Vindication of Baptizing Believers Infants, Chapter 2

Vindication of Baptizing Believers Infants · Chapter 2

p. 6CHAP. II.

NOw we return to Mr. T. his Exercit. where we left. But in the iſſue (ſaith Mr. T.) the argument from Gen. 17. 7, &c. fals into one of theſe forms. The firſt thus. To whom the Goſpel covenant agrees, to them the ſigne of the Goſpel covenant agrees alſo. But to the infants of beleevers the Goſpel covenant agrees; therfore to them the ſigne of the Goſpel covenant agrees, and conſequently Baptiſme.

2 Form of argument from Gen. Exercit. Sect. 2.17.7 &c. is thus (ſaith Mr. T.) to whom circumciſion did agree, to them baptiſme doth agree; But to infants circumciſion did agree; therefore alſo baptiſme.

3 Form (ſaith he) is thus.Exercit. Sect. 3. If baptiſme be not granted to the infants of beleevers, then the grace of God will be more reſtrained in the new Teſtament then in the old. But this is not to be affirmed; therefore baptiſme is to be granted to infants of beleevers.

Theſe are all the forms of argument from Gen. Animadverſ.17.7, &c. as Mr. T. reports: but he reports not all the forms; nor the all of thoſe forms he reports. For with great injurie to theſe three arguments, ſome materiall thing is left out of every one of them by Mr. T. as we ſhall plainly declare when we come to animadvert upon his anſwers to them. Mean while let us tell the Reader that there are other forms of argument drawn from Gen. 17.7, &c. and long ſince in print;See Mr. Ainſworths Anſwer to the Anabaptiſts. and thoſe to our apprehenſion very conſiderable; and to be put in the firſt place in this diſpute, according, to order of method, if not of nature too. Therefore let the Reader that ingenuouſly reads to know, and not to quarrell that he may not know, patiently give us leave to ſet them down, and briefly urge the vigour of them; and then we will lay aſide all to give him thoſe ſhort notes we have to Mr. T. his Exercitation.

Our firſt form of argument from Gen. 17.7. &c. is this; urged by Mr. Ainſw. in his book againſt the Anabaptiſts.

Where there is a command for a thing, never remanded or contramanded, there the thing is ſtill in force. But there is a command p. 7for ſigneing the Infants of a believer with the ſigne of the Covenant of grace, Gen. 17.7.9. never yet remanded, or contramanded: therefore the ſigning Believers children with the ſigne of the Covenant of grace, (namely Baptiſme now) is ſtill in force. So he.

For the confirmation of the Minor. If any where there is any Inſtitution of baptizing, only men of ripe yeares then in Matth. 28. But not there, as we ſhall ſee more after: meane while the Argument hence againſt baptizing of Believers Infants lyes not

1 In the order of words, for the order is inverted and contrary, Mar. 1.4.

2 Not in the affirmativeneſſe, one affirmative without a determinating word expreſſed doth not take off another affirmative.

3 The univerſal terme cannot note the ſubject of Baptiſme, viz. All Nations. For then all are to be baptiſed. And foreign would anſwer in foreign as well as foreign to anſwer to foreign, obſerve that Nations here mentioned well anſwer to Nations, Gen. 17. explained, Rom. 4. Gal. 3. That as Infants of believing Abraham were to be circumciſed, ſo the Infants of believing Gentiles to be baptiſed.

4 Not the Greek word foreign as if that muſt needs ſignifie make Diſciples. For,

1 Its unlikely that ſo great a controverſie as the Anabap: make of the Subject of Baptiſme, ſhould have no clearer an Inſtitution, then a Gr. criticiſme, of taking one ſence of a word that is taken divers wayes. For Significat & docere in Mat. 28. Legh. Crit. S. Novar. in Mat. 28.20, Aliquando eſt verbum tranſit, pro docere, ut Mat. 28. Whitak. Deſcript. The great Arias renders it onelyonly Docete, teach. So the renowned Vatablus, ſo the Syr… foreign and the Arab. foreign. So many others which for brevity we omit.

2 As foreign is in v. 19. ſo foreign v. 20. therfore moſt likely in v. 19. it ſignifies only a generall teaching. And ſo the great Critick & learned men in Gr. tongue. That foreign is to teach them that are ſtrangers to Doctrine, that they may become Diſciples, foreign to teach them that are Diſciples. So that here in v. 19. is not meant an exact compleat platforme of Chriſts commiſſion to the Apoſtles: For here is no mention of the holy Supper, but only the naming of the two more uſuall things, viz. teaching and baptizing, and not the matter of ſubject of the adminiſtration of Baptiſme.

p. 83 The holy Ghoſt renders this text, Mar. 16.15. by plaine foreign, preach the Goſpel.

4 If the Greek word ſhould be taken in that peculiar ſenſe, then the ſentence would run thus: therefore make all Nations diſciples, which for theſe 1600 yeers was never done in any nation.

5 Nor can the gender in foreign anſwering to the neuter gender foreign ſignifie that the children of beleevers ought not to be baptized. For if we ſtick ſo preciſely to the gender, then women are not to be baptized. If we keep to the gender, as to relate to foreign, then the children of beleevers are called diſciples, Act. 15. 10. They upon whoſe necks the falſe teachers would put the yoke of circumciſion are called diſciples. But the yoke of circumciſion was put upon children as well as men; and according to their inſtitution upon children of eight dayes old. Gen. 17.12. and ſo to continue unleſſe in ſome great impediment, as in the wilderneſſe. And therefore out of doubt thoſe falſe teachers that urged here that the grown diſciples ſhould be circumciſed, urged that their children ſhould be circumciſed alſo. Therefore children are called diſciples.

For which two Reaſons.

1 The children are reckned with the parents in all ordinances communicable to both, by warrant of Scripture. As till the Jews were broken off, Rom. 11. Till the vineyard was let out, Luke 20. Circumciſion went along with the parents to children; when parents loſt it, the children loſt it. When Iſhmael was caſt out of the Church, his poſteritie was not circumciſed, that we read of. By the ſame proportion baptiſme goes along from parents to children.

2 There is a double preaching, and a double Sacrament. A preaching to the heart, and to the eare: An innitiating and a corroborating Sacrament. God can preach to the heart when not to the eare. He a Spirit can preach to a ſpirit without ſentences, and ſo to children. This preaching is moſt ſutable to infants, becauſe thus man is altogether paſſive: ſo the innitiating Sacrament is fit for infants, becauſe in that they can be but paſſive.

The ſoul of an infant is out of the body all one with an Angel. And therfore one defines a ſoul, An Angel in a body. If the body cannot act, yet God can act without the body. As we ſee great revelations, viſions, &c. were given when the body was aſleep and unuſefull. See the Patriarches, &c. And Paul ſaw a moſt glorious viſion, p. 9when he had no uſe of his body, 2 Cor. 12. To make the inward worke of grace to depend on the body, is like the Pelagians and Arminians, yea worſe to make a worke depend not only on reaſon, but on ſence.

2 Forme of Argum. from Gen. 17. is this, to whom the Covenant in force, runs in the ſame tenor in the New Teſtament as in the Old, to them the application of the firſt ſigne, or Seale of the New Teſtament may be applyed as well, as the firſt of the Old Teſtament. But this Tenor of the Covenant of grace ſtill in force, is as true and doth as truly runne to a believing Gentile, I am thy God, and the God of thy ſeed, as it did to Abraham the Father of believing Gentiles, Rom. 4. Gal. 3. Ergo, the firſt Seale of the Covenant may be applyed to Believers children, now in the New Teſtament, as well as in the Old Teſtament to Abrahams. The Major is plaine, becauſe in Gen. 17. the tenor of the Covenant, and the application of the firſt Seale, are knit into a dependence one upon another. I am the God of thee and thy ſeed, ſee v. 7, 8. Therefore thou ſhalt circumciſe every male, v. 9. &c. The Minor is unqueſtioned of any that I know.

3 Form of Argum. from Gen. 17. Where there is the ſame reaſon of a Precept, there may be the ſame practice. But the Promiſe which is the reaſon of the Precept runnes in the New Teſtament (as flowing from Gen. 17.) to Believers, and their children. The Promiſe is to you and your children. Act. 2.39. Ergo. That this of Act. 2. flowes from Gen. 17. Obſerve theſe particulars.

1 A Promiſe recited muſts needs relate to a former ingagement, and to them to whom he ſpeaks, viz. Jewes.

2 And the or that promiſe foreign muſts needs relate to ſome eminent Promiſe; as that to Abraham was.

3 Some paſſages have an intimation of the Covenant with Abraham, viz.

1 It is in relation to the Covenant of grace, now to be ſealed with the firſt Seale; Ergo, to that with Abraham, Gen. 17.

2 It anſwers in words. It is to you and your children, all one with you and your ſeed. And mentions calling, as God calling Abraham, accepted his ſeed, &c.

Ergo, Infer, that the ſame reaſon on which the adminiſtration of Circumciſion was grounded, the adminiſtration of Baptiſme was p. 10grounded. So that the Apoſtle doth not only ſhew how Baptiſme comes in the roome of Circumciſion; but that it comes in the roome and is adminiſtred upon the ſame ground; Ergo to the ſame matter or ſubject. For children now as well as Gen. 17. are alike capable of that ground. So the children here are made free of Gods Citie, the univerſall Church, by the Fathers Coppy, whether the Father be preſent, as the Jew, to whom the Apoſtle ſpake, or farre off, either Jewe, whether unregenerate, and farre off in time, or ſcattered, and ſo farre off in place, or Gertile, that is farre off in both, if any of theſe are called, the Promiſe is to them, and their children. If any Gentile believe, he is a child of Abraham, Rom. 4. Gal. 3. and ſo the promiſe, and firſt Seale are to him, and his children; as the Promiſe and Circumciſion were to Iſaac and his children. And therefore when Zacheus is converted, preſently it is ſaid, Salvation is come to his houſe, for as much as be alſo is the ſonne of Abraham, Luk. 19.9.

Queſt. But is not the Promiſe here meant of the extraordinary gifts of the Holy-Ghoſt, as to ſpeake with tongues, doe Miracles, &c.

Anſ. 1. How then doth this ſuit with the Promiſe to Abraham, to which this Text relates, as we proved afore?

2 The Apoſtle applies the Promiſe here meant to his hearers now preſent, for their ſalvation whiles they cryed out in their unregenerate eſtate, what ſhall we doe?

3 All did not receive theſe extraordinary gifts. But all that are baptized into Chriſt, muſt receive the ſaving gifts of the Holy-Ghoſt, Matth. 3. Therefore this Promiſe is to be extended beyond the gifts of Miracles, or other extraordinary gifts of the Spirit, &c. For as all agree that, theſe were but the Firſt-fruites of the effuſion of the Spirit, in that viſible manner; to ſignifie the abundant effuſion of the ſaving gifts of the Spirit, in an inviſible manner, in future ages. So that this muſt be a a Promiſe to all Believers, and ſo to their children or ſeed indefinitely, that they ſhall receive the Holy-Ghoſt.

Queſt. But are not theſe words [as many as the Lord ſhall call] an explication of Children; ſo that the Promiſe is to their children with this condition, if they ſhall be called?

Anſ. No. For firſt, If ſo; then the Apoſtle needed not to ſay to you and your children; but only to have ſaid the Promiſe is to you, and to all the Lord ſhall call. But this Promiſe is applyed to them the p. 11Parents afore their calling, that it is to them as they are children according to birth, of Abraham, a Believer, to the end to call them; and ſo to be continued to them when called, and their children; and then it followes; And to all that are a farre off, when they ſhall be called, and ſo to their children (ſo it muſt be ſupplyed) ſo that Calling is an explication of the ſentence to them that are a farre off.

2 The Apoſtle ſpeaks to the Jewes to the end to better, rather then to worſe their condition. But their children by vertue of the outward priviledge and Tenor of the Covenant, to and with them the parents, had the ſigne of Circumciſion; therefore (by the Apoſtles intent) their children ſhould alſo have Baptiſme. If this had not been the Apoſtle meaning, he had left theſe Jewes children, and all their Infant-poſterity in no better condition, then the moſt barbarous Heathens then in the world; and this had ſpoyled theſe Jewes comfort, and croſſed the Apoſtles deſigne, to draw them to Converſion, and the new Sacrament of Baptiſme, for confirmation of that Converſion.

Now we go on with the place in Gen. 17. Namely,

3 Obſerve that this Covenant is called everlaſting, which cannot be truly, and properly ſo ſaid of this, and other Ceremonies, but as relating to Chriſt. Therefore, if the Covenant be everlaſting to them and their ſeed, indefinitely (as Election is propounded in the Scripture to us) then the ſealing of it outwardly to both them and their ſeed, muſt be everlaſting to the worlds end; and to all eternity inwardly to whom it is effectuall. And therefore as in the Old-Teſtament it was ſealed by Circumciſion, ſo in the New-Teſtament by Baptiſme.

Now we come to animadvert upon Mr. Tombes his formes of Argument from Gen. 17. as reported by him.

1 Argument ſaith Mr. Tombes, Exercitat. Sect. 1.(or at leaſt the 1. form of Argument.) To whom the Goſpel-Covenant agrees, to them the ſigne of the Goſpel-Covenant agrees alſo. But to the Infants of Believers the Goſpel-Covenant agrees; therefore to them the ſigne of the Goſpel-Covenant agrees. And conſequently Baptiſme. The minor is proved, Gen. 17.7. Thus Mr. Tombes layes downe the Argument.

But we ourſelves ſhould more cautiouſly forme it thus.Examinat. To whom the Goſpel-Covenant agrees, to them the ſigne of conveighance p. 12of the Goſpel-Covenant agrees, &c. For the Inſtitution in this 17. of Gen. doth not extend to any ſigne as to the corroborating, or confirming ſigne or Sacrament, viz. the Paſſeover. Nor is it our intention to extend it ſo farre, as if we would wind in that Believers Infants might receive the confirming corroborating ſigne of the Holy-Supper, as Mr. Tomles his forming the Argument would ſeeme to reach. The difference is too wide between ſome ſigne and all ſignes, for us to conclude that if ſome ſigne is due to them to whom is the Covenant, that therefore all ſignes in the New-Teſtament are due; and ſo to depart from the deſigne of the Text in hand.

But Mr. T…mbes not ſatisfied with the argument as laid down by himſelf,Exercitat. p. 3. makes divers exceptions againſt it, although he confeſſeth, that the Goſpel-covenant was the ſame in all ages in reſpect of the thing promiſed, and the condition of the covenant, which we may call (ſaith he) the ſul…ſtantiall, and eſſentiall part of the covenant, to wit, Chriſt, faith, ſanctification, remiſſion of ſins, eternall life. Animadv.So he. and conſequently (ſay we) he confeſſeth that this Covenant, Gen. 17. is a Goſpel-one in the ſubſtance, and eſſence.

The exceptions Mr. Tombes makes are foure.

That it is not (ſaith Mr. T.) apure Goſpel-covenant, 1 Except. Exercitation. Sect. 1. p. 2.but mixt. For (ſaith he) the covenant takes its denomination from the promiſes: but the promiſes are mixt, ſome Evangelicall, belonging to thoſe, to whom the Goſpel belongs, ſome are domeſtick, or civill promiſes, ſpecially reſpecting the houſe of Abraham, and politie of Iſrael ergo. So he.

Anſw. Denomination is (as Mr. T. well knows) a parte potiori from that which is principall in a thing. And who will not yeeld that the promiſes that concern grace and ſalvation are the principall. Where doth the Scripture call it a mixt covenant? yea doth not the Scripture in the New Teſtament frequently hold it forth as a pure covenant of grace, as pure as any we have. Rom. 4. v. 2, 3. called a covenant of juſtification, v. 4. A covenant of grace, v. 11. A covenant of faith, v. 13. Of the righteouſneſſe of faith. And oppoſeth it not to temporall promiſes, of domeſtick, or politick, or civill things, but to works, v. 2. v. 4. v. 6. To the law of works, v. 14, 15. Juſt ſo, Gal. 3. its called a covenant of righteouſneſſe by faith, v. 6. of juſtification through faith, v. 8. oppoſed not to civill promiſes, but to the law of works, ver. 10, 11, 12. And I ſay this covenant p. 13with Abraham, notwithſtanding any civill promiſes of temporall things, was as pure a covenant of grace as any we have in the New Teſtament. For where God repeats that in Iſaac all the earth ſhould be bleſſed, that is, in Chriſt, namely, Rom. 8.32. is there not a conjunction of a promiſe of temporall things? If he ſpared not his own Son, how ſhall be not with him freely give us all things? So 1 Cor. 3.22, 23. Whether Paul, or Apolle, or Cephas, or the world, &c. all are yours, becauſe ye are Chriſis. So Chriſt himſelf, Matth. 19.29. Every one that hath forſaken houſes, &c. ſhall receive an hundred fold, and inherit everlaſting life. And for this cauſe,Exercit. Sect. 1. p. 2. when God repeats that which M. T. cals a domeſtick or civill promiſe, viz. the multiplying Abrahams ſeed, this the Lord refers to the covenant of grace. Rom. 4.11. compare v. 17. and makes it the appurtnance of the grand promiſe. Ibid. v. 13.16, 17. For appurtenances do not alter the tenure or ſubſtance of the hold of a Mannour.

Amplification 1. Mr. T. to clear this his 1. exception, doth thus amplifie, ſaith he, that was Evangelicall, Gen. 17.5.Exercit. Sect. 1. p. 2. I have made thee a father of many nations. And that Gen. 15.5. ſo ſhall thy ſeed be, viz. as the ſtars. Compare (ſaith he) Rom. 4.17, 18. which places (ſay we) expreſſe onelyonly this, That he ſhould be the father of many nations through the power of God, according to that promiſe, ſo ſhall thy ſeed be. And ſaith Mr. T. a little after, this is domeſtick and civil; namely, the multiplying of the ſeed of Abraham.

Anſ. Now where is expreſſed any plain ſubſtantiall difference between theſe two expreſſions,Animad. and whereby are we guided as by a ſure threed, to call this or that expreſſion civill, or evangelical, I am not ſatisfied.

2 He addes further, that the promiſes of deliverance out of Aegypt,Exercit. Sect. 1. p. 2. Animadverſ. Gen. 15. and the poſſeſſion of Canaan, Gen. 17. were civill.

Anſ. Seeing the holy Ghoſt makes theſe temporall things by divine inſtitution ſignificative of ſpirituall things. Deliverance out of Egypt, Mat. 2. and in the Preface to the firſt Commandment, Canaan, Hebr. 4. I ſee not how (eſpecially being mentioned in relation to the covenant of grace) theſe are more civill then Sinai and Jeruſalem, Gal. 4.24, 25, 26. or bread and wine in the holy Supper.

3 Mr. T. doubt in this amplification upon the firſt exception,Exercit. Sect.. 1. p. 2. whether this covenant made with Abraham may be called ſimply Evangelicall, and ſo pertain to beleevers as beleevers, ſeeing that p. 14thoſe promiſes which were evangelicall, according to the more inward ſence of the holy Ghoſt, do point at the priviledges of Abrahams houſe, in the outward face of the word.

Anſw. Animadverſ.We ſee the Apoſtle, mentioning thoſe expreſſions of fatherhood of many nations; of the land of Canaan, &c. doth apply this covenant as purely evangelicall to beleevers as beleevers. Rom. 4. Gal. 3. Hebr. 4. Of which afore. And I ſee no more cauſe to doubt of this to belong to beleevers as ſuch, then of that promiſe, Gen. 3. to belong to beleevers, The ſeed of the woman ſhall break the ſerpents head: that is, we ſhall conquer Satan through Chriſt; though this were in the face of the words an advancement of the priviledge of Eves family,Ioſh. 1.5.Josh 1:5 or generation. That promiſe in the outward face of words did point at the priviledge of Joſhnahs houſe; that God would not leave him nor forſake him, viz. in his warre with the Canaanites, yet this the Apoſtle applies to beleevers as beleevers, Hebr. 13.5.

4 Mr. T. annexeth this reaſon to his doubt.Exercit. Sect. 1. p. 3. There were, ſaith he, annexed to the covenant on mount Sinai ſacrifices pointing at the ſacrifice of Chriſt, and yet we call not that Covenant ſimply evangelicall; but in ſome reſpect.

Anſw. Animadverſ.If any do not (if their fact weigh any thing in a diſpute) ſure it is not becauſe of the Goſpel types, for ſo Goſpel ſacramentall types would detract from their abſolute Goſpel notion; but in regard of the legall terrible manner of delivering the ten Commandments; which ſevered from the atonement of the Ceremoniall Law, were in a manner turned by the Jews into a covenant of works. Therefore the Apoſtle ſaith, as it were, Rom. 9.32. Moſes moſiſſimus (ſaith Luther) killeth. But Moſes Aaronicus ſaveth. The ten Commandments looked truly upon, under a right notion, as added to the Ceremoniall Law, Moſes joyned with Aaron are as abſolutely evangelicall; as obedientiall love added to faith in the New Teſtament.Cameron Theſ. 66.67. And therefore it is onelyonly in regard of ſome modall differences that Cameron cals the covenant at Sinai the covenant ſubſervient to the covenant of grace; but not in the ſulſtance in which it agrees with the covenant of grace in as many particulars, as Cameron brancheth them out; as in ſhewing ſin, leading to Chriſt, reſtraining from ſin; pledging in and by a Mediator, promiſing life, &c. yea there are (as Diodat is p. 15one) that doubt not to call the covenant God made with Iſrael at Sinai a covenant of meer grace.

Diodat. pref. to Exod. Exercit. p. 3.2 Exception Mr. Tombes makes is; That the ſeed of Abraham is many wayes ſo called. 1 Chriſt is called the ſeed of Abraham, by way of excellencie. Gal. 3.16.2 All the clect, Rom. 9.7. All beleevers, Rom. 5.11, 12, 13, 16, 17, 18. that is, the ſpirituall ſeed. 3 There was a naturall ſeed to whom the inheritance did accrue, viz. Iſaac, Gen. 21.12.4 A naturall ſeed, whether lawfull, as the ſons of Keturah; or baſe, as Iſmael, to whom the inheritance belonged not. Gen. 15.5. But no where do I find that the infants of beleevers of the Gentiles are called Abrahams ſeed. Of the three former kinds of Abrahams ſeed the promiſe recited, is meant; but in a different manner thus. That God promiſeth he will be a God to Chriſt, imparting in him bleſſing to all Nations of the earth; to the ſpirituall ſeed of Abraham in evangelicall benefits; to the naturall ſeed inheriting in domeſtick and politick benefits.

Anſ. Sure the holy Lord in a Covenant would not be thought to equivocate, and be uncertain in his meaning.Animadverſ. Though God appoints the outward adminiſtration of the covenant to Abraham the beleever his ſeed indefinitely, Gen. 17. yet he gives the efficacie of the covenant but to ſome; viz. that ſhall be the ſeed by faith, Rom. 4. Yet we muſt follow the adminiſtration according to expreſſe inſtitution, Gen. 17. To whom is derived the covenant effectually, to them are derived the promiſes of bleſſing in every manner recited by the Exercitator (ſubordinate things are not contrary) or in no manner per modum aut vim faederis, under the notion of a covenant. Unregenerate men have a right to temporall things, by an humane right, and higher, by a divine right of common providence, either as dwelling with, or receiving them from thoſe in reall covenant with God; but not by vertue of any covenant between them and God.

And for that great quaere made by Mr. T. whether the children of beleeving Gentiles are called Abrahams ſeed?Exercitat. p. 3. which is the main thing to the queſtion in hand.

Anſ. They are,Anius adverſ. by the diſtinction and quotation of the Exercitator himſelf, by ſtronger conſequence then by which the Exercitator proceeds in moſt things he alledgeth. For firſt, he ſaith that the naturall ſeed of Abraham, as Iſaac, &c. are called his ſeed. Secondly, that all beleevers are Abrahams ſeed, quoting Rom. 4. p. 16We infer then, that the naturall ſeed of beleeving Gentiles are as well the ſeed of Abraham, as the naturall ſeed of Iſaac were; though Eſau were Eſau.

If a Gentile beleever be the ſeed of Abraham, Rom. 4.11. Gal. 3.8. then the children of the Gentile beleever muſt needs be reckoned for the ſeed of Abraham; being the promiſe runs as truly in the New Teſtament, The promiſe is to you and your children. Act. 2. or I am the God of thee Gentile beleever and of thy ſeed, as in the old Teſtament to Abraham, I am the God of thee Jewiſh Abraham, and of thy ſeed.

3. Except.Exercit. p. 3. That there is not (ſaith Mr. T.) the ſame reaſon of circumciſion of Baptiſme in ſigning the Goſpel-covenant. The promiſe of the Goſpel (ſaith he) or the Goſpel-covenant was the ſame in all ages in reſpect of the thing promiſed, and condition of the covenant,1. Mr. Tombes his conceſſion. which we may call the ſubſtantiall and eſſentiall part of the covenant, to wit, Chriſt, faith, ſanctification, remiſſion of ſins, eternall life; yet this evangelicall covenant had divers forms in which theſe things were ſignified, and various ſanctions by which it was confirmed.

To Adam the promiſe was made under the name of the ſeed of the woman,2. The diſtinction of divers forms. bruiſing the ſerpents head; To Enoch and Noah in other forms; otherwiſe to Abraham under the name of his ſeed, in whom all nations ſhould be bleſſed. Otherwiſe to Moſes, under the obſcure ſhadows of the Law; otherwiſe to David, under the name of a ſucceſſor in the kingdom; otherwiſe in the new Teſtament in plain words, 2 Cor. 3.6. Hebr. 8.10.

It had likewiſe divers ſanctions.3. The variety of ſanctions. The promiſe of the Goſpel was confirmed to Abraham by the ſigne of circumciſion; and by the birth of Iſaac. To Moſes by the Paſchal lambe, and ſprinkling of blood on the book, the rain of Mannah, and other ſignes; To David by an oath. In the New Teſtament by Chriſts blood. 1 Cor. 11.25.

Therefore circumciſion ſignified,4. The concluſion. and confirmed the promiſe of the Goſpel according to the form and ſanction of the covenant with Abraham. Baptiſme ſignifies and confirms the ſame promiſe according to the form, ſanction, and accompliſhment of the New Teſtament.

Now theſe forms and ſanctions differ many wayes;5. The illuſtration of the concluſion. as much as concerns our preſent purpoſe in theſe;

p. 171 Circumciſion confirmed not onelyonly Evangelicall promiſes,1. Partic. but alſo politicall. And if we may beleeve Mr. Cameron in his Theſes of the threefold covenant of God,Theſ. 78. Circumciſion did primarily ſeparate the ſeed of Abraham from other nations, ſe…led unto them the earthly promiſe; Secondarily it did ſa…nifie ſanctification. But Baptiſme (ſaith Mr. T.) ſignifies onelyonly Evangelicall benefits.

2 Circumciſion did confir the promiſe concerning Chriſt, 2 Partic.to come out of Iſaac; Baptiſme aſſures Chriſt to be come alreadie; to have been dead, and to have riſen again.

3 Circumciſion belonged to the Church conſtituted in the houſe of Abraham; 3 Partic.Baptiſme to the Church gathered out of all Nations.

Whence I gather (ſaith Mr. T.) that there is not the ſame reaſon of circumciſion, and baptiſme, in ſigning the Evangelicall Covenant. Nor may there be drawn an argument from the adminiſtration of the one, to the like manner of adminiſtring the other.

Anſw. 1. From the conceſſion in the third exception;Animadv. That the Goſpel-covenant was the ſame in all ages, in reſpect of the thing promiſed, to wit, Chriſt, remiſſion of ſins, ſanctification, eternall life; And the condition of the Covenant, namely, faith; We infer, that Mr. Tombes grants, 1. that Gods covenant with Abraham ſigned with circumciſion was a Goſpel-covenant. 2 That faith was the condition. And yet it was adminiſtred to children; and to ſome that had no faith, either ſeminall, habituall, or actuall, neither at the time, nor after the time of their circumciſion, namely, to Iſhmael. Therefore infancie, or want of actuall faith, or poſſibilitie of never having any true grace, are not ſufficient hindrances of adminiſtration of the ſigne of the Goſpel-covenant. But as God knowing all thoſe things did yet command the outward adminiſtration, and ſigning of the Goſpel-covenant with the firſt Sacrament in the old Teſtament, upon that ground that God was the God of the father of thoſe children; So thus far by Mr. T. his grant we may likewiſe ſigne the Goſpel-covenant in the New Teſtament.

2 To the diſtinction of the divers forms in which the things of the Goſpel covenant were ſignified, &c. We anſwer. What eſſentiall difference of form is there between the expreſſion to Eve under the name of the ſeed of the woman; and that to Abraham in the name of his ſeed; or that between bruiſing the ſerpents head, and bleſſing p. 18men in their deliverance from the ſerpent? And whether was not the covenant as well confirmed in ſhadows to David (who by divine direction ſet up very many in Gods worſhip) as to Moſes? And whether the Covenant was not confirmed to Moſes under the notion of a ſucceſſ…ur to him, to wit, Chriſt in the government of directing and preſeribing in the name of the Lord. Deut. 18.18. Act. 3.21, 22. And of rule, namely, Joſhua called Jeſus the type of our deliverance by the Lord Jeſus. Hebr. 4. to ſucceed him. Deut. 31. Or doth the types of the covenant, and the plain meaning, Heb. 8.10. make ſeverall conſiderable forms of a covenant? Then ſacramentall ſignes or ſeals, and the meaning of them; ſhould make ſeverall forms of the moſt Goſpel-covenant in the New Teſtament.

3 To the variety of ſanctions we ſay, that they are not ſo diſtinct as that they are not common to the perſons mentioned. The covenant was as well confirmed to Moſes, as to Abraham by circumciſion; to David by both circumciſion and the paſchal lambe as to the other. And as well to us in the New Teſtament by oath as to Abraham. Hebr. 6. Hebr. 7.

4 To the concluſion Mr. T. makes;**Exercit. Sect. 1. p. 4. that therfore circumciſion ſignified and confirmed the covenant to Abraham, &c. We anſwer. That we can by no means be ſatisfied by this inference from the premiſſes how any thing is inferred by way of determination of the ſubject of Baptiſme; as to ſhew why children of beleevers ſhould be circumciſed, yet not now baptized. But you will ſay, it lies in the illuſtration. Therefore.

5 To the illuſtration of the concluſion, we anſwer.

To the 1. partic. thus. 1. That Baptiſme doth as well confirm civill promiſes and benefi…s as Evangelicall, as did circumciſion. Rom. 6. Baptiſme ſignes o…ſcals Chriſt according to the promiſe, To us a Son is given. And God giving Chriſt, with him (mark, with him) freely gives us all things. Rom. 8.32. which is further explained of deliverance from temporall dangers, ſo that they ſhall not hurt us, if hit us, v. 35. to the end. And 1 Cor. 3. two laſt. We have all outward things, the world, &c. becauſe Chriſt is ours. 2 That circumciſion did confirm civill promiſes, under a ſpirituall notion, for a ſpirituall uſe, that is, to ſignifie ſpirituall things, as we ſhewed afore; even as baptized ones are to look upon all temporall things, under ſpirituall confiderations. Make you friends (that p. 19is, to further you towards heaven) of the unrighteous mammon. And all outward things are the addition to ſeeking and obtaining the kingdom of heaven, and the righteouſneſſe of him, that is Chriſt, the King of that kingdom. And ſo this difference is of no bulk to carry any breadth with it. To the inſtance of Cameron we anſwer; that when I ſeriouſly read the whole Theſis, I can make no more then this; that by primarily he means immediately, and 1. in order; and by ſecondarily mediately, and 2 in order, and cannot be underſtood as chiefly, and not chiefly. For ſure the more ultimate and ſpirituall an end is, and ſo more like and neer to God, the more chief it muſt be. So that according to Camerons inſtances (for he gives three) circumciſion did more chiefly intend ſanctification, circumciſion of the heart, as the Scripture oft advanceth it, and ſo ſpirituall ſeparation of the mind from earthly things, them the ſeparating their nation from other kingdoms, by a mark in their fleſh. So ſecondly, the paſſeouer ſigned rather, Chriſt our paſſeover for the delivery of our ſouls, 1 Cor. 5. then the Angels paſſing over the Iſraelites, and not ſlaying them in Egypt. So the ſacrifices, did more intend our ſpirituall purification by Chriſt, then any carnall purification, as Cameron cals it. We adde that Baptiſme as well as circumciſion doth not only ſignifie regeneration, but puts a diſtinction between them, and Heathens at leaſt; as all not circumciſed in the old Teſtament were counted Heathens.

To the 2 partic. of the illuſtration we thus anſwer. That it is not in the formall analogie of circumciſion between the ſigne and the thing ſignified, nor ſet down in any expreſſe form eſſentially annexed, to ſet forth the nature of circumciſion, that circumciſion as circumciſion, doth ſignifie, ſigne or ſeal Chriſt to come, as to come. For as Chriſt come himſelf, was circumciſed, ſo many were circumciſed after jure divino, the ordinance being in full force till Chriſt was ſacrificed; if Paul did not by that rule, after Chriſt had been long aſcended, circumciſe Timothy. Act. 16.Acts 16So that for three yeers and an half, circumciſion from John Baptiſt miniſterie, to Chriſts death ran parallel and even together authoritively in the Church of the Jews in the New Teſtament in ſeveral, if not the ſame ſubjects; in ſome, if not in all that received the 1. ſeal. It is true, circumciſion and other ceremonies by the concurrence of the circumſtance of time of adminiſtration in the Old Teſtament did imply Chriſt to come, but could not of themſelves p. 20either ſignifie, or conſignifie Chriſt to come, for the reaſons aboveſaid. Even as Baptiſme either by analogie in the ſigne, or expreſſion of any form annexed, as ſetting forth the eſſence of baptiſme, doth not ſignifie Chriſt as come. For ſome were baptized (as the Scripture cals it) before Chriſt came. As thoſe in the Ark, 1 Pet. 3. 21. the Iſraelites, men, women and children in the Red ſea, and the cloud. 1 Cor. 10.1, 2, &c. And this the Jews underſtood as Baptiſme; and therefore do not ſay to John wherefore baptizeſt thou? but by what authority. Jeh. 1.23. And the Rabbins make mention, that the Jews foreſaw alſo the baptizing with fire, mentioned Matth. 3.

To the third partic. our anſwer is this: That circumciſion as circumciſion belonged to all of all Nations (and their children) that ſhould come in as proſelites to the Jewiſh Church, whether conſtituted in a family, Gen. 17.12, 13. or in the Nation, Exod. 12. 47, 41, 49. as Baptiſme in the New Teſtament to all, and onelyonly thoſe that came into the Chriſtian Church; and their children. I ſay into the Chriſtian Church; that is, the parents came in at leaſt into the univerſall viſible Chriſtian Church; by confeſſing Chriſt to be the Son of God; and ſo this difference pretended by Mr. T. between baptiſme and circumciſion comes if not to a ſameneſſe yet to a likeneſſe; and ſo the reaſon thus far apparently to me, is the ſame between both. And the like argument may be drawn for the adminiſtration of the one, as of the other.

The fourth and laſt exception Mr. T. makes againſt this argument out of Gen. 17. is,Exercit. Sect. 1. p. 2. that theſe termes federate, and to be ſigned are not convertible.

Anſw. They are convertible jure in equitie; For Mr. T. will not doubt but that thoſe ſigned with circumciſion, Gen. 17. or, &c. (for of circumciſion is the queſtion immediately now, according to Mr. T. his inſtances, p. 4. l. 16.) were federate; were reckoned, and to be reckoned in the covenant at the time of doing it, and after, till contrary cauſe appeared. And all federate, or counted within the covenant were to be ſigned with circumciſion. So this text, Gen. 17.7, 8, 9. I am a God to thee and to thy ſeed, thou ſhalt keep my covenant THEREFORE, that every man-childe be circumciſed.

But to this fourth exception,Exercit. Sect. 1. p. 4. 1 Partic. Mr. T. argues. That ſome there were circumciſed, to whom no promiſe in the covenant made with Abraham did belong. Of Iſmael God had ſaid, that his covenant p. 21was not to be eſtabliſhed with him. 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 the houſe were circumciſed, Gen. 17.12, 13. of whom nevertheleſſe, it may be doubted, whether any promiſes of the covenant made with Abraham did belong to them. There were other perſons,2 Partic. to whom all, or moſt of the promiſes in the covenant pertained, that were not circumciſed. This may be affirmed of the females coming from Abraham; the infants dying before the eighth day; of juſt men living out of Abrahams houſe, as Melchiſedech, Lot, Job. If any ſay that the females were circumciſed in the circumciſion of the males, he ſaith it without proof. And by like,Mr. T. his anſwer to an Ob. perhaps greater reaſon may it be ſaid, that the children of beleevers are baptized in the perſons of their parents, and therefore are not to be baptized in their own perſons. But its manifeſt, that the Jews comprehended in the covenant made with Abraham, and circumciſed, were nevertheleſſe not admitted to Baptiſme, by John Baptiſt, and Chriſts diſciples, till they profeſſed repentance,1 Concluſ and faith in Chriſt. Hence I gather, that the right to Evangelicall promiſes, "was not the adequate reaſon of circumciſing theſe, or thoſe, "but Gods precept, as it is expreſſed, Gen. 17.23. Gen. 21.4.

2 That thoſe termes are not convertible [federate and to be ſigned].2 Concluſ.

Anſw. to 1 Particular. [That ſome there were circumciſed to whom no promiſe in the covenant made with Abraham did belong.] Mr. Tombes argues from the non-fact to the non-equitie, Animad.and from the non-efficacie to non-adminiſtration, and from an after diſcovery to croſſe the preſent rule; which arguing he knows, carries not with it in other things any conſequence. What if de facto ſome were not circumciſed according to the directory of adminiſtration; therefore jure ought they not, if opportunities and accommodations concurred? What if ſome appeared after when men not to have the efficacie of circumciſion; were they not therefore juſtly circumciſed, when the inſtitution did injoyn, and cauſe it to be done, whiles they were infants? I need not inlarge upon the inconvenient ſequels in the uſe of all ordinances, if that adminiſtrations may not be, though ineffectualneſſe appear not alwayes after.

And howſoever it be apparent in ſome, and doubtful in others, p. 22(and therefore infer nothing) that the promiſe was not eſtabliſhed, that is, was not effectuall to them, yet it is moſt apparent that the inſtitution and adminiſtration of circumciſion is grounded on the expreſſe promiſe. As I am the God of thee, and of thy SEED, therefore thou ſhalt keep my covenant to circumciſe every male. Gen. 17.7.9. The promulgation and preaching of the promiſe belongs to many, to whom it is not after effectuall. Mar. 16.15. and if the inſtitution muſt go along with the promiſe here in Gen. 17. though it might be ſpecially revealed to Abraham what a one Iſhmael ſhould prove; then ſure much more amongſt men who have no ſuch revelations. And though we grant the 1. line in this 1. partic. of Mr. Tombes, "that no promiſe in the covenant belonged to Iſhmael; yet Mr. Tombes confeſſeth that circumciſion ſigned civill **Sect. 1. p. 3. l. 16. 17. p. 4. l. 1.2.promiſes to ſome of Abrahams ſeed. And that promiſe, Gen. 17 20. made to Iſhmael of bleſſing and multiplying him, muſt at leaſt be ſuch; though eminently, and as concerning the coming of Chriſt, it is emphatically ſaid that in Iſaac ſhall the covenant be eſtabliſhed. Gen. 17. However, Abraham looked ſo much on the promiſe, I am the God of thee and of thy ſeed, and the commentary upon it touching bleſſing Iſhmael, and the inſtitution grounded on that promiſe (however the effect ſhould prove) that he circumciſeth Iſhmael.

For others within the covenant, yet de facto not circumciſed; we muſt needs ſee that it is by reaſon of other cauſes, and not the want of connexion between thoſe two foederati & ſignandi, that is, to belong to the covenant, and to be ſigned with the covenant. If God exempt infants by death that died within the ſeven dayes, being not fit in nature for ſo ſharp a Sacrament, what can we infer more againſt the inſtitution of this Sacrament, then againſt any other. As for Melchiſedech which was Sem (as the moſt learned agree upon unanſwerable reaſons) he was born 500 yeers before the inſtitution of circumciſion, whoſe inſtitution is not to look higher then to Abraham at the higheſt, and ſo to deſcend downward. If we could be ſure that Lot and Job were not circumciſed; we could as ſurely anſwer that Job was not in the Land, Lot not in the County where the inſtitution of circumciſion was then made known. And for women, the inſtitution of circumciſion reached not to them, becauſe there was no fit matter for that Sacrament. That alteration of nature to intimate they were a peculiar ſeed ſet apart from the Heathens as well as the males were, was p. 23done in their fathers; on whom was acted more then the water can act, namely, to make a naturall change, though no ſpirituall followed. So that theſe particular inſtances did deſtroy the ground and nature of the inſtitution of circumciſion being onelyonly accidentally and extraordinarily excepted, upon the aforeſaid reaſons; no more then the Iſraelites fourty yeers journey in the wilderneſſe hindering circumciſion ſo long did detract from the ordinary inſtitution and ground thereof. And therefore we

Anſ. To both the concluſions, that the claim to this promiſe (which Mr. Tombes confeſſeth**Exercitat. Sect. 1. p. 2. 3. to be Evangelical in the ſubſtance) I am the God of thee and of thy SEED was the adequate reaſon in the ordinary proſecution of circumciſing. For though the inſtitution then is to Abrahams family, and to the males, &c. yet the ground is the promiſe; I am thy God, and the God of thy ſeed. And ſo federate, and to be ſigned are convertible in regard of the ground; upon which it followed that Abraham was to have a Gentile ſeed. Rom. 4. Gal. 3. to which the ſame promiſe ſhould run, I am your God, therefore the God of your ſeed. However if federate and to be ſigned were not convertible terms, but onelyonly this true, that all federate are to be ſigned: as thus ſuch as to whom the promiſe is given, I am your God, and ſo of your ſeed, being circumciſed, their children by nature, or adoption (as it is Gen. 17.12, 13.) ought to be circumciſed; thus much would ſerve our turns out of Gen. 17. for the baptiſme of beleevers children. Though we could not turn the propoſition convertibly, that all circumciſed or baptized are truly and effectually federate, in covenant. But how it may be turned we have ſhewed afore.

And thus I leave the ingenuous Reader to judge how great, or how little reaſon Mr. T. hath to deny the major, or minor propoſition of the 1 Argument out of Gen. 17.

And to his reaſon of denying the minor, Exercit. Sect. 1. p. 5.becauſe (ſaith he) thoſe children of beleeving Gentiles are Abrahams children, who are his ſpirituall ſeed, according to the election of grace by faith, which are not known to us, but by profeſſion, or ſpeciall revelation.

We anſwer. That we muſt beware of circumciſing and cutting off the tenor of the covenant, taking onelyonly thus much (as many do) I am thy God; or drawing it out beyond its length (as others do) thus; I am the God of thee, and thy ſeeds feed; but take it evenly p. 24up as God layes it down juſt thus, I am the God of thee and thy ſeed: therefore give the 1. ſigne or ſeal; and then it is eaſily reſolved who are Abrahams ſeed, and to be ſigned among the Gentiles, namely, he that beleeves that God is his God, and the God of his ſeed, may ſigne his ſeed with baptiſme; the parent knowing his children belong to it by the revelation of the Word, and his own confeſſion of faith in his heart and mouth.