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

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

p. 115I 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 onelyonly 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 onelyonly 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 p. 116them 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 onelyonly 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 p. 117not 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 onelyonly 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 p. 118uſe, 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 onelyonly 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 onelyonly 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 p. 119are 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 p. 120they 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 onelyonly 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.

p. 121As 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, p. 122in 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 onelyonly; 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.

p. 123And 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, onelyonly by vertue of his grace, or ſtate in grace, which is the ſame: And ſo by the Fathers faith p. 124the 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 p. 125farre 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, onelyonly 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 onelyonly 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 onelyonly 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.

p. 126To 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 p. 127ſame 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, p. 128that 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 onelyonly 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 p. 129changed 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 p. 130wine, 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 p. 131the 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 p. 132in 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 onelyonly 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 p. 133of the Spirit, and ſo children of God, the onelyonly 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 onelyonly 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 p. 134that 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, p. 135or 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) onelyonly 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 onelyonly 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 p. 136of 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 onelyonly, 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 onelyonly 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 onelyonly 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 p. 137will 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 onelyonly 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 p. 138ſuch 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 onelyonly 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 onelyonly, 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 onelyonly 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 onelyonly 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) p. 139the 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 p. 140or 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 onelyonly 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 p. 141and 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 onelyonly 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 p. 142teſtimony 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 onelyonly 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 onelyonly 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 p. 143unto 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 onelyonly (as you ſay) a ſeale to Faith, and to the Grace of the New Birth, as if it onelyonly 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 onelyonly 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 p. 144the 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 p. 145to 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 p. 146God 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 onelyonly, and outlaws from the Church, where neither of their Parents being believers, p. 147their 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 p. 148to 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 onelyonly 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 p. 149into 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.

p. 150Let 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 onelyonly, 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 p. 151Church) 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.