Covenant of grace And if any one of these promises belonged to them the whole Covenant of grace belonged to them also But to deale ingenuously and faithfully with you the Text which you quote out of Acts 2.41 might hold forth a just colour of an Objection if you had so applyed it against the argument gathered out of verse 38 39. for the baptisme of infants For if they who were baptized were such as gladly received his word verse 41. then it doth not appeare out of this place that infants were at that time baptized with the rest because they could not receive the word much lesse gladly least of all expresse their gladnesse by any visible profession This objection I confesse would have prevailed with me to have forborn any proof of the Baptisme of infants out of this place were it not partly for the Reasons which have been alledged above from the words of verse 39. partly also for that I finde the Lord Jesus is wont to accept the acts of Parents in the duties of the second Commandement as done for themselves and for their children as hath been touched above For look as when Levi is said to pay tythes in Abraham it was because Abraham in paying tythes was reputed of God as paying them for himself and for Levi Heb. 7.9 And as when Parents came and brought their children to Christ their comming was reputed of Christ as the comming of their children as well as of themselves Mar. 10.14 So when Peters hearers received the word gladly they gladly received in both for themselves and their children to wit both the word of promise which was expresly given to themselves and their children and also the word of Commandement which was grounded upon the promise and urged as farre as the promise extended Be baptized every one of you and thereupon they in receiving his word gladly did gladly give up both themselves and their children to be baptized Silvester But before you take the baptisme of infants concluded out of this place consider what you will say to another interpretation which I have seen made of this place For there bee that say That by the promise to you and to your children is not meant the Covenant of grace to you and to your children but the promise of sending the Holy Ghost to enable them and their sons and daughters to prophecy Which promise Peter quoted out of Joel Act. 2.16 17. which promise Christ received of the Father and had now shed abroad in their sight and hearing verse 33. and which Peter promised to them upon their repentance and baptisme verse 38. because the promise was to them and to their children Silvanus Thus sometimes you will have the promise to be understood of sending Christ and sometime of sending the holy Ghost but the truth is both are but effects of the same grace and both given by the same Covenant The English proverb speaketh of such men as are loath to see what they doe see that they cannot see the wood for trees so these men cannot see the Covenant for the promises what is the wood but a storehouse of trees and what is the Covenant of grace but the storehouse of the promises of grace In the Covenant of grace when God giveth himselfe to bee the God of the faithfull and of their seed the Father promiseth himselfe to be their Father Christ promiseth to be their Redeemer and the Holy Ghost promiseth to be their sanctifier You may as soone separate the persons in the Trinity from being one God as separate the gift of one of these persons to us and to our children from the gifts of the other or separate all these gifts or the promises of these gifts from the Covenant of grace But if the gift of the Holy Ghost be here promised to these Iews and Proselytes and to their children Silvester that they might speake with new tongues and prophecy then in this place by children cannot be meant infants for infants are not capable of speaking with tongues and prophecying The Apostle Peter Silvanus though he speake of the promise of the gift of the Holy Ghost which in the former part of the chapter did enable the Disciples to speake with new tongues and prophecy yet he did not intend to limit and confine the gift of the Holy Ghost to that work in these Converts here for that would have been small comfort to them who were pricked in heart and enquired the way of salvation to put them off with a promise of the Holy Ghost to worke such gifts of tongues and prophecying as were common to hypocrites Matth. 7.22 23. 1 Cor. 13.1 The Apostle therefore who better knew how to satisfie and heale these wounded soules hee promiseth to them such a gift of the Holy Ghost as is joyned with remission of sinnes and accompanyeth salvation Act. 2.38 39. And though infants whilst infants are not capable of speaking with tongues and prophecying which is but one gift of the Holy Ghost and but a common gift neither yet they are capable of the Holy Ghost for regeneration and remission of sins which are the chief blessings of the Covenant which these Converts then stood in need of and for the effectuall working of which the Apostle telleth them The promise was made to them and to their children which indeed cannot bee wrought but by the gift both of Christ and of the Holy Ghost And now having said enough as I conceive if not too much for the clearing of these two first Arguments for the Baptisme of the infants of believers Let us now proceed to adde a third taken from the Analogy of the Circumcision of the seed of Abraham and the Commandement of God for the same Silvester I have heard much agitation of such an argument and more of that then of any other but I am very slow to believe the baptism of infants upon that ground CHAP. III. Silvanus DOe you not believe that God made a Covenant of grace with Abraham and his seed Gen. 17.7 c. Silvester What if he did Silvanus Did he not by that Covenant give him a Commandement to receive the signe of Circumcision the seal of the Covenant of grace to him and to his seed Silvester Gen. 17.9 10. Silvanus What of that Hath not the Lord given that Covenant of grace which was then to Abraham and his seed now to beleevers and our seed Silvester What then Silvanus I demand further hath not God abolished Circumcision and given us baptisme in the room thereof Silvester What of all this Silvanus Then out of all these it followeth that if the same Covenant of grace be now given to believers and our seed which was given to Abraham and his seed and if baptisme be now given to us as a seale of the Covenant in the room of Circumcision then the same Covenant which gave a Commandement or a word
Covenant offered himselfe to be a God to Abraham and his seed the Lord did thereby promise to afford both to him and his seed the meanes whereby they might come to enjoy the Lord for their â—od For he which promiseth the end promiseth also the meanes that lead to that end And Abraham for his part accepting the Covenant for himselfe and his seed and so having circumcised himselfe and them in token thereof he had now bound himself to traine up and educate all his seed in the meanes and wayes of grace whereby they might come to enjoy that great promise of the Covenant to have the Lord for their God which also Abraham was carefull to doe as the Lord testifieth of him Gen. 18.19 Yea and Ismael himselfe with the rest of Abrahams seed having been received into the Covenant of God and to the seale thereof he and they all were bound to yeeld up themselves to the Lord and to Abraham in attending to the meanes of grace dispensed to them in that Covenant that so they might come to enjoy the sure mercies of the Covenant to have the Lord for their God But now when Ismael rejected the meanes of grace as he did by mocking at Isaac and as did Esau also by selling the birthright of the Covenant for a messe of pottage now their circumcision was made uncircumcision as Paul speaketh in a like case Rom. 2.25 And so they did discovenant themselves and their posterity from the Covenant of grace and chose to be as the bewitched Galatians did Galat. 4.21 under the Covenant of works It is therefore a groundlesse and false collection which some of your way do make that because there was in Abraham when God made a Covenant with him a double seed the one a spirituall seed the other a fleshly seed and accordingly because there were in the Covenant some spirituall blessings and some outward and carnall blessings therefore they must be thus distinguished that the spirituall blessings belonged to the spirituall seed and the outward blessings to his carnall seed For all the blessings were promised to all the seede in the Covenant To the spirituall seede both spirituall and outward blessings were promised and given effectually To the carnall seede not carnall blessings onely but spirituall also were promised and offered So as that their falling short of the grace of God was not from the defect of the Covenant but from their prophane refusall of it and of the meanes of grace offered in it For it is an evident and confessed Truth and the Text is cleare for it That in the Covenant God offered himselfe to be a God to all the seede Now God is not an outward or carnall blessing but as himselfe is a Spirit so is he also a spirituall blessing to whomsoever he is dispensed Well then Silvester though it be granted that the Covenant which God made with Abraham and with his seed is a Covenant of grace and that circumcision was given as a seale of that Covenant unto his seed yet still this is not proved that God hath made a Covenant of grace now in the new Testament with the seed of believers especially our naturall and carnall seed Or that our Baptisme is given to us of God in stead of circumcision to confirm such a Covenant with such a seed Both these may be well proved rightly understood Silvanus rightly understood I say For if by carnall seed of believers be meant the children of beleevers walking after the flesh and carnally rejecting the Covenant of grace as Esau sold his birthright for a messe of pottage and the Jews rejected the righteousnesse of Christ to establish their own righteousnesse which are properly called by the Apostle the carnall seed and Israel after the flesh then we willingly grant you that the Covenant of grace is not extended to the carnall seed of believeâ—s Or if by carnall and naturall seed be meant the children of believers begotten of their bodies and considered as descending from them onely by power of nature and carnall generation then we consent unto you herein also that the Covenant of grace doth not extend to the children of believers considered as their naturall and carnall seed For the children of beleevers though begotten of their bodies yet are born under the Covenant not by any power of nature or any force of carnall generation but by the grace of Christ offering the Covenant to believers and to their seed and by the faith of believers receiving the Covenant for themselves and for their seed But that the Covenant of beleevers begotten of their bodies are borne under the Covenant of grace by the grace of Christ offering the Covenant to them and by the faith of their parents receiving the Covenant for them and for their seed may be proved from sundry testimonies of Scripture First from the testimony of Paul to the Galatians Gal. 3.14 15 16. where he teacheth us that by Christ his redemption of us from the curse of the Law the blessing of Abraham is come upon the Gentiles vers 14. This blessing is called the Covenant verse 15 17. And this Covenant he calleth the promises verse 16. And these promises he there telleth us were made to Abraham and his seed and by seed he meaneth Christ And by Christ he meaneth Christ mysticall that is Christ and all that are in Christ whether by election or by their owne faith as all the living members of Christ be or by adoption as all the Israelites were for whom Paul had continuall sorrow Rom. 9.4 Or which is of like extent by participation in the stocke of Abraham the stock of the faithfull as Paul calleth the Jews the children of the stock of Abraham to whom the word of salvation is sent Acts 13.26 And such are in Christ as branches in the true olive or in the vine till they come to cut off themselves by casting off the Covenant and the faith of their parents For the Apostle there in that place of the Galatians speaketh of the blessing of Abraham as come upon us Gentiles And the blessing of Abraham was the Covenant and promises of the Covenant made unto Abraham and unto his seed in Christ Now that seed in Christ was of such large extent as that Ismael at first partaked in the Covenant made to it and in the seale of it as being himselfe one of the seed and stock of Abraham as well as Isaac untill he rejected the Covenant in rejecting Isaac and the grace of Christ in him and so was cast out of the family of Abraham and out of the Communion of the body of the faithfull For Paul speaketh not there as some of your way would have it of a different dispensation of the Covenant of Abraham in the old Testament and in the new as if it were dispensed in the old Testament unto him and to his carnall seed and now in the New to him and to his seed in Christ no no such
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
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
all Nations your selfe doe truly expresse it in generall termes That God is now a God not of the Jewes onely but also of the Gentiles But to speake more particularly and fully the Gospel is summed up in these heads of doctrine 1. That God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himselfe 2 Cor. 5.19 by world is meant Jews and Gentiles 2. That God hath committed this word of reconciliation to his Ambassadors and Ministers to perswade all the Nations of the world to be reconciled unto God 2 Cor. 5.19 20. 3. That God hath given the Ministration of this gospel to bee the ministration of the Spirit of grace to worke faith whereby we receive Christ and reconciliation with God through him and all the gifts of the Spirit from him 2 Cor. 3.8 Gal. 3.2 4. This is another head of the glad tydings of the gospel that to whomsoever he giveth faith to receive Christ and his gospel to them he giveth himselfe to be a God to them and to their seed or house For so Paul and Silas preached the gospel to the Jaylor Believe in the Lord Jesus and thou shalt be saved and thine house Act. 16.31 And so when Zacheus was become a child of Abraham to wit by faith the Lord Jesus promised salvation to him and his house Luke 19.9 And this was the very same gospel which God preached before unto Abraham when he gave him that Covenant of grace to be a God to him and his seed for this was the Covenant which was before confirmed of God in Christ Gal. 3.16 17. And the Covenant confirmed by Christ is no other then the gospel of Christ And this Covenant to a believer and his seed is glad tydings not onely to the believer touching himselfe but touching his seed also As it was indeed exceeding glad tydings unto David that God had promised not onely mercy to himself but as if that had been a small thing in Gods sight to his house also for a great while to come 2 Sam. 7.19 which though it concerned a Kingdome yet that also was a branch of the Covenant of grace and concerned the spirituall kingdom of Christ And surely the promise of salvation and of the kingdom of heaven which by the Covenant of grace is granted to us and our children is a greater blessing then the Kingdom of Israel and maketh us partakers of the kingdome of Christ Thus have we seen what is meant by the gospel which the Apostles were to preach to all Nations Now what is it to preach this gospel as Marke calleth it or as you translate it out of Matthew To teach all Nations to preach the gospel is so to publish and apply it in the demonstration and power of the Spirit as that disciples may be made by it for so the word in Matthews own language expresseth it Go and make disciples all Nations Now who are Christs disciples Disciples are all one with Scholars and Christs disciples or Scholars are such as Christ taketh into his schoole to teach And they are not onely believers but their seed also whom according to the tenor of the gospel opened even now Christ undertaketh to teach and teach them he doth taking his own time from the belly to their old age Christ taught John Baptist from his mothers wombe though not by the hearing of the eare yet by the holy Ghost Luke 1.15 He sanctified Jeremy before he came forth of the wombe Jer. 1.5 And was the God of the Psalmist from his mothers belly and caused him to hope when he was upon the breasts Psal 22.9 10. Doe not thinke that though God took the pains to teach such little ones in the old Testament yet now in the dayes of the new Testament he will no more teach such petties The great Doctor of his Church is not ashamed now no more then of old to stoop to such meane worke No verily Christ in the new Testament affecteth lesse state and pompe in all his dispensations then he was wont to use in the old Testament He putteth forth as much hidden Majesty and glory in riding upon an Asse as ever he did by ruling his people by Solomon in all his royalty Hee requireth still little children to bee brought unto him and knoweth still how to ordaine praise to himself out of the mouth of babes and sucklings And though it be recorded in the old Testament yet it is a prophecy of the estate of the children of the Church of the new Testament All thy children shall bee taught of God Esa 54.13 Which hath beene proved above to be meant not onely of the members of the church of riper yeares but even of infants so that an argument from this Text in Matth. doth easily conclude it self into this form All the disciples of Christ are to be baptized Parents that are brought on to heare and believe the gospel preached they and their children are the disciples of Christ Therefore they and their children are to be baptized But you straiten and darken the counsell of God and commandement of Christ when you limit his meaning to such disciples so taught as to have understanding and faith in that which is taught For though such a description doe agree to the Parents who are disciples and Scholars of a higher forme yet when Christ receiveth the parents who receive him by faith hee receiveth also their seed even from the least to the greatest to bee his disciples and all his disciples to be baptized But that you may see you fight against God in seeking to thrust out infants out of Christs schoole and out of the number of Christs disciples Observe I pray you how God leaveth you to such a forced mis-interpretation of the Text and therein of the very form and essence of baptisme as utterly overthroweth the nature of it Make disciples say you by teaching them and such so taught them baptize in the name of the Father Son and holy Ghost that is into the true and orderly profession of that which they have been taught and believed What is it now come to this passe That to bee baptized into the name of the Father Son and holy Ghost is to bee baptized into the true and orderly profession of that which they have been taught and believed Why the true and orderly profession of that which we have been taught and believed that is of our faith is but a worke of our owne though wrought in us by Gods spirit Faith it selfe is but a created gift and so a creature And the profession of it is but the exercise of faith And are we now come to be baptized into the name of Creatures It is easily granted a man by his baptisme may be engaged to the performance of this or that duty but can it be given for the exposition of the forme of baptisme to be baptized into the name of the Father Son and holy Ghost that is into the true and orderly performance of this or that duty But
therefore yet they were the carnall seed And he speaketh to them to whom he saith Christ was sent to turne every one of them from their iniquities vers 26. And therefore he knew no other of them nor spake no otherwise to them then as to men yet in their sins And so in that other place which you quote out of Acts 13.26 33. the Apostle plainely calleth them the children of the stock of Abraham who were the naturall seed of Abraham and whom afterward he calleth despisers vers 41. And amongst whom many of them contradicted and blasphemed his doctrine verse 45. So that from the word children it cannot be gathered that in this Text the Apostle meaneth children walking in the steps of the faith of their fathers No nor from those other words of the Text which you say import so much which speake of the promise made to you and your children and to all afarre off even as many as the Lord our God shall call for these words doe not import what you say that the promise is onely to such as God shall call and to none else as many as the Lord our God shall call is not a limitation of those remote words you and your children but of the next words immediately going before all that are afar off lest it should be thought that the promise is to all that are afarre off that is to all Pagans and infidels he explaineth himselfe in the words next following even to as many as the Lord shall call from amongst them And all they indeed from among the Gentiles whom the Lord shall call they still partake of the same promise of grace with the Jews that as the promise of grace is made to the Jews and their children so is it now to the Gentiles called and to their children there is no difference now between Jews and Gentiles in respect of any spirituall priviledges or promises The children of the believing Gentiles are now as holy as the children of the believing Jews and the promises pertaine to both alike But it is not said in the Text Silvester the Covenant is to you and yours but the promise Now we know that every promise is not a Covenant there being a large difference between a promise and a Covenant Let it then be well considered what is here meant by the promise and that is Gods sending of the Messias or the seed in whom all the Nations should be blessed and so the sending of a Saviour or a Redeemer unto Israel as these Scriptures manifest compared together Esa 11. 1 Jer. 23.5 6. with Luke 1.68.74 Acts 13.23 3.25 26. This was performed by Christs comming First in the flesh in which respect he came of and to the Jewes onely by promise as Joh. 4.22 Rom. 9.5 Matth. 10.5 6. 15.24 John 1.11 Secondly in the preaching of the Gospel by which he was held forth as a Saviour to all that by faith laid hold on him And this way also Christ was first tendered to the Jewes for a Saviour to save them from their sâ—nnes Acts 4.12 And for to be their King as to save them so into whose State and government they were to submit as Luke 19.14 27. Acts 2.36 In which sense the Apostle speaketh when he saith the promise is to you and to your children and to all farre and neare as God shall call That is the promise or the promised Saviour is come and is now according to Gods promise tendered to you by the Gospel calling you and your children and all else where the word of grace shall come to believe and receive him by faith who is now come to save you and all that believe from their sinnes Acts 3.25 26. And therefore it is said as many as gladly received or believed these glad tydings the same was sealed or confirmed to them by Baptisme Acts 2.41 according to John 1.11 12 13. By all which it is manifest that the promise Acts 2.39 is meant of the sending of the Messias or a Saviour to the house of Israel to call them to repentance and to save such as believe from their sinnes as is cleare also by these Scriptures Esa 59.20 Act. 13.23 26 32 38 39. And thus the promise is to you and your children that is the promised Saviour is offered and offereth himself freely to save you notwithstanding your crucifying of him yet now repent and believe for his promise is upon the same freely to forgive and to save you from all your sins Thus the promise is applyed to faith which is the way of preaching the gospel and not an absolute conclusion of persons to bee in the Covenant of grace and life whether they have faith or not What is this but to keep the wicked from leaving his way by promising them life This God did not in making of his Covenant at the first nor the Apostle by his applying of the same at the last Silvanus In this your long answer some things are impertinent some things false some fraudulent and some confused but one thing onely alledged out of the Context that may seeme to the purpose and that also misapplyed 1. It is impertinent to put a difference betweene the promise and the Covenant As it was before curious to put a difference betweene seede and children For though every promise be not a Covenant yet there is no such large difference as you speake of betweene the promise of God and his Covenant but that they are ordinarily put one for another The Covenant of not drowning the world any more with a floud was no more then a promise yet it is called a Covenant Gen. 9.11 and the Promise that God gave to Abraham of the inheritance of the world Rom. 4.13 was by the Covenant confirmed by the sacrifices of beasts divided asunder Gen. 15.5.9 10.17 And that which God calleth the promises Gal. 3.16 he calleth the Covenant in the next verse verse 17. Besides whatsoever difference there may be betweene the promise and the Covenant it is here pleaded altogether impertinently For if it were granted you which you plead for though there be no mention of it in the Text That by the promise is here meant the promise of sending the Messiah yet that promise is either given by the Covenant of grace or by the Covenant of workes If Christ be given and sent by the Covenant of grace then the promise that giveth him is the Covenant of grace So that if the promise of sending Christ be to them and their children as the Text speaketh then the Covenant in which that promise is given is to them and their children And so indeed the same Apostle telleâ—h them in his next Sermon Acts 3.25 26. Ye are the children of the Prophets and of the Covenant which God made with our Fathers c. Unto you first God having raised up his sonne Jesus sent him to blesse you c. the promise therefore of sending Christ was given by Covenant
And then what difference is there betweene promise and Covenant in this case 2. It is false which you say that Christ came onely to the Jewes by promise For though he came to the Jewes to the Jewes first and to them by promise yet God gave a more antient promise of the comming of the Messiah to our first parents Gen. 3.15 And they were then the common stock and roote both of Jewes and Gentlies If Job had not a promise of Christ his comming to be his Redeemer how doth he challenge him to be his Redeemer I know saith he that my Redeemer liveth Job 19.25 Againe It is a very truth which you falsly deny to wit an absolute conclusion as you call it of any persons to be in the Covenant whether they have faith or not For what think you of Isaac and Iacob and all other elect infants borne of faithfull parents may not a man say that all such are absolutely under the Covenant even before they beleive yea their very beleiving which in Gods appointed time is given to them is it not the effect of the grace of the Covenant and not the cause of it It is also another falshood to say That the concluding it of persons meaning of Infants who may want faith to be in the Covenant of grace and life doth keepe the wicked from leaving his way by promising him life For wee doe not promise life to any by the Covenant unlesse they be elect And though they be elect yet because it is unknown to them and to us too till they doe repent and beleive we tell them they cannot partake in any saving benefit of the Covenant till they be regenerate and quickned by the Spirit as Christ told Nicodemus And it is yet another falshood to say That God did not conclude absolutely any in Covenant of grace when he first made it nor that the Apostle did so apply it at the last For when God first made the Covenant he did absolutely conclude Isaac and in him all the Elect seede under the Covenant For it is a branch of the meaning of that promise of God when he first made the Covenant My Covenant saith he will I establish with Isaac Gen. 17.21 And yet it doth not appeare that Isaac had any faith much lesse visible And for the Apostle his applying of the Covenant or the promise call it whether you will all is one to me certain it is the Apostle doth not suspend the childrens being in Covenant upon their owne faith but upon the faith and repentance of their Fathers Repent saith he speaking to the fathers and so let every one of you be baptized c. For the promise is made to you and to your children Whence the scope of the Apostles exhortation fitly ariseth into this argument and concludeth after this manner as hath been shown above To whom the promise is made they ought to be baptized every one of them But to you repenting and to your children the promise is made Therefore you and your children ought to be baptized every one of you And besides the Apostle in his next Sermon so expoundeth the Covenant as given not onely to them that are converted and so brought on to believe but to them who yet want faith and conversion And therefore he saith Acts 3.25 26. Ye are the children of the Covenant unto whom God having raised up his Son Jesus hath sent him to blesse you in converting or turning away every one of you from his iniquities Their being in Covenant who were the children of the faithfull was not the fruit of their own turning to God but their turning to God is held forth by him as a blessing and fruit of their being in Covenant 3. This is fraudulent that you hold forth the comming of Christ in the gospel to be for this end to call upon men to repent and believe and submit themselves to his State and government Which though it be very true yet it is like the fraudulent practice of Ananias and Saphira to pay part of the price that they might more cunningly conceale the rest So you in like manner hold forth this end which is indeed part of Christs comming in the gospel the more closely to conceale another part of it which is to give faith and salvation to the children of beleevers and accordingly to call their parents to submit their children and housholds as well as themselves to the state and government of the Lord Jesus For why should Christ encourage children to come to him Marke 10.14 if it were no end of Christs comming to come to save them 4. These things are very confused in your answer that you put it for all one Christ to come to save men from their sins and to call men to believe For though these follow one another yet they require a farre different state of the subject unto whom this different grace is tendered For if you speake of saving from sin or justifying Christ justifieth or saveth none from sin but believers or such at least as have faith But when he calleth men to believe or to repent he commeth to them not as having faith or repentance but as wanting both And yet when he commeth to call them unto faith and repentance he doth it out of respect of his Covenant with their Fathers whose children they were yea and in this call of them hee commeth to give them repentance and forgivenesse of sinnes Acts 5.31 And in giving it to their Fathers he promiseth also to give the same unto their children Acts 16.31 Lastly there is one thing alledged out of the context which may seeme pertinent to the purpose if it were fitly applyed You truly alledge that in Acts 2.41 It is said As many as gladly received his word or as you call it glad tydings they were baptized or as you say the same was sealed and confirmed unto them by baptisme But this will not prove that which you alledge it for that therefore it is manifest that by the promise Acts 2.39 is meant the sending of the Messias For the text will every way as fitly and more fitly carry it to be meant of the promise of remission of sins and of receiving the gift of the holy Ghost so the words run directly Repent ye saith he and bee baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ 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 What promise Here is no promise mentioned before but the remission of sins and gift of the Holy Ghost And the gift of the Holy Ghost is called a promise verse 33. Acts 1.4 5. But it is not materiall to the purpose whether by the promise you understand the comming of Christ or the gift of the Holy Ghost or remission of sinnes purchased by the one and sealed by the other For all these promises are given by one and the same
of institution for the Circumcision of Abraham and his seed giveth the same Commandement or a Word of Institution for the baptisme of beleevers and our seed As by like proportion it is justly gathered that if Baptisme be given us in the roome of Circumcision and the Lords Supper in the room of the Passeover then as no uncircumcised person might eate of the Passeover so now no unbaptized person may eate of the Lords Supper Silvester Here are many things presupposed but not proved as first that the Covenant which God made with Abraham and his seed was a Covenant of grace For some say it was a Covenant of temporall blessings as of the inheritance of Canaan not spirituall Others say it was a Covenant of works not of grace And others say that though it was a Covenant of grace to Abraham and to his faithfull seed yet it was a Covenant of works at least to his carnall seed Secondly it is presupposed but not proved that Circumcision was a seale of the Covenant of grace to Abraham and to his naturall seed Thirdly neither is it proved that God hath made a Covenant of grace now with Believers and our naturall seed Fourthly Neither is it proved that Baptisme with water is given us of God in stead of circumcision It is true Silvanus the Devill hath bestirred himselfe mightily to call in question all these truths of the Covenant of grace that so hee might make the Covenant of none effect both to Parents and children Now the Lord rebuke him and make us wise to discern his enterprizes But to cleare all these points let us by the help of Christ prove them one and other as well as presuppose them We must not lose nor cast away any Divine truth because it is questioned but rather contend for it and the more earnestly because it is opposed For the first there is a truth in it though not the whole truth that the Covenant made with Abraham was of temporall blessings such as deliverance from Egypt and the inheritance of Canaan but not of temporall blessings onely nor chiefly even as the Covenant of grace with us though it chiefly convey spirituall and eternall mercies yet it reacheth also to temporall blessings also Hos 2.18 19 20 21 22 23. Reasons hereof from the word are plaine and strong 1. From the Tenor of the Covenant I will bee a God to thee and to thy seed after thee Gen. 17.7 Now God to be a God to us and our seed is more then a temporall blessing even all-sufficient goodnesse for us and ours for our soules and for our bodies for this life and for ever God giving himselfe to be our God the Father giveth himselfe to be our Father God the Son giveth himself to be our Redeemer and God the holy Ghost giveth himself to be our Sanctifier and Comforter And indeed that Christ was promised and given in this Covenant is clear from Luke 1.54 55. and Verse 69 72 73. The holy Ghost also is here promised and given in this Covenant as well as Christ the Angel of the Covenant Esa 63.9 10 11. Secondly in the words of this Covenant God giving himselfe to be a God to Abraham and to his seed hee therein promised life to them yea life after death For the Covenant was so rehearsed by Moses after the death of Abraham Isaac and Iacob Exod. 3.6 Whence Christ undeniably concludeth that God promised and gave to them resurrection from the dead and eternall life Mat. 22.31 32. Luke 20.37.38 Surely resurrection from death and living to God after death are not temporall blessings 3. Canaan it selfe was not given as a meere temporall blessing but as a pledge of a spirituall inheritance a seale of the Church a type of Heaven Gen. 47.21 to 31. and Chap. 50.25 Heb. 11.22 Hence it was that Jacob gave such a solemne charge by oath unto Joseph and Joseph to his brethren the one to bury his dead body in Canaan the other for the transportation of his bones to Canaan which they would never have done for an earthly inheritance but to nourish in the hearts of their posterity faith and desire of their communion in the Church and of their rest in heaven whereof the rest in Canaan was a type whereunto not Moses but Joshua must bring them that is not the law but Jesus Heb. 3.11 with Chap. 4 5.8 And their casting out of that Country by captivity was their casting out of Gods sight 2 Kings 17.28 Whereby their Church Estate was dissolved the Communion of Saints scattered the Ordinances of his publike Worship removed from them and their hopes of heaven Silvester But I have read it strongly pleaded that the Covenant made with Abraham was an old Covenant a Covenant of workes which Christ hath therefore disanulled as old and weake Heb. 8.13 Now still to pleade our owne and our childrens right unto that Covenant and to the Seale thereof is to confound the Old and New Testament Law and Gospel besides Circumcision which was a Signe and Seale of the Covenant with Abraham bound them that received it to keepe the whole Law Gal. 5.3 And therefore the Covenant to which it was annexed was a legall Covenant a Covenant of workes and not of grace The Old Covenant spoken of Heb. 8.13 was not the Covenant made with Abraham but with the Israelites on Mount Sinai when God brought them out of Aegypt as is expresly said Heb. 8.9 which Covenant comming 430. yeares after the Covenant with Abraham is expresly distinguished from it as that which could not disanull the promise or Covenant which went before unto Abraham Ga. 3.17 Silvester But why should the Covenant with the Israelites on Mount Sinai be called old in comparison of the Covenant with Abraham which was 430 yeares older then it The Covenant made on Mount Sinai is not called old in comparison of the Covenant made Abraham bur in comparison of the Evangelicall dispensation of the Covenant of grace by the Lord Jesus in whom the sacrifices and Leviticall Ceremonies being accomplished and abolished we look for atonement not in bloud of Bulls and Goates nor in Legall Ablutions but in the bloud of Christ onely And as for Circumcision though the Apostle say that every one circumcised is bound to keep the whole Law yet that doth not argue that circumcision was to Abraham a signe and seale of the Covenant of works for a double answer may justly be given to it First they that hold that the Covenant given on Mount Sinai was the Covenant of works as doe Melancthon Chemnitius Piscator c. They would answer that circumcision was a signe of the Covenant of workes not as circumcision was given to Abraham but as it was given by Moses for Moses also enjoyned circumcision as a Leviticall rite Lev. 12.3 But Christ himselfe observeth a difference between circumcision as given by Moses and as of the Fathers John 7.22 23. Secondly but they that
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
matter But he speaketh of the Covenant as it was dispensed unto Abraham and to his seed of old And his seed of old was meant Christ and all in Christ then as well as now And therefore if then Ismael was received to the Covenant and to the seale of the Covenant as the seed of Abraham and yet no seed of Abraham was accounted in the Covenant but the seed in Christ it is evident that Ismael was at first accounted to be in Christ though not as elect in Christ nor as united to Christ by his owne faith yet as abiding like a branch in the stock of Abraham in the body of the faithfull in the adoption of God and in the communion of Abrahams family till by persecuting Isaac and by mocking at the grace of Christ in him hee was cut off from that vine and cast out of the Covenant Whence it followeth that if the blessing of Abraham bee come upon us Gentiles and this blessing of Abraham bee the promises and Covenant made to him and his seed and if the seed of Abraham bee accounted all that are in Christ and all are accounted to bee in Christ in respect of the outward dispensation of the Covenant not onely which are elect and which are faithfull but also which are of the seed of the faithfull and live in communion with them till they come to reject Christ and the faith in him then it standeth undeniably firme and certaine that the Covenant of Abraham is made with believers now and and with our seed too even in these dayes of the New Testament The same truth is witnessed unto by the Apostle Peter also in Acts 2.39 as hath been opened above The promise saith hee is made to you and to your children where by promise is meant as appeareth by the former verse the promise of remission of sins and of receiving the holy Ghost which are of the principall sort of the sure mercies of the Covenant of grace It will be a vaine shift to distinguish between the promise and the Covenant here For every promise of God is a promise of one Covenant or other Now in the Covenant of works there is no free promise of remission of sins or of the holy Ghost but all the promises are given to workers Doe this and thou shalt live doe it not and die and be accursed In the New Testament therefore there is a Covenant of grace to beleevers and to their children as was to Abraham and to his seed If it be said this Promise and Covenant was to the Jews and to their children but not to the Gentiles and theirs The answer is plaine and easie it is a promise of the New Testament and in the new Testament the Jew hath no priviledge above the Gentile There is neither Jew nor Gentile there is no difference of any Nation in the spirituall priviledges of the New Testament but all are alike in Christ Jesus If it be said again the promise is to them and to their repenting and believing children and not else This exception hath been refuted above To which let mee adde that the promise was not onely to the repenting and believing Israelites nor onely to their children repenting and believing but God had promised also to poure his Spirit upon their children that they might repent and believe when Jacob is thirsty and like the dry ground God promiseth he will not onely pour out his Spirit like water upon him thus dry and thirsty but also I will poure saith he my Spirit upon thy seed and my blessing upon thine off-spring Isa 44.3 For it is the same water of the bloud and spirit of Christ of which God speaketh when he promiseth to poure cleane water upon them and therewith to take away their hard and stony hearts which must be removed by the spirit given them before they can come to repent and believe Ezek. 26 25. It is to the same purpose that upon the repentance and faith of Zacheus the Lord pronounceth salvation to bee unto his house Luke 19.9 This day saith he salvation is come to this house forasmuch as he also is the son of Abraham which is not only in respect of the Religious care which Zacheus would take to teach his houshould the way of salvation but also in respect of the Covenant by which not onely Zacheus was bound to teach his houshold but the Lord also had bound himself to blesse the meanes of salvation to his houshold as it is written The Lord thy God will circumcise thine heart and the heart of thy seed to love the Lord thy God c. Deut. 30.6 And againe those that dwell under his shadow shall returne Hos 14 7. The like promise of grace doth Paul and Silas preach to the Jaylor that upon his faith salvation should redound to his houshold Believe say they on the Lord Jesus and thou shalt bee saved and thine house Acts 16.31 which also was done and tooke effect the same night afore that the Gaoler could take any great paines for the instruction of them verse 34. All which do plainly argue that the faith of the parent doth bring the children and houshold of a Christian even now in the days of the new Testament under a Covenant of salvation as well as the faith of Abraham brought his houshold of old under the same covenant Whence also it is that Paul proveth the conversion of the Jews after the fulnesse of the Gentiles be come in from the Covenant of God made with their Fathers Abraham Isaac and Iacob For saith he when the fulnesse of the Gentiles is come in all Israel shall be saved as it is written There shall come out of Zion a Redeemer and shall turne away ungodlinesse from Jacob. For this is my Covenant unto them when I shall take away their sins As concerning the Gospel they are enemies for your sake but as touching the election they are beloved for the Fathers sake Rom. 11.25 26 27 28. which plainly argueth that for the Covenant sake made with Abraham Isaac and Jacob the Lord will convert and call home the Jews in the latter dayes although for the present they be rejected for their unbelief Therefore the Covenant of grace the Covenant of Abraham is of like force and extent now now in the dayes of the New Testament unto the faithfull and their seed as it was in the dayes of the Old Testament If it be said that this proveth no more then this that when the Jewes shall turne unto Christ by faith in their Redeemer then they shall inherit the Covenant of Abraham as all believers doe Answ Yes it proveth not that onely but this more that before their faith in Christ whilst they are yet enemies the Lord will turne unto them and give them faith and repentance to turne to him and that out of his Covenant even for the love that hee beareth to them for their godly fathers sake Howbeit we willingly grant that those Jewes who
shall be converted in the latter dayes are no otherwise under the Covenant of grace then in respect of Gods election as the Apostle speaketh Rom. 11.28 But otherwise in respect of the actuall enjoynment of the priviledges of the Gospel such as Church-communion and the seales of that Communion be they are rejected as enemies not for their privative want of faith but for their positive rejection of the faith and of the righteousnesse of faith and of Christ himself But when they shall turne unto the Lord then the Covenant shall run along to them and to their seed as it did of old unto Abraham and to his seed For so Esay prophecyeth of those times This is my Covenant to them that turn from transgression in Iacob my spirit that is upon thee and my words which I have put in thy mouth shall not depart out of thy mouth nor out of the mouth of thy seed nor out of the mouth of thy seeds seed from henceforth and for ever Esa 59.20 21. Finally that known place in 1 Cor. 7.14 though it have beene much wrested and racked to looke and speake another way yet it cannot but beare witnesse to the truth in hand that by the faith of either Parent the children are received into a state of holinesse and so are accounted amongst Gods holy people which is by fellowship in the Covenant By the text and context it appeareth that in the church of Corinth sometimes the wife had been converted to Christianity when the husband still remained an infidell or as it is translated an unbeleever and sometimes the husband had been converted when the wife remained an infidell whereupon it grew a just and weighty doubt whether the believer were not bound in conscience to put away the unbelieving yoke-fellow And the doubt seemed to have just ground from that which might seem to be a like case in the old Testament in the dayes of Ezra and Nehemiah where such as had maried strange wives were commanded of God and covenanted among themselves to put away both their strange wives and the children begotten of them Ezra 10.2 3. Nehem. 13.23 24 25. For resolving this doubt as well as of some others the Corinthians by letter consulted with the Apostle 1 Cor. 7.1 c. And to this doubt the Apostle answereth that the believer should not put away the unbelieving yoke-fellow And for this he giveth a double reason First from the sanctification of the unbelieving yoke-fellow to the believer verse 14. Secondly from the hope or possibility at least which the believer hath of converting the unbelieving yoke-fellow to the faith verse 16. Now the former of these reasons taken from the sanctification of the unbelieving yoke-fellow to the believer the Apostle proveth it by the state of their children Else were your children uncleane saith he but now they are holy The force of this Reason standeth thus If the unbelieving yoke-fellow were not sanctified in the believer and to the believer that is if the believer had not a sanctified use of his mariage communion with his unbelieving yoke-fellow then were your children unclean But your children are not uncleane but now they are holy Therefore the unbelieving yoke-fellow is sanctified in the believer and to him Where in the assumption the Apostle putteth a manifest difference betweene the estate of the children now in the dayes of the New Testament and their estate in the Old as in Ezra and Nehemiah's time In the Old Testament as the unbelieving yoke-fellow was uncleane to the Israelites so were their children uncleane also And therefore both wives and children to be put away Why so Because then there was a partition wall between Jew and Gentile the Gentiles were then strangers from the Covenants of promise Ephes 2 12. and all communion with them was accursed Nehem. 13.25 more feare then that the infidell should pervert the Israelite then hope that the Israelite should convert the infidell But now to wit now in the New Testament now that the partition wall is broken downe between Jew and Gentile now that the Covenant is extended to every believer in each Nation and to his seed now God is a God to the seed of every believer as to himselfe God hath promised to bee a Father to his children and so they are holy by the holinesse of his Covenant And if the children bee holy then the mariage fellowship of the Parents is sanctified to the believer though the other yokefellow remaine an infidell And if the mariage fellowship be sanctified then the maried Parents may lawfully cohabite together though the one a believer the other an fidell This is the plaine meaning and scope of the Apostles words and discourse Which plainly and strongly holdeth forth that the grace of the Covenant is extended to the children of believing Parents in the new Testament as much as in the Old yea and more too For in the Old Testament the Covenant reached not to the children in case an Israelite had children by a Pagan wife whether Moabite Ammonite or Canaanite but now if either of the Parents be believers and so in Covenant let the other Pagan Parent bee of what Nation soever yet the children are in the Covenant and so holy also These Scriptures which you have brought to prove that God hath made a Covenant of grace with believers and their seed Silvester now in the dayes of the New Testament I have heard sundry exceptions made against them As first touching the place in Gal. 3.16 It is said that if the place be well considered it will helpe forward the truth against the receiving of children non-elect into the Covenant For the Apostle here speaketh of the Covenant as comprehending Christ and the seed in him elect unto everlasting life In which sense the Covenant of grace was not made to Abraham and to all his seed without exception for then all his seed must either be saved which no man will say or if they perish then must they fall out of the Covenant of grace And if neither then there were some of the seed of Abraham comprehended in the Covenant in one sense and admitted to the seale thereof whom God excepted against in another sense some of which were Ismael and Esau who in Abrahams generation signified a fleshly seed as well as Isaac and Jacob a spirituall Between which seeds God ever held forth a distinction in all generations from Abraham untill Christ who put an end to the type and the flesh to al priviledges of that nature thereunto belonging 2 Cor. 5.16 Phil. 3.3 4 5. So that now all is laid up in Christ onely for such as believe Silvanus It is a taking away from the Text I meane a straitning of the sense of it to say that Paul in Gal. 3.16 speaketh of the seed elect in Christ unto eternall life For he speaketh of all the seed in Christ now there are a seed in Christ which are not elect in Christ for
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
government was not expressed in the Covenant given to Abraham but in the Covenant and blessing of Iacob It was Iacob that blessed his son Iudah with a scepter Gen. 49.10 But to Abraham it was foretold that his seed should bee a stranger and a servant and in an afflicted estate 400 yeares And though the Lord did not deny them civill government yet neither did he expresly promise it to his seed And as was said above it is the blessing of Abraham that is come upon us and not of Iacob so far as that of Iacob exceeded the blessing of his progenitors Answ 2. It is more then can be proved that the Covenant of Abraham and his posterity after Christ doth not comprehend a civill State for the prophecy of Daniel promiseth that after the destruction of the four Monarchies the Kingdom and the Dominion and the greatnesse of the Kingdome under the whole heaven shall be given to the people of the saints of the most High c. Dan. 7.27 Answ 3. Civill State and Government is but an accessary to the Covenant And though the people of God in the new Testament should never enjoy it which is not to be granted yet what is this to the maine promise of the Covenant That God will bee a God to his people and to their seed throughout all generations The seventh and last difference which you put is as little pertinent to the cause as all the former For what if that Covenant held forth Christ in the flesh to an heart vailed And this holdeth him forth in the Spirit to a face open 2 Cor. 3. Yet this argueth onely a different dispensation of the Covenant by Moses and by Christ But the Covenant of Abraham which was given 430 yeares before the Covenant of Moses did not so vaile nor darken the face of Christ but that Abraham saw Christ though afarre off yet clearely and rejoyced Iâ—hn 8.56 And so did all his spirituall seed after him more or lesse as well as wee But what if the dispensation of the Covenant had been more vayled in all the times of the Old Testament to all the seed then indeed it was yet what is this to the maine promise of the Covenant that God will be a God to a believer and his seed throughout all generations Silvester But let the differences of the Covenant before or since Christ stand or fall as they may yet it is no good consequence from the Covenant that as infants were in that Covenant then and circumcised so infants are in the Covenant now and to be baptized For let these foure things be well considered and they will cleare the contrary 1. What the Covenant is 2. What is that which admits into the Covenant 3. Who are the true approved subjects of the Covenant 4. Whether all have not one and the same way of entrance into this Covenant Silvanus What doe you take the Covenant to be Silvester The Covenant it selfe is a Covenant of grace and salvation by which God of his grace takes a person or a people to himself above all others to be their God and to manifest upon them the riches of his grace and glory And the manner of this is in effect Gods calling of a man to an agreement with himself in his Son wherein he promiseth to be his God and to give him life and happinesse and all things in Christ and that he shall believe and rest upon his faithfullnesse and truth and so take him for his God c. So that the Covenant consisteth of 3. Essentialls 1. The persons two or moe disposed to agree 2. Something to agree upon 3. Their mutuall consent which is the agreement it self Silvanus As the heavens are higher then the earth so are the wayes of God higher then our wayes Esa 55.9 and in speciall the wayes of his grace and of the Covenant thereof with men indeed mutuall agreement and consent is necessary to a Covenant but with God Gods appointment maketh a Covenant whether the creature consent to an agreement or no. God sometimes made a Covenant and established it not onely with Noah and his seed but also with the Fowles and Beasts and every living creature that he would never send a flood to destroy them from off the face of the earth Gen. 9.9 10 11. And this Covenant was onely an appointment of God it did not require any consent or agreement of man much lesse of other creatures to make it a Covenant It is therefore a manifest error to make the agreement or consent on mans part essentiall to a Covenant between God and man It is a second error that in describing the Covenant of grace you omit the seed of believers exclude them from the fellowship of the Covenant as being unable to expresse their consent and agreement to the Covenant Let it be considered in the feare of God whether ever God made any Covenant with any man or people which did not comprehend their posterity also God made a Covenant with Noah did it not reach his posterity also Gen. 9. God made a Covenant with Abraham Gen. 17. did it not reach his posterity also God made a Covenant with the people of Israel Exod. 19. did it not reach their posterity also God made a Covenant with Phinehas Numb 25. did it not reach to his posterity also God made a Covenant with David Psal 89.28 did it not reach to his posterity also If then the Scripture never hold forth any Covenant which ever God made with any of the sons of men but it did reach and comprehend his posterity also why should the Covenant of grace be conceived to run a different course from all the rest of Gods covenants namely to reach unto believers but not to their posterity We are shallow and narrow our selves and so we measure the grace of God and the Covenant thereof according to our owne scantling our narrow capacity Proceed then to declare what is the second thing you wisht might bee well considered to wit what is that which admits into the Covenant That which admits any into the Covenant Silvester and giveth right to enter thereinto is the promise of God in Christ and faith in the same as Nehem. 9.8 The Covenant hath these essentiall parts and visible branches 1. Grace in the agent God 2. Faith in the subject Man 3. An uniting or closing of these together which is that mutuall consent and agreement by faith in the same grace revealed by the gospel which is the word of reconciliation So that it is the blessed word of life and faith in the same that giveth right and admitteth into Covenant with God We deny not that faith in the subject doth admit into the Covenant rightly understood to wit faith in Christ Silvanus and in the word of reconciliation admitteth not onely the faithful person but his seed also though yet wanting faith into the Covenant The text which you quote against it
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
appeare that Christ spake to Nicodemus of entring into the visible Church for Christ did not seek to gather a visible church separate from the Church of the Jews till after his ascension But he spake to him of entrance into the Kingdome of Glory and such a state of salvation in the Kingdome of Grace as onely regenerate persons did attaine unto whether Jews or Christians Christ would never have called Iudas to Office in his Church which is the place of an emiment member if none could enter into the visible Church but regenerate persons Your other place in John 1 1â— 13. doth not speake of the estate of the members of the visible Church in the dayes of the New Testament but of the Adoption and Regeneration of the Elect members of the visible Church of the Old Testament For all the words of the Evangelist Iohn from v. 1. to 14 are a description of Christ 1. What hee was from eternity v. 1 2. 2. What hee was in the Creation v. 3 4. 3. What hee did to men after the fall v. 5. c. 4. What hee did to the world of Pagans by his workes of Creaation and Providence v. 9 10. 5. How hee came to his owne people of Israel in his Ordinances v. 11. And yet many of them received him not to wit by faith in sincerity and truth v. 11. But those that did receive him that is beleeve in him to them hee gave power or priviledge not to bee called but to become his sons v. 12. And these were borne to wit borne againe not by power of Nature but by the grace of God v. 13. Then it followeth the Word became flesh v. 14. So that it may appeare plainly by the Context that Iohn speaketh not of the estate of the people of the New Testament before they can enter into the visible Church but of the spirituall estate of all the beleeving Saints of the Old Testament The other place in 2 Cor. 5.16 wee have opened it above Wee now know no man after the flesh no not Christ himselfe now In which words it is no part of the Apostles scope or meaning to set forth what qualifications are to bee attended to in addmitting members into the visible Church but to direct Church-members and all Christians not to esteeme of themselves others according to common gifts and carnall excellencies and outward Priviledges wherein the false Apostles gloryed v. 12. but to live as those who have fellowship with Christ in his death and resurrection and therefore not to live unto our selves or to this world but unto Christ v. 14 15. And lest it should bee objected Why time hath beene when you Paul your selfe have gloryed in carnall excellencies and Jewish Priviledges yea and have esteemed meanly of Christ himselfe for his poverty sake and because hee was rejected of the high Priests and Elders Paul answereth though we have known Christ after the flesh that is though wee have esteemed meanly of him according to his meane outside yet now henceforth wee neither know or acknowledge him or any man else according to the flesh Where by knowing no man after the flesh he doth not meane that bee now knoweth no seed of the faithfull to have any Priviledge or right unto Church-estate by their naturall birth through the the Covenant of their Parents but that whatsoever priviledge themselves or their Parents or any others have by their Church-estate or Covenant or seales of the Covenant or gifts of knowledge and utterance or the like they should not acknowledge them as things to bee rested till they come to bee new creatures in Christ Jesus And to the same purpose tendeth the other place which you quote Phil. 3.4 5. where Paul calleth all these outward Priviledges flesh and professeth though hee might as well trust in them and boast of them as any other man yet hee counted them all if they bee trusted in without Christ as losse and drosse and dung in comparrison of Christ But if by this argument you would exclude the Infaâ—â—s of beleeving Parents from Church-fellowship and the seale thereof you might as well reject Church-fellowship and Church-Covenant and the seales of the Covenant and all confessions of Faith and subjection to the Ordinances and fruitfulnesse in good workes for all these trusted in are losse and drosse and dung in comparison of Christ nor doth our righteousnesse before God stand in them And thus it was also in the Old Testament as well as now So that all this which you have alledged proveth no difference at all between the Infants of the Jews and the Infants of the Gentiles in respect of spirituall Priviledges For all these places doe as well concerne men of yeares as Infants and Iews as well as Gentiles And though you call us a personall people and the Jews a Nationall people yet neither were they at first Nationall but Domesticall as hath been said And for us if you meane that every beleever receiveth the Covenant of grace to his owne Person but not to his seede It is utterly untrue for the contrary hath been proved at large above and your exceptions answered that one promise of grace might stand for many which Paul gave to the Jailor Beleeve in the Lord Jesus and thou shalt bee saved and thy house Act. 16.31 As also that other testimony of his to the Corinthians that the children of beleeving Parents yea of either Parent beleeving are holy 1 Cor. 7.14 Silvester The holinesse which the Apostle speaketh of in that place to the Corinthians is not the holinesse which proceedeth from Gods holy Covenant of grace but from Gods holy Ordinance of Marriage For under the Gospell there is no holinesse that can inright to any Priviledge of grace but either the holinesse of Christ in whom God looketh upon his children as holy in him and through him giveth them right to all things both in grace and glory Ephes 1.4 5 6. Or that holy frame of Gods workmanship by the holy spirit of regeneration appearing in the holy effects and fruits thereof by which the persons appeare before men to have right to the aforesaid Priviledges There is great difference in point of Holinesse betweene the holy Covenant of grace and the holy Ordinance of Marriage Silvanus The Covenant of grace is holy not onely in regard of the efficient cause because it was instituted by the holy God but also because it giveth right to holy Priviledges and denominateth them to bee holy whether persons families or nations whom God calleth into such Covenant with himselfe For it separateth them from other people and setteth them apart to the Lord and his holy worship Deut. 7.6 7 8 9. But the Ordinance of Marriage is holy onely in regard of the efficient cause because it was instituted by the holy God but it neither giveth right to holy Priviledges nor denominateth them to be holy whom God calleth unto that estate God never called persons or families
seed Yet even in the times of the Law if a Gentile Proselyte especially of a remote Countrey were converted to the Jewish Religion hee was not bound to put away his children which he had by his Pagan wife whom hee had married in the dayes of his ignorance but he was bound to circumcise them as well as himselfe Exod. 12.48 And therefore hee was not bound to put them away but to account them holy and within the Covenant and so capable of the seale of the Covenant And since this believing Proselyte was holy and his seed also holy hee might therefore have a sanctified use of his wife though she still continued unbelieving And therefore if shee consented to dwell with him hee ought not no not then to have put her away but to abide with her which is the very case of the Corinthians here and the one of them doth fitly and fully illustrate the other And therefore further it is not a sound speech which you say touching these Corinthian yoke-fellows whereof one was a believer the other an unbeliever that this must first bee cleared whether they were uncleane or not in respect of themselves before ever they could believe the holinesse of their children or any such to bee in Gods gracious Covenant For as it was with those Proselytes of old so it was with the Corinthians then The believing Corinthian had just ground though hee knew not so much to believe himselfe to bee in the Covenant of grace as well as the believing Proselyte and his seed to be holy and in the Covenant and to have right to the seale of the Covenant as well as the seed of the believing Proselyte And from both to conclude to wit both from his owne faith and from the holinesse of his children that hee therefore hath a sanctified use of his yoke-fellow though yet uncleane in her selfe through her unbeliefe And therefore take notice further that it is another unsound speech of yours to say That it had been in vaine for the Apostle To goe about to prove the lawfull retaining of the unbelieving yoke-fellow from the holinesse of the children being in Covenant For the Apostle doth goe about to prove that very point from that very ground and from none other in that 14 ver Neither was it vaine so to doe unlesse wee charge vanity upon the holy Spirit of wisdome and truth and power that guided him And indeed the Argument is of eternall force both in the Church of Israel and in Christian Churches as hath beene shewn above But this seemeth a very unsound point to mee Silvester which I see you build much upon in this discourse which I cannot passe that by vertue of a believers estate in grace all his fruit is holy and partaketh in the same estate of grace with him unlesse they doe by some act of their owne deprive themselves of it as did Esau and Ishmael Against which I beiefly oppose these Arguments First if this be a truth then one may bee saved by another mans faith For here by vertue of a believers state in grace all his fruit that is his children partake of the same with him and so farre as hee doth onely by vertue of his grace or state in grace which is the same And so by the Fathers faith the Children share together with him in that Grace which his faith instates him in which is salvation it self Secondly This Doctrine taketh away the being of Originall sinne for here they are all holy and partakers of Grace untill they commit some actuall sin which denyeth any Originall sin for that would make them unholy though they never committed actuall sin in their own persons Thirdly it layeth a ground of falling out of an estate of grace For by this Doctrine Esau and Ishmael and all the Children of Beleevers are holy and partakers of the same grace before they committed actuall sin as Gen. 25.23 with Rom. 9.11 12 13. And so Gen. 17.20 21. and 21.9 10.12 But as it tends to Popery and Arminianisme so I shall leave it as an old Creed bare Error not worth any further medling with Silvanus Your bare mistake of our Doctrine in this point maketh your Arguments to fight against an errour indeed and bare enough but not against any Article of our Creed which wee confesse to bee all old even as old as the ancient and everlasting Covenant and yet never a whit the more old and bare by Crediting but the more new and warm by beleeving For to the beleever as to the New Creature all things become new whereas in your despoiling and stripping the Infant Children of beleevers out of the bands the swadling bands of the Covenant you conspire with old Adam herein in their destruction For as hee killed them by his fall so you bury them not in the Land of Promise but in the pit of perdition and land of oblivion and forgetfulnesse as forgotten of God in his Election forgotten of Christ in his Redemption forgotten of the Holy Ghost in his Sanctification and so quite out of the way of holinesse and Grace without Covenant without Hope without Christ without God in the world But to come to your mistake of our Doctrine which lyeth not in this That by vertue of a beleevers estate wee hold all his fruite to bee holy For wee acknowledge that rightly understood as you know wee expresse our selves that by vertue of a beleevers estate together with the vertue of the Covenant of grace to him and his seed all his fruite is holy But when you adde and partake in the same estate of grace with him there you quite mistake us For though all the fruite of a beleever bee holy yet all of them doe not partake with him in the same estate of all kindes of holinesse which their beleeving Father injoyeth much lesse so farre as he doth For whereas there be three sorts of holinesse as hath been touched above 1. One by imputation from Christ 2. Another by regeneration from the Spirit 3. A third by separation to God and to his Worship and to participation of the Ordinances through the Covenant The believing Parent enjoyeth all these but not so all his seed All of them indeed partake of the last Of the first onely the elect but not of the second till they be regenerate And against our Doctrine thus declared your arguments fall like Dagon before the Arke of the Covenant For to the first we readily answer It followeth not that if our Doctrine be a truth then one may be saved by anothers faith For we doe not teach that all within the Covenant or all that are holy by the Covenant are saved or are in a state of salvation But that by the Covenant they are either in a state of salvation or under the meanes of salvation Neither doe we teach that all under the Covenant of grace are in a state of grace unlesse a state of grace be taken in a large sense
for such a state in which they receive the offer and meanes of grace which to the elect seed doe become effectual much lesse do we teach that by vertue of a believers being in a state of grace all his children doe partake of the same grace with him and that so farre as he doth These things wee neither believe nor professe neither can they be gathered from our doctrine by any just consequence Secondly to your second the answer is as easie For 1. We doe not say that the children of believers are holy with that holinesse which accompanyeth regeneration and mortifieth originall corruption but onely with that holinesse whereby they are admitted to the meanes of grace with promise of efficacy to the elect seed and offers thereof to the rest so farre as to leave them without excuse 2. Suppose we did hold that which is farre from us to conceive that all infants in the Covenant were regenerate and so holy as well as their beleeving Parents and as farre as they Yet that would not take away the being or remaining of Originall sinne in them but onely the reigning of it For doe you thinke that the being of Originall sin is taken away from regenerate believers We for our part believe what we have cause to grone under that Originall sin remaineth in a believer and though it be pardoned and in some measure mortified yet it is not utterly destroyed till death To your third wee deny that our doctrine is any ground of falling away out of an estate of grace if you speake of an estate of saving grace For wee doe not say that all within the Covenant or under the seale of the Covenant are in an estate of saving grace Though in a large sense all the members of the Church whether Infants or Professors of the faith are in such a state of grace as that they do partake of the common gifts of grace and of the Ordinances of grace Neverthelesse they may fall away from such grace which the Apostle feared in some of the Galatians Gal. 5.4 To your fourth and last we answer it were a false slander if you should report that our Doctrine doth hold forth that ever Esau or Ishmael were subjects of a saving estate of saving grace For though we say they were borne under the Covenant of grace and were made partakers of the seale of the Covenant yet wee doe not say they were ever subjects of Gods saving grace It is a grace to partake in the meanes of grace and in the enjoyment of many gifts of common grace and in the offers of saving grace and yet many have enjoyed all these who neverthelesse were never subjects of saving grace neither of election whereof your two former texts speake nor of perseverance in the Covenant whereof your two latter speake And to fall from such an estate of grace I leave it to you upon second thoughts to judge whether it tend to Popery and Arminianisme or no. To gather up then the summe of all this discourse about the Covenant of Abraham to an head You have seen it now proved and maintained against all exceptions 1. That God made a Covenant of grace with Abraham and his seed 2. That God gave circumcision to be a seale of the same Covenant to Abraham and to all his infant-seed 3. That by the redemption of Christ the Covenant and blessing of Abraham is come upon the beleeving Gentiles and our seed 4. These things being already cleared the fourth thing that remaineth to be cleared is that circumcision being now abolished Baptisme succeedeth in the roome thereof as a seale of the same Covenant to believers and our seed Which if it may appeare then it will appeare also that the same Covenant of grace which gave a Commandement or word of institution for the Circumcision of faithfull Abraham and his seed doth also hold forth the same commandement and word of institution for the Baptism of faithfull Gentiles and our seed Now that Baptisme doth succeed Circumcision it is evident from the testimony of Paul Col. 2.11 12. where the Apostle having proved that we are compleat in Christ by the fulnesse of the Godhead dwelling in him v. 9 â—0 Lest it might bee objected that wee want circumcision and consequently we want the spirituall benefit signified and sealed by it which is the cutting off of the body of the sinnes of the flesh the Apostle answereth wee are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands in putting off the body of the sinnes of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ v. 11. And lest it should have been objected againe that wee want an outward signe and seale of this spirituall benefit the putting off of the body of the sinnes of the flesh The Apostle answereth again no neither doe we want the outward sign and seale thereof we being buried with him in Baptisme v. 12. The Argument seemeth to me somewhat weake Silvester and therefore a weake answer shall serve What though Baptisme succeed circumcision must it needs follow that as infants were circumcised so they must of necessity be baptized The new Testament succeedeth the Old must it needs therefore follow that the same Order be observed now as then It is well that you acknowledge the weaknesse of your answer Silvanus for if you had not the weaknesse of it bewrayeth it selfe but we acknowledge no weaknesse of the Argument unlesse it bee the weaknesse of God which the Apostle saith is stronger then men 1 Cor. 1.25 But you are deceived if you thinke a weake answer will serve a weake argument a weake adversary despised gathereth strength by contempt The Gileadites being despised as fugitives proved too heard for the Ephraimites Judg. 12.4 The Jewes being despised for a feeble company strengthened themselves in God from the contempt of their despisers Nehem. 4.2 3 4. yea there is no sinfull weaknesse of the Creature no not any weak thought but requireth weapons mighty through God to subdue it 2 Cor. 10.4 5. And therefore you are much mistaken when you thinke a weake Answer will serve a weak Argument But let us consider your answer such as it is What though say you Baptisme succeedeth Circumcision must it needs follow that as infants were circumcised they must of necessity be baptized Yes verily or else Baptisme doth not succeed Circumcision for what is succession but the substitution of latter things for former things in the same subject If the subject bee changed so farre as there is a change of the subject there is no succession If Belshazzar dye and Cyrus or Darius reigne in Persia here is no succession But if Belshazzar King of the Chaldeans die and Darius King of Persia succeed in the Kingdome of the Chaldees then there is a true succession else not especially in the case in hand it was requisite for the clearing of the Apostles doctrine that Baptism should succeed upon all those persons on whom Circumcision proceeded or else the
darknesse in such a dark time might bee capable of Circumcision yet in the light of the Gospel our children are not capable of Baptisme till they become children of light This is a carnall reasoning not savouring of the Spirit of God or speaking the language of the Scripture For though the Spirit of God in Scripture do call the children of God the children of light in opposition to their former carnall estate whether in their Pagancy or in their unregeneracy 1 Thess 5.5 Ephes 5 8. yet God never called the children of God in the Old Testament nor the children of his children children of darknesse Neither doth hee use such a phrase as to call the children of the New Testament children of the light in opposition to the children of the Old Testament as children of darknesse Neither is it altogether a true speech that faith in Christ and grace in the new birth cannot bee where there is not first a begetting by the immortall seed of the word of life For it hath been shewed above that the grace of the new birth and so faith were not wanting in John Baptist Jeremy and others in their mothers wombe who yet had never heard the Word of life Though the hearing of the Word of life bee the ordinary instrument which the Spirit of God is wont to use in begetting the grace of the new birth in men of understanding yet the Spirit himselfe being a principall part of the immortall seed of the Word hee can beget the grace of the new birth without the Word when yet the Word cannot doe it without him And yet I will not deny that in some sense though not in yours it may be granted that the Spirit ordinarily never worketh the grace of the new birth in the children of the faithfull but by the immortall seed of the Word of life For when the Spirit begetteth the grace of the new birth it is by the Ministery of the Word of life to their Parents one of them at least For they hearing the Word of life promising grace and life to themselves and to their seed the Spirit co-working with that Word begetteth faith in them to believe for themselves and for their seed And according to their faith it is done The Spirit begetteth the grace of life as well in their seed as in themselves The greater is the danger of those infants whose Parents like you doe not beleeve the grace of Christ can reach unto your infants and so it is no wonder if your children be deprived of the grace of the new birth for your unbeliefs sake Be it therefore granted which you take for granted in your next words That for this end to wit for begetting the grace of the new birth God hath ordained in the Gospel preaching and believing to goe before baptizing Mat. 28.9 with Mar. 16.15 16. yet this only proveth that the preaching of the Gospel and the begetting of faith by the Gospel is requisite to enstate the hearer in the grace and blessing or which is all one in the Covenant of the Gospel But if the hearer be a Parent of children and so doe believe the Gospel and Covenant of grace to belong to him and to his seed both hee and they according to the order of the Gospel and Covenant of grace are rightly baptized into the name of the Father and of the Sonne and of the Holy Ghost All which persons do joyne together in making this Covenant and sealing to it to be a God to the believer and his seed And if it were not so the place which you quote out of Mark Chap. 16. v. 15 16. would utterly cut off the children of believers dying in their infancy from all hope of salvation which you said even now you were far from For if infants for want of hearing the Word in their owne persons want faith and for want of faitsh may not bee baptized then for want of faith they cannot be saved For so run the words in Marke He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved hee that believeth not shall be damned If for unbeliefe they must not be baptized for unbeliefe they must then bee damned But if by the Gospel we understand as the Scriptures meane the glad tydings of the Covenant of grace and so of redemption and salvation by Christ preached and proclaimed to believers and their seed then al such as doe believe these glad tydings to themselves and to their seed they are commanded by the Order of the Gospel to be baptized themselves and their children with them for their children are by the faith of their Parents wrapped up in the Covenant and so are become capable subjects both of the Covenant and of the seale thereof For though the infants themselves be not it may be then actually believers when their Parents are baptized and themselves with them yet God who calleth things that are not as though they were Rom 4.17 He accepteth them into his Covenant by the faith of their Parents and so they are no longer Pagans and infidells but the children of the faithfull and holy in whom God hath covenanted to worke faith and the grace of the new birth in the elect seed and to offer it and the meanes thereof unto all the seed till they utterly reject it And requireth therefore of the Parents by his Covenant to neglect no meanes of grace for the holy institution of their children And for this end the seale of the Covenant is administred to the Infants to confirme the same to their children on both parts If therefore we delighted in returning reproaches for reproaches as you say to us give the baptizing of believers to Christ and the baptizing of infants unto Antichrist so might we more truly and justly returne it to you Give the baptizing of believers and their seed unto Christ For the Covenant of Christ is to believers and their seed and the seale of the Covenant is due where the faith of either Parent is fit to receive it to their holy seed but give the denyall of baptisme of Infants to Infidels onely and out-laws from the Church where neither of their Parents being believers their children also are Infidels and outlawes like their Parents neither believers nor holy according to Covenant You need not therefore ask what advantage will it be to Infants to come before they bee called For Christ called for little children to come unto him and was displeased with such as did forbid them Marke 10.14 If calling for Infants to come will suffice they cannot bee said to come before they be called Suffer saith he little children to come unto me and forbid them not for of such is the Kingdom of God And they being such hee put his hands upon them and blessed them If you ask why he did not baptize them too for who can forbid Baptisme to such as are blessed of Christ and by imposition of hands set apart to a blessing and to the Kingdome of God I
establish their owne righteousnesse which is by the law And though some of them received Christ as did the false Teachers in the Churches of Galatia and did also acknowledge their freedome from the sacrifices and burnt offerings and from many other Leviticall Ceremonies of the Law yet so long as they looked to be justified by the works of the moral law and retained circumcision as still necessary by the law they still pertained to Hierusalem that now is as the Apostle calleth it and all of them were children of the bond-woman that is of the Covenant of the Law given on Mount Sinai It is therefore a grosse error and withall a notorious injury to the godly Saints that lived in the dayes of the Old Testament to account them the children of Hagar and to make it a part of their bondage that their Infants were received into the fellowship of the Church with themselves No no whilst themselves believed in the promised seed for righteousnesse and salvation and their children were circumcised into the grace of the Covenant the righteousnesse of faith they and their seed were accounted the children of the Covenant of grace the free-woman till any of them rejected that grace as Ishmael and Esau did By this which hath been said may easily bee understood what is meant by Sarah not the state of the Church of the New Testament as you confine it rather then define it but the Covenant of Grace by which God of his Grace gave himselfe to bee a God to beleevers and to their seed both in the Old and New Testament till any of them should afterwards grow up to renounce him and the Grace of his Covenant which if they doe then their Circumcision is made uncircumcision and they renouncing the Covenant of Grace fall under the Covenant of the Law and come to bee accursed by the Law But for the children of this Covenant of whom Isaac was a type they are not onely such as are Regenerate above the ordinary course of Nature by vertue of the Covenant of Grace and so doe beleeve in the promise of Grace for righteousnesse and salvation but also the children of such beleeving Parents whom their Parents doe beget in the Faith of the Covenant and Promise of Grace to themselves and their seed For Isaac himself when he was an Infant born hee was not as then born anew of the promise and spirit of Grace but his Father begot him in the Faith of the Promise And his Mother Sarah by Faith received strength to conceive seed because shee judged him faithfull who had promised Heb. 11.11 The second main pillar upon which your glosse on this Text is held up is that the two sons Ishmael and Isaac type out the different subjects of these two states of Churches Ishmael being a type of the estate in generall of the Church of the old Testament and Isaac being a type of the state of the Churches of the New Testament But neither will this glosse stand with the Apostles words For the Apostle maketh these two sons to bee the children engendred or bred of these two Mothers Now children as they are engendred or bred of their Mothers they are not properly the subjects of their Mothers though they bee subject to them but their effects The Mothers therefore being not the twofold state of the Churches of the Old and New Testament but the two Covenants of the Law and of Grace Ishmael the son of Hagar the bond-woman is the type of all those Members in the Church whether of the Old or New Testament as who look for righteousnesse and salvation by the works of the Law and doe therefore lye under the bondage and curse of the Law such were those in Micah 6. who thought God would be pleased and appeased with thousands of Lambs and ten thousand Rivers of oyle v. 6 7. Such also at that time was the whole body generally of the Priests and Rulers and People of Hierusalem in the Apostles dayes which hee calleth the Hierusalem that now is And such were all the false Apostles and false Teachers and their Disciples in the Churches of Galatia Philâ—ppi and Colosse who refused the righteousnesse of God by faith in Christ Jesus and sought to establish their owne righteousnesse by the works of the law on the other side Isaac being the sonne of Sarah the free-woman and Sarah representing the Covenant of Grace he is the type of all those members in the Church whether before Christ in the Old Testament or since Christ in the New as are begotten and bred of the promise and Covenant of grace wherby by God giveth himselfe to bee a God to the believer and his seed who therefore looke for all their righteousnesse and salvation to themselves and their seed not from the workes of the Law nor from all their outward priviledges but from the grace and righteousnesse of God in Christ Jesus Onely thus much further I will not stick to grant you That as the two Covenants are the two mothers that are represented by Hagar and Sarah so those Churches that are begotten and bred of either of these Covenants and so are themselves the children of the one or of the other of these Covenants they may be said to bee the mothers of those particular members which by their Ministery are engendred and bred whether of the carnall seed of the Covenant of the Law or of the spiritual seed of the Covenant of Grace For in the Hebrew language any whole Society is called a mother and the particular members thereof are called children sons or daughters And this may somewhat further help to cleare the words and meaning of the Apostle in this place For the Apostle here maketh the Covenant of the Law to answer to Hierusalem that now is v. 25. as if so bee the Covenant of the law and the Church of the present Hierusalem which stood for the Covenant of the law were both 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of one rank and either of them might be called an Hagar a mother ingendering their children unto bondage And indeed the Church engendereth and breedeth her children by dispensing and administring the seed of that Covenant of which themselves are begotten In like manner the Apostle maketh the other mother Sarah the Covenant of grace to be all one with the true Church of Christ which he calleth the Hierusalem which is above and maketh her the mother of us all v. 26. Because though shee bee her selfe begotten and bred of the Covenant of grace yet shee dispensing and administring the same spirituall seed begetteth children like her self partakers of the libâ—rty of the sons of God And yet to adde a word more which may tend further to clear the words and meaning of the Apostle as this seed of the Covenant of Grace dispensed and administred by true and pure Churches is rightly called spirituall seed in which the Spirit of grace delighteth to breath and worke and therefore they that are begotten
of it are said to be borne after the Spirit So the seed of the Covenant of the Law is rightly called seed as that which leaveth men that are begotten of it more carnall then they were before For it either puffeth them up to a carnall confidence of their owne strength and righteousnesse or else sinketh them into an horrible pit of diffidence and desperation And therefore they that are begotten of it are rightly and fitly said to be borne after the flesh And that is the very true meaning of the Apostles words Gal 4.29 As it was then so is it now He that was borne after the flesh persecuted him that was borne after the Spirit Where by such as are borne after the flesh the Apostle doth not mean as you understand him such as are born by an ordinary course of nature in a way of a naturall generation but such as are bred and begotten of the carnall seed of the Covenant of the law which as it begot in Ishmael a carnall confidence of his own strength or else he would never have sleighted and mocked the promised seed so it begot in Cain and Saul and Judas an utter despaire of grace and salvation Thus then you see I hope at the length a true and just answer unto your first argument against the Baptisme of Infants taken from the supposed want of command or example of the baptizing of Infants in all the New Testament By that which you have heard it appeareth to the contrary that the Baptisme of Infants hath not wanted a commandement from Christ in the institution of Baptisme Mat. 28. nor a commandement from the Apostle joyned with an example in the first solemne administration of Baptisme Acts 2. nor a commandement and example from the Lord God in the institution of a proportionall seale of the same Covenant in the dayes of Abraham Gen. 17. which though you seem to undervalue because it is fetched out of the Old Testament yet be not you deceived by the equivocation of the name For the Old and New Testament is sometimes put for the Covenants of the Law and of grace as Gal. 4.24 25. sometimes for the Books of the Old and New Testament as 2 Cor. 3.14 Now true it is that the institution of the Covenant of grace and of the seale of the Covenant of grace Gen. 17. is found indeed in the bookes of the Old Testament but the substance of the New Testament and the circumstances of that Ordinance which are changed in the books of the New Testament they are not changed by way of abrogation or diminution but by way of accomplishment and enlargement The Covenant is inlarged from the stock of Abraham to all Nations the seal of the Covenant Circumcision is translated to another more easie and acceptable the time is inlarged in respect of the day the Minister is inlarged in respect of his publike place the subject is inlarged in respect of the sex and surely not diminished nor straitned in respect of the age It is therefore a needlesse pretence to plead That surely the New Testament and the Order Government and Administration thereof are no way inferiour to the old Testament where all things are directed by expresse rule For a great part of the New Testament or Covenant is expresly delivered in the bookes of the Old Testament Paul professeth publickly he taught nothing but what Moses and the Prophets did say should come Acts 26.22 And the greatest part of the bookes of the Old Testament hold forth the Doctrine Worship Order and Government of the New Testament to such who have not a vaile laid over their hearts in the reading of the Old Testament 2 Cor. 3.14 Let us therefore proceed to your other arguments against the baptism of Infants and consider if there bee any greater weight on strength in them CHAP. V. Silvester I Have met with this as a second argument against the Baptisme of Infants That in the Baptisme of infants there is an high contempt and injury offered to Christ as hee is the husband of the Church his holy Spouse to force upon him a naturall wife himselfe being spirituall and desireth the like associate whereas such a Church is founded upon the natural by th namely Infants because commonly to one that is born of the spirit there is twenty born of the flesh Silvanus Christ did not take it as such an high contempt or injury offered to him by Abraham Isaac and Jacob and the whole house of Israel that the infants of his people and of the Proselytes that joyned to them were received into Covenant with him and admitted to the seale thereof when as yet himselfe was as spirituall then as now he is You doe herein apparently charge Christ himself with folly and with indignity offered to himselfe that he should so much forget himselfe that he being spirituall should take so many thousand Infants into the Covenant with him who for the most part are naturall and as you say for one that is born of the Spirit there were twenty born of the flesh But againe let me tell you that though Christ in taking a company to be a Church unto himselfe doth enter into marriage Covenant with them both in the Old Testament Jer. 31.32 and in the New 2 Cor. 11.2 yet not into a marriage Covenant with each member at first Christ entred into a marriage Covenant with the Congregation of Israel in the wildernesse Ezek. 16.8 yet the children of this Congregation he calleth them not his Spouses but his children v. 20 21. Furthermore you shall doe well to observe what Spirit breaths in such a speech when you say That such a Church as receiveth infants of beleeving parents into the fellowship of the Covenant and seale thereof that such a Church is founded upon the naturall birth For the Lord himselfe speaketh of such a Church of Israel as founded upon his Covenant Ezek. 16.8 And the Apostle saith We are built upon the same foundation of the Prophets and Apostles Jesus Christ himselfe being the chiefe corner stone Ephâ— 2.19 20 21. See what a vast difference there is betweene the Spirit of your language and the language of the Spirit of Christ CHAP. VI. 3. I Finde this for a third Argument Silvester against the Baptisme of Infants That this practise overthroweth and destroyeth the body of Christ the holy Temple of God For in time it will come to consist of naturall and so a Nation and so a Nationall Generation and carnall members Amongst whom if any Godly bee they will bee brought into bondage and become subjects of scorn and contempt and the power of Government rest in the hands of the wicked This Argument â—utteth a feare where no fear is Silvanus or at least a causelesse feare For suppose all the Children of the Church bee baptized it is an unwonted and unexpected enlargement in thâ—sâ— dayes for one Congregation to grow so populous as to become a Nation
in iniquity and so by nature the children of wrath and under curse and except they bee borne againe from above they cannot see the Kingdome of God Psal 51.5 Ephes 2.1 2 3. Rom. 3.9 Gal. 3.10.13 14. Iohn 3.3.5 6. Joh 1.12 13. Here man saith that Infants are cleane and holy in and from the wombe and so are subjects of grace and glory but God saith that all Infants one as well as another are first in sinne and unholy and so are subjects of wrath untill the second birth make the difference Joh. 3.5 6. And now which to beleeve let the upright to God judge This whole Argument hath received a full answer above Silvanus wee freely acknowledge what the Lord saith and as wee beleeve wee professe That all of us wee and our children are conceived in sinne and borne in iniquity by nature the children of wrath and under the curse as well as others nor can wee see the kingdome of God nor partake in any saving mercies of the Covenant except wee bee borne againe from above which is all that your alledged Scriptures hold forth touching this point But this we say withall as the Holy Ghost also doth That though this bee the condition of us all by nature yet by the grace of the Covenant God is a God to us and to our seed and therefore by the faith of either beleeving Parent the children are holy and so have the like right to Baptisme as the children of Abraham had to Circumcision Baptisme being now appointed to us by God in the roome of Circumcision to them All which have been cleared above in opening sundry Scriptures that speake to this purpose Gal. 3.13 14 15 16. Act. 2.39 1 Cor. 7.14 Col. 2.11 12. which it were needlesse to expound again unlesse I know what would bee further objected against that which hath beene gathered out of them It is a notorious falshood to say That because wee hold Infants of beleeving Parents to bee holy by the Covenant that therefore wee hold them to bee so clean and holy in and from the wombe as to exempt them from Originall sinne and to make them subjects of grace and glory For though wee did hold that all the Infants of beleeving Parents were regenerate from the wombe which wee doe not yet that would not hinder the tâ—uth of the Text that they were conceived in sinne and borne in iniquity nor would it argue that wee hold them to bee so cleane and holy from the wombe as to bee without sinne No no wee doe beleeve that the most holy regenerate Saints on earth are uncleane and sinfull from the wombe and are still such defiled with originall sinne and the fruits thereof even after they bee Regenerate and though wee say that some of the Infants of beleeving Parents have beene regenerate from the wombe as Ieremy John Baptists and others and accordingly that they were subjects of saving grace and glory yet wee never denyed but doe constantly beleeve that they also were conceived in sinne and borne in iniquity and were by nature the children of wrath as well as others else what need should they have of reconciliation and Atonement by Christ But as for other children of beleeving Parents which are not regenerate by the Holy Ghost as they were from the wombe wee doe beleeve and hold that though they be the subjects of the common grace of the Covenant and so have right to the seale and signe thereof yet we doe not hold them to bee subjects of saving grace much lesse of glory as you doe pretend but to bee still carnall till the Lord bee pleased to apply the saving grace of his Covenant to them in their regeneration which hee doth to all that belong to his election of grace and that according to his Covenant in due time Now therefore when you put it to the upright in heart to judge which to beleeve whether your selves or us as you state the difference wee desire the Lord not to lay it to your charge at the day of his righteous judgement that you put such a false and fraudulent question to the Iudgement of the upright But because I doe from my heart unfeignedly desire your full satisfaction in this great point of Christian practise which doth so neerely concerne the free passage of the grace of the Covenant both to you and your children tell mee yet if there yet be left any stumbling blocke in your way which might hinder the presenting of your Infants to the Lords washing in the laver of Baptisme CHAP. XIII YEs Silvester besides all the former Arguments which I have alledged as I finde them against the Baptisme of Infants I have met with sundry evill consequences which doe unavoidably attend your Doctrine of Infants Baptisme First it makes void the stability of Gods Covenant it self thus If the Covenant of Grace bee absolute and stable then all within the same must bee saved But all within the said Covenant were not saved Ergo the Covenant of Grace is not absolute and stable The Major is confessed that a beleevers seed is in the Covenant of Grace without exception The Minor is proved from Ismael Esau and the rejected Jewes all which were the seede of beleevers and yet all not saved If all the evill consequences Silvanuâ— which you say doe unavoidably attend our Doctrine bee all of them as easily avoidable as this I hope you will see no cause to judge of them as you doe so unavoidable For this evill consequence is easily avoided by such as maintaine the Baptisme of Infants two or three wayes 1. There bee some that will deny that which you call the Major though indeed it be not the Major of that Syllogisme which your selfe propound For that Major was this If the Covenant of Grace bee absolute and stable then all within the same must bee saved But I will not stick with you upon termes though they bee your owne If you call it a Major let it goe for a Major But this which you call a Major there bee some who will deny it and tell you that all the seed of beleevers without exception are not in the Covenant of Grace but the Elect seed onely They will grant you that Ismael and Esau and all such Apostates as doe fall off from the Covenant and grace offered to them they were never under the Covenant of grace but of works onely And yet as all the children of the faithfull were circumcised then Ismael as well as Isaac Esau as well as Jacob so ought they to bee baptized now In this case they conceive the Apostles words stretch so farre Gal. 4.29 As it was then so is it now But 2. Others will answer you another way that though the Covenant of grace bee stable yet it is not absolute stable to the faithfull seed but not absolute but requiring the Condition of faith which condition also God will worke in the elect seede And therefore though Ismael
and Esau were not saved yet it is no impeachment to the stability of the Covenant because the Covenant is onely stable to the faithfull seed which these were not A third Answer somewhat like to this and yet different may be this That though the Covenant of Grace beâ— absolute and stable yet it will not follow that all within that Covenant must bee saved for the Covenant though it bee absolute and stable to all the elect seed yet not to all the seed because all of them are not Elect to whom onely the Grace of Christ is absolute and stable And yet such as are not elect may bee truely said to bee under this Covenant For wee doe not reade in Scripture of any Covenant which is everlasting but onely the Covenant of Grace Jer. 32.40 And yet you read of a wicked generation that have broken this everlasting Covenant Isa 24.5 which argueth they were under the bond of it or else how could they bee blamed as there they bee and cursed for the breach of it They therefore who were not Elected but accursed were under this Covenant and yet they making it void unto themselves it is evident it was not absolute and stable to them The unbeleeving Jews of whom the Apostle speaketh Rom. 11. who were broken off from Christ as branches from the fat Olive tree they had beene in some sense in Christ or else how could they bee said to bee broken off from him And if they were in him and not by faith then were they in him some other way and yet not by Election therefore onely by Adoption or admission into the Covenant of their Fathers which was a Covenant of Grace CHAP. XVI Silvester A Second evill consequence which I finde to bee gathered from your doctrine of the Baptisme of Infants is this that it is a ground of falling from Grace thus All that God tooke into his Covenant of Grace were in an estate of Grace But all that God tooke into his Covenant of Grace did not therein continue Ergo Such fell from an estate of Grace An easy and common distinction will easily avoid this evill conquence For all that God tooke into his Covenant of grace Silvanus may bee said to bee in a state of Grace but what Grace either of common or of saving Grace If your meaning bee all that God tooke into a Covenant of Grace are in an estate of saving Grace wee deny that Major proposition as utterly untrue But if you meane it of common Grace in the carnall seed and of saving Grace in the Elect seed then indeed your Major proposition is very true but no evill consequence will follow upon it For the Elect and faiâ—hfull seed that are in an estate of saving Grace can never fall away And they who do fall away were onely in a state of commom Grace which is no ill consequence nor prejudice to the truth though they doe fall away CHAP. XV. 3. THe Baptisme of Infants is a ground of universall Redemption Silvester for it maketh the Grace of Christ equall as well to such as perish as to such as bee saved Thus all that are in the Covenant of Grace Christ died for But all that were in the Covenant of Grace were not saved Ergo Christ dyed for such as were not saved The proofe of this is the same with the former If God tooke Abraham and his seed into his Covenant of Grace without exeception Though God did take the seed of Abraham and of all other beleevers into the Covenant of Grace without exception Silvanus yet not without distinction The Elect seed hee taketh them all into his Covenant of Grace and into all the sure and saving mercies of the Covenant But the carnall and unfaithfull seed hee taketh them also into his Covenant of Grace yet giveth them not the sure and saving mercies thereof but the common graces onely and the outward dispensation of the Covenant and the seale thereof together with such spirituall gifts of the Covenant as Judas or Demas Saul or Jehu might partake of And even those common gifts the Apostle doth acknowledge that Apostates are sanctified with them by the bloud of the Covenant Heb. 10.29 The Covenant ratified by the bloud of Christ was doubtlesse the Covenant of Grace And yet it was by the bloud of this Covenant by which they were sanctified But to apply my answer more punctually to the termes of your Syllogisme your Major proposition will bee denyed all that are in the Covenant of grace Christ dyed for them If you meane hee dyed for them out of Grace to save them it will utterly bee denyed you That Christ should die for any out of his grace to save them is a sure and saving mercy of the Covenant which is not granted to all the seed within the Covenant but to the elect and faithfull seed onely The very common gifts which such receive from the bloud of his Covenant and so from his death they flow not from the death of Christ out of his saving grace to them but out of his grace to his Church and chosen people for whose sake hee bestoweth such gifts upon Hypocrites CHAP. XVI Silvester THe 4. evill consequence which I have found gathered from the doctrine of the Baptisme of Infants is this That it makes God the Author of mans beleeving an untruth by enjoyning him to beleeve the salvation of such as hee himselfe knowes and reveales the contrary as Ismael Esau and but a remnant among the Jews nay none at all but such as beleeve Gen. 17. Gen. 25. Gen. 48. Rom. 9.27 Against which opinion and evills aforesaid I Argue thus The Covenant is absolute and saving to all once within the same But all the personal seed of beleevers are not saved Therefore all the seede of beleevers are not in the Covenant of Grace The proposition is cleare from these Scriptures Jer. 32.40 Isay 49.21 Jer. 31.3 Ioh. 13.1 Mal. 3.6 Ioh. 10.28 29. The assumption from these Gen. 21.10 with Gal. 4.29 30. Gen. 25.23 with Rom. 9.11 12 13 27. God requireth no man to beleeve untruth therfore God requireth no such thing Silvanus I doe not delight to take exception at words when one may guesse at your meaning though it bee contrary to your words But because you would pick an argument from a true doctrine of God to gather an evill consequence that so God should bee an Author to make a man beleeve that which he himself knoweth and revealeth the contrary I conceive it to tend to the glory of God to observe that your self in laying downe this Argument doe expresse your selfe contrary to that which you know to bee your meaning and doe affirme God to know that which you know is contrary to his knowledge For you expresly make it an untruth and contrary to what God himselfe knoweth and revealeth to beleeve the salvation I doe not say of Ismael and Esau for it is an untruth indeed
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
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
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
onely to such as believe but also for their sakes to their children and housholds In the Old Testament God prospered Ismael for Abrahams sake Gen. 21.13 17 18 19 20. In the New Testament God visited with grace and salvation the Families of Zacheus and of the Jaylor for the housholders sake Luke 19.9 Acts 16.31 Silvester The holy Covenant consisteth of three essentialls for entrance thereinto First the word of God to reveale the same Secondly Christ to open the way and to enright the party therein Thirdly faith without which none can enter thereinto for as none can come unto God or into Covenant with him but by Christ so none can come unto Christ but by faith Job 14.6 with John 6.44 45. Heb. 11.6 Let all this be well considered and then see how infants can be discovered to be in the Covenant and what way of entrance hath God by his word appointed for them to come in and denyed the same unto other I will not straine at your word Essentialls Silvanus though all things that are necessary to the entrance or being of a thing are not straightway essentiall to it Gods providence is necessary to the being and entrance of sin but it is not essentiall to it But I willingly admit of your three necessary Ingredients for entrance into the Covenant and finde none of them wanting to enstate and interest the Infants of believing Parents into the Covenant First the Word of God revealeth such a Covenant of grace wherein God giveth himselfe to be a God to the faithfull Parent and to his seed So hee gave himselfe to faithfull Abraham and to his seed Gen. 17.7 This Covenant of Abraham the Scripture revealeth to be come upon the believing Gentiles and their seed as hath been shewed above Secondly Christ himselfe hath opened the way to enright the children of believing Parents into the Covenant by redeeming us Gentiles as well as Jews from the curse of the Law that the blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles Gal. 3.13 14. And the blessing of Abraham is to a believer and his seed Gal. 3.16 And this hath been further cleared above Thirdly faith is not wanting to enstate the seed of believing Parents into the Covenant seeing God hath promised upon the faith of the Parent salvation to his houshold Acts 10.31 Luke 19.9 It is a vaine exception to say that if infants bee entred into the Covenant by the faith of their Parents that then they who bee not naturally begotten and born in the Covenant are denyed the same way of entrance into the Covenant which is granted to infants For first wee doe not say that any man is naturally begotten and born in the Covenant For the children of believing parents are naturally the children of wrath as well as others Ephes 2.3 But yet neverthelesse though naturally they bee the children of wrath yet by vertue and grace of the Covenant they are holy 1 Cor. 7.14 Secondly though they who are not begotten and borne of faithfull Parents cannot plead right in the Covenant by the faith of their Parents yet they may claime it by their owne faith if God grant it to them If not it is no marvaile to a Christian heart that the faith of believing Parents conveyeth a greater blessing to their children then unbelieving Parents can expect to themselves or theirs Doth not obedience to the Law convey a farre greater blessing unto a godly man and his seed even to a thousand generations then a wicked carnall parent can expect to him and his Exod. 20.5 6. And if so then doubtlesse the obedience of faith may expect a far greater blessing to a beleever and his seed then an infidell or unbeliever can hope for in his naturall and carnall estate and course to himself or his Silvester If infants be in the Covenant of grace by vertue of their birth from believing parents then such infants are borne in a saving state of grace and were never out of the same Which doctrine maketh void many heavenly and divine truths which speake to the contrary which lay all under sinne and curse till Christ by his blood redeeme them and by his heavenly voice call them and by his Spirit beget them unto a lively hope who are therefore said to bee borne againe from above For none can be under grace and under wrath and curse at one and the same time in the outward dispensation of the same Silvanus It doth not follow that if infants be in the Covenant of grace by vertue of their birth from believing parents then such infants are borne in a saving state of grace For the Covenant of grace doth not give saving grace to all that are in the Covenant but onely to the elect Nor doth it give saving grace to them alwayes in their birth but in the season wherein the Lord in his purpose of election had fore-appointed to give it to the children whom God hath not elected The Covenant of grace doth not give them saving grace at all but onely offereth it and sealeth what it offereth Neither doth this make void any heavenly and divine truth at all For though all bee under sinne and wrath and curse til Christ by his blood redeem them and by his heavenly voice call them by his Spirit beget them yet Christ was a Lambe slaine in respect of the vertue and efficacy of his death from the beginning of the world And though elect vessels may bee under the curse till they bee called and regenerated from above yet are they at one and the same time under grace but in divers respects Under the curse and wrath by nature under grace by the election of God and the Covenant of their fathers At one and the same time Apiathar was a man of death by desert and yet by the Kings favour a man of life 1 Kings 2 26. The Israelites at one and the same time were enemies for our sakes and yet beloved for their fathers sake Rom. 11.28 And in very truth if the elect children of God were not under grace before Christ call them by his heavenly voyce or before hee regenerate them by his Spirit how is it possible they should be effectually called or regenerate at all For in the feare of God consider is not effectuall calling a regeneration a worke of Gods grace in Jesus Christ is it not a fruit of Gods electing and redeeming grace in Christ The one wrought for us before the world was made the other before wee were borne And can the sin of our nature which followed after extinguish or make voyd the rich grace of Christ which was before all causes in us If effectuall calling and regeneration bee the worke of Gods grace then it is the effect of Gods grace and if it be the effect of Gods grace then the grace of Christ is the efficient cause of our effectuall calling and regeneration and the efficient cause is alwayes in nature and ordinarily in
time before the effect And therefore it cannot be but that the elect children of God are under grace before their effectuall calling and regeneration It is not our Doctrine therefore but yours that maketh void many heavenly and divine truths even the fundamentall truths of the free grace of Christ which your predecessors in this way did plainly discerne and therefore they thought it best not to contradict themselves as you doe To say that children are not under grace nor under a Covenant of grace till they be called by Christs heavenly voice and by his Spirit begotten from above and yet withall to grant election and regeneration to be of grace But they seeing plainly these could not stand together the utterly denyed election to bee of grace but of foreseen faith or works And they denyed also regeneration to bee of Gods free grace but of mans free will which whether it make void many heavenly and divine truths of grace let the word and Spirit of grace judge Well thus at large wee have examined the exceptions which you wilâ—â— to be considered against some of those proofes from Scripture which were alledged to confirme that as in the Old Testament God made a Covenant with Abraham and his seed so now in the New Testament the faithfull inherit the same Covenant with us and our seed But you said above you had heard sundry exceptions against the rest of the proofes from Scripture which were alledged to the same purpose If you please then let us now consider of those other exceptions if there be any more weight in them then the former Silvester It is true I remember you alledged above that speech of Christ to Zacheus Luke 19.9 to prove that when Zacheus was converted his houshold was received unto a Covenant of grace and salvation Because Christ said This day is salvation to this house in as much as hee also is the son of Abraham you alledged also Rom. 11.27 28. to prove that the Jewes the posterity of Abraham shall be converted to the faith out of respect to the Covenant of their Fathers And likewise you alledged the Apostles speech in 1 Cor. 7.14 to prove that the faith of either Parent did bring their children under the holinesse of the Covenant And I said no more but truth that I have heard some exceptions against all these proofes Silvanus Let us hear and consider of them And first what have you heard alledged against that proofe from Luke 19.9 Silvester I cannot say that I have read the exception in any printed Book but in conference I have heard it interpreted thus This day is salvation come to this house that is Christ who is salvation came into Zachâ—us his house to dine with him because Zacheus was now become a penitent and faithfull child of Ahraham Silvanus This glosse if it had been printed had been never a whit the more authentique interpretation but onely the more notorious corruption of the Text. For 1. it is not said in the originall this day is salvation come to this house though it be so translated but this day salvation is to this house which argueth Christ spake not of his commiâ—g to dine in Zacheus his house but of his salvation resting upon the family 2. The reason which Christ giveth why salvation is to the house will not stand with the glosse for saith hee salvation is to this house inasmuch as he also is the son of Abraham Now if Zacheus his becomming the son of Abraham had been the reason of Christ his comming into his house to dinner it would have argued that unlesse hee had been a penitent convert Christ would not have come into his house to dine But the same evangelist telleth us the contrary That Christ went into the House of one of the Pharisees to dine with him whom yet hee sharply reproveth as one whose inside was full of ravening and wickednes Luke 11.37 38 39. But what exception have you heard or read against the conversion of the Jews out of respect to the Covenant of their Fathers according to Rom. 11.26 27 28 I have read that there be divers difficulties that will not bee granted about the Jews comming in Silvester I shall therefore let that stand by untill that time commeth or till it bee revealed from some Scripture how the same shall be The Books in which you read of divers difficulties about the Jews comming in they speake not without cause Silvanus there be difficulties indeed about the same And I may tell you more they are difficulties impossible to bee assoyled according to the Tenents and Principles of those Books For grant that for truth which the Apostle expressely teacheth for a Mystery That after the fulnesse of the Gentiles bee come in to wit come in from their Antichristian Apostasle that then all Israel shall bee saved upon whom in the meane time blindnesse lyeth Rom. 11.25 26. And grant this also for a truth which the Apostle likewise expressely addeth Verse 27 28. that this shall bee out of respect of Gods love Covenanted with their Fathers then this will prove a difficulty inexplicable how God in the New Testament shall convert the posterity of Abraham Isaac and Jacob out of his love to their Fathers and yet no man is partaker of grace by the Covenant of his Fathers till himselfe doth actually believe For can men actually believe till they be converted And is not conversion it selfe made a fruit and effect of Gods love his Covenanted love unto their Fathers and for the Fathers sake unto their seed Besides this will be another difficulty and as hard to be resolved as the former how the Apostle can call the Jewes the naturall branches of the good Olive tree and make their conversion much more kindly and as it were more easie and naturall then the conversion of the Gentiles was and yet hold as your Bookes doe that in the New Testament God hath not respect in his Covenant to the naturall seed or branches at all It is easily acknowledged and justly bewayled by the fall of our first Parents corruption of nature is alike in all men Conversion unto grace is as much above and against the corrupt nature of the Jews as of the Gentiles But yet presuppose a covenant of grace with the believing Ancestors of the Jews to continue in the dayes of the New Testament to their natural posterity And then it wil be easie to conceive how the Jewes though by corrupt nature they are as averse to be graffed into Christ as the Gentiles be yet by nature of the Covenant they are much more easily graffed in then the Gentiles More easily I say not in respect of their owne 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the goodnesse of their owne nature or naturall disposition and propension to grace for they are naturally as stiffenecked as any people but in respect of the nature and kinde of the Covenant of grace given to their
Ancestors and to their seed According to which God is more readily inclined to poure out the Spirit of his grace upon the seed and off-spring of his covenanted people then upon strangers and aliens But take away the Covenant of grace from believing parents to their children and truly this difficulty of the more easie conversion of naturall branches will prove as the former did inexplicable Moreover there will yet bee another difficulty and as hard as both the former how to make good sense of the Apostles Argument whereby he proveth the conversion and holinesse of the Jewes in future ages from the holinesse of their godly Ancestors in times past and yet deny as your Bookes doe the continuance of the Covenant of grace from believing Parents to their naturall children now in the dayes of the New Testament The Apostle in Rom. 11.11 and so forward declaring the ends of the rejection of the Jewes hee made this to be one the reconciliation and salvation of the Gentiles to be a meanes to provoke the Jewes to emulation that at length they also might come on to salvation by the example of the Gentiles which he further declareth will bee a great advantage to the Gentiles And that he proveth verse 15. by an argument from the lesse to the greater if the casâ—ing away of the Jewes was the reconciling of the world what saith he shall the receiving of them bee but life from the dead And that there shall be such a receiving of them he proveth from the holinesse which by the institution of God is derived from the first fruits to the whole lumpe and by the Covenant of God from the root to the branches ver 16. For saith hee if the first fruits be holy so is the whole lumpe and if the root be holy so are the branches The force of this Argument dependeth upon the force of the Covenant of grace and the continuance thereof from parents to their naturall children even now in the dayes of the New Testament as well as of the Old For by the tenor of the Covenant God is a God to holy Fathers and to their seed after them And if God be a God to their seed it reacheth forth a twofold blessing to their seed that all their seed are holy by Gods adoption Rom. 9.4 and so by their appropriation and relation unto God till themselves doe reject him Secondly that some or other of them God will ever reserve to wit all the elect seed to be called effectually to the fellowship of his holinesse and to the holinesse of their holy Ancestors And these blessings being presupposed and granted by Covenant the Apostles argument is plaine and strong That if the Patriarchs Abraham Isaac and Jacob be holy who were the first fruits and the root of the house of Israel then as all the house of Israel were an holy people till they obstinately rejected the Lord Jesus So will God reserve an elect seed of them to be called and received to the fellowship of his holinesse and the holinesse of their Ancestors in his due time But if you abrogate the continuance of the Covenant of grace from holy Parents to their naturall children now in the dayes of the New Testament it will bee a difficulty in my weake judgement past all resolution how the Apostles Argument can be of any force to prove the conversion of the Jews unto holinesse from the holinesse of their Ancestors seeing their Ancestors are no first fruits and root unto them till they come to bee converted and being converted doe believe as well as their Ancestors And whether ever they will come to bee converted or no is as uncertain for all their relation to their holy Ancestors and for all their Ancestors Covenant with God as is the conversion of any other Infidels The Gospel holdeth forth Abraham for a root of Jews and Gentiles Silvester and that is onely in respect of his faith and faithfulnesse and so is hee the patterne and Father of the faithfull that resemble him in the same So that Jews and Gentiles are Abrahams branches onely as they spring out of the same root by faith which declares them to be his true naturall branches so farre onely as they appeare to bee of the same faith as hee was But now for the Jews that they were broken off it was onely for want of their actuall believing the Gospel as Rom. 11. and opposing the same Acts 13.46 And so were the Gentiles received in onely upon their actuall believing and receiving the same For as the Word condemneth none but with respect to actuall sinne no more doth the Word justifie any Jewes or Gentiles but with respect to actuall Faith And as every one 's own faith inrighteth to life so everyones own faith inrighteth to the priviledges of life Silvanus It is true the Gospel holdeth forth Abraham for a Father and so for a root both to Jews and Gentiles that believe Rom. 4.11 12. But in Rom. 11.16 the Apostle holdeth forth Abraham as the root of the Jews who were his naturall branches not by faith as you would have it but by naturall generation through grace borne under his Covenant in opposition to the Gentiles yea to the believing Gentiles For he maketh the rejection of the Jews a meanes of the conversion of the Gentiles and the conversion of the Gentiles a meanes of the conversion of the Jewes at last and the conversion of the Jewes a meanes of awakening and reviving of the Gentiles verse 15. And this he proveth from the holinesse of their root Abraham and thereupon inferreth the calling on of the Jews unto holinesse verse 16. And though for the present the Jews be as branches broken off through their infidelity and the Gentiles by faith received into their place verse 17. yet he exhorteth them not to boast against the Jews verse 18. nor to be high minded in themselves verse 20. For if the Gentiles which had been branches of the olive tree wilde by nature were contrary to nature graffed into the good olive tree then much more shall the Jewes which are the naturall branches be graffed into their owne Olive tree verse 24. which argueth evidently that he speaketh of the Jewes as the naturall branches of Abraham and that not by faith for then why were they broken off as it is said God spared not the naturall branches verse 21. but by naturall generation borne through grace both of the Ioynes and Covenant of Abraham and so their conversion is inferred to proceed more kindly and naturally then did the conversion of the Romans and other Gentiles For they were not cut off from the wilde olive as the Gentiles were but onely broken off from the good olive for a season that they might much more readily and freely bee graffed into their owne olive againe to wit with much more liberty and free passage of grace in the channell of the Covenant Again it is not true that you say that
is to performe his Covenant and all that he promised to them in their father Abraham with reference to Christ in whom as the root God established his Covenant for these his holy branches Rom 11.12 verse 26. Now the lump generally considered comprehends all both the first fruits and the latter For except the first fruits were part of the lumpe it could not give testimony that the lumpe was holy which lumpe is Gods elect in Christ with reference to their believing in him and so the approved subjects of Gods gracious Covenant and heires aprarent to the Kingdome of Christ as were Abraham Isaac and Jâ—cob believing the first fruits of that lumpe They first appearing in the Covenant of grace in a visible way by faith they were holy And so that remnant which God had still among them was holy with reference to the same estate the first fruits were in The same consideration is to bee had of the lumpe with reference to that estate which God in his time shall call them unto by his Gospel and so are holy also for this must respect a visible holinesse suitable to that in the first fruits otherwise it maketh nothing to the thing in hand Now a word or two also of the root and branches the root here is that from which the Jewes were cut off and the Gentiles graffed in And that is not onely believing Parents and so the same with the first fruits but Christ mystically considered with reference to the rules of Order Ordinances and Government laid downe in the New Testament for all such to believe and submit unto whom God approveth true subjects of the same In which respect Christ is called a vine a root and the foundation Joh. 15.1 Rom. 15.12 Rev. 5.5 22 16. Isa 28.16 1 Cor. 3.11 Ephes 2.20 That the root is meant Christ as aforesaid appeareth First in that he is the root or olive tree out of which the Jewes are cast and the Gentiles graffed in Rom. 11.17 19 23 24. Secondly in that the Apostle chargeth the Gentiles that if they boast themselves against the Jewes they beare not the root but the root them vers 18. That is thou appearest not to have the truth of grace and so not the true nature of the truth and life of Christ in thy heart but onely an outward forme of the profession of him as John 15.2 Thirdly from the consideration of that which the Jewes refused and the Gentiles received which was Christ aforesaid Therefore it is Christ in his mysticall Order and Government amongst his Saints that is here the root and olive tree with his Spirit in his Ordinances issuing forth sap and fatnesse of life and comfort into every believing heart as a branch of the same This will yet more clearly appeare if we consider what was the Jews owne naturall root and olive tree whereof they were naturall branches onely by faith as the Apostle so declares them Vers 20 21 24. which was union and communion onely with God in all his Divine Ordinances and Worship which in the Old Testament was Mosaicall and typicall in which respect the Jewes were the first that ever God tooke in communion with himselfe in such an holy way of Worship and therefore called the first fruits of his love and naturall branches which order and manner of Worship but not the matter was changed at the comming of Christ in the flesh and a new forme and order set up by him called the Gospel or New Testament which order the Jews opposed and were rejected Christ the sure foundation laid in Zion becomming a stumbling stone and rock of offence to the Jews the Kingdome of God was taken from them that is they were cast out of fellowship and communion with God in respect of his Worship for their unbeliefe and the Gentiles that did submit to the Gospel were taken in by faith in Christ to bee his worshippers and heires both of grace â—â—d glory And when God pleaseth to call the Jews by the Gospel to beleeve in his Son and to submit to him as he is the Mediator of the New Testament then shall they be received in againe into their old fellowship and communion with God according to the order of Moses And thus the Apostle proves their first estate to be holy as the first fruits of thâ—t holy and blessed relation wherein they stood towards God by faith From which they for their unbelief are cut off and the Gentiles by faith admitted in of meere grace and not to boast And yet there is a remnant of them to be called as the Lumpe and a second fruit which are also holy in reference to the same holy root as aforesaid And as the root is holy so shall these branches be when they come to bee graffed in againe to their own root and olive tree as at the first which is union and communion with God in his holy way of Worship And so much of the root or olive tree which must bee understood of Christ mystically considered and not of beleeving Parents as aforesaid Now a word of the branches which being holy are believers onely in the Apostles sense First they are branches onely as they subsist and grow in the root or vine and so beare the true nature of the same by which they appear to be holy by the fruits therof Christ being the root or vine as aforesaid the branches can no way be said to subsist and grow in him as their root but onely by faith and hee in them by his Spirit without which there is no holinesse in the Apostles sense who speaketh of such an holinesse as is produced in the branch by the holy root in which it ingrows and so partakes of the nature of the root by vertue of union and communion which it hath with the same All which is by faith as the word revealeth Secondly there is no branch that is alive in the vine but partakes of the sap and life of the same by vertue of which the branch though never so young and small is discovered to be alive and inabled to bring forth in its season such fruit as whereby the same may be discerned So it is hereby the spirituall branches they cannot properly bee called branches in the Apostles sense but as they partake of the life and grace of Christ their true vine and olive tree by which they appeare at the least to bee alive in him by faith and enabled by the same to bring forth such fruits as may discover them to bee in Covenant of grace and so to be admitted â—â—to the priviledges thereof as John 15.1 7. Nature it self teacheth as much for no man will admit of dead plants to be set in his vineyard or graffed into a stock but onely such as are capable to comply with the same in the sap and nourishment thereof to the end it may grow and bring forth fruit and so it is with Christ who commeth not short of nature And
therefore hee admits not of any dead plants to be set in his spirituall vineyard nor dead members to bee joyned in his mysticall body but onely such as are capable by faith to comply with the head Neither tooke he for himself a compound body consisting both of living and dead members which all are that have not a living principle of grace and faith in him which unbelievers have not no nor all the Infants of believers nor any at all untill they are born again of the Spirit Joh. 3.5 6. The Church of God which is the mysticall body of Christ is not a mixt company but onely one substantiall and royall substance suitable to her head and matter by which she was produced being the immortall seed of the Word And therefore one holy spirituall uniforme compacted body both for nature and forme Cant. 6.9 Mal. 2.15 Ephes 2.14 to 22. Job 4.23 All which considered proves the body of Christ or Church of God under the New Testament not to consist of unbelievers nor of Infants neither in whole nor in part and so the branches aforesaid not to be understood of unbelievers or infants but of believers onely That which you say Silvanus that the Jewes were the people of God in a twofold consideration First as a nationall people descended from the loynes of Abraham by naturall generation according to the flesh Secondly some of them owned in a more speciall manner with reference to his gracious Covenant made with Abraham and established with Isaac c. This is not rightly spoken according to the tenor of Scripture language For none of the Jews much lesse the whole Nation was the people of God as they descended from the loynes of Abraham by Naturall generation according to the flesh but onely with reference to his gracious Covenant made with Abraham and with his seed after him If you set aside the consideration of the Covenant the seed of the most holy of Gods Saints are children of wrath and not a people of God Neither let this seem to you of dangerous consequence that if God accounted the whole Nation of the Jewes to bee his people with reference to his gracious Covenant then all the whole Nation must have been in a true and saving estate of grace and so all of them either saved or fallen from a state of grace For this consequence will not follow as hath been shewed above But it is true that you say that God did in a speciall manner owne Isaac and so all the elect seed with whom he established his Covenant not so with Ismael And yet it may not be denyed that God did establish his Covenant to all the seed of Isaac by Jacob and that not onely to the elect seed but to the whole Nation till the ten Tribes rejected not onely the house of David and the Worship of God in the Temple where God had put his name but also the Ministery of the Prophets whom God sent to reclaime them as afterwards the two Tribes of Judah and Benjamin commonly called the Jewes rejected Davids Lord the Lord Jesus and his righteousnesse and the Ministry of the Apostles But before that rejection evident it is that in the wildernesse God did by his gracious Covenant even establish the whole Nationall posterity of Jacob to be a people to himselfe Deut. 29.10 11 12 13. And the Word used in the originall for the establishing of the whole Nation to become Gods people ver 13. is the very same which God used when he promised to establish his Covenant with Isaac Gen. 17.19 And therefore it is not true which you say That in the naturall children of Abraham God onely respected his chosen in Christ with whom he confirmed his Covenant with Isaac in reference to Christ For the words of the Text doe plainly expresse that God by Covenant did confirme or establish the whole house of Iacob to be a people to himselfe according to the Covenant which he had sworn to Abraham Isaac and Iacob Deut. 29.13 whence it was that as the Apostle saith to the Israelites one and other pertained the adoption and the glory and the Covenants and the law and the service of God and the promises c. Rom. 9.4 where he speaketh of such Israelites as for whom he had great heavinesse and continuall sorrow in his heart in respect of their unbelief vers 2. Neverthelesse this I willingly grant you that God had a speciall respect to the elect and faithfull seed as to whom hee reserved the effectuall application of the spirituall and sure mercies of the Covenant though the externall dispensation of the Covenant and of the seales of the Covenant and of all the Ordinances of Gods worship was generally granted to all the seed whether elect or non-elect faithfull or hypocrites But to passe by your generall discourse of the state of the people of the Jews in the Old Testament let us attend to that which commeth nearer to the argument in hand to wit to the generall scope of the Apostles discourse in the 11. Chapter of the Epistle to the Romans which you say is concerning the breaking off of the Jewes and the occasion thereof as also their calling by the Gospel wherein you tell me the Apostle ever defends the faithfull seed of the Jews against the generall rejection of that Nation And it is true he doth so in the former part of the chapter from ver 1. to 10. but that is not his generall scope throughout the whole Chapter For his general scope is to declare three things touching the rejection of the Jews First that it is not universall ver 1. to 10. Secondly that it is not unprofitable ver 11. Thirdly that it is not irrecoverable which he prophecyeth proveth and amplifyeth v. 12. to the end of the Chapter For the 1. That their rejection was not universall he proveth first from his owne example who was an Israelite ver 1. 2. From Gods fore knowledge which is immutable ver 2. 3. From the like reservation which God made of a remnant in the dayes of Elijah ver 3 4 5 6. And this reserving of a remnant he amplifieth by the cause the election of grace ver 5 6. And by the contrary the rejection of the rest which he proveth by the testimony of Isay 7.8 also of David ver 9 10. And thus farre he defendeth the faithfull seed of the Jewes against the generall rejection of that Nation 2. He proveth that their rejection is not unprofitable by giving an instance in an unspeakable blessing which thereby redounded unto the Gentiles to wit the salvation of the Gentiles ver 11. 3. That their rejection is not irrecoverable or finall but on the contrary that their restoring and conversion is to be expected He proveth first from the great benefit which hee prophecyeth shall thereby redound to the Gentile-churches which will be our riches and fulnesse and as it were our life from the dead And that he proveth by an
argument from the lesse ver 12 15. Secondly he proveth their conversion is to bee expected by the end of his owne Ministery which he professeth to bee to save the Gentiles for this end that so hee may provoke the Jewes to the emulation of the Gentiles in receiving of the Gospel and by that meanes save some of them ver 13 14. and thereby also bring on a greater increase of light and life to the Gentiles ver 15. Thirdly he proveth their rejection is not irrecoverable but rather that there is certain ground of their conversion from the holinesse of their Ancestors which deriveth in like sort holinesse to them as the first fruits being holy derive holinesse by Gods institution to the whole lump and the root being holy deriveth holinesse by Gods Covenant to the branches ver 16. Whereupon by the way he inserteth a grave admonition to the Church of Rome to beware of boasting either against the Jewes for their Apostasie or within themselves for their owne stability in the saith For the Holy Ghost did foresee that the Church of Rome above all the Churches of the Gentiles would bee most forward to boast of their infallibility and stability in the faith by reason of the promise pretended to be made to Peters Chaire above all the promises made to Hierusalem of old which boasting the Apostle represseth 1. By calling them to consider their former state they were branches of the olive tree wilde by nature vers 17. 2. By putting them in minde they received the Gospel from the Iewes not the Iewes from them thou bearest not the root but the root thee v. 18.3 By the greater danger or possibility of apostasie and rejection of the Romans then of the Iewes for if God spared not the naturall branches to wit the Iewes take heed lest he also spare not thee v. 19. to 22. 4. He both together represseth the Arrogancy of the Romans and withall proveth that the Rejection of the Iewes is not irrecoverable but their conversion more hopefull then the conversion of the Romans was by an Argument taken both from Gods power v. 23. and also from the naturall estate of the branches v. 24. which maketh their conversion more easy If thou Roman wert cut off the Olive Tree which is wild by nature and wert by a power above nature graffed contrary to nature into a good Olive Tree how much more shall these which be naturall Branches bee graffed into their owne Olive Tree 5. He Represseth the same Arrogancy of the Romans and with all proveth the conversion of the Iewes by a word of prophecy both by his owne Testimony v. 25. and by the Testimony of the Prophet Isay v. 26 27. 6 Hee prosecuteth the same conclusion of the conversion of the Jewes and demonstration that their rejection is not small and irrecoverable by an argument taken from the immutability of Gods electing love to the children of such whose fathers he hath given an effectuall calling unto in the fellowship of his Covenant of grace v. 28 29. 7 He proveth and amplifieth the same by an argument à Pari from equalls thus As you when you were unbeleivers have now obtained mercy through their unbeleife so they now not beleiving shall obtaine mercy through your mercy v. 30 31 32. Finally he concludeth all with an holy and Affectionate Admiration of the depth of the riches of the knowledge and wisedome of God in these his unsearchable Iudgements and wayes v. 33. to 36. I have the more fully opened to you the Analysis of this whole chapter that you may the better discern both the true scope of the Apostle and withall your owne fallacy in perverting the Apostes scope to such a meaning as will not suite with his words For you so carry the Apostles scope as if he wholly intended throughout all this discourse to defend a remnant of faithfull Iewes against the generall Apostasie and rejection of that Nation And lest it might appeare that the Apostle had a principall ayme in the latter halfe of the chapter to prove as he evidently doth the conversion and restoring of the Nation from the state of Apostasie and infidelity unto the Faith of Christ and his Gospell you would have the Apostle understood to speake of the Iewes in a state of faith and holinesse and the whole lumpe of them to be holy by faith as their first fruits Abraham Isaac and Iacob And lest it should be thought that God will convert and restore the Iewes as some of the Apostles Arguments carry it out of respect to his Covenant with their holy Ancestors Abraham Isaaoc and Iacob out of whom they descended as branches out of a root you would have the root not to be meant their holy Ancestors but Christ and themselves to be holy not by vertue of any Covenant of God with their Ancestors for that you see would fetch in Infants and others of their Naturall seede within the bounds and benefit of the Covenant but by vertue of their actuall Union and Communion with Christ through faith in his Name And lest it should be humbled at as justly it might why the Apostle should spend so many Arguments to prove the restoring and ingraffing of the Iewes into Christ after â—â—â—y have come to injoy Union and Communion with Christ you would have Christ to be understood not personally as a Redeemer and Saviour but mystically as he is the head of the Church and one body with it and so their restoring to be nothing else but receiving into Church-fellowship in the Order and Worship and Government thereof Such hard shifts the wits of men will make to seek any evasions to avoid the light and power of the truth of the word when it will not stand with their owne forestalled imaginations But let us consider how you goe about to make these imaginations of your owne to stand with the Apostles words The lumpe say you generally considered comprehendeth all both the first fruits and the latter for except the first fruits were part of the lump it could not give Testimony that the whole lump was holy which lump so considered is Gods elect in Christ with reference to their beleivinâ— on him and so the apparent Subjects of Gods gracious Covenant a remnant according to Gods election with reference to Faith appearing in Abrahams Isaacks and Iacobs beleeving as the first fruits of the same Where 1. It may be marvelled why you should make the holy Ancestors of the Jewes Abraham Isaac and Iacob the first fruits of the Jewes and yet not make them in like sort the roote also For the Apostle putteth no difference between the first fruits and the Roote but speaketh of them as two similies to expresse one and the same thing If the first fruits be holy so is the whole lumpe If the roote be holy so are the branches v. 16. And as Christ is in some other places of Scripture called a Roote so is he also called the first fruits
is called a vine a root and foundation Answ I know no reason why the root in this Text should bee meant not onely their believing parents their holy Ancestors but Christ also as hath been touched afore Onely it seemeth you were afraid that if believing Parents or holy Ancestors were brought in as any means of the conversion of their posterity unto faith and holinesse it would establish the vertue and continuance of the Covenant of grace from Parents to children now in the dayes of the New Testament the which you carefully shun And therefore though you cannot but see that the first fruits and the root are used and applyed in one and the same sense and to the same purpose and so are forced to confess that as by the first fruits so by the root is meant believing Parents yet you will have the root to be meant not onely believing Parents but Christ and indeed you bring such arguments for Christ as doe seeme to restrain it wholly to Christ and in a manner to exclude believing Parents But all in vaine for neither will your Arguments evince Christ to be here expresly intended by the Apostle but onely by consequence neither will we deny that Christ and fellowship with Christ is intended in their fellowship with the root though by the root bee here expresly meant their holy Ancestors It is true Christ is called in Scripture phrase the vine the root the foundation and so indeed he is primarily and eminently But neverthelesse the Church also is called a vine Esa 5.1 Psal 80 8. And Abraham called a root Mat. 3.10 and the rock out of which the house of Israel was hewed Esa 51.1 And the Apostles are called foundations Ephes 2.20 Rev. 21.14 yea every righteous man is called an everlasting foundation Prov. 10.25 And therefore it is not the name of a root that will cast the root to be here meant of Christ and not of Abraham Yes say you for first Christ is here the root or olive tree ouâ— of which the Jews are cast and the Gentiles graffed in Rom. 11.17 19 23 24. Answ The Church is called an olive tree as well as a vine yea and the branches of it are said to be broken off Jer. 11.16 And when the Axe is said by John Baptist to bee laid to the root of the treeâ— Mat. 3.10 It is his meaning to threaten the Jewes that God is about to cut them off from the Covenant of their father Abraham of whom they were the off-spring and the branches And thereby he confirmeth his admonition to them in the former verse vers 9. thinke not saith hee to say with your selves wee have Abraham to our Father for God is able even of these stones and so of stony hearted Gentiles to raise up children unto Abraham And lest they might object that themselves were the children of Abraham rooted in him not onely by naturall generation but by an everlasting Covenant he strengtheneth his admonition with this threatening verse 10. Now is the Axe laid to the root of the trees to wit to cut off barren branches from the Covenant of Abraham every tree therefore that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewen downe and cast into the fire And therefore it is proper enough according to Scripture phrase to interpret the root to be meant of Abraham and surely as fitly in this place of Paul as in that of Matthew but whether more proper wee shall see anon Secondly say you it appeareth Christ here to bee meant the root in that the Apostle chargeth the Gentiles that if they boast in themselves against the Jewes Thou bearest not the root but the root thee v. 18. that is say you thou appearest not to have the truth of grace and so not to have the true nature of the root and life of Christ in thy heart but onely an outward form of thâ—â—â—ofession of him Job 15.2 Answ This interpretation the words of the Text will not bear for if this were the meaning of the Apostles words Thou bearest not the root but the root thee that is thou appearest not to have the truth of grace and so not the true nature of the root and life of Christ in thine heart Then it will follow that if the Gentiles did not boast but had indeed the truth of grace and life of Christ in their hearts then it might be said to the Gentile the root beareth not thee but thou bearest the root which is indeed contrary to the truth of Religion yea to the principles of grace The absurdity of this interpretation may give good light to shew that indeed Christ is not properly meant to bee the root here spoken of For if Christ were here intended to bee the Root the Apostle would not apply this as a check to the arrogancy of the boasting Gentile the root beareth thee For it is no check but a comfort yea the greatest comfort and safety of a true and humble believer not so much that he beareth Christ as that Christ beareth him But take the Apostle to meane Abraham to be the root of the Jewes as the context carryeth it and then his admonition is grave and weighty against the arrogancy of the boasting Gentile If some of the branches be broken off and thou being a wilde olive tree wer 't graffed in among them that is among the Jewes boast not thy self against the branches But if thou boast take this for a check thou bearest not the root Thou art not the stock or root into which they were engraffed but theirs is the root into which thou art engraffed For salvation is of the Jews John 4.22 thou receivedst it from them not they from thee Hierusalem as a mother bare Rome not Rome Hierusalem Abraham as a father by his faith begot thee as a root by his Covenant he beareth thee not thou him nor the Church of his Covenant But thirdly you argue from the consideration of that which the Jewes refused and the Gentiles received that it is Christ in his mysticall Order and Government amongst his Saints that is here the root and olive tree who by hâ—â— Spirit in his Ordinances issueth forth sap and fatnesse of life and comfort into every very believing heart as a branch of the same Answ The weaknesse and fallacy of this Argument will easily appeare if you cast it into the forme of an argument thus it proceedeth That which the Jews refused and the Gentiles received that is the root here spoken of to wit that root which being holy the branches also are so too But Christ mystically considered is that which the Jewes refused and the Gentiles received And therefore Christ mystically considered is the root here spoken of which being holy the branches are also so too But here the Major or former Proposition is justly denyed For though Christ himselfe be a root which the Jewes refused and the Gentiles received yet hee is not that root here intended whose holinesse inferreth and concludeth the
conversion of the Jewes to holinesse But the Apostle here speaketh of such a root who being holy argueth that his branches though now broken off will come on againe to holinesse which cannot bee argned from the holinesse of Christ For take Christ for the root and will the Apostles Argument then follow If Christ be holy then the Jews though now broken off are or shall be holy also Is there any soundnesse in such an inference If you say Nay but all that you would infer from thence is this that if Christ the root bee holy then the Jewes when they shall come to bee graffed into him againe they will be also holy That is true indeed and needs no proof But that is not the Apostles scope to shew that they shall be holy when they are engraffed into Christ but to prove that they shall be engraffed into Christ and become holy because their root is holy which will indeed strongly follow by vertue of the Covenant with Abraham and his seed if Abraham bee here taken for the root but not so if Christ What then will you say is Abraham better then Christ Not so neither but Christ doth more delight to communicate his grace rather in the way of the Covenant of his grace then out of it Neither will it appeare though you say it will that Christ is here meant by the Apostle to be the root of the Jews if we consider what was the Jews own naturall root and olive tree whereof they were naturall branches onely by faith as the Apostle so declareth them 〈◊〉 20 21 24. which was union and communion with God in all his Divine Ordinances of Worship the manner and forme whereof was Mosaicall and typicall in the Old Testament which is now changed in the New but not the matter c. as above Answ It is utterly untrue which you say that the Jews were the naturall branches of their owne naturall root onely by faith and that the Apostle so declareth them v. 20 21 22. For it is evident the Apostle expressely declareth the naturall branches not to be spared of God but to be broken off for their unbeliefe v. 19 20 21. And therefore unbeliefe was found in the naturall branches and then they were not naturall branches onely by faith for then no naturall branches could have been broken off Neither could the naturall branches bee said to bee graffed in againe much more readily then the Romans v. 24. for the Romans standing by faith had equally as ready accesse unto union and communion with Christ in his Ordinances which you take to bee the root as the Jewes when they shall bee converted to the faith It is readily granted and needed no proofe that the Jewes of old enjoyed union and communion with Christ in the Mosaicall Ordinances of the Old Testament whereof some were typicall and some morall And it is a confessed truth also that God changed the Order and manner of that Worship but not the matter in the New Testament But that the Jewes were broken off for their opposing and rejecting that new order is not safely spoken For they were broken off for resisting and opposing the righteousnesse of Faith in Christ Iesus Rom. 10.3 which was no new order brought in by Christ in the New Testament but was the principall matter of all their Typicall and Mosaicall Worship which your selfe confesse was not changed Besides it cannot be denyed That the faithfull and their seede was the subject matter of the Church and so part of the Order of the Worship in the Old Testament And this was neither Mosaicall nor Typicall but before both And if the matter of the worship bee not changed though the manner be then as the faithfull and their seede whether Iews or proselyte Gentiles were the subject matter of the Church and a Morall part of church order of old then are they so still and neither of them to be excluded It was wholly needlesse and impertinent to prove that the Iews were cast off from Communion with God in his worship for their unbeleife and that the Gentiles who submitted to the Gospell of Iesus Christ are taken in and doe stand in relation to God by Faith in him And that the Iews when God shall please to call them by the Gospell to beleive in his Son they shall be received in againe to fellowship and Communion with God in his service as worship as of old But take all this for granted and yet it reacheth not neare the Apostles Words and discourse in this chapter who proveth that the Iews shall be called in againe to Faith and Holinesse by reason of their relation as branches to their root Which though they be broken off from it by their enmity against the the Gospell yet they still belong to it according to the Election of God and according to his love which by his everlasting Covenant he bare and promised to beare to their Fathers and to their seed after them throughout all Generations To proceede then As your discourse of the roote hath not hitherto proved Christ to be the roote So neither will your discourse of the Branches prove either Christ to be the root or the Branches to be such and can be no other then such as doe subsist and grow in Christ onely by Faith For 1. It hath beene as I conceive cleared already that Christ is not the roote here meant by the Apostle 2. If the branches be such and can be no other but such as doe subsist and grow in Christ onely by Faith how then came it to passe that the branches were broken off can such as doe subsist in Christ as in a roote onely by Faith can they be broken off What is then become of Christs prayer for all that doe or shall beleive on him Joh. 17.20 21 22 23 24. But say you the Apostle speaketh of such branches as are in him by faith and he in them by his spirit without which Faith and Spirit there is no holinesse in the Apostles sense Answer It is true the Apostle speaketh of such an Holinesse in the branches v. 16. as proceedeth from the Spirit and Faith But that is an holynesse which is not found in all Branches for then no branches should be cut off but which shall be found in the Iews at their conversion as the Apostle proveth by reason of their relation to Abraham as their root through the grace of his Covenant But will not prove that there is no way for the branches to subsist in the root but onely by Faith and Spirit For these branches who shall be converted to holinesse were in Abraham before by Naturall Generation and did pertaine to Abrahams Covenant by the grace of Election by vertue of both which both of the Election of grace and of the Covenant of grace they shall come at last to be converted to the fellowship of the Spirit and of the faith of Abraham But 2. Say you There is no branch that is
or Nations an holy people because they were married nor their children holy because they were bred of married Parents Turkes and Pagans and all Infidell people are married as well as Christians yet neither they nor their children are counted or called holy in scripture language Yes in scripture language Silvester as there is an uncleannesse of the flesh so there is opposite to the same an holinesse of the flesh which is produced by lawfull Marriage Compare these Scriptures together Ezra 10.2 3. 1 Sam. 21.4 5. 1 Cor. 6.18 and 7.1 2. 1 Thes 4.3 4. There is indeed an holinesse of the flesh that is opposite to the uncleannesse of the flesh but there is no holinesse of the flesh Silvanus that proceedeth from marriage For though an unlawfull marriage may pollute both flesh and Spirit yet a lawfull marriage doth not make either of them holy In that place of Ezra the marriage of the Jews with strangers was an uncleane and an unholy marriage as polluting the Covenant of their God Mal. 2.11 Yet that marriage of the Jews with their owne Nation did not make them holy much lesse did the marriage of strangers with strangers make them holy though their marriage was lawfull Though nothing that is holy is uncleane yet all things that are not uncleane are not forthwith holy For not onely that which is unholy is uncleane but also that which is unrighteous or any way unlawfull is uncleane also Stollen goods are uncleane but yet goods well gotten are not holy The opposition therefore that is betweene uncleannesse and holinesse is not that opposition which is betweene immediate contraries that whatsoever is not uncleane the same should bee holy or as if it were enough to make a thing holy because it is not uncleane Or as if because the marriage of the Jews with the strangers was uncleane and their seed uncleane and accursed therefore their marriage among themselves was holy It is true marriage is honourable amongst all and in regard of Gods institution holy It is true also that the seed which the Iews had in a way of lawful marriage were called an holy seed Ezra 9.2 But yet that holinesse of their seed did not proceed from the holinesse of their marriage for then to this day the children of married Iews were an holy seed stil but from the holinesse of the Covenant between God them The next place you referre mee to is in 1 Sam. 21.4 5. where it is said that Davids young men having beene kept from women three dayes their vessels were holy But what would you inferre from hence that there is an holinesse of the flesh oposite to the uncleannesse of the flesh who doubteth of that but whence did this holines flow or wherein did it consist did it flow from the lawfull marriage of themselves or their Parents Or did it consist in their Legitimation No verily it rather sprung from their want of use of lawfull marriage in that they had not kept company with their wives of three dayes For it is not to be thought that David would keepe his men to keepe company with Harlots The holinesse therefore which David here speakâ—â—h of is a Ceremoniall holinesse whereby hee and his men being kept from women and likewise from effusion of seed which did Ceremonially pollute they were therefore holy in their vessells and so meete to partake of holy bread No holinesse therefore here but such as maketh capable of holy things The next place which you referre mee to in 1 Cor. 6.18 doth hold forth that fornication is a sinne against the body which is out of question if your meaning beâ— that that sinne brings uncleannesse upon the flesh which if it bee compared with 1 Thes 4.3 4. will argue that there is a contrary holinesse of the flesh when a man possesseth his Vessell in Sanctification and Honour both these are truths but nothing to your purpose For this holinesse of the flesh is also an holinesse of the spirit Where by a man out of obedience to the will of God v 3. doth mortifie the lust of concupisence v. 5. and possesse his vessell in sanctification and honour v. 4. And this holinesse is a part of that latter holines whereof you spake before to wit that holy frame of Gods workmanship in the heart by the holy spirit of regeneration which giveth right to the Priviledges And therefore you will not allow this kinde holinesse to be meant in 1 Cor. 7.14 for then by the lawfulnesse of the Parents marriage children should be freed from the lust of Concupiscence and inabled to possesse their vessels in sanctification and honour That other place which you put in 1 Cor. 7.1 2. I know not to what end you alledge it unlesse it bee to prove that marriage in times of persecution is not expedient which is the meaning of the first verse or that fornication is to bee avoided by lawfull marriage which is the intent of the second verse But what is either of these to the point in hand To returne therefore to the point from whence your objection diverted mee it still remaineth good that the holinesse of children spoken of 1 Cor. 7.14 doth not proceed from the holy Ordinance of marriage but from the holy Covenant of grace Which may further bee confirmed from the very word of the Text. For the Apostle deriveth that holinesse of Infants not from the holy Ordinance of marriage but from the faith of the beleeving Parent whereby both the unbeleeving yoak-follow is sanctified to the beleever and the children also of the beleever are holy I thinke both alike the children are no otherwise holy by the saith of the beleeving Parent Silvester then the unbeleeving yoake-fellow is sanctified to the beleever That is to say the beleever hath a sanctified use of Cohabitation and Communion with them both For to the pure all things are pure but to the unbeleever nothing is pure Tit. 1.15 So that whereas before both the yoake-fellows were uncleane by Idolatry and their children also now by the conversion of one of the yoak-fellows to the faith though hee might scruple the lawfulnesse of his cohabitation and Communion either with his yoak-fellow or with his children Yet the Apostle telleth him hee needeth not so to doe For by his faith both his yoak-fellow and children also are sanctified to him hee hath an holy use to them both In the same sense are the children said to bee holy and the unbeleeving yoak-fellow sanctified For I have learned it from some men skilful in the tongues that it is the same word or at least derived from the same root and theame whereby the unbeleever is said to bee sanctified and the children said to be holy Silvanus It is true indeed the one of the words is derived from the other But yet the Apostle useth them here in such a different phrase or manner of speach as putteth a manifest difference in the sense and signification
of them For when hee saith the unbeleeving yoak-fellow is sanctified hee doth not leave it so without a limitation or restriction but saith hee or shee is sanctified in the beleever or to the beleever and that limiteth the sense to the beleevers use But when hee speaketh of children hee doth not speake with such limitation they are holy to the beleever but positively they are holy Now the difference is manifest and great betwene these two to bee sanctified to a beleever and to bee holy for example It may truely bee said all afflictions and Persecution it selfe are sanctified to a beleever but it cannot therefore bee said that affliction yea persecution is holy yea wee may bee bold to say that even the falls of Gods children are sanctified unto them I meane their falls into sinne yet wee may not say that their falls into sinne are holy No scripture language alloweth any thing to bee called holy but that which is holy either by imputation from Christ or regeneration from the Spirit or separation unto God from uncleannesse to his holy worship Search the Scripture you will not finde it otherwise neither is it otherwise in this place For else the Apostle might as well have said thus The children by the unbeleeving wife are sanctified in the beleeving husband and the children by the unbeleeving husband are sanctified in the beleeving wife else were your unbeleeving yoak-fellows uncleane but now they are holy But do you thinke the holy Spirit of God would ever call infidells Idolaters holy But suppose as some of your books would have it that the Apostle did acknowledge unbeleeving yoak-fellowes to bee holy is there not then a two-fold holinesse mentioned in the Text the one not in the thing it self but to anothers use the other of the thing in it selfe Is it not then sinne to confound these two for all one which God hath distinguished I deny not but this is true in a part Silvester that there is twofold holinesse here spoken of For the holinesse of the children is not onely such a relative holinesse as to one anothers use as the unbeleever to the beleevers use and no more but the holinesse of children resteth in themselves as the subjects thereof by nature being begotten and borne in that lawfull honorable way of marriage by Gods appointment and so holy cleane in opposition to such as are begotten and brought forth in a way of uncleannesse as adultery fornication and the like This kinde of holinesse which you speake of Silvanus resting in the children by being begotten and borne in that lawfull and honourable way of marriage hath beene refuted above The Scripture acknowledgeth no such holinesse as proceedeth from lawfull and honourable marriage If there were such an holnesse the children of married infidels were holy as well as the children of Christians But the Apostle here speaketh of such an holinesse as would not bee found in children unlesse one of the Parents at least were a beleever to speake of holinesse since the fall in children whereof they are subjects by nature is strange language in Christian eares you might as well speak of prophanenes of grace as of holinesse by nature The holy Ghost is the proper subject of holinesse and the proper cause of all holinesse in the creature so that nothing ought to bee called holy but what hee either maketh or calleth holy But it will never bee found that the holy Ghost ever imparted either the nature or name of holinesse to any because they were begotten in lawfull marriage and not in whoredome Besides if this were the meaning of the Apostle to prove that beleevers might lawfully keepe their unbeleeving yoak-fellowes because the children which they had by them were begotten in lawfull marriage the Apostle had not thereby cleared nor removed the scruple of the Corinthians but rather aggravated it For they might as justly doubt of their lawfull cohabitation with their children as with their infidell wives The same grounds which puts them to scruple the one did as justly move them to scruple the other so that to expound the Apostle this way doth not cleare the scruple but rather double is It seemeth to mee otherwise to expound the Apostle this way Silvester is the onely way for the clearing of the scruple of the Corinthians which befell them by reason of an Epistle which the Apostle wrote to them before in 1 Cor. 5.9 where he so pressed them from having any Communion or fellowship with any uncleane person in the worship of God that they understood him to condemne also civill commerce with the world upon which they questioned the lawfull retaining of their unbeleeving husbands and wives and to have communion with them in Society And so much the more as having an example of the like nature in the law Ezsa 10.7 About which thing that neare relation of husband and wife in their civil commerce they wrote to the Apostle for information 1 Cor. 7.1 And questioned not their children Whereby it appeareth they held it lawfull to retaine their children To which the Apostle answereth from a double ground thus 1. In that all things are said to be sanctified to such as beleeve as Tit. 1.15 and so the unbeleeving wife to the beleeving husband you may lawfully therefore live together in that comfortable estate and society of marriage which God hath ordained for man and wife to abide in 2. If you judge your selves to live in such a way of uncleannesse upon which you must now part then your children so begotten are uncleane and to be put away also But in that you hold it lawfull to retaine your children and not to put them away though you beleeve and they doe not then much more the unbeleeving parents as aforesaid who bare them For if the effect bee holy then must the cause also be holy which produceth the same which is Gods holy Ordinance of marriage and not the holy Covenant of grace Silvanus Whether the scruple of the Corinthians about cohabitation with their unbeleeving yoak-fellowes did arise from the Apostles former letter or not it is not plainly expressed in the Text But of the two it may be gathered from the Text rather not then yes For if their scruple had risen from the Apostles former advice not to keepe company with Fornicators whether bodily or spirituall hee had fully answered that scruple before in the fifth Chapter For there hee expoundeth himselfe not to speake of the fornicators of the world but of the Church v. 10.11 and for the fornicators of the Church hee doth forbid Communion with them not onely in the worship of God as you would have him understood but even in familiar civill converse With such a one as is a brother and a fornicator or the like I have written to you no not to eat with him v. 11. where not to eat is not meant not to eat the Lords Supper for that is the highest
degree of the highest and holiest communion in the Church but not to eat common bread at one anothers table for hee speaketh of the least degree of familiar society with such a one saying With such a one no not to eat but that by the way to cleare your mistake in that point But for the point in hand the Apostle had sufficiently cleared both his owne meaning and the Corinthians scruple touching their civill society with their unbeleeving yoak-fellowes in expounding himselfe not to forbid them Communion with the fornicators or Idolaters of this world but of the Church whence it clearly appeard that their unbeleeving yoak-fellowes being not of the Church but of the world it was no part of the Apostles meaning in his former or latter letter to forbid them communion with their unbeleeving yoak-fellowes So that if the scruple of the Corinthiane had sprung from the mistake of the Apostles former letter the Apostle had there fully cleared his owne meaning and withall removed their scruple there needed no more words of it againe here It seemeth therefore much more probable that their scruple arose from that other place which you mention Ezra 10. where the people of God are charged to separate themselves from the people of the land and from their strange wives which charge they obeyed also and fulfilled But if their scruple sprung from that place then the Corinthians had as just occasion to scruple the keeping of their children which they had by these wives as the keeping of their wives For the people of God in that Chapter of Ezra made an holy Covenant with God to put away not onely their strange wives but their children also which were borne of them v. 3. Now then let us come to consider of the Apostles answer to these scruples as you expound him The Apostle say you answereth from a double ground 1. In that all things are sanctified to such as beleeve Tit. 1.15 therefore beleevers may have a lawfull use of their unbeleeving yoak-fellowes This conclusion is true and intended by the Apostle but this ground of it the Apostle doth not here give but you fetch it from another Epistle It is true the marriage of the Corinthians with their unbeleeving yoak-fellows when they were both infidels being lawfull by Gods institution before now when one of them came to be converted to the faith the faith of the beleever did not make his former marriage which was lawfull before now unlawfull but rather gave him a pure and sanctified use both of his marriage and of his yoak-fellow But the Apostle doth not here give for a ground thereof the purity of all things to a beleever though hee might have given it for a just ground thereof but the onely ground which in this Text hee giveth of it is taken from the holinesse of their children Else saith hee were your children unclean but now they are holy which argueth that there is now in the dayes of the New Testament such an holinesse acknowledged by God to belong to the children from either parent beleeving as is sufficient alone though there were no other ground of it to ratify to the beleeving parent a sanctified use of his unbeleeving yoak-fellow which holinesse can bee no other but the holinesse which springeth from the Covenant of grace wherein God promiseth to bee a God to the beleever and his seed Whereas on the contrary if this holines of the children did onely arise from the lawfulnesse of the marriage of their Parents by the same ground upon which the Corinthians scrupled the lawfulnesse of their marriage with their unbeleeving yoak-fellowes by the same they might justly scruple the lawfulnesse of their children which they had by them for in that place of Ezra whence you conceive their scruple either sprung or grew as the marriage of the Iews with strangers was uncleane and therefore strange wives to bee put away so their children also were uncleane and to bee put away also according to the counsell of God and the example of the people in that place Let us then proceed to examine your second ground which you say the Apostle giveth to satisfie the scruple of the Corinthians about the retaining of their unbeleeving yoak-fellowes 2. If you Corinthians judge your selves to live in such a way of uncleannesse upon which you must now part then your children so begotten are uncleane also and to be put away But in that you hold it lawfull to retaine your children and not to put them away though you beleeve and they beleeve not then much more the unbeleeving Parents that beare them For if the effect bee holy then must the cause be also holy that produceth the same which is Gods holy Ordinance of marriage and not the holy Covenant of grace This ground hath no ground at all neither in the Apostles words nor meaning not in his words for the Apostle doth not say your children are holy in your judgement or as you hold but the Apostle delivereth his owne Iudgement your children are holy Neither will it stand with the Apostles meaning nor with the divine wisedom power of an Apostolick spirit to prove an holy use of the parents mariage from the conceited holines which the Parents imagine to bee in their children For though in Disputation against an adversary it may bee of use to convince him out of his owne conceits yet in dealing with a scrupulous conscience it giveth no satisfaction to give him for grounds of lawfull Practise his owne conceits Neither hath it any ground at all from the Apostles words or meaning to gather as you doe from the holinesse of children an argument from the lesse to the greater That if the children bee holy and so lawfull to bee retained then much more the unbeleeving Parents that bare them because if the effect bee holy then must the cause also bee holy for the unbeleeving Parents are no cause at all of the holinesse of their children neither are they holy themselves by the holy Ordinance of marriage For though marriage it selfe bee holy in respect of the holy institution of it yet not in respect of the holy efficacy in it to make all them holy that enter into marriage estate yea as to beleevers all things are pure so to the unbeleever nothing is pure no not his marriage nor his yoak-fellow nor his children Though the unbeleeving yoak-fellow Paul saith bee sanctified to the beleever yet Paul never said that the beleever is sanctified to the unbeleeving yoak-fellow Unbeleevers are neither holy themselves nor is any thing else sanctified to them much lesse can they bee the cause of producing sanctification and holinesse in others And therefore Paul doth inferre the holinesse of children not from the holy Ordinance of marriage but from the holy Covenant of grace It had bin in vaine for the Apostle to have gon about to prove the lawfull retaining of the unbeleeving yoak-fellow from the holinesse of their children being in
the Covenant Silvester For nothing was more cleare then this That such children as are begotten in uncleannesse were not approved of Gods holy Covenant of life nor any way holy either by law or Gospell How then could this tend to remove the scruple of the Corinthians to tell them that they might lawfully continue together because their children were in the Covenant of grace and life and so were holy when as their scruple lay in matter of uncleannesse upon which they were to part Now this must bee cleared whether they were so or not in respect of themselves before ever they could believe the holiness of their children or any such to be in Gods gracious Covenant For the children of adultery and fornication are debarred the holy Covenant both in the law and in the Gospel Silvanus It were well if you did debarre onely the children of adultery and fornication from the holy Covenant now in the Gospel But you debarre all children while they are infants whether they bee the children of lawfull marriage or of adultery whether children of beleevers or of infidells all is one But seeing God who keepeth Covenant and mercy with thousands admitteth believers and their children to the fellowship of his Covenant who is man or what is the sonne of man that hee should debar them But to come to your argument many things are unsound in it 1. When you say that nothing is more cleare then this That children begotten in such uncleannesse are not in Gods holy Covenant nor any way holy either by Law or Gospel It is too vast an Hyperbole there be many cleare truths generally received of all that feare God as the Trinity of Persons the unity of the Godhead Christ his two Natures and three Offices and an hundred such like which are indeed cleare to all that fear God But this which you say is most cleare to all that children begotten in uncleannesse are debarred the Covenant is denyed by Tremelius and Junius and others moe and doubted by many There be many that conceive Pharez and Zerah were in the holy Covenant though begotten in Incest and Davids child though begotten in adultery And what would you say of all the children which the Patriarchs had by Concubines They were not borne in lawfull marriage If therefore they were begotten in uncleannesse were they excluded from the Covenant and no way holy What say you of Jepthah begotten of a strange woman and therefore in uncleannesse Doe you thinke God did not approve him to be in his Covenant seeing he called him forth to be a Ruler of his people If you say Iepthah was then faithfull when God called him forth to office What then yet he was begotten in uncleannesse And then your assertion was too large without any limitation to say That children begotten in uncleannesse are not in Gods holy Covenant nor any way holy either by law or Gospel and that nothing is more clear then this As for the place upon which you ground as I conceive your assertion taken out of Deut. 23.2 some understood it of comming in and out before the Congregation to wit in bearing publick Office Others understand it to speake of a Bastard begotten of a common Harlot which I note to you not to shew you my owne interpretation of the place but to wish you to forbeare such excessive prodigall expressions That nothing is more cleare then that which is darke and doubtfull to many men men of as cleare and it may be clearer discernings then your selves But for my part I will not stick with you in this point altogether let it be granted that children begotten in uncleannesse that is as you expound your selfe begotten in adultery and fornication are not in Gods holy Covenant nor any way holy for ought we can discerne leaving Gods election of them unto holinesse to himselfe either by Law or Gospel what then Why then say you how could this tend to remove the Corinthians scruple to tell them they might lawfully continue together as man and wife because their children were in the Covenant of grace and life and so were holy when as the scruple lay in matter of uncleannesse upon which they were to part which scruple must first be cleared in respect of themselves before ever they could believe the holinesse of their children in Covenant seeing the children of adultery and fornication are debarred the holy Covenant both in the Law and the Gospel But this is more unsound then the former to conceive that the matter of uncleannesse upon which they were to part was the uncleannesse of adultery and fornication For if that were the uncleannesse in which those Corinthian yoke-fellows lived before either of them were converted to the faith surely the Apostle would never have given them advice not to depart one from another v. r. 12 13. Such as live in the uncleannesse of adultery and fornication ought not to abide together but speedily to depart one from another Yea methinkes in case of adultery the Corinthians would of themselves discerne what was meet to wit speedily and utterly to abandon such wickednesse or at least have lurked in it secretly and never have consulted with the Apostle about it in a publick Church-letter It is true it was matter of uncleannesse upon which they doubted they must part and thereupon scrupled cohabitation But the uncleannesse which they suspected was not adultery or fornication but disparity of Religion in regard of the Infidell yoke-fellow who still lived in Idolatry But this uncleannesse of Idolatry lying not upon both yoke-fellows but upon one onely it could not debarre the free passage of the holy Covenant from the believing parent to the children For the Covenant runneth not unto you and to your seed as speaking of both the Parents but to thee and to thy seed as speaking of one of them of either of them If you ask why then did the Jews put away their strange wives and children seeing the Covenant might passe to the children from either party I answer two things 1. The Israelites were expresly forbidden to marry with those Nations and their seed was excluded from entring into the congregation to the tenth generation Deut. 23.3 Neh. 13.1 But Christians in the dayes of the Gospel lye not under any such prohibition There is no such partition wall now between Nation and Nation nor any such severe rejection of the children of any Nation in case either of the Parents be received into the Church 2. The case of the Jewes who married strange wives in Ezra was not the like case with that of the Corinthians though the Corinthians might conceive the case to be the same For the Corinthians had married their Idolatrous yoke-fellows when both of them were Pagans But the Jews married their strange wives when themselves were an holy people Now though the Jewes were therefore bound to put away their strange wives when they had thus polluted the holy Covenant and the holy
as are writen in the Lambes book of life this I would say to it 1. You cannot justly deny but that Gods Testimony of the Infants of Beleevers that they are holy 1 Cor. 7.14 and that of such is the Kingdom of God Mark 10.14 is as good an Evidence of their Election as the Profession of Faith and Repentance which men of yeers are wont to make is an evidence of their election before the Church Again 2. It is one thing to speak of such as enter into the Church for that agreeth to such as were sometime without another thing to speake of the Infants of believers who were never out of the Church and so cannot be said to enter into it Besides 3. It is one thing to enter into the Church as an abiding member another thing so to enter as for some notorious scandall to be cast out of it Such shall be the purity of the Government of that new Hierusalem as that no prophane person shall enter into it nor any hypocrite or if any hypocrite should creepe in as there did in the most pure and discerning times even in the Apostles dayes yet they will in time be discerned and then cast out Otherwise there would be no use of excommunication in those pure Iewish Churches which is not probable Yea infants themselves though borne in the Church yet if when they grow up to yeares they shall degenerate into a prophane or scandalous course they shall not be tolerated to abide in the Church yea if they shall not take hold of the Covenant of their Fathers but content themselves in an ignorant or civill or worldly course of life they shall not bee allowed to enter into holy communion with the sincere members of the Church at the Lords Table 4. It is one thing to prophecy of the transcendent glorious happinesse of an exact pure Church in some age of it another thing to command and foretell the perpetuall continuance of it in the same degree of purity Sure I am that when Christ commeth to judgement he shall find in those pure Churches of the Jews some foolish Virgins as well as some wise And the foolish Virgins shall bee shut out from the presence of Christ Mat. 25.10 11 12. And they that are shut out were never written in the Lambs book of life 5. It is one thing to speake of the members of the Church universally another thing to speake of them all indefinitely all of them that is the body of them or the greater part of them may be said to be written in the Lambs booke of life to bee all righteous Isa 60.21 to have their sinnes forgiven and not to complaine of any sicknesse Isa 33.21 But how can this bee understood universally of all the members of the Church at all times 6. It is one thing to speake of the condition in which God approveth Church-members another thing to speak of the condition in which God approveth the receiving of Church-members God never approved the condition of Judas in his Apostleship or in his Church-membership and yet hee approved the receiving of him into both But to proceed to the difference which you make of the subjects of the two Testaments though that bee a point scanned before and needlesly repeated here When you make the Old Testament to bequeath Legacies to a male of eight dayes old or to a Proselyte and for that end quote Gen. 17.10 14 23 25. with other Scriptures and the New Testament to bestow Legacies as the Priviledges and blessing of Abraham onely to such as believe and none else You speake not herein according to the language of the Scriptures For the Scripture never calleth the Testament or Covenant which God made with Abraham Gen. 17. the Old Testament your mistake herein hath been a principall occasion of corrupting your judgement both in this point in hand and sundry other that have reference to it I have shewed you above that the Testament which the Scripture calleth the Old Testament was that made with the Israelites on Mount Sinai not that made with Abraham Gen. 17. in the land of Canaan It had been small comfort to us that Christ by his death should procure us this priviledge that the blessing of Abraham might come upon believing Gentiles if the blessing of Abraham were not better then the Old Testament or Covenant of which the Apostle said long agoe even in his time it was ready to vanish away Heb. 8.13 and was indeed soon after with the Temple wholly abolished It is true the Covenant of Abraham bequeathed this Legacy to a male of eight dayes old to bee circumcised but circumcision was onely the seale of the Covenant The chiefe Legacy bequeathed in that Covenant was the promise that God would bee a Father to Abraham and to his seed And a God hee was to them whilst they were yet in the wombe or being borne were not yet come to be eight dayes of old Else all the Infants of Gods people that dyed in their first weeke lived and dyed out of Covenant And so the Covenant shall depend upon the seale not the seale upon the Covenant and the grace of the Covenant shall not know nor acknowledge nor owne infants the first seven dayes untill the eight and so the eternall Jehovah to whom a thousand yeers is but as one day shall limit the grace of his eternall Covenant not to shine forth upon the Infants of believers til the eighth day shine forth upon them It remaineth therefore that the Infants of Abraham and of his seed were under the Covenant assoone as they were his seed to wit even from their conception though none of them were circumcised but the males only nor the males neither till the eighth day The males onely partly because the Females had not such a foreskin of their flesh as was to be circumcised partly because God would have them trained up both males and females to expect all the blessing of their circumcision from the circumcision of Christ Jesus mentioned Coloss 2.11 Neither were the males circumcised till the eigthth day not because they were not subjects of Abrahams Covenant till the eighth day but for some ceremoniall respect or for some other reason peculiar to that Rite Circumcision being a cutting of the flesh it was a worke of mercy not to put infants the first weeke to the paine till they were better able to beare it Some have anciently thought the circumcision of the eighth day did prefigure the sanctification of the eighth day for a Sabbath in the dayes of the Messiah Others have thought God would have Circumcision deferred till the eighth day that a Sabbath might passe over the Parents that he might solemnly renew his Covenant with God before the seale of the Covenant should bee applyed to his Infant Others have conceived that as God would not have a Kid or Lamb sacrificed to him till it had sucked of the Dam seven dayes so neither would hee call forth the
infant to be solemnly presented and offered to him in that seale of the Covenant till the seven dayes were fulfilled However it was certaine it is that the limitation of the eighth day was not a morall appendant to the Covenant of grace And therefore the Infants of believers both in those former times and in these now partaked in the Legacies of the Covenant of grace as well before eight days as after Nay say you in the New Testament as the last Will of Christ the Legacies therein contained as the Priviledges and blessing of Abraham are given onely to such as believe and to none else Two things let me here answer you 1. It implyeth a contradiction to say the blessing of Abraham is given to believers and onely to believers and to none else intending thereby to exclude the infants of believers For what is the blessing of Abraham Is it not this promise of grace that God will bee a God to him and his seed If this blessing then come upon believers then this promise commeth upon them That God will be a God to them and their seed You must therefore either deny the blessing of Abraham to come upon believers or else you must grant the promise of grace to come upon them and upon their seed also Yea say you upon their believing seed such as succeed them in the same faith and truth not upon others If that were the meaning of the promise it could not bee said with any congruity of speech that the promise commeth upon the seed of believers at all For when the children of believers come to be believers the promise commeth not to them at all as the seed of believers but as believers themselves The children of Pagans when they come to beleeve may as well claim the promise to belong unto them as may the children of believers when themselves doe believe The second thing that I would answer you is that all the places which you alledge to prove that the priviledges of the Kingdom of Christ doe belong only unto believers they onely speake of saving priviledges flowing from faith All which wee readily grant you as a point out of controversie doe all of them belong to believers and not immediately to the children of believers till they come on themselves to believe likewise But this wee further claime in the behalfe of the children of believers which wee have proved before though you are willing to take no notice of it that the children of believers doe come on themselves to believe by reason of the Covenant of grace which God hath made with believers and their seed for by that Covenant hee hath promised to write the law of faith as of all other saving graces in their hearts that they also may come in Gods time and way to enjoy all the other saving priviledges of the Covenant as did their Fathers before them To take a short survey of the places which you quote that Text in Gal. 3.22 holdeth forth that the promise to wit the promise of eternall life of which he spake in the next verse before is given by faith to them that believe So is also the righteousnesse of faith given to them that believe as the other places you quote shew Rom. 4.11 12. Gal. 3.6 7. So likewise the inheritance of glory is given to sonnes even the regenerate sonnes of God who have received the spirit of adoption as your other place sheweth Rom. 8.17 But what doth all this prove That no Legacies of the New Testament no priviledges of the Covenant of grace no blessing of Abraham belongeth to the children of believers It proveth indeed that the righteousnesse of faith and eternall life and glory doe belong to believers and to such as are regenerate by the spirit of adoption But what thinke you of faith it selfe and the spirit of adoption Are they not also Legacies of the New Testament Are they not the Priviledges of the Covenant and of the blessing of Abraham And these when they are first given they are not given to believers who have them already but to such as have them not And therefore the children of believers are capable of these Legacies and priviledges by the blessing of Abraham in the new Covenant For this is a promise of the new Covenant they shall all know mee from the least of them to the greatest of them Jer. 31.34 And that knowledge is faith upon which sinnes are forgiven Isa 53.11 And this is another promise of the same Covenant I will poure my Spirit upon thy seed and my blessing upon thine off-spring Isa 44.3 If then the Spirit and Faith be given by the New Testament or which is all one the new Covenant then all the Legacies and priviledges and blessings of the Covenant are not given onely believers but some also to the children of believers that they may receive the spirit and faith also It is therefore a slender evasion to alledge as you doe that the children and off-spring of believers are such onely as succeed them in the same faith and truth and so are called the generation of the righteous For they did not succeed them in the same faith and truth and righteousnesse till it was given them and given them it was by a legacy of the New Testament when they were onely the children of the faithfull and had neither faith nor truth nor righteousnesse in them The other places which you quote do shew that men of yeares as well as children are sometimes called the seed of the Church And that the godly ones amongst them are begotten of the immortall seed of the word and are regenerate by the spirit of grace have a seed of God dwelling in them are maligned by the carnall seed are approved of God and acknowledged as heires of the Kingdome of glory All which are truths out of question But none of all the places doe exclude the Infants of believers nor their growne naturall children from being subjects of this grace of the Covenant to have the Spirit of grace and faith poured upon them by vertue of the Covenant One onely place of all the rest might seem to look that way which you quote out of John 3.5 6 where it is said that the carnall seed as being flesh and destitute of the spirit cannot enter into the Kingdom of God And indeed if by the Kingdome of God were meant the Church as oftentimes it is the objection would bee more difficult to resolve But the truth is in that place by the Kingdome of God is plainly meant the Kingdome of Glory not the Church For Nicodemus did not scruple his Church estate nor enquire how hee might enter into the visible Church but how hee might bee saved and inherit the Kingdome of Glory And therefore Christ directeth him to Regeneration and to beleeve in his Name that hee might attain unto everlasting life Joh. 3.5.14 15 16. And though hee speak of water as co-working with the Spirit in Regeneration
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
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
lawfully so you conceive children to bee uncapable likewise and all they upon whom Baptisme is forced And then the first part of your distinction is all one with your second part And a good distinction cannot admit such confusion If you mean a stone is uncapable of Baptisme unlawfully you know the contrary For the Papists doe baptize their Fonts and Altars which are but stones as well as their Bells which are not more lawfully capable of Baptisme then stones bee Again when you make your second sort of your passive subject of Baptisme to bee a forced subject and Infantâ— to bee such a forced subject as who doe oppose it to the uttermost ability I dare bee bold to say the speech is not generally true For of those many hundreths which I have seen Baptized though some have seemed to oppose it with crying and strugling yet I cannot say with truth that either all of them or most of them have so done And for those that have so done I demand whether the Infants in times before Christ when they were circumcised did not more generally and strongly oppose their Circumcision to the uttermost of their ability when they felt much more smarting pain in the cutting off of the foreskin of their flesh then our children can doe in their Baptisme And why may such a forced Israelite or Proselyte bee a capable subject of Circumcision and not a forced Infant of a Christian bee in like sort aâ— well capable of Baptisme The Truth is in administring either of Circumcision to the Infants of beleeving Israelites or of Baptisme to the Infants of beleeving Christianâ— respect is not had to the voluntary subjection of the Infants but to the freâ— and voluntary subjection of their Parents It is enough for Infants that as they received originall corruption without their own personall consent but in the will of their first Parents so now they receive through the grace of the Covenant a remedy against their originall corruption without their owne personall consent but in the will of their parent But when you make the Infants opposition of his Baptisme to his uttermost ability a signe of its farre distance of being passive in the same The truth is by how much the more the Infant opposeth his baptisme by so much the more hee is active against it and therefore being baptized neverthelesse hee is so much the more passive under it Your phrase therefore of a passive subject of Baptisme is ill chosen to expresse your meaning you might have more suitably said in plainer termes None are capable subjects of Baptisme but such as gladly receive it And for that you might have had some colour from the Word but that the free and voluntary acts of parents in the matters of the second commandement are accounted of God for themselves and their children as was shewed above Furthermore when you exclude Infants from being true passive subjects to râ—ceive Baptisme because they are not brought to a free voluntary subjection to receive Baptisme Doe but consider a while what kinde of passive subjection is found in mâ—n in their regeneration whereof Baptisme is the signe The subjects of regeneration are neither active subjects to recâ—ive grace as the Moone is to receive light from the Sunne a being a lightsome body of it selfe or as a beggar is to receive an Alâ—â—es that stretcheth out his hand for it nor passively subject as the aire iâ— to receive light which though it bee darke maketh no opposition against it but they are forcibly subject as being neither able nor willing to come to Christ except they be drawn and drawn by the same Almighty power as whereby a dead man is raised to life Now if men bee forcibly subject to receive convâ—rting grace in their regeneration there is in it nothing repugnant to the nature of Baptisme in it selfe which is a signe of regeneration to admit Infantâ— to it though they shall be forcibly subject to iâ— This forcible opposition to Baptisme is of simple Ignorance not knowing what â—he Ordinance is and their opposition is easily overcome by human power Whereas our opposition in receiving regenerating grace is farre more perverse and untractable not to be overruled but by a divine Almighty power It is true such iâ— the nature of Baptisme by Gods Ordinance that it requireth in men of yeares regeneration and voluntary subjection to it before they can be admitted to it because to them it is a signe and seale of regeneration wrought and of the righteousnesse of faith imputed to them But in Infants the Voluntary subjection of Parents in offeâ—ing them to Christ is a sufficient recommendation of them to him for his acceptance of them unto Baptisme because hee accepteth the offer of their parents as the gift of their children and because baptisme is as well a signe and seale of regeneration and righteousnes promised as wrought and bestowed For it is a signe and seale of the Covenant and so of all the blessings promised in it amongst which are regeneration faith and forgivenesse of sins Ier. 31.33 34. It is true that you say no man can receive grace but by grace not onely as you say because it consists of self-deniall but because it consists in laying hold on Christ who above the reach and power of corrupt nature But it is a grace and favour of Christ that he encourageth parents to come to themselves and to bring their children in their Armes to him And this grace is a blessing and favour to the children also so brought For the children that were so brought to Christ they returned home with a blessing Mark 10.16 It is true also which you say that obedience to Christ ought to be free But when you say Baptisme is forced upon an Infant against his will It is neither altogether true not at all materiall Not true for it may be Infants doe as often cry when they are carryed home from Baptisme as when they are brought forth to it And in proper speech Infants can neither be said to will or to nill what they understand not The will is a faculty of the reasonable soule Infantâ— till they have the use of Reason they have not the exercise of their will Neither is it materiall whether Infants bee willing to their Baptisme or not seeing at that Age God attendeth not to the will of Infants but to the will of their Parents and to his owne gratious Covenant in which he is wont to heale the frowardnesse and to take away the uncircumcision of the heart for hiâ— Name sake CHAP. XII A Ninth and last Argument against the Baptisme of Infants is that the doctrine thereof opposeth directly the expresse word of God by teaching that Infants are in the Covenant of grace being borne of beleeving parents and so an holy seed by vertue of which they have right to Baptisme as a Priviledge of Grace against which the Holy Ghost affirmes that all are conceived in sinne brought forth
to beleeve their salvation but to beleeve the salvation of a remnant among the Jews nay of none at all but such as doe beleeve Truely if God had not blinded you for offering to argue God to be an Author of an untruth upon the supposition of the Baptisme of infants which is an holy truth of God you would never have delivered so palpable an untruth contrary to your owne knowledge as to say this is an untruth contrary to what God himself knoweth and reveales to beleeve the salvation of a remnant among the Jews nay of none at all but such as beleeve But to leave your inconsiderate boldnesse in arguing God of an untruth which falleth upon your selfe to your Argument I answer as before by denying your proposition This I deny that the Covenant of Grace is absolute and saving unto all once within the same you heape up many Scriptures to prove it but none of them without violence will bee wrested to beare witnesse to it your first Scripture in Ier. 32.40 Doe you thinke it speaketh of all the people whom God brought out of Babel into Hierusalem againe or of the Elect onely If of all the people as v. 38. might seeme to imply surely the Covenant of Grace was not absolute and saving to them all There was among them Shemajah and Noadiah false Prophets which sought to discourage the hands of Nehemiah in his work Nâ—hem 6.10 to 14. And there were also Nobles of Iudah that kept intelligence with Tobiah and were sworne to him v. 17 18 19. and can you thinke that the Covenant of Grace was absolute and stable unto such as these But if you meane that the Covenant of Grace was absolute stable to the elect seed you speake truely and safely and therein also wee agree with you But then you must not stand to your former proposition that the Covenant of Grace is absolute and stable unto all once within the same For as it was before the captivity there were some that brake the everlasting Covenant Isa 24.5 and therefore some were once within the Covenant to whom it was not absolute and stable so was it also after the captivity that Covenant promised to give them one heart that they might feare the Lord for ever for the good of them and of their children afteâ— them verse 39. And yet some of them did not feare God themselves and many of their children did soone degenerate in so much that in the dayes of Malachi the whole Nation fel to the robbery of God and were cursed with a curse in stead of the sure mercies of the Covenant Mal. 3.9 The other Scriptures which you doe alledge to prove your proposition that the Covenant of Grace is absolute and stable unto all once within the same they none of them speake to your purpose The Text in Isay 49.21 speaketh that the Church shall wonder at the increase of her children after shee had lost the other and shall therefore enquire who had begotten these to her But what maketh this to prove that the Covenant of Grace is absolute and stable to all those who are once within the same It rather proveth that some of the children of the Church and so some within the Covenant of the Church have beene lost and that is contrary to your proposition Your next place in Ierem. 31.3 holdeth forth that God loved the house of Israel with an everlasting love and the text in Ioh. 13.1 declareth that whom Christ loveth hee loveth to the end And that in Mal. 3.6 teacheth us that the Lord Jehovah is unchangeable and therefore that the sonnes of Iacob perish not And your last place in Ioh. 10.28 29. sheweth us that Christ giveth â—nto his sheepe everlasting life that they shall never perish But what is all this to prove that none are within the Covenant of grace but such as God loveth with an everlasting unchangeable love unto the end and who shall receive everlasting life All these places doe prove indeed that God hath a people to whom his love is stable and also absolute but saith nothing to any such purpose that all once within the Covenant of Grace doe partake in this state of absolute unchangeable and everlasting love and life of Christ CHAP. XVII Silvester THere bee four or five other Arguments against that Baptisme of Infants which were received in England which though they doe not so take with me as the former doe yet I desire to heare what you thinke of them because I finde more difficulty in them then I can easily resolve The 1. is taken from the false power by which Baptisme is administred in England and that is by power received from the Bishops 2. From the false ground upon which it is there administred upon the faith and profession of the Godfathers and Godmothers 3. From the falâ—e manner in which it is administred that is by springling and not dipping 4. From the false end for which it is administred which is for the Regeneration of the Infants 5. From the false subject of Baptisme which being onely Infants it commeth to passe that now in England the Baptisme of beleevers which the Gospell acknowledgeth is worne out of use and instead thereof the Baptisme of Infants is come in place of whom it may bee not one of a thousand at that age is a beleever But of this subject of Baptisme wee have had much speech already Now for the first of these the power whereby the Ministers of England doe exercise their office and so baptize It is derived from the Bishop and the Bishop is not ordained by Christ but by Antichrist at least by humane power and such is all the prower derived from him Antichristian or at best Humane Such as hold the Bishops to bee of divine Institution as many English Ministers have done they will easily avoid your Argument Silvanâ—â— if they could as easily make good their owne Tenent of the divine right of Episcopasie But let them passe and every plantation which our heavenly father hath not planted let it bee rooted out Take it therefore thus rather the powers whereby the Ministers in England doe administer the word and Baptisme it is either spirituall and proper c. essentiall to their calling or adventitious or accidentall The former they have received from Christ by a double Act of his 1. He hath furnished many of them with Ministeriall gifts 2. Hee hath inclined the hearts of his people either to choose and call them as in many parishes of the City and in sundry Market Townes and elsewhere or at least to accept them and to submit to them being commended to them by the Patron The latter power which is adventitious and accidentall is that which they receive from the Patron who presents them to the Bishop and from the Bishop who ordaineth and licenseth them to administer unto Christ and his people This power though it hath beene established by the law of the Land yet
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