Infant Baptism Asserted and Vindicated, Part 2 · Section

Infant Baptism Asserted and Vindicated · Part 2 · Section

p. 143The AUTHOR's Exceptions againſt Scripture-grounds for Infant-Baptiſm, Examined.

NExt he falls upon Scripture-grounds uſually produced for Infant-Baptiſm, which he is pleaſed to ſelect for us (leaving out that in Rom. 11.17. which is the moſt principal place of all) and ſo to encounter them in that way and manner as he ſees beſt. And herein he hath ſhewed cunning, not much unlike to that before, in conjoyning the condemned Eccleſiaſtical Authorities for Infant-Baptiſm, with thoſe which Proteſtants own for Authentick.

Reply.

1. Had I been to chooſe my own Weapons, I would have let alone ſome of thoſe the Author pitcht upon.

p. 144Secondly, Neither would I have ordered the the Proofs from ſome of the Texts in ſo flight a manner, as he doth; for if a Weapon be ſharp and keen, yet if an Enemy have the handling of it how can we expect, unleſs he be the more ingenious, but that he will blunt the edg of it. And that Adverſary ſhews but ſorry valour, which knocks in the head ſome Arguments of ſtraw, which he hath framed to ſhew his skill on.

In my Opinion it had been more ingenuity in the Author,

(1) To have choſen for usonly the pertinent places that carry the cleareſt evidence, and to have pretermitted the reſt: For if the chiefeſt places will hold good, the reſt which are dark and diſputable whether they belong to the point, may well be let alone; and if the chiefeſt will not carry it; much leſs will the other: yet this is certain that if the ſtrength of every one of thoſe Texts which he produceth for us, were eluded, ſave one, yet that one would carry it; for though two Witneſſes be needful for men, yet one ſingle one is as valid for God, as if there were many thouſands.

p. 1452. To have pitcht only upon thoſe Texts, wherein all Proteſtants both Lutherans and Calviniſts (i.e. Paedobaptiſts) concurr in, as pertinent to the point; whereas he knows it is controverted among them, whether ſome of the Scriptures produced have any thing to do with Infant-Baptiſme, as both the ſecond and third Texts inſtanced in: Nay the third which contains Chriſts Commiſſion for Baptiſm, is that which the Author and his party judge to be the main ground for Baptizing Believers, and excluding Infants. And we know that this is their main Argument, that Infants are not to be baptized, becauſe they cannot believe, and truly we were very ſparing of places to prove childrens Baptiſm, if we ſhould pitch upon Mark 16.16. for it. And here I profeſs my ſelf to be of Mr. Baxters mind, Poſ. 7. pag, 7. of his plain proof — I cannot deny, ſaith he, but that ſome Divines have brought ſome miſ-applyed Scriptures for Infant-Baptiſm: Now it is eaſie to write againſt theſe and ſeem to triumph, and yet the cauſe be no way ſhaken: ſome ſilly people think, when they hear an impertinent Text put by, that all is done: when it may be all the moſt plain Scriptures and beſt arguments have never been anſwered with ſenſe or reaſon. Having ſaid thus much, I come now to his exceptions.

1. The firſt is againſt that place, Mat. 19.15. Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not, &c.

To this our Author Objects — May we not p. 146ſay, How doth Baptiſm come to be concerned in this Text, &c.

To which I reply, Firſt, I conceive none did ever bring this place as of it ſelf, a full and direct proof for Infants-Baptiſm. But ſecondly it doth prove two points, which lay a good ground work for the ſame.

Firſt, That the Kingdom of God is made up as well of Infants as of grown perſons: if any by Kingdom of Heaven, will needs underſtand it of the Kingdom of Glory; let him conſider that none are of that Kingdom, who were not firſt of the Church, firſt of the Kingdom of grace here, and ſo it comes all to one, underſtand it, of which you pleaſe. The Kingdom of God is made up as well of Infants as Adult perſons:Quùm jubet Infantes ad ſe accedere, nihil clariùs quàm veram Infantiam notari. Inſtit. Chriſt. Relig. Calv. compend. per Launeum, cap. 17. p. 325. for Chriſt ſaith, it is of ſuch (i.e.) Children: not of grown men reſembling Children. For firſt, That had been no good reaſon why ſuch ſhould come to him and be bleſſed of him.

2. That had been no reaſon why Chriſt ſhould manifeſt ſo great diſpleaſure againſt his Diſciples, for going about to hinder them. The word is [foreign] rendred in the New Tranſlation, much diſpleaſed; The vulgar hath it indignè tulit. he took it ill at their hands, indignatus eſt, ſaith Beza, be lookt upon it with indignation.

Second, The ſecond point which it proves, p. 147which is alſo a good ground-work; for the ſame, is, That Infancy is no bar or excluſion of any from coming to Chriſt, and receiving a Bleſſing. Infants are capable of benefit by Chriſt, although they do not actually believe; though they cannot lay hold on Chriſt, yet Chriſt can lay hold on them.

Obj. But Baptiſm is not concerned in the Text, except it can be made out that, that bleſſing was Baptizing.

Anſ. 1. It is certain that Bleſſing is not Baptizing, but tis ſomething more, and Chriſt in bleſſing them vouchſafed that to them, which uſually was an Ordinance adminiſtred after Baptiſm, and which is of a higher nature,Acts 8.17, 18, 19. & 19.6.Acts 8:17Acts 8:18Acts 8:19Acts 19:6 and ſo we may argue from this to Baptiſm Incluſively, or a majori, from the greater.

2. Though Bleſſing be not Baptiſm, yet in as much as they were of the Kingdom of Heaven whom he bleſt, it follows they were qualified Subjects for Baptiſm, for grant to Infants a Church relation, and their Baptiſm will follow upon it; if one ſtands good the other will, and this is all we plead for, from the Text.

For that which follows out of Dr. Taylor; Chriſt Bleſſed Children, and ſo diſmiſſed them, therefore Infants aré not to be Baptized.

It is a very idle one. For, Firſt, from a particular Omiſſion to conclude an univerſal unlawfulneſs, is moſt unreaſonable, as Dr. Hammond ſpeaks. It is as if one ſhould thus argue, [Chriſt when he Preached in the Mount, did p. 148not then pray, but only preach, therefore 'tis not lawful to pray. Secondly Chriſt did not that we know baptize any, John 4.2. And if an Argument drawn from his Example Negative, be preſſing, it would conclude as well againſt Baptizing thoſe of riper years, as children. 3. Since Chriſt did that for them which did tranſcend Baptiſm, we may rather conclude; that certainly, if he had Baptized any he would thoſe children, ſince he ſhews more reſpect to them then any grown perſons.Mr. Sydenbam in his Chriſtian and ſober Exercitation. Fourthly, Chriſts Bleſſing them holds forth as much as if he had baptized them: for in that outward rite the Holy Ghoſt was convey'd, and by laying on of hands, others received it, as appears from Acts 8.17, 18, 19. & 19.6. And why not in this Act of Chriſt, upon the Infants (as Mr. Sydenham argues) And if this Act of Chriſt were not a complement only, but an outward ſign of the receiving the Holy Ghoſt, Who ſhould hinder Water that Infants ſhould not be Baptized, ſeeing they have received the Holy Ghoſt as well as we? Act. 10.47. And the ſame Author farther adds— What can be more then for Chriſt to take up Infants in his Arms, lay his hands on them, as an outward ſign to conſecrate them to himſelf, and to ſhew their capacity of receiving the Holy Ghoſt, and then to bleſs them? And yet we muſt with ſcorn deny them a little water, and think it too much to have them named among the loweſt ſort of viſible Saints, and when Chriſt owns p. 149them publickly, and ſaith, that of ſuch is the Kingdom of God. But I ſhall rather believe Chriſts Teſtimony, then any mans forward opinion. And to what intent ſhould Chriſt do all this, but to confirm their old ſtate in the Church, and not to caſt them out of it, and from the participation of all outward ſignes of falvation? Let mens conſciences, not gulph'd in prejudice, judge: This Text, if there were no more, will fly, (ſaith he) in the conſciences one day of the moſt confident contemners of Infants, and their Baptiſm.

A Second Scripture inſtanced and excepted againſt is, that John 3.5.Second Scripture. inſtanced and excepted againſt. Except a man be born of Water, and the Spirit, he can in no wiſe enter into the Kingdom of God. From whence (ſaith the Author) 'tis concluded, That there is no other way to Regenerate and ſave Infants, and add them to the Church, but by Baptiſm.

But who are they that conclude thus from that Text? The Papiſts, as himſelf confeſſeth: And what I pray is that to us? who diſclaim ſuch inferences, as he alſo acknowledgeth we do, and for very good reaſons, and he might have done well to have ſet them down for the benefit of his Reader, ſome of them I ſhall name as,

Firſt, Becauſe as Calvin ſpeaks in his Inſtitutions,Inſtit. Chriſt. Relig. Calv. Compend. p. 322. per Launeum edit. 2d. Salus conſiſtit in promiſſione, Salvation depends upon Gods Covenant, Gen. 17.7. which p. 150he cites, adding in the ſame place, Infants may be capable of Salvation without Baptiſm, as the Iſraelites who dyed without Circumciſion. Though there be an abſolute neceſſity that whoever are ſaved, they muſt be ſaved by the Covenant, yet there is not an abſolute neceſſity of the Seal. Before the law the Covenant was made, for our comfort, in reſpect of our Infants. The ſeed of the Woman ſhall break the Serpents head, Gen. 3.15. yet there was no ſeal to it for 2000. years, nor was there ſuch abſolute neceſſity afterward in the days of circumciſion, for thoſe that dyed before the eighth day. The neceſſity of Salvation by the Covenant was abſolute, but the neceſſity of the ſeal only Conditional, ſo far forth as it may be had.

2. If Baptiſm be of abſolute neceſſity to Salvation, that regeneration is affixt to it, and none can be ſaved without it, then it is in mans power to ſave, and to deſtroy, if they will baptize their children they may ſave them, if they neglect it, damn them, which is a horrible abſurdity to conceive.

Secondly, Now to the Text it ſelf, we ſhall next enquire what it affords, with great reſpect to the Learned, which may judge otherwiſe of it.

Either this Scripture is to be underſtood of Baptiſm or not? if of Baptiſm, then either generally belonging to all men,Dr. Sclater on the 4. Rom. ver. 9. or limitedly to Infants only: If of Infants only, then ſaith Dr. Solater, 1. p. 151What meant Chriſt to propound it to Nicodemus an old man? Was it his purpoſe to teach him; that in as much as he was not Baptized in his infancy, he could not enter into the Kingdom of God? then ſure, I ſhall not wonder, if Nicodemus conceited a neceſſity, for an old man deſiring to come to Heaven, to return back into his Mothers Womb, and be born again. 2. Will they ſay, it muſt have this gloſs by limitation; if a man want Baptiſm by contempt and not otherwiſe? why then ſhould it ſtand in force againſt Infants in their own perſons not capable of contemning, and whoſe Parents deſire it, but are prevented by neceſſity? Alas! poor infants, that you, free from contempt in your ſelves, and your Parents alſo, muſt yet away to Hell for bare want of Baptiſm; and yet grown perſons [as Papiſts themſelves acknowledge] in the ſame want, have acceſs to Heaven, ſo they be free from contempt: Can we imagine bare want to be more prejudicial to Infants, then to grown men.

But what Reader, if it appear that the place cannot be underſtood of Baptiſm at all? I muſt leave it to thee to judge of what is offered, to ſhew, that 'tis only Regeneration and not Baptiſm that is concerned in the Text, for Water and the Spirit here by an Exegeſis are one, or if you will according to the judgement of Dr. Taylor, by Water is meant the effect of the Spirit: Nor is this the ſingle judgment of Dr. Taylor, but very many others, who in their time were the Magna Eccleſiae lumina, who ſo interpret it, amongſt whom are Calvin, Beza, Piſcator; p. 152Calvin indeed acknowledgeth the ancient Expoſitors followed Chryſoſtome, that the Text was to be underſtood of Baptiſm, yet profeſſeth himſelf of another mind. Beza in his Annotations of the place declares himſelf to the ſame purpoſe, that he underſtood by Water in that place is meant rather the effect of the ſpirit then the Sacrament of Baptiſm — ſin verò malimus Chriſtum cum Phariſaeo diſſerentem Aquae nomine, ad externas ablutiones alluſiſſe, &c. I rather conceive Chriſt reaſoning with this Phariſee under the name of Water, doth allude to thoſe external waſhing, which were uſeleſs without the cleanſing of the Spirit. Et Spiritus nomen ſit exegeſis [that is, a figure which ſignifies a dark ſpeech made clear by another word, which here is the Spirit] nominis aquae, ſicut alibi ſpiritus & ignis in baptiſmo conjunguntur, By the name of Water we are to underſtand by an Exegeſis the Spirit, as elſewhere the Spirit and Fire are joyned, Though the Order be inverted there, and he gives the reaſon of it. So Piſcator, except a man be born of Water, that is, ex ſpiritu ſancto, exſerente quaſi vim aquae — Of the holy Spirit, which operates in the ſoul as Water doth in the body, and he alſo referrs to the ſame place, Mat. 3.5. Of being Baptized with the Spirit, and with Fire. We have alſo the great Chamier arguing the ſame, ſeeing in this ſenſe the words bear an abſolute truth without any limitation.

The Author concludes this with ſporting himſelf at the different grounds upon which the Aſſertors of Infant-Baptiſm hold it out; as the Fathers upon one ground, the Lutherans upon p. 153another, the Calviniſt differing from them, the Epiſcoparians one way, the Presbyterians another, and the Independents have a peculiar ground varying from them all.

Now thanks be to Mr. Tombes his eleventh Argument againſt Infant-Baptiſm, for all this, Exercitation pag. 33. The Aſſertors of Infant-Baptiſm little agree amongſt themſelves, ſaith he, upon what ground they may build it. Cyprian and others draw it from the Univerſality of grace, and the neceſſity of Baptiſm to Salvation. Auſtin brings the faith of the Church, others (the Church of England) ſubſtitute the promiſed ſurety in the place of the Faith, and Repentance of the Baptized: The Lutherans the faith of the Infant, others the faith of the next Parent in Covenant in a gathered Church.

Reply.

This, ſaith Mr. Geree unto him, hath art, I will not ſay Sophiſtry in it; and what though divers men have let fall different grounds, yet none of thoſe are the main upon which they ground it (for that's the Covenant of Gods grace, that takes in the Child with the Parent) if, (ſaith he) I ſhould from ſeveral ways or Arguments uſed by the Antipaedobaptiſts, ſay, they did oppoſe. Infant-Baptiſm on ſeveral grounds, therefore their oppoſition were invalid, you would think my anſwer unſolid, and ſo do I your Argument. Father I deſire the Author to reflect upon his own party who oppoſe childrens Baptiſm, by denying that Covenant made p. 154to Abraham was a Covenant of Grace; ſome ſay it was Temporary, ſome Typical, ſome mixt, and I know not what; So they much differ in the foundation of their practice. Some build it on a bare confeſſion of ſin, whatever the man be, as to grace, ſome on profeſſion of Faith, ſome on ſigns of grace, &c. Mr. Geree ſaith well — weakneſs in mens ſight, variety of fancy and principles, carry men into different ways of defending the ſame truth.

The Author now frames his exceptions againſt thoſe Scriptures which hold forth a Covenant-Right to the Children of Believeers,4. Argument from federal holineſs excepted againſt. and from whence we inferr their baptizing, and thus he begins — Paedobaptiſts being loth to part with the Tradition, and yet ſeeing the rottenneſs of the ancient ground upon which 'twas built, found out this new foundation for it of Covenant-Holineſs, of which Zwinglius about 120 years, for aught that he can learn, was the firſt Founder and ſingular from all that went before him.

All this is from Maſter Tombes, The Author a notorious Plagiary having taken all in his 43. pages following from Mr. Tombes his two Books of Exerc. and Examen, I mean as to the ſubſtance of it, and moſt in his words and method, only indeed he hath two quotations out of Dr. Taylor, and one out of Dr. Owen. Mr. Tombes Exercit. p. 11.and ſo throughout to the endc of this Chapter, both Arguments Authorities, Scriptures, and Cryticiſmes, with this difference, that he varies a little in ſome things, and doth not ſpeak p. 155ſo warily as he. Mr. Tombes in his Examen part 3. pag. 35. begins the Argument (as framed by us) from the connexion between the Covenant and the Seal, but this man ends it with that, and the Scriptures are in both one, viz. Gen. 17.7. Acts 2.39. I need not therefore much trouble my ſelf for an Anſwer to the Author, for the ſame, which Mr. Marſhall gave Tombes, doth the work to a hair.

The Author tells us that for ought he could learn Zwinglius was the firſt Founder of the Argument for Baptiſm from federal Holineſs, and this indeed he learnt from Mr. Tombes his Exercitation, pag. 11. whoſe words are — Whether any in the Ages before the laſt paſt expounded it of federal holineſs, I am not yet certain; and in the two laſt lines of page the 79. of his Examen, he hath it thus, viz. None that ever I met with expounded it of federal Holineſs till the controverſie of the Anabaptiſts in Germany.

To this I will ſeek for no other anſwer then what Mr. Marſhal gives him, the cauſe (ſaith he) I confeſs depends not upon this [whether ſuch an interpretation was then firſt put] But it diſcovers ſome defect in your reading, and then ſhews Athanaſius one of the moſt Ancient Greek Fathers, and Tertullian one of the moſt Ancient of the Lattin Fathers, bring this Text to prove the Prerogative of the Infants of Believers in ſuch a ſenſe as they could not have done, if to their underſtanding it had not related to the Covenant of grace. But to p. 156the Argument, and let us ſee what is excepted againſt it.

The Argument is this, viz. They who are holy with a federal or Covenant holineſs ought to be baptized, But the Infants of Believers are holy, with ſuch a holineſs, Ergo, This is grounded on the Text, which ſaith [elſe were your Children unclean, but now are they holy.]

Againſt which it is excepted, that there are two things in the Argument aſſerted, but not at all proved. Firſt, that the holineſs in the Text is a Federal, or Covenant-holineſs. Secondly, that federal holineſs qualifies Infants for Baptiſm, both which the Author poſitively denies upon the following grounds.

Firſt, becauſe the Holineſs in the Text be it what it will be, whether Moral, Federal, or Matrimonial, is neither here nor elſewhere, aſſigned to be a ground of Baptizing Children upon; it being only the ground laid down in the inſtitution that can warrant the ſame.

To which I reply, That in the firſt part of the Book, chapter the firſt, is ſhewed, how the Infant Seed of Believers are included in the inſtitution, or comprehended in the Commiſſion as baptizable, and being not willing actum agere, I muſt referr the Reader thither. We have alſo proved that they are of the Church of Chriſt. chap. 6. of the firſt part, upon which account they are likewiſe ſubjects of Baptiſme. Farther, if their holineſs be a Covenant-holineſs, that is, a holineſs of ſpecial ſeparation to God; and he owneth them as his peculiar ones, by p. 157virtue of his Cove nant-Relation, this is virtual ly and implicitly a word of command for the Baptizing ſuch In fants, Antipaedobaptiſts are ever up with this note, where is your command? What word of Inſtitution have you to bear you out? To this we have ſpoken enough before, in telling them we have an implicit command for what we do; and farther we offer this Syllogiſme — They to whom God is a God in Covenant, have a command to receive the ſeale of the Covenant, Gen. 17.10, 11. If then the ſame Covenant be given to Believers and their Seed, and if Baptiſm be given to Chriſtians, inſtead of Circumciſion, as ſhall be proved in its proper place, then the ſame command which obliged Abraham to be Circumciſed, and his ſeed, doth in like manner, the faithful and their ſeed alſo.

Secondly, Becauſe, ſaith he, if it ſhould be granted that Faederal holineſs were a ground to baptize Children upon, under the Goſpel, as it was to Circumciſe them under the law — yet it will appear from ſubſtantial Arguments that no ſuch holineſs is intended here.

Let us hear what they are; namely,

1. Becauſe there is no ſuch Holineſs in the new-Teſtament, as Federal, belonging to Children.

Well argued! this ſeems to be neer of kin to idem per idem, it is not, becauſe it is not. So there is no ſuch holineſs intended in the Text; Why? Becauſe there is no ſuch holineſs in the New Teſtament, and the Text is in the New Teſtament. The matter is well mended in what p. 158follows — It is no where to be found. This is only a Dictate, for he addeth no reaſon; It is no where to be found; But you muſt underſtand he means by himſelf and his party that have made ſuch inquiſition and ſearch into Scripture, that they only have found what is there; what they judge to be the fence of Scripture is ſo, and we muſt all come and learn of them what the Scripture contains, what it implyes and what may be inferred from it, what not. Away with this Popery. But what if I ſay the Covenant holyneſs of Children may be found in this Text? I ſee no reaſon but my word may be be credited as well as his. Nay, if we muſt go by an implicit faith, we ſhall carry it, for allmoſt all the Godly and Learned Divines in Europe have found Covenant-holineſs in the New-Teſtament, not only in the 2 Cor. 7.14. But in Rom. 11.15, 16, 17. where it is ſaid, if the firſt fruits are boly, ſo is the lump: if the root be holy, ſo are the Branches, which demonſtrates the Covenant-holineſs of the children of believing Gentiles, now under the Goſpel, as much as of the Jewiſh children, that deſcended naturally from Abraham, under the Law, but this muſt not be admitted, and why?

1. Becauſe it contradicts the Goſpel-Diſpenſation as before, that is, I ſuppoſe in the firſt part of his Book, chap. 5. and I referr the Reader to our Anſwer of that Chapter, to which I adde this by way of ſurpluſage, that if our Children be not federally holy, how could the Apoſtle preſs the Jews to imbrace Chriſtianity, by telling them, The Promiſe is made to you and to your p. 159ſeed, and to all that are afar off, even as many as our Lord God ſhall call. So that to ſay the Doctrine of Federal holineſs contradicts the Goſpel-diſpenſation, is to contradict the Goſpel which expreſly ſays the contrary, Act. 2.38, 39. Where [mark the words are not the promiſe] [Was] to you, and to your Children, but [is] intimating, that the Covenant is not repealed, but in force ſtill, under the Goſpel-Diſpenſation, as much as ever it was anciently to the Jews and their poſterity, and to them that are afar off, the Gentiles, and then to their Children too. even their Infant Children, otherwiſe theſe two abſurdities would follow.

1. The grace of Chriſt under the Goſpel-diſpenſation would be leſs then what it was under the Law, for then the believing Parent with his Children were federally holy, and if it were not ſo now, then ſhould we be in a worſe condition under Chriſt, then under Moſes.

2. It will render the Children of the Jews alſo in a worſe condition, upon their coming in to Chriſt, then they were in under the legal Adminiſtration, contrary to that, Jer, 30.20. Ezek. 37.25, 26.

2. His ſecond Reaſon is, Becauſe ſuch apprehenſions intails Grace to Nature, Regeneration to Generation, contrary to John, 3. That which is born of the fleſh is fleſh, and Eph. 2. We are all the Children of wrath by Nature.

This hath been before anſwered, and I ſhall only now ſay, that this is a falſe and fraudulent inſinuation to beget a prejudice in the weak againſt our aſſertion of federal holineſs, for he knows very well,

p. 1601. That our Divines hold that gratia non transfunditur per carnem, and that grace is not extraduce, Grace is not hereditary, that is inherent Grace: We all ways affirm that all Children are alike depraved, and all the poſterity of Adam are alike conceiv'd in ſin, and brought forth in iniquity, all are Carnal and unclean by nature.

2. We farther affirm that though all the Children of Believers are not holy with an inherent perſonal holyneſs that accompanies Regeneration, yet the Children of either believing Parent, are holy with a holineſs-relation put upon them, and ſeparartion to God, as his peculiar people, by virtue of which, they have a right to the external privileges of the Covenant, whereof they are as capable as the children of the faithful Iſraelites.

3. It is acknowledged even by Mr. Tombs himſelf, that the Children of the Jews were federally holy, for the whole body of that people (Parents and Children) were called a Holy Seed, a Holy Nation, a peculiar people, and Jews by Nature, diſtinguiſhed from the Sinners of the Gentiles, Gal. 2.15. And yet this did not intail Grace to Nature, or Regeneration to Generation under the Old Teſtament, and how doth it then do it under the New?

3. His third Reaſon is, Becauſe it contradicts experience both of former and later times, wherein Godly men have had wicked Children, and wicked men good Children.

Although this be true, yet the Doctrine of federal holineſs remains unſhaken: for children p. 161are not therefore holy, becauſe born of believing Parents [for ſo they are no better then others] but becauſe they are taken with their Parents into Gods gracious Covenant, and have therefore a right as proper ſubjects, to the Seal thereof. Even as the Children of the Godly under the Law; Iſhmael and Eſau, during their Infant-ſtate, were comprehended in the Covenant, and did partake of the external privilege thereof, Circumciſion, the ſign and Seal of the Covenant, although afterward they degenerated, proving wicked, and ſo diſcovenanted themſelves.

4. He tells us, The Tenet of Federal holineſs neceſſitates the owning the Docirine of falling from grace; but this is his miſtake: for the Doctrine of Covenant-holineſs in regard of the Children of Believers, conſiſts very well with perſeverance in Grace. For we muſt conſider Grace is either Common or ſaving: The Elect and faithful Seed are only in a State of ſaving Grace, and can never totally fall away, nevertheleſs perſons may fall away from Common-grace, (1.) From the External privileges of the Goſpel and Covenant of Grace. And though we aſſert this latter, yet cannot any man form thence infer, that it neceſſitates the owning the Doctrine of falling from grace in the ſenſe of the Arminians. We read of ſome who are ſaid to be falſe in Gods Covenant, and to Apoſtatize from it, Pſalm 44.17. Daniel 11.30, 31. And the Apoſtle bewailes the Jewes upon this account Kom. 9. Rom. 11.

p. 1622. His ſecond Argument is,Mr. Tomb's Exerc. fourth Arg. on 1 Cor. 7.14. p. 10.1 Cor 7:14 Becauſe the Text, he ſaith, intends another, viz. a Civil or Matrimonial Holineſs, in Oppoſition to Fornication, Ʋncleanneſs, Baſtardy, This is Mr. Tombes again.

In anſwer to which, I might firſt except againſt the impropriety of phraſe, the Anthor uſeth, of Civil and Matrimonial holineſs, I have read of Civil honeſty, but never of Civil holineſs in any Orthodox writer. And Mr. Tombes himſelf rejects it, I do not like ſaith he, the calling it Civil holineſs, for it is not from the laws of men, but the inſtitution of God, and therefore I rather call it Matrimonial holineſs; But neither of them are good.

It cannot poſſibly be meant of Matrimonial holineſs, as if the ſenſe were this, your children are holy that is Legitimate,

1. Becauſe, Holy, is no where ſo taken in all the Scripture.

2. Becauſe it is ſuch a Holineſs as that Children could not have, if neither of the Parents were a Believer, or had a ſanctified uſe of the other, which cannot be legitimacie, for that may be as well without that, as with it.

3. It is ſuch a holineſs as argues the unbelieving party to be ſanctifyed in, or to the other, but meer Legitimacy doth not ſo.

4. It muſt be ſuch a holineſs as may anſwer the Corinthians doubt, which was not whether when one party came to be a believer, the Marriage with the Unbeliever were diſſolv'd [as the Author p. 163falſly ſuppoſeth, when he ſaith the Queſtion was, Whether their Spiritual Relation to Chriſt, did not diſſolve their Carnal Relation entered into in Unbelief] But the doubt was, whether they might ſtill perſiſt in ſo neer a Communion with an Unbeliever as Marriage is? Now it had been ſatisfaction to tell them they might, for their Children were not baſtards. They might diſpleaſe God by ſuch a Communion, though their children were not Baſtards. But ſays he, your Believing gives you a holy uſe of your Wife, though an Unbeliever, as appears, becauſe your children born of ſuch are holy, and owned by Chriſt as within his Covenant.

5. I might add. The Holineſs in the Text is not put in Oppoſition to Baſtardy; for, that cannot be the ſenſe of the Apoſtle which implies untruth, becauſe then, if one of the Parents had not been a Believer, and ſo by being a Believer had Sanctified the Unbeliever, their children muſt have been Baſtards, whereas though both the Parents had been Infidels, yet the children were not Baſtards, that were begotten in lawful Wedlock.

His ſecond Argument to prove it a Holineſs of that kind as he ſuppoſeth, and not federal is, Becauſe the Holineſs of the Children is of no other Nature, then that ſpoke of the Ʋnbelieving Parent in the Text, and if one will intitle to the Ordinance, ſo the other.

This the Author dictates, and ſince he brings no proof, for what he ſays, I may as well deny it, and ſay no more. Nevertheleſs I ſhall give a reaſon to prove the holineſs of the children is p. 164other then that ſpoken of the unbelieving Parent. Namely, becauſe the children here are ſaid to be holy in themſelves, But the unbelieving [Whether Husband or Wife] is only ſaid to be ſanctified in, or to the believing Yoak-fellow, as all other creatures; the meat he eats, the cloaths he wears are ſanctified; None of which are holy in themſelves, but only in reference to the believer — quoad ejus uſum, to his uſe and ſervice, and therefore cannot be called holy, but the children in the Text are ſaid to be holy in themſelves and not ſanctified or made holy to another. Mr. Cotton of New England is full to the ſame purpoſe in his Dialogue about Baptiſm. Though the word Sanctifyed and holy come of the ſame Root, ſaith he, which is foreign, yet the Apoſtle uſeth them here in ſuch a different phraſe or manner of ſpeech, as putteth a manifeſt difference in the ſenſe or ſignification of them. For when he ſaith, the Unbelieving Yoak-fellow is ſanctified, he doth not leave it ſo, without a limitation or reſtriction, but joyneth the Prepoſition foreign to the Verb foreign, (i.e.) Sanctified in or to the believer, and that limiteth the ſence to the Believers uſe, But when he ſpeaketh of Children he doth it not with ſuch limitation, they are holy to the Believer, but Poſitively they are holy.

The Author ſhuts up this with another miſtake.

The Holineſs ſpoken of the unbelieving Parent, and the Child being of the ſame Nature, then if one will intitle to the Ordinance, ſo the other.

p. 165Poſito uno abſurdo mille ſequuntur. One abſurdity laid down, draws an innumerable train after it. The Holineſs is not one and the ſame as before, and therefore cannot entitle to the ſame privileges. And beſides, I add, the Covenant was not made with the Believer and his Yoak-fellow, but with him, and his Seed, and therefore the one hath a right to the Ordinance of Baptiſm, the other not.

The third Argument, (ſuch as it is) is from the conſideration that children in the Text is not to be limited to Infants, Mr. Tombes again, Examen p. 73.or ſuch children that they might have ſince the Religious difference happened, but of grown children, for a mans Child is his Child, though thirty, forty, or fifty years old, &c.

'Tis wonderful to behold the ſhifts of errour, This is old Tombes again, Exam. pag. 73. He ſaith, Your children indiſcriminatim, without difference, as well thoſe you had before, one when of you was a Believer. But this Muſe is ſoon ſtopped by theſe conſiderations.Quòd enim nonnulli ad liheros ex utroque infideli ſuſceptos extendunt, qui non ſint ſpurii ſed legitimi, falſo dici apparet ex hypotheſi pauli. Quor ſum enim vel de ſpuriis, vel dc infidelis utriuſque naptiis diſſereret? Bezae Annot. in locum. Firſt, That the Corinthians could not poſſibly be ſo filly as to doubt whether thoſe children which were begotten in their Infidel ſtate were Baſtards, before this Religious difference happened; nor can we conceive the Apoſtle would have ſuggeſted ſuch a falſe thing unto them, as if thoſe Children had p. 166been to be ſo reputed, had not one of them turned Believer. Secondly, The Children then born after one of them was turned Chriſtian is unqueſtionably that which the Apoſtle intends, and if ſo, then Children is moſt rationally to be limited to Infant Children, ſuch as ſhould be or had been newly born upon their Parents Believing, for we may well ſuppoſe the ſcruple aroſe preſently after converſion, about cohabitation and converſe with their Infidel-Yoak-fellows, and whether it were not irreligious (not Fornication as Antipaedobaptiſts very weakly ſuppoſe) for the Believer to procreate with the Infidel.

His fourth Argument why it cannot be a new Covenant-Holineſs that qualifies and intitles to Baptiſm is —

Firſt becauſe that cannot be known; The fourth Argnment taken from Mr. Tombes vide Mr. Baxters plain proof for Infants Church-Memberſhip and Baptiſm. p. 92.for if the Parent profeſſing faith, be a Hypocrite, and not in Covenant themſelves, then may you Baptize a wrong ſubject, as well as a right.

I perceive the Authors ſtrength is almoſt ſpent. His reaſon runs low, and is near come to the dreggs; for what doth this his arguing amount to? ſhall we not find thoſe who are for Baptizing grown perſons, upon the profeſſion of Faith in the ſame praedicament? may not theſe be Hypocrits alſo, and not in Covenant, and if ſo, do they not Baptize a wrong ſubject? When therefore they have cleared this difficulty for themſelves they have done it for us, Farther if it be the reality of Faith and Holineſs p. 167in grown perſons that qualifies for Baptiſm, then none muſt be Baptized, becauſe this cannot be known; but if it be ſaid a ſerious profeſſion is ſufficient [for, De occultis non judicat Eccleſia, The Church judgeth not of ſecret or hidden things] Then the ſame alſo is ſufficient for the Infants of ſuch ſo profeſſing. The diſtinction which is uſed by Divines may give light in this point, namely, there is an external being in Covenant, in facie viſibilis Eccleſiae, in the eſteem and judgement of the Church, and that is viſible Profeſſion or Holyneſs, and this gives right to viſible priviledges, 2. There is an internal being in Covenant, in regard of the ſpiritual faving benefits of it; and it is out of the reach of the Church to judge of this latter. I ſhall ſhut up this with the words of Mr. Marſhal in his Defence of Infant-Baptiſm, pag. 108. viz. When therefore I ſay they [Infants] are viſibly to be reckoned to belong to the Covenant with their Parents. I mean look what right a viſible Profeſſor hath to be received and reputed to belong to the Viſible Church, Quà viſibilis Profeſſor, as a viſible Profeſſor, that right his child hath ſo to be eſteemed. Now I conceive the Author himſelf will confeſs that the ſpiritual part and privileges of the Covenant of Grace belongs not to viſible Profeſſors, as viſible, but only to ſuch among them who are inwardly ſuch as their external profeſſion holds out, but yet there are outward Church privileges, Mr. Blakes Covenant Sealed.which belong to them, as they are viſible Profeſſors, As to to be reputed p. 168the Children of the Kingdom, Mat. 8.42. Act. 3.25. And in this ſenſe St. Paul ſpeaking of the Body of the Jewiſh people ſaith,Rom. 9.4.Rom 9:4 To them pertaineth the Adoption, [Not the ſpiritual adoption, but the honour of being ſeparated, and reputed Gods Children, Deut. 14] and the Glory, and the Covenants, &c.

Secondly he ſaith, ſuch an abſurdity would follow, that no Ʋnbelievers Child is in Covenant or Elect, &c.

To this I anſwer, that no Unbelievers child is in Covenant in the ſence before mentioned, that is, in facie Eccleſiae, in the face of the Church, until he make a Profeſſion of his Faith. Nevertheleſs he may belong to the Election of Gods Grace, but thats not to the point in hand, for Election is not a Covenant, nor any in Covenant becauſe elected.

Thirdly he adds the concurrent Teſtimony and Confeſſion of many Learned Commentators and parties themſelves upon the place, that the Text is to be underſtood of matrimonial, and not federal holineſs. As Auſtin, Jerom, Ambroſe, Melancton, Muſculus, Camerarius, Eraſmus, to which ſaith he, we may adde many more, as if theſe were collected by his own pains. Whereas he hath only added the laſt, the reſt were all gathered and publiſhed by Mr. Tombs neer thirty years ſince. And that the Reader may not think I injure him, I ſhall parallel them once more.

p. 169H. D. Jerom, ſaith, becauſe of Gods appointment, Marriage is holy.

H. D. Ambroſe thus, The Children are Holy, becauſe they are born of Lawful Marriage.

H. D. Melancthon, in his Commentary on the place thus. Therefore Paul anſwers, that the Marriages are not to be pulled aſunder, for their unlike opinions of God; if the impious perſon do not caſt away the other: and for comfort he adds as a reaſon, The unbelieving Husband is Sanctified by the believing Wife; Meat is ſanctified, for that which is holy in uſe, that is, granted to Believers from God; ſo here he ſpeaks the uſe of Marriage to be p. 170holy, and to be granted of God.

H. D. Muſculus in his Comment upon the place confeſſeth, That he had abuſed formerly that place againſt the Anabaptiſts.

H. D. Camerarius in his Commentary upon the place, ſaith, (for the unbelieving Husband hath been ſanctified) an uſual change of the Tenſe; that is, Sanctified in the lawful uſe of Marriage, for without this he ſaith, it would be, that their Children ſhould be unclean, that is infamous and not Legitimate, who ſo are holy, that p. 171is during the Marriage, are without all blot of ignominy.

p. 169J. T. Hierome, ſaith, becauſe by Gods appointment Marriage is holy, Exerc. p. 12.

J. T. Ambroſe, hath it thus, the Children are holy, becauſe they are born of lawful Marriage Exercit. p. 12.

J. T. Melancthon, in his Commentary on the place, Therefore Paul anſwers, that the Marriages are not to be pulled aſunder, for their unlike opinions of God, if the impious perſon do not caſt away the other: and for comfort he adds as a reaſon, The Ʋnbelieving Husband is Sanctified by the believing Wife. And elſewhere he ſaith, Meat is Sanctified, for that which is holy in uſe, ſo here, he ſpeaks the uſe of Marriage to be holy, and to be p. 170granted of God, Exer. p. 11.

J. T. Muſculus on the 1 Cor. 7.14. hath thoſe words — I have ſometimes abuſed the preſent place againſt the Error of the Anabaptiſts Exercit. p. 1. H. D. leaves out Error, becauſe that ſounds ill and an ignorant Reader upon the leaving that out, may judge Muſculus was Proſelyted to them.

J. T. Joachimus Camerarius, about this matter in his Coment [for the Ʋnbelieving Husband hath been Sanctified] an uſual change of the Tenſe, that is, ſanctified in the lawful uſe of Marriage, for without this, he ſaith, it would be, that their Children ſhould be unclean that is, infamous and not legitimat, who ſo are holy, that is, p. 171during the Marriage, are without all blot of ignominy, Exercit. pag. 11.

By this the Reader may ſee that our Antagoniſt hath little reaſon to keep ſuch a vaunting with things made ready to his hand. And in Anſwer to all the Teſtimony of theſe Commentators, that it is to be underſtood of Legitimacy, in oppoſition to uncleanneſs and Baſtardy, beſides the aforementioned Reaſons againſt it, I am of Mr. Marſhals mind (as he told Mr. Tombes) that though ſome Ancient and Modern do interpret this Text as he did, yet it is eaſie to bring 10 for one that interpret it for federal holineſs, and this ſaith he to Mr. Tombes, you will confeſs although I forbear to bumbaſt my Book with them, no ways deſiring that this cauſe ſhould be carried by number of voices — only becauſe Camerarius is named as againſt us in the interpretation, and he is joyned and bound up at the end of Beza, I mean that which was Printed at Cambridge, I ſhall acquaint the Reader how poſitive Beza is who carries the Text for federal holineſs; Sed quid ſi quis hoc negaſſot? Imo verò nemo id potuit negare, cum conſtaret do promiſſione in qua ſemen quo que comprehenditur. No man may interpret it otherwiſe, it being according to the Covenant which comprehends the ſeed. Nec alia cauſa eſt cur ſanctorum liberos ad Baptiſmum admittamas, quàm quia ſancti ſunt (id eſt in faedere comprehenſi) ab ipſo utero. This is p. 172the only reaſon why we Baptize the Children of the Godly, becauſe they are holy, (that is comprehended in the Covenant) from their Mothers Womb.

Now the Author is for anſwering our Objections againſt their interpretation of the Text.

Object.

You give another ſenſe of the word [Holy] then is to be found in Scripture, for no where is holy, the ſame with Legitimat, but throughout the Bible in many hundred places Holineſs is taken for a Separation to God, ſaith Mr. Sydenham and Mr. Baxter.

And beſides them, all know, holineſs is taken for a ſpecial ſeparation of things, or perſons to God and his uſe. Mr. Marſhall, Geree, Blake, and all latter writers as well as former, ſo take it in the preſent point, [and the word foreign] in the Text rendred holy is moſt uſed to expreſs the Hebrew word, foreign, which ever ſignifies what is uſui Divino accommodatum, that which is appropriated to a Divine uſe, which is the proper notion of the word in the old and new Teſtament, as Sydenham notes, and never taken otherwiſe; and for the proof of it, tells us, he had compared above 300 places (The Author ſpeaks of 600) in the old Teſtament according to the Septuagint, and all the New Teſtament places where the word is uſed.

Well, How doth our Antagoniſt anſwer p. 173the Objection which he bring? — Why thus —

Firſt ſuppoſe it be ſo [He is no farther yet then a ſuppoſe] that the word ſignifies, that, in all thoſe places but this, viz. 1 Cor. 7.14. [But now are they holy) it follows not but it may have this ſenſe properly enough here, the ſcope of the place leading to it? as foreign ſignifies authority or power in all other places, This is alſo borrow'd from Mr Tombes.yet in the 1 Corin. 11 15. is rendered a Vail, &c.

No wonder that Hereticks are ſo inflexible when even good men, (ſuch as I hope both Mr. Tombes and this Author are) will wrangle at this rate, & ſomnem movere lapidem, try every way rather then be thought to erre in their conceits: and where this humour is predominant, men were better be ſilent, and not diſpute at all, for it puts an abuſe upon the Scripture, and renders Religion not only ridiculous but turns it into a Fire brand of contention. Thus our Author being unwilling to part with his fond notion of the word, Holy, in the Text, doth I fear prophanely abuſe the Scripture, by flying to this old ſhift of Mr. Tombes grounded upon a miſtake of the ſcope of the Text as is before ſhewn, for the Corinthians doubt was whether it was ſinful to cohabit with their Infidel Yoak-fellows, and not whither is was fornication to live with them. It will not be amiſs to give you the reply that Mr. Baxter made to Tombes, when he urged that though the word foreign doth in all other places ſignifie authority or p. 174power, yet in the 1 Cor. 11.15. it is rendred a Vail. To which ſaith Mr. Baxter, if God do no where in all Scripture call the meer making a thing lawful (the ſanctifying it) but many hundred times uſe the word in another ſenſe; then we muſt not call it, nor ſo interpret him here, but God doth no where in Scripture call the meer making a thing lawful (the Sanctifying of it) therefore we muſt not do ſo, nor here ſo interpret it. Mr. Tombes granted the Antecedent, but denying the conſequence, ſaid, that though God did not ſo uſe the word, yet we might, and though he uſe it five hundred times otherwiſe, yet we muſt ſo interpret him here

To which, ſaith Mr. Baxter, I am reſolv'd to learn of God how to ſpeak rather then you, and to follow Scripture phraſe as near as I can, &c. But I muſt follow the Author —

And ſecondly, ſaith he, Neither are we to ſeek of ſome Parallel place, where the word holy ſignifies this ſort of Holineſs, Mr. Tombes Exercit. p. 13, 14.viz. Matrimonial holineſs, Mal. 2.15. A holy ſeed, viz. a Legitimat ſeed, as Calvin and Camer, and others inlarge upon it, in oppoſition to Baſtardy, for ſo were Baſtards to be eſteemed, Deut. 23.17. and ſo 1 Theſ. 4.3, 4, 5. This is the will of God even your Sanctification, and that you abſtain from Fornication. &c.

Still Mr. Tombes word by word, both Scriptures and Authors, ſo that the Book might have well born the Title of Tombes redivivns, but,

p. 175Firſt, For that in Malachy it hath no neerneſs to it; for Godly or of God is not the ſame with Holy: nor doth he ſay that all Seed begotten in lawful Marriage of one to one, is a Godly Seed: But that he might ſeek a ſeed of God; that ſo he might have a Church proceeding from orderly and chaſte marriage. Mr. Gerre hath cleared this very well in his Vindiciae Paedobaptiſmi. The place in Malachy, ſaith he, to Mr. Tombes doth not any thing countenance your conceit, that Holy is taken for Legitimate: not only becauſe that place is capable of another ſenſe then to import a Legitimate Seed, but if it be taken for Legitimate, it follows not that Holy and Legitimate are one; Holy is a higher ſtate then Legitimate, both are from Gods Ordination; Seed in both ſenſes may be termed a Seed of God, as the Original is there, and yet they be different, and ſo though a Seed of God be tranſlated Legitimate, yet it follows not that holy is taken for Legitimate.

Then for that place in Deuteronomy 23.17. This makes it more unlikely, ſaith the aforementioned Author, for though Baſtards were once Legally unclean, yet that was a Ceremonial thing, that was abrogated when the Apoſtle wrote to the Corinthians, and for the Apoſtle then in that ſenſe to ſay Baſtards were unclean, was neither true, nor ſafe, for it were a reviving again the Ceremonial Law. And for the other Text, 1 Theſ. 4.3, 4, 5. where foreign Sanctification is the ſame with Chaſtity, Mr. Marſhal did not fly to a ſhift, when he told Tombes, that p. 176Chaſtity among the Heathens is never called Sanctification, but among Believers it is, being a part of the New-Creation, and one branch and part of their Sanctification wrought by the ſpirit of God; for the Apoſtle here writes to the Saints to take heed of that ſin to which, whilſt they were in their Infidel State, they were much given up to. Chaſtity indeed amongſt Infidels we call a moral virtue, but cannot properly be called a part of Sanctification.

Thirdly (which is the laſt reaſon the Author brings, I ſhould have ſaid Mr. Tombes) Neither can Matrimonial holineſs be ſaid not to be a Separation to God; Mr. Tombes Examen. pag. 77.for it is no other then ſetting a part according to Gods Ordinance, and which is called honourable (or in this ſenſe holy) &c.

The Author had been ingenious if he had given us all that Mr. Tombes ſaith upon this — for he flyes to the Engliſh Liturgy for help; I may adde, ſaith he, that Marriage hath had the reputation of a holy eſtate, as the Liturgy calls it.

In anſwer to which this may ſuffice, it is a chaſte eſtate, but for the term holineſs to be given to it, it is to be ſuſſpected to be the Iſſue of a ſuppoſed Sacrament,Mr Geree Vinditiae Paedollapt. ſo eſteemed by the Papiſts, and this may occaſion ſome Epethites given to it, which are yet retained, that ought to be laid aſide.

There are two other petty objections which p. 177I let paſs as not thinking them worthy of any more anſwers,Vide Marſhalls defence p, 146. and Gerees Vindiciae Paedobapt. p. 25. when both Mr. Marſhal and Mr. Geree hath done it ſo well, to whom I refer the Reader.

Exceptions againſt our Arguments for Infant Baptiſm, from Gen. 17. Acts 2.39. removed.

In the next place he attempts to invalidate our great Argument for Infant-Baptiſm drawn from the connexion, that is, between the Covenant and the ſeal, ſo that if the Infant ſeed of Believers are found to be within the Covenant of Gods Grace, they ought therefore to partake of the Seal; The Author ſights moſt furiouſly againſt this Argument, but all the Weapons he makes uſe of in this engagement, are fetch'd out of Mr. Tombes his Armory, whoſe edges were long ſince blunted in an encounter with Mr. Marſhall and Mr. Geree, yet hath he thought fit to whet and furbiſh them over again, and to make a great flouriſh, as if he would do ſome notable execution. But thou wilt find Reader, that he tenders nothings to the end of the Chapter, but a nauſeous Crambe, a Repetition of the old routed Arguments; and indeed the controverſie hath been ſo much bandied too and fro, that without a miraculous invention, it is impoſſible to find out any thing New, either Pro or Con, and the utmoſt that can be done, is but to improve the Old Arguments. p. 178The foundation upon which we ground our practice, is Gods Covenant, Gen. 17.7. from whence (ſaith he) it is thus argued.

Thoſe to whom the Goſpel-Covenant belonged to them, the Seal thereof appertained: But to Believers and their ſeed the Goſpel Covenant belonged, as Gen. 17.7. I'le be a God to thee and thy ſeed, Acts 2.39. The promiſe is to you and to your children.

Therefore to them the ſeal thereof, Circumciſion ſo called, Rom. 4.11. did appertain, Gen. 17.10. For the Faederati were to be Signati, thoſe in the Covenant were to have the Seal thereof; And therefore by conſequence it naturally follows, That if Circumciſion, the ſeal of the Goſpel-Covenant belonged to the ſeed of Believers under the Law, then doth the Goſpel Seal, Baptiſm much more appertain to the ſeed of Believers under the Goſpel, which comes in the place, room, and uſe of Circumciſion, otherwiſe the priviledge under the Goſpel, would be leſs then that of the law, ſhould Children be denyed ſuch a benefit.

Repl.

I do not find, but the Author hath done us right in forming the Argument, and do therefore own it as ſound and good, notwithſtanding this quick-ſighted man (or rather he with Mr. Tombes his eyes) hath eſpied many faults in it, for,

Firſt in general, he tells us, 'tis fallacious and falſe reaſoning, and that there is no natural conſequence p. 179at all from Scripture, to inferr the Baptiſm of Infants, nor any ground to build it on Circumciſion, and that divers things in the Argument are pre-ſuppoſed, but cannot be proved.

Secondly, He puts in his particular exceptions againſt it, as,

Except. 1.

Firſt, becauſe Circumciſion was not the ſeal of the Goſpel-Covenant, to all Believers for 1.Mr. Tombes Examon. pag. 36. ſome under the Goſpel-Covenant were not ſealed therewith, as all Believers from Adam to Abraham, neither do we find any of the Believers out of Abrahams family, as Lot, Melcheſideck, Job, received any ſuch Seal.

Well ſaid Mr. Tombes, They are his very words in his Anſwer pag. 36. and in his Exercit. pag. 4. and therefore to this there needs no other anſwer then what Mr. Geree gives him, which is ſhort and full, viz. All Believers that had it not, were either thoſe that were before the Adminiſtration begun with Abraham, and ſo before the Inſtitution, or ſuch of them that were with or after him, either they joyned not themſelves to that Adminiſtration, and ſo were not to be ſealed no more then the Proſelytes of the Gate. Or if they did unite to the Church in Abrahams family, then it is apparent they might have laid claim to Circumciſion, as other Proſelytes did.

2. There were (ſaith he) ſome to whom the p. 180Covenant did not belong, that received, Mr. Tomber Exercit. pag. 4.that called the ſeal of Circumciſion, as Iſhmael; for of him God had ſaid, that this Covenant was not to be eſtabliſhed with him, but with Iſaac,, and yet he was Circumciſed, Gen. 17.20, 21, 25. Gal. 4.29.30. And the ſame may be ſaid of Eſau, Rom. 9.10, 11, 12, 13. And as to all the Strangers in Abrahams houſe, or bought with mony in Iſrael, that were Circumciſed, it may well be doubted, whether the new-Covenant-promiſes did belong to them.

All this is Mr. Tombes again without giving the leaſt hint, Ne foreign quidem, whence he had it, and that I may not be thought to wrong the Author, I will tranſcribe what I find in Mr. Tombes his Exercitation, pag. 4. and let it be compared — ſome (ſaith he) were Circumciſed to whom to promiſe in the Covenant made with Abraham did belong; of Iſhmael God had ſaid, that his Covenant was not to be eſtabliſhed with him, but with Iſaac, and yet he was circumciſed, Gen. 17.20, 21, 25. Rom. 9.7, 8, 9, Gal. 4.29.30. The ſame may be ſaid of Eſau: All that were in Abrahams houſe, whether Strangers, or born in his houſe were Circumciſed, Gen. 17.12, 13. Of whom nevertheleſs it may be doubted, whether any promiſes of the Covenant made with Abraham, did belong to them.

p. 181Repl.

To this then we reply,

Firſt, That the Covenant appertained to all the Infant ſeed of Abraham, without exception, and to all the Infants of Believing Jews, and conſequently the Seal of the Covenant, Circumciſion, was in like manner diſpenſed to them all indefinitely, to Iſhmael as well as to Iſaac, to Eſau, as well as to Jacob; for neither Iſhmael nor Eſau were caſt out of the Covenant till they degenerated, and diſcovenanted themſelves by their own wickedneſs.

Secondly, Whereas 'tis ſaid, My Covenant will I eſtabliſh with Iſaac Gen. 17. 27. We are not (as Mr. Geree ſays truly) to underſtand in that place the Covenant we ſtand in to God, in regard of perſons, for our own perſonal benefit, but the Covenant of ſpecial prerogative to Iſaac, That Chriſt ſhould come of, and the Church remain in his poſterity.

Except. 3.

His next exception is, Becauſe Abrahams Covenant was a mixt Covenant,Mr. Tombes Exercit. pag. 39. as the ſeed was.

Repl.

I obſerve Antipaedobaptiſts are extreamly divided in their opinions about the Covenant that p. 182God made with Abraham (as much as the Author ſaith we are about the grounds upon which we aſſert Infant Baptiſm, and who ſhall bring in the Verdict for them I know not) but they all unite in this, to make the Covenant of no effect to us and to our Children; ſome of them ſay (and they ſpeak roundly) that it was meerly a Covenant of temporal bleſſings, as the inheritance of Canaan, and that it hath nothing to do with ſpirituals;The Anabaptiſts of Germany heretofore called it a carnal thing that had nothing to do with eternal life. theſe will make ſure work of it, and leave no ground at all from thence for our ſeed to be comprized in it. Others are contented it ſhould be a Covenant of Grace to Abraham and his faithful Seed, yet ſay they, it was a Covenant of works, at leaſt to his carnal ſeed; the moſt ſubtle of them (as Mt. Tombes) tells us, it was a mixt Covenant, you carry (ſaith Mr. Tombes) the Narration of the Covenant made with Abraham in Gen. 17, as if it did only contain the Covenant of Grace in Chriſt, whereas it is apparent out of the Text, that the Covenant was a mixt Covenant, conſiſting of Temporal benefits, to wit, the multiplying of his ſeed, ver. 6. the poſſeſſion of Canaan, ver. 8. The birth of Iſaac ver. 16. and the ſpiritual bleſſings; the Author treads in his ſteps, and Ecchceth to him moſt exactly. — As the birth of Iſaac, the poſſeſſing the land of Canaan, &c. he might have ſav'd himſelf the labour of writing his Treatiſe, and only reprinted Mr. Tombes Exercitation. But to the point. We ſhall prove the Covenant made with p. 183Abraham, & his Natural Seed, no mixt Covenant, but a pure Covenant of Grace, the ſame in ſubſtance with ours under the New Teſtment, For,

Firſt, We have the expreſs Teſtimony of Scripture for it, Gal. 3.8.

2. It is evident from that phraſe, Gen. 17.7. I will eſtabliſh my Covenant between me and thee, and thy Seed after thee, in their Generations for an everlaſting Covenant, &c. In faedus ſeculi, as the Hebrew hath it, for a Covenant of perpetuity, which denotes the quality of it, that it is not Temporary, but Everlaſting, reſpecting ſpiritual good things.

3. The Tenor of it ſpeaks it a Covenant of Grace, I will be thy God, &c. In which words God engageth himſelf, all that he is, and all that he hath, and all that he can do in the behalf of poor duſt and aſhes, and this virtually comprehends all ſorts of ſpiritual bleſſings, Chriſt, Grace, & Glory; and that Chriſt was by promiſe intended in this Covenant is clearly evident from Luke 1.54, 55. and verſe 69, 72, 73. And the Apoſtle giving us the ſubſtance of the Covenant of Grace, doth it in the words of Abrahams Covenant, Heb. 8.10. I will be to them a God, & they ſhall be to me a people. And whereas, he ſaith, it appears to be mixt in regard it contained many Temporal Bleſſings, as the Birth of Iſaac, Canaan, &c. I anſwer thoſe temporal Bleſſings, were but annext to the Covenant, (tis his own Phraſe) They were not the ſubſtance or eſſence, but only an accidental Appendix to it: there was no more mixture in that Covenant then in ours, under the New Adminiſtration, for as our p. 184Divines ſtill tell them, Godlineſs under the Goſpel alſo hath the promiſes of this life as well as of that to come. 1 Tim. 4.8.1 Tim 4:8Earthly things were indeed diſpenſed to them more diſtinctly, and fully, ſuitable to their Paedagogical EſTate, to allure them to the ſervice of God, and Heavenly things more generally and ſparingly; on the contrary, ſpiritual bleſſings are more fully and clearly, and earthly things more generally and ſparingly held forth and promiſed to us under the Goſpel.Mr. Marſhalls defence. pag. 97.

The abundance of their Temporal bleſſings were figures, Signs, and Types of ſpiritual bleſſings, to be enjoyed by them and us. As their deliverance our of Egypt, was a Figure of our freedom from ſpiritual captivity; The promiſe of Canaan was a Type of Heaven, and an Explanation of the primary grand promiſe to be their God, giving intimation that he would as cetrainly bring them to the Heavenly, as to the Earthly, and to the ſpiritual, everlaſting glorious reſt, as well as to that Temporal or Corporeal reſt, upon which Reverend Mr. Cotton hath an excellent obſervation,Mr. Cottons grounds and ends of Baptiſm of children p. 40. viz. That it was from hence that Jacob gave ſuch ſolemn charge by Oath unto Joſeph, and Joſeph to his Brethren, the one to bury his dead body in Canaan, the other for the Tranſportation of his bones to Canaan, which they would never have done for an earthly inheritance, but to nouriſh in the hearts of their p. 185poſterity Faith and deſire of Communion in the Church,Joſhua Heb. Salvator Dominus Salvator, The Saviour or Lord Savionr. and of their reſt in Heaven, whereof Canaans reſt was a Type, whereunto, not Moſes but Joſhua muſt bring them; that is, not the Law, but Jeſus.

Except. 3.

A third Exception, is, Becauſe the Seed in the ſeventh verſe to whom the Covenant belonged, This is Tomb'ss again. Exerc. pag. 48.was not the Carnal, but Spihitual ſeed only, which he attempts to prove by Scripture and Authority; the Scriptures are, Gaol. 3.16. and 24. and Rom. 9.7, 8. Before I ſhall ſhew how groſly theſe Scriptures are miſtaken, and wreſted to a quite different ſenſe from what the Apoſtle intends, as ſhall be made appear by the context and deſign of the Apoſtle in this Chapter, I ſhall premiſe a few things, as,

1. The Covenant of Grace contains in it only ſpiritual good things, Temporals are more properly, Additionals, then of the Eſſence of it.

2. The Covenant of Grace is but One, the Identity or ſameneſs of the Covenant Mr. Tombes confeſſeth to be one and the ſame, both to Jews and Gentiles, Exercit. p. 39.

3. Though this Covenant be but one, yet all are not in it after one and the ſame manner, ſome are in it only by participation of external Church p. 186priviledges, others by being intereſſed in the internal ſaving benefits thereof, by means of thoſe priviledges.

4. The whole body of the Jews, as they deſcended from the Loyns of Abraham, by propagation, and before they were Regenerated, were according to Scripture Teſtimony taken by God into Covenant, and were ſo eſteemed by God himſelf in one reſpect or other: Hence God ſaith he, made his Covenant with them all, Deut. 29. ſpeaking there, of the renewing of the Covenant of Grace, verſe 10.12, 13, 14, 15.

And the Apoſtle is expreſs, Rom. 9.6. To them appertained the Covenant, and they are ſaid not to be ſtrangers to the Covenant of promiſe (as the Gentiles) but in the ſame Eph. 2.11, 12. And ſuch as Apoſtatized from God, are ſaid to break the everlaſting Covenant, Iſa. 24.5. And in the new Teſtament to count the blood of the Covenant an unholy thing, Heb. 10.29. Which expreſſions argue, that in ſome ſenſe they muſt be in and under the Covenant; that is, in regard of external privileges only; for it is certain, they were never in it efficaciouſly, and ſavingly as the Elect, choice ſeed of Abraham, for then they could never have fallen away; they were in it in regard of external Covenant-privileges, and common graces, which Hypocrites and Reprobates may partake of; and in this very ſenſe Chriſt ſpeaking of the Jews collectively, calls them, The Children of the Kingdom, Matthew 8. and the Apoſtle, the Children of the Covenant.

p. 1875. And as it was under the old Teſtament, ſo is it under the new, the Covenant is the ſame norwithſTanding the difference of Adminiſtration: And as it was then, ſo is it now, Gal. 4.24, 29. Some are born of Agar, and ſome of Sarah, Mr. Cottons grounds and ends of Infant Baptiſm.ſome the ſpiritual ſeed, Secundum propoſitium Electionis, choſen according to Gods will and gracious intention from all Eternity, God principally intending the Coventant for them, theſe may be ſaid to be ſpiritually & ſavingly (in regard of powerful efficacy & operation of the Covenant upon them) within e Covenant. Others are in it, quoad externam Oeconomiam, Hypocrites in Covenant, quoad externam Oeconomiam.in regard of external priviledges. They are in Chriſt only by profeſſion, Branches in appearance not ſpiritually and ſavingly engraffed: Joh. 15. There profeſſion ſpeaks them within the Covenant, in facie viſibilis Eccleſiae, as Mr. Marſhal ſpeaks, by virtue whereof they derive a right to the Seals and Sacraments of the New Teſtament.

6. There are two ſorts which may be reputed in Covenant under the New Teſtament, as well as under the Old, in regard of external and viſible Oeconomy, or external Church priviledges.

1. Such as ſtand by their own viſible profeſſion, as all firſt Covenanters do; ſo te Proſelytes under the Old Teſtament, and all viſible Saints: or elſe

2. Such as ſtand in a Political, Moral conſideration, as in the right of another, through a p. 188free promiſe. The diſtinction is common amongſt our Divines, but I quote it from Mr. Sydenham, cap. 4. p. 31. Of his Chriſtian Exercitation. And he illuſtrates it by a Princes giving a Title of Honour, or a piece of land to one, and his Heirs, they are all intereſted in it, yet ſome prove fools, or traitors, and are afterwards incapable, and this diſtinction he ſhews, holds in the New Teſtament: for if men deny a being in Covenant, in regard of external priviledges, as well as ſpecial grace, or as he ſpeaks, if they deny an external, as well as an internal being in Covenant. Then

1. None can adminiſter an external Ordinance, an outward ſign to any; for we muſt go by external rules in theſe actings.

2. We ſet a Seal to a blank to all grown perſons who are baptized, without we know them certainly in the Covenant, and that who knows? for our Judgment will no more hinder the Seal from being a blanck to grown Profeſſors, than to Infants, without they prove real at laſt, much more he ſpeaks there, which I omit. Having premiſed theſe Propoſitions, we ſhall now examine what force there is in the Scriptures, for to prove what he would have, referring what is ſaid to the judgment of the impartial Reader. The firſt Text is that in the 3. Gal. 16, Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promiſes made, he ſaith not to Seeds as of many, but as of one, and to thy Seed which is Chriſt. And if ye be Chriſts, then are you Abrahams Seed; v. 29. The other is Rom. 9.7, 8. Neither becauſe they are the Seed of Abraham, are they p. 189all children, but in Iſaac ſhall thy Seed be called, that is, they which are the children of the fleſh theſe are not the children of God, but the children of the promiſe are connted for the Seed. And Rom. 4.13. For the promiſe that he ſhould be Heir of the World, was not to Abraham, or to his Seed through the Law, but through the righteouſneſs of Faith, &c. Hence Mr. Tombs, the Author, and all the party conclude, that, the Seed to whom the Covenant belongs, is the Spiritual, and not the Carnal. Not being born after the fleſh, but believing that makes us children of the promiſe.

To this exception of his in which their greateſt confidence lies, I reply

Repl.

1. It is built on a moſt groſs corrupting, and abuſing the Scriptures. Let us then diligently conſider thoſe two places in the Galatians? And afterwards that in the Romans. Firſt, touching that in the former place, the words are verſe 16. He ſaith not to Seeds, as of many, but of one which is Chriſt. Beza upon the Text ſaith, obſcurus locus eſt, it is a place not eaſily underſtood: a dark Scripture, and indeed too dark, and intricate for Antipaedobaptiſts ſo boldly to ground their opinion upon, ſo directly contrary to the ſence of many plain places. The queſtion is what doth the Apoſtle mean here, by Chriſt? By Chriſt cannot be meant Chriſt ſolely perſonal, for then no Believer ſhould be accounted for the Seed but only Chriſt (who as concerning the fleſh came of Abraham) And p. 190he and none elſe ſhould be concerned in the promiſes: But it is to be underſtood of Chriſt myſtical, as Beza there notes, Apoſtolus eo nomine non ſolum caput, ſed membra cum ſuo capite deſignans, the Apoſtle by the word Chriſt, denoting both Head, and Members. Capnt, & Corpus unus eſt Chriſtus, the Head and the Body make up one myſtical Chriſt: the word Chriſt being to be taken collectively in this place, ſo we have it 1 Cor. 12.12. to which Beza refers. And if this be the ſence of it, as what elſe can rationally? then as Mr. Sydenbam notes, this Text will make rather for us, than againſt us, for if we exclude all Infants from being of the Body of Chriſt; we muſt in ſo doing unavoidably exclude them from Salvation, for he is Saviour to no more than he is head of, which is his Body. As for the words in the nine and twentieth verſe, that will afford the Antipedobaptiſts little relief: the words are, If ye be Chriſts, then are ye Abrahams Seed, and Heirs according to promiſe, from whence, ſaith the aforeſaid Author, they argue, the Apoſtle here deſcribes who are the Seed, ſo that now no children born of believing parents can be the Seed, for they muſt be Chriſts according to that v. 16. We are all the children of God through Faith in Chriſt Jeſus. But let ſuch underſtand what Beza ſaith on the place, namely that the Claramontanus Bible hath the words thus, and he thinks more right foreign If you be one in Chriſt, then are ye Abrahams Seed: which comports well with the former verſe There is neither Jew nor Greek, neither bond nor p. 191free, &c. but ye are all one in Chriſt Jeſus, and if ye be all one, then Abrahams Seed. From which

1. It is clear that the Deſign of the Apoſtle is to take away all difference between Jew and Gentile, and to hodl forth their unity in Chriſt, and that this is the very ſcope of the place Beza ſhews fully in his Annotations upon it, and that now there is no diſtinction betwivt them as formerly: But the Gentiles are become Abrahams Seed, as well as the natural and believing Jews. Quod unius Seminis nomine collectivo ſignificatur, as before in the ſixteenth verſe, which is pointed out to us by the collective name of one Seed.

2. The Apoſtle here hath no intent to ſhew the diſtinction of Abrahams Seed as the Subject of the outward priviledges and adminiſtrations of Ordinances, but to ſhew that none are ſpiritually and really Abrahams Seed, and Heirs of promiſe, but ſuch as are Chriſts, one in him with Abraham: for if this ſhould be the diſtinction of Seed as the ſubject of outward Ordinances, it would be as much againſt profeſſing Believers as Infants: for the propoſition from this Text, as our Oppoſites draw it, is thus: none but thoſe who are Chriſts are Abrahams Seed, and none are Chriſts but real Believers, and therefore none but they muſt be baptized. But how weak is this? 1. Becauſe if none but ſuch are Abrahams Seed, and conſequently none but ſuch the ſubjects of Baptiſm, then viſible Believers are not the ſubjects of Baptiſm, for they may not be Chriſts, no more than Infants. 2. None muſt be baptized at all p. 192upon this account, for who knows who is Chriſts according to Election and ſaving Faith? To ſay we have charitable grounds to believe viſible profeſſors are Chriſts, till we ſee the contrary, is not to the queſtion as ſtated, nor as it lies in the Text: the Text ſaith, If ye be Chriſts, then ye are Abrahams Seed: they ſay none are in Chriſt but real Believers,See Chapter the fifth of the firſt part of the Authors Treatiſe. and none muſt be baptized but the ſpiritual Seed, and that will require not only a judgment of charity, but infallibility to determine. And beſides the Apoſtle is deſcribing here what the real and ſpiritual Seed are, as having an inward right to Chriſt, and not what the apparent Seed of Abraham was, for he ſpeaks to the Galathians who were viſible profeſſors, and Believers then in appearance, and he puts them upon a trial of themſelves, whether they were Chriſts or no. I have been the larger in quoting ſomething from Beza, but more from Mr. Sydenham, who ſpeaks abundance of reaſon, that you may ſee how wretchedly this Text is abuſed by our Oppoſites. And how far wide it is from the purpoſe, for which they uſually bring it.

Now for that other place, Ram. 9.7, 8. They that are the children of the fleſh, theſe are not the children of God, but the children of the promiſe are counted for the Seed. What do they gather from hence? Why, that Infants becauſe children of the fleſh, are not under the promiſe: this indeed is well argued. for this is to make the Apoſtle contradict himſelf in the ſame breath, p. 193for the Text ſaith, In Iſaac ſhall thy Seed be called. Now that was a child of Abrahams fleſh, and yet a child of promiſe too. And from hence iſſueth three undeniable Propoſitions, as Mr. Sydenham noteth.

1. That Abrahams ſpiritual Seed were as much his fleſhly Seed alſo, Iſaac, as Iſhmael, except Proſelytes and Servants.

2. The Covenant was adminiſtred to all Abrahams natural and fleſhly children, as if they had been his ſpiritual, and before they knew what faith was, or could actually profeſſs Abrahams faith.

3. When there is mention of Abrahams carnal Seed in oppoſition to his ſpiritual Seed, it cannot be meant primarily, or ſolely of thoſe that deſcended from his fleſh, for then Iſaac, and Jacob were the carnal Seed, yea Chriſt himſelf, who as concerning the fleſh came of Abraham. It muſt be therefore underſtood.

1. Of thoſe of Abrahams Seed which degenerated and ſlighted the Covenant of the Goſpel, ſuch as Iſhmael, and ſuch of whom the Apoſtle ſpeaks of, Rom. 9.1.2.3. his Brethren and Kinſmen after the fleſh, whoſe condition he bewails, which was the generality of the body of the Jews; or

2. Some conceive by children of the fleſh, he meaneth not in this place children by natural generation, but ſuch as truſted in outward fleſhly priviledges, and by children of the promiſe put in oppoſition to them, is meant true Believers, which are indeed the true Seed, in whom the word takes effect, and who were p. 194figured forth by Iſaac. Si ſenſum myſticum ſpectes, non ii qni ex lege justitiam quaerunt, ſed fideles, ſed quod promiſſionis filius intelligantur is quos diximus ſecundum literam ingelligi apparet ex verſ. 9.This is a truth, ſaith Beza, but not appoſite to this place, for Paul doth not here diſtinguiſh Ahrahams children from others by their Faith as in the fourth of Romans, Quia vero promiſſionis filios interpretantur eos qui fidei amplectuntur promiſſionem, dicunt quidem quod res eſt, ſed non ſatis appoſitè loquuntur Neque enim Paulus boc loco filios Abrahami a caeteris diſtinguit ex fidei nota ut ſupsa. c. 4. ſed de primariâ canſa… id eſt de ipſius fidei fonte gratuitae videlicet electionis aeterno propoſito diſſerit. Beza in Locum.but diſputes of the primary cauſe, even of Faith it ſelf, which is the eternal purpoſe of God according to his Election of Grace: verſe 11. So that the Apoſtles expreſs Doctrine is, that Election and Salvation is not from works, but free Grace. But the Oppoſerss of Infant Baptiſm, have always perverted the ſcope of Paul in this place, as if he intended it, of outward Church priviledges, not to be had by being born of believing Parents, which the Text has nothing to do with, as every unpartial and judicious Reader will apprehend. Nay this very place proves the quite contrary, for the Apoſtle makes two ſorts to be within the viſible Church, viz. Some are of Iſrael, that is in mans cyc: theſe partake of the outward priviledges, v. 4.5. Others are Iſrael, that is the true ſpiritual Seed, that belongs to Gods Election, and obtain the ſaving Promiſe. So Gal. 3.8. The Goſpel was preached to Abraham, and the Covenant made with him, is the ſame for ſubſtance p. 195with that we live under, and as perſons were under it then, ſo is it now: it is not ſtreighter now, and larger then, but the ſame. And the like appears, verſe 14. and 17. the Identity of the Covenant is there manifeſt, which is a truth deſtructive to the Opinion of Antipaedobaptiſts, and therefore they ſo ſtrike at it.

Having thus examined the Expoſitions, which according to his Imagination, the Scripture it ſelf puts upon the [Seed] ſpoken of, Gen. 17.7. and diſcovered his great miſtake. I could do it too very fully as to moſt of the Authors following, which he ſaith, do give in their concurrent ſence with his, upon the Text.

The firſt named is Calvin upon: Gen. 17.7. who ſaith, that it is manifeſt that the promiſe underſtood of ſpiritual Bleſſing, pertaineth not to the Carnal Seed of Abraham, but to the Spiritual as the Apoſtle himſelf ſaith, Rom. 4.9. &c.

In this I find the Author guilty of ſhameful Oſcitancie, and it is intollerable for any man thus to impoſe his miſtakes upon the Reader. The words are not Calvins, but Eſtius his Anſwer to Calvin; who again and again in his Comment upon Gen. 17.7. aſſerts the promiſe to be made to Abrahams natural and fleſhly Seed, and to all of them—for thus he ſaith, Nunc videndum eſt quem populum deſignet. Falluntur autem qui putant ſolos hic electos notari—They are deceived who think it to be meant only of the Elect. Again, clara eſt Pauli Doctrina de naturalibus Abrahoe filiis, quod ſint Sancti rami, quia ex ſancta radice prodierint, Rom. 11.16. the Doctrine of Paul ſhews clearly 'tis underſtood of p. 196the natural children of Abraham, for if the root be holy, ſo are the branches.

Then afterward: Quare nihil certius eſt, quàm Deum foedus ſuum paciſci cum filiis Abrahae, qui naturaliter ex eo gignendi erant. Wherefore nothing is more certain than that God made his Covenant with the children, which were naturally to be begotten of him. And then anſwers the Objections that may be made againſt it from Rom. 9.8. Neque repugnat quod dicit Paulus. The cauſe of this miſtake in our Author is meer careleſneſs, for he never examined Calvin, but finds in Mr. Tombes his Examen: pag. 50. This paſſage quoted by him, viz. Eſtius annot. ad Gen. 17.7. Colligit hìnc Calvinus eo ipſo quo quis eſt ſemen Abrahae, ad eum pertinere promiſſtonem Abrahae factam: that is, hence Calvin gathers, that the promiſe—belonged to the children of Abraham as they were his natural or carnal Seed. To which Eſtius replies—thus —Reſponſio manifeſta; promiſſionem illam de benedictione ſpirituali intellectam non ad carnale ſemen Abrahami pertinere, ſed ad ſpirituale quemadmodum eam ipſe Apoſtolus interpretatus eſt Rom. 4.9. —Which is according to the Authors Tranſlation — It is manifeſt that the promiſe underdood of ſpiritual bleſſings, pertaineth not to the carnal Seed, &c. here I might paſs ſome obſervations upon this miſtake of the Author. 1. That he is very careleſs in quoting Authors, and taking one for another, and that the teſtimony he cites for himſelf is againſt him. 2. That he and his party, and the Jeſuites and Papiſts agree very well in the interpretation of thoſe p. 197Scriptures that relate to the Covenant. The Author lies open to the laſh alſo in what he quotes out of Ameſius, de praedeſt. For Ameſius ſpeaks but juſt half of what he ſets down, in one and the ſame character, and the promiſe that he diſputes of there againſt the Remonſtrants, is that in the ninth of Romans 8. So that it is not ad idem, for we are ſpeaking of that, Gen. 17.7. God ſaid indeed he would not eſtabliſh his Covenant with Iſhmael, but with Iſaac, Gen. 17.27. but by Covenant there is not meant the Covenant we ſtand in to God in regard of our perſons, for our own perſonal benefit, but the Covenant of ſpecial Prerogative to Iſaac, that Chriſt ſhould come of, and the Church remain in his poſterity.

Next folows the diſmal Conſequences, which, as he ſaith, the Doctrine of Infant-Baptiſm is attended with. But they are only imaginary, not real ones. Quicquid recipitur recipitur ad modum recipientis; as the man thinketh, ſo the Bell, &c. But let us hear what they are.

1. If God made his Covenant with the Poſterity of Believers, as this Doctrine aſſerts, then ſaith he, all the Poſterity of Believers ſhould certainly have grace beſtowed upon them.

Reply. No ſuch matter, for we have proved they may be ſaid to be in Covenant, in regard of external prividledges only; and not partake of the ſpiritual grace, or ſaving benefits of the Covenant.

Which, ſaith he, Mr. Blake doth confidently affirm, p. 6. ſaying, that Chriſtianity is hereditary, p. 198that as the child of a Noble man is noble, the child of a Free man free, a Turk a Turk and of a Jew, a Jew, ſo the child of a Chriſtian, is a Chriſtian.

But I pray Sir, who told you this of Mr. Blake, was it not your old friend Mr. Tombes Exercit. p. 53. your words differ very little. If this be true ſaith Tombs, that the Covenant of grace is a Birth-right priviledge, then the children of Believers are children of Grace by nature, for that which is a Birth-right privilege is a priviledge by nature, and if as Mr. Blake ſaith, p. 6. to [but neither of them names the Book] Chriſtianity is hereditary, that as the child of a Noble man is noble, the child of a Turk is a Turk, of a Jew a Jew, the child of a Chriſtian is a Chriſtian, then ſaith Tombes [juſt as my Antagoniſt] Chriſtians are born Chriſtians. O wonderful, that men ſhould ſo agree! And how are they then, ſaith he, the children of wrath by nature? and ſaith our Author this is in contradiction [thats ſome alteration] to the Scripture which ſaith we are children of wrath. One would think theſe men did very well agree, they do ſo often meet and kiſs each other, but tis in aliquo tertio, that is, in the point of Baptiſm, for I hear from thoſe that knows them both intùs & in cute, that they are at a great, if not irreconcileable diſtance in ſome other matter: But I would have the reader to underſtand that thoſe words are not Blakes, though charg'd upon him by Mr. Tombs to render him odious, which is very ſad: And that learned godly man being very ſenſible of the injury, ſignifies to Tombes that he diſowns it, and adviſeth him to forbear ſuch device. p. 199I believe, ſaith he, no ſuch thing that Parents conveigh to their children, as by Birth-priviledge, a being in Chriſt Jeſus, but if you underſtand by Chriſtianity the bare name or title of Chriſtian, together with a right to Church priviledges, then I ſhall own the thing, but diſclaim the expreſſion: A ſufficient vindication from ſo ſordid a Calumny, and if this were ſo unworthily done in Mr. Tombes, what ſhall we think of the Author. who hath lick'd up that vomit again, and caſt it upon Mr. Blake, after he had ſo well cleared himſelf, which he could not but know.

Nor doth our Doctrine contradict thoſe Scriptures which ſaywe are children of wrath by nature, and except a man be born again, &c. Joh, 3.3. for even all the Elect are born ſons of Adam, children of wrath, and yet they are the children of promiſe, Iſaac himſelf was viſibly the child of promiſe in his infancy, he was born by promiſe, Rom. 9.7.8, 9. and yet in reſpect of natural generation, he was a ſon of Adam, a child of wrath.

Another Abſurdity he fancies,Mr. Tombes again. is, That then all the poſterity of Believers muſt b…ſaved, without, ſaith he, you will neceſſitate the Doctrine of falling from grace.

Down right Mr. Tombes Exerc. p. 52. if God keeps his Covenant, it follows that all the poſterity of Believers are ſaved, or if ſome are not ſaved, though they be in the Covenant of grace, there may be Apoſtacy of perſons, &c.

This is a non ſequitur, for the Covenant of Grace is not abſolute, and ſaving to all that are once within it; it is abſolute & ſaving to the Elect p. 200Seed, but not to thoſe who partake of the out ward priviledges of it, but take not hold of it by faith. It may truly be ſaid of all Elect Infants born of believing Parents, that they are abſolutely under the Covenant: (as Iſaac in his Infancy) even before they believe,Mr. Cotton's Grounds and Ends of childrens Baptiſm. Dr. Proſton of the Covenant. yea their believing in Gods time is given to them as the effect, and not the cauſe of the Covenant; But as for others who only partake of the outward priviledges of it, and no more, that do not believe, it is not ſaving to them.

As for the other diſmal Conſequence of Falling from Grace, which they ſay we muſt hold, if Infants of Believers be in Covenant, and not all ſaved.

This is like the reſt; the fear is more than the hurt; for as Mr. Cotton ſaith, whom ſoever God taketh into Covenant are in a State of Grace, but what Grace? either common or ſaving Grace. The Elect are in a ſtate of ſaving Grace, and they ſhall never totally fall away, but perſons may fall away from a ſtate of common Grace, and from the external priviledges of the Goſpel, & Covenant of Grace quatenus it reſpects outward ſpiritual priviledges. Thoſe that ſtick at this, and will not own it for Truth may do well to give us the ſence of thoſe Scriptures, pſal. 44.17. Dan. 11.30, 31. Where they are ſaid to be falſe in Gods Covenant, and to apoſtatize from it.

Another diſmal conſequence, which is only p. 201the reſult of an idle and erroneous conceit is, That we tie up the Groce of Gods Covenant to the children of Believers only, and then what hope for the children of unbelievers.

No fear of that, for the children of unbelievers may belong to the Election of Gods Grace, but have no right to be baptized, but upon their own perſonal profeſſion, nor are the children of thoſe who are called Chriſtians to be ranck'd with the children of Pagans (for they are in a nearer capacity of Salvation, being born in a nation where the Goſpel is preached) of whom the Apoſtle ſpeaks, who being ſtrangers to the Covenant, are ſaid to be without hope: Laſtly, he ſaith our Doctrine overthrows the Covenant of Grace it ſelf, concluding an intereſt without faith, and deriving a Title by Generation.

Not ſo. Whatſoever both they, and Papiſts would faſten upon us (for in this they are agreed) for we ſay, that the Infant Seed of Believers are Confederates with their Parents, and God excepts of the Parents Faith, and embraceth the children into the ſame Covenant with them. Licet pueri Infantes, fidem non habent, Deus tamen eorum parentes compellans, ipſos etiam complectitur. God taking the believing Parents into Covenant, takes the children in with them, as we have before more fully ſhewn out of Calvin on Mat. 28.19. Mark 16. according to the Tenor of the Covenant, I will be thy God, and the God of thy Seed. Nor do we hold, we derive a Title to the Covenant by Generation, for Foedus non transfunditur per carnem, ſaith p. 202Peter Martyr, the Covenant is not propagated or tranſmitted by way of natural Generation, [that which is born of the fleſh is fleſh] the Parent communicates his nature and the corruption of it,Mr. Prinſley of the Doctrine & practice of Pedobaptiſm. unto his child but nothing of Grace. That is the free gift of God, and this it is that brings the child of the Believer into Covenant as well as the Parent, even the free and gracious promiſe of God made to both.

Now Reader ſee ſome of the diſmal conſequences of their Doctrine, who deny the children of Believers to be taken into Covenant with them.

1. It puts a ſacrilegious reſtraint upon the Covenant, and makes an eſſential variation in it without warrant.

2. It excludes them from the ordinary way of Salvation, for if they have no viſible intereſt in the Covenant, (no not ſo much as externally in regard of Gods viſible diſpenſation,) then they have no viſible intereſt in Chriſt, the Mediator of the New Covenant.

3. It exempts and ſhuts them out from a participation of the Spirit, and ſanctification of their natures, whereby they may be made meet for the inheritance of the Saints: for all the influences of the Spirit, is by virtue of the Covenant: 2 Pet. 1. Now Mr. Tombes himſelf acknowledgeth that Infants may be ſanctified.

4. They have no ground of comfort in the death of their children, no more than they have concerning p. 203a Turk, or unconverted Indians child, for that which affords a viſible ground of hope of the ſalvation of another, is his viſible intereſt in the Covenant of Grace; to be an Aliene to the Covenant of promiſe, is to be without hope, in the Apoſtles Account, Eph. 2.12. So that we may ſay (with Mr. Ford, concerning all the children of Heathens, dying in Infancy, They are taken into the hands of God, who indeed may (for any thing we know) ſave them by Prerogative, and an undiſcovered depth of mercy; but he hath afforded us no ground, ſo much as to hope, that any of them are ſaved, becauſe the Statute-Law of the Kingdom doth not extend Salvation beyond the Covenant. Now an Anabaptiſts Faith concerning the Infants of believing Parents, even his own, puts them into the ſame irrelative condition (as to God and the Covenant) with the children of Infidels and (by conſequendce) under the ſame hopeleſsneſs of Salvation. Now let tender Parents conſider, who undoubtedly would think it a ſad thing to bring forth children to the deſtroyer, what ſad principles theirs are, by, and according to which, they muſt kiſs their beloved Babes, when they are a dying with that ſad Farewel, which the dying Heathen gave his departing ſoul;

Animula vagula blandula, &c.

And truly one of their Opinion in this town, and ſuppoſed godly, ſaid in my hearing, they had no ground of it.

5. And conſequently they have no ground of p. 204hope ever to ſee them again with comfort at Chriſts appearance, for there is no foundation of hope of a glorious reſurrection unto life, but by virtue of the Covenant. Luke 20.36, 37, 38. Heb. 11.16. Act. 26.7, 8.

The other Scripture that he encounters with, is that Act. 2.38. A parallel place to that in Gen. 17. The Argument which we bring for Infant Baptiſm from hence is this,

Thoſe to whom the promiſe doth belong, to them belongs Baptiſm, but to thoſe that repent and their children the promiſe belongs, therefore to them and their children belongs Baptiſm.

Againſt this he hath a double Exception.

1. By the promiſe there, is not meant the Covenant of grace but the giving of the Spirit, called the promiſe of the Father, prophecied of by Joel 2.28.

To which we anſwer, That though in the fourth and ſeventeenth verſe. Whereis mention of the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit, which refers to Joels Prophecy, yet the promiſe in the eight and thirtieth verſe is of another nature, and not meant of thoſe extraordinary Gifts; for

1. Becauſe it is ſuch a promiſe as is ſtill a fulfilling, and ſhall be throughout all the times of the New Teſtament, paralled to that Iſa. 44.3. I will pour out my Spirit on thy Seed, and my bleſſing on thy Off-ſpring. It is ſuch a promiſe as appertains to Parents, and to their children, and all that ſhall be called to the end of the world, whereas the promiſe of extraordinary Gifts, p. 205was but pro tempore, for a certain time, and relating to that ſeaſon.

2. It cannot be underſtood of extraordinary Gifts, becauſe Peters hearers had no ſuch Gifts nor had the Jews or Gentiles, who were afar off, and afterward called ſuch miraculous Gifts; and as Mr. Stephens notes, if the promiſe (to you, and to your children) be meant of extraordinary Gifts, how will the parts of the Text agree with each other? The Apoſtle exhorts them, be baptized every one of you in the name of the Lord Jeſus Chriſt, for the remiſſion of ſins: and then gives this reaſon, For the promiſe is to you and to your children. If therefore the promiſe be meant of extraordinary Gifts, then the command, be baptized every one of you, will ſtand in immediate relation to ſuch a promiſe. And ſo the matter will come to this Iſſue, that all that are baptized: and particularly they that renounce their old, to take up a new Baptiſm, they will have a promiſe made to them, and to their children to ſpeak with diverſe kinds of languages. [Which promiſe I never underſtood-was made good amongſt them, for few of them have any more than their Mother Tongue.] On the other ſide, if the promiſe be taken for the promiſe of Chriſt, and for remiſſion of ſin by his blood, in this caſe it will be eaſie to ſhew the connexion of the words; for what can be more aptly ſpoken than this? Be baptized every one of you in the name of the Lord Jeſus, for the remiſſion of your particular ſin? for the promiſe of the pardon of ſin, by the blood of Chriſt doth belong to you and to your children?

p. 2063. The promiſe here mentioned was to give hope to thoſe poor creatures, and to prevent the deſpair, which they were ready to fall into upon conviction, that they had crucified the Lord of Life, and what comfort could this bring to their wounded conſciences, to tell them they ſhould have the miraculous gifts of tongues?

2. 'Tis farther objected, by children are no other meant than the poſterity of the Jews.

To which we reply, with Mr. Sydenham.

1. The word foreign ſignifies off-ſping, though never ſo young. Joh. 16.21. Luk. 1.31. Mat. 1.26. Luk. 1.57.

2. 'Tis an indefinite word, therefore muſt not be reſtrained to grown children, except God had expreſt it in a peculiar phraſe.

3. It muſt be underſtood of their Infants, becauſe he uſeth the phraſe of ſpeech to theſe Jews, (which they had been trained up in from their fathers) I'll be the God of thee, and thy Seed, and the Jews muſt needs underſtand him ſpeaking in this Dialect of their children included in the promiſe.

4. Why ſhould the Apoſtle name children, if he had not meant Infant Seed? otherwiſe it had been ſufficient to have ſaid, the promiſe is to you, and as many as the Lord ſhall call: but therefore names children, becauſe it had relation to the Covenant.

It is true what the Author ſaith concerning Dr. Hamond, that he conceives children to be there really the poſterity of the Jews, and not particularly their Infant children, but that is but one Doctors Opinion in oppoſition to an innumerable p. 207company of our judgment, and that not without ſufficient ground, if the forementioned reaſons be well weighed. The other is, Dr. Taylor who ſpeaks not his own ſence upon the Text, but perſonates (as he tells us) an Anabaptiſt; we may ſee his own proper judgment in his laſt piece, viz. The conſideration of the practice of the Church in baptizing Infants of believing Parents, pag. 48.49. It is, ſaith he, in our caſe as it was with the Jews children, our children are a holy Seed: for if it were not ſo with Chriſtianity, how could S. Peter move the Jews to Chriſtianity, by telling them the promiſe was to them and their children? For if our children be not capable of the Spirit of promiſe, and holineſs, and yet their children were holy; it had been a better Argument to have kept them in the Synagogue, than to have called them to the Chriſtian Church — And indeed if the Chriſtian Jews, whoſe children are circumciſed, and made partakers of the ſame promiſes, title, and inheritance, and Sacrament, which themſelves had at their firſt converſion to the faith of Chriſt, had ſeen their children ſhut out from the new Sacrament [of Baptiſm] it is not to be doubted but they would have raiſed a ſtorm, greater than could eaſily be ſuppreſſed: ſince about their circumciſion they had raiſed ſuch tragedies, and implacable diſputations; and there had been great reaſon to look for a ſtorm; for their children were circumciſed, and if not baptized; then they were left under a burthen, which their fathers were quit of, for S. Paul ſaid unto you, whoſoever is circumciſed is a debtor to keep the p. 208whole Law, theſe children therefore that were circumciſed, ſtood obliged for want of Baptiſm to perform the Laws of ceremonies, to be preſented to the Temple, to pay their price, to be redeemed with ſilver and gold; to be bound by the Law of pollutions, and carnal ordinances: ad therefore if they had been thus left, it would be no wonder if the Jews had complained, and made a tumult; they uſed to do it for leſs matters, and this may ſerve to ballance what the Author quotes form the Doctors lib. of Proph. p. 233.

Except. 4.

Becauſe, ſaith he, Circumciſion was only a Seal to Abraham, not to believers, and their Seed, a Seal of the Faith that Abraham had long before he was circumciſed, but ſo could it not be ſaid of any Infant that had no faith.

Repl.

In this the Author doth quadrare with the Papiſts. So ſay the Jeſuites, and ſo ſay the Antipaedobaptiſts. Bellarmin and after him others object that Circumciſion in Rom. 4.Bellarmin lib. 1. de Sacramentis. is not ſaid to be a Seal vniverſally to any faith, but only a Seal of the individual faith of Abraham, which is clear, ſaith he, in that it is expreſly ſaid, it was a Seal of the righteouſneſs of the faith that he had, being yet nncircumciſed, that he might be the father of all that believe: but only p. 209Abraham could be ſuch a father, &c. your collection, ſaith he, is naught, when you ſay Circumciſion was a Seal of Abrahams faith, that therefore it is ſo to others, for you conclude a general from a particular. So he and his followers limits the uſe of Circumciſion as a Seal of the righteouſneſs of faith to Abraham only. Paraeus gives an acute reply to this,Paraus ad locum. Quod omni Speciei ineſt, toti generi recte tribuitur: ſicut igitur valet: Homo, Equus, & quodvis animal ſentit, movetur: & ſenſus, motus, differentia Syſtatica generis recte dicitur. Sic. valet circumciſio eſt foreign addita foederi obſignationis cauſâ, ergo. Dr. Sclater on the fonrth of Romans. thus—That which belongs in common to all the Species, may well enough be attributed to the general, for that which all the Species have in common, they have from their general. But why, ſaith Dr. Sclater, ſhould circumciſion be a Seal to Abraham only, and not to others as well as him? was the Covenant made with him only, or with his Seed alſo? or was Circumciſion a ſign of the Covenant to Abraham only, or elſe to his Seed alſo? if the Covenant belong to [all] if Circumciſion was to [all] a ſign of their being in the Covenant, why not to [all] alſo a Seal of righteouſneſs? Forſooth, ſay the Papiſts, one end of Abrahams Circumciſion was peculiar to Abraham, as that he ſhould be the father of all Believers, therefore this alſo of being a Seal of the righteouſneſs of faith. Anſw. And I wonder why we may not conclude by like reaſon, that to Abraham only it was a Sin of the Covenant, p. 210becauſe this end they mention had place in Abraham only? But let us more nearly view the reaſons; it was Abrahams privilege only to be the father of all Believers, both circumciſed, and uncircumciſed, ergo his privilege only to have circumciſion a Seal of righteouſneſs: how prove they that conſequence? Becauſe Paul joins both together, and therefore they are of like privilege: Anſw. Why may we not ſay (ut ſupra) that the neceſſity of the ſign of Circumciſion was alſo Abrahams privilege, becauſe it alſo is joined to the reſt? But for fuller ſatisfaction, view the ſcope of the Text, which is this; to ſhew that juſtification belongs to Believers of both people: the proof is from a ſign: Abraham had righteouſneſs in uncircumciſion, therefore righteouſneſs belongs to the uncircumciſed; for this was that the Lord myſtically intended to ſignifie in juſtifying of Abraham before Circumciſion, and in commending Circumciſion to him juſtifyed: but why doth he mention that end of Circumciſion as ſealing up the righteouſneſs of faith? Anſw. To obviate an objection which might be made in this manner: if Abraham was juſtified before Circumciſion, what profit received he by that Sacrament? Anſw. It ſealed unto him the righteouſneſs of faith: and ſhall we ſay now it was Abrahams privilege to be confirmed in perſwaſion of righteouſneſs? belike then his poſterity, either needed not ſuch confirmation, and ſo Abrahams privilege ſhall be to be the only weakling in faith, that needs means of confirmation, or elſe his Seed ſhall lack that help that Abraham had for eſtabliſhment; p. 211though the Covenant was equally made to them. Thus far Dr. Sclater, and I repent not may pains, he hath ſo cleared the point that I know not what either Papiſt, or Antipaedobaptiſt can ſay againſt it. I ſhall add that which every one will ſubſcribe to, that the children of Abraham ſtood in much more need of a Seal to confirm their faith, then he himſelf with whom the Covenant was originally made, and for that reaſon was called the father of the faithful, as well as for the eminency of his faith.

It could not be, ſaith the Author, a Seal to an Infant that had no faith.

Repl.

I perceive he hath read Bellarmin, for he jumps in with him: his words are theſe—If it be a Seal of Faith (in that Baptiſm comes in the place of Circumciſion) it is in vain to baptize Infants: and why? becauſe they have not Faith. Farther, ſaith he, Iſaac received not the ſign of Circumciſion, as a Seal of the righteouſneſs of the Faith which he had, being yet uncircumciſed, ſeeing he was not in the faith, till after Circumciſion: to which there needs no other anſwer than this, viz. Iſaac was confederate with his Father Abraham, and upon that account to be circumciſed, which engaged to actual Faith, and upon actual believing, it ſealed this righteouſneſs of Faith to him.

p. 212[It was a Sign put into his fleſh only]

Repl.

We muſt take heed of extremes: The Papiſts hold that Sacraments do juſtify, and confer grace modo non ponamus obicem peccati mortalis, provided that we put no bar of mortal ſin, which becauſe Infants cannot do, they are all diſcharg'd by Baptiſm from the guilt of original ſin. Againſt this Mr. Calvin in his Inſtitutions doth vehemently inveigh, terming it, Doctrina diabolica a deviliſh Doctrine, becauſe men hereby are taught to reſt in a corporeal Element, more than in God himſelf: and with as much zeal doth he condemn the Doctrine of [nuda Signa] which makes the Sacraments to be only bare and naked Signs. Caveamus ſaith he,Calvin Inſtit. de Sacram. ne vim Sacramentorum enervemus, uſumque prorſùs evertamus: We muſt take heed we do not leſſen the virtue of the Sacraments, and quite ſubvert their uſe.

So Chamier (as Mr. Blake obſerves) is no leſs zealous againſt the Papiſts and Anabaptiſts. Chamier lib. 1. de Sacram. in Gen cap. 10. Sect. 11.Gen 10For he having mentioned the uſe of Sacraments as diſtinguiſhing Signs, addeth—Hic tamen nec ſolus eſt finis, nec praecipuus Sacramentorum; ita que Anabaptiſtas aeque cum Bellarmino improbamus —quibus Sacramenta nihil ſunt quam Signa inſtituta, ad diſcernendum Chriſtianos a Judaeis, p. 213& Paganis, ut Romanis olim toga erat ſignum quo diſcernebantur a Graecis palliatis. This is not the only or chief end of Sacraments, therefore we oppoſe the Anabaptiſts as well as Bellarmin, who eſteem Sacraments nothing more than ſigns, diſtinguiſhing Chriſtians from Jews and Pagans, as heretofore a Gown was a ſign whereby the Romans were known from the Grecians: ſo that upon conſideration, how apt men are to flye into extremes; we may conclúde that in medio conſiſtit veritas, the truth lies betwixt both, as in this, ſo in very many other points. As touching the buſineſs of Circumciſion, it it was a ſign indeed or mark of diſtinction, to diſtinguiſh the people of God from Aliens, to ſeparate betwixt Jews by nature, and ſinners of the Gentiles; and it was alſo a Seal to ratifie and confirm what the Covenant did hold forth and promiſe. For God having entered Covenant with Abraham and his Seed, Gen. 17.10. This is my Covenant, which ye ſhall keep between me, and you, and thy Seed after thee; every manchild among you ſhall be circumciſed. And whereas the Author and Bellarmin before him ſaith, it was a ſign and a Seal to put into the fleſh of the Infant, only it was a ſign and a Seal to Abraham, Mr. Cobbet enervates this Argument in his Vindication, p. 54. by ſhewing

1. That the initiatory Seal is not primarily and properly the Seal of a mans faith, or obedience, but of Gods Covenant, rather. The Seal is to the Covenant, even Abrahams Circumciſion was not primarily a Seal to Abrahams faith of righteouſneſs, but to the righteouſneſs p. 214Faith, exhibited and effected in the Covenant, yea to the Covenant it ſelf, which he had believed unto righteouſneſs; hence the Covenant of Grace is called the righteouſneſs of Faith. Rom. 10.1.

2. I farther anſwer, that 'tis granted, Infants have not actually the uſe of Faith, but to that end was Circumciſion adminiſtred to the children of the Jews (as Baptiſm is now to our Infants) that when in time to come they ſhould believe to righteouſneſs (as all the Elect, who live to age do) their Faith might receive confirmation by their Circumciſion in Infancy, and this was that which heightned David's confidence in his encounter with Goliah, reflecting upon Gods Covenant, of which the Circumciſion which he received in his Infancy, was a ſign and a Seal.

He goes on, Neither is Baptiſm more than Circumciſion called a Seal, it is ſign proper only to men of underſtanding, repreſenting ſpiritual Myſteries.

Repl. And why not as proper to Infants, as to men of underſtanding? becauſe they repreſent ſpiritual Myſteries; and if this be all the reaſon he can give, he might better have ſaid nothing: for what thinks he of Circumciſion, did not that repreſent and ſhadow out diverſe ſpiritual Myſteries, ſcilicet, our corrruption by nature, and the nature of mortification [by cutting of the foreskin.] Was not the glorious myſtery of our Redemption by the blood of Chriſt ſignified by the blood-ſhed in Circumciſion, and yet this Ordinance was applyed to poor ignorant Babes, to uſe the Authors Dialect, p. 215and how ſlightly ſo ever he ſpeaks of an Ordinance of like reſemblance for ſignification yet the wiſdom of God thought fit to have thoſe circumciſed that were void of underſtandſtanding. I find the Author and his party too bold in cenſuring of things, that do any way croſs their idol-opinion; and the wiſdom of God himſelf ſhall ſuffer, rather than they will recede from the errour they have ſuck'd in, yea, 'its obſervable that ſome of them are as pertinacious, and inflexible in their principle of oppoſition to Infant-Baptiſm, and lay out as much zeal in this matter, as if their Salvation were concern'd in it.

And not as Circumciſion which was a Sign not improper for Infants, Mr. Tombes Examen page 84. line 12.becauſe it left a ſignal impreſſion in their fleſh to be remembred all their days, but ſo cannot Baptiſm be to any Infants, and ſome carry it farther, how ſhall Infants know they have been baptized?

Repl. It is true, Circumciſion left a ſignal mark upon the Jewiſh Infants, but what of that? had they any other way to know this mark was given them for any ſuch religious end, and purpoſe, as a ſign or ſeal of the Covenant betwixt God and them, but by the teſtimony of others? For inſtance, ſuppoſe an Infant born blind (as we read of ſuch a one in the Goſpel) was circumciſed, who could never ſee that ſignal mark, he muſt be beholding to others, both to be taught the religous end of Circumciſion, as well as to have intimation of the character he received in Circumeiſion. It is p. 216well known that the ſame Ceremony is uſed by other nations (though not as a Sacrament) as the Inhabitants of Colchis, the Ethiopians, the Egyptians. The Iſraelites therefore when grown up, had no other way to know that ſignal mark was given to a religious purpoſe (which was the principal end that Ordinance pointed at) than by the information of their Parents, or other witneſſes. And the Jewiſh Doctors tell us there was one appointed for that purpoſe, whoſe name they called Baal Berith, and Sandak, that is the Maſter of the Covenant, and to this ſence Junius and Tremelius interprets that in Iſaiah chap. 8.2. where 'tis ſaid that he took unto him faithful witneſſes, viz. Ʋzziah the Prieſt, and Zacheriah: Faithful witneſſes, to what? why to the Circumciſion of his Son,Mr. Brinſley: and from hence it is conceived ariſeth that aneient cuſtom of witneſſes (grown now into a meer formality) in baptizing children. Concerning which Reverend Mr. Cotton hath theſe remarkable paſſages,Mr. Cottons Grounds and Ends of Infant-Baptiſm. that when children are baptized upon the profeſſion of their God-fathers and God-mothers (for ſo they call it) it is not the intendment, or Doctrine of the Church, to baptize them upon the Covenant or profeſſion of them (which is one of the miſtakes of our Author p. 184. of his Treatiſe) but to bind the ſureties that when the child groweth up to years of diſcretion, they ſhall aſſiſt the Parents in the Chriſtian education of the child, that he may learn and practice thoſe p. 217good things which at his Baptiſm they promiſed, or undertook for his, as appeareth by the charge given to the Sureties. I ſhall add that the ſame Office may be much mere needful in caſe the childs Parents dye, before it comes to years of diſcretion.

5. Except. Circumciſion was not adminiſtred to Believers, as Believers, and to their Seed, but according to the Inſtitution, to all the natural lineage and Poſterity of Abraham, good or bad.

Repl. In which paſſage, there are two miſtkes, for.

1. Abraham was a Believer, and was not Circumciſion adminiſtred to him, as a Believer, and to his Seed?

The whole body of the Iſraelites, profeſſing the worſhip of the true God wer accounted Believers, and all the world beſides, Infidels, without God, and afar off, Eph. 2.12, 17. But as for the Jews, they have the name of Gods people, his peculiar people, they are ſaid to be near unto him, Pſal. 148.14. A people called by his name. 2. Chron. 7.14. And God owns them as his. Eph. 3.15. And all upon account of the Covenant God made with Abraham, and his Seed, and 'tis upon the account of the Covenat of free-grace that any among the ſons of men are the people of God. 'Tis true indeed, the Apoſtle ſays, Rom. 9. All were not Iſrael that were of Iſrael, all were not godly, by virtue of Election, and Regeneration; there were many of them his people, nay, moſt (for though Iſrael be as the Sea-ſand, yet a remnant only ſhall be ſaved.) By Covenant relation, or external p. 218profeſſion only, as there are Believers only by profeſſion now under the Goſpel, by virtue of which they are eſteemed within the Covenant, and admitted to the privileges annexed.

2. That confident aſſertion too is ſpoken without book, namely, That Circumciſion belonged to all the lineage of Abraham, good and bad. For

1. His Female-poſterity were not circumciſed perſonally: this he himſelf objecteth againſt us, and that right enough, for the command was only for the Males, not Females, by reaſon of their incapacity.

2. If any credit may be given to the Jewiſh Doctors: (as who is ſo ſilly as to deny it them, in a matter of Fact of this nature) they tell us that the Male-children of an excomunicated perſon that remained impenitent were not circumciſed, and that this was one of the ways, by which they puniſhed impenitent excommunicated perſons; Buxtorf hath it out of the Epiſtles of the Rabbins, Godwin's Moſes and Aaron. lib. 5. cap. 2. pag. 181.and we have the ſame atteſted in Godwin's Jewiſh Antiquities.

3. Moreover during ſo long a time as the Iſraelites were in the wilderneſs, there was not one Infant of all that were born there circumciſed, and ſo they wanted the ſignal mark. We ſee in ſome caſes the Ordinance was ſuſpended, (as Chriſt allows us a diſpenſation in reſpect of the Sabbath) and we may ſay of Circumciſion, as he did of the Sabbath, Circumciſion was made for man, and not man for Circumciſion.

Circumciſion belonged to all the poſterity of Abraham, p. 219good and bad (as he ſays before) without any ſuch limitation as is put upon Baptiſm, if thou believeſt with thy heart thou mayſt.

Repl. And why was that? But becauſe not only the Eunuch there, but the reſt of the adult perſons, that we read of in the Acts, who were baptzed, were the firſt Subjects of the Ordinance, and that requires perſonal profeſſion of Faith; (was in Abraham who was circumciſed; but it was not ſo with his children) and they were all of them Aliens, (for not only the Gentiles, but Jews alſo were to be look'd upon as ſuch, in reference to the new adminiſtrantion of Baptiſm) and therefore it was neceſſary they ſhould make a profeſſion of their Faith,Mr. Geree. Vind. Paedoboptiſt. and acceptance of the Govenant-under the new adminiſtration, before they were admitted to the Seal thereof, Baptiſm: ſo if any Miniſter of the Goſpel ſhould preach to Jews and Pagans, they are to have ſome account of their Faith, before they ought to baptize them; but upon their believing, and being baptized, the promiſe takes in their children alſo to a participation of the ſame Ordinance. For as we have before hinted, Abraham believed firſt, and afterward was circumciſed, but he having a Covenant made with him and his Seed; Iſaac his Son was circumciſed before Faith. So was it with the Proſelytes, and their children; ſo that here lyes the fallacy, when that ſhall be taken for a rule abſolutely neceſſary in the adminiſtration of Baptiſm, which is only ſo in ſome reſpect. Farther p. 220to what he ſaith, of no ſuch qualification mentioned, that the Parent ſhould be a Believer to capacitate the Infant for Baptiſm. It may ſuffice to tell him, there was no need thereof, for the Apoſtles knew well enough, the Covenant in the former adminiſtration to extend to viſible Believers and their Seed: which was never repealed by the coming of Chriſt.

But will you deny Abraham to be a believing Parent? was not he a Father to them all? what then? he was a publick common Father which reaches not the caſe in hand, neither have they any other in his ſtead, therefore the Analogy holds not.

Repl. This is a poor ſhift, for that Abraham was a publick Father we all hold, according to that of the Apoſtle. Rom. 4.11. He received the Sign of Circumciſion, a Seal of the righteouſneſs of Faith, which he had, yet being uncircumciſed, that he might be the Father of them all that believe, though they be not circumciſed, that is, the uncircumciſed Gentiles that believe, as well as of the Jews. But why is he termed the father of Believers in both people? I ſuppoſe no better reaſon can be given than what I find in Doctor Sclater upon the fourth of Romans: namely, becauſe from him the Bleſſing of the Covenant is derived as an inheritance paſſeth from the Father to the Son, or becauſe in him the Covenant is made with all Believers, and their Seed. But what is this to the children of Believers, what benefit redounds to them that do not actually believe, nor profeſs the Faith of Abraham, having not the uſe of reaſon? the ſame Learned p. 221Doctor gives this anſwer, although Infants have not actually the uſe of reaſon (nor can actually believe) yet to that end (as Circumciſion heretofore) Baptiſm is miniſtred to Infants, that when in time to cime, they ſhall believe to righteouſneſs, their Faith may receive confirmation, by Baptiſm in infancy received; as Davids Faith did againſt Goliah, he reflecting upon his Circumciſion, (the ſign and Seal of Gods Covenant with him) when he went out againſt Goliah, that uncircumciſed Philiſtine. To this purpoſe ſaith Auguſtin, In Abraham praeceſſit fidei juſtitia, & acceſſit Circumciſio ſignaculum juſtitiae fidei, &c. In ſome juſtification goes before the Seal, as in Abraham, and Cornelius, in others the Seal is before righteouſneſs—Sicut in Iſaac, qui octavo ſuoe nativitatis die circumciſus eſt, praeceſſit Signaculum juſtitiae fidei, &c. As in Iſaac who was circumciſed the eighth day, the Seal preceded Faith — Ita in Baptizatis infantibus &c. So in infants that are baptized — Auguſt. de Bapt. contra Donat. l. 4. c. 24.

Excep. 6. Becauſe Baptiſm came not in the room, place, and uſe of Circumciſion, and the reaſons he brings to prove it, are diverſe; we ſhall now examine them.

Firſt, he ſaith, It muſt not be look'd upon to come in the room, and ſtead of it by any means: and why

1. Becauſe then Males, Mr. Tombes Examen p. 4.not Females would be baptized.

Reader, we muſt now give thee notice, that we are to renew our combat with Mr. Tombes, p. 222for this firſt reaſon is his, Examen, pag. 4. And the old Anſwers will do well euough.

1. The reaſon why Females were excluded from an actual participation of Circumciſion was their incapacity.

2. They were virtually circumciſed,Mr. Marſhal Defence of Infant Baptiſm. and reputed among the circumciſed ones in that they were admitted to the Paſſeover, when the expreſs command of the Law was that no uncircumciſed parſon muſt eat of it. Exod. 12.48. And farther it appears, they were reputatively circumciſed, by that paſſage, where 'tis ſaid, the whole houſe of Iſrael was circumciſed, and by that of Sampſons Parents, who were diſpleaſed that he took a wife of the uncircumciſed Philiſtins. Judg. 14.3. for if the Iſraelitiſh women had not been accounted circumciſed in the Males, Circumciſion could have made no difference between Wife and Wife.

2. His next reaſon is, Becauſe all Believers out of Abrahams Family were not circumciſed. Mr. Tombes Exer p. 4Mr Tombes Exercit. p. 4. He gives inſtances of thoſe out of Abrahams Family that were not circumciſed.

Repl. I have anſwered this before, that ſome of them lived before the ordinance of Circumciſion was inſtituted, and others for other reaſons were not circumciſed, as I have ſhewn but I love not to repeat.

3. His third reaſon is, becauſe then the circumciſed needed not to have been baptized, if they had beem already ſealed with the new Covenant Seal, but Chriſt himſelf and all his Apoſtles, &c. were p. 223circumciſed, yet nevertheleſs were baptized.

Repl. If this deſerves an Anſwer, take this, The Covenant of Grace both under the Law and Goſpel is one and the ſame for ſubſtance, though as to the external adminiſtration thereof, there is a difference, and accordingly the Seals are different. The Landlord if he pleaſe, may break the old Seal, and ſet on a new one to the grant, he makes to his, Tenant.

2. He ſaith, it comes not in its room and ſtead as to the ends and uſes.

Repl. Though as to ſome circumſtances, there be a difference between Circumciſion and Baptiſm in regard of their ends and uſes, yet there is no material difference, as to ſubſtance.

But let us ſee his reaſons why Baptiſm ſucceeds not Circumciſion as to the ends and uſes: which are theſe.

1. Becauſe Circumciſion was a ſign of Chriſt to come in the fleſh, but Baptiſm that he was already come, Tombes exerc. pag. 4. Anſw. There is a very good harmony notwithſtanding that, quoad ſubſtantiam, as to the ſubſtance, they both look at Chriſt, and agree in the main. The one ſignifies and ſeals the remiſſion of ſins, by and through the blood of Chriſt to be ſhed, the other through that blood already ſhed. There is an agreement in the ſignification, though not in the manner of ſignification.

2. He ſaith, Circumciſion was to be a partitionwall between Jew and Gentile, but Baptiſm teſtifyed the contrary. Mr. Tombes again, quoting Cameron for it, Exerc. pag. 4. and then p, 6, Circumciſion ſeparated the Iſraelited from all p. 224nations, but Baptiſm ſignifieth that all are one in Chriſt.

Repl. Though Baptiſm be no partition-wall between nation and nation, yet the end and uſe of Baptiſm is to diſtinguiſh Chriſtians from Pagans, Turks and Infidels. One of the ends of Baptiſm is to be a badge of diſtinction betwixt thoſe who are within, and thoſe who are without, as the Apoſtle ſpeaks, 1 Cor. 5.12.13.

3. The Author farther tells us, Circumciſion initiated the carnal Seed into the carnal Church, and gave them right to carnal Ordinances, but Baptiſm was to give the ſpiritual Seed, an orderly entrance into the ſpiritual Church, and a right to partake of the ſpiritual Ordinances.

Repl. Although I have ground to hope my Antagoniſt is a ſpiritual or godly man, yet he talks here at a carnal rate; for what thinks he of Iſaac and Jacob, and Chriſt himſelf, they were the ſpiritual Seed, as well as the carnal or fleſhly Seed of Abraham, for as concerning the fleſh Chriſt came of him. As for his expreſſion of carnal Ordinances, it is Scripture language Heb. 9, 10. And the Apoſtle means thoſe Levitical outward Ceremonies, which were placed in terrene and earthly matters that reached only the fleſh, or did ſanctify only to the purifying of the fleſh. But ſure the circumciſed had right to all the other Ordinances of a ſpiritual nature as well as thoſe, and the Author is to raſh in calling the—Church of God under the Old Teſtament a carnal Church, I ſcruple not to ſay it is a carnal ſpeech of him. But 'tis obſervable, all is carnal with ſome men that doth not ſuit with p. 225their Genius, when in the mean time the carnality lieth unſeen by them in their own proud, cenſorious, ſelf-conceited, contentious ſpirits. And did indeed Circumciſion initiate into the carnal Church? (that is the Church of God under the old Teſtament) was Jeſus Chriſt the head of a carnal Church? he was the head of the Church under the Law, as much as of the Church now in the days of the Goſpel: and will any ſober man ſay, he was the head of a carnal Church? This were heterogenous indeed that a ſpiritual head ſhould be joined to a carnal Church: But I pray what ſingular virtue do theſe men ſee, and find in Baptiſm, that they ſo much advance it above Circumciſion? what is there in it of it ſelf (ſince they keep ſuch ado about it) more than in Circumciſion? It is altogether in it ſelf as carnal as Circumciſion, and the people that ſubmit to it as carnal as others; and as carnal, and perverſe an uſe do ſome of them make of it, as the Jews did of Circumciſion. Some I know are more wiſe and ſober than the reſt; but too too many make an idol of their Baptiſm, they make it a fire-brand of contention, and the beginning and end of all Religion. When as to ſpeak plainly, the Baptiſm of water of it ſelf (due reverence being ſtill had to all Gods Ordinances in their places) is as low and carnal a thing, as poor a Ceremony, as empty a ſign and ſhadow as Circumeiſion. Baptiſm and Circumciſion as to the letter, are juſt alike as to any intrinſecal worth, the one relates to the letting out of a little blood, the other to the waſhing of the filth of the fleſh. p. 226The cleanſing of ones hands and feet from dirt is the ſame with it,Mr. Sydenham's ſober Exercit. and as efficacious, and acceptable as this of it ſelf. In a word there is a Circumciſion in the fleſh, and a Circumciſion in the heart, the former carnal, the later ſpiritual, and ſo there is a Baptiſm of the fleſh, and a Baptiſm of the ſpirit. The Apoſtle derides Circumciſion in the fleſh, where that of the heart was wanting by giving it the contemptible name of Conciſion. Blakes Covenant ſealed.And as Circumciſion was Uncircumciſion; ſo Dipping is Non-Baptiſm where that of the ſpirit is wanting.

4. Laſtly, he ſaith Circumciſion was to be a Bond to keep the whole Law.

Repl.

The place is Rom. 2.25. Circumciſion verily profiteth, if thou keep the whole Law. The Apoſtle intends both ceremonial and moral Law; as elſe where he ſpeaks, He that is circumciſed is a Debtor to the whole Law; the meaning is, he that is circumciſed with an opinion that he ſhall be juſtified thereby, that ſame man is fallen from Grace, that is, from the way of juſtification by a Covenant of Grace,Mr. Blakes Covenant ſealed, and puts himſelf under a Covenant of works, and ſo is bound to keep the Law in every punctilio; nevertheleſs Circumciſion in it ſelf was properly a Bond binding the faithful to Evangelical Obedience p. 227[walk before me, and be upright, or ſincere] Gen. 17.1. Circumciſion which was the Seal of the righteouſneſs of Faith, did oblige Abraham to walk perfectly, or ſincerely before God, and hereunto alſo Baptiſm obligeth us.

5. He adds, Circumciſion was adminiſtred to all Abrahams natural Seed, without any profeſſion of Faith, whereas Baptiſim is to be adminiſtred to the ſpiritual Seed of Abraham only upon profeſſion.

Repl.

Heres a double miſtake, for firſt, we have ſhewed before that the children of excommunicated perſons, that were impenitent were denyed Circumciſion: Godwin's Moſes and Aaron, lib. 5. cap. 2. pag. 181. So Buxtorf. Secondly, we find ſome baptized in the fourth of Matthew, and Lydias houſe, when none that we hear of profeſſed Faith, but her ſelf.

6. Laſtly He draws low, & is come to the Dregs,Note here Mr. Tombs and he differs, for Tombs grants they are both the ſame Sacraments, for the ſpiritual part, viz. Sanctification by the Spirit, and juſlification by the Blood of Chriſt, Examen. p. 83. & tells us, Circumciſion was a ſign of Temporal Bleſſings, and Benefits to be enjoyed in the land of Canaan, whereas Baptiſm was to be a ſign of ſpiritual Benefits.

Repl.

But I pray what Temporal Bleſſings and Benefits in the land of Canaan, did they enjoy, p. 228who never entred into it? But this is but an evaſion learn'd from the Jeſuites, as before: For Canaan or temporal Bleſſings were not the only things which Circumciſion ſealed, neither yet the main thing; for Gen. 17.7. God promiſed Abraham to be his God, and the God of his Seed, this was the grand promiſe, the main of the Covenant which Circumciſion ſealed up, temporal Bleſſings were but an Additament.

The Text ſaith Circumciſion was a Seal of the righteouſneſs of Faith, and ſo of all ſpiritual mercies, as much as Baptiſm. Nor is Baptiſm only a ſeal of ſpiritual bleſſings (this will not be owned for a true poſition in Divinity) for Baptiſm ſealeth our deliverance out of afflictions, as well as out of corruption, yea, it ſealeth to us the raiſing our bodies from death out of the grave,Cottons Grounds and Ends of Infant-Baptiſm. as well as our ſouls out of the death in ſin. Baptiſm ſealeth a much temporal as ſpiritual bleſſings; for he that gives Chriſt, how ſhall he not with him give us all things elſe? and indeed Mr. Tombes like a Divine acknowledgeth that both Circumciſion and Baptiſm ſignifie the righteouſneſs of Faith, and ſanctification of the heart. Exerc. p. 6. and Exam. p. 83. After all this unſound ſtuff, the Author is pleaſed to grant there is ſome Analogy (little without doubt) betwixt the one and the other, and ſince he toucheth it only with a light finger, I ſhall give you the Analogy between them more fully.

p. 229The Analogy betwixt Circumciſion and Baptiſm.

1. Circumciſion was a Seal of the Covenant made with Believers and their Seed.

2. By Circumciſion Believers and their Seed had entrance into the Church of the Jews.

3. Circumciſion ſhadowed forth the corruption of our nature, by cutting off the foreskin of the fleſh.

4. Circumciſion ſhadowed out alſo mortification to ſin, or regeneration by cutting of the fore-skin, and caſting it away.

5. In Circumciſion there was blood-ſhed, which pointed at our Redemption by Chriſt.

6. Circumciſion was a Bond to Evangelical Obedience. Gen. 17.1. Walk before me and be upright.

So is Baptiſm. 1 Pet. 3.21.

So are Believers and their Seed by Baptiſm into particular Goſpel Churches.

Baptiſmal waſhing points at the ſame. 1. Pet. 3.21.

The ſame is ſignified by Baptiſm, Rom. 6.3, 4. called by Peter the laver of Regeneration.

The water in Baptiſm repreſents the ſame, viz. the doing away the guilt of ſin by his blood.

So alſo is Baptiſm. 1. Pet. 3.21.

p. 230Notwithſtanding all this, if we will follow the Authors advice, we muſt not by any means conclude that Baptiſm comes in the room of Circumciſion, and for this reaſon which lies at the bottom, becauſe then he muſt renounce his opinion, for it will thence follow, that Infant-Baptiſm is an Ordinance of Jeſus Chriſt. But he hath learn'd from Mr. Tombes to give a ponderous reaſon why (though there be ſome Analogy) we muſt not own it to come in the room and ſtead of Circumciſion,Tombes again Exercitation p. 7. viz. Becauſe there is an Analogy between other things and Baptiſm; and we may on the ſame account ſay it comes in the room and ſtead of them, As the—Ark, Manna, Rock and from ſuch like Arguments drawn from Analogies, what Jewiſh Rites may by our wits be introduced to the countenancing the Papiſts in their High-Prieſt-Hood, Tythes. But will he never have done with Mr. Tombes? we find this in his Exercit. pag. 7. —Where he ſaith,—By like manner of Argumentation it will be lawful to bring in the whole burden of the Jewiſh Rites, — and who ſhall put a bound to mens wits—and this manner of arguing will countenance the Arguments of the Papiſts, for an univerſal Biſhop, becauſe there was ſuch an High-Prieſt among the Jews, &c. And that Tythes are due to Miniſters, Jure Divino, form Analogy of Melchiſedec and Aaron, &c. Exam. p. 86.

Well, ſince we have this Crambe bis cocta, that is enough to turn ones ſtomach, being tainted with long ſtanding; I think Mr. Gerees p. 231ſtomachical medicines may be proper—We bring in,M. Gere. Vind. Padebaptiſmi. ſaith he, no new Rite by Analogy, but only apply that which God hath brought, unto thoſe, to whom by Analogy it doth appear to belong.

And again Baptiſm is not inſtituted or bronght in as a new Rite by us; but being appointed of God, is applied by us, by proportion to Infants. And for that of countenancing the Papiſts in their High-Prieſt-Hood: neither doth that follow; for this Argument proceeds, as though we ſet up Circumciſion it ſelf: whereas we neither ſet up Circumciſion, nor Baptiſm: but apply Baptiſm inſtituted of God to Infants. And therefore for you (ſaith he to Tombes) to infer the bringing in of things not in their kind mentioned, or appointed in the New Teſtament; is an apparent non ſequitur: your inſtances being far unparallel to ours of applying an inſtituted Ordinance to children by way of proportion. I ſhall expect a good anſwer to this from the Author, or Mr. Tombes, ad Graecas Calendas.

He next applauds my Lord Brooks (who gives not them a very good character) for that ſaying of his, viz. That the Analogy which Baptiſm now hath with Circumciſion in the Old Law, is a fine rational Argument to illuſtrate a point well proved before; but he ſomewhat doubts whether it be proof enough for that which ſome would prove by it (beſides the vaſt difference in the Ordinance) the perſons to be circumciſed are ſtated by a poſitive Law, ſo expreſs that it leaves no place for ſcruple, but it is p. 232far otherwiſe in Baptiſm, where all the deſignation of perſons fit to be partakers, for ought I know, ſaith he, is only ſuch as believe: for this is the qualification which with exacteſt ſearch I find the Scripture requires in perſons to be babtized, and this it ſeems to require in all ſuch perſons; now how Infants can be properly ſaid to believe, I am not yet fully reſolved. This is very true which he relates of my Lord Brooks, who ſpeaks not poſitively, but modeſtly, that he ſomewhat doubts, and is not fully ſatisfied as to the way of Argumentation from Circumciſion to Baptiſm, and withal doth yet commend it for a fine rational Argument to illuſtrate a point well proved before: that's ſomething, and more than our Author would have had him ſpoke, but I muſt acquaint the Reader with more which he ſpeaks, little to their advantage. I will not, I cannot, ſaith he, take upon me to defend that, men uſually call Anabaptiſm: yet I conceive that Sect is twofold. Some of them hold free will, community of all things, deny Magiſtracy, and refuſe to baptize chilren. Theſe truly are ſuch Hereticks (or Atheiſts) that I queſtion whether any Divine ſhould honour them ſo much as to diſpute with them. There is another ſort of them who only deny Baptiſm to their children, till they come to years of diſcretion, and then they baptize them, but in other things they agree with the Church of England. Truly theſe men are much to be pitied. And I could heartily wiſh before they be ſtigmatized with that opprobrious brand of Schiſmaticks, the truth might be cleared to them. For I conceive p. 233to thoſe that hold we may go no farther than Scripture [that is the expreſs word] for Doctrine and Diſcipline, it may be very eaſie to erre in this point in hand; ſince the Scripture ſeems not to have clearly determined this particular; but for his part, he ſaith, many things prevail with him in this point, as

Firſt, for ought he could ever learn, it was the conſtant cuſtom of the pureſt and moſt primitive Church to baptize Infants of believing Parents. For, ſaith he, I could never find the beginning and firſt riſe of this practiſe; whereas tis very eaſie to track Hereſies to their firſt riſing up, and ſetting foot in the Church.

Again I find all Churches (even the moſt ſtrict) have generally been of this judgment and practice: yea though there have been in all ages ſome, that much affected novelty, and had parts enough to diſcuſs and clear what they thought good to preach, yet was this ſcarce ever queſtioned by men of note, till within theſe laſt ages: and ſure the conſtant judgment of the Churches of Chriſt, is much to be honoured, and heard in all things that contradict not Scripture.

Nor can I clear that of S. Paul, 1 Cor. 7.14. Elſe were your children—I know ſome interpret it illegitimate, and holy, legitimate— but ſaith he, I believe the Apoſtle means that Relative Church-Holineſs, which makes a man capable of admiſſion to holy Ordinances, and to Baptiſm.

p. 234Except.

Laſtly, the Author excepts againſt the Argument we uſually bring for the Baptiſm of children; Elſe our priviledge under the Goſpel, will be leſs than theirs under the Law, for theirs were circumciſed, they were taken into the Covenant with the Parent, and were ſealed, whereby they were diſtinguiſhed from the world, and this was a great priviledge, and to deny Baptiſm to children, which ſucceeds Circumciſion, is to reſtrain Gods Grace, and make us looſers by Chriſts coming. To which he anſwers not at all.

1. Becauſe they were not circumciſed, becauſe they were children of Believers or ſealed with a New Covenant Seal, as being in the New Covenant thereby, as before proved, &c.

But what an abſurd conceit and idle dream this is we have ſhewn before to which I refer the Reader.

2. Becauſe it ought to be eſteemed no more loſs of a priviledge, than our not enjoying literally a Holy Land, City, Temple, Succeſſion of High-Prieſt, &c. for all thoſe Types are ſpiritualiz'd to us under the Goſpel— and ſo far we are better,Tombes again Eramen. p. 101. and not worſe.

Anſw.

But take heed of diſparaging the Grace of God in vouchſafing them the Seal of his Covenant, now under the Goſpel. For as Mr. Marſhal p. 235ſays in anſwer to ſuch cavilling as this. None of thoſe, City, Temple, Succeſſion of HighPrieſt, &c. were of the ſubſtance of the Covenant of Grace, for though Circumciſion was a part of their adminiſtration, yet it did belong to the fubſtance, it belonged to it, ſaith he, not as a part of it, but as a means of applying it; and though it be a priviledge to have nothing ſucceed Circumciſion, as it bound to that manner of adminiſtration; yet it is a privilege to have ſomewhat ſucceed it as a Seal of the Covenant, in as much as a Covenant with a Seal, is a greater benefit than to have a Covenant without it.

Thirdly, He ſaith if it ſhould be granted, that Circumciſion was a Seal of the New Covenant, belonging to all the children of Iſrael, then would not the baptizing children of Believers anſwer it. Neither amount to ſo great a priviledge. And why?

1. There were all the Familes and Tribes of Iſrael (and all proſelyted ſtrangers) with their children without diſtinction of good and bad to be circumciſed: But here only one of a City, or two of a Tribe: for Believers are but thin ſown, and the children of unbelievers, and wicked men are to receive no ſuch benefit in the Judgment of ſo many.

Anſw.

I repent the loſing of ſo much time as I am put upon in anſwering ſuch frivolous objections, p. 236but ſuch wrangling will never advantage their cauſe.

Firſt, Then it is not true that all their children were circumciſed, for in the caſe of Excommunication, if a perſon perſiſted in impenitency amongſt other puniſhments, this was one, his Male-children were not circumciſed. Godwin's Moſes and Aaron, l. 4. c. 2.

2. Let it be conſidered, that the Church of God is now of Greater extent under the Goſpel, that it was then, Iſaiah 54.12. The deſolate hath more children than the married: enlarge the place of thy Tents, and let them ſpread the Curtains of thy habitation, &c. So chap. 60.6. The multitude of the Sea ſhall be converted unto thee, and the riches of the Gentiles ſhall come unto thee —who are theſe that fly like clouds, and as the Doves to the Windows? v. 8.

And when theſe come in, their children come in with them, and ſo the number of the baptized do infinitely exceed the circumciſed, the extent of the Gentile Church ſo much exceeding that of the Jews, we find three thouſand came in a day, and five thouſand at another time in the Acts.

3. Whereas he ſaith wicked men are to receive no ſuch Benefit, that is, for their children in the judgment of ſo many; It is the judgment of many more that they ought, if they profeſs the Chriſtian faith: although I conceive not the priviledge of ignorant, and ſcandalous perſons.

Secondly, He adds another reaſon which is exceeding weak; and that is, Becauſe we are at an utter uncertainty when we have a right Subject; p. 237for if the Parent be an Hypocrite, or no elect perſon, which is beyond our reach to underſtand, we cannot know whether the child be fit for Baptiſm.

Anſw. And how can thoſe of his way tell when they have a fit Subject for Baptiſm, are they ſure all whom they baptize are elect perſons and ſincere, we have told him before, de occultis non judicat Eccleſia. A ſerious profeſſion is ſufficient, and we are to judge ſuch profeſſors, in probability Believers, and may on that ground admit their children to Baptiſm. We have a rule for baptizing, and that we are to follow, and a rule to know, thoſe that are baptizable, but none, for an infallible judgment of mens ſincerity, we are not called to judge of this matter, nor is it in our power, and 'tis not our ſin if we be deceived. Mr. Baxter ſays well to this, in his Anſwer to Mr. Tombes, how do you know, (ſaith he to him) whom you ſhould baptize? whom doth the Scripture command you to baptize? If you ſay as Apol. p. 94. that it is thoſe that make free, ſerious, underſtanding profeſſion: I would know whether it be the profeſſion it ſelf, the bare profeſſion which God beſtoweth this privilege on? or whether it be the faith profeſſed? if it be real faith, then without that, there is no Baptiſm; if it be bare profeſſion, or if we may call it falſe faith, then falſe faith (or profeſſion without faith) is the condition of baptizing, And if it be real faith, the Baptizer cannot know that, if it be ſaid that in common eſtimation they are Believers, then common eſtimation renders one capable of Baptiſm. When theſe men have anſwered the p. 238point for themſelves, they have anſwered it for us.

Thirdly and Laſtly he ſaith, Neither can the child (when he is grown up) have any certain knowledge that ſuch a Ceremony hath paſt upon him in Infancy, he having no infallible mark thereof; whereas the circumciſed Infant had an indelible character and mark in his fleſh, to aſſure him that he had received that Rite.

Anſw. That they had a ſenſible mark to mind them of their. Circumciſion is true, though ſome of them had an art to make it inviſible, as Beza notes upon that place, 1 Cor. 7.18. Let him not gather his Circumciſion,We have the note in our Margent Bible. which was done (as he quotes it out of Celſus, and Epiphanius) when the Surgeon by art draweth out the skin to cover the part circumciſed. Godwin hath the ſame in his Moſes and Aaron, and puts the queſtion how it is poſſible for a man, after once he hath been marked with the ſign of Circumciſion, to blot out that character, and become uncircumciſed? For thus ſome Jews, for fear of Antiochus made themſelves uncircumciſed. 1 Mac. 1.16. Others for ſhame, after they were gained to the Chriſtian Faith, uncircumciſed themſelves, and then tells us what is before. This by the way: But the Author ſaith, he that was circumciſed had a character or mark, to aſſure himſelf that he had received that Rite. To this I reply in the words of Mr. Brinſley. True; ſuch a ſenſible mark they had. But how did they know that that mark was given them for any ſuch religious end and purpoſe? p. 239That they received it as a Sacrament, a Seal of the Covenant betwixt God and them. Other nations there were (and that many) who uſed Circumciſion (even as the Turks do at this day) and I find in Mr. Godwin the ſame, in his ſixth Book of Miſcellaneous Rites. It was uſed, ſaith he, (though not as a Sacrament) by many other nations, by the inhabitants of Colchis, the Ethiopians, the Trogloditae and the Egyptians. Now then how did the Iſraelites know it was given them to ſuch a religious intent? why herein they were to give credit unto the teſtimony of others, viz. the Parents and other witneſſes, and Mr. Godwin in the aforeſaid Book tells us from the Jewiſh Doctors, that when a little child was to be circumciſed, one who ſupplied the place of a witneſs (whom they called by the name of Baal Berith and Sandak, that is, the Maſter of the Covenant, held the child in his arms, whileſt it was circumciſed, that ſo he might bear witneſs to the Circumciſion, and of the name given the child at that time. Such was the uſe of the later Jews; and it ſeemeth that the practice was ancient, even as ancient as Iſaiah's time. So thoſe two learned expoſitors Junius and Tremelius interpret that place. Iſa. 8.2. He took unto him faithful Witneſſes. Witneſſes to what? ſaith Mr. Brinſly; why to the Circumciſion of his Son, of whom he ſpeaketh in the verſe before; ſuch as might witneſs that he gave him that name in his Circumciſion, as the Lord appointed, viz. Maher-ſhalal-haſh-baz. Which whether, ſaith he, it was a thing really done, or only repreſented to the Prophet in a p. 240viſion, is not material: for it ſeemeth however it was a practice then in uſe in thoſe times. And from hence it is conceived that ancient cuſtom [as ancient indeed as Tertullians days] of having God-fathers, and God-mothers, (as we call them) in Baptiſm. Some perſons ſpecially appointed to witneſs the Baptiſm of ſuch a perſon; which uſe is ſtill continued amongſt us, with this injunction that they mind the child of that faith into which it was baptized, and that they take care that it be inſtructed and brought up in the knowledge of Chriſt, yet now it is in moſt places become a mere formality, and an occaſion only of feaſting. But we return to the matter, From thoſe Witneſſes or their Parents did the children of the Jews receive the Teſtimony of their Circumciſion; and they might give the more credit to it, becauſe they ſaw the ſame practiſed upon others dayly. And even ſuch a Teſtimony have children now from Parents, or Sureties, beſides the Teſtimony of the whole congregation, and the Records that are kept thereof in a Book kept for that purpoſe, according to the cuſtom of the Church of England.