs according to promiſe, Gal. 3.29. the promiſes being firſt inſtated upon Chriſt, 2 Cor. 1.20. as being heir of all things, Heb. 1.12.
Q. Who are the perſons that have benefit by this new Covenant?
A. All the elect from the beginning to the end of the world, Rev. 13.8. Gen. 3.15. In the times of the old Teſtament there were many children of the new Covenant: and though Jeremiah, chap. 31.31. call it a new Covenant, yet doth he ſo call it, becauſe it was clearly manifeſted by the Apoſtles preaching.
Q. But how can the Covenant be made with all the elect, ſeeing ſundry of them are not capable of divers branches thereof, as infants, idiots? &c.
A. You muſt remember, that the new Covenant is called a Teſtament, (Mat. 26.28.) or a Will: Now an Infant is capable of a Legacy. 2. Though they are not capable of all the Branches of the Covenant, yet are they of ſome, as forgiveneſs of ſins, and eternal life; by theſe they are ſaved, though they have not the other.
Q How doth it appear the new Covenant was alſo a Teſtament?
A. Becauſe as other Wills and Teſtaments are, it was confirmed with the death of the Teſtator, Heb. 9.16. This was eſtabliſhed in the blood of Chriſt Mat. 26.28. 1 Cor. 11.25. Beſides, the word foreign, properly ſignifies a Teſtament.
Q. What difference betwixt the two Covenants?
A. The old Covenant required perfect obedience, but gave no ſtrength to do it: hence called [Faulty] Heb. 8.7. not in reſpect of it ſelf, but us; faulty with a faultineſs of imperfection, not of ſinfulneſs: but in the new Covenant is a promiſe of ability to do what God requires: As he requires love of us, Mat. 10.37. ſo he promiſes it; ſo doth he for faith, Eph. 2.8. repentance, Ezek. 36.26, 27. and Gods fear, Jer. 32.40. Hence called a Covenant of Grace, becauſe he doth our part as well as his own.
Secondly, the old Covenant required obedience in the rigor, and curſt the tranſgreſſor for every breach, Deut. 27.26. Gal. 3.10. the new Covenant requires on the creatures part onelyonly the perfection of ſincerity, which conſiſts principally in an univerſal purpoſe and endeavour for new obedience, John 15.14. with an hearty ſorrow if they be overtaken contrary to this purpoſe.
Thirdly, the old Covenant was much upon temporal promiſes, as Levit. 16.3. Deut. 28.1, 17. but the new Covenant runs upon ſpiritual and eternal promiſes, Heb. 8.6.
Fourthly, the old Covenant is aboliſhed and come to an end, Heb. 8.13. Caſt out the Bond-woman and her ſon, Gal. 4.30. But the new Covenant is everlaſting, Heb. 13.20. in oppoſition to the abrogated covenant, ſo that as a wife is free from her husband when he is dead, ſo we are freed from the old Covenant, it being dead; and we being new married unto Chriſt. Rom. 7.1, 2 3 4.
Fifthly, the old Covenant was very dark, 2 Cor. 3.13. Moſes put a veil over his face, to ſignifie the children of Iſrael could not ſee Chriſt. Hence, as thoſe that learn the Rudiments or beginning of a language, are in bondage not knowing what benefit will come by them: ſo were ſundry Jews and others under the bondage of the Rudiments of the world, Gal. 4.9. and could not with any clearneſs underſtand it. Contrary, the new Teſtament is clear; the Miniſters of it uſe great plainneſs of ſpeech, 2 Cor. 3.12, 13. and the children of the new Covenant ſee with much plainneſs, as in a looking-glaſs, 2 Cor. 3.18.
Q But ſeeing you ſay the old Covenant is aboliſhed, whether or no are we freed from the Law of Moſes?
A. Believers are delivered, Firſt, from the curſe for breach of it, Gal. 3.13. Secondly, from the covenant of the Law, under which notion it ſeems to have been delivered on Mount Sinai, Exod. 19.5, 6.8. Exod. 24.8. Thirdly, from the hand-writing of the Law, as it teſtified againſt us our guilt, Col. 2.14. as a free Creditor not onelyonly forgives the debt, but alſo cancels the bond that might witneſs it againſt his debtor. Fourthly, from the power it hath to ſtir up to ſin, Rom. 7.5, 8. the more the Law forbids ſin to natural men, with much more proneneſs they are carried to it. Fifthly, from the Moſaical inſtitution of it, as it was by Moſes peculiarly appointed to the Jews, Iohn 7.19. Did not Moſs give [You] the Law? John 15.25. It is written in [Their] law. And elſe why did Moſes command the ſeventh day from the creation to be obſerved, and we obſerve the firſt day of the week?
Q How are we bound to obſerve Moſes his Lawes?
A. 1. As they are Laws of Nature: I call thoſe laws of Nature, which men by the light of nature practice, Rom. 2.14. as that God is to be worſhipped parents honoured, that no man is to take away the Wife or goods of another.
2. So far as they are Laws of equity and juſtice.
3. So far as they are Laws of holineſs; for the Children of the new Teſtament who lived under the old Teſtament, made great conſcience of them, Luke 1.6. and they tend to the perfecting of the new Creature, 2 Tim. 3.16. Rom. 15.4. Hence the Spirit writes the Law in regenerate mens hearts, Ezek. 36.27. Heb. 8.10. which he would not do if it were not a rule of holineſs; yea, all Gods Law is holy, juſt, and good, Rom. 7.12. whereunto regenerate men, (as ſuch) had reſpect, Pſal. 119.6. yea are bound to have reſpect, Iames 2.10, 11. all which proves the holineſs of Gods Law, I mean the Scriptures pen'd by Moſes, with all other prophetical Scriptures which expound the ſame.
Q. What comfort may we draw from this new Covenant?
A. Much comfort: when thy luſts are prevailing, God will ſprinkle clean water, Ezek. 36.25. when hardneſs of heart aſſaults, God will take away a ſtony heart, Ezek. 11.19. when old luſts aſſaile, that God will give a new heart, Ezek. 36.26. ſo when thy heart begins to diſrelliſh good things, that God will give thee a ſavory heart to reliſh them, Heb. 8.11. if thy heart riſe up againſt any of Gods Commands, that God will write this Law in thy heart, Ier. 31.33. and when thy heart ſhall doubt of Gods favor, remember that he ſaith, I will be their God, and they ſhall be my people, Heb. 8.10.
Q What are the ſigns of the new Covenant?
A. They are two: 1. Baptiſme, 2. The Supper of the Lord.
Q. Declare in particular what Baptiſm is?
A. It is a ſigne of my fellowſhip with Chriſt in his death, burial, and reſurrection, that as my body is waſhed and buried in water, ſo I believe my ſins are waſhed away, and buried in the death of the Lord Jeſus; and as I did riſe againe out of the water, ſo I did riſe againe with Chriſt, being diſcharged from my ſins in his death and reſurrection; and have already begun and profeſſed that I am bound to riſe to walk with Chriſt in newneſs of life, Rom. 6.3 4▪ 5, 6. Col. 2.12.
Q. Who are the right ſubjects of Baptiſme?
A. Thoſe that are made Diſciples or Scholars of Chriſt, Mat. 28.19. that make profeſſion of believing with their whole hearts, Acts 8.37. Heb. 10.22, 23. and of their repentance from dead works, Mat. 3.6. Acts 2.38, 39. and of their right knowledge of the object of worſhip, that is, the Trinity, into whoſe Name they are baptized, Mat. 28.19. and of their natural corruptions; without which, they will ſee no need of waſhing, Mat. 3.14. and of their ſelf-denial; without which, they are not Chriſts Diſciples, Luke 14.26. and ſo not to be baptized, by the very words of the Commiſſion of Chriſt, Mat. 28.19. Make diſciples all Nations, baptizing them; for the Greek word ſignifies to make diſciples, and not barely to teach.) Alſo, they muſt make profeſſion of their ſpiritual life; without which, they are not members of Chriſt the living head; alſo, of the reſurrection of the body, which is alſo ſignified in Baptiſme, 1 Cor. 15.29. and of the laſt judgement.
Q. May not infants be baptized?
A. No, in no wiſe; it being groſs will-worſhip, condemned, Col. 2.23. Mat. 15.9. the Scripture declaring baptiſme to be applyed onelyonly to thoſe that are diſciples, Mat. 28.19. and believe, Mar. 16.16. Acts 8.12, 37. & 18, 8. and repent, Acts 2.38.39. and have put on Chriſt, Gal. 3.27. and have received the Holy Ghoſt, Acts 10.41. We muſt not preſume to apply it to any other.
Beſides, infants underſtand not the new Covenant, therefore they have nothing to do with the ſignes thereof, unleſs God had commanded otherwiſe: neither are they in Chriſts commiſſion, and therefore excluded to the end of the world.
Q. Is not the command of circumciſion to the Jews, a command to Chriſtian parents to baptize infants?
A. If you make the command of Circumciſion to be the inſtitution or command for infants baptiſme, you hold forth Circumciſion ſtill, and ſo hold forth that which typifies Chriſt to come in the fleſh. Perſons were circumciſed upon a fleſhly covenant intailed to generation, not to regeneration: but now believers are baptized upon a command of God, as a declaration of the waſhing away of their ſins in Chriſts blood, Act. 22.16. Circumciſion, with the reſt of the ceremonies, were aboliſhed in Chriſt, Col. 2.17. Heb. 9.9, 10, 1. If we may call back one, we may call back all. To ſay, So for a command bindes us and ſo far not without a plaine declaration of Gods will, is high preſumption. We are therefore to ſtand faſt in our liberty, Gal. 2.16, Gal. 4.10 11. & 5.1, 2, 3. The Apoſtle, Col. 2.10 11, 12. to take the Jewiſh brethren wholly off from Circumciſion, doth not ſay, We have another ordinance in ſtead of circumciſion, or by vertue of that command; but, We have Chriſt in ſtead of all; we are circumciſed with the Circumciſion made without hands, by the Spirit of Chriſt; we are compleat in him, verſe 11. not with a compleatneſs of outward ordinances, but by a compleatneſs of Chriſt alone. It is ſuppoſed by ſome, that without a ſucceſſion of ſome ordinance inſtead of Circumciſion, we are not compleat in Chriſt, or not ſo compleat as the Jews; but this is, 1. Falſe, becauſe it's contrary to that the Apoſtle aſſerts, that we are compleat in Chriſt alone, becauſe in him is the fulneſs of all that was ſhadowed. 2. It is dangerous, becauſe the ſame reaſon that will conclude we are not compleat without a ſucceſſion of ſome ordinances in ſtead of Circumciſion, will conclude we are not compleat without a ſucceſſion of ſomething inſtead of Temple, Sacrifices, Altar; and ſo, after the Popiſh manner, all Jewiſh Rites will be recalled, under new names. The queſtion ſtarted at Coloſſe, was, not univerſally, wherein a Chriſtians perfection conſiſted; but wherein it conſiſted in point of Juſtification; whether by Chriſt alone, or by the law and circumciſion joyned with him. To this he ſaith, We are compleat in him.
Q. But may I not draw a proportion, that as infants in the time of the Jews were circumciſed, ſo infants of believers under the times of the Goſpel may be baptized?
A. In no wiſe. We muſt not make additions in worſhip from our conceited proportions. Proportions of Gods making may be obſerved, as theſe following: The Prieſts lips muſt preſerve knowledge, Mal. 2.7. ſo muſt the Biſhops be apt to teach, 1 Tim. 3.2. As the Prieſts by offering ſacrifice held forth Chriſt, Heb. 9. ſo the Miniſters by preaching, Gal. 3.1. as the Prieſt was to have a Conſecration, ſo the Miniſters an Ordination: Will it therefore follow, that a command to a Prieſt to offer a ſacrifice propitiatory, ſhould be a command to a Goſpell-Miniſter to offer a ſacrifice propitiatory, as the Maſs-prieſts do? Or a command for a Prieſt to weat a linen Ephod, ſhould be a command to a Miniſter to wear a Surplice? or that there muſt be a Pope over the Church, becauſe there was an high-prieſt in time of the law? or that we muſt receive the Supper with unleavened bread, becauſe the paſſeover was ſo received? Yet do theſe as well follow, as baptizing of infants, from circumciſion of infants.
The true proportions flowing hence, are theſe: 1. none were circumciſed, but thoſe commanded or exemplified; ſo none ought to be baptized but ſuch. 2. As Abraham believing was circumciſed, and all the males of his houſe, both men, and children of eight dayes old; both bond and free: ſo now any man believing muſt be baptized, with all his houſhold, both men and male-children of eight dayes old, both bond and free. The formal reaſon why Abraham and the Jews received Circumciſion, was Gods command concerning infants baptiſme: if any ſuch command be, let it be produced.
Q Whether are the children of believers in covenant together with their parents?
A. No: for the children are oft out of covenant, when the father is in covenant. It's ſaid, Gal. 3.7, 9. that they that are of the faith of Abraham, are the children of Abraham; but nowhere hath God made a promiſe to be a God of believers and their ſeed, unleſs upon a preſuppoſal that the Lord ſhall call the ſeed as well as the father Acts 2.39. If the natural poſterity of Abraham were not in the covenant of grace by vertue of that promiſe, Gen. 17.7. as appears, Rom. 9.7. neither becauſe they are the ſeed of Abraham are they all children; and verſ. 8. Theſe that are the children of the fleſh, theſe are not the children of God; but the children of the promiſe are counted for the ſeed: much leſs are the children of other believers children of promiſe by vertue of generation.
He that ſhall hear men preach, that children of believers are in the covenant of grace, and they that are in the covenant of grace cannot fall away, may be apt to conceive himſelf in that covenant of grace without repentance and faith, and ſhall be ſaved without any obedience. And may not, on the other ſide, godly parents, when they ſee their children live vitiouſly, doubt whether they themſelves be true believers, becauſe they ſee not their children in the covenant of grace?
There is a promiſe or calling home the natural ſeed of Abraham, Rom. 11.27. but God hath not made any ſuch promiſe to any, much leſs to all the natural ſeed of any believing Gentile.
Q Are not the ordinances the outward part of the covenant? and is not the title to this hereditary?
A. Is a box that conveyes a Jewel, the outward part of the Jewel? Is a conduit-pipe that conveyes water, the outward part of the water? is Aaron's pot the outward part of the Manna that it kept?
2. Suppoſe the ordinances were the outward part of the covenant, how is title hereto hereditary, ſeeing that not only from particular perſons, but even whole Churches, as Epheſus, &c. theſe ordinances have been removed long ſince.
Beſides, it is nowhere ſaid in Scripture, The childe ſhall be baptized by vertue of his beliving fathers being baptized; or enjoy ordinances becauſe his father enjoyed them.
3. There is but one covenant now, Heb. 8.10, 11. the articles and branches whereof are inward, and ſo is the ſeal thereof, the Spirit, Eph. 1.13. There can be no ou…ward diſpenſation of an uncertain thing: now it is uncertain of any individual infant, whether he be in the new covenant.
Q. But doth not Chriſt ſay. Of little children is the Kingdome of God? therefore they may be baptized.
A. 1. There's two wayes of belonging to Gods Kingdome. 1. By way of election; which is ſecret. 2. By calling; which is manifeſt. The Ordinance of Baptiſm ought not to be diſpenſed upon election, or remiſſion of ſins, which is ſecret; but upon the manifeſtation thereof.
2. Chriſt baptized not, onelyonly laid on his hands on them, John 4.2. Had Chriſt uſed to baptize infants, the diſciples would not have kept them back.
3. The Kingdome of God being taken for the Kingdome of grace, the Kingdome of glory, and the viſible Church it would poſe any man living to prove that the viſible Church ſhould be meant here.
4. Beſides, Luke 18.16. they were not infants, becauſe Chriſt is ſaid to call them.
Q. What further reaſons have you againſt infant-baptiſm?
A. 1. The baptiſme of Chriſt is a burial in waters; the baptiſme of infants is a ſprinkling▪ Rom. 6.3 4. Col. 2.12.
2. Baptiſme doth not cauſally effectively or actively; I mean, it doth not, from the work done, confer faith; but refers to the new covenant, in by, and through the unde…ſtanding; therefore where it is diſpenſed, there ought to be an underſtanding to conceive it.
3. The ſame benefit confirmed in the Supper that this, remiſſion of ſins, is confirmed in baptiſme; therefore infants being excluded from the one, for want of examination, they are alſo excluded from the other, for want of faith and repentance.
4. Infant-baptiſme hinders baptiſme from being diſpenſed as John and other Apoſtles diſpenſed it: they diſpenſed it upon profeſſion of faith; but no ſuch thing can be in infants.
Q In what manner muſt baptiſme be adminiſtred?
A. The ſubject muſt be right; that is, not onelyonly taught, but taught ſo long that he be made a diſciple, Mat. 28.19.
2. Not by ſprinkling, but by burying, Rom. 4.5. Col. 2.12. not of the brow or face onelyonly, but of the whole body, Heb. 10.22. in much water, Joh. 3.23. into which the baptizer and the perſon to be baptized are to enter, Mat. 3.6. Acts 8.38. who is to be baptized into the name of Father, Son, and Spirit, Mat. 28.19. in token of remiſſion of ſins, Act. 2.38. the name of God being firſt called upon, Act. 22.16.
Q. Do you judge it better to defer baptiſme till perſons be able to make profeſſion of their faith?
A. Yes. Infants cannot give any ground to any diſpenſer of baptiſme why he ſhould diſpence it to them. The diſpencing it to infants, confounds the world and the Church together; many hereby being made Chriſtians in name who never made choice of Chriſt nor have any love to Chriſtianity: yea hereby the Churches are filled with rotten members; many of which growing up, perſecute the true members.
By deferring baptiſme till perſons know Chriſt, the Churches would in time come to have a right matter.
Q. Have not infants faith?
A. No: they have not reaſon to diſcern good or evil Deut. 1.39. Jon. 4.11. had they faith, they were preſently to be admitted to the Supper: faith is an act of the Underſtanding as well as of the Will.
Q. Whether is there any reaſon that Baptiſme ſhould ſucceed circumciſion, becauſe that as circumciſion ſigned the ſpiritual part of the covenant that is, circumciſion of heart; ſo baptiſme ſhould ſignifie the ſame?
A. No: for the Manna, the water flowing out of the rock, the ſacrifices under the law, and the ſprinkling of blood, ſignified the ſame; yet will not any man ſay baptiſme ſucceeded theſe, becauſe of the ſignification.
The Lords Supper ſignified the ſame; yet will no man ſay the Lords Supper ſucceeds Circumciſion in reſpect of any uſe: In nothing elſe, that I know of, is there a likeneſs betwixt Circumciſion and Baptiſme; and therefore to draw infants baptiſme from it, is no conſequence. And ſo much more, becauſe the ſtate of the Jewiſh Church is at an end, which was national; and we have Goſpel-congregational-Churches.
Object. Circumciſion was a ſeal of Abrahams faith; therefore baptiſme coming in the room of it, ought to be diſpenſed to infants.
A. 1. Then none ſhould be baptized, ſave thoſe which have faith and the righteouſneſs of faith. Infants, though they may have a righteouſneſs, yet they cannot have the righteouſneſs of faith, becauſe they have no power to believe. If there were any ſuch ſucceſſion then baptiſm ſhould ſeal the righteouſneſs in faith; which it cannot in infants.
2. It is abſurd that baptiſme ſhould ſucceed Circumciſion, in reſpect of infancy, not mentioned in the text; and not in growth of ſtature, which now Abraham had; nor in qualification of the righteouſneſs of faith, which was the qualification of Abraham: both which are mentioned in the text.
3. Baptiſme ſucceeds circumciſion, neither, 1. In reſpect of ſubject: ſome there were to be circumciſed, that are not to be baptized; as bought ſervants: and ſome to be baptized, that were not to be circumciſed; as females. 2. Nor in reſpect of ſociety: Circumciſion was an inlet into the Jewiſh Church, Baptiſm into the Chriſtian Church. 3. Nor in reſpect of uſe: for Circumciſion engaged Jews and Proſelytes to the Jewiſh ceremonies; but Baptiſme is a declarative of remiſſion of ſins.
Q. Who hath the power of diſpenſing the ordinance of Baptiſme?
A. It ſeems to me, that, 1. Apoſtles, 2. Evangeliſts or Goſpel-preachers, have power herein.
Q. How prove you that there is any ſuch Office in the Church as Apoſtles or Meſſengers? for an Apoſtle is nothing but a Meſſenger.
A. 1. Becauſe as God gave Paſtors and Teachers, ſo did he give Apoſtles, Prophets, and Evangeliſts, for the perfecting of the Saints, Eph 4.10, 11, 12, 13. therefore, it follows, …hat, Till all the Saints be perfected, till the body of Chriſt be built up, this office is to remaine in the Church. To diſtinguiſh, that Paſtors and Teachers are ordinary officers, but the Office of Apoſtles and Evangeliſts is extraordinary; or that the work of perfecting Saints and edifying Chriſts body lyes upon Paſtors and Teachers, and not upon Apoſtles and Evangeliſts, is to put a diſtinction where the Scripture puts none: the twelve Apoſtles were given, before Chriſt his aſcenſion; but theſe Apoſtles, Eph. 4.10. were given after: ſee verſe 8, 9.
2. Secondly, it appears from Gods own order, 1 Cor. 12.28. God hath ſet ſome in the Church, firſt Apoſtles, ſecondarily Prophets, thirdly teachers. If he ſet them firſt, what are we, that we can either aboliſh them, or ſet them in other places when God will give them?
3. Thirdly, we finde (2) Apoſtles in ſundry of the Churches, therefore they are a ſtanding Office: At Epheſus, Eph. 4.10. at Philippi, Phil. 2.25. the Greek word is Apoſtolos: At Antioch, Acts 13.23. at Jeruſalem, Act. 1.26. at Corinth, 2 Cor. 11.13. See alſo 2 Cor. 8.23. or our brethren be enquired of, they are the Apoſtles of the Churches. So in the Greeke, Gal. 1.1. Paul an Apoſtle, not of men, nor by man, but by Jeſus Chriſt; to ſhew there were Apoſtles by men, or of mens ſending, beſides thoſe ſent by Chriſt. Andronicus and Junia were Apoſtles in Rome, or thereabouts, Rom. 16.7. they were of note among the Apoſtles, not onelyonly becauſe they were of eſteem, but becauſe they did laboriouſly preach: ſo were Barnabas, Silas, Timotheus, Luke, Mark, &c. though none of the twelve.
Fourthly, Apoſtles are called to rejoyce at Babylons deſtruction, Rev. 18.20. Now if there were no Apoſtles but the firſt twelve, Babylon could do them no wrong, ſeeing ſhe was not in being till three hundred years after Chriſt: therefore ſome Apoſtles muſt be meant, to whom Babylon had done miſchief.
Fifthly, it appears from Reaſon; there is as much need of Apoſtles for to gather perſons from their natural and Babyloniſh eſtate, as there was to gather them from Judaiſme and Gentiliſme.
Q. What is eſſential to an Apoſtle in theſe times?
A. 1. Abilities of grace and parts, Rom. 10.
Secondly the choice and ſending forth of a Church, 2 Cor. 8.19. the Meſſengers that went along with Paul, verſe 23. are ſaid to be choſen of the Church; Barnabas was ſent by the Church of Jeruſalem to go to Antioch, Acts 11.22. Epaphroditus was thus ſent by the Church at Philippi, Phil. 2.25. Paul by the Church of Antioch, Acts 13.2.
Q. What is the office of ſuch an Apoſtle?
A. 1. To bring the Doctrine of ſalvation, Acts 1.22. & 13.26 & 28.28.
Secondly, to baptize, Mat. 28.18. 1 Cor. 1.16.
Thirdly, to lay on hands, Acts 8.17. Acts 19.5 6 7. 2 Tim. 1.6. after Baptiſme.
4. Ordination of Elders and Deacons, and to lay hands on them, Acts 6.6. Acts 14.23. Titus 1.5. yea, he is to have a great hand in Church cenſures, 1 Cor. 5.4. 1 Tim. 1.21.
Q What is the difference betwixt the twelve Apoſtles called immediately of Chriſt, and thoſe called mediately of Churches?
A. The twelve or at leaſt eleven, were called perſonally of Chriſt; the Apoſtles of Churches are called virtually by Chriſt his command, or order, E…heſ. 4.10. He that can immediately make out his call, hath enough to ſatisfie his own and other mens conſcience, though not called perſonally by Chriſt. Some of the Apoſtles called by Chriſt perſonally, were pen-men of Scripture, and ſo were infallible 2 Pet. 1.21. yet were they not infallible in every thing Gal. 2.13. but had they ſo been, yet is ſending of a Church and giftedneſs the formal cauſe of Apoſtleſhip, as was proved before, and not infallibility.
Q. But were not miracles the ſignes of an Apoſtle? 2 Cor. 12.12.
A. No: The Apoſtle ſaith not, wonders of miracles were ſigns of an Apoſtle, (which many other believers could do) but he ſaith, the ſigns of an Apoſtle (which was converſion of ſouls, called the ſeal of his Apoſtleſhip, 1 Cor. 9.2.) were wrought by him in ſignes and wonders.
Q. Is not this Doctrine concerning Apoſtles, ſet down very barely in Scripture?
A. The Doctrine concerning Apoſtles, comparing it with the Doctrine of the Reſurrection and laſt Judgement, is not ſet down with ſuch clearneſs; but comparing it with the Aſſertions about the calling of Paſtors and Elders, as now practiſed in the reformed Churches (as they are called) there is greatneſs of light: for the call of the Miniſters goes upon one of theſe three heads.
1. Succeſſion of perſons: as that the Miniſters have been ordained by them who have been ordained of others. Now this is moſt uncertain, having been interrupted ſo often, and yet once were enough to make it a nullity. Beſides, that having been no Scripture writ for above this fifteen hundred yeers, all that men can have for it is onelyonly humane teſtimony, which is no ground to him that ſcruples, By what power and authority do you this? Beſides, all ſucceſſion hath gone through the filthy chapel of the Romiſh Churches, which have been for many hundred years over-ſpread with Idolatry, will-worſhip, and falſe matter; wherein the Teachers reſpectively, in whom ſucceſſive power is ſuppoſed to reſide, were the chiefeſt ſticklers, and deeplieſt guilty in thoſe abominations.
2. Proportion; that becauſe the Church choſe an Apoſtle, therefore the Church may now chuſe a Paſtor; becauſe that the Apoſtles Paul and Barnabas ordained Elders in every Church, which they had been inſtrument…l to bring to the faith Acts 14.23. therefore a Company of Synod-men or P…esbyters may ordaine in every Church; or becauſe Paul left Titus in Crete to ordain Elders in every City Titus 1.5. therefore other men may be deputed to ordaine by the power of a national or provincial Priesbytery: if then affirmations for the one be dark, how much more dark is the other?
3. Radicality, that is, that though all Officers and Ordinances are loſt, yet that the power reſolves it ſelf into the Church, as the ſap of trees in winter goes into the root; and that the power of recovering Officers being there ſeated, any Church or Company of Believers hath authority from Chriſt to bring this power into act: which being the beſt ground that I know the reformed Churches to have from theſe Scriptures, 1 Cor. 3.21. Eph. 4.10, 11, 12. do thereupon in ſundry independent Churches chuſe and ordain Officers of Paſtor, Teacher, Deacon, Elder; and why not alſo may they chuſe Apoſtle and Evangeliſt, or Meſſenger and Goſpel-Preacher, being there is the ſame radical power for the one that there is for the other?
Q. Who beſides Apoſtles have power to baptize?
A. Evangeliſts or Goſpel-Preachers: ſo Philip baptized the Eunuch, Acts 8.37. and many of the Samaritans, verſ. 12. now by Goſpel-Preachers, I mean thoſe who though not ſent by a Church, yet being gifted ſhall preach ſoul-ſavingly, whether ſent of the Magiſtrate when Churches are either defective or unable, 2 Chron. 17.7 8. or going of their own accord, as thoſe who went out, John 3. Epiſt. verſ. 6, 7. ſuch an one was Timothy, 2 Tim. 4.5. on whom hands were laid, 1 Tim. 4.14. the difference betwixt theſe Goſpel-Preachers and Apoſtles, ſeems to be this, that as the Apoſtles were ſent into the world to convert perſons to the faith, Mark. 16.15. ſo theſe Evangeliſts went unto the Churches to accompliſh the work the Apoſtles had begun: ſuch were Titus, Mark, Tychicus, Epaphras: yet were not Apoſtles limited onelyonly to the World, nor Evangeliſts to the Churches.
Q. Whether may not other diſciples baptize?
A. The Scripture doth not ſo clearly ſet down herein yet it is more then probable that Ananias, a Diſciple of Damaſcus, baptized Paul, Acts 9.17, 18. and that the three Brethren that came along with Peter from Joppa, baptized Cornelius and his Company, Acts 10 48.
Beſides, ordinary Diſciples may make Diſciples, Acts 11.21, 22. therefore they may baptize, Mat. 28.18. if we ſay the eleven Diſciples onelyonly were appointed by the Commiſſion to make Diſciples, then it follows, that the Brethren that made ſo many Diſciples at Antioch, ſhould have ſinned in their ſo doing, for want of a Commiſſion. Yet may not women baptize, becauſe they are forbid to teach, 1 Cor. 14.34. 1 Tim. 2.12.
Q. But is not baptizedneſs in the diſpenſer of Baptiſme, eſſential to Baptiſme, ſeeing we never read any unbaptized perſon did baptize?
A. Baptizedneſs in the diſpenſer is not eſſential to Baptiſme: for then, 1. an Ordinance of God ſhould be adminiſtred upon humane Teſtimony; for how can any man be ſure that there hath been a line of baptized Perſons from the Apoſtles to him that baptized thee, eſpecially ſeeing no Scripture hath been given by God for this fifteen yeers and upwards?
Beſides John who baptized firſt, we read nothing of his Baptiſme, beſides none of thoſe that were baptized in Scripture; as the Samaritans, the Eunuch, the three thouſand, Acts 24.2. Lydia, the Jaylor, &c. never asked any of the diſpenſers of Baptiſme (though ſtrangers to them) whether themſelves were baptized; which had been moſt material, had a diſpenſers baptizedneſs been eſſential to Baptiſme; eſpecially, they living among the Scribes and Phariſees, who were ready to queſtion by what Power and Authority do you theſe things?
Beſides, were baptizedneſs thus eſſential to Baptiſme, then the Commiſſion would have run; Let a baptized perſon make Diſciples all Nations; but its otherwiſe, make Diſciples all Nations.
Beſides, there ſhould be a continual uncertainties, in reſpect of Baptiſm upon the conſciences of all Chriſtians; ſeeing they could never be certain of a line of Baptizers: eſpecially, after two or three removes, and ſo ſtill ſhould they be uncertain of their own Baptiſme.
Beſides, an unbaptized perſon may clearly hold forth the Covenant of Grace, and ſo Make ſouls Diſciples; what ſhould hinder them but that he may tender the ſigne thereof to thoſe parties that lay hold on that Covenant?
Beſides, this would prove Baptiſme not to be of God, Acts 5.39. becauſe it comes to nought, for want of the knowledge of baptizedneſs in the diſpenſer.
Q. Whether is the doing of miracles eſſential to a diſpenſer of Baptiſme?
A. No: 1. John the firſt diſpenſer did no miracle, Joh. 10.41. Now an Ordinance when it is firſt inſtituted or diſpenſed, the diſpenſer did bring it in with all the eſſentials.
2. Then ſhould the diſpenſers of Baptiſme alwayes have wrought miracles before they adminiſtred Baptiſme, in the ſight of the perſon to be baptized, ſeeing perſons to be baptized ought to partake of every thing eſſential to Baptiſm; but the Scriptures mention no miracle that Philip did when he baptized the Eunuch, nor when John baptized in Jordan, or when Lydia was baptized.
Beſides; if the eſſence of Baptiſme conſiſted in the diſpenſers doing a miracle, then there is no true Baptiſme in the world, becauſe no miracle hath been done this thirteen hundred yeers, Chryſoſt. Hom. 6. in 2 Epiſtle to the Corinthians.
Beſides, miracles are not much uſeful to a perſon that is preſently to be baptized, ſeeing he is deemed a Believer already; but they are of uſe to unconverted perſons, Acts 8.6. 1 Cor. 14.22.
Laſtly, miracles alone cannot confirm any one Ordinance, becauſe falſe prophets may do them, Deut. 13.1. Mat. 7.22. & 24.24. 2 Theſſ. 2.9. from all which it follows, Miracle-working is not eſſential to a diſpenſer of baptiſme,