Vindication of Baptizing Believers Infants, Chapter 3
CHAP. III.
2 ARgument (ſaith Mr. T.) is thus formed.Exercit. Sect. 2. To whom circumciſion did agree, to them baptiſme doth agree. * [But to Infants circumciſion did agree] therefore alſo baptiſme. The major is thus proved; If the baptiſme of Chriſt ſucceeds into the place of circumciſion, then baptiſme belongs to them that circumciſion belonged to; But the antecedent is true; there alſo the conſequent. The minor is proved to be true, becauſe Coloſ. 2.11, 12. it is ſaid that the Coloſſians were circumciſed, becauſe they were buried with Chriſt in baptiſme.
Here we muſt complain again,Animadverſ. that ſomewhat is moſt injuriouſly left out of the minor propoſition of the former ſyllogiſme, namely, of that propoſition above noted with * [But to Infants circumciſion did agree] where the words OF BELEEVERS are left out, which ſhould neceſſarily have been put in thus, But to infants of beleevers circumciſion did agree. The leaving out of which words, how great an inconvenience it would bring to the ſtate of the queſtion, &c. every ordinarie capacitie will eaſily conceive.
For anſwer.Exercit. p. 5. This Argument (ſaith Mr. T.) ſuppoſeth baptiſme to ſucceed in the place of circumciſion; which may be underſtood divers wayes.
1 So as that the ſence be, that thoſe perſons be to be baptized which heretofore by Gods command were to be circumciſed. And in this ſence the argument muſt proceed, if it conclude to the purpoſe: But in this ſence it is falſe, for no females were to be circumciſed, which yet are to be baptized. Act. 16.14, 15. And beleevers out of Abrahams houſe, as Lot, Melchiſedech, Job, were not to be circumciſed; but beleeving Gentiles are univerſally to be baptized.
We anſwer. 1.Animadverſ. That collations of the old and new Teſtament muſt be adidem, to the very point in hand, thus; that thoſe perſons that are capable of the materiall ſigne of baptiſme are to be baptized, as thoſe which were capable of circumciſion in the old Teſtament were to be circumciſed by Gods command. But all male infants of beleevers of Abrahams race being capable of circumciſion were to be circumciſed according to Gods command (unleſſe ſome extraordinary let ſtept in for a time, as in Moſes child, and in the Iſraelites for fourty yeers in the wilderneſſe) therefore all infants of beleevers both male and female, being capable of baptiſme, are to be baptized; unleſſe this rule be obſerved, we ſhall hardly allow any deductions from the old Teſtament, for our uſe in the New.
2 In our illations and inferences from the old Teſtament, we muſt not throw away all the command upon a promiſe there, becauſe the New Teſtaments practiſe extends it further upon the ſame promiſe. It is affirmative in Gen. 17. that male infants of beleevers may have the 1. ſigne, to wit, circumciſion; upon this ground, that God will be the God of them and of their ſeed; it is extended further in practiſe in the New Teſtament, that all infants male and female of beleeving parents may be baptized; becauſe the promiſe, I am the God of thy ſeed beleever, runs as well to females as to males. Act. 2. The promiſe is to you and your children, whether male, or female. And there is no impediment in nature to hinder their capacitie of baptiſme, as there was of circumciſion. But as the mothers were not circumciſed, becauſe of naturall impediment; ſo their daughter infants were not: So in the New Teſtament, the mothers were baptized, becauſe there was no ſuch impediment. Act. 16.14, 25. therefore by proportion their infant-daughters.Chap. 2. in anſwer to Mr. T. his 4. Except. and 1. partic. Or we may ſay further of female infants circumciſion (beſide that we ſaid afore) that they were circumciſed in their fathers being begotten of them that were circumciſed in their fleſh; they were generated of them that had the filthy foreskin (as it was then accounted) cut off; and ſo deſcended of parents, refined as it were by that naturall alteration. Therefore female infants alſo may be baptized according to their naturall capacitie, in perſon as formerly they were circumciſed according to their capacitie, in their lineage.
3 Alwayes in the analogie between the old Teſtament and the duplicate page duplicate page new, we muſt in our allegations keep to the ſubſtance; ſo the Apoſtles in alledging Scriptures of the old Teſtament they kept to the ſubſtance, not regarding the circumſtance; as innumerable inſtances may be given. Take this one, Rom. 10.15. the Apoſtle proving that faith comes by hearing of a Preacher that is ſent; ſaith out of Iſa. 57. As it is written, how beautifull are the feet of them that preach the Goſpel of peace, and bring glad tydings of good things! Now the place whence it is quoted, Iſa. 52.7. is thus: How beautifull upon the MOVNTAINS are the feet of him that bringeth good tydings, &c. Becauſe the Word was to go forth out of the mountain of Zion, Moriah, and other mountains on which the Temple and Jeruſalem ſtood. Now this place is to be applied to Miniſters now, though they come not upon thoſe, or other mountains; or elſe the Apoſtles proof fals to the ground. So if the command of the ſeventh day, may not be alledged for a ſeventh day, we have no command for the Lords day.
Chap 2. in our anſwer to Mr. T. his 4. Except. & 1. partic.To that of Lot, Melchiſedech, and Job, we adde by way of anſwer beſide that ſpoken afore: that if Lot, Job, Melchiſedech were not, nor were to be circumciſed, there may be ſpeciall reaſons. Firſt, not Melchiſedech, alias Shem, 1. becauſe he was baptized in the Ark, 1 Pet. 3.20, 21. Secondly, he was to be a ſpeciall type of Chriſt, in that he came not of the tribe of Levi that ceremonious Miniſterie; and ſo to be exempted from that ceremony (in the ſhell) circumciſion. For Lot and Job, God would ſhew in them, that he was not ſo tyed, but that he could ſave without an outward ordinance when he will not extend it, or if he pleaſe to take ☞ away the opportunitie of having it. A faire item for the Anabaptiſts that put ſo much in Baptiſme, that the want of it (ſay they) doth unchurch Churches, &c. Lot and Job had churches in their families. And the Iſraelites in the wilderneſſe fourty yeers, is called a Church, Act. 7.38. all which time there was no circumciſing among them, nor but two Joſuah and Caleb circumciſed, left among them. Joſh. 5.
2 (Saith Mr. T.) It may be ſo underſtood,Exercit. p. 5. as if the right of baptiſme then began, when the right of circumciſion did, or was of …ight to end; but this is not to be ſaid; for John Baptiſt and the diſciples of Chriſt baptized, Joh. 4.1, 2. before circumciſion of right ceaſed, and they who were circumciſed were after baptized, being converted to the faith, as is manifeſt concerning Paul, Phil. 3.5. Act. 9.18.
Anſw. Yet before Mr. T. ſaith, p. 4. that circumciſion did ſigcifie Chriſt to come. Animad.If Mr. T. pincheth upon that of Chriſt to come of Iſaac, we ſay we ſee no more in the analogie of circumciſion nor in the words of inſtitution, for it to ſignifie Chriſt to come of Iſaac then of Abraham or Jacob.
3 (Saith he) It may be underſtood as if Baptiſme did ſucceed in the place of circumciſion in reſpect of ſignification;Exercit. p. 5. which is true in ſome things. Firſt, it is true that both ſignified the righteouſneſſe of faith, Rom. 4.11. Rom. 6.3. Gal. 3.27. 1 Pet. 3.21. Secondly, it is true, both ſignified ſanctification; and this is all may be concluded out of the place alledged, Col. 2.11, 12. To which I think it meet to adde, that if the text be looked into, that place ſpeaks not of any circumciſion, but of Chriſts circumciſion, in whom we are compleat, and by whoſe circumciſion we are ſaid to put off the body of the ſins of the fleſh: Nor doth the text ſay, we are circumciſed becauſe we are baptized; but we are compleat in Chriſt, becauſe we are circumciſed in him, and buried with him in baptiſme; in which, or in whom, ye are alſo riſen together, through the faith of the operation of God that raiſed him from the dead.
Anſw. If they agree but in thoſe two ſignifications,Animad…. they agree ſufficiently in ſignification to favour the argument out of Col. 2.11, 12. that baptiſme comes in the room of circumciſion, and fitly; that as circumciſion ſignified and ſigned thoſe two to beleevers infants; ſo, baptiſme now ſignifies and ſignes the ſame to beleevers infants.
But whether this be all that may be concluded out of the place alledged, Col. 2.12. (as Mr. T. affirms) I ſhall appeal to the ingenuous Reader of our obſervations on this place of Scripture; which are from the analyſis, ſcope, argument, and method of proſecution: which if not exactly attended, we may eaſily feign plauſible interpretations for our own turns, but looſe the drift and argument of the Apoſtle. The Apoſtles deſigne is to take off the Coloſſians from falſe doctrines of falſe teachers, teaching with entiſing words, Philoſophy, vain deceit, traditions of men, rudiments of the world, among which were the ſhels of Jewiſh ceremonies, as circumciſion conſidered in the ſhell of the outward ſigne, &c. And the argument the Apoſtle uſeth as the beſt means to fetch them off, was to advance Chriſts fulneſſe, to the full worth, before the eyes of their minds. This deſigne, and this manner of purſuance of it are ſo oft mentioned and repeated combinedly; that they cannot be hid from an ordinary eye looking upon the text. Once v. 3, 4. again v. 6, 7. a third time v. 8, 9. Now the Apoſtle ſaying ye are compleat in Chriſt, v. 10. (Greek foreign filled up, or made compleat) he intimates, what need the Coloſſians hearken after Jewiſh ceremonies, as circumciſion, &c?
Now becauſe the Coloſſians might object, that Abraham and the Patriarkes had Chriſt, and yet were circumciſed too, he anticipates and prevents this objection, v. 11. ſaying, they had inward circumciſion, which is the chief. In whom alſo ye (obſerve the alſo ye) are circumciſed with the circumciſion made without hands, in putting off the body of ſins, &c. Your perſons are not onelyonly circumciſed in the circumciſion of Chriſt (who is as our common nature) and ſo imputed to you (as in Adam, the common nature of man, we finned, and ſo his ſin was imputed to us) but you are circumciſed with the vertue of Chriſts grace, ſignified in circumciſion, to make you put off the body of ſins (even as Adams ſin was not onelyonly imputed to us, but his corruption of ſin derived into us). But becauſe the Coloſſians might object again, that though Abraham had inward circumciſion before (Rom. 4.) yet he had outward circumciſion too, and ſo others; and therefore they were not ſo compleat in Chriſt as beleevers in the old Teſtament. The Apoſtle preoccupates and prevents this objection too, in v. 12, ſaying, that inſtead of outward circumciſion, they had been baptized, and baptized effectually into Chriſt. Buried with him in baptiſme, wherein alſo ye are riſen, through the faith of the operation of the Son of God, &c. As if the Apoſtle ſhould ſay, in ſtead of the outward ſigne of circumciſion, Chriſt hath inſtituted another ſigne, namely, baptiſme; that circumciſion being to be done away (at Chriſts death at leaſt) and this to be uſed inſtead thereof; more ſignificant then the other; for circumciſion fitly ſignified ſpirituall death to ſin, which is mortification, but baptiſme is fitted to ſignifie more; namely, your riſing from under the water lively repreſents your ſpirituall life by Chriſt, your riſing to newneſſe of life; and both theſe have been effectually ſigned or ſealed to you by baptiſme; And therefore you are no longer to call for circumciſion, but to uſe and injoy baptiſme in the ſtead thereof, as formerly you and your children did circumciſion (for the Apoſtle hints not the leaſt difference about the ſubject thereof.) Even as Chriſt himſelf circumciſed the eighth day, was after baptiſed to ſignifie an end now about to be put to circumciſion. This I ingenuouſly think to be the naked ſcope, and plain argumentation and method of the Apoſtle here in this 2 of Coloſ. Which ſecondly, more appears to us by theſe two arguments. 1 From the inconveniences againſt the Apoſtles diſpute, if baptiſme doth not ſo come in the roome of circumciſion. For firſt if we have not baptiſme in the room of circumciſion, to us beleevers, and our infants, we are not ſo compleat (as the Apoſtle affirms) as the Jews, by Chriſt. Secondly, if baptiſme doth not come in the roome of circumciſion, how doth the Apoſtle call off the Coloſſians from circumciſion, by the conſideration of their baptiſme? How doth he truly imply that as the firſt Sacrament that beleeving Abraham and his children received was circumciſion, ſo the firſt, the beleeving Coloſſians and their children received was baptiſme, (no other ſeal intervening)? How are the Coloſſians ſaid to be inwardly circumciſed, and outwardly and inwardly baptized in the ſame Chriſt, who in himſelf put down the one by taking up the other?
2 From the analogie and agreement between both, namely, circumciſion and baptiſme; which the Apoſtle hints in this 2. of Coloſ. Firſt the Apoſtle intimates that as putting off the body of ſin (which is a phraſe to ſignifie naturall death, 2 Cor. 5. and ſo is here an alluſion to ſignifie ſpirituall death to ſin) is the ſignification of circumciſion. Coloſ. 2.11. So ſpirituall burying (which argues death) is the ſignification of baptiſme. Secondly, that as neither of theſe are aſſured to any but as having Chriſt ſealed to them; ſo as circumciſion ſealed an implantation into the death of Chriſt, that he put off the body naturally in the grave; ſo the circumciſed put off the body of ſin ſpiritually; v. 11. Even ſo baptiſme ſignifies and ſeals our implantation into the buriall of Chriſt, v. 12. as is more fully expreſſed, Rom. 6.3, 4, 5.
3 That as the way to kill ſin, and ſo to live was by circumciſion into Chriſt in the old Teſtament. Coloſ. 2.11. inſomuch that he that ſhould wilfully neglect outward circumciſion for himſelf or his child that might have it, ſhould be cut off, Gen. 17. So baptizing into Chriſt is the way to bury ſin, and ſo to live. v. 12. of this 2 Coloſ. inſomuch that he that ſhall wilfully neglect baptiſme with water, the ſeal of regeneration who may have it: ſhall not enter heaven. Joh. 3.5. A ſoul may be ſaved without the uſe of a ſeal in ſome caſe, but in no caſe can be ſaved in the contempt of a ſeal. I am not ignorant that ſome do underſtand this, Joh. 3.5. of the ſpirit onelyonly compared to water, but who doth not know that (as Bullinger ſaith, Omnes penè de baptiſmo interpretantur) all almoſt interpret it of the water of baptiſme, Bullinger himſelf conſenting with them, onelyonly he would not have the efficacie of the Spirit, to be transferred to the ſigne. And ſure whiles Chriſt was inſtructing Nicodemus of regeneration, he would not be ſilent touching the ſeal of it, baptiſme. Nor can we ſo well parallel this phraſe with Matth. 3. Baptiſing with the holy Ghoſt and with fire; where onelyonly the Spirit muſt be meant, becauſe there is no other baptiſme of fire. But there is a baptiſme, with water, beſide baptiſme with the Spirit. And therefore water muſt ſignifie baptiſme. For it were harſh to run to a metaphor without need, and to underſtand by water the Spirit, which in relation to the efficacie of baptiſme is uſually called fire.
Thus we have ſhewed out of this Coloſ. 2. from the ſcope of the Apoſtle; the analogie of the two Sacraments, and the inconveniencies of the contrary; that Baptiſme ſucceeds in the roome, and to be uſed inſtead of circumciſion; now let the ingenuous Reader ponder, and ſee whether there be not more in this text, then Mr. Tombes would acknowledge.
To that paſſage of Mr. T. that Col. 2.11. doth not ſpeak of any circumciſion, but of Chriſts circumciſion, meaning I ſuppoſe the circumciſion of Chriſt in his own perſon, (for elſe all circumciſion, and baptiſme too is Chriſts, both in regard of inſtitution; ſigne, and making effectuall) we have anſwered already, in the analyſing of the place. The ſumme whereof was, that not onelyonly Chriſts circumciſion was imputed to them, but the vertue of circumciſion was inherent in their hearts, by expreſſe words of the Apoſtle, Coloſ. 2.11. Circumciſed with the circumciſion made without hands, in putting off the body of the ſins of the fleſh.
To that other paſſage, that the text, Coloſ. 2.11, 12. doth not ſay, We are circumciſed, becauſe we are baptized; We anſwer, and adde to our former intimations, that the Apoſtle clearly labours to ſatisfi… the Coloſſians from ſeeking to be circumciſed, becauſe they were inwardly eircumciſed; and inwardly circumciſed, becauſe inwardly baptized, according to the outward ſealing of baptiſme, or elſe he had not mentioned baptiſme upon any juſt ground or pertinent cauſe to the point in hand that I can conceive. He tels them they had no need of circumciſion, which was aboliſhed; and had the effect of it ſealed by, and conveighed through or with outward baptiſme which they had received according to the order of calling men to be Saints in the New Teſtament.
In ſome things, ſaith Mr. T. baptiſme doth not ſucceed in the place of circumciſion in reſpect of ſignification. For firſt circumciſion did ſignifie Chriſt to come of Iſaac according to the fleſh. Gen. 17.10, 21. But baptiſme doth not ſignifie this, but points at the incarnation, death, and reſurrection of Chriſt.
Anſw. Though we have anſwered to this afore,Animadverſ. on Exercitat. p. 4. yet we adde, Firſt, as circumciſion did no more ſignifie Chriſt to come of Iſaac (for any thing that is in the analogie, or form of inſtitution or adminiſtration) then of Abraham: ſo baptiſme hath in it as well to ſignifie the true Chriſt to come of Iſaac as circumciſion. Secondly, that ver. 10. of Gen. 17. hath nothing in it but what is ſpoken in common to Abraham and his ſeed indefinitely. That v. 21. is not the inſtitution or form of adminiſtration, or any thing to expreſſe the analogie of circumciſion to the thing ſignified, but onelyonly a word added touching the making circumciſion effectuall, and imports onelyonly that Chriſt is the effect of all Sacraments, he is he that muſt eſtabliſh the Covenant, in all its promiſes, and ſeals. In him are all the promiſes yea and amen. 2 Cor. 1. He is the ſeed to whom and in whom promiſes were made, and to be made firm. Galat. 3.16. It was not all Iſaacs ſeed that could eſtabliſh the Covenant; but Chriſt. Nor did Chriſt more eſtabliſh as Iſaacs ſeed, then as Abrahams ſeed ſpiritually. Gen. 12.3. Gen. 17.7. and Gal. 3.8. Thirdly, that whereas afore Mr. T. ſaid, p. 4. of his Exercitat. that Baptiſme aſſures Chriſt to be already come (to which we anſwered, that no ſuch thing appeared in the analogie of water; nor in the form of adminiſtration, to wit, I baptiſe thee in the Name of the Father, &c. nor in the uſe; many being baptized afore Chriſt came. 1 Pet. 3.21. 1 Cor. 10.1, 2, &c. many before Chriſt came to act his mediatorſhip, of doctrine, paſſion, reſurrection (his incarnation onelyonly preparing him, Pſal. 40.6. mine eares haſt thou opened, or bored, Hebr. 10.5. A body haſt thou prepared me.) Now Mr. T. ſpeaks more warily, Baptiſme points at the incarnation, death, &c. of Chriſt. Well, and how doth it point at the incarnation and death of Chriſt more then circumciſion? Did not circumciſion ſignifie Chriſt to be born according to the fleſh of one circumciſed? Did not cutting off of the fore-skin and drawing blood as well point at death, as ordinary afflictions are ſaid to kill all the day long. Rom. 8? Sure that bloody Sacrament did as much, if not more point at Chriſts paſſion, as a little being under the water and up again did in baptiſme. But to ſignifie time to come, or time paſt, that was onelyonly implyed in the time of adminiſtration; if either Sacrament adminiſtred afore Chriſts coming, then it pointed at Chriſt to come. If after his coming, then Chriſt come.
Secondly,Exercit. p. 6. (ſaith Mr. T.) circumciſion was a ſigne that the Iſraelites were a people ſeparated from all nations. Rom. 3.1. But baptiſme ſignifieth that all are one in Chriſt. Gal. 3.28.
Anſw. And doth not baptiſme as much ſeparate all the ſpirituall ſeed of Abraham and their children from all the Nations unbaptized, as circumciſion did Iſrael and the proſelytes out of every Nation from the uncircumciſed? For that is the difference, Matth. 28. Go teach all nations, baptizing them. If nations do not receive this teaching and baptizing, there is the difference that men can put. And it is as wide, as uſually circumciſion did put; the Iſraelites generally being evill, and very oft idolatrous. And it is a queſtion to me, wiſhly looking on that place, Rom. 3.1, 2, whether their keeping the oracles of God is not put if not as the ſpeciall difference. Compare Pſal. 147. laſt, yet as the equall difference with circumciſion (the Turks, &c. circumciſe, but have not the oracles of God) and then what more is conferred on circumciſion, then on baptiſme? The Word muſt go before, and along with a Sacrament, or elſe it will appear rather a mixture of heatheniſh ſuperſtition, then a diſtinction. And for baptiſme, it doth indeed ſignifie that all we Gentiles with the Jews that are baptized are all one in Chriſt, as before circumciſion ſignified that all Jews with the Gentiles, proſelytes, that were circumciſed, were one in Chriſt. But me thinks the text Gal. 3.28. ſpeaks of Chriſt as making us all one. If of baptiſme, then of baptiſme as made an effectuall means to put into Chriſt; and then effectuall preaching is as well a means, and ſo no ſpeciall thing is put to advance baptiſme above doctrine.
Thirdly (ſaith he) circumciſion ſignified that Moſes law was to be obſerved.Exercit. p. 6. Gal. 5.3. But baptiſme doth ſignifie that Moſes law is made void, and the doctrine of Chriſt to be reteined. Act. 10.37.
Anſw. This ſeemes to import ſome difference, at ſome time, and in the ſhell; but not alwayes, not any in the kernell. For was not the doctine of Chriſt, the doctrine of Moſes in ſubſtance Iohn 5.46, 47? was not baptiſme (as wee ſhewed afore) inſtituted, and adminiſtred, Mat. 3. &c. whiles Circumciſion was not of right to end till Chriſt's death three yeares and a halfe after: So that though in Acts. 10. (Chriſt being aſcended) the adminiſtration of baptiſme by help of that time, might imply, Moſes law in the ſhell was to be done away, yet at other times afore Chriſt's death it could not ſignifie that Moſes law is made voyde, ſignanter preciſely (as Mr. T. ſpeakes.) To that, Gal. 5.3. we ſay that as Circumciſion did ſignifie that Moſes his law was to be kept, ſo the Paſſeover, and any other ceremonies, a paribus from the like reaſon, that a beleiving Galathian would obſerve one Ceremony out of conſcience, ought likewiſe obſerve the reſt. So that the Apoſtle mentions Circumciſion only as being to the queſtion then in hand. And for Acts 10.37. of baptiſme, wee ſay that whiles it might any way hint that Moſe… law in the ſhell was to be done away, it tyed to the obſervation of it in the ſubſtance of goſpel meaning. So in that Acts. 10.37. compare with Iohn. 5. two laſt. Mat. 28. v. 20. when teaching them to obſerve all that Chriſt commanded, followed baptiſme.
Fourthly, (ſaith Mr. T.) Circumciſion did ſigne Canaan; Exercit. p. 6.Baptiſme eternall life.
This we have anſwered to afore,Animadver. That Circumciſion did ſign Canaan as it was a type of heaven, Heb. 4. As baptiſme and the holy Supper under materiall elements ſignifie and give us things ſpirituall and eternall.
All this while I cannot ſee ſuch a materiall difference between Circumciſion and Baptiſme in the leaſt to deface the analogie and ſemblance between the adminiſtration of the one and the other, to beleivers and their Infants, or to interrupt that conſequence from the one to the other. What ever may be urged againſt the incapacity of children to be Baptized, may as well be argued againſt Circumciſion.
By this that hath been anſwered candid men may ſee what reaſon Mr. T. hath to deny major, or conſequence, or minor.
If this argument be not reſtrainedly underſtood an egge is layd,Exercit. p. 6. out of which manifeſt Iudaiſme may be hatched.
No feare, if we argue as the Apoſtle argues;Animadver. who Collofians 2, 11. 12. (as wee have cleered wee hope) puts Baptiſme in the roome of Circumciſion. If wee doe not put thoſe things in the place one of another, which God puts in (though but by practice and example) without looking for a new inſtitution or command, there being a difference onelyonly of circumſtances, I am bold to ſay, an egge is laid out of which may be hatched Antiſabbatarianiſme a nulling of the Lords day, (as is frequent upon this very conſequence, among the Anabaptiſts) and Exemption of women from the holy Supper with many the like inconveniencies, which we ſtay not now to name.
But it this kinde of Argument,Exercitat. P. 6. out of Coloſſ. 2.11. be reſtrainedly taken, (ſaith Mr. T.) no more follows thence, but that Baptiſme and circumciſion, in ſome things ſignifie the ſame, which is more plainly ſaid of Noahs flood, 1 Pet. 3.21. Of the red ſea, and the cloud that guided, 1 Cor. 10.2. And yet we ſay not that Baptiſme ſucceeded into their place; much leſſe do we infer to be inſtituted in their place.
If Mr. T. reſtraines Cor. 2.11. whether he pleaſeth,Animadver. then muſt it ſignifie but what he liſteth. But you have already ſeen the dimenſions of that place to be larger then Mr. T. his meaſure. As for his WE ſay not that Baptiſme ſucceeded, I ſuppoſe he meanes Proteſtant Orthodox Writers; and then he miſtakes (if I miſtake not:) For Calvin ſaith that Noah being …aved by water, had quandam Baptiſmi ſpeciem, a certain Image or repreſentation of Baptiſme; and this the Apoſtle minds us of, to the intent that the likeneſſe between him and us might be the more apparent: ſo he. Beza ſaith much more, of which onelyonly this: There are two types of the Churches ſanctification, and riſing up out of the depth of ſinne and death; but the deliverance from the flood was the precedent Type, ſhaddowing forth the following Type of Baptiſme anſwering to it; in which reſpect Baptiſme may be ſet over againſt the cloud, and the paſſing through the red Sea as the Anti-type to them; So Beza. Diſpach bid us quote no more. And the text will ſupply all, and clear it to me that Baptiſme doth come by divine right in the place of the Arke. For Peter calls Baptiſme the*foreign, &c. Anti-type to the Arke, that ſigning ſalvation, as this doth. Now who doth not know that the Anti-type comes by divine authority, in the place of the Type. And for that of the 1 Cor. 10.2. let another ſpeak and not my mouth. Mr Diodat in his notes ſaith, The meaning of that place is, That as the deliverance out of Aegypt was a figure of the redemption by Chriſt, and the pilgrimage thorow the wilderneſſe, an image of the elects life in the world, and the land of Canaan a ſhaddow of the kingdome of heaven; So the paſſing thorrow thered ſea was correſpondent to Baptiſme, and Manna and the water comming out of the rock, a ſigne which had ſome reſemblance to the Lords ſupper: So Mr Diodat. And he had ſaid true, and if he had ſaid more, for the text would have born… him out. For the Apoſtle being about to warne the Corinthians of ſinning in idolatry &c. like the Iſraelites, Pareus.leſt they periſh as the Iſraelites, v. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. He prevents in the 2. and 3. verſe an objection the Corinthians might make, that wee have better ſacraments to keep us from ſin then the Iſraelites had; I would not (ſaith the Apoſtle) have you ignorant (not reaſon ſo ignorantly) but know that your fathers (the Iſraelites) went to heaven (as many as went) the ſame way, and by the like meanes as you the children muſt go (if you go;) they had like ſacraments in the ſigne,Pareus. and the ſame thing ſignified as you have. They had their paſſing under the cloud, and through the red ſea for their Baptiſme, and Manna and water out of the rocke for their holy ſupper, both ſignifying Chriſt; inſtead whereof you you have the waſhing of water for your Baptiſme, and bread and wine for your holy ſupper to repreſent Chriſt. Now ſeeing the holy ghoſt did by expreſſe expoſition of the Apoſtle, intend thoſe two to fore ſhaddow Baptiſme and the Lords Supper; and tells the Corinthians they had theſe two Baptiſme and Holy Supper inſtead of them, as of no more priviledge in the outward ſigne; how can I but conclude that Baptiſm and holy Supper comes by divine authority in the place of them?
Mr. T. reckons up many inconveniences that will ſpring from deductions of arguments from analogies,Exercitat. §. 2. without the Lords precepts, and the Apoſtles examples, as the maintenance of Tithes jure divino; the aſſerting of Jewiſh Sacraments to be types of chriſtian Sacraments; the ſetting up of a Pope inſtead of the Jewes High-prieſt; the giving of the Lords Supper to children, becauſe they ate the paſſover, &c.
We plead for no analogicall arguments,Animadver. but ſuch as are countenanced by New Teſtament ſcripture. And if the Scriptures expreſs any Iewiſh Sacrament, to be any how, or in any degree, types of the chriſtian Sacraments we muſt ſay ſo, what ever men ſay againſt Bellarmine, to unty him and faſten themſelves. We heard afore what Calvin, Beza, Diodat, and Pareus ſaid on thoſe texts of Scripture, whatever ſome others, to make a ſhift may aſſert univerſally againſt Bellarmine, out of a ſuppoſed inconvenience in ſome particular. And Mr Tombes himſelfe alleadged Cameron, that Circumciſion primarily ſealed to the ſeed of Abraham the earthly promiſe (namely Canaan) ſecondarily ſanctification. And is not this to make one type to ſignifie another type? for Canaan was a type of Heaven, Heb. 4. And as we dare extend analogies as far as the text of Scripture bears us out; ſo we dare not ſtretch them beyond, where the Apoſtle puts a bar. And therefore we cannot argue from the childrens eating of the Paſſeover to their partaking of the Communion, becauſe the Apoſtles marke of a Communicant is, to be able to examine himſelf, before he eates. 1 Cor. 11.
Laſtly,Exercitat. it is to be conſidered how by theſe Argumentations, conſciences may be freed from the danger of will-worſhip, and polluting ſo remarkable an Ordinance of Chriſt as Baptiſme is, ſpecially this care lyes on them, who by Prayers, Sermons, Writings, Covenants and Oaths, do deter Chriſtians from humane inventions, in Gods worſhip diligently, and as is to be hoped ſincerely.
We retort;Animadver. Let it be likewiſe conſidered how we may be likewiſe freed from will worſhip, in confining Sacramentall adminiſtrations to ſuch time, age, circumſtances, which Chriſt never enjoyned; and ſo count the ſeed of beleevers all wholly polluted, whom he never ſo accounted.