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
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
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
Covenant of grace And if any one of these promises belonged to them the whole Covenant of grace belonged to them also But to deale ingenuously and faithfully with you the Text which you quote out of Acts 2.41 might hold forth a just colour of an Objection if you had so applyed it against the argument gathered out of verse 38 39. for the baptisme of infants For if they who were baptized were such as gladly received his word verse 41. then it doth not appeare out of this place that infants were at that time baptized with the rest because they could not receive the word much lesse gladly least of all expresse their gladnesse by any visible profession This objection I confesse would have prevailed with me to have forborn any proof of the Baptisme of infants out of this place were it not partly for the Reasons which have been alledged above from the words of verse 39. partly also for that I finde the Lord Jesus is wont to accept the acts of Parents in the duties of the second Commandement as done for themselves and for their children as hath been touched above For look as when Levi is said to pay tythes in Abraham it was because Abraham in paying tythes was reputed of God as paying them for himself and for Levi Heb. 7.9 And as when Parents came and brought their children to Christ their comming was reputed of Christ as the comming of their children as well as of themselves Mar. 10.14 So when Peters hearers received the word gladly they gladly received in both for themselves and their children to wit both the word of promise which was expresly given to themselves and their children and also the word of Commandement which was grounded upon the promise and urged as farre as the promise extended Be baptized every one of you and thereupon they in receiving his word gladly did gladly give up both themselves and their children to be baptized Silvester But before you take the baptisme of infants concluded out of this place consider what you will say to another interpretation which I have seen made of this place For there bee that say That by the promise to you and to your children is not meant the Covenant of grace to you and to your children but the promise of sending the Holy Ghost to enable them and their sons and daughters to prophecy Which promise Peter quoted out of Joel Act. 2.16 17. which promise Christ received of the Father and had now shed abroad in their sight and hearing verse 33. and which Peter promised to them upon their repentance and baptisme verse 38. because the promise was to them and to their children Silvanus Thus sometimes you will have the promise to be understood of sending Christ and sometime of sending the holy Ghost but the truth is both are but effects of the same grace and both given by the same Covenant The English proverb speaketh of such men as are loath to see what they doe see that they cannot see the wood for trees so these men cannot see the Covenant for the promises what is the wood but a storehouse of trees and what is the Covenant of grace but the storehouse of the promises of grace In the Covenant of grace when God giveth himselfe to bee the God of the faithfull and of their seed the Father promiseth himselfe to be their Father Christ promiseth to be their Redeemer and the Holy Ghost promiseth to be their sanctifier You may as soone separate the persons in the Trinity from being one God as separate the gift of one of these persons to us and to our children from the gifts of the other or separate all these gifts or the promises of these gifts from the Covenant of grace But if the gift of the Holy Ghost be here promised to these Iews and Proselytes and to their children Silvester that they might speake with new tongues and prophecy then in this place by children cannot be meant infants for infants are not capable of speaking with tongues and prophecying The Apostle Peter Silvanus though he speake of the promise of the gift of the Holy Ghost which in the former part of the chapter did enable the Disciples to speake with new tongues and prophecy yet he did not intend to limit and confine the gift of the Holy Ghost to that work in these Converts here for that would have been small comfort to them who were pricked in heart and enquired the way of salvation to put them off with a promise of the Holy Ghost to worke such gifts of tongues and prophecying as were common to hypocrites Matth. 7.22 23. 1 Cor. 13.1 The Apostle therefore who better knew how to satisfie and heale these wounded soules hee promiseth to them such a gift of the Holy Ghost as is joyned with remission of sinnes and accompanyeth salvation Act. 2.38 39. And though infants whilst infants are not capable of speaking with tongues and prophecying which is but one gift of the Holy Ghost and but a common gift neither yet they are capable of the Holy Ghost for regeneration and remission of sins which are the chief blessings of the Covenant which these Converts then stood in need of and for the effectuall working of which the Apostle telleth them The promise was made to them and to their children which indeed cannot bee wrought but by the gift both of Christ and of the Holy Ghost And now having said enough as I conceive if not too much for the clearing of these two first Arguments for the Baptisme of the infants of believers Let us now proceed to adde a third taken from the Analogy of the Circumcision of the seed of Abraham and the Commandement of God for the same Silvester I have heard much agitation of such an argument and more of that then of any other but I am very slow to believe the baptism of infants upon that ground CHAP. III. Silvanus DOe you not believe that God made a Covenant of grace with Abraham and his seed Gen. 17.7 c. Silvester What if he did Silvanus Did he not by that Covenant give him a Commandement to receive the signe of Circumcision the seal of the Covenant of grace to him and to his seed Silvester Gen. 17.9 10. Silvanus What of that Hath not the Lord given that Covenant of grace which was then to Abraham and his seed now to beleevers and our seed Silvester What then Silvanus I demand further hath not God abolished Circumcision and given us baptisme in the room thereof Silvester What of all this Silvanus Then out of all these it followeth that if the same Covenant of grace be now given to believers and our seed which was given to Abraham and his seed and if baptisme be now given to us as a seale of the Covenant in the room of Circumcision then the same Covenant which gave a Commandement or a word
1 Cor. 15.20 23. And sure hee hath the first preheminence in all relations of holinesse and grace unto his people But let your interpretation stand so farre let the first fruits of the lumpe of the Jewes be the holy Ancestors of the Jewes that is indeed the true meaning of the Apostle here onely consider if you can see any cause why you should not as well take them in like sort for the root also 2. Why should you make the first fruits part of the lump more then the root part of the branches As the first fruits bee to the lumpe so is the root to the branches The root is not part of the branches though they be both part of the tree No more are the first fruits part of the lumpe though they bee both parts of the fruits of the field The first fruits are ripe before the rest of the fruits of the field and being first reaped and presenced 〈◊〉 the Lord and accepted as holy unto him they make the whole lumpe left in the field holy also Objâ—ct But say you except the first fruits were parâ— of the lumpe they could not give testimony that the lumpe was holy Answ Both parts of this reason are unsound for neither doe the first fruits give testimony that the lumpe is holy nor is it necessary that that which giveth testimony of the holinesse of another should be part of the same Paul gave testimony of the holinesse of such children of whom either Parent was holy yet he was no part of them himself Besides the first fruits did not give testimony that the lumpe was holy their hallowing of the lumpe was not by way of testimony or as one part of an Homogeneall body giveth testimony of the whole as one cup of good wine out of a vessell giveth testimony that all the wine in that vessell is good but by way of a morall instrumentall efficient cause God accepting the first fruits of the field given to himselfe as holy he therefore alloweth to the owner an holy use of the whole lumpe of the fruits of his field 3. Take that for granted which is in it selfe not much materiall that the first fruits were part of the lumpe what will follow thereupon Why then saith the Author as those first fruits of that blessed crop in Gods holy Covenant were holy by faith and so appeared so is the lumpe out of which these first fruits appeared by faith as part of the same holy also in the same consideration For this must respect a visible holinesse suitable to that of the first fruits otherwise it maketh nothing to the thing in hand But how can this collection arise out of this comparison of the first fruits The first fruits of the field were visibly presented to the Lord in his Sanctuary and being visibly accepted appeared visibly to be holy But as for the lumpe of the fruits of the field there was no visible appearance either of their presentation in the Sanctuary before the Lord or of the Lords visible acceptance of them but onely in their first fruits And so indeed it is here the first fruits of Gods holy Covenant Abraham Isaac and Jacob being holy by faith and accepted of God as holy to himselfe they visibly appeared so to be And through their holinesse and Gods acceptance of them and of their seed in his holy Covenant the lumpe of their posterity from their infancy upward were holy also though they did not appeare in visible holinesse till in fulnesse of time they came to be presented before the Lord in his Temple And neither then did they appeare visibly holy by their owne faith but by the faith of their Parents presenting them to the Lord. But say you if there be not a visible holinesse in the lumpe suitable to that in the first fruits it maketh nothing for the thing in hand I willingly grant you that the Apostles intendment here is to prove the conversion of the Jewes not onely to a relative holiness suitable to the holinesse that was in the first fruits their Ancestors of old which was visible in their Fathers and credible in their Infants by vertue of the Covenant and visible seale of it But herein you commit a double prevarication in your plea 1. That you will not allow such an holinesse to be found in the Jewes after they shall come to be converted as is suitable unto the holinesse of their Ancestors For their holinesse reached from parents to their infant seed But you would wholly exclude their infants in the New Testament Againe whereas the Apostle aâ—gueth the conversion of the Jewes unto holinesse from the holy Covenant of their Ancestors and so would make the holinesse of their Ancestors a meanes to derive holinesse to them you would utterly make void the force of that argument For the Apostles argument proceedeth from the vertue of the first fruits by Gods institution to sanctifie the whole lumpe but you will admit no such vertue or efficacy by Gods institution in the holy Covenant of their Ancestors as to derive holinesse to their posterity which is to make the Apostles argument and comparison of none effect 4. This let me further adde that whereas you in this discourse of the first fruits and lump speake of the Jewes to bee converted as but a remnant The Apostle declareth himselfe to the contrary that then all Israel shall be saved Rom. 11.26 Yea not onely a body of the Jewes but of the ten Tribes also all Israel according to what Ezekiel had prophecyed of old Ezek. 37.16 to 22. And indeed when the Apostle calleth the conversion of Israel a mystery Rom. 11.25 he giveth us to expect a more generall conversion of them then of a remnant The Apostle in like sort called the conversion of the Gentiles a mystery Ephes 3.1 2 3 4 5 6. And a mystery and hidden secret indeed it was to the Jews of old and yet it was never a mystery to them the conversion of a remnant or of a sprinkling of the Gentiles but the comming in of such a great body and multitude of the Gentiles that was indeed a mystery to them And so is the conversion of the Jewes a mystery now unto the Gentiles not the conversion of a remnant but of so great a multitude and body of the house of Israel as have been scattered like dry dead bones Ezek. 37. that indeed seemeth to be a mystery like the resurrection from the dead whereto the Apostle resembleth it To proceed to the other comparison of the Apostle which was taken from the holinesse of the root conveying holinesse to the branches to prove the conversion of the Jewes to holinesse from the holinesse of their Ancestors Whereto your Author answereth By root is meant not onely believing Parents and so the same with first fruits but Christ mystically considered with reference to rules of Order Ordinances and Government of his Church laid downe in the New Testament In which respect he
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
lawfully so you conceive children to bee uncapable likewise and all they upon whom Baptisme is forced And then the first part of your distinction is all one with your second part And a good distinction cannot admit such confusion If you mean a stone is uncapable of Baptisme unlawfully you know the contrary For the Papists doe baptize their Fonts and Altars which are but stones as well as their Bells which are not more lawfully capable of Baptisme then stones bee Again when you make your second sort of your passive subject of Baptisme to bee a forced subject and Infantâ— to bee such a forced subject as who doe oppose it to the uttermost ability I dare bee bold to say the speech is not generally true For of those many hundreths which I have seen Baptized though some have seemed to oppose it with crying and strugling yet I cannot say with truth that either all of them or most of them have so done And for those that have so done I demand whether the Infants in times before Christ when they were circumcised did not more generally and strongly oppose their Circumcision to the uttermost of their ability when they felt much more smarting pain in the cutting off of the foreskin of their flesh then our children can doe in their Baptisme And why may such a forced Israelite or Proselyte bee a capable subject of Circumcision and not a forced Infant of a Christian bee in like sort aâ— well capable of Baptisme The Truth is in administring either of Circumcision to the Infants of beleeving Israelites or of Baptisme to the Infants of beleeving Christianâ— respect is not had to the voluntary subjection of the Infants but to the freâ— and voluntary subjection of their Parents It is enough for Infants that as they received originall corruption without their own personall consent but in the will of their first Parents so now they receive through the grace of the Covenant a remedy against their originall corruption without their owne personall consent but in the will of their parent But when you make the Infants opposition of his Baptisme to his uttermost ability a signe of its farre distance of being passive in the same The truth is by how much the more the Infant opposeth his baptisme by so much the more hee is active against it and therefore being baptized neverthelesse hee is so much the more passive under it Your phrase therefore of a passive subject of Baptisme is ill chosen to expresse your meaning you might have more suitably said in plainer termes None are capable subjects of Baptisme but such as gladly receive it And for that you might have had some colour from the Word but that the free and voluntary acts of parents in the matters of the second commandement are accounted of God for themselves and their children as was shewed above Furthermore when you exclude Infants from being true passive subjects to râ—ceive Baptisme because they are not brought to a free voluntary subjection to receive Baptisme Doe but consider a while what kinde of passive subjection is found in mâ—n in their regeneration whereof Baptisme is the signe The subjects of regeneration are neither active subjects to recâ—ive grace as the Moone is to receive light from the Sunne a being a lightsome body of it selfe or as a beggar is to receive an Alâ—â—es that stretcheth out his hand for it nor passively subject as the aire iâ— to receive light which though it bee darke maketh no opposition against it but they are forcibly subject as being neither able nor willing to come to Christ except they be drawn and drawn by the same Almighty power as whereby a dead man is raised to life Now if men bee forcibly subject to receive convâ—rting grace in their regeneration there is in it nothing repugnant to the nature of Baptisme in it selfe which is a signe of regeneration to admit Infantâ— to it though they shall be forcibly subject to iâ— This forcible opposition to Baptisme is of simple Ignorance not knowing what â—he Ordinance is and their opposition is easily overcome by human power Whereas our opposition in receiving regenerating grace is farre more perverse and untractable not to be overruled but by a divine Almighty power It is true such iâ— the nature of Baptisme by Gods Ordinance that it requireth in men of yeares regeneration and voluntary subjection to it before they can be admitted to it because to them it is a signe and seale of regeneration wrought and of the righteousnesse of faith imputed to them But in Infants the Voluntary subjection of Parents in offeâ—ing them to Christ is a sufficient recommendation of them to him for his acceptance of them unto Baptisme because hee accepteth the offer of their parents as the gift of their children and because baptisme is as well a signe and seale of regeneration and righteousnes promised as wrought and bestowed For it is a signe and seale of the Covenant and so of all the blessings promised in it amongst which are regeneration faith and forgivenesse of sins Ier. 31.33 34. It is true that you say no man can receive grace but by grace not onely as you say because it consists of self-deniall but because it consists in laying hold on Christ who above the reach and power of corrupt nature But it is a grace and favour of Christ that he encourageth parents to come to themselves and to bring their children in their Armes to him And this grace is a blessing and favour to the children also so brought For the children that were so brought to Christ they returned home with a blessing Mark 10.16 It is true also which you say that obedience to Christ ought to be free But when you say Baptisme is forced upon an Infant against his will It is neither altogether true not at all materiall Not true for it may be Infants doe as often cry when they are carryed home from Baptisme as when they are brought forth to it And in proper speech Infants can neither be said to will or to nill what they understand not The will is a faculty of the reasonable soule Infantâ— till they have the use of Reason they have not the exercise of their will Neither is it materiall whether Infants bee willing to their Baptisme or not seeing at that Age God attendeth not to the will of Infants but to the will of their Parents and to his owne gratious Covenant in which he is wont to heale the frowardnesse and to take away the uncircumcision of the heart for hiâ— Name sake CHAP. XII A Ninth and last Argument against the Baptisme of Infants is that the doctrine thereof opposeth directly the expresse word of God by teaching that Infants are in the Covenant of grace being borne of beleeving parents and so an holy seed by vertue of which they have right to Baptisme as a Priviledge of Grace against which the Holy Ghost affirmes that all are conceived in sinne brought forth
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
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