An Answer to Mr Tombes Examination of Infant Baptism, Response (1 of 3)

An Answer to Mr Tombes Examination of Infant Baptism · Response (1 of 3)

p. 1SATISFACTION TO M^r. Tombes his ſcepticall Exercitation Concerning Infants-Baptiſme.

THe Method that I ſhall take in the handling this Controverſie ſhall be, firſt, to ſtate the Doctrine of Baptiſme, as it was delivered by Chriſt, and underſtood by the Apoſtles, as may appear by their practice; then anſwer the ſophiſmes and fallcies of Anabaptiſts, and in particular, of Mr. Tombs; and laſtly, ſome arguments to prove the lawfulneſſe of childrens baptiſme: As for the baptiſme of John, it was of God; God ſent him to baptize, but as the Miniſtry, ſo the Baptiſme of John was perſonall, began and ended in him; he was not a Miniſter of the Goſpel, he was the greateſt of the Prophets, but the leaſt in the kingdome of Heaven is greater then he; he was precurſer, the forerunner of Chriſt, of whoſe baptiſme the Scripture is ſo ſilent, (if you conſider the form and nature of it) that we may quickly affirm more of it then we can be able to prove: As for Chriſt making Diſciples, and his Diſciples baptizing, the Scripture likewiſe ſpeaketh little, only that Chriſt made Diſciples, and his Diſciples baptized them: during the time of Chriſts abode upon earth, he did all things well, but ſome things he did which he was not pleaſed to reveal to us, what is written, is written for our learning; and ſo much is written, as by believing we may have eternall life.

In things that are liable to no difficultie, a greater liberty of words is uſed: as, Go preach the Goſpel to every creature; here men cannot eaſily miſtake, becauſe none are capaple of the Goſpel but reaſonable creatures: So in the Commiſſion, Chriſt ſaith, Make Diſciples of all nations, baptiſing them in the name of the Father Son and holy Ghoſt. Here Chriſt giveth a Commiſſion to make all nations his ſchollers, baptizing them, and teaching them what he commands: Here our Saviour p. 2is plain in the manner and form of Baptiſine that was new and unknown: concerning the doctrine they ſhould teach, he telleth them, he will give ſpeciall command what they ſhould teach; and for the ſubject, that being before limited to Jews, is now extended to the Gentiles alſo: but what ſhould be the qualification of perſons to be baptized is not ſaid, neither doth the Apoſtles any where declare, or give any thing in charge to Timothy or Titus, (to whom St. Paul wrote, as unto Miniſters of the Goſpel, to acquaint them with their duty) as matter of any difficulty wherein they might eaſily fail: and in 1 Cor. 1. he by occaſion ſpeaking of Baptiſme, ſpeaketh of that, as of a thing conſiſting in form of words, and outward rite of waſhing, (ſo as it is miniſterially to be performed) wherein no ſuch difficulty was, or danger of miſtake; and therefore he had little care thereof, men of meaner qualifications might do that; yet were the Corinthians baptized before he wrote to them, and a Church; In all the dogmaticall parts of Scripture, not one word concerning any direction to the Miniſter whom he ſhould baptize, whereby it is plain, that Chriſt did not charge his Diſciples with any danger of miſtake in baptizing, they ſhould teach what Chriſt had or ſhould command, for matter of doctrine; and Chriſt doth referre the commiſſion to future direction; but in all the Scripture no farther explanation concerning the perſons that were to be baptized: The Churches were baptized no man knowes by whom. To Churches and Saints, men received into the Church, is all the doctrine of the Apoſtles directed, whereby it appears, that they had care to teach all that Chriſt by his Spirit did command; but ſo little is ſpoken concerning the perſons to be baptized, or the manner of adminiſtration, more then is in the commiſſion; that it may plainly appeare, no controverſies were raiſed concerning that: it was a plain caſe wherein they walked, without diſpute; or, it ſeemeth, ſuſpition of controverſie, though light enough be given to the truth; ſo that Antipedobaptiſts, without offending againſt plain Scripture, can have no ground to oppoſe the baptiſme of Infants by thoſe inartificiall and groundleſſe arguments which they urge againſt it; and certainly, it was long ere much was ſaid, and the ſtrength of that which is ſaid, will appear. What is gathered out of the commiſſion, Go, make Diſciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghoſt, teaching them, &c. we ſhall conſider:

Nations is the ſubject, that is ſo cleer, that Mr. Tombs confeſſeth it, though with this limitation, nations that are made Diſciples; which limitation can receive no colour without apparent alteration of the words. Firſt, make them Diſciples, and then baptize them, ſaith Mr. Tombes: three words are added, (firſt, and, then,) the words plainly import, make Diſciples by baptizing them and teaching. I have added nothing but the word by; and that is implied in the participiall expreſſion, as may appeare to all Engliſh men that underſtand their own tongue: as in the like phraſe; make, or build houſes, laying the foundations on the p. 3tock, and raiſing the walls and roof of laſting and durable matter, do not theſe participles expreſſe the manner of doing? or, may a man gather from hence that the houſe muſt be built before the foundation muſt be laid? Again, the word nations, is a Noune of multitude, and the very commiſſion ſeemeth to point at the nation of the Jewes for the pattern, that they ſhould call other nations into covenant with God even after the ſame manner as the Jews have been, by vertue of the ſame promiſe; and thus it is apparent, the Apoſtles all underſtood it. Paul, both to the Romans, Rom 4 11. and Gal. 3.17. doth argue, that the promiſe might ſtand the ſame to us, as was to Abraham, though circumciſion be taken away, for as much as the promiſe was before circumciſion, even to Abraham; and there might remain the circumciſion of the heart, though the outward circumciſion were taken away, and Baptiſme put in the place of it; and from this promiſe, Acts 2.39. S. Peter argueth to Baptiſme, the promiſe belongeth to you, therefore be baptized. If then Baptiſme may be tendered to nations, nations may receive baptiſme, that is, it may be, nay, it muſt be received by a nationall covenant, the nation of the Jews were only in covenant with God before Chriſt; but all nations after Chriſt hath broken down the partition wall. Now principally a nationall covenant doth conſiſt in this, that the moſt principall of the nation do covenant for the reſt, the more conſiderable part do receive for the reſt, and require performance of others their inferiours. God laid circumciſion upon the Jews under a penalty, which is a nationall way of receiving; God commandeth all to be circumciſed by a Law, under a penalty, that perſon that was not circumciſed, muſt be cut off, Gen. 17.14. that the whole nation might be circumciſed. If any ſhall object, that the Jews were all to be circumcized under a penalty, but the penalty was appointed of God. I anſwer, that was an eſpeciall priviledge of the Jewes, that they had their civill Lawes from God, but what lieth upon a nation as a duty, that it may require of all, and cut off them that refuſe; and this is implied in the commiſſion, when nations ſhall covenant to be Diſciples, which may be done by a part for the whole, then are ſuch as are in commiſſion from Chriſt commanded to baptize and teach the whole nation, ſuch as are in authority may covenant in a nationall way for the inferiour ſort, and juſtly require all externall performances from them, ſuch as Baptiſme, and ſubmiſſion to be taught are; as for faith, and internall performance, no creature can judge of that, or require it of another in a judiciall way.

If any object that the Apoſtles did not execute their commiſſion, but upon ſuch parties as did believe, and would be baptized.

I anſwer, a commiſſion cannot be executed in full extent, untill opportunity be gotten; he that hath a commiſſion to hang up all the thieves in the kingdom, muſt execute it as he may; he muſt hang them as he can catch them: as ſoon as they could procure a nationall willingneſſe, they were ready to baptize them, as p. 4by the many thouſands baptized by them the ſame day of their converſion may appear, taking them in by families, which act by a nationall way, the maſter of the family covenanting for his ſervants and children: So Joſh. 24.15. I and my houſe will ſerve the Lord; he may not believe for his ſervant, but he may covenant for externall worſhip for his ſon, under a penalty, and for his ſervant according to his condition, under penalty, or diſmiſſion of ſervice, that the whole family or nation might come in: And that the Gentiles ſhould in ſuch a manner flow into the Church, the Prophets do fully teſtifie, Iſai. 2.2. All nations ſhall flow, &c. See further what light the word Diſciple doth give to this ſenſe of the commiſſion. Diſciple is a relative, and is referred to maſter, to him that giveth precepts, which have ſanctions of reward, and puniſhment annexed; and this is the covenant that is between the maſter and the ſcholler, that he will teach and puniſh the negligence of the ſcholler, the ſcholler muſt be under the covenant of ſubmiſsion, or otherwiſe he can be no ſcholler.

Now, note that two ways this covenant of a ſcholler may be put upon any perſon: Firſt, it may be put on with the conſent of the ſcholler: or, ſecondly, without, in caſe of a ſlave, his Lord may impoſe what covenants he pleaſeth, without his conſent, if he will live and enjoy his being, the father may, and that juſtly, by his intereſt that he hath over his ſon by nature, put him to ſchool, and make a ſcholler of him, even before he be willing to conſent; he may juſtly carry him, and correct him, if he refuſe to be put under the power of a Schoolmaſter, giving his Schoolmaſter power to correct him. Now, to ſend him to ſchool to Chriſt, and teach him the precepts of Chriſt, and this impoſed on the parent of Chriſt, by his Apoſtles, Epheſ. 6.4. And ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath: but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. And what a parent can do over his child in matter of duty, that may the parents of the countrey, the Magiſtrates, require of the nations. God requireth it of them, they may put all the nation to ſchool to Chriſt: Now, what if ſome of them be too young to learn, yet if they be under the diſcipline of the Maſter, they are ſchollers? as may appear in many little children that are ſet to ſchool, to keep them ſafe, and from wantonneſſe, before they be of capacity to learn, many have a hornbook given, more for a play-game, then a book, yet are they ſchollers, becauſe under the diſcipline and correction of the Maſter; is it not therefore great reaſon, that a Chriſtian ſhould dedicate his childe to Chriſt, to be partaker of the bleſſing and diſcipline of Chriſt? ſurely godlineſſe hath the promiſe of this life, and that which is to come. What, is the Infant capable of no good from Chriſt? neither in ſoul nor body? hath Chriſt nothing to do with him? Chriſt did bleſſe ſucking Infants, and as he bleſſeth, cannot he likewiſe puniſh at pleaſure? Why then, if he hath power over all nations, and de jure, they are all under his diſcipline, may not Chriſtian parents put their children under the tuition of Chriſt, ſeeing, though they cannot learn, yet p. 5he can bleſſe, and hath right, and will puniſh, which we by baptizing our Infants do but acknowledge? nay, certainly he is an Infidell that doth not think that Chriſt can teach the Infant by his Spirit, though we cannot by means that we can uſe, or that he doth not qualifie the ſouls of the elect Infants, with gifts of grace, not given to reprobates, if they die in infancy, which though he can, and will without baptiſme; yet this is ſufficient incouragement for a Chriſtian parent to put his ſon to ſchool to Chriſt, if Chriſt can teach him, this were a vain thing to think for any ignorant parent to refuſe to put his ſon to ſchool, becauſe he underſtandeth not Latine or Greek himſelf; it is ſufficient that the Maſter underſtandeth and knoweth how to teach. And certainly, words could not have been invented that could have required the Miniſters to baptize all the world, Infants and all, willing or unwilling; ſo that any would ſee they might be taught, and ſubmit to the precepts and diſcipline of Chriſt, then to expreſſe it by the word Nation, and Diſciple; and this was plain to them that underſtood what it was for a nation to be in covenant with God, whereof there was but one pattern at that time, and ſo it doth appear the Apoſtles did underſtand it as a plain thing: in that, though often they took occaſion to ſpeak of baptiſme, yet never did explain this point concerning childrens baptiſme, as thinking it plain enough in the pattern: what might juſtly raiſe a ſcruple concerning the baptizing of women, ſeeing they were not circumciſed, that is, declared in plain terms, both men and women were baptized. Baptiſme is in room of circumciſion, as in anſwering Mr. Tombes his arguments, I hope to make appear. For the further underſtanding of this word Diſciple, I ſhall endeavour to ſet forth the full latitude of the word: the formall reaſon of a Diſciple, is in relatione ad Preceptorem, the foundation of which relation is a covenant between the Maſter and the ſcholler, whereby the Maſter is ingaged to deliver precepts, and the ſcholler is bound to hear and undergo the penalties of his errors and contempts.

Now, this covenant is either impoſed, as in caſe of a ſlave, when a Lord doth lay any covenants upon his ſlave; here the benefits of the covenant be mercies, the puniſhments, if leſſe then the greateſt, or under any conditions avoidable, are favors; ſo Naaſh, 1 Sam. 11.2. tendered a covenant to put out every one of the Iſraelites right eyes, which if he had been able to have deſtroyed, as he conceived he was, had been a favour; in this caſe one party maketh the covenant without mentioning the other but as patient; therefore, Gen. 15.18. God is ſaid to make a covenant with Abraham, and 17.9. God calleth the covenant, his covenant, God made the promiſe and conditions, not Abraham; but in Gen. 21.27. there, when Abraham and Abimeleck did covenant, the Text ſaith, they both made a covenant, Abraham his conditions, and Abimeleck his.

If the word Diſciple be taken in this ſenſe, then it is no more, but tell all nations, that I am that Prophet that was promiſed by Moſes, 'Deut. 18.18, 19. and p. 6thus Peter Acts 3. and Stephen Acts 7. did make diſciples, repeating thoſe words of Moſes, A Prophet ſhall the Lord your God raiſe to you like unto me, him ſhall you heare; and he that will not hear the voice of that Prophet ſhall dye the death; and then theſe words make diſciples, doe ſignifie no more then tell all Nations that I am ſent of my Father to teach them, and they that will not heare ſhall dye the death. Chriſt without any more adoe doth give Precepts, and threaten death to all the world that refuſe, and ſo make diſciples is no more but tell them they are diſciples, and under the Precepts of Chriſt; but if any acceptance be required of the diſciple, the naturall father or father of the Country, may covenant for their children as before.

Secondly, a Diſciple may be underſtood in reference to the end, and that either actively for a man that is active or diligent to get learning, he is ſaid to be a Scholer; or paſſively a man is ſaid to be a Diſciple or Scholer that is learned; and this inchoativè vel ad certum aut deſignatum gradum vel perfectivè: if this man that is to be baptiſed muſt be taught inchoativè, it will ſerve turne to have learned one leſſon in reference to that one leſſon he is learned, though he hath learned but an A the firſt letter of his Alphabet. In the ſecond ſenſe men are aſſigned a certaine meaſure of learning as ſufficient for one calling, another meaſure for another calling; what degree of knowledge men muſt attaine to before they be baptiſed, no man yet hath declared: and in ſo great a ſilence of Scripture were an arrogancie inexcuſable; for want whereof, all that is ſaid concerning a Diſciple to bee made before baptized, is without any regularity and certainty; if it bee underſtood perfectivè, then a man muſt never be baptiſed, if not before he be made perfectly learned; whereby it appeareth that we cannot be ſaid to be made learned in diſpoſition to Baptiſme, but as before made Schollers in relation to Chriſt our Maſter by Baptiſme in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghoſt, being taught the precepts of Chriſt.

Mr. Tombes 127. p. falleth upon this as urged by ſome obſcure perſon, but ſaith it is ſo fooliſh, that no man will ſay ſo but he that is out of his wit, but hee in the meane time anſwereth it no better then by ſaying if this were true, the Apoſtles needed to have done nothing elſe then to baptiſe them: I thinke if ever a man were out of his wit, it was here; Chriſt ſaith, make Diſciples by baptiſing them and teaching them, if he meane ſo, need they only baptiſe them, and not teach them? or if they were made Schollers, muſt they not be taught when they are ſchollers? in what ſenſe doth this man take ſcholler? ſurely in ſuch a ſenſe that he need be taught no more: if he muſt be a Diſciple in ſuch a ſenſe before he bee baptiſed, it were a bold adventure for any Miniſter to baptiſe any man, or if hee did, the party baptiſed muſt be taught no more: if baptiſing would make Diſciples, the Apoſtles need doe no more, this were a good excuſe for not preaching Prieſts. It is plaine Chriſt commands to baptiſe and teach; what if a man do performe p. 7part of his duty, is he diſcharged of the other part? the command is in conjunctive tearms both muſt be performed. But Mr. Tombes fell on that obiter, and I have vindicated it for the true ſenſe of the words which he ſo ſcornfully rejected: but I further prove it.

What doe not foreign and foreign being active participles, expreſſe the action of their verbes: and is not foreign the end, is not every action to an end? yes certainly, and to make Diſciples is the end, inrolling them by Baptiſme, and after teaching them the meanes. I deſire that men may not be outfaced from principles and rules. But I haſten to try the ſtrength of Mr. Tombes his arguments.

He confuteth this practice, that Infants borne of Beleevers are univerſally to be baptiſed; for my part I ſtate not the queſtion ſo, but Infants borne in a Nation that are the Diſciples of Chriſt, or have received the Goſpell, are to bee baptiſed: of Beleevers much more, if preſented by them; and they undertake to inſtruct them by themſelves or others in the precepts of Chriſt.

But let us ſee Mr. Tombes his ſophiſmes, That which hath no teſtimonies of Scripture that is doubtfull.

Infants baptiſme hath no teſtimony of Scripture, ergo doubtfull.

The minor Mr. Tombes laboureth to prove by an induction, but it wanteth forme; he ſhould have ſaid, & ſic de ceteris, none of all theſe places might prove this, and yet it might have teſtimony from ſome other place: but I will follow him in his exceptions, and ſee how juſt they are againſt the teſtimonies produced.

The firſt teſtimony which he pretendeth accurately to examin, Gen. 17.7. &c. I paſſe by his jingle, he raiſeth 14 arguments raiſed out of ſeverall places of Scripture as urged in defence of Paedobaptiſme, which he anſwereth, whoſe anſwers I ſhall endeavour to examine, and ſee how the arguments are as he urgeth them, or as they may be urged from this place of Geneſis: to whom the Goſpell Covenant agrees, to them the ſigne of the Goſpell Covenant agrees; but to Infants of Beleevers the Goſpell Covenant agrees, therefore the ſigne of the Goſpell Covenant, and conſequently Baptiſme. That Mr. Tombes might prepare for an anſwer, he ſheweth a great deale of his accurate skill, he examines foure ſuppoſita, things granted on the part of Pedobaptiſts, and converteth them into queſtions, ſtateth them apart, and ſo endeavoureth to take away the ſtrength of the argument.

1. Whether the Covenant made with Abraham, and the Goſpell Covenant be the ſame? Mr. Tombes denieth with this difference, that the Covenant with Abraham was mixed, but (with reſpect to Mr. Tombes, his opinion of learning he hath gotten) he beginneth at the worng end to prove it: for a Goſpell Covenant between God and man, taketh in all the Covenants that now are, or ever were p. 8ſince the fall between God and man: God was never in covenant with any man or Nation, but in Chriſt: Chriſt is the adequate ſubject of the Goſpell: this Goſpell was preached from heaven by the Angels, Luke 2.10. foreign, I preach the Goſpell, which was in theſe words, Unto you is borne this day in the City of David a Saviour which is Chriſt the Lord: Certainly whatſoever the Saints enjoy upon earth, or ſhall enjoy in heaven, they enjoy it in and for Chriſt. Whereas Mr. Tombes diſtinguiſheth the promiſes made to Abraham into Evangelicall, Domeſticall and Civill promiſes; what had Abraham ſome things in Chriſt and ſome things out of Chriſt? godlineſſe hath the promiſes of this life and that which is to come. Now to deny the promiſes of this life to belong to Abraham under Evangelicall promiſe, or to diſtinguiſh individualls by ſpecificall difference, is ſtrange Divinity and ſtranger Logick, is reaſon of different nature in Peter and Paul, or is Pauls reaſon of another nature then Peters, becauſe he uſeth ſome particular arguments that Peter doth not? Abraham had the bleſſings of his houſe, and others have the bleſſings of their families: and Gal. 3.9. Paul telleth us, that they which beleeve are bleſſed with faithfull Abraham, they are not bleſſed only as the ſeed of Abraham, but as Abraham they are fountaines of bleſſing to their ſeed through faith in Chriſt; and that doth that inference cleerly prove that Abraham was intituled to the bleſſing by his faith, tanquam medio, as by the meanes, and therefore is faithfull repeated in the argument with Abraham, that thoſe that beleeve are bleſſed not with Abraham, but faithfull Abraham; and further ſaith, not that the faithfull are bleſſed with the ſeed of Abraham, but with Abraham, they that beleeve have as full a right to the promiſe as Abraham himſelfe: the ſame Covenant, the ſame bleſſing, remaines to us with Abraham: as for thoſe particular differences they are but numericall, and make no difference in the promiſe, no more then the difference of Peter and Paul doe in mankinde: Abraham had his family bleſſings, wee have ours: Logica non tractat aut definit particularia: if any ſhall ſay that his being father of Chriſt after the fleſh putteth a mixture of the Covenant, and maketh it of another nature: I deny that it doth any more vary the nature of the Covenant, then a badge of honor doth the nature of man, and this ſhall appear in that ſo much of the covenant as was ſealed to Abraham by circumciſion commeth down to us; and if Abraham had any bleſſing that came not to us, that was not ſealed to him by circumciſion, foraſmuch as all the benefit that Abraham and his naturall or faithfull ſeed had of circumciſion, that the Beleever hath without circumciſion. For though it be true that circumciſion was given to all indefinitly, yet the benefit of circumciſion came only to the faithfull both before and after Chriſt came: and this is ſo plainly ſet downe by Saint Paul, that nothing can be more plaine, that circumciſion was of force to Abraham by faith, Rom. 4.9.10. Faith was reckoned to Abraham when he was uncircumciſed, and that he received circumciſion p. 9as a ſeale of the righteouſneſſe of faith: and in verſe 12. he ſaith, that Abraham was father of circumciſion to them that were uncircumciſed; where he implied that thoſe that were uncircumciſed were circumciſed in a ſenſe: and this is farther affirmed of them who are in Chriſt Jeſus by faith, Col. 2.10. that they are circumciſed with circumciſion made without hands; and this circumciſion with hands is ſpecified, Eph. 2.11. Yee were uncircumciſed with circumciſion in the fleſh made with hands, implied that they were circumciſed in the heart: what other ſenſe can be rendred of this circumciſion of heart, but that that cleanneſſe of heart which was ſignified to our fathers by circumciſion, remaineth to us though the ſeale be altered? and this is that uſuall ſetting downe of Evangelicall duties and benefits by ceremoniall expreſſions: We under the Goſpel are circumciſed in heart without hands. Now how could that be, unleſſe the internall part of circumciſion did remaine to us? And this Mr. Tombs p. 33. doth confeſſe that the ſubſtance of the Covenant doth remaine; but ſtill helpeth himſelfe with his mixt covenant, which I have formerly denyed, and ſhall preſently evince: the different manner of adminiſtration doth not alter the Covenant: God did ſet forth, his promiſes of Heaven by Canaan: was punctuall in the ceremonies; but the ceremonies did lead thoſe that beleeved to better then the bare ceremony, without which, circumciſion and all their ſervice was utterly without uſe or benefit; God did in ſpeciall manner bleſſe thoſe outward duties to his elect, becauſe they were his owne Ordinances, cauſing them to ſee more in thoſe types, then they in their owne nature doe ſeem to manifeſt. And thus Mr. Tombes confeſſeth, that the promiſes that were Evangelicall in the more inner ſenſe of the Holy Ghoſt, doe point at the priviledges of Abrahams houſe in the outward face of the words: ſo that it may bee doubted whether this Covenant made with Abraham may be called ſimply Evangelicall: and this doubt is made the more juſt, becauſe Mr. Tombes, and ſome of his company doe not call the Covenant on Mount Sinai ſimply Evangelicall: what have you diſtinguiſhed between mixed and pure Goſpell Covenants, on purpoſe to make the Covenant with Abraham mixt, and is it now doubtfull? and therefore doubtfull, becauſe Maſter Tombes and others doe call the Covenant on Mount Sinai mixt: What if they miſcall it? What ground then of the doubt? away with ſuch groundleſſe doubts: for wee call that Covenant, and all the Covenants that God made with man ſince the fall, purely Evangelicall, without any mixture at all; and let Mr. Tombes, or any of his company prove the contrary: in the mean time, let me intreat Mr. Tombes, and all other that meddle with controverſies, to make no more diſtinctions nor limitations, then lawes of diviſion and limitation will allow: For, though at firſt they may win applauſe for their novelty, yet after ages will ſee their vainity, if any of them be taken up in a tract, yet times will come that will find them out: But all this while, Mr. Tombs doth not tell us what part of p. 10the covenant was ſealed by circumciſion, or whether circumciſion did reſpect principally the domeſticall part or civill, or Evangelicall part, or equally all; nor ſhew any reaſon why the Goſpel covenant will not admit any ſuch mixture as he ſuppoſeth; but I do not love to inſult over a weak argument, or ſtrike an adverſary when he is dead.

Secondly, Mr. Tombes cometh to diſtinguiſh the ſeed of Abraham, I will not trouble my ſelf to repeat or take notice of what Mr. Tombes ſaith well, but of ſuch paſſages as he layeth down, upon which he purpoſeth to raiſe ſomething againſt childrens baptiſme: He indeavoureth to prove, that the ſeed of believing Gentiles, were not the ſeed of Abraham, the reaſon is, becauſe Mr. Tombes doth not finde them ſo called: a man may not heare himſelf or his neighbour called a man in many yeers; nay, ſuppoſe they were never ſo called, were they therefore no men? But it is moſt plain, that the ſeed of believing Gentiles were the ſeed of Abraham; for that is the knot of the queſtion, and God himſelf doth decide it. All that were by Gods appointment to be circumciſed, were in ſome ſenſe or other the ſeed of Abraham: or, otherwiſe there had been no need at all of calling the faithfull the ſeed of Abraham: But becauſe they are partakers of the benefit of the promiſe, made to the ſeed of Abraham: And this is made plain in the doctrine of S. Paul, he handleth this promiſe to Abraham and his ſeed, not as the words do import, but as they carry the bleſſing of Abraham, without reference to circumciſion or uncircumciſion, ſhewing that circumciſion was annexed to the promiſe but for a time, was but accidentall to the promiſe, and might be taken away, the promiſe remaining: This the Apoſtle doth moſt artificially prove, according to rules of art: For, Rom. 4.10. his purpoſe was to prove, that now they were not to retain circumciſion, Chriſt being come, and baptiſme being ſet in the place and room of it; and that notwithſtanding the promiſe made to Abraham did remain; now that he might prove that, he ſheweth that circumciſion was not a proper paſſion to Abraham and his ſeed flowing from the promiſe, as the cauſe, and therefore may be ſeparated from the promiſe; circumciſion belonging rather to the ceremoniall adminiſtration then the eſſence of the promiſe; rather to the externall part of the worſhip then the efficacy and vertue of the promiſe; and this he proveth: Firſt, becauſe the promiſe was of force to Abraham through faith, before circumciſion, and therefore, prior tempore, before, in time to circumciſion, which it could not have been, if it had flowed from the promiſe as the cauſe: For, though the immediate cauſe be before its effect in nature, yet not in time; man is not rationalis before riſibilis, and therefore as the promiſe was before circumciſion, ſo it may continue after.

Object. But the promiſe was made to Abrahams ſeed, which we are not. To this I anſwer, the promiſe was made to one ſeed, not many, which is Chriſt, as Calvin and Beza explain it, not of the perſon of Chriſt, but believers in Chriſt; p. 11implying, that though there were a diſtinction between Jews and Gentiles, yet by faith in Chriſt they were all one, and the argument in Gal. 3.28. doth cleerly ſhew this; neither Jew nor Greek, bond nor free, all one in Chriſt Jeſus. Abraham had but one bleſſed ſeed to whom the promiſe was made, which is Chriſt, ſaith the Text, verſ. 16. But I have proved the promiſe was not made to Chriſt in perſon as the ſeed of Abraham; but the ſeed of Abraham is reckoned in Chriſt, and the word Chriſt is taken for the myſticall body of Chriſt his Church of the elect, which in reference to the promiſe are but one ſeed, whether Jew or Gentile, ſo are the bleſſings and ſufferings of the Church reckoned the ſufferings of Chriſt. So that this ſeed of Abraham in reference to the promiſe, was never underſtood of Abrahams ſeed, according to the fleſh, but by faith: And here note, that this is not an univocall diviſion; as if the members did not coincidere, or, that ſome were the ſeed of Abraham according to the fleſh, and none of them his ſeed by faith, and others by faith his ſeed that were none of them his ſeed in the fleſh; nay, but this diſtinction is in reference to the promiſe as diſtinct from circumciſion; all thoſe were not of the ſeed according to promiſe, that were the ſeed of Abraham according to the fleſh; no, not of Iſaac, but the believers, theſe are the ſeed of Abraham according to promiſe, Gal. 3.29. If ye be Chriſts, them are ye Abrahams ſeed, and heirs according to promiſe, elſe not: And this is not to diſtinguiſh Jews from Gentiles, but believing Jews from infidels, and to draw the whole vertue of the promiſe on Believers: ſo the promiſe is belonging to Abraham through faith, and the ſeed of Abraham, as the word ſeed is underſtood in the promiſe, and in the eſtimation of God is the Believer only; ſo that the ſeed of Abraham by faith, and the ſeed unto whom the promiſe of God to Abraham did belong are the ſame, the ſeed of Abraham and the Believer, whether Jew or Gentile, whether before or after Chriſt, are all one, in the eſtimation of God: So that the ſeed of Abraham that were bleſſed were believers only, not all the ſeed of Abraham, nay, nor all the ſeed of Iſaac, but in Iſaac, that is, in Chriſt, that was the ſeed of Iſaac, all that were in Iſaac, that is in Chriſt, of whom Iſaac was a type, that is, believers only, not all the ſeed of Iſaac; for the promiſe did not belong to Eſau that was the ſeed of Iſaac; for that, though he were the ſeed of Iſaac, yet he was not in Iſaac, that is, he was not inſerted into Iſaac as a type of Chriſt by faith; and therefore the ſeed muſt be ſo underſtood that the promiſe might belong to all the ſeed, Rom. 4.16. not to that which is of the Law only, but that which is of the faith of Abraham; not to them only which were circumciſed according to Law, but to believers, though not circumciſed, (that is, after circumciſion was taken away by appointment of God: For, though circumciſion was not ſo naturall and eſſentiall to the promiſe, that it was enough at any time to entitle any to the promiſe without faith; yet, virtute inſtitutionis divina, was not to be omitted untill God took it away;) for the promiſe was not to p. 12Abraham through the Law, therefore not through circumciſion, which was a legall right, but … the righteouſneſſe of faith, verſ. 13. to let us know that it was not any … rite or ſacrament that can intitle to the promiſe, it doth but externally … the vertue of Chriſts blood, and by it the circumciſion of the … the ſight of God is the only circumciſion, Rom. 2.29. He is a Jew … and circumciſion is of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the … not of men, but of God. All this while the Scripture treateth … Abraham in the eſtimation of God: God accounteth none the ſeed … Abraham but in Chriſt, none heirs of the promiſe but in Chriſt, none circum… … them that are in Chriſt, and therefore ſaith, Rom. 2.28. that is not cir… … in the fleſh, and this, ex regula de nullo. Again, ex …, all that are in Chriſt Jeſus, that is believers, are the ſeed of Abraham, heirs of the promiſe, circumciſed in heart; but theſe have their eſtimation and praiſe not of m…n, but of God, and theſe are equally denied and affirmed to Abrahams ſ…d, and Gent…es according as they are believers, or not believers, … without any reſpect a… all to Abrahams ſeed according to the fleſh; ſo that Abrahams … had no right at all to any part of the promiſe in the eſtimation of … they did not …; and therefore, Rom. 9.8. they that are the children of the …, that is, Abrahams freſh, are not the children of God, the children of the promiſe a… accounted for the ſeed; and therefore, in Gen. 12.3. the Lord did make the promiſe not to Abraham and his ſeed only, but from Abraham he derived the bleſſing upon all the families of the earth; all the families of the earth were bleſſed in Abraham: Or, as Gen. 22.18. all nations are bleſſed in the ſeed of Abraham; and therefore do Interpreters interpret that former by [thee] that is, in thy ſeed, and all that are in Chriſt, are plainly the heirs of the promiſe, and none but they. Abraham in honour and title, was called the fountain of the bleſſing, but in de…d and truth, not Abraham, but Chriſt; for Abraham himſelf was bleſſed in Chriſt, not in himſelf, as Chriſt was; Chriſt was only bleſſed and juſtified in and for his own holineſſe by the works of the Law inherent in himſelf; So that Mr. Tombes his diviſion of Abrahams ſeed foreign, Chriſts ſpirituall ſeed believers, naturall ſeed is moſt inartificiall, many of his naturall ſeed were ſpirituall alſo: Abrahams ſeed muſt be divded into equivocall and univocall; equivocall ſeed Chriſt, for that he was not like Abraham he was of Abraham, but ex parte, according to the fleſh, Rom. 1.3. He was Abrahams Lord, as well as his ſon; his Saviour, as well as his ſeed: he was the promiſed ſeed, not the ſeed unto …om the promiſe did belong, as the ſeed of Abraham, but that ſeed that was the fountain of bleſſing to Abraham and all other his ſeed: and therefore Chriſt was the bleſſing it ſelf, the promiſe that was made to Abraham and his ſeed, was through the righteouſneſſe of faith, Rom. 4.13. but the bleſſing came not on Chriſt through the righteouſneſſe of faith, ſeeing the righteouſneſſe of faith is derivative p. 13from Chriſt to Abraham: Chriſts righteouſneſſe was primitive in himſelfe, and that very righteouſneſſe that became Abrahams by faith: and therefore is Chriſt the inheritance of Abraham and all the faithfull ſeed, Eſay 42.6. he is called the Covenant of the people, and a light to the Gentiles.

Secondly, Abrahams univocall ſeed were like unto himſelfe in relation to the promiſe; the word ſeed in the promiſe, I will be thy God, and the God of thy ſeed, is only the faithfull, nothing belonging to the ſeed of Abrahams fleſh, but ſo as they are faithfull, nor excluding any Nation, or family, or perſon in the earth, ſo as faithfull: as for Abrahams ſeed according to the fleſh, if not faithfull, non eſt noſtri inſtituti; it is not belonging to the doctrine of the Promiſe to conſider of them at all, Rom. 2.29. they were not to be reckoned among the circumciſed by God. Now for the particular application of this promiſe to this Nation or that, in one age to the family of Abraham according to the fleſh, in another age to the Gentiles; in one age under the ſeale of circumciſion, in another of Baptiſme; ſometimes to give a Nation the means of Grace, Word, and Sacraments, ſometimes to lead them away into captivity; theſe things were ordered according to the particular determination and purpoſe of God, though God did in a more peculiar manner bleſſe the ſeed of Abraham then other Nations, with the enjoyment of Word and Sacraments, and other bleſſings, yet they had them together with the land of Canaan, and the place of Gods worſhip; only on conditions of faith and obedience, as in Deut. 28. and 29. chapters, and by the many threatnings of removall of them by the Prophets, and their actuall captivities may appear; ſo that theſe graces of faith and obedience come on this or that Nation or perſon according to the purpoſe of Gods will, as likewiſe effectuall operation of the Word, and the particular effect of the Sacrament under the means of Word and Sacraments, wholly depend on the mercy of God according to the election of grace. Men are to adminiſter the outward rite and ſacrament according to the ordination of God: God by his Spirit beſtoweth his grace, and with-holdeth it from whom he pleaſeth: The Jewes were tyed to the eight day to ſigne the fleſh with circumciſion; but it was God that circumciſed the heart, without which, the circumciſion of the fleſh was no circumciſion in the eſtimation of God; as Rom. 2.28. which man cannot nor ought to take notice of, it is the way of God, no man knoweth it; it is God that giveth the new name that no man knoweth but he that hath it. Thoſe that have this inward grace of circumciſion, are called and accounted by God for the ſeed of Abraham, but whom muſt Abraham for his part in reference to this promiſe, account for his ſeed? the covenant on Gods part is to be the God of Abraham and his ſeed, which God knows how to extend to Jew and Gentile, and limit to beleevers even among Abrahams family. But Abraham had laid on him that hee ſhould circumciſe, but he cannot walke by Gods rules in the eſtimation of his ſeed, Gen. 17.10. This is my covenant that ye p. 14keep between me and you, and thy ſeed after thee, every manchilde among you ſhall be circumciſed: the former part, I will be a God to thee and thy ſeed, might have ſerved Abrahams turn, if he had known how to eſtimate his ſeed, as God did by the beleever, but that was paſt Abrahams skill, therefore muſt Abraham have another rule ſet him to walke by; and leſt Abraham inſiſting on the word ſeed ſhould debarre many from circumciſion of the fleſh, whom God did intend to circumciſe in heart; he is charged with his duty in plaine tearmes, 12.13. verſe, Every manchilde in your generations, he that is borne in the houſe or bought with money of any ſtranger that is not of thy ſeed. And Exod. 12.48. When a ſtranger ſhall ſojourne with thee, and will keep the Paſſeover to the Lord, let all his males be circumciſed, and then let him come neare and keep the Paſſeover, for no uncircumciſed perſon ſhall eat thereof, one law ſhall be to him that is homeborne, and unto the ſtranger that ſojourneth among you: ſo you ſee how Abraham was to count his ſeed, not only thoſe that were indeed his ſeed, but thoſe that were of his family, not ſo only, but the ſeed of beleeving Gentiles, were to be the accounted ſeed of the promiſe: one law muſt be to the ſtranger that ſojourneth, and to the naturall ſeed of Abraham: the beleeving Gentile that would keep the Paſſeover, muſt be ſubject to the ſame law with Abraham: he muſt circumciſe not only himſelfe, but all his males, and the reaſon is, becauſe no uncircumciſed perſon may eat thereof: the maſter of the family might not be accounted a circumciſed perſon, unleſſe all his males were circumciſed, becauſe that was the law of circumciſion, that he that was circumciſed himſelf, muſt circumciſe all his males, becauſe the bleſſing of Abraham was a family bleſſing, as Gen. 12.3. In thee ſhall all the families of the earth be bleſſed; and that which is there rendred by families, is in 18.18. rendred by Nations, All the nations of the earth ſhall be bleſſed in him: ſeeing all families, and all nations be of the ſame extent. Thus yee ſee plainly demonſtrated that Abraham and beleeving Gentiles were to underſtand the ſeed of Abraham in reference to the promiſe of the ſeed of beleeving Gentiles, which Mr. Tombes doth not finde.

You ſee the promiſe made to Abraham and all families, and all nations performed in ſome families, even under the law of circumciſion, the families of ſtrangers, the males that were borne in the houſe or bought with money, were reckoned as Abrahams males; but this ſtranger that would keep the Paſſeover, muſt circumciſe his males not under the name of Abrahams males, not as borne in Abrahams houſe, nor bought with money, but under the name of the ſeed of ſuch a ſtranger that would keep the Paſſeover; they could have no right to circumciſion, but as the ſeed of beleeving Gentiles. Againe, you ſee this promiſe is made to all Nations in Abraham, which muſt have a time of performance in that ſenſe alſo: but this was never performed in any nationall capacity before Chriſts time; yet God never maketh a promiſe, but he taketh a time in ſome ſenſe or other to perform: p. 15but we ſee notwithſtanding this promiſe, God had not any Nation bleſſed but the Jewes, and therefore doth St. Paul plainly interpret that part of the promiſe concerning Nations in reference to Nations after Chriſt, Gal. 3.8. the Scripture foreſeeing that God would juſtifie the heathen through faith preached before the Goſpell to Abraham ſaying, In thee ſhall all the nations of the earth be bleſſed: ſee God made his promiſe to Abraham, and all families, all nations; he began with Abraham and his, and ſome other few Gentiles families, and after referreth the performance of the promiſe as it concerneth all Nations to the times wherein he foreſaw that the Nations would beleeve.

3. Queſtion, whether there be the ſame reaſon of Circumciſion and Baptiſme in ſigning the Goſpell-covenant? To this Mr. Tombs ſaith, that the ſubſtance of the Goſpell-covenant was the ſame in all ages, yet this covenant hath had divers formes and ſanctions, where after abundance of words to prove diverſity of formes and ſanctions, he endeavoureth to prove a diverſity of the forme and ſanction of the covenant with Abraham, and forme, ſanction, and accompliſhment of the new Teſtament covenant: and from thence he inferreth his concluſion in theſe words. Whence I gather that there is not the ſame reaſon of circumciſion and baptiſme in ſigning the Evangelicall covenant; nor may there be an argument drawne from the adminſtration of one, to the like manner of adminiſtration of the other. I have heard very much of Mr. Tombs his learning, and now I ſee wherein it lyeth, in drawing that out of premiſes that no man elſe can draw, and making ſyllogiſms with two concluſions, toto coelo, divers, and yet make them ariſe from the ſame premiſes: this is the learning ſo much magnified.

That which he principally gathereth is, that there is not the ſame reaſon of circumciſion and baptiſme in ſealing the Goſpell-covenant. For my part I know but two wayes of ſignations or ſealings, one naturall, the other ex inſtituto divino vel humane. Now I conceive both circumciſion and baptiſme doe ſigne or ſeale ſacramentally, and by divine inſtitution; and therefore there is the ſame reaſon of both their ſealings. Now the different forme of the covenant maketh no difference in the ſeale: If it be an obligation for money, or a leaſe under large or ample covenants, or a conveyance of inheritance, wherein one parcell of land of an acre, or one free-hold, or more; one mannor, or more, maketh no difference in the ſeale or ſignature, neither doth it vary the reaſon of the ſeale, which are ex humano inſtituto obligatori: neither doth the difference of the covenant with Abraham, and the Evangelicall covenant if differing, as Mr. Tombes would have, make any difference in the reaſon of the ſigning of the Goſpell-covenant by circumciſion and baptiſme: for grant that circumciſion did ſeale both Evangelicall and Politicall, and baptiſme only Evangelicall covenants, yet they did both ſeale Evangelicall promiſes, and for the ſame reaſon, becauſe God had appointed them to be ſeals: neither doth the mixture of one promiſe with another alter the p. 16operation of the ſeale, ſeeing the ſeale doth worke as ſtrongly upon every part of the covenant, or every promiſe in the covenant, as if there were but one promiſe in all, or as if every covenant or promiſe had a ſingle deed and ſingle ſeale: but all this while what Mr. Tombes hath here aſſigned as differences in forme and ſanction, are differences in matter, not in forme or ſanction: promiſes, the things granted in the covenant belong to the matter of the covenant, not to either forme or ſanction: things promiſed, whether Evangelicall or Politicall, paſt, preſent, or to come, belong only to the matter of the covenant, and do not vary the reaſon of their ſealing, which maketh the collection of Mr. Tombes ſeem to me very ſtrange; and ſo much the more, becauſe it hath the teſtimony among other things of a learned collection.

But, leſt I might be anſwered, that this was affirmed but barely, I ſhall deſire that all learned men would conſider what be formall differences of covenants, and what maketh the differences of ſanctions.

The formall differences of a covenant may be conſidered, either different i… formis verborum, that is, when the ſame thing is granted in different formes of words: as when Chriſt is promiſed under the ſeed of the woman and the ſeed of Abraham. Secondly, covenants are ſaid to differ formally; if one covenant be abſolute, the other conditionall, one free, the other upon valuable conſideration; the one upon a condition already performed, the other upon a remaining condition of ſervice or rent; the one voluntary on both parties, the other voluntary on the one part only, and on the other impoſed: Theſe, or ſuch like, are formall differences in the nature of a covenant; as for formality of words, difference in them will not make an abſolute covenant conditionall, or the like: And conſider, I pray you, what formall differencee is there in the covenant with Abraham, and the Evangelicall covenant in Mr. Tombes his own ſenſe? was not the covenant with Abraham and the Evangelicall promiſe upon the ſame condition in Chriſt through faith? were not both in Chriſt upon the ſame valuable conſideration in our ſelves equally free? Do not we all ſtand bound to faith and obedience under both covenants, as you diſtinguiſh them? Did not God equally impoſe on us all the means of our ſalvation? Where then is the formall difference in theſe covenants you talk of? unleſſe you mean verbis formalibus, which make no difference in law or equity. Your difference you talk of, is but in matter, which I have formerly proved to be but imaginarie; but grant there had been a formall difference in the covenant, what had that been to the difference of the ſeal that ſigneth only ex inſtituto, by the command of God, conditionall, abſolute, free, or impoſed under covenant performed, or to be performed, all ſealed with the ſame ſeal, unleſſe the inſtitution put a difference.

But now let us conſider what difference there is in the ſanction: Sanctions are the ratifications and confirmations of a covenant, upon which the verity and p. 17bounds of the covenant are eſtabliſhed: are …n oath: ſecondly, a ſeal: thirdly, a reward: fourthly, puniſhment: fifthly, earneſt, and perhaps, ſome other that my memory and skill will not reach to, but for all theſe they are the ſame to both covenants; for the oath that he ſwore to Abraham, Gen. 22.16. is performed in Chriſt, the ſubſtance of the Evangelicall promiſe in your ſenſe: and Zacharias▪ Luke 1.72, 73. doth challenge that ſanction as …elonging to him, and tell…th us plainly, that if Chriſt had not come to deliver us from the hands of our enemies, God had not performed his oath to Abraham. Now, if you look back to that oath, ye ſhall ſee that God promiſed in Abraham, to bleſſe all the nations of the earth, which was not performed, nay, not to my one nation beſides the Jews, not ſo much as by way of proſſer, untill Chriſt came under the notion of a nation; but worſhip was reſtrained to Jeruſalem, ordinances to the Jews, therefore Chriſt gave his firſt commiſſion unto the loſt ſheep of the houſe of Iſrael, but after his commiſſion was to all nations; and therefore Saint Paul, Rom. 2.10. entitles the Jews to honour, glory, and peace firſt, and alſo to the Gentiles: And in H…. 6.18. raiſeth comfort after Chriſt, from the oath made to Abraham, and from thence I can gather (however it will ſound in Mr. Tombes his cares) that the covenant made with Abraham did remain after Chriſt, or elſe the conſolation is but by way of analogie: For, what comfort can we have from the ſanction, if the covenant be void, unleſſe by way of analogie, with which kind of argument Mr. Tombes is much troubled, when he raiſeth them againſt himſelf, though many of his own arguments be nothing but analogies? Beſides, our Saviour doth uſe the ſame ſanction to the Goſpel-covenant in Mr. Tombes his ſenſe, even the covenant which he made with the believers in the new Teſtament, he doth confirm by an oath, John 5.24. Verily, he that hearth my Word, and believeth on him that ſent me, hath everlaſting life; as likewiſe, John 6.47. So that it is plain, this ſanction of an oath was the ſame unto Abraham and under the Goſpel.

Secondly, the ſanction of the ſeal is to both the ſame; for the difference of the ſeal doth not make the difference in the ſanction, for the confirmation is the ſame, whether the ſeal be a Lion or a Lamb: If a Prince ſhould change his ſe… from his portrayture to his arms, which he may do, if the Law forbid not, or by act of Parliament, if it do, yet the ſanction would be the ſame: circumciſion and baptiſme, though different ſeals, not different ſanctions.

Thirdly, for the rewards, they are the ſame, hell and heaven are the ſame; for that temporall bleſſing, and mixture of covenant, I have already ſpoken, to which I refer my Reader. But grant that there had been ſeverall ſanctions in reference to reward and puniſhment, what had that been to the difference of the reaſon, why circumciſion and baptiſme ſhould ſeal the Evangelicall covenant, ſeeing they are both but one ſanction, namely, ſeals? but the change of the ſeal doth not change that ſanction. Thus you ſee, how weakly this concluſion will follow from the p. 18premiſes, and likewiſe, how falſe it is in it ſelf; they are both ſeals, and the reaſen of being ſuch, is the ſame, namely, divine inſtitution. But for the ſecond concluſion he draweth out of the ſame premiſes, is, that baptiſme and circumciſion are not to be adminiſtred after the ſame manner; did any man ever ſay that baptiſme and circumciſion ſhould be adminſtred after the ſame manner, that were a ſtrange and unpoſſible thing to imagine?

His third queſtion, whether federate, and to be ſigned are convertible termes; and why many were circumciſed, to whom no promiſe in the covenant made with Abraham did belong: as Iſhmael, the ſame may be ſaid of Eſau. And why are theſe the only inſtances, I will grant Mr. Tombes more then he deſireth, that half they that were circumciſed, were ſuch, unto whom no part of the covenant do belong: was Abraham able to know that Iſhmael was a reprobate, when he circumciſed him? circumciſion was adminiſtred by the appointment of God, and was not ſo intrinſecall to the covenant, that it muſt be, Proprium quart… mod…, proprium tertio mod…, omni ſ…li non ſemper, will ſerve: the time before Abraham, not liable to any ſeal, it had been ſin to uſe a ſeal before God gave it: and as for Job, Lot, and ſuch as lived in, and after Abrahams time, and were acquainted with this covenant with Abraham, they loſt the benefit of the bleſſing if they refuſed to be circumciſed, and what they did is not plain, the Scripture is ſilent.

After God had given the ſeal of circumciſion, all that were in Abrahams houſe, and all believing Gentiles and their ſeed ought to be circumciſed: in Abrahams houſe, thoſe that were not circumciſed were to be cut off from among Gods people, and thoſe ſtrangers were not to be accounted believers, nor ſuffered to eat the Paſſeover; if they, and all their males were not circumciſed formerly proved out of Exod. 12. Then all that were in the covenant muſt be circumciſed; as for the perſons that were not eight dayes old, they were not to be circumciſed actually, nor yet women, and yet were not uncircumciſed; Privatio non dicitur de ſubjecto habili ante tempus ſtatutum: as catulus non dicitur caecus ante nonum diem, uec infans edentulus; if he die before the eighth day, it is all one, as if he were circumciſed, being in diſpoſition to circumciſion: and the female, ſhe was likewiſe circumciſed as a member of Abrahams houſe, in that ſhe was the ſeed of Abraham, partaker of the bleſſing of Abraham admitted to the ſervices, offering of ſacrifices, eating the Paſſeover, though in her perſon ſhe was not, yet in her parent, in her husband, in her male iſſue ſhe was, which priviledges no woman that was not the ſeed of Abraham, or the ſeed of a circumciſed perſon might enjoy. Now, ſee I pray you, how this woman came in to help Mr. Tombes in his argument, that all that were in the covenant were not circumciſed, the bleſſing to the family were to all the family, but ſome aſſigned perſons were to be ſigned, but the whole bleſſed; if ye come neerer to all the perſons of Abrahams family that were males muſt be circumciſed; but what of that? not every member of the males, p. 19but their foreskins, yet every member of their bodies were partakers of the benefit, ſo were the females partakers of the bleſſing of the family, the firſt fruits ſanctifieth the whole lumpe, the redemption of the firſtborne, Exod. 13.13. did redeem the whole iſſue: why may not the circumciſion of the male, ſerve for the female? that which commeth within our conſideration is only this, whether any were refuſed becauſe unbeleevers, not becauſe women, or ſuch as God exempted.

But Mr. Tombes for all his abandoning of arguments, from analogie bringeth an argument from the like, and perhaps a greater reaſon, children are baptized in their parents. But perhaps not ſo great a reaſon, perhaps no proportion, perhaps no reaſon at all, perhaps ſuch a reaſon as Mr. Tombes upon ſecond thoughts would not inſiſt on; what, when God ſhall accept of the women to ſervices, ſacrifices, Paſſeover include her in the bleſſing, nor young, nor old, never require circumciſion of her, appoint the males, ordaine it in ſuch a manner, as without further explanation could not be executed upon her: how can Mr. Tombes think of proportionable reaſon from hence? that mayſuit with the baptiſing Infans in their parents which muſt afterwards be baptized in their perſons that are capable of Baptiſme in their perſons, by no colour of reaſon exempt: I pray Sir, let your next analogie have better proportion. Mr. Tombes proceedeth, But it is manifeſt, ſaith he, that the Jewes comprehended in the Covenant made with Abraham, and circumoiſed, were nevertheleſſe not admitted to baptiſme by John Baptiſt and Chriſts diſciples, till they prefeſſed repentance and faith. Hence I gather that right to Evangelicall promiſes was not the adequate reaſon of circumciſion, but Gods precept, gratis affirmat: he proveth nothing, only he ſaith, that John Baptiſt did not baptiſe circumciſed perſons before they profeſſed repentance and faith in Chriſt; notwithſtanding Mr. Tombs hath not proved, neither can he, nor any of his opinion, ever prove, that John did require that they ſhould profeſſe repentance and faith before they were baptized: it will not ſerve turne to prove that John required profeſſion of repentance to prove he required repentance: repentance and profeſſion of repentance, be two things; neither will an hiſtoricall narration, that this or that perſon did beleeve, prove he profeſſed his faith. But we ſhall ſcan this further, when we ſhall come to anſwer Mr. Tombes his other arguments. Hence that is from a thing not proved to a conſequence that will not follow if granted: grant John Baptiſt would not baptize circumciſed perſons untill they profeſſed they did beleeve that God did take away circumciſion in Chriſt, and appointed baptiſme in the ſtead; doth it therefore follow that circumciſion while it ſtood in force, was not dependent on the right to the Covenant, as the adequate reaſon why this or that perſon might be circumciſed, I ſhall put Mr. Tombes in minde of this collection upon ſuch an occaſion as he will not deſire to heare.

But let us ſee what aſſociate cauſe he will aſſigne, to ſhew that right to Evangelicall promiſes was not the adequate cauſe; Gods precept and mans right bee p. 20aſſociate reaſons, cauſes ſubordinate in ſecundis cauſes, be not aſſociate, much leſſe any cauſe or reaſon immediately flowing from the firſt cauſe is aſſociate with any ſecond cauſe, cauſe principalis eti… in ſecundis cauſas non aſſociatur, for then it could not be principall, minus principalis …ntum aſſociatur. Mans right is included in Gods precept, or otherwiſe there can be no adequate reaſon taken from▪ topick place which is finite, nor any demonſtrative medium to prove them not aſſociates, ſeeing they are all joyned with the operation of God, ſecunda canſe … moventur niſi …otis primis; an adequate reaſon doth not exclude the ſubordinanon of cauſes, but only parity of ſociety; mans right to the Covenant doth not exclude the Covenant it ſelfe, God commands that all that have right to the Covenant, and none but they ſhall be circumciſed; is not here right to the Covenant in ſu… ge…ere, the adequate reaſon when they and none but they muſt be circumciſed? the materialls of Gods commands are Covenants, and therefore in many places of Scripture are the commandements of God called Covenants. And Deut. 29.1. Theſe are the covenants which the Lord commanded Moſes. From theſe grounds ſuch as they are, Mr. Tombes denieth the major if univerſally taken, his meaning ought to be, if the propoſition be univerſall according to the limitation of the tearmes in the propoſition, the ſigne of the Goſpell-Covenant muſt agree to every perſon to whom the Covenant doth agree; not every ſigne of the Goſpell-covenant but ſome ſigne, it is ſufficient that notion ſigne in its aniverſall nature be attributed …i ſubject… limitato, ſo …s it is limited in the propoſition. No man can deny this to be an univerſall propoſition, though living creature muſt be in a limited ſenſe, that every man is a living creature: though there be but ſome living creatures that be men; yet this is univerſally true, every man is a living creature: what ſhould a man talke of convertibility, no ſuch things found in directa ſerie, where are many univerſall propoſitions? If Mr. Tombes ſhould deny it, he knew how eaſily it might be proved, and therefore is all this ſinffe before which I have cleared what chaffe it is prefixed, and you ſhall ſee what goodly limitations follow; but ſee firſt the proofe of this, if denyed.

Thoſe relatives that are conſerved in the ſame ſubject, they are both or none in the ſame ſubject, but the Covenant and the ſeal of the Covenant are relatives conſerved in the ſame ſubject, ergo the Covenant and the ſeale of the Covenant are both or none in the ſame ſubject: or thus, That ſubject which is capable of two ſuch accidents as are alwayes in the ſame ſubject, that ſubject is capable of both or none; but that ſubject which is capable of the Covenant and the ſeale of the Covenant, is capable of two ſuch accidents as are alwayes in the ſame ſubject, erg… that ſubject as is capable of the Covenant and the feale of the covenant, is capable of both or none. I have not concluded the major which Mr. Tombes hath denyed if univerſally ralten, becauſe it is not a propoſition; the termes are not in re…t…, nor is eſt the …, by means whereof a ſylogiſme cannot be made to make p. 21that the concluſion; but from theſe concluſions, or any one of them, an Entheneme will riſe, whoſe conſequence is not deniable. Thus the covenant and ſeal of the covenant are in the ſame ſubject; therefore, to whom the Goſpel-covenant agreeth, to them the ſigne of the Goſpel-covenant agrees alſo, which is the very ſame in terms which he calleth the Major. The argument is the Pedobaptiſts; but I conceive the form is Mr. Tousbes his; but why ſhould this be particularly true, and univerſally falſe, I cannot underſtand why one ſhould be capable of the figne of the covenant, becauſe he is capable of the covenant, and not another?

Now, for the manifeſtation of the proof, that they are alwayes in the ſame ſubject, the ſame inſtrument: if a covenant be written in one parchment, a ſeal appendant upon another parchment will not ſeal that covenant, neither is that a covenant formally ratified without a ſeal: Again, the truth of a ſigne doth depend on the connexion with the thing ſignified; ſo that if the buſh hang at one houſe, and the wine ſold at another, that is no ſigne, becauſe falſe, ens ver… & …, be convertible: and if it be any mans duty to ſet up, or any wayes give demonſtrative ſignes they muſt be ſet where the thing ſignified is, as neer as he can, or otherwiſe they be not ſignes; and this were a fooliſh thing in any mans apprehenſion, to ſay the land, and the deed for the land did belong to ſuch a man, but the ſeal of that deed did not belong to him, that was appendant on ſome other deed, and belonged to another perſon.

But let us ſee upon what limitation he will grant the major, as he calleth it; …e telleth it is true of that ſigne of the covenant which agrees univerſally in reſpect of form and ſinction to … that receive the Goſpel, but it is not true of ſuch … are of particular form and ſanction. This is ſtrange logick, what can a Propoſition be univerſally crue in reſpect of ſome particular? Again, Mr. Tombes limiteth the wrong term, what over man did deny a Propoſition to be univerſall by limitation of the predicate: the ſubject it ſelf doth limit the predicate: as if I ſhould deny this Propoſition to… univerſall, every man is a living creature, with this limitation, that it is true of ſuch living creatures as are …, but of Lions and Bears it is not true, but ſee further into this limitation; he ſaith, it is not true of circumciſion; it is not affirmed of circumciſion, it is affirmed only of the generall nature of a ſigne, and conſequently baptiſme; circumciſion is not a ſigne of the covenant, it was, and then it might be applied to them that were in the covenant, but now baptiſme. A man taketh down an old ſign, and … up a new, the old is no more a ſigne, it is carried into ſound back place of the houſe, or perhaps …, it poſſeſſeth not the place no… office of a ſigne; as for thoſe juggling terms of form and ſanction, I referre my Readed to what hath been ſaid of them. But the minor he denieth univerſally taken, and here is all the len…t of the queſtion, what labour is ſpent about the major is loſt; but that Mr. Tombes is not willing … any thing true that is alled god by Pedobaptiſts, all the children of believing p. 22Gentiles are not ſuch as to whom the right of the covenant doth belong only ſuch as were his ſpirituall ſeed; the ground of this diſtinction is an opinion, that the covenant did belong to all that in any ſenſe were the ſeed of Abraham, but the Gentiles cannot be accounted the ſeed of Abraham after the fleſh, and therefore all the claim they have to the ſeed of Abraham is (as Mr. Tombes ſtateth the matter) according to the election of grace by faith; and therefore Abtaham might circumciſe all his ſeed, becauſe the promiſe did belong to his ſeed. Now the ſeed of Abraham is to be eſteemed either by nature or by grace; they that have any way had right to be Abrahams ſeed, have right to the promiſe, but the ſeed of believing Gentiles have no right at all, the believers themſelves have a ſpirituall right. I have formerly ſhewed the falſhood of this diſtribution, and that the ſeed of believing Gentiles under the Law, were eſteemed as Abrahams ſeed in right to circumciſion: now he telleth us they have right by election, but, ſaith he, which is unknown to us but by profeſſion or revelation; implying, that thoſe that baptize muſt know the election of them they do baptize, and that they can do by profeſſion, theſe fancies I leave to their juſt occaſion to be confuted. In the mean time, I briefly ſay, if no children were under the covenant of grace, we might baptize none, for as much as ſome are, we may, we muſt baptize all, ſeeing the diſtinct knowledge of them that are, from them that are not, belongeth to God, and not to man: and this was the rule that Abraham walked by, and that we muſt all walk by, as ſhall, I hope, appear.

But I come to the ſecond argument. I have the longer inſiſted upon the defence of this firſt, becauſe I conceive in anſwering what he hath ſaid againſt that I have anſwered all.

The ſecond argument that Mr. Tombes urgeth, as from the Pedobaptiſts from teſtimony of Scripture, is from 2 Coloſ. 11.12. The argument he raiſeth thus:

To whom circumciſion doth agree, to them baptiſme doth agree; but to Infants circumciſion doth agree, ergo, alſo baptiſme. The major proved.

If baptiſme ſucceed in the room of circumciſion, then baptiſme belongeth to them that circumciſion belonged, but the antebed…s true, ergo, the conſequent. The major of the Proſyllogiſme is apparently falſe, for to them that circumciſion did belong, to them ſacramentall baptiſme doth belong, the contradictory is true, but his meaning is, that men of ſuch condition, in reſpect of Infants, and he denieth, and cutteth, and divideth the major of the conditionall Syllogiſme into ſuch parts, that he may find out ſomething, that he may deny: that it doth ſucceed baptiſme he cannot deny, nor readily ſinde out a reaſon why a man of yeers under the Goſpel ſhould not be able to bear as much as an Infant under the Law. I ſpeak this in reference to the diſpenſation (under the Law) of the promiſes, the condition of the Church is called infancy, the heir under age: now, how ſhould… childe of eight dayes old, when the whole Church is under age, be able to receive p. 23circumciſion, and now the Church is at age, our Infants not able to receive baptiſme?

He telleth us, that the argument ſuppoſeth baptiſme to ſucceed circumciſion; it doth not ſuppoſe it, but proveth it out of Coloſ. 2.11.12. but he prepareth for a deniall ſo to ſucced; that thoſe perſons to be baptized, that by Gods appointment were to be circumciſed, it ſhould be perſons of ſuch quality; but becauſe he taketh no advantage of that difference, let him alone with his own expreſſions. In this ſenſe it is falſe, ſaith he, females were not circumciſed, nor believers out of Abrahams family, as for believers out of Abrahams family, if he underſtand it of ſuch believers out of Abrahams family, as lived before Abrahams time, or before the Law of circumciſion, ſuch a plea, to prove all believers under the Law, were not circumciſed, were vain: for to prove exemption from a poſitive Law by ſome perſons that lived before the Law was made were exempt; but for perſons that were out of Abrahams family; the promiſe was made to all families in Abraham, and they might be circumciſed, though neither bought with money, nor born in Abrahams family, but deſirous to eat the Paſſeover only, and ſo believers: they and all their males muſt be circumciſed, but for the females, circumciſion was given in terms, that did exempt females: baptiſme, to all nations, not males only, as circumciſion was, but females alſo: Beſides, the Scripture doth tell us, that the Apoſtles did underſtand all nations, male and female, and accordingly did baptize, Acts 8.12. Now, becauſe God hath called in females, becauſe they are capable of the ſigne of baptiſme, which in circumciſion they were not, may you without warrant thruſt out Infants? or, doth it any way follow, becauſe ſome perſons of ſome quality are added, therefore thoſe that were before capable are now uncapable, if God had declared infants uncapable, as he hath women capable, we muſt have been ſatisfied? baptiſme may ſucceed circumciſion, though with ſuch difference as God is pleaſed to make; but becauſe God maketh one difference in reference to the perſons, man may not take liberty to make another: As for Job, Lot, and Melchiſedeck, or whom ſoever elſe you can name, we know, if they lived after the Law of circumciſion was made, they might come, and be circumciſed, the extent of the promiſe made to Abraham did reach to them; and what thoſe perſons you name did, you cannot tell, if they had any particular exemption, that is nothing to the queſtion, we know none had priviledge to the ordinance but circumciſed; and in plain terms, both in the old and new Teſtament, nouncircumciſed perſon ſhall eat thereof, Exod. 12.48. and Rom. 3.1, 2. this is reckoned the profit of circumciſion, that they had the Oracles of God, here is every circumciſed perſon, for that it is properly aſſigned to circumciſion, as the profit of circumciſion, there it is no uncircumciſed perſon; yet Mr Tombes will tell us, all perſons in covenant were not circumciſed, this is the reverence that is given to the Scripture, when it croſſeth their opinion, though they would make the world p. 24believe that they were the only men that did reſpect the Scriptures; he ſhould have made his perſonall difference by believers, and not believers: by Infants and men of yeers: and not by male and female, in or out of Abrahams houſe. Two ſorts of ſucceſſion (which he denieth) of baptiſme to circumciſion, is of time; becauſe baptiſme began before circumciſion ended. What if circumciſion did overlap a little, and baptiſme did begin a while before circumciſion ended? the ſame Goſpel Chriſt in his perſon, and by his Spirit in his Apoſtles, did put down one and ſet up another, that is all I ſay to that; and ſurely it is ſo frivolous, I needed not to have ſaid ſo much.

In reſpect of ſignification, here Mr. Tombes is put to his ſhifts, in ſome ſignifcations he confeſſeth, but not in others. Firſt, I will conſider the ſignifications he alloweth, and obſerve, that wherein they agree, cannot hinder their ſucceſſion, they both ſignifie the righteouſneſſe of faith, ſaith Mr. Tombes; but he muſt mean it doth ſacramentally confirm or ſeal, not demonſtratively ſignifie, but how ſoever, he doth agree that baptiſme and circumciſion have the ſame reſpect to the righteouſneſſe of faith; and yet the hinge of all Mr. Tombes his work is on this, that Abrahams ſeed were circumciſed, whether they believed or no, none muſt be baptized but actuall believers, and yet circumciſion and baptiſme have the ſame reſpect to faith. Me thinks the bare acknowledgement of this is enough to daſh all that any Anabaptiſt can ſay, the controverſie is at an end, if there be no difference in reſpect of faith, why ſhould faith be required more to the baptized, then the circumciſed? certainly, I would have found out ſome difference, or found ſome other reaſon why Infants ſhould not be baptized, then want of faith, or I would never have opened my mouth in ſuch a caſe. I would never have confeſſed them both ſeals of the righteouſneſſe of faith, and yet the whole weight of the buſmeſſe depend on this; that one might be given in infancy to them that have not actuall faith, the other may not be given in infancy; for no other reaſon, but becauſe they want faith. What is the reaſon, why circumciſion, the ſeal, may be given where there is no faith, but baptiſme the ſeal of faith may not; and that for no other reaſon, but becauſe faith is wanting? What? may a man make a difference of a common accident? or make a genericall form a ſpecificall difference, or a ſpecificall form a numericall difference? this is all one, as if a man ſhould ſay, that a Bear were not a man, becauſe he can ſee, or not a Lion, becauſe he can hear; and yet after confeſſe, that both men, and Bears, and Lions, can both heare and ſee: juſt ſo doth Mr. Tombes, baptiſme doth not ſucceed circumciſion, becauſe baptiſme muſt be given to believers only, yet confeſſeth, that both baptiſme and circumciſion have a like reſpect to faith; it is true, he aſſigneth other differences, but none of them will more diſable from baptiſme, then from circumciſion: The firſt difference is, that circumciſion doth ſignifie Chriſt to come of Iſaac, according to the fleſh, but baptiſme doth ſignifie incarnation, death and reſurrection of p. 25Chriſts: doth this make the difference? can children better underſtand that Chriſt ſhall come of Iſaac after the fleſh, then that Chriſt is incamate, dead, and riſ…n again? Secondly, can Infants better underſtand that the Iſraelites were people, ſeparated from all nations, then they can underſtand that all are one in Chriſt? can they better underſtand that the Law of Moſes muſt be kept, then that it is voyd, or the promiſe of the Land of Canaan, then of eternall life? The difference that Mr. Tombes putteth between circumciſion and baptiſme, cannot make Infants differ under the Law, and under the Goſpel, and do they differ by that which doth agree to circumciſion and baptiſme?