hold the Covenant on Mount Sinai to have been a Covenant of grace but onely vailed under types and shadowes as doe Calvin Bucer Bucan c. they would answer that circumcision did bind to the keeping of the whole Law not as it was given either to Abraham or to Moses but as it was urged by the false Apostles who expected justification from the observation of it To such indeed it is truly alledged that if they looke for justification by the observation of circumcision they are then bound to observe the whole Law For it is not the observation of one commandement of the Law that can justifie but the observation of the whole Law for hee that breaketh any one commandement of the Law is guilty of all James 2.10 Whence it is that Paul putteth the observation of circumcision to wit in the sense of the false Apostles as all one with justification by the works of the Law Gal. 5.3 4. And thereby proveth that if the Galatians be circumcised Christ should profit them nothing ver 2. they were fallen from grace ver 4. And yet Timothy who received circumcision not in the sense of the false Apostles as necessary to justification but for other respect to avoid offence hee did not thereby fall from Christ or lose his profit in Christ Jesus But to put it out of doubt that circumcision given to Abraham was a signe and seale not of the Covenant of works but of grace the Apostles words are evident Rom. 4.11 Abraham saith he received the signe of Circumcision a seale of the righteousnesse of faith Now righteousnesse of faith is not found in the Covenant of works but in the Covenant of grace onely The Covenant of works holdeth forth no righteousnesse but by the works of the Law Silvester I would not deny that the Covenant made with Abraham was a Covenant of grace to him and to his faithfull seed and consequently Circumcision was a signe and seale of the same Covenant of grace to them but to the carnall seed such as Ismael and Esau it was not a Covenant of grace to them for then as they fell away from that Covenant so they had fallen away from a state of grace which would too much countenance and cherish the Arminian and Popish error of Apostasie from grace Neither could circumcision be to them a signe or seale of the Covenant of grace nor of the righteousnesse of faith given in that Covenant for neither had they faith nor righteousnesse by faith before their circumcision as Abraham had nor after their circumcision as the elect seed had And how could then God set his seale to a falshood Silvanus What if that were granted you which you say which yet many good Divines will not admit that the Covenant of God with Abraham was a Covenant of grace onely to him and to his faithfull seed and to them Circumcision was a seale of the same Covenant but to the carnal seed the Covenant was a Covenant of works and circumcision a seale of the Covenant of works Though all this were granted yet still it remaineth good that all the seed of Abraham spirituall and carnall were in Covenant with God one Covenant or other either of works or grace and were all partakers of the seale of the Covenant to wit circumcision though in a different respect But then it will unavoydably follow that if the Covenant given to Abraham and his seed be given to beleevers and our seed then as all the seed of Abraham whether carnall or spirituall were in Covenant with God and so circumcised so all the seed of believers are in Covenant with God and should now be baptized If you say then Baptisme shall be a seale of the Covenant of works to the carnall seed of believers and that were an absurdity now in the dayes of the new Testament Answ No greater absurdity then to say that circumcision was a seale of the Covenant of works to the carnall seed of Abraham For Paul speaking of the two Covenants under which the twofold seed of Abraham lay hee saith As it was then so is it now As it was then in the old Testament so it is now in the New Gal. 4.29 Read from vers 24. to the end of that chapter As it was then so is it now not onely in this respect that he that was borne after the flesh persecuted him that was borne after the spirit But in this also that as then some of the seed of Abraham were born of Hagar that is born of the Covenant of works and born after the flesh and some were born of Sarah the free-woman that is born of the Covenant of grace and born after the Spirit so is it now in the days of the new Testament But to give you a further answer and safer and more generally accepted Let me shew you how the carnall seed of Abraham might then and may now partake after a sort in the Covenant of grace and in the seale of the Covenant of grace and yet fall away from grace and neverthelesse their falling from grace be no countenance to the Arminian error of apostasie from grace There is a double state of grace one adherent which some not unfitly call federall grace sanctifying to the purifying of the flesh Heb. 9.13 another inherent sanctifying of the inner man And of this latter there be two sorts one wherin persons in Covenant are sanctified by common graces which make them serviceable and usefull in their callings as Saul Jehu Judas and Demas and such like hypocrites Another whereby persons in Covenant are sanctified unto union and communion with Christ and his members in a way of regeneration and salvation In respect of adherent or federall grace all the children of a believing parent are holy and so in an estate of grace In respect of inherent common graces Saul Jehu and Judas and Demas were sanctified of God to their severall callings for the service of his people as Apostates may be Heb. 10.29 Now there is no doubt but men may fall away from adherent federall grace as also from inherent common graces and yet without any prejudice to the perseverance of sincere believers and without any countenance to the Arminian error of Apostasie from grace to wit from such grace as accompanyeth salvation And as for the circumcision of Ismael and such as he it was a sign and seale of the righteousnesse of faith not of that which hee had received but of that which God offered to apply to him in the use of the meanes of grace in Abrahams family which meanes as Abraham having circumcised him and so having set Godâ— seale and property upon him was bound to apply to him Gen. 18.19 to prepare him for grace So Ismael being circumcised was bound as he grew up to understanding to yeeld up himself in professed subjection both to the Lord and his father in receiving and following the meanes of grace applyed to him for God having by
as it usually falleth out maketh strongly for it the words are plaine thou foundest his heart faithfull before thee and madest a Covenant with him to give to his seed the lâ—nd of the Canaanites And your self with your Leaders doe easily acknowledge that in the old Testament the Covenant of Abraham admitted his carnall seed into the fellowship of it And doubtlesse Nehemiah speaketh of Abraham and of his faithfull heart and holy Covenant as it stood in the dayes of the Old Testament How commeth it then to passe that his faithfull heart whereby he received the Covenant to himselfe and his seed should be alledged to prove that the faith of Abraham admitted him into the Covenant but not his seed But proceed to your third thing which you woulâ— have to bee well considered and consider I pray you how far off it is from concluding your purpose Silvester The third thing to be considered is who are the approved subjects of this Covenant and they are onely such as believe For God in his Word approveth of none in Covenant with him out of Christ nor of any in Christ without faith Nay God denyeth his approving of any in fellowship with him that doe not believe as John 3.5 6 36. Heb. 11.6 Nor doth he approve of any subjects of his gracious Covenant but onely such as hee hath elected and chosen in Christ and so appearing by some fruits and effects of the same as these Scriptures with many other witnes Rom. 8.9.29 30. Rom. 11.7 Ephes 1.4 5 6. 2 Thes 2.13 14. 1 Pet. 1.2 Acts 2.47 13.48 Silvanus There is a broad difference between these two who are the true approved subjects of this Covenant and who are approved to be the true subjects of this Covenant For it is certain and your selfe admitted it above that God approved all the seed of Abraham even his carnall seed to be admitted as subjects of the covenant and of the seale thereof But it as certain that God never approved such true subjects of the Covenant whom himselfe never elected nor themselves ever received the gift of faith without which it is impossible to please God Many are truly called to the fellowship of the Covenant and of the seale thereof who were never elected nor approved in their spirituall estate as heires of salvation It is in the same sense that Paul speaketh Rom. 2.28 29. He is not a Jew which is one without neither is that Circumcision which is outward in the flesh but hee is a Jew which is one inwardly and Circumcision is that of the heart in the Spirit whose praise or which is all one whose approbation is not of men but of God But dare any man therefore inferre that God did not approve it that any should bee admitted unto the Covenant of Abraham or unto the seale thereof Circumcision unlesse he were a Jew or Israelite within and circumcised with the circumcision of the heart To what purpose then are all the texts of Scripture alledged by you which prove no more then wee acknowledge that by naturall generation all men are carnall that without faith it is impossible to please God that whom God electeth hee calleth that the election obtaineth what they seeke for that the elect are chosen to be holy and partakers of the sprinkling of the blood of Christ that the elect are brought on to faith But what is all this to prove that such as are carnall by naturall generation cannot be holy by the grace of the covenant or that it may not please God to admit them to the outward dispensation of his Covenant whose inward spirituall estate hee is not pleased with Surely all the Israelites in the wildernesse were sometimes admitted into Covenant with God yet with many of them God was not pleased 1 Cor. 10.5 What though those whom God elcteth he calleth to wit by an effectuall calling according to his purpose yet may hee not yea doth he not call many to place in his vineyard the Church yea to office also whom he hath not chosen Matâ—h 20.16 What though the elect obtaine what they seek for the sure mercies of the Covenant and the rest come to be hardened May not therefore the non-elect partake in the outward dispensation of the Covenant and yet afterwards bee hardened in hypocrisie What though the elect onely come on to believe though not with a justifying faith yet with an historicall and temporary faith May they not bee holy by Covenant who yet are not holy by the Spirit of Regeneration May they not be sprinkled with the blood of sprinkling unto the common graces of the Spirit Heb. 10.29 who yet are not sprinkled therewith to the remission of their sins Finally what though it bee said the Lord added to the Church daily such as should bee saved Acts 2.47 were not Ananias and Sapphira added also and Simon Magus too who yet for ought that appeareth were none of them saved Proceed wee theâ— to the fourth thing which you wiâ—h might be well considered and see if there be any more weight in that The fourth and last is Silvester whether that all persons now in the Gospel have not one and the same way of entrance into the covenant let the holy Word of God bee judge and I finde the Gospel of Christ to approve of none in the Lords holy Covenant of grace but such as believe nor any approved of to be in the way of life but such as are in Christ by Faith And therefore no other way of comming into the Covenant of grace and salvation but onely by Jesus Christ for in him are all the promises confirmed and made over onely unto such as doe believe as 2 Corinth 1.20 Rom. 10.4 1 John 5.11 12. Rom. 8.9 You now labour againe of the same fallacy which was noted in you before It is readily granted you that the Gospel of Christ approveth of none in the Lords Covenant but such as believe Neither did the Old Testament approve any in the Lords Covenant but such as believed But as hath been said it is one thing to approve them in the Covenant another thing to approve them to be in the Covenant See it in a similitude God did never approve either Saul or Jehu in the Kingdome of Israel yet hee did approve it that both of them should be admitted to the kingdome So is it here God did never approve Ismael in Abrahams house nor Esau in Isaacs And yet he approved it that they should be in their Fathers houses and also bee admitted to the Covenant of their Fathers and to the seale thereof till their own prophanenesse cast them out And therefore what though there bee no other way of comming into the Covenant of grace but only by Jesus Christ And what though in Christ all the promises are confirmed and made over onely to such as believe Yet neverthelesse Christ hath opened a way for the comming of the Covenant and promises through himselfe not
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
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
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
Christ himself speaketh of branches in him the true vine the fat olive tree which yet bare no fruit in him and so are cut off from him cast out and wither John 15.2 6. And such branches though they were in Christ by the fellowship of the Church and by the Spirit conveying from Christ common graces to them yet they were never elect in him to everlasting life nor united to him by a lively faith For if they had been so in him they had never been cut off from him It is true the Covenant of grace was not to all the seed of Abraham without exception that is to such of the seed as rejected the Covenant or the faith of it as Ismael and Esau did in riper years But the Covenant was to all the infant seed of Abraham without exception and to all the infants of his believing seed And the seale of the Covenant was in like sort dispensed to them all without exception to Ismael as well as to Isaac to Esau as well as to Jacob. Yet neverthelesse it will not therefore follow that some of the seed of Abraham were comprehended in the Covenant and admitted to the seale thereof in one sense whom God excepted against in another sense For hee excepted not against the infant seed of Abraham or his family in any sense but onely against the seed apostate in elder yeares In respect of which Apostacy which God fore-knoweth all the non-elect seed of Abraham will fall into though God receive all the infant-seed of Abrahams family that is of the Church into the fellowship of the Covenant and of the seale thereof yet he giveth a peculiar blessing to the elect seed even the sure mercies of his Covenant Esa 55.2 And though you say that between these two seeds God ever held forth a distinction in all generations from Adam to Christ yet that distinction was onely this the seed of all the flesh and the seed of the promise Rom. 9.8 But he excluded neither of them in their infancy from the Covenant or from the seale of it Indeed the children of the promise being the elect of God God hath not onely given his Covenant to them and the seale thereof but hath also established it unto them for ever But the seed of the flesh though the Lord gave his Covenant even unto them also and the seal therof yet he hath not established it unto them for ever whence afterward it commeth to passe that they reject the Covenant and the faith of it But when you further say that Christ hath put an end to the type and to the flesh and to all priviledges thereunto belonging so that now all is laid up in Christ onely for such as believe and for that end quote 2 Cor. 5.16 Phil. 3.3 4 5. It is readily granted you that Christ hath put an end to all types and to fleshly Ordinances and to the purifying of the flesh by the Ceremonies of the Law Heb. 7.16 9.13 But that Christ hath put an end to all priviledges either of the Covenant or of the seale of the Covenant to the seed of believers there is no word in the New Testament that teacheth us any such doctrine the places alledged opened above by me prove the contrary and those alledged by you will not make good what you say for the place in 2 Cor. 5.16 that a man regenerate knoweth no man after the flesh argueth onely thus much that a man in Christ resteth in no outward priviledges no not in seeing and knowing Christ in the flesh nor in eating and drinking in his presence nor in hearing him preach in their streets but in the spirituall and lively fellowship of his death and resurrection which maketh him whosoever knoweth Christ a new Creature And so say we too and so it was with the faithfull in the Old Testament as well as in the New It was not the outward participation of the Covenant nor of the seale of it that a sincere Israelite could rest in but in the grace of the Covenant and Circumcision of the heart in the Spirit not in the Letter But this doth not at all argue that the children of the faithfull who are yet in the flesh are not partakers of the Covenant of grace nor of the seale of it now in the New Testament as well as they were in the Old But only argueth that though before regeneration men are apt to rest and boast in the outward Letter of priviledges and Ordinances yet after regeneration they doe not acknowledge such things as their comfort and confidence John Baptist endeavoured to beat off the Jews from resting in such outward priviledges Matth. 3.9 And so did the Prophets before Christ Jerem. 9.25 26. as well as Paul after him both in this place of the Corinthians and that other which you quote out of Phil. 3.3 4 5. When you say that now all is laid up in Christ onely for such as believe If you meane all spirituall blessings of life and salvation you say true but nothing to the question For so it was in the Old Testament as well as now But as it was then the seed of believers partaked of the outward dispensation of the Covenant and of the seale of it so is it still unlesse you could shew us some Scripture whereby they are more excluded now then in the old Testament Silvester Now first in Christ by faith and then to the Covenant and priviledges thereof Gal. 3.29 None by the Gospel are approved to be the seed of Abraham but onely such as walke in the steps of his faith For as none invisibly before God are by him approved at all to have right to any priviledges of grace but onely as he looketh upon them in his Son no more are there any before man visibly to be approved of so as to have right to the same but as they appeare to be in Christ by some effect of faith declaring the same And so much the more in that God excludeth all from his holy Covenant so as to have right in the outward dispensation thereof but onely such as believe Rom. 11.20 Heb. 3.18 4.1 2 3. 11.5 6. Rom. 9.7 8. Gal. 3.22 26 29. Silvanus Surely in the old Testament the children of believers had first Christ by Covenant and then faith also to receive him For in the Covenant with Abraham when God gave himselfe to be a God to him and his seed the Father gave himselfe to bee their Father the Son to be their Redeemer the holy Ghost to bee their Sanctifier when yet the children were unborn without life and therefore without faith And surely in the New Testament God hath not changed this order of his blessings For in rehearsing the Covenant which continueth in the New Testament he giveth the writing of the law in their hearts by Covenant Heb. 8.10 Amongst which laws surely the law of faith is one and indeed the chiefe of all other laws And therefore
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
one to partake in the outward dispensation of Gods Covenant and to enter into Gods rest or to profit by the Word your Leaders should make more conscience of alledging and applying Gods holy Word impertinently impertinently I say both to Gods meaning and to their owne which is one kinde but too frequent of taking Gods holy name in vaine The next place which you quote out of Heb. 11.5 6. sheweth us that without faith it is impossible to please God which argueth indeed that no man either in his person or in his work can be acceptable to God without faith but doth not prove that God cannot receive any into the outward fellowship of the Covenant without faith much lesse doth it prove that the New Testament doth exclude all unbelievers from the Covenant more then did the Old Testament for those words in Hebrews 11.5 6. were spoken of Enoch who I need not tell you lived in the dayes of the Old Testament Your next place in Rom 97 8. sheweth indeed that all the children of the flesh of Abraham are not the elect seed of Abraham which we willingly grant but doth not shew â—hat the children of Abrahams flesh were not the seed of Abrahams Covenant Many were called and received into his Covenant who yet were not chosen to partake in the sure mercies and everlasâ—ing blessings of the Covenant Your last place out of Gal. 3.22 26 29. argueth the same that the former places have done that believers are partakers of Christ by faith and of adoption by Christ that they are the justified seed of Abraham and heires according to promise So was it in the Old Testament and so is it still to this day But this doth not prove now no more then it did then that all are excluded from the outward dispensation of the Covenant but believers onely But notwithstanding all this though the Covenant which God made with Abraham before Christ Silvester and this under Christ be in some respect in substance the same yet in the outward dispensation and profession of them the difference will appeare to bee very great both in respect of persons and things wherein our dissent chiefly lyeth 1. That Covenant admitted of a fleshly seed this onely of a spirituall Gen. 17. Rom. 9. 2. That in the flesh this in the heart Gen. 17.13 with Jer. 31.33 Rom. 2.28 29. 3. The seale and ordinances of that Covenant confirmed faith in things to come this in things already done 4. That Covenant was Nationall and admitted all of the Nation to the seales thereof but this personall and admitteth none but such as believe 5. That Covenant begot children after the flesh as all Abrahams naturall posterity But this onely begets children after the Spirit and onely approveth of such as are begotten and borne from above in whose hearts God writeth his Law Jer. 31. Ezek. 36. Heb. 8. John 3.5 6. That Covenant with Abraham and his posterity comprehended a civill state and worldly government with the like carnall subjects for the service of the same But this Covenant now under Christ comprehendeth onely a spirituall state and an heavenly government with the like spirituall subjects for the service of this also 7. That Covenant held forth Christ in the flesh to the heaâ—t vayled this holdeth him forth after the Spirit to a face open 2 Cor. 3. In all understand the visible profession of the Covenant and the outward dispensation of the priviledges thereof There is indeed some difference betweene the Covenant made not onely with Abraham in the Old Testament and with us in the New but also in the Old Testament Silvanus between that made with Abraham and that with his posterity And yet the Covenant both in the Old Testament and in the New both to Abraham and his posterity yea and to us also one and the same for substance to wit God to be a God to believers and to their seed To Abraham some blessings were given by this Covenant which were not given to all his posterity as to be the Father of Christ to be the Father of many Nations To some of his posterity and not to all it was given to enjoy the land of Canaan for an inheritance which in the Letter belongeth not unto us though in the spirituall Antitype we also in the New Testament partake therein in that it is given to believers and our seed to enjoy the inheritance of the church whereof Canaan was a type Besides that Covenant made with the seed of Abraham by Jacob admitted the holding forth of Christ in sundry vailes and shadows which were not given to Abraham and from us in the New Testament they are taken away But neverthelesse the differences which you put betweene the Covenant with Abraham and with us so farre as they are brought to exclude the seed of believers from the fellowship of the Covenant they will not stand nor abide triall by the Scriptures Seven differences you put let us weigh them in the ballance of the Sanctuary and see if they bee not too light First say you that Covenant admitted of a fleshly seed this onely of a spirituall Gen. 17 with Rom. 9. Answ The place in the Romans speaketh of the seed of promise to be the seed of Abraham and to be accounted not onely in the New Testament but in the Old also For the Oracle in Isaac shall thy seed be called Rom. 9.7 was given to Abraham in the Old Testament Gen. 21.12 And that after Ismael was cast out of the Covenant for his mocking and persecuting of Isaac So that this Scripture in Rom. 9.15 is three wayes wrested and wronged in this Quotation First in that it is brought to prove that the Covenant of grace in the dayes of the new Testament admitteth onely of a spirituall seed whereas Paul speaketh not of the Covenant of grace but of the election of grace Secondly in that the place is brought to shew what is now the seed in the New Testament different from that of the Old whereas Paul speaketh of the same seed both in the Old and New Testament alike Thirdly in that Ismael is accounted by you as a fleshly seed and so as rejected out of the Covenant from the womb whereas he was not cast out of the Covenant till himselfe cast off the Covenant by mocking and persecuting Isaac The second difference you put is that that Covenant in the old Testament was in the flesh this in the heart Gen. 17.13 with Jer. 31.33 Rom. 2.28 29. Answ This difference is put by you but not by the Spirit of God in Scripture For as that Covenant that is the signe of the Covenant was in the flesh so is Baptisme the signe of the Covenant now upon the flesh Secondly as our Baptisme signifieth and sealeth the washing away of the filth of flesh and spirit so did their circumcision of the flesh signifie and seale the circumcision of the heart Deut. 30.6 Thirdly as in our Baptisme the Lord
doth not regard nor esteeme the outward washing of the flesh 1 Pet. 3.21 So neither was the circumcision of the flesh without circumcision of the heart of any account before God either before Christ or since It was not only so adjudged in Pauls time in the New Testament that Circumcision of the flesh was nothing without Circumcision of the heart but also in Ieremies time in the Old Testament For Ieremy threatneth â—hat God will punish the circumcised with the uncircumcised Egypt Edom Ammon and Moab with Iudah for all these Nations are uncircumcised al the house of Israel are uncircumcised in heart Ier. 9.25 26. It hath been said of old shall a man make Gods to himself and they are no Gods So may it be said in some proportion shall a man make differences to himself to turn him off from the way of God and they are no differences To the third there is as little difference in that as in the former for as the seale of that Covenant confirmed faith in things to come but the seale of this confirmes faith in things already done so the seale of that Covenant confirmed the faith of Abraham in the righteousnesse of faith which he had already received and the faith of those that were in Canaan of the possession of it And our Baptisme sealeth up to us mortification of sin deliverance out of affliction resurrection of the body whereof some are yet to come in part some wholly The like may bee said of the other Ordinances of the Covenant But what is it to the purpose what if sundry ordinances of the Covenant as it was dispensed in the old Testament confirmed faith in things to come and what if the Ordinances of the New Testament confirmed faith in things past yet what is this to argue that children of believing Parents are excluded from the Covenant of grace in the new testament though not in the Old To the fourth when you say that Covenant was Nationall and admitted all of the Nation to the seales thereof But this personall and admitteth of none but such as believe This difference is founded in an untruth for it is untrue that the Covenant given to Abraham was Nationall it was rather domesticall at first and did not comprehend the whole Nation of any of Abrahams seed till Iacobs time And Iacob speaketh of his blessing which was a proper adjunct and peculiar priviledge of the Covenant that it did exceed the blessing and so the Covenant of his progenitors Gen. 49.26 For whereas in Abrahams house though Isaac was received to the blessing of continuance in the Covenant yet Ismael and the seed of Keturah were excluded and in Isaac's house though Iacob inherited the blessing yet Esau was excluded yet in Iacobs family all his sonnes were received to the blessing of continuance under the outward dispensation of the Covenant and not themselves onely but all their posterity the whole twelve Tribes which proceeded from them Now it is not said in Scripture that the blessing of Jacob is come upon the Gentiles for then none of our posterity might cut themselves off from the outwaâ—d dispensation of the Covenant and then our Covenant would be Nationall and admit all of the Nation to the seales thereof but the Scripture saith that the blessing of Abraham and so the Covenant of Abraham is come upon the Gentiles Gal. 3.14 that is upon the believing Gentiles and their seed whereby it commeth to passe that believing Gentiles and their Infant-seed are admitted to the Covenant and to the seale of the Covenant as Abraham and his Infant seed were But if when they bee growne up to yeares they shall grow to mocke and sleight the Covenant as Ismael and Esau did then they and their seed are cast out of the Covenant and that keepeth the Covenant from being national And so it was in Abrahams time so it is now When you say this Covenant with us is personall and admitteth onely of such as believe It hath been refuted above and this truth cleared that upon the faith of the Parents the grace of the Covenant is promised also unto their seed And if the Covenant did admit onely of such as believe then the faith whereby we believe were not given to any by Covenant Whereas it hath been shown above that faith and the saving knowledge of God by faith and the writing of the Law of faith as well as of love in our hearts is given by Covenant Jer. 31.33.34 Your fifth difference is like the rest devised in your own imagination not founded in Scripture That Covenant say you begot children after the flesh but this onely begets children after the Spirit and onely approveth of such as are begotten and born from above c. Answ Doe you any where read in Scripture that the Covenant of Abraham approved of any then more then now but such as are begotten from above Did not Abraham and Israel of old renounce the owning and acknowledgement of such children of theirs as were degenerate from their faith and obedience Esay 63.16 When you say that that Covenant begot children after the flesh doe you not meane that men under that Covenant begot children after the flesh And if that be your meaning doe you thinke it is not so now that men under the Covenant of grace now in the dayes of the New Testament as well as in the Old doe beget children after the flesh It is true those believing Parents who doe beget children by believing the Promise and Covenant of grace to them and to their children they doe bring forth and bring up spirituall children or as you call it children after the Spirit But so did Abraham and other faithfull parents in the Old Testament as well as now The places which you quote out of Ier. 31. Ezek 36. Heb. 8. Ioh. 3.5 6. doe neither prove your assertion nor disprove ours but rather approve it For in Ier. 31. the Law of faith and saving knowledge is written in our hearts by the Covenant so it is now in the New Testament and so it was in the Old In Ezek. 36. God takes away the heart of stone and gives an heart of flesh and a new spirit so hee doth now to his chosen and so he did then Numb 14.24 The place in the Heb. 8. is the same with that in Ieremy 31. That in Iohn 3.5 6. argueth that none born of flesh can enter into the kingdome of heaven but are carnall and fleshly But thus it was in the Old Testament as well as in the New there is no difference in this point Your sixth difference is that that Covenant with Abraham and his posterity before Christ comprehended a civill state and a worldly government with the like carnall subjects for the service of the same But this Covenant now under Christ comprehendeth onely a spirituall state and an heavenly government with the like spirituall subjects of this also Answ 1. The Civill State and worldly
Kingdome under the whole heaven shall bee given to the people of the Saints of the most High A second thing which I would put you in minde of which also hath been mentioned above is that wee doe not stand upon Nationall Iewish priviledges but upon the Covenant of Abraham which was given with the Seale thereof to him and his seed before any of the Jewes and Israelites were borne when Abraham and his seed were confidered rather as a Domesticall Church then a as national And then the Covenant was given to him as walking before God in uprightnesse of heart Gen. 17.1.7 which cannot bee without faith and the signe of the Covenant was given him as a signe and seale of the righteousnesse of Faith Rom. 4.11 and both Covenant and seale were given to his infant seed for his faith sake Gen. 17.7 And in case his infant seede should grow up to riper yeares and then not take hold of the Covenant of Abraham but prophanely reject they were cast out of their Church Estate as was Ismael and Esau And so the seed of Abraham could never grow up to a Nationall Church unlesse when they grew up to yeares they should continue in a visible Profession of the Faith of Abraham or unlesse god should afterwards enlarge the wings of his Covenant to reach over the whole Nation as hee began to doe in the Testament of Iacob Gen. 49.26 and more fully and solemnely declared the same Exod. 19.3 to 8. and Deut. 29.10 to 13. But it is not the Covenant of Jacob to him and to all his Posterity during their lives that wee plead for But the Covenant and blessing of Abraham which the Apostle saith is co ue upon us Gentiles Gal. 3.14 which onely admitteth the faithfull and their infant seed not during their lives in case their lives should grow up to Apostasie or open scandall but during their infancy and so long after as they shall continue in a visible profession of the Covenant and faith and the religion of their fathers Otherwise if the children of the faithfull grow up to Apostasie or to any open scandall as Ismael and Esau did as they were then so such like now are to be cast out of the fellowship of the Covenant and of the seales thereof But you willingly take no notice here of the Covenant of Abraham to him and to his seed And because say you the Jews had a promise for the bringing forth the Messias the promised seed in whom all Nations should bee blessed therefore all of that Nation were admitted to the outward Priviledges as figures of him whom that Nation was to bring forth which made a fruitfull wombe accounted so great a blessing among the Jewes as not knowing who might bee so far honoured as to bring forth that blessed seed But Christ came of Abraham and of Isaae as well as of Judah the father of the Jews and yet that did not admit all the Nations which sprang of them to the outward Priviledges as you call them though very absurdly if you meane as you seeme to doe the Covenant and the seale thereof For the Covenant whereby wee and our seed have God for our God is not a meere outward Priviledge but a spirituall and heavenly Priviledge to such as know the worth of it Besides many Tribes of Israel were admitted they and their seed to the Priviledge of the Covenant and to the seale thereof of whom yet it was evident that Christ was not to spring of any of of them The Iewes who descended all of them of Iudah they were but one tribe of twelve And why should all the other eleven Tribes bee circumcised as well as the Jews in respect of their bringing forth their promised seed when yet old Jacob had limited the bringing forth of the Messiâ—h to the Tribe of Judah Gen. 49.10 Were all the children of the eleven Tribes figures of the Messiah as well as the children of the Jews Besides in Davids time there was a promise given to him that the Messiah should come out of his loynes 2 Sam. 7. Why then should any other families of the Jews injoy such a Priviledge that all their infants shuold bee circumcised with the Seale of the Covenant Doth any word of Scripture make all the Infants of all the Jews yea of all Israel figures of the Messiah And if no word of Scripture so doe shall any man forge such an imagination of his owne braine and be guiltlesse what though a fruitfull wombe was counted a great blessing among the Jews So it was also among the other Tribes who yet could not expect the Messiah to spring from them It was a cause just enough to account a fruitfull wombe a great blessing not onely because it was a blessing to the family but also because it was an inlargement of the Church In which respect the Elders and Peoples of Bethlehem blessed Ruth Chap. 4.11 and Boaz with her The Lord make this young Woman which commeth into thine house like Raechel and like Leah which two did build the house Israel How will you make it appeare That God honoured the Nationall birth among the Jews with such outward blessings and Priviledges that belongs not to the Gentiles at all You should have done well to have told us what those outward blessings and Priviledges were and to have cleared it that they belonged to the Jews and not to the Gentiles at all Otherwise it will not bee safe for you to take up doctrines of Religion upon trust of mans word The Gentiles say you are now to looke for our bringing forth of Christ according to the Spirit as the Jews did then according to the flesh and likewise their birth and seed and all things suitable to the same as John 3.3.5.6 Iohn 1.12 13. And therefore wee are said to know no man now no not Christ himselfe after the flesh 2 Cor. 5.16 And Circumcision was one Priviledge of the flesh Phil. 3.4 5. Answer It is not true that all the Jewes did looke to bring forth Christ according to the flesh For in Davids time they knew that Priviledge was peculiar to his family neither is it true that the Gentiles are now to look for the bringing forth of Christ according to the Spirit any more then the Jews were to looke then The Apostle Peter maketh us equall with the Jews and them with us in this Priviledge Wee looke saith hee to bee saved through the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ even as they Act. 15.11 It behoved them as well as us to attaine a spirituall birth and to bee borne of an immortall seed suitable to the same as well as us for it was not to a Gentile but to Nicodemus a Jew that Christ spake unto Ioh. 3.3.5 6. Except a man be borne againe of water and the Holy Ghost he cannot see the Kingdom of God That which is borne of the flesh is flesh that which is borne of the Spirit is Spirit Where it doth not
weaknesse of your Argument will weaken the strength of the Apostles Argument For the Apostle is to prove that we are compleat in Christ not only in the inward Circumcision of the heart which taketh away the sinfull body of the flesh but also in the signe and seale of it even our Baptism which doth confirme the same things unto us and giveth us as effectuall fellowship in Christs death and buriall to the putting away of sinne as they had in circumcision But take away the Baptisme of Infants and the Apostles argument will faile For it might be objected that the Jewes in their circumcision of themselves and their Infants had a signe and seale that God would circumcise not onely their owne hearts but the hearts of their Infant-seed also but wee in our Baptisme though we have a signe and seale that God will wash and purifie our hearts yet not so the hearts of our Infants also And therefore we are lesse compleat in Christ in our Baptisme then the Jewes were in their circumcision which if it were admitted would utterly evacuate the Apostles argument who pleadeth our compleatnesse in Christ notwithstanding our want of circumcision in that we enjoy the like fulnesse of benefit in our Baptism as the Jews did in their circumcision But admit the Baptisme of our Infants as well as of our selves to succeed in the place of circumcision to the Jews and their infants and then the Apostles argument proceedeth fully and concludeth invincibly That we are as compleat in Christ in our Baptism as the Iews were in their circumcision Put us not off therefore with a difference of Order in the New Testament and in the Old The New Testament say you succeedeth the Old must it needs therefore follow that the same order be observed now as then For though the order may bee changed in succession yet the extent and amplitude of the subjects is not changed especially not straitned or diminished but inlarged in a growing state The order of Solomons house who succeeded David was changed not a little in point of magnificence from the order of Davids house but yet the subjects were the same or rather more abundant and numerous none of Davids subjects being excluded It is true in a declining and decaying state the extent and amplitude of Rehoboams subjects were not so large as those of Solomons whom he succeeded But I hope you will not make Rehoboam a type of Christ in his folly and decay of his Dominion but rather looke at Solomon as an intended type of Christ even in the latitude of his Dominion that above Davids from Sea to Sea from the River unto the ends of the earth The Lords Supper succeedeth the Passeover Silvester but though all the whole houshold of every family as well children as other were to eate the Passeover Exod. 12.3 4. yet infants are not approved as fit communicants of the Lords Supper because they are not capable subjects But how doe you make it appeare I pray you Silvanus that infants were to eate the Passeover a roasted Lambe with unleavened bread and sowre herbs is no meat for infants neither doth it appeare by the Chapter which you alledge Exod. 12.1 that children of more growth were admitted to partake of the Passeover till they were able to discerne the spirituall nature and use of it According to what is writen v. 26 27. of that chapter When your children saith Moses shall say unto you What meane you by this service ye shall say It is the sacrifice of the Lords Passeover who passed over our houses in Egypt when hee smote the Egyptians It is true that you say children are not capable subjects of the Lords Supper For receiving whereof the Apostle requireth wee should examine and judge our selves But Infants are as capable subjects of Baptisme now in the dayes of the New Testament as the Infants of the Jews were of Circumcision For circumcision and baptisme being both of them alike signes and seales of our new birth either wrought or to be wrought and in our new birth we being meerely passive children are as capable subjects passively to bee wrought upon to a new birth as men of riper yeares But the Lords Supper being a signe and seale of our spirituall growth in Christ and dispensed not in milke but in strong meat bread and wine whereunto holy preparation was requisite Infants are not capable subjects of this though they bee of the other Silvester But why then are Faith and Repentance required unto Baptism which was not of old time required unto Circumcision Silvanus Faith and Repentance and the Profession of both were of old required in men of yeers not to make them capable subjects of Circumcision but to receive them into the fellowship of the Covenant to themselves and their seed Hence Abraham was found faithfull before God did receive him into this Covenant Nehem. 9.8 And the like is to bee thought of all the Gentile Proselites for the first in every kinde is an example and pattern to all that follow after And so the Lord describeth the estate of Proselites Isai 56.3 to 8. Silvester But why should then John Baptist and Philip and the Apostles require the profession of Faith and Repentance even of the Jewes and Proselites who were in Covenant before before they would admit them as capable subjects unto Baptisme Silvanus Because the Messiah being then come who was the chief blessing of the Covenant yea the very substance of the Covenant and is therefore himself called the Covenant Isa 42.6 and 49.8 Hee I say being come it was necessary that they who relyed upon the Covenant of Abraham as all the Jewes and Proselytes did should hold forth also their reliance on Christ in whom the Covenant and the promises thereof were confirmed to them and their seed For then was the Axe laid to the root of the Tree even to the stock of Abraham and to all the branches that grew upon it and were ingraffed into it So that now if they did not bring forâ—h this good fruit to beleeve in Christ who was then come they and their Children were cut off from the Covenant of Abraham and must say no more Wee have Abraham to our Father But if they did hold forth Repentance and Faith in Christ then the Covenant and Promise which was made to them and to their Children before did still continue unto them and to their Children And that is the very ground and meaning of Peters exhortation to the Jewes and Proselites Act. 2.38 39. Repent saith hee and bee Baptized every one of you in the name of the Lord Jesus c. For the Promise is to you and to your Children c. as hath been opened above Silvester To keep to the point in hand wee are here speaking of Infants whom you wake to bee capable subjects of Baptisme as well as the Jewish Infants were of Circumcision and yet not capable of
ver 5. yet by water may either bee understood the Spirit it self as washing the soule like water in Regeneration or if Baptisme bee understood yet it is not there considered as a necessary ingredient to Church-fellowship but as a necessary instrument of the Spirit unto the sealing up of Regeneration the carelesse neglect and contempt whereof would exclude from salvation Luk. 7.30 It would therefore seem a more reasonable matter Silvester to administer Baptisme to a person when the spirit is in hand with his Regeneration But to what end shall Baptisme bee administred to Infants when wee doe not discern that the Spirit is about any such work as the Regenration of them It is no unwonted thing with God Silvanus to give that for a signe of a thing which shall not bee accomplished of many dayes or yeers after God gave the Rainbow for a sign that hee would no more destroy the world with water The performance whereof remaineth still to bee accomplished to the end of the world God gave two sticks joyned together in Ezekiels hand to bee a signe of the joyning together of Judah and Joseph in one state Ezek. 37.16 to 22. which is not yet accomplished nor will bee till their last conversion God gave Circumcision to the Israelites as a signe that hee would circumcise their hearts and the hearts of their seed Deut. 29.6 And yet sometimes their own hearts sometimes the hearts of their seed were not circumcised of many yeers after It is enough that as in Circumcision so in Baptisme God sealeth up that promise and Covenant which hee hath made to beleevers to bee a God to them and to their seed For the present according to Covenant God preserveth and nourisheth the seed of the faithfull by his Fatherly providence God the Son as hee undertook to the Israelites so hee hath already performed it to us to shed his blood for us and our children The holy Ghost to whom it belongeth to work Regeneration hee may take his own good time sooner or later to performe that work in our Children which hee hath wrought in our selves God is as faithfull in the New Testament as in the Old and Baptisme which succeedeth Circumcision in sealing the same Covenant will undoubtedly bee accomplished in applying all the blessings of the Covenant to us and our seed as ever Circumcision found accomplishment to the Israelites and their seed Silvester Although Baptisme succeedeth Circumcision yet the difference is great both in matter and manner in persons and things Circumcision sealeth to things temporall and carnall as well as spirituall and so were the subjects and things to come as under types and shadowes and so in a cloud and darknesse wheras Baptisme hath for its subjects children of the light in the clear evidence of the Spirit with the face open and confirmes faith in things come and already done For Baptisme sealeth onely to faith in Christ and grace in the new Birth which cannot bee where there is not first a begetting by the immortall seed of the Word of Life for which end God hath ordained in the Gospel faith and beleeving to goe before Baptizing as Mat. 28.19 with Mark 16.15 16. And that way and order which hath not God for its Authour and found in the Records of Christ with his Image and superscription upon it let us say as sometimes hee did Give to Caesar that which is Caesars and to God that which is Gods So say I give to Antichrist his baptizing of Infants and to Christ his baptizing of Beleevers What advantage will it bee to Infants to come before they bee called to have a name to live and yet dead for ought any one knows and to come to the Marriage Supper without a wedding garment Shall the holy things of God bee forced upon such as neither beleeve know or once desire them Will men set a seale to a blanck Are Children capable to receive meat before they bee born Except wee make Baptisme the wombe of Regeneration as many doe who teach that Infants are regenerated and born againe of the Spirit of Grace in Baptisme Whose Doctrine is of the same stampe and authority as hee that sent them so to Preach What can be more naturall then the begetting or bringing forth of the Infant before feeding of it at the Mothers brests Is it not sacriledge to presse such upon the Wife of Christ the Church for her Paps with whom shee never travelled nor bare of her body Christ will deny himself to bee food and nourishment to any where hee hath not beene first seed to beget Let men take heed how they impute such folly to the wisdome of God as to give the milk of his brests unto any that are still-born or to set dead twigges in his heavenly and divine stock or naturall branches into his holy and spirituall Vine Let such beware how they fight against the God of Order lest instead of finding the brests to feed before the womb to beare they meet with a curse upon the single emptinesse of Christ with a double barrennesse that will admit of no conception or spirituall birth to succeed the naturall Not that I intend in the least to deny salvation unto Infants no I am so far from this that I testify against all such Doctrine nor yet affirm all Infants to bee saved neither doe I know among Infants which shall be saved and which not Therefore I leave it as a secret thing to God untill hee make the same appeare by some visible act of Faith which onely giveth a visible right unto any Ordinance of the New Testament And therefore I cannot see by the Gospel how Infants voyd of visible Faith should have visible right to the Priviledges of Grace neither ought they to bee admitted thereunto You have seen by the Gospel that the blessing of Abraham Silvanus is come upon the beleeving Gentiles and that the blessing of Abraham was that Covenant or Promise of Grace that God would bee a God to him and to his seed and that his seed was not only spirituall Christians for they are beleevers themselves but the seed of beleevers Now beleevers are one thing and the seed of beleevers is an other they are two distinct subjects of the Covenant And seeing the Covenant of God hath distinguished them who are you that you should confound them What if Infants bee void as you say of visible Faith yet their right to the Covenant and to the seale of the Covenant is or ought to bee visible to all men For it is visible they are the children of beleevers and it is visible that the Covenant is given to beleevers and to their seed whether they shall bee saved or no it is not required that it should bee visible but let it bee as you say it is a secret thing to God yet God hath made it visibly shall I say or audibly to appear that hee accounteth them holy 1 Cor. 7.14 and that
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
faith think you be built upon the word of man for the truth of his baptisme But be willing to call to mind the Lord Jesus upbraided his eleven Apostles with their unbelief and hardnesse of heart because they believed not them which had seen him after hee was risen from the dead Mar. 6 14. And yet some of them mentioned in the former part of the Chapter were but women and others of them were private disciples neither sort of them were Apostles The truth is if one Proposition in a Syllogisme be found in the Word of God and the other Proposition be found certaine and evident by sense or reason the conclusion is a conclusion of faith As for example it is a proposition found in Scripturâ— Thâ—t the City which raigned over the Kings of the earth â—n Iohns time is that woman the great Whore Babylon which shall bee destroyed Revel 17.18 But Rome is that City which reigned over the Kings of the earth in Johns time This proposition wee have by certaine and evident testimony of the histories of those times Therefore Rome is that woman the great whore Babylon which shall be destroyed This Conclusion is a Conclusion of faith not built upon the word of men but upon the word of God Apply the like manâ—â—r of arguing to the point in hand thus Every disciple of Christ that is every believer and his sâ—ed that is baptized by a Minister of the Gospell in the name of the Fathâ—r Son and holy Ghost is truly baptized This Proposition iâ— delivered in the Gospell But I the child of a bâ—liever was baptized by a Minister of the Gospell in the name of the Father Son and holy Ghost This Proposition is confirmed by so many eye-witnesses and such approved records that no reasonable man can doubt of it The conclusion then is a conclusion of faith Therefore I the child of a believer was truly baptized CHAP. X. Silvester FOr a seventh Argument against the Baptisme of Infants I have met with this To baptize Infants maketh the holy Ordinance of God a lying signe because none of those things can bee expected in an Infant which the said Ordinance holdeth forth or signifieth in the administration thereof which is the parties Regeneration and spirituall new Birth a dying and burying with Christ in respect of sin and a rising with him in a New life to God and a confirmation of Faith in the death and Resurrection of Christ and a free remission of sin by the same as Rom. 6.3.4 Col. 2.12 1 Pet. 3.21 Act. 2.38 None of all which can bee expected in an Infant Silvanus That which hath been found in some Infants as in John Baptist and Jeremiah and many moe that they have been sanctified by the holy Ghost from their Mothers wombe there is nothing hindreth but the same may bee desired and expected in any Infants of beleeving Pâ—rents The Faith of beleeving Parents hath prevailed with Christ to cast out an evill spirit out of their children And wheresoever the good spirit of grace entreth there wanteth not Regeneration fellowship with Christ in his death buriall Resurrection there wanteth not Faith nor Remission of sins But besides suppose that none of these things were found in Infants yet it is a profane and blasphemous speech to say that the Baptisme of Infants maketh the holy Ordinance a lying sign because none of those things are found in Infants which the Ordinance holdeth forth and signifyâ—th unlesse you were able to make it good that Baptisme holdeth forth and signifieth nothing but what is already found in the Infants But you cannot bee ignorant that Baptisme signifieth and sealeth up not onely good thingâ— found already in the baptized but also good things promised and as yet to come as Resurrection from the dead 1 Cor. 15.29 Saving out of afflictions and persecutions which were then ready to overwhelme all the Churches in the Romane Empire as Noahs flood did the wholâ— world which is the meaning of Peters words in the place which you quote 1 Pet. 3.21 To say nothing that â—aptisme signifieth and sealeth up the growth of all spirituall gifts and blessings as well as the gift of them And growth is a blessing future to the baptized as well as the gift may bee future to some Infants baptized Yea it is an holy truth of God that Baptisme is as well the signe and seale of the promise of God as the signe and seale of any gift of God already bestowed Now Promises are of blessings to come Circumcision was a signe and seale of the Land of Promise to bee given as well as of the righteousnesse of Faith to Abraham which hee had already received Yea the same Circumcision which was to Abraham a signe and a seale of the righteousnesse of the Faith which hee had already received waâ— to Isaac a sign and seale of the righteousnesse of Faith promised but not received Yea that gracious Promise of God that hee would circumcise the hearts of his people Israel and of their seed Deut. 30.6 what was it else but an exposition and declaration of the meaning of their Circumcision that as they had received the outward signe in the flesh so they should receive they and their seed the thing signified in their heart and spirit It is no lying signe that holdeth forth and sealeth that which is done or which is promised to bee done in due time as much as iâ— meet for him to doe that promiseth The Baptisme of Ananias and Sapphira of Simon Magus and Demâ—s was no lying signe though they neither were Regenerate when they were Baptized nor ever afterwards came on to bee Regenerate because the lye lay not in the Lords Covenant nor in the signe of it but in their affected hypocrisie which would not bee healed CHAP. XI THe eighth Argument against the Baptisme of Infantâ— is because the subject of Baptisme is to bee Passive but an Infant is no way passive as that Ordinance requirâ—th I mean a passive subject threefold 1 A thing uncapablâ— and thus is a stone 2 A thing forced and thus is an Infant who opposâ—th his Baptisme to the utmost of his ability so farre is it from being passive in the same 3 A thing is passive by a subjecting power producing thâ—â—ame in the subject by bringing it to a free and voluntary subjection And thus is the true subject of Baptisme None can bee passive to receive grace Silvanus but by grace because it consisteth of self-denyall Obedience to Christ ought to bee free but Baptisme is forced upon an Infant against its will I will not examine the termes of your Distinction of a threefold passive subject though I would not have you taken with it which is indeed neither Naturall nor Artificiall nor spirituall For when you make the first sort of a passive subject a thing uncapable as is a stone I might demand whether you mean uncapable lawfully or unlawfully If you mean a stone is uncapable
your next exception against our Baptisme in England CHAP. XVIII THe second exception against our Baptisme received in England Silvester is taken from the false ground upon which it is administred as the former was from the false power by which it is administred Now that false ground upon which it is administred is the faith and profession not of the Parents whose Covenant you are wont to stand upon but of the God-fathers and God-mothers whose Covenant doth not reach by any Institution of God to their gossips children whatsoever it may doe to their owne I doe willingly acknowledge where the Parents of the baptized are still living and doe intend to educate the children themselves Silvanus there the use of God-fathers and God-mothers as they call them in Baptisme though it bee ancient yet it is a sinfull superaddition to the institution But when the Parents are dead or absent and the child is to bee brought up in the house of a Christian friend and brother the Covenant of such a Christian brother extendeth to all that are borne in his house and bought with his money And hiâ— profession before the Church to bring up the child committed to him in the way of the Covenant of Grace it is as acceptablâ— for the receiving of the child to Baptisme as the Covenant of Abraham was available to bring not onely his sonnes but also all that were borne in his house or bought with his money under the Covenant and seale of Circumcision Gen. 17.12 13.2 I may further answer and testify upon knowledge that many children have beene and are baptized in England without God-fathers and Godmothers and without any Interrogatories propounded to them onely upon the Covenant and profession of their parents 3. When children are baptized upon the profession of their God-fathers and God-mothers It is not the intendment or doctrine of the Church to baptize them upon the Covenant and profession of their God-fathers but to binde the sureties that when the childe groweth up to yeares of capacity they shall assist the parents in the Christian Education of the childe that he may learn and practice those good things which at his baptism they promised undertooke for him as appeareth by the charge given to the sureties 4. The superfluous superaddition of the sureties or Witnesses to the Sacrament of Baptisme doth not make Baptisme a nullity no more then the superaddition of Love Feasts to the Lords Supper doth make that a nullity Wood Hay and stubble layed upon a good foundation doth not take away the foundation And hee that so buildeth doth not lose his foundation but his superstructure the superfluous worke which hee built upon it 1 Cor. 3.12 13 15. If a defect in the faith of man doth noâ— make the faith of God of none effect Rom. 3.3 4. much lesse doth a defect in the manner of the profession of the faith to wit by a Deputy rather then by a mans owne mouth make the Covenant or the Seale of the Covenant of none effect CHAP. XIX Silvester GOE on a long and tell mee what you answer to the third exception against our English Baptism that is the false manner in which it is administred to wit by sprinkling not by dipping Silvanus I might answer you truly that if dipping were the onely way to bee chosen in which children are to be baptized yet even so by dipping is Baptisme appointed to bee administred in England by the very Rubrick in the Common-prayer booke The Minister saith the Rubricke shall take the childe in his hands and asking the namâ— shâ—ll dip it in the water so it bee discreetely and warily done And iâ— the childe bee weakâ— it shall suffice to poure water upon it Blame not therefore the Baptisme in England for being administred in such a mannâ—r aâ— your selfe desire and not directing the other way but in case of the childes weaknesse wherâ— God himselfâ— would â—ather accept of mâ—rcy then sacrifice But I see not how sprinkling in any case can bee true Baptisme Silvester For 1. Baptisme never signifyeth sprinkling but dipping So that sprinkling iâ— against the Institution whereby the Apostles arâ— commanded to baptize Disciples which is to dip them not to be-sprinkle them 2. The examples of Baptisme in the New Testament shew that Baptisme was administred by Dipping not by sprinkling Iohn Baptist baptized â—y Dipping Ioh. 3.23 Mat. 3.16 so did Philip the Evangelist Acts 8.38 39. 3. Dipping doth lively Represent our fellowship with Christ in his Death Buriall resurrection not so sprinkling It is utterly untrue that Baptisme never signifyeth sprinkling Silvanus but dipping It signifyeth generally washing whether by dipping or sprinkling infusion or affusion In Acts 22.16 Bee baptized and wash away thy sinnes the latter word interpreteth the former In 1 Cor. 10.2 the Israelites are said to have been al baptized in theâ— cloude and in the sea Wherein neverthelesse they were not dipped nor drenched nor doused but onely sprinkled for they went over dry-shod Exod. 14.22 In Heb. 9.10 where it is said in the Greeke the service stood in divers Baptismes the translation readeth iâ— in divers washings In Dan. 4.33 where it is translated he was wet with the dew of Heaven the Greeke Septuagint expresseth it in the same word whereof Baptizing is derived Touching the second instance whereby you pleâ—d for dipping from the exâ—mple of Iohn Baptist and Philip I willingly acknowledge that Dipping is a lawfull manner of Baptizing Buâ— if you contend from these exampleâ—â— that dipping is the onely way of Baptizing and such a dipping as amounts to drenching or dousing that is to dipping of the whole body over head and eares those examples doe not prâ—â—se upon us either of these For though Iohn Baptist did baptiâ—e sometime in Iordan sometime in Aeâ—â—n where there might 〈◊〉 water enough to drench the baptized yet where hâ—d thâ— Apostlâ—â— water enough in the streets of Hierusalem to dâ—â—nch the 〈◊〉 pâ—rsoâ—â— whom they baptized in one day Acts 2.41 It is much more probable that they either sprinkled them with water or poured water upon their face or heads For it is not said that the Apostles carryed them away from thence to any poole or river where they might bee drenched In Philips baptizing of Eunuch it is said they went down both together into the water to wit both Philip and the Eunuch Acts 8.38 But their going downe into the water was not part of the Baptisme For Philip went downe into the water as well as the Eunuch And it was no part of Philips meanning to baptize himselfe Besides the words translated they went downe expresseth no more but that they descended out of the Chariot into the water but how deep is not at all mentioned Furthermore It is a consideration of weight with mee that though the person baptized bee said to descend into the water yet the baptizing lay not in the descending or dipping of the body into the
water but in the sprinkling or pouring the water upon the body For in dipping wee apply the body to the water In sprinkling or pouring the water the water is applied to the body which doth more lively set forth the grace of Christ in the washing away of our sinnes which is done rather by applying Christs blood to us then by applying our selves to the blood of Christ Moreover when you stand so much for dipping I demand and I pray you answer to mee or to your selfe ingenuously Whether would you have the whole body dipped or part onely If the whole body whether naked or clothed If clothed then outward baptisme is not a washing of the flesh but of the cloaths rather If naked how will it stand with civility or modesty to Baptize men and women of grown yeares for children you admit none in the face of the whole Congregation No marvell then if the Sect of the Adamites grow out of your Sect. But if you require but part of the body to bee baptized I demand what part If the face that is our usuall manner of baptizing in England but that you implead as false If the hands and feete and head also that is it indeâ—d which Peter offered in a like case Joh. 13.9 But Christ answereth him the washing of one part was enough and would suffice to signify the washing and purifying of the whole man every whit v. 10. And in very truth the whole virtue and efficacy of the death of Christ is as well and as fully applyed in the Act of sprinkling as of dipping When Esay prophecyed the Application of the death of Christ to the Redemption of many Nations hee foretold that Christ should sprinkle many Nations Esay 52.15 And when the Apostle exhorteth us to draw neer unto God in full assurance of faith in respect of the perfect Oblation of Christ for us once for all Heb. 10.22 hee expresseth our drawing neare as having our hearts sprinkled from an evill conscience and our bodies washed with pure water The faithfull people of God are not wont to value the virtue of the gifts of Christ from the bulke of outward signes but from the lively virtue and power of the Spirit of life conveyed in them The Spirit of a Cordiall is as much conveyed in a small dôsis as in a grosse drugge It is a small morsell of Bread and a little cup of Wine which wee partake in at the Lordâ— Supper and yet therein wee partake of whole Christ God and Man If wee should eate the whole Naturall body of Christ and drinke all his Blood it would not profit us so much It is the Spirit that quickneth us Ioh. 6.36 Bodily exercise profiteth little 1 Tim. 4.8 But say you in your third exception against sprinkling sprinkling doth not so lively represent our fellowship with Christ n his Death Buryall and resurrection as dipping doth Answ Why not as lively seeing as fully Being sprinkled in our hearts from an evill conscience wee draw neare unto Christ in full assurance of Faith as you heard even now out of Heb. 10.22 and Christ in sprinkling many nations applyed to them the whole efficacy of his Death Isa 52.15 And the Apostle setteth forth the faithfull of the New-Testament to have come to the rightfruition of the riches of gratious and glorious Priviledges of the Heavenly Hierusalem in that wee are come to the bloud of sprinkling Heb. 12.24 And Peter also setteth forth the full benefit of our election in being chosen as the Originall words runne to the obedience and sprinkling of the Blood of Iesus 1 Pet. 1.1 If therefore being sprinkled with the blood of Christ wee have full fellowship with Christ in his Death surely the sprinkling of the person baptized with water in Baptisme doth fully and lively resemble the sprinkling and pouring out of the blood of Christ upon him And in his lying under the water poured and sprinkled upon him thereby is plainly shewen forth his fellowship with Christ in his Buryall And in his arising from under the water is in like sorâ— held forth his fellowship with Christ in his Resurrection CHAP. XXII Silvester VVHat say you then to the fourth Exception against the Baptisme received in England taken from the false end for which it is Administred to wit for the Regeneration of the present Infants And it plainly seemeth no otherwise to mee by the prayers and Collects which are appointed to bee read in the booke of the Common Prayer before and after Baptisme For before Baptisme they pray that the Infants comming to this holy Baptisme might receive remission of sinnes by spirituall Regeneration And after Baptisme the Minister is appointed to give thanks upon this ground that seeing these children are Regenerate and graffed into the body of Christs Congregation c. Silvanus For Answer take these two things and either of them will avoid your acception First That the Church of England doth not administer Baptism for this end to work Regeneration Secondly That though it should aime at such an end yet that would not make the Baptisme false For the fitst The Church of England doth professedly teach the contrary Doctrine not onely in their Pulpits but in Bookes allowed by publique authority That the Sacraments doth not beget Faith nor Regeneration ex opere operato but they are signes and seales of both Neither do the publique prayers of the Church hold forth their judgement otherwise But as in judgement they doe beleeve that God by Covenant promiseth to poure clean water upon us and upon our seed Ezek. 36.25 Isa 44.3 and that he sealeth the Covenant and promise by Baptisme So before Baptisme they pray him to accomplish this Promise according to his Covenant which God is about to confirme by that seale And after Baptisme they taking Gods Word and Seale as a Pledge and assurance of the thing already done which will indeed in due time bee done according to the true intent and meaning of Gods Word and Seale that is to the elect seed absolutely to the naturall seed sufficiently to leave them without excuse in the offer of the meanes they therefore give him thankes for it as done already When Israel heard their redemption out of Egypt and saw the signes which Moses wrought for the confirmation of it they beleeved and bowed their heads and worshipped as if they had seen the worke already wrought which they saw onely in the promise and in the signe Exod. 4.30 31. When Gedeon had received the promise of deliverance from the Midianites and saw the same confirmed by a signe though it were but by a dreame hee worshipped God with praise and thanksgiving as if the delivâ—rance had beene already wrought Judges 7.13 14 15. I neede not apply it For the Second Though the Church of England had such a corrupt and false end in their Baptisme which they have not as to administer the same for the working of Regeneration yet that would not make
accounted of God as uncircumcised himselfe if his children were uncircumcised for so it is written in Exod. 12.48 that if a man will come and keepe the Passeover all the males in his house must be circumcised and the reason given is for no uncircumcised Person shall eate thereof which plainly argueth that a man is uncircumcised himselfe and as an uncircumcised person is to be debarred from the Passeover untill all his males be circumcised If then our Lords Supper come in the roome of the Passeover and our Baptisme in the roome of Circumcision looke as he that had not circumcised his males was accounted as one uncircumcised himselfe and so to be debarred from the Passeover so hee who hath not baptized his children is accounted of God as not baptized himselfe and so to be debarred from the Lords Supper If therefore you forbid Baptisme to children you evacuate the Baptisme of their Parents and so make the commandment of God and the Commission of the Apostles and the Baptisme of believers of none effect In the Apostles Commission by Disciples is meant beleevers Silvester for so when the Evangelist Marke recordeth the same Commission he rehearseth it thus Go saith Christ into all the world and preach the Gospel unto every creature He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved he that believeth not shall be damned Mark 16.15 16. So that unlesse children were believers they are not subjects capable of Baptisme no Faith no Baptisme If children have no Faith to be baptized Silvanus then have they no Faith to be saved For the words of the Apostles commission are as plaine and pregnant for the one as for the other He that beâ—ieveth and is baptized saith Christ shall be saved he that believeth not shall be damned Mar. 16.16 If therefore children as being unbelievers cannot be baptized then as being unbeleevers they cannot be saved Silvester It is very doubtfull to me neither hath the Scripture revealed it that such as dye Infants are in a state of salvation for without the hearing of the word no faith and without faith no salvation Silvanus See what uncomfortable and desperate conclusions these ways of error drive men unto Jacob while he was yet in his mothers womb was in a state of election Rom. 9.11.13 and therefore in a state of salvation though he had dyed then John Baptist was filled with the holy Ghost from his mothers wombe Luke 1.17 and if he had then dyed the spirit of life which dwelt in him had quickened him to immortality To what end were the children who dyed Infants in the old Testament circumcised what did their circumcision seale to them Canaan they did never live to see much lesse to inherit if it did not seal unto them spirituall and saving blessings it was to them a seale without a thing signified what though children do not receive faith by hearing of the gospel as the Nations of the Gentiles do of whom the Apostle speaketh in the place whereto you allude yet as children can see the light and be taken with it and turn their eyes to it so the Lord can shine into the dark hearts of children and give them faith to see his light and to be taken and affected with it though they never heard of it by the hearing of the eare Silvester What the Lord can doe in inlightening Infants is a secret known to himself the Lord can even of stones raise up children unto Abraham Matth. 3.9 In which sense children may also bee said to be capable of the Spirit to wit as well as stones But if children should be said to be capable of the spirit so as to comply with the Spirit in hearing receiving and beleeving the Spirits testimony and so to be capable of regeneration faith and repentance this I deny and to affirm this to be the way to bring persons to the faith by working so upon them by his Spirit in their infancy argueth some ignorance of the true nature and work of graces as the Gospel holdeth it forth Silvanus There is a middle way between both these two in which God can and doth convey the spirit of grace unto infants for neither are infants so uncapable as stones for stones must first have a reasonable soule conveyed into them before they can be capable of the spirit of grace whereas Infants have a reasonable soul already Neither yet are infants so capable of complying as you call it with the Spirit as to heare beleeve and repent yet nevertheless Infants being reasonable creatures they are also capable though not of apprehending yet of receiving the holy Ghost from their mothers wombe for even then John Baptist was filled with him Luke 1.15 It is one thing to be filled from the mothers wombe Silvester with the holy Ghost as John was another thing to believe Act. 6.5 and 4.31 Secondly all such so testified of as John was I shall acknowledge but to affirm that what God testified of John Baptist in the wombe holdeth true of all other infants likewise this indeed were weaker then infancy to affirm it and grosser then ignorance to believe it Iob is said to be a guide to the distressed from his mothers womb Iob 31.18 shall it thence be concluded that in his infancy he was a guide to such or if he were so must it needs follow that all infants are capable guides also because it was so said of him To be filled with the holy Ghost Silvanus doth always imply thus much at least as to be filled with the gifts of the holy Ghost or if men had received the gifts of the holy Ghost before yet when it is said againe they were filled with the holy Ghost it implyeth they were filled with a greater and fuller measure of those gifts then before And that is the meaning of those places which you quote out of the Acts whence it will follow that Iohn being filled with the holy Ghost from his mothers womb was therefore filled with the gifts of the holy Ghost as the gift of faith the gift of wisdome and zeale and patience c. Although he was no more able to exercise them or put them forth then he was able to put forth any act of reason and yet his soul wanted not the faculty of reason from his Mothers wombe There is no man so weak or ignorant as to beleeve or affirm that all infants are in the like sort filled with the holy Ghost as Iohn Baptist was But yet if you believe or affirm that none else were filled or sanctified with the gifts of the holy Ghost but Iohn Baptist onely or that all infants are not alike capable of those gifts as well as he I may say as Christ said in another case You erre because you know not the Scriptures nor the power of God David saith as of Christ in substance so of himselfe in type Thou didst make me to hope or trust at my mothers
to the wisdom and grace of God in Christ This doth not excuse your former harsh expression concerning infants but rather aggravate it with a contradiction to your selfe Silvanus for you disputed against it above as against the rule of truth to say That infants were capable of union with Christ and of justification to life thereby And sure if they be not capable of union with Christ how can they bee saved without Christ unlesse you conceive a salvation reserved by the wisdome and grace of God for infants which is not onely without the word but expresly contrary to the revealed word of God Act. 4.12 Again when you said soone after that you supposed none would affirme that infants with reference to their nonage were subjects capable of election nor subjects capable of glory and therefore demanded how they could bee capable of grace how can you now say you doe not so oppose infants as to exclude them from salvation Can they be saved and yet not bee capable subjects of glory nor of grace nor of union with Christ nor of justification unto life God hath proclaimed Silvester that all are by nature the children of wrath Ephes 2. And therefore I cannot believe that any are naturally born in grace and so believers from the wombe though the opposite doctrine teacheth and affirmeth the same Silvanus The opposite doctrine if you meane the doctrine of the Baptism of infants teacheth as the Apostle doth that all by nature are the children of wrath even beleevers and their seed as well as others neither did I think that any had been so ignorant as to beleeve or teach and affirm that any are naturally born in grace and so that is naturally are believers from the wombe I never heard nor read of any such before nor doe I beleeve it now All that for ought I know doe hold the Baptisme of infants they teach that by nature all Infants Christ onely excepted are born in sin and children of wrath and none of them born in grace naturally but onely by vertue of the Covenant of grace which is above nature Neither doe they say that all that are born under the Covenant are borne beleevers or partakers of faith from the wombe but that some by the blessing and grace of the Covenant are made partakers of faith and of the holy Ghost from the wombe and that all are capable of the same grace from the wombe yea and God hath promised to worke the same sooner or later in all the elect children of the Covenant absolutely in the rest according to his Covenant hee offereth to work the same in his owne time if neither their parents nor themselves reject or neglect the meanes which the Lord offereth them For as the second Commandement whereby the instituted meanes of grace and worship are established is morall and perpetuall So is the sanction or ratification of that Commandement morall and perpetuall also Now in the sanction of that Commandement as God threatned to visit the neglect of his ordinances which are the meanes of grace upon the fathers to the children to the third and fourth generation of them that hate him so he promiseth to shew mercy unto thousands of them that love him keep his Commandements Exod. 20.5 6. whence it was that God promised to bring upon Abraham all the good which hee had spoken to him of which was chiefly to be a God to him and to his seed because he knew that Abraham would command hiâ— children and his houshold after him to keep the ways of the Lord Gen. 18.19 Silvester The Scripture in Matth. 28.19 being well considered and rightly understood would stop mens mouths for ever from having a word to say for the baptizing of infants This blessed commission of Christ to his Apostles was chiefly for us Gentiles saying All power is given to me both in heaven and earth Goe ye therefore and teach all Nations baptizing them in the name of the Father Sonne and holy Ghost c. As if Christ had said Goe now into all Nations and preach the gospel freely as well to one Nation as to another for the gospel shall not now be confined any more to one place or people then to another God is now a God of the Gentiles as well as of the Jewes goe therefore as well to the Gentiles as to the Jewes even unto all Nations and there preach the gospel and so make disciples 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 So that here teaching goeth before baptizing and presupposeth understanding and faith in that which is taught this being the onely place of Christ his instituting the order of baptisme And further explained Mark 16.15 16. Goe into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved So from these Scriptures brought to prove the baptizing of infants it is clearly manifest that infants are not the subjects of baptism appointed by Christ For all the externall benefits and priviledges of the gospel are given onely to externall and visible faith And so the sealing and confirming ordinances of Christ doe even presuppose faith in the subject to seale unto and to bee confirmed So here is no ground for the baptizing of infants but the contrary For clearing this Text in Matthew Silvanus let it be first agreed what is the gospel which the Apostles are commanded to preach to all Nations then what it is to teach them and then it will more clearely appeare who are to be baptized By gospel is not meant that promise onely recorded by Mark 15.16 much lesse the curse annexed to it He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved hee that believeth not shall be damned For the gospel is glad tydings nor is the promise of salvation to believers and baptized persons glad tydings as the word signifieth as the Apostle declareth Rom. 10.15 but onely to such as doe believe otherwise to unbeleevers the curse lyeth upon them and they that groane under the want of Christ and of faith to receive him they may languish for want of comfort if all the gospel were comprehended in that promise For they will object against themselves salvation is indeed promised to beleevers but I neither doe believe nor can believe Those words therefore in Marke are not the summe of the gospel though part of the gospell be contained in them They are indeed a double motive unto such to whom the gospel is preached to urge them to receive and believe the gospel The one taken from the benefit of believing it He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved the other from the danger of unbeliefe He that believeth not shall bee damned What then is the summe of the gospel which Christ commanded his Apostles to preach to
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
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
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
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