Anti-Paedobaptism Part 3, Section 85

Anti-Paedobaptism Part 3 · Section 85

p. 716SECT. LXXXV. Mr. Cobbers dictates, Just. Vindic. par. 2. ch. 1. touching childrens baptismal right, are examined and refelled.

MR. Cobbet Just. vindic. par. 2. sect. 1. sets down this as his position, That the initiatory seal follows the covenant; but he proves it not: And whereas to the objection against it, that from Adams time to Abrahams, there was no initiatory seal to those who were in Covenant; nor in Abrahams time to Melchizedek, Lot, Job; he answers, That such extraordinary cases and times are very impertinently urged by some to inf…ringe the force of ordinary rules and principles: I say, his answer is insuff…cient. For 1. this onelyonly is an answer where it is proved that there is such an ordinary rule and principle from which these cases swerve: But no such rule or principle can be shewed of an initiatory seal belonging to persons in Covenant, from which this should be counted an exception; therfore this is not an extraordinary case. 2. Besides, extraordinary cases make a just exception from an ordinary rule for some, by reason of some peculiar accident not happening to others: But to all in Covenant from Adam to Abraham, there is not, nor can be shewed any such peculiar accident which happened not to others, which was the reason of omitting an initiatory seal by those in Covenant: Ergo, it was not because of extraordinary cases that it was omitted, but because there was no such rule. 3. Extraordinary cases are few and rare, but the omission of an initiatory seal was constant, and universal by those in Covenant until Abrahams time, therefore it was not an extraordinary case. 4. Extraordinary cases and times are but for a little while: But this omission was for above 2000. years, which me thinks Mr. C. should not so dote as to count an extraordinary time; sure the time wherein Circumcision was in force was shorter, and it was in that time often omitted, and therefore we may by Mr. Cs. dictates as well say, the initiatory seal was extraordinary, and the ordinary rule was, that those in Covenant were not to have an initiatory seal, specially considering that even in Abrahams time, and after, it was omitted by Melehizdek, Lot, Job. Nor is it of any weight to say that there was not a visible political Church then; For. 1. no doubt in their families were visible political Churches as well as in Abrahams. 2. The initiatory seale, as they call it, might and was to be to persons without a visible political Church as to the Eunuch Acts. 8. to Moses children in Midian &c Nor is it of any weight to say these Churches were not to continue: For 1. that is not so certain as to be taken for granted. 2. Abrahams posterity were not to continue still the Church of God, though they were to continue longer then the posterity of J…b and Lot. 3. But if this were a sufficient reason, why they should not have an initiatory seal solemnly instituted for them, because they were not sucessively to continue, then should p. 717not the Churches which were not successively to continue (of which doubtless there were many from whom the Candlestick was quickly removed) have had baptism instituted for them. 4. By Mr. Cs. reasoning, his rule the initiatory seal followes the covenant must bee thus limited, in ordinary times and cases when and where there is a visible political Church which is successively to continue. Which if it were granted him, yet it will never serve his turn to prove this universal proposition, from which Paedobaptists infer infant Baptism, All that are in the covenant are to have the initiatory seal or to be baptized. But neither is it true in ordinary times, where there is a visible political Church successively to continue. For it is not true of those in Covenant in Abrahams house, neither the females, nor males of seven dayes old onelyonly were to have the initiatory seal, though in Covenant. To that which is said, that the females had not a superfluous fore…skin, besides what hath been said before to the contrary, I say 1. this however infringeth Mr. Cs. rule, that in ordinary times in visible political Churches successively to continue, the seal initiatory follows the covenant, for it doth not so in the female Hebrews. 2. If Gods will had been as Mr. C. would have it, he could have appointed an initiatory seal common to females with males. But what saith M. C. to the instance of the males of 7. days only to infringe his rule? I find nothing except this be an answer, in that case of the females as in some other, that law of circumcision had something peculiar in it, albeit it had other things in common with that of Baptism, which I take to be a sufficient proof against him, that the rule of Circumcision is not a rule to us about Baptism; and that his proposition is not true, that in ordinary times and cases, respecting the political visible Church and its administrations, such little ones as are of parents in such visible church-state, they have external right unto the injoyned initiatory visible seal, of which they are outwardly capable, and ought not to be denied the use and benefit of it.

There is also an objection against the principle fore-mentioned, All that are in covenant are to have the initial seal, or as Mr. C. speaks, the initiatory seal followes the Covenant, that if the connexion bee between seal and Covenant, it is as well besween the after seal as the initial, and so they may as well plead for infants comming to the Lords Supper, as in Cyprians time, and as the young ones of the Jews did partake of the Passeover. To this Mr. C. saith, Male infants were not to appear at the Passeover, if so, then they must appear at the Feast of Tabernacles & must carry boughes, from Deut. 16.…, 17. compared with Levit. 23.34, 35, 38, 39, 40. that though persons have a covenant right in general, yet their jus in re is to be suspended and not elicited in case of incapacity, or of extream coldness of the countrey, or sickness &c.

Answ. 1. If infants were not to appear at the Passeover, yet young children not to be admitted to the Lords Supper were, nor doth the text tie them all to carry boughs who were to appear. 2. The objection holds as much concerning the yong ones at Jerusalem, who were to eat the Passeover, and by Mr. Cs. reasons such yong ones should be at the Lords Supper, as having Covenant interest and therefore jus ad rem, nor is there any such incapacity or danger to them in eating the Lords p. 718Supper to suspend their jus in re, as is to be baptized in Greenland, or in extreme weakness and sickness; and therefore …y Mr. Cs. reasons they ought not to be denied the Lords Supper. 3. If infants Covenant-right to the Lords Supper be su…pended because of their defect of understanding to examine themselves, their Covenant-right to Baptism is as justly susp…nded til they repent and believe, which are as much and more required to Baptism as self examination to the Lords Supper. And if it be true then Mr. Cs. position is not right, that infants ought not to be denied the use and benefit of Baptism. 4. If it were in Cyprians time a corruption to give infants the Lords supper, so it was to baptize them, being on the same reason of no greater an…iquity. But let's view what hee saith for the clearer handling of his Thesis.

Sect. 2. He saith, that mixt commands of God having some part circumstantial and vanishing, some part substantial and abiding, the later is binding to us since Christs time, albeit the former be not; and he instanceth in a 7th. day Sabbath: But neither he nor any other have yet proved any such substantial part abiding in the command of Circumcision, and how little the instance given i… to his purpose, is shewed before, §. 77, 80, 81.

That which Mr. C. saith sect. 3. is granted, that consequential commandements grounded on Scripture are Scripture commandements, but that any command o… a positive rite in the old Testament is a command to us about a positive right of the new, or that in mere positive worship that should not be excluded which is not expressed, is not granted; to the contrary somewhat is said in the 2d part of this Review, §. 2, 3, 5. and elsewhere. I have often said prove infant Baptism by good consequence, and I shall yeild.

That federal ordinances, such as are the seals, are as well priviledges as precepts, which Mr. C. sect. 4. asserts, when they are rightly admininistred, is granted; but it is denied that the Passeover, Baptism, the Lords Supper, are federal ordinances or seals of the Covenant of grace in Mr. Cs. sense, who p. …31. makes Circumcision in the nature of it to bee a seal of the righteousness of faith; and in like manner those ot…er, which he cals federal ordinances, seals of the promise of the Covenant of grace, of the righteousness of faith in their nature. There …s not a word Acts 7.2▪ 8. by which it may appear that circumcision of the child was reckoned as the Fathers priviledge, nor their own circumcision as their priviledge, but only of Abr…ham that God g…ve him the Covenant of Circumcision, whereby he was assured of a son by Sarah, & so he b…gate Isaac and circumcised him the 8th. day, which priviledg was peculiar to Abraham, and to none other I know, excep… Zachary John Baptists father be said …o have the same priviledge, nor is Rom 3.1, 2, 3, 4. any whit to M Cs purpose, to prove that circumcision is reckoned as the Fathers priviledge. For 1. it is manifest that Rom. 3.1. Circumcision is to be understood metonymically, as v. 30. for the circumcised, sith it is not sold there was much profit by Circumcision but of Circumcision, as before, what advantage of the Jew? nor was the priviledge v …. the committing the oracles of God to them, the priviledge of Circumcision in the abstract or by circumcision as the means by which it was, but the priviledge of that people who were circumcised. 2. If it were p. 719granted that the priviledge were by Circumcision, yet that it was the Fathers pri…iledge by reason of the childs Circumcision rather then his own, is a vain fancy. Nor doth Acts 2.38, 39. yeild any more to his purpose, but is most g…osly abused by Mr. C. as is shewed before §. 21, 23 Nor are the passages which he alledgeth p. 132. out of my Examen, dissonant to any passages before or any after, except those words of my Examen p. 10…. which I alter in the first; part of this Review, p. 64, 93. And to his many questions from my words. I answer, that …e hath not proved the Covenant of grace, wherein God promiseth to be a God to them and theirs, to b…long to every Jew, but onelyonly to Abraham and his seed, that is, so far as it is Evangeliacl on…ly to his spiritual seed whether of Jewes or Gentile, and therefore I deny it was a priviledge which every Jew had, to be a God to them and theirs; and yet grant that Deut. 29.14. with …0 6. was a priviledge, and so I yeeld to have been what God promised Ezek 36. from the 17 to the end, and Deut. 14.2. and that sundry infants of the Jews b…se born w…re in the Covenant of saving grace and Church-priviledges, and that it was a priviledge to them, and that the promises of the Covenant of grace are priviledges, and the same now to believers and as large and honourable as then, and that the promises to their children mentioned Deut. 30.6. were of the substance of the Covenant of grace, in respect of the thing promised, but not in respect of the persons to whom, for God doth not promise to all his elect or t…ue believers, that which he promised then in that case to the Israelites for their seed, and I yeild that even base born children may bee in the Covenant of saving grace, and yet these promises are not made to Church children, (as Mr. C. speaks) …s such, but onelyonly to the elect. Nevertheless I grant the same promises now to bee made to believers, which were then, to wit, rigtheousness and life eternal by faith yea that they are larger now, no intensively in respect of the thing promised, as if a greater degree of righteousness and eternal life, were promised now then was then, but extensively in respect of the people to whom the Gentiles now being cal…ed, and t…at mo…e amply th…n the Jews, nor do I or any thing I say exclu…e believers children out of the Covenant. But I still say, the Covenant of grace was no made then universally to a Believer and his natural seed nor now, but onelyonly to the elect of them. Yet this is not an ex…lusion of any in particular from the Covenant of grace, nor an inclusion, but onelyonly a suspension of any determination of either, who are elect, and who not being onelyonly known to God. And therefore to Mr. Cs. question why are belie…ers children then excluded the Covenant? which injuriously insinuates and I did exclude them, I say, let him answer it that doth so. And th…ugh I grant that our priviledges now are inlarged, in respect of the administration of the Covenant, in that the Gospel is preached to more nations and more clearly, and confirmed by the bloud of Christ &c then before …hrists comming (which …s my meani…g in that speech) yet it neith…r follows tha… I count that administration of the Covenant initiatory seal (which is Mr Cs …erms not mine) as s…ch to their children was no priviledge to there must be such a like priviledge and not stra…ned, at least not wholly excluded as that of a like, though Mr. C… say not p. 720the same, but a like administration of the initiatory Covenant-seal, to in-churched believers children now, as Mr. C. in his gibberish speaks. And though I say we have nothing in lieu of Circumcision, but Christ come in the flesh; yet I do not say, nor need I, that Baptism is no priviledge to believers now: but I deny it to be a priviledge in lieu of Circumcision, and say that as Mr. C. grants it a priviledge to believers, that now they have not that manner of initiation by circumcision, so it is a priviledge to them that they have no manner of initiation in lieu of it. What he saith he hath shew'd before from Ez. 37.25, 26, 27. is examin'd before.

Sect. 5. Mr. C. saith, Baptism is a seal of the Covenant, no bare badge of Christianity as some have said, albeit the more judicious of our opposites yeild this, that the Covenant of grace is said properly to be sealed in Baptism, and that Baptism since Christs incarnation is the appointed seal of God to such as enter into covenant with him.

Answ. It is true that I said Exam p. 149. the Covenant of grace is sealed properly in Baptism, but Mr. C. might have taken notice, that 1. I used not this phrase as mine, but as Mr. Ms. 2. That I did yeild this but three lines before with this caution, Baptism seals the love of God in some sense properly. 3. That not long after I say, that in exactness of speech it seals no grace properly, taking it for propriety of speech, but improperly, because metaphorically, as sealing is taken for assuring. 4. I say as properly, notes propriety of right, or title, or possession, in opposition to anothers, or that which is alien, it seals as much the second as the first grace. And indeed this is my meaning, that though in propriety of speech Baptism may not be said to be the seal of the Covenant of grace properly, sith it is but a metaphor or term translated from another thing, and so shews not what the thing is, but what in some respect it is like to: yet it may bee thus termed the seal of the Covenant of grace properly, that is, as the seal of a deed assutes the thing conveyed in it to him that hath propriety in it, so Baptism in that thereby we put on Christ, doth signifie to the true Believer that he hath union and communion with him, and that he hath thereby a propriety of right to righteousness and life by Christ, according to the Covenant of grace. But this doth no whit contradict what I have disputed before sect. 31. against Mr. Ms. and others doctrine, about Sacraments being seals of the Covenant of grace. Nor did I use the words, that Baptism since Christs incarnation is the appointed seal of God to such as enter into Covenant with him, Exam. p. 83. as mine own expression, but as Mr. Ms. though I granted the thing meant by it. Yet had I so said of my self, it had not been for Mr. Cs. turn, who will have it a seal of Gods Covenant to us, whereas those words as I yeild them, rather import it to be our seal whereby we enter into Covenant with God, and engage to him, which is the most genuine use of Baptism, and in that respect rightly termed a badge of Christianity. But Mr. C. would prove it a seal of the Covenant in another sense, thus.

And it appears so, saith he, 1. in that it agrees in the essentials with circumcision as an initiatory seal, Col. 2 11, 12. which speech is ambiguous, and yet in no sense, I conceive, true. It is doubtfull whether he mean that p. 721to be the initiatory seal is the essentials of Circumcision, and of Baptism, but this sense is false: For to be a seal is not essential either to the one or the other, the circumcision of the Sichemites was circumcision, though it were no seal to them of the Covenant of Abraham; and Simon Magus his baptism was baptism, though it were no seal to him of the Covenant of grace, much less is it of the essence of either to bee initiatory, for if there were or might be another initiatory seal (as doubtless there might be if God had so appointed it) yet circumcision and baptism had not been circumcision and baptism, now what may be or not be without the ceasing of the thing to be is but an accident to it, not of the essence of it. Besides, to be the initiatory seal of the Covenant of grace, doth more truly agree to the spirit of God, then to either of them. Or whether he mean, that they agree in those things which are the essentials of each, but that is more palpably false, for it is essential to Circumcision that the fore-skin be cut off, but that is not essential to Baptism, there may bee Baptism without it. Nor is there a word Col. 2.12. that either expresseth this thing or yeilds any ground for proof of it, as is shewed before by me here §. 81.

As vain is that which follows, whence baptized Gentiles are said to be of the circumcision, Phil. 3. and Jews said to be baptized, 1 Cor. 12. For neither are Gentiles, Philip. 3.3. termed the circumcision, because they were baptized, nor the Jews said to be baptized, 1 Cor. 12.13. because they were circumcised, or because of the agreement of these in the essentials. But the converted Gentiles, not all that were baptized; but onelyonly those, who were true believers are termed the Circumcision in opposition to the Judaizing Teachers termed befor v. 2. the concision by a figure of speech, termed Eutelism, or slighting them in that in which they gloried; and they are termed the Circumcision, because they were truly circumcised before God in heart, and were his people. And the Jews 1 Cor. 12.13. are said to be baptized no otherwise then the Gentiles who believed, who were not circumcised in the flesh, and therefore could not be termed baptized because circumcised; but Christian believers, whether Jews or Greeks, bond or free, are all said to be baptized, and to be made to drink, because they were baptized with water, and did partake of the Lords Supper, as 1 Cor. 10.17.

Mr. C. adds more of these toys. Hence first instituted for a seal to the circumcised Jews; to shew it was in the essentials of sealing Abrahams covenant to them, but the same with circumcision in a manner; onelyonly as that sealed it to them visibly in Christ, as to come, this did it in like sort in reference to Christ as come; that was the seal of the righteousness of Abrahams faith, or that whereon his faith acted to righteousness of justification, Rom. 4.11. even the promise of grace in Christ, Rom. 10.6, 7. with Deut. 30.14. Wherein 1. he dictates, without any pretence of proof, that Baptism was first instituted to the Jews to shew that which he says; nor is there the least intimation thereof in Scripture. 2. He seems to me to unsay by his limitation [in a manner] what he said before, it was the same in the essentials. For that which is the same in the essentials is altogether the same, and not in a manner. 3. It is false that baptism was the same in the essentials of sealing Abrahams covenant to the Jews with p. 722circumcision: For it was as much in the essentials of sealing Abrahams Covenant to the Jews (if I may use Mr. Cs. gibberish) that Circumcision sealed the promise of the land of Canaan, Gen. 17.8, 9, 10, &c. as that it sealed Christ to come; but surely Baptism never sealed the promise of the land of Canaan. 4 That which I find of the seal of the righteousness of faith, Rom. 4.11. is meant of Abrahams personal Circumcision, and of no other, and therefore is inep…ly applied to prove sameness of sealing of others Circumcision and Baptism. 5. I conceive it somewhat inconsiderately said, that Circumcision was the seal of the righteousness of Abrahams faith, which would imp…y, that it assured that Abraham faith was righteous, wherea… the meaning is, that it assured that Abraham had righteousness by faith before he was circumcised, as v. 10. he had asserted. 6. The other explication is worse, for it i…timates as if the Apostle meant that the righ…eou…ness of faith ascribed to Abraham is to termed, as that whereon his faith a…ted to righteousness of justification, even the promise of g…ace in Christ, whereas the meaning is not that it sealed the righteousness he was to obtain by acting fa…th in a promise, but that it was a seal of the righteousness of faith which he had many years before he was circumcised.

Mr. C. goes on in the same v…in of dictating thus. Hence when Christ is called the minister of circumcision, it is thus explained by the end of the sign administred, …cil. to confirm the promises made unto the Fathers, Rom▪ 15.8. Act. 7.8. Gen. 17.…1. Which speech seems to intimate, as if Christ were termed the minister of circumcision, as if he did minister Circumcision to that end, to confirm the promises: But that is too absurd for such a man to vent, sith he ministr…d …ircumcision to none; and the meaning is plain, that he was the minister of circumcision, that is of the circumcised jews among who… …he preached and lived, as Peter is said Gal. 2.8. to have had the Apostlesh… of the circumcision, that is of the circum…ised Jews: And in this sense …eza, Willet, Diodati the new Annot. Dicson, Piscator, &c. expound it. Now this being promised, it is ea…e to perc…ive how i…per…inently this …ext, w…ich mentions not at all Baptism, nor any use of Circumcision at all, but onelyonly the end of Christs ministery among the circumcised is alledged, to prove that Baptism ag…ees in the essentials with circumcision as an initiatory seal The Texts, Act. 7.8. Gen 17.1…. a…eas little t… the purpose, there b…ing no mention of Baptism, and they onelyonly proving what is not denied, that Circumcision was the token of Abrahams …ovenant As little is that w…ich follows, Hence the promise premised and then Baptism annexed as the seal, Act. 2.38. For neither is it proved, that the promise there is the same with Abrahams Covenant, and how pi…ifully Mr. C. mistakes the meaning of it is shewed before, sect. 22, 23. nor a word about Baptism as a seal annex…d to the p…omise but an exhortation to repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for remission of sins and …ssurance of the gift of the Holy Ghost, which are annexed to repentance as much as to baptism

What he adds, Hence that washing annexed to the word, Ephes. 5.25, 26. But that the word there is the word of promise, much less of Abrahams p. 723Covenant Gen. 17, or that it is mentioned as sealed by Baptism, or tha… therein it agrees with Circumcision, is not proved. The word is the Gospel preached by which men are made believers, and then baptized, and so purified, as Act. 15.9. Tit. 3.5. Act. 20.32. & 26.18. Job. 3.15. & 17.17. &c. Nor is it any more pertinent which follows.

2. Saith he, It…s a baptizing in the name or covenant-fellowship of God the Father, Son, and Spirit: he having exalted his word above all his name, Psal. 138.2. Wherein 1. he seems to expound baptizing, Matth. 28.19. into the name of the Father, Son, and Spirit, thus, into the Covenant-fellowship; which is somewhat strange, there being neither there, nor elsewhere (where the like phrase is used) any mention of Covenant, or Covenant fellowship; and his arguing, God hath exalted his word above all his name, Psal. 138.2. Ergo, baptizing is in the name and Covenant-fellowship of God the Father, Son, and Spirit, is a baculo ad angulum. 2. But were his exposition allowed, yet what this is to prove that Baptism is a seal of the Covenant, Gen. 17. or any other Covenant, I am yet to divine. Is baptizing all one with sealing? is Covenant-fellowship all one with the Covenant?

3. Saith he, It's a seal of the remission of sins, and therefore of the promise tendering the same, hence joyned, Act. 2.38, 39. Act. 22. But neither is the promise there joyned as a thing sealed by Baptism, but as a motive to the duties of Repentance and Baptism; nor is the remission of sins mentioned as sealed by Baptism, but as a consequent obtained by Repentance and Baptism as conditions pre-required thereto; nor is a seal of remission of sins all one with a seal of the Covenant.

4. Saith he, The nature of it sheweth the same, it being a Gospel Sacrament, and that is a visible seal, and the seal is to the Covenant; hence called by the name, Act. 7.8. 1 Cor. …1 25.

Answ. 1. The term Sacrament, as it is applied to the rites of Baptism and the Lords Supper, is no Scripture term, nor any other answerable to it in that use; it's a term, as I said rightly in my Plea for Antipaedobaptists, sect. …. invented by the Latine Fathers meaning for that use. Mr Craggs reply in his pamphlet, termed The arraignment and conviction of Anaba…tism, that it is used in the twelve tables, in Tully pro Milone, shews he had a mind to cavil rather then to answer fairly; nor is the book throughout any other then a fardle of mistakings in Logick, and meaning of Scripture, and of cavils against my words, mixt with much Poetical lightness, and scoffing, to which there's no need I should return any more then the Archangels words, The Lord rebuke thee. 2. Nor is there any common nature of …acraments that I know of delivered or inti…ated in Scripture; either that of the Schoolmen out of Austin that they are visible signs of invisible grace; or of the Protestants who are terme Calvinists, that they are seals of the Covenant of grace: And therefore Mr. C should first prove that to be of the nature of a Gospel Sacrament, as the term is used, afore he inferred so much as he doth from it. 3 A seal it is true, is to a Covenant sometimes, and sometimes it is to a decree, writ, letter, record of a thing done, and so it is taken Rom. 4.11. where Abraham, Circumcision is not said to be a seal of the Covenant p. 724wherein something further was promised, but of the righteousness of faith which he had before attained. 4. Act. 7.8. the Covenant of grace is not called by the name of a Gospel Sacrament, but the Covenant made with Abraham, Gen. 17. is onelyonly termed the covenant of circumcision, because it was signified by it, which was no Gospel, but a Law rite. The Cup in the Lords Supper, 1 Cor. 11.25. is termed the New Testament in Christs bloud, wherein there seems to be an hypallage and inversion by the words as they are in Matth. ch. 26.28. Mar. 14 24. and by considering that of the bread he spake thus, this is my body, and therefore the words of the cup seem to be most fitly thus placed and expounded, this cup, that is the wine in it, is my bloud, that is signifies my bloud, which is the bloud of the New Testament, that is by which the New Testament is dedicated as the old was by the bloud of calves and goats, Heb. 9.18, 19, 20. Now herein is the notion rather of a Testament then of a Covenant, and what is said is said of the cup onelyonly in the Lords Supper, not of Baptism: Nor is it named the Covenant, but the bloud of the New Testament, or the New Testament in Christs bloud; nor is the term seal there used, and therefore there is not a word to prove Baptism to be in its nature a seal of the Covenant of grace, in this or any other of the Texts Mr. C. alledgeth.

I pass over that which he saith, secondly Baptism is an initiatory seal, as agreeing with him in the position, that Baptism is that which is to be first afore the Lords Supper, though his phrases be misliked. I agree with him also, that Baptism being once administred, needs never be renewed, if done according to Christs institution. Yet what I said, Exam. par. 2. sect. 4. seems to me to stand good, notwithstanding any thing here said by Mr. C. nor do I think it fit to question whether it be the onelyonly initiatory seal.

The 6th. Section contains nothing but dictates without proof, and what is said by way of proof is answered either sect. 38. &c. in the animadversions on the 3d. ch. of the first part of Mr. Cs. book, or in answer to Mr. Carter, sect. 80. In which it is shewed, that there is no reference made Gen. 17. to a Church Covenant distinct from the Covenant of grace, nor any command given Gen. 17.9, 10. to a Gentile believer and his seed, nor any general law about an initiatory seal never repealed, as Mr. C. and others fain. And for his speech he useth, that the Hebrew Church albeit quà such a political Church and national, &c. differ from congregational Churches; yet qua visibilis Ecclesia politica & ordinaria▪ so it was essentially the same with ours; it seems to intimate, that the Church of the Hebrews, though as such a political Church it was national, yet not as a visible Church political and ordinary, as if it were any otherwise a visible political ordinary Church then as such a Church: And when he saith, as a Church visible political ordinary it was essentially the same with ours, he can mean it no otherwise then of the same numerical essence; for as visible and political the essence is determined to hic & nunc, an universal generical or specifical Church is not visible and political. But that is false, sith if the persons be not the same, they cannot have the same numerical essence: Nor can he mean it, that it is essentially p. 725the same with ours as visible in the same form of government, for then he must make ours Pontificial; nor in the same title to Churchmembership, for then he must make ours national: nor can he avoid it if he will maintain this plea, that the Jewish Church was essentially the same with ours, and as their infants were circumcised as children of Churchmembers, in a Church visible, political, ordinary, which was national, so ours upon the same reason are to bee baptized, but that hee must set up a national Church by natural generation, nor can they of N. E justifie their way of excluding such children from the Lords Supper for ignorance, if they may for scandal. The old objection, which Mr. C. falsly terms cavil touching covenant females, is not yet answered, nor ever will be, it will still infringe this universal proposition, All that are in Covenant with reference to Church covenant are to have the initiatory seal for a time, and so will also that of Jobs family, which why it should not be counted a visible political ordinary Church, as well as Abrahams house in his time I see not, and if none are to be baptized but such as are in an ordinary visible political Church to abide, how can they of N. E. baptize the infants of such Churchmembers, as whether in N. E. or old do not abide, but are quickly dissolved as we see by experience? And if None but those who are in the covenant of grace in reference to Church covenant are to be baptized, but though believers because in Rome or India they are not a formed matter of a political visible Church but they are as materia informis, they are quoad homines actually without, and not within any political visible Church, how was the Eunuch baptized Acts 8? And if the covenant of grace nakedly considered giveth a person which is actually in it, a remote right to the initiatory seal, but it doth not give an immediate right thereto▪ for so the covenant of grace as invested with Church covenant onelyonly giveth this proximate right to that seal God being the God of order, will have that his Church seal to be attained in a way of order; as of old strangers might not be circumcised, but with some submission to that Church order explicitely or implicitely, and so now, and the order be as Mr. C in the 5th. section determines, to be observed of communion in breaking bread after they were baptized, how do those of N. E. admit to brea…ing of bread, those who who onelyonly as born in a Parish were baptized in infancy, without another baptism? That either Matth. 28.19, 20. or any where else the orderly and ordinary dispensation of the seal is committed to the visible Church. is more then I finde; nor do I know it necessary to right order that believers must be of a particular visible Church afore they be baptized. If Catechumini in covenant and visible Church estate might bee hindered from Baptism for trial for a time, much more should infants of whom we have no knowledge concerning their future or present estate, be in prudence put off from Baptism till there be some trial of th…m, if their right were, as Mr. C. doth, though falsly imagine.

Sect. 7. Mr. C. speaks thus, And because in this particular some stress of the main case is put, 1. I shall endeavour yet fu…ther to confi…m it, that covenan… interest carrieth a main stroak in point of application of that seal, to persons interested therein, and not uncapable thereof in any bodily respect.

p. 726Answ. This proposition being that in which some stress, or as I conceive, the whole stress of the main case is put, should have been delivered more clearly, and confirmed more fully, but as now it is, it is delivered ambiguously, and so is fitter to delude a Reader then to instruct him. That seal which was last mentioned was Baptism, but the proofs following shew that he meant it of Circumcision, and as if there were the same reason of Circumcision and of Baptism (which neither he nor any Paedobaptist ever proved) what is said of Circumcision is by him meant of Baptism, and so the Reader merely mocked. The application of Baptism or Circumcision may either refer to Gods appl…ing it by way of command, or mans by way of administration, and in this I think Mr. Cs. speeches are delusory, sometimes meant of Gods application by way of command, and sometimes of the administrators act in circumcising or baptizing. The phrase of carrying the main stroak is likewise ambiguous, and so delusory, it being uncertain whether it carry the main stroke with God as his motive to appoint it, or with the administratour as his rule and warrant to do it. And when he terms it the main stroak, it had been requisite hee should tell whether there be not some other thing which carries a stroak if not the main, yet so great, as that without it the application of the seal is not warrantable, as profession of faith by the person to whom it is to bee applied. Hee might have understood by my Examen, which he had to answer, that I took it a great fault in Mr. M. that hee did not more distinctly tell what hee meant by the Covenant, being in covenant, which hee speaks of infants of believers. And sure if Mr. C. had meant to deal rightly, as one that sought truth, and to shew my errour, he should have cleared what Covenant hee meant inward or outward, the Covenant of Gospel grace purely delivered, or the mixt Covenant made with Abraham Gen. 17. what the Church covenant is, how the Covenant of grace is invested with it, when a Church is a political visible body, how a Church covenant is the form of it, who and what persons and how they are interested in it, whether by Gods promise, their own faith or profession or anothers, or by the Churches admission. All which, or at least many of them, are requisite to bee distinctly declared, that a reader may clearly understand his meaning, and so examine his proof. And whether the exception of incapacity in any bodily respect, be meant onelyonly because of the females circumcision, or thereby infants are excepted from Baptism, who have not the use of their tongues to profess the faith of Christ, and are not well able to brook that dipping or plunging (which for all Mr. Cs. scriblings, is and will be found the onelyonly way of baptizing appointed by Christ) is uncertain. This were a sufficient reason for me to answer no further to this proposition, but to wait till his Bill be mended Yet I shall examine his proofs of this, which should be his meaning, if he spake to his purpose; That the interest which a person though an infant hath to the Covenant of grace, in that he is a believers child by vertue of the promise of God to a believer and his seed, when that believer is a member of a visible political Church by Church covenant explicit or implicit, is a sufficient warrant to that visible political p. 727Church to admit, and to the Elder to baptize that infant without any other revelation of God, or profession of the infant. Let's now see what Mr. C. brings for proof of this.

First, saith he, then it is the ground-work given to the general Law about an initiatory Covenant duty, scil. application of some injoyned initiatory seal, and therefore must be of like force in the particular branches and ways of such initiatory sealing, as circumcision and baptizing.

Answ. Such a general Law is a mere fiction, and what is meant by the ground-work of it is uncertain. Gen. 17.9, 10. is no other Law but about circumcision, the word rendred [therefore] may bee otherwise translated, if it were the onelyonly reading yet the sense might be this, because I make this Covenant thou shalt therefore circumcise thy males to keep it in remembrance, or to assure thee and thy posterity that I will perform it. But that there is any such intimation as if the persons circumcised were circumcised as and for their interest in that Covenant is a mere dream often refuted by mee, much more is it a dotage to assert, that according to a persons interest in that Covenant or a part of it, as Mr. C. conceives, so they have right to Baptism in the Christian church.

Secondly, saith Mr. C. the Covenant in such sort invested with Church covenant, now it is the form of a political visible Church body; giving therefore, both a Church-being as I may say, as natural forms do a natural being, and withall the priviledge of a member of such a church-body, suitable to its memberly estate, as if this of the Church initiatory seal, even to the least member thereof, although they are not yet so perfect in all actual energy of compleat members, and so neither in all actual priviledges of such compleat members. I suppose what ever others deny this way, yet our opposites do not deny, that Church-covenant explicit or implicit is the form of a visible political Church as such, so that till that bee, they are not so incorporated as to bee fit for Church dispensations, or acts of peculiar Church power over each other, more then over others, over whom they can have no power, unless they had given explicit or implicit consent thereto: as reason will evince.

Answ. This reason as I conceive goes upon these suppositions, which Mr. C. conceives will not be denied. 1. That there is a Church-covenant over and besides Gods covenant of Gospel grace, and mans believing and professing of faith in him through Jesus Christ, whereby the members of a visible political Church do engage themselves to walk together in Christian communion, and to submit to their rulers, and to each other in the Lord. Now such a Church covenant, though I confess it may be according to prudence at some times and in some cases usefull to keep persons, who otherwise would bee unsetled, in a fixed estate of communion, yet I find not any example of such a Church covenant in the old or new Testament, and in some cases it may insnare mens consciences more then should be. 2. That the Covenant of grace, whether Gods promise to us or ours to God invested with Church covenant, that is, as I conceive Mr. Cs. meaning to be, together with it, is the form of a visible political Church, which gives it the being of such a Church, as such, so that p. 728till that be they are not so incorporated as to be fit for Church dispensations, or Church power. In which I conceive are many mistakes. 1. That the Sacraments are seals, or church dispensations are committed to the Church, which are not committed to the Church, which consists of men and women, but to the guides and over-seers of it. 2. That Church power, or as Mr. Cotton in his treatise of the keyes of the Church, the power of the keyes is committed or given to the Church; in which are mistakes that either censures Ecclesiastical, or as the Schoolmen and Canonists term it, the power of ordination and jurisdiction Ecclesiastical are meant by the keyes, Matth. …6.19. or that they were given to Peter as representing the Church: the Scripture doth no where commit Church dispensations or power to the Church, but to the guides, and overseers and rulers of the Church for the Church 3. That till a company of believers be a visible poli…ical Church, they are not fit for church dispensations or censures: which I conceive not true, there being examples in Scripture of their breaking bread together, Acts 2. who were not such a political visible Church of fixed members under fixed officers united by Church covenant, as Mr. C. describes. Nor were Christ and his Apostles such a Church when first they did break bread. Nor did Christ appoint Baptism Matth. 28.19. to be onelyonly in and with such a Church, nor do the exampls Acts 2. or 8. or 10 or 16 or 18. intimate any such condition, but rather the contrary. 4. That the covenant of grace with a church covenant fore mentioned, give the being of such a visible Church political. But the Covenant of grace of it self doth not give any actual being, it is a promise of something future, and therefore puts nothing in actual being extra causas, but assures it shall bee by some cause in act, which in this thi…g is the calling of God, from which the Church and each member have their being as from the efficient, from faith in the heart as the form of the invisible Church and each member, from profession of faith as the form of the visible Church and each member, as Ames. Med. Th. lib. 1. cap. 32. Sect. 7. that which makes it political is the union under officers and lawes, without a Church covenant it is a political visible Church, if there bee but at present an union or conjunction in the same profession of Christian faith under officers and lawes of a number of Christians they are a Church visible political, though they should be dissolved the next hour, and though they enter into no covenant of Church-fellowship or subjection for the future, and therefore church covenant is neither of the form of such a true Church, nor (as Mr. Weld in answer to Mr. Rathbard) of a pure Church, but it is a good means in prudence to conserve a Church so constituted, that they may not divide and scatter from each other, but may continue in communion. 5. That by this incorporating they have peculiar Church power over each other, and without tht Church covenant they can have no power. But neither do I conceive this true. For the power whi…h christians have is to reprove, admonish, censure, shun society, chuse officers, reject false teachers, &c. this power they have by the laws of Christ, without a church covenant. 6. That Church dispensations and acts of peculiar Church power are limited p. 729to those particular persons who joyn with us by Church covenant. But this I conceive not right nor agreeable to such Scriptures as these, 1 Cor. 3.22. & 10.17. & 12.13.

3. It is supposed by Mr. C. that the Covenant with Church covenant gives the priviledge of a member of such a church body suitable to its memberly estate, as is this of the Church initiatory seal. But in this sure Mr. C. is quite out and besides their own practise, who do not give the initiatory seal after they are members by church covenant, but baptize them or suppose them baptized in infancy, and then joyn them us members by church covenant; now if church covenant did give the priviledge of the initiatory seal, then they should first enter into church covenant, and then have the initiatory seal or be baptized.

4. It is supposed by Mr. C. that there are such little churchmembers by such a covenant as are to have the priviledge of the initiatory seal though they be not compleat members, so as to have the actual priviledge of the after seal, and other church power. But sure the Scripture acknowledgeth in the Christian church no members, but what partake of the Lords Supper as well as baptism (as is manifest from 1 Cor. 10.17. 1 Cor. 12.13.) and have church power as others of their sex and rank.

Now all these suppositions though they were granted (except the last) would not prove the thing Mr. C. aims at, and that which he makes the main reason from whence he would infer the conclusion, namely, the Covenant with Church covenant gives being and priviledge of the initiatory seal makes against him, infants making no such Church covenant, nor according to their own discipline doth their parents Church covenant serve instead of the childs, sith afore the child can bee admitted to communion of breaking of bread, and other power of a member, and bee taken for a member, hee must himself enter into church covenant.

Thirdly, saith Mr. C even in doubtfull cases, where the extent of the command is questionable, yet interest in the Covenant casts the scoals. As for instance, in strangers which proved religious, albeit not of their family servants, and so under the Law, Gen. 17.12, 13. they might be circumcised if they desired other Church ordinances, &c. yet were they else free, unless in such a case of their own desire that way, Exod. 12. end. Hence Cornelius a godly Gentile, living near the Jews yet not circumcised, Acts. 10.1, 2, 3, 4. compared with chap 11 3, 14, 15, 18. yea but if the command bound them, why were they circumcised? suppose Exod. 12. gave some liberty to the Church guides that way, for such strangers as more usually dwelt amongst them; yet such as 1 Kings 8.41, 42, 43. which came from far, in a mere transient way, for some temporary religious worship at the Temple, as that proselyted Eunuch Acts 8.27. those were surely circumcised, else how admitted to Temple worship, Since that was counted an abomination, for any other so much as to come there, Acts 21.28. and if circumcised at any time by any of the godly Church guides consent, what gave them right to it? p. 730not the commandment, Gen. 17.12, 13, 14. no nor that Exod. 12. What was that to an Eunuchs case and others which never sojourned with them for any space? were they then unlawfully circumcised? No verily, no whisper of that in Scripture; God allowed of that passage in Solomons prayer, touching the strangers Temple service, 1 Kin. 8. & 9. explained. It was then their external interest in Gods Covenant, which gave rise to that application of the seal, and not the commandment; contrary to what some say, that not the Covenant, but the commandment of God onelyonly, was the ground of Circumcision.

Answ. That which I said in my Exercit. p. 4. Hence I gather, first, that the right to Evangelical promises, was not the adequate reason of circumcising these or those, but Gods prceept as is expressed Gen. 17.23. Gen. 21.4. Secondly, that those terms are not convertible [federate and to be signed] and in my Examen, p. 38. that nothing but Gods will manifest in his institution can be a warrant about Circumcision, p. 97. that the Jews received Circumcision as appointed them from God, under this formal reason, and no other, I have shewed before to have been acknowledged by Mr. M. in his Defence; p. 92. when he said, The command is the cause of the existence of the duty: and p. 182. The formal reason of their being circumcised was the command of God. Nor is it at all infringed by this reasoning of Mr. C. Those that were not bound without their desire to eat the Passeover, and so not to be circumcised, yet if they would eat the Passeover they were bound by an express command to be circumcised, Exod. 12.48, 49. whether their sojourning was constant, or for a time onelyonly, which likely was the case of the Eunuch, Act. 8 27. who it's probable was circumcised, because there is no mention of the baptizing any uncircumcised till Cornelius, though there be no certainty whether the Eunuch were a Jew by birth, or a proselyte of the Gentiles, or whether he formerly had his constant abode among the Jews, either in Palaestina, or elsewhere, or whether then he did sojourn among the Jews then in Aethiopia. But if he were a meer proselyte of the gate, yet he might come to the Temple into the Court of the Gentiles to worship, as all acknowledge. Dr. Lightfoot of the Temple service, ch. 1. Mr. Mede Diatr. on Act. 17.4. &c. And therefore there is no proof from hence, that a person was circumcised by reason of the Covenant, and not of the command: Yea, though Cornelius were in the Covenant of grace, and had external Covenant interest, in that he was known to worship the true God, yet was he not by reason thereof bound by God, or taken by the Jews as one that was bound to be circumcised, or ever blamed for want of it; which shews that neither was the Covenant interest indeed, nor taken by the Jews for the warrant or rule, or reason of circumcising, but the command of God.

Fourthly (saith Mr. C.) it appears from the nature of an initiatory seal of the Covenant, which must be as large as the Covenant, and so reach all the parties comprehended actually by vertue of Covenant, according as such children are, as before declared: especially, since it is the seal of Gods people and visible Church as before shewed, p. 731given first for the Church, in giving of Pastours and Teachers onelyonly to the Church, which alone can administer the seals in ordinary dispensations, Matth. 28. end, and giving them withall to the Church, as from her to be dispensed by her Officers, to such as desire the same.

Answ. In stead of proofs here is a heap of dictates, 1. That Baptism is the initiatory seal of the Covenant in its nature. 2. That it must be as large as the Covenant. 3. That Pastours and Teachers given onelyonly to the Church can alone administer the seals in ordinary dispensations, Matth. 28.19, 20. 4. That the seals are given to the Church, as from her to be dispensed by her Officers, to such as desire the same. None of which will be yeelded by me, without better proof then I yet meet with. Sure Matth. 28.19, 10. yeelds no proof for any of them. It proves Baptism was to be administred by the Apostles, not every seal by Church Officers.

He goes on, Now God people are known, either by actual profession and confession of their own, as adults are; or by Gods promise and by parents avouching God as theirs in Covenant and their childrens, Gen. 17.9, 10. thou shalt do thus, and thus, and thy seed also; to which he submitteth afterwards, and so his also with him and after him.

Answ. That Gods people are known by Gods promise, and by parents avouching God as theirs in Covenant, and their childrens, is another dictate, which Mr. C. brings not a shew of proof for out of the New Testament; nor doth that which he brings from Gen. 17.9, 10. prove it concerning the infants of the Jewish Church. For though there be a command to Abraham and his posterity to circumcise, and this is termed keeping Gods Covenant, yet there is not a word of parents profession, or Gods promise as making known who are Gods people, no not in the Jewish Church, in which there were many to whom God made no promise, nor parents avouched for them, who were known as Gods people by vertue of Gods taking the whole nation for his Church, even when the Kings and people were Idolaters. But if it were true that it were as Mr. C. would, this proves nothing concerning the people of God in the Christian Church, in which none are known to be Gods people, but by their own confession of saith.

But Mr. C. adds, Besides the main in the initiatory seal to be firstly and properly attended, as it is a covenant and Church seal is covenant and Church interest. Hence called by the name of covenant, when yet it is but a sacramental sign and seal of it, Gen. 17.13. Act. 7.8. that is first h…ld out and sealed, as the convoy of all other desired good, 2 Pet. 1.4. But especially in that initiatory seal the signation of the covenant, is of more considerable weight, then the external symbole, ceremony and circumstance: either of cutting or washing absolutely or relatively considered. If washing of a person in the name of the Trinity, be a clearer and easier symbole then that of cutting the flesh, yet not of such weight as is the covenant sealed both by the one and the other. And to shew that the covenant is the main thing considerable therein; hence it is that the covenant is first propounded as the ground-work p. 732of the commandment it self, as of Circumcision, so of Baptism, and much more of the application of either, to any in covenant, Gen. 17.9, 10, 11. Therefore, scil. because I have said I will be your God, I command you to do thus and thus; not because I have commanded you, that I therefore promise to do this for you; or do you thus and thus at my command, and then on, therefore I will do so and so for you.

Answ, After the rest of his dictates, he here tels us, the main in the initiatory seal to be attended is the covenant, which I grant; but deny that it follows therefore, that the rule which the administrator is to observe, according to which he is to administer it, is the persons interest in the Covenant, so as that he must administer it to all and onelyonly those who are in Covenant, or to whom the prom…se is made by God. For, besides the many reasons to the contrary, even concerning Circumcision before given, Mr. Cs. own reason is against him. For if the main in the initiatory seal to be firstly and properly attended as it is a Covenant and Church seal, is Covenant and Church interest, and therefore infants in Covenant to be circumcised and baptized; by the same reason infants in Covenant are to be admitted to the Passeover, and to have the Lords Supper, sith they are seals, they are Covenant and Church seals, infants have Covenant and Church interest, in the initiatory seal these things are to be attended as it is a Covenant and Church seal, and therefore in every Covenant and Church seal as well as the initiatory. As for what he saith about Gen. 17.9, 10, 11. though I have sundry times observed that the reading [v. 9. therefore] is not necessary; yet omitting that exception, I grant what he saith of that Text, but withal note, 1. that the command is inferred not onelyonly from the promise to be their God, but also from the promise of the land of Canaan, v. 8. and therefore it might as well follow, They to whom God will give the land of Canaan are to have the initiatory seal, as that they to whom he promiseth to be God. 2. That which is said Gen. 17.9, 10, 11. is onelyonly of circumcision. 3. If it were granted that the covenant is the groundwork of the command it self, as of circumcision so of baptism, yet it follows not, much more of the application of either to any in covenant. For though the covenant were Gods reason, why he would appoint circumcision, yet that's no rule to us, but his command onelyonly; a reason of the will of the commander is not always a direction about the command, certainly not about each point in the command, as Mat. 28.18. it follows not, All power is given to me, therefore preach and baptize all over whom power is given to me. Besides, in this very thing the covenant could be no direction whom to circumcise, ordinarily, sith ordinarily the circumciser could not know to whom in particular the promises, whether Evangelical, or domestical, did belong, when they were to circumcise them. Yea, though Abraham knew Ishmael had no covenant interest▪ there being no promise made to him in it, but the contrary declared, Gen 17.19, 20, 21. yet he was to circumcise him and did so. The like may be said of Esau and others.

Mr. C. adds. So the Gospel prophesie and promise is prefaced and put in the preamble to that injunction of their baptism, by John, Luk. 3.3, 4, 5, 6, &c.

p. 733Answ. It is true that the prophesie of John Baptists comming and work, and of Christs comming, Isa. 40.3, 4, 5. (which I acknowledge to be a Gospel promise) are set down as the warrant of Johns preaching the Baptism of repentance unto remission of sins; but this doth no… prove that this was his rule in baptizing, to baptize every one, even infants, and those onelyonly who had this interest in the Covenant of grace, that to them and each of them God promised remission of sins. Yea, sith Johns Baptism is termed the Baptism of repentance, it is clear he required repentance of the baptized as the antecedent to his Baptism, and therefore not barely such Covenant interest as Mr. C. ascribes to all infants of believers onelyonly in profession.

He goes on thus. Hence the Gospel, and so the Covenant of grace, held out as grounding Baptism, Act. 2.38, 39. And childrens Covenant right, was held out as one branch of that Gospel, as we proved; and from the same principle, that they were also to be sealed by Baptism; yea, albeit the Apostles urged repentance, yet the seal is propounded as to the promise; Peter said, be baptized, for the promise is to you: And this was no meer moral motive, but a Scriptural groundword inforcing it, as it was a Scriptural groundwork virtually injoyning and requiring them to repent, for the promise is to you.

Answ. [Hence] should, if there were any good sence in Mr. Cs. speech, refer to something precedent, from whence that which he speaks is derived, which I discern not, but a dark way of dictating, fitting such as love to puzzle, not to inform a reader. It is before largely shewed, that neither childrens Covenant right external from parents faith hath been held out by Mr. C. as one branch of the Gospel, sect. 44. of this part of my Review, nor that barely from this principle they were to be baptized; but that repentance in each person to be baptized is made the antecedent to Baptism, sect. 22, 23, and elsewhere. That Peter said not as Mr. C. sets down his words, is apparent from the Text Act. 2.38, 39. that the promise is urged as a motive to those to whom Peter spake to do their duty of repenting, and being baptized, is so plain, as that Dr. Thamas Goodwin upon the reading the first part of my Review, sect. 5. did acknowledge it, and it is proved so sect. 21. here and elsewhere: Nor doth Mr. C. here or elsewhere shew it to be any other Scripture groundwork then as a motive to the baptized each of them first to repent, and then to be baptized, no rule by which the baptizer is to administer it, or the baptized to claim it as his right without his personal repentance, and declaration of his faith in Christ into whose name he is to be baptized.

He adds. So Act. 10. Peter saith, there is no let to their Baptism; and thereof he maketh the visibility of that Covenant grace, although common to reprobates also in those first times, his groundwork; gathering thereby, that they were not as formerly prophane, unclean, and outlaries from the Covenant, as Ephes. 2.11, 12. but clean and nigh as they themselves were.

Ans. It is true there was no let to Cornelius his Baptism, and those other who were with him, yet not meerly because of their extraordinary gifts, p. 734but because those gifts were manifested by their glorifying God, and as may be gathered from Act. 11.17, 18. their glorifying God contained expressions of faith in Christ and repentance, which whosoever should do as they did, it is without doubt they should be baptized. But Mr. Cs. Covenant interest of infants, who make no shews of faith and repentance as they did Act. 10.46. yeelds no warrant for their Baptism.

He goes on, Washing of regeneration is not grounded on any thing in us or without us, so much as on Gods grace, and so Covenant favour, Tit. 3.5.

Answ. It is true, this is the inward impulsive cause why God regenerates; but Gods grace, and Covenant favour is no rule to a Minister to baptize by, sith it is an unknown thing, which agrees not with the property of a rule.

Hence also (saith Mr. C.) by Baptism persons are not sealed into any thing in them so much as into the name of the Father, Son, and Spirit, even into the Covenant name of grace, whereby he is known, and into Covenant fellowship with the blessed Trinity, to which every baptized person, prove he elect or reprobate, yet is thus externally sealed.

Answ. The terming of baptizing sealing, and the name of the Father, Son, and Spirit, the Covenant name of grace, are Mr. Cs. new-minted phrases; if this be his meaning, that every person rightly baptized, whether he be elect or reprobate, is sealed by God, that is in Baptism assured of fellowship with the Trinity according to the new Covenant of Gospel grace, I deny it; if onelyonly that he professeth his communion to be with them, I grant it; but this proves not that Covenant interest of infants, who make no such profession, intitles them to Baptism.

Again, saith he, That fellowship with Christ, as head of the visible Church by the Spirit in the judgement of verity or charity such; it is all but Covenant grace and blessing.

Answ. Be it so: yet what this is to prove such fellowship to be a rule to baptize infants, I see not.

Of old (saith Mr. C.) the consequent cause of the seal was grace in them and theirs; but the antecedent cause was Gods Covenant grace to them and on them, Gen. 17.7, 8, 9. & Deut. 30.6. and so now, that part of Abrahams Covenant was not then appliable to infants, scil. walk before me, &c. but yet that was then appliable; I will be their God, I will circumcise their hearts, and that sufficed them, as Deut. 30. the Analogy holds now.

Answ. What may be said to be a consequent cause, I do not yet conceive, the rule of Logick I have learned is, that the cause is before the effect: Yet what ever it be Mr. C. means, though it might suffice for Circumcision, it doth not for Baptism; nor is that to be regulated by Analogy of Circumcision, as is shewed in the second part of this Review, sect. 2, 3.

Yet again, In a word, the seal is a seal not of nor to the commandment, but covenant; this therefore is the main and principal in the application of it.

p. 735Answ. If Baptism be a seal, it seems to me not a seal of or to the commandment or covenant, but the profession of the baptized; and therefore this is the main and principal in the application of it.

Yet more, It is the covenant which hath the main instrumental force, in the fruit of the initiatory seal and the application of it, Ephes. 5.25.26. and why shall not the external interest in the covenant, have chief influence into the external interest, as well of the application of the initiatory seal?

Answ. I understand not what fruit of the initiatory seal he means, nor what is the external interest in the Covenant; the word, Ephes. 5.25. 26. Is meant of the word preached, which is not instrumental to infants for any santification or cleansing their meant. The want of Gods appointment is the reason of not applying Baptism to infants.

Once more, By external interest in the Covenant, persons so interested come to have external interest, at least to the final causes of Baptism, as Covenant mercy and blessing, the Spirit, Christ resurrection, &c. Tit. 3, 8. and 1. Cor, 12.12, 13. 1. Pet. 3.21. And therefore as well so farre inrighted in the initiatory seal of it, whether they are adult or infants.

Answ. 1. External interest in the covenant, external interest in the final causes of Baptism, are notions I understand not. 2. Covenant mercy and blessing, the spirit, Christs resurrection, are not final cause of Baptism, for then when the end of Baptism is attained, they should be effects of Baptism, for the end in intention, is the effect in execution; But this is too absurd. 3. An inrighting so far in the initiatory seal, which intimates a man may have an inrighting so far to such a measure and no further, is another new notion I understand not. 4. If Mr. Cs. antecedent had sense or truth, yet the consequence is to be denied, no other interest external is inrighting to Baptism, but that which is according to the institution, Matth. 28.19. discipleship, or profession of faith.

To the 8th. Sect. I answer by denying that the Covenant priviledge of grace Evangelical, hath such distinction of principal and less principal counter parties, as Mr. means C. (unless he understand by Christ the principal, and the elect and true believers the less principal, as Gal. 3.16.) and that the Covenant priviledges of grace Evangelical belong to any other then the elect: yet I grant the Covenant Gen. 17. and many priviledges of Divine grace which were not Evangelical, did belong to many of the Israelites, who made no good use thereof. The Covenant Evangelical was never sealed personally to Ishmael. That which Mr. C. dictates without proof about the everlasting covenant, and the initial seal in its generical nature, is answered here sect. 80. and the point about the ordinance of infants visible Churchmembership unrepealed sect. 50, &c. and the non-inclusion of infants Matth. 28.19. under the term nation is shewed there, and in the second part of this Review sect. 9. The position of Mr. Cs. sect. 9. may be granted, though Acts 2.38, 39. make nothing for it. Sect. 10. Mr. C. proves nothing but that parents were to take care that their children were circumcised; that which he saith of the children begotten on prohibited women, Ezra. 9. and Timothy begotten on a Jewish woman by a Grecian husband, that they were circumcised, Act. 16.1, 2, 3. proves this, that the children, who p. 736were not of the Congregation of Israel, and so no visible Churchmembers were to be circumcised, nor had Covenant interest. The case controverted 1 Cor. 7.14. was onelyonly concerning the persons unequally yoked, not concerning their children. Acts 2.33, 39. Is not a word to prove parents are to take care of the infants baptism, nor Gen. 7.1. with 1 Pet. 3.21. there being not an infant in the Ark, nor typical Baptism being a rule concerning formal Baptism of Christians; if it were, Masters must take care to baptize their house, yea their married children though as prophane as Cham, and their wives with them. How impertinently 1 Cor. 10.2. is alledged, is shewed in the second part of this Review sect. 21. What Mr. C. observes out of Exod. 12.44, 48, 49. that a stranger was not to eate the Passeover, except all his males were circumcised; if it be right, yet it makes nothing for proof of parents duty to see their infants baptized, there being no such institution about Baptism and the Lords Supper, as was about Circumcision and the Passeover. It is granted that the words [Exod. 12.40.] Will keep the Passeover to the Lord] are meant onelyonly of an adult person, yet it is true also, which I say in my Examen part. 4. sect. 6. That males not come to years of discretion fit to receive the Lords Supper were to eat the Passeover, and consequently (if Mr. Cs. dictates were of any of any validity) parents should see they eate Lords Supper. I grant, That God made Abraham Gen. 17.7. a common person as well in reference to us inchurched Gentiles, as to the inchurched Jewes and Proselytes in point of Evangelical covenant interest, but that hee should be so made in point of ingagement from covenant interest, unto the receiving of the initiatory seal by parents and children, Gen. 17.7, 8, 9, 10, 11. is but Mr. Cs. fancy sufficiently refuted by this, that if it were true, then we Gentiles are bound to circumcise our infants, (which is the onelyonly initiatory seal there meant) contrary to Acts 15.24. Gal. 5.1, 2. That which is true of Abraham and his natural seed, must be applied to Abrahams spiritual seed, true Believers of the Gentiles and their natural seed; is but Mr. Cs. vain dream dictated without proof. My grant in my Examen part. 3. sect. 1. pag. 37. (as the words shew) was not that children might be baptized vertually in their parents in exact speech, so as to receive it in their own persons, but onelyonly in that sense in which Mr. M. said women were circumcised vertually in the males, yet so as they might not be circumcised in their own persons: which being considered, my words yeild Mr. C. no advantage.

To the 11th. section I grant, that Matth. 28.19. ties not the Baptizer to know the baptized to be internally and savingly interested in the covenant: But that it sufficeth, that that sort or species of infants, scil. such like infants are in deed and truth of Christs Kingdome, I utterly deny. For then any infant in the world might be baptized, because he is of that sort or species of infants, scil. such like infants are in deed and truth of Christs Kingdome. Dare any say of no unbelievers infants is Christs Kingdome? However it is true of Belivers though not inchurched, and yet Mr. C. denies the right of the child, if the parent be not inchurched. Mr. Cs. reason are vain, neither is our Lord Christs saying, Luk. 18.16. p. 737any rule to us about baptizing; nor was the rule of circumcising infants that some of that sort had the internal saving interest and efficacy of this promise, I will be the God of thy seed, but the command of God, without which it is better to exclude all infants, then upon our own heads to bring on our selves the guilt of will-worship by taking them in. Which must of necessity fall on infant Baptizers after Mr. Cs. rule. For Christs appointment was to baptize infants no otherwise then persons of years. There is no difference in the words Matth, 28.19. between the reason of baptizing one and the other. But persons of years were not to be baptized by Mr. Cs. rule, in that they are of that sort or species of persons, scil. such like persons are in deed and in truth of Christs Kingdome, but onelyonly upon their own discipleship or profession of faith, as the practise thoroughout the Acts of the Apostles shews: Therefore neither are Believers children to bee baptized after any other rule. And yet infants are no more left in the wide wilderness, or any whit less folded up in the Church by their non-baptizing, then they are by their baptism. If they of N. E. do fold them up in the Church, why do they keep them from Church-communion till they bee made members by Church-covenant? If it be better 99 who happily have not so peculiar a title thereto, be folded up in the Church, then that one of such lambs be left out in the wide wilderness, are not they guilty of too much strictness in leaving out of the Church in the wide wilderness, many weak lambs who are weak in faith, because they do not satisfie the Church in the declaration of their experiences? But this is the guise of men who are strict in their own inventions, as in Church-covenant, declaration of experiences for admission to Church-communion, &c. to bee loose about Gods commands, as this of baptizing disciples of Christ is. Enough in answer to these cloudy dictates of Mr. C.