alive in Christ but partaketh of the sap and life of Christ and bringeth forth such fruit be they never so young and small whereby the same may bee discerned So it is here by these spirituall branches they cannot properly bee called branches in the Apostles sense but as they partake of the life and Grace of Christ Answer It is true There is no branch alive in Christ but partakes of the Sap and Life of Christ But it is not true that every such living branch in Christ bee it never so young and small bringeth forth such fruits whereby the same may be discerned For what discernible fruit of the life of Christ did Jeremy shew forth when he was sanctified from his mothers wombe Jer. 1.5 Yea Christ himselfe who was full of the spirit of life from his Mothers wombe what discernible fruits thereof did hee bring forth Doth the Gospell and story of his life expresse any or can your selfe imagine any Neither is it true that you say that the spirituall branches cannot properly be called branches in the Apostles sense but as they partake of the life and grace of Christ For the Apostle doth not call them spirituall Branches nor are they all such unlesse by spirituall you mean Metaphoricall But he expresly calleth them naturall branches and such as God did not spare but cut them off v. 21. And therefore they did not all of them partake of the grace and life of Christ but some of them were indeed dead and fruitlesse But say you nature it selfe teacheth no man will admit of dead plants to be set in his vineyard or Graffed into a stocke c. And so it is with Christ who cometh not short of Nature And th refore he admits not of any dead plants to be set in his Vineyard nor dead members to joyned in his mysticall Body Neither took he to himself a compounded body consisting of living and dead members And all unbeleivers be dead and all the infants of beleevers till they be borne again of the Spirit Iohn 3.5.6 Neither is the Church of God which is the mysticall body of Christ a mixt company but suitable to her head to the matter of which he was produced the immortall seed of the word one holy spirituall body Cant. 6.9 Mal. 2.15.22 Ephes 2.14 to Ioh. 4.23 All which proveth the Church of God under the New Testament not to consist of unbeleevers neither in whole nor in part Answer Nature it self sheweth that in a Vine many dead branches are found and many that have some kinde of life and yet are not fruitfull And therefore the husbandman in time cutteth them off and so is it in the spirituall Vine and therefore such dead and fruitlesse branches the Father who is the Husbandman cutteth them off Ioh. 15.1 2. though for a time he may spare them as he did the Barren Figge-tree foure yeares Luke 13. 7 8 9. And though no man will admit of dead plants to be seâ— in his Vineyard or graffed into a stock yet many plants set and graffed may prove dead Men indeed would not willingly admit dead plants to be set or graffed because they know not what to do with them when they are dead But if dead plants being set or graffed would grow either to be fruitfull and if not fruitfull yet to be good fire-wood it would be no bad husbndry to set or graff dead plants And so is it here God thinks it no bad husbandry in him to admit dead plants to bee set and grow in his Vineyard and if they grow fruitfull well if not to tolerate them there till they grow up to fulfill their iniquity as hee did the Iews Mat. 23.32 because then he knows how to illustrate the glory of his justice in casting them into the fire of Hell John 15.6 Mat. 3.10 It is true which you say Christ cometh not short of Nature but in this he exceedeth Nature Nature cannot make a dead plant set in a Vineyard or graffed in a stock to grow But Christ can make a dead plant set in his Church to grow living and fruitful For else how came John Baptists Ministry to turn the hearts of so many Publicans souldiers and other people to bring forth fruits meete for repentance Luke 3.10 to 14. But otherwise if Christ make not dead plants set in his Church to grow living and fruitfull he can make them grow up to yeeld more fewell to the fire of his wrath and to grow ripe for greater damnation Mat. 23 14. It is utterly therefore untrue which you say that Christ admits not of any dead plants to be set in his Vineyard or that he taketh not to himself a compounded body of living and dead members or that the Church of God is not a mixt company c. For who called Iudas to the Apostleship did not the Lord Jesus himselfe Did not hee plant him in his Vineyard And doth hee not hyre and send forth many labourers into his Vineyard who yet afterwards many of them prove murmurers Mat. 20.1 to 16. The Church of Christ is often in the Gospell called the Kingdome of Heaven and in Mat. 25.1 The Kingdome of heaven is given for the stile of such Churches as are most pure such as they will bee after the destruction of Antichrist and the calling of the Jews prophecyed of in chapter 24. wherein all the members are virgins none defiled with Antichâ—istian Whoredome All servants none enemies all as clean beasts whether sheep or goats the goates themselves being cleane for meate as chewing the Cud and dividing the hoofe and cleane also for sacrifice And yet are there not to be found amongst these Virgin-members of the Church some wise some foolish amongst these servants some thriving some unprofitable amongsts these clean beasts some sheep some goates who shall stand accursed at the left hand of Christ It is true the Church which is the mysticall body of Christ ought to be suitable unto Christ her head and to the immortall seed of the word of which shee is begotten and many times so shee is but not alwayes every member yea very seldome every member if at any time I cannot tell if at any time the King that made a Marriage for his sonne shall come in and not finde one guest at least that hath not on a Wedding garment Mat. 22.11 The plâ—câ— which you alledge to the contrary will not prove it as that in Cant. 6.9 proveth indeed that whereas Christ hath manay Queenes Churches marryed to him by Covenant and invested with Royall Authority and more concubines that enter not by Covenant nor are indued with authority in the house of God yet one or some few are chast and harmelesse and undefiled but so a Church may bee when the Doctrine and Worship and Government thereof is received and administred according to the pattern although some members have a name to live but are dead and have not as you speake a living Principle of grace and faith in
accounted of God as uncircumcised himselfe if his children were uncircumcised for so it is written in Exod. 12.48 that if a man will come and keepe the Passeover all the males in his house must be circumcised and the reason given is for no uncircumcised Person shall eate thereof which plainly argueth that a man is uncircumcised himselfe and as an uncircumcised person is to be debarred from the Passeover untill all his males be circumcised If then our Lords Supper come in the roome of the Passeover and our Baptisme in the roome of Circumcision looke as he that had not circumcised his males was accounted as one uncircumcised himselfe and so to be debarred from the Passeover so hee who hath not baptized his children is accounted of God as not baptized himselfe and so to be debarred from the Lords Supper If therefore you forbid Baptisme to children you evacuate the Baptisme of their Parents and so make the commandment of God and the Commission of the Apostles and the Baptisme of believers of none effect In the Apostles Commission by Disciples is meant beleevers Silvester for so when the Evangelist Marke recordeth the same Commission he rehearseth it thus Go saith Christ into all the world and preach the Gospel unto every creature He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved he that believeth not shall be damned Mark 16.15 16. So that unlesse children were believers they are not subjects capable of Baptisme no Faith no Baptisme If children have no Faith to be baptized Silvanus then have they no Faith to be saved For the words of the Apostles commission are as plaine and pregnant for the one as for the other He that beâ—ieveth and is baptized saith Christ shall be saved he that believeth not shall be damned Mar. 16.16 If therefore children as being unbelievers cannot be baptized then as being unbeleevers they cannot be saved Silvester It is very doubtfull to me neither hath the Scripture revealed it that such as dye Infants are in a state of salvation for without the hearing of the word no faith and without faith no salvation Silvanus See what uncomfortable and desperate conclusions these ways of error drive men unto Jacob while he was yet in his mothers womb was in a state of election Rom. 9.11.13 and therefore in a state of salvation though he had dyed then John Baptist was filled with the holy Ghost from his mothers wombe Luke 1.17 and if he had then dyed the spirit of life which dwelt in him had quickened him to immortality To what end were the children who dyed Infants in the old Testament circumcised what did their circumcision seale to them Canaan they did never live to see much lesse to inherit if it did not seal unto them spirituall and saving blessings it was to them a seale without a thing signified what though children do not receive faith by hearing of the gospel as the Nations of the Gentiles do of whom the Apostle speaketh in the place whereto you allude yet as children can see the light and be taken with it and turn their eyes to it so the Lord can shine into the dark hearts of children and give them faith to see his light and to be taken and affected with it though they never heard of it by the hearing of the eare Silvester What the Lord can doe in inlightening Infants is a secret known to himself the Lord can even of stones raise up children unto Abraham Matth. 3.9 In which sense children may also bee said to be capable of the Spirit to wit as well as stones But if children should be said to be capable of the spirit so as to comply with the Spirit in hearing receiving and beleeving the Spirits testimony and so to be capable of regeneration faith and repentance this I deny and to affirm this to be the way to bring persons to the faith by working so upon them by his Spirit in their infancy argueth some ignorance of the true nature and work of graces as the Gospel holdeth it forth Silvanus There is a middle way between both these two in which God can and doth convey the spirit of grace unto infants for neither are infants so uncapable as stones for stones must first have a reasonable soule conveyed into them before they can be capable of the spirit of grace whereas Infants have a reasonable soul already Neither yet are infants so capable of complying as you call it with the Spirit as to heare beleeve and repent yet nevertheless Infants being reasonable creatures they are also capable though not of apprehending yet of receiving the holy Ghost from their mothers wombe for even then John Baptist was filled with him Luke 1.15 It is one thing to be filled from the mothers wombe Silvester with the holy Ghost as John was another thing to believe Act. 6.5 and 4.31 Secondly all such so testified of as John was I shall acknowledge but to affirm that what God testified of John Baptist in the wombe holdeth true of all other infants likewise this indeed were weaker then infancy to affirm it and grosser then ignorance to believe it Iob is said to be a guide to the distressed from his mothers womb Iob 31.18 shall it thence be concluded that in his infancy he was a guide to such or if he were so must it needs follow that all infants are capable guides also because it was so said of him To be filled with the holy Ghost Silvanus doth always imply thus much at least as to be filled with the gifts of the holy Ghost or if men had received the gifts of the holy Ghost before yet when it is said againe they were filled with the holy Ghost it implyeth they were filled with a greater and fuller measure of those gifts then before And that is the meaning of those places which you quote out of the Acts whence it will follow that Iohn being filled with the holy Ghost from his mothers womb was therefore filled with the gifts of the holy Ghost as the gift of faith the gift of wisdome and zeale and patience c. Although he was no more able to exercise them or put them forth then he was able to put forth any act of reason and yet his soul wanted not the faculty of reason from his Mothers wombe There is no man so weak or ignorant as to beleeve or affirm that all infants are in the like sort filled with the holy Ghost as Iohn Baptist was But yet if you believe or affirm that none else were filled or sanctified with the gifts of the holy Ghost but Iohn Baptist onely or that all infants are not alike capable of those gifts as well as he I may say as Christ said in another case You erre because you know not the Scriptures nor the power of God David saith as of Christ in substance so of himselfe in type Thou didst make me to hope or trust at my mothers
breasts Psal 22.9 Esay saith in like sort The Lord hath called me from the wombe Esa 45.1 and the Lord saith the same of Ieremy I sanctified thee before thou camest forth of the wombe Ier. 1.5 Yea little children are so farre forth capable of receiving the holy Ghost or which is all one the kingdom of God for by his Spirit he setteth up his kingdom in us that our Saviour expresseth it generally that whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child to wit as a little child receiveth it for so the syntax carryeth it he shall not enter therein Mar. 10.15 What though it bee said that faith commeth by hearing so it is also said the Spirit commeth by the hearing of faith Gal. 3.2 And yet you see as some have received the Spirit that never heard of faith so the same hâ—ve received faith that never heard the word As for Iob the place which you quote Iob 31.18 argueth the like of him that hath been said of the former that Iob from his mothers wombe was indued with an indoles or inbred disposition and affection to pity and succour the fatherlesse and widow which dâ—ubtlesse was wrought in him by the holy Ghost as all other good gifts be And all other infants as well as he are capable of the same and the like gifts if the spirit of the Lord be pleased to work them Silvester I am not against any that have faith but am absolutely for all that believe whether infants or others so that their faith appeare by such effects as the word of God approveth of But whereas some say that infants are capable of the Spirit of God and of the grace of the Covenant though not wrought in the same way and by the same meanes yet the same things and by same Spirit so farre as is necessary to union with Christ and justification of life thereby else children were not elected nor should be raised up in their bodies to life I wish it may be minded that touching union with Christ three things are essentiall to the same 1. Gods revealing and tendering of Christ as the al-sufficient and onely way to life 2. An heart fitly disposed by faith to apprehend and receive Christ so tendered 3. The spirit of grace uniting and knitting the heart and Christ together And this I understand to be that effectuall and substantiall union with Christ to the justification of life which the word of God approveth of For justification to life ever presupposeth the parties knowledge of the thing beleeved Rom. 10.14 Heb. 11.6 Now let this be well examined by the rule of truth and then see how capable infants are of union with Christ and justification to life thereby As for some evill consequences which some to darken and obscure the truth doe say would follow thereupon that then infants were not erected nor should then their bodies be raised again to life c. I would first enquire of such whether infants with reference to their nonage were the subjects of Gods election Secondly if infants so considered are capable subjects of glory And if not as I suppose none will affirme then why are they any more capable of grace then of glory The word of God sheweth that he hath elected persons to the meanes as well as to the end the meanes being the way unto the end and that was the adoption of sonnes to bee called and justified by believing on Jesus Christ Ephes 1.4 5. Rom. 8.29 30. 1 Pet. 1.2 2 Thes 2.13 14. c. And to return free obedience unto him again as Rom. 9.23 24. Ephes 1.6 12. And for the raising of infants it is the power of God that raiseth the dead and not union with Christ 1 Thess 4.16 And when any of Gods electcan by the Scriptures be shewed to dye in their infancy then it will be granted their bodies are raised to life eternall When you say you are not against any that have faith Silvanus whether infants or others so that their faith appeare by such effects as the Word approveth I demand what if their faith appeare not by the effects is it not enough if it appeare by divine testimony Christ hath said that of such is the kingdom And that all that receive his kingdom must receive it as little children doe as hath been shown above and is not his testimony of their faith as good an evidence of their faith as the effects of their faith can be As for the 3 things which you would have to bee minded as essentiall to union with Christ The first of them the revealing and tendering of Christ as the al-sufficient and only way of life if you meane the revealing and tendering of him by the Ministery of the gospel you know the Ministery of the gospel is but an outward instrumentall cause of faith and no outward instrumentall cause is essentiall to the effect whether we speake of naturall or supernaturall effects certaine it is that the spirit of God who is the principall cause of faith though he be wonted to work it by the Ministery of the Word yet he can also work it without the Ministery or else how came the Wisemen from the East to seeke after Christ and to worship him by the sight of a starre If you say that was extraordinary but you speake of ordinary meanes that will not serve for that which is essentiall to a thing the thing cannot be without it neither ordinarily nor extraordinarily a thing cannot be and be without his essence or that which is essentiall to it Besides Christ speaketh of it as no extraordinary thing for infants to receive the kingdom of God and they cannot receive it without Christ nor without faith in Christ and yet they never received either Christ or faith by their own immediate hearing of the Woâ—d And for the second thing which you make essentiall to union with Christ an heart fitly disposed by faith to apprehend and apply Christ Be not unwilling to understand that which is the truth The heart is fitly disposed by faith to apprehend or apply Christ when faith is begotten in the heart for by this gift of faith begotten in us Christ apprehendeth us and by the same gift of faith the heart is fitly disposed to apprehend Christ even in infants for when faith is wrought in infants the heart is quickned with spirituall life and made a sanctified vessell fit to receive Christ which reception of Christ though it be passive as Dr. Ames calleth it in Châ—p 26. de Vocatione lib. 1. Medullae Theologiae yet it is all one with regeneration wherein not infants onely but all men are passive which gave the Lord Jesus occasion to say That whosoever receiveth not the kingdom of God as a little child hee can in no wise enter into it Luk. 18.17 It is true in men of years the Spirit as you speake worketh faith by the hearing of the Word and by revealing and tendering Christ
faith think you be built upon the word of man for the truth of his baptisme But be willing to call to mind the Lord Jesus upbraided his eleven Apostles with their unbelief and hardnesse of heart because they believed not them which had seen him after hee was risen from the dead Mar. 6 14. And yet some of them mentioned in the former part of the Chapter were but women and others of them were private disciples neither sort of them were Apostles The truth is if one Proposition in a Syllogisme be found in the Word of God and the other Proposition be found certaine and evident by sense or reason the conclusion is a conclusion of faith As for example it is a proposition found in Scripturâ— Thâ—t the City which raigned over the Kings of the earth â—n Iohns time is that woman the great Whore Babylon which shall bee destroyed Revel 17.18 But Rome is that City which reigned over the Kings of the earth in Johns time This proposition wee have by certaine and evident testimony of the histories of those times Therefore Rome is that woman the great whore Babylon which shall be destroyed This Conclusion is a Conclusion of faith not built upon the word of men but upon the word of God Apply the like manâ—â—r of arguing to the point in hand thus Every disciple of Christ that is every believer and his sâ—ed that is baptized by a Minister of the Gospell in the name of the Fathâ—r Son and holy Ghost is truly baptized This Proposition iâ— delivered in the Gospell But I the child of a bâ—liever was baptized by a Minister of the Gospell in the name of the Father Son and holy Ghost This Proposition is confirmed by so many eye-witnesses and such approved records that no reasonable man can doubt of it The conclusion then is a conclusion of faith Therefore I the child of a believer was truly baptized CHAP. X. Silvester FOr a seventh Argument against the Baptisme of Infants I have met with this To baptize Infants maketh the holy Ordinance of God a lying signe because none of those things can bee expected in an Infant which the said Ordinance holdeth forth or signifieth in the administration thereof which is the parties Regeneration and spirituall new Birth a dying and burying with Christ in respect of sin and a rising with him in a New life to God and a confirmation of Faith in the death and Resurrection of Christ and a free remission of sin by the same as Rom. 6.3.4 Col. 2.12 1 Pet. 3.21 Act. 2.38 None of all which can bee expected in an Infant Silvanus That which hath been found in some Infants as in John Baptist and Jeremiah and many moe that they have been sanctified by the holy Ghost from their Mothers wombe there is nothing hindreth but the same may bee desired and expected in any Infants of beleeving Pâ—rents The Faith of beleeving Parents hath prevailed with Christ to cast out an evill spirit out of their children And wheresoever the good spirit of grace entreth there wanteth not Regeneration fellowship with Christ in his death buriall Resurrection there wanteth not Faith nor Remission of sins But besides suppose that none of these things were found in Infants yet it is a profane and blasphemous speech to say that the Baptisme of Infants maketh the holy Ordinance a lying sign because none of those things are found in Infants which the Ordinance holdeth forth and signifyâ—th unlesse you were able to make it good that Baptisme holdeth forth and signifieth nothing but what is already found in the Infants But you cannot bee ignorant that Baptisme signifieth and sealeth up not onely good thingâ— found already in the baptized but also good things promised and as yet to come as Resurrection from the dead 1 Cor. 15.29 Saving out of afflictions and persecutions which were then ready to overwhelme all the Churches in the Romane Empire as Noahs flood did the wholâ— world which is the meaning of Peters words in the place which you quote 1 Pet. 3.21 To say nothing that â—aptisme signifieth and sealeth up the growth of all spirituall gifts and blessings as well as the gift of them And growth is a blessing future to the baptized as well as the gift may bee future to some Infants baptized Yea it is an holy truth of God that Baptisme is as well the signe and seale of the promise of God as the signe and seale of any gift of God already bestowed Now Promises are of blessings to come Circumcision was a signe and seale of the Land of Promise to bee given as well as of the righteousnesse of Faith to Abraham which hee had already received Yea the same Circumcision which was to Abraham a signe and a seale of the righteousnesse of the Faith which hee had already received waâ— to Isaac a sign and seale of the righteousnesse of Faith promised but not received Yea that gracious Promise of God that hee would circumcise the hearts of his people Israel and of their seed Deut. 30.6 what was it else but an exposition and declaration of the meaning of their Circumcision that as they had received the outward signe in the flesh so they should receive they and their seed the thing signified in their heart and spirit It is no lying signe that holdeth forth and sealeth that which is done or which is promised to bee done in due time as much as iâ— meet for him to doe that promiseth The Baptisme of Ananias and Sapphira of Simon Magus and Demâ—s was no lying signe though they neither were Regenerate when they were Baptized nor ever afterwards came on to bee Regenerate because the lye lay not in the Lords Covenant nor in the signe of it but in their affected hypocrisie which would not bee healed CHAP. XI THe eighth Argument against the Baptisme of Infantâ— is because the subject of Baptisme is to bee Passive but an Infant is no way passive as that Ordinance requirâ—th I mean a passive subject threefold 1 A thing uncapablâ— and thus is a stone 2 A thing forced and thus is an Infant who opposâ—th his Baptisme to the utmost of his ability so farre is it from being passive in the same 3 A thing is passive by a subjecting power producing thâ—â—ame in the subject by bringing it to a free and voluntary subjection And thus is the true subject of Baptisme None can bee passive to receive grace Silvanus but by grace because it consisteth of self-denyall Obedience to Christ ought to bee free but Baptisme is forced upon an Infant against its will I will not examine the termes of your Distinction of a threefold passive subject though I would not have you taken with it which is indeed neither Naturall nor Artificiall nor spirituall For when you make the first sort of a passive subject a thing uncapable as is a stone I might demand whether you mean uncapable lawfully or unlawfully If you mean a stone is uncapable
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
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
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
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
Kingdome under the whole heaven shall bee given to the people of the Saints of the most High A second thing which I would put you in minde of which also hath been mentioned above is that wee doe not stand upon Nationall Iewish priviledges but upon the Covenant of Abraham which was given with the Seale thereof to him and his seed before any of the Jewes and Israelites were borne when Abraham and his seed were confidered rather as a Domesticall Church then a as national And then the Covenant was given to him as walking before God in uprightnesse of heart Gen. 17.1.7 which cannot bee without faith and the signe of the Covenant was given him as a signe and seale of the righteousnesse of Faith Rom. 4.11 and both Covenant and seale were given to his infant seed for his faith sake Gen. 17.7 And in case his infant seede should grow up to riper yeares and then not take hold of the Covenant of Abraham but prophanely reject they were cast out of their Church Estate as was Ismael and Esau And so the seed of Abraham could never grow up to a Nationall Church unlesse when they grew up to yeares they should continue in a visible Profession of the Faith of Abraham or unlesse god should afterwards enlarge the wings of his Covenant to reach over the whole Nation as hee began to doe in the Testament of Iacob Gen. 49.26 and more fully and solemnely declared the same Exod. 19.3 to 8. and Deut. 29.10 to 13. But it is not the Covenant of Jacob to him and to all his Posterity during their lives that wee plead for But the Covenant and blessing of Abraham which the Apostle saith is co ue upon us Gentiles Gal. 3.14 which onely admitteth the faithfull and their infant seed not during their lives in case their lives should grow up to Apostasie or open scandall but during their infancy and so long after as they shall continue in a visible profession of the Covenant and faith and the religion of their fathers Otherwise if the children of the faithfull grow up to Apostasie or to any open scandall as Ismael and Esau did as they were then so such like now are to be cast out of the fellowship of the Covenant and of the seales thereof But you willingly take no notice here of the Covenant of Abraham to him and to his seed And because say you the Jews had a promise for the bringing forth the Messias the promised seed in whom all Nations should bee blessed therefore all of that Nation were admitted to the outward Priviledges as figures of him whom that Nation was to bring forth which made a fruitfull wombe accounted so great a blessing among the Jewes as not knowing who might bee so far honoured as to bring forth that blessed seed But Christ came of Abraham and of Isaae as well as of Judah the father of the Jews and yet that did not admit all the Nations which sprang of them to the outward Priviledges as you call them though very absurdly if you meane as you seeme to doe the Covenant and the seale thereof For the Covenant whereby wee and our seed have God for our God is not a meere outward Priviledge but a spirituall and heavenly Priviledge to such as know the worth of it Besides many Tribes of Israel were admitted they and their seed to the Priviledge of the Covenant and to the seale thereof of whom yet it was evident that Christ was not to spring of any of of them The Iewes who descended all of them of Iudah they were but one tribe of twelve And why should all the other eleven Tribes bee circumcised as well as the Jews in respect of their bringing forth their promised seed when yet old Jacob had limited the bringing forth of the Messiâ—h to the Tribe of Judah Gen. 49.10 Were all the children of the eleven Tribes figures of the Messiah as well as the children of the Jews Besides in Davids time there was a promise given to him that the Messiah should come out of his loynes 2 Sam. 7. Why then should any other families of the Jews injoy such a Priviledge that all their infants shuold bee circumcised with the Seale of the Covenant Doth any word of Scripture make all the Infants of all the Jews yea of all Israel figures of the Messiah And if no word of Scripture so doe shall any man forge such an imagination of his owne braine and be guiltlesse what though a fruitfull wombe was counted a great blessing among the Jews So it was also among the other Tribes who yet could not expect the Messiah to spring from them It was a cause just enough to account a fruitfull wombe a great blessing not onely because it was a blessing to the family but also because it was an inlargement of the Church In which respect the Elders and Peoples of Bethlehem blessed Ruth Chap. 4.11 and Boaz with her The Lord make this young Woman which commeth into thine house like Raechel and like Leah which two did build the house Israel How will you make it appeare That God honoured the Nationall birth among the Jews with such outward blessings and Priviledges that belongs not to the Gentiles at all You should have done well to have told us what those outward blessings and Priviledges were and to have cleared it that they belonged to the Jews and not to the Gentiles at all Otherwise it will not bee safe for you to take up doctrines of Religion upon trust of mans word The Gentiles say you are now to looke for our bringing forth of Christ according to the Spirit as the Jews did then according to the flesh and likewise their birth and seed and all things suitable to the same as John 3.3.5.6 Iohn 1.12 13. And therefore wee are said to know no man now no not Christ himselfe after the flesh 2 Cor. 5.16 And Circumcision was one Priviledge of the flesh Phil. 3.4 5. Answer It is not true that all the Jewes did looke to bring forth Christ according to the flesh For in Davids time they knew that Priviledge was peculiar to his family neither is it true that the Gentiles are now to look for the bringing forth of Christ according to the Spirit any more then the Jews were to looke then The Apostle Peter maketh us equall with the Jews and them with us in this Priviledge Wee looke saith hee to bee saved through the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ even as they Act. 15.11 It behoved them as well as us to attaine a spirituall birth and to bee borne of an immortall seed suitable to the same as well as us for it was not to a Gentile but to Nicodemus a Jew that Christ spake unto Ioh. 3.3.5 6. Except a man be borne againe of water and the Holy Ghost he cannot see the Kingdom of God That which is borne of the flesh is flesh that which is borne of the Spirit is Spirit Where it doth not
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
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
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
the Lords Sapper But this seemeth a double mystery to mee how persons are fit and capable of union in a state that are not fit and capable of Communion in the Ordinances of the same state And yet more mysticall how one should bee a capable subject of Baptisme and not of the Supper I can see no rule for such a practise in all the Book of God And it is against the rule of Nature that when a Childe is born it should bee kept from food It troubleth mee to hear you call such plain points both in Religion and Nature Mysteries Silvanus whereby you mean dark Riddles above your capacity It was a sad speech of our Saviour concerning such as to whom it was not given to know the mysteries of God Matth. 13.11 The Lord give you understanding in his heavenly Mysteries When you make it a mystery how persons can bee fit and capable of union in a state and yet not bee fit and capable of Communion in the Ordinances of the same state You know wee esteeme infants fit and capable Persons of the Covenant and of the seale of it Baptisme If you thinke otherwise then you doe expresly make Infants unfit and uncapable of Union with Christ or with his Church and so uncapable of the Kingdom of Heaven Which sometime you disclaime But if you speak of all Ordinances you speak against common sense and experience Infants are members of the Common-wealth and so are they also of the family and accordingly fit and capable of Union with both estates And yet they are neither capable of the Ordinance of Goverment nor of the Ordinance of obedience to the Laws and orders in either state And why should it seem more mysticall to you that Infants should bee capable of Baptism and yet not bee capable of the Lords Supper You have seen even now a reason of both both in Religion and Nature And therefore doe not say you can see no rule for it in all the Book of God and it is against a rule in Nature to keep a Childe born from his food For Baptisme holding forth the death and buriall and Resurrection of Christ if there bee food in these as there bee food indeed then children born that want not these as in Baptisme they are administred to them they want not food Yea children in the wombe before they bee born to see the light yet they want not food but are fed by the Navell from the blood that is gathered in the mothers wombe before they come forth to suck the brests And so is it with the Infants in the Church they are fed by the blood and Spirit of Christ in Baptism before they can suck the sincere milk of the Word Silvester The Church of the New Testament succeedeth the Old but it will not follow that the like subjects succeed each other also For no rejected Ishmaelite and Esau are to bee admitted either unto Union or Communion in the Church under the New Testament by Christs appointment therefore though Baptisme succeed Circumcision yet the same subjects doe not so Silvanus The Church of the Old Testament consisted of no other subject matter then such as professed the Faith of the God of Israel and their seed And the Church of the New Testament consisteth of the like Grounds and proofes whereof wee have given above Ishmael and Esau when they shewed themselves to bee rejected of God they were not admitted to any further Union or Communion with the Church in the Old Testament No more were Simon Magus Ananias and Sapphira allowed any longer Union and Communion with the Church of the New Testament after they once shewed themselves like Esau or Ishmael to bee rejected of God But before that time Simon Magus Ananias and Sapphira were as well admitted into Union and Communion with the Church of the New Testament as young Ishmael and Esau in the Old Silvester Yea but such were not admitted into the Church of the New Testament by Christs appointment Silvanus What say you then to Judas a man as bad or worse then any of them either in Old or New Testament Did not Christ himself appoint him to an Office yea to an high Office in the Church And can you then say he had no Union or Communion with the Church of the New Testament Silvester The two Testaments are as Wills containing certain Legacies given and bequeathed onely to such whose names are expressely set down in the same as Rev. 21.27 In the Old Testament as the first will a male of eight dayes old or a Proselyte Exod. 12.48 49. Gen. 17.10.14.23.25 Joh. 8 Phil. 3.4 5. In the New Testament as the last will of Christ the Legacies therein contained as the Priviledges and blessings of Abraham they are given only to such as beleeve and to none else Gal. 3.14.22.29 Rom. 8.17 and 4.11 12. and 9.7 8. Gal. 3.6 7. These are such as are begotten again by the immortall seed of the Word born of the Spirit and so children of God the onely true heires of the Kingdome of God with the prviledges thereof as Jam. 1.18 1 Pet. 2.23 Joh. 1.12 13. Joh. 3.5 6. 1 Joh. 3.9 10. Rom. 8.17 These are the holy seed which God so approves of in the Scriptures as Subjects of Grace and Heires of Life and being in Covenant they only have right to the priviledges thereof And their children and off-spring are such as succeed them in the same Faith and Truth and so are called the Generation of the Righteous succeeding each other in the way of Righteousnesse and not their Infants or personall seed proceeding from their loynes by carnall generation as Isa 43.5 and 44.3 and 54.3 and 59.21 and 66.22 and 61.9 and 65.23 Compare Rev. 12.17 Gal. 4.26 to 31. Silvanus I willingly acknowledge that the two Testaments are two Wills containing such Legacies as are bequeathed and given onely to such whose names are either expressely set down or whose condition is plainly described in them Otherwise if you stand upon expresse names are there any such names expressely set down as William and Rowland Richard and Robert Godfrey and Geoffrey or the like And would you exclude all such whose names are not expressely set down from any Legacies in either Testament But I take your meaning to bee by names to understand Natures or Conditions and by expressely set down to understand plainly described The place which you alledge out of Revel 21.27 is a part of the description of the pure Church of the Jewes after their last Conversion the New Hierusalem by the condition of such Proselytes as from among the Nations shall enter into fellowship with them They shall not bee prophane persons defilers and corrupters of others nor makers of images which are abominations and lies And thus far the description agreeth to Infants as well as to men of riper yeers As for the other part of the description that none shall enter but such
ver 5. yet by water may either bee understood the Spirit it self as washing the soule like water in Regeneration or if Baptisme bee understood yet it is not there considered as a necessary ingredient to Church-fellowship but as a necessary instrument of the Spirit unto the sealing up of Regeneration the carelesse neglect and contempt whereof would exclude from salvation Luk. 7.30 It would therefore seem a more reasonable matter Silvester to administer Baptisme to a person when the spirit is in hand with his Regeneration But to what end shall Baptisme bee administred to Infants when wee doe not discern that the Spirit is about any such work as the Regenration of them It is no unwonted thing with God Silvanus to give that for a signe of a thing which shall not bee accomplished of many dayes or yeers after God gave the Rainbow for a sign that hee would no more destroy the world with water The performance whereof remaineth still to bee accomplished to the end of the world God gave two sticks joyned together in Ezekiels hand to bee a signe of the joyning together of Judah and Joseph in one state Ezek. 37.16 to 22. which is not yet accomplished nor will bee till their last conversion God gave Circumcision to the Israelites as a signe that hee would circumcise their hearts and the hearts of their seed Deut. 29.6 And yet sometimes their own hearts sometimes the hearts of their seed were not circumcised of many yeers after It is enough that as in Circumcision so in Baptisme God sealeth up that promise and Covenant which hee hath made to beleevers to bee a God to them and to their seed For the present according to Covenant God preserveth and nourisheth the seed of the faithfull by his Fatherly providence God the Son as hee undertook to the Israelites so hee hath already performed it to us to shed his blood for us and our children The holy Ghost to whom it belongeth to work Regeneration hee may take his own good time sooner or later to performe that work in our Children which hee hath wrought in our selves God is as faithfull in the New Testament as in the Old and Baptisme which succeedeth Circumcision in sealing the same Covenant will undoubtedly bee accomplished in applying all the blessings of the Covenant to us and our seed as ever Circumcision found accomplishment to the Israelites and their seed Silvester Although Baptisme succeedeth Circumcision yet the difference is great both in matter and manner in persons and things Circumcision sealeth to things temporall and carnall as well as spirituall and so were the subjects and things to come as under types and shadowes and so in a cloud and darknesse wheras Baptisme hath for its subjects children of the light in the clear evidence of the Spirit with the face open and confirmes faith in things come and already done For Baptisme sealeth onely to faith in Christ and grace in the new Birth which cannot bee where there is not first a begetting by the immortall seed of the Word of Life for which end God hath ordained in the Gospel faith and beleeving to goe before Baptizing as Mat. 28.19 with Mark 16.15 16. And that way and order which hath not God for its Authour and found in the Records of Christ with his Image and superscription upon it let us say as sometimes hee did Give to Caesar that which is Caesars and to God that which is Gods So say I give to Antichrist his baptizing of Infants and to Christ his baptizing of Beleevers What advantage will it bee to Infants to come before they bee called to have a name to live and yet dead for ought any one knows and to come to the Marriage Supper without a wedding garment Shall the holy things of God bee forced upon such as neither beleeve know or once desire them Will men set a seale to a blanck Are Children capable to receive meat before they bee born Except wee make Baptisme the wombe of Regeneration as many doe who teach that Infants are regenerated and born againe of the Spirit of Grace in Baptisme Whose Doctrine is of the same stampe and authority as hee that sent them so to Preach What can be more naturall then the begetting or bringing forth of the Infant before feeding of it at the Mothers brests Is it not sacriledge to presse such upon the Wife of Christ the Church for her Paps with whom shee never travelled nor bare of her body Christ will deny himself to bee food and nourishment to any where hee hath not beene first seed to beget Let men take heed how they impute such folly to the wisdome of God as to give the milk of his brests unto any that are still-born or to set dead twigges in his heavenly and divine stock or naturall branches into his holy and spirituall Vine Let such beware how they fight against the God of Order lest instead of finding the brests to feed before the womb to beare they meet with a curse upon the single emptinesse of Christ with a double barrennesse that will admit of no conception or spirituall birth to succeed the naturall Not that I intend in the least to deny salvation unto Infants no I am so far from this that I testify against all such Doctrine nor yet affirm all Infants to bee saved neither doe I know among Infants which shall be saved and which not Therefore I leave it as a secret thing to God untill hee make the same appeare by some visible act of Faith which onely giveth a visible right unto any Ordinance of the New Testament And therefore I cannot see by the Gospel how Infants voyd of visible Faith should have visible right to the Priviledges of Grace neither ought they to bee admitted thereunto You have seen by the Gospel that the blessing of Abraham Silvanus is come upon the beleeving Gentiles and that the blessing of Abraham was that Covenant or Promise of Grace that God would bee a God to him and to his seed and that his seed was not only spirituall Christians for they are beleevers themselves but the seed of beleevers Now beleevers are one thing and the seed of beleevers is an other they are two distinct subjects of the Covenant And seeing the Covenant of God hath distinguished them who are you that you should confound them What if Infants bee void as you say of visible Faith yet their right to the Covenant and to the seale of the Covenant is or ought to bee visible to all men For it is visible they are the children of beleevers and it is visible that the Covenant is given to beleevers and to their seed whether they shall bee saved or no it is not required that it should bee visible but let it bee as you say it is a secret thing to God yet God hath made it visibly shall I say or audibly to appear that hee accounteth them holy 1 Cor. 7.14 and that
darknesse in such a dark time might bee capable of Circumcision yet in the light of the Gospel our children are not capable of Baptisme till they become children of light This is a carnall reasoning not savouring of the Spirit of God or speaking the language of the Scripture For though the Spirit of God in Scripture do call the children of God the children of light in opposition to their former carnall estate whether in their Pagancy or in their unregeneracy 1 Thess 5.5 Ephes 5 8. yet God never called the children of God in the Old Testament nor the children of his children children of darknesse Neither doth hee use such a phrase as to call the children of the New Testament children of the light in opposition to the children of the Old Testament as children of darknesse Neither is it altogether a true speech that faith in Christ and grace in the new birth cannot bee where there is not first a begetting by the immortall seed of the word of life For it hath been shewed above that the grace of the new birth and so faith were not wanting in John Baptist Jeremy and others in their mothers wombe who yet had never heard the Word of life Though the hearing of the Word of life bee the ordinary instrument which the Spirit of God is wont to use in begetting the grace of the new birth in men of understanding yet the Spirit himselfe being a principall part of the immortall seed of the Word hee can beget the grace of the new birth without the Word when yet the Word cannot doe it without him And yet I will not deny that in some sense though not in yours it may be granted that the Spirit ordinarily never worketh the grace of the new birth in the children of the faithfull but by the immortall seed of the Word of life For when the Spirit begetteth the grace of the new birth it is by the Ministery of the Word of life to their Parents one of them at least For they hearing the Word of life promising grace and life to themselves and to their seed the Spirit co-working with that Word begetteth faith in them to believe for themselves and for their seed And according to their faith it is done The Spirit begetteth the grace of life as well in their seed as in themselves The greater is the danger of those infants whose Parents like you doe not beleeve the grace of Christ can reach unto your infants and so it is no wonder if your children be deprived of the grace of the new birth for your unbeliefs sake Be it therefore granted which you take for granted in your next words That for this end to wit for begetting the grace of the new birth God hath ordained in the Gospel preaching and believing to goe before baptizing Mat. 28.9 with Mar. 16.15 16. yet this only proveth that the preaching of the Gospel and the begetting of faith by the Gospel is requisite to enstate the hearer in the grace and blessing or which is all one in the Covenant of the Gospel But if the hearer be a Parent of children and so doe believe the Gospel and Covenant of grace to belong to him and to his seed both hee and they according to the order of the Gospel and Covenant of grace are rightly baptized into the name of the Father and of the Sonne and of the Holy Ghost All which persons do joyne together in making this Covenant and sealing to it to be a God to the believer and his seed And if it were not so the place which you quote out of Mark Chap. 16. v. 15 16. would utterly cut off the children of believers dying in their infancy from all hope of salvation which you said even now you were far from For if infants for want of hearing the Word in their owne persons want faith and for want of faitsh may not bee baptized then for want of faith they cannot be saved For so run the words in Marke He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved hee that believeth not shall be damned If for unbeliefe they must not be baptized for unbeliefe they must then bee damned But if by the Gospel we understand as the Scriptures meane the glad tydings of the Covenant of grace and so of redemption and salvation by Christ preached and proclaimed to believers and their seed then al such as doe believe these glad tydings to themselves and to their seed they are commanded by the Order of the Gospel to be baptized themselves and their children with them for their children are by the faith of their Parents wrapped up in the Covenant and so are become capable subjects both of the Covenant and of the seale thereof For though the infants themselves be not it may be then actually believers when their Parents are baptized and themselves with them yet God who calleth things that are not as though they were Rom 4.17 He accepteth them into his Covenant by the faith of their Parents and so they are no longer Pagans and infidells but the children of the faithfull and holy in whom God hath covenanted to worke faith and the grace of the new birth in the elect seed and to offer it and the meanes thereof unto all the seed till they utterly reject it And requireth therefore of the Parents by his Covenant to neglect no meanes of grace for the holy institution of their children And for this end the seale of the Covenant is administred to the Infants to confirme the same to their children on both parts If therefore we delighted in returning reproaches for reproaches as you say to us give the baptizing of believers to Christ and the baptizing of infants unto Antichrist so might we more truly and justly returne it to you Give the baptizing of believers and their seed unto Christ For the Covenant of Christ is to believers and their seed and the seale of the Covenant is due where the faith of either Parent is fit to receive it to their holy seed but give the denyall of baptisme of Infants to Infidels onely and out-laws from the Church where neither of their Parents being believers their children also are Infidels and outlawes like their Parents neither believers nor holy according to Covenant You need not therefore ask what advantage will it be to Infants to come before they bee called For Christ called for little children to come unto him and was displeased with such as did forbid them Marke 10.14 If calling for Infants to come will suffice they cannot bee said to come before they be called Suffer saith he little children to come unto me and forbid them not for of such is the Kingdom of God And they being such hee put his hands upon them and blessed them If you ask why he did not baptize them too for who can forbid Baptisme to such as are blessed of Christ and by imposition of hands set apart to a blessing and to the Kingdome of God I
would answer Jesus himselfe baptized none Iohn 4.2 If you aske againe but why did not hee command his Disciples to baptiz them I answer because it may be both they and their children were baptized before Or because it doth not appeare that their Parents came to bee baptized of him or had themselves been baptized before though out of a godly affection they brought their children to him that he might blesse them Now it was not meet that the children should bee baptized when neither of the Parents of any of them were baptized nor brought their children to such an end Though we baptize children yet we doe not give them as you say a name to live when they bee dead For they may be truly said to live in that sense wherein the dead bodies of Abraham Isaac and Iacob are said to live to him Luke 20.37 38. For though they were then dead in their graves yet God being the God of Abraham Isaac and Iacob by Covenant hee will therefore raise up their dead bodies to life againe And so it is with the Infants of believers though they were by nature dead in sinne yet God the God of their Fathers being a God to them by vertue of the Covenant seeing God is not the God of the dead but of the living God will therefore according to his Covenant raise them up to newnesse of life that they may live in his sight If any of them fall short of that life it is because they make themselves twice dead by casting off the Covenant of their fathers I marvaile why you should call the baptisme of Infants a com ming to the marriage supper without a wedding Garment If you meane by comming to the marriage Supper partaking of the Lords Table you are not ignorant there is great difference in this case between the Lords Supper and Baptisme such may bee admitted to Baptism as may not be admitted to the Lords Supper We do not force as you call it the holy things of God upon such as nei ther believe nor know nor once desire them For if Parents doe not willingly offer their children to Baptisme we doe not force them And if they bring them and prefent them to Christ Christ accepteth the Parents bringing of them as much as the childrens comming in their own person Mar. 10.13 14. Why should you call the Baptisme of infants the settting of a seal unto a blank Is the Covenant of God to believing Parents and their seed become a blanke Is the promise of pouring out the Spirit of regeneration upon the seed and off-spring of believers a blank Isa 44.3 But it seemeth by your opinion if our children bee not full of themselves all the promises of God are a blanke and empty to them Though children be not capable to receive meat before they bee borne yet their Parents who are borne againe had need of some sign the sign appointed of God to feed and strengthen their faith in the Covenant that God will bee a God to them and their seed Besides the Baptisme which children receive before their regeneration is a seale and confirmation of the Covenant and of all the promises thereof to them after their regeneration The Circumcision which David received in his infancy did confirme his faith and confidence of victory against Goliah the uncircumcised Philistine after he was grown up to mans estate 1 Sam. 17 26. Signs given of God for future blessings are neither blanks nor preposterous We doe not make baptisme as you say the wombe of regeneration nor teach that Infants are regenerated and borne of the Spirit of grace in Baptisme Nor doe I finde that it was their judgement who compyled that book where such words are used men may thankfully acknowledge a benefit as received when they have onely received a promise of it and see it confirmed with a signe when Gedeon received a signe of the accomplishment of Gods promised victory over the Midianites though that signe was but a dreame and of a blessing to come yet Gedeon thankfully worshipped God for it and accepted the Victory as already granted him For so saith the Text Judg. 7.15 When Gedeon heard the telling of the dreame and the interpretation of the dreame hee worshipped and returned into the Host of Israel and said Arise for the Lord hath delivered into your hand the Host of Midian It is to no purpose to ask us as you doe what can bee more naturall then begetting and bringing forth of the Infant before feeding of it at the Mothers brests Is it not sacriledge to presse such upon the Pappes of the Wife of Christ his Church with whom shee never travelled or bare of her body For wee doe not look at the Sacraments neither doth the Scripture take them as the brests or Paps of the Church The wit of man can make an Image to it selfe and then play before it as the Israelites did before the golden Calfe Twice doth the Scripture mention the brests of the Church and never meaneth them for the Sacraments but for the Ministers of the Church full of the sincere milk of the Word equall in Office as the brests hoin bignesse and such as doe themselves feed among Lillyes Cant. 4.5 and 7.3 and 8.10 You must strain your wit farre to make the brests of the Church agree to the Sacraments Baptisme is rather the Navell of the Church whereby the Infant hath nourishment derived to it before it bee born Cant. 7.2 And as for the Lords Supper if it bee the other of the two brests of the Church the oldest and strongest Christians had still need to suck of that brest and so must become againe babes in Christ Yea Baptisme it self though it bee a seale of Regeneration whether past or to come yet it sealeth up also such deliverance from afflictions and persecutions 1 Pet. 3 21. and such sanctification and cleansing from all sin to present us to Christ without spot or wrinckle Ephes 5.26 27. that the strongest Christian will have need to feed upon his Baptisme as strong meat for strong men even when he is to lay down his body in the dust and to expect from his Baptisme the resurrection of his body 1 Cor. 15.29 But say you Christ will deny himself to bee nourishment to any where hee hath not been first seed to beget Answer Though none can take any nourishment till they bee begotten No Prince will deny to give a Charter to a Corporation of his Subject and a Charter sealed with the Great Seale of such and such Lands and inheritances for the maintenance and nourishment of them and their children and their childrens children for ever before any children bee yet born to them Your exhortations therefore for want of a ground-work of Truth doe fall of themselves to the ground like an house built upon the Sand. Let men take heed say you how they impute such folly to the wisdome of God as to give the milk of his brests to
in the like need to have their faith confirmed that God will bee a God to us and our seed And we are in like sort engaged both to walke in Gods wayes our selves and to bring up our children in the like holy instruction and information of the Lord. But let it be examined a little Silvester how the authority of the commandement of Circumcision can beare out the authority of baptizing infants Circumcision it doth not for all agree that wee are now to baptize not to circumcise The Minister circumcising it doth not then the Master of the family was to circumcise now one ordained by Christ in the Church to baptize The same part of the body it doth not that circumcised the foreskin Baptisme the whole man The age it doth not that the eighth day this any day The subject it doth not that a male onely this both male and female Now in that it doth not enjoyne any of all these wherein then can the authority of that commandement consist now in Baptisme so as to enjoyne Infants to be baptized And whereas men cry out from that command that Infants Infants Infants must be baptized as they were commanded to bee circumcised Why this commandement if it should be so serves for none but onely males So that if they will have the females to be baptized they must looke out another commandement for them and so there must be two commandements in one Ordinance There is no inconvenience for two commandements to meet in one Ordinance Circumcision was more then once commanded Silvanus Gen. 17. Lev. 12. So was the Passeover Exod. 12 Numb 9. Levit. 23.5 Neither is it another commandement that wee alledge for the baptizing of females but onely an example Acts 8.12 which yet being precedentiall is of like force as a commandement look wherin wee vary in the administration of Baptisme from the Rite and manner of Circumcision wee have just warrant for it in the New Testament Else we should no more have varyed from it then did the Proselytes of the Old Testament The rite of Circumcising and of the foreskin is expresly abolished Gal. 5.2 And we are said now to be circumcised in being baptized Col. 2.11 12. The Minister of Circumcision if it were not removed in the Old Testament from the family to the Synagogue from the father of the family to the Levite yet surely removed it was by Christ to the Ministers of the Gospel Mat. 28.19 The age had something in it ceremoniall as hath been shewed above The sex or subject as you call it was enlarged by the example of Philip Acts 8.12 So that we vary in nothing from the Commandement of circumcision but by the like warrant whereby Circumcision was at first commanded Shew us the like warrant for the rejecting of infants from Baptisme as we shew you for the changing of all the rest and reason will require we should hearken to you Tell us not that Iohn Baptist baptized such as professed their faith and repentance and Philip baptized the Eunuch upon the profession of his faith For we doe also now require the like from Proselytes or converts of grown yeares whether Jewes or Pagans But shew us any ground from Scripture either out of the Old or New Testament whereby infants are excluded either from the Covenant or from the seale of the Covenant and then we shall plead no longer for the Baptisme of infants from the Analogie of Circumcision Silvester I will not presse againe that which hath been alledged before But there is something further that sticks with me which may answer your demand and give you a ground for the exclusion of Infants alledged out of Gal. 4.22 23 24 25. Where the two Mothers Hagar and Sarah type out the two Testaments and their two sonnes Ishmâ—el and Isaac type out the subjects of the same the one by the bond-woman born after the flesh but hee of the free-woman was by promise v. 23. Now as Hagar the mother signified the old state in generall so Ishmael her sonne signified the children of the same state borne after the flesh as hee was For though hee was the child of Abraham yet hee was no child of promise Now for Sarah she was the lawfull wife of Abraham and so a free-woman with whom the Apostle compareth the estate of the Church of the New Testament the true Spouse and wife of Christ who is free from all servitude and bondage and stands onely in subjection to Christ her husband as Sarah did to Abraham and Isaac her sonne signifying the true holy and blessed seed Of this holy stock according to the Spirit and so as Isaac was true heire according to promise For the Gospel approveth of none as true heires of the blessing and so the right seed and truly in the Covenant but onely such as the promise produceth and brings forth as it did Isaac For Isaac came not by ordinary course of nature but by vertue of the promise of God and faith in the same which raised nature above it selfe to bring him forth By this the wisdome of God holds forth as in a figure who are Abrahams seed approved of in the Gospel and they are such as are brought forth by a power above nature which is by the promise of God and faith in the same as Isaac was c. Your whole glosse upon this text standeth like the Temple of Dagâ—n upon two maine pillars which being overthrowne Silvanus the whole fabrick will fall like Dagon himselfe before the Arke of the Covenant 1. You conceive that Hagar and Sarah signifie the severall estate of the Churches of the Old and New Testament Hagar the old state of the Church in the Old Testament and Sarâ—â— the state of the Church of the New Testament 2. You conceive that their two sons type out the different subjects of the same But neither of both these will stand with the Apostles words nor scope His scope is to dispute not against infants to exclude them from being subjects of the Church but to exclude legall Justiciaries such as desired to be under the law from being children of the Covenant of grace The words of the Apostle are these The two Mothers are the two Covenants v. 24. not the old state of the Church in the Old Testament and the new state of the Church in the New Testament Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia saith he and answereth or standeth in the same rank as the word signifieth to Hierusalem that now is v. 25. Marke that I pray you hee saith not to Hierusalem in her old estate in the dayes of the godly Kings and holy Priests and Prophets and people the Saints of the Lord who looked to bee saved by the grace of Christ as well as we Acts 15.11 but to Hierusalem that now is under the corrupt and degenerate Priests and Rulers Scribes Pharisees and Sadduces who renounced Christ and the righteousnesse of faith in him and seek to
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