any that are still-born For neither are all the Infants of the faithfull Parents still-born I mean in respect of spirituall life and if they were yet Baptisme is not called in Scripture Gods milk and if it were resembled to milk yet it is not milk onely but it serveth for many other uses It is a seale of that Covenant whereby God promiseth both to bee seed and milk and strong meat and medicine and all in all unto beleevers and their children Your next exhortation to take heed how wee set dead twigges in his heavenly and divine stock or naturall branches in his holy and spirituall Vine it hath received Answer above you have heard before that dead persons if in Covenant are alive to God Luk. 20.37 38. And though a twigge cannot receive life from the stock unlesse it bring life with it before it be engraffed yet Christ can give life to dead branches that are put to him as well as the dead corps of Elisha could give life to the dead man cast into his grave 2 King 13.21 Your third exhortation hath as little ground as either of the former Let men beware say you how they fight against the God of Order lest in stead of finding the brest to feed before the womb to bear they meet with a curse upon the single emptinesse of Christ with a double barrennesse that will admit of no spirituall birth to succeed the Naturall If you will needs have Baptisme to bee the brest of the Church I will not contend with you for there is in it also some milk for babes as well as there is much strong meat in it for men of riper yeers But when wee doe bring Infants to Baptisme wee doe not first finde the brest to feed them before wee finde the wombe to bear them For the Apostle maketh the two Covenants the two Mothers of which all the children of the Church are born whether in the Old or New Testament Gal. 4.22 23 24. If then wee have found Infants to bee in the Covenant wee have found a Mother and in her a wombe to bear them And if wee bring none to Baptisme but such as are the children of the Covenant then wee doe not finde a brest to feed them before a womb to breed and beare them But wee proceed Orderly even according to the wisdome of God and the ancient Order which hee hath set in his Church wee first finde a wombe to breed and bear them and then a brest to nourish and feed them The curse therefore which you threaten is causelesse and being causelesse will not come Prov. 26.2 Thus by the help of Christ our Arguments for the Baptisme of Infants have been at last cleared from your exceptions from so many of them at least as you have made against them hitherto Now if you please let us inquire into your Arguments if you have any against the Baptisme of Infants Yes Silvester I have divers Arguments eight or nine against the Baptisme of Infants besides many evill consequences which I observe will follow unavoydably upon the Baptisme of Infants CHAP. IV. VVHat may bee your first Argument against the Baptisme of Infants Silvanus The first that I have met withall is that whereto you have already spoken in part because there is neither command Silvester nor example in all the New Testament for the baptizing of Infants And yet the Order and Government of the New Testament in the administration thereof is no way inferiour to the Old But in the Old Testament there was an expresse Rule by Commandement from God what Communicants were to bee admitted to Circumcision and other Ordinances of that nature and what not But this Order is no where found in the New Testament for the baptizing of Infants and therefore the same is not to bee practised To this Argument you have received an Answer already Silvanus when in the beginning of our conference I gave you three grounds for the Baptisme of Infants the two former from the Commandement of Christ and of his Apostle in the New Testament the third from the Old and New Testament together gathered from the Analogy of Circumcision and Baptisme The Commandement of Christ was cleared from Matth. 28.19 20. The Commandement of the Apostle was opened from Acts 2.39 The Analogy of Circumcision and Baptisme was urged from Gen. 17. with Col. 2.11 12. Silvester I have already acquainted you with the summe of those exceptions which I have met withall against all the Arguments which you have alledged for the grounding of the Baptisme of Infants upon any word of Commandement or Institution from Christ and his Apostles Onely one exception further commeth to my minde against your third Argument taken from the Analogy of Circumcision and Baptisme Suppose that the Covenant of God with Abraham wherein hee promiseth to bee a God to him and his seed doe continue to beleevers and our seed now in the dayes of the New Testament Suppose also that Baptisme doe succeed Circumcision yet as it was not the promise of God to Abraham that was a sufficient ground of Circumcision but Gods word of Commandement or else it would have been sin to Abraham to have circumcised his seed so neither is it the promise and Covenant of God to beleevers to bee a God to us and our seed that can bee a sufficient ground to us of baptizing our Infants Silvanus I did make account this exception had been prevented above as well as the rest For wee doe not ground the Baptisme of Infants meerly upon the promise of grace that God is a God to us and our seed but upon the Commandement of God that they to whom God is a God by Covenant they should receive the seale of the Covenant Which Commandement was as you know expressely given to Abraham and thereupon hee circumcised himself and his seed Gen. 17.10 11. If then the same Covenant bee now given to the faithfull and our seed and if Baptisme bee given to us in stead of Circumcision then the same Commandement which required Abraham to bee circumcised and his seed requireth us to bee baptized and our seed And indeed upon this very ground the Apostle Peter urgeth every one of them who repented to bee baptized they and their seed because the promise was given to them and their seed The strength of which Commandement of his lay in the Commandement of God to faithfull Abraham to bee circumcised and his seed and the substitution of Baptisme now in the room of Circumcision And verely there is the same morall equity and reason of the Commandement both to faithfull Israelites and faithfull Christians For as the Circumcision of Abraham and his seed confirmed the faith of Abraham that God would bee a God to him and his seed And also engaged Abraham both himself to walk in the obedience of Gods will and to traine up his children to walke accordingly so the faithfull of the new Testament stand
Wee read of no such increase of any Congregation since Christs time But suppose that all the children in a Nation were baptized yet that of it self will not make a Nationall Church but many Churches in one Nation Besides if one Family should grow a Nation as the house of Jacob did and all the children being received into Covenant and unto the seal thereof the whole Nationall Generation should become members of the Church as they did in Israel Yet that will not bring the godly into bondage and into scorn and contempt nor put the power of Government to rest in the hands of the wicked For the faithfulnesse of God who keepeth Covenant and mercy with his People prevented that in the House and Church of Israel Where though the whole Nation was in Covenant with God yet ordinarily the Government was kept in the hands of such as either were Godly or for the most part favoured godlinesse Or if they failed herein God was wont to deliver both them and their Governours into the hands of their Enemies that they might learn to rule with God and to bee faithfull with his Saints But furthermore this above all may justly satisfie you That in the state of the Churches of the New Testament God hath instituted such an order therein that though all the Infants of the Church-members bee baptized yet none of them are received by the order of the Gospel unto Communion at the Lords Table nor unto liberty of power in the Government of the Church untill they doe approve themselves both by publick Profession before the Church and also by their Christian conversation to take hold of the Covenant of their Fathers and of the Church and to walk in the steps of their Faith and professed subjection to the Gospell of Christ For it is an expresse Commandement given as to all Christians in their place so especially to the Officers and Brethren of the Church Not to cast holy things to dogges nor Pearles before Swine Mat. 7.6 Nor to receive such to the Lords Table as have not on a Wedding Garment But in such a case the Servants and Ministers of Christ are to â—inde such hand and foot to wit by the censures of the Church and to cast them out unto outer darknesse Matth. 22.11 12 33. that is to say into such an estate of darknesse and misery wherein they live that are without For without are Dogs and Sorcerers and Whore-mongers and Murtherers and Idolaters and Lyars Rev. 22.15 And there want not holy and judicious and faithfull witnesses of the Gospel of Christ and of the wayes of pure Reformation who doe so expound the principles of the Apostles Catechisme Heb. 6.1.2 That none of the Members of the Church were admitted to the fellowship of the Lords Table but such as were inlightned to Repentance and had tasted of the Heavenly gift of Faith and were partakers of the Holy Ghost in some kinde and had tasted the good Word of God and the powers of the world to come through the acknowledgement of the Resurrection of the dead and of the last judgement Of these six Principles of the Apostles Catechisme the Lords Supper is not mentioned for one amongst them because these chiefely concerned the baptized members of the Church to bee trained up unto the knowledge and taste at least of them before they could bee admitted to the Lords Table And if their savoury profession of these things were approved before the Church then they were received as confirmed Members by laying on of hands Which holy order was a long time preserved pure in the purer sort of Primitive Churches But afterwards it as all other the Institutions of Christ were abused and adulterated in the Papacy this profession and confirmation of baptized Infants being translated from the Church whereof they were members to the Bishop and their holy Profession of the principall Doctrines and Duties of Christianity transformed into a Catechisme touching the Faith and Promise of their God-fathers and God-mothers And the Imposition of hands upon them by the Pastour or Bishop was finally transformed into a Sacrament But all these grosse superstitions were but super-additions to the first primitive holy institution And yet as by the straw and stubble you may gather what kinde of Grain grew in the field So by these abuses of this Ordinance it may easily bee gathered what was the practise of the Primitive Apostolick Churches in this case Let then this primitive practise bee restored to its purity as it is in some of the first Churches planted in this Countrey and then there will bee no more feare of pestering Churches with a carnall Generation of members baptized in their Infancy then of admitting a carnall company of Hypocrites confessing their Faith and Repentance in the face of the Congregation Either the Lord in the faithfulnesse of his Covenant will sanctifie the hearts of the baptized Infants to prepare them for his Table or else hee will discover their hypocrisie and profanenesse in the presence of his Church before Men and Angels and so prevent the pollution of the Lords Table and corruption of the Discipline of the Church by their partaking in them CHAP. VII THe Fourth Argument Silvester that I finde against the Baptisme of Infants is That it is a ground both of ignorance and errour for it holdeth people in blindnesse that they cannot come to know the nature of the holy Ordinance nor what the same requireth in the subjects thereof and also it causeth the simple to conceive that Baptisme is of necessity to salvation Doe you think that the Circumcision of Infants in the dayes of the Old Testament was any ground of ignorance or errour Silvanus that it held people in blindenesse that they could not come to know the nature of that holy Ordinance nor what the same requireth in the subjects thereof Surely God was of another minde when hee said hee knew Abraham who had lately circumcised his children and household That hee would command his children and houshold to keep the way of the Lord c. Gen. 18.19 which how could he possibly doe unlesse he first taught them to know it In like sort the Baptisme of a mans children doth not allow him to keep them in blindnes and error but rather bind and charge him to traine up his children in the knowledge and faith and obedience of the Father Sonne and holy Ghost into whose name they have been baptized It is not the baptisme of the children of believers but of the children of carnall and ignorant and prophane persons that holdeth or keepeth men in the blindnesse of ignorance and error When you say that Baptisme of infants causeth the simple to conceive that Baptisme is of necessity to salvation I would know whether the Circumcision of infants did cause the simple to conceive the necessity of Circumcision to salvation If not why should the Baptisme of infants rather cause such an errour then the circumcision of
Christ From whence two Arguments offer themselves for the Institution of the Baptisme of the children of the faithfull Argument 1. Such as be disciples they are to be Baptized But the children of the Faithfull they are disciples Therefore children of the Faithfull they are to be Baptized The former proposition is clearly exprest in the Text Make disciciples and baptize them All Disciples therefore are to be baptized The latter proposition That all the children of the Faithfull in which is all one all the children of the Church for the Church is a Congregation of the faithfull that they are all of them Disciples may appeare by the Testimony of the Prophet Esay who speaking of the times of the Church in the New Testament All thy children saith he shall be taught of God Esay 54.13 and if they be taught of God then are they Disciples for that is the meaning of the word Disciples Disciples are taught or learnt of God Doe not put me off with that Evasion That the Promise is made not to the children of the visible Church but of the Invisible For looke what promises are made to the Invisible Church they are for their sakes offered to all the Members of the Visible Churches whereof the lively Members are the chiefe By the children in Esay may be meant not Infants but men of yeares unto whom the whole Church may be counted a Mother and they to her as children I deny not but that may be part of the meaning yet so as not to exclude the Infants or children of the Faithfull from the number of the children of the Church For the same Prophet speaking of the same Church Silvester fetcheth in Infants among the blessed ones of the Church and blessed with such spirituall light and life from Christ as if they had lived an hundred years in the Church Silvanus Esa 65.20 There shall be no more saith he thenceforth an Infant of dayes nor an old man that hath not filled his dayes For the child shall dye an hundred yeares old but the sinner being an hundred yeares old shall be accursed How shall the child dye as at an hundred yeares old but that he is so well instructed and inlightned by Christ and thereby as capable of entrance into heavenly glory as a growen disciple of an hundred yeares old The Allegoricall sense which some force upon Infants as if by them were meant young Converts though of riper yeares the Text will not beare it For the Text maketh an expresse opposition betweene these Infants in the Church and sinners of an hundred yeares old Where the two extreame periods of mans life old age of an hundred years Infants being set one against another Infants cannot be fitly meant of any but those of fewest dayes even Infants of a few dayes of a yeer or two old And besides the Holy Ghost in the Text giveth a Reason of this Grace together with some other like favours unto Infants in the Church above Sinners of an hundred yeares old taken from the Covenant of their blessed Ancestors v. 23 For they are saith he the seed of the blessed of the Lord and their off-spring with them And evident it is that the Apostle Peter reckoneth Infants of the Church for Disciples For in Acts 15.10 reproving the way of false Teachers who would have put Circumcision upon the Gentile Churches and their seed Why tempt ye God saith he to put a yoake upon the neck of the Disciples If the Infants of the Church had not been Disciples the false Apostles could have pretended no power to have put that Ordinance upon them And Peter rejecteth it not because Infants were no Disciples but acknowledging them to be Disciples as well as their Fathers the yoake of Circumsion was now too heavy for them as drawing upon them the yoake of the Ceremoniall Law It is to the same purpose that Christ speaketh of such little Children Silvester Mark 10.14 Luke 18.16 17. Of such saith he is the Kingdome of God which argueth that even little Children are the members of the Church which is the Kingdome of Grace here Silvanus and heires of the Kingdome of Glory hereafter and therefore Disciples for to whom Christ is a King he is also a Prophet Christ doth not say that of Infants is the Kingdome of God but of such as Infants be that is of such simple ones so free from pride and malice Then he might as well have said Suffer Doves and Lambs to come unto me for of such such simple and harmelesse ones is the Kingdome of God But that â—hrist speaketh of little children as such may appeare further from the Text In that he saith Whosoever shall not receive the Kingdome of God as a little child to wit as a little child receiveth it for so much the Grammar construction requireth he shall in no wise enter therein Now it cannot be said of Doves and Lambs Whosoever receiveth not the Kingdome of God as a Dove or a Lambe receiveth it he shall in no wise enter into it 2. Wherefore should Christ command little children to be brought unto him and be so angry with his Disciples for rebuking them that brought them if they were not at all capable of spirituall fellowship with Christ in his Kingdom but onely served to fetch a Similitude from their Simplicity and Innocency Did he ever say Suffer Doves and Lambes to come unto me for of such is the Kingdome of God 3. Why doth Christ put it for all one for little children to come to him and to be brought to him as he doth Luke 18.15 16. but that he accepted the Act of Prents in bringing their children to him as all one with ther Act of children in comming themselves to Christ Jesus for Chist saith Suffer little Children to come to me and yet they came not to him but as their Parents brought them 4. Christ his Imposition of hands upon them argueth their consecration unto God not as Sacrifices of Bulls and Goates to be slaine which was one use of laying on of hands Levit. 1.4 nor to ordaine them unto office which was another use but as partakers of spirituall blessings and of Adoption into the family of Israel which was another use of laying on of hands Gen. 48.5 with 14. So that let all this Testimony of Christ concerning little Children and his carriage towards them be well weighed and it will evidently evince that for which it is alledged That little children born in the Church are accounted by Christ amongst those blessed ones of Christ of whom his Church and Kingdome consisteth And so are taught of God as the Disciples of Christ And therefore are commanded of Christ to be baptized with their beleeving Parents Silver The blessing of Christ upon these infants was for bodily cures as is manifest by the dâ—sires of those that brought them to Christ which was not that he should baptize them but that he would touch them and
thus God taketh men in their own wilinesse whilst they goe about to shoulder out infant from being disciples unto Christ and so from baptisme they exclude themselves from the chiefe benefits of the baptism of Christ which is to have God the Father Son and holy Ghost to be a God to themselves and to their seed and in stead of approving themselves to be the Disciples of Christ they take out a wrong lesson from the words of institution turn the glorious name of the blessed Trinity into the weake performance of a Christian duty and that but an outward duty neither Onely because infants are not able to perform such a duty they shall therefore be debarred from baptisme into the name of the Father Son and holy ghost seeing Baptisme into that name is but into the true and orderly profession of the faith But the Lord redeeme your soule from such guile and falshood Let the name of the Father Son and holy ghost be as Christ meaneth it the Adoption protection and government of the Father Son and holy ghost as to have the name of one called upon another is so meant in Scripture Gen. 48.16 And then infants are as capable of that grace and of such a baptisme as their Parents be Doe not put off your self nor me with this pretence that here teaching goeth before baptizing c. For though the Parents must be taught being gentiles and Pagans before they can bee disciples yet the children of disciples are received into the number of Christs disciples by himselfe though themselves understand not what is tâ—ught them by the hearing of the eare Neither put your selfe off with that other pretence That Matthews words are explained by Mark 16.15 16. For though it be true that one of those places giveth some light to the other yet either you must take disciples in a larger extent then believers or else you must account of the children of believers as God doth not as infidels as the children of Pagans be but as holy and under the promise of grace and faith and so as believers in their fathers right till themselves renounce it or else you cannot avoid it though you doe disclaime it that if infants be unbeleevers and so cannot be baptized then as unbelievers they cannot be saved For the Text is expresse Hee that believeth and is baptized shall be saved but he that believeth not shall be damned Neither yet suffer your self to be put off from the truth by that other pretence That all the externall benefits and priviledges of the gospel are given only to external and visible faith And so the sealing and confirming ordinances of Christ ever presuppose faith in the subject to seale unto and to be confirmed For all this and the baptism of infants may well stand together For the benefit and priviledge of externall baptisme is not given to infants but in respect of the externall and visible profession of the faith of their Parents or of one of them at least And this ordinance of Christ sealeth and confirmeth the Covenant of grace to the believer for himself and his seed yea to the whole Church of believers and to their seed also when they grow up to understand the nature and use of it Chap. II. THus then at length having by the help of Christ cleared this first Argument for the baptisme of infants of believers from the commandement of the Lord Jesus let us now if you please proceed to another commandement a commandement of the holy Ghost with whom Peter being filled in the beginning of his publique administration of the Apostolick office he exhorted the penitent Jews them and theirs to bee baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus His words are thus recorded Acts 2 38 39. Repent ye saith he and be baptized every one of you in the name of the Lord Jesus for the remission of sins and ye shall receive the gift of the holy Ghost for the promise is to you and to your children c. From whence the argument that these words hold forth ariseth thus They to whom the promise is made of remission of sins and of receiving the holy Ghost they have a commandement to be baptized every one of them But to such as doe repent and to their children the promise is made of remission of sins and of receiving the holy Ghost Therefore they that doe repent and their children have a commandement to be baptized every one of them The former Proposition ariseth from the reason which the Apostle giveth of his exhortation Repent ye saith he and be baptized every one of you For the promise is made to you and to your children as who should say let every one of you be baptized both you that doe repent and your children For the promise is made to you that is to you that doe repent and with you to your children also Silvester The text saith not let every one of you and of your children be baptized but repent ye and let every one of you to wit who doe repent be baptized Silvanus The Reason of the commandement giveth the sense of the commandement now the reason of this commandement Repent ye and be baptized every one of you is this For the promise is made to you to wit to you who doe repent and to your children And therefore the sense of the commandement of the holy Ghost is this Repent ye and let every one of you both you that doe repent and your children also be baptized For the promise is to you and to youâ— children And so much is implyed also in the change and different expression and extent of the verbs of command he doth not say Repent ye and be baptized as if he commanded two duties to the same persons no more to be baptized but such as doe repent But repent ye indefinitely and be baptized every one of you universally and singularly not onely ye who doe repent but your children also But the event sheweth Silvester that Peter intended onely them that did repent to be baptized and not their children for so it followeth in the Text verse 41. Then they that gladly received his word were baptized which sheweth that none else were baptized but persons that were grown up to yeares of understanding such as were affected with the word and received it gladly It is true indeed the Apostles forced baptisme upon none Silvanus but administred it onely to such as gladly received the Word But those penitent Jews and Proselytes who understood that promise was to them and to their children they gladly received the whole Word both the word of promise which they received by faith and the word of commandement they and their children to bee baptized which they received by offering themselves and their children unto baptism in which respect it is therefore said They that gladly received his word were baptized because both their own baptisme and the baptisme of their children was the
them Christ himselfe acknowledgeth one Churth to bee all Faire and to have no spot in her Cant. 4.7 and that is interpreted by some Expositors and as I take it most fitly of the Primitive Apostolick Church at Hierusalem described Acts 2. and Acts 4. towards the end of both chapters And yet even in that Church were found Ananias and Saphira who were but dead members and neither suitable to their head Christ nor to the immortall seed of the word of which that Chuch was begotten The place in Mal. 2.15 speaketh lesse to the purpose for what though God sought a godly seed doth hee alwayes finde what hee is said to seeke God sought for one to stand in the gap but hee found none Ezek. 20.30 Besides the godly seede there spoken of is in the Originall the seed of God which is not meant of every Church-member for what is the marryage of one man with one woman in our first Parentes unto that Seeing it is a patterne that bindeth Pagans as well as Christians but it is meant of Christ Jesus The place in Ephes 2.14 to 20. sheweth what the Church of Gods Redeemed bee and all the spirituall members thereof but neither proveth that all the members of the Church are such or that the Infants of beleevers are not such The Church of God in Zion was built upon the foundation of the Prophets and it was an habitation to the Lord. Psal 102.13 yet infants were members of it The place in John 4.23 sheweth as I said before what God seeketh not that hee findeth all such in every Church much lesse that hee excludeth Infants out of the Church till they can make it appeare by open profession of their faith that they doe worship him in Spirit and truth It hath bin proved above that of Infants is the Kingdome of God Mar. 10.14 that is the Church and yet they cannot professe and declare any such worship in their owne Persons though indeed the Acts of their godly parents in that case are there accepted of Christ as the Acts of the Infants For Christ accepted their Parents bringing of them to him as if they had come to him in their owne persons Suffer saith hee little children to come unto mee and yet they came not but as they were brought Silvester There is a large difference betweene the Iews and Gentiles in respect of outward Priviledges The Infants of the Iews had a speciall reason for their admittance into the fellowship of the Iewish Church which doth not now continue in Christian Churches Of the Iews came Christ the Saviour of man and therefore salvation is said to bee of the Iews Rom. 9.5 Iohn 4.22 In respect of which there was a blessed promise passed upon the Iews for the bringing forth of the Messiah and the promised seede in whom all Nations should be blessed And therefore all of that Nation were admitted to the outward Priviledges as figures of him whom that Nation was to bring forth So that a fruitfull wombe was counted a great blessing among the Iews as not knowing who might be so honourable as to bring forth that blessed and all blessing seede And therefore God honoured the Naturall birth with such outward blessings and priviledges which belong not to the Gentiles at all The Gentiles now are to looke for their bringing forth Christ according to the Spirit as the Iews did then according to the flesh and likewise their birth and their seed and all things suitable to the same as Joh. 3.3.5 6. Ioh. 1.12 13. And therefore wee are said now to know no man after the flesh 2. Cor. 5.16 And Circumcision was one Priviledge of the flesh Phil. 3.4 5. Therefore though the Iews Infants were admitted to all those outward Priviledges being a Nationall people and so a Nationall body with a naturall birth and the like seede in generall yet the Gentiles Infants cannot bee admitted to their spirituall priviledges they being a personall People called by the word of Grace and so a spirituall body with a spirituall birth and the like seed It is true there is some difference between the Iews and the Gentiles Silvanus in respect of outward Priviledges for not to â—over in generalities wherein lyeth deceit the Iews or rather the house of Israel being Gods first borne Exod. 4.24 and so our elder brother they were the excellency of Dignity and the excellency of power glorious and mighty wonders the Lord often wrought for them they had the preheminence of them was Christ of them were the Fathers the Patriarchs and the Prophets and to them were committed the Oracles of God And if you will so account it a double portion to injoy both a Congregationall Church and a Nationall they injoyed both a Congregationall Church in their Synagogues and a National Church at Hierusalem in their solemne feasts But two things let mee here put you in minde of first that when the Elder brother for his demerit is disinherited of his Birth-right as Reuben sometime was his preheminence of honour and double portion is divided amongst his younger brethren no part of it is lost So is it here The Church of Israel being disinherited all the spirituall priviledges all the honour and power which they injoyed either in their Synagogue or in their Nationall Assemblies is now set over to our Congregationall Churches and as for the outward Priviledges which the house of Israel injoyed as a wordly Kingdome and the power and glory thereof they were no part of the priviledges of their Church estate but accessories and additaments thereunto For in the Covenant of Abraham God spake nothing of a worldly kingdome but of affliction for 400. yeares Gen. 15.13 as therefore worldly power and glory were cast in as accessorie to the Church of the Old Testament so they may be also in the New If the Churches of the New Testament shall bind Kings in chaines as is prophecyed Psal 140.8 and execute upon them the judgement written then surely Christian Churches shall have some Kings to bee members of their body else what have they to doe to judge them that are without the Apostle saith Godlinesse hath the promises of this life as well as of that which is to come 1 Tim. 4.8 What though Church power bee not administred with worldly pompe and what though all the children of the Church bee equall in Church-Priviledges yet some or other of the children of the Church ate capable of great preheminence even in outward Priviledges They may be Princes in all Lands Psal 45.16 which though some understand of spirituall power yet not so properly for spiritual power is not princely in the earth Besides if civil Magistracy be lawful amongst men which you deny not some of the children of the Church may bee as fitly employed in such a principality as Pagans And surely the time shall come when according to the prophecy of Daniel chapt 7.27 the Kingdome and the Dominion and the greatnesse of the
as are writen in the Lambes book of life this I would say to it 1. You cannot justly deny but that Gods Testimony of the Infants of Beleevers that they are holy 1 Cor. 7.14 and that of such is the Kingdom of God Mark 10.14 is as good an Evidence of their Election as the Profession of Faith and Repentance which men of yeers are wont to make is an evidence of their election before the Church Again 2. It is one thing to speak of such as enter into the Church for that agreeth to such as were sometime without another thing to speake of the Infants of believers who were never out of the Church and so cannot be said to enter into it Besides 3. It is one thing to enter into the Church as an abiding member another thing so to enter as for some notorious scandall to be cast out of it Such shall be the purity of the Government of that new Hierusalem as that no prophane person shall enter into it nor any hypocrite or if any hypocrite should creepe in as there did in the most pure and discerning times even in the Apostles dayes yet they will in time be discerned and then cast out Otherwise there would be no use of excommunication in those pure Iewish Churches which is not probable Yea infants themselves though borne in the Church yet if when they grow up to yeares they shall degenerate into a prophane or scandalous course they shall not be tolerated to abide in the Church yea if they shall not take hold of the Covenant of their Fathers but content themselves in an ignorant or civill or worldly course of life they shall not bee allowed to enter into holy communion with the sincere members of the Church at the Lords Table 4. It is one thing to prophecy of the transcendent glorious happinesse of an exact pure Church in some age of it another thing to command and foretell the perpetuall continuance of it in the same degree of purity Sure I am that when Christ commeth to judgement he shall find in those pure Churches of the Jews some foolish Virgins as well as some wise And the foolish Virgins shall bee shut out from the presence of Christ Mat. 25.10 11 12. And they that are shut out were never written in the Lambs book of life 5. It is one thing to speake of the members of the Church universally another thing to speake of them all indefinitely all of them that is the body of them or the greater part of them may be said to be written in the Lambs booke of life to bee all righteous Isa 60.21 to have their sinnes forgiven and not to complaine of any sicknesse Isa 33.21 But how can this bee understood universally of all the members of the Church at all times 6. It is one thing to speake of the condition in which God approveth Church-members another thing to speak of the condition in which God approveth the receiving of Church-members God never approved the condition of Judas in his Apostleship or in his Church-membership and yet hee approved the receiving of him into both But to proceed to the difference which you make of the subjects of the two Testaments though that bee a point scanned before and needlesly repeated here When you make the Old Testament to bequeath Legacies to a male of eight dayes old or to a Proselyte and for that end quote Gen. 17.10 14 23 25. with other Scriptures and the New Testament to bestow Legacies as the Priviledges and blessing of Abraham onely to such as believe and none else You speake not herein according to the language of the Scriptures For the Scripture never calleth the Testament or Covenant which God made with Abraham Gen. 17. the Old Testament your mistake herein hath been a principall occasion of corrupting your judgement both in this point in hand and sundry other that have reference to it I have shewed you above that the Testament which the Scripture calleth the Old Testament was that made with the Israelites on Mount Sinai not that made with Abraham Gen. 17. in the land of Canaan It had been small comfort to us that Christ by his death should procure us this priviledge that the blessing of Abraham might come upon believing Gentiles if the blessing of Abraham were not better then the Old Testament or Covenant of which the Apostle said long agoe even in his time it was ready to vanish away Heb. 8.13 and was indeed soon after with the Temple wholly abolished It is true the Covenant of Abraham bequeathed this Legacy to a male of eight dayes old to bee circumcised but circumcision was onely the seale of the Covenant The chiefe Legacy bequeathed in that Covenant was the promise that God would bee a Father to Abraham and to his seed And a God hee was to them whilst they were yet in the wombe or being borne were not yet come to be eight dayes of old Else all the Infants of Gods people that dyed in their first weeke lived and dyed out of Covenant And so the Covenant shall depend upon the seale not the seale upon the Covenant and the grace of the Covenant shall not know nor acknowledge nor owne infants the first seven dayes untill the eight and so the eternall Jehovah to whom a thousand yeers is but as one day shall limit the grace of his eternall Covenant not to shine forth upon the Infants of believers til the eighth day shine forth upon them It remaineth therefore that the Infants of Abraham and of his seed were under the Covenant assoone as they were his seed to wit even from their conception though none of them were circumcised but the males only nor the males neither till the eighth day The males onely partly because the Females had not such a foreskin of their flesh as was to be circumcised partly because God would have them trained up both males and females to expect all the blessing of their circumcision from the circumcision of Christ Jesus mentioned Coloss 2.11 Neither were the males circumcised till the eigthth day not because they were not subjects of Abrahams Covenant till the eighth day but for some ceremoniall respect or for some other reason peculiar to that Rite Circumcision being a cutting of the flesh it was a worke of mercy not to put infants the first weeke to the paine till they were better able to beare it Some have anciently thought the circumcision of the eighth day did prefigure the sanctification of the eighth day for a Sabbath in the dayes of the Messiah Others have thought God would have Circumcision deferred till the eighth day that a Sabbath might passe over the Parents that he might solemnly renew his Covenant with God before the seale of the Covenant should bee applyed to his Infant Others have conceived that as God would not have a Kid or Lamb sacrificed to him till it had sucked of the Dam seven dayes so neither would hee call forth the
would answer Jesus himselfe baptized none Iohn 4.2 If you aske againe but why did not hee command his Disciples to baptiz them I answer because it may be both they and their children were baptized before Or because it doth not appeare that their Parents came to bee baptized of him or had themselves been baptized before though out of a godly affection they brought their children to him that he might blesse them Now it was not meet that the children should bee baptized when neither of the Parents of any of them were baptized nor brought their children to such an end Though we baptize children yet we doe not give them as you say a name to live when they bee dead For they may be truly said to live in that sense wherein the dead bodies of Abraham Isaac and Iacob are said to live to him Luke 20.37 38. For though they were then dead in their graves yet God being the God of Abraham Isaac and Iacob by Covenant hee will therefore raise up their dead bodies to life againe And so it is with the Infants of believers though they were by nature dead in sinne yet God the God of their Fathers being a God to them by vertue of the Covenant seeing God is not the God of the dead but of the living God will therefore according to his Covenant raise them up to newnesse of life that they may live in his sight If any of them fall short of that life it is because they make themselves twice dead by casting off the Covenant of their fathers I marvaile why you should call the baptisme of Infants a com ming to the marriage supper without a wedding Garment If you meane by comming to the marriage Supper partaking of the Lords Table you are not ignorant there is great difference in this case between the Lords Supper and Baptisme such may bee admitted to Baptism as may not be admitted to the Lords Supper We do not force as you call it the holy things of God upon such as nei ther believe nor know nor once desire them For if Parents doe not willingly offer their children to Baptisme we doe not force them And if they bring them and prefent them to Christ Christ accepteth the Parents bringing of them as much as the childrens comming in their own person Mar. 10.13 14. Why should you call the Baptisme of infants the settting of a seal unto a blank Is the Covenant of God to believing Parents and their seed become a blanke Is the promise of pouring out the Spirit of regeneration upon the seed and off-spring of believers a blank Isa 44.3 But it seemeth by your opinion if our children bee not full of themselves all the promises of God are a blanke and empty to them Though children be not capable to receive meat before they bee borne yet their Parents who are borne againe had need of some sign the sign appointed of God to feed and strengthen their faith in the Covenant that God will bee a God to them and their seed Besides the Baptisme which children receive before their regeneration is a seale and confirmation of the Covenant and of all the promises thereof to them after their regeneration The Circumcision which David received in his infancy did confirme his faith and confidence of victory against Goliah the uncircumcised Philistine after he was grown up to mans estate 1 Sam. 17 26. Signs given of God for future blessings are neither blanks nor preposterous We doe not make baptisme as you say the wombe of regeneration nor teach that Infants are regenerated and borne of the Spirit of grace in Baptisme Nor doe I finde that it was their judgement who compyled that book where such words are used men may thankfully acknowledge a benefit as received when they have onely received a promise of it and see it confirmed with a signe when Gedeon received a signe of the accomplishment of Gods promised victory over the Midianites though that signe was but a dreame and of a blessing to come yet Gedeon thankfully worshipped God for it and accepted the Victory as already granted him For so saith the Text Judg. 7.15 When Gedeon heard the telling of the dreame and the interpretation of the dreame hee worshipped and returned into the Host of Israel and said Arise for the Lord hath delivered into your hand the Host of Midian It is to no purpose to ask us as you doe what can bee more naturall then begetting and bringing forth of the Infant before feeding of it at the Mothers brests Is it not sacriledge to presse such upon the Pappes of the Wife of Christ his Church with whom shee never travelled or bare of her body For wee doe not look at the Sacraments neither doth the Scripture take them as the brests or Paps of the Church The wit of man can make an Image to it selfe and then play before it as the Israelites did before the golden Calfe Twice doth the Scripture mention the brests of the Church and never meaneth them for the Sacraments but for the Ministers of the Church full of the sincere milk of the Word equall in Office as the brests hoin bignesse and such as doe themselves feed among Lillyes Cant. 4.5 and 7.3 and 8.10 You must strain your wit farre to make the brests of the Church agree to the Sacraments Baptisme is rather the Navell of the Church whereby the Infant hath nourishment derived to it before it bee born Cant. 7.2 And as for the Lords Supper if it bee the other of the two brests of the Church the oldest and strongest Christians had still need to suck of that brest and so must become againe babes in Christ Yea Baptisme it self though it bee a seale of Regeneration whether past or to come yet it sealeth up also such deliverance from afflictions and persecutions 1 Pet. 3 21. and such sanctification and cleansing from all sin to present us to Christ without spot or wrinckle Ephes 5.26 27. that the strongest Christian will have need to feed upon his Baptisme as strong meat for strong men even when he is to lay down his body in the dust and to expect from his Baptisme the resurrection of his body 1 Cor. 15.29 But say you Christ will deny himself to bee nourishment to any where hee hath not been first seed to beget Answer Though none can take any nourishment till they bee begotten No Prince will deny to give a Charter to a Corporation of his Subject and a Charter sealed with the Great Seale of such and such Lands and inheritances for the maintenance and nourishment of them and their children and their childrens children for ever before any children bee yet born to them Your exhortations therefore for want of a ground-work of Truth doe fall of themselves to the ground like an house built upon the Sand. Let men take heed say you how they impute such folly to the wisdome of God as to give the milk of his brests to
in the like need to have their faith confirmed that God will bee a God to us and our seed And we are in like sort engaged both to walke in Gods wayes our selves and to bring up our children in the like holy instruction and information of the Lord. But let it be examined a little Silvester how the authority of the commandement of Circumcision can beare out the authority of baptizing infants Circumcision it doth not for all agree that wee are now to baptize not to circumcise The Minister circumcising it doth not then the Master of the family was to circumcise now one ordained by Christ in the Church to baptize The same part of the body it doth not that circumcised the foreskin Baptisme the whole man The age it doth not that the eighth day this any day The subject it doth not that a male onely this both male and female Now in that it doth not enjoyne any of all these wherein then can the authority of that commandement consist now in Baptisme so as to enjoyne Infants to be baptized And whereas men cry out from that command that Infants Infants Infants must be baptized as they were commanded to bee circumcised Why this commandement if it should be so serves for none but onely males So that if they will have the females to be baptized they must looke out another commandement for them and so there must be two commandements in one Ordinance There is no inconvenience for two commandements to meet in one Ordinance Circumcision was more then once commanded Silvanus Gen. 17. Lev. 12. So was the Passeover Exod. 12 Numb 9. Levit. 23.5 Neither is it another commandement that wee alledge for the baptizing of females but onely an example Acts 8.12 which yet being precedentiall is of like force as a commandement look wherin wee vary in the administration of Baptisme from the Rite and manner of Circumcision wee have just warrant for it in the New Testament Else we should no more have varyed from it then did the Proselytes of the Old Testament The rite of Circumcising and of the foreskin is expresly abolished Gal. 5.2 And we are said now to be circumcised in being baptized Col. 2.11 12. The Minister of Circumcision if it were not removed in the Old Testament from the family to the Synagogue from the father of the family to the Levite yet surely removed it was by Christ to the Ministers of the Gospel Mat. 28.19 The age had something in it ceremoniall as hath been shewed above The sex or subject as you call it was enlarged by the example of Philip Acts 8.12 So that we vary in nothing from the Commandement of circumcision but by the like warrant whereby Circumcision was at first commanded Shew us the like warrant for the rejecting of infants from Baptisme as we shew you for the changing of all the rest and reason will require we should hearken to you Tell us not that Iohn Baptist baptized such as professed their faith and repentance and Philip baptized the Eunuch upon the profession of his faith For we doe also now require the like from Proselytes or converts of grown yeares whether Jewes or Pagans But shew us any ground from Scripture either out of the Old or New Testament whereby infants are excluded either from the Covenant or from the seale of the Covenant and then we shall plead no longer for the Baptisme of infants from the Analogie of Circumcision Silvester I will not presse againe that which hath been alledged before But there is something further that sticks with me which may answer your demand and give you a ground for the exclusion of Infants alledged out of Gal. 4.22 23 24 25. Where the two Mothers Hagar and Sarah type out the two Testaments and their two sonnes Ishmâ—el and Isaac type out the subjects of the same the one by the bond-woman born after the flesh but hee of the free-woman was by promise v. 23. Now as Hagar the mother signified the old state in generall so Ishmael her sonne signified the children of the same state borne after the flesh as hee was For though hee was the child of Abraham yet hee was no child of promise Now for Sarah she was the lawfull wife of Abraham and so a free-woman with whom the Apostle compareth the estate of the Church of the New Testament the true Spouse and wife of Christ who is free from all servitude and bondage and stands onely in subjection to Christ her husband as Sarah did to Abraham and Isaac her sonne signifying the true holy and blessed seed Of this holy stock according to the Spirit and so as Isaac was true heire according to promise For the Gospel approveth of none as true heires of the blessing and so the right seed and truly in the Covenant but onely such as the promise produceth and brings forth as it did Isaac For Isaac came not by ordinary course of nature but by vertue of the promise of God and faith in the same which raised nature above it selfe to bring him forth By this the wisdome of God holds forth as in a figure who are Abrahams seed approved of in the Gospel and they are such as are brought forth by a power above nature which is by the promise of God and faith in the same as Isaac was c. Your whole glosse upon this text standeth like the Temple of Dagâ—n upon two maine pillars which being overthrowne Silvanus the whole fabrick will fall like Dagon himselfe before the Arke of the Covenant 1. You conceive that Hagar and Sarah signifie the severall estate of the Churches of the Old and New Testament Hagar the old state of the Church in the Old Testament and Sarâ—â— the state of the Church of the New Testament 2. You conceive that their two sons type out the different subjects of the same But neither of both these will stand with the Apostles words nor scope His scope is to dispute not against infants to exclude them from being subjects of the Church but to exclude legall Justiciaries such as desired to be under the law from being children of the Covenant of grace The words of the Apostle are these The two Mothers are the two Covenants v. 24. not the old state of the Church in the Old Testament and the new state of the Church in the New Testament Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia saith he and answereth or standeth in the same rank as the word signifieth to Hierusalem that now is v. 25. Marke that I pray you hee saith not to Hierusalem in her old estate in the dayes of the godly Kings and holy Priests and Prophets and people the Saints of the Lord who looked to bee saved by the grace of Christ as well as we Acts 15.11 but to Hierusalem that now is under the corrupt and degenerate Priests and Rulers Scribes Pharisees and Sadduces who renounced Christ and the righteousnesse of faith in him and seek to
infants If yea whether did the people of God forbeare the circumcision of their infants for feare they should cause such an errour of the necessity of circumcision in the hearts of simple people were it not that we know when men have once set up an idoll in their hearts every wind and shew of an argument will prevaile with a mans mind to bow down to it wee should not think that men disputed in good earnest that used such arguments in such a cause Have you not met with any other argument of more weight CHAP. VIII Silvester YEs this fifth Argument seemeth to me to have more in it The Baptisme of infants keepeth up the state of Antichrist by granting him this so chief a corner stone of the Lords house to lye in his foundation For that Church where baptisme is the true Ordinance of God in the administration thereof it is by the rules of the Gospel a true Church So that if Antichrists baptisme which hee administreth bee Gods ordinance then that Church wherein he doth so administer the same must bee alâ—o the Church of God and he must be in sin who refuseth communion with it Silvanus Either the words of this argument are ill chosen to expresse your meaning or else these words will give no ground at all against the baptisme of infants You say the Baptisme of infants keepeth up the state of Antichrist by granting him this so chief a corner stone of the Lords house to lye in his foundation But I pray you understand first we never made baptisme the corner stone of the Lords house which is the peculiar prerogative of Christ himselfe Christ onely is the corner stone Secondly when we make I meane acknowledge the Baptism of believers and of their seed a true and precious ordinance of Christ and one of the holy vessels of his Church wee doe not grant unto Antichrist this authority to lay this stone in his foundation unlesse himself were first invested with a lawfull calling to baptize and unlesse those whom he did baptize were believers and the seed of believers Our baptizing of believers and their seed do not grant him leave to baptize idolaters and their seed If you say but we take in such to be members of our Church who have been baptized in his Church or at least their fathers before them and so take a stone out of the Temple of Babel to lay in the foundation of Zion contrary to the Word of the Lord Jer. 51.26 Answ This is another matter but your words expresse no such thing Your words carry it as if we granted him a chiefe corner stone of the Lords house to lye in his foundation and not that he granteth us a stone out of his Babylonish Temple to lye in the fóundation of the Lord house But in very truth neither doe we take a stone from him to lay in Gods house by continuing the seale of the Covenant to believers and their seed from Abrahams time to the Apostles time and Baptisme from the Apostles time till now For the Baptisme of believers and their seed is no more a stone that lyeth in the foundation of Antichrist then is the doctrine of the Father Sonne and holy Ghost three persons and one God into whose name wee and our children are baptized Though the people of God would not take a stone of Babel for a corner or for a foundation of Zion according to Jer. 51.26 yet they did not refuse to take those vessels out of Babel and to restore them againe to the Lords Temple at Hierusalem Ezra 1.7 8. with 6.5 Doe noâ— therefore tell us that if Antichrists Baptisme which hee administreth bee the ordinance of God then that Church wherein hee doth so administer the same must be also the Church of God and they in sinne that refuse communion with it For you might as well say that if the vessels of the Temple wherein the Babylonian Priests ministred to their idols were indeed the holy vessels of the Lord God of Israel then that idols Temple is Babel in which they were used to Ministery was the holy Temple of the Lord and the people of Israel did sin in comming out of Babel and refusing communion with that Idols Temple CHAP. IX Silvester A Sixth argument against the Baptism of Infants I have found to bee this because it buildeth faith upon humane testimony in matters fundamentall for such as are baptized in their infancy have no other way to satisfie themselves or others but the bare word of man that must stand in the place of the Word of God for such to believe their true receiving of so holy an Ordinance of God Silvanus If Baptisme be a matter fundamentall why did your fourth Argument make it an error in the Baptisme of infants that it caused the simple to conceive that Baptism is of necessity to salvation Surely if Baptisme be a matter fundamentall it is no offence to make both the simple and the wise and all sorts to conceive that it is of necessity to salvation But such indeed is the wise and righteous hand of God that such as will contradict the truth of God shall be ready also to contradict themselves and that sometimes within a very few words But to speake to your argument doe you thinke that the Circumcision of infants was a matter fundamentall If so doe you thinke those infants growing up to yeares did build their faith in matters fundamentall upon humane testimonie And had they no other way to satisfie themselves or others for their true receiving of so holy an Ordinance of God but onely the word of man which must stand them in stead of the Word of God Yea let me demand a further Question What if a man were baptized at as ripe yeares as the Treasurer of Candace Acts 8. who saw himselfe baptized by Philip What hath such a man to build the faith of his Baptisme upon and to satisfie himselfe and others thâ—rein but onely the testimony of his owne eyes and sense of fâ—eling but neither a mans eyes nor his sense of feeling are any â—hitmore the Divine testimony of the Word of God then the testimony by word of mouth of many scoreâ— of witnesseâ— yea put the case a little further and no more then possible what if a man of grown yeares suppose a Pagan were converted to the faith by the hearing of the Word and yet had been blinde from his mothers wombe If hee shall come to be baptized he will want the testimony of his eyes to see himselfe baptized And though he may heare the words of him that baptizeth them yet hee hath it onely by the words of men that he that baptizeth him iâ— a Minister For himself did neither see him elected nor ordained which is also the case of any man though of growne yeares that commeth to be baptized of such a Minister who was ordained to his Office before himselfe was borne must such a mans
and Esau were not saved yet it is no impeachment to the stability of the Covenant because the Covenant is onely stable to the faithfull seed which these were not A third Answer somewhat like to this and yet different may be this That though the Covenant of Grace beâ— absolute and stable yet it will not follow that all within that Covenant must bee saved for the Covenant though it bee absolute and stable to all the elect seed yet not to all the seed because all of them are not Elect to whom onely the Grace of Christ is absolute and stable And yet such as are not elect may bee truely said to bee under this Covenant For wee doe not reade in Scripture of any Covenant which is everlasting but onely the Covenant of Grace Jer. 32.40 And yet you read of a wicked generation that have broken this everlasting Covenant Isa 24.5 which argueth they were under the bond of it or else how could they bee blamed as there they bee and cursed for the breach of it They therefore who were not Elected but accursed were under this Covenant and yet they making it void unto themselves it is evident it was not absolute and stable to them The unbeleeving Jews of whom the Apostle speaketh Rom. 11. who were broken off from Christ as branches from the fat Olive tree they had beene in some sense in Christ or else how could they bee said to bee broken off from him And if they were in him and not by faith then were they in him some other way and yet not by Election therefore onely by Adoption or admission into the Covenant of their Fathers which was a Covenant of Grace CHAP. XVI Silvester A Second evill consequence which I finde to bee gathered from your doctrine of the Baptisme of Infants is this that it is a ground of falling from Grace thus All that God tooke into his Covenant of Grace were in an estate of Grace But all that God tooke into his Covenant of Grace did not therein continue Ergo Such fell from an estate of Grace An easy and common distinction will easily avoid this evill conquence For all that God tooke into his Covenant of grace Silvanus may bee said to bee in a state of Grace but what Grace either of common or of saving Grace If your meaning bee all that God tooke into a Covenant of Grace are in an estate of saving Grace wee deny that Major proposition as utterly untrue But if you meane it of common Grace in the carnall seed and of saving Grace in the Elect seed then indeed your Major proposition is very true but no evill consequence will follow upon it For the Elect and faiâ—hfull seed that are in an estate of saving Grace can never fall away And they who do fall away were onely in a state of commom Grace which is no ill consequence nor prejudice to the truth though they doe fall away CHAP. XV. 3. THe Baptisme of Infants is a ground of universall Redemption Silvester for it maketh the Grace of Christ equall as well to such as perish as to such as bee saved Thus all that are in the Covenant of Grace Christ died for But all that were in the Covenant of Grace were not saved Ergo Christ dyed for such as were not saved The proofe of this is the same with the former If God tooke Abraham and his seed into his Covenant of Grace without exeception Though God did take the seed of Abraham and of all other beleevers into the Covenant of Grace without exception Silvanus yet not without distinction The Elect seed hee taketh them all into his Covenant of Grace and into all the sure and saving mercies of the Covenant But the carnall and unfaithfull seed hee taketh them also into his Covenant of Grace yet giveth them not the sure and saving mercies thereof but the common graces onely and the outward dispensation of the Covenant and the seale thereof together with such spirituall gifts of the Covenant as Judas or Demas Saul or Jehu might partake of And even those common gifts the Apostle doth acknowledge that Apostates are sanctified with them by the bloud of the Covenant Heb. 10.29 The Covenant ratified by the bloud of Christ was doubtlesse the Covenant of Grace And yet it was by the bloud of this Covenant by which they were sanctified But to apply my answer more punctually to the termes of your Syllogisme your Major proposition will bee denyed all that are in the Covenant of grace Christ dyed for them If you meane hee dyed for them out of Grace to save them it will utterly bee denyed you That Christ should die for any out of his grace to save them is a sure and saving mercy of the Covenant which is not granted to all the seed within the Covenant but to the elect and faithfull seed onely The very common gifts which such receive from the bloud of his Covenant and so from his death they flow not from the death of Christ out of his saving grace to them but out of his grace to his Church and chosen people for whose sake hee bestoweth such gifts upon Hypocrites CHAP. XVI Silvester THe 4. evill consequence which I have found gathered from the doctrine of the Baptisme of Infants is this That it makes God the Author of mans beleeving an untruth by enjoyning him to beleeve the salvation of such as hee himselfe knowes and reveales the contrary as Ismael Esau and but a remnant among the Jews nay none at all but such as beleeve Gen. 17. Gen. 25. Gen. 48. Rom. 9.27 Against which opinion and evills aforesaid I Argue thus The Covenant is absolute and saving to all once within the same But all the personal seed of beleevers are not saved Therefore all the seede of beleevers are not in the Covenant of Grace The proposition is cleare from these Scriptures Jer. 32.40 Isay 49.21 Jer. 31.3 Ioh. 13.1 Mal. 3.6 Ioh. 10.28 29. The assumption from these Gen. 21.10 with Gal. 4.29 30. Gen. 25.23 with Rom. 9.11 12 13 27. God requireth no man to beleeve untruth therfore God requireth no such thing Silvanus I doe not delight to take exception at words when one may guesse at your meaning though it bee contrary to your words But because you would pick an argument from a true doctrine of God to gather an evill consequence that so God should bee an Author to make a man beleeve that which he himself knoweth and revealeth the contrary I conceive it to tend to the glory of God to observe that your self in laying downe this Argument doe expresse your selfe contrary to that which you know to bee your meaning and doe affirme God to know that which you know is contrary to his knowledge For you expresly make it an untruth and contrary to what God himselfe knoweth and revealeth to beleeve the salvation I doe not say of Ismael and Esau for it is an untruth indeed
it a false Baptisme The Nature and vertue of the Sacrament doth not depend upon the intention of the Minister The Iewish Teachers in the time of Christ and of his Apostles had a corrupt and false end in Administring Circumcision to wit as necessary to Iustification and Salvation Act. 15. yet that misbeleife or unbeleife of man did not evacuate the Faith of God nor the truth of his Ordinance Rom. 3.3 In the Dispensing of any Ordinance of God a corrupt or false end may vitiate or evacuate any Ordinance to the Dispenser himselfe not so to the receiver They that preached Christ of envy intending to adde affliction to Pauls Bonds their intent was corrupt and false and so made their Ministery unprofitable to themselves Neverthelesse Paul rejoyced in the preaching of Christ even in such a way Phil. 1.15 16 17 18. which doubtlesse hee would not have done if the Preaching had beene false and produced onely false effects in the people of God CHAP. XXI THE Fifth exception against the Baptisme received in England Silvester taken from the false subject meaning Infants I am loth to trouble you any more with that wee have had already speach enough for the present about it But because I meete with a further doubt about it which stumbleth many I pray you speake a word further to it The true subject of Baptisme is beleevers and though you adde their seed also yet beleevers are the principall subject But now all the people of England being Baptized in their Infancy it is now come to passe that the Baptisme of beleevers is utterly abandoned out of England And if all other Churches did the like as generally they doe except it bee a fewâ— whom the rest doe commonly but falsely call Anabaptists then the Baptisme of beleevers would utterly be abandoned out of the world Silvanus Our answer is ready in two or three words First If Infants themselves bee beleevers as some of them be or else all of them be damned Mark 16.16 then in baptizing all the Infants of the faithfull the Baptisme of some beleevers is continued in them Secondly If all the people of England bee baptized and many of them bee beleevers then supposing as hath beene proved the Baptisme of the seed of beleevers to bee lawfull there is no beleever in England nor in any such like Church in the world that is left unbaptized Thirdly If a beleever bee not in Gods account baptized himselfe till his seed bee baptized also as hath been shewed above then abandon the Baptisme of the seed of beleevers two wit the Baptisme of Infants out of the world and abandon the baptisme of beleevers out of the world neither is there any conpetent reason that should exclude Infants the seed of beleevers from being capable and competent subjects of baptisme as well as their beleeving Parents For first They are consoederates with God partakers of his Covenant as well as their parents I will bee saith God a God unto thee and to thy seed Secondly They are Disciples of Christ Holy Freeborne receivers of the Kingdome of God as hath beene opened above Thirdly There is no Impediment in them to the Grace offered in Baptisme but what by Grace they are capable of the removall thereof For first Their a version from God is Habituall not actuall and therefore the pouring forth of the habit of Grace into them may remove it which the Holy Ghost is wont to doe in the washing of Regeneration Tit. 3.5 6. Secondly Their sin was by the fall of their first parents therefore their restoring may bee by the faith of their next parents God is wont to observe such a proportion in Captivity and Redemption Yee sold your selves for nought and ye shall bee redeemed without money Isa 52. â— Thirdly Lest the want of ability to make profâ—ssion of their faith should have bee taken up for an Impediment of their Baptism God himselfe professeth in their behalfe that they are holy the Disciples of Christ Partakers of his Covenant Receivers of his Kingdome In a word therefore If by all this conference that wee have had together it may appeare that the Infants of beleevers are true and capable Subjects of Baptisme then such as having beene baptized in their Infancy shall afterwards receive another Baptisme they are as well justly as commonly called Anabaptistâ— that is such as are rebaptized when they were once truly baptized before CHAP. XXII I Will reply no more for the present Onely this let mee say Silvester I finde my selfe by Grace able to beleeve for my self but not so well able to beleeve for my Children I deny not but that is possible Silvanus that a Christian man may beleeve some promises when hee cannot so readily beleeve others But first beleeve it it is a sinne to us not to beleeve all the gratious promises which the Lord maketh to us Zacharias could not beleeve that hee should have a sonne no not when a sonne was promised him but yet the Lord did not faile to performe his promise and chastened him for that unbeleife Luke 1.18 19 20. Secondly The former leaving of your judgement against the Baptisme of your seed is such a killing sinne to the life of the Covenant as much as in you lyeth that till you doe unfeignedly repent of it the Lord may justly leave you to straitnesse of heart and unbeleife in the promise for your childe Thirdly Notwithstanding the straitnesse of your heart and Faith towards your childe yet if you submit your selfe and childe unto the Lord and to his Covenant and to the seale thereof the Lord knoweth how to performe his promises with us and our children not onely above what wee can beleevâ— but above all that wee can aske or thinke Ehes 3.20 Fourthly Remember you had a faithfull Father and gratious Mother whom God did inable to beleeve for themselves and for their children to many Generations God is not wanting to respect children for the Covenant of their Fore-fathers when their next Fathers may bee straitned towards them Rom. 11.28 Fifthly Remember also that Sarah though shee beleeved not the promise of God for a childe at the first but laughed at it Gen. 18.12 13 14. yet afterwards by meditation upon the promise and upon the faithfulnesse and power of him that made it shee at length received strength both of faith to beleeve the promise and of body to conceive seed because she judged him faithfull who had promised Heb. 11.11 Follow her Godly example meditate on all the gratious promises have beene alledged and such other grounds of Faith in this point which have beene by the helpe of Christ propounded to you and who knoweth but you may receive of Christ strength of Faith to beleeve as for your selfe so for your childe and be ready to offer it up as your faithfull parents offered you to the Lord and to his Covenant and to the seale thereof That so God may bring upon you and upon yours all the good that hee hath promised to them that love him and keepe his Ordinancâ—s and may prevent and keepe of those fruits of his wrath and jealousy wherewith hee is wont to visit the sinnes of the Fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth Generation For the Lord even our God is a jealous God a consuming Fire Consider what I say and the Lord give you understanding in all things FINIS
THE GROVNDS and ENDS OF THE BAPTISME OF THE CHILDREN OF THE FAITHFVLL OPENED In a familiar Discourse by way of a Dialogue or Brotherly Conference By The Learned and Faithfull Minister of Christ JOHN COTTON Teacher of the Church of Boston in New-England LONDON Printed by R. C. for Andrew Crooke at the sign of the Green Dragon in Pauls-churchyard 1647. To the READER THe compiling of the ensuing discourse and in this familiar style was put upon mee by a more then morall inevitable necessity Paul acknowledgeth there is a constraining power in the love of Christ 2 Cor. 5.14 And surely the love which through Christ I bare to some gracious Saints in Lincolnshire now with Christ constrained mee to reserve a tender affection to their surviving children One of them being formerly well affected to the wayes of Christ and accordingly respected of the godly where he lived Hee comming over into these parts was received into fellowship in a Neighbour Church and well approved But falling into acquaintance with some who stood aloofe to the Baptisme of Children and receiving some Bookes from them against the same He withheld his child from Baptisme as others had done theirs to the offence both of the Lord and the Church whereof he was a member The Elders of that Church tooke much paines with him to convince him of the error of his way and I suppose some of their learned and elaborate discourses are sent over by this Ship for more publike satisfaction Withall they advised him to conferre with other friends and acquaintance in other Churches To mee therefore he came and acquainting me with some of his Scruples I thought what I said to him might have satisfied and so it seemed to me it did for the present But he told me other scruples he had which were all comprised in a printed booke the Author I forbeare to name but he was then reputed one of the chiefest note of that way for moderation and freedome from the leaven of other corrupt opinions which are wont to accompany the denyall of Infants Baptisme Since then other Bookes have beene published of the same argument but with more learning and better method But this Booke which hee brought me containing all his scruples he desired that it might bee answered and he should so rest satisfied I was then full of other businesse and could not possibly though I much desired it gratifie his desire In this strait a young Schollar but of pregnant gifts and parts Mr. Benjamin Woodbridge dwelling then in my house seeing me solicitous for the young man undertooke the answer of the Booke which God helped him speedily and acutely to perform But the young man tooke not that satisfaction from it he well might have done but excused himself it was so full of Scholarship and termes of Art that he could not well understand it and so could not satisfie his conscience with it Whereupon I was forced either to suffer an hopefull Sonne of gracious Parents and my deare friends to fall and lye under that burden or else I must Answer the booke my self and that in such a familiar language as might best suite with his capacity Which by the helpe of Christ having done other friends perusing it pressed mee to give way to let it passe to more publike use of other as well as of him I was very loth to hearken to them the Booke whereto I give answer being so immethodicall and confused and my self being forced to follow him in like confusion that the young man might not complaine as he did before of too much Art or of Omission of Answer to any thing materiall in his Booke Thus have you a short and plaine account of this present labour of Love You will receive I hope by other hands from hence more Elaborate Answers to more Elaborate discourses in the same and other Arguments Now the God of Truth and Peace accompany all the Labours of his Servants which beare witnesse to his Truth with a Spirit of Power to cast downe all false Imaginations and to bring into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ Iesus John Cotton To the READER THe due Application of Baptism to all those Persons Christ would have it administred unto cannot but be apprehended by all that have any insight into the Controversies of these times to be of a very high importance whether we respect the Ordinance it selfe the Persons right or the Consciences of those in Errour about it For the Ordinance it selfe as it was one of the first of those institutions of the Gospell so in respect of the things sealed up therein it is the Greatest our first Union with Christ the great promise of the Spirit the foundation of all grace and glory Our representation by and communion with Christ in his death resurrection being hereby at once sealed up by God to the persons that partake thereof as belonging to them and to have all these mâ—splaced to persons not capable through want of divine warrant of any benefit thereby cannot but be esteemed a great prophaning of it As on the other side the withholding it from such as Christ hath bequeathed this Legacy unto would bee found as highly derogatory to the great goodnesse and rich grace of the Testator And so withall an injury unto the Persons of Infants having right therunto in those whom Christ hath made Administrators of these his Mysteries Great also is the moment thereof to the Consciences of many good soules as in the consequents of the contrary Opinion of denying Infants Baptisme is in some I must not say of all too apparent The vindication therefore of this great Truth doth deserve and challenge the choicest abilities of the Divines of this age it being in the dayes of this second Reformation with us afresh if not as much controverted as in the times of the first Reformation it was in Germany And it is more light and less violence though in truths taken generally for granted that must end this and all other controversies of this elevation that are amongst us And it will surely be rewarded by Christ at the latter day as a worke of more then ordinary Charity to have pleaded and maintained the right of these poore members of his who want a tongue to speake for themselves In a manner half the Church of God and that purissima pars Ecclesiae the purest part of it elect Infants dye as well-nigh halfe the rest of mankind in their bud and infancy and grow not up to partake of the dewes and influence of any other outward Ordinance and were they deprived of this should goe out of this world into which God onely sent them to receive that which should make them meet for the common inheritance of the Saints without any outward owning them or visible way of blessing from him that hath blessed them and us with his choicest heavenly blessings in Christ Yea and the other half of those that grow up to glorifie God
all Nations your selfe doe truly expresse it in generall termes That God is now a God not of the Jewes onely but also of the Gentiles But to speake more particularly and fully the Gospel is summed up in these heads of doctrine 1. That God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himselfe 2 Cor. 5.19 by world is meant Jews and Gentiles 2. That God hath committed this word of reconciliation to his Ambassadors and Ministers to perswade all the Nations of the world to be reconciled unto God 2 Cor. 5.19 20. 3. That God hath given the Ministration of this gospel to bee the ministration of the Spirit of grace to worke faith whereby we receive Christ and reconciliation with God through him and all the gifts of the Spirit from him 2 Cor. 3.8 Gal. 3.2 4. This is another head of the glad tydings of the gospel that to whomsoever he giveth faith to receive Christ and his gospel to them he giveth himselfe to be a God to them and to their seed or house For so Paul and Silas preached the gospel to the Jaylor Believe in the Lord Jesus and thou shalt be saved and thine house Act. 16.31 And so when Zacheus was become a child of Abraham to wit by faith the Lord Jesus promised salvation to him and his house Luke 19.9 And this was the very same gospel which God preached before unto Abraham when he gave him that Covenant of grace to be a God to him and his seed for this was the Covenant which was before confirmed of God in Christ Gal. 3.16 17. And the Covenant confirmed by Christ is no other then the gospel of Christ And this Covenant to a believer and his seed is glad tydings not onely to the believer touching himselfe but touching his seed also As it was indeed exceeding glad tydings unto David that God had promised not onely mercy to himself but as if that had been a small thing in Gods sight to his house also for a great while to come 2 Sam. 7.19 which though it concerned a Kingdome yet that also was a branch of the Covenant of grace and concerned the spirituall kingdom of Christ And surely the promise of salvation and of the kingdom of heaven which by the Covenant of grace is granted to us and our children is a greater blessing then the Kingdom of Israel and maketh us partakers of the kingdome of Christ Thus have we seen what is meant by the gospel which the Apostles were to preach to all Nations Now what is it to preach this gospel as Marke calleth it or as you translate it out of Matthew To teach all Nations to preach the gospel is so to publish and apply it in the demonstration and power of the Spirit as that disciples may be made by it for so the word in Matthews own language expresseth it Go and make disciples all Nations Now who are Christs disciples Disciples are all one with Scholars and Christs disciples or Scholars are such as Christ taketh into his schoole to teach And they are not onely believers but their seed also whom according to the tenor of the gospel opened even now Christ undertaketh to teach and teach them he doth taking his own time from the belly to their old age Christ taught John Baptist from his mothers wombe though not by the hearing of the eare yet by the holy Ghost Luke 1.15 He sanctified Jeremy before he came forth of the wombe Jer. 1.5 And was the God of the Psalmist from his mothers belly and caused him to hope when he was upon the breasts Psal 22.9 10. Doe not thinke that though God took the pains to teach such little ones in the old Testament yet now in the dayes of the new Testament he will no more teach such petties The great Doctor of his Church is not ashamed now no more then of old to stoop to such meane worke No verily Christ in the new Testament affecteth lesse state and pompe in all his dispensations then he was wont to use in the old Testament He putteth forth as much hidden Majesty and glory in riding upon an Asse as ever he did by ruling his people by Solomon in all his royalty Hee requireth still little children to bee brought unto him and knoweth still how to ordaine praise to himself out of the mouth of babes and sucklings And though it be recorded in the old Testament yet it is a prophecy of the estate of the children of the Church of the new Testament All thy children shall bee taught of God Esa 54.13 Which hath beene proved above to be meant not onely of the members of the church of riper yeares but even of infants so that an argument from this Text in Matth. doth easily conclude it self into this form All the disciples of Christ are to be baptized Parents that are brought on to heare and believe the gospel preached they and their children are the disciples of Christ Therefore they and their children are to be baptized But you straiten and darken the counsell of God and commandement of Christ when you limit his meaning to such disciples so taught as to have understanding and faith in that which is taught For though such a description doe agree to the Parents who are disciples and Scholars of a higher forme yet when Christ receiveth the parents who receive him by faith hee receiveth also their seed even from the least to the greatest to bee his disciples and all his disciples to be baptized But that you may see you fight against God in seeking to thrust out infants out of Christs schoole and out of the number of Christs disciples Observe I pray you how God leaveth you to such a forced mis-interpretation of the Text and therein of the very form and essence of baptisme as utterly overthroweth the nature of it Make disciples say you by teaching them and such so taught them baptize in the name of the Father Son and holy Ghost that is into the true and orderly profession of that which they have been taught and believed What is it now come to this passe That to bee baptized into the name of the Father Son and holy Ghost is to bee baptized into the true and orderly profession of that which they have been taught and believed Why the true and orderly profession of that which we have been taught and believed that is of our faith is but a worke of our owne though wrought in us by Gods spirit Faith it selfe is but a created gift and so a creature And the profession of it is but the exercise of faith And are we now come to be baptized into the name of Creatures It is easily granted a man by his baptisme may be engaged to the performance of this or that duty but can it be given for the exposition of the forme of baptisme to be baptized into the name of the Father Son and holy Ghost that is into the true and orderly performance of this or that duty But
it is not as you say first faith and then to the Covenant but first the Covenant and then faith written and wrought in their hearts by his Spirit to fulfill his Covenant The place which you quote in Gal. 3.29 doth not prove that none are the seed of Abraham save those that be in Christ by faith But that those who be in Christ by faith they are that seed of Abraham who partake in the sure mercies of the Covenant who are therefore called heires according to promise The faithfull seed of Abraham they onely partake in the sure mercies of the Covenant so it is now in the New Testament and so it was and no otherwise in the Old But that doth not at all hinder but that all the seed of Abraham though yet destitute of faith in their own persons have right to the outward dispensation of the Covenant and to the seale of it When you say none are approved by the Gospel to be the seed of Abraham but onely such as walke in the steps of his faith the place whereto you alude is in Rom. 4.12 which only holdeth forth that such as walke in the steps of the faith of Abraham they are the seed of Abraham who are justified in the sight of God for Abraham himselfe was so justified And thus it is in the new Testament and thus also it was in the Old And yet Abraham then had and so have the faithfull now other seed who are partakers of the covenant and of the seale of the covenant and yet are not justified for want of faith You say none invisibly before God are by him approved at all to have right to any priviledge of grace but onely as he looketh upon them in his Son no more are there any before men visibly to be approved of so as to have right to the same This saying that none have right to any priviledge of grace before God but as he looketh upon them in his Son it is true rightly understood but nothing availing to your purpose If you mean by grace saving grace it is true none have right to any priviledge of saving grace but as God looketh at them in his Son either by faith or by election unto faith If you meane by grace the outward dispensation of the covenant of grace and of the seal thereof it is true none have right to any priviledge of the covenant or of the seale of it but as they are in Christ either by faith or by election unto faith or by their fellowship with the church whereof Christ is the head In which respect all the members of the church and their seed are in Christ as branches in the vine or olive and may be cut off from him for want of faith to make them fruitfull in him But what avayleth this to your purpose Thus it is in the new Testament and thus it was in the Old But when you say none have right to the same but as they appeare to be in Christ by some effect of faith declaring the same This you cannot make good from Scripture light For though you say that God excludeth all from his holy covenant so as to have right in the outward dispensation thereof but onely such as believe And to prove that you alledge many Scriptures yet none of them beare witnesse to any such matter All the Scriptures which you alledge will easily prove one of these two things both which we willingly grant First that some branches in Christ were broken off from Christ though not through want of faith but yet through infidelity rejecting the faith of Christ either in themselves or in their parents Secondly that through faith wee receive the spirituall saving blessings of the covenant and through want of faith fall short of them both which are everlasting truths as well before Christ as since To runne over all your places briefly that you may see how your Leaders mis-leade both themselves and you In Rom. 11.20 it is said the Jewes were broken off through unbeliefe So the word is translated but the true sense of it is through infidelity and so the same word is translated 2 Cor. 6.15 What part hath a believer with an infidell The meaning of that place in the Romans is the Jews were broken off from Christ and from their church-estate and Covenant in him by their professed infidelity their open rejection of Christ and his righteousnesse and that not out of ignorance but out of wilfull obstinacy against the light of the gospel revealed to them For the Apostles still kept communion with them as with a church a people in covenant with God notwithstanding their want of faith in Christ yea notwithstanding their crucifying of Christ untill they wilfully obstinately rejected and persecuted the Gospel of grace and the righteousnesse of it Acts 13.45 46. And persisting therein then indeed they were broken off but yet this argueth that they were in Christ before or else how could they now be broken off Your next place is quoted out of Heb. 3.18 where the Israelites are said to fall short of their entrance into Canaan because of their unbeliefe the word is as before because of their infidelity For it is not likely that all the Israelites who wanted saving faith were kept out of Canaan Acban who troubled Israel doth not appeare to be a true believer But the body of them who were kept out of Canaan had carryed themselves like infidels they thought scorne of the land of promise and preferred Pagan Egypt before it And therefore for rejecting the promise and the faith of it were justly rejected from entring into Canaan But what maketh this to the purpose in hand how doth this prove that in the Gospel God excludeth all from his holy Covenant and from right in the outward dispensation of it save onely such as believe For all these were in the Covenant and had been circumcised in Egypt and so had the priviledge of the outward dispensation therof though they believed not Besides this concerned the times of the Old Testament of which your selfe and your leaders confesse that the outward dispensation of the Covenant and of the sâ—ales of it pertained not onely to the spirituall bâ—lieving seed but to the carnall also Your next place in Heb. 4.1 2 3. proveth only that such as do not mixe the word with faith will fall short of entring into Gods rest So it was in the Old Testament as well as in the New And the Apostle himselfe doth so expresse it The Word saith he which was preached to them to wit the Israelites in the old Testament did not profit them because it was not mixed with faith in them that heard it From whence he also argueth that neither will the Word preached to us now profit us if it be not mixed with faith But what maketh this to prove that God excludeth all from the outward dispensation of his holy Covenant but onely such as believe Is it all
the Jews were broken off onely for their want of actuall believing the Gospel and for their opposing of the same simply For Stephen beareth witnesse against them they had resisted the holy Ghost from the days of their Fathers And that there was none of the Prophets but whom their Fathers had persecuted as themselves had also betrayed and murthered the Lord Jesus Acts 7.51 52. But yet after all this actuall unbeliefe in Christ and their opposition against Christ the Apostles still kept communion with them as the Church and people of God as hath been shewed above Acts 3.1 13.15 26. untill they did not onely not believe and actually oppose the Gospel but wilfully and obstinately malignantly and blasphemously resist and persecute the cleare light of the Gospel Act. 13.45 46. And as upon the Parents actuall malicious persecution of the Gospel not onely themselves but their children also were cast out of the Covenant who had yet no hand in their parents blasphemy and persecution so the Gentiles upon their actuall believing and profession of the faith they were received into Covenant and by like proportion their children also who did not expresse their actuall faith for receiving in â—o more then the children of the Jews did expresse their actuall unbeliefe for their casting off Againe it is not true that you say the Word condemneth none but for actuall sinne For by the offence of one to wit of the first Adam judgement or guilt came upon all men to condemnation Rom. 5.18 And by that one man sinne entred into the world and death by sin and so death passed upon all men even upon them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adams transpression to wit actually and of their owne accord as Adam did Rom. 5.12 14. And whereas you say the Word doth not justifie any but with respect to actuall faith There is an ambiguity in your word actuall faith for actuall faith may be meant either faith actually indwelling in the heart or faith actually expressing it selfe in some acts or fruits of profession If you meane actuall faith in the former sense it is true what you say but nothing to the purpose For though God doth not justifie any but with respect to actuall faith yet many are within the Covenant whom God doth not justifie else all the house of Israel whose carkasses fell in the wildernesse and with whom God was not pleased had been all of them justified for they were all in the Covenant If you mean actuall faith in the latter sense your speech is untrue For God doth justifie many whose faith doth not actually expresse it selfe in fruits of profession For they who are filled with the holy Ghost from the wombe as John Baptist and Jeremy were they are sanctified And they who are sanctified are also justified And yet their faith did not at that age expresse it selfe actually in fruits of profession Neither is it a commodious or true speech that as every mans owne faith in Christ enrights him to life so every mans owne faith in Christ enrights him to the priviledges of life For faith it selfe is the life of the soule the just man liveth by his faith and is it a convenient speech yea is it not absurd to say faith enrights to it selfe But what is it that enrights to faith and and so to life by faith Is it not the Covenant of grace by which God hath promised to write his Law even the Law of faith as well as of all holinesse in the hearts of the chosen children of his Covenant Jer. 31.33 As for the priviledgâ—â— of life if you meane justification glorification and the saving mercies of the Covenant your speech is true every mans owne faith enrights him to them but that is nothing to the purpose For many have had right in the Covenant who yet have fallen short of the sure mercies of the Covenant But if you meane by the priviledges of life the Covenant and the seale of it it is not true that every mans faith and none else enrights him to such priviledges of life For the faith of Abraham enrighted Ismael and the saith of Isaac enrighted Esau to the Covenant and to the seale thereof Circumcision and not their owne faith which they never had Silvester The generall scope of the Apostles discourse in this 11 Chapter to the Romans is concerning the breaking off of the Jews and the occasion thereof as also their calling by the Gospel Now the Jews were the people of God in a twofold consideration First as a Nationall people descending from the loynes of Abraham by naturall generation after the flesh Secondly some of them God owned in a more speciall manner with reference to his gracious Covenant made with Abraham and established with Isaac and his seed after him for an everlasting Covenant which cannot bee the estate of the whole Nation for then all of them had been in a true saving estate of grace and so all saved or else fallen from grace But in this whole body there was a Church consisting of an holy Assembly of Worship and Worshippers a spirituall state all the whole body with these held â—â—mmunion together because God tooke into one body that whole Nation for his own people And all these springing out of Abrahams loynes did assume to themselves an equall right and priviledge in Gods gracious Covenant made with Abraham and his seed supposing God had bound his Covenant generally upon him and his seed in his naturall generation after the flesh But God respected in the same onely his chosen in Christ with whom hee confirmed his Covenant with Isaac in reference to Christ Gen. 17. Gal. 3. Whom in Gods owne time he calleth to the faith and these the Apostle ever defends against the generall rejection of that Nation For though such were rejected as were not elected yet this made not the promise of God of none effect to those who stood firme in the Covenant by grace in Christ Jesus as branches in their root which grace the â—â—st opposed and were cast off for their unbeliefe And when the fuâ—nesse of Gods time is come to call them to beliefe they shall be received againe into their former estate as alive from the dead as Rom. 11.23 24. Luke 15.24 Therefore the Apostle after hee hath proved the rejection of the Jews hee labours to make good the faithfulnesse of God in his promise of grace and the effectuall power of the Gospel in the saving effects thereof in such as believe through grace though the Jewes in their Nationall respect were rejected and few of them gained to the truth And hee giveth a reason of it thus Though the Jewes were all of them under an outward forme of profession of Gods name and truth yet there was but a remnant whom hee approved of in the Covenant according to his election of grace unto whom the promise of life did belong Rom. 11.5 7. Now to these Gods speciall care
therefore hee admits not of any dead plants to be set in his spirituall vineyard nor dead members to bee joyned in his mysticall body but onely such as are capable by faith to comply with the head Neither tooke he for himself a compound body consisting both of living and dead members which all are that have not a living principle of grace and faith in him which unbelievers have not no nor all the Infants of believers nor any at all untill they are born again of the Spirit Joh. 3.5 6. The Church of God which is the mysticall body of Christ is not a mixt company but onely one substantiall and royall substance suitable to her head and matter by which she was produced being the immortall seed of the Word And therefore one holy spirituall uniforme compacted body both for nature and forme Cant. 6.9 Mal. 2.15 Ephes 2.14 to 22. Job 4.23 All which considered proves the body of Christ or Church of God under the New Testament not to consist of unbelievers nor of Infants neither in whole nor in part and so the branches aforesaid not to be understood of unbelievers or infants but of believers onely That which you say Silvanus that the Jewes were the people of God in a twofold consideration First as a nationall people descended from the loynes of Abraham by naturall generation according to the flesh Secondly some of them owned in a more speciall manner with reference to his gracious Covenant made with Abraham and established with Isaac c. This is not rightly spoken according to the tenor of Scripture language For none of the Jews much lesse the whole Nation was the people of God as they descended from the loynes of Abraham by Naturall generation according to the flesh but onely with reference to his gracious Covenant made with Abraham and with his seed after him If you set aside the consideration of the Covenant the seed of the most holy of Gods Saints are children of wrath and not a people of God Neither let this seem to you of dangerous consequence that if God accounted the whole Nation of the Jewes to bee his people with reference to his gracious Covenant then all the whole Nation must have been in a true and saving estate of grace and so all of them either saved or fallen from a state of grace For this consequence will not follow as hath been shewed above But it is true that you say that God did in a speciall manner owne Isaac and so all the elect seed with whom he established his Covenant not so with Ismael And yet it may not be denyed that God did establish his Covenant to all the seed of Isaac by Jacob and that not onely to the elect seed but to the whole Nation till the ten Tribes rejected not onely the house of David and the Worship of God in the Temple where God had put his name but also the Ministery of the Prophets whom God sent to reclaime them as afterwards the two Tribes of Judah and Benjamin commonly called the Jewes rejected Davids Lord the Lord Jesus and his righteousnesse and the Ministry of the Apostles But before that rejection evident it is that in the wildernesse God did by his gracious Covenant even establish the whole Nationall posterity of Jacob to be a people to himselfe Deut. 29.10 11 12 13. And the Word used in the originall for the establishing of the whole Nation to become Gods people ver 13. is the very same which God used when he promised to establish his Covenant with Isaac Gen. 17.19 And therefore it is not true which you say That in the naturall children of Abraham God onely respected his chosen in Christ with whom he confirmed his Covenant with Isaac in reference to Christ For the words of the Text doe plainly expresse that God by Covenant did confirme or establish the whole house of Iacob to be a people to himselfe according to the Covenant which he had sworn to Abraham Isaac and Iacob Deut. 29.13 whence it was that as the Apostle saith to the Israelites one and other pertained the adoption and the glory and the Covenants and the law and the service of God and the promises c. Rom. 9.4 where he speaketh of such Israelites as for whom he had great heavinesse and continuall sorrow in his heart in respect of their unbelief vers 2. Neverthelesse this I willingly grant you that God had a speciall respect to the elect and faithfull seed as to whom hee reserved the effectuall application of the spirituall and sure mercies of the Covenant though the externall dispensation of the Covenant and of the seales of the Covenant and of all the Ordinances of Gods worship was generally granted to all the seed whether elect or non-elect faithfull or hypocrites But to passe by your generall discourse of the state of the people of the Jews in the Old Testament let us attend to that which commeth nearer to the argument in hand to wit to the generall scope of the Apostles discourse in the 11. Chapter of the Epistle to the Romans which you say is concerning the breaking off of the Jewes and the occasion thereof as also their calling by the Gospel wherein you tell me the Apostle ever defends the faithfull seed of the Jews against the generall rejection of that Nation And it is true he doth so in the former part of the chapter from ver 1. to 10. but that is not his generall scope throughout the whole Chapter For his general scope is to declare three things touching the rejection of the Jews First that it is not universall ver 1. to 10. Secondly that it is not unprofitable ver 11. Thirdly that it is not irrecoverable which he prophecyeth proveth and amplifyeth v. 12. to the end of the Chapter For the 1. That their rejection was not universall he proveth first from his owne example who was an Israelite ver 1. 2. From Gods fore knowledge which is immutable ver 2. 3. From the like reservation which God made of a remnant in the dayes of Elijah ver 3 4 5 6. And this reserving of a remnant he amplifieth by the cause the election of grace ver 5 6. And by the contrary the rejection of the rest which he proveth by the testimony of Isay 7.8 also of David ver 9 10. And thus farre he defendeth the faithfull seed of the Jewes against the generall rejection of that Nation 2. He proveth that their rejection is not unprofitable by giving an instance in an unspeakable blessing which thereby redounded unto the Gentiles to wit the salvation of the Gentiles ver 11. 3. That their rejection is not irrecoverable or finall but on the contrary that their restoring and conversion is to be expected He proveth first from the great benefit which hee prophecyeth shall thereby redound to the Gentile-churches which will be our riches and fulnesse and as it were our life from the dead And that he proveth by an
argument from the lesse ver 12 15. Secondly he proveth their conversion is to bee expected by the end of his owne Ministery which he professeth to bee to save the Gentiles for this end that so hee may provoke the Jewes to the emulation of the Gentiles in receiving of the Gospel and by that meanes save some of them ver 13 14. and thereby also bring on a greater increase of light and life to the Gentiles ver 15. Thirdly he proveth their rejection is not irrecoverable but rather that there is certain ground of their conversion from the holinesse of their Ancestors which deriveth in like sort holinesse to them as the first fruits being holy derive holinesse by Gods institution to the whole lump and the root being holy deriveth holinesse by Gods Covenant to the branches ver 16. Whereupon by the way he inserteth a grave admonition to the Church of Rome to beware of boasting either against the Jewes for their Apostasie or within themselves for their owne stability in the saith For the Holy Ghost did foresee that the Church of Rome above all the Churches of the Gentiles would bee most forward to boast of their infallibility and stability in the faith by reason of the promise pretended to be made to Peters Chaire above all the promises made to Hierusalem of old which boasting the Apostle represseth 1. By calling them to consider their former state they were branches of the olive tree wilde by nature vers 17. 2. By putting them in minde they received the Gospel from the Iewes not the Iewes from them thou bearest not the root but the root thee v. 18.3 By the greater danger or possibility of apostasie and rejection of the Romans then of the Iewes for if God spared not the naturall branches to wit the Iewes take heed lest he also spare not thee v. 19. to 22. 4. He both together represseth the Arrogancy of the Romans and withall proveth that the Rejection of the Iewes is not irrecoverable but their conversion more hopefull then the conversion of the Romans was by an Argument taken both from Gods power v. 23. and also from the naturall estate of the branches v. 24. which maketh their conversion more easy If thou Roman wert cut off the Olive Tree which is wild by nature and wert by a power above nature graffed contrary to nature into a good Olive Tree how much more shall these which be naturall Branches bee graffed into their owne Olive Tree 5. He Represseth the same Arrogancy of the Romans and with all proveth the conversion of the Iewes by a word of prophecy both by his owne Testimony v. 25. and by the Testimony of the Prophet Isay v. 26 27. 6 Hee prosecuteth the same conclusion of the conversion of the Jewes and demonstration that their rejection is not small and irrecoverable by an argument taken from the immutability of Gods electing love to the children of such whose fathers he hath given an effectuall calling unto in the fellowship of his Covenant of grace v. 28 29. 7 He proveth and amplifieth the same by an argument à Pari from equalls thus As you when you were unbeleivers have now obtained mercy through their unbeleife so they now not beleiving shall obtaine mercy through your mercy v. 30 31 32. Finally he concludeth all with an holy and Affectionate Admiration of the depth of the riches of the knowledge and wisedome of God in these his unsearchable Iudgements and wayes v. 33. to 36. I have the more fully opened to you the Analysis of this whole chapter that you may the better discern both the true scope of the Apostle and withall your owne fallacy in perverting the Apostes scope to such a meaning as will not suite with his words For you so carry the Apostles scope as if he wholly intended throughout all this discourse to defend a remnant of faithfull Iewes against the generall Apostasie and rejection of that Nation And lest it might appeare that the Apostle had a principall ayme in the latter halfe of the chapter to prove as he evidently doth the conversion and restoring of the Nation from the state of Apostasie and infidelity unto the Faith of Christ and his Gospell you would have the Apostle understood to speake of the Iewes in a state of faith and holinesse and the whole lumpe of them to be holy by faith as their first fruits Abraham Isaac and Iacob And lest it should be thought that God will convert and restore the Iewes as some of the Apostles Arguments carry it out of respect to his Covenant with their holy Ancestors Abraham Isaaoc and Iacob out of whom they descended as branches out of a root you would have the root not to be meant their holy Ancestors but Christ and themselves to be holy not by vertue of any Covenant of God with their Ancestors for that you see would fetch in Infants and others of their Naturall seede within the bounds and benefit of the Covenant but by vertue of their actuall Union and Communion with Christ through faith in his Name And lest it should be humbled at as justly it might why the Apostle should spend so many Arguments to prove the restoring and ingraffing of the Iewes into Christ after â—â—â—y have come to injoy Union and Communion with Christ you would have Christ to be understood not personally as a Redeemer and Saviour but mystically as he is the head of the Church and one body with it and so their restoring to be nothing else but receiving into Church-fellowship in the Order and Worship and Government thereof Such hard shifts the wits of men will make to seek any evasions to avoid the light and power of the truth of the word when it will not stand with their owne forestalled imaginations But let us consider how you goe about to make these imaginations of your owne to stand with the Apostles words The lumpe say you generally considered comprehendeth all both the first fruits and the latter for except the first fruits were part of the lump it could not give Testimony that the whole lump was holy which lump so considered is Gods elect in Christ with reference to their beleivinâ— on him and so the apparent Subjects of Gods gracious Covenant a remnant according to Gods election with reference to Faith appearing in Abrahams Isaacks and Iacobs beleeving as the first fruits of the same Where 1. It may be marvelled why you should make the holy Ancestors of the Jewes Abraham Isaac and Iacob the first fruits of the Jewes and yet not make them in like sort the roote also For the Apostle putteth no difference between the first fruits and the Roote but speaketh of them as two similies to expresse one and the same thing If the first fruits be holy so is the whole lumpe If the roote be holy so are the branches v. 16. And as Christ is in some other places of Scripture called a Roote so is he also called the first fruits
appeare that Christ spake to Nicodemus of entring into the visible Church for Christ did not seek to gather a visible church separate from the Church of the Jews till after his ascension But he spake to him of entrance into the Kingdome of Glory and such a state of salvation in the Kingdome of Grace as onely regenerate persons did attaine unto whether Jews or Christians Christ would never have called Iudas to Office in his Church which is the place of an emiment member if none could enter into the visible Church but regenerate persons Your other place in John 1 1â— 13. doth not speake of the estate of the members of the visible Church in the dayes of the New Testament but of the Adoption and Regeneration of the Elect members of the visible Church of the Old Testament For all the words of the Evangelist Iohn from v. 1. to 14 are a description of Christ 1. What hee was from eternity v. 1 2. 2. What hee was in the Creation v. 3 4. 3. What hee did to men after the fall v. 5. c. 4. What hee did to the world of Pagans by his workes of Creaation and Providence v. 9 10. 5. How hee came to his owne people of Israel in his Ordinances v. 11. And yet many of them received him not to wit by faith in sincerity and truth v. 11. But those that did receive him that is beleeve in him to them hee gave power or priviledge not to bee called but to become his sons v. 12. And these were borne to wit borne againe not by power of Nature but by the grace of God v. 13. Then it followeth the Word became flesh v. 14. So that it may appeare plainly by the Context that Iohn speaketh not of the estate of the people of the New Testament before they can enter into the visible Church but of the spirituall estate of all the beleeving Saints of the Old Testament The other place in 2 Cor. 5.16 wee have opened it above Wee now know no man after the flesh no not Christ himselfe now In which words it is no part of the Apostles scope or meaning to set forth what qualifications are to bee attended to in addmitting members into the visible Church but to direct Church-members and all Christians not to esteeme of themselves others according to common gifts and carnall excellencies and outward Priviledges wherein the false Apostles gloryed v. 12. but to live as those who have fellowship with Christ in his death and resurrection and therefore not to live unto our selves or to this world but unto Christ v. 14 15. And lest it should bee objected Why time hath beene when you Paul your selfe have gloryed in carnall excellencies and Jewish Priviledges yea and have esteemed meanly of Christ himselfe for his poverty sake and because hee was rejected of the high Priests and Elders Paul answereth though we have known Christ after the flesh that is though wee have esteemed meanly of him according to his meane outside yet now henceforth wee neither know or acknowledge him or any man else according to the flesh Where by knowing no man after the flesh he doth not meane that bee now knoweth no seed of the faithfull to have any Priviledge or right unto Church-estate by their naturall birth through the the Covenant of their Parents but that whatsoever priviledge themselves or their Parents or any others have by their Church-estate or Covenant or seales of the Covenant or gifts of knowledge and utterance or the like they should not acknowledge them as things to bee rested till they come to bee new creatures in Christ Jesus And to the same purpose tendeth the other place which you quote Phil. 3.4 5. where Paul calleth all these outward Priviledges flesh and professeth though hee might as well trust in them and boast of them as any other man yet hee counted them all if they bee trusted in without Christ as losse and drosse and dung in comparrison of Christ But if by this argument you would exclude the Infaâ—â—s of beleeving Parents from Church-fellowship and the seale thereof you might as well reject Church-fellowship and Church-Covenant and the seales of the Covenant and all confessions of Faith and subjection to the Ordinances and fruitfulnesse in good workes for all these trusted in are losse and drosse and dung in comparison of Christ nor doth our righteousnesse before God stand in them And thus it was also in the Old Testament as well as now So that all this which you have alledged proveth no difference at all between the Infants of the Jews and the Infants of the Gentiles in respect of spirituall Priviledges For all these places doe as well concerne men of yeares as Infants and Iews as well as Gentiles And though you call us a personall people and the Jews a Nationall people yet neither were they at first Nationall but Domesticall as hath been said And for us if you meane that every beleever receiveth the Covenant of grace to his owne Person but not to his seede It is utterly untrue for the contrary hath been proved at large above and your exceptions answered that one promise of grace might stand for many which Paul gave to the Jailor Beleeve in the Lord Jesus and thou shalt bee saved and thy house Act. 16.31 As also that other testimony of his to the Corinthians that the children of beleeving Parents yea of either Parent beleeving are holy 1 Cor. 7.14 Silvester The holinesse which the Apostle speaketh of in that place to the Corinthians is not the holinesse which proceedeth from Gods holy Covenant of grace but from Gods holy Ordinance of Marriage For under the Gospell there is no holinesse that can inright to any Priviledge of grace but either the holinesse of Christ in whom God looketh upon his children as holy in him and through him giveth them right to all things both in grace and glory Ephes 1.4 5 6. Or that holy frame of Gods workmanship by the holy spirit of regeneration appearing in the holy effects and fruits thereof by which the persons appeare before men to have right to the aforesaid Priviledges There is great difference in point of Holinesse betweene the holy Covenant of grace and the holy Ordinance of Marriage Silvanus The Covenant of grace is holy not onely in regard of the efficient cause because it was instituted by the holy God but also because it giveth right to holy Priviledges and denominateth them to bee holy whether persons families or nations whom God calleth into such Covenant with himselfe For it separateth them from other people and setteth them apart to the Lord and his holy worship Deut. 7.6 7 8 9. But the Ordinance of Marriage is holy onely in regard of the efficient cause because it was instituted by the holy God but it neither giveth right to holy Priviledges nor denominateth them to be holy whom God calleth unto that estate God never called persons or families
of them For when hee saith the unbeleeving yoak-fellow is sanctified hee doth not leave it so without a limitation or restriction but saith hee or shee is sanctified in the beleever or to the beleever and that limiteth the sense to the beleevers use But when hee speaketh of children hee doth not speake with such limitation they are holy to the beleever but positively they are holy Now the difference is manifest and great betwene these two to bee sanctified to a beleever and to bee holy for example It may truely bee said all afflictions and Persecution it selfe are sanctified to a beleever but it cannot therefore bee said that affliction yea persecution is holy yea wee may bee bold to say that even the falls of Gods children are sanctified unto them I meane their falls into sinne yet wee may not say that their falls into sinne are holy No scripture language alloweth any thing to bee called holy but that which is holy either by imputation from Christ or regeneration from the Spirit or separation unto God from uncleannesse to his holy worship Search the Scripture you will not finde it otherwise neither is it otherwise in this place For else the Apostle might as well have said thus The children by the unbeleeving wife are sanctified in the beleeving husband and the children by the unbeleeving husband are sanctified in the beleeving wife else were your unbeleeving yoak-fellows uncleane but now they are holy But do you thinke the holy Spirit of God would ever call infidells Idolaters holy But suppose as some of your books would have it that the Apostle did acknowledge unbeleeving yoak-fellowes to bee holy is there not then a two-fold holinesse mentioned in the Text the one not in the thing it self but to anothers use the other of the thing in it selfe Is it not then sinne to confound these two for all one which God hath distinguished I deny not but this is true in a part Silvester that there is twofold holinesse here spoken of For the holinesse of the children is not onely such a relative holinesse as to one anothers use as the unbeleever to the beleevers use and no more but the holinesse of children resteth in themselves as the subjects thereof by nature being begotten and borne in that lawfull honorable way of marriage by Gods appointment and so holy cleane in opposition to such as are begotten and brought forth in a way of uncleannesse as adultery fornication and the like This kinde of holinesse which you speake of Silvanus resting in the children by being begotten and borne in that lawfull and honourable way of marriage hath beene refuted above The Scripture acknowledgeth no such holinesse as proceedeth from lawfull and honourable marriage If there were such an holnesse the children of married infidels were holy as well as the children of Christians But the Apostle here speaketh of such an holinesse as would not bee found in children unlesse one of the Parents at least were a beleever to speake of holinesse since the fall in children whereof they are subjects by nature is strange language in Christian eares you might as well speak of prophanenes of grace as of holinesse by nature The holy Ghost is the proper subject of holinesse and the proper cause of all holinesse in the creature so that nothing ought to bee called holy but what hee either maketh or calleth holy But it will never bee found that the holy Ghost ever imparted either the nature or name of holinesse to any because they were begotten in lawfull marriage and not in whoredome Besides if this were the meaning of the Apostle to prove that beleevers might lawfully keepe their unbeleeving yoak-fellowes because the children which they had by them were begotten in lawfull marriage the Apostle had not thereby cleared nor removed the scruple of the Corinthians but rather aggravated it For they might as justly doubt of their lawfull cohabitation with their children as with their infidell wives The same grounds which puts them to scruple the one did as justly move them to scruple the other so that to expound the Apostle this way doth not cleare the scruple but rather double is It seemeth to mee otherwise to expound the Apostle this way Silvester is the onely way for the clearing of the scruple of the Corinthians which befell them by reason of an Epistle which the Apostle wrote to them before in 1 Cor. 5.9 where he so pressed them from having any Communion or fellowship with any uncleane person in the worship of God that they understood him to condemne also civill commerce with the world upon which they questioned the lawfull retaining of their unbeleeving husbands and wives and to have communion with them in Society And so much the more as having an example of the like nature in the law Ezsa 10.7 About which thing that neare relation of husband and wife in their civil commerce they wrote to the Apostle for information 1 Cor. 7.1 And questioned not their children Whereby it appeareth they held it lawfull to retaine their children To which the Apostle answereth from a double ground thus 1. In that all things are said to be sanctified to such as beleeve as Tit. 1.15 and so the unbeleeving wife to the beleeving husband you may lawfully therefore live together in that comfortable estate and society of marriage which God hath ordained for man and wife to abide in 2. If you judge your selves to live in such a way of uncleannesse upon which you must now part then your children so begotten are uncleane and to be put away also But in that you hold it lawfull to retaine your children and not to put them away though you beleeve and they doe not then much more the unbeleeving parents as aforesaid who bare them For if the effect bee holy then must the cause also be holy which produceth the same which is Gods holy Ordinance of marriage and not the holy Covenant of grace Silvanus Whether the scruple of the Corinthians about cohabitation with their unbeleeving yoak-fellowes did arise from the Apostles former letter or not it is not plainly expressed in the Text But of the two it may be gathered from the Text rather not then yes For if their scruple had risen from the Apostles former advice not to keepe company with Fornicators whether bodily or spirituall hee had fully answered that scruple before in the fifth Chapter For there hee expoundeth himselfe not to speake of the fornicators of the world but of the Church v. 10.11 and for the fornicators of the Church hee doth forbid Communion with them not onely in the worship of God as you would have him understood but even in familiar civill converse With such a one as is a brother and a fornicator or the like I have written to you no not to eat with him v. 11. where not to eat is not meant not to eat the Lords Supper for that is the highest
degree of the highest and holiest communion in the Church but not to eat common bread at one anothers table for hee speaketh of the least degree of familiar society with such a one saying With such a one no not to eat but that by the way to cleare your mistake in that point But for the point in hand the Apostle had sufficiently cleared both his owne meaning and the Corinthians scruple touching their civill society with their unbeleeving yoak-fellowes in expounding himselfe not to forbid them Communion with the fornicators or Idolaters of this world but of the Church whence it clearly appeard that their unbeleeving yoak-fellowes being not of the Church but of the world it was no part of the Apostles meaning in his former or latter letter to forbid them communion with their unbeleeving yoak-fellowes So that if the scruple of the Corinthiane had sprung from the mistake of the Apostles former letter the Apostle had there fully cleared his owne meaning and withall removed their scruple there needed no more words of it againe here It seemeth therefore much more probable that their scruple arose from that other place which you mention Ezra 10. where the people of God are charged to separate themselves from the people of the land and from their strange wives which charge they obeyed also and fulfilled But if their scruple sprung from that place then the Corinthians had as just occasion to scruple the keeping of their children which they had by these wives as the keeping of their wives For the people of God in that Chapter of Ezra made an holy Covenant with God to put away not onely their strange wives but their children also which were borne of them v. 3. Now then let us come to consider of the Apostles answer to these scruples as you expound him The Apostle say you answereth from a double ground 1. In that all things are sanctified to such as beleeve Tit. 1.15 therefore beleevers may have a lawfull use of their unbeleeving yoak-fellowes This conclusion is true and intended by the Apostle but this ground of it the Apostle doth not here give but you fetch it from another Epistle It is true the marriage of the Corinthians with their unbeleeving yoak-fellows when they were both infidels being lawfull by Gods institution before now when one of them came to be converted to the faith the faith of the beleever did not make his former marriage which was lawfull before now unlawfull but rather gave him a pure and sanctified use both of his marriage and of his yoak-fellow But the Apostle doth not here give for a ground thereof the purity of all things to a beleever though hee might have given it for a just ground thereof but the onely ground which in this Text hee giveth of it is taken from the holinesse of their children Else saith hee were your children unclean but now they are holy which argueth that there is now in the dayes of the New Testament such an holinesse acknowledged by God to belong to the children from either parent beleeving as is sufficient alone though there were no other ground of it to ratify to the beleeving parent a sanctified use of his unbeleeving yoak-fellow which holinesse can bee no other but the holinesse which springeth from the Covenant of grace wherein God promiseth to bee a God to the beleever and his seed Whereas on the contrary if this holines of the children did onely arise from the lawfulnesse of the marriage of their Parents by the same ground upon which the Corinthians scrupled the lawfulnesse of their marriage with their unbeleeving yoak-fellowes by the same they might justly scruple the lawfulnesse of their children which they had by them for in that place of Ezra whence you conceive their scruple either sprung or grew as the marriage of the Iews with strangers was uncleane and therefore strange wives to bee put away so their children also were uncleane and to bee put away also according to the counsell of God and the example of the people in that place Let us then proceed to examine your second ground which you say the Apostle giveth to satisfie the scruple of the Corinthians about the retaining of their unbeleeving yoak-fellowes 2. If you Corinthians judge your selves to live in such a way of uncleannesse upon which you must now part then your children so begotten are uncleane also and to be put away But in that you hold it lawfull to retaine your children and not to put them away though you beleeve and they beleeve not then much more the unbeleeving Parents that beare them For if the effect bee holy then must the cause be also holy that produceth the same which is Gods holy Ordinance of marriage and not the holy Covenant of grace This ground hath no ground at all neither in the Apostles words nor meaning not in his words for the Apostle doth not say your children are holy in your judgement or as you hold but the Apostle delivereth his owne Iudgement your children are holy Neither will it stand with the Apostles meaning nor with the divine wisedom power of an Apostolick spirit to prove an holy use of the parents mariage from the conceited holines which the Parents imagine to bee in their children For though in Disputation against an adversary it may bee of use to convince him out of his owne conceits yet in dealing with a scrupulous conscience it giveth no satisfaction to give him for grounds of lawfull Practise his owne conceits Neither hath it any ground at all from the Apostles words or meaning to gather as you doe from the holinesse of children an argument from the lesse to the greater That if the children bee holy and so lawfull to bee retained then much more the unbeleeving Parents that bare them because if the effect bee holy then must the cause also bee holy for the unbeleeving Parents are no cause at all of the holinesse of their children neither are they holy themselves by the holy Ordinance of marriage For though marriage it selfe bee holy in respect of the holy institution of it yet not in respect of the holy efficacy in it to make all them holy that enter into marriage estate yea as to beleevers all things are pure so to the unbeleever nothing is pure no not his marriage nor his yoak-fellow nor his children Though the unbeleeving yoak-fellow Paul saith bee sanctified to the beleever yet Paul never said that the beleever is sanctified to the unbeleeving yoak-fellow Unbeleevers are neither holy themselves nor is any thing else sanctified to them much lesse can they bee the cause of producing sanctification and holinesse in others And therefore Paul doth inferre the holinesse of children not from the holy Ordinance of marriage but from the holy Covenant of grace It had bin in vaine for the Apostle to have gon about to prove the lawfull retaining of the unbeleeving yoak-fellow from the holinesse of their children being in
for such a state in which they receive the offer and meanes of grace which to the elect seed doe become effectual much lesse do we teach that by vertue of a believers being in a state of grace all his children doe partake of the same grace with him and that so farre as he doth These things wee neither believe nor professe neither can they be gathered from our doctrine by any just consequence Secondly to your second the answer is as easie For 1. We doe not say that the children of believers are holy with that holinesse which accompanyeth regeneration and mortifieth originall corruption but onely with that holinesse whereby they are admitted to the meanes of grace with promise of efficacy to the elect seed and offers thereof to the rest so farre as to leave them without excuse 2. Suppose we did hold that which is farre from us to conceive that all infants in the Covenant were regenerate and so holy as well as their beleeving Parents and as farre as they Yet that would not take away the being or remaining of Originall sinne in them but onely the reigning of it For doe you thinke that the being of Originall sin is taken away from regenerate believers We for our part believe what we have cause to grone under that Originall sin remaineth in a believer and though it be pardoned and in some measure mortified yet it is not utterly destroyed till death To your third wee deny that our doctrine is any ground of falling away out of an estate of grace if you speake of an estate of saving grace For wee doe not say that all within the Covenant or under the seale of the Covenant are in an estate of saving grace Though in a large sense all the members of the Church whether Infants or Professors of the faith are in such a state of grace as that they do partake of the common gifts of grace and of the Ordinances of grace Neverthelesse they may fall away from such grace which the Apostle feared in some of the Galatians Gal. 5.4 To your fourth and last we answer it were a false slander if you should report that our Doctrine doth hold forth that ever Esau or Ishmael were subjects of a saving estate of saving grace For though we say they were borne under the Covenant of grace and were made partakers of the seale of the Covenant yet wee doe not say they were ever subjects of Gods saving grace It is a grace to partake in the meanes of grace and in the enjoyment of many gifts of common grace and in the offers of saving grace and yet many have enjoyed all these who neverthelesse were never subjects of saving grace neither of election whereof your two former texts speake nor of perseverance in the Covenant whereof your two latter speake And to fall from such an estate of grace I leave it to you upon second thoughts to judge whether it tend to Popery and Arminianisme or no. To gather up then the summe of all this discourse about the Covenant of Abraham to an head You have seen it now proved and maintained against all exceptions 1. That God made a Covenant of grace with Abraham and his seed 2. That God gave circumcision to be a seale of the same Covenant to Abraham and to all his infant-seed 3. That by the redemption of Christ the Covenant and blessing of Abraham is come upon the beleeving Gentiles and our seed 4. These things being already cleared the fourth thing that remaineth to be cleared is that circumcision being now abolished Baptisme succeedeth in the roome thereof as a seale of the same Covenant to believers and our seed Which if it may appeare then it will appeare also that the same Covenant of grace which gave a Commandement or word of institution for the Circumcision of faithfull Abraham and his seed doth also hold forth the same commandement and word of institution for the Baptism of faithfull Gentiles and our seed Now that Baptisme doth succeed Circumcision it is evident from the testimony of Paul Col. 2.11 12. where the Apostle having proved that we are compleat in Christ by the fulnesse of the Godhead dwelling in him v. 9 â—0 Lest it might bee objected that wee want circumcision and consequently we want the spirituall benefit signified and sealed by it which is the cutting off of the body of the sinnes of the flesh the Apostle answereth wee are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands in putting off the body of the sinnes of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ v. 11. And lest it should have been objected againe that wee want an outward signe and seale of this spirituall benefit the putting off of the body of the sinnes of the flesh The Apostle answereth again no neither doe we want the outward sign and seale thereof we being buried with him in Baptisme v. 12. The Argument seemeth to me somewhat weake Silvester and therefore a weake answer shall serve What though Baptisme succeed circumcision must it needs follow that as infants were circumcised so they must of necessity be baptized The new Testament succeedeth the Old must it needs therefore follow that the same Order be observed now as then It is well that you acknowledge the weaknesse of your answer Silvanus for if you had not the weaknesse of it bewrayeth it selfe but we acknowledge no weaknesse of the Argument unlesse it bee the weaknesse of God which the Apostle saith is stronger then men 1 Cor. 1.25 But you are deceived if you thinke a weake answer will serve a weake argument a weake adversary despised gathereth strength by contempt The Gileadites being despised as fugitives proved too heard for the Ephraimites Judg. 12.4 The Jewes being despised for a feeble company strengthened themselves in God from the contempt of their despisers Nehem. 4.2 3 4. yea there is no sinfull weaknesse of the Creature no not any weak thought but requireth weapons mighty through God to subdue it 2 Cor. 10.4 5. And therefore you are much mistaken when you thinke a weake Answer will serve a weak Argument But let us consider your answer such as it is What though say you Baptisme succeedeth Circumcision must it needs follow that as infants were circumcised they must of necessity be baptized Yes verily or else Baptisme doth not succeed Circumcision for what is succession but the substitution of latter things for former things in the same subject If the subject bee changed so farre as there is a change of the subject there is no succession If Belshazzar dye and Cyrus or Darius reigne in Persia here is no succession But if Belshazzar King of the Chaldeans die and Darius King of Persia succeed in the Kingdome of the Chaldees then there is a true succession else not especially in the case in hand it was requisite for the clearing of the Apostles doctrine that Baptism should succeed upon all those persons on whom Circumcision proceeded or else the
the Lords Sapper But this seemeth a double mystery to mee how persons are fit and capable of union in a state that are not fit and capable of Communion in the Ordinances of the same state And yet more mysticall how one should bee a capable subject of Baptisme and not of the Supper I can see no rule for such a practise in all the Book of God And it is against the rule of Nature that when a Childe is born it should bee kept from food It troubleth mee to hear you call such plain points both in Religion and Nature Mysteries Silvanus whereby you mean dark Riddles above your capacity It was a sad speech of our Saviour concerning such as to whom it was not given to know the mysteries of God Matth. 13.11 The Lord give you understanding in his heavenly Mysteries When you make it a mystery how persons can bee fit and capable of union in a state and yet not bee fit and capable of Communion in the Ordinances of the same state You know wee esteeme infants fit and capable Persons of the Covenant and of the seale of it Baptisme If you thinke otherwise then you doe expresly make Infants unfit and uncapable of Union with Christ or with his Church and so uncapable of the Kingdom of Heaven Which sometime you disclaime But if you speak of all Ordinances you speak against common sense and experience Infants are members of the Common-wealth and so are they also of the family and accordingly fit and capable of Union with both estates And yet they are neither capable of the Ordinance of Goverment nor of the Ordinance of obedience to the Laws and orders in either state And why should it seem more mysticall to you that Infants should bee capable of Baptism and yet not bee capable of the Lords Supper You have seen even now a reason of both both in Religion and Nature And therefore doe not say you can see no rule for it in all the Book of God and it is against a rule in Nature to keep a Childe born from his food For Baptisme holding forth the death and buriall and Resurrection of Christ if there bee food in these as there bee food indeed then children born that want not these as in Baptisme they are administred to them they want not food Yea children in the wombe before they bee born to see the light yet they want not food but are fed by the Navell from the blood that is gathered in the mothers wombe before they come forth to suck the brests And so is it with the Infants in the Church they are fed by the blood and Spirit of Christ in Baptism before they can suck the sincere milk of the Word Silvester The Church of the New Testament succeedeth the Old but it will not follow that the like subjects succeed each other also For no rejected Ishmaelite and Esau are to bee admitted either unto Union or Communion in the Church under the New Testament by Christs appointment therefore though Baptisme succeed Circumcision yet the same subjects doe not so Silvanus The Church of the Old Testament consisted of no other subject matter then such as professed the Faith of the God of Israel and their seed And the Church of the New Testament consisteth of the like Grounds and proofes whereof wee have given above Ishmael and Esau when they shewed themselves to bee rejected of God they were not admitted to any further Union or Communion with the Church in the Old Testament No more were Simon Magus Ananias and Sapphira allowed any longer Union and Communion with the Church of the New Testament after they once shewed themselves like Esau or Ishmael to bee rejected of God But before that time Simon Magus Ananias and Sapphira were as well admitted into Union and Communion with the Church of the New Testament as young Ishmael and Esau in the Old Silvester Yea but such were not admitted into the Church of the New Testament by Christs appointment Silvanus What say you then to Judas a man as bad or worse then any of them either in Old or New Testament Did not Christ himself appoint him to an Office yea to an high Office in the Church And can you then say he had no Union or Communion with the Church of the New Testament Silvester The two Testaments are as Wills containing certain Legacies given and bequeathed onely to such whose names are expressely set down in the same as Rev. 21.27 In the Old Testament as the first will a male of eight dayes old or a Proselyte Exod. 12.48 49. Gen. 17.10.14.23.25 Joh. 8 Phil. 3.4 5. In the New Testament as the last will of Christ the Legacies therein contained as the Priviledges and blessings of Abraham they are given only to such as beleeve and to none else Gal. 3.14.22.29 Rom. 8.17 and 4.11 12. and 9.7 8. Gal. 3.6 7. These are such as are begotten again by the immortall seed of the Word born of the Spirit and so children of God the onely true heires of the Kingdome of God with the prviledges thereof as Jam. 1.18 1 Pet. 2.23 Joh. 1.12 13. Joh. 3.5 6. 1 Joh. 3.9 10. Rom. 8.17 These are the holy seed which God so approves of in the Scriptures as Subjects of Grace and Heires of Life and being in Covenant they only have right to the priviledges thereof And their children and off-spring are such as succeed them in the same Faith and Truth and so are called the Generation of the Righteous succeeding each other in the way of Righteousnesse and not their Infants or personall seed proceeding from their loynes by carnall generation as Isa 43.5 and 44.3 and 54.3 and 59.21 and 66.22 and 61.9 and 65.23 Compare Rev. 12.17 Gal. 4.26 to 31. Silvanus I willingly acknowledge that the two Testaments are two Wills containing such Legacies as are bequeathed and given onely to such whose names are either expressely set down or whose condition is plainly described in them Otherwise if you stand upon expresse names are there any such names expressely set down as William and Rowland Richard and Robert Godfrey and Geoffrey or the like And would you exclude all such whose names are not expressely set down from any Legacies in either Testament But I take your meaning to bee by names to understand Natures or Conditions and by expressely set down to understand plainly described The place which you alledge out of Revel 21.27 is a part of the description of the pure Church of the Jewes after their last Conversion the New Hierusalem by the condition of such Proselytes as from among the Nations shall enter into fellowship with them They shall not bee prophane persons defilers and corrupters of others nor makers of images which are abominations and lies And thus far the description agreeth to Infants as well as to men of riper yeers As for the other part of the description that none shall enter but such
of such is his Kingdome Mar. 10.14 whose divine testimony of them is as clear an evidence to us that God giveth them right unto the fellowship of the Church and to the seal thereof as the testimony of men can give unto themselves or others by their verball profession or any other visible effects of Faith Doe not say that you are farre from denying in the least measure salvation unto Infants For if Infants dye in their Infancy you have apparently declared it above that you doe not acknowledge them to bee subjects capable either of election to grace and glory or of Union with Christ or the Covenant of Grace And then how wee should beleeve you when you say you doe not in the least measure deny salvation to Infants and yet deny all such meanes of salvation without which it is impossible they should bee saved judge you But to come to the ground you work upon in denying to them Baptism whereas Circumcision was granted to them of old and in both a promise of salvation sealed up to them untill they came to reject it Though Baptisme you conceive succeed Circumcision yet you put a great difference between them both in matter and manner in persons and things And what might that great difference bee in so many particulars Circumcision say you sealed to things temporall and carnall as well as to spirituall and so were the subjects carnall as well as spirituall Baptisme onely sealeth to Faith in Christ and to Grace in the New Birth I pray you doth not Baptisme seale to the Covenant of Grace as well as Circumcision in whose room it succeedeth And doth not the Covenant of Grace contain promises of temporall and carnall or outward blessings as well as spirituall Hose 2.18.21 22 23. Hath not godlinesse in the New Testament as well as in the Old the Promises of this life as well as that which is to come 1 Tim. 4.8 Doth not Baptisme expressely seale up unto us our deliverance out of Affliction as well as out of corruption yea to the raising up of our bodies out of death in the grave as well as of our soules out of the death in sin 1 Cor. 15.29 It is therefore utterly untrue that Baptisme sealeth onely to Faith in Christ and to grace in the New Birth For it sealeth to all the blessings of the Covenant as well those of this life as of that which is to come That which sealeth to this grand blessing of the Covenant that God will bee a God to such or such sealeth unto all other gifts of God also God never giveth himself alone but hee giveth his Son and his Spirit also And hee that giveth us his own Sonne saith the Apostle shall hee not with him give us all things else also Rom. 8.32 Yea where Christ is given hee giveth Repentance unto Israel and conversion or turning of the hearts of the Fathers to the Children and of the Children to the Fathers and both of them to the Lord. Act. 5.31 and Luk. 1.16 17. And Baptisme is a seale of these promises as of the whole Covenant And therefore Baptisme is not onely as you say a seale to Faith and to the Grace of the New Birth as if it onely confirmed our own Faith touching our own estates and our own New Birth But it confirmeth also our Faith that God will give Faith and Repentance to our Children and turn their hearts both to the Lord and to us And therefore hee powreth the water of Baptisme upon our Children that hee may confirme this promise of Grace the powring out of clean water of his Spirit and of his blessing as well upon our seed and off-spring as upon our selves Isai 44.3 Another difference which you put is that Circumcision sealeth to things to come as under Types and shadowes and so to subjects in a cloud and darknesse whereas Baptisme confirmeth Faith in things come and already done and hath for its subjects Children of the light in the clear evidence of the Spirit with face open Suppose this difference were true That Circumcision sealed to things to come and Baptisme to things come Circumcision to things vailed Baptisme to things open Yet this is but a circumstantiall difference in the manner of revealing the blessings promised but this argueth no materiall difference at all in the persons the subjects of the seale It will onely argue thus much that whereas the same Christ and the things of Christ were sealed up to them and to their seed more darkly they are sealed up to us and our seed more clearly and plainly Besides it is not altogether true that Circumcision sealed up to them things to come For both Baptisme and Circumcision doe seale to both things come and things to come Circumcision sealed to Abraham God to bee his God and the righteousnesse of Faith both which were already come to Abraham before hee was circumcised It sealed up also sundry things to come to him and his seed as their deliverance out of Egypt their inheritance of Canaan and the comming of the Messiah But when the Israelites came to enjoy Canaan Circumcision did not then seal to their deliverance out of Egypt or to their inheritance of Canaan as things to come but as to things come and already done Circumcision sealed to the children of Israel that God would circumcise their hearts and the hearts of their seed Deut. 30.6 which was a thing to come to such of them as were unregenerate But after they were Regenerate the same Circumcision was a seale of that blessing which God had already done for them So is it with Baptisme Now that Christ is come in the flesh Baptisme sealeth that to us as a thing already done which to them was a thing to come And yet the comming of Christ into our hearts is a thing partly done in the Regenerate and yet more fully to bee done even to us and to many of our children it is a thing to come To the children of God that walk in darknesse and see no light which is the case of many and at some time or other of all the return of the Comforter is a thing to come and Baptisme is a seale thereof and yet it is a seale also of the first fruites of the Spirit which are already come Baptism is a seale of the Redemption of Christ which is already wrought for us And it is a seale of our deliverance from all afflictions and from all temptations and from all corruptions and from all enemies even from death it self and many of these are yet to come So that I can but wonder why such a difference as this should bee alleged to prove a personall difference of the subjects of Baptism and the subjects of Circumcision If it bee said as you partly expresse and partly imply that wee who live under Baptisme are the children of light but they that lived under Circumcision were the children of darknesse and therefore though their children being in
darknesse in such a dark time might bee capable of Circumcision yet in the light of the Gospel our children are not capable of Baptisme till they become children of light This is a carnall reasoning not savouring of the Spirit of God or speaking the language of the Scripture For though the Spirit of God in Scripture do call the children of God the children of light in opposition to their former carnall estate whether in their Pagancy or in their unregeneracy 1 Thess 5.5 Ephes 5 8. yet God never called the children of God in the Old Testament nor the children of his children children of darknesse Neither doth hee use such a phrase as to call the children of the New Testament children of the light in opposition to the children of the Old Testament as children of darknesse Neither is it altogether a true speech that faith in Christ and grace in the new birth cannot bee where there is not first a begetting by the immortall seed of the word of life For it hath been shewed above that the grace of the new birth and so faith were not wanting in John Baptist Jeremy and others in their mothers wombe who yet had never heard the Word of life Though the hearing of the Word of life bee the ordinary instrument which the Spirit of God is wont to use in begetting the grace of the new birth in men of understanding yet the Spirit himselfe being a principall part of the immortall seed of the Word hee can beget the grace of the new birth without the Word when yet the Word cannot doe it without him And yet I will not deny that in some sense though not in yours it may be granted that the Spirit ordinarily never worketh the grace of the new birth in the children of the faithfull but by the immortall seed of the Word of life For when the Spirit begetteth the grace of the new birth it is by the Ministery of the Word of life to their Parents one of them at least For they hearing the Word of life promising grace and life to themselves and to their seed the Spirit co-working with that Word begetteth faith in them to believe for themselves and for their seed And according to their faith it is done The Spirit begetteth the grace of life as well in their seed as in themselves The greater is the danger of those infants whose Parents like you doe not beleeve the grace of Christ can reach unto your infants and so it is no wonder if your children be deprived of the grace of the new birth for your unbeliefs sake Be it therefore granted which you take for granted in your next words That for this end to wit for begetting the grace of the new birth God hath ordained in the Gospel preaching and believing to goe before baptizing Mat. 28.9 with Mar. 16.15 16. yet this only proveth that the preaching of the Gospel and the begetting of faith by the Gospel is requisite to enstate the hearer in the grace and blessing or which is all one in the Covenant of the Gospel But if the hearer be a Parent of children and so doe believe the Gospel and Covenant of grace to belong to him and to his seed both hee and they according to the order of the Gospel and Covenant of grace are rightly baptized into the name of the Father and of the Sonne and of the Holy Ghost All which persons do joyne together in making this Covenant and sealing to it to be a God to the believer and his seed And if it were not so the place which you quote out of Mark Chap. 16. v. 15 16. would utterly cut off the children of believers dying in their infancy from all hope of salvation which you said even now you were far from For if infants for want of hearing the Word in their owne persons want faith and for want of faitsh may not bee baptized then for want of faith they cannot be saved For so run the words in Marke He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved hee that believeth not shall be damned If for unbeliefe they must not be baptized for unbeliefe they must then bee damned But if by the Gospel we understand as the Scriptures meane the glad tydings of the Covenant of grace and so of redemption and salvation by Christ preached and proclaimed to believers and their seed then al such as doe believe these glad tydings to themselves and to their seed they are commanded by the Order of the Gospel to be baptized themselves and their children with them for their children are by the faith of their Parents wrapped up in the Covenant and so are become capable subjects both of the Covenant and of the seale thereof For though the infants themselves be not it may be then actually believers when their Parents are baptized and themselves with them yet God who calleth things that are not as though they were Rom 4.17 He accepteth them into his Covenant by the faith of their Parents and so they are no longer Pagans and infidells but the children of the faithfull and holy in whom God hath covenanted to worke faith and the grace of the new birth in the elect seed and to offer it and the meanes thereof unto all the seed till they utterly reject it And requireth therefore of the Parents by his Covenant to neglect no meanes of grace for the holy institution of their children And for this end the seale of the Covenant is administred to the Infants to confirme the same to their children on both parts If therefore we delighted in returning reproaches for reproaches as you say to us give the baptizing of believers to Christ and the baptizing of infants unto Antichrist so might we more truly and justly returne it to you Give the baptizing of believers and their seed unto Christ For the Covenant of Christ is to believers and their seed and the seale of the Covenant is due where the faith of either Parent is fit to receive it to their holy seed but give the denyall of baptisme of Infants to Infidels onely and out-laws from the Church where neither of their Parents being believers their children also are Infidels and outlawes like their Parents neither believers nor holy according to Covenant You need not therefore ask what advantage will it be to Infants to come before they bee called For Christ called for little children to come unto him and was displeased with such as did forbid them Marke 10.14 If calling for Infants to come will suffice they cannot bee said to come before they be called Suffer saith he little children to come unto me and forbid them not for of such is the Kingdom of God And they being such hee put his hands upon them and blessed them If you ask why he did not baptize them too for who can forbid Baptisme to such as are blessed of Christ and by imposition of hands set apart to a blessing and to the Kingdome of God I
establish their owne righteousnesse which is by the law And though some of them received Christ as did the false Teachers in the Churches of Galatia and did also acknowledge their freedome from the sacrifices and burnt offerings and from many other Leviticall Ceremonies of the Law yet so long as they looked to be justified by the works of the moral law and retained circumcision as still necessary by the law they still pertained to Hierusalem that now is as the Apostle calleth it and all of them were children of the bond-woman that is of the Covenant of the Law given on Mount Sinai It is therefore a grosse error and withall a notorious injury to the godly Saints that lived in the dayes of the Old Testament to account them the children of Hagar and to make it a part of their bondage that their Infants were received into the fellowship of the Church with themselves No no whilst themselves believed in the promised seed for righteousnesse and salvation and their children were circumcised into the grace of the Covenant the righteousnesse of faith they and their seed were accounted the children of the Covenant of grace the free-woman till any of them rejected that grace as Ishmael and Esau did By this which hath been said may easily bee understood what is meant by Sarah not the state of the Church of the New Testament as you confine it rather then define it but the Covenant of Grace by which God of his Grace gave himselfe to bee a God to beleevers and to their seed both in the Old and New Testament till any of them should afterwards grow up to renounce him and the Grace of his Covenant which if they doe then their Circumcision is made uncircumcision and they renouncing the Covenant of Grace fall under the Covenant of the Law and come to bee accursed by the Law But for the children of this Covenant of whom Isaac was a type they are not onely such as are Regenerate above the ordinary course of Nature by vertue of the Covenant of Grace and so doe beleeve in the promise of Grace for righteousnesse and salvation but also the children of such beleeving Parents whom their Parents doe beget in the Faith of the Covenant and Promise of Grace to themselves and their seed For Isaac himself when he was an Infant born hee was not as then born anew of the promise and spirit of Grace but his Father begot him in the Faith of the Promise And his Mother Sarah by Faith received strength to conceive seed because shee judged him faithfull who had promised Heb. 11.11 The second main pillar upon which your glosse on this Text is held up is that the two sons Ishmael and Isaac type out the different subjects of these two states of Churches Ishmael being a type of the estate in generall of the Church of the old Testament and Isaac being a type of the state of the Churches of the New Testament But neither will this glosse stand with the Apostles words For the Apostle maketh these two sons to bee the children engendred or bred of these two Mothers Now children as they are engendred or bred of their Mothers they are not properly the subjects of their Mothers though they bee subject to them but their effects The Mothers therefore being not the twofold state of the Churches of the Old and New Testament but the two Covenants of the Law and of Grace Ishmael the son of Hagar the bond-woman is the type of all those Members in the Church whether of the Old or New Testament as who look for righteousnesse and salvation by the works of the Law and doe therefore lye under the bondage and curse of the Law such were those in Micah 6. who thought God would be pleased and appeased with thousands of Lambs and ten thousand Rivers of oyle v. 6 7. Such also at that time was the whole body generally of the Priests and Rulers and People of Hierusalem in the Apostles dayes which hee calleth the Hierusalem that now is And such were all the false Apostles and false Teachers and their Disciples in the Churches of Galatia Philâ—ppi and Colosse who refused the righteousnesse of God by faith in Christ Jesus and sought to establish their owne righteousnesse by the works of the law on the other side Isaac being the sonne of Sarah the free-woman and Sarah representing the Covenant of Grace he is the type of all those members in the Church whether before Christ in the Old Testament or since Christ in the New as are begotten and bred of the promise and Covenant of grace wherby by God giveth himselfe to bee a God to the believer and his seed who therefore looke for all their righteousnesse and salvation to themselves and their seed not from the workes of the Law nor from all their outward priviledges but from the grace and righteousnesse of God in Christ Jesus Onely thus much further I will not stick to grant you That as the two Covenants are the two mothers that are represented by Hagar and Sarah so those Churches that are begotten and bred of either of these Covenants and so are themselves the children of the one or of the other of these Covenants they may be said to bee the mothers of those particular members which by their Ministery are engendred and bred whether of the carnall seed of the Covenant of the Law or of the spiritual seed of the Covenant of Grace For in the Hebrew language any whole Society is called a mother and the particular members thereof are called children sons or daughters And this may somewhat further help to cleare the words and meaning of the Apostle in this place For the Apostle here maketh the Covenant of the Law to answer to Hierusalem that now is v. 25. as if so bee the Covenant of the law and the Church of the present Hierusalem which stood for the Covenant of the law were both 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of one rank and either of them might be called an Hagar a mother ingendering their children unto bondage And indeed the Church engendereth and breedeth her children by dispensing and administring the seed of that Covenant of which themselves are begotten In like manner the Apostle maketh the other mother Sarah the Covenant of grace to be all one with the true Church of Christ which he calleth the Hierusalem which is above and maketh her the mother of us all v. 26. Because though shee bee her selfe begotten and bred of the Covenant of grace yet shee dispensing and administring the same spirituall seed begetteth children like her self partakers of the libâ—rty of the sons of God And yet to adde a word more which may tend further to clear the words and meaning of the Apostle as this seed of the Covenant of Grace dispensed and administred by true and pure Churches is rightly called spirituall seed in which the Spirit of grace delighteth to breath and worke and therefore they that are begotten
of it are said to be borne after the Spirit So the seed of the Covenant of the Law is rightly called seed as that which leaveth men that are begotten of it more carnall then they were before For it either puffeth them up to a carnall confidence of their owne strength and righteousnesse or else sinketh them into an horrible pit of diffidence and desperation And therefore they that are begotten of it are rightly and fitly said to be borne after the flesh And that is the very true meaning of the Apostles words Gal 4.29 As it was then so is it now He that was borne after the flesh persecuted him that was borne after the Spirit Where by such as are borne after the flesh the Apostle doth not mean as you understand him such as are born by an ordinary course of nature in a way of a naturall generation but such as are bred and begotten of the carnall seed of the Covenant of the law which as it begot in Ishmael a carnall confidence of his own strength or else he would never have sleighted and mocked the promised seed so it begot in Cain and Saul and Judas an utter despaire of grace and salvation Thus then you see I hope at the length a true and just answer unto your first argument against the Baptisme of Infants taken from the supposed want of command or example of the baptizing of Infants in all the New Testament By that which you have heard it appeareth to the contrary that the Baptisme of Infants hath not wanted a commandement from Christ in the institution of Baptisme Mat. 28. nor a commandement from the Apostle joyned with an example in the first solemne administration of Baptisme Acts 2. nor a commandement and example from the Lord God in the institution of a proportionall seale of the same Covenant in the dayes of Abraham Gen. 17. which though you seem to undervalue because it is fetched out of the Old Testament yet be not you deceived by the equivocation of the name For the Old and New Testament is sometimes put for the Covenants of the Law and of grace as Gal. 4.24 25. sometimes for the Books of the Old and New Testament as 2 Cor. 3.14 Now true it is that the institution of the Covenant of grace and of the seale of the Covenant of grace Gen. 17. is found indeed in the bookes of the Old Testament but the substance of the New Testament and the circumstances of that Ordinance which are changed in the books of the New Testament they are not changed by way of abrogation or diminution but by way of accomplishment and enlargement The Covenant is inlarged from the stock of Abraham to all Nations the seal of the Covenant Circumcision is translated to another more easie and acceptable the time is inlarged in respect of the day the Minister is inlarged in respect of his publike place the subject is inlarged in respect of the sex and surely not diminished nor straitned in respect of the age It is therefore a needlesse pretence to plead That surely the New Testament and the Order Government and Administration thereof are no way inferiour to the old Testament where all things are directed by expresse rule For a great part of the New Testament or Covenant is expresly delivered in the bookes of the Old Testament Paul professeth publickly he taught nothing but what Moses and the Prophets did say should come Acts 26.22 And the greatest part of the bookes of the Old Testament hold forth the Doctrine Worship Order and Government of the New Testament to such who have not a vaile laid over their hearts in the reading of the Old Testament 2 Cor. 3.14 Let us therefore proceed to your other arguments against the baptism of Infants and consider if there bee any greater weight on strength in them CHAP. V. Silvester I Have met with this as a second argument against the Baptisme of Infants That in the Baptisme of infants there is an high contempt and injury offered to Christ as hee is the husband of the Church his holy Spouse to force upon him a naturall wife himselfe being spirituall and desireth the like associate whereas such a Church is founded upon the natural by th namely Infants because commonly to one that is born of the spirit there is twenty born of the flesh Silvanus Christ did not take it as such an high contempt or injury offered to him by Abraham Isaac and Jacob and the whole house of Israel that the infants of his people and of the Proselytes that joyned to them were received into Covenant with him and admitted to the seale thereof when as yet himselfe was as spirituall then as now he is You doe herein apparently charge Christ himself with folly and with indignity offered to himselfe that he should so much forget himselfe that he being spirituall should take so many thousand Infants into the Covenant with him who for the most part are naturall and as you say for one that is born of the Spirit there were twenty born of the flesh But againe let me tell you that though Christ in taking a company to be a Church unto himselfe doth enter into marriage Covenant with them both in the Old Testament Jer. 31.32 and in the New 2 Cor. 11.2 yet not into a marriage Covenant with each member at first Christ entred into a marriage Covenant with the Congregation of Israel in the wildernesse Ezek. 16.8 yet the children of this Congregation he calleth them not his Spouses but his children v. 20 21. Furthermore you shall doe well to observe what Spirit breaths in such a speech when you say That such a Church as receiveth infants of beleeving parents into the fellowship of the Covenant and seale thereof that such a Church is founded upon the naturall birth For the Lord himselfe speaketh of such a Church of Israel as founded upon his Covenant Ezek. 16.8 And the Apostle saith We are built upon the same foundation of the Prophets and Apostles Jesus Christ himselfe being the chiefe corner stone Ephâ— 2.19 20 21. See what a vast difference there is betweene the Spirit of your language and the language of the Spirit of Christ CHAP. VI. 3. I Finde this for a third Argument Silvester against the Baptisme of Infants That this practise overthroweth and destroyeth the body of Christ the holy Temple of God For in time it will come to consist of naturall and so a Nation and so a Nationall Generation and carnall members Amongst whom if any Godly bee they will bee brought into bondage and become subjects of scorn and contempt and the power of Government rest in the hands of the wicked This Argument â—utteth a feare where no fear is Silvanus or at least a causelesse feare For suppose all the Children of the Church bee baptized it is an unwonted and unexpected enlargement in thâ—sâ— dayes for one Congregation to grow so populous as to become a Nation