Anti-Paedobaptism Part 3, Section 81

Anti-Paedobaptism Part 3 · Section 81

p. 675SECT. LXXXI. The succession of Baptism to Circumcision and their identity for substance to us is shewed to be unproved by Mr. Carter, Mr. Marshal, Mr. Church, Dr. Homes, Mr. Cotton, Mr. Fuller, Mr. Cobbet, from Col. 2.11, 12. or elsewhere.

2ly. FOr answer further, it is to be considered, that Baptism is now in the room of Circumcision, and is the very same for substance to us, as Circumcision was to them before Christ, namely, the token and seal of that Covenant made with Abraham and his seed, as appeareth Gal 3.27, 29. As many of you as have been baptixed into Christ, have put on Christ. And if ye be Christs, then are ye Abrahams seed, and heirs according to the promise. By which we see, that whatever we p. 676have as Abrahams seed, we have it all in Christ; and what we have in Christ, we have it all as Abrahams seed; and that we are baptized into Christ▪ that is our initiation into Christ; and what ever we have as Abrahams seed, is sealed unto us in Baptism. By which it is evident, that as Circumcision was to them, so Baptism now to us is the token and seal of that Covenant made with Abraham and his seed.

Answ. If this were granted, yet Mr. Cs. purpose were not obtained, that the application of the seal to infants were justified by the command Gen. 17.9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14. for the reasons before given. But because I conceive these assertions contain errours, such as do mislead Pae…obaptists, I shall examine Mr. Cs. allegations, and together with them Mr. Marshals reply to my Examen about his third Conclusion, and what I find material in other of my Antagonists about the point of Baptisms succeeding Circumcision.

Two assertions are laid down here by Mr. C. 1. That Baptism is now in the room of Circumcision. 2. That it is the very same for substance to us as circumcision was to Jews before Christ. Neither of which are true, or proved by any thing brought by Mr. C. or any other, though this be the chief thing they alledge for infant Baptism; and Mr. Church, p. 50. out of Dr. Whitaker, tels us, all the Anabaptists will not be able to resist this argument from circumcision. Let's try the strength of it. The latter position seems to be this, That as circumcision was to the Jews, so Baptism now to us is the token and seal of the covenant made with Abraham and his seed. But this is not all one as to be the very same for substance. To be the very same for substance, is an expression that is scarce capable of good sense; neither Baptism nor Circumcision in proper acception being substances, or having substance, except as the subject of them, as all accidents have. As substance is put for essence, so it cannot be said they are the same for substance, sith cutting is one thing, washing another; and other Paedobaptists usually term them different administrations, Circum…ision the old, Baptism the new. I grant Circumcision was the token of the Covenant made with Abraham and his seed, Gen. 17. but that it was a seal of that Covenant in the sense usually meant by Paedobaptists, or that any ones Circumcision was a seal but Abrahams, much less that every ones Circumcision was a seal of the Covenant of grace to him and his seed is more then I find in Scripture, and how often I have proved it false, may be seen in many of my writings, specially the 3d. part of this Review. But that Baptism is the seal of that Covenant made with Abraham and his seed, is not true. For 1. Baptism seals not at all the promise of the land of Canaan, Gen. 17.8. nor any other of the promises made to the natural seed of Abraham. 2. Nor doth it seal the spiritual promises of the comming of Christ the calling of the Gentiles, as they were made to Abraham, and by Circumcision assured to be accomplished. For then Baptism, as Circumcision was, should be a shadow and type of Christ to come, and should cease as it did 3. The Evangelical Covenant, or the promise o… righ…eousness or eternal life by faith, granted to be in the latent sense comprized in that Covenant, I find no where in Scripture said to be sealed by Circumcision, p. 677but rather that circumcision did bind persons to the keeping of the Law for righteousness, Gal. 5.2, 3. nor by baptism but by consequent. The Scripture rather makes it a seal (if it must be so called) of our promise to God, then of Gods promise to us. Nor is there any thing Gal. 3.27.29. to prove either of Mr. Cs. conclusions, that Baptism now is the seal of the Covenant made to Abraham and his seed; or that it is now in the room of Circumcision. For neither is it said that what wee have as Abrahams seed, is sealed to us in Baptism; wee are said indeed to put on Christ by Baptism, but that, whether the putting on be meant of spiritual union, or outward profession it is ascribed to faith, v. …6. and our Baptism rather is made our seal to Christ, then Gods to us: nor is there any thing spoken v. 29. of any seed of Abraham but by faith, & so our Baptism cannot seal that Covenant which was made to Abrahams natural seed, which was the use of Circumcision, and therefore that Baptism is the seal of that Covenant, or in the room of Circumcision, is not proved thence. But let's view what is further said for them or either of them.

That our Baptism succeeds in the room, place, and use of Circumcicision, is the common speech of Paedobaptists; against it, 1. I argued in my Examen, that Baptism was a concomitant to circumcision, it was among the Jew long afore Christ came, and it was by Divine appointment, from the Baptism of John till Christs death, now that which succeeds comes after, is not concurrent. To this Mr. M. replied, 1. by concession, and thence would gather an argument for infant Baptism, which is enervated in the 2d. part of this Review, sect. 24. 2. Saith he, A Lord Major elect succeeds the old, though the old continue after his election for a time, Defence p. 171.

But this is not true, a Lord Major elect doth not succed till hee bee sworn, in the interim he is no Lord Major in being, but onelyonly in possibility and probability which may never bee. A successour hath no place while the predecessour is present, Jewel. Defence of the Apol. part. 2. c. 3. div. 5.

2. I argued that in no good sense can Baptism be said to bee in the room and place of circumcision; For neither in proper acception have either room or place, nor taking room and place for the subjects circumcising and ci…cumcised, baptizing and baptized, is it true; parents though private persons might circumcise, not so in baptism, women were to be baptized, not so in circumcision. These things are answered by Mr. M. either with censures of me, which are but vain, this arg…ing being necessary to clear truth, or by reference to what he had said before, which is also fully refuted in the third part of this Review, sect. 18. I further said, If by room and place be meant the society into which the circumcised and baptised were to be initiated, it is not true. For Baptism initiated into the Christian, circumcision into the Jewish church.

To this Mr. M. If you mean onelyonly the several administrations, the Church of the Jewes being Christs Church under one administration, the Christian Church the same Church of Christ under another administration; you speak truth, but not to the purpose; my conclusion never p. 678said Circumcision and Baptism do initiate into the same administration of the Covenant: but if you mean, that the Church of the Jews and wee are not one and the same Church, you speak pure Anabaptism indeed, and contradict the Scripture expresly, which every where makes the Church of the Jewes and the Gentiles one and the same Church, though under divers administrations. I count it needless to annex any proofs, because I think you dare not de…y it.

Answ. I do not mean onelyonly the several administrations, if I had so spoken I might have perhaps been judged to speak non-sence, from which I can hardly acquit Mr. Ms. speeches, that Circumcision and Baptism do initiate into different administrations of the Covenant, and yet they are termed the divers administrations, and the Church of Jews and Gentils by reason of them under divers administrations, which kind of expressions, though frequently used by Paedobaptists, yet I can discern little in them but non-sence, or tautologies, or self-contradictings. My meaning was very obvious. That the Christian Church, properly so called, contradistinct from the Jewish visible Church is one society, and that Baptism enters into the visible Church Christian, that the visible Church Jewish contradistinct to the Christian is another society, and Circumcision entred into it, not into the Christian. And these things are so manifest that I thought it needless to bring proofs. Who knowes not that circumcised Proselytes were in the Jewish Church visible, and not in the Christian, and baptised disciples of Christ cast out of the Jewish church, who remained among the disciples of Christ & in his Church? that the Jewish Church visible persecuted the Christian Church visible? Yea this is so apparent that Mr. M. both in his Sermon p. 27. speaks to the same purpose; None might be received into the Communion of the Church of the Jews until they were circumcised▪ nor in the communion of the Church of the Christians until they be baptised, our Lord himself was circumcised as a professed member of the Church of the Jews, and when he set up the new Christian Church, hee would be initiated into it by the Sacrament of Baptism; And in his Des. p. 169. I reply that the Christian Church was not fully set up and compleated with all ordinances of worship, government, officers, till afterwards, is readily granted, but that it was not in fieri in erecting and framing, and that Baptism was administred in reference to the Christian Church, and that by Baptism men were initiated into this new administration or best edition of the Church, I think no sound Divine did ever question▪ p. 171. I answer Johns Baptism and Ministry was a praeludium to Christ, and was wholly in reference to the Christian church, which then began to be moulded; and though there was not a new distinct Church of Christianity set up, yet all this was preparing the materials of it, and John did not admit them by Baptism as members to the Jewish Paedagogy, which was then ready to be taken away, but into that new administration which was then in preparing. So that what Mr. M. terms in me the speaking of pure Anabaptism indeed, is no other then his own, and is so manifest as cannot be denied to be true, nor is at all contradicted by the Scripture, which never makes the Church christian visible and the Jewish to be one and the same, but the Church invisible by election and believing of Jews and Gentils to be p. 679one and the same mystical body of Christ, Ephes. 3.6. Now this one thing demonstrates that Baptism succeeds not into the place or office of Circumcision, sith they had different institutions; were for Churches, as Mr. M. speaks, under divers administrations, whereof the one was national gathered by natural descent, or Proselytism, the other onelyonly by the preaching of the Gospel and faith. As S…lmatius in his apparatus to his book Of the primacy of the Pope p. 20, 21. proves the modern Bishops neither to succeed into the place of the Apostles, nor the first Bishops because of their different institution, name, function and ordina…ion, so in like manner I prove that Baptism succeeds not in the place of Circumcision, because of its different institution, name, office, and state it hath from it. Which i… further proved thus. The command of Circumcision was different from the command of Baptism, the command of Circumcision not inferring Baptism; to which Mr. M. replies, Now this follows that therefore Baptism doth not succeed in the room of Circumcis…on … cannot guess; the Lords day succeeds the 7th day in being Gods Sabbath, but certainly the institution of it was long after the other.

Answ This proves that the one is not s…ated on the command of the other, Baptism on the command of Circumcision, they having d…fferent commands Gen. 17.10, &c. Matth. 28.19. and consequently no rule for baptizing in the command of Circumcision, nor the command of circircumcising infants a virtual command for baptising, the rules of administring each of these being to be taken from their several commands and approved examples of practise, and no other.

Lastly, that Baptism succeeds Circumcision in the same use and end, is more untrue. For the uses of Circumcision were so far from being the same with the use of Baptism, that they are rather contrary. For the uses of Circumcision were to engage men to the use of the rest of the Jewish ceremonies, to signifie Christ to come out of Abrahams family, to be a partition wall between Jew and Gentile.

To this Mr. M. answers. These all refer to the manner of administration peculiar to the Jews; I have often granted there were some legal uses of Circumcision, it obliging to that manner of administration; and so they were part of the Jewish Paedagogy, which is wholly vanished, and therein Circumcision hath no succession; but Baptism succeeds it as a seal of the same Covenant under a better administration, as a set and constant initiating Ordinance: onelyonly I wonder that you say Circumcision did initiate into the Church of the Jews, or rather the family of Abraham.

Answ. Mr. Ms. grant, that the uses were part of the Jewish Padagogy, and that it is wholly vanished, and therein circumcision hath no succession, doth infer that Circumcision and all its uses are vanished, and have no succession: For it had no uses but what did belong to the Jewish Paedagogy, the initiating was into the Jewish Church, or rather the family of Abraham, (which speech I used as conceiving that term more comprehensive and more proper, in as much as the family of Abraham was it into which Circumcision did initiate first afore the people of Abrahams house were termed the Church of the Jews,) and that covenant p. 680which circumcision did signifie and confirm, was peculiar to the Jews, although Christ were typified by circumcision and righteousness by faith in the latent sense, promised in the Covenant, Gen. 17. which yet no more proves Baptism to succeed circumcision then to the cloud, sea, Manna, water out of the Rock, the Ark of Noah, the Passeover, the sacrifices of the Law, high Priest, washings, &c. And if then this be all the use that Baptism succeeds circumcision in, to confirm the Covenant so far as it was spiritual, it succeeds as well to all these, and so doth the Lords Supper to circumcision, & from the comands of those rites, a rule might be drawn to administer Baptism by, as well as from circumcision. Piscator in his observat. on Numb. 28, 29. makes Baptism to succeed circision and the purifyings to be often iterated, but the truth is it succeeds to neither, Christ is instead of all these Col. 2.17. and succeeds to them, and to say that Baptism succeeds to the use of circumcision, as it signified the Gospel promise to Abraham, must make it to signifie Christ yet to come in the flesh; For which reason I say still boldly, though it were (as I think it is not) against all Divines and Churches since the Apostles time, that to say Baptism succeeds in the room and place of circision, is a proposition erroneous and very dangerous.

Mr. M. saith to this p. 174. 1. That hee had confuted before what I say, that the covenant with Abraham is not the same with the New-covenant but in part, to which there is a full reply before, in all the sections of the third part of this Review, wherein the Covenant with Abraham is defended to be mixt, to wit, the 4th, 25th, 26th, 27th. 2. That the Cloud, Sea, Manna, water of the Rock &c. were extraordinary signes, not standing Sacraments to bee used in all generations, and yet so far as God hath made them parallel, what hurt is there in saying Baptism succeeds them? To which I answer, 1. The sacrifices and purifyings were as much standing Sacraments, and that in more generations then circumcision and the Passeover. 2. That there is this hurt to Mr. Ms. cause, that if he grant that Baptism succeeds to them as well as circumcision, then a rule may be taken from the use of those in the administration of Baptism as well as from circumcision, which is onelyonly proved from the succession of the one to the other, nor is it wildly said by mee, if the confirming or signifying the same covenant, prove Baptism to succeed circumcision, it proves the Lords Supper to succeed it, which according to Mr. M. hath the same general state, signification and use, from which alone Mr. M. and other Pae…obaptists gather the succession of Baptism to circumcision, from Col. 2.11, 12. & not from the particular use of initiating, and if so a rule from circumcision to give the Lords Supper as succeeding it to infants, as well as Baptism may be drawn, which were absurd in Mr. Ms. conceit. I have hitherto shewed the falshood of Paedobaptists assertion about Baptisms succession to circumcision; Let's review their proofs of it.

Mr. M. in his defence p. 174. saith, From that clear place Col. 2.8. 10 13. I made it evident, not only that we have the same thing signified by circumcision, while we are buried with Christ in Baptism, but also that the Apostle plainly sees Baptism in the same state and makes it of p. 681the same use to us as Circumcision was to the Jews; Christ onelyonly to them and us also is the author of spiritual Circumcision. The Circumcision of the flesh was the Sacrament of it to them; and now that is abolished, we have Baptism to seal the same thing.

Answ, Though I deny not that we have the same thing which was signified by Circumcision, while we are buried with Christ by Baptism; yet I deny that the Apostle plainly or obscurely sets Baptism in the same state, or makes it of the same use to us as Circumcision was to the Jews: Nor do I find any thing in the Apostles words from whence it may be gathered, that the Circumcision of the flesh was the Sacrament of it to them, except it be meant onelyonly of Christs personal Circumcision. For it is plain, that what is said v. 11. that they were circumcised with the circumcision not made with hands, in the putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, in or through the circumcision of Christ, is expresly applied to Christs Circumcision, and not to the Circumcision of any other person but Christ: nor can be, sith of no mans Circumcision besides Christs is it true, that we are in or by it circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting…off the body of the sins of the flesh: Nor are we thus circumcised by Christs Circumcision as the sacrament, token, or seal of spiritual Circumcision, as that onelyonly which sacramentally represented it, or as a seal of the Covenant in which it was promised; but as the effectual pattern, according to which by Divine predestination we are to be conformed, Rom. 8.29. in whom we are said to be buried, raised, v. 12. quickned, set in heavenly places, Ephes. 2 5. concrucified; Gal. 2.20. fellow sufferers, Rom. 8.17. Phil. 3.10. Whence I argue, If our Baptism be hence gathered to succeed in the same state and use with Circumcision, then it succeeds to Christs Circumcision, for none other is here meant; and if so, then each believers Baptism is the effectual pattern by vertue of which we have spiritual Circumcision. But this is so absurd, that it is not much short of blasphemy, therefore the inference of Baptisms succession to Circumcision from hence is without any ground, and I did truly say in my Examen, that it was an ignis fatuus that hath mis-led men in gathering it hence. Nor is it true, that there is a word in the Text that intimates, that either our Baptism seals any thing to us, except our union and conformity to Christ, to which though Circumcision of the heart be antecedent, concomitant, or consequent, yet it is not the same; and therefore the sealing of the same thing by Baptism as by Circumcision, is not rightly hence inferred.

As for what Mr. C. saith, p. 79, 80. that there is the same spiritual fruit of Circumcision and Baptism, those onelyonly who are in Christ have it, because they have it by the circumcision of Christ, and the like of Baptism; that the benefit and fruit of circumcision, which is the circumcision made without hands, they had by being buried and risen with Christ in Baptism and therefore that they were compleat in Christ, is all granted, and confirms my argument against the imagined sucession of ordinary Circumcision to ordinary Baptism, and of their being the same in substance and use. For hereby it is plain, that what spiritual fruit is ascribed to Circumcision, p. 682it is not ascribed to ordinary Circumcision, no nor to Abrahams, (notwithstanding what Mr. C. would deduce from Rom. 4.11, 12.) but to Christs: Nor is the spiritual fruit, Col. 2.11, 12. ascribed to Baptism, but to the burial and resurrection of Christ represented in Baptism. As for what Mr. C. adds as the Apostles meaning, that they were compleat in Christ in the Ordinances of the Gospel, is his own fiction; for the Apostle is so …ar from saying we are compleat in Christ in the Ordinances of …he Gospel, that as I prove, Exam. p. 91, 92. out of the Text, the words of Beza, Aretius, (whose sayings are by Mr. M. in his Defence, p 175. owned as true,) and Mr. Ms. own words, that the Apostle asserts our compleatness in Christ without any outward Ordinance either of Law or Gospel. And this I think Mr. C. himself dare not deny. For sith …he compleatness is in spiritual benefits, mortification, renovation, remission of sins, as Mr. C. acknowledgeth, if we have our compleatness in Christ by Baptism, we have these spiritual benefits by it, and we have them not without it. What Mr. M. saith, p. …75. of my abuse of Aretius, is answered in my Apology sect. 1…. p. 60. Aretius his testimonies out of the Fathers cited p. 176. prove nothing concerning the meaning of Col. 2.11, 12. though they shew that some of the Ancients conceived of Baptisms succession to Circumcision as he did. To what I argued in my Examen, p. 92. that by this doctrine, that Baptism is in stead of Circumcision, the Apostles argument for the disanulling the Jewish ceremonies, both here and Heb. 9. & 10.1. & 13. in the Epistle to the Galatians, ch. 3. & 4. and Ephes. 2. is quite evacuated, who still useth this argument to prove the abolition of the ceremonies of the law, because they have their complement in Christ, not in some new Ordinance added in stead of them; for if there be need of other Ordinances (besides Christ) in stead of the old, then Christ hath not in himself fulness enough to supply the wa…t of them, and this abolition is not because of Christs fulness, but other Ordinances that come in stead of the abolished; and though our Ordinances may be said to imitate theirs, yet Christs onelyonly succeeds them.

Mr. M thus saith. I answer, it is very true▪ that whoever should plead (as Mr. C. doth) that we have any of our compleatness in any outward Ordinance would evacuate the Apostles argument, but yet they by his own appointment help us to apply this compleatness, they argue not that all our compleatness is not in Christ, Christ onelyonly succeeds all the Jewish Ordinances as the body doth the shadow: We plead not, as the Papists do, that the Jewish Sacraments were types of ou…s, they were types onelyonly of Christ; but yet ours succeed them to be like signs of the covenant of grace, and so the Apostle doth in this place.

To which I reply. 1. If it be contrary to the Apostle to plead that we have any of our compleatness in any ou…ward Ordinance, then it is contrary to …he Apostle to make Baptism and the Lords Supper to succeed Circumcision and the Passeover, sith …hat onelyonly Col. 2.10, &c. is made to succeed them wherein we are compleat without them. 2. What Mr. M. means by applying the compleatness of Christ, and how Baptism and the Lords Supper help us to apply this compleatness, I do not readily p. 683understand. I conceive it applied no otherwise then by faith, nor they to help any otherwise then by exciting it, which I am sure they do not to infants, and so Baptism of infants is no help to them to apply the compleatness of Christ. 3. Though Baptism and the Lords Supper argue not that all our compleatness is not in Christ, yet the doctrine of Mr. M. that Baptism is in the same state, and of the same use to us as circumcision was to the Jews, that it succeeds into its place, doth so a…gue as I have shewed. 4. If Christ onelyonly succeeds all the Jewish Ordinances, as the body succeeds the shadow, then Christ onelyonly is made Col. 2.11, 12. the successour to Circumcision: for there is no other succession there spoken of, as appears by the phrases of compleatness in him as the head, v. 10. circumcised by the circumcision of Christ, v. 11. buried with him, risen with him, v. 12. quickned together with him, v. 13. dead with him from the rudiments of the world, v. 20. so as that by holding him as the head being knit together the whole body increaseth with the increase of God, v. 19. and chiefly that which is said v. 17. which are a shadow of things to come, but the body is of Christ. 5. If the Jewish Sacraments were not types of ours, then the reason of their ceasing from the succession of ours is taken away, for that rests onelyonly on this, that they were types, and ours the truth. 6. If ours succeed onelyonly in that they are like signs of the Covenant of grace, then they succeed all the sacrifices, washings, annointings of the law as well as these: we may conclude succession of Baptism to Noahs Ark, &c. But in the administration of an Ordinance we are not to be ruled by bare analogy framed by our selves or delivered by the spirit of God, but by the institution of God.

To this Mr. M. saith, Defence, p. 177. I answer, but when those analogies framed by the spirit of God, are agreeable to the use and end of Gods institution, we are to be ruled by them; and the Apostle shews that's our case here.

Answ. 1. If this were true, then to tie Baptism to the eighth day, to be of all in the family, &c. should according to Mr. Ms. s…ppositions be right. 2. There's not a word in the Apostle Col 2. to shew that ours succeed the Jewish Sacraments to be like signs of the covenant of grace. Yea, I urged that the Apostle rather resembles burial to Circumcision then Baptism, and makes the analogy between Circumcision and Christs burial, and cited the words of Chrysostome and Theophilact on the place to that purpose, Exam p. 93.

To this Mr. M. Where i… Circumcision compared to burial, and wherein I pray you lies the analogy between them?

I reply, 1. I said not Circumcision is compared to burial, but that Col. 2.11, 12. burial rather resembles Circumcision then Bap…ism, and the analogy is between them. Which is true, sith buried with him, v. 12. answers to circumcised by his circumcision, v. 11. and the analogy is, that as the one so the other is the effectual pattern of our mortification; and not between our burial and baptism, as Mr. M. And to this are the words cited by me apposite. Nor are the words of Chrysostome, that we put off sins in Baptism, for Mr. Ms. purpose, to prove analogy conceived by the Apostle between the Jewish common Circumcision, or our burial p. 684and our baptism. 2. I said Baptism is named with faith, Col. 2.12. as the 2 means whereby we have communion with Christ, and are compleat in him. Exam. p. 94.

To this Mr, M. But is not this the same sense with mine? But your syllogism or mighty consequence I deny, Baptism is named because it is one of the means of Christians being exempted from the Schoolmaster, and come to be ingraffed into Christ, and to be compleat in him, therefore it doth not succeed in the room and place of Circumcision, nay rather therefore it doth.

To this is replied in my Apology, sect. 5. p. 28. that Mr. M. perverts my words, my arguing being no other then this, Baptism is alledged as one of the means whereby we come to be compleat in Christ, (which Mr. M. denies not, but avows as his sense,) therefore there was another reason besides the succession of it into the place of circumcision, why the Apostle there mentions it, which Mr. M. denied. And this consequence (however Mr. M. in his flout term it) is good, except it were true, that every means whereby we are compleat in Christ succeeds circumcision, the contrary whereof is confessed by Mr. M. in acknowledging faith to be one of the means whereby we are compleat in Christ, Col. 2.12. which yet succeeds not circumcision, according to him. Mr. Ms. censure of my speech, that the misunderstanding Col. 2.11, 12. was an ignis fatuus, as arrogant, is shewed in my Apology, sect. 5. p. 29. to be injurious: And what he saith in his Defence, p. 179. of my position, that circumcision was not a token of the Covenant to the Jews children, is another injury, in that he leaves out the words [in sone sense] which was set down a little before in my Appendix, p. 174. which being added, there is nothing in them contrary to the Text, Gen. 17. but enough thence to prove my speech true.

What Mr. C. urgeth p. 81, from 1 Cor. 5.7, 8. of the Lords Supper succeeding the Passeover, That the Apostle could not have expressed by such phrases taken from the Passeover the celebrating the Lords Supper, had not the Passeover and the Supper been the same for substance, is not right. For 1. that by keeping the feast is meant eating the Lords Supper, is not proved; and Beza, Diodati, the new Annot. with others, paraphrase the words thus, Let us lead our life. 2. Our obedience, gifts, doing good, are termed sacrifices, yet these phrases prove not them to be the same in substance in Mr. Cs. sense. 3. Christ is expresly in the Text 1 Cor 5.7. termed our Passeover, therefore the Text makes the sacrifice of Christ to suc…eed the Passeover; not the Lords Supper.

But Mr. Drew, p. 3… ▪ thinks to prove the succession of Baptism to Circumcision, because as he saith in my Exercit. p. 3. &c. I readily grant that Baptism is an Ordinance set up by the appointment of Christ to serve for the same spiritual ends that circumcision did. To which I say, that all I grant there, is, that Circumcision and Baptism signified and confirmed the promise of the Gospel, but I added, according to different forms and function, and I ascribed no more to Circumcision then to the Paschal lamb, the rain of Mannah, &c. But this is not the same with that which Mr. Drew injuriously imposeth on me. Yet if it were, it would p. 685not prove Baptisms succession to Circumcision, as is before shewed, and if it did it would as well prove its succession to the Passeover, Manna, the water out of the Rock, &c. which hee will not assert I think. The rest which hee saith, about Col. 2.11, 12. is the same with what others say, and hath been answered in my Examen part. 3. sect. 9. in my Appendix, and in this section and in other parts of this Review.

As for Mr. Cotton, who is one of those to whose writing Mr. Drew refers us for proof of Baptisms succession to Circumcision, from Col. 2.10, 11, 12. his conceit is grounded upon this mistake in hi… book of Baptism p. 128. That the Apostle pleadeth our compleatness in Christ, notwithstanding our want of circumcision, in that wee en…oy the like fulness of benefit in our Baptism as the Jews did in their circumcision, which hath been often shewed to bee false. For there is no mention of a benefit to the Jews, but to the Colossians, and this benefit was not bare outward Circumcision, or any outward Church priviledge, but the inward Circumcision in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, and this not by the Jews Circumcision, but Christs circumcision in his own person, nor is it true that the fulness of benefit there is ascribed to ordinary Baptism, nor can bee rightly so conceived. And what Mr. Cotton saith in the same place against those who say that Baptism being granted to succeed Circumcision, yet it follows not infants must bee baptized, That succession is the substitution of later things for former things in the same sub…ect, if the subject be changed, so far as there is a change of the subject there is no succession, and therefore if infants be not baptized as they were circumcised, Baptism succeeds not circumcision, is false and against himself. 1. False, for we know though there were a law made that after infant Kings al should be adult, and after women Queens, all should be male Kings, yet they should be true successors, as King James to Queen Elizabeth, Henry the 7th to Edward the 5th or Henry the 6th. 2. Against himself, For thereby is proved Baptism doth not succeed circumcision, sith there is a change in the subject, women being baptized, who were not circumcised, and parents or masters of families being to circumcise, but preachers of the Gospel onelyonly to baptize.

As for what Dr. Homes (to whom Mr. Drew also refers) in his Annimadvers. on my Exercit. p. 28, 29. brings to prove Baptisms succession to Circumcision, it's upon alike mistakes. For 1. it is not true that the Apostles scope Col. 2.12. in mentioning Baptism, is to answer the objection Dr. Homes imagins, and to shew that we are as compleat as the Jews, because Christ hath appointed another sign, to wit Baptism, in stead of the Jews Circumcision. 2. Nor doth the Apostle affirm or intimate, that if we have not Baptism in the room of Circumcision to us Believers and our infants, we are not so compleat as the Jews, by Christ. 3. Nor is it true that the Apostle doth call off the Colossians from circumcision by the consideration of their Baptism as in the room of circumcision. 4. Nor doth the Apostle make such analogy between Baptism and Circumcision as Dr. Homes saith he doth. 5. Nor if hee did, would this prove such a succession of Baptism to Circumcision as Paedobaptists would have, that the command of infant Circumcision must be a command for infant Baptism.

p. 686Mr. Thomas Fullers argumentation for the succession of Baptism to Circumcision in all the essentials of it, as he speaks in his Infants advocate▪ ch. 7. is alike vain. For there is no inconvenience that I know, to say no ordinance doth succeed Circumcision; his talk of Sacraments being pillars of the Church, is but phrasifying instead of disputing, nor do I know how it can bee true. Nor do I know, that all or any graces Evangelical are conferred in baptism or were in circumcision of the Jewes, much less that the conferring of such grace, is essential to either of them; nor is it true, that Col. 2.11, 12. Christians are said by Baptism to bee spiritually circumcised; and by the same proportion the believing Jews may bee said by Circumcision to bee spiritually baptized: For it is not by Baptism but before it, that regularly persons are spiritually circumcised, nor were the believing Jewes by Circumcision to be spiritually baptized but before it; Nor is there any such affinity, much less essential sameness between them, as that a command about the one should bee a command to us about the other. Nor do I finde any thing in that Author which needs further answer, hee having added nothing to the cause, but some peculiar words and expressions without any strength.

What Mr. Cobbet hath about this point Just. vindic part. 2. c. 2. sect. 9, 10, 11. I shall further examine. Sect. 9. he sets down eight propositions, which if they were all granted, yet they do not prove that point, which is in question, that an a…gument from analogy between meer positive ceremonies, ri…es or Sacraments is of validity, so as that it may be concluded thus; So it was in a ceremony of the Old Testament, therefore it must be so in the New, without any other precept or example therein: Concerning the insufficiency thereof, I have disputed so largely in the 2d. part of this Review sect. 2, 3. as that I need to say no more here. Nor doth any thing Mr. C. brings concerning the fulness of the Scripture, Christ or the Apostles arguing, prove such kind of arguing good in meer positive rites, however matters of faith and manners are determined and proved by them from the Old Testament. Nor should it bee granted (as it is not) that there is the same main ground of Circumcision and Baptism, yet would it follow the rule of the one is a rule about the other, without the like institution. Yet what Mr. C. hath set down as the main ground that God would once have his Covenant of grace (which he means p 201. of the very Covenant of saving grace, not of any meer outward Covenant) to be to the whole Church and Church seed; and the rest of his hypotheses, pag. 195. are so fully shewed to bee mistakes in this Review, that I think it needless actum agere. And for the tenth section in which he makes a tedious paraphrase, and dictates many things without proof, concerning Col. 2.10, 11, 12. they proceed upon the mistakes above shewed, as if the Apostle answered this objection, If Gentile believers have not an initiatory seal for them and their children they should not bee so compleat as the Jewes in outward Ordinances, and that the Apostle answers that they have Baptism in stead of Circumcision. He… himself more truly saith, pag. 199. That Baptism is named Col. 2.12. as an outward mean whereby bee inchurched p. 687Gentiles especially, come ordinarily to have communion with Christ, and to be compleat in him, and therefore not in outward Ordinances; nor by Baptism can it bee said wee are compleat in outward ordinances, sith himself makes it onelyonly the initiatory seal, but compleatness is not in the enjoyment of the initiatory onelyonly, but of all ordinances.

As for what hee saith Section eleven, for the succession of Baptism to Circumcision, that it is sufficient to prove it that they agree in their common Author, Sacramental nature, and end (which yet is false▪) the answer is good that these things prove it not, sith there are the same or more parities of Baptism and the Passeover, and more disparities between Baptism and Circumcision, which are sufficient to shew that the command concerning the one is not a command concerning the other. For i… the command bind to baptize infants, it binds onelyonly to baptize males at eight dayes old, and not afore; nor is it any answer to say, The command of Circumcision binds in the substantials of it though not in the circumstantials; …or first, if the command bind it binds in every point as well as in one. 2. The state of infancy is as much a circumstance as the eighth day. 3. In the command of Circumcision, I know not any thing which may bee termed substantial, unless hee mean the act of cutting off the fore-skin of the flesh, which hee will not have us tied …o, for then wee must not baptize our infants but circumcise them. As for what hee speaks of the command to seal with an initiatory seal of the Covenant indefinite believers and their children, it is a meer figment, as hath been before shewed. There is nothing else that I conceive needfull to be added in this place, I go on to finish the rest.