CHAPT. I. Declaring and Maintaining the first ground for the Baptisme of Children.

FIrst, the Commission of the Lord Jesus given to his Apostles, doth give us a Commandment, and ‘word of Institution for the Baptisme of chil­dren. Mat. 28.19, 20. Goe (saith he to his A­postles) and make Disciples (as the word signify­eth) all Nations (some at least of all sorts in all Nations) Baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Sonne, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe whatsoever I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you to the end of the world.’ In which Commission the Lord Jesus giveth commandment to his Apostles, and to their Successors to the end of the world,

To performe three Acts

• 1 To make Disciple.
• 2 To Baptize them.
• 3 To teach them to observe all the Ordinances of Christ.

From whence two Arguments offer themselves for the Institu­tion of the Baptisme of the children of the faithfull.

Argument. 1. Such as be disciples they are to be Baptized.

But the children of the Faithfull, they are disciples; There­fore children of the Faithfull, they are to be Baptized. The former proposition is clearly exprest in the Text, Make disci­ciples and baptize them: All Disciples therefore are to be baptized.

The latter proposition, That all the children of the Faithfull (in which is all one, all the children of the Church, for the [Page 6] Church is a Congregation of the faithfull) that they are all of them Disciples, may appeare by the Testimony of the Prophet Esay: who speaking of the times of the Church in the New Testa­ment, All thy children (saith he) shall be taught of God, Esay 54.13. and if they be taught of God, then are they Disciples, for that is the meaning of the word Disciples. Disciples are taught or learnt of God. Doe not put me off with that Evasi­on; That the Promise is made not to the children of the visible Church, but of the Invisible: For looke what promises are made to the Invisible Church, they are for their sakes offered to all the Members of the Visible Churches, whereof the lively Members are the chiefe.

By the children in Esay may be meant, not Infants, but men of yeares, unto whom the whole Church may be counted a Mother, and they to her, as children.

I deny not, but that may be part of the meaning: yet so, as not to exclude the Infants, or children of the Faithfull, from the number of the children of the Church. For the same Prophet speaking of the same Church,Silvester. fetcheth in Infants among the blessed ones of the Church, and blessed with such spirituall light, and life from Christ, as if they had lived an hundred years in the Church.Silvanus. Esa. 65.20. ‘There shall be no more (saith he) thenceforth an Infant of dayes, nor an old man that hath not filled his dayes. For the child shall dye an hundred yeares old, but the sinner being an hundred yeares old shall be accursed.’ How shall the child dye as at an hundred yeares old, but that he is so well instructed and inlightned by Christ, and thereby as ca­pable of entrance into heavenly glory, as a growen disciple of an hundred yeares old? The Allegoricall sense which some force upon Infants (as if by them were meant young Converts, though of riper yeares) the Text will not beare it. For the Text maketh an expresse opposition betweene these Infants, in the Church, and sinners of an hundred yeares old. Where the two extreame periods of mans life, old age of an hundred years, & Infants being set one a­gainst another, Infants cannot be fitly meant of any but those of fewest dayes, even Infants of a few dayes, of a yeer or two old. And besides, the Holy Ghost in the Text giveth a Reason of this Grace (together with some other like favours) unto Infants in the Church above Sinners of an hundred yeares old, taken from the Covenant of their blessed Ancestors v. 23: For they are (saith he) [Page 7] the seed of the blessed of the Lord, and their off-spring with them. And evident it is, that the Apostle Peter reckoneth Infants of the Church for Disciples. For in Acts 15.10. reproving the way of false Teachers who would have put Circumcision upon the Gen­tile Churches, and their seed, Why tempt ye God, saith he, to put a yoake upon the neck of the Disciples? If the Infants of the Church had not been Disciples, the false Apostles could have pretended no power to have put that Ordinance upon them. And Peter rejecteth it, not because Infants were no Disciples, but acknow­ledging them to be Disciples as well as their Fathers, the yoake of Circumsion was now too heavy for them, as drawing upon them the yoake of the Ceremoniall Law. It is to the same purpose that Christ speaketh of such little Children,Silvester. Mark 10.14. Luke 18.16, 17. Of such (saith he) is the Kingdome of God; which argueth, that even little Children are the members of the Church (which is the Kingdome of Grace) here,Silvanus. and heires of the Kingdome of Glory hereafter: and therefore Disciples, for to whom Christ is a King, he is also a Prophet.

Christ doth not say, that of Infants is the Kingdome of God, but of such (as Infants be:) that is, of such simple ones, so free from pride and malice.

Then he might as well have said, Suffer Doves and Lambs to come unto me: for of such (such simple and harmelesse ones) is the Kingdome of God. But that [...]hrist speaketh of little children (as such) may appeare further from the Text? In that he saith, Whosoever shall not receive the Kingdome of God, as a little child (to wit as a little child receiveth it, for so much the Gram­mar construction requireth) he shall in no wise enter therein. Now it cannot be said of Doves and Lambs, Whosoever receiveth not the Kingdome of God, as a Dove or a Lambe receiveth it, he shall in no wise enter into it. 2. Wherefore should Christ com­mand little children to be brought unto him, and be so angry with his Disciples for rebuking them that brought them, if they were not at all capable of spirituall fellowship with Christ in his Kingdom, but onely served to fetch a Similitude from their Simpli­city and Innocency? Did he ever say, Suffer Doves and Lambes to come unto me: for of such is the Kingdome of God? 3. Why doth Christ put it for all one, for little children to come to him, and to be brought to him (as he doth Luke 18.15, 16.) but that he accepted the Act of Prents in bringing their chil­dren [Page 8] to him, as all one with ther Act of children in comming them­selves to Christ Jesus? for Chist saith, Suffer little Children to come to me: and yet they came not to him but as their Parents brought them. 4. Christ his Imposition of hands upon them argueth their consecration unto God, not as Sacrifices of Bulls and Goates to be slaine, (which was one use of laying on of hands Levit. 1.4.) nor to ordaine them unto office, (which was ano­ther use) but as partakers of spirituall blessings, and of Adopti­on into the family of Israel, which was another use of laying on of hands. Gen. 48.5. with 14. So that let all this Testimony of Christ concerning little Children and his carriage towards them be well weighed; and it will evidently evince that for which it is alledged. That little children born in the Church, are accounted by Christ amongst those blessed ones of Christ, of whom his Church and Kingdome consisteth: And so are taught of God, as the Disciples of Christ: And therefore are commanded of Christ to be baptized with their beleeving Parents.

Silver. ‘The blessing of Christ upon these infants was for bodily cures, as is manifest by the d [...]sires of those that brought them to Christ, which was not that he should baptize them, but that he would touch them and lay his hands upon them, and pray, as Mar. 5.23. Mat. 19.13.15. This was the ordinary way of healing in the time of the Law, by such as were inabled by God thereunto, as is cleare by these Scriptures compar'd together, 2 Kings 5.11. with Mat. 19.13. Mat. 8.3. Mat. 9.18. Luke 4.38.40. Never were any so brought to Christ but for some cure, and for his blessing of them, which was in respect of that temporall Mercy he bestowed upon them, according to that they came to him for: and to shew his Bounty and Humility, that he was no respecter of Persons; as such might seeme to be, that suffered others to come, and would have kept back children: And for such to belong to the Kingdome as those children did, and therefore they ought to come, as well as any others. For they were children of the Jewes, and at that time Members of that Church, and so of that Kingdome, and had as much Interest in Christ for outward blessings as any else.’

‘And further Christ is pleased to make use of childrens Humili­ty and Innocency to reprove the high-mindednesse of his Disci­ples, & to draw them forth a patterne from the same, as Mat. 18.1, 2, 3. with Mark. 10.5. 1 Cor. 14.20. so that all this maketh [Page 9] nothing for the Baptizing of Infants they being not brought to Christ for Baptisme.’

Neither doe I alledge this place for to prove that Christ baptized these Infants.Silvanus. For it doth not appeare that their fathers who brought them, were baptized themselves: and therefore neither might their children be baptized according to rule. But I alledge the place to prove that the Infants of beleevers are amongst the blessed ones of Christ, such of whom his Church and Kingdome consisteth: and so come under the fellowship of his Disciples whom Christ commandeth to be baptized; neither will your exception against this prevaile. Your exceptions, or rather evasions are two: ‘You say that Christ his laying hands on these children, was onely to reach forth some bodily cure to them, it being the ordinary way of healing in the time of the Law.’

Whereto I answer, 1. You bring not one Scripture to prove, that healing of diseases in the time of the Law was wont to be wrought by laying on of hands, but onely one: which speaketh of Naaman the Syrian, who had such a misconceit that the Prophet would have so healed him, but was therein foully mistaken. All the other places alledged by you do shew, that Christ was wont some­times to heale diseases by laying on his hands. And so indeed he did, as did also his Disciples after him, by gift from him. But why you should make this an ordinary way of healing in the time of the Law, I see not how it stands with truth.

An. 2. There is not one word in the Text, nor any circum­stance of the place, that maketh any mention, or giveth any no­tice of any bodily disease, which these children were subject to; or that their parents come to Christ for the healing thereof. And to give that for the meaning of a Text, which neither the words of the Text, nor the circumstance of the place doth hold forth, is to set up an Image in our owne heart, and to bow the Text to our owne Imagination.

An. 3. It is not credible that if these children had come with any disease about them, or if their Parents had brought them for healing thereof, that the Disciples would have been so inhumane, unnaturall, and barbarous, as to have rebuked them that brought them. The diseases of little children doe affect all men (that have but the bowels of humanity) with as much compassion as the diseases of Elder persons, or rather more. And withall the Disci­ples knew that the Lord Jesus was wont before that time to vouch­safe [Page 10] to cure the diseases of young children, as well as the diseases of Elder persons, Joh. 4.49, 50. Mar. 5.41, 42. and there­fore they would never have rebuked their Parents, if they had brought them to such an end. ‘But say you, Never were any so brought to Christ, but for some cure and for his blessing of them: which was in respect of that temporall mercy, which they came for, and he bestowed upon them.’

If you meane never were any so brought to Christ, to wit, in the Armes of their Parents. It is true we never read of any other in the Gospells, brought to Christ in the Armes of their Parents at all, neither for bodily cures, neither for any temporall or spirituall blessing. But what is that to the purpose? that will not argue that these Infants were onely brought for bodily Cure. If you meane none were brought at all but for bodily cures, what meane you then by so brought? It is true the Palsey man was brought by foure men in a Couch for a bodily cure, Mark. 2. but Christ blessed him not onely with a temprall, but a spirituall cure in the pardon of his sinnes, Mark. 2.5. which was more then they came for; why do you therefore deny the like spiritual blessing the these Infants upon this ground, because their Parents come for no more, unlesse you think, they had no sinne to be pardoned? But if none were brought to Christ for spirituall blessings besides these Infants, the greater was the Faith of these Parents: and the greater was the sinne of others.

‘Your second Evasion is, That these Infants being children of the Jewes were at that time members of that Church, and so of that Kingdome, And had as much interest in Christ for outward blessings, as any else.’

Answ. 1. If that be all, then there were some children of the kingdome of Heaven, which had onely Interest in Christ for out­ward blessings; and then indeed they had no Interest in Christ, nor in his kingdome at all.

2. If the Infants of Christian Parents be not the children of the kingdome of Heaven (as well as the infants of the Jewes were) then the incouragement which Christ gave to these Jewish Parents then, will not reach to Christian Parents now, to bring their children to him now, so much as for bodily cures. Suffer (saith Christ) little children to come unto me, to wit, (say you) for bo­dily curer, for of such (saith Christ) is the kingdome of Heaven. True (saith you) such were the children of the Jewes. But then it will follow by your Doctrine, That wee Christians are not [Page 11] allowed to suffer our children to come to Christ; no not for bodi­ly cures: for of such as our children be, the kingdome of heaven is not.

A second argument for the Baptisme of children may be fetched 2 from another word of the same Commission given of Christ to his Apostles. The Commandement is cleare there for the bap­tizing of Disciples. And neither you nor your leaders doubt of it, that therefore believing Parents are to be Baptized. But what if it appeare in Gods account, and in Scripture phrase, that Pa­rents themselves are not reputed of God to be baptized, if their children remaine unbaptized? Surely in the old Testament a man was 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 be­ [...]ieveth and is baptized (saith Christ) shall be saved, he that believeth [Page 12] 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:) [Page 13] 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 [Page 14] 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 h [...]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 d [...]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. [Page 51] 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 [Page 16] 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 Wo [...]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 Ch [...]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 as the al-sufficient and onely way of life. And faith being wrought, apprehendeth and applyeth Christ, not onely habitually and passively, (as in infants) but actively to the justification of life. And in such it is true also (which you say) there is ever in the party a knowledge of the thing believed. But I will not say as you doe, "That faith ever presupposeth the knowledge of the thing be­lieved, unlesse you meane habituall knowledge, which is never wanting, no not in infants) where faith is. For knowledge and faith are put one for another, Esa. 5.3.11. John 17.3. So that now, take your own word, having examined what you say (as you desire) by the rule of truth, wee have seen and found that infants are capable of the holy Ghost, and therefore of faith: and being in the faith, and faith in them, they are in Christ, and so united unto Christ, 2 Cor. 13.5. And being in Christ, there is no con­demnation [Page 17] to them, Rom. 8.1. And if no condemnation, then ju­stification belongeth to them. And if union with Christ and justi­fication by Christ belong to them, then were they elected and pre­destinated thereto. For none are called to union with Christ, nor justified, but those whom God hath predestinated thereunto, Rom. 8.30. ‘When therefore you enquire, whether infants with refe­rence to their nonage be the subjects of Gods election. And secondly, whether infants so considered bee subjects capable of glory?’ And when you further suppose, that none will affirme either. Be it known unto you, that as wee firmly believe both, so we doubt not confidently to affirme both: both that infants are subjects of Gods election, and also subjects capable of glory. Ja­cob was an elect vessell in his mothers wombe, Rom. 9.11. neither was this his singular priviledge but common with him to all the elect of God, who were elect vessells before the foundation of the world; and therefore so too in their mothers wombe: To say, and grant (as you seem to doe) that though infants be subjects of Gods election, yet not with reference to their nonage; it would imply that you hold the election of God hath reference to their foreseen faith or works, which they grow up unto in riper years: otherwise in their nonage (when you hold them uncapable of faith and obe­dience) it seemeth you hold them also uncapable of election; which is rank and palpable Pelagianisme and Arminianisme. But seeing election it self is a grace of God, infants being capable of election, are capable of grace. And thereby it commeth to passe that hea­ven and heavenly glory is as fit to receive them, as they are fit to receive the holy Ghost, such is the fruit of election. And if they receive the holy Ghost (as hath been shewed above) then are they subjects equally capable of grace and glory. ‘But (say you) if God have elected them unto the end, to wit, unto glory, then he hath elected them also unto the meanes and way that leadeth to that end, to calling, to justification by believing, and free obe­dience unto him again.’

All this is true; for elect infants if they die in their infancy, are made partakers of the holy Ghost, by whom faith is begotten in their hearts, in which they are in Christ, and united to him, which is their calling. By the same faith dwelling in them they are justi­fied; yea, and sanctified also, and so their free obedience is fulfilled to that great commandement both of law and Gospel (which con­taineth [Page 18] all the rest.) Be ye holy, for I the Lord your God am holy Lev. 19.2. 1 Pet. 1.16.

And as concerning the resurrection of infants from death to life, which (was argued above) could not be without union with Christ. ‘You answer, First, it is the power of God that raiseth the dead, not union with Christ.’

But the reply is ready, the power of God raiseth indeed all the dead, yet none from death to life eternall (which is the life meant in the argument) but by virtue of their union with Christ, Rom. 8.11. 1 Cor. 15.49.

‘Secondly, you answer again, that when any of Gods elect can be shewed by the Scriptures, to die in their infancy, then it will bee granted that their bodies are raised to life eternall.’

Reply, first, it seemeth then, that till the death of some elect in­fants be shewed out of Scripture, it will not be granted by you that their bodies are raised to life eternall. So that it appeareth by your Tenent, all the children that dye in their infancy, none of them are elected nor saved; an ungracious and uncomfortable doctrine, which hath been refuted above: whereto may be added, that then there is some sort of mankind, to whom the grace and redempti­on of Christ never reached. It hath been said by the holy Ghost, that Christ gave himself a ransome for all, that is, for some of all sorts. But now there is a sort of mankind found out [even all that die in their infancy, which are many thousands] for whom Christ gave himself a ransome.

Reply 2. If infants be elect before they be born, and remain e­lect whilst they are living, can they not dye whilst they are infants, as well as any other of the elect of God of riper yeares?

Reply 3. What if it could not be shewed by the scriptures, that any elect of God dyed in their infancy? will it therefore follow that no infants are the elect of God? What if it cannot be proved by Scripture that any elect Queens dyed in their Regency? will it therefore follow, that either no Queens are elected, or if they bee, they cannot die in their Regency?

Reply 4. It hath been expressely shewed above from scripture that infants have dyed as at an 100 years old, onely because they were as truly seasoned with grace, and as ripe and ready for glory in their infancy, as if they had fulfilled the age of an 100 yeares, Esa. 65.20.

Reply 5. If none of Gods elect did dye in their infancy, then [Page 19] all outward things did not fall alike to all, contrary to the Scrip­ture Eccles. 9.2. death may (by your Tenent) befall (and often doth) to carnall infants, but never to elect infants. And thus elect infants, whilst infants should be immortall, which is a paradox I suppose the Church of God never heard of (before now) since the world began.

Reply 6. If none of Gods elect did die in their infancy, then in ease any of the faithfull should come to bury any of their children in their infancy (as many doe) they might have cause to sorrow for them, as without hope; for they can have no hope of their salvation or resurrection to life; seeing their infants dying in­fants, were never subjects capable of Gods election, and so must needs dye uncapable of glory. But for Christians to sorrow for their dead, as others that have no hope, is contrary to the precept of the Apostle, 1 Thes. 4.13.

‘I would not be understood so to oppose infants,Silvester. as to ex­clude them from salvation, but leave all in respect of them, as a secret thing to the wisdom and grace of God in Christ.’

This doth not excuse your former harsh expression concerning infants, but rather aggravate it with a contradiction to your selfe:Silvanus. for you disputed against it above, as against the rule of truth, to say, That infants were capable of union with Christ, and of justifi­cation to life thereby. And sure if they be not capable of union with Christ, how can they bee saved without Christ? unlesse you conceive a salvation reserved by the wisdome and grace of God for infants; which is not onely without the word, but expresly contrary to the revealed word of God, Act. 4.12.

‘Again, when you said soone after, that you supposed none would affirme, that infants with reference to their nonage, were subjects capable of election, nor subjects capable of glory, and therefore demanded how they could bee capable of grace, how can you now say,’ you doe not so oppose infants, as to exclude them from salvation? Can they be saved, and yet not bee capable subjects of glory, nor of grace, nor of union with Christ, nor of justification unto life?

‘God hath proclaimed,Silvester. that all are by nature the children of wrath, Ephes. 2. And therefore I cannot believe that any are naturally born in grace, and so believers from the wombe, though the opposite doctrine teacheth and affirmeth the same.’

Silvanus.The opposite doctrine (if you meane the doctrine of the Baptism of infants) teacheth as the Apostle doth, that all by nature are the children of wrath, (even beleevers and their seed as well as others) neither did I think that any had been so ignorant, as to beleeve or teach, and affirm, that any are naturally born in grace, and so (that is naturally) are believers from the wombe; I never heard nor read of any such before, nor doe I beleeve it now. All that for ought I know doe hold the Baptisme of infants, they teach, that by nature all Infants (Christ onely excepted) are born in sin, and children of wrath: and none of them born in grace naturally, but onely by vertue of the Covenant of grace, which is above nature. Neither doe they say that all that are born under the Covenant, are borne beleevers (or partakers of faith) from the wombe, but that some by the blessing and grace of the Covenant are made partakers of faith, and of the holy Ghost from the wombe: and that all are capable of the same grace from the wombe; yea, and God hath promised to worke the same sooner or later, in all the elect children of the Covenant absolutely: in the rest according to his Covenant, hee offereth to work the same in his owne time, if neither their parents nor themselves reject or neglect the meanes which the Lord offe­reth them. For as the second Commandement (whereby the in­stituted meanes of grace and worship are established) is morall and perpetuall: So is the sanction or ratification of that Commande­ment morall and perpetuall also. Now in the sanction of that Commandement, as God threatned to visit the neglect of his or­dinances (which are the meanes of grace) upon the fathers to the children, to the third and fourth generation of them that hate him; so he promiseth to shew mercy unto thousands of them that love him & keep his Commandements, Exod. 20.5, 6. whence it was that God promised to bring upon Abraham all the good which hee had spoken to him of (which was chiefly to be a God to him and to his seed) because he knew that Abraham would command hi [...] children & and his houshold after him, to keep the ways of the Lord, Gen. 18.19

Silvester. ‘The Scripture in Matth. 28.19. being well considered, and rightly understood, would stop mens mouths for ever, from having a word to say for the baptizing of infants. This blessed commission of Christ to his Apostles, was chiefly for us Gen­tiles, saying, All power is given to me both in heaven and earth, Goe ye therefore and teach all Nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, Sonne, and holy Ghost, &c. As if Christ had said, Goe [Page 21] now into all Nations, and preach the gospel freely, as well to one Nation as to another, for the gospel shall not now be con­fined any more to one place or people, then to another, God is now a God of the Gentiles, as well as of the Jewes; goe there­fore as well to the Gentiles as to the Jewes, even unto all Na­tions, and there preach the gospel, and so make disciples by teaching them; and such so taught, them baptize in the Name of the Father, Son, and holy Ghost, that is, into the true and orderly profession of that which they have been taught and be­lieved. So that here teaching goeth before baptizing, and pre­supposeth understanding and faith in that which is taught, this being the onely place of Christ his instituting the order of bap­tisme. And further explained, Mark 16.15, 16. Goe into all the world, and preach the Gospel to every creature; He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved. So from these Scriptures brought to prove the baptizing of infants, it is clearly manifest, that in­fants are not the subjects of baptism appointed by Christ. For all the externall benefits and priviledges of the gospel are given onely to externall and visible faith. And so the sealing and confirming ordinances of Christ, doe even presuppose faith in the subject to seale unto, and to bee confirmed: So here is no ground for the baptizing of infants, but the contrary.’

For clearing this Text in Matthew, Silvanus. let it be first agreed what is the gospel which the Apostles are commanded to preach to all Na­tions; then what it is to teach them; and then it will more clearely appeare who are to be baptized. By gospel is not meant that pro­mise onely recorded by Mark 15.16. much lesse the curse annex­ed to it, He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved: hee that believeth not shall be damned. For the gospel is glad tydings; nor is the promise of salvation to believers and baptized persons, glad tydings, (as the word signifieth, as the Apostle declareth, Rom. 10.15.) but onely to such as doe believe; otherwise to unbeleevers, the curse lyeth upon them, and they that groane under the want of Christ, and of faith to receive him, they may languish for want of comfort, if all the gospel were comprehended in that promise. For they will object against themselves, salvation is indeed promi­sed to beleevers; but I neither doe believe, nor can believe. Those words therefore in Marke are not the summe of the gospel, though part of the gospell be contained in them. They are indeed a dou­ble motive unto such to whom the gospel is preached, to urge them [Page 22] to receive and believe the gospel: The one taken from the benefit of believing it; He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved: the other from the danger of unbeliefe, He that believeth not shall bee damned. What then is the summe of the gospel which Christ commanded his Apostles to preach to 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 [Page 23] 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 [Page 24] 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 thus God taketh men in their own wilinesse, whilst they goe about to shoulder out infant from being disciples unto Christ, and so from baptisme, they exclude themselves from the chiefe benefits of the baptism of Christ (which is to have God the Father, Son, and holy Ghost to be a God to themselves and to their seed:) and in stead of approving themselves to be the Disciples of Christ, they take out a wrong lesson from the words of institution, & turn the glorious name of the blessed Trinity into the weake performance [Page 25] of a Christian duty, and that but an outward duty neither. One­ly because infants are not able to perform such a duty, they shall therefore be debarred from baptisme into the name of the Father, Son and holy ghost, seeing Baptisme into that name, is but into the true and orderly profession of the faith. But the Lord redeeme your soule from such guile and falshood. Let the name of the Fa­ther, Son, and holy ghost be (as Christ meaneth it) the Adoption, protection, and government of the Father, Son, and holy ghost (as to have the name of one called upon another, is so meant in Scripture, Gen. 48.16.) And then infants are as capable of that grace, and of such a baptisme, as their Parents be.

Doe not put off your self nor me, with this pretence, that here teaching goeth before baptizing, &c. For though the Parents must be taught being gentiles and Pagans before they can bee disciples; yet the children of disciples are received into the number of Christs disciples by himselfe, though themselves understand not what is t [...]ught them by the hearing of the eare. Neither put your selfe off with that other pretence; ‘That Matthews words are explained by Mark 16.15, 16.’ For though it be true that one of those pla­ces giveth some light to the other, yet either you must take disci­ples in a larger extent then believers, or else you must account of the children of believers, as God doth, not as infidels (as the chil­dren of Pagans be) but as holy and under the promise of grace and faith; and so as believers in their fathers right, till themselves renounce it; or else you cannot avoid it (though you doe disclaime it) that if infants be unbeleevers, and so cannot be baptized, then as unbelievers they cannot be saved. For the Text is expresse, Hee that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Neither yet suffer your self to be put off from the truth by that other pretence, ‘That all the externall benefits and priviledges of the gospel are given only to external and visible faith: And so the sealing and confirming ordinances of Christ ever presuppose faith in the subject to seale unto, and to be confirmed:’ For all this, and the baptism of infants, may well stand together. For the benefit and priviledge of externall baptisme is not given to infants, but in respect of the externall and visible profession of the faith of their Parents, or of one of them at least. And this ordinance of Christ sealeth and confirmeth the Covenant of grace to the belie­ver (for himself and his seed) yea to the whole Church of belie­vers, [Page 26] and to their seed also, when they grow up to understand the nature and use of it.

Chap. II.

THus then at length having (by the help of Christ) cleared this first Argument for the baptisme of infants of believers from the commandement of the Lord Jesus: let us now (if you please) proceed to another commandement, a commandement of the holy Ghost, with whom Peter being filled in the beginning of his pub­lique administration of the Apostolick office, he exhorted the pe­nitent Jews, them and theirs, to bee baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus: ‘His words are thus recorded, Acts 2 38, 39. Re­pent ye (saith he) and be baptized every one of you in the name of the Lord Jesus for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the holy Ghost, for the promise is to you and to your children, &c.’ From whence the argument that these words hold forth, ariseth thus:

They to whom the promise is made of remission of sins, and of receiving the holy Ghost, they have a commandement to be bapti­zed every one of them.

But to such as doe repent, and to their children, the promise is made of remission of sins, and of receiving the holy Ghost. There­fore they that doe repent, and their children, have a commande­ment to be baptized every one of them.

The former Proposition ariseth from the reason which the Apo­stle giveth of his exhortation, Repent ye (saith he) and be baptized every one of you, For the promise is made to you and to your chil­dren, as who should say, let every one of you be baptized, both you that doe repent, and your children. For the promise is made to you, (that is, to you that doe repent) and with you to your children also.

Silvester.The text saith not, let every one of you, and of your children be baptized, but repent ye, and let every one of you (to wit, who doe repent) be baptized.

Silvanus.The Reason of the commandement giveth the sense of the com­mandement: now the reason of this commandement, Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you, is this, For the promise is made [Page 27] to you (to wit, to you who doe repent) and to your children. And therefore the sense of the commandement of the holy Ghost is this, Repent ye, and let every one of you, both you that doe repent, and your children also be baptized. For the promise is to you, and to you [...] children. And so much is implyed also in the change and different expression and extent of the verbs of command; he doth not say, Repent ye, and be baptized, as if he commanded two duties to the same persons, no more to be baptized, but such as doe repent: But repent ye indefinitely, and be baptized every one of you, uni­versally and singularly, not onely ye who doe repent, but your chil­dren also.

But the event sheweth,Silvester. that Peter intended onely them that did repent to be baptized, and not their children: for so it followeth in the Text, verse 41. Then they that gladly received his word were baptized, which sheweth that none else were baptized, but persons that were grown up to yeares of understanding, such as were affe­cted with the word, and received it gladly.

It is true indeed the Apostles forced baptisme upon none,Silvanus. but ad­ministred it onely to such as gladly received the Word. But those penitent Jews and Proselytes, who understood that promise was to them and to their children, they gladly received the whole Word, both the word of promise which they received by faith: and the word of commandement, they and their children to bee baptized, which they received by offering themselves and their children unto baptism; in which respect it is therefore said, They that gladly re­ceived his word were baptized; because both their own baptisme, and the baptisme of their children was the immediate fruit of the parents gladsome receiving of the word; the act of the parents in such a case is accounted of Christ as the act of the children, as in Mark 10.13, 14. The act of the parents in bringing their children to Christ, is called the act of the children in comming to him, as Levi paid tythes in the loynes of Abraham, (Heb. 7.9, 10) so in like sort these children here gladly received the word in the armes of their parents.

But the ground of all this argument seemeth to me very weake,Silvester. for you take that for granted, which to me seemeth very uncertain, (if not untrue) that by the children to whom the promise is made, should be meant their naturall children, whereas he rather meaneth the children of their faith (spirituall children) such as God called to repent as well as themselves.

Silvanus.The children to whom the promise was made if they were one­ly the children of the faith of their parents, that is, as you meane, not the children for whom the parents believe, but their children that believe and repent as well as their parents, then a double ab­surdity would follow.

First, that whereas in the dayes of the old Testament, upon the faith and repentance of the Proselyte parents, the Covenant and promise did belong to them and to their children: now in the dayes of the new Testament, the faith and repentance which ad­mitteth the parents, excludeth their children: For the children of these Jews and Proselytes (who heard the Sermon) were in Co­venant with God before the Sermon. But now upon hearing this Sermon, and being wrought upon effectually by it unto faith and repentance, though themselves be received, yet their children are cut off from the Covenant. A strange doctrine, that the faith of the Parents should set their children further off from God and his Covenant, then they were before.

Secondly, to say the children to whom the promise was made, were meant onely their penitent and beleeving children, would make the Apostles argument a vaine and superfluous flourish, whereby he encourageth these Jews and Proselytes to repent and beleeve, upon this motive taken from a promise made, not onely to themselves, but to their children. For by this doctrine the promise belongeth no more to the children of beleevers, then to the children of Pagans. For even the children of pagans (whilst their children remain Pagans) have the promise belonging to them, as soon as themselves doe repent and believe. And what more have the children of beleevers belonging to them then so? Yea, the Apo­stles argument is made no argument at all, so farre as hee urgeth them to repent and believe, by the blessing of the promise thereby redounding to their children. For whether they repented and be­lieved or no, the promise would belong to their children, when the children came themselves to repent and believe. Otherwise if their children repented not, the promise would not belong unto them though their parents did repent. Let me adde for confirma­tion an argument or two more; take this then for a third argument, conversion unto faith and repentance, is it selfe given by the Cove­nant, to the children of the Covenant. And therefore the chil­dren of the Covenant, were under the Covenant before their con­version, and so before their faith, even by the faith of their parents. [Page 29] For so the same Apostle Peter (in his next Sermon to the Jewes) te­stifieth, ‘Ye are the children of the Covenant (saith hee) which God hath made with our fathers, &c. unto you first, God ha­ving raised up his Son Jesus, hath sent him to blesse you, in tur­ning away every one of you from his iniquities, Acts 3.25, 26.’ If Christ then be given by the Covenant, and conversion by Christ to the children of the Covenant, then the children of the faithfull are not first converted, and so come under the Covenant, but are first under the Covenant, and so come to be converted.

A fourth argument may be taken from the easier engraffing of the naturall seed of holy Parents, into Christ, then of the posteri­ty of Pagans; which could not be but in respect of their interest in the Covenant, and the benefit redounding to them from thence. For otherwise the Apostles reasoning (Rom. 11.24.) will not hold, If thou (Roman) wer't cut off the olive tree wilde by nature, and graffed contrary to nature into the good olive tree; how much more shall these Israelites which be the naturall branches, be graf­fed into their owne olive tree? What reason can be given why the Israelites should be much more capable of engraffing into Christ, then the Roman Pagans were? Surely, not in respect of the grea­ter ingenuity and better indoles (or disposition) of nature, that will be found in the Israelites, above what was found in the Ro­mans: (for by nature all are alike corrupt and averse from Christ, one as another, Rom. 3.12. & Psal. 14.3.) but onely in respect of Gods greater propension to shew his saving and converting grace to the children of his confederates. And so indeed the Apostle explaineth himself verse 26, 27, 28. There shall come (saith he) the deliverer out of Zion, and turn away ungodlinesse from Jacob. And this is my covenant when I shall take away their sins: As touching the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the ele­lection, they are beloved for their Fathers sake.

‘The words in the place in hand,Silvester. Acts 2.39. are not unto your seed, but unto your children, wherein there is a great diffe­rence. For by seed in Scripture, is often meant a naturall gene­ration, begotten, and born after the flesh. But by children a spi­rituall generation, walking in the steps of the faith of such as have gone before them, as Act. 3.25. & 13.26.33. and so John 8.37.39. Rom. 9.7.8. And so the words import as much, which is to you, and to your children, and to all a farre off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call;’ so that the promise is [Page 30] onely to such as the Lord our God shall call, and none else.

Silvanus.You much mistake it, if you take it, there is any such difference to be put between seed and children: for both of them are taken alike promiscuously. Sometime seed is put for the spirituall chil­dren, and children are put for the carnall seed. And sometimes a­gaine the seed are put for the carnall children, and children for the spirituall seed, in Gal. 3.26. when the Apostle saith, If you bee Christs, then are you Ahrahams seed, and heires according to the promise; there seed is put for spirituall children. But when hee saith, Hierusalem that now is, is in bondage with her children, (Gal. 4.25.) there he putteth children for the carnall seed: And so hee doth also even in some of those Texts, which your selfe alledge to the contrary, as in Acts. 3.25. when the Apostle saith, Ye are the children of the Prophets, and of the Covenant which God made with our fathers, he speaketh of such whom hee exhorteth to re­pent, and to be converted, ver. 19. And therefore yet they were the carnall seed. And he speaketh to them to whom he saith, Christ was sent to turne every one of them from their iniquities, vers. 26. And therefore he knew no other of them, nor spake no otherwise to them, then as to men yet in their sins. And so in that other place which you quote out of Acts 13.26, 33. the Apostle plainely calleth them the children of the stock of Abraham; who were the naturall seed of Abraham, and whom afterward he calleth despi­sers, vers. 41. And amongst whom many of them contradicted and blasphemed his doctrine, verse 45. So that from the word children, it cannot be gathered that in this Text, the Apostle meaneth, chil­dren walking in the steps of the faith of their fathers.

No, nor from those other words of the Text, which you say im­port so much, which speake of the promise made to you and your "children, and to all afarre off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call; for these words doe not import what you say, that the promise is onely to such as God shall call, and to none else: as many as the Lord our God shall call, is not a limitation of those remote words, you and your children, but of the next words imme­diately going before, all that are afar off, lest it should be thought, that the promise is to all that are afarre off, that is, to all Pagans, and infidels, he explaineth himselfe in the words next following, even to as many as the Lord shall call from amongst them. And all they indeed from among the Gentiles, whom the Lord shall call, they still partake of the same promise of grace with the Jews, that [Page 31] as the promise of grace is made to the Jews and their children, so is it now to the Gentiles called, and to their children: there is no difference now between Jews and Gentiles, in respect of any spiri­tuall priviledges or promises. The children of the believing Gen­tiles are now as holy as the children of the believing Jews, and the promises pertaine to both alike.

‘But it is not said in the Text,Silvester. the Covenant is to you and yours, but the promise. Now we know that every promise is not a Covenant, there being a large difference between a promise and a Covenant. Let it then be well considered, what is here meant by the promise: and that is Gods sending of the Messias, or the seed in whom all the Nations should be blessed; and so the sending of a Saviour or a Redeemer unto Israel, as these Scriptures manifest compared together, Esa. 11. 1 Jer. 23.5, 6. with Luke 1.68.74. Acts 13.23. & 3.25, 26. This was perfor­med by Christs comming, First, in the flesh, in which respect he came of, and to the Jewes onely by promise, as Joh. 4.22. Rom. 9.5. Matth. 10.5, 6. & 15.24. John 1.11. Second­ly, in the preaching of the Gospel, by which he was held forth as a Saviour to all that by faith laid hold on him. And this way also Christ was first tendered to the Jewes for a Saviour to save them from their s [...]nnes, Acts 4.12. And for to be their King, as to save them, so into whose State and government they were to submit; as Luke 19.14, 27. Acts 2.36. In which sense the Apo­stle speaketh, when he saith, the promise is to you and to your children, and to all farre and neare, as God shall call. That is, the promise, or the promised Saviour is come, and is now ac­cording to Gods promise tendered to you by the Gospel, calling you and your children, and all else, where the word of grace shall come, to believe and receive him by faith, who is now come to save you and all that believe, from their sinnes, Acts 3.25, 26. And therefore it is said, as many as gladly received or believed these glad tydings, the same was sealed or confirmed to them by Baptisme, Acts 2.41. according to John 1.11, 12, 13. By all which it is manifest, that the promise, Acts 2.39. is meant of the sending of the Messias, or a Saviour to the house of Israel, to call them to repentance, and to save such as believe from their sinnes, as is cleare also by these Scriptures, Esa. 59.20. Act. 13.23, 26, 32, 38, 39. And thus the promise is to you and your chil­dren, that is, the promised Saviour is offered, and offereth him­self [Page 32] freely to save you, notwithstanding your crucifying of him, yet now repent and believe; for his promise is upon the same, freely to forgive and to save you from all your sins. Thus the promise is applyed to faith, which is the way of preaching the gospel, and not an absolute conclusion of persons to bee in the Covenant of grace and life, whether they have faith or not. What is this, but to keep the wicked from leaving his way, by promising them life? This God did not in making of his Co­venant at the first, nor the Apostle by his applying of the same, at the last.’

Silvanus.In this your long answer, some things are impertinent, some things false, some fraudulent, and some confused; but one thing onely alledged out of the Context that may seeme to the purpose, and that also misapplyed. 1. It is impertinent to put a difference betweene the promise and the Covenant. As it was before curious to put a difference betweene seede and children. For though eve­ry promise be not a Covenant: yet there is no such large differ­ence (as you speake of) betweene the promise of God and his Covenant, but that they are ordinarily put one for another. The Covenant of not drowning the world any more with a floud, was no more then a promise: yet it is called a Covenant, Gen. 9.11. and the Promise that God gave to Abraham of the inheritance of the world (Rom. 4.13.) was by the Covenant, confirmed by the sacrifices of beasts, divided asunder, Gen. 15.5.9, 10.17. And that which God calleth the promises, Gal. 3.16. he calleth the Covenant in the next verse, verse, 17. Besides, whatsoever differ­ence there may be betweene the promise and the Covenant, it is here pleaded altogether impertinently. For if it were granted you which you plead for (though there be no mention of it in the Text) That by the promise is here meant the promise of sending the Messiah: yet that promise is either given by the Covenant of grace, or by the Covenant of workes. If Christ be given and sent by the Covenant of grace, then the promise that giveth him is the Co­venant of grace. So that if the promise of sending Christ be to them and their children, (as the Text speaketh) then the Covenant in which that promise is given, is to them and their children. And so indeed the same Apostle telle [...]h them in his next Sermon. Acts 3.25, 26. Ye are the children of the Prophets, and of the Covenant which God made with our Fathers, &c. Unto you first God having raised up his sonne Jesus sent him to blesse you &c. the promise [Page 33] therefore of sending Christ, was given by Covenant. And then what difference is there betweene promise and Covenant, in this case?

2. It is false (which you say) that Christ came onely to the Jewes by promise. For though he came to the Jewes, & to the Jewes first, and to them by promise: yet God gave a more antient pro­mise of the comming of the Messiah, to our first parents, Gen. 3.15. And they were then the common stock and roote both of Jewes and Gentlies. If Job had not a promise of Christ his com­ming to be his Redeemer, how doth he challenge him to be his Redeemer? I know (saith he) that my Redeemer liveth, Job. 19.25.

‘Againe, It is a very truth, which you falsly deny, to wit, an absolute conclusion (as you call it) of any persons to be in the Covenant, whether they have faith or not. For what think you of Isaac and Iacob, and all other elect infants borne of faithfull parents:’ may not a man say, that all such are ab­solutely under the Covenant even before they beleive? yea their very beleiving which in Gods appointed time is given to them, is it not the effect of the grace of the Covenant; and not the cause of it?

It is also another falshood, to say, ‘That the concluding it of persons (meaning of Infants who may want faith) to be in the Covenant of grace and life, doth keepe the wicked from leaving his way, by promising him life.’

For wee doe not promise life to any by the Covenant, unlesse they be elect. And though they be elect, yet because it is unknown to them, and to us too, till they doe repent and beleive, we tell them they cannot partake in any saving benefit of the Covenant till they be regenerate and quickned by the Spirit, as Christ told Nicodemus.

‘And it is yet another falshood to say, That God did not con­clude absolutely any in Covenant of grace when he first made it, nor that the Apostle did so apply it at the last.’

For when God first made the Covenant, he did absolutely con­clude Isaac, and in him all the Elect seede under the Covenant. For it is a branch of the meaning of that promise of God, when he first made the Covenant, My Covenant (saith he) will I establish with Isaac, Gen. 17.21. And yet it doth not appeare that Isaac had any faith, much lesse visible. And for the Apostle his apply­ing [Page 34] of the Covenant, or the promise (call it whether you will, all is one to me) certain it is, the Apostle doth not suspend the chil­drens being in Covenant upon their owne faith, but upon the faith and repentance of their Fathers. Repent (saith he, speaking to the fathers) and so let every one of you be baptized, &c. For the promise is made to you and to your children. Whence the scope of the Apostles exhortation fitly ariseth into this argument, and concludeth after this manner; as hath been shown above.

To whom the promise is made, they ought to be baptized every one of them.

But to you repenting, and to your children, the promise is made.

Therefore you and your children ought to be baptized every one of you.

And besides, the Apostle in his next Sermon so expoundeth the Covenant, as given not onely to them that are converted, and so brought on to believe: but to them who yet want faith and con­version. And therefore he saith, Acts 3.25, 26. Ye are the chil­dren of the Covenant unto whom God having raised up his Son Jesus, hath sent him to blesse you, in converting (or turning away) every one of you from his iniquities. Their being in Covenant (who were the children of the faithfull) was not the fruit of their own turning to God; but their turning to God is held forth by him as a blessing and fruit of their being in Covenant.

3. ‘This is fraudulent, that you hold forth the comming of Christ in the gospel to be for this end, to call upon men to re­pent and believe, and submit themselves to his State and govern­ment.’ Which though it be very true, yet it is like the frau­dulent practice of Ananias and Saphira, to pay part of the price, that they might more cunningly conceale the rest. So you in like man­ner, hold forth this end (which is indeed part of Christs comming in the gospel) the more closely to conceale another part of it, which is, to give faith and salvation to the children of beleevers, and accordingly to call their parents to submit their children and housholds, as well as themselves, to the state and government of the Lord Jesus. For why should Christ encourage children to come to him (Marke 10.14.) if it were no end of Christs comming, to come to save them?

4. ‘These things are very confused in your answer, that you put it for all one, Christ to come to save men from their sins, and to call men to believe.’

For though these follow one another, yet they require a farre different state of the subject, unto whom this different grace is ten­dered. For if you speake of saving from sin (or justifying) Christ justifieth or saveth none from sin, but believers, or such at least, as have faith. But when he calleth men to believe or to repent, he commeth to them not as having faith or repentance, but as wan­ting both. And yet when he commeth to call them unto faith and repentance, he doth it out of respect of his Covenant with their Fathers, whose children they were: yea, and in this call of them, hee commeth to give them repentance and forgivenesse of sinnes, Acts 5.31. And in giving it to their Fathers, he promiseth also to give the same unto their children, Acts 16.31.

Lastly, there is one thing alledged out of the context, which may seeme pertinent to the purpose, if it were fitly applyed. You truly alledge that in Acts 2.41. ‘It is said, As many as gladly re­ceived his word (or as you call it, glad tydings) they were bap­tized, or as you say, the same was sealed and confirmed unto them by baptisme. But this will not prove that which you al­ledge it for, that therefore it is manifest, that by the promise (Acts 2.39.) is meant the sending of the Messias.’ For the text will every way as fitly (and more fitly) carry it to be meant of the promise of remission of sins, and of receiving the gift of the holy Ghost; so the words run directly; Repent ye (saith he) and bee bap­tized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the holy Ghost, for the promise is to you and to your children: What promise? Here is no promise mentioned be­fore, but the remission of sins, and gift of the Holy Ghost: And the gift of the Holy Ghost is called a promise, verse 33. & Acts 1.4, 5. But it is not materiall to the purpose, whether by the promise you understand the comming of Christ, or the gift of the Holy Ghost, or remission of sinnes purchased by the one, and sealed by the other. For all these promises are given by one and the same Covenant of grace. And if any one of these promises belonged to them, the whole Covenant of grace belonged to them also. But to deale ingenuously and faithfully with you, the Text which you quote (out of Acts 2.41.) might hold forth a just colour of an Objection (if you had so applyed it) against the argument gathe­red out of verse 38, 39. for the baptisme of infants. For if they who were baptized were such as gladly received his word (verse 41.) then it doth not appeare out of this place, that infants were at that time baptized with the rest: because they could not receive the word, [Page 36] much lesse gladly, least of all expresse their gladnesse by any visi­ble profession. This objection (I confesse) would have prevailed with me to have forborn any proof of the Baptisme of infants out of this place; were it not partly for the Reasons which have been alledged above (from the words of verse 39.) partly also for that I finde, the Lord Jesus is wont to accept the acts of Parents (in the duties of the second Commandement) as done for themselves, and for their children, as hath been touched above. For look as when Levi is said to pay tythes in Abraham, it was because Abraham in paying tythes was reputed of God, as paying them for himself, and for Levi, Heb. 7.9. And as when Parents came and brought their children to Christ, their comming was reputed of Christ as the comming of their children, as well as of themselves, Mar. 10.14. So when Peters hearers received the word gladly, they gladly received in both for themselves and their children, to wit, both the word of promise, which was expresly given to themselves and their children: and also the word of Commandement (which was grounded upon the promise, and urged as farre as the promise ex­tended) Be baptized every one of you: and thereupon they in recei­ving his word gladly, did gladly give up both themselves and their children to be baptized.

Silvester. ‘But before you take the baptisme of infants concluded out of this place, consider what you will say to another interpretation, which I have seen made of this place. For there bee that say, That by the promise to you and to your children, is not meant the Covenant of grace to you and to your children; but the promise of sending the Holy Ghost to enable them, and their sons and daughters to prophecy: Which promise Peter quoted out of Joel, Act. 2.16, 17. which promise Christ received of the Father, and had now shed abroad in their sight and hearing, verse 33. and which Peter promised to them upon their repen­tance and baptisme, verse 38. because the promise was to them and to their children.’

Silvanus.Thus sometimes you will have the promise to be understood of sending Christ, and sometime of sending the holy Ghost, but the truth is, both are but effects of the same grace, and both given by the same Covenant. The English proverb speaketh of such men as are loath to see what they doe see, that they cannot see the wood for trees: so these men cannot see the Covenant for the promises; what is the wood but a storehouse of trees? and what is the Co­venant [Page 37] of grace, but the storehouse of the promises of grace? In the Covenant of grace when God giveth himselfe to bee the God of the faithfull and of their seed, the Father promiseth himselfe to be their Father, Christ promiseth to be their Redeemer, and the Holy Ghost promiseth to be their sanctifier. You may as soone se­parate the persons in the Trinity from being one God, as separate the gift of one of these persons to us and to our children, from the gifts of the other; or separate all these gifts, or the promises of these gifts from the Covenant of grace.

But if the gift of the Holy Ghost be here promised to these Iews and Proselytes and to their children,Silvester. that they might speake with new tongues, and prophecy, then in this place by children cannot be meant infants; for infants are not capable of speaking with tongues and prophecying.

The Apostle Peter, Silvanus. though he speake of the promise of the gift of the Holy Ghost, which in the former part of the chap­ter did enable the Disciples to speake with new tongues, and pro­phecy; yet he did not intend to limit and confine the gift of the Holy Ghost to that work in these Converts here; for that would have been small comfort to them who were pricked in heart, and enquired the way of salvation, to put them off with a promise of the Holy Ghost, to worke such gifts of tongues and prophecying, as were common to hypocrites, Matth. 7.22, 23. 1 Cor. 13.1. The Apostle therefore who better knew how to satisfie and heale these wounded soules, hee promiseth to them such a gift of the Holy Ghost as is joyned with remission of sinnes, and accompanyeth salvation, Act. 2.38, 39. And though infants (whilst infants) are not capable of speaking with tongues, and prophecying, (which is but one gift of the Holy Ghost, and but a common gift neither) yet they are capable of the Holy Ghost for regeneration and remission of sins, which are the chief blessings of the Covenant, which these Converts then stood in need of, and for the effectuall working of which, the Apostle telleth them, The promise was made to them and to their children; which indeed cannot bee wrought, but by the gift both of Christ, and of the Holy Ghost.

And now having said enough (as I conceive) if not too much for the clearing of these two first Arguments for the Baptisme of the infants of believers; Let us now proceed to adde a third taken from the Analogy of the Circumcision of the seed of Abraham, and the Commandement of God for the same.

Silvester.I have heard much agitation of such an argument (and more of that then of any other) but I am very slow to believe the baptism of infants upon that ground.

CHAP. III.

Silvanus.DOe you not believe that God made a Covenant of grace with Abraham and his seed? Gen. 17.7. &c.

Silvester.What if he did?

Silvanus.Did he not by that Covenant give him a Commandement to re­ceive the signe of Circumcision, the seal of the Covenant of grace to him and to his seed?Silvester. Gen. 17.9, 10.

Silvanus.What of that?

Hath not the Lord given that Covenant of grace which was then to Abraham and his seed, now to beleevers and our seed?

Silvester.What then?

Silvanus.I demand further, hath not God abolished Circumcision, and given us baptisme in the room thereof?

Silvester.What of all this?

Silvanus.Then out of all these it followeth, that if the same Covenant of grace be now given to believers and our seed, which was given to Abraham and his seed; and if baptisme be now given to us as a seale of the Covenant, in the room of Circumcision, then the same Covenant, which gave a Commandement, or a word of instituti­on for the Circumcision of Abraham and his seed, giveth the same Commandement, or a Word of Institution for the baptisme of beleevers and our seed. As by like proporti­on, it is justly gathered, that if Baptisme be given us in the roome of Circumcision, and the Lords Supper in the room of the Passe­over, then as no uncircumcised person might eate of the Passeover: so now no unbaptized person may eate of the Lords Supper.

Silvester.Here are many things presupposed, but not proved: as, first, that the Covenant which God made with Abraham and his seed, was a Covenant of grace. For some say it was a Covenant of temporall blessings (as of the inheritance of Canaan) not spirituall. Others say, it was a Covenant of works, not of grace. And others say, that though it was a Covenant of grace to Abraham (and to his faithfull seed) yet it was a Covenant of works, at least to his carnall seed.

Secondly, it is presupposed, but not proved, that Circumcision was a seale of the Covenant of grace to Abraham, and to his natu­rall seed.

Thirdly, neither is it proved, that God hath made a Covenant of grace now with Believers and our naturall seed.

Fourthly, Neither is it proved, that Baptisme with water is gi­ven us of God in stead of circumcision.

It is true,Silvanus. the Devill hath bestirred himselfe mightily to call in question all these truths of the Covenant of grace; that so hee might make the Covenant of none effect both to Parents and chil­dren. Now the Lord rebuke him, and make us wise to discern his enterprizes. But to cleare all these points, let us (by the help of Christ) prove them one and other, as well as presuppose them. We must not lose nor cast away any Divine truth, because it is que­stioned, but rather contend for it, and the more earnestly, because it is opposed.

For the first there is a truth in it, though not the whole truth, that the Covenant made with Abraham, was of temporall bles­sings, (such as deliverance from Egypt, and the inheritance of Cana­an) but not of temporall blessings onely nor chiefly, even as the Covenant of grace with us, though it chiefly convey spirituall and eternall mercies, yet it reacheth also to temporall blessings also, Hos. 2.18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23. Reasons hereof from the word are plaine and strong. 1. From the Tenor of the Covenant, I will bee a God to thee and to thy seed after thee, Gen. 17.7. Now God to be a God to us and our seed, is more then a temporall blessing, even all-sufficient goodnesse for us and ours, for our soules, and for our bodies, for this life and for ever: God giving himselfe to be our God, the Father giveth himselfe to be our Father; God the Son giveth himself to be our Redeemer; and God the holy Ghost giveth himself to be our Sanctifier and Comforter. And indeed, that Christ was promised and given in this Covenant, is clear from Luke 1.54, 55. and Verse 69, 72, 73. The holy Ghost also is here pro­mised and given in this Covenant as well as Christ the Angel of the Covenant, Esa. 63.9, 10, 11.

Secondly, in the words of this Covenant, God giving himselfe to be a God to Abraham and to his seed: hee therein promised life to them, yea life after death. For the Covenant was so rehearsed by Moses, after the death of Abraham, Isaac, and Iacob, Exod. 3.6. Whence Christ undeniably concludeth that God promised and [Page 40] gave to them resurrection from the dead, and eternall life, Mat. 22.31, 32. Luke 20.37.38. Surely resurrection from death, and living to God after death, are not temporall blessings.

3. Canaan it selfe was not given as a meere temporall blessing: but as a pledge of a spirituall inheritance, a seale of the Church, a type of Heaven.Gen. 47.21 to 31. and Chap. 50.25. Heb. 11.22. Hence it was that Jacob gave such a solemne charge by oath unto Joseph, and Joseph to his brethren, the one to bury his dead body in Canaan, the other for the transportation of his bones to Canaan: which they would never have done for an earthly inheritance, but to nourish in the hearts of their posteri­ty, faith and desire of their communion in the Church, and of their rest in heaven, whereof the rest in Canaan was a type, where­unto not Moses, but Joshua must bring them, that is, not the law, but Jesus, Heb. 3.11. with Chap. 4, 5.8. And their casting out of that Country by captivity was their casting out of Gods sight. 2 Kings 17.28. Whereby their Church Estate was dissolved, the Communion of Saints scattered, the Ordinances of his publike Worship removed from them, and their hopes of heaven.

Silvester.But I have read it strongly pleaded, that the Covenant made with Abraham was an old Covenant, a Covenant of workes, which Christ hath therefore disanulled as old and weake, Heb. 8.13. Now still to pleade our owne and our childrens right unto that Covenant, and to the Seale thereof, is to confound the Old and New Testament, Law and Gospel; besides Circumcision (which was a Signe and Seale of the Covenant with Abraham) bound them that received it, to keepe the whole Law, Gal. 5.3. And therefore the Covenant to which it was annexed was a legall Co­venant, a Covenant of workes, and not of grace.

The Old Covenant spoken of Heb. 8.13. was not the Cove­nant made with Abraham, but with the Israelites on Mount Sinai, when God brought them out of Aegypt, as is expresly said, Heb. 8.9. which Covenant comming 430. yeares after the Covenant with Abraham, is expresly distinguished from it, as that which could not disanull the promise or Covenant, which went before unto Abraham. Ga. 3.17.

Silvester.But why should the Covenant with the Israelites on Mount Sinai be called old, in comparison of the Covenant with Abraham which was 430 yeares older then it?

The Covenant made on Mount Sinai is not called old in com­parison of the Covenant made Abraham: bur in comparison of [Page 41] the Evangelicall dispensation of the Covenant of grace by the Lord Jesus: in whom the sacrifices and Leviticall Ceremonies being ac­complished and abolished, we look for atonement not in bloud of Bulls and Goates, nor in Legall Ablutions, but in the bloud of Christ onely.

And as for Circumcision, though the Apostle say, that every one circumcised, is bound to keep the whole Law; yet that doth not argue, that circumcision was to Abraham a signe and seale of the Covenant of works; for a double answer may justly be given to it.

First, they that hold that the Covenant given on Mount Sinai, was the Covenant of works, (as doe Melancthon, Chemnitius, Piscator, &c.) They would answer that circumcision was a signe of the Covenant of workes, not as circumcision was given to A­braham, but as it was given by Moses, for Moses also enjoyned cir­cumcision as a Leviticall rite, Lev. 12.3. But Christ himselfe obser­veth a difference between circumcision as given by Moses, and as of the Fathers, John 7.22, 23.

Secondly, but they that hold the Covenant on Mount Sinai to have been a Covenant of grace, but onely vailed under types and shadowes, (as doe Calvin, Bucer, Bucan, &c.) they would answer, that circumcision did bind to the keeping of the whole Law; not as it was given either to Abraham, or to Moses, but as it was urged by the false Apostles who expected justification from the observati­on of it. To such indeed it is truly alledged, that if they looke for justification by the observation of circumcision, they are then bound to observe the whole Law. For it is not the observation of one commandement of the Law, that can justifie, but the ob­servation of the whole Law, for hee that breaketh any one commandement of the Law, is guilty of all, James 2.10. Whence it is that Paul putteth the observation of circumcision (to wit, in the sense of the false Apostles) as all one with justification by the works of the Law, Gal. 5.3, 4. And thereby proveth that if the Galatians be circumcised, Christ should profit them nothing, ver. 2. they were fallen from grace, ver. 4. And yet Timothy who received circumcision, not in the sense of the false Apostles, as necessary to justification; but for other respect, to avoid offence, hee did not thereby fall from Christ, or lose his profit in Christ Jesus. But to put it out of doubt that circumcision given to Abraham was a signe and seale not of the Covenant of works, but of grace, the Apostles words are evident, Rom. 4.11. Abraham (saith he) received the signe [Page 42] of Circumcision, a seale of the righteousnesse of faith. Now righteous­nesse of faith is not found in the Covenant of works, but in the Covenant of grace onely. The Covenant of works holdeth forth no righteousnesse but by the works of the Law.

Silvester. ‘I would not deny that the Covenant made with Abraham was a Covenant of grace to him and to his faithfull seed, and con­sequently Circumcision was a signe and seale of the same Cove­nant of grace to them; but to the carnall seed (such as Ismael and Esau) it was not a Covenant of grace to them: for then as they fell away from that Covenant; so they had fallen away from a state of grace, which would too much countenance and cherish the Arminian and Popish error of Apostasie from grace. Neither could circumcision be to them a signe or seale of the Covenant of grace, nor of the righteousnesse of faith given in that Cove­nant, for neither had they faith, nor righteousnesse by faith before their circumcision, as Abraham had; nor after their cir­cumcision, as the elect seed had. And how could then God set his seale to a falshood?’

Silvanus.What if that were granted you which you say (which yet many good Divines will not admit) that the Covenant of God with A­braham was a Covenant of grace onely to him and to his faithfull seed, and to them Circumcision was a seale of the same Covenant: but to the carnal seed, the Covenant was a Covenant of works, and circumcision a seale of the Covenant of works? Though all this were granted, yet still it remaineth good, that all the seed of Abra­ham (spirituall and carnall) were in Covenant with God, one Co­venant or other, either of works or grace; and were all partakers of the seale of the Covenant, to wit, circumcision, though in a different respect. But then it will unavoydably follow, that if the Covenant given to Abraham and his seed be given to beleevers and our seed; then as all the seed of Abraham (whether carnall or spirituall) were in Covenant with God, and so circumcised: so all the seed of believers are in Covenant with God, and should now be baptized. If you say, then Baptisme shall be a seale of the Co­venant of works to the carnall seed of believers, and that were an absurdity now in the dayes of the new Testament.

Answ. No greater absurdity then to say, that circumcision was a seale of the Covenant of works to the carnall seed of Abraham. For Paul speaking of the two Covenants under which the twofold seed of Abraham lay, hee saith, As it was then, so is it now: As [Page 43] it was then in the old Testament, so it is now in the New: Gal. 4.29. Read from vers. 24. to the end of that chapter. As it was then, so is it now; not onely in this respect, that he that was borne after the flesh, persecuted him that was borne after the spirit: But in this also, that as then some of the seed of Abraham were born of Hagar, that is, born of the Covenant of works, and born after the flesh: and some were born of Sarah the free-woman, that is, born of the Covenant of grace, and born after the Spirit; so is it now, in the days of the new Testament.

But to give you a further answer and safer, and more generally accepted; Let me shew you, how the carnall seed of Abraham might then, and may now partake (after a sort) in the Covenant of grace, and in the seale of the Covenant of grace, and yet fall away from grace: and neverthelesse their falling from grace be no countenance to the Arminian error of apostasie from grace.

There is a double state of grace, one adherent, (which some not unfitly call federall grace) sanctifying to the purifying of the flesh, Heb. 9.13. another inherent, sanctifying of the inner man. And of this latter there be two sorts, one, wherin persons in Covenant are sanctified by common graces, which make them serviceable and use­full in their callings, as Saul, Jehu, Judas, and Demas, and such like hypocrites. Another whereby persons in Covenant are sanctified unto union and communion with Christ and his members in a way of regeneration and salvation. In respect of adherent or fe­derall grace, all the children of a believing parent are holy, and so in an estate of grace. In respect of inherent common graces, Saul, Jehu, and Judas and Demas were sanctified of God to their seve­rall callings for the service of his people, as Apostates may be, Heb. 10.29. Now there is no doubt but men may fall away from adhe­rent federall grace, as also from inherent common graces; and yet without any prejudice to the perseverance of sincere believers, and without any countenance to the Arminian error of Apostasie from grace, to wit, from such grace as accompanyeth salvation. And as for the circumcision of Ismael (and such as he) it was a sign and seale of the righteousnesse of faith, not of that which hee had received, but of that which God offered to apply to him in the use of the meanes of grace in Abrahams family; which meanes, as A­braham having circumcised him (and so having set God [...] seale and property upon him) was bound to apply to him, (Gen. 18.19.) to [Page 44] prepare him for grace. So Ismael being circumcised, was bound (as he grew up to understanding) to yeeld up himself in professed sub­jection, both to the Lord and his father, in receiving and following the meanes of grace applyed to him: for God having by Cove­nant offered himselfe to be a God to Abraham and his seed, the Lord did thereby promise to afford both to him and his seed, the meanes whereby they might come to enjoy the Lord for their [...]od. For he which promiseth the end, promiseth also the meanes that lead to that end. And Abraham for his part accepting the Covenant for himselfe and his seed, and so having circumcised himselfe and them in token thereof, he had now bound himself to traine up and edu­cate all his seed in the meanes and wayes of grace, whereby they might come to enjoy that great promise of the Covenant, to have the Lord for their God, which also Abraham was carefull to doe, as the Lord testifieth of him, Gen. 18.19.

Yea, and Ismael himselfe with the rest of Abrahams seed having been received into the Covenant of God, and to the seale thereof, he and they all were bound to yeeld up themselves to the Lord, and to Abraham, in attending to the meanes of grace dispensed to them in that Covenant, that so they might come to enjoy the sure mer­cies of the Covenant, to have the Lord for their God. But now when Ismael rejected the meanes of grace, as he did by mock­ing at Isaac, and as did Esau also, (by selling the birthright of the Covenant for a messe of pottage) now their circumcision was made uncircumcision, as Paul speaketh in a like case, Rom. 2.25. And so they did discovenant themselves and their posterity from the Covenant of grace, and chose to be (as the bewitched Galatians did, Galat. 4.21.) under the Covenant of works. ‘It is therefore a groundlesse and false collection, which some of your way do make, that because there was in Abraham (when God made a Cove­nant with him) a double seed, (the one a spirituall seed, the o­ther a fleshly seed) and accordingly because there were in the Covenant some spirituall blessings, and some outward and car­nall blessings: therefore they must be thus distinguished, that the spirituall blessings belonged to the spirituall seed, and the out­ward blessings to his carnall seed.’

For all the blessings were promised to all the seede in the Cove­nant. To the spirituall seede, both spirituall and outward bles­sings were promised and given effectually: To the carnall seede, [Page 45] not carnall blessings onely, but spirituall also were promised, and offered: So as that their falling short of the grace of God, was not from the defect of the Covenant, but from their prophane refusall of it, and of the meanes of grace offered in it. For it is an evident and confessed Truth, and the Text is cleare for it, That in the Covenant, God offered himselfe to be a God to all the seede. Now God is not an outward or carnall blessing: but as himselfe is a Spirit, so is he also a spirituall blessing to whom­soever he is dispensed.

Well then,Silvester. though it be granted that the Covenant which God made with Abraham and with his seed, is a Covenant of grace, and that circumcision was given as a seale of that Covenant unto his seed; yet still, this is not proved, that God hath made a Cove­nant of grace now in the new Testament with the seed of believers, especially our naturall and carnall seed: Or that our Baptisme is given to us of God in stead of circumcision, to confirm such a Cove­nant with such a seed.

Both these may be well proved, rightly understood;Silvanus. rightly understood I say. For if by carnall seed of believers be meant the children of beleevers walking after the flesh, and carnally rejecting the Covenant of grace, as Esau sold his birthright for a messe of pottage; and the Jews rejected the righteousnesse of Christ, to e­stablish their own righteousnesse, (which are properly called by the Apostle the carnall seed, and Israel after the flesh) then we willingly grant you, that the Covenant of grace is not extended to the car­nall seed of believe [...]s. Or if by carnall and naturall seed, be meant the children of believers begotten of their bodies, and considered as descending from them onely by power of nature, and carnall generation, then we consent unto you herein also, that the Cove­nant of grace doth not extend to the children of believers conside­red as their naturall and carnall seed. For the children of belee­vers, though begotten of their bodies, yet are born under the Co­venant, not by any power of nature, or any force of carnall gene­ration: but, by the grace of Christ offering the Covenant to belie­vers and to their seed, and by the faith of believers receiving the Covenant for themselves and for their seed. But that the Covenant of beleevers begotten of their bodies, are borne under the Cove­nant of grace, by the grace of Christ offering the Covenant to them, and by the faith of their parents receiving the Covenant [Page 46] for them, and for their seed, may be proved from sundry testimo­nies of Scripture.

First, from the testimony of Paul to the Galatians, Gal. 3.14, 15, 16. where he teacheth us, that by Christ his redemption of us from the curse of the Law, the blessing of Abraham is come upon the Gentiles, vers. 14. This blessing is called the Covenant, verse 15, 17. And this Covenant he calleth the promises, verse 16. And these promises he there telleth us were made to Abraham and his seed: and by seed he meaneth Christ. And by Christ he meaneth Christ mysticall, that is, Christ and all that are in Christ, whether by election, or by their owne faith, (as all the living members of Christ be) or by adoption, as all the Israelites were, for whom Paul had continuall sorrow, Rom. 9.4. Or (which is of like ex­tent) by participation in the stocke of Abraham, the stock of the faithfull, as Paul calleth the Jews, the children of the stock of A­braham, to whom the word of salvation is sent, Acts 13.26. And such are in Christ, as branches in the true olive, or in the vine, till they come to cut off themselves, by casting off the Covenant, and the faith of their parents. For the Apostle there in that place of the Galatians, speaketh of the blessing of Abraham as come upon us Gentiles: And the blessing of Abraham was the Covenant and promises of the Covenant made unto Abraham, and unto his seed in Christ. Now that seed in Christ was of such large extent, as that Ismael at first partaked in the Covenant made to it, and in the seale of it (as being himselfe one of the seed and stock of Abraham, as well as Isaac) untill he rejected the Covenant in rejecting Isaac, and the grace of Christ in him, and so was cast out of the family of Abraham, and out of the Communion of the body of the faith­full.

For Paul speaketh not there (as some of your way would have it) of a different dispensation of the Covenant of Abraham, in the old Testament, and in the new: as if it were dispensed in the old Testament unto him and to his carnall seed: and now in the New, to him, and to his seed in Christ; no, no such matter. But he spea­keth of the Covenant as it was dispensed unto Abraham and to his seed of old. And his seed of old, was meant Christ, and all in Christ, then, as well as now. And therefore, if then Ismael was received to the Covenant, and to the seale of the Covenant, as the seed of Abraham, and yet no seed of Abraham, was accounted in the Covenant, but the seed in Christ, it is evident that Ismael was [Page 47] at first accounted to be in Christ, though not as elect in Christ, nor as united to Christ by his owne faith; yet as abiding like a branch in the stock of Abraham, in the body of the faithfull, in the adop­tion of God, and in the communion of Abrahams family, till by persecuting Isaac, and by mocking at the grace of Christ in him, hee was cut off from that vine, and cast out of the Covenant. Whence it followeth, that if the blessing of Abraham bee come upon us Gentiles, and this blessing of Abraham bee the pro­mises and Covenant made to him and his seed, and if the seed of Abraham bee accounted all that are in Christ, and all are ac­counted to bee in Christ, (in respect of the outward dispen­sation of the Covenant) not onely which are elect, and which are faithfull, but also which are of the seed of the faithfull, and live in communion with them, (till they come to reject Christ, and the faith in him) then it standeth undeniably firme and certaine that the Covenant of Abraham is made with believers now, and and with our seed too, even in these dayes of the New Testa­ment.

The same truth is witnessed unto by the Apostle Peter also in Acts 2.39. as hath been opened above. The promise (saith hee) is made to you and to your children; where by promise is meant (as appeareth by the former verse) the promise of remission of sins, and of receiving the holy Ghost; which are of the principall sort of the sure mercies of the Covenant of grace.

It will be a vaine shift to distinguish between the promise and the Covenant here. For every promise of God, is a promise of one Covenant or other. Now in the Covenant of works there is no free promise of remission of sins, or of the holy Ghost: but all the promises are given to workers, Doe this, and thou shalt live: doe it not, and die and be accursed. In the New Testament there­fore there is a Covenant of grace to beleevers and to their chil­dren, as was to Abraham and to his seed. If it be said, this Promise and Covenant was to the Jews, and to their children, but not to the Gentiles and theirs.

The answer is plaine and easie, it is a promise of the New Testa­ment; and in the new Testament, the Jew hath no priviledge a­bove the Gentile. There is neither Jew nor Gentile, there is no difference of any Nation in the spirituall priviledges of the New Testament: but all are alike in Christ Jesus. If it be said again, the promise is to them, and to their repenting and believing children, and not else.

This exception hath been refuted above. To which let mee adde, that the promise was not onely to the repenting and belie­ving Israelites, nor onely to their children repenting and believing; but God had promised also to poure his Spirit upon their children that they might repent and believe; when Jacob is thirsty, and like the dry ground, God promiseth he will not onely pour out his Spirit like water upon him thus dry and thirsty; but also I will poure (saith he) my Spirit upon thy seed, and my blessing upon thine off-spring, Isa. 44.3. For it is the same water of the bloud and spirit of Christ, of which God speaketh, when he pro­miseth to poure cleane water upon them, and therewith to take a­way their hard and stony hearts, which must be removed by the spi­rit given them, before they can come to repent and believe, Ezek. 26, 25.

It is to the same purpose that upon the repentance and faith of Zacheus, the Lord pronounceth salvation to bee unto his house, Luke 19.9. This day (saith he) salvation is come to this house, for­asmuch as he also is the son of Abraham: which is not only in respect of the Religious care, which Zacheus would take to teach his houshould the way of salvation, but also in respect of the Cove­nant, by which not onely Zacheus was bound to teach his houshold, but the Lord also had bound himself to blesse the meanes of salva­tion to his houshold, as it is written, The Lord thy God will cir­cumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the Lord thy God, &c. Deut. 30.6. And againe, those that dwell under his sha­dow shall returne, Hos. 14 7. The like promise of grace doth Paul and Silas preach to the Jaylor, that upon his faith, salvation should redound to his houshold; Believe (say they) on the Lord Jesus, and thou shalt bee saved and thine house, Acts 16.31. which also was done and tooke effect the same night, afore that the Gaoler could take any great paines for the instruction of them, verse 34. All which do plainly argue, that the faith of the parent doth bring the children and houshold of a Christian, even now in the days of the new Testament, under a Covenant of salvation, as well as the faith of Abraham brought his houshold of old under the same co­venant. Whence also it is, that Paul proveth the conversion of the Jews (after the fulnesse of the Gentiles be come in) from the Covenant of God made with their Fathers Abraham, Isaac, and Ia­cob. For (saith he) when the fulnesse of the Gentiles is come in, all Israel shall be saved, as it is written, There shall come out of [Page 49] Zion a Redeemer, and shall turne away ungodlinesse from Jacob. For this is my Covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins: As concerning the Gospel they are enemies for your sake, but as touching the election, they are beloved for the Fathers sake, Rom. 11.25, 26, 27, 28. which plainly argueth, that for the Cove­nant sake made with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the Lord will con­vert and call home the Jews in the latter dayes, although for the present they be rejected for their unbelief. Therefore the Cove­nant of grace (the Covenant of Abraham) is of like force and ex­tent now (now in the dayes of the New Testament) unto the faith­full and their seed, as it was in the dayes of the Old Testament.

If it be said, that this proveth no more, then this, that when the Jewes shall turne unto Christ by faith in their Redeemer, then they shall inherit the Covenant of Abraham, as all believers doe.

Answ. Yes, it proveth not that onely, but this more, that before their faith in Christ, whilst they are yet enemies, the Lord will turne unto them, and give them faith and repentance to turne to him, and that out of his Covenant, even for the love that hee bea­reth to them for their godly fathers sake. Howbeit, we willingly grant that those Jewes who shall be converted in the latter dayes, are no otherwise under the Covenant of grace, then in respect of Gods election, as the Apostle speaketh, Rom. 11.28. But otherwise in respect of the actuall enjoynment of the priviledges of the Gos­pel (such as Church-communion, and the seales of that Commu­nion be) they are rejected as enemies, not for their privative want of faith, but for their positive rejection of the faith, and of the righteousnesse of faith, and of Christ himself. But when they shall turne unto the Lord, then the Covenant shall run along to them and to their seed, as it did of old unto Abraham and to his seed. For so Esay prophecyeth of those times, This is my Covenant to them that turn from transgression in Iacob, my spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seeds seed, from henceforth and for ever, Esa. 59.20, 21.

Finally, that known place in 1 Cor. 7.14. though it have beene much wrested and racked to looke and speake another way, yet it cannot but beare witnesse to the truth in hand, that by the faith of either Parent, the children are received into a state of holinesse, and [Page 50] 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 [Page 51] 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 [Page 52] of which were Ismael and Esau,’ who in Abrahams generation signified a fleshly seed, as well as Isaac and Jacob a spirituall. Be­tween which seeds God ever held forth a distinction in all genera­tions, from Abraham untill Christ, who put an end to the type and the flesh, ‘to al priviledges of that nature thereunto belonging, 2 Cor. 5.16. Phil. 3.3, 4, 5. So that now all is laid up in Christ one­ly for such as believe.’

Silvanus.It is a taking away from the Text, I meane a straitning of the sense of it, to say that Paul in Gal. 3.16. speaketh of the seed elect in Christ unto eternall life. For he speaketh of all the seed in Christ: now there are a seed in Christ, which are not elect in Christ, for Christ himself speaketh of branches in him (the true vine, the fat olive tree) which yet bare no fruit in him, and so are cut off from him, cast out and wither, John 15.2, 6. And such branches though they were in Christ by the fellowship of the Church, and by the Spirit conveying from Christ common graces to them, yet they were ne­ver elect in him to everlasting life, nor united to him by a lively faith. For if they had been so in him, they had never been cut off from him.

It is true, the Covenant of grace was not to all the seed of A­braham without exception; that is, to such of the seed as rejected the Covenant, or the faith of it, as Ismael and Esau did in riper years. But the Covenant was to all the infant seed of Abraham without exception, and to all the infants of his believing seed. And the seale of the Covenant was in like sort dispensed to them all without exception, to Ismael as well as to Isaac, to Esau, as well as to Jacob.

Yet neverthelesse, it will not therefore follow, that some of the ‘seed of Abraham were comprehended in the Covenant, and ad­mitted to the seale thereof in one sense,’ whom God excepted a­gainst in another sense. For hee excepted not against the infant seed of Abraham, or his family in any sense: but onely against the seed apostate in elder yeares. In respect of which Apostacy (which God fore-knoweth, all the non-elect seed of Abraham will fall into) though God receive all the infant-seed of Abrahams family (that is, of the Church) into the fellowship of the Covenant, and of the seale thereof, yet he giveth a peculiar blessing to the elect seed, even the sure mercies of his Covenant, Esa. 55.2. And though you say, that between these two seeds, God ever held forth a distinction in all generations from Adam to Christ; yet that distinction was one­ly [Page 53] this; the seed of all the flesh, and the seed of the promise, Rom. 9.8. But he excluded neither of them in their infancy from the Co­venant, or from the seale of it: Indeed the children of the pro­mise, being the elect of God, God hath not onely given his Cove­nant to them and the seale thereof, but hath also established it un­to them for ever. But the seed of the flesh, though the Lord gave his Covenant even unto them also, and the seal therof; yet he hath not established it unto them for ever; whence afterward it com­meth to passe that they reject the Covenant and the faith of it. ‘But when you further say, that Christ hath put an end to the type, and to the flesh, and to all priviledges thereunto belonging; so that now all is laid up in Christ onely for such as believe, and for that end quote 2 Cor. 5.16. Phil. 3.3, 4, 5.’

It is readily granted you, that Christ hath put an end to all types and to fleshly Ordinances, and to the purifying of the flesh, by the Ceremonies of the Law (Heb. 7.16. & 9.13.) But that Christ hath put an end to all priviledges either of the Covenant, or of the seale of the Covenant to the seed of believers, there is no word in the New Testament that teacheth us any such doctrine; the places alledged (opened above by me) prove the contrary; and those al­ledged by you will not make good what you say, for the place in 2 Cor. 5.16. that a man regenerate knoweth no man after the flesh, argueth onely thus much, that a man in Christ resteth in no out­ward priviledges, no not in seeing and knowing Christ in the flesh, nor in eating and drinking in his presence, nor in hearing him preach in their streets, but in the spirituall and lively fellowship of his death and resurrection, which maketh him whosoever knoweth Christ, a new Creature. And so say we too; and so it was with the faithfull in the Old Testament as well as in the New. It was not the outward participation of the Covenant, nor of the seale of it, that a sincere Israelite could rest in, but in the grace of the Covenant, and Circumcision of the heart in the Spirit, not in the Letter. But this doth not at all argue, that the children of the faith­full, who are yet in the flesh, are not partakers of the Covenant of grace, nor of the seale of it, now in the New Testament, as well as they were in the Old. But only argueth, that though before regene­ration, men are apt to rest and boast in the outward Letter of privi­ledges and Ordinances: yet after regeneration they doe not ac­knowledge such things as their comfort and confidence. John Bap­tist endeavoured to beat off the Jews from resting in such outward [Page 54] priviledges, Matth. 3.9. And so did the Prophets before Christ, Jerem. 9.25, 26. as well as Paul after him, both in this place of the Corinthians, and that other which you quote out of Phil. 3.3, 4, 5.

‘When you say, that now all is laid up in Christ onely for such as believe.’

If you meane all spirituall blessings of life and salvation, you say true, but nothing to the question: For so it was in the Old Testament, as well as now. But as it was then, the seed of belie­vers partaked of the outward dispensation of the Covenant, and of the seale of it; so is it still, unlesse you could shew us some Scripture whereby they are more excluded now then in the old Te­stament.

Silvester. ‘Now first in Christ by faith, and then to the Covenant and priviledges thereof, Gal. 3.29. None by the Gospel are approved to be the seed of Abraham, but onely such as walke in the steps of his faith. For as none invisibly before God are by him ap­proved at all to have right to any priviledges of grace, but one­ly as he looketh upon them in his Son: no more are there any before man visibly to be approved of, so as to have right to the same, but as they appeare to be in Christ, by some effect of faith declaring the same. And so much the more, in that God excludeth all from his holy Covenant, so as to have right in the outward dispensation thereof, but onely such as be­lieve, Rom. 11.20. Heb. 3.18. & 4.1, 2, 3. & 11.5, 6. Rom. 9.7, 8. Gal. 3.22, 26, 29.’

Silvanus.Surely in the old Testament, the children of believers had first Christ by Covenant, and then faith also to receive him. For in the Covenant with Abraham, when God gave himselfe to be a God to him and his seed, the Father gave himselfe to bee their Father, the Son to be their Redeemer, the holy Ghost to bee their Sancti­fier, when yet the children were unborn, without life, and there­fore without faith. And surely in the New Testament God hath not changed this order of his blessings. For in rehearsing the Covenant (which continueth in the New Testament) he giveth the writing of the law in their hearts by Covenant, Heb. 8.10. Amongst which laws, surely the law of faith is one, and indeed the chiefe of all other laws. And therefore it is not as you say, first faith, and then to the Covenant; but first the Covenant, and then faith written and wrought in their hearts by his Spirit to fulfill his Co­venant. [Page 55] The place which you quote in Gal. 3.29. doth not prove that none are the seed of Abraham, save those that be in Christ by faith. But that those who be in Christ by faith, they are that seed of Abraham, who partake in the sure mercies of the Covenant: who are therefore called heires according to promise. The faith­full seed of Abraham, they onely partake in the sure mercies of the Covenant: so it is now in the New Testament, and so it was, and no otherwise in the Old. But that doth not at all hinder, but that all the seed of Abraham, though yet destitute of faith in their own persons, have right to the outward dispensation of the Covenant and to the seale of it.

‘When you say, none are approved by the Gospel to be the seed of Abraham, but onely such as walke in the steps of his faith; the place whereto you alude,’ is in Rom. 4.12. which only holdeth forth, that such as walke in the steps of the faith of Abraham, they are the seed of Abraham, who are justified in the sight of God: for Abraham himselfe was so justified. And thus it is in the new Te­stament, and thus also it was in the Old: And yet Abraham then had, and so have the faithfull now, other seed who are partakers of the covenant, and of the seale of the covenant, and yet are not justi­fied for want of faith.

‘You say, none invisibly before God, are by him approved at all to have right to any priviledge of grace, but onely as he loo­keth upon them in his Son: no more are there any before men visibly to be approved of, so as to have right to the same.’

This saying (that none have right to any priviledge of grace be­fore God, but as he looketh upon them in his Son) it is true, right­ly understood, but nothing availing to your purpose. If you mean by grace, saving grace, it is true; none have right to any priviledge of saving grace, but as God looketh at them in his Son, either by faith, or by election unto faith. If you meane by grace, the out­ward dispensation of the covenant of grace, and of the seal there­of, it is true, none have right to any priviledge of the covenant, or of the seale of it, but as they are in Christ either by faith, or by election unto faith, or by their fellowship with the church, where­of Christ is the head. In which respect all the members of the church, and their seed are in Christ, as branches in the vine, or o­live, and may be cut off from him for want of faith to make them fruitfull in him. But what avayleth this to your purpose? Thus it is in the new Testament, and thus it was in the Old.

‘But when you say, none have right to the same, but as they appeare to be in Christ, by some effect of faith declaring the same.’

This you cannot make good from Scripture light. For though you say, that God excludeth all from his holy covenant, so as to have right in the outward dispensation thereof, but onely such as believe.

And to prove that, you alledge many Scriptures; yet none of them beare witnesse to any such matter. All the Scriptures which you alledge will easily prove one of these two things, (both which we willingly grant) First, that some branches in Christ were broken off from Christ, though not through want of faith, but yet through infidelity, rejecting the faith of Christ, either in them­selves or in their parents. Secondly, that through faith wee re­ceive the spirituall saving blessings of the covenant, and through want of faith fall short of them; both which are everlasting truths, as well before Christ as since.

To runne over all your places briefly, that you may see how your Leaders mis-leade both themselves and you. In Rom. 11.20. it is said, the Jewes were broken off through unbeliefe: So the word is translated; but the true sense of it is, through infidelity: and so the same word is translated, 2 Cor. 6.15. What part hath a believer with an infidell? The meaning of that place in the Ro­mans is, the Jews were broken off from Christ, and from their church-estate and Covenant in him, by their professed infidelity, their open rejection of Christ and his righteousnesse, and that not out of ignorance, but out of wilfull obstinacy against the light of the gospel revealed to them. For the Apostles still kept communion with them, as with a church, a people in covenant with God, not­withstanding their want of faith in Christ; yea, notwithstanding their crucifying of Christ, untill they wilfully & obstinately rejected and persecuted the Gospel of grace, and the righteousnesse of it, Acts 13.45, 46. And persisting therein, then indeed they were broken off; but yet this argueth that they were in Christ before; or else how could they now be broken off? Your next place is quoted out of Heb. 3.18. where the Israelites are said to fall short of their en­trance into Canaan because of their unbeliefe; the word is as before, because of their infidelity. For it is not likely that all the Israe­lites who wanted saving faith, were kept out of Canaan: Acban who troubled Israel, doth not appeare to be a true believer. But [Page 57] the body of them who were kept out of Canaan, had carryed themselves like infidels, they thought scorne of the land of pro­mise, and preferred Pagan Egypt before it. And therefore for re­jecting the promise and the faith of it, were justly rejected from entring into Canaan. But what maketh this to the purpose in hand? how doth this prove, that in the Gospel God excludeth all from his holy Covenant, and from right in the outward dispensation of it, save onely such as believe? For all these were in the Covenant, and had been circumcised in Egypt, and so had the priviledge of the outward dispensation therof, though they believed not: Besides, this concerned the times of the Old Testament; of which your selfe and your leaders confesse, that the outward dispensation of the Cove­nant, and of the s [...]ales of it pertained, not onely to the spirituall & b [...]lieving seed, but to the carnall also. Your next place in Heb. 4.1, 2, 3. proveth only, that such as do not mixe the word with faith, will fall short of entring into Gods rest. So it was in the Old Testa­ment, as well as in the New. And the Apostle himselfe doth so expresse it; The Word (saith he) which was preached to them, (to wit, the Israelites in the old Testament) did not profit them, because it was not mixed with faith in them that heard it: From whence he also argueth, that neither will the Word preached to us now, profit us, if it be not mixed with faith. But what maketh this to prove that God excludeth all from the outward dispensation of his holy Covenant, but onely such as believe? Is it all one to par­take in the outward dispensation of Gods Covenant, and to en­ter into Gods rest? or to profit by the Word? your Leaders should make more conscience of alledging and applying Gods holy Word impertinently, impertinently I say, both to Gods meaning, and to their owne: which is one kinde (but too frequent) of taking Gods holy name in vaine.

The next place which you quote out of Heb. 11.5, 6. sheweth us, that without faith it is impossible to please God; which argueth in­deed, that no man either in his person, or in his work can be accep­table to God without faith: but doth not prove that God cannot receive any into the outward fellowship of the Covenant without faith; much lesse doth it prove, that the New Testament doth exclude all unbelievers from the Covenant, more then did the Old Testament; for those words in Hebrews 11.5, 6. were spoken of Enoch, who (I need not tell you) lived in the dayes of the Old Testament.

Your next place in Rom 97, 8. sheweth indeed, that all the chil­dren of the flesh of Abraham, are not the elect seed of Abraham, (which we willingly grant) but doth not shew, [...]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 everlas [...]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 hea [...]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 [Page 60] seed in the New Testament different from that of the Old; where­as Paul speaketh of the same seed both in the Old and New Testa­ment alike.

Thirdly, in that Ismael is accounted by you as a fleshly seed, and so as rejected out of the Covenant from the womb; whereas he was not cast out of the Covenant, till himselfe cast off the Covenant by mocking and persecuting Isaac.

‘The second difference you put is, that that Covenant in the old Testament was in the flesh; this in the heart, Gen. 17.13. with Jer. 31.33. Rom. 2.28, 29.’

Answ. This difference is put by you, but not by the Spirit of God in Scripture. For as that Covenant (that is, the signe of the Covenant) was in the flesh: so is Baptisme (the signe of the Cove­nant now) upon the flesh.

Secondly, as our Baptisme signifieth and sealeth the washing a­way of the filth of flesh and spirit; so did their circumcision of the flesh signifie and seale the circumcision of the heart, Deut. 30.6.

Thirdly, as in our Baptisme the Lord doth not regard nor e­steeme the outward washing of the flesh, (1 Pet. 3.21.) So nei­ther was the circumcision of the flesh without circumcision of the heart of any account before God, either before Christ, or since. It was not only so adjudged in Pauls time in the New Testament, that Circumcision of the flesh, was nothing without Circumcision of the heart, but also in Ieremies time in the Old Testament. For Ie­remy threatneth [...]hat God will punish the circumcised with the un­circumcised, Egypt, Edom, Ammon and Moab with Iudah: for all these Nations are uncircumcised; & al the house of Israel are uncir­cumcised in heart, Ier. 9.25, 26. It hath been said of old, shall a man make Gods to himself, and they are no Gods? So may it be said in some proportion, shall a man make differences to himself to turn him off from the way of God, and they are no differences?

To the third, there is as little difference in that as in the former: for as the seale of that Covenant confirmed faith in things to come, but the seale of this confirmes faith in things already done: so the seale of that Covenant confirmed the faith of Abraham in the righteousnesse of faith, which he had already received; and the faith of those that were in Canaan of the possession of it: And our Baptisme sealeth up to us mortification of sin, deliverance out of affliction, resurrection of the body, whereof some are yet to come [Page 61] in part, some wholly. The like may bee said of the other Ordi­nances of the Covenant. But what is it to the purpose? what if sun­dry ordinances of the Covenant, as it was dispensed in the old Te­stament, confirmed faith in things to come? and what if the Ordi­nances of the New Testament confirmed faith in things past? yet what is this to argue that children of believing Parents are excluded from the Covenant of grace in the new testament, though not in the Old?

‘To the fourth, when you say, that Covenant was Nationall, and admitted all of the Nation to the seales thereof: But this personall, and admitteth of none but such as believe.’

This difference is founded in an untruth: for it is untrue, that the Covenant given to Abraham was Nationall, it was rather do­mesticall at first: and did not comprehend the whole Nation of any of Abrahams seed, till Iacobs time. And Iacob speaketh of his blessing (which was a proper adjunct, and peculiar priviledge of the Covenant) that it did exceed the blessing, and so the Cove­nant) of his progenitors, Gen. 49.26. For whereas in Abrahams house, though Isaac was received to the blessing of continuance in the Covenant, yet Ismael and the seed of Keturah were excluded: and in Isaac's house, though Iacob inherited the blessing, yet Esau was excluded, yet in Iacobs family all his sonnes were received to the blessing of continuance under the outward dispensation of the Covenant, and not themselves onely, but all their posterity, the whole twelve Tribes, which proceeded from them. Now it is not said in Scripture, that the blessing of Jacob is come upon the Gen­tiles, (for then none of our posterity might cut themselves off from the outwa [...]d dispensation of the Covenant, and then our Cove­nant would be Nationall, and admit all of the Nation to the seales thereof) but the Scripture saith, that the blessing of Abra­ham (and so the Covenant of Abraham) is come upon the Gentiles, Gal. 3.14. that is, upon the believing Gentiles, and their seed, whereby it commeth to passe, that believing Gentiles, and their Infant-seed are admitted to the Covenant, and to the seale of the Covenant, as Abraham and his Infant seed were: But if when they bee growne up to yeares, they shall grow to mocke and sleight the Covenant, as Ismael and Esau did, then they and their seed are cast out of the Covenant, and that keepeth the Covenant from being national. And so it was in Abrahams time, & so it is now.

‘When you say, this Covenant with us is personall and admit­teth onely of such as believe.’

It hath been refuted above, and this truth cleared, that upon the faith of the Parents, the grace of the Covenant is promised al­so unto their seed. And if the Covenant did admit onely of such as believe, then the faith whereby we believe, were not given to any by Covenant. Whereas it hath been shown above, that faith, and the saving knowledge of God by faith, and the writing of the Law of faith (as well as of love) in our hearts, is given by Cove­nant, Jer. 31.33.34.

Your fifth difference is like the rest, devised in your own ima­gination, not founded in Scripture. ‘That Covenant (say you) begot children after the flesh; but this onely begets children af­ter the Spirit, and onely approveth of such as are begotten and born from above, &c.’

Answ. Doe you any where read in Scripture, that the Cove­nant of Abraham approved of any then, more then now, but such as are begotten from above? Did not Abraham and Israel of old renounce the owning and acknowledgement of such children of theirs, as were degenerate from their faith and obedience? Esay 63.16.

When you say that that Covenant begot children after the flesh, doe you not meane, that men under that Covenant begot children after the flesh? And if that be your meaning, doe you thinke it is not so now, that men under the Covenant of grace, now in the dayes of the New Testament, as well as in the Old, doe beget chil­dren after the flesh? It is true, those believing Parents who doe be­get children by believing the Promise and Covenant of grace to them and to their children they doe bring forth, and bring up spi­rituall children, or as you call it, children after the Spirit. But so did Abraham and other faithfull parents in the Old Testament, as well as now.

The places which you quote out of Ier. 31. Ezek 36. Heb. 8. Ioh. 3.5, 6. doe neither prove your assertion, nor disprove ours, but rather approve it. For in Ier. 31. the Law of faith and saving knowledge is written in our hearts by the Covenant: so it is now in the New Testament, and so it was in the Old.

In Ezek. 36. God takes away the heart of stone, and gives an heart of flesh, and a new spirit; so hee doth now to his chosen; and so he did then, Numb. 14.24. The place in the Heb. 8. is the same with that in Ieremy 31. That in Iohn 3.5; 6. argueth that none born of flesh can enter into the kingdome of heaven, but are [Page 63] carnall and fleshly. But thus it was in the Old Testament, as well as in the New; there is no difference in this point.

‘Your sixth difference is, that that Covenant with Abraham and his posterity before Christ, comprehended a civill state, and a worldly government, with the like carnall subjects for the ser­vice of the same: But this Covenant now under Christ com­prehendeth onely a spirituall state, and an heavenly govern­ment, with the like spirituall subjects of this also.’

Answ. 1. The Civill State and worldly government was not expressed in the Covenant given to Abraham, but in the Covenant, and blessing of Iacob. It was Iacob that blessed his son Iudah with a scepter, Gen. 49.10. But to Abraham it was foretold, that his seed should bee a stranger and a servant, and in an afflicted estate 400 yeares. And though the Lord did not deny them civill govern­ment, yet neither did he expresly promise it to his seed. And (as was said above) it is the blessing of Abraham that is come upon us, and not of Iacob, so far as that of Iacob, exceeded the blessing of his pro­genitors.

Answ. 2. It is more then can be proved, that the Covenant of Abraham, and his posterity after Christ, doth not comprehend a civill State: for the prophecy of Daniel promiseth, that after the ‘destruction of the four Monarchies, the Kingdom and the Domi­nion, and the greatnesse of the Kingdome under the whole hea­ven shall be given to the people of the saints of the most High, &c. Dan. 7.27.’

Answ. 3. Civill State and Government is but an accessary to the Covenant; And though the people of God in the new Testa­ment should never enjoy it, (which is not to be granted:) yet what is this to the maine promise of the Covenant, That God will bee a God to his people, and to their seed, throughout all generati­ons?

The seventh and last difference which you put is as little pertinent to the cause, as all the former. ‘For what if that Covenant held forth Christ in the flesh to an heart vailed? And this holdeth him forth in the Spirit to a face open, 2 Cor. 3.’

Yet this argueth onely a different dispensation of the Covenant by Moses and by Christ; But the Covenant of Abraham which was given 430 yeares before the Covenant of Moses, did not so vaile, nor darken the face of Christ, but that Abraham saw Christ, though afarre off, yet clearely, and rejoyced, I [...]hn 8.56. And so did all his [Page 64] spirituall seed after him, more or lesse, as well as wee. But what if the dispensation of the Covenant had been more vayled in all the times of the Old Testament to all the seed, then indeed it was? yet what is this to the maine promise of the Covenant, that God will be a God to a believer and his seed, throughout all generati­ons?

Silvanus.What doe you take the Covenant to be?

Silvanus.As the heavens are higher then the earth, so are the wayes of God higher then our wayes, (Esa. 55.9.) and in speciall the wayes of his grace, and of the Covenant thereof, with men indeed mu­tuall agreement and consent is necessary to a Covenant, but with God, Gods appointment maketh a Covenant, whether the creature consent to an agreement or no. God sometimes made a Covenant, and established it, not onely with Noah and his seed, but also with the Fowles and Beasts, and every living creature, that he would ne­ver send a flood to destroy them from off the face of the earth, Gen. 9.9, 10, 11. And this Covenant was onely an appointment of God, [Page 65] it did not require any consent or agreement of man, much lesse of other creatures, to make it a Covenant. It is therefore a manifest error, to make the agreement or consent on mans part essentiall to a Covenant between God and man.

It is a second error, that in describing the Covenant of grace, you omit the seed of believers, & exclude them from the fellowship of the Covenant, as being unable to expresse their consent and agreement to the Covenant. Let it be considered in the feare of God, whe­ther ever God made any Covenant with any man or people, which did not comprehend their posterity also? God made a Covenant with Noah did, it not reach his posterity also? Gen. 9. God made a Covenant with Abraham, Gen. 17. did it not reach his posterity al­so? God made a Covenant with the people of Israel, Exod. 19. did it not reach their posterity also? God made a Covenant with Phi­nehas, Numb. 25. did it not reach to his posterity also? God made a Covenant with David, Psal. 89.28. did it not reach to his posterity also? If then the Scripture never hold forth any Covenant which ever God made with any of the sons of men, but it did reach and comprehend his posterity also; why should the Covenant of grace be conceived to run a different course from all the rest of Gods co­venants, namely, to reach unto believers, but not to their posteri­ty? We are shallow and narrow our selves, and so we measure the grace of God, and the Covenant thereof, according to our owne scantling, our narrow capacity. Proceed then to declare, what is ‘the second thing you wisht might bee well considered: to wit, what is that which admits into the Covenant?’

‘That which admits any into the Covenant,Silvester. and giveth right to enter thereinto, is the promise of God in Christ, and faith in the same, as Nehem. 9.8.’ The Covenant hath these essentiall parts and visible branches. 1. Grace in the agent, God. 2. Faith in the subject, Man. 3. An uniting or closing of these together: which ‘is that mutuall consent and agreement, by faith in the same grace revealed by the gospel, which is the word of reconciliation. So that it is the blessed word of life and faith in the same, that gi­veth right and admitteth into Covenant with God.’

We deny not that faith in the subject doth admit into the Cove­nant rightly understood; to wit, faith in Christ,Silvanus. and in the word of reconciliation, admitteth not onely the faithful person, but his seed also (though yet wanting faith) into the Covenant. The text which you quote against it, (as it usually falleth out) maketh [Page 66] 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 l [...]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 woul [...] 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, [Page 67] 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? Mat [...]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 the [...] to the fourth thing, which you wi [...]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 [Page 68] 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 onely to such as believe, but also (for their sakes) to their children and housholds. In the Old Testament God prospered Ismael for Abrahams sake, Gen. 21.13, 17, 18, 19, 20. In the New Testament God visited with grace and salvation, the Fa­milies of Zacheus, and of the Jaylor for the housholders sake, Luke 19.9. Acts 16.31.

Silvester. ‘The holy Covenant consisteth of three essentialls for entrance thereinto. First, the word of God to reveale the same. Se­condly, Christ to open the way, and to enright the party there­in. Thirdly, faith, without which none can enter thereinto, for as none can come unto God, or into Covenant with him, [Page 69] but by Christ; so none can come unto Christ, but by faith, Job. 14.6. with John 6.44, 45. Heb. 11.6. Let all this be well conside­red, and then see how infants can be discovered to be in the Co­venant, and what way of entrance hath God by his word appoin­ted for them to come in, and denyed the same unto other.’

I will not straine at your word Essentialls;Silvanus. though all things that are necessary to the entrance or being of a thing, are not straightway essentiall to it. Gods providence is necessary to the being and entrance of sin, but it is not essentiall to it. But I willingly admit of your three necessary Ingredients for entrance into the Covenant, and finde none of them wanting to enstate and interest the Infants of believing Parents into the Cove­nant.

First, the Word of God revealeth such a Covenant of grace, wherein God giveth himselfe to be a God to the faithfull Parent, and to his seed. So hee gave himselfe to faithfull Abraham and to his seed, Gen. 17.7. This Covenant of Abraham, the Scripture revealeth to be come upon the believing Gentiles and their seed, as hath been shewed above.

Secondly, Christ himselfe hath opened the way to enright the children of believing Parents into the Covenant, by redeeming us (Gentiles, as well as Jews) from the curse of the Law, that the blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles, Gal. 3.13, 14. And the blessing of Abraham is to a believer and his seed, Gal. 3.16. And this hath been further cleared above.

Thirdly, faith is not wanting, to enstate the seed of believing Parents into the Covenant, seeing God hath promised upon the faith of the Parent, salvation to his houshold, Acts 10.31. Luke 19.9.

‘It is a vaine exception to say, that if infants bee entred into the Covenant by the faith of their Parents, that then they who bee not naturally begotten and born in the Covenant, are de­nyed the same way of entrance into the Covenant which is granted to infants.’

For first, wee doe not say, that any man is naturally begotten and born in the Covenant: For the children of believing parents are naturally the children of wrath, as well as others, Ephes. 2.3. But yet neverthelesse, though naturally they bee the children of wrath, yet by vertue and grace of the Covenant, they are holy, 1 Cor. 7.14.

Secondly, though they who are not begotten and borne of faith­full Parents, cannot plead right in the Covenant, by the faith of their Parents: yet they may claime it by their owne faith, if God grant it to them. If not, it is no marvaile to a Christian heart, that the faith of believing Parents conveyeth a greater blessing to their children, then unbelieving Parents can expect to themselves, or theirs. Doth not obedience to the Law convey a farre greater blessing unto a godly man and his seed, even to a thousand genera­tions, then a wicked carnall parent can expect to him and his? Exod. 20.5, 6. And if so, then doubtlesse the obedience of faith may expect a far greater blessing to a beleever and his seed, then an infidell or unbeliever can hope for in his naturall and carnall estate and course to himself or his.

Silvester. ‘If infants be in the Covenant of grace by vertue of their birth from believing parents, then such infants are borne in a saving state of grace, and were never out of the same. Which doctrine maketh void many heavenly and divine truths, which speake to the contrary: which lay all under sinne and curse, till Christ by his blood redeeme them, and by his heavenly voice call them, and by his Spirit beget them unto a lively hope: who are there­fore said to bee borne againe from above. For none can be un­der grace, and under wrath and curse at one and the same time, in the outward dispensation of the same.’

Silvanus.It doth not follow that if infants be in the Covenant of grace by vertue of their birth from believing parents, then such infants are borne in a saving state of grace. For the Covenant of grace doth not give saving grace to all that are in the Covenant, but one­ly to the elect: Nor doth it give saving grace to them alwayes in their birth, but in the season wherein the Lord in his purpose of election had fore-appointed to give it to the children whom God hath not elected. The Covenant of grace doth not give them saving grace at all, but onely offereth it, and sealeth what it offe­reth.

Neither doth this make void any heavenly and divine truth at all. For though all bee under sinne and wrath and curse til Christ by his blood redeem them, and by his heavenly voice call them, by his Spirit beget them: yet Christ was a Lambe slaine (in respect of the vertue and efficacy of his death) from the beginning of the world. And though elect vessels may bee under the curse till they bee called and regenerated from above, yet are they at one and the [Page 71] same time under grace, but in divers respects: Under the curse and wrath by nature; under grace by the election of God, and the Co­venant of their fathers. At one and the same time Apiathar was a man of death by desert, and yet by the Kings favour a man of life, 1 Kings 2 26. The Israelites at one and the same time were enemies for our sakes, and yet beloved for their fathers sake, Rom. 11.28. And in very truth, if the elect children of God were not under grace before Christ call them by his heavenly voyce, or before hee regenerate them by his Spirit, how is it possible they should be effe­ctually called, or regenerate at all? For in the feare of God con­sider, is not effectuall calling a regeneration, a worke of Gods grace in Jesus Christ? is it not a fruit of Gods electing and redee­ming grace in Christ? The one wrought for us before the world was made, the other before wee were borne? And can the sin of our nature which followed after, extinguish or make voyd the rich grace of Christ, which was before all causes in us? If effe­ctuall calling and regeneration bee the worke of Gods grace, then it is the effect of Gods grace; and if it be the effect of Gods grace, then the grace of Christ is the efficient cause of our effectuall cal­ling and regeneration; and the efficient cause is alwayes in nature, and ordinarily in time before the effect. And therefore it cannot be, but that the elect children of God are under grace before their effectuall calling and regeneration. It is not our Doctrine there­fore but yours, that maketh void many heavenly and divine truths, even the fundamentall truths of the free grace of Christ. which your predecessors in this way did plainly discerne; and therefore they thought it best not to contradict themselves as you doe, ‘To say, that children are not under grace, nor under a Covenant of grace, till they be called by Christs heavenly voice, and by his Spirit begotten from above; and yet withall to grant election and regeneration to be of grace.’

But they seeing plainly these could not stand together, the utter­ly denyed election to bee of grace, but of foreseen faith or works. And they denyed also regeneration to bee of Gods free grace, but of mans free will: which whether it make void many heavenly and divine truths of grace, let the word and Spirit of grace judge. Well, thus at large wee have examined the exceptions, which you wil [...] to be considered against some of those proofes from Scrip­ture, which were alledged to confirme, that as in the Old Testa­ment God made a Covenant with Abraham and his seed, so now [Page 72] in the New Testament, the faithfull inherit the same Covenant with us and our seed. But you said above, you had heard sundry exceptions against the rest of the proofes from Scripture, which were alledged to the same purpose. If you please, then let us now consider of those other exceptions, if there be any more weight in them then the former.

Silvester.It is true, I remember you alledged above, that speech of Christ to Zacheus, Luke 19.9. to prove, that when Zacheus was conver­ted, his houshold was received unto a Covenant of grace and salva­tion: Because Christ said, This day is salvation to this house, in as much as hee also is the son of Abraham; you alledged also Rom. 11.27, 28. to prove that the Jewes (the posterity of Abraham) shall be converted to the faith, out of respect to the Covenant of their Fathers. And likewise you alledged the Apostles speech (in 1 Cor. 7.14.) to prove that the faith of either Parent did bring their children under the holinesse of the Covenant. And I said no more but truth; that I have heard some exceptions against all these proofes.

Silvanus.Let us hear and consider of them: And first what have you heard alledged against that proofe from Luke 19.9?

Silvester.I cannot say that I have read the exception in any printed Book, but in conference I have heard it interpreted thus, This day is salva­tion come to this house, that is, Christ (who is salvation,) came in­to Zach [...]us his house, to dine with him, because Zacheus was now become a penitent and faithfull child of Ahraham.

Silvanus.This glosse if it had been printed, had been never a whit the more authentique interpretation, but onely the more notorious corruption of the Text.

For 1. it is not said in the originall, this day is salvation come to this house (though it be so translated) but this day salvation is to this house, which argueth, Christ spake not of his commi [...]g to dine in Zacheus his house; but of his salvation resting upon the fa­mily.

2. The reason which Christ giveth, why salvation is to the house, will not stand with the glosse; for (saith hee) salvation is to this house, inasmuch as he also is the son of Abraham. Now if Zacheus his becomming the son of Abraham, had been the reason of Christ his comming into his house to dinner, it would have ar­gued that unlesse hee had been a penitent convert, Christ would not have come into his house to dine. But the same evangelist [Page 77] telleth us the contrary, That Christ went into the House of one of the Pharisees to dine with him, whom yet hee sharply repro­veth, as one whose inside was full of ravening and wickednes, Luke 11.37, 38, 39.

But what exception have you heard or read against the conver­sion of the Jews, out of respect to the Covenant of their Fathers, according to Rom. 11.26, 27, 28?

‘I have read that there be divers difficulties that will not bee granted about the Jews comming in;Silvester I shall therefore let that stand by untill that time commeth, or till it bee revealed from some Scripture how the same shall be.’

The Books in which you read of divers difficulties about the Jews comming in; they speake not without cause,Silvanus. there be diffi­culties indeed about the same: And I may tell you more, they are difficulties impossible to bee assoyled, according to the Tenents and Principles of those Books. For grant that for truth which the Apostle expressely teacheth for a Mystery, That after the ful­nesse of the Gentiles bee come in, (to wit, come in from their An­tichristian Apostasle) that then all Israel shall bee saved, (upon whom in the meane time blindnesse lyeth, Rom. 11.25, 26.) And grant this also for a truth, (which the Apostle likewise expresse­ly addeth, Verse 27, 28.) that this shall bee out of respect of Gods love Covenanted with their Fathers, then this will prove a difficulty inexplicable, how God in the New Testament shall convert the posterity of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob out of his love to their Fathers, and yet no man is partaker of grace by the Covenant of his Fathers, till himselfe doth actually believe. For can men actually believe till they be converted? And is not con­version it selfe made a fruit and effect of Gods love? (his Covenan­ted love) unto their Fathers, and for the Fathers sake unto their seed?

Besides, this will be another difficulty (and as hard to be resol­ved as the former) how the Apostle can call the Jewes the naturall branches of the good Olive tree, and make their conversion much more kindly, and as it were, more easie and naturall, then the conversion of the Gentiles was; and yet hold (as your Bookes doe) that in the New Testament, God hath not respect in his Co­venant to the naturall seed or branches at all. It is easily acknow­ledged and justly bewayled by the fall of our first Parents, cor­ruption of nature is alike in all men: Conversion unto grace is [Page 78] as much above and against the corrupt nature of the Jews, as of the Gentiles. But yet presuppose a covenant of grace with the believing Ancestors of the Jews to continue in the dayes of the New Testa­ment to their natural posterity. And then it wil be easie to conceive, how the Jewes though by corrupt nature they are as averse to be graffed into Christ as the Gentiles be, yet by nature of the Co­venant, they are much more easily graffed in then the Gentiles. More easily (I say) not in respect of their owne [...] (the good­nesse of their owne nature, or naturall disposition, and propensi­on to grace, for they are naturally as stiffenecked as any people) but in respect of the nature and kinde of the Covenant of grace given to their Ancestors, and to their seed: According to which, God is more readily inclined to poure out the Spirit of his grace upon the seed and off-spring of his covenanted people, then up­on strangers and aliens. But take away the Covenant of grace from believing parents to their children; and truly this difficulty of the more easie conversion of naturall branches will prove (as the former did) inexplicable.

Moreover, there will yet bee another difficulty (and as hard as both the former) how to make good sense of the Apo­stles Argument, whereby he proveth the conversion and holinesse of the Jewes in future ages, from the holinesse of their godly An­cestors in times past: and yet deny (as your Bookes doe) the con­tinuance of the Covenant of grace, from believing Parents to their naturall children now in the dayes of the New Testament. The Apostle in Rom. 11.11. and so forward, declaring the ends of the rejection of the Jewes, hee made this to be one, the reconciliati­on and salvation of the Gentiles, to be a meanes to provoke the Jewes to emulation, that at length they also might come on to sal­vation by the example of the Gentiles; which he further decla­reth will bee a great advantage to the Gentiles. And that he pro­veth verse 15. by an argument from the lesse to the greater: if the cas [...]ing away of the Jewes was the reconciling of the world, what (saith he) shall the receiving of them bee but life from the dead? And that there shall be such a receiving of them; he proveth, from the holinesse, which by the institution of God is derived from the first fruits to the whole lumpe; and by the Covenant of God from the root to the branches, ver. 16. For (saith hee) if the first fruits be holy, so is the whole lumpe; and if the root be holy, so are the branches.

The force of this Argument dependeth upon the force of the Covenant of grace, and the continuance thereof from parents to their naturall children, even now in the dayes of the New Testa­ment, as well as of the Old. For by the tenor of the Covenant God is a God to holy Fathers, and to their seed after them. And if God be a God to their seed, it reacheth forth a twofold blessing to their seed, that all their seed are holy by Gods adoption (Rom. 9.4.) and so by their appropriation and relation unto God, till themselves doe reject him.

Secondly, that some or other of them God will ever reserve (to wit, all the elect seed) to be called effectually to the fellowship of his holinesse, and to the holinesse of their holy Ancestors. And these blessings being presupposed and granted by Covenant, the Apostles argument is plaine and strong: That if the Patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob be holy, (who were the first fruits, and the root of the house of Israel) then, as all the house of Israel were an holy people till they obstinately rejected the Lord Jesus. So will God reserve an elect seed of them to be called and received to the fellowship of his holinesse, and the holinesse of their Ance­stors in his due time. But if you abrogate the continuance of the Covenant of grace from holy Parents to their naturall children now in the dayes of the New Testament, it will bee a difficulty (in my weake judgement) past all resolution, how the Apostles Argument can be of any force to prove the conversion of the Jews unto holinesse from the holinesse of their Ancestors, seeing their Ancestors are no first fruits and root unto them, till they come to bee converted, and being converted, doe believe as well as their Ancestors. And whether ever they will come to bee converted or no, is as uncertain (for all their relation to their holy Ancestors, and for all their Ancestors Covenant with God) as is the conver­sion of any other Infidels.

‘The Gospel holdeth forth Abraham for a root of Jews and Gentiles:Silvester. and that is onely in respect of his faith and faithful­nesse; and so is hee the patterne and Father of the faithfull, that resemble him in the same. So that Jews and Gentiles are A­brahams branches, onely as they spring out of the same root by faith, which declares them to be his true naturall branches, so farre onely as they appeare to bee of the same faith as hee was. But now for the Jews, that they were broken off, it was onely for want of their actuall believing the Gospel, (as Rom. [Page 78] [...] [Page 79] [...] [Page 78] [...] [Page 79] [...] [Page 80] 11.) and opposing the same, Acts 13.46. And so were the Gentiles received in, onely upon their actuall believing and re­ceiving the same. For as the Word condemneth none, but with respect to actuall sinne; no more doth the Word justifie any, (Jewes or Gentiles) but with respect to actuall Faith. And as every ones own faith inrighteth to life; so everyones own faith inrighteth to the priviledges of life.’

Silvanus.It is true, the Gospel holdeth forth Abraham for a Father, and so for a root both to Jews and Gentiles that believe, Rom. 4.11, 12. But in Rom. 11.16. the Apostle holdeth forth Abraham as the root of the Jews who were his naturall branches, not by faith, as you would have it, but by naturall generation through grace borne under his Covenant, in opposition to the Gentiles, yea, to the believing Gentiles. For he maketh the rejection of the Jews, a meanes of the conversion of the Gentiles: and the conver­sion of the Gentiles a meanes of the conversion of the Jewes at last: and the conversion of the Jewes a meanes of awakening and reviving of the Gentiles, verse 15. And this he proveth from the holinesse of their root Abraham: and thereupon inferreth the calling on of the Jews unto holinesse, verse 16. And though for the present the Jews be as branches broken off through their infide­lity; and the Gentiles by faith received into their place, verse 17. yet he exhorteth them not to boast against the Jews, verse 18. nor to be high minded in themselves, verse 20. For if the Gentiles, which had been branches of the olive tree wilde by nature, were contrary to nature graffed into the good olive tree; then much more shall the Jewes, which are the naturall branches, be graffed into their owne Olive tree, verse 24. which argueth evidently, that he speaketh of the Jewes as the naturall branches of Abraham; and that not by faith (for then why were they broken off? as it is said. God spared not the naturall branches, verse 21.) but by na­turall generation borne (through grace) both of the Ioynes and Covenant of Abraham; and so their conversion is inferred to pro­ceed more kindly and naturally, then did the conversion of the Romans and other Gentiles. For they were not cut off from the wilde olive, as the Gentiles were: but onely broken off from the good olive for a season, that they might much more readily and freely bee graffed into their owne olive againe; to wit, with much more liberty and free passage of grace, in the channell of the Co­venant.

‘Again it is not true, that you say, that 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, [...]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 [Page 82] 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 priviledg [...] 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 [Page 83] 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 [...]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 [...]st opposed, and were cast off for their unbeliefe. And when the fu [...]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 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 [Page 84] 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 J [...]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 [Page 85] 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 [...]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 th [...]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 [...]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 [Page 87] 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 [Page 88] 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, [Page 89] ver. 1. 2. From Gods fore knowledge which is immutable, ver. 2. 3. From the like reservation, which God made of a rem­nant, in the dayes of Elijah, ver. 3, 4, 5, 6. And this reserving of a remnant he amplifieth by the cause, the election of grace, ver. 5, 6. And by the contrary, the rejection of the rest, which he proveth by the testimony of Isay 7.8. also of David, ver. 9, 10. And thus farre he defendeth the faithfull seed of the Jewes against the generall rejection of that Nation.

2. He proveth that their rejection is not unprofitable, by giving an instance, in an unspeakable blessing, which thereby redounded unto the Gentiles, to wit, the salvation of the Gentiles, ver. 11.

3. That their rejection is not irrecoverable or finall, but on the contrary, that their restoring and conversion is to be expected,

He proveth first, from the great benefit which hee prophecyeth shall thereby redound to the Gentile-churches, which will be our riches and fulnesse, and as it were our life from the dead. And that he proveth by an argument from the lesse, ver. 12, 15.

Secondly, he proveth their conversion is to bee expected by the end of his owne Ministery, which he professeth to bee to save the Gentiles, for this end, that so hee may provoke the Jewes to the emulation of the Gentiles in receiving of the Gospel, and by that meanes save some of them, ver. 13, 14. and thereby also bring on a greater increase of light and life to the Gentiles, ver. 15.

Thirdly, he proveth their rejection is not irrecoverable, but ra­ther that there is certain ground of their conversion from the ho­linesse of their Ancestors, which deriveth in like sort holinesse to them, as the first fruits being holy, derive holinesse (by Gods insti­tution) to the whole lump; and the root being holy, deriveth ho­linesse (by Gods Covenant) to the branches, ver. 16.

Whereupon, by the way he inserteth a grave admonition to the Church of Rome, to beware of boasting, either against the Jewes for their Apostasie, or within themselves for their owne stability in the saith. For the Holy Ghost did foresee that the Church of Rome, (above all the Churches of the Gentiles) would bee most forward to boast of their infallibility and stability in the faith, by reason of the promise pretended to be made to Peters Chaire, a­bove all the promises made to Hierusalem of old; which boasting, the Apostle represseth, 1. By calling them to consider their for­mer state, they were branches of the olive tree wilde by nature, vers. 17. 2. By putting them in minde they received the Gospel [Page 90] from the Iewes, not the Iewes from them, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee, v. 18.3. By the greater danger or possibi­lity of apostasie and rejection of the Romans, then of the Iewes: for if God spared not the naturall branches (to wit, the Iewes) take heed lest he also spare not thee, v. 19. to 22. 4. He both together represseth the Arrogancy of the Romans, and with­all proveth that the Rejection of the Iewes is not irrecoverable, but their conversion more hopefull, then the conversion of the Romans was, by an Argument taken both from Gods power, v. 23. and also from the naturall estate of the branches, v. 24. which maketh their conversion more easy, If thou Roman wert cut off the Olive Tree, which is wild by nature, and wert (by a power above nature) graffed contrary to nature into a good Olive Tree: how much more shall these which be naturall Branches, bee graffed into their owne Olive Tree? 5. He Re­presseth the same Arrogancy of the Romans, and with all pro­veth the conversion of the Iewes, by a word of prophecy both by his owne Testimony, v. 25. and by the Testimony of the Pro­phet Isay, v. 26, 27.

6 Hee prosecuteth the same conclusion of the conversion of the Jewes, and demonstration, that their rejection is not small, and irrecoverable, by an argument taken from the immutability of Gods electing love to the children of such, whose fathers he hath given an effectuall calling unto, in the fellowship of his Co­venant of grace, v. 28, 29.

7 He proveth and amplifieth the same by an argument à Pari, from equalls, thus, As you when you were unbeleivers have now obtained mercy through their unbeleife: so they now not be­leiving shall obtaine mercy through your mercy, v. 30, 31, 32. Finally he concludeth all with an holy and Affectionate Admi­ration of the depth of the riches of the knowledge and wisedome of God in these his unsearchable Iudgements and wayes, v. 33. to 36.

I have the more fully opened to you the Analysis of this whole chapter, that you may the better discern both the true scope of the Apostle, and withall your owne fallacy in perverting the Apostes scope to such a meaning as will not suite with his words. ‘For you so carry the Apostles scope, as if he wholly in­tended throughout all this discourse to defend a remnant of faithfull Iewes against the generall Apostasie and rejection of [Page 91] that Nation.’ And lest it might appeare that the Apostle had a principall ayme in the latter halfe of the chapter, to prove (as he evidently doth) the conversion and restoring of the Nation from the state of Apostasie and infidelity unto the Faith of Christ, and his Gospell, you would have the Apostle understood to speake of the Iewes in a state of faith and holinesse, and the whole lumpe of them to be holy by faith, as their first fruits Abraham, Isaac, and Iacob. And lest it should be thought that God will convert and restore the Iewes (as some of the Apostles Arguments carry it) out of respect to his Covenant with their holy An­cestors Abraham, Isaaoc, and Iacob, (out of whom they descend­ed as branches out of a root) you would have the root not to be meant, their holy Ancestors, but Christ: and themselves to be holy not by vertue of any Covenant of God with their Ancestors, (for that you see would fetch in Infants, and others of their Na­turall seede within the bounds and benefit of the Covenant) but by vertue of their actuall Union and Communion with Christ through faith in his Name. And lest it should be humbled at (as justly it might) why the Apostle should spend so many Arguments to prove the restoring and ingraffing of the Iewes into Christ af­ter [...]y have come to injoy Union and Communion with Christ, you would have Christ to be understood not personally (as a Redeemer and (Saviour but mystically as he is the head of the Church and one body with it, and so their restoring to be nothing else but receiving into Church-fellowship in the Order, and Worship and Government thereof. Such hard shifts the wits of men will make to seek any evasions to avoid the light and pow­er of the truth of the word, when it will not stand with their owne forestalled imaginations. But let us consider how you goe about to make these imaginations of your owne, to stand with the Apostles words. ‘The lumpe (say you) generally considered comprehendeth all both the first fruits and the latter: for except the first fruits were part of the lump, it could not give Testi­mony that the whole lump was holy, which lump so considered is Gods elect in Christ with reference to their beleivin [...] on him, and so the apparent Subjects of Gods gracious Covenant, a remnant according to Gods election with reference to Faith, appearing in Abrahams, Isaacks, and Iacobs beleeving, as the first fruits of the same.’

Where 1. It may be marvelled why you should make the holy [Page 92] Ancestors of the Jewes, Abraham, Isaac, and Iacob, the first fruits of the Jewes: and yet not make them in like sort, the roote also. For the Apostle putteth no difference between the first fruits and the Roote, but speaketh of them as two similies to expresse one and the same thing: If the first fruits be holy, so is the whole lumpe; If the roote be holy, so are the branches, v. 16. And as Christ is in some other places of Scripture called a Roote, so is he also called the first fruits, 1 Cor. 15.20, 23. And sure hee hath the first preheminence in all relations of holinesse and grace unto his people. But let your interpretation stand so farre; let the first fruits of the lumpe of the Jewes be the holy Ancestors of the Jewes, that is indeed the true meaning of the Apostle here; onely consider if you can see any cause why you should not as well take them in like sort for the root also.

2. Why should you make the first fruits part of the lump, more then the root part of the branches? As the first fruits bee to the lumpe; so is the root to the branches. The root is not part of the branches, though they be both part of the tree: No more are the first fruits part of the lumpe, though they bee both parts of the fruits of the field: The first fruits are ripe before the rest of the fruits of the field: and being first reaped and presenced [...] the Lord, and accepted as holy unto him, they make the whole lumpe left in the field holy also.

‘Obj [...]ct. But (say you) except the first fruits were par [...] of the lumpe, they could not give testimony that the lumpe was holy.’

Answ. Both parts of this reason are unsound; for neither doe the first fruits give testimony that the lumpe is holy; nor is it ne­cessary, that that which giveth testimony of the holinesse of ano­ther, should be part of the same. Paul gave testimony of the holi­nesse of such children, of whom either Parent was holy, yet he was no part of them himself.

Besides, the first fruits did not give testimony that the lumpe was holy, (their hallowing of the lumpe was not by way of testi­mony, or as one part of an Homogeneall body giveth testimony of the whole, as one cup of good wine out of a vessell giveth te­stimony, that all the wine in that vessell is good) but by way of a morall instrumentall efficient cause: God accepting the first fruits of the field, given to himselfe as holy; he therefore alloweth to the owner an holy use of the whole lumpe of the fruits of his field.

[Page 93]3. Take that for granted (which is in it selfe not much materiall) that the first fruits were part of the lumpe: what will follow thereupon? ‘Why then (saith the Author) as those first fruits of that blessed crop in Gods holy Covenant were holy by faith, and so appeared: so is the lumpe out of which these first fruits appeared by faith, as part of the same, holy also in the same consideration. For this must respect a visible holinesse suitable to that of the first fruits: otherwise it maketh nothing to the thing in hand.’

But how can this collection arise out of this comparison of the first fruits? The first fruits of the field were visibly presented to the Lord in his Sanctuary, and being visibly accepted, appeared visibly to be holy. But as for the lumpe of the fruits of the field, there was no visible appearance, either of their presentation in the Sanctuary before the Lord, or of the Lords visible acceptance of them, but onely in their first fruits. And so indeed it is here, the first fruits of Gods holy Covenant, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, be­ing holy by faith, and accepted of God as holy to himselfe, they visibly appeared so to be. And through their holinesse, and Gods acceptance of them, and of their seed in his holy Covenant, the lumpe of their posterity from their infancy upward, were holy also, though they did not appeare in visible holinesse, till in ful­nesse of time they came to be presented before the Lord in his Temple. And neither then did they appeare visibly holy by their owne faith, but by the faith of their Parents presenting them to the Lord.

‘But (say you) if there be not a visible holinesse in the lumpe suitable to that in the first fruits, it maketh nothing for the thing in hand.’

I willingly grant you that the Apostles intendment here, is to prove the conversion of the Jewes not onely to a relative holiness suitable to the holinesse that was in the first fruits their Ancestors of old, which was visible in their Fathers, and credible in their Infants by vertue of the Covenant, and visible seale of it. But herein you commit a double prevarication in your plea: 1. That you will not allow such an holinesse to be found in the Jewes af­ter they shall come to be converted, as is suitable unto the holinesse of their Ancestors. For their holinesse reached from parents to their infant seed. But you would wholly exclude their infants in the New Testament. Againe, whereas the Apostle a [...]gueth the [Page 94] conversion of the Jewes unto holinesse from the holy Covenant of their Ancestors, and so would make the holinesse of their An­cestors a meanes to derive holinesse to them, you would utterly make void the force of that argument. For the Apostles argu­ment proceedeth from the vertue of the first fruits by Gods insti­tution to sanctifie the whole lumpe; but you will admit no such vertue or efficacy by Gods institution in the holy Covenant of their Ancestors, as to derive holinesse to their posterity, which is to make the Apostles argument and comparison of none effect.

4. This let me further adde, that whereas you in this discourse of the first fruits and lump speake of the Jewes to bee converted, as but a remnant: The Apostle declareth himselfe to the contra­ry, that then all Israel shall be saved, Rom. 11.26. Yea, not onely a body of the Jewes, but of the ten Tribes also, all Israel, accor­ding to what Ezekiel had prophecyed of old, Ezek. 37.16. to 22. And indeed, when the Apostle calleth the conversion of Israel a mystery, (Rom. 11.25.) he giveth us to expect a more generall conversion of them, then of a remnant. The Apostle in like sort called the conversion of the Gentiles a mystery, Ephes. 3.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. And a mystery (and hidden secret) indeed it was to the Jews of old; and yet it was never a mystery to them the conversion of a remnant, or of a sprinkling of the Gentiles, but the comming in of such a great body and multitude of the Gentiles, that was in­deed a mystery to them. And so is the conversion of the Jewes a mystery now unto the Gentiles, not the conversion of a remnant, but of so great a multitude and body of the house of Israel, as have been scattered like dry dead bones (Ezek. 37.) that indeed see­meth to be a mystery like the resurrection from the dead, whereto the Apostle resembleth it.

To proceed to the other comparison of the Apostle which was taken from the holinesse of the root conveying holinesse to the branches, to prove the conversion of the Jewes to holinesse from the holinesse of their Ancestors.

‘Whereto your Author answereth. By root is meant not one­ly believing Parents, and so the same with first fruits, but Christ mystically considered with reference to rules of Order, Ordi­nances, and Government of his Church laid downe in the New Testament. In which respect he is called a vine, a root, and foundation.’

Answ. I know no reason why the root in this Text should bee meant not onely their believing parents (their holy Ancestors) but Christ also, as hath been touched afore. Onely it seemeth you were afraid, that if believing Parents, or holy Ancestors were brought in, as any means of the conversion of their posterity un­to faith and holinesse, it would establish the vertue and continu­ance of the Covenant of grace from Parents to children, now in the dayes of the New Testament; the which you carefully shun. And therefore though you cannot but see, that the first fruits, and the root are used and applyed in one and the same sense, and to the same purpose, and so are forced to confess, that as by the first fruits, so by the root is meant believing Parents; yet you will have the root to be meant, not onely believing Parents, but Christ: and indeed you bring such arguments for Christ, as doe seeme to re­strain it wholly to Christ, and (in a manner) to exclude believing Parents. But all in vaine; for neither will your Arguments e­vince, Christ to be here expresly intended by the Apostle, (but one­ly by consequence) neither will we deny that Christ, and fellow­ship with Christ is intended in their fellowship with the root, though by the root bee here expresly meant their holy Ance­stors.

It is true, Christ is called in Scripture phrase, the vine, the root, the foundation, and so indeed he is primarily and eminently. But neverthelesse, the Church also is called a vine, Esa. 5.1. Psal. 80, 8. And Abraham called a root, Mat. 3.10. and the rock out of which the house of Israel was hewed, Esa. 51.1. And the Apo­stles are called foundations, Ephes. 2.20. Rev. 21.14. yea, every righteous man is called an everlasting foundation, Prov. 10.25. And therefore it is not the name of a root, that will cast the root to be here meant of Christ, and not of Abraham.

"Yes, (say you) for first, Christ is here the root or olive tree, ou [...] of which the Jews are cast, and the Gentiles graffed in, Rom. 11.17, 19, 23, 24.

Answ. The Church is called an olive tree (as well as a vine) yea and the branches of it are said to be broken off, Jer. 11.16. And when the Axe is said by John Baptist to bee laid to the root of the tree [...], Mat. 3.10. It is his meaning to threaten the Jewes, that God is about to cut them off from the Covenant of their father A­braham, of whom they were the off-spring and the branches. And thereby he confirmeth his admonition to them in the former verse, [Page 96] (vers. 9.) thinke not (saith hee) to say with your selves, wee have Abraham to our Father, for God is able even of these stones (and so of stony hearted Gentiles) to raise up children unto Abraham. And lest they might object, that themselves were the children of Abraham, rooted in him not onely by naturall generation, but by an everlasting Covenant, he strengtheneth his admonition with this threatening, verse 10. Now is the Axe laid to the root of the trees, (to wit, to cut off barren branches from the Covenant of Abraham:) every tree therefore that bringeth not forth good fruit, is hewen downe, and cast into the fire. And therefore it is proper enough (according to Scripture phrase) to interpret the root to be meant of Abraham; and surely as fitly in this place of Paul, as in that of Matthew; but whether more proper, wee shall see anon.

Secondly, say you, it appeareth, Christ here to bee meant the root, ‘in that the Apostle chargeth the Gentiles, that if they boast in themselves against the Jewes; Thou bearest not the root, but the root thee, v. 18. that is, say you, thou appearest not to have the truth of grace, and so not to have the true na­ture of the root and life of Christ in thy heart, but onely an outward form of th [...] [...]ofession of him, Job. 15.2.’

Answ. This interpretation the words of the Text will not bear; for if this were the meaning of the Apostles words, ‘Thou bearest not the root, but the root thee; that is, thou appearest not to have the truth of grace, and so not the true nature of the root, and life of Christ in thine heart:’ Then it will follow, that if the Gentiles did not boast, but had indeed the truth of grace, and life of Christ in their hearts, then it might be said to the Gen­tile, the root beareth not thee, but thou bearest the root: which is indeed contrary to the truth of Religion, yea, to the principles of grace. The absurdity of this interpretation may give good light to shew, that indeed Christ is not properly meant to bee the root here spoken of. For if Christ were here intended to bee the Root, the Apostle would not apply this as a check to the arrogan­cy of the boasting Gentile, the root beareth thee. For it is no check, but a comfort, yea, the greatest comfort and safety of a true and humble believer, not so much that he beareth Christ, as that Christ beareth him. But take the Apostle to meane Abraham to be the root of the Jewes (as the context carryeth it) and then his admonition is grave and weighty against the arrogancy of the [Page 97] boasting Gentile. If some of the branches be broken off, and thou being a wilde olive tree, wer't graffed in among them (that is, a­mong the Jewes) boast not thy self against the branches. But if thou boast, (take this for a check) thou bearest not the root. Thou art not the stock or root into which they were engraffed, but theirs is the root, into which thou art engraffed. For salvation is of the Jews (John 4.22.) thou receivedst it from them, not they from thee: Hierusalem as a mother bare Rome, not Rome, Hierusa­lem. Abraham as a father by his faith, begot thee; as a root by his Covenant, he beareth thee, not thou him, nor the Church of his Covenant.

‘But thirdly, you argue from the consideration of that which the Jewes refused, and the Gentiles received, that it is Christ in his mysticall Order and Government amongst his Saints, that is here the root and olive tree, who by h [...] Spirit in his Ordi­nances issueth forth sap and fatnesse of life and comfort into e­very very believing heart, as a branch of the same.’

Answ. The weaknesse and fallacy of this Argument will easily appeare, if you cast it into the forme of an argument, thus it pro­ceedeth.

‘That which the Jews refused, and the Gentiles received, that is the root here spoken of, to wit, that root which being holy, the branches also are so too.’

‘But Christ mystically considered, is that which the Jewes re­fused, and the Gentiles received.’

‘And therefore Christ mystically considered, is the root here spoken of, which being holy, the branches are also so too.’

But here the Major or former Proposition is justly denyed. For though Christ himselfe be a root which the Jewes refused, and the Gentiles received, yet hee is not that root here intended, whose holinesse inferreth and concludeth the conversion of the Jewes to holinesse. But the Apostle here speaketh of such a root, who be­ing holy, argueth that his branches, (though now broken off) will come on againe to holinesse; which cannot bee argned from the holinesse of Christ. For take Christ for the root, and will the Apostles Argument then follow; If Christ be holy, then the Jews (though now broken off) are, or shall be holy also? Is there a­ny soundnesse in such an inference? If you say, Nay, but all that you would infer from thence, is this, that if Christ the root bee holy, then the Jewes, when they shall come to bee graffed into [Page 98] him againe, they will be also holy: That is true indeed, and needs no proof. But that is not the Apostles scope, to shew that they shall be holy, when they are engraffed into Christ, but to prove that they shall be engraffed into Christ, and become holy because their root is holy▪ which will indeed strongly follow, by vertue of the Covenant with Abraham and his seed, if Abraham bee here taken for the root, but not so, if Christ: What then will you say? is Abraham better then Christ? Not so neither; but Christ doth more delight to communicate his grace, rather in the way of the Covenant of his grace, then out of it.

Neither will it appeare (though you say it will) that Christ is here meant by the Apostle to be the root of the Jews, if we consi­der what was the Jews own naturall root and olive tree, ‘where­of they were naturall branches onely by faith; as the Apostle so declareth them, [...] 20, 21, 24. which was union and communi­on with God in all his Divine Ordinances of Worship, the manner and forme whereof was Mosaicall and typicall in the Old Testament, which is now changed in the New, but not the matter, &c. as above.’

Answ. It is utterly untrue which you say, that the Jews were the ‘naturall branches of their owne naturall root, onely by faith, and that the Apostle so declareth them, v. 20, 21, 22.’ For it is evident the Apostle expressely declareth the naturall branches not to be spared of God, but to be broken off for their unbeliefe, v. 19, 20, 21. And therefore unbeliefe was found in the naturall bran­ches; and then they were not naturall branches onely by faith; for then no naturall branches could have been broken off. Nei­ther could the naturall branches bee said to bee graffed in againe, much more readily then the Romans, v. 24. for the Romans stan­ding by faith, had equally as ready accesse unto union and com­munion with Christ in his Ordinances, which you take to bee the root, as the Jewes when they shall bee converted to the faith.

‘It is readily granted, and needed no proofe, that the Jewes of old enjoyed union and communion with Christ in the Mo­saicall Ordinances of the Old Testament (whereof some were typicall, and some morall.) And it is a confessed truth also, that God changed the Order and manner of that Worship (but not the matter) in the New Testament. But that the Jewes were broken off for their opposing and rejecting that new or­der, [Page 99] is not safely spoken.’ For they were broken off for resisting and opposing the righteousnesse of Faith in Christ Iesus. Rom. 10.3. which was no new order brought in by Christ in the New Testament, but was the principall matter of all their Typicall and Mosaicall Worship, which your selfe confesse was not changed. Be­sides it cannot be denyed, That the faithfull and their seede was the subject matter of the Church, and so part of the Order of the Wor­ship in the Old Testament. And this was neither Mosaicall nor Typicall, but before both. And if the matter of the worship bee not changed (though the manner be) then as the faith­full and their (seede whether Iews or proselyte Gentiles) were the subject matter of the Church, and a Morall part of church order of old, then are they so still, and neither of them to be excluded.

It was wholly needlesse and impertinent to prove that the ‘Iews were cast off from Communion with God in his wor­ship for their unbeleife, and that the Gentiles who submitted to the Gospell of Iesus Christ are taken in, and doe stand in relation to God by Faith in him: And that the Iews when God shall please to call them by the Gospell to beleive in his Son, they shall be received in againe to fellowship and Commu­nion, with God in his service as worship, as of old.’

But take all this for granted, and yet it reacheth not neare the Apostles Words and discourse in this chapter who proveth that the Iews shall be called in againe to Faith and Holinesse, by reason of their relation as branches to their root. Which though they be broken off from it by their enmity against the the Gospell; yet they still belong to it, according to the Election of God, and according to his love which by his everlasting Cove­nant he bare and promised to beare to their Fathers and to their seed after them throughout all Generations.

To proceede then. As your discourse of the roote hath not hi­therto proved Christ to be the roote: So neither will your dis­course of the Branches prove either Christ to be the root, or the Branches, to be such, and can be no other then such as doe subsist and grow in Christ onely by Faith. For 1. It hath beene (as I conceive) cleared already, that Christ is not the roote here meant by the Apostle: 2. If the branches be such, and can be no other but such, as doe subsist and grow in Christ one­ly by Faith, how then came it to passe, that the branches were [Page 100] broken off? can such as doe subsist in Christ (as in a roote) onely by Faith, can they be broken off? What is then become of Christs prayer for all that doe, or shall beleive on him? Joh. 17.20, 21, 22, 23, 24.

But (say you) the Apostle speaketh of such branches as are in ‘him by faith and he in them by his spirit, without which (Faith and Spirit) there is no holinesse in the Apostles sense.’

Answer. It is true, the Apostle speaketh of such an Holinesse in the branches (v. 16.) as proceedeth from the Spirit and Faith: But that is an holynesse which is not found in all Branches (for then no branches should be cut off, but which shall be found in the Iews at their conversion, as the Apostle proveth by reason of their relation to Abraham as their root, through the grace of his Cove­nant. But will not prove, that there is no way for the branches to subsist in the root, but onely by Faith and Spirit. For, these branches who shall be converted to holinesse, were in Abraham be­fore by Naturall Generation, and did pertaine to Abrahams Covenant by the grace of Election: by vertue of both which (both of the Election of grace, and of the Covenant of grace) they shall come at last to be converted to the fellowship of the Spirit, and of the faith of Abraham.

‘But 2. Say you, There is no branch that is 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 [Page 101] 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 se [...] 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, [Page 102] 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 Antich [...]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 [Page 103] least, that hath not on a Wedding garment, Mat. 22.11. The pl [...]c [...] 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 them. Christ himselfe acknowledgeth one Churth to bee all Faire, and to have no spot in her, Cant. 4.7. and that is interpre­ted by some Expositors, and (as I take it) most fitly of the Pri­mitive Apostolick Church at Hierusalem described, Acts 2. and Acts 4. towards the end of both chapters. And yet even in that Church were found Ananias and Saphira, who were but dead members, and neither suitable to their head Christ, nor to the immortall seed of the word, of which that Chuch was begotten. The place in Mal. 2.15. speaketh lesse to the purpose: for what though God sought a godly seed: doth hee alwayes finde what hee is said to seeke? God sought for one to stand in the gap, but hee found none, Ezek. 20.30. Besides the godly seede there spoken of, is in the Originall the seed of God: which is not meant of every Church-member (for what is the marry­age of one man with one woman) in our first Parentes unto that, Seeing it is a patterne that bindeth Pagans as well as Christi­ans) but it is meant of Christ Jesus.

The place in Ephes. 2.14. to 20. sheweth what the Church of Gods Redeemed bee, and all the spirituall members thereof: but neither proveth that all the members of the Church are such, or that the Infants of beleevers are not such. The Church of God in Zion was built upon the foundation of the Prophets: and it was an habitation to the Lord. Psal. 102.13. yet infants were members of it. The place in John 4.23. sheweth (as I said be­fore) what God seeketh: not that hee findeth all such in every Church: much lesse that hee excludeth Infants out of the Church, till they can make it appeare by open profession of their faith, that they doe worship him in Spirit and truth. It hath bin proved above, that of Infants is the Kingdome of God (Mar. 10.14.) [Page 104] that is, the Church: and yet they cannot professe and declare any such worship in their owne Persons: though indeed the Acts of their godly parents in that case are there accepted of Christ, as the Acts of the Infants. For Christ accepted their Parents bringing of them to him, as if they had come to him in their owne persons. Suffer (saith hee) little children to come un­to mee: and yet they came not, but as they were brought.

Silvester.There is a large difference betweene the Iews and Gentiles in respect of outward Priviledges. The Infants of the Iews had a speciall reason for their admittance into the fellowship of the Iew­ish Church, ‘which doth not now continue in Christian Chur­ches. Of the Iews came Christ, the Saviour of man; and there­fore salvation is said to bee of the Iews, Rom. 9.5. Iohn 4.22. In respect of which there was a blessed promise passed upon the Iews for the bringing forth of the Messiah, and the promised seede, in whom all Nations should be blessed. And therefore all of that Nation were admitted to the outward Priviledges, as figures of him whom that Nation was to bring forth. So that a fruitfull wombe was counted a great bles­sing among the Iews, as not knowing who might be so ho­nourable, as to bring forth that blessed, and all blessing seede. And therefore God honoured the Naturall birth with such outward blessings and priviledges, which belong not to the Gentiles at all.’

‘The Gentiles now are to looke for their bringing forth Christ according to the Spirit, as the Iews did then according to the flesh: and likewise their birth: and their seed and all things suitable to the same, as Joh. 3.3.5, 6. Ioh. 1.12, 13. And therefore wee are said now to know no man after the flesh. 2. Cor. 5.16. And Circumcision was one Priviledge of the flesh, Phil. 3.4, 5. Therefore though the Iews Infants were admitted to all those outward Priviledges being a Nationall people, and so a Nationall body, with a naturall birth, and the like seede in generall: yet the Gentiles Infants cannot bee admitted to their spirituall priviledges, they being a perso­nall People called by the word of Grace, and so a spirituall bo­dy with a spirituall birth, and the like seed.’

It is true, there is some difference between the Iews and the Gentiles,Silvanus. in respect of outward Priviledges, for (not to [...]over in generalities wherein lyeth deceit) the Iews, or rather [Page 105] the house of Israel, being Gods first borne (Exod. 4.24.) and so our elder brother, they were the excellency of Dignity, and the ex­cellency of power; glorious and mighty wonders, the Lord often wrought for them, they had the preheminence: of them was Christ, of them were the Fathers, (the Patriarchs and the Pro­phets) and to them were committed the Oracles of God. And if you will so account it, a double portion to injoy, both a Con­gregationall Church, and a Nationall, they injoyed both a Con­gregationall Church in their Synagogues, and a National Church at Hierusalem in their solemne feasts.

But two things let mee here put you in minde of: first, that when the Elder brother, for his demerit is disinherited of his Birth-right (as Reuben sometime was) his preheminence of honour and double portion is divided amongst his younger brethren: no part of it is lost. So is it here. The Church of Israel being dis­inherited, all the spirituall priviledges, all the honour and pow­er which they injoyed either in their Synagogue, or in their Na­tionall Assemblies, is now set over to our Congregationall Chur­ches; and as for the outward Priviledges, which the house of Is­rael injoyed (as a wordly Kingdome and the power and glory thereof) they were no part of the priviledges of their Church estate, but accessories and additaments thereunto. For in the Covenant of Abraham God spake nothing of a worldly king­dome, but of affliction for 400. yeares, Gen. 15.13. as therefore worldly power and glory, were cast in as accessorie to the Church of the Old Testament, so they may be also in the New. If the Churches of the New Testament shall bind Kings in chaines, as is prophecyed Psal. 140.8. and execute upon them the judgement written, then surely Christian Churches shall have some Kings to bee members of their body, else what have they to doe to judge them that are without? the Apostle saith, Godlinesse hath the promises of this life as well as of that which is to come, 1 Tim. 4.8. What though Church power bee not administred with worldly pompe? and what though all the children of the Church bee equall in Church-Priviledges? yet some or other of the children of the Church ate capable of great preheminence even in outward Priviledges: They may be Princes in all Lands, Psal. 45.16. which though some understand of spirituall power, yet not so properly: for spiritual power is not princely in the earth. Besides, if civil Ma­gistracy be lawful amongst men (which you deny not) some of the [Page 106] children of the Church may bee as fitly employed in such a princi­pality, as Pagans. And surely the time shall come when accor­ding to the prophecy of Daniel (chapt. 7.27.) the Kingdome and the Dominion and the greatnesse of the 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 [Page 710] 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 Messi [...]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, [Page 108] 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 [Page 109] in John 1.1 [...], 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 [Page 110] 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 Infa [...]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, [Page 111] 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 [Page 112] 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 speak [...]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 be [...] that that sinne brings uncleannesse upon the flesh: which if it bee compared with 1 Thes. 4.3, 4. will argue [Page 113] 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 [Page 114] 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 [Page 116] 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 [Page 117] 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 [Page 118] 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 [Page 119] are holy. Neither will it stand with the Apostles meaning, nor with the divine wisedom & power of an Apostolick spirit, to prove an holy use of the parents mariage, from the conceited holines, which the Parents imagine to bee in their children. For though in Disputation against an adversary, it may bee of use to convince him out of his owne conceits: yet in dealing with a scrupulous con­science, it giveth no satisfaction, to give him for grounds of law­full Practise, his owne conceits.

Neither hath it any ground at all from the Apostles words, or meaning, to gather (as you doe) from the holinesse of children ‘an argument from the lesse to the greater, That if the children bee holy, and so, lawfull to bee retained, then much more the unbeleeving Parents that bare them (because if the effect bee holy, then must the cause also bee holy:)’ for the unbeleeving Parents are no cause at all of the holinesse of their children: nei­ther are they holy themselves by the holy Ordinance of marriage. For though marriage it selfe bee holy in respect of the holy insti­tution of it: yet not in respect of the holy efficacy in it, to make all them holy, that enter into marriage estate; yea as to beleevers all things are pure, so to the unbeleever nothing is pure, no not his marriage, nor his yoak-fellow, nor his children. Though the unbeleeving yoak-fellow (Paul saith) bee sanctified to the beleever: yet Paul never said, that the beleever is sanctified to the unbeleeving yoak-fellow. Unbeleevers are neither holy themselves, nor is any thing else sanctified to them, much lesse can they bee the cause of producing sanctification and holinesse in others. And therefore Paul doth inferre the holinesse of chil­dren, not from the holy Ordinance of marriage, but from the ho­ly Covenant of grace.

‘It had bin in vaine for the Apostle to have gon about to prove the lawfull retaining of the unbeleeving yoak-fellow from the holinesse of their children being in the Covenant.Silvester. For nothing was more cleare then this, That such children as are begotten in uncleannesse, were not approved of Gods holy Covenant of life: nor any way holy, either by law, or Gospell; How then could this tend to remove the scruple of the Corinthians, to tell them, that they might lawfully continue together, because their children were in the Covenant of grace and life, and so were ho­ly, when as their scruple lay in matter of uncleannesse, upon which they were to part? Now this must bee cleared, whether [Page 120] they were so, or not in respect of themselves, before ever they could believe the holiness of their children, or any such to be in Gods gracious Covenant. For the children of adultery and for­nication are debarred the holy Covenant, both in the law, and in the Gospel.’

Silvanus.It were well if you did debarre onely the children of adultery and fornication from the holy Covenant now in the Gospel. But you debarre all children while they are infants, whether they bee the children of lawfull marriage, or of adultery: whether children of beleevers or of infidells; all is one. But seeing God (who keepeth Covenant and mercy with thousands) admitteth believers and their children to the fellowship of his Covenant: who is man, or what is the sonne of man, that hee should debar them?

But to come to your argument, many things are unsound in it. ‘1. When you say, that nothing is more cleare then this, That children begotten in such uncleannesse, are not in Gods holy Covenant, nor any way holy, either by Law or Gospel.’

It is too vast an Hyperbole, there be many cleare truths gene­rally received of all that feare God: as the Trinity of Persons, the unity of the Godhead, Christ his two Natures and three Offices, and an hundred such like, which are indeed cleare to all that fear God. But this (which you say is most cleare to all) that children begotten in uncleannesse are debarred the Covenant, is denyed by Tremelius and Junius, and others moe, and doubted by many. There be many that conceive Pharez and Zerah were in the holy Covenant, though begotten in Incest; and Davids child though begotten in adultery. And what would you say of all the chil­dren, which the Patriarchs had by Concubines? They were not borne in lawfull marriage. If therefore they were begotten in uncleannesse, were they excluded from the Covenant, and no way holy? What say you of Jepthah begotten of a strange woman, and therefore in uncleannesse? Doe you thinke God did not approve him to be in his Covenant, seeing he called him forth to be a Ru­ler of his people? If you say Iepthah was then faithfull when God called him forth to office: What then? yet he was begotten in un­cleannesse. And then your assertion was too large, without any ‘limitation to say, That children begotten in uncleannesse are not in Gods holy Covenant, nor any way holy, either by law or Gospel, and that nothing is more clear then this.’

As for the place upon which you ground (as I conceive) your assertion, taken out of Deut. 23.2. some understood it of com­ming in and out before the Congregation, to wit, in bearing pub­lick Office. Others understand it to speake of a Bastard begotten of a common Harlot; which I note to you, not to shew you my owne interpretation of the place, but to wish you to forbeare such excessive prodigall expressions; That nothing is more cleare, then that which is darke and doubtfull to many men, men of as cleare, and it may be clearer discernings then your selves.

But for my part, I will not stick with you in this point altoge­ther; let it be granted that children begotten in uncleannesse (that is, as you expound your selfe) ‘begotten in adultery and forni­cation, are not in Gods holy Covenant, nor any way holy (for ought we can discerne, leaving Gods election of them unto ho­linesse, to himselfe) either by Law or Gospel; what then? Why then say you, how could this tend to remove the Corinthians scruple, to tell them they might lawfully continue together as man and wife, because their children were in the Covenant of grace and life, and so were holy; when as the scruple lay in matter of uncleannesse upon which they were to part; which scruple must first be cleared in respect of themselves, before ever they could believe the holinesse of their children in Cove­nant; seeing the children of adultery and fornication are debar­red the holy Covenant both in the Law and the Gospel?’

But this is more unsound then the former, to conceive that the matter of uncleannesse upon which they were to part, was the uncleannesse of adultery and fornication. For if that were the uncleannesse in which those Corinthian yoke-fellows lived before either of them were converted to the faith, surely the Apostle would never have given them advice, not to depart one from ano­ther, v. r. 12, 13. Such as live in the uncleannesse of adultery and fornication ought not to abide together, but speedily to depart one from another. Yea, methinkes in case of adultery, the Co­rinthians would of themselves discerne what was meet, to wit, speedily and utterly to abandon such wickednesse, or at least have lurked in it secretly, and never have consulted with the Apostle a­bout it in a publick Church-letter. It is true, it was matter of un­cleannesse upon which they doubted they must part, and there­upon scrupled cohabitation. But the uncleannesse which they suspected, was not adultery or fornication, but disparity of Reli­gion, [Page 122] in regard of the Infidell yoke-fellow, who still lived in Ido­latry. But this uncleannesse of Idolatry lying not upon both yoke-fellows, but upon one onely; it could not debarre the free passage of the holy Covenant from the believing parent to the children. For the Covenant runneth not unto you and to your seed, as spea­king of both the Parents, but to thee and to thy seed, as speaking of one of them, of either of them.

If you ask, why then did the Jews put away their strange wives and children, seeing the Covenant might passe to the children from either party?

I answer two things, 1. The Israelites were expresly forbid­den to marry with those Nations, and their seed was excluded from entring into the congregation to the tenth generation, Deut. 23.3. Neh. 13.1. But Christians in the dayes of the Gospel, lye not under any such prohibition. There is no such partition wall now between Nation and Nation; nor any such severe rejection of the children of any Nation, in case either of the Parents be recei­ved into the Church.

2. The case of the Jewes who married strange wives in Ezra, was not the like case with that of the Corinthians, though the Corinthians might conceive the case to be the same. For the Co­rinthians had married their Idolatrous yoke-fellows, when both of them were Pagans. But the Jews married their strange wives, when themselves were an holy people. Now though the Jewes were therefore bound to put away their strange wives, when they had thus polluted the holy Covenant, and the holy 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 [Page 124] 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.’

SilvanusYour 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 [Page 125] farre as he doth. For whereas there be three sorts of holinesse (as hath been touched above) 1. One by imputation from Christ. 2. Another by regeneration from the Spirit. 3. A third by sepa­ration to God and to his Worship, and to participation of the Ordinances through the Covenant: The believing Parent enjoyeth all these; but not so all his seed. All of them indeed partake of the last: Of the first, onely the elect; but not of the second, till they be regenerate. And against our Doctrine thus declared, your argu­ments fall like Dagon before the Arke of the Covenant.

For to the first, we readily answer; It followeth not that if our Doctrine be a truth, then one may be saved by anothers faith. For we doe not teach that all within the Covenant, or all that are ho­ly by the Covenant are saved, or are in a state of salvation: But that by the Covenant they are either in a state of salvation, or un­der the meanes of salvation. Neither doe we teach that all under the Covenant of grace, are in a state of grace, unlesse a state of grace be taken in a large sense for such a state, in which they receive the offer and meanes of grace, which to the elect seed doe become effectual; ‘much lesse do we teach, that by vertue of a believers be­ing in a state of grace, all his children doe partake of the same grace with him, and that so farre as he doth.’ These things wee neither believe nor professe; neither can they be gathered from our doctrine by any just consequence.

Secondly, to your second, the answer is as easie. For,

1. We doe not say, that the children of believers are holy with that holinesse which accompanyeth regeneration, and mortifieth originall corruption, but onely with that holinesse whereby they are admitted to the meanes of grace, with promise of efficacy to the elect seed, and offers thereof to the rest, so farre as to leave them without excuse.

2. Suppose we did hold (that which is farre from us to con­ceive) that all infants in the Covenant were regenerate, and so ho­ly as well as their beleeving. Parents, and as farre as they; Yet that would not take away the being or remaining of Originall sinne in them, but onely the reigning of it. For doe you thinke that the being of Originall sin is taken away from regenerate believers? We for our part believe what we have cause to grone under, that Ori­ginall sin remaineth in a believer; and though it be pardoned and in some measure mortified, yet it is not utterly destroyed till death.

‘To your third, wee deny that our doctrine is any ground of falling away out of an estate of grace;’ if you speake of an estate of saving grace. For wee doe not say, that all within the Cove­nant, or under the seale of the Covenant, are in an estate of saving grace. Though in a large sense all the members of the Church, whether Infants or Professors of the faith, are in such a state of grace, as that they do partake of the common gifts of grace, and of the Ordinances of grace. Neverthelesse they may fall away from such grace; which the Apostle feared in some of the Galatians, Gal. 5.4.

To your fourth and last we answer, it were a false slander, if you ‘should report that our Doctrine doth hold forth, that ever Esau or Ishmael were subjects of a saving estate of saving grace:’ For though we say, they were borne under the Covenant of grace, and were made partakers of the seale of the Covenant, yet wee doe not say they were ever subjects of Gods saving grace. It is a grace to partake in the meanes of grace, and in the enjoyment of many gifts of common grace, and in the offers of saving grace; and yet many have enjoyed all these, who neverthelesse were never subjects of saving grace, neither of election, whereof your two former texts speake, nor of perseverance in the Covenant, whereof your two latter speake. And to fall from such an estate of grace, I leave it to you upon second thoughts to judge, whether it tend to Popery and Arminianisme, or no.

To gather up then the summe of all this discourse about the Co­venant of Abraham to an head: You have seen it now proved and maintained against all exceptions,

1. That God made a Covenant of grace with Abraham and his seed.

2. That God gave circumcision to be a seale of the same Cove­nant to Abraham and to all his infant-seed.

3. That by the redemption of Christ, the Covenant and bles­sing of Abraham is come upon the beleeving Gentiles and our seed.

4. These things being already cleared, the fourth thing that remaineth to be cleared, is, that circumcision being now abolished, Baptisme succeedeth in the roome thereof, as a seale of the same Covenant to believers and our seed. Which, if it may appeare, then it will appeare also, that the same Covenant of grace, which gave a Commandement, or word of institution for the Circumci­sion of faithfull Abraham and his seed, doth also hold forth the [Page 127] 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, [...]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, [Page 128] 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 weaknesse of your Argument will weaken the strength of the Apostles Argument For the Apostle is to prove, that we are compleat in Christ, not only in the inward Circumcision of the heart, which taketh away the sinfull body of the flesh, but al­so in the signe and seale of it, even our Baptism, which doth con­firme the same things unto us, and giveth us as effectuall fellowship in Christs death and buriall, to the putting away of sinne, as they had in circumcision. But take away the Baptisme of Infants, and the Apostles argument will faile. For it might be objected, that the Jewes in their circumcision of themselves and their Infants, had a signe and seale, that God would circumcise not onely their owne hearts, but the hearts of their Infant-seed also; but wee in our Baptisme, though we have a signe and seale that God will wash and purifie our hearts, yet not so the hearts of our Infants also. And therefore we are lesse compleat in Christ in our Baptisme, then the Jewes were in their circumcision, which if it were admitted, would utterly evacuate the Apostles argument; who pleadeth our com­pleatnesse in Christ, notwithstanding our want of circumcision, in that we enjoy the like fulnesse of benefit in our Baptism, as the Jews did in their circumcision. But admit the Baptisme of our In­fants, as well as of our selves, to succeed in the place of circumcisi­on to the Jews and their infants; and then the Apostles argument proceedeth fully, and concludeth invincibly; That we are as com­pleat in Christ in our Baptism, as the Iews were in their circumcision.

Put us not off therefore with a difference of Order in the New Testament, and in the Old; The New Testament (say you) suc­ceedeth the Old; ‘must it needs therefore follow, that the same order be observed now, as then?’ For though the order may bee [Page 129] changed in succession, yet the extent and amplitude of the subjects is not changed, especially not straitned or diminished, but in­larged in a growing state. The order of Solomons house (who suc­ceeded David) was changed not a little in point of magnificence from the order of Davids house: but yet the subjects were the same, or rather more abundant and numerous, none of Davids subjects being excluded. It is true, in a declining and decaying state, the extent and amplitude of Rehoboams subjects were not so large, as those of Solomons whom he succeeded. But I hope you will not make Rehoboam a type of Christ, in his folly and decay of his Dominion, but rather looke at Solomon as an intended type of Christ, even in the latitude of his Dominion, that above Davids; from Sea to Sea, from the River unto the ends of the earth.

‘The Lords Supper succeedeth the Passeover;Silvester. but though all the whole houshold of every family (as well children as other) were to eate the Passeover, Exod. 12.3, 4. yet infants are not ap­proved as fit communicants of the Lords Supper, because they are not capable subjects.’

But how doe you make it appeare I pray you,Silvanus. that infants were to eate the Passeover? a roasted Lambe with unleavened bread, and sowre herbs, is no meat for infants; neither doth it appeare by the Chapter which you alledge, Exod. 12.1. that children of more growth were admitted to partake of the Passeover, till they were able to discerne the spirituall nature and use of it. According to what is writen, v. 26, 27. of that chapter.

‘When your children (saith Moses) shall say unto you, What meane you by this service? ye shall say, It is the sacrifice of the Lords Passeover, who passed over our houses in Egypt, when hee smote the Egyptians.’

It is true (that you say) children are not capable subjects of the Lords Supper: For receiving whereof, the Apostle requireth wee should examine and judge our selves. But Infants are as capable subjects of Baptisme now in the dayes of the New Testament, as the Infants of the Jews were of Circumcision. For circumcision and baptisme being both of them alike signes and seales of our new birth (either wrought, or to be wrought;) and in our new birth, we being meerely passive, children are as capable subjects passively to bee wrought upon to a new birth, as men of riper yeares. But the Lords Supper being a signe and seale of our spirituall growth in Christ, and dispensed not in milke, but in strong meat, bread and [Page 130] wine, whereunto holy preparation was requisite, Infants are not capable subjects of this, though they bee of the other.

Silvester.But why then are Faith and Repentance required unto Baptism, which was not of old time required unto Circumcision?

Silvanus.Faith and Repentance and the Profession of both, were of old required in men of yeers, not to make them capable subjects of Cir­cumcision, but to receive them into the fellowship of the Cove­nant to themselves and their seed. Hence Abraham was found faith­full, before God did receive him into this Covenant, Nehem. 9.8. And the like is to bee thought of all the Gentile Proselites; for the first in every kinde is an example and pattern to all that follow after. And so the Lord describeth the estate of Proselites, Isai. 56.3. to 8.

Silvester.But why should then John Baptist, and Philip, and the Apostles require the profession of Faith and Repentance even of the Jewes and Proselites who were in Covenant before, before they would admit them (as capable subjects) unto Baptisme?

Silvanus.Because the Messiah being then come (who was the chief blessing of the Covenant, yea, the very substance of the Covenant, and is therefore himself called the Covenant, Isa. 42.6. and 49.8.) Hee, I say, being come, it was necessary, that they who relyed upon the Covenant of Abraham, (as all the Jewes and Proselytes did) should hold forth also their reliance on Christ, in whom the Covenant and the promises thereof, were confirmed to them and their seed. For then was the Axe laid to the root of the Tree, even to the stock of Abraham, and to all the branches that grew upon it, and were ingraffed into it. So that now, if they did not bring for [...]h this good fruit, to beleeve in Christ, who was then come, they and their Children were cut off from the Covenant of Abraham, and must say no more, Wee have Abraham to our Father. But if they did hold forth Repentance and Faith in Christ, then the Co­venant and Promise which was made to them, and to their Chil­dren before, did still continue unto them, and to their Children. And that is the very ground and meaning of Peters exhortation to the Jewes and Proselites, Act. 2.38, 39. Repent, saith hee, and bee Baptized every one of you in the name of the Lord Jesus, &c. For the Promise is to you, and to your Children, &c. as hath been opened above.

Silvester.To keep to the point in hand, wee are here speaking of Infants, whom you wake to bee capable subjects of Baptisme (as well as [Page 131] the Jewish Infants were of Circumcision) and yet not capable of 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 [Page 132] 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 [Page 133] 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 as are writen in the Lambes book of life; this I would say to it:

1. You cannot justly deny, but that Gods Testimony of the In­fants of Beleevers, that they are holy (1 Cor. 7.14.) and that of such is the Kingdom of God, Mark. 10.14. is as good an Evi­dence of their Election, as the Profession of Faith and Repentance, which men of yeers are wont to make, is an evidence of their e­lection before the Church. Again,

2. It is one thing, to speak of such as enter into the Church (for [Page 134] that agreeth to such as were sometime without:) another thing, to speake of the Infants of believers, who were never out of the Church, and so cannot be said to enter into it. Besides,

3. It is one thing to enter into the Church as an abiding mem­ber; another thing so to enter, as for some notorious scandall to be cast out of it. Such shall be the purity of the Government of that new Hierusalem, as that no prophane person shall enter into it, nor any hypocrite: or if any hypocrite should creepe in (as there did in the most pure and discerning times, even in the Apostles dayes) yet they will in time be discerned, and then cast out: Otherwise there would be no use of excommunica­tion in those pure Iewish Churches; which is not probable. Yea, in­fants themselves, though borne in the Church; yet if when they grow up to yeares they shall degenerate into a prophane or scan­dalous course, they shall not be tolerated to abide in the Church: yea, if they shall not take hold of the Covenant of their Fathers, but content themselves in an ignorant, or civill, or worldly course of life, they shall not bee allowed to enter into holy communi­on with the sincere members of the Church at the Lords Table.

4. It is one thing to prophecy of the transcendent glo­rious happinesse of an exact pure Church in some age of it: ano­ther thing to command and foretell the perpetuall continuance of it in the same degree of purity. Sure I am, that when Christ commeth to judgement, he shall find in those pure Churches of the Jews some foolish Virgins, as well as some wise. And the foolish Virgins shall bee shut out from the presence of Christ (Mat. 25.10, 11, 12.) And they that are shut out, were never written in the Lambs book of life.

5. It is one thing to speake of the members of the Church uni­versally; another thing to speake of them all indefinitely; all of them, (that is, the body of them, or the greater part of them) may be said to be written in the Lambs booke of life, to bee all righte­ous, (Isa. 60.21.) to have their sinnes forgiven, and not to com­plaine of any sicknesse, Isa. 33.21. But how can this bee un­derstood universally of all the members of the Church at all times?

6. It is one thing to speake of the condition, in which God approveth Church-members; another thing to speak of the condition, in which God approveth the receiving of Church-members. God never approved the condition of Judas in his A­postleship, [Page 135] or in his Church-membership; and yet hee approved the receiving of him into both.

But to proceed to the difference which you make of the sub­jects of the two Testaments, though that bee a point scanned be­fore, and needlesly repeated here: When you make the Old Testa­ment ‘to bequeath Legacies to a male of eight dayes old, or to a Proselyte, and for that end quote Gen. 17.10, 14, 23, 25. with o­ther Scriptures; and the New Testament to bestow Legacies (as the Priviledges and blessing of Abraham) onely to such as believe, and none else.’

You speake not herein according to the language of the Scrip­tures. For the Scripture never calleth the Testament or Covenant which God made with Abraham, Gen. 17. the Old Testament: your mistake herein hath been a principall occasion of corrupting your judgement, both in this point in hand, and sundry other that have reference to it. I have shewed you above, that the Testament which the Scripture calleth the Old Testament, was that made with the Israelites on Mount Sinai, not that made with Abraham, (Gen. 17.) in the land of Canaan. It had been small comfort to us, that Christ by his death should procure us this priviledge, that the blessing of Abraham might come upon believing Gentiles, if the blessing of Abraham were not better then the Old Testament, or Co­venant: of which the Apostle said long agoe (even in his time) it was ready to vanish away, Heb. 8.13. and was indeed soon after (with the Temple) wholly abolished.

It is true, the Covenant of Abraham bequeathed this Legacy to a male of eight dayes old, to bee circumcised; but circumcision was onely the seale of the Covenant. The chiefe Legacy bequea­thed in that Covenant, was the promise that God would bee a Father to Abraham and to his seed. And a God hee was to them, whilst they were yet in the wombe, or being borne, were not yet come to be eight dayes of old. Else all the Infants of Gods peo­ple that dyed in their first weeke, lived and dyed out of Cove­nant. And so the Covenant shall depend upon the seale, not the seale upon the Covenant: and the grace of the Covenant shall not know, nor acknowledge, nor owne infants the first seven dayes, untill the eight; and so the eternall Jehovah (to whom a thousand yeers is but as one day) shall limit the grace of his eternall Cove­nant, not to shine forth upon the Infants of believers, til the eighth day shine forth upon them. It remaineth therefore that the In­fants [Page 136] of Abraham and of his seed were under the Covenant assoone as they were his seed, to wit, even from their conception, though none of them were circumcised, but the males only, nor the males neither, till the eighth day. The males onely, partly be­cause the Females had not such a foreskin of their flesh, as was to be circumcised; partly because God would have them trained up (both males and females) to expect all the blessing of their cir­cumcision, from the circumcision of Christ Jesus, mentioned, Co­loss. 2.11. Neither were the males circumcised till the eigthth day, not because they were not subjects of Abrahams Covenant till the eighth day, but for some ceremoniall respect, or for some other reason peculiar to that Rite. Circumcision being a cutting of the flesh, it was a worke of mercy not to put infants the first weeke to the paine, till they were better able to beare it. Some have ancient­ly thought the circumcision of the eighth day did prefigure the sanctification of the eighth day for a Sabbath in the dayes of the Messiah. Others have thought God would have Circumcision de­ferred till the eighth day, that a Sabbath might passe over the Pa­rents, that he might solemnly renew his Covenant with God, be­fore the seale of the Covenant should bee applyed to his Infant. Others have conceived, that as God would not have a Kid or Lamb sacrificed to him till it had sucked of the Dam seven dayes; so nei­ther would hee call forth the infant to be solemnly presented and offered to him in that seale of the Covenant, till the seven dayes were fulfilled. However it was, certaine it is that the limitation of the eighth day, was not a morall appendant to the Covenant of grace. And therefore the Infants of believers, both in those for­mer times, and in these now, partaked in the Legacies of the Covenant of grace, as well before eight days, as after.

‘Nay (say you) in the New Testament, as the last Will of Christ, the Legacies therein contained (as the Priviledges and blessing of Abraham) are given onely to such as believe, and to none else.’

Two things let me here answer you.

1. It implyeth a contradiction to say, the blessing of Abraham is given to believers, and onely to believers, and to none else, in­tending thereby to exclude the infants of believers. For what is the blessing of Abraham? Is it not this promise of grace, that God will bee a God to him and his seed? If this blessing then come up­on believers, then this promise commeth upon them; That God [Page 137] will be a God to them and their seed. You must therefore either deny the blessing of Abraham to come upon believers; or else you must grant the promise of grace to come upon them and upon their seed also. ‘Yea, (say you) upon their believing seed, such as suc­ceed them in the same faith and truth, not upon others.’ If that were the meaning of the promise, it could not bee said with any congruity of speech, that the promise commeth upon the seed of believers at all. For when the children of believers come to be be­lievers, the promise commeth not to them at all as the seed of be­lievers, but as believers themselves. The children of Pagans when they come to beleeve, may as well claim the promise to belong unto them, as may the children of believers, when themselves doe believe.

The second thing that I would answer you, is, that all the pla­ces which you alledge to prove, that the priviledges of the King­dom of Christ doe belong only unto believers, they onely speake of saving priviledges flowing from faith: All which wee readily grant you, (as a point out of controversie) doe all of them be­long to believers, and not immediately to the children of be­lievers, till they come on themselves to believe likewise. But this wee further claime in the behalfe of the children of believers (which wee have proved before, though you are willing to take no notice of it) that the children of believers doe come on themselves to believe, by reason of the Covenant of grace which God hath made with believers and their seed, for by that Covenant hee hath promised to write the law of faith (as of all other saving graces) in their hearts, that they also may come in Gods time and way to enjoy all the other saving priviledges of the Covenant, as did their Fathers before them. To take a short survey of the places, which you quote, that Text in Gal. 3.22. holdeth forth that the promise (to wit, the promise of eternall life, of which he spake in the next verse before) is given by faith to them that believe. So is also the righteousnesse of faith given to them that believe, as the other places you quote, shew, Rom. 4.11, 12. Gal. 3.6, 7. So like­wise the inheritance of glory is given to sonnes, even the regene­rate sonnes of God, who have received the spirit of adoption, as your other place sheweth, Rom. 8.17. But what doth all this prove? That no Legacies of the New Testament, no priviledges of the Covenant of grace, no blessing of Abraham belongeth to the chil­dren of believers. It proveth indeed that the righteousnesse of faith and eternall life and glory, doe belong to believers, and to [Page 138] such as are regenerate by the spirit of adoption. But what thinke you of faith it selfe, and the spirit of adoption? Are they not also Legacies of the New Testament? Are they not the Priviledges of the Covenant, and of the blessing of Abraham? And these when they are first given, they are not given to believers, who have them already; but to such as have them not: And therefore the chil­dren of believers are capable of these Legacies and priviledges, by the blessing of Abraham in the new Covenant. For this is a pro­mise of the new Covenant, they shall all know mee from the least of them to the greatest of them, Jer. 31.34. And that knowledge is faith upon which sinnes are forgiven, Isa. 53.11. And this is ano­ther promise of the same Covenant, I will poure my Spirit upon thy seed, and my blessing upon thine off-spring, Isa. 44.3. If then the Spirit and Faith be given by the New Testament, (or which is all one, the new Covenant) then all the Legacies, and priviledges, and blessings of the Covenant, are not given onely believers, but some also to the children of believers, that they may receive the spirit and faith also. It is therefore a slender evasion to alledge ‘(as you doe) that the children and off-spring of believers are such onely, as succeed them in the same faith and truth,’ and so are called the generation of the righteous. For they did not succeed them in the same faith, and truth, and righteousnesse, till it was given them; and given them it was by a legacy of the New Testa­ment, when they were onely the children of the faithfull, and had neither faith, nor truth, nor righteousnesse in them. The other places which you quote, do shew, that men of yeares, (as well as children) are sometimes called the seed of the Church. And that the godly ones amongst them are begotten of the immortall seed of the word, and are regenerate by the spirit of grace, have a seed of God dwelling in them, are maligned by the carnall seed, are approved of God, and acknowledged as heires of the Kingdome of glory. All which are truths out of question. But none of all the places doe exclude the Infants of believers, nor their growne naturall children from being subjects of this grace of the Cove­nant, to have the Spirit of grace and faith poured upon them by vertue of the Covenant. One onely place of all the rest, might seem to look that way, which you quote out of John 3.5, 6, where it is said that the carnall seed, as being flesh, and destitute of the spirit, cannot enter into the Kingdom of God. And indeed if by the Kingdome of God, were meant the Church (as oftentimes it is) [Page 139] the objection would bee more difficult to resolve. But the truth is, in that place, by the Kingdome of God, is plainly meant, the Kingdome of Glory, not the Church. For Nicodemus did not scruple his Church estate, nor enquire how hee might enter into the visible Church, but how hee might bee saved, and inherit the Kingdome of Glory. And therefore Christ directeth him to Regeneration, and to beleeve in his Name, that hee might attain unto everlasting life. Joh. 3.5.14, 15, 16. And though hee speak of water, as co-working with the Spirit in Regeneration, (ver. 5.) yet by water may either bee understood the Spirit it self (as wash­ing the soule like water, in Regeneration:) or, if Baptisme bee un­derstood, yet it is not there considered, as a necessary ingredient to Church-fellowship, but as a necessary instrument of the Spirit, unto the sealing up of Regeneration, the carelesse neglect and con­tempt whereof, would exclude from salvation, Luk. 7.30.

It would therefore seem a more reasonable matter,Silvester. to admini­ster Baptisme to a person, when the spirit is in hand with his Re­generation. But to what end shall Baptisme bee administred to In­fants, when wee doe not discern that the Spirit is about any such work as the Regenration of them?

It is no unwonted thing with God,Silvanus. to give that for a signe of a thing, which shall not bee accomplished of many dayes or yeers after. God gave the Rainbow for a sign, that hee would no more destroy the world with water. The performance whereof remain­eth still to bee accomplished to the end of the world. God gave two sticks joyned together in Ezekiels hand, to bee a signe of the joyning together of Judah and Joseph in one state, Ezek. 37.16. to 22. which is not yet accomplished, nor will bee till their last con­version. God gave Circumcision to the Israelites, as a signe that hee would circumcise their hearts, and the hearts of their seed, Deut. 29.6. And yet sometimes their own hearts, sometimes the hearts of their seed were not circumcised of many yeers after. It is enough that as in Circumcision, so in Baptisme, God sealeth up that pro­mise and Covenant, which hee hath made to beleevers to bee a God to them and to their seed. For the present, according to Co­venant God preserveth and nourisheth the seed of the faithfull, by his Fatherly providence; God the Son as hee undertook to the Israelites, so hee hath already performed it to us, to shed his blood for us and our children; The holy Ghost (to whom it belongeth to work Regeneration) hee may take his own good time, sooner [Page 140] 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 [Page 141] 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 of such is his Kingdome (Mar. 10.14.) whose divine testimony of them is as clear an evidence to us, that God giveth them right un­to the fellowship of the Church, and to the seal thereof, as the [Page 142] testimony of men can give unto themselves or others, by their ver­ball profession, or any other visible effects of Faith. ‘Doe not say, that you are farre from denying in the least measure, salvation unto Infants.’

For if Infants dye in their Infancy, you have apparently decla­red it above, that you doe not acknowledge them to bee subjects ‘capable either of election to grace and glory, or of Union with Christ, or the Covenant of Grace.’ And then, how wee should beleeve you (when you say you doe not in the least measure deny salvation to Infants, and yet deny all such meanes of salvation, without which it is impossible, they should bee saved) judge you.

But to come to the ground you work upon in denying to them Baptism, whereas Circumcision was granted to them of old, and in both a promise of salvation sealed up to them, untill they came to reject it.

Though Baptisme (you conceive) succeed Circumcision, yet you put a great difference between them, both in matter and man­ner, "in persons and things.

And what might that great difference bee in so many particu­lars?

‘Circumcision (say you) sealed to things temporall and car­nall, as well as to spirituall, and so were the subjects (carnall, as well as spirituall:) Baptisme onely sealeth to Faith in Christ, and to Grace in the New Birth.’

I pray you doth not Baptisme seale to the Covenant of Grace, as well as Circumcision, in whose room it succeedeth? And doth not the Covenant of Grace contain promises of temporall, and carnall (or outward) blessings, as well as spirituall? Hose. 2.18.21, 22, 23. Hath not godlinesse in the New Testament (as well as in the Old) the Promises of this life, as well as that which is to come? 1 Tim. 4.8. Doth not Baptisme expressely seale up unto us, our deliverance out of Affliction, as well as out of corrupti­on? yea, to the raising up of our bodies out of death in the grave, as well as of our soules out of the death in sin? 1 Cor. 15.29. It is therefore utterly untrue, that Baptisme sealeth onely to Faith in Christ, and to grace in the New Birth; For it sealeth to all the blessings of the Covenant, as well those of this life, as of that which is to come. That which sealeth to this grand blessing of the Covenant, that God will bee a God to such or such, sealeth [Page 143] unto all other gifts of God also. God never giveth himself alone, but hee giveth his Son and his Spirit also. And hee that giveth us his own Sonne (saith the Apostle) shall hee not with him give us all things else also? Rom. 8.32. Yea, where Christ is given hee giveth Repentance unto Israel and conversion (or turning) of the hearts of the Fathers to the Children, and of the Children to the Fathers, and both of them to the Lord. Act. 5.31. and Luk. 1.16, 17. And Baptisme is a seale of these promises, as of the whole Covenant. And therefore Baptisme is not onely (as you say) a seale to Faith, and to the Grace of the New Birth, as if it onely confirmed our own Faith touching our own estates, and our own New Birth: But it confirmeth also our Faith, that God will give Faith and Repentance to our Children, and turn their hearts both to the Lord and to us. And therefore hee powreth the water of Baptisme upon our Children, that hee may confirme this promise of Grace, the powring out of clean water, of his Spirit, and of his blessing, as well upon our seed and off-spring, as upon our selves, Isai. 44.3.

‘Another difference which you put, is, that Circumcision sealeth to things to come, as under Types and shadowes, and so to sub­jects in a cloud, and darknesse: whereas Baptisme confirmeth Faith in things come, and already done: and hath for its sub­jects Children of the light, in the clear evidence of the Spirit, with face open:’ Suppose this difference were true: That Circum­cision sealed to things to come: and Baptisme to things come: Circumcision to things vailed, Baptisme to things open: Yet this is but a circumstantiall difference, in the manner of revealing the blessings promised: but this argueth no materiall difference at all in the persons, the subjects of the seale. It will onely argue thus much, that whereas the same Christ, and the things of Christ were sealed up to them, and to their seed more darkly, they are sealed up to us and our seed, more clearly and plainly.

‘Besides, it is not altogether true, that Circumcision sealed up to them things to come.’ For both Baptisme and Circumcision doe seale to both things come, and things to come. Circumci­sion sealed to Abraham, God to bee his God, and the righteous­nesse of Faith: both which were already come to Abraham before hee was circumcised. It sealed up also sundry things to come, to him, and his seed, as their deliverance out of Egypt, their inhe­ritance of Canaan, and the comming of the Messiah. But when [Page 144] the Israelites came to enjoy Canaan, Circumcision did not then seal to their deliverance out of Egypt, or to their inheritance of Ca­naan, as things to come, but as to things come, and already done. Circumcision sealed to the children of Israel, that God would circumcise their hearts, and the hearts of their seed, Deut. 30.6. which was a thing to come, to such of them as were unregene­rate. But after they were Regenerate, the same Circumcision was a seale of that blessing, which God had already done for them. So is it with Baptisme: Now that Christ is come in the flesh, Bap­tisme sealeth that to us, as a thing already done, which to them was a thing to come. And yet the comming of Christ into our hearts, is a thing partly done in the Regenerate, and yet more fully to bee done, even to us: and to many of our children, it is a thing to come. To the children of God that walk in dark­nesse, and see no light, (which is the case of many, and at some time or other, of all) the return of the Comforter, is a thing to come, and Baptisme is a seale thereof: and yet it is a seale also of the first fruites of the Spirit, which are already come. Baptism is a seale of the Redemption of Christ, which is already wrought for us. And it is a seale of our deliverance from all afflictions, and from all temptations and from all corruptions, and from all ene­mies, even from death it self, and many of these are yet to come. So that I can but wonder why such a difference as this should bee alleged to prove a personall difference of the subjects of Baptism, and the subjects of Circumcision.

If it bee said (as you partly expresse, and partly imply) that ‘wee who live under Baptisme are the children of light, but they that lived under Circumcision, were the children of darknesse, and therefore though their children being in 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 [Page 145] 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 [Page 146] 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 out­laws from the Church, where neither of their Parents being belie­vers, [Page 147] 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 [Page 148] 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 [Page 149] 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 any that are still-born.’

For neither are all the Infants of the faithfull Parents still-born (I mean, in respect of spirituall life,) and if they were, yet Baptisme is not called in Scripture Gods milk: and if it were resembled to milk, yet it is not milk onely, but it serveth for many other uses. It is a seale of that Covenant, whereby God promiseth both to bee seed, and milk, and strong meat, and medicine, and all in all, unto beleevers and their children.

Your next exhortation, to take heed how wee set dead twigges in his heavenly and divine stock, or naturall branches in his holy and spirituall Vine, it hath received Answer above; you have heard before, that dead persons if in Covenant, are alive to God, Luk. 20.37, 38. And though a twigge cannot receive life from the stock unlesse it bring life with it before it be engraffed: yet Christ can give life to dead branches that are put to him, as well as the dead corps of Elisha could give life to the dead man cast into his grave, 2 King. 13.21.

Your third exhortation hath as little ground as either of the former.

‘Let men beware (say you) how they fight against the God of Order, lest in stead of finding the brest to feed, before the womb to bear, they meet with a curse upon the single emptinesse of Christ, with a double barrennesse, that will admit of no spiri­tuall birth to succeed the Naturall.’

If you will needs have Baptisme to bee the brest of the Church, I will not contend with you: for there is in it also some milk for babes, as well as there is much strong meat in it for men of riper yeers. But when wee doe bring Infants to Baptisme, wee doe not first finde the brest to feed them, before wee finde the wombe to bear them. For the Apostle maketh the two Covenants the two Mothers, of which all the children of the Church are born, whe­ther in the Old or New Testament, Gal. 4.22, 23, 24. If then wee have found Infants to bee in the Covenant, wee have found a Mo­ther, and in her, a wombe to bear them. And if wee bring none to Baptisme, but such as are the children of the Covenant, then wee doe not finde a brest to feed them, before a womb to breed and beare them. But wee proceed Orderly (even according to the wis­dome of God, and the ancient Order, which hee hath set in his [Page 151] Church) wee first finde a wombe to breed and bear them, and then a brest to nourish and feed them. The curse therefore which you threaten, is causelesse, and being causelesse will not come, Prov. 26.2.

Thus by the help of Christ, our Arguments for the Baptisme of Infants, have been at last cleared from your exceptions, from so many of them at least, as you have made against them hither­to. Now (if you please) let us inquire into your Arguments (if you have any) against the Baptisme of Infants.

Yes,Silvester. I have divers Arguments (eight or nine) against the Bap­tisme of Infants, ‘besides many evill consequences, which I ob­serve, will follow unavoydably upon the Baptisme of Infants.’

CHAP. IV.

VVHat may bee your first Argument against the Baptisme of Infants?Silvanus.

‘The first that I have met withall is that (whereto you have al­ready spoken in part) because there is neither command,Silvester. nor ex­ample in all the New Testament for the baptizing of Infants. And yet the Order and Government of the New Testament in the ad­ministration thereof, is no way inferiour to the Old. But in the Old Testament there was an expresse Rule, by Commande­ment from God, what Communicants were to bee admitted to Circumcision, and other Ordinances of that nature, and what not. But this Order is no where found in the New Testament for the baptizing of Infants, and therefore the same is not to bee practised.’

To this Argument you have received an Answer already:Silvanus. when in the beginning of our conference, I gave you three grounds for the Baptisme of Infants: the two former from the Commande­ment of Christ, and of his Apostle in the New Testament: the third from the Old and New Testament together, gathered from the Analogy of Circumcision and Baptisme. The Commandement of Christ was cleared from Matth. 28.19, 20. The Commande­ment of the Apostle was opened from Acts 2.39. The Analogy of Circumcision and Baptisme, was urged from Gen. 17. with Col. 2.11, 12.

Silvester.I have already acquainted you with the summe of those excep­tions, which I have met withall, against all the Arguments which you have alledged for the grounding of the Baptisme of Infants upon any word of Commandement or Institution from Christ and his Apostles. Onely one exception further commeth to my minde against your third Argument, taken from the Analogy of Circum­cision and Baptisme.

‘Suppose that the Covenant of God with Abraham, wherein hee promiseth to bee a God to him and his seed doe continue to beleevers and our seed now in the dayes of the New Testament: Suppose also that Baptisme doe succeed Circumcision: yet as it was not the promise of God to Abraham that was a sufficient ground of Circumcision, but Gods word of Commandement, (or else it would have been sin to Abraham, to have circumcised his seed:) so neither is it the promise and Covenant of God to beleevers, to bee a God to us, and our seed, that can bee a suffici­ent ground to us of baptizing our Infants.’

Silvanus.I did make account, this exception had been prevented above, as well as the rest. For wee doe not ground the Baptisme of Infants meerly upon the promise of grace, that God is a God to us and our seed: but upon the Commandement of God, that they to whom God is a God, by Covenant, they should receive the seale of the Covenant. Which Commandement was (as you know) expressely given to Abraham: and thereupon hee circumcised him­self and his seed, Gen. 17.10, 11. If then the same Covenant bee now given to the faithfull and our seed, and if Baptisme bee given to us in stead of Circumcision, then the same Commandement which required Abraham to bee circumcised and his seed, requir­eth us to bee baptized and our seed. And indeed upon this very ground the Apostle Peter urgeth every one of them who repented, to bee baptized, they and their seed, because the promise was gi­ven to them and their seed. The strength of which Commande­ment of his, lay in the Commandement of God to faithfull Abra­ham, to bee circumcised and his seed, and the substitution of Bap­tisme now in the room of Circumcision. And verely there is the same morall equity, and reason of the Commandement, both to faithfull Israelites, and faithfull Christians. For as the Circum­cision of Abraham and his seed, confirmed the faith of Abraham, that God would bee a God to him and his seed: And also enga­ged Abraham, both himself to walk in the obedience of Gods will, [Page 153] and to traine up his children to walke accordingly; so the faith­full of the new Testament stand in the like need to have their faith confirmed, that God will bee a God to us and our seed: And we are in like sort engaged both to walke in Gods wayes our selves, and to bring up our children in the like holy instruction and information of the Lord.

‘But let it be examined a little,Silvester. how the authority of the com­mandement of Circumcision can beare out the authority of bap­tizing infants. Circumcision it doth not; for all agree that wee are now to baptize, not to circumcise. The Minister circumci­sing it doth not; then the Master of the family was to circum­cise, now one ordained by Christ in the Church to baptize. The same part of the body it doth not; that circumcised the foreskin, Baptisme the whole man. The age it doth not; that the eighth day, this any day. The subject it doth not; that a male onely, this both male and female. Now in that it doth not enjoyne any of all these: wherein then can the authority of that com­mandement consist now in Baptisme, so as to enjoyne Infants to be baptized? And whereas men cry out from that command, that Infants, Infants, Infants must be baptized, as they were com­manded to bee circumcised: Why, this commandement, if it should be so, serves for none but onely males. So that if they will have the females to be baptized, they must looke out another commandement for them, and so there must be two commande­ments in one Ordinance.’

There is no inconvenience for two commandements to meet in one Ordinance. Circumcision was more then once commanded,Silvanus. (Gen. 17. Lev. 12.) So was the Passeover, Exod. 12 Numb. 9. Levit. 23.5. Neither is it another commandement that wee alledge for the baptizing of females, but onely an example, Acts 8.12. which yet being precedentiall, is of like force as a commandement; look wher­in wee vary in the administration of Baptisme from the Rite and manner of Circumcision, wee have just warrant for it in the New Testament. Else we should no more have varyed from it, then did the Proselytes of the Old Testament. The rite of Circumcising, and of the foreskin, is expresly abolished, Gal. 5.2. And we are said now to be circumcised in being baptized, Col. 2.11, 12. The Mini­ster of Circumcision, if it were not removed in the Old Testament from the family to the Synagogue, from the father of the family to the Levite; yet surely removed it was by Christ, to the Mini­sters [Page 154] 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, Ishm [...]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 [Page 155] 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 Dag [...]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 Sar [...] 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 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 [Page 156] 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 [Page 157] 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, Phi­l [...]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 [Page 158] 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 lib [...]rty of the sons of God.

And yet to adde a word more (which may tend further to clear the words and meaning of the Apostle) as this seed of the Cove­nant of Grace, dispensed and administred by true and pure Chur­ches, is rightly called spirituall seed, in which the Spirit of grace delighteth to breath and worke; and therefore they that are begot­ten of it, are said to be borne after the Spirit: So the seed of the Covenant of the Law, is rightly called seed, as that which leaveth men that are begotten of it more carnall then they were before. For it either puffeth them up to a carnall confidence of their owne strength and righteousnesse, or else sinketh them into an horrible pit of diffidence and desperation. And therefore they that are begotten of it, are rightly and fitly said to be borne after the flesh. And that is the very true meaning of the Apostles words, Gal 4.29. As it was then, so is it now: He that was borne after the flesh, per­secuted him that was borne after the Spirit. Where by such as are "borne after the flesh, the Apostle doth not mean (as you under­stand him) such as are born by an ordinary course of nature, in a way of a naturall generation; but such as are bred and begotten of the carnall seed of the Covenant of the law; which as it begot in Ishmael a carnall confidence of his own strength (or else he would never have sleighted and mocked the promised seed:) so it begot in Cain, and Saul, and Judas, an utter despaire of grace and salva­tion.

Thus then you see (I hope) at the length a true and just answer [Page 159] 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 bith, 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, Eph [...]. 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 [...]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 th [...]s [...] dayes for one Congregation to grow so populous as to become a Nation. Wee read of no such increase of any Congregation since Christs time.

But suppose that all the children in a Nation were baptized, yet that of it self will not make a Nationall Church, but many Chur­ches in one Nation.

Besides, if one Family should grow a Nation, as the house of Jacob did, and all the children being received into Covenant, and unto the seal thereof, the whole Nationall Generation should be­come members of the Church, as they did in Israel: Yet that will ‘not bring the godly into bondage, and into scorn and contempt, nor put the power of Government to rest in the hands of the wicked.’

For the faithfulnesse of God (who keepeth Covenant and mer­cy with his People) prevented that in the House and Church of Israel. Where, though the whole Nation was in Covenant with God: yet ordinarily the Government was kept in the hands of such, as either were Godly, or for the most part favoured godli­nesse. Or, if they failed herein, God was wont to deliver both them and their Governours, into the hands of their Enemies, that they might learn to rule with God, and to bee faithfull with his Saints.

But furthermore, this above all may justly satisfie you: That in the state of the Churches of the New Testament, God hath in­stituted such an order therein, that though all the Infants of the [Page 162] Church-members bee baptized; yet none of them are received (by the order of the Gospel) unto Communion at the Lords Table, nor unto liberty of power in the Government of the Church, un­till they doe approve themselves both by publick Profession before the Church, and also by their Christian conversation, to take hold of the Covenant of their Fathers, and of the Church, and to walk in the steps of their Faith, and professed subjection to the Gospell of Christ. For it is an expresse Commandement given, as to all Christians in their place, so especially to the Officers and Brethren of the Church, Not to cast holy things to dogges, nor Pearles before Swine, Mat. 7.6. Nor to receive such to the Lords Table, as have not on a Wedding Garment. But in such a case the Servants and Ministers of Christ, are to [...]inde such hand and foot, (to wit, by the censures of the Church,) and to cast them out, unto outer darknesse, (Matth. 22.11, 12, 33.) that is to say, into such an estate of darknesse, and misery, wherein they live that are without. For without are Dogs, and Sorcerers, and Whore-mongers, and Murtherers, and Idolaters, and Lyars, Rev. 22.15. And there want not holy, and judicious, and faithfull witnesses of the Gospel of Christ, and of the wayes of pure Reformation, who doe so expound the principles of the Apostles Catechisme, Heb. 6.1.2. That none of the Members of the Church were ad­mitted to the fellowship of the Lords Table, but such as were in­lightned to Repentance, and had tasted of the Heavenly gift of Faith, and were partakers of the Holy Ghost (in some kinde) and had tasted the good Word of God, and the powers of the world to come, through the acknowledgement of the Resurrection of the dead, and of the last judgement.

Of these six Principles of the Apostles Catechisme, the Lords Supper is not mentioned for one amongst them, because these chiefely concerned the baptized members of the Church, to bee trained up unto the knowledge (and taste at least) of them, be­fore they could bee admitted to the Lords Table. And if their sa­voury profession of these things were approved before the Church, then they were received (as confirmed Members) by laying on of hands. Which holy order was a long time preserved pure in the purer sort of Primitive Churches. But afterwards, it (as all other the Institutions of Christ,) were abused and adulterated in the Papacy: this profession and confirmation of baptized Infants, being translated from the Church, whereof they were members, to [Page 163] the Bishop; and their holy Profession of the principall Doctrines and Duties of Christianity, transformed into a Catechisme touch­ing the Faith, and Promise of their God-fathers, and God-mo­thers: And the Imposition of hands upon them by the Pastour, or Bishop, was finally transformed into a Sacrament. But all these grosse superstitions, were but super-additions to the first primitive holy institution. And yet, as by the straw and stubble, you may gather what kinde of Grain grew in the field: So by these abuses of this Ordinance, it may easily bee gathered, what was the pra­ctise of the Primitive Apostolick Churches in this case. Let then this primitive practise bee restored to its purity (as it is in some of the first Churches planted in this Countrey) and then there will bee no more feare of pestering Churches with a carnall Ge­neration of members baptized in their Infancy, then of admitting a carnall company of Hypocrites, confessing their Faith and Re­pentance in the face of the Congregation. Either the Lord in the faithfulnesse of his Covenant, will sanctifie the hearts of the baptized Infants to prepare them for his Table: or else hee will discover their hypocrisie and profanenesse in the presence of his Church, before Men and Angels, and so prevent the pollution of the Lords Table, and corruption of the Discipline of the Church, by their partaking in them.

CHAP. VII.

THe Fourth Argument,Silvester. that I finde against the Baptisme of In­fants, is,

‘That it is a ground both of ignorance and errour, for it hold­eth people in blindnesse, that they cannot come to know the nature of the holy Ordinance, nor what the same requireth in the subjects thereof, and also it causeth the simple to conceive, that Baptisme is of necessity to salvation.’

Doe you think that the Circumcision of Infants in the dayes of the Old Testament, was any ground of ignorance or errour?Silvanus. that it held people in blindenesse, that they could not come to know the nature of that holy Ordinance, nor what the same requireth in the subjects thereof? Surely, God was of another minde, when hee said, hee knew Abraham (who had lately circumcised his chil­dren and household) That hee would command his children and [Page 164] houshold, to keep the way of the Lord, &c. Gen. 18.19. which how could he possibly doe, unlesse he first taught them to know it? In like sort, the Baptisme of a mans children, doth not allow him to keep them in blindnes and error, but rather bind and charge him to traine up his children in the knowledge, and faith, and obe­dience of the Father, Sonne, and holy Ghost, into whose name they have been baptized. It is not the baptisme of the children of believers, but of the children of carnall, and ignorant, and pro­phane persons, that holdeth or keepeth men in the blindnesse of ig­norance and error.

‘When you say, that Baptisme of infants causeth the sim­ple to conceive, that Baptisme is of necessity to salvation.’ I would know whether the Circumcision of infants did cause the simple to conceive the necessity of Circumcision to salvation? If not, why should the Baptisme of infants, rather cause such an errour, then the circumcision of 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 al [...]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 [Page 165] 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 no [...] 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 th [...]rein, but onely the testimony of his owne eyes, and sense of f [...]eling? but neither a mans eyes, nor his sense of feeling are any [...]hitmore the Divine testimony of the Word of God, then the [Page 167] testimony by word of mouth of many score [...] of witnesse [...]: 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 i [...] 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 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 Scriptur [...]; Th [...]t the City which raigned over the Kings of the earth [...]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 man [...]r of arguing to the point in hand, thus;

Every disciple of Christ (that is, every believer and his s [...]ed) that is baptized by a Minister of the Gospell in the name of the Fath [...]r, Son, and holy Ghost, is truly baptized.

This Proposition i [...] delivered in the Gospell.

But I the child of a b [...]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 [Page 168] 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 P [...]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 signify [...]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 thing [...] 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 [Page 166] Noahs flood did the whol [...] world, which is the meaning of Peters words in the place which you quote, 1 Pet. 3.21. To say nothing, that [...]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, wa [...] 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 i [...] meet for him to doe that promiseth.

The Baptisme of Ananias and Sapphira, of Simon Magus and De­m [...]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 Infant [...] is, be­cause ‘the subject of Baptisme is to bee Passive, but an Infant is no way passive, as that Ordinance requir [...]th. I mean a passive subject threefold.’

‘1 A thing uncapabl [...] and thus is a stone▪’

‘2 A thing forced, and thus is an Infant who oppos [...]th his [Page 170] 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 th [...] [...]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 lawfully, so you conceive children to bee uncapable likewise, and all they upon whom Baptisme is forced. And then the first part of your distinction, is all one with your second part. And a good di­stinction cannot admit such confusion. If you mean a stone is un­capable of Baptisme unlawfully, you know the contrary. For the Papists doe baptize their Fonts and Altars (which are but stones) as well as their Bells, which are not more lawfully capable of Baptisme then stones bee.

Again, when you make your second sort of your passive subject ‘of Baptisme, to bee a forced subject, and Infant [...] to bee such a forced subject, as who doe oppose it to the uttermost ability.’

I dare bee bold to say, the speech is not generally true. For of those many hundreths which I have seen Baptized, though some have seemed to oppose it with crying and strugling, yet I cannot say with truth, that either all of them, or most of them have so done. And for those that have so done, I demand whether the Infants in times before Christ, when they were circumcised, did not more generally, and strongly oppose their Circumcision to the uttermost of their ability, when they felt much more smarting pain in the cutting off of the foreskin of their flesh, then our chil­dren can doe in their Baptisme? And why may such a forced Isra­elite or Proselyte bee a capable subject of Circumcision, and not a forced Infant of a Christian bee in like sort a [...] well capable of Baptisme? The Truth is, in administring either of Circumcision to the Infants of beleeving Israelites, or of Baptisme to the Infants of beleeving Christian [...], respect is not had to the voluntary sub­jection [Page 171] of the Infants, but to the fre [...] and voluntary subjection of their Parents. It is enough for Infants, that as they received ori­ginall corruption without their own personall consent, but in the will of their first Parents: so now they receive (through the grace of the Covenant) a remedy against their originall corruption with­out their owne personall consent, but in the will of their parent.

‘But when you make the Infants opposition of his Baptisme to his uttermost ability, a signe of its farre distance of being passive in the same.’

The truth is by how much the more the Infant opposeth his baptisme, by so much the more hee is active against it, and there­fore being baptized neverthelesse, hee is so much the more passive under it. Your phrase therefore of a passive subject of Baptisme, is ill chosen to expresse your meaning, you might have more suitably said in plainer termes, None are capable subjects of Baptisme, but such as gladly receive it. And for that you might have had some colour from the Word, but that the free and voluntary acts of pa­rents in the matters of the second commandement, are accounted of God for themselves and their children, as was shewed above.

Furthermore, when you exclude Infants from being true passive ‘subjects to r [...]ceive Baptisme, because they are not brought to a free voluntary subjection to receive Baptisme:’ Doe but consider a while, what kinde of passive subjection is found in m [...]n in their regeneration, whereof Baptisme is the signe. The subjects of re­generation, are neither active subjects to rec [...]ive grace, as the Moone is to receive light from the Sunne a (being a lightsome body of it selfe) or as a beggar is to receive an Al [...]es, that stretcheth out his hand for it: nor passively subject, as the aire i [...] to receive light, which though it bee darke maketh no opposition against it: but they are forcibly subject, as being neither able nor willing to come to Christ, except they be drawn, and drawn by the same Al­mighty power, as whereby a dead man is raised to life. Now if men bee forcibly subject to receive conv [...]rting grace in their regene­ration, there is in it nothing repugnant to the nature of Baptis­me in it selfe (which is a signe of regeneration) to admit Infant [...] to it, though they shall be forcibly subject to i [...]. This forcible oppo­sition to Baptisme is of simple Ignorance, not knowing what [...]he Ordinance is: and their opposition is easily overcome by human power. Whereas our opposition in receiving regenerating grace is farre more perverse and untractable, not to be overruled but [Page 172] by a divine Almighty power. It is true, such i [...] the nature of Baptisme by Gods Ordinance, that it requireth in men of yeares regeneration and voluntary subjection to it, before they can be ad­mitted to it, because to them it is a signe and seale of regeneration wrought, and of the righteousnesse of faith imputed to them. But in Infants the Voluntary subjection of Parents in offe [...]ing them to Christ is a sufficient recommendation of them to him for his acceptance of them unto Baptisme, because hee accepteth the offer of their parents, as the gift of their children; and because baptisme is as well a signe and seale of regeneration, and righteousnes promi­sed; as wrought and bestowed. For it is a signe and seale of the Co­venant, and so of all the blessings promised in it, amongst which are regeneration, faith, and forgivenesse of sins, Ier. 31.33, 34. ‘It is true, that you say, no man can receive grace, but by grace: not onely (as you say) because it consists of self-deniall,’ but because it con­sists in laying hold on Christ, who above the reach and power of corrupt nature. But it is a grace and favour of Christ, that he encourageth parents to come to themselves, and to bring their children in their Armes to him. And this grace is a blessing and favour to the children also so brought. For the children that were so brought to Christ, they returned home with a blessing, Mark. 10.16.

‘It is true also, which you say, that obedience to Christ ought to be free.’

But when you say, Baptisme is forced upon an Infant against his will. It is neither altogether true, not at all materiall. Not true, for it may be Infants doe as often cry, when they are carryed home from Baptisme, as when they are brought forth to it. And in pro­per speech, Infants can neither be said, to will, or to nill, what they understand not. The will is a faculty of the reasonable soule: Infant [...] till they have the use of Reason, they have not the exercise of their will. Neither is it materiall, whether Infants bee willing to their Baptisme, or not seeing at that Age God attendeth not to the will of Infants, but to the will of their Parents, and to his owne gratious Covenant, in which he is wont to heale the fro­wardnesse, and to take away the uncircumcision of the heart for hi [...] Name sake.

CHAP. XII.

A Ninth and last Argument against the Baptisme of Infants is, that the doctrine thereof opposeth directly the expresse ‘word of God, by teaching that Infants are in the Covenant of grace being borne of beleeving parents, and so an holy seed, by vertue of which they have right to Baptisme as a Priviledge of Grace, against which the Holy Ghost affirmes, that all are conceived in sinne, brought forth in iniquity, and so by nature the children of wrath and under curse, and except they bee borne againe from above, they cannot see the Kingdome of God, Psal. 51.5. Ephes. 2.1, 2, 3. Rom. 3.9. Gal. 3.10.13, 14. Iohn 3.3.5, 6. Joh 1.12, 13. Here man saith, that Infants are cleane and holy in and from the wombe, and so are subjects of grace and glo­ry: but God saith, that all Infants, one as well as another, are first in sinne and unholy, and so are subjects of wrath, untill the second birth make the difference, Joh. 3.5, 6. And now which to beleeve, let the upright to God judge.’

This whole Argument hath received a full answer above,Silvanus. wee freely acknowledge what the Lord saith, and as wee beleeve wee professe▪ That all of us, wee and our children, are conceived in sinne, and borne in iniquity; by nature the children of wrath and under the curse as well as others, nor can wee see the kingdome of God, nor partake in any saving mercies of the Covenant, ex­cept wee bee borne againe from above: which is all that your al­ledged Scriptures hold forth touching this point. But this we say withall as the Holy Ghost also doth, That though this bee the condition of us all by nature, yet by the grace of the Covenant God is a God to us, and to our seed: and therefore by the faith of either beleeving Parent, the children are holy, and so have the like right to Baptisme, as the children of Abraham had to Cir­cumcision, Baptisme being now appointed to us by God in the roome of Circumcision to them. All which have been cleared a­bove, in opening sundry Scriptures that speake to this purpose. Gal. 3.13, 14▪ 15, 16. Act. 2.39. 1 Cor. 7.14. Col. 2.11, 12. which it were needlesse to expound again, unlesse I know what would bee further objected against that which hath beene gathered out of them.

It is a notorious falshood to say, That because wee hold In­fants [Page 172] [...] [Page 173] [...] [Page 174] of beleeving Parents to bee holy by the Covenant, that ‘therefore wee hold them to bee so clean and holy in and from the wombe, as to exempt them from Originall sinne, and to make them subjects of grace and glory.’ For though wee did hold that all the Infants of beleeving Parents, were regenerate from the wombe, (which wee doe not) yet that would not hin­der the t [...]uth of the Text, that they were conceived in sinne, and borne in iniquity: nor would it argue, that wee hold them to bee so cleane and holy from the wombe, as to bee without sinne. No, no, wee doe beleeve, that the most holy regenerate Saints on earth are uncleane, and sinfull from the wombe, and are still such, defiled with originall sinne, and the fruits thereof, even after they bee Regenerate; and though wee say that some of the Infants of beleeving Parents have beene regenerate from the wombe (as Ieremy, John Baptists and others) and accordingly that they were subjects of saving grace and glory: yet wee never denyed, but doe constantly beleeve, that they also were concei­ved in sinne and borne in iniquity, and were by nature the chil­dren of wrath, as well as others, else what need should they have of reconciliation and Atonement by Christ? But as for other chil­dren of beleeving Parents which are not regenerate by the Holy Ghost (as they were) from the wombe, wee doe beleeve and hold, that though they be the subjects of the common grace of the Cove­nant, and so have right to the seale and signe thereof: yet we doe not hold them to bee subjects of saving grace, much lesse of glory, (as you doe pretend) but to bee still carnall till the Lord bee pleased to apply the saving grace of his Covenant to them in their regeneration, which hee doth to all that belong to his election of grace, and that according to his Covenant in due time. Now therefore when you put it to the upright in heart to judge, which to beleeve, whether your selves, or us, as you state the difference, wee desire the Lord not to lay it to your charge at the day of his righteous judgement, that you put such a false and fraudulent question to the Iudgement of the upright.

But because I doe from my heart unfeignedly desire your full sa­tisfaction in this great point of Christian practise which doth so neerely concerne the free passage of the grace of the Covenant, both to you and your children, tell mee yet, if there yet be left any stumbling blocke in your way which might hinder the presenting of your Infants to the Lords washing in the laver of Baptisme.

CHAP. XIII.

‘YEs,Silvester. besides all the former Arguments which I have alledged (as I finde them) against the Baptisme of Infants, I have met with sundry evill consequences, which doe unavoidably attend your Doctrine of Infants Baptisme.’

‘First, it makes void the stability of Gods Covenant it self, thus, If the Covenant of Grace bee absolute and stable, then all within the same must bee saved. But all within the said Covenant were not saved: Ergo, the Covenant of Grace is not absolute and stable. The Major is confessed, that a beleevers seed is in the Covenant of Grace without excepti­on. The Minor is proved from Ismael, Esau, and the rejected Jewes: all which were the seede of beleevers, and yet all not saved.’

If all the evill consequences,Silvanu [...]. which you say doe unavoidably attend our Doctrine, bee all of them as easily avoidable as this, I hope you will see no cause to judge of them, as you doe, so unavoidable. For this evill consequence is easily avoided by such as maintaine the Baptisme of Infants two or three wayes.

1. There bee some that will deny that which you call the Major, though indeed it be not the Major of that Syllogisme, which your selfe propound; For that Major was this, If the Covenant of Grace bee absolute and stable, then all within the same must bee saved. But I will not stick with you upon termes, though they bee your owne. If you call it a Major, let it goe for a Major: But this which you call a Major, there bee some who will deny it, and tell you, that all the seed of beleevers without exception are not in the Covenant of Grace, but the Elect seed onely. They will grant you, that Ismael and Esau, and all such Apostates, as doe fall off from the Covenant, and grace offered to them, they were never under the Covenant of grace, but of works onely. And yet as all the children of the faithfull, were circumcised then (Is­mael as well as Isaac, Esau as well as Jacob) so ought they to bee baptized now. In this case they conceive the Apostles words stretch so farre, Gal. 4.29. As it was then, so is it now.

But 2. Others will answer you another way, that though the Covenant of grace bee stable, yet it is not absolute: stable to the faithfull seed, but not absolute, but requiring the Condition [Page 176] of faith, which condition also God will worke in the elect seede. And therefore though Ismael and Esau were not saved, yet it is no impeachment to the stability of the Covenant, because the Covenant is onely stable to the faithfull seed, which these were not.

A third Answer somewhat like to this, and yet different, may be this, That though the Covenant of Grace be [...] absolute, and sta­ble, yet it will not follow, that all within that Covenant must bee saved, for the Covenant though it bee absolute and stable to all the elect seed, yet not to all the seed, because all of them are not Elect, to whom onely the Grace of Christ is absolute and stable. And yet such as are not elect may bee truely said to bee under this Covenant. For wee doe not reade in Scripture of any Covenant which is everlasting, but onely the Covenant of Grace, Jer. 32.40. And yet you read of a wicked generation, that have broken this everlasting Covenant, Isa▪ 24.5. which argueth they were under the bond of it, or else how could they bee blamed (as there they bee) and cursed, for the breach of it? They therefore who were not Elected but accursed, were under this Covenant, and yet they making it void unto themselves, it is evident it was not abso­lute and stable to them. The unbeleeving Jews (of whom the A­postle speaketh, Rom. 11.) who were broken off from Christ (as branches from the fat Olive tree) they had beene in some sense in Christ, or else how could they bee said to bee broken off from him? And if they were in him, and not by faith, then were they in him some other way, and yet not by Election: therefore onely by Adoption, or admission into the Covenant of their Fathers, which was a Covenant of Grace.

CHAP. XVI.

‘Silvester.A Second evill consequence, which I finde to bee gathered from your doctrine of the Baptisme of Infants, is this, that it is a ground of falling from Grace, thus. All that God tooke into his Covenant of Grace, were in an estate of Grace. But all that God tooke into his Covenant of Grace, did not therein continue, Ergo, Such fell from an estate of Grace.’

An easy and common distinction will easily avoid this evill con­quence. [Page 177] For all that God tooke into his Covenant of grace,Silvanus. may bee said to bee in a state of Grace, but what Grace? either of common, or of saving Grace. If your meaning bee, all that God tooke into a Covenant of Grace are in an estate of saving Grace: wee deny that Major proposition, as utterly untrue. But if you meane it of common Grace in the carnall seed, and of saving Grace in the Elect seed, then indeed your Major proposition is very true: but no evill consequence will follow upon it. For the Elect and fai [...]hfull seed that are in an estate of saving Grace, can ne­ver fall away. And they who do fall away were onely in a state of commom Grace: which is no ill consequence nor prejudice to the truth, though they doe fall away.

CHAP. XV.

‘3. THe Baptisme of Infants is a ground of universall Redem­ption,Silvester. for it maketh the Grace of Christ equall as well to such as perish, as to such as bee saved. Thus all that are in the Covenant of Grace, Christ died for. But all that were in the Covenant of Grace were not saved. Ergo, Christ dyed for such as were not saved. The proofe of this is the same with the for­mer: If God tooke Abraham and his seed into his Covenant of Grace without exeception.’

Though God did take the seed of Abraham and of all other beleevers into the Covenant of Grace without exception:Silvanus. yet not without distinction. The Elect seed hee taketh them all into his Covenant of Grace, and into all the sure and saving mercies of the Covenant. But the carnall and unfaithfull seed hee taketh them also into his Covenant of Grace, yet giveth them not the sure and saving mercies thereof, but the common graces onely, and the outward dispensation of the Covenant, and the seale thereof, to­gether with such spirituall gifts of the Covenant, as Judas, or De­mas, Saul, or Jehu, might partake of. And even those common gifts the Apostle doth acknowledge, that Apostates are sancti­fied with them by the bloud of the Covenant, Heb. 10.29. The Covenant ratified by the bloud of Christ, was doubtlesse the Co­venant of Grace. And yet it was by the bloud of this Covenant by which they were sanctified. But to apply my answer more punctu­ally to the termes of your Syllogisme; your Major proposition will [Page 178] bee denyed, all that are in the Covenant of grace Christ dyed for them; If you meane hee dyed for them out of Grace to save them, it will utterly bee denyed you. That Christ should die for any out of his grace to save them is a sure and saving mercy of the Co­venant: which is not granted to all the seed within the Covenant, but to the elect and faithfull seed onely. The very common gifts which such receive from the bloud of his Covenant and so from his death, they flow not from the death of Christ out of his sa­ving grace to them, but out of his grace to his Church and chosen people, for whose sake hee bestoweth such gifts upon Hypo­crites.

CHAP. XVI.

‘Silvester.THe 4. evill consequence which I have found gathered from the doctrine of the Baptisme of Infants, is this, That it makes God the Author of mans beleeving an untruth, by enjoyning him to beleeve the salvation of such as hee himselfe knowes and reveales the contrary, as Ismael, Esau, and but a remnant among the Jews, nay none at all but such as beleeve, Gen. 17. Gen. 25. Gen. 48. Rom. 9.27. Against which opinion and evills aforesaid, I Argue thus: The Covenant is absolute and saving to all once within the same. But all the personal seed of beleevers are not sa­ved, Therefore all the seede of beleevers are not in the Covenant of Grace. The proposition is cleare from these Scriptures. Jer. 32.40. Isay 49.21. Jer. 31.3. Ioh. 13.1. Mal. 3.6. Ioh. 10.28, 29. The assumption from these, Gen. 21.10. with Gal. 4.29, 30. Gen. 25.23. with Rom. 9.11, 12, 13, 27. God requireth no man to beleeve untruth, therfore God requireth no such thing.’

Silvanus.I doe not delight to take exception at words, when one may guesse at your meaning, though it bee contrary to your words. But because you would pick an argument, from a true doctrine of God, to gather an evill consequence, that so God should bee an Author to make a man beleeve, that which he himself knoweth and revealeth the contrary: I conceive it to tend to the glory of God to observe, that your self in laying downe this Argument doe ex­presse your selfe contrary to that which you know to bee your meaning: and doe affirme God to know that, which you know [Page 179] is contrary to his knowledge. For you expresly make it an untruth and contrary to what God himselfe knoweth and revealeth to be­leeve the salvation (I doe not say of Ismael and Esau, for it is an untruth indeed to beleeve their salvation) but to beleeve the salva­tion of a remnant among the Jews, nay of none at all, but such as doe beleeve. Truely if God had not blinded you for offering to argue God to be an Author of an untruth, upon the supposition of the Baptisme of infants (which is an holy truth of God) you would never have delivered so palpable an untruth contrary to ‘your owne knowledge, as to say, this is an untruth contrary to what God himself knoweth and reveales, to beleeve the salvation of a remnant among the Jews,’ nay of none at all but such as be­leeve. But to leave your inconsiderate boldnesse in arguing God of an untruth, which falleth upon your selfe; to your Argument I answer (as before) by denying your proposition. This I deny, that the Covenant of Grace is absolute and saving unto all once within the same: you heape up many Scriptures to prove it, but none of them without violence will bee wrested to beare witnesse to it; your first Scripture in Ier. 32.40. Doe you thinke it speaketh of all the people, whom God brought out of Babel into Hierusalem againe? or of the Elect onely? If of all the people, (as v. 38. might seeme to imply) surely the Covenant of Grace was not absolute and saving to them all. There was among them Shemajah, and Noadiah false Prophets which sought to discourage the hands of Nehemiah in his work, N [...]hem▪ 6.10. to 14. And there were al­so Nobles of Iudah, that kept intelligence with Tobiah, and were sworne to him, v. 17, 18, 19. and can you thinke that the Covenant of Grace was absolute and stable unto such as these? But if you meane that the Covenant of Grace was absolute & stable to the elect seed, you speake truely and safely, and therein also wee agree with you. But then you must not stand to your former proposition, ‘that the Covenant of Grace is absolute and stable unto all once within the same.’ For as it was before the captivity, there were some that brake the everlasting Covenant, Isa. 24.5. and there­fore some were once within the Covenant, to whom it was not ab­solute and stable: so was it also after the captivity, that Covenant promised to give them one heart, that they might feare the Lord for ever, for the good of them, and of their children afte [...] them, verse 39. And yet some of them did not feare God themselves, and many of their children did soone degenerate, in so much that in [Page 180] the dayes of Malachi the whole Nation fel to the robbery of God and were cursed with a curse in stead of the sure mercies of the Covenant, Mal. 3.9. The other Scriptures which you doe alledge to prove your proposition (that the Covenant of Grace is abso­lute and stable unto all once within the same) they none of them speake to your purpose. The Text in Isay 49.21. speaketh that the Church shall wonder at the increase of her children, after shee had lost the other, and shall therefore enquire, who had begotten these to her. But what maketh this to prove that the Covenant of Grace is absolute and stable to all those who are once within the same? It rather proveth that some of the children of the Church, and so some within the Covenant of the Church have beene lost, and that is contrary to your proposition.

Your next place in Ierem. 31.3. holdeth forth that God loved the house of Israel with an everlasting love; and the text in Ioh. 13.1. declareth that whom Christ loveth hee loveth to the end: And that in Mal. 3.6. teacheth us that the Lord Jehovah is unchangea­ble, and therefore that the sonnes of Iacob perish not. And your last place in Ioh. 10.28, 29. sheweth us that Christ giveth [...]nto his sheepe everlasting life, that they shall never perish. But what is all this to prove that none are within the Covenant of grace but such as God loveth with an everlasting unchangeable love un­to the end, and who shall receive everlasting life? All these places doe prove indeed that God hath a people to whom his love is stable and also absolute, but saith nothing to any such purpose, that all once within the Covenant of Grace doe partake in this state of absolute unchangeable and everlasting love and life of Christ.

CHAP. XVII.

Silvester.THere bee four or five other Arguments against that Baptisme of Infants which were received in England: which though they doe not so take with me, as the former doe, yet I desire to heare what you thinke of them, because I finde more difficulty in them, then I can easily resolve. ‘The 1. is taken from the false power by which Baptisme is administred in England, and that is by power received from the Bishops.’

‘2. From the false ground upon which it is there admini­stred [Page 181] upon the faith and profession of the Godfathers and God­mothers.’

‘3. From the fal [...]e manner, in which it is administred, that is, by springling and not dipping.’

‘4. From the false end, for which it is administred, which is for the Regeneration of the Infants.’

‘5. From the false subject of Baptisme; which being onely Infants, it commeth to passe, that now in England the Baptisme of beleevers (which the Gospell acknowledgeth) is worne out of use, and instead thereof the Baptisme of Infants, is come in place: of whom it may bee, not one of a thousand at that age is a be­leever. But of this subject of Baptisme, wee have had much speech already.’

‘Now for the first of these, the power whereby the Ministers of England doe exercise their office, and so baptize, It is derived from the Bishop, and the Bishop is not ordained by Christ but by Antichrist, at least, by humane power, and such is all the prower derived from him, Antichristian, or at best, Hu­mane.’

Such as hold the Bishops to bee of divine Institution (as many English Ministers have done) they will easily avoid your Argu­ment,Silvan [...]. if they could as easily make good their owne Tenent of the divine right of Episcopasie. But let them passe, and every plantation which our heavenly father hath not planted, let it bee rooted out. Take it therefore thus rather the powers, whereby the Ministers in England doe administer the word and Baptisme, it is either spiri­tuall and proper, &c. essentiall to their calling, or adventitious, or accidentall. The former they have received from Christ by a double Act of his.

1. He hath furnished many of them with Ministeriall gifts.

2. Hee hath inclined the hearts of his people, either to choose and call them (as in many parishes of the City, and in sundry Mar­ket Townes and elsewhere:) or at least to accept them, and to submit to them being commended to them by the Patron. The latter pow­er, which is adventitious and accidentall, is that which they receive from the Patron who presents them to the Bishop, and from the Bishop, who ordaineth and licenseth them to administer unto Christ, and his people. This power though it hath beene esta­blished by the law of the Land, yet it is both adventitious, and accidentall (for the Ministers power i [...] compleate without it) [Page 182] and it is also usurped; For neither had the Law lawful power from Christ to give such power to the Patron and Bishop: nor had the Bishop and Patron lawfull right from Christ to receive it. But as the Law then stood in force, neither could the People choose their Minister without leave of the Patron, nor induct him into their Church without the O [...]dination and license of the Bishop. Thus when Pirates have invaded a ship, no man in it (neither Officer nor Passenger) can come by his owne goods, but by leave of the Pirates; who upon their submission to them, will give them the keyes of their owne vessels and chests. This power (to come to their owne goods) received from the Pirates, is not that which giveth them true and proper right to enter upon the possession and use of their owne goods (for that right they had by a former just title,) which Pirates cannot disanull, but it is onely adventitious and accidentall. I need not apply it to the case in hand, the Appli­cation is obvious.

Silvester.But all such submission either of People or Ministers unto such u­surpation is it not a sinne?

Silvanus.That is another Question, and meete to be considered by the per­sons whom it concerneth: but not much materiall to the cause. The persons surprized in a ship by pirates whom they are not able to re­sist, may submit to this power which they cannot neither overcome, nor avoid: But Ministers and People, if they cannot overcome such usurped power in the Church (which now by the helpe of Christ they begin to doe by the aide of some superior Power,) yet they may avoide it, by seeking the liberty of their consciences, and of their Churches, in some foraine Countries or Plantations. Nei­ther can any men so lawfully give away upon any termes, the liber­ty of their consciences, and of their Churches, as they may give away the possession of their goods. But to speake to the cause in hand, though it be granted that the Patron and Bishop doe unlaw­fully usurpe such Power, and that the Ministers and people doe un­lawfully also submit to it: yet such adventitious & accidentall cor­ruptions of the Persons doe not make void the spirituall true, and holy calling, which the Ministers receive from Christ, nor make their administrations dispensed in that calling to bee of none effect. Nay verily their calling and the worke of it (for the substance [...]hereof) God hath borne witnesse to it from heaven, by setting the seale of his blessing upon their labours in the Ministery. The A­postle Paul proveth himself to be sent of Christ, to the Corinthians [Page 173] especially, by the conversion of many of them unto God by his Ministery. Though I bee not an Apostle to others (saith hee) yet doubtlesse I am unto you: for the seale of mine Apostleship are ye in the Lord, 1 Cor. 9.1.2. with Chap. 4.15, 16. By the same Argument Paul gathered that the Gospell of the Circumcision was committed to Peter, and the Gospell of the uncircumcision to himselfe, because of the gracious and effectuall power of Christ, which breathed in his Ministery to the Gentiles, and in Peters Ministery to the Jewes. Peter, James, and John, they saw (saith hee) that the Gospell of the uncir­cumcision was committed to mee, and the Gospell of the Circum­cision unto Peter: For hee that wrought effectually in Peter to the Apostleship of the Circumcision, the same was mighty in mee to the Gentiles, Gal. 2.7, 8, 9. And this Argument taken from the Powerfull presence of God with a Ministery to confirme the lawfull authority of it, though it now meete with exceptions, & cavils from the sonnes of men: yet God himself judgeth it to bee of that weight, and convincing power, as to stop the mouths even of gainsaying Rebels, and quiete to take away al murmurings against it, and against him in it. The story is well known, when the People of Israel, and some of the tribe of Levi had often murmured against Aaron and his sonnes for executing the Priests Office; the Lord commanded Moses to take twelve Rods from the fathers of the twelve Tribes of Israel, and to lay them up, and Aarons rod amongst them, before the Lord in the Tabernacle: to the intent that the Lord might shew by his blessing upon any of the Rods, which of all the Tribes himselfe had chosen to minister before him. And in the morning when the Rods were taken forth, the Rod of Aaron had budded, and brought forth buds and bloomed blossoms, and yeelded Al­monds, Num. 17.5. to 10. which was an effectuall demonstration of the divine approbation of Aarons Ministery. And if this be such an effectuall demonstration of a ministers calling to be of god, that the Lord blesseth the Rod of his Ministery with fruitfull increase; then let all the murmurings of Gods people against the truth of the cal­ling of the Godly Ministers in England cease for ever.

Harlots are sometimes blessed of God with fruitfull increase as well as chast wives.Silvester. And therefore though Ministers and Chur­ches may bee blessed with Conversion and Regeneration of soules unto God, yet it is no evident Demonstration of the truth, either of such Ministers or such Churches.

Then i [...] the Argument of God taken from the miraculous bud­ding,Silvanu [...]: [Page 184] and blossoming and fruitfulnesse of Aarons Rod of none ef­fect. For in the conversion of soules there is a concourse of a the miracles of Christ together, the blinde see, the deafe heare, the lame walke, the dead are raised up, dead and dry bones live, dry sticks bud, and blossome and bring forth fruite. All such mi­racles (which doe all meete in the conversion of a sinner) they are all of them divine Testimonies, and can bee wrought by none other but by God himselfe: And God never worketh any such to con­firme, either a false calling, or any false doctrine.

It is true, Harlots are sometimes followed with fruitfull increase, but that is because God hath given a generall blessing in nature to men, and beasts. That in the mutuall fellowship of both sexes in either kinde, they shall increase and multiply children to him­selfe.

Besides, though Harlots sometimes bee fruitfull, yet the hus­bands of such Harlots will not acknowledge the children of whoredomes for their owne children: No more will the Lord ac­knowledge so many of the People of England, to bee children un­to himselfe, if they were the children of whoredomes, borne of a wife of whoredomes, Hos. 2.2.4. The 7000. in Israel, that did not bow their knees to Baall, they were not begotten to God, by the Ministery of the Priests, either of Baal or of Jeroboam, but of the Prophets of the Lord, 1 Kings 18.37.

Silvest [...]r.But it is certaine many are baptized in England by dumbe dogs that cannot preach, and therefore cannot beget soules to God; and such Christ never sent to baptize, Mat. 28.19.

Silvanus.If they cannot preach, the greater is their sinne to baptize, or to enter into such a calling whereto the administration of Baptisme pertaineth. But neverthelesse, though God delighteth not to make use of such instruments for the conversion of soules: yet their ad­ministrations of the seales (which are given not for conversion, but for confirmation of grace, either formerly wrought or to bee wrought) they are not nullities. Circumcision of the ten Tribes after the Apostasie of Jeroboam, and after the casting out of the Priest [...] and Levites (2 Chron. 11.14, 15.) was generally administred by uncleane hands. For though Circumcision at first might have beene administred by the father of the family (as might also the Passeover be killed by them) yet after the Priests & Levites were set apart for the publike service of God and his people, then looke as their Passeovers were to bee killed onely by the Priests and Levites: [Page 185] So the Analogy of the seales requireth, that Circumcision al­so should onely bee administred by the Priests and Levites. Now when the Priests and Levites were cast out of office in the ten Tribes, Jeroboams Priests that came in their roome, were as Ignorant and unskilfull to expound the Law, as any (whom you in the Pro­phets phrase call) dumbe dogs, are unskilfull to preach the Go­spell, 1 Kings 13.33. 2 Chron. 15.3. But if Circumcision were then dispensed by the Fathers of the families, they were also an Igno­rant and rebellious people, a people Apostate from God, and such as lived either without Law, (2 Chron. 15 3.) or in open transgres­sion of the Law (1 Kings 19.10) In which case the Apostle saith in some sense (that is, in respect of the spirituall benefit of it) their Circumcision is made uncircumcision, Rom. 2.25. Notwithstand­ing let it bee remembered, that in Israel, though none were allowed to partake in the Passeover, but such as are circumcised, (they and their families) Exod. 12.48. yet this people of the ten Tribe [...] after they came to humble themselves before the Lord▪ they (in such Cir­cumcision as they had) were accepted to the Passeover: which was an Evidence, that the Church at Hierusalem did not looke at the Circumcision of the ten Tribes as a Nullity; or else they would have kept them from the Passeover, which they did not, 2 Chron. 30.5, 6.11.18.

But the Church of Israel had sometimes a true constitution:Silvester. and therefore their administrations were not nullities, though after their Apostasie all their Ordinary administrations were corrupt and poluted. But the Church of England never had a true constitu­tion, but an Antichristian, and therefore such are all their admini­strations.

Bee not unwilling to receive a double Answer,Silvanus. and both of them just.

1. The Church of the ten Tribes, it never had a true constituti­on. It was at first founded in a Publick profession of a generall re­jection of the promised seed, which was to spring out of the house of David, 1 Kings 12.16. And that rejection of the promised seed out of Davids house, was as much as the rejection of the promised M [...]ssiah, to have any part or portion in their Church. Now can there bee a true constitution of the Church, where there wanteth a true foundation? Besides, when God saith, that for a long season (to wit, ever since the time of their Apostasie, Israel was without God, without a Priest to teach, without the Law, (2 Chron. 15.3.) [Page 186] could they have the true constitution of a Church without God, without Priest, without Law?

An. [...]. As it is a false and erronious speech to affirme the Church of the ten Tribes to have had sometimes a true constitution, so it is no lesse false and rash, to deny the Churches of England ever to have had a true constitution. Rash, for can you say it, or doe you know it because you were then born, or because the number of your dayes is great? As God questioneth Job in another case, Iob 38.21. Or have you found out such a matter by reading of ancient records and stories? truly if you dare credit them (and doubtlesse they are more worthy of credit that lived nearer those ancient times, and had the view of antient records, rather then some of your late bookes, who speak either out of Partiality to Rome, as the Iesuites, or out of preju­dice against the state of the Church of England, as some rigid Sepa­ratists doe:) but those antient records will tell you that England re­ceived the faith of Christ by Joseph of Arimathea, by Simon Zelotes, by others of those primitive Apostolick Saints who doubtlesse planted Churches not after the patterne of Antichrist, but after the manner of the Apostles. And though English Jesuites will needs make England be holding to Rome for their conversion: yet Bar [...]ni­us is more ingenuous (though himselfe a Cardinall, and wanting no affection to Rome) who ingenuously confesseth, England received the Gospell ten yeares (though others speake but of five yeares) before Rome it selfe. For hee speaketh out of Manuscript records, That the Gospell was brought to England in the yeare of Christ 35. and to Rome, in the yeare 45. Any whom you dare trust may compare his Annalls in the yeare 35. number 5 with the yeare 45 number 1. But because you will not enquire what is written in Latin bookes, it may be of some use to helpe you, to read of this point what you may finde in Mr. Foxe his booke of Martyrs, in the begin­ing of the 2 booke of his first [...]ome, in the Reigne of King Luius: as also in Cambdens description of Britany during the times of the Romans government, and in Speedes Chronicle, 9. Chap. of the 5 booke. Yea many yeares, (and some ages) after when the Bishop of Rome sent Augustine into England, the godly teachers and peo­ple of England refused to receive him, either in way of subjecti­on to his government, or of conformity to the rites of Rome, as Beda recordeth in his History of the English Nation. 2. Booke 2. Chap. And in the former part of the History (1. Booke 26. Chap.) hee acknowledgeth the Churches of England compelled none to [Page 187] receive Christian Religion, but received such as offered them­selves. Now though it came to passe, that the Christians in En­gland (above 200 yeares after the first planting of the Gospell a­mongst them) were much wasted by the persecution of the Em­peror Dioclesian, and after that by the Instigation of Augustine the Monke: yet God is never wont so to forsake his people, as to leave no remnant amongst them to call upon his Name, who though in processe of time they came to bee corrupted and polluted by Antichristian usurpations and inventions, as all other Christi­an Nations were, yet that did not cast them into a worse estate, then the estate of the ten tribes of Israel under Jeroboam and his suc­cessors, especially under Ahab and Jezabel, & the times succeeding; when as yet their Circumcision was not a nullity, as hath beene declared above. Unlesse therefore you have any more to object a­gainst our Baptisme received in England from the power by which it is administred, let us proceed to your next exception against our Baptisme in England.

CHAP. XVIII.

THe second exception against our Baptisme received in England, Silvester. is taken from the false ground upon which it is administred, as the former was from the false power, by which it is administred. Now that false ground upon which it is administred, is the faith and profession not of the Parents (whose Covenant you are wont to stand upon) but of the God-fathers and God-mothers, whose Covenant doth not reach by any Institution of God to their gossips children, whatsoever it may doe to their owne.

I doe willingly acknowledge, where the Parents of the baptized are still living, and doe intend to educate the children themselves,Silvanus. there the use of God-fathers and God-mothers (as they call them) in Baptisme (though it bee ancient) yet it is a sinfull superaddition to the institution. But when the Parents are dead or absent, and the child is to bee brought up in the house of a Christian friend and brother, the Covenant of such a Christian brother extendeth to all that are borne in his house and bought with his money. And hi [...] profession before the Church to bring up the child com­mitted to him, in the way of the Covenant of Grace, it is as ac­ceptabl [...] for the receiving of the child to Baptisme, as the Cove­nant [Page 188] of Abraham was available to bring not onely his sonnes, but also all that were borne in his house, or bought with his money, under the Covenant and seale of Circumcision, Gen. 17.12, 13.2. I may further answer and testify upon knowledge, that ma­ny children have beene and are baptized in England without God-fathers and Godmothers, and without any Interrogatories pro­pounded to them, onely upon the Covenant and profession of their parents.

3. When children are baptized upon the profession of their God-fathers and God-mothers, It is not the intendment or do­ctrine of the Church, to baptize them, upon the Covenant and pro­fession of their God-fathers: but to binde the sureties that when the childe groweth up to yeares of capacity, they shall assist the parents in the Christian Education of the childe, that he may learn and pra­ctice those good things, which at his baptism they promised & un­dertooke for him, as appeareth by the charge given to the sureties.

4. The superfluous superaddition of the sureties or Witnesses to the Sacrament of Baptisme, doth not make Baptisme a nullity: no more then the superaddition, of Love Feasts to the Lords Supper, doth make that a nullity. Wood, Hay, and stubble layed upon a good foundation, doth not take away the foundation. And hee that so buildeth doth not lose his foundation, but his superstructure, the superfluous worke which hee built upon it, 1 Cor. 3.12, 13, 15. If a defect in the faith of man, doth no [...] make the faith of God of none effect, Rom. 3.3, 4. much lesse doth a defect in the manner of the profession of the faith (to wit, by a Deputy rather then by a mans owne mouth) make the Cove­nant or the Seale of the Covenant of none effect.

CHAP. XIX.

Silvester.GOE on a long, and tell mee what you answer to the third ex­ception against our English Baptism, that is, the false manner, in which it is administred, to wit, by sprinkling, not by dipping.

Silvanus.I might answer you truly, that if dipping were the onely way to bee chosen, in which children are to be baptized, yet, even so by dip­ping is Baptisme appointed to bee administred in England, by the very Rubrick in the Common-prayer booke. The Minister ‘saith the Rubricke shall take the childe in his hands, and asking [Page 189] the nam [...] sh [...]ll dip it in the water (so it bee discreetely and wari­ly done:)’ And i [...] the childe bee weak [...], it shall suffice to poure water upon it. Blame not therefore the Baptisme in England for be­ing administred in such a mann [...]r, a [...] your selfe desire; and not di­recting the other way, but in case of the childes weaknesse, wher [...] God himself [...] would [...]ather accept of m [...]rcy then sacrifice.

But I see not how sprinkling in any case can bee true Baptisme.Silvester.

For 1. Baptisme never signifyeth sprinkling, but dipping. So that sprinkling i [...] against the Institution whereby the Apostles ar [...] commanded to baptize Disciples which is to dip them, not to be-sprinkle them.

2. The examples of Baptisme in the New Testament shew that Baptisme was administred by Dipping, not by sprinkling, Iohn Baptist baptized [...]y Dipping Ioh. 3.23. Mat. 3.16. so did Philip the E­vangelist. Acts 8.38, 39.

3. Dipping doth lively Represent our fellowship with Christ in his Death, Buriall, resurrection; not so sprinkling.

It is utterly untrue, that Baptisme never signifyeth sprinkling,Silvanus. but dipping. It signifyeth generally washing, whether by dipping or sprinkling: infusion, or affusion. In Acts 22.16. Bee bapti­zed and wash away thy sinnes, the latter word interpreteth the for­mer. In 1 Cor. 10.2. the Israelites are said to have been al baptized in the [...] cloude, and in the sea: Wherein neverthelesse they were not dipped, nor drenched, nor doused, but onely sprinkled, for they went over dry-shod, Exod. 14.22. In Heb. 9.10. where it is said in the Greeke the service stood in divers Baptismes, the translation readeth i [...], in divers washings. In Dan. 4.33. where it is translated he was wet with the dew of Heaven, the Greeke Septuagint expres­seth it in the same word, whereof Baptizing is derived.

Touching the second instance, whereby you ple [...]d for dipping from the ex [...]mple of Iohn Baptist and Philip, I willingly acknow­ledge, that Dipping is a lawfull manner of Baptizing. Bu [...] if you contend from these example [...], that dipping is the onely way of Baptizing, and such a dipping as amounts to drenching, or dousing, that is, to dipping of the whole body over head and eares, those examples doe not pr [...]se upon us either of these: For though Iohn Baptist did bapti [...]e sometime in Iordan, sometime in Ae [...]n, where there might [...] water enough to drench the baptized▪ yet where h [...]d th [...] Apostl [...] water enough in the streets of Hierusalem to d [...]nch the [...] p [...]rso [...], whom they baptized in one day? Acts [Page 109] 2.41. It is much more probable, that they either sprinkled them with water, or poured water upon their face or heads. For it is not said, that the Apostles carryed them away from thence to any poole, or river, where they might bee drenched. In Philips bapti­zing of Eunuch, it is said, they went down both together into the water, to wit, both Philip, and the Eunuch, Acts 8.38. But their go­ing downe into the water was not part of the Baptisme: For Philip went downe into the water, as well as the Eunuch. And it was no part of Philips meanning to baptize himselfe. Besides, the words translated they went downe, expresseth no more but that they de­scended out of the Chariot into the water: but how deep is not at all mentioned.

Furthermore, It is a consideration of weight with mee, that though the person baptized bee said to descend into the water, yet the baptizing lay not in the descending, or dipping of the body in­to the water, but in the sprinkling, or pouring the water upon the body. For in dipping wee apply the body to the water: In sprinkling, or pouring the water, the water is applied to the body: which doth more lively set forth the grace of Christ in the washing away of our sinnes; which is done, rather by applying Christs blood to us, then by applying our selves to the blood of Christ.

Moreover when you stand so much for dipping, I demand, and I pray you answer to mee, (or to your selfe ingenuously) Whether would you have the whole body dipped or part onely? If the whole body, whether naked, or clothed? If clothed, then outward bap­tisme is not a washing of the flesh, but of the cloaths rather; If na­ked, how will it stand with civility or modesty to Baptize men and women of grown yeares, (for children you admit none) in the face of the whole Congregation? No marvell then, if the Sect of the Adamites grow out of your Sect. But if you require but part of the body to bee baptized, I demand what part? If the face, that is our usuall manner of baptizing in England; but that you im­plead, as false. If the hands and feete, and head also, that is it in­de [...]d which Peter offered in a like case, Joh. 13.9. But Christ an­swereth him the washing of one part was enough, and would suffice to signify the washing and purifying of the whole man, every whit, v. 10. And in very truth, the whole virtue and efficacy of the death of Christ is as well, and as fully applyed in the Act of sprinkling, as of dipping. When Esay prophecyed the Applicati­on of the death of Christ to the Redemption of many Nations, [Page 191] hee foretold, that Christ should sprinkle many Nations, Esay, 52.15. And when the Apostle exhorteth us to draw neer unto God in full assurance of faith (in respect of the perfect Oblation of Christ for us once for all, Heb. 10.22.) hee expresseth our drawing neare as having our hearts sprinkled from an evill conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water, The faithfull people of God are not wont to value the virtue of the gifts of Christ, from the bulke of outward signes, but from the lively virtue and power of the Spi­rit of life conveyed in them. The Spirit of a Cordiall is as much conveyed in a small dôsis, as in a grosse drugge. It is a small mor­sell of Bread, and a little cup of Wine, which wee partake in at the Lord [...] Supper: and yet therein wee partake of whole Christ, God and Man. If wee should eate the whole Naturall body of Christ, and drinke all his Blood, it would not profit us so much. It is the Spirit that quickneth us, Ioh. 6.36. Bodily exercise profit­eth "little. 1 Tim. 4.8.

‘But say you in your third exception, against sprinkling, sprink­ling doth not so lively represent our fellowship with Christ n his Death, Buryall, and resurrection, as dipping doth.’

Answ. Why not as lively, seeing as fully? Being sprinkled in our hearts from an evill conscience, wee draw neare unto Christ in full assurance of Faith, as you heard even now out of Heb. 10.22. and Christ in sprinkling many nations applyed to them the whole efficacy of his Death, Isa. 52.15. And the Apostle setteth forth the faithfull of the New-Testament, to have come to the rightfruiti­on of the riches, of gratious, and glorious Priviledges of the Heaven­ly Hierusalem, in that wee are come to the bloud of sprinkling, Heb. 12.24. And Peter also setteth forth the full benefit of our election, in being chosen (as the Originall words runne) to the obedience and sprinkling of the Blood of Iesus, 1 Pet. 1.1. If therefore being sprinkled with the blood of Christ, wee have full fellowship with Christ in his Death, surely the sprinkling of the person baptized with water in Baptisme, doth fully and lively resemble the sprink­ling and pouring out of the blood of Christ upon him. And in his lying under the water poured and sprinkled upon him, thereby is plainly shewen forth his fellowship with Christ in his Bu­ryall. And in his arising from under the water, is in like sor [...] held forth his fellowship with Christ in his Resurrection.

CHAP. XXII.

Silvester.VVHat say you then to the fourth Exception, against the Baptisme received in England, taken from the false end, for which it is Administred, to wit, for the Regeneration of the present Infants? And it plainly seemeth no otherwise to mee, by the prayers and Collects which are appointed to bee read in the ‘booke of the Common Prayer before, and after Baptisme. For before Baptisme they pray, that the Infants comming to this holy Baptisme, might receive remission of sinnes by spirituall Re­generation. And after Baptisme, the Minister is appointed to give thanks upon this ground, that seeing these children are Re­generate and graffed into the body of Christs Congregati­on &c.’

Silvanus.For Answer, take these two things, and either of them will avoid your acception.

First, That the Church of England doth not administer Baptism for this end, to work Regeneration.

Secondly, That though it should aime at such an end, yet that would not make the Baptisme false.

For the fitst, The Church of England doth professedly teach the contrary Doctrine, not onely in their Pulpits, but in Bookes al­lowed by publique authority, That the Sacraments doth not be­get Faith, nor Regeneration, ex opere operato, but they are signes and seales of both. Neither do the publique prayers of the Church hold forth their judgement otherwise. But as in judgement they doe beleeve, that God by Covenant promiseth to poure clean wa­ter upon us, and upon our seed, Ezek. 36.25. Isa. 44.3. and that he sealeth the Covenant and promise by Baptisme: So before Bap­tisme they pray him to accomplish this Promise according to his Covenant, which God is about to confirme by that seale. And af­ter Baptisme they taking Gods Word and Seale as a Pledge and assurance of the thing already done, which will indeed in due time bee done according to the true intent and meaning of Gods Word and Seale, (that is, to the elect seed absolutely, to the na­turall seed sufficiently to leave them without excuse in the offer of the meanes) they therefore give him thankes for it, as done alrea­dy. When Israel heard their redemption out of Egypt, and saw the signes which Moses wrought for the confirmation of it, they be­leeved [Page 193] and bowed their heads and worshipped, as if they had seen the worke already wrought, which they saw onely in the pro­mise and in the signe, Exod. 4.30, 31. When Gedeon had received the promise of deliverance from the Midianites, and saw the same confirmed by a signe (though it were but by a dreame) hee wor­shipped God with praise and thanksgiving; as if the deliv [...]rance had beene already wrought, Judges, 7.13, 14, 15. I neede not apply it.

For the Second, Though the Church of England had such a cor­rupt and false end in their Baptisme (which they have not) as to ad­minister the same for the working of Regeneration: yet that would not make it a false Baptisme. The Nature and vertue of the Sacra­ment doth not depend upon the intention of the Minister. The Iewish Teachers in the time of Christ, and of his Apostles had a corrupt and false end in Administring Circumcision, to wit, as necessary to Iustification and Salvation, Act. 15. yet that mis­beleife or unbeleife of man did not evacuate the Faith of God, nor the truth of his Ordinance, Rom. 3.3. In the Dispensing of any Ordinance of God, a corrupt, or false end may vitiate or e­vacuate any Ordinance to the Dispenser himselfe; not so to the re­ceiver; They that preached Christ of envy, intending to adde affliction to Pauls Bonds, their intent was corrupt and false, and so made their Ministery unprofitable to themselves. Neverthelesse Paul rejoyced in the preaching of Christ even in such a way, Phil. 1.15, 16, 17, 18. which doubtlesse hee would not have done if the Preaching had beene false, and produced onely false effects in the people of God.

CHAP. XXI.

THE Fifth exception against the Baptisme received in England, Silvester. taken from the false subject (meaning Infants) I am loth to trouble you any more with that, wee have had already speach e­nough for the present about it. But because I meete with a further doubt about it, which stumbleth many, I pray you speake a word further to it. ‘The true subject of Baptisme, is beleevers: and though you adde, their seed also, yet beleevers are the principall subject. But now all the people of England being Baptized in their Infancy, it is now come to passe, that the Baptisme of be­leevers [Page 194] is utterly abandoned out of England. And if all other Churches did the like (as generally they doe, except it bee a few [...] whom the rest doe commonly, but falsely call Anabaptists) then the Baptisme of beleevers would utterly be abandoned out of the world.’

Silvanus.Our answer is ready in two or three words.

First, If Infants themselves bee beleevers (as some of them be, or else all of them be damned, Mark. 16.16.) then in baptizing all the Infants of the faithfull, the Baptisme of some beleevers is continu­ed in them.

Secondly, If all the people of England bee baptized, and many of them bee beleevers, then supposing (as hath beene proved) the Bap­tisme of the seed of beleevers to bee lawfull, there is no beleever in England, nor in any such like Church in the world, that is left un­baptized.

Thirdly, If a beleever bee not in Gods account baptized himselfe, till his seed bee baptized also, (as hath been shewed above) then a­bandon the Baptisme of the seed of beleevers (two wit, the Baptisme of Infants) out of the world, and abandon the baptisme of beleevers out of the world, neither is there any conpetent, reason, that should exclude Infants (the seed of beleevers) from being capable and competent subjects of baptisme, as well as their beleeving Parents.

For first, They are consoederates with God (partakers of his Co­venant) as well as their parents. I will bee (saith God) a God unto thee, and to thy seed.

Secondly, They are Disciples of Christ, Holy, Freeborne, recei­vers of the Kingdome of God, as hath beene opened above.

Thirdly, There is no Impediment in them to the Grace offered in Baptisme, but what by Grace they are capable of the removall thereof.

For first, Their a version from God is Habituall, not actuall: and therefore the pouring forth of the habit of Grace into them may remove it, which the Holy Ghost is wont to doe in the washing of Regeneration, Tit. 3.5, 6.

Secondly, Their sin was by the fall of their first parents, therefore their restoring may bee by the faith of their next parents. God is wont to observe such a proportion, in Captivity, and Redemption; Yee sold your selves for nought, and ye shall bee redeemed without money, Isa. 52. [...].

Thirdly, Lest the want of ability to make prof [...]ssion of their faith, should have bee taken up for an Impediment of their Baptism, God himselfe professeth in their behalfe, that they are holy, the Disciples of Christ, Partakers of his Covenant, Receivers of his Kingdome.

In a word therefore, If by all this conference, (that wee have had together) it may appeare, that the Infants of beleevers are true and capable Subjects of Baptisme; then such as having beene baptized in their Infancy, shall afterwards receive another Baptisme, they are as well justly as commonly called Anabaptist [...]: that is, such as are rebaptized, when they were once truly baptized before.

CHAP. XXII.

I Will reply no more for the present, Onely this let mee say,Silvester. I finde my selfe by Grace able to beleeve for my self, but not so well able to beleeve for my Children.

I deny not, but that is possible,Silvanus. that a Christian man may be­leeve some promises, when hee cannot so readily beleeve others.

But first beleeve it, it is a sinne to us, not to beleeve all the gratious promises which the Lord maketh to us Zacharias could not beleeve that hee should have a sonne, no not when a sonne was promised him; but yet the Lord did not faile to performe his promise and chastened him for that unbeleife, Luke 1.18, 19, 20.

Secondly The former leaving of your judgement against the Baptisme of, your seed, is such a killing sinne to the life of the Co­venant (as much as in you lyeth) that till you doe unfeignedly re­pent of it, the Lord may justly leave you to straitnesse of heart, and unbeleife in the promise for your childe.

Thirdly, Notwithstanding the straitnesse of your heart and Faith towards your childe, yet if you submit your selfe and childe unto the Lord, and to his Covenant and to the seale thereof, the Lord knoweth how to performe his promises with us, and our chil­dren, not onely above what wee can beleev [...], but above all that wee can aske or thinke. Ehes. 3.20.

Fourthly, Remember you had a faithfull Father▪ and gratious Mother, whom God did inable to beleeve for themselves, and for their children to many Generations. God is not wanting to re­spect children for the Covenant of their Fore-fathers, when their next Fathers may bee straitned towards them, Rom. 11.28.

Fifthly▪ Remember also, that Sarah, though shee beleeved not the promise of God for a childe at the first, but laughed at it, (Gen. 18.12, 13, 14.) yet afterwards by meditation upon the promise, and upon the faithfulnesse and power of him, that made it, shee at length received strength both of faith to beleeve the promise, and of body to conceive seed, because she judged him faithfull who had promised, Heb. 11.11. Follow her Godly example, meditate on all the gratious promises have beene alledged, and such other grounds of Faith in this point, which have beene (by the helpe of Christ) propounded to you: and who knoweth, but you may re­ceive of Christ strength of Faith, to beleeve as for your selfe, so for your childe, and be ready to offer it up (as your faithfull parents offered you) to the Lord, and to his Covenant, and to the seale thereof? That so God may bring upon you, and upon yours, all the good that hee hath promised to them that love him, and keepe his Ordinanc [...]s: and may prevent and keepe of those fruits of his wrath and jealousy, wherewith hee is wont to visit the sinnes of the Fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth Generati­on. For the Lord even our God, is a jealous God, a consuming Fire.

Consider what I say, and the Lord give you understanding in all things.