A Defense of Infant Baptism, Treatise · Part 3 (3 of 4)

A Defense of Infant Baptism · Treatise · Part 3 (3 of 4)

p. 157Having thus plainely overthrowne your interpretation, it remaines that I make good my interpretation againſt The true interpretation vindicated from Mr Tombes exceptions. 1. Exception.your exceptions, I ſaid, their doubt ſeemes to ariſe from the Law of God, which was in force in Ezraes time, where Gods people were ordered to put away their Infidell wives and children, as a polluted ſeed, which God would not have mingled with his owne: you anſwer, firſt, You ſee very little agreement, betweene this caſe and that; and that the caſes are very farre different of two perſons not under the Law marrying in unbeleefe, and of two perſons under the Law, the one a Iew by profeſſion, the other a ſtranger; ſecondly, and that none of the phraſes, except the word (holy), are uſed in the one place which are not uſed in the other; thirdly, you rather thinke their doubt aroſe from a former Epiſtle which hee had wrote to them, mentioned 1 Cor. 5. 9. wherein he commanded them not to keep company with fornicators, or Idolaters, thereupon they might doubt whether they ſhould continue with their unbeleeving yoke fellowes

I reply, firſt, that the caſes were the very ſame when their ſcruple aroſe, for though they were both unbeleevers when they were married, and at that time neither of them both belonged to the Church of God, yet when one of them was converted, and the other remained an Infidell, one of them was now become a Church-member, the other remained an alien, their caſe was the very ſame, and they finding their condition parallell with that in Ezra might very well apply that caſe to themſelves, and make this their doubt. Secondly, although the phraſes uſed in Ezra differ from thoſe uſed here, that makes nothing againſt this collection, p. 158becauſe phraſes are uſed according to the different adminiſtrations, each ſpeaking according to the received dialect belonging to the adminiſtration they lived under. Thirdly, and as to that, you ſay that it might ariſe from 1 Cor. 5. 9. I anſwer, ſhould that be granted, yet my ſenſe remaines as ſtrong as before, for if this ſcruple now roſe, that if beleevers becauſe of the unbeleefe or Infidell condition of the husband or wife, might not by the rule of the Goſpel continue in marriage ſocietie with them, it muſt bee from ſome rule of Religion, which muſt ſtrike upon their conſcience, and from what rule could they gather, that their marriage which before was lawfull was upon their converſion turned into fornication? and if their doubt were (as your ſelfe grant) whether it were lawfull for a converted party, or a beleever ſtill to retaine their Infidell wife or husband, (not of unbeleevers whether they bee ſanctifyed matrimonially one to another) the doubt muſt neceſſarily ariſe from ſomething in Religion, ſome caſe which was peculiar to beleevers, now (as Mr. Beza ſaies truely) the doubt being in their conſciences, of an unlawfulneſſe to continue in their married condition from ſome thing peculiar to Gods people, the Apoſtle ſhould have uſed a moſt indirect argument to pacifie their conſciences in referring them to the civill Lawes of other nations, by which their marriage is proved lawfull; and to what purpoſe ſhould hee diſcourſe of Baſtards or the like, when their conſciences were ſcrupled in ſomething which begun to concerne them upon their converſion, and to tell them they were ſanctified in their unbeleefe, could never have reacht the ſcruple ariſing, after they begun to bee beleevers, becauſe their marriage might be firme and good, while they remained unbeleevers; yet the Infidell might now become impure in that relation of marriage to the other, which was converted. And therefore it remaines, that it muſt bee reſolved from ſome rule which muſt reach beleevers, as they were the people of God, and not bee common to Infidels with them; now what is that Argument which Paul here uſes to ſatisfie them? (which muſt reach them as they were beleevers) your ſelfe grant it is this, elſe p. 159were your children uncleane, which is the medium, becauſe your children are not uncleane but holy, therefore the unbeleever muſt bee granted to bee ſanctified to the wife or husband, this Argument muſt therefore neceſſarily inferre ſome kind of holineſſe which is appliable onelyonly to the State of Religion, therefore it muſt be federall holineſſe.

But againſt this you except many things. Firſt, this could not have reſolved the doubt in the caſe of thoſe who by Age could 2. Exception.not bee ſanctified to this end, or by reaſon of accidendall inabilitie for generation, they might ſtill depart each from other notwithſtanding this reaſon. I anſwer, it followes not, this is a Anſw.laying downe of their right, which they may claime when ever they are capable of it, this is their priviledge, which remaines firme though it ſhould never come into Act, as if a freeman of a Citie ſhould have right to have all his children borne freemen, that is to bee numbred among his priviledges, though hee ſhould never have a child, this reaches to men and women, married, and unmarried, yea even to children yet unborne: beſides, the firſt part of it reacheth to the bed, even the coitus is not onelyonly undefiled, but ſanctified. Secondly, ſay you, this reaſon would then run 3. Exception.thus, you may live together, for you may b…get a holy ſeed, and ſo their conſciences ſhould have been reſolved of their preſent lawfull living together from a future event which was uncertaine, and here (as I toucht before) you bring in Chamier nothing to the purpoſe; I anſwer, it is not from a future event, but from Anſw.a poſitive reall truth, if Pauls reaſon bee framed thus, the children which beleevers beget upon their Infidell yoke-fellowes are a holy ſeed, therefore beleevers have a ſanctifyed uſe of their Infidell husbands or wives, had this been a reaſoning from a future contingent. As for what you here cite out of Chamier, I anſwer onelyonly this, I perſwade my ſelfe you are by this time aſhamed of your impertinent quotation, I aſſure my ſelfe, if you bee not, your friends are. Thirdly, ſay you, 4. Exception.ſanctification is here not aſcribed to God a… ſelecting ſome from others to ſuch an uſe, but is common to all unbeleeving husbands in reſpect of their wives, and comes from that common relation, not ſpeciall deſignation. I anſwer, this Argument is a plaine ſetting p. 160Anſw.downe the queſtion in controverſie, as an Argument to prove it ſelfe, and I have already proved the contrary, that it is a priviledge not common to all who are married, but peculiar to beleevers. Fourthly, ſay you, according to this expoſition the words following could not be true, elſe were your children uncleane, but now they are holy, becauſe in this forme of reaſoning this propoſition is included, their children could not bee holy without that ſanctification, which (ſay you) is falſe, becauſe children may bee in Covenant, and bee regenerated, though their parents had never been thus ſanctified the one to the other, the children of Infidel parents may bee ſanctified. I reply, not while they are Infants, they are not by any birth priviledge to bee accompted as belonging to the Church of Chriſt, which is the onelyonly thing about which wee are diſputing, no man ever went about to prove out of this Text that none can ever bee converted, whoſe parents are not ſanctified the one unto the other.

Next (after another impertinent bringing in of Chamier) you reaſon thus, take it in my ſenſe, and it is no ſatisfactory 5. Exception.reaſon you may live together, for you may beget a holy ſeed; I anſwer, this is the ſame with your ſecond Argument anſwered before; and wherein I pray you lies the weakeneſſe of it, you may live together, and have a holy uſe of Anſw.your unbeleeving yoke-fellowes, for God eſteemes the ſeed of ſuch to bee an holy ſeed as truely as if both were beleevers, is this a ſlight or unſatisfying anſwer? nay I adde further, had the Apoſtle gone about to prove, that a beleeving wife and a beleeving husband have not onelyonly a lawfull enjoyment one of another, (as heathens have) but a ſanctified, as they have of other creatures, becauſe elſe their children were uncleane, but now they are holy, all your exceptions would lie as ſtrong againſt this laſt as againſt the former, for you might have ſaid, this reaches onelyonly thoſe that are of age…; ſecondly, this depends upon a future contingent; thirdly, this depends upon their common relation; fourthly, and children may be holy, that is, afterward regenerate though this be denyed, let the Reader conſider of it; You goe on, and ſay, that in 6. Ex…ption.your ſenſe the reaſon is plaine and ſatisfactory, let them live together, p. 161though one bee a beleever, the other an unbeleever; for notwithſtanding their difference in Religion, they are husband and wife, marriage being honorable among all, and the bed undefiled; I reply, but this had been no ſatisfaction to their ſcruple, Anſw.their doubt was not whether their marriage were lawfull while they were heathens, but whether now their conſcience would not bee defiled, in remaining joyned to Idolaters, and the Apoſtles reſolution muſt remove that, which your ſenſe doth not; you granted, they doubted not the legitimation of their children, and therefore your ſenſe could not have removed the ſcruple, as is above ſhewed. And whereas you adde the like reſolution hee gives verſe the 17. 7. Exception.concerning circumciſed and uncircumciſed ſervants, they might ſtill continue with their maſter, their Chriſtian calling did not diſſolve thoſe relations. I anſwer in one word, this like, hath no Anſw.likeneſſe at all in it, there is no parallel betwixt theſe two caſes, hee ſpeakes not one word about beleeving ſervants continuing with unbeleeving maſters, but of ſervants in generall, whether their maſters were beleevers or unbeleevers, hee tells them that they might continue ſervants though they were Chriſts free men, yet if they can fairely obtaine their freedome, let them chooſe that rather.

One Argument more you bring againſt this interpretation, 8. Exception.if the ſanctification were meant of matrimoniall ſanctification, and the uncleanneſſe of federall uncleanneſſe, ſo as to exclude them out of the Covenant, whether of ſaving graces or Church-priviledges, then the propoſition was moſt f…lſe, becauſe children of parents not matrimonially ſanctified one to the other, were within the Covenant, as Pharez, Jepha, and others. I anſwer, Anſw.firſt, I deſire the reader to take notice that you take the Covenant here in this place as I doe for Church-priviledges. Secondly, indeed if ſanctification bee taken for matrimoniall ſanctification or lawfulneſſe of wedlock, and uncleanneſſe of federall ſanctification, the propoſition may bee granted to bee falſe, and let them who ſo take it, undertake the defence of it if they can, but let it bee meant of that other ſanctification which I have juſtified, the propoſition is moſt true; I ſay againe, all the children of thoſe parents, the p. 162one whereof is an unbeleever, are uncleane, that is, federally uncleane, excluded out of the Covenant in regard of Church priviledges, at leaſt if not of ſaving graces, (which is a ſecret left to God) unleſſe the one bee ſanctified in the other; this Argument I anſwered in my Sermon, and framed it thus, that holineſſe is here meant, which could not bee unleſſe one of the Parents were ſanctified to the other, but federall holineſſe of Children may bee, where Parents are not ſanctified, one in or to the other, as in Baſtardy, Davids child by Bathſheba, &c. in which caſe the children were federally holy, and yet the barlot not ſanctified in, or to the Adulterer or fornicator though a beleever: my anſwer was, that the Apoſtles ſcope in this Argument is, to ſhew that the children borne of an unbeleever would not bee holy, unleſſe the other Parent could remove that barre, but hath no force of an Argument where both the Parents are beleevers, which was the caſe of the Jewes, the caſe of Hagar, Bathſheba, &c. All the reply you make to it page the 80. is to beſtow a few ſcoffes upon it, that my anſwer is to deny the concluſion, that I ſhew no fault either in the matter or the forme of the Argument, that the ſcope which I mention is but a meere figment, that I doe as good as ſay, that the objector can make no Argument out of it, and that therefore I need make no anſwer; And that in one place I grant the minor, then the major, and thus you moſt gallantly vapour upon me; I reply, were it not that ſome Readers are prone to thinke him to have the truth, who ſpeakes moſt bravingly, I durſt (without adding a word more) leave all Schollers to judge whether my anſwer deſerves all this ſcorne; but leſt you goe on in your vaine hoaſting, I ſhall apply my anſwer more particularly to this Argument which you acknowledge to bee your owne, and I ſay plainely that the major propoſition is not true if taken univerſally, viz. That holineſſe of children is here meant, which could not be unleſſe one of the Parents bee ſanctified in or by the other, what ever thoſe parents bee, though both of them bee beleevers.

This propoſition (ſay I) is not true, becauſe when both the Parents are beleevers, there is no ſuch barre to bee removed, by the ones being ſanctified in the other quoad hoc, p. 163ſo farre as to make them capable to bring forth a holy ſeed, they being both in the Covenant, and that ſinfull defiling of one anothers body, doth not deprive them of that priviledge of the Covenant to have their children accompted to belong to the Church of God, but when one of the Parents being an unbeleever or Infidell, muſt have their children accounted out of the pale of the Church, unleſſe that barre be removed, to them it's true, that unleſſe the one bee ſanctified in the other, (the unbeleever in, or by the beleever) their children would not be holy; if therefore you make not your major ſo univerſall, but limit it as the Apoſtle doth, and make the Argument thus, That holineſſe of children is here meant, which could not bee unleſſe the one were ſanctified in, or to the other, the one of the parents being an Infidell, but this was the caſe of Hagar, Bathſheba, Jeptha, Pharez, &c. Now your minor is falſe, this was not their caſe, neither of their Parents were unbeleevers, though ſinfull in that act: and now I pray you, where lies the abſurditie or weakneſſe of my anſwer; all this I ſaid before, onelyonly you would not ſee it; and thought to carry it with more advantage to you by ſcoffing then by ſolemne refuting. In the cloſe I added, indeed if a beleever ſhould Adulterouſly beget a child upon a Pagan, this objection in that caſe deſerves to bee further weighed, but here it comes not within the compaſſe of the Apoſtles Argument; upon this alſo you beſtow two or three ſcoffes, you call it a wiſe remedy nothing to the purpoſe; and you conſtrue it as if I ſaid, I will not anſwer the objection which i… made, but if you will make it thus, and thus, then I will anſwer it. Truely Sir, I am perſwaded, all learned men, either laugh at or pity this vanity of your diſputing; in ſober ſadneſſe tell me, was this the ſcruple of the Corinthians, or doth the Apoſtle here meddle with this caſe of beleevers, and Infidell harl…ts? doth he not confine himſelfe to anſwer caſes betwixt beleevers, and their unbeleeving wives and husbands? or doe both theſe caſes require one and the ſame anſwer? To ſpeake plainely, I could name Divines, who are no whi… inferiour to your ſelfe, who conceive that a beleever, even when he commits fornication with an Infidell, doth ſo far p. 164remove the barre, in the unbeleeving party, as that the child is (in the beleeving Parents right) to be reckoned to belong to the Covenant of grace, and Church of God, but becauſe I knew that queſtion fell not within the Corinthians caſe, and was a queſtion which the Text and controverſie in hand did not tie me to give a reſolution to, I purpoſely baulked it, not once ſuſpecting I ſhould have met with an adverſary ſo uningenuous, to ſay no worſe, who would have ſaid, the baulking of this queſtion had been the yeelding of the cauſe▪ and I ſay againe, this caſe of Baſtards concernes not the Apoſtles caſe, who ſpeakes not of parents adulterers, but of husbands and wives, the one a beleever, the other not, yet this advantage may bee made of thoſe Inſtances, that if among the Jewes, the true Church of God, the children of one parent a Jew, the other a Gentile (forbidden to bee married) were federally holy, as in the caſe of Pharez and Thamar, then may one party a beleever intereſt their children in the ſame Covenant, and if Baſtards among the Jewes were partakers of Church priviledges, much more reaſonable may it ſeeme, that the children of both chaſt parents, whereof the one at leaſt is a beleever, ſhould be federally holy, it being Gods rule in this caſe, parius ſequetur m… liorem partem. And now Sir, I leave the reader to judge, whether you have taken this which you call my chiefe hold, you have indeed ſet up your flag, but I hope your Reader will take it downe againe.

Thus I have vindicated the truth of theſe two Concluſions, and I doubt not but I have evidenced the truth of them with ſatisfaction to the unprejudiced Readers, though not with that ability which ſome others might have done: Your ſelfe acknowledge, that if theſe two Concluſions could be proved, the cauſe is gained; as well as loſt, if theſe Concluſions be loſt.

My third Concluſion was this, God hath appointed and ordained Concluſion 3. Baptiſme ſucceeds Circumciſion.a Sacrament or Seale of initiation to bee adminiſtred unto th… who enter into Covenant with him: Circumciſion for the time of that adminiſtration which was before Chriſts Incarnation, Baptiſme ſince the time of his incarnation: This (ſay you) p. 165may be granted. But whereas I adde, That our Baptiſm comes in the room and uſe of Circumciſion: againſt this you except many things.

Firſt you ſay, this I deny. I wonder how you could grant my Concluſion to be true, and yet deny this. Nor would you deny this, if onelyonly the baptizing of grown men were intended to be proved out of it; 'tis for Infants ſake you thus labour to invalidate this Argument.

Secondly, you make a large parallel betweene them, wherein they are like, wherein unlike, and ſhew how farre you come up, and where you differ.

I Reply, your ſelf ſay ſimilitudes are weak proofs, be ſure the ſhewing of diſſimilitudes is the weakeſt way of anſwering when the agreement holds in that whereto we apply it. A Lievtenant may be locum ten…ns to a King, though there be many things unlike between them. Let us make the buſineſſe as ſhort as may be: I agree with you in that ſpeech Wherein Baptiſm and Circumciſion are parallel by God himſelf.which you cite out of Mr. Ball, we may ſtretch the parallel no wider, nor draw it narrower then the Lord hath done it; and in this point to alledge nothing but what God hath taught us, and as he hath taught us; and whatever parallel men make between them, if the Spirit of God make not the ſame, let it be rejected. And I ſay againe, That the Spirit of God has made parallel in theſe particulars.

Firſt, Circumciſion is the ſame with Baptiſme for the ſpirituall part; Circumciſion was the ſeale of the new birth, Deut. 30. 6. ſo Baptiſme, Tit. 3. 5. Col. 2. Circumciſion was a ſeale of the righteouſneſſe of faith, Rom. 11. 11. ſo Baptiſm, Acts 8. and many other places. Circumciſion was the ſeal of the Covenant of Grace, Gen. 17. ſo Baptiſme, it being the nature of every Sacrament.

Secondly, Circumciſion was the way of entrance and admittance into the Church, during the time of that adminiſtration, ſo is Baptiſme during the time of this adminiſtration, Matth. 28. Acts 2. and throughout the whole Story of the Acts, Circumciſion was the diſtinguiſhing badge between them who were Gods people, and the reſt of the world; ſo is Baptiſme now, all who are not belonging to p. 166the Church, (the ſolemn way of entrance whereinto is acknowledged to be by Baptiſme) are ſaid to bee without, 1 Cor. 5. 12. Ctrcumciſion was to be but once adminiſtred, nor Baptiſme any oftner, as I have largely proved before, in anſwer to your 4 Sect. Part 4. None might eate the Paſſeover till they were circumciſed, Exod. 12. nor of any to bee admitted to the Lords Supper, till they be baptized, as appears Acts 2. 41, 42. And throughout the whole Story of the New Teſtament, all examples are for it, not one againſt it, and the reaſon is plaine, becauſe none might partake of the Lords Supper, but ſuch as were in viſible Communion; and your ſelfe know and grant, that Baptiſme is the doore and entrance of our ſolemne admittance into viſible communion, wee are by Baptiſme (ſay you) according to Chriſts inſtitution exhibited members of Chriſt and his Church, Exercit. p. 30. Theſe parallels you ſee are made by the Spirit of God, and Exerc. p. 30.your exceptions againſt the compariſons between them, or rather your adding of more compariſons, ſimilitudes, and diſſimilitudes between them, by them to deſtroy theſe, are Mr. Tombes exceptions anſwered.ſuch as ariſe from the diverſe adminiſtration of the Covenant, and do indeed manifeſt that they belong to ſeverall adminiſtrations, but doe not prove that they had not the ſame general ſtate, ſignification and uſe, as Sacraments, which ſeale the ſame thing in their diverſe adminiſtrations; Chriſt to come, and Chriſt already come, is the cauſe of difference of adminiſtration, and ſo of Ordinances, but hinders not the ſucceſſion of one ordinance into the place of another, and therefore all thoſe differences hinder not the inference of the one from the other. As for your exceptions, That Circumciſion did confirme the promiſe made to Abrahams naturall poſteritie concerning their multiplying, bringing out of Egypt, the yoake of the Law of Moſes, ſetling in Canaan, &c. I anſwer, if this were granted, it hurts not me, theſe things concerning the manner of adminiſtration of the Covenant. Secondly, how prove you this which you ſay? Thirdly, did circumciſion confirme theſe things to all Abrahams naturall poſteritie? was the poſteritie of Iſmael and Eſau to come out of Egypt; poſſeſſe Canaan, …ee yoaked with the Law? Fourthly, p. 167what is the ſenſe of theſe words, Circumciſion confirmed the yoake of the Law? it was indeed a part of the yoake, and obliged a perſon to it, Secondly, to that of womens being not circumciſed, and children under eight dayes old, I have at large ſpoke to them in the firſt Section of this third part. Thirdly, the catechumini; though they were members, yet they were not received into viſible and Sacramentall communion of the Lords Supper till baptized; the caſe of the Iſraelites travelling in the wilderneſſe was an extraordinary one. Fourthly, for that which you except againſt Circumciſion being a diſtinguiſhing badge, becauſe others were Gods ſervants who had not this badge; I anſwer, that of Melchiſedeck, Lot, &c. was anſwered before: beſide, may not a livery bee a diſtinguiſhing mark of ſuch a mans ſervant, and yet haply every ſervant not under the livery? the Sabbath was a ſigne to Gods people, yet it may bee you hold that all Gods people till Moſes did not keepe a Sabbath. Fiftly, and for what you adde that you Vnbaptized perſons may not eate the Sacrament of the Lords Supper.make queſtion whether an unbaptized perſon might not eate the Lords Supper, though you confeſſe you finde no example of it, and that in 1 Cor. 10. 2. 3. 4. and 1 Cor. 12. 13. Baptizing i… put before eating and drinking; I reply, this I muſt number among your freakes, and out-leaps, and is a ſpice of your itch after ſingular opinions, and inconſiſtent even with your own grant, that Baptiſme is the way and manner of ſolemne admiſſion into the Church, and that nothing i… to bee done about the Sacraments, whereof we have not either inſtitution or example, and yet here for oppoſitions ſake you will allow men to come to the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, though unbaptized, and I thinke it never yet was a queſtion in the Church whether an unbaptized perſon might receive the Lords Supper; but ſay you, theſe and a hundred mor… cannot make … other then a humane invention, if the holy Ghoſt doe not ſhew that they agree in this particular of Baptizing as well as Circumciſing of Infants. I anſwer, but when theſe Arguments and parallels made by God himſelfe, are added to the parity of Jewes and Chriſtian Infants, in being comprehended with their Parents in the Covenant which is to be ſealed, it's a vertuall p. 168warrant, it's not meere analogy we reaſon from, for wee have a command to Baptize, and wee have the competency of infants to receive baptiſme ſufficiently proved elſewhere, your ſelfe grant right to Baptiſme ariſes from the preſent ſtate of a perſon, and therefore wee apply this ſeale, which ſucceeds that ſeale, to our Infants which ſucceed their Infants, in the priviledge of being faederati with their Parents, there being not the leaſt hint in the word, that they ſhould be left out.

To ſlurre this Argument from Circumciſion to Baptiſme Compatiſon of Prieſts, and Miniſters brought in by Mr. Tombes.you frame a large and needleſſe compariſon between the Prieſts of old under the Jewiſh adminiſtration, and the Miniſters of the Goſpel now, and you demand, are Miniſters therefore Prieſts? and ſhew how many abſurdities and dangerous conſequences will follow if wee give way to ſuch kind of compariſons, hence the Papiſts have pleaded for an univerſall Biſhop, and the Prelates for ſuperioritie of Miniſters.To no purpoſe.

A ſhort anſwer will ſerve all this, you demand whether therefore Miniſters be Prieſts, and ſo make ſimile to be idem againſt all ſenſe and reaſon, as if I had gone about to prove Baptiſme to be Circumciſion. Secondly, wee onelyonly apply things ſet up by God himſelfe, and make the parallell as God hath made it, when any can prove that God hath ſet up an univerſal Biſhop, or appointed ſuperioritie of Miniſters one above another, and hath made ſuch parallels between them as you ſpeake of, let them plead thoſe compariſons and ſpare not, they had in their miniſtery many things which were typicall of Chriſt, which we have nothing to do with, but in other things where the Scripture hath made a compariſon, wee may doe it ſafely, and may plead from the one to the other, as that they muſt have a call to their office, ſo muſt wee; they that ſerve the altar muſt live upon the Altar, ſo they who preach the Goſpell are to live upon the Goſpel; they muſt bee pure who bar… the veſſels of the ſanctuary, and the Prieſts lips muſt preſerve knowledge, ſo our Miniſters muſt be of holy life, fit to teach, &c. And all this wee may plead by good warrant; and whereas I added in my Sermon that our Why Chriſt was Circumciſed and baptized.Lord taught us this by his owne example (miz. that Circumciſion p. 169initiated into that adminiſtration, and Baptiſme into this) who was Circumciſed as a profeſſed member of the Jewes Church, and when hee ſet up the Chriſtian Church, hee would bee initiated into it by the Sacrament of Baptiſme; hereupon you runne into divers things, as why Chriſt wou…d bee Circumciſed, why Baptized, and in what ſenſe Chriſt when he was to be baptized, ſaid that hee would be baptized that hee might fulfill all righteouſneſſe, but you thinke it not probable, that it was any part of his meaning to be initiated into the Chriſtian Church by baptiſme, the Chriſtian Church was not yet ſet up, with worſhip & diſcipline diſtinct from the Iewiſh, and becauſe his Baptiſme was of a higher nature then our Baptiſme; I reply, that the Chriſtian Church was not fully ſet up, and compleated with all Ordinances of worſhip, government, officers till afterwards, is readily granted, but that it was not in fieri, in erecting and framing, and that Baptiſme was adminiſtred in reference to the Chriſtian Church, and that by Baptiſme men were initiated into this new adminiſtration or beſt edition of the Church, I thinke no ſound Divine did ever queſtion. I grant Chriſts Baptiſme was a tranſcendent one, and differs from ours in many things, and ſo was his Circumciſion alſo a tranſcendent one, and differed from the Jewes in many things; can you thence frame an Argument that hee intended not by his conformity to our Ordinances, to expreſſe the ſame favour to us as he did to the Jewes in conforming to their Ordinances, but that you ſhould hence fetch an Argument, that becauſe Chriſt was not baptized till hee was thirtie yeers old, (which was within leſſe then thirtie weekes after Baptiſme was made a Sacrament) is I confeſſe a moſt tranſcendent ſtraine of wit, yet you boaſt of it, as if by it you had broke one of the ſtrings I have to my bow.

And proceed to try, whether you cannot crack the other alſo, the evidence which Coloſ. 2 8. 9. &c. gives to prove Baptiſme Col. 2. 8, 9, 10, 11. Vindicated, to prove Baptiſme to ſucceed Circumciſion.Col 2:8Col 2:9Col 2:10Col 2:11to ſucceed in the roome of Circumciſion: but before you come to the examination of this place, you make enquiry in what ſenſe Baptiſme ſucceeds in the roome of Circumciſion, and you firſt obſerve that in ſpeaking exactly, Baptiſme was a concomitant of Circumciſion, if not ancienter, that it was in p. 170uſe among the Jewes for many yeers together with Circumciſion, though not as a Sacrament; and for this you cite the learned Gentleman Mr. Selden, and Mr. Ainſworth on Gen. 17. and Mr. Lightfootes Elias Redivivus: I confeſſe, you are in the Baptiſme in uſe in the Church of the Jewes, and applied to Infants as well as growne men.right, Baptiſme was a knowne rite in the Jewiſh Church long before it was made a Sacrament, and therefore when Iohn came baptizing, none of the Jewes were ignorant of the uſe of Baptiſme, they never asked him what he meant by baptizing, they knew well enough that it was a rite uſed in admitting of Proſelytes or new Converts into the Church, they onelyonly wondred, why hee did Baptize if hee were not the Meſſiah. But Sir, this exception of yours is ſo farre from being any argument againſt mee, that it affords me a good argument for Infant-Baptiſme, becauſe the ſame authors, which mention this as an Eccleſiaſticall rite, in admiſſion of Proſelytes, doe teſtifie that the Infants of Proſelytes were baptized as well as circumciſed, and whereſoever Circumciſion was applyed, Baptiſme went along with it, ſo that the uſe of Baptiſme was the ſame before, viz. to bee a rite of admitting growne men and Infants into the Church, onelyonly it begun to bee a Sacrament of divine inſtitution, when Iohn was ſent to Baptize into the name of Chriſt: and it is in this Sacrament as in the other Sacrament of the Lords Supper, the panis benedictus, and the cup were uſed before in the Sacrament of the Paſſeover, as an Eccleſiaſticall rite, but our Lord at the laſt Paſſeover, inſtituted the bread and wine to bee Sacramentall Elements, which before were only an Eccleſiaſticall rite; now ſeeing that Baptiſme which was in uſe before, was onelyonly turned into a Sacramentall uſe, to ſucceed Circumciſion, with whom before it was a concomitant, and alwayes applyed to the ſame perſons. Have you not helped us to a good Argument, that Baptiſme belongs to Infants as well as grown men, eſpecially ſince there is not the leaſt hint given in the Word, that when it was thus advanced to bee a Sacrament, it ſhould not bee applyed to thoſe perſons to whom before it was, viz. Infants as well as growne men? the truth of this, that it Proved from Mr. Selden.was ſo, may appeare partly by Mr. Selden who teſtifies that p. 171the Infants of the Gentiles were made proſelytes by this rite among others, both the male children and the female; ſo likewiſe Maimonides [Iſſurei biah, Cap. 13.) tells us by three things Iſrael entred into Covenant, by Circumciſion, by Baptiſme, Maimonides.and offering, and that Baptiſme was in the Wilderneſſe before the giving of the Law, as it is ſaid, And thou ſhalt ſanctifie them to day and to morrow, and let …hem waſh their garments; and in another place, when a Gentile will enter into the Covenant, foreignand gather himſelfe under the wings of the Divine majeſty, hee muſt be Circumciſed, Baptized, and bring an offering, if it bee a female, baptiſme and offering; and againe, a Proſelyte that is circumciſed and not baptized, or baptized and not circumciſed, is not a Proſelyte, untill hee bee both circumciſed and baptized; and againe, a little Proſelyte, they baptize by the appointment of the Conſeſſus. There are alſo ſpeciall teſtimonies in the Talmud, which declare, that Infants both of Iewes and Gentiles, were The Talmud.thus admitted, the male children by circumciſion and baptiſme, the females by baptiſme, &c. Many teſtimonies of this nature to ſhew that Infants as well as growne men, were baptized among the Jewes are to be ſeene in Mr. Ainſworth upon Gen. 17. verſ. 12, 13. I was willing to give this little taſte, that the Reader may ſee, that baptiſme ever ſince it was in uſe, was applyable to children as well as growne men. You adde, even the Sacrament of Baptiſme was before circumciſion ceaſed, and you inſtance with Iohns Baptiſme, which was a concomitant Sacrament with the Sacrament of circumciſion; I anſwer as before, Iohns Baptiſme and Miniſtery, was a Pr…ludium Johns Baptiſme initiated into the Chriſtian Church.to Chriſt, and was wholly in reference to the Chriſtian Church, which then begun to bee moulded; and though there was not a new diſtinct Church of Chriſtianitie ſet up, yet all this was preparing the materialls of it, and Iohn did not admit them by Baptiſme, as members to the Jewiſh Padagogy, which was then ready to bee taken away, but into that new adminiſtration which was then in preparing, but this is no argument againſt baptiſme to ſucceed circumciſion, as a Lord Major elect ſucceeds the old, though the old continue after his election for a time. Yet further, You inquire in what ſenſe Baptiſme ſucceeds in the roome p. 172and place of Circumciſion, and ſay if by roome and place, I meane, Mr. Tombes Exceptions.locus communis et proprius, ſo Baptiſme being an action, hath no roome or place at all properly: and if by roome and place I meane the baptized and baptizers, that is true but in part, ſeme who were to be baptized were not to bee circumciſed, as women. Thirdly, if by roome and place I meane the ſame ſociety, that is not true, Circumciſion admitted into the Jewiſh, baptiſme into the Chriſtian Church. Fourthly, if of the Commandement upon which both are ſealed, that is not true neither, Circumciſion was commanded long before Baptiſme. Fiftly, if of the ſame uſe, that is moſt untrue, for the uſe of Circumciſion obliged to keepe the Law, to be a partition between Iewes and Gentiles, and to initiate into the Iewiſh Church, or rather into Abrahams family. Then laſtly you ſay, if I meane it of confirming and ſealing the ſame Covenant, neither is that true ſave onelyonly in part, becauſe their Covenant was a mixt Covenant, and although Circumciſion did confirme righteouſneſſe by faith, and ſignified holineſſe of heart, ſo alſo did the Cloud, Sea, Manna, the Rock, the Deluge or Arke: and the ſame are alſo confirmed by the Lords Supper; and therefore to ſay that Baptiſme ſucceeds in the roome and place of Circumciſion, is a poſition erroneous and very dangerous.

I am prone to thinke that time as well as paper and Inke are very cheape with you, who thus needleſly Anſw.waſte them; this poore quibbling about ſucceſſion and roome, place, &c. is too Pedanticall for a grave Divine, what Reader will not at the firſt view ſee this to bee my meaning, of Baptiſme ſucceeding in the roome and place of Circumciſion, that Baptiſme ſucceeds Circumciſion as a ſigne ſubſtituted, in the place and ſtead of Circumciſion, to ſignifie and ſeale the ſame Covenant of grace which Circumciſion did, Circumciciſion more darkely ſealing, Chriſt being not yet exhibited, baptiſme more clearely, the ſhadow being taken away and the ſubſtance come? & almoſt all your differences refer onelyonly to the ſeverall manners of adminiſtration of the Covenant, not to the Covenant it ſelfe, or thing adminiſtred, yet I ſhall touch upon each particular. Firſt, your fancy of Locus 1 Exception deſerves no Anſwer.proprius & communis, is too idle to require any anſwer. Secondly, that of the Iewiſh women hath been ſufficiently p. 173ſpoken to in the firſt Section of this third part. Thirdly, 2 Exception anſwered before.when you ſay, circumciſion admitted into one Church, baptiſme into another; (I am very loath to impute to your ſenſe which you intend not) if you meane onelyonly the ſeverall adminiſtrations, 3 Exception anſwered.the Church of the Jewes being Chriſts Church under one adminiſtration, the Chriſtian Church the ſame Church of Chriſt under another adminiſtration; you ſpeake truth, but not to purpoſe, my concluſion never ſaid, Circumciſion and Baptiſme doe initiate into the ſame Adminiſtration of the Covenant: but if you meane, that the Church of the Jewes and wee are not one and the ſame Church, you ſpeake pure Anabaptiſme indeed, and contradict the Scripture expreſly, which every where makes the Church of the Jewes and the Gentiles, one and the ſame Church though under divers adminiſtrations. I count it needleſſe to annex any proofes, becauſe I thinke you dare not deny it. Fourthly, you lay the command of circumciſion was lo…g before the command of Baptiſme, but how 4 Exception anſwered.this followes that therefore Baptiſme doth not ſucceed in the roome of Circumciſion I cannot gueſſe, the Lords day ſucceeds the ſeventh day in being Gods Sabbath, but certainly the inſtitution of it was long after the other. And fiftly, as for the ſeverall uſes mentioned by you, they all referre 5 Exception anſwered.to the manner of adminiſtration peculiar to the Jewes; I have often granted there were ſome legall uſes of Circumciſion it obliging to that manner of adminiſtration, and ſo they were part of the Jewiſh paedagogy, which is wholly vaniſhed, and therein Circumciſion hath no ſucceſſion, but baptiſme ſucceeds it as a Seale of the ſame Covenant under a better adminiſtration, as a ſet and conſtant initiating Ordidinance: onelyonly I wonder that you ſay, Circumciſion did initiate into the Church of the Iewes, or rather into Abrahams family; I pray you explaine this, rather into Abrauams family; if by Abrahams family you meane the Church of the Jewes, why ſay you rather into Abrahams family? if you meane any thing elſe, tell us what it is, and how Circumcumciſion initiated Proſelytes into Abrahams family any otherwiſe …hen as it was the Church of the Jewes Laſtly, p. 174you hit upon the right thing intended, They he both ſeales of 6 Excep. Anſw.the ſame covenant; but (ſay you) the coven…nt was not the ſame, except in part, which hath abundantly been confuted before, and juſtified to be one and the ſame, and the difference to lie onelyonly in the manner of adminiſtration.

But ſay you, the Cloud, Sea, Manna, water of the rock, &c. ſignified 7 Excep. Anſw.righteouſneſſe by faith, and holineſſe of hea…t, as well as baptiſme doth; and why then ſhould we not ſay that Baptiſm ſucceeds theſe, as well as it doth Circumciſion? I anſwer, theſe were extraordinary ſignes, not ſtanding Sacraments to bee uſed in all generations; much leſſe were they ſet and ſtanding Sacraments of initiation: And yet ſo farre as God hath made the parallel, what hurt is there in ſaying baptiſm ſucceeds them? ſure I am, the Apoſtle Peter compares baptiſm 1 P… 3. 21.and the Ark, the like figure whereunto Baptiſme ſaves us.

But whereas you adde, And why alſo ſhould not the Lords … Excep. Anſw.Supper ſucceed Circumciſion as well as Baptiſme? I anſwer, what ever diſparity may bee made betweene Circumciſion and Baptiſme, yet herein certainly they agree, and you often grant it, That both of them are initiall ſignes; and therefore this is moſt wildly ſaid of you, That the Lords Supper may he as well ſaid to ſucceed Circumciſion; did ever any thinke the Lords Supper to be an initiall ſigne? And now let the Reader judg of that expreſſion of yours in the cloſe, which you ſo boldly uſe againſt all Divines and Churches ſince the Apoſtles time, who all concurre in the ſame truth, (except onelyonly the Anabaptiſts) That to ſay Baptiſme ſucceeds in the roome and place of Circumciſion, … a propoſ…tion …, and very dangerous.

To confirme this of Baptiſm ſucceeding Circumciſion, much may be gathered out of many places in the New Teſtament, which hold out the things wherein they are parallel'd: I uſed onelyonly that clear place, Col. 2. 8 to 13. whence I made it evident, Not onelyonly that we have the ſame thing ſignified by Circumciſion, while we are buryed with Chriſt in baptiſm, but alſo that the Apoſtle plainly ſet… Baptiſme in the ſame ſtate, Mr. Tombes exception againſt Coloſ. 2. anſwered.Col 2and makes it of the ſame uſe to us, as Circumciſion was to the Jews; Chriſt onelyonly to them …nd … alſo, is the author …f ſpirituall p. 175Circumciſion. The Circumciſion of the fleſh, was the Sacrament of it to them; and now that is aboliſhed, we have baptiſme to ſeale the ſame thing.

Let us ſee what your exceptions are againſt it, Firſt, you acknowledge with me, the Apoſtles ſcope is to ſhew that wee are compleat in Christ, and therefore needed not Circumciſion: And you adde, his ſcope was not to teach them that we have another ordinance in ſtead of Circumciſion. I reply, it is very true, he teaches them wee are compleat in Chriſt, and need not Circumciſion; but it is as true, that he further enlarges this comfort, by ſhewing them that we have a viſible ſeale of this compleatneſſe in Chriſt, and ſo it is more evident wee have no need of Circumciſion.

Secondly, ſay you, Aretius in his Commentary ſayes, That Aretius alledged by Mr Tombes, as if for him, who is expreſſely againſt him.the thing it ſelfe is aſſerted to the Saints, without an outward ſymbole, which yet the adverſaries inceſſantly urged; and for which Aretius his helpe, you conclude it is utterly againſt the Apoſtles whole argument, to ſay, that they needed not Circumciſion, b…cauſe they had another ordinance in the room of it. But Sir, why do you thus frequently abuſe your readers with the names of Learned men, inſerting ſome one ſentence of theirs into your book, and thereby inſinuating to your Reader, that they are of your Opinion in the point wherein you cite them? I aſſure you, it concernes your Conſcience, as well as your Cauſe, to be thus often taken tardy. The Learned Aretius in that very place where you cite him acknowledges indeed, That we are compleat in Chriſt, without an externall ſymbol…; and that he is a perfect organ of our ſalvation; you needed to have cited no man for this, we all concurre with you in it; the onelyonly thing controverted is, whether the Apoſtle intend alſo in this place to ſhew, that our baptiſm ſucceeds in the room and uſe of Circumciſion; and doth not Aretius concurre in this? let himſelf ſpeak: Obſervetur …tiam ſucceſſio Baptiſmi in locum Circumciſionis, quando aperte hunc vocat Circumciſionem Christi: Hee plainly tells us, that the Apoſtle calls Baptiſme the Circumciſion of Chriſt. But ſince you have put me upon Aretius, I ſhall make bold to inform the Reader, that the ſame Aretius in his Problemes, after the Hiſtory of Ʋalentine Gentilis, p. 176hath an intire Diſcourſe to prove that Baptiſme ſucceeds Ancient Authors cited by Aretius to prove that Baptiſm ſucceeds Circumciſion.Circumciſion, and brings this ſecond of the Col. there alſo, as a maine evidence; and cites many notable teſtimonies out of the Fathers, both Greek and Latine, for the confirmation of it.

Accepimus non illam ſecundum carnem circumciſionem, ſed ſpiritualem, quam Enoch & ſimiles cuſtodierunt, no… tamen per baptiſmum Juſt in Martyr contra Tryph.accepimus.

Circumciſio figura erat exuviarum quae per baptiſmum deponuntur.Athan. in Luc. …nia mihi tradita.

Abraham ubi Deo erediderat circumciſionem accepit pro nota ejus regenerationis quae per baptiſmum conficitur.

Illic fuit circumciſio carnalis quae inſervit tempori ad magnam Epiphan. contr. Iip…cureos.circumciſionem, h. e. Bapt. qui circumcidit nos a peccatis & obſignat nos D…o.

Duravit circumciſio tempore inſerviens donec major circumciſio Idem contra Ce…nthu…n.acceſſit, h. e. lavacrum regenerationis.

Affi…mat Chriſtum in eccleſia ſua dediſſe pro circumciſione Aug in Epiſt. 1…8.carnis, Baptiſmum.

Baptiſmi & circumciſionis ejuſdem eſt natura.In Epiſt. ad Dardanun.

All theſe the Reader ſhall finde in Aretius, whom you bring in, as if he concurred with you; moſt of theſe teſtimonies are before alſo alledged by me.

Thirdly, but you goe on and ſay, That in truth it would evacuate the Apoſtles argument uſed both here, and Hebr. 9. 11. 9-13. who ſtill proves the abolition of the ceremonies of the Law, becauſe we are compleat in Christ; not in ſome new ordinances added in ſtead of them; for if there bee need of other Ordinances, (beſides Christ) in ſtead of the old, then Christ himſelf hath not fulneſſe enough, and though our Ordinances may bee ſaid to imitate theirs; yet Christ onelyonly ſucceeds them.

I anſwer, it is very true, that whoever ſhould plead that we have any of our compleatneſs in any outward Ordinances would evacuate the Apoſtles Argument But Sir, is there no diſtinction to be made betwixt our compl…atneſſe in Chriſt, and Ordinances which by his own appointment helpe us to apply this compleatneſſe: doe the Sacraments of Baptiſme and the Lords Supper, and other Chriſtian Ordinances p. 177hinder, or argue that all our compleatneſſe in not in Chriſt. I adde further, that Chriſt onelyonly ſucceeds all the Jewiſh ordinances, as the body ſucceeds the ſhadow: we plead not as the Papiſts doe, that the Jewiſh Sacraments were types of ours, they were types onelyonly of Chriſt; but yet ours ſucceed them to be like ſignes of the Covenant of grace, and ſo the Apoſtle doth in this place.

Fourthly, ſay you, I deny not but there is an analogy betwixt Ʋide Rive…. in Gen. 17.Gen 17baptiſme and circumciſion, as there is alſo betwixt the Arke and Baptiſme; but we are not to conclude thence, that Baptiſme ſucceeds in the room and uſe of Noahs Arke, &c. for in the adminiſtration of an Ordinance, we are not to bee ruled by bare analogie framed by our ſelves, or delivered by the Spirit of God, but by the inſtitution of God. I anſwer, but when thoſe analogies framed by the Spirit of God, are agreeable to the uſe and end of Gods inſtitution, we are to bee ruled by them; and the Apoſtle ſhews that's our caſe here.

Fifthly, ſay you, The Apoſtle in this place rather reſembles buriall to circumciſion then baptiſme: and ſo makes the analogie between circumciſion and Chriſts buriall; and you bring in Chryſoſtome and Theophylact concurring with you. I anſwer, this I wonder at, where is Circumciſion compared to buriall, and wherein I pray you lyes the analogie between them? Beſides, whoever will look into this Text, ſhall finde that this ſpirituall circumciſion containes both our death to ſin, and riſing again to newneſſe of life, by the death and reſurrection of Jeſus Chriſt, both which are here fully ſignified in our baptiſme, ver. 11. & 12. conſepulti ſum…; the analogy lyes plain between our buryall and baptiſme. And Chryſoſtome whom you cite, ſaith plainly, wee are ſpiritually circumciſed, but when and where; and anſwers in Baptiſme.

Sixthly, ſay you, Circumciſion was not onelyonly a priviledge to the Jews, but it was alſo a buriben to them, and it would be a bu… then, Chryſoſtome cited by Mr. Tombes, is againſt him.not a priviledge, to have an ordinance in the roome and uſe of it. I anſwer, Circumciſion was a burthen, as it was a painfull Sacrament, and as it obliged them to that painfull, coſtly and burthenſome manner of the adminiſtration of the Covenant, which was before Chriſts incarnation; but p. 178it was no burden, But a great priviledge, as it was a ſeale of the Covenant. And in this laſt reſpect onelyonly is baptiſm ſubſtituted into his room and place.

In the cloſe of this Section, I like your farewell, though you tell me, I ſpeake with more confidence then truth; I ſaid Mr. Tombes his reaſon, why baptiſm is there named, confirmes my interpretation.there had been no reaſon to have named baptiſme, but that he meant to ſhew baptiſme was now to Chriſtians in the room of circumciſion to the Jewes: You ſay, baptiſme is named, becauſe it is one of the meanes by which Chriſtians come to have communion with Chriſt, and to be compleat in him; which was the thing the Apoſtle intended in the 12. verſe. And therefore faith is joyned with it, they being the two ſpeciall means whereby we have our communion with Chriſt, to which you adde, Gal. 5. 25, 26. Rom. 6. 3, & 4. But is not this the ſame ſenſe with mine, who have hitherto undertaken to juſtifie that, though our compleatneſſe be in Chriſt onelyonly, who is now exhibited, and no longer to bee ſought in the types and ſhadows of the Jewiſh adminiſtrations, (to which manner of adminiſtrations Circumciſion did oblige them;) yet Baptiſm is now the ſeal of our initiation, and a meanes to apply this Covenant to us, as Circumciſion was to them, though the manner of their adminiſtration be wholly ceaſed. If I have not taken you right, make a ſyllogiſme, and make all Logick quake before your mighty conſequence. Baptiſme is named, becauſe it is one of the meanes of Chriſtians being exempted from the Schoolmaſter, and come to be ingraffed into Chriſt, and to bee compleat in him; therefore it doth not ſucceed in the roome and place of Circumciſion: nay, rather, it therefore doth. I pray you put together theſe words, Ye are compleat in Chriſt, in whom ye are alſo circumciſed, being buryed with him in baptiſme; and ſee if it ſpeake not this plainely, that baptiſme ſucceeds into the uſe of Circumciſion: ſurely, it hence appeares Circumciſion and Baptiſme are nearer of kin then you would make them.

In the cloſe of this Section, according to your wonted manner, you triumph, and tell me that you have at laſt waded through this concluſion, and the text, Col. 2. 12. & 10. the miſunderſtanding of which hath been the ignis faruis, fooliſh fire, p. 179which hath led men out of the way in this matter, into bags. Truly Sir, were theſe ſcorns of being led by fooliſh fire into bogs, &c caſt upon my ſelfe onelyonly, it were nothing; but when they are thus caſt in the faces of all Divines, ancient, and modern, all Harmonies and Confeſſions (except onelyonly a handfull of upſtart Anabaptiſts) as if they were all ſuch ſimple ones, that an ignis fatuus, a fooles fire, might lead them into any bogs, I can hardly forbeare to tell you it is an argument of an arrogant Spirit.

There is alſo in the end of your booke, a ſhort diſcourſe The deſcant of Mr. Tomber upon this Text at the end of his book briefly examined.upon this Text, which I read over to ſee if there were any thing which might weaken my Argument, or ſtrengthen your exceptions; but in it I finde not any one ſentence that hurts me, or helps you; only ſome of thoſe things which you call dictates, bold aſſertions, ſome of them contrary to the plain Text of Scripture, all of them magiſterially ſet down with out proof: as, circumciſion was not a token of the Covenant to the Iews children; which is contrary to the very Text, Gen. 17. That the promiſes of the Covenant, were not the reaſon that they were circumciſed. Yet any Reader may ſee that the Covenant is there ſet downe as the reaſon why they ſhould bee circumciſed. That the Jews children were not therefore in covenant, becauſe they were Abrahams naturall ſeed, that beleevers children are not in covenant, becauſe beleevers children; and divers other Concluſions of the ſame nature, which are already anſwered; and therefore I ſhall not ſtay the Reader any whit about them.

Hitherto I have followed you foot by foot, becauſe the gaining or loſing the cauſe, depends upon theſe former concluſions, the ſameneſſe of the Covenant both to Jews and Centiles, the ſ…meneſſe of our Infants right to the Covenant with theirs; and baptiſme ſucceeding circumciſion, as to the uſe of an initiall ſeale to them, who are in Covenant. In that which remaines, I ſhall more contract the matter of your large Diſcourſe… partly, becauſe many things in it are upon by-matters; partly, becauſe that which is materiall, is but the repetition of that which hath been anſwered already.

p. 180My fourth Concluſion was, That by Gods owne expreſſe order, Infants as well as growne men, were in the time of the Iewes to be initiated and ſealed with the ſigne of circumciſion, whether Jews by nature, or Proſelytes of the Gentiles, one law was for them all, if they receive the covenant, they and their children were circumciſed.

This Concluſion you grant to be true; onelyonly, becauſe you wil ſay ſomewhat to every thing: you anſwer, Firſt, That it is 4 Concluſ. vindicated.as certain that this expreſſe order of God is now repealed; very true, and you might have added, That by his order likewiſe, Baptiſme ſucceeds in the room of it. I added, whereas ſome alledge, Though circumciſion was to be applyed to their Infants, yet Why Infants of Jewes were circumciſed.it was not as a ſeale of the ſpirituall part of the Covenant, but as a Nationall badge, or ſeale of ſome temporall and earthly bleſſings and priviledges, as of the right to the land of Canaan, &c. and that Iſhmael, though he was circumciſed for ſome temporall reſpects, was not thereby brought under the Covenant, &c. You anſwer, they who thus object, ſpeake the truth: and here you referre to your Latine Paper. I reply, to my underſtanding, you here ſpeake pure Anabaptiſme indeed, juſt like the Anabaptiſts in Germany, who ſay, The Covenant which circumciſion ſealed, was a carnall covenant: and that when God commanded the Iſraelites to circumciſe their children, wee are not to underſtand that he obliged them to have their hearts circumciſed, nor aimed at any thing which touched the inward man; that the condition required by God in circumciſion, cannot bee drawne to a ſpirituall buſineſſe; that the circumciſed by circumciſion, were not bound to looke for ſalvation by Jeſus Chriſt: how very neare are you come to theſe carnall conceits of the German Anabaptiſts, which have been a thouſand times confuted by our Orthodox Divines? yet you bring not one ſhadow of a proofe for what you ſay, onelyonly you alledge, Iſhmael had no part in the covenant, the cov…nant was to bee eſtabliſted with Iſaac, and not with Iſhmael, &c. But I have made it abundantly cleare, that not onelyonly Iſhmael and Eſau, but miſſions of Jacobs ſeed, did never partake of the ſpirituall graces of the Covenant, yet were reckoned by circumciſion to belong to the Covenant, and were obliged to ſeeke after the ſpirituall p. 181part of it, and whereas you ſay, when Iſhmael was circumciſed, Abraham underſtood the promiſe was not intended for Iſhmael but for Iſaac, that Iſhmael onelyonly was to have a ſhare in ſome temporall bleſſings; I anſwer, ſuppoſing that were true, you have given a very good inſtance to prove that ſome may receive the outward ſigne of the Covenant, and have a viſible ſtanding in the Church, though hee who adminiſters the Seale, might by revelation know that the inward grace is wanting. Secondly, I anſwer, how doe you prove that no part of the ſpirituall Covenant made with Abraham did appeare to belong to Iſhmael when he was circumciſed, or not to Eſau when hee was circumciſed? God indeed did then declare that Iſaac was he in whoſe family the Covenant ſhould continue, but not a word that Iſhmael ſhould have no part in it: prove (if you can) in your next that Iſhmael and Eſau were not by their circumciſion bound to have their hearts circumciſed, and to beleeve in the Meſſiah that was to come of Abrahams ſeed. And whereas you ſay, againe and againe, that no benefit of the Covenant was the proper reaſon why theſe or thoſe were circumciſed, but onelyonly Gods precept: I have already cleared it out of the Text Geneſis 17. that though Gods command was the cauſe of the exiſtence of the dutie of Circumciſion, yet the Covenant of grace was the motive to it, and theſe two are well conſiſtent together.

Whereas I anſwered to that carnall objection of the Anabaptiſts, that nothing is plainer then that the Covenant whereof Circumciſion was a ſigne was the Covenant of grace, you reply, firſt, it was a mixt Covenant, which is before taken away, in anſwer to your exceptions againſt my firſt concluſion, Sect. 2. Part 3. Secondly, you ſay, all circumciſed perſons were not partakers of the ſpirituall part, it's one thing to bee under Mr. Tombes grants what is in controverſie.the outward adminiſtration, another thing to be under the Covenant of Grace; Sir, I thanke you for this anſwer, you grant as much as I have been proving all this while, viz. that men may have a viſible memberſhip though they bee not elected, and that there ever was and will be ſome ſuch in the Church to whom the outward adminiſtration and externall priviledges doe app…taine, though they are not inwardly ſanctified, p. 182and I hope you will not deny but that theſe are called, in that ſenſe which our Saviour meanes when hee ſayes, Many are called, but few are choſen. I added Abraham received Circumciſion a ſigne of the righteouſneſſe of faith: true, ſay you, Circumciſion was a ſeale of righteouſneſſe, but not to all or only circumciſed perſons, but to all beleevers, whether Iews or Gentiles though they never are or may be ſealed in their own perſons. I reply, firſt, this is but a peece of odde Divinitie, that Circumciſion ſhould ſeale righteouſneſſe to them who never are circumciſed, nor reputed ſo, nor capable of being circumciſed, nor might lawfully be circumciſed, but let that paſſe. 2^ly Indeed none but beleevers have the ſpirituall part of Circumciſion, but viſible profeſſors had a viſible right to it, and were obliged to ſeeke the ſpirituall grace of it, and though they who are externally called, and not elected, never come to attaine the ſpirituall part, yet are they in foro viſibilis Eccleſiae to be reputed Church members, and they have as Auſtin ſaith, veritatem ſacramenti, though not fructum Sacramenti, they receive the truth of the Sacrament, though they partake not of the beſt part of it; And the Iewes (ſaid I) received How the Jewe… received circumciſion.it not as a nation, but as a Church, as a people ſeparated from the world, and taken into Covenant with God; againſt which you object, if I take (as) with reduplication, they received it neither as a nation, nor as a Church: for if as a nation, then every nation muſt have been circumciſed; if as a Church, then every Church muſt be circumciſed; they received it as appointed them from God, under that formall notion, and no other. But what poore exceptions are theſe? my plaine meaning was, the Jewes were both a civill ſocietie or Common-wealth, they were alſo a Church or a people in Covenant with God; Circumciſion was given them in reference to their Church State, not in reference to their civill ſtate, and was in ordine to the things of Gods kingdome▪ and though the formall reaſon of their being circumciſed was the command of God, yet the Covenant of grace or their Church ſtate was the motive to it, and the thing it related to, as is moſt cleare out of the 17. of Geneſis and many other places where their Circumciſion denotates their religious ſtanding, as hath often been ſhewed before.

p. 183But what is all this, ſay you, to the anſwering of the objection, which was, that Circumciſion was not the Seale of the ſpirituall part of the Covenant of grace, to all circumciſed perſons, and that Circumciſion was appointed to perſons not under the Covenant, &c. I anſwer, I thinke it very fully anſwers the objection, for if it was commanded and obſerved, as that which was a priviledge and dutie belonging to the Covenant, and they uſed it as being in Covenant, the objection is wholly taken off. Your frequent bringing in of the manner of adminiſtration, by types, ſhadowes, &c. hath been abundantly anſwered in my vindicating my firſt concluſion, and elſewhere. Next you much trouble your ſelfe, how I will cleare that expreſſion of mens conformity to temporall bleſſings and puniſhments, becauſe bleſſings and puniſhments are Gods acts and not mens: I deſire you to require an account of it from them who aſſert it, I ſaid, Circumciſion bound them who received it to conforme to that manner of adminiſtration of the Covenant which was carried much by a way of temporall bleſſings and puniſhments, they being types of ſpirituall things: is this all one to conforme to temporall bleſſings and puniſhments? I added, no man can ſhew, that any were to receive Circumciſion in relation to theſe outward things onelyonly, or to them at all, further then they were adminiſtrations of the Covenant of grace; you anſwer, they received Circumciſion neither in relation to theſe outward things onelyonly no nor at all, either as they were temporall bleſſings or types of ſpirituall Mr. Tombes by conſequence denies circumciſion to be a Seale of any thing.things, and ſo adminiſtrations of the Covenant of grace, but for this reaſon and no other, becauſe God had ſo commanded; I reply, here had beene the fit place for you to have made good what you have ſo confidently aſſerted heretofore; that Iſhmael, Eſau, and others were circumciſed for ſome temporall reſpects, that Circumciſion ſealed the temporall or politicall promiſes, &c. but in ſtead of proving this, you doe here as good as deny it, for if they were not circumciſed, in any reſpect at all to their temporall bleſſings, how I pray you did Circumciſion ſeale their temporall bleſſings? Nay further, you by conſequent deny that Circumciſion ſealed either temporall or ſpirituall bleſſings, and conſequently it was no ſeale at all, or a ſeale of nothing at all; p. 184for if they were circumciſed with reſpect to nothing, but onelyonly becauſe God commanded them to bee circumciſed, how was Circumciſion any Seale to them? If a father give a child a Ring, and command him to weare it, onelyonly to ſhew his obedience to his fathers command, what doth the wearing of this Ring ſeale to the child? it declares indeed the childes obedience to the father, but ſeals nothing to the child from the father. Nor doth that which you adde any whit helpe this, you ſay, You deny not that circumciſed perſons were by faith to looke on the covenant of grace, through theſe adminiſtrations, but by what warrant could their faith look upon the Covenant of grace through circumciſion if the command of circumciſion were not in reference to the Covenant of grace? I profeſſe I cannot underſtand it, nor doe I thinke it poſſible for you, to reconcile this, either with the conſtant doctrine of the Scripture concerning the end and uſe of Circumciſion, or with your owne grant, that Circumciſion was the initiall Seale of the Jewes Covenant with God.

To cleare it further that Circumciſion was not a ſeale of the land of Canaan, or the temporall bleſſings of it, I ſhewed the Proſelytes and their children could not bee circumciſed in relation to Canaan, &c. becauſe they were not capable of any inheritance there; yea, that it tied them to a greater expence of their temporall bleſſings by their long, frequent, and chargeable journies to worſhip at Ieruſalem; you anſwer onelyonly this, all this may bee granted, yet this overthrowes not this propoſition, that the Covenant made with Abraham had promiſes of temporall bleſſings, and that ſome were to be circumciſed who had no part in the covenant of grace: but Sir, the thing I am here proving is that Circumciſion was no Seale of the land of Canaan, not that there were no temporall bleſſings belonging to the Covenant; I know the promiſes of temporall bleſſings belong to the Covenant of grace, as well as the promiſes of ſpirituall; godlineſſe having the promiſe of this life, and of that which is to come: nor was I proving that all who were to bee circumciſed had part in the ſpirituall graces of the Covenant, my drift being onelyonly to prove, that all who were to be circumciſed p. 185had a viſible memberſhip and right to bee reputed as belonging to the Church, againſt which in this place you ſay juſt nothing. Laſtly, whereas I added that Iſhmael and the reſt of Abrahams family, Eſau and others were really taken into covenant untill afterwards by apoſtaſie they diſcovenanted themſelves, you anſwer that I plainely deliver ap…ſtaſie from the covenant of grace, which in others wou'd bee called Armianiſme, becauſe taking into the covenant of grace, argues election or ſome act which executes election: I reply, I have no doubt but that all indifferent Readers well enough underſtand what I meant by being taken into the Covenant of grace, even ſuch a taking in as when the Gentiles were taken in, in ramorum defractorum locum, inſtead of the Iewes, who were broken off: your ſelfe grant, it is one thing to bee under the ſpirituall grace of the Covenant, and another thing to bee under the outward adminiſtration; in this later ſenſe were Iſhmael, Eſau, and the reſt taken in, they were viſible profeſſors had an externall calling, and are all viſible profeſſors elected, and is not externall vocation Gods act, though a common one?

The fifth and laſt concluſion which I laid downe in my 5 Concluſion vindicated, our priviledges nor ſtraitned but inlarged.Sermon was this, the priviledges of beleevers under this laſt and beſt adminiſtration of the covenant of grace are many wayes enlarged, made more honorable and comfortable then ever they were in the time of the Iewes adminiſtration; many Scriptures ſpeake of their inlargement, not one for the dimininiſhing or extenuating of them; I could hardly have imagined that you could have ſpent ten or eleven whole pages in excepting againſt this, I ſhall very briefely examine what you have ſaid; firſt, you ſhew your skill in the deſcription of a priviledge out of the civill Law, and I concurre with you, that a priviledge muſt bee ſomewhat which is a benefit, and that the ſame thing may bee a priviledge at one time, which is not at another; that that may bee a priviledge in compariſon of the heathens which is not in compariſon of Chriſtians: but what's all this to the purpoſe? further ſay you, the priviledges of the covenant of grace belonging to the ſubſtance of it, are not now more enlarged or more honorable or comfortable then they were in the time of the Iewes; I anſwer, p. 186firſt, though this were granted it hurts not mee, it's ſufficient if the adminiſtration be now more comfortable to beleevers and their children. Secondly, if there be no more honorableneſſe in thoſe priviledges which belong to the ſubſtance of the Covenant, how comes it to paſſe, that in your anſwers to thoſe ſeverall texts which I and others bring to Our ſpirituall priviledges how inlarged.prove the enlargement of priviledges under this laſt adminiſtration, you interpret them of thoſe priviledges which belong to the ſubſtance of the Covenant or the ſpirituall part of it? Thirdly, though I willingly acknowledge that the ſpirituall priviledges are the ſame both to the Jewes and Gentiles, the ſame under both adminiſtrations, yet ſeeing that under this laſt adminiſtration, theſe priviledges are communicated not onelyonly with more cleareneſſe, but in greater meaſure and abundance, floods in ſtead of drops: wilderneſſes made like Lebanon and Sharon, I wonder you ſhould ſay they are no more honorable and comfortable now then they were then; is not abundance of grace more honorable and comfortable then a little grace? But ſay you, in reſpect of the adminiſtration it is granted they are many wayes enlarged and made more honorable: this will ſerve our turne well enough, for this was a priviledge belonging to their adminiſtration, that their Infants were under it as well as themſelves; yeeld that for ours, and the controverſie is ended, wee (ſay I) are freed from that hard and coſtly yoake of their way of adminiſtration: true ſay you, it is not onelyonly our priviledge to bee free from that, but it is our priviledge alſo to have nothing in lieu of that yoake. To have nothing in lieu of them as they were ſhadowes of the ſubſtance, which is Chriſt, is very right, but to ſay it is our priviledge to have nothing in lieu of them, as they were externall Ordinances to apply Chriſt, is to ſay it is our priviledge to have no Ordinances to apply Chriſt to us, and thereby to make us compleat in him, which were a moſt abſurd thing to affirme. Whereas I added that our priviledges for our ſelves and our children, are at leaſt as honorable, large, and comfortable as theirs, your anſwer to this is very remarkable, but whether with an obeliske or aſteriske the Reader ſhall judge; firſt ſay you, p. 187circumciſion belongs to the adminiſtration of the Covenant, not to the ſubſtance of it. I reply; it was indeed a part of their adminiſtration, and obliged them to the reſt of that manner of adminiſtration, as Baptiſme now doth to ours, but did it not alſo belong to the ſubſtance? was it not a ſeale of the righteouſneſſe of faith, of circumciſion of heart, &c. doth not the ſeale belong to the thing ſealed? the conveyance and ſeal annexed to it, are no part of the purchaſed inheritance, Mr. Tombes makes it a priviledge not to have Infants baptized.but doe they not belong to it? Secondly, your next is as remarkable, viz. That it's ſo farre from being a priviledge to our children to have them baptized; to have Baptiſme ſucceed in the ſtead of Circumeiſion, that it is a benefit to want it, God not having appointed it. I anſwer, then belike our priviledges of the Covenant of grace are ſo farre from being inlarged by enjoying the Sacrament of Baptiſme, that it had been our priviledge to have wanted Baptiſme if God had not appointed it; and by as good a reaſon at leaſt, you might have ſaid, that Circumciſion was ſo farre from being a priviledge to the Jews and their children, that it had been a benefit for them to have wanted it, if God had not commanded it; ſure, that is a ſtrange kinde of priviledge, of which I may truly ſay, that it had been a greater benefit to them who have it, to have wanted it, if the Donor had not commanded it.

Next, you come more particularly to examine the proofs of my Concluſion; and (ſay you) the thing I ſhould prove, is one of theſe two, either that circumciſion did belong to the ſubſtance of the Covenant of grace: or that the want of circumciſion, or ſome Ordinance in the place and uſe of it, is a loſſe of priviledge of the Covenant of grace to us and our children. Sir, the thing I was to prove was this 5 Concluſion, viz. That our priviledges are inlarged, not extenuated: and as for theſe two particulars, I have already proved, that Circumciſion, though a part of their adminiſtration, did yet belong to the ſubſtance; belong to it I ſay, not as a part of it, but as a meanes of applying it. And I have alſo proved, that though it be a priviledge to have nothing ſucceed circumciſion, as it bound to that manner of adminiſtration; yet it is a priviledge to p. 188have ſomewhat ſucceed it as a ſeale of the Covenant, in as much as a Covenant with a ſeale, is a greater benefit then a Covenant without a ſeale. More particularly, I ſaid our Mr Tombes makes the Covenant, Heb. 8 to bee the Covenant of Works, erroneouſly.Heb 8enlargement of priviledges appeares, partly, in that wee have freedome, in what was burthenſome to them in their manner of adminiſtration; partly, becauſe our Covenant is eſtabliſhed upon better promiſes, Heb. 8. 6. Whereupon you enter upon a Diſcourſe of that Covenant there mentioned; and you poſitively aſſert, That it was the Covenant of workes. Alaſſe Sir, why doe you run into this needleſſe and erroneous digreſſion? I ſaid indeed in my Sermon, that the morall Law was added foure hundred and thirty yeares after the Covenant was made with Abraham, not as a part of that Covenant, but as a Schoolemaſter to whip them to Chriſt; that they finding the impoſſibility of keeping the Law, might more earneſtly long after Chriſt, exhibited in thoſe ſhadows of Rites and Sacrifices, &c. but to ſay that this Covenant mentioned in the eight of the Hebrews, was the Covenant of works, is a moſt erroneous doctrine; look into the Text, and you ſhall find that the Covenant which is there mentioned, (which God finds fault with, and calls the firſt Covenant; in oppoſition to this b…tter Covenant) had Ordinances of divine Worſhip, had a Sanctuary, a Tabernacle, Prieſts, and High Prieſts, Sacrifices, and other Rites belonging to the adminiſtration of it. Sir, was this the Covenant of works? I hope you will not own it in your next. Next you ſay, That place, 2 Cor. 3. 10. the glory of 2 Cor. 3. 10. miſ-interpreted by Mr. Tombes.2 Cor 3:10theirs, bad no glory in reſpect of ours: This is not meant of the Covenant of grace, but of the Covenant in Mount Sinai; therefore impertinently alledged by me. Sir, I wonder at your confidence in it; the Reader will eaſily diſcorne that the whole ſcope of that Chapter clearly holds forth the preheminence of the Miniſtery of the Goſpel, above the Miniſtery of Moſes his vailed Ceremonies: belike then with you, Moſes Ceremonies were the Covenant of works. Next, I ſhewed in my Sermon, that as our priviledges are better then theirs, in being free'd from their burthens, ſo we as well as they, enjoy the honour of being called a holy Nation, a peculiar people, p. 189a choſen generation, &c. VponUpon this you diſcourſe at large, eſpecially againſt Mr. Blake, and you undertake to prove that all theſe things are meant of the inviſible Church. I anſwer very briefly, none of us ever doubted, but that the ſpirituall part belongs onelyonly to the inviſible Church, and did ſo in the time of the Jews, as well as now; but yet we as well as the Jews partake of that priviledge, and our viſible ſtanding gives us the honor to be ſo reputed, as wel as theirs gave it unto them; and were all the Jews who had the honour to bee called a holy Nation, really ſuch? were they all inwardly holy, or effectually called? the like anſwer ſerves to your diſcourſe upon Rom. 9. the Apoſtle ſpeakes there of adoption as a priviledge of the body of that Nation, their whole Nation had the Honour to bee called the children of God, according to Deut. 14. 1. Ye are the children of the Lord your God, yet they were not all the ſpirituall children of God; the Reader may ſee more of this in the vindication of my ſecond Concluſion, and you ſhall doe well in your next, ſolidly to prove that theſe were not priviledges which the viſible Church of the Jewes enjoyed (though many among them had the kernell without the ſhell) rather then thus to triumph in theſe feeble exceptions. I added, Wee have all theſe things with advantage, not onelyonly in the clearneſſe of the adminiſtration, but in ſome ſenſe, in greater extent to perſons, with us there is neither male nor female. Why I adde this of male or female, you ſay you know not, except I meane to inſinuate that in the Jewiſh Church there was male and female, becauſe Circumciſion was onelyonly of the males, &c. I reply, I acknowledge that Gal. 3. 27, 28. opened.Gal 3:27Gal 3:28though it bee true, that among true beleevers, among the Jews there was neither male nor female, all equally did partake of the ſpirituall part of the Covenant, as well as now with us, yet for the comfortable manner of adminiſtration of it, even this diſtinction of male and female, is a priviledge enla…ged under this laſt and beſt adminiſtration, and the Apoſtle in that place, Gal. 3. 28. doth plainly intimate the enlargement of this priviledge in this reſpect, and ſo I think the words plainly hold out, As many of you as have p. 190been baptized into Chriſt, have put on Chriſt; there is neither Iew nor Greeke, bond nor free, made nor female, for ye are all one in Chriſt Jeſus; and if ye be Chriſts, then are ye Abrahams ſeed, and heires according to promiſe. To me the Apoſtle here doth plainly hold out, that now under the New Teſtament, baptiſme is the viſible pledge of our being Abrahams ſeed, as circumciſion was the pledge of it under the Old Teſtament; & that here is the enlargement of our priviledge in the New Teſtament, that whereas Circumciſion of old was applyed to one Nation, and not to others; now out of all Nations, ſuch are called in, as are made Abrahams ſeed, whether Jew or Greek. And whereas of old the ſeale was applyed onelyonly to the males, in this reſpect the differences of ſexes is now taken away. And although it be true that the ſpirituall part of all this be made good onelyonly to true beleevers, who likewiſe alone have the inward baptiſme, yet viſible profeſſors enjoy the viſible priviledge.

Next you proceed to reply to an Objection which I propounded in my Sermon, and anſwered, (viz.) In ſome thing's the Jews had greater priviledges then we have; as that Abraham had the priviledge to bee called the Father of the faithfull: that Chriſt ſhould be born of his fleſh; the Virgin Mary had the priviledge to be the Mother of Chriſt; the whole Nation of the Jews had this priviledge, that God will call in their ſeed againe, after they had been caſt off for unbelief many hundred years; which priviledges none of the Gentiles have, or can have. And my anſwer was, That our queſtion is about ſuch priviledges as belong to all who have a ſtanding under the Covenant, which every one who is in covenant with God might expect by vertue of the covenant, whether hee were a Jew or a Proſelyte, not for any peculiar or perſonall priviledge to any one man or woman, or family, or Tribe. That it no ways derogates from us that ſome particular perſon or Tribe ſhould enjoy ſome peculiar priviledges; but if any of the common priviledges, which they all enjoyed by vertue of their Church ſtanding ſhould be abridged, then the priviledges of the New Teſtament would bee more reſtrained then thoſe of the Old; this, ſaid I, is againſt the word of God. Your anſwer is, That this Argument hath no weight, but onelyonly amongſt Vulgar, and nonſyllogiſing p. 191capacities: and therefore in your Latine Paper you mention theſe inſtances of the Virgin Mary, &c. And thence would ſhew, That the Iews might have more priviledges in ſome reſpect, in ſome things, then we, and yet our condition better then theirs by reaſon of ſome other priviledges we have above them, which recompence the defect of thoſe priviledges; and therefore no good Argument can be drawne, That becauſe God gave ſuch a priviledge to the Jews, therefore we muſt have ſuch a priviledge too; yea, it would bee an Argument of arrogant preſumption, to ſay, the Iews had ſuch a priviledge, therefore we muſt have it: They had a priviledge to circumciſe Iufants, therfore we maſt baptiſe Infants.