Divinity-knots Unloosed.  
OR A CLEAR DISCOVERY of truth; by resolving many doubts, according to Scripture, Orthodox Divines, and sound Reason, so as weak capacities may receive satisfaction therein.  
TO WHICH PURPOSE, A Number of Points are explained by familiar Similes.  
A TREATISE INTENDED specially for the instruction of young Christians in ROTHSTORNE parish in CHESHIRE: But published for a further extent of the benefit thereof, to the Israel of GOD.  
By Adam Martindale, one of the meanest Labourers in the LORDS Harvest.  2 Tim. 2.7. 
Consider what I say, and the Lord give you understanding in all things.  1 Pet. 5.10. 
The GOD of all grace— make you perfect, establish, strengthen, settle you.  
London, Printed for John Hancock, in Pope's head Alley, near the Royal Exchange, 1649.   

Divinity-knots Unloosed.  
OR A CLEAR DISCOVERY of truth, according to Scripture, Orthodox Divines, and sound Reason, so as weak capacities may receive much satisfaction and benefit.  
Herein seventy five Doubts are resolved, drawn from these several heads most in Controversy.  

Viz. Touching the Scriptures, and God: his Decree and Creation.  
Of Providence.  
Of the fall of man.  
Of the Law of God, and the two Covenants.  
Of Christ the Mediator,  
Of .  
Of Calling, Justification, Adoption, Sanctification, Faith, Repentance, and good Works.  
Of Perseverance, and Assurance.  
Of Christian Liberty, and Liberty of Conscience.  
Of the Civil Magistrate, and Church-Censures.  
Of Religious Worship, and of the Sabbath day.  
Of Oaths.  
Of the Church.  
Of Communion of Saints.  
Of the Sacraments.   
By Adam Martindale, one of the meanest Labourers in the LORDS Harvest.  
London, Printed for John Hancock, in Pope's head Alley, near the Royal Exchange, 1649.   

To my Dear and precious Father, CAPTAIN JAMES JOLLIE: AND To my present, and quondam Hearers, at Rothstorne in Cheshire, and Gorton in Lancashire.  
Dear Beloved,  
THough the Title-page informs you for whose sake I was especially induced to write this small Treatise; it was never intended by me, that any party of you should wholly monopolise my thoughts of love and Christian respect; but howsoever my duty presseth me more, in reference to the charge I daily undergo, then to thrust my Sickle into another's Harvest: Yet since this comes on the public Theatre, you may all challenge as well a share in it, as the Author whom all of you may justly claim (though in different relations peradventure) to be your own. Concerning the Book itself, it behoves me not to say much; To dispraise it beyond my own judgement, were sinful modesty; to praise it above desert, unsufferable arrogancy. Medio tutissimus, etc. The best course is to leave it to your Christian perusal, and charitable survey; and so I do; telling you only, that nothing, save the weakness is mine own. For the main substance (though the most of it came immediately out of my memory in this form you see it, without any considerable consulting of Authors) was of that store, which in reading the Scripture, and other Divinity Books, and hearing Sermons, conferences, etc. I had before treasured up. Some things indeed there be, which you shall hardly meet with in any Work yet extant; but those I also disclaim as none of mine: For so fare as the truth of GOD appeareth in them, the spirit of God, the guide to, and in all saving truth (in whose hand I am at the best but an Instrument) may justly appropriate it to himself, as his right and due. Though sometimes I am forced to clash with unsound opinions, I have concealed the Author's Names, as having a desire to vindicate the truth, not to provoke any to vindicate himself: for which cause I have not only declined all bitterness of expression (which I think below a Christian at all times) but also the recital of their own words formally (contenting myself with the matter) lest it should too plainly appear who owneth the Tenets I oppose. If notwithstanding all this, any be disposed to wrangle with me, I shall hardly trouble the World, or myself so far, as to rejoin to such replies: But if I be reasoned with in the spirit of meekness, whether it be in this public way, or any other, I dare with a safe conscience (and shall be ready as my occasions will permit) to give an account, in a brotherly way, to any that shall desire satisfaction, concerning any thing herein asserted: Thus I comet both you, and this small piece to the blessing of GOD, remaining,  
Yours in the affairs of the Gospel, A: Martindale. Strethill, April, the 9 1649   

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 rule 
a 2 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 spiritual matters?  
Resol. A rule may be said 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 general terms, and is comprehensive enough to include whatsoever is to be taken within it.  
3. When it particularizeth the principal, and expresseth the rest more generally.    
As for example:  

* This homely Simile (though it may seem ridiculous to critic 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 work was undertaken.  In a Lease, we account the rules perfect, which a Tenant is to walk by, in occupying the ground which is let him, if 1. it give him particular leave to pasture, mow, and sow, or secondly, say in general terms, 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 main points of Faith and practice; but matters of circumstance, and inferior 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 draw this general into particulars: So when the Scripture entereth not upon the particulars, but in the general commandeth order, decency, and edification 
b 1 Cor. 14.26.40. , we had need of the light of nature, assisted by the spirit of God, to judge according to the general dictates of Scripture, what in such a time, and such a case, may make for order, decency, or edifying.  
2. Doubt. How can Ministers tell us what the Word imports in the Original of any text they quote, seeing themselves (as some with probability affirm) never saw the Original?  
Resolution. By the Original we do not mean the first Copies that were written, but faithful transcripts of them in the same language, and these none can deny us to have seen, except they will deny withal, that our Bibles in English (which are translations thereof) are the word of God, which the Objecter seemeth not to do. And yet, although we hold that no tongue can so fully express the sense of some places, as that wherein it was written; nor is of the same authority, but as it agrees therewith; we freely confess, that in the Characters and Printing, there may be error (which may be rectified by comparing one Book and place with another:) And without the spirit of God to assure us, no knowledge of the Original is sufficient to give us full assurance that it is God's word 
c 1 Cor. 2.14. , but by the help of the holy Spirit 
d 1 John 2.20, 27. , the Scriptures may sufficiently inform an illiterate man for his salvation.   

CHAP. II. Of God.  
3. Doubt. IF God be unchangeable 
a Jam. 1.17 , how can he be said to repent 
b Gen. 6 6. 1 Sam. 15.11. .  
Resol. It is spoken according to our capacity, for though God do never repent 
c Num. 23.19. 1 Sam. 15.29. , (that is, change his counsel) yet he doth as if he did repent, when he undoth what he had before done 
d Gen. 6.6, 7. . Nor may God be charged with changeableness, 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 others 
e Rom. 9.18. Ezek. 18. ; yea, severe and gracious to the same person at divers times, and in different respects 
f Ezek. 18 21, 22, 23, 24, etc. ; yet he is one and the same for ever 
g Exod. 3.14. .  
4. Doubt. If God be a spirit, how is he said to have hands, eyes, wings, & c.?  
Resol. This is only spoken, as the former, according to our capacity, that by the hand of God we may note his power 
h Isa. 59.1. , by his eye, wisdom 
i Psal. 11.4. , by his wings, protection 
k Psa. 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 Logic is small, or else it were easy to know how to distinguish betwixt things, that cannot be divided: I can distinguish between the essence and existence of the same thing, betwixt inseparable accidents, and their subjects, or (to speak Common-road language) between a body and its substance, form figure, etc. and yet not divide them. So it is no repugnancy in reason itself, that the Godhead be one entire entity 
l 1 Cor. 8.4, 6. , and yet considered in a personal respect may be distinguished into the Father, Son, and holy Ghost 
m Mat. 3.16, 17. 1 Joh. 5.7. .  
6. Doubt. I find in the 45. of Isaich, Verse. 21. that Christ saith, there is no GOD but himself, notwithstanding we hear him saying as much by his Father, John 17.3. how can both be the only true God?  
Resol. GOD and CHRIST differ not essentially, but only personally; the Father is GOD, so is the Son; yet they 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 (only) is not exclusive of any person of the Trinity (for every person is the only God) but of all others, whether reputed Gods, or Creatures 
n 1 Cor. 8.4, 5, 6.    

CHAP. III. Of God's Decree, and creation.  
7. Doubt. TO what purpose should I seek the good of my soul? If I he elected I shall be saved, if not I cannot.  
Resol. It is not for you to search the Cabinet of God's counsel 
a Deut. 29.29. , but to believe 
b John 3.18.36. , and repent 
c Luke 13.3, 5. ; which if you do, you are not to question your salvation 
d Eph. 2.8 2 Tim. 1.9 2 Cor. 7.10 . Saving Faith (though it be not a cause) is a fruit of election 
e Acts 13.48. , for God hath respect to the means, as well as the end, and conjoineth them in his decree 
f Eph. 1.4.5. & 2.10. : and therefore we may conclude, that believing we are justified 
g Rom. 3.28. , which is an assured argument we were predestinated 
h Rom. 8.29, 30. , and shall be saved 
i Tit. 3.7. . But on the other hand, they that are hardened by sin 
k Psa. 95.8. Heb. 3.13. , are rejected of God 
l Rom. 9.18. , and shall be damned 
m 1 Cor. 6.9, 10. Gal. 5.19, 20, 21. .  
8. Doubt. If God predestinate the means as well as the end, seeing sin is the means 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. God's preterition, passing by, or non●electing of a person.  
2. Predamnation, or fore-condemning a person to perdition.    
The former is of the mere 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 sin, 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 itself: If a King by his wisdom could foresee, that divers of his Subjects would prove Traitors, and be hanged, unless he prefer them, and doth forbear to gratify them so far, only because it is not his pleasure so to do, can he be justly accused of the Treason which after they commit? I believe no politician will 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 do not only pass by men, but predamne them to Hell also by this his decree (as you shown 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 always present, in one infinite moment. And therefore the Lord who seath all the sins of a reprobate by one pure, individual act, from, and to all eternity, may as well piss an act of damnation against them, 〈◊〉 they were actually committed.  
10. Doubt. Might not God as well damn men in a capacity of holiness, as thus to leave them to sin, and then condemn 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 prove he might, but such a case never did, not will fall out: However to our capacity, the justness of God should not shine so perspicuously, if he should damn a Creature that never sinned; for than should he inflict undeserved punishment, whereas in the course he now takes, he only denyeth undeserved savours, and layeth on them deserved penalties.  
11. Doubt. But if God's decree bind 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 himself pronounced good 
n Gen. 1.31 ?  
Resol. GOD'S decree doth not otherwise bind man to a necessity of sinning, than the withdrawing of the upholding hand from a staff reared up, binds it to a necessity of falling; Viz, in a privative way. I shown before, that sin is only privative; that is, a defect of some thing required, as darkness is nothing else but a defect of light: and these privations do not necessarily require causes, or creation; light was indeed created 
o Gen. 2.3. , but darkness was before on the face of the deep 
p Vers. 2. . Now though God made Angels and Men holy, he made them not Gods, that they should stand of themselves without his help, which when he withheld from man, and some of the Angels, they faltered in their obedience, and so became sinful.   

CHAP. IU. Of Providence.  
12. Doubt. HOw can God by his providence dispose of second causes that things can come to pass 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 God's decree, so all things that are, fall out necessarily and cannot be otherwise, 2. In Natural causes, so fire necessarily burns, 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 appears not before the effect, from whence the notions [Contingent free, miraculous] have their rise.  
As for example.  
When an Infant is form in the womb, though in respect of God's decree, it is necessarily a male, or necessarily a female, and 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 govern all Creatures in their actings, and be free from sin, seeing many actions are sinful?  
Resol. You must distinguish betwixt the action, and the evil in it; some sins are actual, but none actions. Therefore as a skilful Minstrel playing on a jarring Instrument causeth it to sound, but it's own badness causeth it to sound jarringly: So God causeth us to act, but that we act sinfully, the cause is in ourselves. To kill a man is not simply evil, sometimes it is not only lawful, but a duty 
a Jer. 48.10. ; but killing a man upon such terms, without a just cause or call. Sin lieth in the moral circumstances, not the physical substance of the action.  
14. Doubt. If God be perfectly glorious, how can he glorify himself in the works of his providence, seeing nothing can be added to that which is perfect?  
Resol. We may consider the glory of God these two ways.  
1. As it is essential to him, and so it is ineffably perfect.  
2. As it is revealed to us, and this because of our weakness, is only in part, and by degrees. A Moses can but view the back parts 
b Exod. 33 23. ; a Paul but see in part 
c 1 Cor. 13 9, 10. , and darkly as in a glass 
d Ibid. ver. 12. : And GOD is said to glorify himself, 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 fellows will thereat, take occasion to be Traitors to him, is not to be blamed: So GOD'S works being holy, though wicked men abuse them through their own perverseness, and make them occasions to sin, he is not unrighteous, but punisheth them in just judgement, suffering them to fall by their own 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 do nothing to the people of GOD, but what he gives way to 
e Psal. 124.6. Psal. 129.1, 2.3. Acts 4, 27, 28. : Yet foraimuch as they endeavour to exceed their Commission 
f Psal. 83.4 Isa. 37.27, 28, 29, 33. , and aim not at God's glory, but their own ends 
g Isa. 10.6, 7, etc. , showing hostility and not pity to God's people 
h Ps, 137.7. Lam. 2.17. ; they shall answer for their ambitious malice 
i Isa. 10.12 ; though God by his wisdom will cause the wrath of man to praise him, and the remainder of wrath he will restrain 
k Ps. 76.10. .   

CHAP. V Concerning the fall of Man.  
17. Doubt. HOw could tasting the forbidden fruit be 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 God's Commandments in particular, and endeavour to make it appear by an induction, though for mine own part, I think it holds in some, not in all, but this I desire to speak with modesty and submission: However it cannot be denied, but the breach of the least of God's Commandments maketh us guilt of all 
a James 2 10. : And the violation of his Law, who is infinite, deserveth infinite punishment, which because it cannot be in extent (we being finite) must be in duration. Nor doth the small value of the fruit abate any thing, but rather aggravate it, for (as Master Byfield saith well) their sin was greater, that upon so small an advantage would adventure eternal happiness.  
18. Doubt. But how comes it to pass, that Adam's 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 public, not a private person: and therefore as he received the Covenant of works, and for a time stood by it for himself and all mankind, so for himself and all mankind he fell from it 
b Rom. 5.12. to 20. 1 Cor. 15.22. .  
19 Doubt. Would it not have made more for GOD'S glory to have kept men from sin, to serve him in holiness?  
Resol. No: For by this means man is a fit object for the rich mercy or just judgement of God, which by occasion hereof GOD manifesteth to his own glory.  
20. Doubt. Some affirm 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 ways:  
1. 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 remains worthy to be honoured: In the former sense God cannot be dishonoured, but in the latter he may 
c Mal. 1. ● Rom. 2.2 ; even as Children by their disobedience do not render their Parents dishonourable 
d Mat. 1 4, 5, 6, , but dishonoured 
e Mic. 7. .  
21. Doubt. How can men in justice become liable to eternal punishment for sin committed in time, and it may be in a short time?  
Resol. 1. They are committed against an eternal God, and therefore are always (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 wills.  
3. Though punished in Hell, they still retain 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 works be for substance comprehended in the ten Commandments, how can Christians which are free from the Law be bound to observe them?  
Resol. The Law of the Ten Commandments containeth the matter of the Covenant of works, but is not the Covenant formally, any more than the Copy of a Lease written by a private hand, 
Simile,  having never been sealed and delivered according to Law, is the Lease itself: The matter of the Covenant without the form, cannot sufficiently constitute it. Now the form of the Covenant of works is the condition whereupon the duty is undertaken: Viz. Do this and live; Life is promised upon perfect obedience, damnation threatened upon the least disobedience. The Gospel indeed requireth the same things, but not upon the same terms, for whereas the same Covenant of works saith, Do this and live, the Gospel saith, Live and do this. Christ hath freed us from the Law, as it is a compeller and condemner, but not as it is a directory, or (to speak properly) we are freed from the Covenant of works as it is such, but not from the things therein contained: even as a Servant which obeyed his Master out of slavish fear, or for wages, if his Master adopt him, and make him his heir, though he still be bound to do the same things, yet forasmuch as he acteth from different Principles, Viz. of love, thankfulness, and 〈◊〉 reverence, he is perfectly free from that Covenant which (as a Servant) he made with his Master. In like manner the adopted Sons of God, (though they are to act the same things that the Law of works required) yet in as much as they do them not to be justified and live, but because they are justified, and do live; nor are bound to them under the penalty of revenging wrath, but fatherly chastisement) are perfectly set at liberty from the Covenant of works.  
23. Doubt. If the Covenant on Mount Sinai was a Covenant of grace (as it must needs be, because in it was forgiveness of sins) How can Christ be said to be a Mediator of a better Covenant than Moses? better and worse seem to intimate there be two Covenants of grace.  
Resol. 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 Books of the same nature together (as suppose they treat of Grammar, Logic, or Philosophy) the one treating in a prolix, dark, and confused manner, the other in a brief, methodical, and plain way, and say this is better than that, we do not mean that the subject matter of the one is better than the other, but only the excellency is in the method and expression. So when the Covenant of Grace, as it is handed to us by Christ, is preferred before the same, as it is set forth by Moses in types and shedowes, we must understand it of the perspicuity and compendiousness of the administration, together with the freedom from burdensome Ceremonies, not of the Covenant itself, for that is one and the same to them and us 
a 1 Cor. 10 1, 2, 3, 4. .  
24. Doubt. How can the Jews Covenant and ours, be all one, when as in theirs, forgiveness was not for every sin (namely, not for presumptuousness 
b Num. 15.30. , nor uncircumcision 
c Gen. 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 till Sacrifice was again offered: But Christ hath at once paid a full price, and acquitted us from all our sins?  
Resol. With reverence to the learned Author from whom this doubt ariseth, I believe it is a great mistake to say, the Jews 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 loss of their part in the external Covenant of God, till the one repent, 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 alleged, being opposed only to ignorance) was unpardonable, and therefore all damned that were defiled with them (as it must needs follow) is not only unproved, but disproved by Scripture 
d Jos. 5.2, 3, 4, etc. 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 alleged concerning the graduality of forgiveness, for the Sacrifices did not of themselves make the atonement, but as Ordinances typifying Christ they did (as it were) Sacramentally apply and seal the pardon of sin to the conscience, as they should from time to time offend and stand in need of pardon; but that Christ did at once bear the sins of Believers, as well Jew's before his coming, as Gentiles since, is plain by that clause so much stood upon by the reverend Author, The Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all 
e Isa. 53.6. , and many other places 
f Rev. 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 kill Letter, and a ministration of death and condemnation 
g 2 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 kill letter, etc. For the Sacrifices and Ceremonies typifyed Christ, and sealed forgiveness 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 Jews lived under a Covenant of works. . But Moses is there to be considered, as he was the Minister of the Decalogue, or ten Commandments, 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 appear by two reasons.  
1. We are told (Vers. 7.) that this ministration of death was engraven on stones, but only the ten Commandments were so engraven 
h Exo. 34.1.28. ; therefore he only meaneth them.  
2. The Apostle here speaks of a ministration about which Moses was employed when his face shone 
i 2 Cor. 3.7.13. : But this glory was vouchsafed him when he received the ten Commandments alone 
k Exo. 34.28, 29, 30. , therefore them only 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 works; though the same being received in subordination to Christ (which was truly (though more dimly) held forth in these Ceremonial observances) hinders not, but that Israel lived under a Covenant of grace.  
26. Doubt. When the Apostle blameth the Galatians for revolting from the Gospel to the Law, what Law meaneth he, the moral or Ceremonial?  
Resol. With submission to better judgements, I believe he means the whole Covenant on Sinai containing both the Moral and Ceremonial Law, which was a Covenant of grace, when Moral duties were pressed in subordination and obedience to Christ the King of the Church, and Ceremonial, as typifying him to come: But when their imperfect obedience of the moral Law 
l Gal. 3.10, 11, 12, 18. & 4.21. , and rotten Ceremonies long before abolished 
m Gal. 4.9.10. & 5.6. , were cried up, and rested in for justification and life eternal, they became an unsupportable yok of bondage 
n Gal. 5.1, 3 Acts 15.10 , binding men under a Covenant of works 
o Gal. 5.3. , and making the death of Christ (as to them) of none effect 
p Gal. 2.21. & 5.2. .   

CHAP. VII. Of Christ the Mediator.  
27. Doubt. HOW could Christ be sent by his Father, and yet be equal to him, seeing the Scripture saith, He is greater that sends, than he which is sent?  
Resol. Christ as God is equal to his Father, but as Mediator (in which capacity, he was sent) an inferior to him 
a Phil. 2, 6, 7. .  
28. Doubt. If Christ paid 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 bestowed on us 
b Joh. 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 laid the whole debt upon him, till he was fully satisfied; he is bound in faithfulness and justice itself to forgive us our sins 
c 1 Joh. 1.9 . A creditor needs not to take a Surety for a debt already due, unless himself please, and if he do, it is a courtesy to the Debtor (for if he will he may lay him by it, till he pay or rot) yet if he do accept of a Surety, and lay the debt upon him, and be accordingly paid and satisfied, he cannot require it again, but is bound in justice, Law, and conscience to acquit the principal: In like manner, God without wrong to mankind might have bound them over to eternal punishment in their own persons, without accepting any other to be bound for them; but having accepted of Christ to enter bond with them, and received the whole sum from him, acknowledging the receipt thereof under his own hand and seal, he cannot in righteousness charge it again upon us.  
29. Doubt. If Christ have fully satisfied his Father's justice for the Elect, so that all (and only) they that are in Christ have their sins pardoned, how can any man ask for givenesse of sins? If they be in Christ it seems to be superfluous, if not, sinful; for whatsoever one that is out of Christ doth is sinful.  
Resol. Whether men be in Christ or no, they ought to pray for pardon of sin 
d Mat. 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 failings 
c 2 Sam. 12 14 Psal. 89.30, 31, 32, 33, 34. . And therefore have cause to pray that God would neither hid 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 one 
f Psal. 79.6 Jer. 10.25. , in the use whereof God is pleased to let forth himself and vouchsafe a discovery of Christ 
g Acts 10.30. , every one should beware of slighting it; for although the prayer of a wicked person be sinful, and therefore may be thought unprofitable, so is their hearing of the Word without Faith 
h Heb. 4.3. , and yet they must hear that they may have Faith 
i Rom. 10.14 etc. : Yes it's generally said, whatsoever is not of Faith is sin 
k Rom. 14.23. ; and without Faith it is impossible to please God 
l Heb. 11.6, , insomuch that the ploughing of the wicked is iniquity 
m Pro. 23.4 . And yet I do not think any man holdeth that faithless men are to forbear every thing, and wicked men ploughing. No more must natural men forbear praying, because they cannot pray as they ought, but rather be more serious and frequent that God in his own 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 itself we may not, because every Elect person (and reprobates are excluded from pardon) hath all his sins past, present, and to come, laid upon Christ: And therefore though be be in the height of his sins, he stands in no more need of pardon then a Saint in Heaven: Hence it is, that some Gospell-Preachers of these days expound [forgive us our debts or sins] to signify no more but [manifest to us that our fins are forgiven us] And when David begs pardon of sin, 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 gracious 
n Psal. 77.7, etc. ?  
Resol. Those which make this objection do ordinarily distinguish (in the pardon of sin) betwixt God's decree to forgive, and the manifestation hereof; but they 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 actual 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 Sovereign 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 judicial way, for though it be never so well known 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 self 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 forgiveness 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 Lamb slain from the beginning of the World for the certainty and efficacy thereof, though he was actually put to death till the fullness of time, yet (as to them) the pardon hath not actual existence, till God give them Faith in Christ, whereby they receive the actonement; but till they believe, they want not only the assurance of forgiveness, but forgiveness itself, for they are Children of wrath 
o Joh. 3.36 Eph. 2.3. , and condemned persons 
p Joh. 3.19 . This considered, I cannot but greatly wonder, that any learned man should without warrant of Scripture, and against the stream of Commentators, expound [forgive] to signify [declare forgiveness] (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 before 
q Doubt. 30. answered. , that a Believer is not free from correction, though from condemnation be is. As for David I have before 
r In the Resolution of the 25. Doubt.  overthrown 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 writ the 25. and 51. Psalms, in which he frequently beggeth pardon: I readily grant that some passages of the 77. Psalm, were spoken in such a temper, for himself tells us so 
s Vers. 10. : but that any thing in these Psalm 
t Viz. 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 himself, and did not personate a Believer in his sinful doubtings, when he spoke thus; especially considering that he seldom or never leaves any Error on record without some dash or brand to know it by: And therefore till some man show me as good ground to prove him under a temptation when he asked forgiveness, as when he said, God had forsaken him; I see no reason why the places should be paralleled, and the one expounded by the other.   

CHAP. VIII. Of .  
31. Doubt. HOw can any be said to have , whereas natural men are taken captive by Satan at his will 
a 2 Tim. 2.26. , and those which come to Christ are drawn by the Father 
b Joh. 6.44 ?  
Resol. 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 persuaded by reasons and importunity that he cannot say nay, and yet not necessitated to yield 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 Bear 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 persuades it; for when Christ draweth, his people become willing 
c Psal. 110.3. , and run after him 
d Can. 1.4. .  
32. Doubt. Let me understand you thoroughly; Do you mean that man since the fall hath Free will to good or evil, so that he wants no power, but will only, to believe and repent?  
Resol. By no means, no more than a mad, or possessed man can dispose of his own strength for his own good: For though I hold that the will of man is not lost, nor absolutely determined this way, or that, by any inevitable necessity in causes purely naturally, yet withal 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 plain, consider one of the Similes 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 relieth wholly on the guidance of his leader, can go whither he will, and escape all dangerous places of himself, but according to his guide so is his going. So the will of man acts freely, but it seethe not by its own eyes, but is guided by the understanding, which because of corruption is a false guide to it; and therefore until God by his spirit sanctify the understanding, to be a faithful guide to the will, it must needs act perversely, though freely.  
33. Doubt. If a man in his natural condition cannot do good or evil as himself willeth, why is he blamed for it, or exhorted to amend?  
Resol. If a man by his own unthriftiness make away his estate, is he not still suable for his debts, though unable to pay them? And when God gave us ability to do his will, and we lost it through our own default, are we not still debtors to his justice? May not he blame us for making ourselves uncapable? And whereas the Scripture calleth on us for amendment, it is to convince us of our wants and insufficiency, that we may the more seriously seek to him, that hath promised to ease and heal them. The Prophet bids us make ourselves new hearts 
e Ezek. 18 31. , and yet David desires God to do it 
f Psal. 51.10. : So than it must be our aim, but God's act 
g Rom. 9.16. .   

CHAP. IX Of Calling, Justification, Adoption, Sanctification, Faith, Repentance, and good Works.  
34. Doubt. IF God love his people when they are in their blood (i. e. in the height of their sin) 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, etc.  
Resol. I might ask you a like question; If God loved the World 
a Joh. 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 whilst they are finners, but not as they are sinners. A man may like a piece of Land, which as yet brings forth nothing but thorns and briers, not because such, or that of itself it will grow better, but that by his own work he can make it fruitful: So God loveth an Elect sinner, but it is with respect to his own graces in time to be planted in them 
b Eph. 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 works, etc. 
c See the Scripture last cited. .  
35. Doubt. If we be justified freely 
d Rom. 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 tendered to us. But that all cause of objection against the freeness of this work on God's part, may be abundantly removed, even Faith itself (the hand which receiveth Christ and all his benefits 
e Joh. 1.12. ) is freely given us 
f Eph. 2.8. .  
36. Doubt. What need we sanctification, repentance, or good works, if we be justified by Faith alone 
g Rom. 3.28 ?  
Resol. Faith which justifieth is not alone, though Faith alone justify (instrumentally I mean, else it is God that justifieth 
h Rom. 8.33 ) for as the fruitbearing tree is not without leaves, though the fruit soaring not from the leaves, either by intervention or concurrence, but from the tree immediately: So a lively and justifying Faith purifieth the heart 
i Acts 15.9  from which sanctification and good works have their rise. And therefore that Faith which in due time doth not show itself in works, is not a saving, but a dead Faith 
k Jam. 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 Believers, how can Heaven be conferred on persons as a reward for their good works?  
Resol. Heaven is not bestowed on any by way of just recompense of his works, for the best are unprofitable Servants 
l Luke 17.10. ; how then can their works purchase Heaven? But God who can as well reward according to works in mercy 
m Psal. 62.12. : as Justice doth abundantly repay them for all their pains and service, by putting them in possession of that Kingdom which he ever intended them, without respect had to the worth of their works, 
Simile.  or repentance. A Father at his death doth abundantly reward his Son for his obedience, when be gives him his Lands, although he had long before, out of mere Fatherly affection 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 Abraham's obeying of God, and non-resusing to offer up his only 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 blessed 
n Gen. 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 promise 
o Gen. 12.2 & 15.5. . In the same manner and order God rewards his people for their obedience and service to him done, when he bestows on them that heavenly Kingdom which he purposed should be their inheritance before the world was.  
38. Doubt. What need we to believe, seeing 
p 2 Tim. 2.13.  GOD will be faithful though we believe not?  
Resol. The Original Word which is translated [we believe not 
q 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. ] is not only such a word as denotes the present time 
r 1 Viz. being the present tense. , but also it, and another of affinity with it 
s 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. , are frequently used for the hesitations and staggerings of the faithful; and doth not import a privation of the habit of Fiath by infidelity (for that is damnable 
t Mark 16.16. Joh. 3.36. Mat. 17, 20 Mark. 9.24 & 16.11, 14. Luke 24.11, 41. ) But only a negation (or rather a suspending) of Faith's acting in some juncture of time, which the Text quoted in the Margin will sufficiently clear, especially to him that is able to peruse the Greek Copy: And therefore I can see no more in the Text alleged but only thus much; If we believe not, that is, if for the present (or sometimes) we by reason of weakness, discontinue or intermit actual believing, not being able to hold to a constant course in acting Eaith on the promises of God, we must not measure God by ourselves, as if he started aside from us, as often as we from him, but will still remain faithful, which if he should not do, it could be no less to him, who by an excellency is called faithful, and is faithfulness in the abstract, than a denial of himself.  
39 Doubt. How can we be said to have faith, and yet cannot work miracles 
u Mat. 17.20. ?  
Resol. The ordinary answer is (as I take it) that Christ in the place cited, meaneth not Faith in the general, much less justifying Faith in special, but a certain 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 warrant 
w Mat. 7.22. 1 Cor. 13.2 : But a learned man of these days hath a more subtle 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 believe and hope for, and accordingly will the issue be, how difficult soever it appear.  
40. Doubt. If the persons and actions of Believers be not perfectly free from sin, how can either of them be accepted with God, which bats and abborres it?  
Resol. God indeed hates and abhors the sins of the Elect, yet their sins being laid 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 comes the sin 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 forgiven 
x 1 Tim. 1.13. , the Scribes and Pharisees blasphemed and could never be forgiven 
y Mat. 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 forgiveness is denied to: But the main 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 believe lies 
z 2 Thes. 2.10, 11, 12. Simile. , and so go on to damnation. For as a wound which would be found curable enough, if good Salve were in due time applied thereto, may be the death of the man, if he be distracted and will suffer nothing to be laid to it; so though no transgression can be so vile as to be simply unpardonable, yet if it be accompanied with such circumstances, that impenitency must needs follow (as here it always 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 fare 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 careless of their ways, when they are taught they can never fall away from grace?  
Resol. No, but rather a great encouragement to be diligent 
a 1 Pet. 1.5 13. 2 Pet. 1.10 , for he that would not serve God out of love, though he noching benefited himself thereby, is not yet in the state of grace, and then what have such to do with perseverance? But he that is truly godly, finding himself to be delivered from his enemies, will serve him without fear, in holiness and righteousness before him all the days of his life 
b Luke 1.74, 75. ; and if he falter herein (though God will never utterly cast him off) he will be offended and chastise him, with corporal and spiritual scourges.  
43. Doubt. I have heard some in these days speak much against trying a man's self by Scripture marks and signs, calling it a kindling of sparks of our own, and I much desire to know whether it be safe so to try myself?  
Resol. Under favour, it is (to say no worse) a great mistake, to call the work of the spirit within us (or any arguments drawn from thence according to the testimony of the Spirit and word of Grace) sparks of our kindling, for they are sparks of Gods kindling; this sort of teaching being a scriptural teaching 
c 2 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 tells him he must pass thorough, before he arrive at his journey's end.  
44. Doubt. Yet I understand not the right use of these notes, or trials; and therefore I beseech you proceed further?  
Resol. I shall go on in my last comparison, and show you the rules. Suppose than a Christian to be the Traveller, Heaven the place to which his way lieth, & these notes or signs remarkables in the way: Then,  
First, As the remarkables (be they Hills, Rocks, &c,) must be so fully and truly 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 pitched upon, we must have distinct knowledge of it, what it is, and how discernible from counterfeits, before we can assuredly say we are come to it.  
Secondly, A diligent Traveller coming to such a place as assures him to be in his way, stays not there, but goeth on towards his journey's end: No more must Christians stay because they find they have gone aright so fare, but proceed from strength to strength, and grow in grace.  
Thirdly, A Traveller should not despair as if he were out of his way, though he find not his way-marke (which perhaps is a good distance off) as soon as he sets out; but hope that although it yet appeareth not, or very dimly; yet in due time, he shall perfectly discern and recover it: So though one that desires to fear God, and believe in him, do not at first so clearly as he desireth discern some graces in himself, he should not despair, but go on hoping in the Lord till he be pleased to speak peace 
d Psa. 85.8 Isa. 40.31. & 50.10. .  
Fourthly, If a Traveller have once attained to a clear sight of such a remarkable place as afterward he looseth the sight of, by going through some valley (a mountain interposed) he is still to hope, and hold on, till he again recover the sight thereof: So though Christians, which formerly have found the precious fruits of the spirit in themselves, fall afterwards into temptation, or mountains of difficulty arise, they are to remember how it hath been with them, hoping in God, and continuing in the use of means, till they recover their comfort again.  
45. Doubt. If men be dead in sin till they be regenerate, and alive ever after, what need is there of marks or signs? He that is alive, knows that he lives, and a dead man can make no use of them.  
Resol. The comparison halteth, for though the spiritual life and death in many things resemble the natural, in many things they differ; especially concerning the matter in hand: It is almost a miracle of madness, for a living man to think himself dead; and yet in ordinary experience, we find many weak 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 himself to be dead, or think he is alive; but we read of divers spiritually dead that have so judged of themselves, as Cain, Judas, and many in humane Stories 
* Read the Story of Spira. , amongst whom Julian the Apostate deserves the first place, who having in a Battle received his death's wound, belched out this desperate blasphemy, Vicisti Galilaee, meaning Christ as an enemy had vanquished him. And too frequently to our grief do we meet with Heretics, Hypocrites, Civilians, etc. which have deaths brand upon them, and yet are confident their case is as good as any man's; insomuch that no arguments (without the special assistance of God's spirit) are sufficient to convince them of the contrary.  
2. Though life were easy to be perceived, yet growth is many times more difficult, and this Doctrine of trial doth as well inquire into the growth, as truth, of gr●ce.  
46. Doubt. How should there be any certainty in trying a man's self by these notes, when an eminent Preacher of these days hath proved that neither universal 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 mere man, as universal obedience: Nor the second, because this love hath such qualifications as men shall hardly find in themselves 
* See 1 Cor 13. Ver. 4.5 etc. : 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 than ourselves, for the Apostle doth not say, Hereby I know, but Hereby we know, etc.  
Resol. By universal obedience we do not mean exact obedience to the Law in every part of it, without swerving or interruption, but unblamable walking in a Gospel-sense, which indeed is rather universal in will then act, for though When they would do good, evil is present with them 
e Rom. 7.21. , so that they do not the good which they would, but the evil which they would not 
f Ver. 19 ; yet they delight in the Law of the Lord after the inward man 
g Ver. 2●. . And this their obedience is called universal, in as much, as a Christian doth not pick nor choose among God's Commandments, but hath respect to them all without exception or difference, endeavouring to walk up to them, or as near as may be: Now such universal obedience as this must be in a Christian 
h Jam. 2.10 , and where it is, must needs be a good sign of an happy estate 
i Ps. 119.6. .  
As for Love to the Brethren, methinks [1 John 3.14.] is so plain, that he which saith, we cannot know our condition hereby, doth directly give John (or rather the holy Ghost) the Lie: And what if love have such qualifications as are spoken of, 1 Cor. 13. Cannot the tree be known, until it bear fruit, it were absurd arguing to say (in the season when a plant is new set) this is no Appletree, because we see no Apples on it. And when it appears 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 by-respect, but love to the God they serve) may we not conclude we love them, because the fruits of this love do not presently appear? 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 God's ●ime we shall see fruits.  
Nor need we to know infallibly, that they are the Brethren whom we love; if they profess and practise the true Religion, we are bound (till the contrary appear) 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 nevertheless true: Charity hopeth all things 
k 1 Cor. 13.7. : But what think you did the reverend Author mean, when he tells us, Papists love one another under the notion of Brethren? Doth he think it alone, to love him which (as fare 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 Master's 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 sinful 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 God's secrets, nor blindfolding our own 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 men's outward profession and conversation: Nor can this be a sign to know others, and not ourselves; for we cannot know whether others love the Brethren except we knew their hearts. And though it be not said (1 John 3.14.) I know I am, etc. But We know we are, etc. 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 special persons privilege; 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 all 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 civil Magistrate, and Church-censures.  
47. Doubt. IF Christians must not be the servants of men 
a 1 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 going 
b 1 Cor. 7.20, 21, 22.  and almost infinite other places) but do not so serve men, that it hinder you in the service of God.  
48. Doubt. If every one must bear his own burden 
c Gal. 6.5. , and be judged according to his works 
f Rom. 2.6 , why should any man (Magistrate, or other) trouble or interrupt him, though he be heretical or blasphemous, but leave him to God, and his own conscience?  
Resol. The vilest sinner on earth may plead thus: But the truth is, that though the principal and ultimate judgement of every man's cause be left to Christ to be determined by him at the day of judgement: Yet God out of his singular wisdom hath appointed, that open wickedness (whether it be matter of opinion or practice) be judged and punished also by Authority Ecclesiastical and Civil, and if either sort neglect their duty herein, themselves become culpable 
g Neh. 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 work, but to make men either more violent, when they see their Tenet opposed, or else Hypocrites (if they be restrained) for God only can change the heart?  
Resol. This also any notorious wretch may say for himself; 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 sin 
h 2 Thes. 2.10. , and if I go against my conscience I sin also 
i Rom. 14. ult. 1 Cor, 8.7. etc. ?  
Resol. It is true, and therefore the way is to pray and seek 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 promises 
a Mat. 7.7. ; and therefore you must not think that Gods absolute promises tie him to give such and such things, whether they will ask or no 
b Jam. 4.2. , but that he will enable his people to pray, that they may receive the promised mercies 
c Isa. 51.9. ? He having resolved he will be sought unto for the accomplishment of his promises 
d Ezek. 36.37. .  
52. Doubt. Some scruple the singing of David's Psalms, saying they were only penned for the present occasion, and conceive that the Psalms mentioned in the New Testament were not david's, but such as men assisted by the spirit of God, composed for the particular occasion 
e 1 Cor. 14.26. : But what think you of it?  
Resol. Though David's Psalms were penned for the particular occasion, yet the use of them still remained, and some of them were sung many Ages after 
f 2 Chron. 20.21. & 29.30. , nor can it be proved that they ever ceased to be God's Ordinance.  
As for the New Testament, we often read the word [Psalms] therein, and for the most part in such a sense, that David's Psalms must needs be thereby meant 
g Luke 20.42. Acts 1.20. & 13.33. Eph. 5.19. Col. 3.16. and elsewhere. , but never (to my remembrance) in the sense you speak of; for such occasional composures are rather called Hymns, or Spiritual songs, and distinguished from Psalms 
h Eph. 5.19. Col. 3.16. . To that place you cite, Viz. 1 Cor. 14.26. I answer:  
First, The Apostle there speaks of abuses and d sorders, and therefore it is hard thence to prove a duty: It is rough Logic to say, the Apostle reproves them that they had each of them a Psalm; therefore Christians must (or may) have each of them a Psalm.  
Secondly, Admit that Paul reproves them not for any faultiness in the matter of their worship, but the manner of performance (which I confess is likely to be his meaning) our opinion may well stand with it; for he might well mean David's Psalms, and so the sense will be this, Every one chooseth what Psalm himself pleaseth, etc.  
Thirdly, Suppose he meant any other kind of Psalms than david's, 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 spiritual Songs, as abovesaid, made less use of David's Psalms, by reason of their own extraordinary abilities, it were no warrant to us, which pretend to no such gifts, to neglect, such excellent helps as David's Psalms are.  
53. Doubt. How do you know that this day which we celebrate, is the first day of the week which the Apostles kept, and is called the Lords day?  
Resol. As well as the Jews in Christ's time, that they kept the seventh, or you that you are baptised: 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, six hundred, forty eight years; and therefore how can this be said to be the same, considering with all, that in countries' fare distant it may he night in one, when it is day in another?  
Resol, I confess, I am neither Astronomer, nor Geographer, nor do I think we stand in need of such Calculations: Let years revolve whither they can, the days of the week will still follow one another in the same order they do. The Jews Sabbath was above twice as old as ours is, when Christ was on the Earth, and the course of the Sun twice interrupted in the mean time 
i Jos. 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 changed 
k Luke 23.56. , which they would not have done, had there been any error in the Jews account. The distance of place (I confess) may alter the time much, yet I verily believe that he, which in all his travels (or wheresoever GOD placeth him) shall observe a day weekly, beginning with the first, and so holding on, keeps it seasonably: And if this be not allowed, I see not how the Patriarcks in their Pilgrimages, or Proselytes, which dwelled in all parts of the World 
l Acts 2.9. & 8.27. ; (to say nothing of the distance which some conceive, was between Canaan itself, and 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 week, seeing that day is not positively set down to be kept?  
Resol. Though I reverence Master Calvin as highly as any man that was alive this hundred years; yet I cannot comply with him nor any men else, in judging another time so fit for God's service, as that which by the Apostles themselves was set apart 
m Act. 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 precept 
n Phil. 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 own part (with submission) I think it gins at the dawning of the day, when Christ arose 
o Mat. 28.1 : I know it is said (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 seems to point at some Mystery: But this I say, that though it be granted that the natural day and particularly the Sabbath, containing four and twenty hours, 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 Christ's resurrection, why should it not as well begin at the hour and minute, as be celebrated on the day that he risen from the dead?   

CHAP. XIII. Of Oaths.  
57 Doubt. HOw can swearing by the Name of GOD be a sin, seeing it is not only allowed, but commanded 
a Deu. 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 vainly, is a breach of the third Commandment; and the like may be said of other worships: But the meaning of the places you cite, is this, When thou shalt be lawfully called to swear, thou shalt swear 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, SWEAR NOT AT ALL 
b Mat. 5.34 , and ABOVE ALL THINGS MY BRETHREN SWEAR NOT 
c Jam. 5.12 ?  
Resol. Very well, for the sense is, Swear not at all by the Creature; Not by Heaven, Earth, Jerusalem, or thine head, saith Christ 
d Mat. 9.34 etc. . Not by Heaven, Earth, or any other Oath, saith the Apostle James 
c Jam. 5.12 : The general expression, Swear not at all, must be expounded by the particulars enumerated: Others say, the Scribes and Pharisees taught, It was lawful to swear in their ordinary Communication, so they were not perjured, and Christ heads himself 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 God himself appointed an Oath to decide controversies, 
Exod. 22.7 etc. 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 typical nor grounded on special reason, peculiar to those times, but of common equity, concerning us as well in the days of the Gospel cannot be abrogated. Compare the Scriptures in the Margin.   

CHAP. XIV. Of the Church, and Communion of Saints.  
59 Doubt. WHethr is there such a thing as an universal visible Church?  
Resol. The Church wherein God hath set Apostles (1 Cor. 12.28.) can be no other. Universal it must needs be, because comprehending universal Officers; and it can neither be the invisible on Earth, nor the triumphant; for Apostles (as such) belong to neither of them (though as Saints they do) for Judas was an Apostle 
a Mat. 10.2, 3, 4. , but appertained neither to the invisible Church on Earth, nor the triumphant in Heaven 
b Joh. 17.12. Acts 1.16. .  
60 Doubt. How is it possible that Believers 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 judgement 
c 1 Cor. 1.10. : Yet it is possible, Communion may be held in the main, amongst those which are not of one mind in all things 
d Phil. 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 tells of any that were Baptised?  
Resol. Though the Scripture lay down neither Precept nor Precedent in express terms; a Doctrine that may be proved by undeniable Scripture-consequence may not be rejected. Christ overthrew the opinion of the Sadduces by Scripture 
a Mat. 22.29, to 34. , although he alleged nothing expressly against their error, but only by way of consequence: Howbeit the confutation was so clear, 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 methinks a matter of so great importance, and so much contended for, should be proved by one place at least of express Scripture?  
Resol. Though the least part of gospel-truth is worthy to be contended for, so it be in love and modesty; and the delay of Baptism without just cause, is a slighting of God's gracious tender, yet the dispute being only concerning a circumstance of time, we account it nothing so weighty as if it concerned the substance and essence of Baptism. Nevertheless it cannot be denied, but even weightier matter than Baptism itself are not to be found in express terms in the Scripture: The Mystery concerning Trinity of Persons, in Unity of Essence is no no where read, Totidem verbis (as we say) in the Word of God, howbeit it is sufficiently proved, 1 John 5.7. and no less than blasphemy to deny it: Neither is it said in any place expressly, that the holy Ghost is God, though undeniably proved, 1 Cor. 3.16. Acts 5.3, 4. Or how doth it appear that Women did, or aught to receive the Lords Supper? Or that the Son of a Believer, being a grown person, was (or aught to be) Baptised, which notwithstanding our opposers hold and practice: They must not answer me, that whole Families were baptised, among whom it is probable there were some such; for it may be easily replied, 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 baptised, it must needs be baptised 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 self having proved them both sufficiently, though (I confess) only by strong consequence, not in express terms, which I never before observed) but to me the Scripture is plain enough, that Women may receive the Lords Supper, because they may examine themselves 
b 1 Cor. 11 28. , and we read of Women that have had Faith, Repentance, Knowledge, and Charity, as well as men: And as easy is it to prove, that a Believers Son (when himself is a Believer) must be baptised, seeing Faith makes capable 
c Mark 16.16. ; but I find not the like proof for Pedobaptisme?  
Resol, Mistake me not, I did not deny the things you plead for; only I say they cannot be found in express terms, but must be made out by consequence, and this you shall find is equally strong for Pedobaptisme as for them, which (to satisfy your doubt) I shall briefly show you in these few Arguments.  

1. Argument.  
Disciples are to be Baptised, Believers Children are Disciples: Ergo, They are to be Baptised.  
That Disciples are to be Baptised, no man can doubt, that understands, Matth. 28.19. which Scripture is most naturally rendered 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. : Go, disciple all Natinos', baptising them, etc. And those which deny the lawfulness of children's baptism, do not only acknowledge this, but urge it much against us, as supposing that Infants cannot be Disciples; And therefore all the stress of the argument lieth in the proof of the Minor, which may be done thus. Peter blaming such as urged Circumcision, and observance of Moses Law, hath this passage 
d Acts 15.10. , Why tempt ye God, to put a yoke on the neck of the Disciples, etc. 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 it 
e Acts 15.1  (for no other Law could bind them to it) and this Law did not only require that adult persons, but that all their Males eight days old should be circumcised 
f Gen. 17.12. . So that these Patrons of Circumcision must needs lay this unsupportable yoke, as well on Believers Children, as Believers themselves, and yet they are all called Disciples; I conclude therefore, seeing Christ commands that Disciples must be baptised, and Peter includeth Believers Children in the number of Disciplet, Such Children are to be baptised.   

2. Argument.  
If Baptism be come into the room of Circumcision, Infants may be as capable of it, as they were of Circumcision:  
But, Baptism is come in the room of Circumcision: 
g Col. 2.12  Therefore, etc.   

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 Baptism be come in the place of Circumcision? When first, they were both on foot together a long season: Secondly, Males only were Circumcised, but Females are also baptised: Thirdly, Circumcision must be administered strictly on the eight day; but no such rule is observed in baptising Children: Fourthly, Circumcision was to confirm Canaan, and certain temporal blessings to Abraham, and his seed 
h Gen. 17.8, 9, 10. , for such was the Covenant of God with him 
i Gen. 17.4, etc. & 15 18, etc. .  
Resol. To these your four 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 anointed King, his Father being yet alive 
k 1 King. 1 39, 43, 44, etc. ; in like manner was Eleazar made Priest, before his Father's death 
l Num. 20.26. ; yet who doubts but they were their Father's successors? Gospell-Ordinances came in the room of typical Ceremonies 
m Joh. 4.22 23, 24. Heb. 10.1. , though they were in being at one time 
n Act 16.2 . So Circumcision was in being, but even expiring, when baptism was instituted.  
2. 
2 Exception taken away.  Males only were circumcised because they only 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 household must eat the Paschall Lamb 
o Exod. 12.3, 4. , and yet no uncircumcised person must eat thereof 
p Ver. 48. , surely than Women in Israel were not reputed uncircumcised: But now for Baptism, Women are not only 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 baptised 
q Acts 16.15. ; and that an Infant may be, it hath been (and by God's help shall be further) proved: and then why not a Female Infant?  
3. 
3 Exception taken of.  Whatsoever in the time of the Law was not established on such grounds as concern our times also, but was either typical, or grounded on special reason, peculiar to those times, we never judged ourselves obliged thereby: Of which fort of precepts, that concerning the precise observation of the eight day is one.  
Master Tombs himself (if my memory fail 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 proof we have; for the Scriptures show that the eight day was exactly limited, because of the Mothers Ceremonially uncleanness the first seven days, which must be past ere the Child could enjoy this Ordinance whereof we speak 
r Leu. 12. Vers. 2. compared with ver. 3. . If any man shall here reply, this can be no reason, because she was unclean three and thirty days 
s Ver. 4. : I answer, first, that though she was unclean soaking, yet not with the same kind of uncleanness, for else the spirit of God would not have divided them, but have said, she shall be unclean forty days, nor have called them by distinct names, the one, separation of infirmity 
t Leu. 12.2. ; the other, blood of purifying 
u Ibid. v. 4. . Secondly, though it were the same uncleanness, it did not prejudice the reason, because the eight day was an intermission betwixt the seven, and three and thirty days, as the word [then] shows, And she shall then (that is, after the eight day is over, and the Child Circumcised) continue in the blood of her purifying, three and thirty days, &c 
w Ver. 4. . To conclude, there is good reason that as they were to take the first opporrunity, wherein the Ordinance of Circumcision could be orderly administered (which in ordinary cases was the eight day) so should we take the first fit opportunity for the Baptism of our Infants, and not defer it when it may be orderly administered, but the strict observance of the eight day by special 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 faithful with him, as that passage [To be a God to thee, and thy Seed after thee 
x Gen. 17.7 .] Now Circumcision confirmed both sorts of promises to his Seed after the flesh, but only the spiritual mercies to Proselytes, which were his Children only by Faith and profession, not by generation: It is not to be imagined, that every Circumcised bond-servant had an inheritance in Canaan bestowed on him: Neither reason nor History make for such an assertion (much less that Proselytes, dwelling in fare Countries, must have possessions in the Land which God gave only to the Sons of Jacob 
y Gen. 28.3. ) though they had right to their holy things 
z Exod. 12 48. . Understand therefore, that when we say Baptism succeedeth Circumcision, we mean only so far as Circumcision was a seal and argument of a man's being in the spiritual (though external) Covenant of God, and not as it confirmed temporal rights and privileges. Having thus vindicated the assumption according to your desire, I shall proceed, and lay you down more Arguments.   

3. Argument.  
All that belong to the external Covenant of God ought to be Baptised:  
But, The Infant-seed of believing and repenting Parents belong to the external Covenant of God:  
Therefore, They ought to be baptised.  
The Proposition is proved, Acts 2.39. where Peter urgeth the repenting Jews to be baptised on this ground, because the promise (that is, the external Covenant of grace, or rather the external 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 believing and repenting Parents, belongeth to the external Covenant of God, is as plain, 1 Cor. 7.14. To understand which place, consider that there be only three sorts or kinds of holiness, of which Children can be capable, which we may call (till better names be found out for them) personal, conjugal, and federal: The first cannot be here intended, for many a Believer hath unsanctified and graceless Children, which could not be, if one believing Parent should so sanctify the other, that the Seed should be internally holy. Not the second, Viz. Conjugal, or Marriage holiness, and if the Apostle had only meant such Children were lawfully begot in Wedlock, not adulterously, or in Fornication; for he makes such an opposition between uncleanness and this holiness as will not admit this interpretation: Else (saith he) were your Children unclean, but now they are holy: Uncleanness and holiness are here opposed; so that if by [holy] he mean only lawfully begotten [unclean] must needs signify unlawfully begotten: And then the Apostle saith thus much in effect, that when neither party believeth, 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 Believers only, but to all men 
a Heb. 13.4 . It remaineth then, that they be Covenant-wise, or federally holy, or set apart to God. For the Lord having taken a believer and his seed, into Covenant with himself 
b Gen. 17.7 as before. , though his Wife be an unbeliever, her infidelity cannot make God's Covenant ineffectual.  
For further proof, let us view again that Scripture in the second of Acts, Verse. 39 The promise is to you, and TO YOUR 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 external Covenant; as,  
Absurdity 1 First, That we have lost by the coming of Christ: for before he came in the flesh, if a Gentile had joined himself to the Jewish Church, he had taken hold of the Covenant for himself and his Seed, but now only for himself; and is not a man's tenure much worsned, if he formerly held to him and his heirs for ever, and now only for term of life: Surely the clearness of dispensation, and freedom from burdensome Ceremonies appertaining to the Covenant of grace cannot make nmends for this loss: A man had better undergo many inconveniences with his own Land, then to have a morec ommodious piece for term of life only.  
Absurdity 2 Secondly, The whole blessing of Abraham should not then come on the Gentiles, according to Gal. 3.14. but only part of it, for his privileges were not personal only, but hereditary, i.e. belonging to his Seed.  
Absurdity 3 Thirdly, Christ should be less kind to his Church now then when he was on the Earth, for than he acknowledged, that Infants were not debarred, for their infancy, from the Covenant; but saith, Of such is the Kingdom of Heaven 
c Mat. 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 harmless, humble, and meek, like them: But the reply is easy, that he intended to take in both; for the Original word 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. , which is here translated [such] when it is referred to a pattern, doth not exclude, but include it.  
I can give you many instances where the word must needs be so taken: where Christ saith, Who so shall receive one SUCH Child in my Name, receiveth me 
d Mat. 18.5 ; were it not ridiculous to say, Christ's 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 shown them, they received him not: It is said, John 4.23. That the true worshippers shall worship the Father, in spirit and in truth; for the Father seeketh SUCH to worship him. Here the word (such) cannot signify such as are only like to them that worship in spirit and truth (for such counterfeits are hypocrites, whose service God abhors) but they that do 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 places 
e Mat 9.8 Act. 16.24 Gal. 5.23. .  
Think withal what reason you can give, why Christ should be so angry as Mark telleth us he was 
f Mark 10.14. The Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 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 rebuked them that brought Children to him, that he should pray over them 
g Mat. 19.13. : Was this the sole cause, Viz. that they were like those that belong to him in conditions? Then wheresoever the like virtues 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 said, Suffer Doves and Lambs to come to me, for of such (that is, such meek and harmless ones as they are) is the Kingdom of Heaven. But surely that opinion would savour strongly of the idle, that should set Christ in a posture of readiness 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 uniform in his working according to reason 
* This is clear to him that understands the axiom. A quateus ad omne valet consequentia. , and those imitable virtues the sole cause why he received them.  
65. Doubt. There is a great deal of reason in that which you say, and I acknowledge myself much engaged to you for condiscending to my capacity, in avoiding terms of Art as much as may be: But I observe, you made much use of Acts 2.39. and I doubt whether it can carry all the weight you lay on it, for there be no less than three strong exceptions against it.  
Exception 1 First, All to whom Peter spoke were Jew's by Nation, to whom indeed this promise belonged: Keep you to Believers in Abraham's line, and you may say to them, The promise is to you and to your Children: but you cannot affirm the same of others, for there is no such promise.  
Exception 2 Secondly, Others expound the place thus; The promise is to you if you repent, and to your Children, and to those that are afar off (that is Gentiles) even so many as the Lord our God shall call, if they repent: Or thus, whosoever God calleth (be it yourselves, your Children, or any of the Gentiles) to them the promise belongeth.  
Exception 3 Thirdly, Some affirm, this is no the promise of Gen. 17. (as you seem 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 speak to people of strange languages, in their Mother tongues, as we do 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.  
Resol. 
1 Exception taken off.  Admit they were all Jews by Nation (although I see no necessity to grant it:) Is not the partition-wall yet broken down? 
Eph. 2.12, 13, etc. 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 signify these Scriptures in the Margin? If it be, what mean learned men to cumber us with such distinctions or restrictions, as Believers in Abraham's line, and Believers out of his line?  
2. 
2 Exception removed.  The limitation, Even as many, etc. limits only the immediate clause, And to all that are afar 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 do I speak this for mine own advantage, but the scope of the place proves it; for else Peter might better have said, the promise is to all that repent, then to proclaim 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 fair 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 privileges the Parents had: But I would feign know under what notion the Child of a Believer becomes capable of these Covenant-priviledges, whether as a Believer, or as the Child of a Believer? If it be said, as a Believer; than it cannot be as the Son of a Believer; for had all his kindred been Turks, or Heathens, he might (yea ought to) be received when it appeareth that himself believeth: If as the Child of a Believer, why may he not be received in infancy? For he can never be more the Child of a Believer, than he is the first minute 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 terms: That in Joel is to the Sons and Daughters immediately; this to the Parents, and secundarily to the Children like, Gen. 17.7. Much less will the coherence allow it. For when the poor creatures were pricked in their hearts, crying out, Men and Brethren what shall we do? Was it suitable to tell them, the must repent and be baptised all of them; and than if it should please God to call them to be Preachers, they might expect the extraordinary gifts of the spirit enabling them to Preach to people of strange languages, or if he called their Children, or any of the Gentiles to the like work, 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 doubtful) we may nevertheless 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 tells us, that in some places (as New England for example) Ministers that have been sent to people of strange tongues (as appears by the blessing of God upon their endeavours) 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 ministerial abilities appease an awakened conscience, but the revelation of free pardon; and so must Peter's speech be expounded, Repent and be baptised every one of you for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the holy Ghost (a gift frequently bestowed on ordinary hearers in those days 
h Acts 8.15 16, 17. & 10.44, 45, 46. & 19.2. cum 6. ) and his main argument to of grace) is to you and to your Children. Thus move them to repent and be baptised, is this The promise (i.e. the external Covenant I hope these objections have received their full answers: I would only add this more concerning them; though they be brought by one party, and for one cause they do 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 enjoyment of it, making the Privileges of the Jews hereditary, but of the Gentiles merely personal: The second likewise supposeth it to be the Covenant of grace, but utterly quasheth the pretended difference between Believers in Abraham's line, and Believers 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 drawn in one yoke (though they look so many several ways) to the prejudice of the truth; but it is impossible a cause should prosper under so many and manifest contradictions.  
Serpents avibus geminantur, 
Horat.  tigribus agni.  
66. Doubt. How can an Infant be in Covenant with God, when as it doth not consent to its own baptism; and a Covenant requires the consent of both parties?  
Resol. 1. It is a mistake to think that baptism brings a soul within Covenant, whereas it is an evidence of a man's being in Covenant with God (external I mean all along) before he was baptised 
i Acts 2.38 39 & 8.37. cum 38. & 16.14, 15. , as Circumcision also was 
k Gen. 12.1, 2, 3. cum Chap. 17.7 Josh. 5.3. cum Jer. 31 32. .  
2. God's Covenants do not need a restipulation on the creatures part: He made a Covenant with Abraham's seed, while yet he had no child 
l Gen. 12.15. & 17. Chapters. Acts 7.5. ; yea he did not only Covenant with Noah and his seed, but with every living creature 
m Gen. 9.9 10. , and yet these could not restipulate. When men Covenant both parties must consent, because else the one knows not the others mind, nor hath power to work him to his purpose: but God performs all; he becomes their God and makes them his people 
n Jer. 31.31, 32. Heb. 8.10. .  
67. Doubt. How can Children be lawfully baptised, seeing Faith is required 
o Mark 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 eat 
p 2 Thes. 3 10. . Must therefore Infants, and they which are disabled by sickness or age, either work or perish? In like manner, Christ's words which you quote seem to import, that he which believeth not must not be baptised; but look at the precedent Verse, and you shall see such are pointed as, as can hear the Word Preached, which Infants cannot: Infants believe in their Parents, as Levi paid tithes in Abraham, and Parents bringin their Children to Christ, the children themselves are said to come to him 
q Mat. 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 entertain: Viz. that all which die Infants are damned; for it you say an Infant cannot be baptised, 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 allege, is fare more express for that, than the other: He that believeth 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 Believer? I pray you tell me your apprehension thereof.  
Resol, Truly I think it doth not; 
* Nec stantem a parte affirmativa cogit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 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 Gospel was newly sown amongst them, and all their Ancestors had been heathens, one of the Parents must needs be a Believer, or the Child be destitute of federal holiness; yet I judge far otherwise, concerning the seed of believing (though remote) Parents 
r Exo. 20.6 Gen. 17.7. Psa. 89.29. & 103.17.18. .  
69. Doubt. How may the Papists be answered, which contend for Christ's real presence in the Host, seeing Christ said expressly, This is my body, and his words must needs be true?  
Resol. We confess, he is present truly (though not corporally, but Sacramentally) in the same sense that Paul saith, The Rock was Christ 
s 1 Cor. 10.4. ; that is a figure of Christ.  
70. Doubt. If a man must examine himself, and so eat of that bread and drink of that Cup 
t 1 Cor. 11.28. , why should any other examine him?  
Resol. It is not intended exclusively, as if none else might, but that himself must except he will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, and eat and drink damnation to himself 
u Ver. 27, 29. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, : The word which is translated [so] is an Adverbe of likeness, and therefore it cannot be rendered, Let a man examine himself, and so (that is, without more ado) let him eat, &c But thus, Let a man examine himself, and so (that is, in that frame of selfe-examination) let him eat of that bread, etc.    

CHAP. XVI. Of the state of Men after death, and withal, of the Resurrection, and last Judgement.  
71, Doubt. HOw can a man comfort himself, in the death of his profane kindred?  
Resol. He may quiet his heart with these considerations following.  
1. God is ready to forgive those which repent at the last moment, and for aught we know, may work repentance, when the party is too far spent to express it.  
2. God's decree is unchangeable, and therefore they either were elected and are saved, or Reprobates and could never have been saved, had they lived a thousand years.  
3. Had such as are rejected of God, lived longer, their impenitent hearts would have caused them still to have treasured more wrath to themselves, by proceeding further in wickedness 
a Rom. 2.5 .  
4. Our relation to them (the main cause why we are grieved for them) ceaseth after this life 
b Mat. 22.30.   
5. However it is with them, God will dispose of all things for his only glory, which should be more dear to us then our friends (yea our own) souls.  
72. Doubt. If the whole man (soul and body) sinned, how can it otherwise be but the soul must die as well as the body?  
Resol. Man in his actings is to be considered collectively, not distributively; and as sin is not acted by the soul and body in a divided sense, but jointly by the whole man, consisting of soul and body, as its constitutive parts 
c Gen. 2.7. : So man dies not in a distributive sense, as if the body died by itself, and the soul by itself; but as a creature compact of both, he dyeth (or ceaseth to be what he was) when the soul (which is the essential form of a man) is taken away. A Parliament when dissolved, looseth its essence (as such) though all the members be alive; so doth an house dimolished, though all the materials remain whole: So when the soul and body are disunited, the man is dead. howbeit the soul lives either in happiness, or woe 
d Eccles. 12 7. Mat. 10.28 Luk. 12.4. & 16.23. 1 Pet. 3.19 Revel. 6.9.10, 11. .  
73. Doubt. If there be no satisfaction of the justice of God after this life, which men having given, shall be forgiven and saved, how is it said, Till thou hast paid the last mite 
e Luke 12.59. , or uttermost farthing 
f Mat. 5.26 ?  
Resol. This word [till] is often found in Scripture, signifying (or at least not excluding) perpetuity 
g Gen. 8.7. & 28.15. 1 Sam. 15.35. 2 Sam. 6.23 Psal. 110.1. & 123.2. Mat. 1.25. & 28.20. 2 Tim. 4.13 2 Pet. 1.19 , and taken in that sense, the force of it is thus much; if thou be not reconciled to God in Christ before thy death, thou shalt be cast into the prison of Hell, there to abide the exact justice of God for ever, because thou never canst so satisfy his wrath, as to be acquitted from it.  
74. Doubt. If every soul when it leaveth the body, goeth either to Heaven or Hell immediately, to what purpose is the resurrection, or day of judgement.  
Resol. There is very great reason for them: a●,  
First, That the whole creation may be purged, and delivered from the bondage of corruption 
h Rom. 8.19, 20, etc. .  
Secondly, That the soul and body which suffered or finned together, may in the righteous day of the Lord be crowned, or punished 
i 2 Thes. 1.6, 7, etc. 2 Tim. 4.7, 8. .  
Thirdly, That all hidden things 
k Eccl. 12.14. Luke 12.2. ; yea the secrets of hearts 
l Rom. 2.16. , may be discovered, that thereby Gods righteous judgement may be also revealed 
m Rom. 2.5 .  
Fourthly, That he may publicly right his people upon their enemies 
n 2 Thes. 1.6, etc. .  
75. Doubt. Godly men, are men still, and Christ avoucheth, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof at the day of judgement 
o Mat. 12.36. : How then can they be said to be discharged from all sin?  
Resol. The meaning is not as if the godly shall be called to account, for their idle words, or any other sins; but only thus much; that the judgement of God shall be so exact and severe, that even so much as an idle word shall not pass him without full satisfaction to his justice, on the transgressor, or his surety; and that he which hath not his pardon already procured by Christ, shall be found culpable at that day, and the sentence of condemnation pronounced against him, though he had only one idle word to answer for.    

Postscript.  
SOme Friends expected ere this time I should have published a Treatise tending towards accommodation in Church discipline, which they know I have made a considerable procedure in: Others of a maligning spirit, scoff at me, as if to finish it, were either impossible, or vain: To both these I shall only say thus much: Viz. That however the perusing of many tracts, for the materials therein improved, together with multiplicity of employment in an unsettled condition, and withal the want of a Book or two, which yet I cannot attain, have hindered the perfecting thereof; I hope it will not be long ere it have its due from me: After which (if its prolixity hinder not, but that I mry have a fair opportunity to make it public) I shall send it abroad, and my prayers after it, for a blessing thereon: If not, though the fault will not be mine, I shall make amends as fare as I can, either by Printing an Epitome thereof, or at least, by suffering such Friends to peruse it in writing, as desire the same.   

July, 30. 1649.  
Imprimatur,  
Joseph Caryl.   

The Texts of Scripture. Places in the Book. Gen. 1.5.8.13.19.23.31. Chap. 12. Resol. to 56. Doubt. Gen. 6.6. Chap. 2. Doubt. 3. Gen. 17.7. Chap. 15. Resol. to 64. Doubt. Gen. 17.14. Chap. 6. Resol. to 24. Doubt. Levit. 12.1.2.3.4. Chap 15. Resol. of 64. Doubt. Numb. 15.30. Chap. 6. Doubt. 24. Deut. 6.13. & 10.20. Chap. 13. Doubt. 57 1 Sam. 15.11. Chap. 2. Doubt. 3. Isaiah 45.21. Chap. 2. Doubt. 6. Matth. 5.26. Chap. 6. Doubt. 73. Matth. 5.34. Chap. 13. Doubt. 58. Matth. 12.36. Chap. 16. Doubt. 75. Mat. 17.20. Chap. 9 Doubt. 39 Mat. 19.13. Chap. 15. Resol. to 64 Doubt. Mat. 28.19. Chap. 15. Resol. to 63. Doubt. Mark 10.14. Chap. 15. Resol. to 64. Doubt. Mark 16.16. Chap. 15. Resol. to 67. Doubt. Luke 12.59. Chap. 16. Doubt. 73. Luke 18.15, 16. Chap. 15. Resol. to 64 Doubt. Acts 2.39. Chap. 15. Resol. to 64. Doubt. Acts 15.10. Chap. 15. Resol. of 63 Doubt. 1 Cor. 7.14. Chap. 15. Resol. to 64 and 68 Doubt. 1 Cor. 7.23. Chap. 11. Doubt. 47. 1 Cor. 11.28. Chap. 15. Doubt. 70. 1 Cor. 12.28. Chap. 14. Resol. to 59 Doubt. 1 Cor. 14.26. Chap. 12. Resol. of 52 Doubt. 2 Cor. 3.6, 7, 8. Chap. 6. Doubt. 25, 2 Tim. 2.13. Chap. 9 Doubt. 38. James 5.12. Chap. 13. Doubt. 58. 1 John 3.14. Chap. 10. Resol. to 46 Doubt.   

The Capital Contents of this short Discourse.  

CHAP. I. Concerning the holy Scriptures, and by the way, of the light of Nature. p. 1.  
Chap. 2. Of God. p. 4.  
Chap. 3. Of God's Decree, and of Creation. p. 6.  
Chap. 4. Of Providence. p. 10.  
Chap. 5. Of the fall of Man. p. 13.  
Chap. 6. Of the Law of God and the two Covenants. p. 16.  
Chap. 7. Of Christ the Mediator. p. 22.  
Chap. 8. Of . p. 28.  
Chap. 9 Of Calling, Justification, Sanctification, Adoption, Faith, Repentance, and good Works. p. 31.  
Chap. 10. Of Perseverance, and Assurance. p. 38.  
Chap. 11. Of Christian Liberty, and Liberty of Conscience: and withal of the Christian Magistrate, and Church-censures. p. 47.  
Chap. 12. Of Religious Worship, and of the Sabbath-day. p. 49.  
Chap. 13. Of Oaths. p. 54.  
Chap. 14. Of the Church, and Communion of Saints. p. 56.  
Chap. 15. Of Baptism, and the Lords Supper p. 57  
Chap. 16. Of the state of Men after death; and withal, of the Resurrection, and last Judgement. p. 80.   
FINIS.