The Grounds and Ends of the Baptism of the Children of the Faithful, Chapter 3 (1 of 3)

The Grounds and Ends of the Baptism of the Children of the Faithful · Chapter 3 (1 of 3)

p. 38CHAP. 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.

p. 39Secondly, 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 onelyonly 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 p. 40gave 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.Gen 47:21–31Heb 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 p. 41the 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 onelyonly.

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 onelyonly 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 p. 42of 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 onelyonly. 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 onelyonly 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 p. 43it 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 onelyonly 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 p. 44prepare 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, p. 45not carnall bleſſings onelyonly, 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 onelyonly 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 p. 46for 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 p. 47at 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 onelyonly 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.

p. 48This exception hath been refuted above. To which let mee adde, that the promiſe was not onelyonly to the repenting and believing Iſraelites, nor onelyonly 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 onelyonly 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 onelyonly 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 p. 49Zion 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 onelyonly, 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 p. 50ſo 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 p. 51ſo? 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 p. 52of 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 onelyonly 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 onelyonly 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 onelyonly p. 53this; 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 onelyonly 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 onelyonly 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 onelyonly 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 p. 54priviledges, 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 onelyonly 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 onelyonly 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 onelyonly 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 onelyonly 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. p. 55The 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 onelyonly 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 onelyonly 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 onelyonly 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.

p. 56But 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 onelyonly 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 p. 57the 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 onelyonly 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 onelyonly 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 onelyonly 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.

p. 58Your 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 onelyonly.

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 onelyonly 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 onelyonly begets children after the Spirit, and onelyonly 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 onelyonly 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.

p. 59There is indeed ſome difference betweene the Covenant made not onelyonly 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 onelyonly 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 onelyonly 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 onelyonly 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 p. 60ſeed 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 p. 61in 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 onelyonly, 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 onelyonly of ſuch as believe.

p. 62It 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 onelyonly 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 onelyonly begets children after the Spirit, and onelyonly 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 p. 63carnall 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 onelyonly 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 onelyonly 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 p. 64ſpirituall ſeed after him, more or leſſe, as well as wee. But what if the diſpenſation of the Covenant had been more vayled in all the times of the Old Teſtament to all the ſeed, then indeed it was? yet what is this to the maine promiſe of the Covenant, that God will be a God to a believer and his ſeed, throughout all generations?

Silveſter.But let the differences of the Covenant before or ſince Chriſt, ſtand or fall as they may: yet it is no good conſequence from the Covenant, that as infants were in that Covenant then, and circumciſed, ſo infants are in the Covenant now, and to be baptized. For let theſe foure things be well conſidered, and they will cleare the contrary.

"1. What the Covenant is?

"2. What is that which admits into the Covenant?

"3. Who are the true approved ſubjects of the Covenant?

4. Whether all have not one and the ſame way of entrance into this Covenant?

Silvanus.What doe you take the Covenant to be?

Silveſter.The Covenant it ſelfe is a Covenant of grace and ſalvation, by which God of his grace takes a perſon or a people to himſelf above all others, to be their God, and to manifeſt upon them the riches of his grace and glory.

And the manner of this is in effect, Gods calling of a man to an agreement with himſelf in his Son, wherein he promiſeth to be his God, and to give him life and happineſſe, and all things in Chriſt; and that he ſhall believe and reſt upon his faithfullneſſe and truth, and ſo take him for his God, &c. So that the Covenant conſiſteth of 3. Eſſentialls: 1. The perſons (two or moe) diſpoſed to agree. 2. Something to agree upon. 3. Their mutuall conſent, which is the agreement it ſelf.

Silvanus.As the heavens are higher then the earth, ſo are the wayes of God higher then our wayes, (Eſa. 55.9.) and in ſpeciall the wayes of his grace, and of the Covenant thereof, with men indeed mutuall agreement and conſent is neceſſary to a Covenant, but with God, Gods appointment maketh a Covenant, whether the creature conſent to an agreement or no. God ſometimes made a Covenant, and eſtabliſhed it, not onelyonly 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 onelyonly an appointment of God, p. 65it 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 onelyonly 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 p. 66ſtrongly 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 onelyonly 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 onelyonly 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, p. 67whoſe 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 onelyonly 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 p. 68Goſpel, 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 onelyonly by Jeſus Chriſt; for in him are all the promiſes confirmed, and made over onelyonly 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 onelyonly to ſuch as believe? Yet nevertheleſſe Chriſt hath opened a way for the comming of the Covenant and promiſes through himſelfe, not onelyonly 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, p. 69but 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.

p. 70Secondly, 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 onelyonly 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 onelyonly 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 p. 71ſame 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 p. 72in 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 onelyonly 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 p. 77telleth 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 p. 78as 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 foreign (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.