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
for such a state in which they receive the offer and meanes of grace which to the elect seed doe become effectual much lesse do we teach that by vertue of a believers being in a state of grace all his children doe partake of the same grace with him and that so farre as he doth These things wee neither believe nor professe neither can they be gathered from our doctrine by any just consequence Secondly to your second the answer is as easie For 1. We doe not say that the children of believers are holy with that holinesse which accompanyeth regeneration and mortifieth originall corruption but onely with that holinesse whereby they are admitted to the meanes of grace with promise of efficacy to the elect seed and offers thereof to the rest so farre as to leave them without excuse 2. Suppose we did hold that which is farre from us to conceive that all infants in the Covenant were regenerate and so holy as well as their beleeving Parents and as farre as they Yet that would not take away the being or remaining of Originall sinne in them but onely the reigning of it For doe you thinke that the being of Originall sin is taken away from regenerate believers We for our part believe what we have cause to grone under that Originall sin remaineth in a believer and though it be pardoned and in some measure mortified yet it is not utterly destroyed till death To your third wee deny that our doctrine is any ground of falling away out of an estate of grace if you speake of an estate of saving grace For wee doe not say that all within the Covenant or under the seale of the Covenant are in an estate of saving grace Though in a large sense all the members of the Church whether Infants or Professors of the faith are in such a state of grace as that they do partake of the common gifts of grace and of the Ordinances of grace Neverthelesse they may fall away from such grace which the Apostle feared in some of the Galatians Gal. 5.4 To your fourth and last we answer it were a false slander if you should report that our Doctrine doth hold forth that ever Esau or Ishmael were subjects of a saving estate of saving grace For though we say they were borne under the Covenant of grace and were made partakers of the seale of the Covenant yet wee doe not say they were ever subjects of Gods saving grace It is a grace to partake in the meanes of grace and in the enjoyment of many gifts of common grace and in the offers of saving grace and yet many have enjoyed all these who neverthelesse were never subjects of saving grace neither of election whereof your two former texts speake nor of perseverance in the Covenant whereof your two latter speake And to fall from such an estate of grace I leave it to you upon second thoughts to judge whether it tend to Popery and Arminianisme or no. To gather up then the summe of all this discourse about the Covenant of Abraham to an head You have seen it now proved and maintained against all exceptions 1. That God made a Covenant of grace with Abraham and his seed 2. That God gave circumcision to be a seale of the same Covenant to Abraham and to all his infant-seed 3. That by the redemption of Christ the Covenant and blessing of Abraham is come upon the beleeving Gentiles and our seed 4. These things being already cleared the fourth thing that remaineth to be cleared is that circumcision being now abolished Baptisme succeedeth in the roome thereof as a seale of the same Covenant to believers and our seed Which if it may appeare then it will appeare also that the same Covenant of grace which gave a Commandement or word of institution for the Circumcision of faithfull Abraham and his seed doth also hold forth the same commandement and word of institution for the Baptism of faithfull Gentiles and our seed Now that Baptisme doth succeed Circumcision it is evident from the testimony of Paul Col. 2.11 12. where the Apostle having proved that we are compleat in Christ by the fulnesse of the Godhead dwelling in him v. 9 â—0 Lest it might bee objected that wee want circumcision and consequently we want the spirituall benefit signified and sealed by it which is the cutting off of the body of the sinnes of the flesh the Apostle answereth wee are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands in putting off the body of the sinnes of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ v. 11. And lest it should have been objected againe that wee want an outward signe and seale of this spirituall benefit the putting off of the body of the sinnes of the flesh The Apostle answereth again no neither doe we want the outward sign and seale thereof we being buried with him in Baptisme v. 12. The Argument seemeth to me somewhat weake Silvester and therefore a weake answer shall serve What though Baptisme succeed circumcision must it needs follow that as infants were circumcised so they must of necessity be baptized The new Testament succeedeth the Old must it needs therefore follow that the same Order be observed now as then It is well that you acknowledge the weaknesse of your answer Silvanus for if you had not the weaknesse of it bewrayeth it selfe but we acknowledge no weaknesse of the Argument unlesse it bee the weaknesse of God which the Apostle saith is stronger then men 1 Cor. 1.25 But you are deceived if you thinke a weake answer will serve a weake argument a weake adversary despised gathereth strength by contempt The Gileadites being despised as fugitives proved too heard for the Ephraimites Judg. 12.4 The Jewes being despised for a feeble company strengthened themselves in God from the contempt of their despisers Nehem. 4.2 3 4. yea there is no sinfull weaknesse of the Creature no not any weak thought but requireth weapons mighty through God to subdue it 2 Cor. 10.4 5. And therefore you are much mistaken when you thinke a weake Answer will serve a weak Argument But let us consider your answer such as it is What though say you Baptisme succeedeth Circumcision must it needs follow that as infants were circumcised they must of necessity be baptized Yes verily or else Baptisme doth not succeed Circumcision for what is succession but the substitution of latter things for former things in the same subject If the subject bee changed so farre as there is a change of the subject there is no succession If Belshazzar dye and Cyrus or Darius reigne in Persia here is no succession But if Belshazzar King of the Chaldeans die and Darius King of Persia succeed in the Kingdome of the Chaldees then there is a true succession else not especially in the case in hand it was requisite for the clearing of the Apostles doctrine that Baptism should succeed upon all those persons on whom Circumcision proceeded or else the
the Lords Sapper But this seemeth a double mystery to mee how persons are fit and capable of union in a state that are not fit and capable of Communion in the Ordinances of the same state And yet more mysticall how one should bee a capable subject of Baptisme and not of the Supper I can see no rule for such a practise in all the Book of God And it is against the rule of Nature that when a Childe is born it should bee kept from food It troubleth mee to hear you call such plain points both in Religion and Nature Mysteries Silvanus whereby you mean dark Riddles above your capacity It was a sad speech of our Saviour concerning such as to whom it was not given to know the mysteries of God Matth. 13.11 The Lord give you understanding in his heavenly Mysteries When you make it a mystery how persons can bee fit and capable of union in a state and yet not bee fit and capable of Communion in the Ordinances of the same state You know wee esteeme infants fit and capable Persons of the Covenant and of the seale of it Baptisme If you thinke otherwise then you doe expresly make Infants unfit and uncapable of Union with Christ or with his Church and so uncapable of the Kingdom of Heaven Which sometime you disclaime But if you speak of all Ordinances you speak against common sense and experience Infants are members of the Common-wealth and so are they also of the family and accordingly fit and capable of Union with both estates And yet they are neither capable of the Ordinance of Goverment nor of the Ordinance of obedience to the Laws and orders in either state And why should it seem more mysticall to you that Infants should bee capable of Baptism and yet not bee capable of the Lords Supper You have seen even now a reason of both both in Religion and Nature And therefore doe not say you can see no rule for it in all the Book of God and it is against a rule in Nature to keep a Childe born from his food For Baptisme holding forth the death and buriall and Resurrection of Christ if there bee food in these as there bee food indeed then children born that want not these as in Baptisme they are administred to them they want not food Yea children in the wombe before they bee born to see the light yet they want not food but are fed by the Navell from the blood that is gathered in the mothers wombe before they come forth to suck the brests And so is it with the Infants in the Church they are fed by the blood and Spirit of Christ in Baptism before they can suck the sincere milk of the Word Silvester The Church of the New Testament succeedeth the Old but it will not follow that the like subjects succeed each other also For no rejected Ishmaelite and Esau are to bee admitted either unto Union or Communion in the Church under the New Testament by Christs appointment therefore though Baptisme succeed Circumcision yet the same subjects doe not so Silvanus The Church of the Old Testament consisted of no other subject matter then such as professed the Faith of the God of Israel and their seed And the Church of the New Testament consisteth of the like Grounds and proofes whereof wee have given above Ishmael and Esau when they shewed themselves to bee rejected of God they were not admitted to any further Union or Communion with the Church in the Old Testament No more were Simon Magus Ananias and Sapphira allowed any longer Union and Communion with the Church of the New Testament after they once shewed themselves like Esau or Ishmael to bee rejected of God But before that time Simon Magus Ananias and Sapphira were as well admitted into Union and Communion with the Church of the New Testament as young Ishmael and Esau in the Old Silvester Yea but such were not admitted into the Church of the New Testament by Christs appointment Silvanus What say you then to Judas a man as bad or worse then any of them either in Old or New Testament Did not Christ himself appoint him to an Office yea to an high Office in the Church And can you then say he had no Union or Communion with the Church of the New Testament Silvester The two Testaments are as Wills containing certain Legacies given and bequeathed onely to such whose names are expressely set down in the same as Rev. 21.27 In the Old Testament as the first will a male of eight dayes old or a Proselyte Exod. 12.48 49. Gen. 17.10.14.23.25 Joh. 8 Phil. 3.4 5. In the New Testament as the last will of Christ the Legacies therein contained as the Priviledges and blessings of Abraham they are given only to such as beleeve and to none else Gal. 3.14.22.29 Rom. 8.17 and 4.11 12. and 9.7 8. Gal. 3.6 7. These are such as are begotten again by the immortall seed of the Word born of the Spirit and so children of God the onely true heires of the Kingdome of God with the prviledges thereof as Jam. 1.18 1 Pet. 2.23 Joh. 1.12 13. Joh. 3.5 6. 1 Joh. 3.9 10. Rom. 8.17 These are the holy seed which God so approves of in the Scriptures as Subjects of Grace and Heires of Life and being in Covenant they only have right to the priviledges thereof And their children and off-spring are such as succeed them in the same Faith and Truth and so are called the Generation of the Righteous succeeding each other in the way of Righteousnesse and not their Infants or personall seed proceeding from their loynes by carnall generation as Isa 43.5 and 44.3 and 54.3 and 59.21 and 66.22 and 61.9 and 65.23 Compare Rev. 12.17 Gal. 4.26 to 31. Silvanus I willingly acknowledge that the two Testaments are two Wills containing such Legacies as are bequeathed and given onely to such whose names are either expressely set down or whose condition is plainly described in them Otherwise if you stand upon expresse names are there any such names expressely set down as William and Rowland Richard and Robert Godfrey and Geoffrey or the like And would you exclude all such whose names are not expressely set down from any Legacies in either Testament But I take your meaning to bee by names to understand Natures or Conditions and by expressely set down to understand plainly described The place which you alledge out of Revel 21.27 is a part of the description of the pure Church of the Jewes after their last Conversion the New Hierusalem by the condition of such Proselytes as from among the Nations shall enter into fellowship with them They shall not bee prophane persons defilers and corrupters of others nor makers of images which are abominations and lies And thus far the description agreeth to Infants as well as to men of riper yeers As for the other part of the description that none shall enter but such
in the like need to have their faith confirmed that God will bee a God to us and our seed And we are in like sort engaged both to walke in Gods wayes our selves and to bring up our children in the like holy instruction and information of the Lord. But let it be examined a little Silvester how the authority of the commandement of Circumcision can beare out the authority of baptizing infants Circumcision it doth not for all agree that wee are now to baptize not to circumcise The Minister circumcising it doth not then the Master of the family was to circumcise now one ordained by Christ in the Church to baptize The same part of the body it doth not that circumcised the foreskin Baptisme the whole man The age it doth not that the eighth day this any day The subject it doth not that a male onely this both male and female Now in that it doth not enjoyne any of all these wherein then can the authority of that commandement consist now in Baptisme so as to enjoyne Infants to be baptized And whereas men cry out from that command that Infants Infants Infants must be baptized as they were commanded to bee circumcised Why this commandement if it should be so serves for none but onely males So that if they will have the females to be baptized they must looke out another commandement for them and so there must be two commandements in one Ordinance There is no inconvenience for two commandements to meet in one Ordinance Circumcision was more then once commanded Silvanus Gen. 17. Lev. 12. So was the Passeover Exod. 12 Numb 9. Levit. 23.5 Neither is it another commandement that wee alledge for the baptizing of females but onely an example Acts 8.12 which yet being precedentiall is of like force as a commandement look wherin wee vary in the administration of Baptisme from the Rite and manner of Circumcision wee have just warrant for it in the New Testament Else we should no more have varyed from it then did the Proselytes of the Old Testament The rite of Circumcising and of the foreskin is expresly abolished Gal. 5.2 And we are said now to be circumcised in being baptized Col. 2.11 12. The Minister of Circumcision if it were not removed in the Old Testament from the family to the Synagogue from the father of the family to the Levite yet surely removed it was by Christ to the Ministers of the Gospel Mat. 28.19 The age had something in it ceremoniall as hath been shewed above The sex or subject as you call it was enlarged by the example of Philip Acts 8.12 So that we vary in nothing from the Commandement of circumcision but by the like warrant whereby Circumcision was at first commanded Shew us the like warrant for the rejecting of infants from Baptisme as we shew you for the changing of all the rest and reason will require we should hearken to you Tell us not that Iohn Baptist baptized such as professed their faith and repentance and Philip baptized the Eunuch upon the profession of his faith For we doe also now require the like from Proselytes or converts of grown yeares whether Jewes or Pagans But shew us any ground from Scripture either out of the Old or New Testament whereby infants are excluded either from the Covenant or from the seale of the Covenant and then we shall plead no longer for the Baptisme of infants from the Analogie of Circumcision Silvester I will not presse againe that which hath been alledged before But there is something further that sticks with me which may answer your demand and give you a ground for the exclusion of Infants alledged out of Gal. 4.22 23 24 25. Where the two Mothers Hagar and Sarah type out the two Testaments and their two sonnes Ishmâ—el and Isaac type out the subjects of the same the one by the bond-woman born after the flesh but hee of the free-woman was by promise v. 23. Now as Hagar the mother signified the old state in generall so Ishmael her sonne signified the children of the same state borne after the flesh as hee was For though hee was the child of Abraham yet hee was no child of promise Now for Sarah she was the lawfull wife of Abraham and so a free-woman with whom the Apostle compareth the estate of the Church of the New Testament the true Spouse and wife of Christ who is free from all servitude and bondage and stands onely in subjection to Christ her husband as Sarah did to Abraham and Isaac her sonne signifying the true holy and blessed seed Of this holy stock according to the Spirit and so as Isaac was true heire according to promise For the Gospel approveth of none as true heires of the blessing and so the right seed and truly in the Covenant but onely such as the promise produceth and brings forth as it did Isaac For Isaac came not by ordinary course of nature but by vertue of the promise of God and faith in the same which raised nature above it selfe to bring him forth By this the wisdome of God holds forth as in a figure who are Abrahams seed approved of in the Gospel and they are such as are brought forth by a power above nature which is by the promise of God and faith in the same as Isaac was c. Your whole glosse upon this text standeth like the Temple of Dagâ—n upon two maine pillars which being overthrowne Silvanus the whole fabrick will fall like Dagon himselfe before the Arke of the Covenant 1. You conceive that Hagar and Sarah signifie the severall estate of the Churches of the Old and New Testament Hagar the old state of the Church in the Old Testament and Sarâ—â— the state of the Church of the New Testament 2. You conceive that their two sons type out the different subjects of the same But neither of both these will stand with the Apostles words nor scope His scope is to dispute not against infants to exclude them from being subjects of the Church but to exclude legall Justiciaries such as desired to be under the law from being children of the Covenant of grace The words of the Apostle are these The two Mothers are the two Covenants v. 24. not the old state of the Church in the Old Testament and the new state of the Church in the New Testament Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia saith he and answereth or standeth in the same rank as the word signifieth to Hierusalem that now is v. 25. Marke that I pray you hee saith not to Hierusalem in her old estate in the dayes of the godly Kings and holy Priests and Prophets and people the Saints of the Lord who looked to bee saved by the grace of Christ as well as we Acts 15.11 but to Hierusalem that now is under the corrupt and degenerate Priests and Rulers Scribes Pharisees and Sadduces who renounced Christ and the righteousnesse of faith in him and seek to
infants If yea whether did the people of God forbeare the circumcision of their infants for feare they should cause such an errour of the necessity of circumcision in the hearts of simple people were it not that we know when men have once set up an idoll in their hearts every wind and shew of an argument will prevaile with a mans mind to bow down to it wee should not think that men disputed in good earnest that used such arguments in such a cause Have you not met with any other argument of more weight CHAP. VIII Silvester YEs this fifth Argument seemeth to me to have more in it The Baptisme of infants keepeth up the state of Antichrist by granting him this so chief a corner stone of the Lords house to lye in his foundation For that Church where baptisme is the true Ordinance of God in the administration thereof it is by the rules of the Gospel a true Church So that if Antichrists baptisme which hee administreth bee Gods ordinance then that Church wherein he doth so administer the same must bee alâ—o the Church of God and he must be in sin who refuseth communion with it Silvanus Either the words of this argument are ill chosen to expresse your meaning or else these words will give no ground at all against the baptisme of infants You say the Baptisme of infants keepeth up the state of Antichrist by granting him this so chief a corner stone of the Lords house to lye in his foundation But I pray you understand first we never made baptisme the corner stone of the Lords house which is the peculiar prerogative of Christ himselfe Christ onely is the corner stone Secondly when we make I meane acknowledge the Baptism of believers and of their seed a true and precious ordinance of Christ and one of the holy vessels of his Church wee doe not grant unto Antichrist this authority to lay this stone in his foundation unlesse himself were first invested with a lawfull calling to baptize and unlesse those whom he did baptize were believers and the seed of believers Our baptizing of believers and their seed do not grant him leave to baptize idolaters and their seed If you say but we take in such to be members of our Church who have been baptized in his Church or at least their fathers before them and so take a stone out of the Temple of Babel to lay in the foundation of Zion contrary to the Word of the Lord Jer. 51.26 Answ This is another matter but your words expresse no such thing Your words carry it as if we granted him a chiefe corner stone of the Lords house to lye in his foundation and not that he granteth us a stone out of his Babylonish Temple to lye in the fóundation of the Lord house But in very truth neither doe we take a stone from him to lay in Gods house by continuing the seale of the Covenant to believers and their seed from Abrahams time to the Apostles time and Baptisme from the Apostles time till now For the Baptisme of believers and their seed is no more a stone that lyeth in the foundation of Antichrist then is the doctrine of the Father Sonne and holy Ghost three persons and one God into whose name wee and our children are baptized Though the people of God would not take a stone of Babel for a corner or for a foundation of Zion according to Jer. 51.26 yet they did not refuse to take those vessels out of Babel and to restore them againe to the Lords Temple at Hierusalem Ezra 1.7 8. with 6.5 Doe noâ— therefore tell us that if Antichrists Baptisme which hee administreth bee the ordinance of God then that Church wherein hee doth so administer the same must be also the Church of God and they in sinne that refuse communion with it For you might as well say that if the vessels of the Temple wherein the Babylonian Priests ministred to their idols were indeed the holy vessels of the Lord God of Israel then that idols Temple is Babel in which they were used to Ministery was the holy Temple of the Lord and the people of Israel did sin in comming out of Babel and refusing communion with that Idols Temple CHAP. IX Silvester A Sixth argument against the Baptism of Infants I have found to bee this because it buildeth faith upon humane testimony in matters fundamentall for such as are baptized in their infancy have no other way to satisfie themselves or others but the bare word of man that must stand in the place of the Word of God for such to believe their true receiving of so holy an Ordinance of God Silvanus If Baptisme be a matter fundamentall why did your fourth Argument make it an error in the Baptisme of infants that it caused the simple to conceive that Baptism is of necessity to salvation Surely if Baptisme be a matter fundamentall it is no offence to make both the simple and the wise and all sorts to conceive that it is of necessity to salvation But such indeed is the wise and righteous hand of God that such as will contradict the truth of God shall be ready also to contradict themselves and that sometimes within a very few words But to speake to your argument doe you thinke that the Circumcision of infants was a matter fundamentall If so doe you thinke those infants growing up to yeares did build their faith in matters fundamentall upon humane testimonie And had they no other way to satisfie themselves or others for their true receiving of so holy an Ordinance of God but onely the word of man which must stand them in stead of the Word of God Yea let me demand a further Question What if a man were baptized at as ripe yeares as the Treasurer of Candace Acts 8. who saw himselfe baptized by Philip What hath such a man to build the faith of his Baptisme upon and to satisfie himselfe and others thâ—rein but onely the testimony of his owne eyes and sense of fâ—eling but neither a mans eyes nor his sense of feeling are any â—hitmore the Divine testimony of the Word of God then the testimony by word of mouth of many scoreâ— of witnesseâ— yea put the case a little further and no more then possible what if a man of grown yeares suppose a Pagan were converted to the faith by the hearing of the Word and yet had been blinde from his mothers wombe If hee shall come to be baptized he will want the testimony of his eyes to see himselfe baptized And though he may heare the words of him that baptizeth them yet hee hath it onely by the words of men that he that baptizeth him iâ— a Minister For himself did neither see him elected nor ordained which is also the case of any man though of growne yeares that commeth to be baptized of such a Minister who was ordained to his Office before himselfe was borne must such a mans
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
one to partake in the outward dispensation of Gods Covenant and to enter into Gods rest or to profit by the Word your Leaders should make more conscience of alledging and applying Gods holy Word impertinently impertinently I say both to Gods meaning and to their owne which is one kinde but too frequent of taking Gods holy name in vaine The next place which you quote out of Heb. 11.5 6. sheweth us that without faith it is impossible to please God which argueth indeed that no man either in his person or in his work can be acceptable to God without faith but doth not prove that God cannot receive any into the outward fellowship of the Covenant without faith much lesse doth it prove that the New Testament doth exclude all unbelievers from the Covenant more then did the Old Testament for those words in Hebrews 11.5 6. were spoken of Enoch who I need not tell you lived in the dayes of the Old Testament Your next place in Rom 97 8. sheweth indeed that all the children of the flesh of Abraham are not the elect seed of Abraham which we willingly grant but doth not shew â—hat the children of Abrahams flesh were not the seed of Abrahams Covenant Many were called and received into his Covenant who yet were not chosen to partake in the sure mercies and everlasâ—ing blessings of the Covenant Your last place out of Gal. 3.22 26 29. argueth the same that the former places have done that believers are partakers of Christ by faith and of adoption by Christ that they are the justified seed of Abraham and heires according to promise So was it in the Old Testament and so is it still to this day But this doth not prove now no more then it did then that all are excluded from the outward dispensation of the Covenant but believers onely But notwithstanding all this though the Covenant which God made with Abraham before Christ Silvester and this under Christ be in some respect in substance the same yet in the outward dispensation and profession of them the difference will appeare to bee very great both in respect of persons and things wherein our dissent chiefly lyeth 1. That Covenant admitted of a fleshly seed this onely of a spirituall Gen. 17. Rom. 9. 2. That in the flesh this in the heart Gen. 17.13 with Jer. 31.33 Rom. 2.28 29. 3. The seale and ordinances of that Covenant confirmed faith in things to come this in things already done 4. That Covenant was Nationall and admitted all of the Nation to the seales thereof but this personall and admitteth none but such as believe 5. That Covenant begot children after the flesh as all Abrahams naturall posterity But this onely begets children after the Spirit and onely approveth of such as are begotten and borne from above in whose hearts God writeth his Law Jer. 31. Ezek. 36. Heb. 8. John 3.5 6. That Covenant with Abraham and his posterity comprehended a civill state and worldly government with the like carnall subjects for the service of the same But this Covenant now under Christ comprehendeth onely a spirituall state and an heavenly government with the like spirituall subjects for the service of this also 7. That Covenant held forth Christ in the flesh to the heaâ—t vayled this holdeth him forth after the Spirit to a face open 2 Cor. 3. In all understand the visible profession of the Covenant and the outward dispensation of the priviledges thereof There is indeed some difference betweene the Covenant made not onely with Abraham in the Old Testament and with us in the New but also in the Old Testament Silvanus between that made with Abraham and that with his posterity And yet the Covenant both in the Old Testament and in the New both to Abraham and his posterity yea and to us also one and the same for substance to wit God to be a God to believers and to their seed To Abraham some blessings were given by this Covenant which were not given to all his posterity as to be the Father of Christ to be the Father of many Nations To some of his posterity and not to all it was given to enjoy the land of Canaan for an inheritance which in the Letter belongeth not unto us though in the spirituall Antitype we also in the New Testament partake therein in that it is given to believers and our seed to enjoy the inheritance of the church whereof Canaan was a type Besides that Covenant made with the seed of Abraham by Jacob admitted the holding forth of Christ in sundry vailes and shadows which were not given to Abraham and from us in the New Testament they are taken away But neverthelesse the differences which you put betweene the Covenant with Abraham and with us so farre as they are brought to exclude the seed of believers from the fellowship of the Covenant they will not stand nor abide triall by the Scriptures Seven differences you put let us weigh them in the ballance of the Sanctuary and see if they bee not too light First say you that Covenant admitted of a fleshly seed this onely of a spirituall Gen. 17 with Rom. 9. Answ The place in the Romans speaketh of the seed of promise to be the seed of Abraham and to be accounted not onely in the New Testament but in the Old also For the Oracle in Isaac shall thy seed be called Rom. 9.7 was given to Abraham in the Old Testament Gen. 21.12 And that after Ismael was cast out of the Covenant for his mocking and persecuting of Isaac So that this Scripture in Rom. 9.15 is three wayes wrested and wronged in this Quotation First in that it is brought to prove that the Covenant of grace in the dayes of the new Testament admitteth onely of a spirituall seed whereas Paul speaketh not of the Covenant of grace but of the election of grace Secondly in that the place is brought to shew what is now the seed in the New Testament different from that of the Old whereas Paul speaketh of the same seed both in the Old and New Testament alike Thirdly in that Ismael is accounted by you as a fleshly seed and so as rejected out of the Covenant from the womb whereas he was not cast out of the Covenant till himselfe cast off the Covenant by mocking and persecuting Isaac The second difference you put is that that Covenant in the old Testament was in the flesh this in the heart Gen. 17.13 with Jer. 31.33 Rom. 2.28 29. Answ This difference is put by you but not by the Spirit of God in Scripture For as that Covenant that is the signe of the Covenant was in the flesh so is Baptisme the signe of the Covenant now upon the flesh Secondly as our Baptisme signifieth and sealeth the washing away of the filth of flesh and spirit so did their circumcision of the flesh signifie and seale the circumcision of the heart Deut. 30.6 Thirdly as in our Baptisme the Lord
the Jews were broken off onely for their want of actuall believing the Gospel and for their opposing of the same simply For Stephen beareth witnesse against them they had resisted the holy Ghost from the days of their Fathers And that there was none of the Prophets but whom their Fathers had persecuted as themselves had also betrayed and murthered the Lord Jesus Acts 7.51 52. But yet after all this actuall unbeliefe in Christ and their opposition against Christ the Apostles still kept communion with them as the Church and people of God as hath been shewed above Acts 3.1 13.15 26. untill they did not onely not believe and actually oppose the Gospel but wilfully and obstinately malignantly and blasphemously resist and persecute the cleare light of the Gospel Act. 13.45 46. And as upon the Parents actuall malicious persecution of the Gospel not onely themselves but their children also were cast out of the Covenant who had yet no hand in their parents blasphemy and persecution so the Gentiles upon their actuall believing and profession of the faith they were received into Covenant and by like proportion their children also who did not expresse their actuall faith for receiving in â—o more then the children of the Jews did expresse their actuall unbeliefe for their casting off Againe it is not true that you say the Word condemneth none but for actuall sinne For by the offence of one to wit of the first Adam judgement or guilt came upon all men to condemnation Rom. 5.18 And by that one man sinne entred into the world and death by sin and so death passed upon all men even upon them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adams transpression to wit actually and of their owne accord as Adam did Rom. 5.12 14. And whereas you say the Word doth not justifie any but with respect to actuall faith There is an ambiguity in your word actuall faith for actuall faith may be meant either faith actually indwelling in the heart or faith actually expressing it selfe in some acts or fruits of profession If you meane actuall faith in the former sense it is true what you say but nothing to the purpose For though God doth not justifie any but with respect to actuall faith yet many are within the Covenant whom God doth not justifie else all the house of Israel whose carkasses fell in the wildernesse and with whom God was not pleased had been all of them justified for they were all in the Covenant If you mean actuall faith in the latter sense your speech is untrue For God doth justifie many whose faith doth not actually expresse it selfe in fruits of profession For they who are filled with the holy Ghost from the wombe as John Baptist and Jeremy were they are sanctified And they who are sanctified are also justified And yet their faith did not at that age expresse it selfe actually in fruits of profession Neither is it a commodious or true speech that as every mans owne faith in Christ enrights him to life so every mans owne faith in Christ enrights him to the priviledges of life For faith it selfe is the life of the soule the just man liveth by his faith and is it a convenient speech yea is it not absurd to say faith enrights to it selfe But what is it that enrights to faith and and so to life by faith Is it not the Covenant of grace by which God hath promised to write his Law even the Law of faith as well as of all holinesse in the hearts of the chosen children of his Covenant Jer. 31.33 As for the priviledgâ—â— of life if you meane justification glorification and the saving mercies of the Covenant your speech is true every mans owne faith enrights him to them but that is nothing to the purpose For many have had right in the Covenant who yet have fallen short of the sure mercies of the Covenant But if you meane by the priviledges of life the Covenant and the seale of it it is not true that every mans faith and none else enrights him to such priviledges of life For the faith of Abraham enrighted Ismael and the saith of Isaac enrighted Esau to the Covenant and to the seale thereof Circumcision and not their owne faith which they never had Silvester The generall scope of the Apostles discourse in this 11 Chapter to the Romans is concerning the breaking off of the Jews and the occasion thereof as also their calling by the Gospel Now the Jews were the people of God in a twofold consideration First as a Nationall people descending from the loynes of Abraham by naturall generation after the flesh Secondly some of them God owned in a more speciall manner with reference to his gracious Covenant made with Abraham and established with Isaac and his seed after him for an everlasting Covenant which cannot bee the estate of the whole Nation for then all of them had been in a true saving estate of grace and so all saved or else fallen from grace But in this whole body there was a Church consisting of an holy Assembly of Worship and Worshippers a spirituall state all the whole body with these held â—â—mmunion together because God tooke into one body that whole Nation for his own people And all these springing out of Abrahams loynes did assume to themselves an equall right and priviledge in Gods gracious Covenant made with Abraham and his seed supposing God had bound his Covenant generally upon him and his seed in his naturall generation after the flesh But God respected in the same onely his chosen in Christ with whom hee confirmed his Covenant with Isaac in reference to Christ Gen. 17. Gal. 3. Whom in Gods owne time he calleth to the faith and these the Apostle ever defends against the generall rejection of that Nation For though such were rejected as were not elected yet this made not the promise of God of none effect to those who stood firme in the Covenant by grace in Christ Jesus as branches in their root which grace the â—â—st opposed and were cast off for their unbeliefe And when the fuâ—nesse of Gods time is come to call them to beliefe they shall be received againe into their former estate as alive from the dead as Rom. 11.23 24. Luke 15.24 Therefore the Apostle after hee hath proved the rejection of the Jews hee labours to make good the faithfulnesse of God in his promise of grace and the effectuall power of the Gospel in the saving effects thereof in such as believe through grace though the Jewes in their Nationall respect were rejected and few of them gained to the truth And hee giveth a reason of it thus Though the Jewes were all of them under an outward forme of profession of Gods name and truth yet there was but a remnant whom hee approved of in the Covenant according to his election of grace unto whom the promise of life did belong Rom. 11.5 7. Now to these Gods speciall care
establish their owne righteousnesse which is by the law And though some of them received Christ as did the false Teachers in the Churches of Galatia and did also acknowledge their freedome from the sacrifices and burnt offerings and from many other Leviticall Ceremonies of the Law yet so long as they looked to be justified by the works of the moral law and retained circumcision as still necessary by the law they still pertained to Hierusalem that now is as the Apostle calleth it and all of them were children of the bond-woman that is of the Covenant of the Law given on Mount Sinai It is therefore a grosse error and withall a notorious injury to the godly Saints that lived in the dayes of the Old Testament to account them the children of Hagar and to make it a part of their bondage that their Infants were received into the fellowship of the Church with themselves No no whilst themselves believed in the promised seed for righteousnesse and salvation and their children were circumcised into the grace of the Covenant the righteousnesse of faith they and their seed were accounted the children of the Covenant of grace the free-woman till any of them rejected that grace as Ishmael and Esau did By this which hath been said may easily bee understood what is meant by Sarah not the state of the Church of the New Testament as you confine it rather then define it but the Covenant of Grace by which God of his Grace gave himselfe to bee a God to beleevers and to their seed both in the Old and New Testament till any of them should afterwards grow up to renounce him and the Grace of his Covenant which if they doe then their Circumcision is made uncircumcision and they renouncing the Covenant of Grace fall under the Covenant of the Law and come to bee accursed by the Law But for the children of this Covenant of whom Isaac was a type they are not onely such as are Regenerate above the ordinary course of Nature by vertue of the Covenant of Grace and so doe beleeve in the promise of Grace for righteousnesse and salvation but also the children of such beleeving Parents whom their Parents doe beget in the Faith of the Covenant and Promise of Grace to themselves and their seed For Isaac himself when he was an Infant born hee was not as then born anew of the promise and spirit of Grace but his Father begot him in the Faith of the Promise And his Mother Sarah by Faith received strength to conceive seed because shee judged him faithfull who had promised Heb. 11.11 The second main pillar upon which your glosse on this Text is held up is that the two sons Ishmael and Isaac type out the different subjects of these two states of Churches Ishmael being a type of the estate in generall of the Church of the old Testament and Isaac being a type of the state of the Churches of the New Testament But neither will this glosse stand with the Apostles words For the Apostle maketh these two sons to bee the children engendred or bred of these two Mothers Now children as they are engendred or bred of their Mothers they are not properly the subjects of their Mothers though they bee subject to them but their effects The Mothers therefore being not the twofold state of the Churches of the Old and New Testament but the two Covenants of the Law and of Grace Ishmael the son of Hagar the bond-woman is the type of all those Members in the Church whether of the Old or New Testament as who look for righteousnesse and salvation by the works of the Law and doe therefore lye under the bondage and curse of the Law such were those in Micah 6. who thought God would be pleased and appeased with thousands of Lambs and ten thousand Rivers of oyle v. 6 7. Such also at that time was the whole body generally of the Priests and Rulers and People of Hierusalem in the Apostles dayes which hee calleth the Hierusalem that now is And such were all the false Apostles and false Teachers and their Disciples in the Churches of Galatia Philâ—ppi and Colosse who refused the righteousnesse of God by faith in Christ Jesus and sought to establish their owne righteousnesse by the works of the law on the other side Isaac being the sonne of Sarah the free-woman and Sarah representing the Covenant of Grace he is the type of all those members in the Church whether before Christ in the Old Testament or since Christ in the New as are begotten and bred of the promise and Covenant of grace wherby by God giveth himselfe to bee a God to the believer and his seed who therefore looke for all their righteousnesse and salvation to themselves and their seed not from the workes of the Law nor from all their outward priviledges but from the grace and righteousnesse of God in Christ Jesus Onely thus much further I will not stick to grant you That as the two Covenants are the two mothers that are represented by Hagar and Sarah so those Churches that are begotten and bred of either of these Covenants and so are themselves the children of the one or of the other of these Covenants they may be said to bee the mothers of those particular members which by their Ministery are engendred and bred whether of the carnall seed of the Covenant of the Law or of the spiritual seed of the Covenant of Grace For in the Hebrew language any whole Society is called a mother and the particular members thereof are called children sons or daughters And this may somewhat further help to cleare the words and meaning of the Apostle in this place For the Apostle here maketh the Covenant of the Law to answer to Hierusalem that now is v. 25. as if so bee the Covenant of the law and the Church of the present Hierusalem which stood for the Covenant of the law were both 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of one rank and either of them might be called an Hagar a mother ingendering their children unto bondage And indeed the Church engendereth and breedeth her children by dispensing and administring the seed of that Covenant of which themselves are begotten In like manner the Apostle maketh the other mother Sarah the Covenant of grace to be all one with the true Church of Christ which he calleth the Hierusalem which is above and maketh her the mother of us all v. 26. Because though shee bee her selfe begotten and bred of the Covenant of grace yet shee dispensing and administring the same spirituall seed begetteth children like her self partakers of the libâ—rty of the sons of God And yet to adde a word more which may tend further to clear the words and meaning of the Apostle as this seed of the Covenant of Grace dispensed and administred by true and pure Churches is rightly called spirituall seed in which the Spirit of grace delighteth to breath and worke and therefore they that are begotten