H> ^ lEINCETON, N. J. "^^ Presented by M'. Samuel Agnew of Philadelphia, Pa. Agnczv Coll. on Baptism, No. Digitized by the Internet Arciiive in 2011 with funding from Princeton Theological Seminary Library I http://www.archive.org/details/antipaedobaptismOOtomb T .1 ,-^ Anti-Psedobaptifm : OR THE THIRD PART. BEING, ^ • A full Review of the Difputc con- 'ccSning Infant-Baptifm. 1 N WHICH, Th€ Arguments for Infant-Baptifm from the Covcnint and Initial Seal, Infants Viliblc Churcn- memberfhip, Anciqu'uyof Intanr-Bapdrrr, are refeikd. The VVrifings of Mr. Strphen Marjlja!^ Mr. Richard Baxter^ Ur. John Gene, Ux.Tbemas BU\e^ Mr. Thomas c Met Dr. Natbmel Homn, Mr. John Drew, Mr. Jefiuh churchy ■ Mr. ml* Ham lyford. Dr. Duftiel Featlcj^ Mr. John Brinjley, Mr. Cutbbert si. dtnbamy Mr. mllUm Carter, Mr. Samtiel Rutherford, Mr. Jghn Crag, Dr. Henry Hammond^ Mr, John Cotton, Mr. Tbmas Fuller, Mr. John Sialbum^Mr. Thomas Hall, and others, arc examined ^ And many points abrut the Covenants, and Seals, and other Truchs of weight, are handled : Hj J OHN>foMCES, B D. ISA. S. ao. tfo unto them that call eviHgood and good evilly that put dar^nejifor lijjbt and light for darkneji, that fut bitter for fwcet a,ndfv>ettfor b'uttr. LONBON, Prim d by E. AisoP, over ag.infhh: Upper •Sa^BSM^VS \ \ \ T \" •- nr 3HT /lO ooM£kil:( . 5rh ^o wai i-*'^t1nl J«:^<* (s —i bn£ r .<^- ?. .Ac i •-NV»^-^"i M^^ii'M^k^^^.^ ^&m PARLI A >1 .NVn.?. fcO-f 9i C om m6n wealth of En and ■ Ireknci/ ^" -^-^^ ■-! v'i ^^^- ■ j> ^^ • x^fa \» itkiJi \«i^^fcv» ^i-««5r'.H two?, 0^ u i«i> s.^ ^z/f «ff prefented the tmfcrmri^io'tyloft^ His tifj^b^cf, an(l Hit^olwcU-^ 'J-td^(hlM'^'n'M^r this to year Hensurs^ as ihofe who arti^iruHed relih t9t Afairs^ftpcfe Nfitie?is (^tny{>iiich ^£ many Churches of chr'v^^ jivhof^e [Afety , and reel fate SW muchdcptnH. under Chfifien yeurtvffedome^ a»d uprighhcfi) that it may ferve t0ju[iifie yaur Henours in allowing thofe who, agree with me in the feint herein diffftjj'ed liberty^ employment, and maintain Vance alike with dtfenters. wherein yoitr equity and wifedome is very con- ^icuoKi and laudable, not-with^andii^gths clamours and pra^ifcsof tho/i ouroppufites^ who would have the (hip of this CommonweJch fo ordired^thcs the power of it poould all incline to one Bdeto the endangering of the whole, ' ris true the afertfngof this truth hat&heretofore been unhappily managed^ partly by reafon of the conjunction offome err ours very dangerous in the Af- ferton of this truth ^ and partly by vtjfon of the violence offpirit in them and iheir Bppofttcs,' 'whicWhavf.occafioTied ha' d Law es again ft them, and greet, hatred towards ihem. Nor do I l^now any Ul^elihood but that ftiU not onely^ about this, bw alfo about any other point in diference^ when one party feel^s to o^prefiihe other there wiU be much unquieineji, unkfi Gevernours be- enfiewoderateuys between them. In the DtcUration of the Lords and Com. mont ajfembledin Parliament^ Ordered to be printed 4. Martii 1*47. / readtbi^e words. The name of Anabaptilm hath indeed csntracied much o^ dium^ by f^afon of the extravagant opinions and praolifes offome of that ttovte in Getit^^^nj, tending to the diHurbance of the Government and peacf efak States I T*bi(b^opimonsa*idpra^i(es we abhor and deleft. But for a X their TheHpiaieDed'^^f^ry. their otinionaiaUfttht Baptifm (,/">?«^^ *^ h onely a difemee about d cinumfiance oftim in the irf«;H<'fl/»«» «/ ^a Ordinance, wherem m f»r, mer ages as rvcU as this /ear-^ men have difeved htb m opinion and fta- cfice: And tb»iuh me '"*^'^ ^'^S^ ^^^' *^ ***" ^*"'*^ fatisjte them, felves, and joynwiih «* »» <'«'' j»dgmnt and pramfe in this point : Ut herein rvee btl'' *^ fi^ ^^'^^ **" ^joutd bee convinced hj the word •/ God with gent/ e-^P '"*' reafon^ and not beaten out of it by force and vio* Icnce: Andy* May i. 1^48, there was an Grdtnance which made it pu- nifhable Tv-i-f} imprifonment, to affirm that the Baptifm eflnfunts is unlaw- full^ Q" ibat Infants iaptifm is veid^ and that fuch per fens are to be bapti^ 9fd again. Notrvith Handing Tvbich^it is to bi acl^novpledged voith aUthanli. , fulnejl to Hii Hignefi and you^ Honours^ that We enjoy our Pea^:e and -Li- berty as Diffenters da j which they icvho value not, forget the goednej! of God , and mal^e forfeiture of their own good. For thofe who fo do J plead not, but for that Trnib and PraBife wkteh is delivered and appointed by Cbrifi^ which (hosildbe encouraged not fuppreffed by Govemoan. Tor this I am moved t^^^ar e^t of^cenfcience^f my dtUy to ChriH, commiferanon of ibem who have been condemned and injured for avouching my pofition, and my engagement by folemn Covenant enjoyned by Parliament^ to endeavour Re. formation tn Doclrine and mrfbip according to Gods tr^d ; And do humbly prefent it to your Honours, craving that if any Lawes do remain in force A' gainfiit they may^ be repealed i And that while we wall( according to the ruleofchriji, Liberty, Peace, Encouragement may be grated to m as to others who havejoyned in the Comrkon Caufe, which will be a motive t^ us the more affeHionat ely to pray for your Honours proS^erom and happy pro- ceedings in repairing the Breaches^ and building up tbis CommonroeaUh Your Honours Hu-nble and . Devoted Servant : . TO TO U:'^\^ The chriftian Reader? >Hough all perfonal Pleas and Narracions arc fufpc- dcd to be p^rcial, and ate ufually j'idged to \nve i'omethingefoftcnration, or difltmbling, oi fome j^- fuch inordinate affe(^ion which may abate their credit and efleem, ye: the prsilifesof oppontntsin Controverlies, and the great prt judice :o the Truth, and perfon op. por.d they create thereby, and the difficulty for perforswho are not anftors in fuch contentions to underftand the truth without thetn make ihena neceffary. Doubtlefs if fuch pleas were not n:ceflary, the Apoflle?4«/ would not have thought his courfe jufiifiable, who hath written one Epif^le, to wit, the fecond to the Corimhi- Mm, altnoft wholly Apologeticalfor himfelfjthatthemifunderftan- dino of himfelf and wayes might not be advantage to Seducers for hindering the fucccfs of his preaching. It is true my credit and e- fleem is nothing comparable to the Apoftlcs, the Church and Truth of God awy ftaftd, though I be buried in perpetual filence r yet (ith I am a Preacher of the Gofpel a$ Paul was ( A^ft vtrh htvidia ) and my labours therein as I hope not altegether vyithout firuir, aftd fith the Lord feemstome tohavefetme, though in a lower Sphere, for defence of that One Baftifm wh'jch Foul memi rions £^i&«/. 4. 5. as one of the chief points of Chriftianity, and Bek6.2.\s counted as a foundation point. 1 aflure my felf FattTs pra^ife doth juftifie mine, and that! (hould b^ waacing not onely T9 the Chri^Un teAderl to mifte owft credit, but alfo to that truth which is dearer tkefi my credit, if I ftiould paf$ by with filehce thofe mifreprereftratioBj whereby both are abufcd, and the mindes of men alienated from ihem. Which is the more neceffary, beCaufe of the great repute, which my Antsgonifls have in this generation, and their confident fpe^ches, and their inceffant endeavours upon ail occafions in Pul- pirs^ Preffej, Difputes, Conferences,to reprefenithe way I avouch as dangerous, my felf as inftrumental to an evil defigne of perver- ting and dividing the Churches of God, unro which the pronenefi of men to uphold an Errour inveterate, and rpeciotifly pretended to be approved and bleffedbyGod, and the contrary opinion accur- fed, befides the advantages it hath for their carnal eafe, and'forthe begetting ofa favourable opinion ofthcmfelves and their children ( which are more to moi\ then deroonftratioRs out of Gods word ) do gain an eafie affent. And though I ara not out of hope that chefe who have oppofed the truth I affert with impetuous 2eal^ will be (efpecully the moft tender confcienccd, who examine their wayes, and review their dof^rines j awakened and fee and con- fefs their errour, yet 1 fear the obloquy, and perhaps detriment in repute and outward eftate and peace, which m.n either ate likely or doubt they may incur by owning the truth I hold forth, or the feeming incor.filiency of the reformation I feek to promote, with the peace of the Churches of God, will divert the thoughts of many from an exaft confideration, and an equ ill judgement of what I (hall write,either of my felf or the matter under debate. What was. wonc robe oppqfedag-inft the reformation of Popifii and Prelati- cal corruptions, fhall we go againfl all antiquity ? Be wifer then our Fathers? condemn alhhe Churches? make rents in the Church? a«d fuchhke obj 6kiot)s]y 'thoygh they bs ppon.^Xjaminaupn but Kain, yet like Gorgf»i\)\t:A etiey jare apt to turn rmc-n into ftpnes^ and to maiic men not fe^e wh Jttfaey do or n>ight4c, aiu^ to b^ ,in,- ibifibli ofthe evilofth i pr;ad;tfe#' jwbich othetwiJ^ th?ir Gonfcicn- Ses would be. aflffighted ighc^a y,"^^^ it an humane irregularky, thjat. not ondy for^vii l4^o,ig,,v^c Pjjl^f ik^irAjvet^KA titer yright v^rh^awan.ttytnpiifd, j«ali^:^ ©r.^^^ i^ed »fhffjiet^Mmr^£cei. 4u.4..dijic%,wheQ.itjqrQfl??thftlfj^ ^: L and r$ ike €kri^h» Hn^ihi^ir and conceits. Nor is it incident onely co the prophaac aiid unbelie- vers, to diflike and oppofe fuch ails as- are rightly done, but zlio to the godly jUntil their mKkkes are difcovertdco chem. The building of Che Alcar of Ed^ J^, 21. X 2. was likely to havebsen an occa- fion of Wi^r bettweeO the left of the Co"gregatian of //r«#/and fotne Tribes^ till the intention of the buildeci was cleared to Phine' bat ; and fittr's going in tg Carnelitu, AU» 1 1. J. occafioncd conccntion with him, though it were from God, til', his warrant v?as fticwed. Pttnl knew tbac his promoting thccoUe^ioh for the poor Saints at jtrufaUm nn3ght be dittafted of the beft, and there- tore he payes that his ferviccwhich be had for jtiui^lcm might h accepted of tht Sdtnts, i? Se<^. 5 3. Befides what Mr. John Goodwin^ Mr. H^ood, and fnany mote have judged of mine and Mr. Baxters writings. Aftey Mr. Uaxttr Mr. John Crag would needs take up the cudgels and play his part in this matter, which how he hath done may be fcen by our wricings, compared chiefly hcrt/^^. 87, <^r. Books afcer books have been publifhed from England 2X\i Stetland, by Dr. HammoMi, Mr. Carter^ Mr. Rut her ford, Mr. FuSer, Dr. Savotge in Latin, and others for Infant- bap :irm ; b.fidcs Serm nsinthe Pulpit, and determinations in the Univerfities at moft fo- lemn times. Yea upon occafion of ameer accident at Oxford in July 1552. I have been baited in the Weekly News books, and I huVejuli caufc to conceive that by danculat Letters, conrerenceSjConfultations, not ontly my dc<5Jrine bach been decried,, my writings vilified, nnyw.iy re- prefented as pernicious that people mighc not know the truh, but alfomy (iation undermined, and my filencing endeavoured ; r.nd which is of .11 o- ther the mott gr-evous to rac, the fruit ot my 'abours in the Gofpcl of Ghrift not a little hindered : fo that whereas Mr. Baxter would have in his Gildat SiivUntts all Miniftcrs tied to confer with the pe jple in pri- vate^ by hismifreprefeacir^gofme, the people (whom I would sladly teach j are deterred from hearing me in publike, and conferrino vvftb me in private. Yea notwithfianding the Quakers have been foofcenoppo- fedbyme, an>i my dcflrine as contrary to theirs as light todarknefs, by reafon of Mr. ^axttrs tmfmirsg the rife of Qtia]i^r\fm to AHahaotifm^ as he rei ms it(which how far he chargeth on me may be feen b/ his QueHi- ons to me fet down here ft(5^. 65. ) one Blafkfefdd bookHller in Lemp* fier hath openly reviled me at the clofe ot my Sermon while! was in the. Pulpit Vecemb. 26. 1656. though I then refured the Quakers, and toIdT me, if there were no AKahaftifi there woftlA be no ^nk^r j and fome- what afore Mr. farmer a preacher in Br/jS't^/makirg u relation o\ fames Nayhrs riding into lirifi^l, prints a paffage in a private lecrer, which he with much ado fi^nifie^ to mee was written by Mr, Robert Breton of TemhriAgt in Herejordfhire but four miles from me, in which 1 am char- ged to fay^ that in a Sermon which I difavow in my writings upon the report at fable of a man of this Town, who ( what ever his qualities be ) ■btirigpreffed twice h^ me, once before fome of the moft intellioent and indifferent mco here, anorher time before all or the moH parcof'ihe Go- ve cnours to the CMfhn Reader. ▼ernours of this Town, to deal plainly whether I dicffpeakthore word?, which Mr. Farmer hac^ printed doth rtfufe to do ir, ftiuflfles in his an* fwers, and will neither affirm nor deny it. Such dealings as thcfe from men reputed godly, preachers ofrheGofpel, (bme of them feliow-fuffe- rets for the common caufe of reformation, and by the fame Covenant en- gaged CO it, do make me amaSed to fee what ftrange courfes the intempe- rate z.al of PaeJobaptiHs carries them, difcernihg thereby whiic a maiig- nicy of fpiritthty have towards me, who have (o far es I can remember done no fuch thing to them, nor have been wanting in any good orf"ce I could do for :hem wirh a good confciencr, but willing to joyn with godly diflencersin thecommcnCaufeof Chrirt. Nor do 1 nnde any relenting in Mr.^AXter., but as he {hews his fpiri: in his Ltters printed here fe^.jj, 6},. fo by his preaching at B«w^/^ M^y ^ i6s6. in which he gave ten frivolous I ea Tons for his pra(^ife of Infant- baptifm, for the confirming of his parry who oppofed my preaching there at that time, and fince, and by the late pafl'ages in moft of fns writing?, and in his lafl book of Conver- ftonp. lop. 1 findchimf^ill thefarfie he was. Nodonbt C faith he ^ bUt Cod doth p4rdoH ortginal fin to muitttfide of ittfams by the khud of Chrifi, throttghthe Cotfenant ej grAce which u made to tbefatthfuSand their feedi and this pardon beFtowed by the Covenant is fealtdby bap- tifm vfhich mortfolemKlyco*tferreth it. It is mofl probable that God doth aI[o Mn'^efo^e change onlhe hearts of infants^ fccretly giving fomt fefdof inwardgfflce beforeorinthetr baptifm. And f.l^^, he hath this foolih p; ifa;j. . Oiherswtthdravp upon pretence we are ff»baptix.ff^ to which endthtj mHfl coin a new baptifm.^ or etfe thej are at a iofs. And thar a gning with tu wt'H be much itk^ the Papifls^in tkefoint ofTran- fubfta^ tiationy which rttjtttreth that men renounce their fgnfe a^dfay, th4t thiy fee not that wh^ch^hey fee, and feelv.ot or taft not that toh-ch indeed thejferJ and tafiy affd then they mdy come to be in the right 5 and fowe mttft beleeve \h»t we ft e none baptise A in oftr Churches, nor hear it^ Ttor knowofanyftiihth'tng, and then we maj eome to be aChfsnb: As if the arguirg were that there is noth'ng wh ch Paedobaptifis call bap* tifm in their Churches, n©t, there is nothifig that may betruely called Chrifiirn baptifm according to Chriftsinflirucion, and then ^. 500, af cist hisfaftiion when he wants arguments, he adds. Oh if it were the wiUof ^od that wt cottld have as clear light in [owe othe*' weighty points as we have in Scripture for the baptifm of the chtldreKofbeletvers^ berv much wohU it do t* ^tiift the fin derjl- aft dings of matij that are wtUtng to k»0fv ! 1 dare noc fay it is a vfondei to me to findc fuch paffages in Mt.Baxter^ b 2 but 7# tbeChriftian Redder* b'Jt bavihg examined his book of it4ptt[m, bit ten r§A/§mf&ir his ^r^iff §f IftfsMt ifaftifm delivered in Bewilej Cbappel Mny 4. I6j5. Hi* httttrtiovciz i6sy« ^et down hetc ftft. 55, ^c. 1 cannoc buc bemoan the fad condicion, firft of Minifters and people who are cirried sway wuh fuch fh allow difpucings, andcoefident fpteches as Mr^Bax.er, hath u- fed in thefc wticingj, 2, Of my fel^, and all who go about to deer truth, that they be necefli ate d to flir up fuch a ncft of Wafps and H jrnecs, a$ thefe have (hewed tb.mfdves to be who have oppofed me, if ch. y do ne« ver io brotherly and fairly and regularly declare their judgments contrary CO the common received tenents. Y^t I muft confefs cwo things have fomcwhat refreflied mee againft the hard cenfurcs of thofewhomMr. Bla(f mentions and the reft, tl cone '.hat His Highnefs, and Couacil and the Parliament fir.ce ( as 1 am informed ) confirming the Ordinance iot approbation of publique Preachers Iccm to have better chough's of rne ia putting th :it trufi on mc, tV o:hcr chat ^ to mention no other ) r wo of the ableft acuteft and well read Divines and accurate Dirpuan:s. which I have known che Univerfity of Oxford in my tine to have bred, and who have been thoi^ht fie for the Divinity Chair, have had far other con* ccitsof my writings then thefe have had, the one not long after the pub. lifliirg of my Ex4me»j txprefTing his rejoycing to fee ib accurate and IcholaHical a difcufli«jg of the poinr, which be found not in the j4jfttn' bly, wifhing he had known of it afore the publishing of ic that he might have prefixed an Epiftle. yv.twifhtng it had been written in Latin, as forefeeing that the pyb ifhing it in EttgUfl) was likely to beget me more trouble, then ic would have dene if pr inred in Ldttn^ the other who fince that vrorc tbuJ to mt . / am a friend to ycur fir/en ( whon^ I have i^sfPH ( ihoHgb ft»t l^own tojoH ) thu 31. years ) ana to your optm»n too (^ M to the main of it ) for I keletve andkyoxv^ that there is neither freupt ncpratiijein .Scripture ftr Pado^ept/fm, mr anyju^ evtdenee forti for about tvfo hundred years after Chrifi. The firj^rvbo hears mtnefsto Infant b apt, fns fraftifed in the Church is TertuHiuO, htitfr 4s he expre/iy d flil^s and co»demnet ft M an unw arr amah le and irra» tionalcnfiame % And Naxianzen agoodwhile after htm ( in hts Oration lit iytov MTrJifff^ ) dtfitkst it too, andwonld not have infants hr ought to haptijm till they wereoffome age. andahleho anfwer lerthemftlves, Smre I art that tnihe Primitive times thty were ^rfitohe Catechumini, i..iithenas the firfi that ever f Aid it nvas nceef- fdfj inde durus pacer infantam. J hdve readwhat mj learned and rvorih/ frten4 Dr. H. mmord, Mr, Bsxter and other j fay tn defence of it ^ axd^I tonfffs ) / woncer *iot A little that men offneh g^eat p^n sjhou/d fay fi much tofo little pHfpofe^ for I have not yet feen any thft'g like '^** Argu- went for it. Nor is ic a fmall eafe to me that I finde afttf all Mr, Baxterj ihamttull and vain arguings againft the trutb^ and injurious dealings Nvi'ih me and the baptized Chrifiians.with whom 1 ho'd CommLmon.that yer ac ]att,though quite bcfidcs his intentions, he hath fo befriended cur caufe as to Itrd ut twenry good arguments ag^iintt Infant bapMfm, in his ^d»difputAtton of right to SacrofuentSj in theclofe-of the l5 h, faying thus ^.X 56. / conclude that aUcXAmples of bAptifm in Scrtfiure do men- tion onel; the AdmtntflrAtion of it totheproftffort of faving faith : And the precepts give us no at her direHien* Atid I provoke Mr* BUke [as far as is feemly for me to d«) to name one frecept for bAptiz.tng auj other ^ and make tt good if he can. I knovv what he will prttu:d, that he intended 4h soneiy agaicH Mr. Blakes opinion ©f baptizing tipon a dogmatical faith and he means vvhat he argues ondy in the cafe of aduJt pcrfons. Buc that do:h not avoid his own arguments againft himftlf, though he othcr- wift intended ; nor will hsevafion Icrve till he prove, that there is a dif- ferent precept or example for baptjzirg Jnfawis from that of baptizing adulc ptr^cn^, or that any are to be accounted heleevers or diCciplcsby their pa« rcnts^r,as his term is.pt'eparcntspro'efficn, which vvill never bedone by him, I will not Tay asMr.i?/«i^lauh fome have faid of me, that i: is not poflible but he goes againft th d ftares of h;s own confcience : But ihijj dare boIJly fay, thar Mi, Baxter hath ftrongly difputed ?gainft Itifam Baptifm in the place fercnam.c}, p^g'^^- »fltrtirgcnd piaving ^rg,l. H^e mu^ n$t baptsj^e any who prof eft not true repentance^ pag.^3, j#r^*a We muf} bAptiz^e no man tbAt ^rftprofejfeth not to beUeve in (jod-, \ut%* Argum. 5. /t'/ the very nature or appointed uft of the external part tf Baptifm it [elf \.jia epntial to it ) to fgnt&c and profef 7$ ihtihfifuH Jesclitl the favitsg faith And reptntanoe of the h aft t ted, pag.71©. arg,' i^t ^t- fnnfi b af t izemne that frojef snot their cottfent to enter them fglvet f rem fentlj into the Coi>en4nt of gtAce icitb Gvd iH Chrift, p, y$. arg. ^ , tvi mrifl not h^ptiz^ any rvithottt the profefiion of tiat faith 4kd refemtance wh(ch are made the condition o\refnifti8n of p)if\ the r^ft Have fpeeches to like porpofe, m which chough he pucs in iomeirmes [andtheirffid] yec Ki$ proofs do all overchrow chat his own addition, and tejr off his patch which he ha^h printed to his argumetr, and as fully milkire againft hi$ hook 0fkap}ifiOf a^ Mri ^iakff 'cnet ; (o chat tome it feems that by Di- irineprovidertceVuVtdur his inctntionj unaeademjue manm vulntu o» pern f He tuUt : Nor do I think but that if confcientious ChriOians chiefly Schollers, would read over that fecond difputaHon, they would be fatif. ftedtha: infants ought not to be baptized but themftlves, and that Mr, IS^axter hath cheated the vv6rldby HshQoVefbsptifna, and (hewed him- felf therein an inconfidera-e writer. But however this fall our, it is a great rejoycing to my foul, that God hath fo long preferved my life and fltength though now declining, to finifh this part of the Review aifo, and to Ice chat part of it printed which is in anfwer to Mr, Baxters fecond main argument in his book of baptifra^about his pretended ordinance of infants vilible Churcli«mcmbeT(hip and it^ repeal, which fomeiiavc givdi'oHt as unanrwtrabk, beCaufe this anfwet ha;h been fo long in publifhlng ; lidt confidering that befides the not knowing of his minde about it till I655. I have been necefli:r>ted to anfwer many others, and together wich my conftant labours, feme other employments extraordiniry with domeftick dtftra(Sions, neceflicycf refpeft to my bodily rtrergth, want of help of books in iome points, of learned men to whom I might have recoutfe, of an aTanucnfis, and chiefly the difficulty of getticg it printed by reafon of the great charge, which this book amounts t©, and yet is not fo readily put oft'as other fmalLt 'writings, and fuch as fuie more with the mifide of Readers, of whom few feem to fearch after ttu.h impartially, efnecially in conttoverfi-s of this kinde. ' In this which is done my wicfcefs is jn hea- ven how faithfully and fincerely Ih: ve dealt, which makes me flight the unrighteous cmfurs o? thcfe Mr» B/< do iall into many falfe opinions, prove Quakei s, c$-c. I wifh them bctcer to examine reports of us, then Mr. farmirf Mr. Breton, and o;her$ have dofte of rae a^ore they fpread them, and to look in:o the ftate of the fcciccies of their own judgement, who if-tbey be not guilty of iiich fallings, 1 ftkJl re Joyce with them, and hope they willlearntopitty ihd endeavour to rcfiore thofe who are fallen in the fpirit of nBeikr.cfs ; if they be, that they will remember that it (hould be no more ob)tle ift the New Ttf^ament ? 5. Whether it be not a profanation of Baptifm to «fc it ctherwife then Chrift appointed ? 6. Whether by juf^ifying Infant Baptifm, the relinquifhng of many Popifh and Prelatical ceremonies which have as much of reafon, tradition, authority of the Church as it, be hot condemned i 7. Whether it be not an oppre(!ion, and exercfino of ns who are no way abettors of them bccauf of agreement in one opi- nion? 18. Whether divifion or Schifm i»not chiefly to be imputed to thofe who violently oppofe & inveigh rgainft th^ir Brethren for holding & pra- (9::fing i.hat which they conceive themfelvcs bound to do by the plain command of Chrift which their oppoficesdo acknowledge ? 1 ^. Whe- ther fuch as impofe Inf an: baptifm on their Brethren who hold the faith and baptifm confeffcd to be from Chrift, and deal rigo oufly wich them fornotownif'git, do not as thePapifts, who impofe with cruelty their own addi'.ions on thofe who otherwife are not denid to hold ihe true faith and pradife ? 20, Whether fuch prefenc.s as arc mnde for Infant baptifrr, and the imagined evil of Anabapiifm, canbeafufficientpleafoc anv To the Chri'^ ian Render, baptlfm, an4 the Imagined evi! of Anabaptifm c^n be a ru"^c:em plea for any truly godly perfon to ncgle6l chat baptiGii v bich Chrift hach (o i\n&.. ly commanded A/^r.sS.ip. /^ar.:6A6. & the i\p3li!esconfiantIy pra(^i- fcd?And fi:h Mr. Baxter hath with (o iruch earndinefs minifired (o many mtcrrcatories to me, 1 fliall cake the boldnefs to advifc him to confider hs own ways. I. Ingvitigfuch a title to his book of PI in Scripttire f0ofef/>*fdnts bg^ ifm, when there is not one text la all his Book which Ipeaks plainly or cbkur^^iy for it, yea it'sconfefled by himf.i^, chat it is not fUir.lji determhed ift Script ffrgi p. 3. ^W is [0 durk^itt Scriptftre that the coMtrovtrf'e is become hard p. 501. a. In his abuling fo many ttxrs of Scripture as he haihdone, chiefly the infticution of Bap ilm Matth.2% ip, for infant B:iptifm,j'sif they were dilciples appointed there :o be baptized, which is !ufficien:ly refuted by himfelf in many places of Baptifm,p. 2pp, 500, cfibe right te Sacraments from p. pi, to 9 ror tlfewherefiiewed to be fo.^. In his light p:(!ing ov^r my urging his own words againf! infant baptifm, a- bour Chrifts inflitution /l/<«r. 28.1 9/1 n my ^ncurf, p^56, in his Prafefl; WflM//t(3.i^. which is neted m the 2d. P^rt of the Rtview, p. 66, 67. which llire being from Chrif^s inf^ieution, defeivcd better corfidcration. 9. In condemning our reJ€(^ion of infant Baptifm, though but an humane tradition, on no better grounds then Papifts build many of their cererEo, nies which he condemns, in afferting the Covenant of grace to the faith- full and their kt6, which in difputes cgsinft jirmtnians \s commonly de- nied by Ccmraremstjflrants. 10. In his many falfj accufations of tne as a feia mufier dtfiurher of the Chffrch, which he cannot prove, in bis fcotnfull cxpr^-ffions in the difpute and his books, in his injurious infinua- tions of me, as if I were blinded or hardened, occsfioned the rife ofQua- kerifm and other errours, thereby indircft'y ere ting odihm to me ?.rd to the truth, and which is worfi of all, weak^nigmy hands ifi the work of Chrift, and particularly in taking cfF my efKcndam hearers at Bcvpdiey c from to the Chriftian Reader, . from hearing me, or permiciing me tbere to preach in publike. None of which, nor any of che re(i or his evil fuggeftionsof me or the peop'c bap- tized there or clfewhere, I pray God may be laid lo his charge, I have ho more to add, bur to commend the reading of this and the ochtr parts of the Revtevf to thy care,hoping chat as the diffcret:ccs between the Cif^Jordan and Trattf'Jorddn Ijraeites, and Peter and the circumcifed Chiitiians were compofed by right in'elligenc- of their ad^ioos, (o it may be in this, and that God will awaken the eyes of thofe who have oppofed thettu:hl afferc, with devices of an anti-Evangelcal Covenant of grrice to Believers and their feed, a Law and 0;d na^'ce of infancb vilible Church memberfhip no where extant, of baptizing ir.fjrts accordii-gtothe Jew- i{h partem of baptizing ProfelyteJ, of an addi;ional promife of caftinoe- le^ children on eleft parents ordinarily,of a command in force now,Gf», I7. p. of Baptifms fucceffion to Circumcifion and feiching a ruL- from it, ofbaptifms conferring Grace, ^tf. will dilcern their errour, and embrace ihatlighr which they have hitherto fhut out, rnd laying afide their vain difputes about the baptizing of Infants of not Churchmembers, profane, excommunicate parents, or proparencs and fuch like, endeavour to reftore that one Baptifm wh ch w ::h cha: e«? faith oKce delt vered la ihi Saints, may bring the Churches of G -'d tc a right confi'tution and holy unity a"d order, and without which a pgh: reformation covenanted will not be, and thacgoily paren:s of tender confcienCvS will take heed of bringing in- fants to baptifm whert by it is profaned, and difccrn that ic is their own N duty tobe baptized intbe name of Chri'f, atid that the u^€ of baptifm is, as Vr. ^^tvrf'ccnfcffe'h/?. 68 Ofri^htto SacrAmemSyye^ejfenttal to it toftgrfif.eandprofefsthef(ivt»gfithAndref(>}t4t:ceofthehi!pti7utd (whicii fli-ws nfaiics are not bap.ized. hchthy do not that vvbich is effential to baptifm and that which is effential muft be irs all ) and not to look upon it as thtii childreHS priviLdge, but as it was by Chritt appoin- ted, by u engage tb.mfelvesto fellow the Lord Jesus 5 which is the prayer of Th) IcviKg Brother And yeai Servant in Chrift', John Tombbs, Tbr Cmtentf, Scd, i.THe fecund argument againft infant Baptifin ihatit is will worflijpis *' confirmed. Scft. X. Dr. Httnti his arguments to prove infant Baptifm from Gtn i-j, are examined. Scd. 3. Mr. Drew* argument for infant Baptifm from 6f». 1 7. is examined, and it is flicwed that i/icrc is net the fame reafon of infant Baptifm as of in- fant Circumcifion. Sea. 4. Tkc Covenant Gen. 17. 4 j 5,^, 7, 8. was a mixt covenant. Seft. J. A£Is i. 58, 39. prove* noteithcr the identity of covenant now with that to Abraham Gen. ij. 7. as it comprehends his natural feed, nor the connexion between it and baptizability. Scft>. Theargumentot Mr. Jefiah ckarcb 'm hh Divine warrant for infant ^tfpri/«,iom their being judged in the profnifc of propriexy in Uod is an"» fwcrcd, Sea.7. Bare judgc.iient of charity concerning a perfons imercft jn i^e propifc isnot 3 warrant to baptize. Se. The Contemtr Sect. 19. Mr. Ula\es exceptions againft my fpeeches in the point aboac the connexion between the Covcnsni and initial Teal are rcfcllcd. Scft. 10 The exceptions which in the firft parr of my RtvhwQt Antiptxdtbap. ti/m [eH. S. are madeagainfl the proo/ ot connexion between the Coyenanc and initial feal, are confirmed againft Mt. Blaise vind. fad. ck./^x.feH_ j. Seft. XI. The icn exceptions of the 6rft partofmy Aevifiw Jgainfl Pxdobap* lifts expofition and allegation of A£ls i. 38, 39. for the connexion between the Covenant and feal, are vindicated from Mr. j/aj^^j anfwer vir.dic, f«d. ch. j7, 4J- Seft. tx. Animadverfions on^o. t.'part. i.of Mt,ThamasCobbct his Ju(i vin- dication touching the explication of A^s i. 38, 39. jn which his expofujon is fhewed ro be vain, and mine juftificd. Seft. »). The arguments drawn from yiBs i.?8, 59. agalnfl the connexion between C vcnant intercft, and Baprifm right, and infant Baptiru arc vindi- cated from Mr. Cobbeis aniviers. Sc6t. 14. Mr. Sidenham's notes on j4£ls z. jj. InhUExercitat'tm cb, j. are confidered. Seft. t5. Mr. Mdrfhalf reply tomy £ar. proves ir, andihatthediftinifiionofontwardand inward Covenant is noc ri^hi. Seft. if. The mixture ef the Covenant as by me affcrtcd, is vindicated from Mr. Biflij-M exceptions vind.f9.^. T>eut,tg. 10, &c. E\el^. id. i, &c. Gf». >. if,*tf. and ether places are examined. 5ect. 4^. Mr.c^bbas anfwers co objections againft his 7th, ww/. purt. i. e.^. feB.9. of his juji vindic. are confidered, and Mr. Btal(es tenet concerning tbe general nature of a Covenant that it is a iputual agreement. Sect. 4<. The 27, 18, 19. chapters of Mr. BU^es vind. fad. are examined_, and i: ii fhewed that he hath not proved the Covenant of grace in C.ofpd limes to admit or to be made to any but the elect regenerate. Sect. 47. Mr. Blaies vindic. fad. eh. 34. concerning the fJating the queflion of the birth- prjvilcdge of tbe ilTue of believers is examined^ and his objections againft my ftating it removed. Sect. 48. The j ycb,and j7th. chapters of Mr Blal^ts vindic. fad.ite examined, and his arguments concluding the natural iffue of believers co be taken imo covenant are anfwered. Sect. 49. The 4th. ch.oi Mr. Banterspart, i. of plain Script, proof &c. is exami. ned, his conceits about infants vifible Chutehmemberftip and their admi/H' on confidered, and fundry animadvcrfions made on that chapter. Sect.jro [he ^ .eh.ofMr.Brs^pfainfcrip. &c.p.i.isexamined,andthctexts'G<«/. 4. r »&c. Afflt.iS .ip.cleercd Co as to prove infants now no vifible churchmembers'. Sect. 5 T . The arguments from altering ef the Jewilh Church conftiiution and call, the coafing of the High Pricft, &c. to prove infants now no vifiHc -ClJiirchmembcrs, arc made go©d aga inft Mr. Baxttrs^ , tb, f /«»,8cc. fart, i . iScct. fa. The Contints, Se^.f t. It Is proved that infants were not reckoned co the viable Church Chri- ftian in the primitm timcj,norarcnow. Sed. J 3. Letters between me and Mr. Baxter are fee down, concerning the Law and Ordinance of infants vifiblc Churchmembcrfhip unrepealed, which he afl'rt^, whereby the poinr is dated. Scd. J4. Infants were vifible Cl.urchmembcrs onely in the Congregation of Ifrad. Sect. yy. Infants of the Jews were not vifible Churchmembcrs by promife or precept, as Mr. Bijjt^r tcachetli. Scfl. ^6. i hat the people and thereby the infants of the Hebrews were roadc vifibic Churchmembcrs by a tranfcuntfadj is made good againfl Mr. Bax- ters exceptions. Sect. 57. Mr Baxters Law of infants viGble Churchmemberfnip unrepealed is not proved from Gc». i, »^, 2.7,28. or Gen. 3. r y. Sece.f 8. Infants vifible Churchmembtrftiip is not proved by ihe Law of Nature, Sccc.y9. The (ayjngs of Adam, EvSyNoah^ concerning Canij -^eib, Sbem^thc terra lfonsefG»d,Gtn. 6. 2,.] prove not Mr. Baxters Law of infant;, vifi- ble Churchmcmbcrfliip unrepealed. ScCt. go. Mr, Baxters Law of infants vifible Churchmembetfhip unrepealed, is not proved from Gen. it. or 17. or it. Sect. <5i. Covenants, promifcs and fpeeches in the Old Teftamcnt of ijtatl^iht fighteous, prove not Mr fi4a;tfyi Law of infants viiible Churchmcmbctlhip unrepealed. Sect. dz. Mr. Baxters jth. and loth. queflions about the rcpealablenefs and repeal ofhisim^gined Law of infants vifible Churchmeraberfhip, and his 8. additienals are anfwered Sect. iy. Mr. Baxters ten calumniatory queftions and the conclufion of his Letter are anfwered. §ect. ^4. M v anfwer in the Difputc and fermon to the argument o^ Ms ,Baxtet of Baptifm paH. i. cb. tf. about the nonrcpeal of infants Churchmembcrflup becaufe neither in juflicc nor in mercy is vindicated. §ect. €$. Mr. Baxtsmrguixitnzs iiom Matth.i ^.17 . Revel, n. i J.for infants vifiblc Cburcbrcmbcrnilp fib, 12, i^. are anfwered. §2Ct. 66. Mr B/tar/crJ9ib^ loth, nth, concerning infants better condition in the N. T. in kis ;4th, 1 5, idib, chapters fart. i. of Bapttfm^ co prove their \'(fible Churcbmemberfliip are anfwered. §eci. 67. I Ir. Baxters argument ch, 17. part. i. 6f baptifm,. fiorn Dent, if. 10, II, ti. i> anfwered^ andmyanfwcrs vindicated. §ect. 68, Neicjier from Rom. 4. i r. nor by other teafon, b?th Mt. Baxter pro- ved c/;. I 8. .9 part. f. ef baptifm, that infant Churchrncmberihip was partly na oral, partly grounded on theLawof grace and faiths §ect. 6q, Mr. BaxtC) cb. %o. hy his 1 Jth. argument from infants bejng once- members of the univerlal vifiblc Church, hath not proved their vifible Churchmcmberfhip unrepealed, §ect.70. lA^. Baxters i«»th. and 17th. arguments frcm the promife cf mercy £*;- od. »o 6. and of bkfiing ?fal. 57. 16. are anfwered. Seft, 71. lr. Baxters i%^h. argument froai rtie priority of infants Church- rncmberihip before Circumcifion, his ijitij. from Godi mercy, bis »otb. from The CsKtentf* from bleffing and eurfing Deut. i8. arc anftrcrcd. Seft.yi. Mr, .axten ji. argument from ihe abfurdity ofmydoSrinc making all infants members of the Devils vifibic Kingdome is anfvvcred. Sect. 7 ^ Mr. Bajrf^j xz. argument ch. : 7. that my dodrjne leaves no ground ot hope of faivatien of infants dying is anfwercd. Sect, 74. Mr, B^^tfri allcga ions p.7^, 77,78. fhew not a ftronger ground of hope ofinfanis falvation lo dying then mine, his jjd. argunicnc «/;, 18, bis X5ih. fib. 30. are anfwered. §:ct. 7 J. ^'y arguments to prove thcingraflingJltfW.i i.i7«-ob5 into ^he invi- fible Church by giving faith, are vindicated irem Mr. Blades exceptions vlndic.fxd. cb. 38. and Mr. Sidaihams Excrcit. ch_ 8^ 9. Sect. t6. My fcnic of matrimonial holincfs i loy. 7. 14, is vindicated from :'.lr, Blaiies exception.-, v'mdic.f.id.cb ^^, and Mr. Sidenhams Exercit ch. 7, Sect. 77. Mr. f^^//(tfw Cfl'/'?cr5 attempt ot proFing the Ci rjftjin Sabbarh from Hcb. 4. 7, jij 10. ii (hewed to be fucceffcielSjand foufekfs for proof ot infant baptifm. Sect. 78. Mr. Ca/?criexpjfiuon ofGfW. ai. 1^, r 7, 18. as if Goc! premised to make eveiy ieli ver a blefiingj foas tocaft ordinarily cJc:t children on eled parents is refuted. Sect. 79 Neither did Circumcifion fcal Mr. C^j^ifrradditioj^al promjfc, tior VI z% Abraham ihcnc^ termed fath:rof believers. §ect. 80. Mr. Carters conceit as if Gen. 17. 9. were a command in force to A- brahams fpiricual feed in the N. T. is fhcwed to be vain. §tct.8i. The fucceffion of Baptifm to Circumcificn, and their identity For fubflanceto us is flicwed to be unpr(ved by Mr. Cjtcct^ ^ir. Maijhal, Mr. church., Dr. Homes^ Mr. Coiion^ Mr, FttUer^ Mr. cobbsi, from Col.i. Hjiz. or clfewherc. §cct.8x. Noiwirhflandng Mr. CtfHfi allegations of /4f?.i 2. 38, 39. i Cor.?. 14. Kom. II. li J ij\. Marl( 10. \ 4 /4cfs I ^. lo. Mattb. ,8. tg. thtN.T. appears to be filcnt about Mr. Carters additional promife and infants bap* tifm. §ect. 8 <. Intcrefl in the Covenant give not tii!c to Circumcjfion as Mr. Mar- fial in his 4th. concl. would have it. §ect. 84. The enlargement of our priviledgcs proves not inftni baptifm as Mr. Aia'jfhd in his jth. eond. would have it. §cct. 8 J. Mr. Cobbets dictates JuH. vindic. part. i. cb.i. touching childrens baptifmal right arc examined and rcfelled. §eci. 8(5 Theijih. and 14^^. chapters of the firfl part of Mr. 2{M/fcc'/«''rfj book of the Covenant are examined, and found to make nothing for infant baprifn. §cct. 87. The difaftcrs in Germany and our prefcm diftraciiens fpmng not from Anabaptifra as Mr. Oag faith, §cct. 88. Auft'tHs faying about Apof^olica! traditions is not to be reftcd upon nor his teftimr ny about the ar,tie,uity of infant baptifm. Sect. 89. Theteftinonies of the Ancient writers of the Greclf Church concer- ning infant baptifm are examined and my excepticm made good againft Mr, Crag^ Dr. Hammond, Dr. Homes, Mr. Marjbal. Sect. JO, The arguments 10 prere infant baptifm an innovation in the Greflfr Chur^bcs £xm. t.9, arc made good s^ainft Mr, Marfhal^ and Dr. Homes. ?cct. pi.' 7he CoKtents, Seft. 9I. The teftimoniesof TertuUian for infant baptifm, tnd Dr, Mammeftds iaccrpretacion oicb, i9.de Ammx^tie examined with i Ctr. 7. 14, Scft. 91. Dr, Hd«wtf«.r,7. 1,4^. r»#«"- P,59.1»*.''.»i7. p,40.1,?r.r,p*f»/wrs ],4^.r,7. p,4i l,4^^,/w^ p,yr.i,ii.r/««^fyj. p/i.^j.^ci^^^o*. p,^7.J,«i r,»(7t yifl/f■f«pc. p,iz6 \^ii.t,rmifton of fins. p,i09. 1,»5. ijtictgnitum. p,i4i. 1,.U> ^i^uniber. p,i4^. i,i. r, f>f< p,i48.1,3 r,tfiijlik.ey \,5>^:^ppofite. p,Uo.I,a. r,wc/i»r ^v- 1,17. r,c»«! frebendtd. ^^x^iy^izSydichotomie. p,i58.I,i«.r,^M*ck/, d,<2a7.1,3 J. r,fy;^- p,io4 |,iy. tjtiwof: p,i09.1,44 x^Abrabamitei antecedent ly: p,iii,l.$6. r.pentar.cc neither have ours; l,^$yr,a6rii: p,ziy.l,ii. r^L c. 1,14. r,^^. p,air, l,4t. r,i<«e<nfr«»/»:p,i»9.1,4.d,«cfil,y.r,.l,8. r.flings: p,i4o. l,ij. d,».l,'0.r:'^«i'«;l,39.r,«»r<:f- 1,4% r,//c»;; p,is8.J,37. sjutilitj: p,i6i.l,i. r,« woej 1,4. d^fo- 1,39. T.feditg'. p^i6%.i,i^. x.ty, 1,41. r,rl?ar, 1,43. d,f: p,i7i. l,i.r,rea/(9» Aj l,:^. r^axdthe-. p,^7^ ^ 23, r,«r;: p,i7y.l,37. r,fxTfr»<7/: Pj*7^ 1,45". d.wer; p,i77. 1,57. r,du- litgthe; 1,44,4?, i,inibe right adr^,ini fir atien of ic : p,i78.1,i2. r, »o 7vbere;i,^7.T,clehallufive: p,i79.\,i. r^ofore^ l,i s.x^ coniain:, I,i7. r, U profer te Jfrael: p,i8o. Ijf. x.battbatfuch aret0be', l,^7.r^t(i is a; 1,59. rjtheyare: p.z8iJ,zo r^rvere; ^,iSi.l46.r^without that;],^7. r^ ftbn: p,i83.J,44. r^profcffor-, p,i85. 1,3^. r,^^: p,i8^ l.ic.d.and; l,itf, i,yea under yet vpere: p,i87.I 7. r,»^i l^x^g^thattphichy i,io. T^vifible inter e^: p,;>3. l,ult, r,««'i»g- p,i94-i,i4. r,«»/flr P>»9S. 1, 38,r,wind:7W;: p, 300.1,9. r,«pefffcy?(»r5; p^ 310 ],ia.r./^»9WBef: p,3il.l,}.r,^/"grfl«: p,3 17.1,4^. r.cowf; p,3t9. 1,8. r^neerprofeftr: pjj jo. l,itf, x^Uafeal totbe Genulsi that beiteveof /ft ERRATA. • the ngb^mfnefst)( faith though they bamvtr weumifed • J, td, c, ^/n ftichi 1,27. f\,rvere: p,?3i. 1,40. r^are: p,334.l,3. tyinferme j 1,37. r, few: p,33y.l,7.r,airmj 1,47. r,wfee«« j 1,15. ryie»«: p,j4T,I,35, T^conUttien* AtYy the figures Bre wrong by rcafcm of the u!e of two Prcffcs^ fdr after 344./fff.4^. is p, r4f. again : p,a4y. I.i4. r^ef which: p.xfg, l,^.T,vaforum: p,z^i. 1,48. Mr: p,iji. mif printed zM- IjJ*. r^mtonvbat* p^ x9T.\,6.x^indefimulr. p,^o^.\,it.T,(pecial: P,3i8.l,zr. r^defenim: P,3*3l>8. r,»frf; p,38i. Ijtj.r/tf///*: p,^^?. i,ii, r^cfaM: p,39«. \^6.tjheut p,4QiAy^7.t^many: p,4 3- l,io. r,H/<»<»: p.407. 1,19. r, (Shmcbmmbers: pjfo 1.1,45. r^onconittlon :p^5°l}yttnidtx,nghteoufn€f$i p,509.1,9. r.rtfw; p,r 10,1,47. r,^*^ p.f J7J,i8. r,»f w*w. p,yJ9.1,l»^ t.tvbohaih. p,f«ri.l,i8. r,/j wor. ^^^7,\^^^,xjdrcaftctd. p,c«7ierete. p,^78.I,7. r,rfe«jf. p,<84.1,4^. r,faftaio7t. pjoi.l $6,t^didn0C. p,703.l,i\.r,w«re««r. p,7oy. 1,41. r, frw^jff, p,7H.l,8.d,»ot. p,7if 1,14 r,f fee fiwff. p,7i7.J,i4.r,M. p,73y.Ijir. r,ffc««. p,74J.I,I I. rJemaSy. p,7y t.1,43. r,^fc<>'f. P,75*.l,7. r,/4- »«tf. p,783»I,»7. r,«i>£rf were. pjf2.lj.v,ambigua. p,799'hio.d^ef^ p^Zo$.\,^S.r,not. p^8i6.\y4^.T, one parent was. p,8zi. 1,7. d,fe^, p, %%U\j»t:,tMchitwiu., 1,23. r, «^7?^r at the three Bibles at the Weft end of Pauh, London. An addition to the Apology in a Letter to Mr, Kobert BaiUee of Scotland X Printed by Henry Wilt, next door to the fign of the Peacock in Alderiga'e-ftreet, London, fr4€tirfor, or a Forc-runnci; to the Kevi^X Printed/or the . fame. * Antifadobaptifmy or the Firft Par: of the full Review of the Difjpute concerning Infant Baptifm 5 Printed for Henry Crips and Lf^0mck,Lh)d in Popes- head Alley Ctjas iumbard-ftrce;, Lon^ doH, h Books pubumed by the Author* A Plea for Afitipaedobaptiftf, aga'mfl Mr. John Craggt Difpute .afid Sermon at Ahtrg^ivtnnj % Printed for Henry Hills above flamed. jimpi^fafti/htj or the Second Fart of the full Review of the Difpute CQllfcining Infant^aptifm ♦ Printed for the fame. jQdnnis 'tomhti BendUitnftt refutMiofofitioHu Dris» Hen. riei Savage Ltndini % tjfis Hemici HiSt. Antipaeiobapcifm, or the the Third Pate of ihc full Review of the Difpute concerning Infant Bap:ifm ; London, ptinted for Hen- rf HfSt above named. FINIS. N Anti-paedobaptiun : OR, The third part of the full Review of the Difpute concerning Infant- Baptifm/efuting the proof of it from Circumcifion and the Covenant. SECT. I. The fecond Argument tigainfi Infint-Baptifmy that it is mtl-worpip , is con- firmed. HAving proceeded fo far in the Review of the difpute concerning Infant-bapilra, i% to vindicate the TertSj Rom. ii. 17. ASl.i 58,39. iCor.7,14. from fuchgloflcs as tend to wreft them to the maintenance of it, and to make good my firft Argument againft iti from the inftitution of Chi'i^) Mai,iS.i^.M^li,i6,i6. TheApoftles A and (2) and primitive Evangeliftsprafticeandfayings, in two parts of the JRa//«* already printed, I go on to the finiftiing of the reft of the forementioned Review. My fecond Argument againft Infant-baptifm is thus formed , That which is will-worfhip is not agreeable to the will of God , nor according to the rule of baptizing ; But the ordinary Baptising of Infants, though by a lawful Minillerjis will-wor(hip. Ergo. The Major is proved, i. From Co/, i. 15. where will-worfliip isdifal- lowed by the ApoiHe, and fo generally Commentators and other Authors account will-worlhip a fm. Doftor Lafics defence about the Sabbuth, Thef.2. Te linovp that 49»Ac9fM(rwiat did never pletife God i yet Doftor Hammond in his Treatifc 0/ w7/-wor/?.'//>, will have 6'J«Ke9j>i(r>t«« , or will-worfliip,to be underflood in the better fcnfe. But againft it are the frame of the A- poftlcs words,and the drift of them, which is to blame them for being [ub- jc6i to ordinances after the doSlrines and commandments of men, as not agree- ing with a Chriftiaru co^dying rvith Chriftj And he faith, Such things have a Jhexvof rvifdom ; and verfe 18. he that promifeth that none do beguile them of their reward 5i\mi> h -mmnt^fafftitf y nnilling in humility , or as our'Tranflators, in a voluntary humility. I may not now divert from the prefent bufinefs to examine Dodor Hammonds Allegations , there being enough in that Text to prove, fervlce as done to God , invented by men, and praftifed after their commands, without Gods appointment , not to be after Gods will ;. and I takeDodorH^wimonr^ to be well anfwered by Mr. Carodrcy. i. However tlie Major is plainly proved from Chrifts words,Af'yJ;4Mpage i9?34j5:6j7- Secondly, were it giantedjthat it is not properly will-worfhiptomifapply an inftitutcd ordinance to a wrong fubj;d;,yet if it be an abufe or pi'ofanati- on,the matter is no whit mended with M. BUI^e, if I put in my argument inftead of the term (will-worfhip) the term (profanation orabiife) Ipre- fume Paedobaptifts will not ju^ify a profanation or abufe, which Infant- baptifm is acknowledged to be if it be not after Gods appointment or Chrifts inititution.Wherefore M. M, and the moft of the paedobaptifts, not trurting to thefe evafions feek for an appointment of Infant-baptifm in the inftitution of Infant-circumcifion, Gc». 17. Yet "M.. Baxter in bis plain Scripture proof , part. I . chap. 4. (^c. declines the command of Circumciiion for proof of Infant-baptifm , and imagins an ordinance of their vifible Church-memberlhip, diftinft from the ordinance of Circumcifion, unre- pealed, oat of which he endeavours to prove Infant-baptifm,though he no where that I know (hew ns where that ordinance is, notwithftanding in my Pnecurfor and elfcwh^re he hath been often prefled to rticw it, which book of M. B, taking fo mnch^that a third edition is printed,! had hoped paedobap- tifts would hare flnck to his way, and declined the other way of analogy of the Command of Circumcifion. But I fee latter booksjas M. sUcnharPy JM. FMK«",and others,ftill infifting on the hypothefis concerning the cove- nants and the feal,and Baptifms mcceffion to Circumcifion,(i?'f.M.C7iff J Where there is the fame reafon of a precept or command enjoyning any pra^ice continiiedj there may and mufl be the fame practice continued: But the reafon of the command for figning Infants of Covenanters nvith the frfi figne orjealof theCith its effeB, jmkcs the fame perpetual. But the faid caufcs otendsdonotfoco-^erevdwthefacrifiesoftheAneientSj but onely by ap- pinmentf ibut is divine 9rdfmifonyvhi(hw^tbiii thoje facrijjcesjhuld be the th€ confrmation of the fuuh of the fathers, and afignijication of gratitudejimto the coming of the Meffiulj^Sic. The like may be faid of the ends of Circumcifion, and the occasion of appointing it. But let us view Matter Prov's pi-oof of the Minor, The reafon (faith he) of the command for figning Infants of Belivver sunder theLatv, veith the frjijigne or fed of the Covenant ^rvM this promife, I rvill be thy God, and the God of thy feed, &s is evident, Gen. 17.7,8. compared mth the ^.10. and 11. vcrfes, where this promife of God, and the application of the frjl fed are finit into a dependence me upon another : I will efiabup my Covenant between meandtJ}ee,Scc. to be a God tmto thee and thy feed after thee ; therefore thou f'dt Circumcife eveiy mde , asA tof^en of the Covenant, verf 1 1 . But thU fame reafon of the command continues in force under the Gofpcli God doth O'S true ly fay ta every Beliezing Gentile now, 1 am tl?y God and the God of tf?y feed, as he did to Abraham tlx Father of believing Gentiles, fo he is called Rom. 4. 1 1 . Therefore J may conclude, that Believers undef the Gcfpcl, have the fame command forfigning their Infants veith thefirjifeal of the Covenant of promife (which now is baptiim) as Abraham had tofgne his under the- Law with the frjifigne,5cc. which then was Circumcifion; and now Sirs, if the Ueffing of Abraham be come upon you , and if you be heirs according to the promife , you may eafily Jinde a command for Bapti^ng your Infant feed. Anfw. If MafterUrnv would prove what is to be proved, he- fhould prove that the proper formal reafon obliging to the duty of Circumcifion, Gen. 17. 9, 10,11. wss the promife, I will be thy God^ and the God of thy feed after thee. But that is falfe. For the formal reafon being put, the thing is put without any other thing, and it being not put , the thing is not put, though other things be pat. But ifthe promife had been put, yet ^^Tfi^am had not been obliged to Circumcife , unleis a command were put, and the command being put, Abra^ ham was bound to Circumcife , though God had made no promife. Therefore, though the pomifc might be a motive to do it, yetasMafter Af^M/truelyconfefleth, I^e/ewceo/ bis Sermon ^»^, i8i. the formal reafon of the ^ews being Circumci fed was the command ^ and therefore till Matter Drew fhew wc have the fame command to Baptiie Infants, as Abraham had to Cir- cumcife Infants, he can never ftew we have the fam£ or eqtel reafon for In- fant-baptifm, as was for Infant-circumcifion. But Matter ZPrew thinks to prove his Minor from Gert.17.738. compared withthe^, 10, 1 1 . verf. Uhereh is evi- dent ffaith he) this promife of God, I will be thy God, and t})e God of tijy feed, and the application of the frfi feal, are iinit into a. dependerue one upon anXf not Apure Gofpel-Crjemnti mappeirs, fay they, by hit promifmg Aht3ih3imtemp(>raltbingS3 Gen. 17.8. therefore rve may not urgue from tbence to the Covenant of Grose. Ixis true, both in my Exercitationi and in my Eximen, Part 5. Seft. 2- and eifewkrcj I deny the Covenant madcYYith Akfibm, Gen, 17. to be a pure "' :'. ' poTpil- GrfpcI-CoVenant, and atcr it to be mixt , and fticw how it is mixt, to wit, «f promifes not belonging to every one with whom the New Covenant of the Gof- fd is made, but relpefting peculiarly Abruhiims houfe, and the policy of Ifrael^ and that the proaufes Evangelical are dcliveredj Gen.i-j. in words exprefllng proper benefits to Abraham and his natural feed, though in the more inward fenle of the Holy Ghoft, Evangelical promifes w^ei-e meant, and therefore it may be well doubtedj whether that Covenant may be termed {imply Evangelical ; Yea the Scriptuie where it fpeaks of this Covenant, often mentions no other promife, but of the Land of Canaan,zs Exod.6.4. F/J/.105. 8, 9,10,11. iCbron. 16.17,18. A^.7.^. \^htvc Stephen mentions Gods promife to Abra})Mn, he mentions that of the land of Canaan j and verfS. calls the promife of Cunaan, the Covenant of Circimfion. Wherefore Cameron in his Thefcs of the threefold Covenant of Go^jThefi.yS. faith, Mr. Gatakers Annct. That Circumdjion did primarilj/ feparate Abrahams /ef^ on Jer. gi. 30. The from other Nations, failed the earthly promife, itfignified former Covenant com- janifif cation fecondarily .Whtnce I infeiTe,that when Pa:- prehcnded , together dobaptiils fpeak of Circumcifion as if it were a Seal of -with tbofe ^iritual the Covenant of Grace onely, and from it gather Rules promifes , -pebich yet and Condulions concerning the Ordinance of Baptifm, rvcre the principal part in the New Teftamcnt, as if the Rcafon of Circumci- of it, many temporal fmg Infants were from nothing proper to the policy or blejfings, as the pof- Nation of Ifrael, but onely out of the rcfped it had to fc^wn of the land of the promife of Evangelical grace, they do but miflead Canaan, and r/udtipli^ the people, and fpeak their own conceits, and not the city of ij'uc, and out- Language and minde of the Scripture. reurd profpericy, Gen. i5.5j7.i8.Ci7' i7.J> 7,8. Pfal. 105.8, Deut. x8. 1,^19. Whereon this later runneth rthoUy upon the SpiritudAndCelejiial blejfings, Kom.i.z/^,1^. & 5.1,1. Eph.i.j.Hcb. 8-.6. To this Matter Vrevp faith, I anfveer. The Scripture no vthere calls that Covs- yixnt A mixt Covenant, But on the contrary, notwithjUnding an} civfl promises of temporal thrngs,it is held forth tn pure a Covenant of Grace as may he -, the Apojfle uUsm plainly that this Corjenant wa>s confirmed of God in Chrift, Gal. 3 .17. ivhiib I thinii is enough to mai^e it a pure Gofpel-Covenant. Chrijt towi never the Tcjiator ef any Covenant, but that of Grace : outward things 06 appurtenances altered nor the Covenant , nor nude it mixt at all, unlefs that Covenant we live under be mixt too,for outward things are prsmifed to believers under the Gofpf/jRom.S.g 1. iCcr. 3. 12,13. iriOT.4.8. Bejidesjthis Covenant with Abraham is called a Crvenam of fufiification,Rom^.i, 3 . of Grace, vcif.4. of Faith, verf. i^. andl nm perfa-aded, that Abraham bad not been called the Father of the Faithful,.if Believers hadfiood in A different Ccvenant towards God, with that in which beftood j of for differences in the manner of adminifiring and difpenflng that Covenant, they matter nothing^if there be no difference in tbofe Evangelical promifes , which mai^e it a Covenant of Grace; but no man is able to malie this appear j fijercfore this exception weal^ens Mt OUT propofition, nor the Argument at oil. I reply, if it be true which I allege, that the Covenant, Gen. 17. 4, 5,6.7,85 was a mixt Covenant, as 1 {hew in the places forecited, and that CircumcHion «»joyned,vfr/".^,iO;ijjii. had reference ^as a figne w: token noi onely to that promife (I4> ^rdmifc {I will be thy God, andtbe.Qolof xhj feei ) but alfbto the pcomifcf which peculiarly rel'ped the houfe of Abfidjum , and policy of JfraeL, which cannot be unaciilood to belong to every believer, as vcrf^j. to be the father of mxny Nations, to oe exceeding fruitful, that God vould malie Nations of himyoad ajngsjho^ld come out ufhim j that he reould. give unto him and his feed aftet him the Land voherein be vea/i a ^Ir anger, all the hand of Canaan for an everlafting pofj'ejfiori Then it follows,that the realon of the command, verf.^^ i Oji i ,1 2. is not oneJy from the promife 1/0/7. but thofe other promifes, and the application of the fiift feal are knit into a dependence one upon another, as well as that verf j. and then if the argument be good,. The Infants of thofe to whom the promife is, Ivoiil be thy God, and the God $f tbyfeediUretohjrjethefrJifcaly becaufe of thedepeK" dcncc there, it will follow, he to whom God gives the Land of Canaan for a pofllflion, he out of whom God brings Nations and Kings, he is likewifc to be lealcd with the ft; it feal, fith there is as much dependence in the text,of Circum- cifion onthepromifesvo/. 4,$5658. as on the pomife verf.j. fo that if this reafoning of Maitcr Drero\ be good j for my part I fee not but that the Tuik , poireflbuv now of Cmaan, may be intitled to Baptiim by the fame reafon he pi-o- ducethfor Infant-baptifm of Believers children. Now whereas he faith , That the Scripture rw vehere calls thai Covenant mixt, I grant it, and it is true alfojthat it no where calls it a pure Gofpel-covenantjnor Circumcifion a fcal of the Covenant of Grace, or the firft feal i yet, the thing I mean by it being proved out of thofe texts forenamed, there is no reafon to except againft the cxpreffion. Nor can it be true, that the Corjenunt Gen. 17.4,5,^,7,8. is held forth as pure a Crcenant of Grace as ntiy be, if the promifes are of fundiy things not aflured 10 Believers in the Covenant of the New Teftament. Which is moft evident : for no Believer hath now a promife of the pofleflion of the Land of Canaan , but rather an alTurance of perfecution , no promife of fuch greatnefs , as to be the progenitor ot Kings and Nations, but rather of obfcurity anddebafe- mcnt. A pure Gofpei Covenant containing many promiies,is rare in the Old Tefta- raentj except where he foretells us he would make a new Covenant. God made a Covenant with Pdvii, P/^,8icl{fon renders it, refpeStu Chrifti, in refpecl of Chrift, That is, as in his paraphrafe, with relation to Chriji, or as Diodati, vohofe foundation was Chriji,nQt as the Teftatorjbut as the party concerning whom tlie Teftament was made , or as the executor by whom the things pronufed were performed. Now in either of thefc fenfcs it is eafie to conceive how the promife might be in Chrifi, or unto Chriji, and yet the Covenant not a pure Gofpel-covenant. He might be either a Legatee^ or an Executor in that Teftament which contained not (15) flot onely Evangelical bleffings of juilification,^*;. which were common- to all tiue Believers, but a Ifo outward bleflingSj which few or no Believers had in the New Teitament. I fee not any inconvenience in it to fay that the Teftament was confiimed in Chrill, in refped of the promifes/o far as they were Ev^nge- HcaJ, and yet to fay there were promifes in the fame which were not fuch, nor they confirmed in Chrift, though in the fame Covenant. And whereas he calls outward things appunenances, I conceive the promifes of outward things, Gcw.i 7.4,5,6,8. are as truely parts of the Covenant as the pro- mifc, verf.j. Yea in the places foretold, the promife of Canuan hath the title of the covenant. And thofe promifes,though thty alter not the Covenant, yet they muft needs make a mixture in the covenant, for by reafon of them the covenant contains promifes of diverfe forts. And for that which is faid. That nove 'under the Gofpel , outward things are promifed to Believers ,- I giant it, yet it is nothing againft the mixture in the covenant, Ge«. 1 7. which I aflert : Forthofe promifes are not the piomile of Canaxn, to be progenitor of Kin^s, which are not made to every Believer , but of a difterent fort» Whence I infer , that there was a mixture in the covenant, Gcw.17. which is not in the N-ew Teftament, and the reference of circumcihon to that covenant, might be and was in refped of thofe domcftick promifes , as well or more then of the Gofpel promifes as fuch. Nor do I finde jRo^w.^ii^j 54. any mention of the covenant, Gen,ij, much lefs is it there, which Mafter Drcrf faith, That it is called the covenant of jujtijjcation and of grace. It is true Abra- ham is there faid to be juftifkd by Grace, yet no mention of the covenant, and the text there cited, isGc«.i5.6. not Gcw.17.And though i^ow. 4.1 3. it be faid, Thepro77iife to Abi'aham and his jccd, that hcjhould be heir of the worlds reus not by the Lnv, but by the righicoufnejs of faith i yet it neither calls the covenant the covenant of faith i nor doth it aflert that the covenant, Gtvz. 17. containel no other promife but what was Evangelical or common to all Believers of Jews and Gentiles. Neither do I , nor need I fay, that Believers jtood in a different co- venant towards God with that in which Abraham /?ooi. I am perfwaded as Mr. VreW) that Believers nttw are jujiifed by the fame covenant that Abraham was jujlified byt to wit, that in Abraham all Nations of the earth JImild be bkjjcd^Gz]. . 3,8. & Rom.4.13. A father of many Nations have I made thee. I onely fay, that the covenant Gen. 17. contained' promifes which were proper to the Jtws, together with the Evangelical promnes. And to make thole promifes no parts of the covenant, but onely the manner of adminlltiing and difpenfing the co- venant, becaufe the Holy Ghoft alludes to them as figures aud types of fpiritual things, is not right. For even the pi'omife, vcrf. 7. was in the like manner ty-> fiical, ^.fW;iricual feed, eled perfons, and true Believers i and he will be again the God of Abra^ hams natural feed when the natural branches or poflerity of Abraham, the root, ftiall be grafted in again. But I deny that which Matter Drew means , and in the page before exprefled, thztG^'ddothastruely fay to every believing Gentile now, lam thy God, and the God of thy feed, as he did to Abraham the father of the faithful ', yea or that ever God meant by that promife to aflure Spiritual or Evangelical blcffings to all and every of Ahrahams natural pofterity, the Apottle determining and proving the contrary, Ror/i.96 7,8, &c. and rettiaining that promife in the Evangelical fenfconely to the children of w4&ra/,U/.n, which were eleft by God. Nor is there a word, .4c?. 2. 39. to make it good in Matter Prcw's fenfe. For, i.M'^fter Vrcw proves not that the promise Acl.z.'^^.mv^ needs be the promife G-i.17.7- Irfillbethy God,AndtbcGoiof thy feed. His argument is, It mufi needs relate u (17^ to aformer engOi^ment to the "fcrvT, and therefore to that Gen. 1 7 .7. But this is t9 argue iZgewo'i,' a..i fpccicm ^f.rmMii'Cy it rclats to a formei engagement theifore tw this, which Logicians deny to be good proof. But faith he, I f{noiiv not vcbii engagement thiy an have reference to^ifnot urao she promtjc Gen. 1 7.7. lanfwer, though he know not, and fo may he ont oi tbofci thxt are blind, ipd yet have eyes, ( which he chaigeth en his cppolits ) yet others fee other promilesj namely that to David of rMjitig jtp chrijt lofn on hii throne mentioned ./^f7j- 1.50. or the frornifc of the Holy Gojt mentioned /'.j?. or thcpromi(eof bleffir.g minnomd A cfs ^.zj. Any of which may bathe PrornilcmLznt Act y 1.59. more pxobably then that Gen. 17.7. 2, Where it is faid ( The promife ii to yoii )ii' wc eitiier confider the fccpe of the Apoftle or other parrallel texts ^f/j 3.26. Ac!s 15.52,53 . ( thepromije is ) is as much as to fay, the p:omife made toPii'/iyju'.. 2.50. or to Abxrhxm Acfs^.z'). is fulfilled in rjijmg up Chriji-, or the Promife of the fpiri: is fuliiiled in the fliedding forth of ics gifts, (cf which Promife mentioned P^.ij.i 8. Pifcator and others underlland it ) and that for you, that is for your good bleffing, and your children and utl that are iif^rr off 36 many m the Lord our God hull cad, notas M. Dreiv mcans,there is a promife of being a G^^d to you and every one of your children continually to be fulfiUei as foon as eveJr they are in being. 3. It is falfe which M. Drenf p.efuppofeth as if the meaning were Qhe Promij: is tv you J that is ( the Promife of being your God is to you believers and to your children ) that is to all your Infant children, as children of believers whether Jews or Gentiles. For i.that fpeech is madeto the Jews ( as M. Drews own words fcem to import (onely and their children, and not to Gentiles and their children 2. It is falfe that when it is fsid ( the Promife is to you ) the meaning is to you as believers. Forneither were they then believers, as I prove in my .-impk dij.jnifit : Secf 5. nor is it certain whether fome of them were ever believers, the occafion and fcope fcems to intimate rather that they were co nfi- dered there as perlbns who had crucitied Chriil 5. Neither is it true that the Promife is to their thildren, that is to their infant children as their children, M. G makes it. The promife is to you and and your children therefore it is their and your right to be baptized, and the minifter ought to do it to you and your Infants j but this, the pro.nife is to you and your children, therefore you and they ought and may be encouraged to repent and be baptized in the name of the Lord Jefus for remiffionof fins: nor is there a word in the text or elfewherc to prove that dictate of ^i.Vrerf, God reill own believers children^ therefore he wilL have the/A rnarlii for his , even in infancy by baptifnt, more truely faith IVI, Gutal^er dijcept :f Infant, de bapt: infant, vi. fn?// the Appojlle had meant to apply the promife onely to thofe who fioiiUl be called of God to believe, then it had been needlefs to have made any mention ax all of children. To which I reply there was great reafon why he fliould mention their chil- dren with them, becaufe they had wifhed Matth. 27.15. Chriih blood on them and their children. To take away the horrour of foule. and fear of the curfe on them and their children caufed by the confcience of their crucifying Chriil and imprecation to them and their children, and not to aflurc them of fuch a poor empty Eclefiaitical outward priviledge as paedobaptifts imagine to belong to be- lievers infants, was that fpeech of the Apoftle intended in like fort as Jofeph did in the like Gc« 45.3,4. &c. Gen. jo.io. For this end was futable to the occaGon of their queition rLr.36.j7. and to the Apoftles anfwer, and it feems probable tthe Apoftle faith ( to you and your chiliren) but not, to all that are af^r off and their children, becaufe thofe afar off had not wilhed Chiifts blood on them and theirs as the other had done. g. Saith M. Drew, it utterly overthrows the Apo^les fcope which is tofhew the '^fewijhall be bettered rather then worfted by believing in Chrift, which they would hardly believe Jhuli he have left their chiLiren {rrho were alirayes till norTC recl^oned in Covenant with them) in as poor a condition m the mofi barbxcous heathens in the worUiywhichhadbecn ahad argument to bring in the "fews, cold comfort to hear that their children f-ould be male as rnuer then bring them on. Da To To T/hich I reply, The Apoftles fcope is plain to direft them what to d ^ bein^ oppreflcd with the honour of their fin in crucifying Chriil and wifhinS his ^ooi on them and their children, and Fer. 59. is a notice to them to repen'^ and be baptized in the name of Chriit. To imagine the Jews then either thought of a privil edge for their children anfwerablc to circumcifion, or that Teters fcope was to fatisfy them about itjis fuch a toy as is fit for children rather then men of underftanding. It had been alike comfort untothe Jews at that time to tell them of their Infants right to baptifm as for aman to tell an arraigned malcfaftorjexpefting to be condemned and hanged,that his little child had a new Coat "iven him, vain words and bug^bears fit to affright children with, of a childs^bein^ out of the Covenant for defeft of tittle to baptifm, of being in v/orfe cafe then the Jews, in as poor a condition as the moft barbarous heathens in the world, aliens to the Common-wealth of Ifrael, debarred a priviledge the deprivation of which would have ftaved off the Jews fromChrift.Children may be iicovenant asmuchasthe Jews, no whit worflcd in their condition in abetter condition,then barbarious heathen infidelsjthough title to baptifm be not aferted to their infants. If hy {the commonvecdth ofJfraeL') the Jewifh civil or Eclefiaftical eftate, be underllood thofc that Peter fpake to, muft expeft to be alienated from it if they would be Chriflians They knew Chriil was call out, and might know he had told them it would be fo with his difciples. If by ( the Common-wealth of Jfrad ) be meant ( the trae Chrillian Church } the defed of Infant-baptifm neither exprefsly nor by confequence made them dientfrom the Common-wealth of Ifrael.Snch conceits arife from pa:dobaptifts miftaken fuppofitions.Nor can I im- agine but that had the Jews underftood that their children were in that condition, worfted for want of a priviledge equal to their circumcifion they would have been glad to accept of Chriil to take away that horrour that then lay on their Spirits. The third exception is, that it is not faid the promife is to the Gentiles and their childrenj now if this be not made good the argument fals, becaufe we are Gentiles by nature. To which he anfwers i . If believing Gentils live under the fame Covenant that Abraham and his feed did ( which has been proved) then though they were none of his (eed, tis (afer to apply the whole promise to them, I am thy God and the God of thy feed, then to cut off and circumcife the tenor of the Cove- nant, and to fay unto believers now, God onely is yonr God, not the God of your children j is not this to mah^e a main and fubjfantial alteration in the Covenant ? and to rob believers of one of the mojl precious comforts they have by promife, even Gods owning their feed. Which they cannot be affured of O/s the ^ews were, without the children be admitted to the fir jt fign or feal of the Covenant, which is baptifm now tinder the Gofpel , Gal. j . 3^. If ye be C'^rijis then are ye Abrahams (eed, and heirs according to the promife, which furcly m'ljl needs be according to the full extent of that promife made unto our Father Abraham ; for if it be not ours fo fully as it was his, then we are not heirs dccordingtothcpomife-t, if our feed be exempted it fals much JJ)ort of what was faid to him, I will be xhy God and the God of thy feed. And marli,f}-iends, I befeecb y ouy that was GjjJcI which was preached ro Abraham Gal. g.8. In thee fhdl all Nations be blcjfed , not onely his natwal feed, that was but one Nation y but all that were of the fjtb JimU be hleffcd, as children of what nation foever ver.7. For faith was imputed to Abraham in uncircumcifwn Rom.4.10,1 1 ."to this end that he might be the Father of all tbcni that believe though ^ot circumeifed. And truely I wonder fmce the G'jpel if fo clear that believers are Ahtzhsjns children that any man dare rob them of any comfort or priviledgc wherewithall he was invejied by that promife to which they^ are morefure heirs then any of bis natural feed, as I tkinfi is made plain to the eafiejl of y our capacities. AnTwer. the thing to be proved is that to the natural feed of Gentile beli- brought eicrs God hath pfomifed to be a God. To prove which divers jdaces arc brought which do manifeftly refute it. That of R0.9.7J8. determines that all the natural children of Abraham were not the feed to whom God had promifed to be God, but that in Jftac his feedjhould be calk d. And the fame is determined Gal. 4.18. that ifaac was the child of the promife and not the fon of the bondwoman, and that no child of any man is a child of the promife but he that is born after the Spirit, And G^. 3.29. is meant of thofe onely that are thefons of Qod by faith in Chrijtyt):.i6.zndirom the Gcfpcl mentioned Gj/.j.S. tn rhce Jhall all nations he blcjfcd, he infers -jer.^. oncly of believers, fo then (hey that are of faith are blejfcdraith faith f 1:11 Abraham. And Rom. 4.10.11. Abralum is (aid to hi the Faihcr of bcllezersjQv as it is vcr. ii. thoje that rvulliin tbcjteps of the faith of oiir Father Ab -aham vcbich he had yet being mdramcifcd. Wherefore I may much more jtiftly wonder that learned Proteitants who fo commonly fay, that eleft perfons onely are in the Covenant of grace from Rom.g.7^%. when they difputc againft Arminians, Ihould yet have the face to avouch that every believers yea though but by profeflion a believers natural child whetht;v cleft or a believer or not, is in the Covenant of grace made to Abraham G-n.ij.y. when they difpute for paedobaptlfm, though by fuch dodrine they make the word of God to fall, it being not true of Ipmacl, Efau, and thoufands of oclicrs of both of Abrahams and other believers feed, God hath not nor will be a God to them. Tis ':iue believing Gentils are heirs of the promife made to Abraham of blefJing or juftiticaticn by faith as he had, but it is falfe, every believer is heir of every ^rijiled?- Abraham had ; none befides him is Fa:ther of the faiibfuU ss Ahra}\vm, or hath Gods promife to his natural feed as Abraham had to his fpiiitual, yea or to bis natural. None hath the promife that in his feed all nations 0^ the earth jmdd he blcffed Ads j.zj. nor any that his poftcrity fliould be graffcd in again. as it is allured to Abrahams feed Kc/n.i 1.28,29. The imagined p;iviledge that God would be the God of his naturall feed was never promifed to Abrahams natural pofterity, as fuch . Yet it is falfe, that a believers child is 4 mere f;oe heir of the promife then any of Abizhzuis-rutural \eed. * For thongh God hath not promifed to be aGod to all Abrahams pofterity, yet, he hath to fome, which I know not that he hath done to any believing Gentils natural child. M.-P.doth but Calumniate by insinuating as if we curtaild the prc' mi(e , robbed believing parents of any comfort cr privilegt rpherneith Abraham rrj^ invefted by that promjje Gen. 17.7. perverting the text as if when God faid he would be a God to Abraham, by Abraham yizto. meant e-very believer^ and when he faith he will be a Qod to Abrahams feed,, it were meant of every bclivers nA' turai feed whether believas or not. About w hich he and other paedobaptifts, particularly' th&. Ajfrmbly at If^effmin- fierintheDire^oryaboutbaptijmdo but a bufc people, and lead fond parents, who fwallow down Preachers fayings without scripture proof into a fools para- dife, by telling them that the promife is made to abelirjer and bis feed ^ that God mil be a God to a believer , and his child , and that Infants of bcUevirs dying in their Infancy^ arc faved by the fdrentf fdith , and by this ibereii ajfurame of their falvation. But (24) But Mafter Prcw once more urgheth Rom. 1 1 j 1 7. t^^it the term gra.^Jig,P}er«f believing Qentils come in iviih [heir feed, or wigs that grow from them, cljefurclj they cannoi be [did to be grajf'ed in as the 'fevps rvcrc cut off'. But I have lb fully proved the ingraffing to be by giving faith according to clcdion, and that none but elcft perfons are ingrafted according to the Apoules meaning, and that ingraffing is into tlie invisible Church in my Jmpk difqui- fition y being the firft part of this Keview in the ten fiiil Sedions , that I think it unneceiiaiy to fay any more to what Matter iVen? here fpeaks. And for what he faith. If believers Infuntsrccretalieninunder the legal nimimftrdtion , And left out in the Gjipcl-adminifirntion, the covenant difpenfation under the Q-ipel is tn)re uncomfortublc thi n chat under the Lavp, it is but avain fpecch^as if the circum- cifion of Infants were fuch a matter of comfort, that the having of no prive- ledge under the Gofpcl did reconipenfe the lofs of it without Infant-baptilm, aj if Infnnt-baptifai were of fo great comfort to parents , that without it other comfort cc-ncerning their children were nullified, whereas thefe things arife up- on miftakes , as it Baptifm were adminiftred according to a perfons intereft in the covenant , and circumcifion was fo, and that the denying Infants Baptifm, is putting them out of Covenant, which is but ungrounded talk, as (hall be fur- ther fhewed in that which follows. Yea when the Pxdobaptifts anfwcr the Papifts, who would have the work of outward Baptifm to take away original fin from the Infant-baptized, they fay bnely that it feals the covenant, but doth not feal the fruit of the covenant, but upon condition of Faith and Repentance j fo that the Infant hath no benefit by the covenant, or the feal A'ithout Faith or Eleftion j and fo much benefit hath any unbeliever or his Infant j yea the unbeliever hath more advantage then the Infant, for the unbeliever hath the moral ufe of the fealing of any baptized perfon, which the Infant hath not. When they talk of the covenant to Infants of believers they fay it is but condicionally that they do believe that God will be their God , and in the fame manner the covenant belongs to all men in the world, to unbelievers and their Infants, and when they fpcak of the benefit of Bsptifm, they fay it onely feals the covenant, not the perfons partaking the fruit of it (excepting he be an eleft perfon dying in Infancy) which yet he may have without the feal) till he believe, yet he hath not the moral ule and com- fort of it till he underftand and believcj at which time the Baptifm in Infancy is altogether unknown to him. So that indeed the comfort which Pas- dobaptifts give to parents, is either the fame I give, without Infant -baptifm,or, if parents did cxamin it, it would be found delufory. What Mafter Drevt fpeaks about Baptifms fucceffion to circumfion, and his imagined full proof from thence for Infant-baptifm, Khali put off tilll review the Difpute about Mafter Afj-.third Concl. This is enough to iatisfie that Mailet Vrevp's rcafons are blunt and not ftiarp as was fuppofed. SECT. (25) S E C T. V I. Tht Arguments of Majicr JoCas Church in kit Divine warrant for lafant-bap- tifm , from their being judged in the promifC} if atifrvered^ THere is anotiicr writing of Mafter "fofiah Church, imiruled. The Divine ww- rant of Infant-bapTijm, of which I pailed a cenfurc in the fiift part of this Review teif.zi. zniimi^htltt it pafs, being as the commanders of it fay, Vogmdticd rather then Polemical, and leave it to thofe that aft'cft fuch fuperfici- al writings. Yet becaufe Mafter Roberts and Mafter Ocrce have commended it, and Mafter Baxter pag. 6. of his Pluin Scripture proof , puts it smong the chief boolis; of which he faith, // any of the men o/Bewdly have taf{_cn up the union of Antipaiobaptifm, and have not read and fiiidied him reith others, and been able to confute ihcm, he hath difcovered a feared confcience (^which is a moft unreafcnable and unchaiitable cenfure) to iliew the folly and vanity of Mafter Baxters and others conceit , I ihali give the Reader fome tafte of his overly handling tlie point. His firft Argument is thus. The Infants of Chrijiians are righty judged in the promifc of propriety in God, therefore they may be Baptiicd. Toitlanfwer, t. The antecedent is ambiguous, not exprefling what pro- priety in God he means, whether of juftificarion, regeneration, and falvationj or of outward protection & profpcrity among men or Ecclefiaitical privilege, nor where that promife is which he calls promife of propriety in God , nor whether he means it of all Infants of Chiiftians, or lome, and if of fome of which he means it, and of which not; nor of what fort »f Chriftians, whether fuch as are Chriftians oncly by profcflion, or really fuch in Gods account j nor with what judgement he means, whether of charity or verity , probably or certainty; nor upon what evidence they are with any of thefe forts of judgement rightly judged in the piomifc <5f propriety in God^ So that I finde nothing but Sophi- ftry in this difpenfation, the antecedent being perhaps true in fome lenfcjin fome falfe : and therefore it is but waft labour to refute it, or anfwer his proofs , till that he diftinftly f;t down what he aflerts, and how his proofs fuite with his af~ fertion. Yet I fhall caft away fome animadverfions on tliis writing, leait my Ij-* lence be difadvantage to the caufc I maintain. That which I conceive he means, is this, JU the Infants of Cbrifiijins by vifible profejfion, are rightly judged by a judgement of charity, though not of cer- tainty to be included in the promise of propriety in God, in regard of eternal a^lop- tion and priviledgeexprejfed inthbjexpordi, Gcn.17. 7. I rf ill be thy God, and the GoA of thy feed, therefore they may he Bapti'^ed. Of which Argument, I deny both the aniecedcnt and the confecjuence. The antecedent betakes uponhini' to prove by ten Arguments. - I . The Infants of the "fervs ( fo long as they continued vifible profejfors ) vooe rightly judged to be in the promife of propriety in God , for it w^ fedci to them by the initial Sacrament nalefs then to actual profeffors ^ Gitx-ij^jfi^, Ergo , - • - '■'"- E Anfw* Anl-a. Did not Mafter Church affsA new phiafifying , which f erves onely to Puazie, in plain words he had faidjTo ihe feces Infxnti the . iromi^e ^a; -(mie. of being God to them,thcrfore the Infxnts of Chrijlfanf arc rightly judged to be in that tro»iife: Of which, neither is the antecedent true univerfally taken , but con- tradided by Paul^Rom.^.jiS. \4here he expreily denies the promife (/ will be the Goiiif ib'} feci) to be true of JbruhmsnMUial (eed univerfally taken : Nor it it had been true, doth it follcw that what was pvomifed toJbrulhwu feed^is true of every true Believers, muchiefs of the feed cf every meer vifible profcflbr of Chiiiii^'" ^^i-^b who are neitbct themfclvcsj nor their children in any Scripture ren^ra Alr;ib.i,iis feed : nor is the proof of aiiv wci-^^ht, Th.u ihcprcmife of prop-ic- fv in God yvus fcdcd to the ^erfs Ivfints by the i'rn^id S.tcrumcn^) no lels i/xvi r» ilc{udprofe^. right antecedent , this ambiguous antecedent is put {that promife of proricty in Goi.w.i'^notafpaialljJ w-hichhefays he reoiild prove by f even arguments , Uu fetsnot down which branch of the promife was not a fpecialty, vjhether that (f vpiJt be thy God) or that {Ircill he the God of thy fa\i) nor in what fcnfe it w^? not a fpecialty, nor doth his fpeech {that it rfos not a (pecialty) appear equipollent to that he (hould have proved (The Infants cf Chriflians arc certainly no lefs in iJ)e'prom[c then yvere the ^eivs Infants aforciimc) blu he dictates fp ambiguoully and indiftindly, that more labour will be nqcedary to undcrlland him then to lefute him. He tells us, thepranife of propriety in God, ma^ not pecuUdr to A-r h:a.h:im, and vifibkprofefjors, and Ahnahzms natural feed -j where he fuppcfethj that the promife (I-kcHI oe thy God, and the God of thy feed) was true of meer vifible profcflbrs, and ^It^ukj natural feed j which is moll falfe and contrary to Rw?7. 9.637,8'. Li!li.io.i6iij,ii. Hebrings the words Exoi. 12. 48j'4g the granger wm as one home-torn} zndtherc ir^ one Um> fnrboth ( ^vhich arc fpokcn meerly of allowance for them to eat the Pafleover with them) to prove a like pro- priety of the Infants of vifible profefibrs of the Gentiles in the promife of .pro= {Hiety in God, Gc». 17.7. He brings G.«'/.4.2 8. which was fpoken onely of true Believers born after th^: Spirit, to prove vifible profeflbis andl tlicir Infants to be judged ia the prornile of propriety in God. He fs'ith, Ifaai tf*w in tj?c promife AS in Infant of Mievtn^ partntfi "whereas PMltiith no j for tlien tjhmtet and. Efxu had been in the promifei but by fpecial calling or d^rftion, R(m.p.6,7iB}^. Hcappltesthofc texts G^/.ji4. R0m.11.17. Ro7f].i$. S\a, Gcn.ij 5,7. to prove a promife to every Gentile vifible profefibur of ^ith and their Infants , which are onely verified in the fcnfe the Apoftle ufeth them, of true Believers as Abrabim was, who are juftificd as he was. He allegojch that which the Apoftle Rom.ii.iZ. (ikh) The children arc beloved for the Fi»/;cry, as if it were meant of Infants of every Gentile vifible profefibr, which is fpokcn onely of the eleft IfraeliteSj and the ancient Patriarchs Abrdam, &c. Thit which is faidj Pfal, 128.1,3. of children of bimthatfdtrs Godj fining round about hi> table lif^e Olive plant y, to prove vifible profcffors and their partaking in the promife of propriety in God. ' He faith. The former p.irt of that promife ( I roill be a God to thee,-G'M ij.f.) in undeniably common to a^i Believer s^ which in truth is iindcniatly proper to Abi-alu7n, not fimply as a Believer, but either as a natural Father, or Father of Believers according to the fpiritual part of the promife. He faith, Chriflians a>-e in this difpcnfation as ^em were in the former, they are called as they -wercyin holy MatioK, a peculiar pcopk, aroyalpricfihood, 1 P:t. t ^. Tit,z.i4. And every Nation receiving the faith as the Hat ion of the Jews didy Ttndin rv1)ich thcr'c is a national agrcaticnt in docfrine,worJlip,' and difiplinc , as wasinthcHationof the'fevos, is to be accounted to the Lord in every age, VCzl. 21.30. even Egypt and A0riaTvith Ifraci ,I[a. 19. 11. andmay c.iU Abraham Father (rvho obtained the Fatherhood of many Mictions, Gen. 17. 5. ) and may be accounted a national Church no Lefs then that Nation was, whereby thofe fpceches tPtt. 2.9. Tit.z.i^. G5'«.i7.y.as expounded, Ror/z. 4. if. which are meant onely of the ded and true Believers of every Nation, are applied to a nation- al Church like the Jevys,confifting of a great part of either ignorant perfonsjthat know little or nothing of Chriftianity, or pcrfecutors of godlincfs , profanely defpifmg the word ,- and hating the godly. He applies that Mat. iH.io. little ones, wio are faid verf.6. to believe in ClTiff, and the offending of whom hath fo great a [penalty , to little ones in age. He applies '^er.-^o.io. wiiicl; is fpoken of the Jews upon their return from captivi- ty, as appui.svo-/". 18,21. concerning their pi ofpcrity in Cttw^^^n ro the rcjUtmi^ on of their Infants to an initial fed at the calling of them to the Chrijtian faith, Vrhereas if it were fo meant, the Prophet fliould foretell that the Jews children at their calling to Chriity/)w//i/Z;c? ^y^jorff/'i^p, that is, (hould be circumcifed as they were before the Prophets time, not baptized. Mote things there are liable TO exception in his arguments whereof what pertains to the text, ASf.i.-^^. Rem. 11.17. 1. Co/'.7. 14. isfufficiently difcuifed in my Ample difquifition cf thofc texts. That which concerns the reafons thr\x God pr om ifeth mercy to thousands , and fuch like arguments, being urged more fully by Mailer B. I fnall anfweV when I meet with them in his book. His arguments f;Zj;. 18. to prove his Confequen'c&, T^^e Infants cf Chiijiiayts &re rightly judged in the promife of propriety in G(^d, therefore they are'to b'e baptised, arc infufficient. The firft is from circum'cifion of Infants, to whicfi hath been often anfwcred. That was done by vhtue of the Command, not by vertue of the promife, and therefore without the like Command the like promift "(if it were granted ) would not prove the like praftice. What is faid of John E i BaptifU C28) Baptifts, dnitk Jpoftlcs, not denying biptifm to My -whom they judged to be in the 'fromife, fecms to intimate, that they baptized men becaufe they judged them co be in the promife ; But there is not a word therect in any of the Evangelifls, but tbcir comming to John confejfmg their fins, glorifying Goi in embracing bis Counfcl, profcjjingf.ii^h, as the reafon of their adniiflion to baptifm. To his fccejid" reafon. Being in the promife, is the rc;ifun rendsred by the AiojUcs for t'fK rcccijing of b.ip[ifm,AAs i.jSjgg. Thereforetbey thiit are rightly j:dgedin itm.!y be biptiiei, lanfweri. He fays not n-uely, that being in the promife is the onelyreaLon mentioned by the Apoftle for baptifm ; for re- pentance is put as a prcvequifite. i. The Apoftle doth not fptak of the promife as ^Ull:t Church mtdins that he judged that they and their children were rightly judged as vifibleprofeflbrs in the promife of propriety in God, for, they were not then fuch ; But that the promife of raifing up Chriil was fulfilled for them upon their repentance and baptifmjor their callingjand this is made net the reafon of right to recci\fe, or warrant to the Miniftcr to baptize them, but as a motive to their dqw of repenting and being baptized, and encouragement to liope for remifCon^otwirhftanding their crucifying Chrilil and imprecation on themfelvs, and ihm'syMuttb. Z7 . z 5 . J S E C T. VII. Bare judgement of charity concerning a perfons inter efi in the promife is not a warrant to baptise. PAg. 19. Mr. church brings in an objedion thus, The judgement of charity that any are in promife is not a fufficient reafon for adminiflring baptilm to them : there muii be {hews of grace for more certainty, To which he thus an- fwers : jhcvps of grace and actual profe£ion are a reafon for baptising only as they 'xreground for the judgment of charity, that t!?e parties to be baftf^cd are in the promife j for elfe if the Devil JJ)oidd i.ii{C a humane fhape, and mafic a verbal profe^on ( though hi vfcrc f^norvn re be a Devil ) he mufi be bapti. ^ed. 'T reply, Mr. Church here ftarts « queftion, by what judgment a Miniller is to proceed in admitting a psrfon to baptifm. Concerning which I fuppofc it will not be denied. 1. That aMinifter being but aa an officer under Chriit in b^tizing 3 is to baptize according to his Lords will. For that is the property of alervant. z. That the will of the Lord is moll manifeft in the inuitation or appointment of Chrift j which is without queftion declared by the words of Clu'ift, Matth.ii.i^. Marfi.i6.i<)}i6. explained by the Apoftles^ and other approved Minifters thereof, command and praftice mentioned in the Aclsoi the Apoftles. 5 .That true believers and difciples of Chrift are appointed t® be bapti- sed, and that they have true right before God, 4. That Gxc]\ believers and difciples as are appointed "to be baptizedjafti Difciples of all nations, not of An- .gelical but humane nature j and therefore wc have no warrant to bcptize either good Angels or Devils taking humane (hap: and making flicws of rcjpentance Gc faith if known to be Divils or Angels. AH the diiFerence is, witb^what judg- ' ' - - .- - . . ^^^^^ (29) ment and »pon what evidence a Minifter is to baptize, I conceive x . upon ex- traordinary revelation from GoA a Minifter is to baptize an Infant declared to be a Difciple^as I fay in my Exxmen p.4,S. 3. i. According to ordinary rule be ought to baptize none but Difciples by p. ofeiTionj which protenion ought to be firec, fo- berj ferious and intelligent. For difcerning of which he is to ufe miniltaial pru- dence, though he be not able to feaixh the heart, and after the ule of minilteral prudence therein , he is prudently to. judge of the truth of his faith and dif- ciplcfhip. Wherein he ought to judge according to the rule of charity i Cor.j. 17. »il?/t/.' believcth dl thingSi ho^eib .ill things; and yet heed what Solomon faith Frox: 14.15. The fmplc bclievcth every rrord : but ibc ^rudcra mj.n loolicth rvell to his going. And our Lord Chriil L.-i^c 12.43. having faid as it was conceived of a Minifter , li'ho then ii thxt fiithfull and riijc jiemafdj rfhom hit Lord jlaU nialic ruler over hU heufcoldy to give thcy/i their portion ofmejx in duefeafoniit is requifite that the judgment of a Minifter upon which he baptizeth ihould have both ingre- dients .prudents & charity,charity alone is not fufficient.For i.IfCharity be ufed without piudence,there may be a mockery of the Ordinance,and it profaned. z.Ii the rule be a judgment of charity alone, then fuppofing the Minifter be dcfcftive in his charity the perfbn is to be debarred, who is otherwife fit to be baptized. Sut'about this I conceive there is lirtle or no diflerence between me and the pzdobaptifts. MrJVf, in one place, to wit, in his defence pug. 78. intisnates that I am conceived to incline to the kofer rvay of baptising any that rvoulJ. inul^c a prc^ feffton of fmh in'^cjus Chrift. And in another ^liccpug.in.hemiiisitiillmy. pleading th'At becMife v?e cannot h^norj ihut alllnfms of believers buve the inward gracCiVpemjy not therefore bupuie them. From 'the former I vindicated my fclf in. my Apology S^. 17. and horn the latter Si-d. 10. But the difflrcnce is what qualification it is that may be evidence to a Minifter, whereby to judge prudently a perfon to be capable of bsptiim. They that ho)d ail Infants are to be baptized that are offered, they make no fcruple, nor do they make much fcruple that hold all Infants that are in a chofen nation, which I have refuted Exjni. part. 3. Seel. I J. others K' prize onely the children of inchurched members, , of which I (hall fpeake in Exrir.iniag Mr. Cot^k^jconclulions. There arc, that from the Generality of promifes and eledion running through the Loyns of bdiev^s, will have all the children of believers to be in Covenant and ekd in the parcels though not in the lump, and M ". church his opinion comes near it, that we havegioiind from a judgment of cliarity that the parties to be baptized are m the promile to baptize them. But againft this I argue.* : . ■ • I. That is to be the rule of judging a perfon s baptizability which Is made. the condition of a perfon to be baptized in the holy Scripture. But no wk^tc in it is this made the condition of being baptized, that he be eltd and in the Covenant, z. The Scripture doth no where fay that the elcdion of God runs, for the moft part through the Loyns of believers.' And thoush there arc promii'c, of Ueflin^ to the righteous and their feed, yet thefc are indcfinito ^^th-fprt^ie kinde of MefTing, and the perfon, and thcfe promifes are made, onely" t,qcl;« . truly rii^hteous, and not to them, whoare only fuch in :;ppsarancc. Wlierfore fhere can be no certainty for a judgmenf of prudence t© rellupon, to dwerrgta ©f any whether they are eleft or not, in the Covenant cf grace CMrnot, fpiritu-- ally confiderin^ that God hath declared Rom.c).6,7i3,\B:i^. That he tics nat bimfelf to believers children. Now all judgment is tobcfuipendedof that which is not revealed, Tbe feint things belong to the Urdinr God) Vcuf. 29 .19. '5. 'Fdi'Infartts 6f Wiifi^ei'S tliel?e is ho gr64ind fdt a judgment ef chamjr; becaufe they do nothing to {hew whether they aie in the Covenant or no. And if it be revealed by God tiiat they are all or fomc in Covenant then we know it by a judgment of faith believing Gods revelation, and fo it is not a probabla judgment of chariry, but a certain judgment of tedty, which dircSs in this. 4. If ia probable judgmenr of charity that aperfon is eled and in covenant be the rule to direft in bajjtizing, then fuppbfc a I'alvage in new England or elfc- where feeming to be affeded in the ' time of preaching (hould be judged in charity to be an eled perfon in covenant.he ought to be baptized by the Miniftet Co judging,afore he ownsChrift by profefllon.It is promifed that the Ifraclits (hall begraffed in a^ain, and all Ifraclfaved, Rom.i 1.145x5,26,17,18. and we may charitably judg it will be (hortly, (liall we baptize any of them or their Infants upon this charitable judgment of their cltftion and being in Covenant afore profeflion ? y. If a charitable judgement of eledion and being in covenant had been the rule to baptize,thcn Gare John the Baptiji , and the baptizers appointed, had fomcwhere propounded that queftion, or made inquiry into that thing, but itwasnotfoj they required repentance Acis z. 38. inquired into the faith of the baprized. 6. If this had been the direction ( baptise thole that are elcft or in Covenant) it had been a blind dircftion unfit for men to'follovv, and fp our LcrA fliould have imperfedly inilruftcd his Apoftles and otherSjor rather have mocked them, putting them to do a bufmefs not feafible by them. But this is not to be faid ©f Chrift, efpecially the rule being fo plain to baptize believers and Dif* ciples by piofeflion. As for Mr. Chiich his conceit, that Jhem of grace mdaHual projejfton are a, r eafonf or kipiyngonely m they are a ground forjbe judgment of charity that the paties to be baptised are in the prmtifet I deny it. For the rule i s not ( baptize perfons in the Covenant ) but (Difciples or believers of all nations. ) To that of the Devils mailing a verbal profejfwn, I have anfwered before. That which he faith that thejiuigment of charity ( meaning that they were in Covenant ) rvae the rule by vchich John Baptift and the Apostles ict.iii{ei in baptiitngj is not true> for they baptited upon their profeflion which they certainly knew. And though they had no infallible f^novfledge of the individuals eleBion or being in Covenanty but baptised hypocrits not a few, ycx they had an infallible knowledge of indivi- duals confefling fins, brofefling repentance and faith, for they heard them, and this was their rule, not the conjectural knowledg of a perfons intereft in the ' Covenant or cleAion of grace. SECT. VI n. A&.S z.i9,^^.provtstb.tt interejlin the promifeintittes net ta baptifmmthout repentance. MR. Church brings in a Second objeftion, which Is in eftecl what I allege Ex.iJn.pag.6i. a right to Evangelical promifcs is nojtthe adequat reafon of baptifm, for the Jews were in the promife AHs 1.3 8,3 9. j^not baptized withdut ^receding repentance. To which hcanfwers thus, A vifibk righto the prowje fithcf either bjfi^fef grace {m mtbofs-af riper ymri) 6r by tbenMung a^ecies in the prmife mclma refiri^Hcv, of fohiih the pmics to be baptiied are indi- vidu^h ( oj tbe InfiUiU.o.j %ifibl( p^jcjfors are ") h a fu§iuient, r nor to any true believers natural feed, much kfs ro any meer vinLle proftfibis natural feed, but onely to AhfJihtDns feed, who arc cnely eledi and true believei'S of the Gw'ntils according to the fpiritual part of it, as is proved before. Yet were ir granted tliat not onely the Sfaics, but alio the individuals weix named ex- prelsly in the Covenant, I fhould deny they were tobebaptizui accovding to ordinary rule till they were known Difciplcs and believers. Tiie j'-^viili piopic arc in covenant Kom. 1 1 .24,25516,17,18. and yet not to be baptized till lYxy bclicvv;, and P«t?r Afts 2.58359. requires repentance for baptifm, of v.Loni he fayth-, (bcpro/nifcistojou. But iie tels me^ Tbemoji lc^.rried izndrdtiondof the An,ijuptijts confcfs t!U[ if it couli ap{ie^r to the, a th. it an Infant is in the Cove- nant tkcy roould not doubt, of the baptifm of it, lanfwcr, whstcver others do, yet I difclaim that confeflion. I have gvanted fundry times as Exa^/i patJ.g . S^£t i5.fiff. 4. Sed.j. that regenerate, j-ullified, adopted perfons born into the worl.; who have thL* inward grace are not to be debarred b.'jptifm, if it be known by fpjciiil revelation, fo: they are then known Difciples and believers. But I never faid this of an Infant in Covenai\t. ¥or an Lifnnt may be in Covenant even then v/hen he is unregcncrate (being in covenant) noting no more then having th^ p^qraife made to him, which may be afore he is born, and thsrefoi'e Xfaouki not>^id tjb^f q£ being i|^, qovcnant, wliich I would do of actual re- generation., '■ ",,- : .; ...■,,.' But Mr. '0urib:fmVz$ fome- fh^w oi anlwaing thtargnment horn Ac^Ji %.. 58,59. He fc/r kj: tpofe '^evcs ujciHng and cnicif}ing Chnji and Aibcidical,!^ Tfi^iing atGoJ^:(Lt.r.ii:bs y cqt^jiito^avc avipiie ri^jttQthepromijc^iimUfh^ rcgunciitbyr-e^cntAncc.^ • I Anfwer Mr. (J/'.irdvpag.ig* faith being in tbei prpf^tffe ij the rcafcn rcndredhy- the ApPojHc for tbe'ncci-jing of baptifm Acts 2.58j5'9; therefore ihcy tb^it are righ;}^ judged in. .it nny ke bapiiicd. pag. 10. Being in the prmifa is the onc^ rui'-jn incr.tioned by thf Apojlles for baptifm. Doth not this plainly alTert that the . Jcv:,: then were righly judged by Peter to be in the promiie, and their. right thereby to batifm ? How then is it true which here be faith they c£afei (obave a vifihk rigbt tq the promif^ till tbey regained repentance ? Bur it is not, once cncly thauhis Author is . on" and on, faying atid unfaying at a iit^ ^ftance. Here he reqtwres a vifiblcr right in the proinife regained by repent^ancc^ a little before he faith x^f ^a/ej kwg nained rsuhouP -rejiriciion in the promife is\ a ftiTi'^nt reafon of baptifm. However I take his ccnfeffion that notwith- ftanding what he faid pag. 5.6,7. from ^c?j- 2.58.59. of the promife to them j^d-;i>€w cbiWren;and theace inferring theiv Infants tittle to baptifm,as being the chiV- (32) children di vifible profeflbrSj to whom God hadpi-omlfed to be a God and to ■ their feedjyet here he faith they ceafed to have a. vifible ri^t to the promife until thejr regdnei it by rcpentmcey which the Apoftle fuppofcth they then had not, even then when he faid, The promife ii to you and your children : For he exhorteth to it as a thing to be done. ■ , But Mr. Church flutters likg a bird in a net, feciting fome eyation from this objection, though all in vain. He tels us they rvere a mixt company to xvhom the Apojilcy j^'ik.'^ Afts i.8,i i -and not all^evPs,for they were of divers languages^ and thit they were aiulti. • _ But what is this to the avoyding the objeftion, thst notwithftanding it is faid the promife is to you , yet they were not intitled tc baptifm without I'cpentance. He then difcourfcth, that repentance was in them, onely in fieri before their Baptifm, and that the Apojile accepted of probabilities of it and baptised them» For in that dijiance from his prcachingj and their bamming-, fo many could not have repentance vijiblc by its fruits and difcernabli, and thence would gather , ifj'ucif kainous finners were bapti'^ed upon probability of repentance, therefore Infants of Chrijtians guilty of no actual fin may be baptised unto repentance. To wliich I reply, I . It is exprcfsly faid x'fr.4i . they that gladly received the rf or d were baptised, therefore there were vifible fruits of repentance . and faith difcerncd by the Apoftles and otherDifciples, who were many and could confer with them in that (pace of time, and baptize them in that day , though theic convevfion was eafily difcernablc without diftintS conference with each. 2. His ^r^ument isnot worth a rufh, notwithftanding Cyprians words to back it, to prove Infant-baptifm. For it goes upon this frivolous fuppofition, that Infants liecaule they have no aftual fin may be baptized, though they (hew no repentance, much rather then hainouj and great tranfgreilbrs upon probabi- lity of repentance. As if lefler finners might be baptized upon no teilimony of repcntence, becaufe greater finners are baptized. upon probability of repentance, which if true, the more civil and Orderly pcrfons, though pharifaically minded, as if they needed no repentance.have much more right to baptifm,then publicans confelTmg their fins becaufe but probably penitent. 5 . All this is nothing to anfwer the objection, but to ftrengthen it, that notwithftanding the promife was %o them, yet they were not to be baptized till their repent3nce,eithcr in facto ejfc} or in fieri, either vifible in fruits or at leaft probably conceived, of which neither is to iae faid of Infantfs. Yet Mr. Church is not aihamed to conclude thus. Being in the promife is the onely reafon mentioned by the Appojllc for baptifmy ( whereas repentance is undeniably prerequired ) and that ij any difahlc the reafon be imputes not a little wcalinejs to the Apoftles and their converts j wheras he that difablcs the inference from being rightly judged in the promife to right of baptifm, doth vindicate the Apoftle from weaknefs, which paedobaptifts do by their expofition and inference thence blemifh him with, and caft the blame o£ weaknefs onely on Mr. Church and fuch inconfiderate expounders and difputers as he is. I had not thought to have faid fo much of fo poor a piece as that book is J yet left any fay it is not anfwered I add. SECT, (33) V S EC T. IX. tnfxnts are not proved by Mr. Church, to be of the vifihle Church Chrl/lian. His fecond Argument is, Infants of Cbrijlians arc rightly judged to be of the church with Cl>^ ijtians of riper year Sy therefore they may be bafti^^cd. To which I fay. His words are ambiguous, it being uncertain whether he means the Antecedent of the vifiblc or inviiible Church, of all infants of ChiilHanSj or ^omt ; but conceiv ng it meant of all, and of thcvifible Church of Ghiiftians, 1 deny the Antecedent. And for his ten Arguments, nor one proveth it. The Mediitmrd tbi firft is the Antecedent of the former Argument,to which I have anfwered before, denying that ali the infants of chnjiiiins are rightly judged to be in thepromfe of propriety in Cody exprcffcd Gen.17.7. in thofe levordsj I rvill be thy Goiy and the God of ihy (ee.i. But I deny the cunfequcnce alfo, that if it were true, that all the infants of Chriitians arc rightly judged in the Promife of Prop/iety in GckI, therefore they are rightly judged to be of the vifibk Church : nor is it proved by that which he aliegeth, (for tkcy oncly ire aliens from the Common-vneulth of Ifraei, rehich are fir j.ngcrs from the covenant, Ephef.i.i 2.) For if it did prove, that all that arc ftrangers from the covenant of Promife are aliens from the vifible Church of ChiilHans, yet it proves not, that all who are in the covenant are in the vifible Church i but the very truth is, neither the one nor the other is proved from that place i for this o!ily is alVerted there, that the Ephefians irho irerc Gentiles in the fi:jhy who are called uncircimdfioniby that xhich is called ihe circmncifion in theHejh made with hanis,no Profelyccs were in the time of their infidelity & Idol-fervice, then xvithout the policy of If ael and the covenants of Promjc .- but it doth not fel- low that every one that was then uncircumcifed in the fltfli, and out of- the poli- cy odfrael, meaning the outv/ard policy, was ftrangcr frovn the Promife of Pro- priety in God, meaning of it of faving Propriety ; for Ccrneliia, Afts 10. was a itranger from the policy of 7/rJc/jbeing no citizen,biit unclean,as being a Gcn- t//c3uncircumciled,yct then he feared God,God beard his prayersyOcccpted bis alms^ (3'c, much Icfs now that every one tliat is rightly judged to be in the Promife of Propriety in God is of the vifible Church jor every one that is rightly judged of the vifible Church,is rightly judged to have the Promil'e of Propriety in God. His next Argument is. Infants of Chrijiians are rightly called the Lords Ml- dren, for hii manner hath been to ca'i the children of ki< people his chidren. In the old vfjrldj'omerverc called the fons of God, as children of his people, Gen.6.2,5. Ani the infants of the Ifraelites mere called by him, bis children born tohinit Etek.i6.zOjii. and their law full feed, a feed of God. And the Jty^s were ac- ((Hinted to him great and jmall in every age urn ill the bre.:hjrtg off' ■ and the fame vf>:A prophefied of the -Gentiles, rtben they l:ail be convatai, and of the Jews when they Jhall be grafted in again : an.i j/;e jpfalmift cii/y himfclf the Lords fcr- vant , o/shc vcas the fon of his handr/uid : therefore \iich infants are rightly judged to be of the Cbiinh, vebich is the Ho.-fc of God. Anfrv. No: one of thtlc Texts proves the Church-memberfhip of Cbrifti- ar.s injints. The termi'iWj of Gsd, G;n.6.z,3. is attributed to perfous before F the f3l) the l^loud, andthofe'not infants, but fuchas tookthmwivesof all that they chofe, which could not be faid of infants j nor are they faid to be Sons of God, becaufe children of believers, but becaufe they profefled the true worfhip of God, Vei filios profejfwne Chrift. Can-might Eborac. Anmt, in locumjSuch at dejcending from Seth and Enoch profeffed the true rvorfiip of the true God^ sew Annot, I omit the opinions of ^ofephits, Aquila, and many of the Ancients, recited by McGatai^cr againft Pfochenm,cap.\^. and the other of the Chddee Para- pbrafci R. Solomon, Symmachm, that they are called Sons of God, becaufe Sons of Fiitentates or fudges, of which Mr. Can might nbifupra, and that of others Sons of God, that is, eminent men, becaufe I think the other is more right : how- ever they are not called Sons of God, that is, vifible Church-members by their defcent, but by their piofcflion, which is not to be faid of infants. . It is true E\e^l.l6.zS,^l. the children of //r^e/ are faid to be fcor« ito God, that is,of right as their Land was the Lords Land, Hef.^.^. and this did aggra- vate their (in,that thofe that were of right his were facrificed to Idols : now this was by reafon of that peculiar interelt which God liad in that people, verf.S. But that what is faid of the fons of tlie ^ews is true of all the infants of believers, or that this is enough to entitle the infants of Chrii^ians to vi- fible Church-membetlhip, and the initial feal, as they call it, is yet to be proved, Oi ^ial.1,1^,1^. I have fpoken fufficiently in the :firft part of thisRf- vierv, Secf.ii,i6. of the Ample V if qui jition : to which T add that in thefe- cond Edition of the Ntw Annot. thefe words arc added fuitable to my Expo- . fition of a legitimate feed ; All other feed is jpuriom, not a UivfuU feed ; nor fiich fibers arc lawfitU fathers, rvbo fo pervert the order and Ordinance of Matri- mony, God puts his marli of infamy upon the feed it [elf , Deut.i^.z, which fhews that with Calvin that Authour underftood, by a Seed of Go.'/, a legitimate feed. That which is faid Pfalm ii .7,0. A feed ^ all fervehirn, it j\:aU be accounted to the Lord for a generation , hath no fhew of any thing for infants vifible Church-memberlhip ; it cannot be expounded of infants while fuch : for how can it be faid. They foall ferve the Lord ? But it notes oncly a continuance of the Church piomifed in a people, who ftiould when fome deceafe, Itand up after them to (erve the Lord. The impertincncy of that 5per.30.zo. is fbewed before. Xs little to the purpofe is that P^alm ij6.i6. He doth not fay, he was the Lord* .^i^J^aiiaftt as he was the fon of his handmaid ; and it was to cxprefs his mean con- dition or humility, 2s Mary, Luf^e 1.48. not his privilege, and his fubjedion to Godj not his right he could clame from God j yet if there were any privilege imported in this title {[on of thine hand-maid) Mr. Cfcttrffc" muft prove it to be Church-memberfliip, and that not proper to him as a ^evp, but common to all JChriftians ere it will ferve his turn, which he cannot do, . Enough is faid before in the Ample Vifquit ion, to prove that i Cor.7.14. children ure not denominated holy, becaufe they appertain to the Church. The remnant to be called holy, Ifai 4. j . are either fuch ^pps as in the captivity efcaped alive, who (hould be holy in refpeft of their worfhip, not ferving Idols, but the living God, or fuch converted believers in the Chriitian Church as fhould be written in the Book of Life, which makes nothing to infants Church-memberfhip . '735) The Churd) is^not called the circumciponj Rom. j.jo. (s* i S-^- hut the jf'cw/'^ people. The Chriftians infants are not rightly judged to be of the Church Cbrifti- an, becaufe the Hebrews children were of the Church fewip, God now not ta- king one whole Nation for his Church, but Difcipics of Chrift in all Na- tions. Abrahitrn is faid, Rom.4.1 1 . to have received tbefign of circumfton a fed of the tightcoiifnefs of faiih, robich he had yet being unciratmct fed ^ but that any other mans circumcifion was fo to him, much lefs that every infants circumcifion wa* fuch to them, I reade not : fure the tenour of the words imports no more than this, that Abrahams circumcifion in his own perfon was an affurance to all be- lievers though thcmfelves uncircumcifed of rightcoufnefs by faith to be imputed to them alio. What Divines though of never fo great efteem thence infer of the nature of circumcifion, that it is a feat of the rightcoufnefs of faith, of all Sacraments, that it it their nature to be feals of the covenant of grace, that to whom the covenant belongs to them the feat belong<^i and confcqiiently to infants 3 are but their mjftakes, not the Doftrine of the Text. Of Marli 10. 1 4. enough is faid before. Of infants may be the kingdom of God, yet they not in the vifible Church . The fpcech (out of the Church is no falvation) is true of the invifible Church of the eleft, and is fo expounded by Dr. Morton Jpcl. Catb. and others ; of the vifible it is not true ; Bjihab had been faved though (he had never been joyned to the vifible Church of the^ewx. What I faid, that it is uncertain whether the infants brought to Chfift, Mark.io.\^. were the infants of Chriftian difciples or believers, is true ; for it is not faid, their Parents brought them, and though it be probable they that brought them believed on Chriit, yet it is uncertain whether thty believed him to be the Chrift, or fome eminent Prophet, z%Matth.\6.i^- Lul^e 7.16. The Daughter of the Syrophcenician was called a Dog, Matth.i ?.i6. not be- caufe (he was not a believers childe, but becaufe a Gentiles cbilde, not an Ifra- diicfs. ■ • Though Viut.^0.6. Tfai 44.5. Circumcifion of the heart and thefpirit be prc- mifed to the \ced of the godly, yet it is not promifed to any but the elcd, as the fuller promife, Jfai.^^.i^. is expounded by Chrift himfelf, John 6.4$. and therefore not as Mr. Church (zith, to -children, as they are the children of Gods Peo- ple, if (as) be taken reduplicatively i for then all the children of Gods People (hould have thefpirit promifed. Nor is the fpirit promifed ro them in their in- fancy, and yet if it were, till they (hew it, we have no warrant to take them {ot vifible Church-members, or to baptize them without fpecial revelation. It is largely proved above that Jcfs i j.io. no infant is called a Vifciple. There may be hope of infantsfalvation, they may be of the body of Chrift>, though they be not of the vifible Church. Our infants and our felves though believers are yet Heathens, that is, of the Nations by birth, aad had been reputed Dogs as well as the Woman of Ca- ncans childe, Mat{h.i$.i6. if we had then lived : but in the fcnle as it is now ufed, and as it was ^ Title of infamy and tejedion, Manh.i9.ij we arc not to be called Heathens, that is, infidels, and whofe fociety is to be fhunned ; , nor our infants, who are neither infidels nor believers, they being not capable of F z f?ith iiith in that ftatc ordinarily : as in Logick they fay, a Whelp till the ninth day is neither blinde nor feeing, there being a middle of abnegation of either ex- treme, by reafon of the incapacity of the fubjcds, fo we may fayj our infants arc -neither infidels nor believers. . WhatMr. Cfewrt^allegethoutof Rev.zz.iJ. ferves onely to beget hatred to- wards Antipojdobaptifts : for (Tfpithout) there is meant of being without the city ov heavenly fern falenti verf.m. and Dogs, there are ranked with 5 orcerfrj-, and rpborcmongers, and murderers^ and idolatcrSi and fuch like ; neither of which needs be (aid of infants j though we fay, they are not vifible members in the Chriftian Glmrch, and that they arc not yet believers. . Chrijl iin infant rvo/s hejui of the Church, yet vifibly he appeared not the head of the Church, till he was manifefted to be fo. Infants mmy he members of Cbrift the head invifibly, but not vifibiy till they (hew faitU. SEC T. X. Infants cafaciiy of fame rejects different from di[cipleJMpi€ntitlesThem rot to Baptifm. IN the third Argument is not much more than was Paid before, and is anfwei- d: Jews infants rocre meet for circumcijion, bccaufe of the command to them i ours not meet for Baptifm, becaufe we have no command or example : it is true Match. iS.zz. A little cbilde is made a Paturn to thofc [hat are fazed, in refped of humility or freedom from ambition : but it doth not thence follow that this meer negation of arabicion dothqualifie them for Baptifm, unto which, aftual Difcipldhjp or Profcflion is ordinarily ntcdfary. Chnii admit tied to him, and bklfcd iinle children, Miik lo.i-}, but did not appoint to baptize them, which it. is likely he would, if he had judged them meet for it. If Farents may enter into (covenant for their childrem, and dedicate them by jolemn voiv, as Hannah did, (of which there is caufc of doubt whether now it is to be done as then ) yet it follows not they are to be baptized, fith Baptifm is to be the perfons own engaf^e- mtnt, not anothers for hiai : yea if this reafon be good each Parent may baptise its own childc, though a woman, fith HannuJ) could deditate her childe by vow to God: li Ifrael be holincfs to the Lord, Jer.z.j. yet it follows not believing gentiles intants are meet for Baptifm, ^oel i.i6- the tbildren that fucfi the breafi Are.requircd to fajt : if this prove them meet for Baptifm, by like reafon fliould the Minivitcs children and cattle be meet too, Jonah i.$,j,%. TlxPfulmifi vr as -cajl on God from his mothers belly, Pls^ii.io. not by dedication to God, but. by fpccial- providence, as vc?/.^.. ihevvs. Infants of Chrifiians, it is rightly judged may hxzx in them the principal tlnngs fignified by Baptifm, but not that they have.them till they fliew it* liMy, Church could make it gooa that God undcrtaf{es for n-ii.tt is wanting in the infants of his people through infancy, as he doth for what is wanting in his people through infirmity, he ihould fay fome- what to purpofe : but! am out of hope to^finde any good proofs firom him, but trifling dictates and impsttinent allegations, Ffulm 1 1 9.1 zi. isa Prayer, where- in the Pfdmijl prays God> to be. furety for him for good, that isjiays the Noac Anmh hi) Anna: to put bimfetf httt^en him ttnd his enemies^ at if he i»ere his Pledg : k is no undertaking he will, and if it be, it is nothing for his infants, furely not tofupply what is wanting in them by rcafon of infancy forBaptifm; HeveiU ciramcife the hearts of his peoples children, Deut.go.6. but this is meant of their eleA children onely, and not neceflarily to be performed in infancy. Cbrifts piomife MiUth. 18.19. 's upon condition of agreement: by troo or three to usii in his Humey nor is it faid tor them and theirs, however not without fubordination to his feaet pjurppfe, and other limitations. That of /p/ 11.24, is rightly expounded in the Hctv Annot. by learnei Mr. GitJ^cr, All bis i^indred and allies with their iffue as well [mall o/s great fhaU. partai^eof Eliakims /'onowr, in one imployment or other : fo that this with the other Texts, might as well prove a man in the Moon, as that which Mr. Churib inkvs, Therefore fuch infants are judged meet for Baptifm. His next, that Christians infants have righteoufnejs by imputation, Rom, 5 .1 p, as they have guilt by imputation, is true onely of the elect, but m akes them not meet for Baptifm till they are called. What he fays. Shews of grace are not ne- ce(j'ary to the judging infants of Qhrijiians meet for Baptifm, \i faid without pjoofj the contrary is proved before. All his Reafons he brings to prove it, terve as well to prove them not neceflary that a pcfon be judged meet for the Lo'ds Slipper. Infants may be rightly judged to have original fin in them ivitbout fJ;ews, be- caufe^he Scripture fays fo, but tells us of none meet for Baptifm, but difciples and believers. The Ifraelites infants did as much eat the Lords Supper, o/s were ba- pii\ed, 1 Cor.io.i,z,3;4. I£ the Text proves the one, it proves the other. Biptifn if called Baptifm unto repent xr.ce, Matth.^.ii. asrecll as Baptifrn af repentance. It is well it is ^ronfcfl'cd that "^obris Baptifm was called the Baptijm of r'epentance ; but it is true alfo that it is often fo called Marl^ i .4. Lii\e 5. j . Acis I 5.14. (St i9-4« and but once unto repentance : and it migt^ have been obfer- ved which Bc:^a notes on Maith.-^.w . that it might be there read Cat. repentance', or Tfhen they repent) as 'm HA]^\)yyLtt ^lavA, Matth. 1 2.41 . is rendered, (at the preaching of Jonah) however if it be read (unto repentance) the meaning is to the fame effe^, that when he baptized them they profefl'cd repentance. for the prefent, and for the future. In -anfwer to the Objedion, infants by like rcafon (hould have -^he Lords Supper, he tells us, that the ceremonies are difjerent, in the one the per (on is to be A^ive, in the other pajjive .- but the Scripture fays not fo, but requires Baptifm as a duty, and thereto profeffion of faith as a prerequifite. He faith, Baptifm is the Sacrament of entrance into the churih, the other of progress ; but this proves the rather that infants (hould have the Lords Supper, fith they are to grow and make progrefs after their entrance. What he faith, it cannot he given to infarts, is falfe : for they can take Bread and Wine, and it was given them iix hundred years together, as many both Proteftants and Papifts confefs.- What he faith Argument 4. p^-io. Sealing the covenant by ttn initial SacH- ment to infants of Gods people aforetime vcas not pecadiar^o that church-ffate, is manifeftly falfe : for that fealing was no other than circumcifion, which if it were not proper to the ^eroijh Church-itate, nothing was. It is frivolous which Mr. Church fays, The' (ommijpon to baptii^cmujt be ex- pounded by the cmmAndt9 iirmmcife. What (?8) What U faid about the antiquity of infent-baptifm is elftwberfi att{w«fcJ, Exdn ■ piin, I . Apol. SeSt.i 5,16. Prtecurfor Sccf. 3 . Vhnyfm Areopagtt/f iia fpu- rious Authour, as whole Juries of Prcaeftants and Papifts confefs. Sdlnufiui hithinhis Letter to Cohiiis, pJ^<.i79. that he U m elder than the fth age^ pag. 44J . it ii certdn that he verote About the fitb age. There's plainer proof fot or that which they may have without it. It is not true, that there U the lii^e pr(h- fit to infants by baptifm as by circumcijion j for the one is appointed and not the other, and there is no penalty for omitting infant-baptifm as for negJeding in- fant-circumcifion, nor any promife or privilege afiigned to infant-baptifm as to infant-ciicumcifion. SECT. XI. The Agreements betrvccn Circumcifton and Baptifm, do not jujiifie Infant-baptifm, and the validity of fealing Infants with an initial fed norv, isp-ewed to be null. His fixth and laft Argument runs thus. The promife was fealed by the initial Sacrament aforetime to infants of vifible Profejfors, fee\ing it for them both Jews and Gentile , therefore it may be fealed to the infants of Chrijtians by the in- itial Sacrament. The Antecedent he proves not, it is in efFed no more than the infants of ^evps and Profelytes wae circumcifed, one/y Mr- Church ufeth the aff;ded Phra- feology of Paedobaptiils to call that fealing the Promife by the initial Sacra- ment, which is no more tlian circumcifion, which it is falfe did feal, or allure to every circumcifed perfon the Promife of propriety in God, or any other Promife made in the covenant with Abralum, Gen.i 7. And he fays, It was fealed to in- fants of Vifible Profefjbrs ^ intimating it was done to them by reafon of their Profcffion, and not to others j whereas the infants of any in his houfe, whether born in Abrahams houfe, or bought with hit money, who were not of his feed, but a grangers children, were by command to be circunuifed. He puts in his con- clufion (o!ir Baptifm) for (fealing by the initial Sacrament) But to let pafs thefe ftalc Paralc^ilms •, he takes on him to prove the confequence by fix Argu- ments. The firft is, The principal Promife it not made -Joid. He means that Gctt.i 7.^. but gives no reafon why that fliould be the principal Promife, and not that v.4. But I grant that PromifeG^n. 17.7 .meant oi Abrahams feed by faith is not made void. He thence concludes. Therefore it may be fealed to the infants of Chrijitans by the initial Sacrament in this dispenfationi which is not a proof of the confe- quence, but of the conclufion of the former Argument j nor is thei-e any force in this inference ; for though the Promife were ftill in force as then, yet it is not a fufficient reafon to bapdze an infant, the command being not to baptixc petfons in covenant, but difciples of Chiift. la (39) In his fecond he tells us, Sealir^ ^hoi Fnmije ty an initial Smranienttoh- fants of Godi- people (vthich was the fubftance of circimcifion, and a di^inSi thing from it) did not of right ceafe vpiih the Jtwifh church-jtate j for it was not peculiar tothn church AS a national church -, for that Promife was feakd to infants by the imttjl Sacrament lon^ before the ex$ence of a national church, and to Infants irf grangers which were not of that nation Gen.if. z. Sealing the promife by an initial Sacrament is principally in reference to the Catholiti church. Forjhewsof grace are fnfftcient to it, thou^' the parties have not joyned themfelves to any particulor church Afts 18.56,37. and 10 47. and one that cannot be rightly judged to be of the catholic^ xhurcb cannot have thepromife feakd to him by an ini- tial Sacrament, though he be a member of a particular church. Anfwer. That which Mr. church faith { jealing that promife by' an initial Sacrament to Infants of Gods people wa^ thefubjiance of circumcijwn and a diflin£{ thing from it ) is many waies faulty in refpeft of falfehood, and obfcurity. For I . the fiibllance of circiimcifion as a type or fliadow is Chiift exhibited, as the Apoftle Col.-. 7.- not the pmmife of God to every Infant of a believer by pro- felfion z. as circumcillon was afign or taken of the covenant made with Abru- ham ; and it is true the promife Gen. 17. 7. was the thing lignified by it, but not onely thatpart, Iw?//fce the God of thy feed, but alfo the other, /w7/ki/;^ God, yea and all the reft of the promifes as ver.j^. thoujhah be a father of many nations, fi-uicfulnefs, defcent of j^Jngs ver.6. inheritance of Canaan ver.8. yet how the promifes or the fealing of them fhould be the fubftance of circumcifion I do^not underftand. Circumcifion was a ceremony confifting of an aftion and a relation. Circumcifion as an adion hath no other fubftance or eflence but the cutting off the little skin, as a relation, the fignifying, or fealing is the very- relation, but it is a trifling fpeech to fay, paternity is the fubftance of pa- ternity, if the promifes fealed be meant to be the fubiknce yet no Logicians I knowfofpeak, to call the objed of fight the fubftance of fight, thethinAic.Whciin fundry inconfiftences feem tafac 1. ti^t fealing the promt fe by an initial jcalflyouUi be tbefubjtancc of circumcifion^Sc yet circunuifion a dijiinci thing from it.\% the fabftance of a being a diftinA thing from it ? the fubftance of a man a diftinft thing from a man ? 2. that Sealing the pr.omife fhoiili be the fubjlance of circumcijion, and yet circumcifion oncly a. ceremony for that time. Is that a ceremony to a thing which is the fubilance of it ? J. that (iircumiifion doth ceafc yet not that fealing the promife by that initial Sacrament which was no other then circumcifion. Let him that can read theCe rid- dles, lamnofuch Oedipus as to unfold them. Bat let Mr. CWcfc ufe what gibberi{h he pkafel know no other initial Sacrament then that of circumcifion mentioned in the old Teftament, nor any fealing then commanded but it, and if it ccafe, then all the ruls about it ceafe to bina, and fo are no rule to us now. iut laith he pag. 41 . The fciling of promife is nu ccafed , far fcals are added in , dil^cnfation to the co-jcnanr. To which i reply. A thing is faid to ceafe either <>f. right or of hO. which was of ri^ht to be or had being before but not now. There was no fealing by an initial feal aforetime that had being of right or of fad aforetime "but circumcifion, which Mr. Church faith waf the initial feal aforetime, therefore circumcifion ccafing, fealing with the initial feal afore- time ccafed , thcie being no other Foretime. But faith Mr. Church it if not ccafedy for feal arc i.idid inthis dijpenfation to the t-ox'c«^nf,he means doubtlefs baptifm :and the Lorcis S-ipp^r, and by feals other feals, and fo his reafon is fealing of , the p omife by an initial Sacrament which was aforetime is not coaled, becaufe other fcals are added, which is as if one ftionld fay, the night is not paft be- caufe the fun is rifcn, the reafon is good to the contrary, there are other feals added,theicfore the fealing with the initial feal,afcrctimc is ccafed. But, faith he, it did no- cf right ceafc with the '^mfl) church ftate : For it was not peculiar toQ ■ fkit chuuh M a national^ church. 'Anfwer. If circumcifion were not perticular to the Jewilh Church-ftate I 4aiovv' noihir.g peculiar to it. And if it were not peculiar to that church as a jiational church why was the nation peculiarly called the circumcifion, and oth;?r people ihe ur.Jtcumcifrjn Roi-n.j.jo. And for that which is alledged, xbai pr. firft part of yiuin Siripiureproo]^ &c. As for hi3 chird Argument , it proves not the Confequcnce. [ For though faith and repcnrance be required of fome afore circumcilion] yet it was not required of infants afore circumcilion. Biit afore bsprifm it is required of ail hlM. z8.i9. Marii 16.16. Acii 2. 38. & 8. 56;. 37 38. To the fou^^ I fay chough [infants now are cuptbie of the promife as the Jews infants wfre,] and that [they could bear baptifm as well as cbe Jews in- fanrs could circumciGon, ye; without a like command ( which cannot be found ) they are not to be baptized as the other were to be circumcifed. - As ior the fifth Agumcnt, it is faile. That [baptifm is as appliable to in- fants as circumcilion was 3 for there is not the like command, without which though it were, that no more aftion were required in the fubj.cl to be bapti- zed then in the fubjcft to be c.rcumcifeu (which is falfe, as appears from Matt. iZir.Mar':li6.i6. Acii 1.1%. .^.'^j 8. 36,37,38.) and though it were that- the parities were moie between them then they arc, yet they make no rule for" baprifm without a command or inllitntion. But it is falfe which he faith, that baptifm is the fame Sacrament with Circumcilion And as for the twelve pa- rities, b:ought by M'. C^«rc'fej fome are doubtful, asthefirft [that they are both initial Sacraments of the Covenant of grace] in fome lenfe with fome li- mitations it may be true, but in oiher, even in that fcnfe it is commonly ta- ken, it is rjot true; to wit, that tl;e elVence of them cofifilts thereinj and that they are fo to all rightly circumcifed or baptized. ■ - The fecond is likewifc ambiguous , in fome fenfe true, in (omc f^lfe. Thofe that might not be right y juiged to be in the promife might be circumcifed , however it be concerning b'aptif n. And thofe that may be tightly accounted to be of the Church 4 meaning the invihble, yet are not therefore to be bap- tized. The third likewife is doubtful by reafon of the different waies of being ac- counted to the Chui'ch, and- the doubt whether a perion be to be accounted of the Church afore baptifm or after. The Words Acxi z. 41 .47, feem to prove that they are added to the Church after bap:ifm. Neither is the fourth or fifth certain. For women ordinarily entrcd into the Chu -ch aforetime without circumciGqn, and did eat the Paiieover. Tnc>eighth is no: true of every circumcifed pei fons citcumcifion, nor of every baptized perfons baptifm, that i: is an external feat of the righteoufnefs of faith. In the tenth fomething is untrue. For in the new Difpcnfstion (as the phrafe is) arc not both temporal and fpiritusl promiics fealed as well as in the fouiJt, G if if he mean it of the fame temporal promifes, we have better prcfmifes Heb.i.6 but not the fame, not the promife of the land of Canaari, of greatncfs , pro- fperity, &c. but rathei- a prediftiort of perfecution, if we will live Godly in Chrift Jefus. Chiiftians have Chrift, and all other things by that part of the - Covenant made with Abrahum, which is fpiritual, but not by that part which is proper to the Tfraelites. In the eleventh Mr. Church feems to be out in his computation about the be- ginning of baptifmj and end of Circumcifion.He faith [Circumcifion of right ended when baptifm began to be an initial Sacrament, and that was not furcly till lobn began to baptize, which was not till the fifteenth year of Tiberim , as is plain from Ln^c 3. i,z. row mark his reafon. For Chrijis Circumcifion rvas tbeperiod of if. Now if Chrifts circumcifion was the period of it, then it did ceaie almoft thirty years before baptifm began to be an initial Sacrament , Chrift being circumcifed in the Reign oi Augnjiui, But whence doth he gather that Circumcifion of right ended , when Baptifm began to bc^n initial Sacra- ment ? - ^ For my part I find no fuch thing in Scripture. If our Lflws words lobn 7. 2 2:2^ . do not prove it was then in force, yet thofe fpeeches of the Apoftle Epkf.i.14,1 5;,i6. of abolifhing the Law of Commandments in Ordinances, and flaying the enmity by his Crofs, and CoLz,i/\. of blotting out the hand- writing of Ordinances, which was againft us, and tock it away nailing it to his Crofs, do determine that Circumcifion did of right continue until Chrifts death, and fo fo ne years after, baptifm began to be a Sacrament initial . The ufual Doftrinc is, that the Ceremonies of the Law became dead with Chrift, deadly after the open promulgation of the Gofpel, and calling of the Gentiles ^ Dioduti annot.onMatth. 27.51. And this breach vo^s afign that by the death ef Chrifi all Mofuical Ceremonies vpere mnibilated. But Mr.church tells us, Cir- cumcifion ccafcd to be needful rvhen lohn began te baptise, for the Lavo is fuid to continue but untill John, Luke 16.16. To which I anfwer , I know not why Circumcifion fhould not be as needful as the Pafl' over, which our Saviour himfelf obferved Little ii. 15. and oflfciing the gift to the Tiieft that Mofes con\m3inded,Matth. 8. 4. 1 prefiimethe command of Circumcifion was in force till after Chrifts death as well as the command of the Paileover , fevcnth day Sabbath and other things. As for Mr. Church his reafon if it weregood. That circumcifion was needlefs when lohn began to bapife, becaufe it is faid the law was untill lohn.by the fame reafon he might fsy.all the reft of the Law, yea and the Prophets were needlefs, when Ic/^n began to baptize. But the meaning is, the Minittery of the Law and Prophets continued, till lohn, cr as it is Mattb. 11.15. all the Prophets and the Law prophecied until Ivhn^ that is, declared Chrifts comming as future, and when John began then the Kingdom of Gcd began to be preached, and therefore Marli i . i ,2. The beginning of the Gsf- pel of Je(us chrift the Son of God is laid to be upon lobm preaching j for then the Meftiah was named as prefent. Behold the Lamb of God rfhiih tah^eih arvay ibefinof tbelVorld, John. 1.29. Laftly faith Mr. C/'/frJi [the Apoftle plainly teacheth that Bsptifm is the fame Sacrament to Chriftians that Circumcifion was to Gods people aforetime Col.z.ii. I z. arguing againft the continuance of Circiuncifion ; in this Dif- , pcUfation he ufes two Arguments, which argue no lefs. For i. Chrift being come (43 J come (who was the body of the old (hadows) they of tight ceafed. t. Thae baptifm was now the fign of our Mortification, lor which circumcifion ferved aforetime.] To which I anfwer , neither doth the Apoftle plainly, that is, in exprefs terms, teach Cel. i.ii,i i. what ever Mr.C/;i(rt/;, or Mr. Cdvin fay. That bap- tifm is the lame Sacrament to Chriftians that circumcifion was to Gods people aforetime, nordo his realons prove it. For by the fame veafon wc might fay it of fiutting away of leaven out of their houfes, and keeping the Pall'eover with un- eavened bread; baptifm is the fame Sacrament to Chriltians that tlie feaft of unleavened bread was to Gods people aforetime. For i.Chriil being come(who was the body of the old (hadows ) they of right ceafed. 2. That baptifm is now the fign of Mortification, for which keeping the feaft with unleavened bread ferved aforetime, i Cor. 5.7,8. But were all thefe parities between circumcifion and baptifm, which Maftev: Chiinh mentions, right, yet they prove not his Conclufion, that the initial ficrament in this dij^enfution is as appliable to infums of ChriUix/is a/s the initial Cicramem aforetime wiK to infants of Gods people. For if not all thefe, yet as many other parities may be reckonedjat Icaft according toP^edobaptifts Hypotbc- fcj, between baptifm and the Pafleover, as, that they are both Sacraments of the Covenant of grace, both ceremonies to be u fed about thofe that might riohtly be judged in the promil'c, and accounted of the Church, the ordinary way of communion in the Church, not allowed to thofe without , engaging to obf;rvancy of the Covenant according to the feveral adminiilrations, ligns of mortification,external feals of thafighteoufnefs of faithidiftinguiihingGods people from inBaels, to ceafe at Chdlts comming, &c. and yet Ifuppofe Mr. Ch.trcbvj'iW not have them the lame Sacrament. Yea as many difparities be- tween civcumcifion and baprifm mr'y be reckoned asMr.C^Krt/? reckons parities, as that the one was a iliadovv of Chrift to come, not the others the one a to- ken of themixt covenaat made to^wj^i/n, which was of promifes peculiar to the Jews, not the other; the one a domeftick sction to be done in the houfe, the other an Ecclefiaftick belonging to the Church; "he one to be done by the parents in that rcfpjd, nor fo the other; the one with cutting off a part, not the other; the one with drawing blood, not the other; the one to males onely , the other to females alfc; the one to be on the eighth day whatever it were,* the other not limitted to any precife day; the one made a vifible impreflion on the body, and that permanent, not fo the other; the one to be done with an arti- ficial and (harp, the other with a natural and not wounding inftrument; the one to all males belonging to the houfe of Abraham even infants, but not to others though G'>dly,exccp: tl ey joined themfelves to that family: the other to belie- vers or difciples of all n iti3ns;'the one engaging to keep Mo[cs his Law, no: fo the other. But be the dilpuicies or parities what they wiil,the only rule in thefe mee: pofitive rites is the inftitution or command : fo that were the Sacraments Cas they are called) the fame in kind, ufe, analogy, or what other way they may be deemed the fame, yet without a rule of command or example intima- tin<^ fuch a command, we are not bound to do the like in the one, as we do in the other. As for the fixth Argument , That nothing can be foundly collecfed from the fcriptures againU infant 4Jpti[m ; the contrary hath appeared above in the fecond G J • pait f44>) part of this Review Se(fl f . &c. whathe grants that it may be foundty gathe> red that all of riper years fhould be difcipled before baptifm from the commifTi- on Mattb. zS. ip. doth alfo prove, that they had no Commiflion to baptize any but difcipled perfons , and fo none but thofe of riper years, not infants unlefs there be fliewed fome other Commiffion : which is not to be found in the Scripture, but only in corrupt tradition of antiquity, and the Jewifh ar- guings of latter Divines, and is not yet found any other then will-wor- ihip. To all which Mr. Church further brings anfwer is made before, the vindica- ting of my objeftions will moft fitly come in the reply to Matters /Vficjk/^j Defence , to which I fhall haften after the difpatch of fome few other Aus thors. SECT. XII. I>(^Hor Featley hk argument for Infint^buptifm from the Covenant , is ex4» mined, MR. Rutherford is another of the Authors , whofe writing Mr. Baxter tells, yet remains to be anftccred. But I know not any writing of his in which he doth diieftly difpute againft Anti-paedobaptifts. I confefs I have met with a difpiicc agaiwft thofe of the Congregational way of Difcipline in his Pcxceahle and lemperAte Plea, c. i z. q.i z. for denying bap-, tifm to thofe infants whofe next parent is not a known believer in fome gather- ed Church, who yet do hold and praftife baptifm of fuch infants^ whofe next parent is a Church-membeivBut that difpute going only againll them, and up- on his grounds denied and refuted by me elfewherc, it were out of my way to anfwer what he faith there. If there be any other writing of his, 1 prefunie fome one or other of the Antagonifts I refute, have the Itrength of it: yet 1 intend if fuch a one do occurre to me , to give account of it as I (hall find meet. Mr. Robert Baillee is another to whofe writing Mr. B. points me. But his firft Argument I have already enervated in the Addition to my Apology in my letter to him, and anfwering his three firft criminations, efpecially the third, and have fliewed, fcit. I. that he doth but calumniate, when he charges us to affirm. That no infints have any pUce in the Covenant of grace, or any Gofpci promijes till they be called by the word, and by an aHual jaich have embraced the GoJpcL What other arguments he brings are anfwered either in anfwering O- ther-s that bring the fame, or its intended (hall be anfwaed in fit place. There are many others who have written of this argument in the Englifh tongue, each of which forms his Argument from the Covenant to the ini-.ial feal, from infant circumcifion to infant-baptifm, with fome difference in terms, orphrafifying, though in efted all of them ate reduced into the three forms in the i',z,3. fed. of my Exercitatien, and rcii on thefe falfe principles, that in- tereft in the Covenant of grace was the adequate reafon of a p;ifons tide to circumcifion, and is the adequate reafon of a pjrfons title to bap:ifp.,and that there is the like reafon of baptizing infants of believers ; as of circumciCng (4^) infants of Abrahm by virtue of the like intereft in the Covenant, though there be not the like command for the one as for the other , ncvcrthelefs that it may not b^ faid I have nedcded any thing conceived worth anfwering, or to have flighted any of their labours, I rfiall briefly anfwer the Arguments of fuch as have come to my hands, and then more largely anfvvcr 'Mx.Uercc^ Mx.Ma,r~ Jhall^ Mr.C'oWcf, Mr.B/^/te, Mv.Baxrcry who have oppofed my writings , tak- ing in others by the way, as I fee fit. Dr. FeacUy is one that hath been a Leader of the Prelatical party^ and is judged by them to have proved Psdobaptifm learnedly. Hisdifputc is in his Dipper dipt, p.46. arg.5. thus. [_ All they who arc comprized within the Covenant, and are no where pro- hibited to receive the leal thereof, may and ought to receive it : But children are conipiized within the Covenant of faith, whereof circumcifion was a feal, Rom.4.11. and now baptifm is, £ygo children may and ought to receive Bap- tifm. Of the Major or firll Propofition there can be no doubt j for it is anjuft to deprive a Man of the confirmation of that to which he hath a true right or ti- tle. And for the Minor or Aflumption , it is as cleer, for fo are the words of the Covc'^aJ^t Gcn.17. 17. I will eitabiilh my Covenant between me and rhce, and thy feed after thee. ] . • " Agaiml which I except, firft. That the Syllodfrn is'many Wales faulty ; 1. That he puts in the Condufion [children] as all one with infants', i. That in the Condufion there is this term not exprell in the Major [ may arid ought to receive baptifm] for that which is in the Major [ may and ought to receive the Teal of the Covenant] is not all one with [may and ought to recdve bap- tirm3b3ptifm and feal of .the Covenant being not equipoUentjbefides Circum- cifion, pafleover. Lords Supp.Tjthe Ephefmns arc faid to be fealcd with the holy ■ fpiritotpromifeEpk/.i.i J. nor is the term [feal of the Covenant] applycd to Sacraments any other than a novel expreflion, neither ufed in Scripture, nor the Anticnts. Kom./^.\i . doth not term circumcifion ( much lefs other Sacraments as they are called) a feal of the Covenant of faith, as the Doftor mif?'legeth it, but a feal of the Righteoufnefs of faith, which he had being yet uncircumcifed. Whence it appears that it was a Seal of wh^t he had, not of a covenant concerning what he was to have; and this is faid onely of Abra- fcH-f circumcifion, with fuch an obferving of particularizing circumftancesjas (hew it to be appropriated to Abrahams circumcifion, what ever is laid of cir- cumcifions' being a feai of the righteoufnefs of faith, however Divines diftatc to the contrary , and therefore what the Dodor addes in the Minor (which multiplies the terms in the Syllogifm) [and now baptifm is] aiVerting thereby Laptiim to be a Seal of the Covcnont of faith , is faid without proof , though I lliould not ilick to grant it in this fenfe , that t9 the true believer his baptiifn afl'ures righteoufnefs according to Gods Covensnti and the true believer by baptifm gives tcitinaony or afiurance of his taith according to his Covcn?nt, as being unwilling to wrangle about terms if we agre. in tiic meaning, B^it in thv fenfe Pjcdobapiifts ufe it, as containing the nature of a Sacrament . I ihallrejed it in that which followcs. 3. Againlt the Dolors omiiTion of fome words in the Minor, [and are no where prohibited to receive the feal tlier- oi ] which were in the Major. 4. That the torn ^and are no where prohi- bited bited to receive the feal thereof] is ambiguous. For it may be underftood ei- ther of an exprefs prohibition in forbidding terms, or a prohibition by confe- quence. It is granted in fo many exprefs words, infants are not prohibited to receive baptifm, no nor the Lords Supper , yet they are by good confequence to be denied both, in as much as both are difagreein^fiom the inftitution and praftice of thofe rites in the new Teftament. Wherefore to the Dodors argu- . mentj I except againft the form of it, as containing more then three terms^the 'predicate in the conclufion not being in the Major, part of the medium in the major being left out in the Minor. And if it be thus formed [ all they who are comprized within the covenant of faith , and are no where prohibited to recti ve the feal thereof, may and ought to be baptized: But infants of believers are comprized, &c. Ergo. ] I deny the Major if meant o: Gods covenant to us, or promife either of faith or righteoulnefs to infants by it, as the alleging Gen. 17.7. imports the rioftor meant. But grant it of thofe who are com- prized within the Covenant of faith by their covenanting to be believers, in which fenfe I deny the Minor, that children, that is infant-children are com- prized in the Covenant of faithby their covenanting to be believers-; yea and, if the proportion be uaiverfal, all children, or all infant-children of btlievers are comprized in Gods covenant of faith or promife that he will give tl;em faith or righteoufnefs by faith, I deny it. Nor is the Major proved by the Doftor. . ■por h is no unjuli thing to deny baptifm to a perfon to whom it is net appoin- ted J now bapcilm is appointed to difciples or believers, not to whom God p.o- mifeth to give faith or righteoufnefs by faith. Befides weie it irut. tha: God had fo promifed it and confirmation of it were due 5 yet without inftitution confirmation by baptifm were not due J God liath other waies to confirm it, as by his Oath Heb.6. 17. the blood of his Son, i Lor.ii.i^. his Spirit, 2 Car. i. 21. A man that is bound to pafs an eftate , and to feal it, may not be hound to a further Confirmation by fine and recovery. Befides its no injuilice net to confirm ones right who doth not claim and prove it. But this infants do not. And for the Minor, the words G(:H.i7. 7. have nothing about the fecond part of the propofitiorb nor do indeed prove any to be comprized in that promife , but Abraham and his feed, of which fort none of Gentile-believers children are, but thofe that are true believers as he was, oreleftbyGod to adoption of children. The objeftion the Dodor brings in is not rightly framed, nor do I deny the anfwer the Dodor gives is fuificient to overthrow it as fo formed. But what the Doftor didates. That all true believers and their children are to be reckoned among children of the promifcj is contradidory to the Apoftles de- termination Rom.^.y,^. as the Apaftle is expounded by Dr. fcj.[ly himfelf in the New Artnot. on Rom. 9. 8. in which he thus fpeaks, not all ihey who are carnally born of Abraham by the courfe of nature are the children of God to whom the promife of grace was made ; but the chilJrenof promife, thafis, thofe who were born by vertue of the promife, thofe who by Gods fpccial grace were adcpred (as Ifaac by a fpccial, and fingular promife was begot by j^bra- karn) they only are accounted for that feed mentioned in the Covenant, I will be thy God, and the God of thy feed. SECT (^1) SECT. XIII. tht Arffiments «f 3f»*.WiUiam Lyford, from the Covenant Joy infant-baptifm arc examined. MlC. J^iUiam Lyford in his Apology for Infant -haptifm page 3 5 . thus dif- pites. AU that are taken into the Covenant of grace ought to receive the initial fign [what ever the fign be that God (hall chufe] and that according to the commandment of God, and our Lord Jefus Chrift. But infants are taken into Covenant with their parents, as is proved j therefore by the Com- mandment of the Lord they ought to receive the fign which God hath enjoia- ed to be ufed, and that fign is baptifm. To which I finfwer, by denying the Ma/or , and for his proof out of Gen. 17.7,11. I deny, 1. That there is any command for any other initial fign but Circumcl- 2. Thst circumcifion is there appointed to all who are taken into the Cove- nant of gracejnot to Lot, Mekhifedecli^ "^ob or their children, not to the females of Abralumi houfe, not to the males under eight daics old, not to the Pro- felytes of the gate as Cornelm was. 7 . That the adequate reafon why any was to b: circumcifed was intcreft in the Covenant, Gen. 17.7. but the command only. For both Jjhmael who was not in the covenant was to be circumcifed becaufe of the command,and as hath been (hewed, others in the covenant were not to be circumcifed through defeft of the command. Nor is the Afiwor true, if underftoodof all the infants of believers , or any of them as their infants, nor.ij there a word to prove it Gen, 17,7. yihichh oncly a ^romik to Abrahams feed, and they of the Gentiles are only-true believers or eled; perfons. But perhaps Mr. Lyford mends the mat- ter in the next form, which is this pag. ^4. If infants have a right to the covenant and the initial fign therof, then it is a wron^J to deny it to them. But infants have a right to the Covenant and the iaicialf^n thereof, both by Gods origmal grant, Gen. 17. 11. 14. and by Chiifts confirmation of that Covenant made to their Fathers , Row. 1 58. therefore it is a wrong to deny it them. The Covenant under which we are, is the Gofpel Covenant, made long fince with us E?Jg/i,^wze« and our infant- feed, with a command of giving them the fign, which at firft was circum.cifi- on, and now bsptifm by the faaie Divine authority enjoined and commanded to be oiven without any exception of any within the Covenant. lanfwcrby denying the Af /wo?", and to the pi-oof by denying that Gen. 17. 1 1,1 4 there is command of any other initial fign than Circumcifion, or that circumcifion is commanded to all that had a right to the Covenant, or that the Gofpel Covenant was made long fince with us Englijlmen, and our feed as oar feed, or that there was in that of circumcifion any command to us to bap- tize infants , or that Divine authority hath commanded baprifm to be given without any exception of any within the Covenant. But I affirm he hath commanded only to baptize thole in the Covenant who arc difciples or believerr. But Mr.L^'fo'i^ adds further p, 3 7. Al U8) All thofe to whom the bleffings and promifes in the Covenant do belong, t them alfo belongs baptifm, the lign thereof (by the doftiine of S i. Feter , ahd of "fefui Chrijt himlelf) But to infants of believing parents, the bkflings and promiUs of the Covenant do belong before adual faith, therefore by the Do- ftrine of the Holy Ghoft in Scripture, fuch infants ought to be baptized be- fore aftual faith. The Major or ftrft part of this Argument is the very reafon of the Text. The Minor proportion, vii. that the bleffings and promifes of the Covenant do belong to infants before adual faith is proved by thefe reafons. i. By the exprefs words of Peter, which fay, the promife is to your children, a. By the expreis words of our Saviour, of fuch is the Kingdom of Heaven. 5. By example of if^xnc andf, they were children of the p-omife before rduall faith, and had applied unto them the feal of the righteoufnefs of faith. 4. Some infants dying are laved, they are members of Chriib Kingdom, therefcrc the bleffing of the covenant, vi^. regeneration and remiflion of fins through the blcod of Chrift do alfo belong to them. To which I anfwer, bleffings of the covenant are of fundry forts, fuch as certainly accf mpanie falvation, regeneration, juflification, adoption, or fuch as are common to reprobates, as to have teachers, example, and acquaintance with the godly, &c. B^th thefe may belong to them ia prefent pofleffion or aflurancj for the future : when they bJong to them in prelent poHeffion , it is cither diicernibly or indifcernibly. Actual faith may be in the excrcife or ha- bit. Infants of believers are eleft or non-eled. It is true all chofc to whom the bleffings of the Covenant which accompany falvation belong in prefent pof- fefficn cifcernibly, to them alfo belongs baptifmrbut fo the Minor is falfe, un- deiftood of all infants of believer s: they belong not to all, but only to the e- left., nor them certainly in prefent pofllffion, much lefs difcernibly during in- fancy : or if it be difcernible, then they have adual iaith, and fo the Minor is not true, tliat to infants of believing parents the faving b!effinu,s of the co- venant do belong in poirc;ffion difcernibly before cdual faith. If it be meant cf the bleffings of the Covenant in future affuiance only the Major is falfe. Nor is it true that the Major is the very reafon of the text .Jcf. 1.38, 39, It is falfe that this is Peters reafoning, therefore does the fign belong to Peters hear- ers becaufe the promife c'id firft belong to them. For the term [ yctf for'] dot« not inter a right which they might claim, but imports a motive to duties, and of thefe duties fr.fl to repentance, and then baptifm : fo that if from thence a right be concludedjthey nnifl conclude as well a right to repemance in the firft place, an'i then to baptifm. Nor is' it t.ue tliat ^c?.« 10.47, 48. the Apcflles difcour.e is reduced to Mx. lyfordy foim tf argument, or faits as he bies^Thcy that receive the fame grace are capable, yea have right to the fame fign, but in- fants arc capable of the fame grace , therefore of right they are to have^tbe f^mc fign, i.e. the Sacrament of baprilm. Fcr although tiie Major be grantea of aftual pofl'effion cf th.e fpi-it and magnifying God,yet it is not true only ot tiie promife thereof. Btit the Minor [infants a;e capableof the fame giace] alters tlie term, which is in the Major thus [ they have received the fame grace ] and io, Mr. { J ford fyllogifmhath four terms. Nor do:h the Apoftlc fay, they that are c.ipabie of the fame grace are to be baptized as ivc-ll as we, but , none can forbid witer to baptize them that had received the.Hoiy Ghofl;and fo were ma- ni. (49) nifellly aftual believers as wcli as themfeltrcs , though they were of the Gen " tiles : which when i: appears in infants I ihould yield they are to be baptized , but not meerly becaiifc of thepioinile or capacity of grace, for the piomifc a- grees to Jews children cleft, and capacity of grace to Turks children, and ther- fore if either or both rhcfe did intitle to baptifm, the infant-children of fucU inighc be baptized. And for his proofs of the Minor, itisfalfe, that to in- fants of believing parents the blcflings and promiles of the covenant do belong before aftual faith, is proved by the cxprefs words of Peter. For though he fay, the promife is to your children, yet he doth not fay , to you as believers, or to your children in infancy as the children of believers, nor before adual fsi rh. Yea the words [as many as the Lord our God fhall call] do require adual faith afore the pofleffion of the bieffings of the p.omife : Nor is this any rriifcrable Ihift : nor is it true, that thole words are quite a new thing clearly relating to another fort of people, than his prefent hearers, end net to them, for that ex- prefljon limits all the Subjeds, and is put after all joined by copulative parti- cles, and therefore is to be conceived to liaiit all of them. Nor is the ipccch true of any of them without that limitation. Nor is it true which Mv.L}fcrd faies. That the words do not exegetically expound to which of his hearers chil- dren the promife did belong. For they are a manifeft limitation excluding fome and including others. And what he faith, that Peter faies [ this promife does belong to them that are afar oft*, and their children, as well as to you and your children] is ma- nifeftly falfe. But of this text I have fpoken in the firft part of this Review, fed. 5. more fully. To his fccond proof, I fay it is falfe, that the exprefs words of our Saviour (of fuch is the Kingdome of Heaven) prove his Minor. For [of fuch] is not all one with [infants of believing parents] nor when it is faid [ of fuch is the Kingdome of heaven] is it all one with this [the bleffings and p:omifes of the Covenant do belong to them afore adual faith] the Kingdom of heaven is not ^ faid to be of them, becaufe their parents were believers, its uncertain, whether they weire fo or no j and if they were, another reafon may and ought to be con- ceived of their inteieft in the Kingciome of heaven, to wit Chrilts fpecial and effedual blefllng ; nor is it faid the Kingdom of heaven belongs to them in adual pofl'eflionj and if it were fo meant, and yet they wei-e not appointed to be baptized (as if appears by the Evangelifts they were, not) it is a good prefam- ption, Chrifl v/ould not have infants , notwithftanding their intereft in the Kingdom of heaven, to be baptized till they became believers by. profcflion , and knew what- their engagement is thereby. To his third, it is true, If^ac and ^acob were children of the promife before adwal faith, yea before they were born, and therefore if the intereft in the Co- venant had been a fuSicient reafon of Circumcifion , they fhould have been circumcifed afore the eighth day, which becaufe they were not, it is an argu- ment, that not the Covenant, but the Command intitled them to Circum- cifion. To the fourth, 1 never denied, that to fome infants the covenant belongs, not that they are faved, regenerated in infancy, but I deny, that this is true of all infants of believers. For the very inftances brought prove the contrary , that though I[mc and ^Atob were children of the promi^j yet Jjhm^clsnd E- H . . fm- (5°) W begotten hj believing parents were not, who yet were to be circumclfed/nor iS any a childe of the piomile becaufe he is the child of a believer^ but bccaufe be is clcd of Goii. As forMr-f-j-forrfj anfwer to the Objeftion in conference with him, it i« indeed no anlwcr. For he that objefts that the blcfTings of the Covenant, be- long to-eleft infants, not to all, and therefore under that pretence all in gene- ral are not to be baptized, doth not by that fpeech grant , that baptifm belongs to one infant, or to any becaufe elect, but only (hews the infufficiency of the adverfarics proof for that practice ; As for thofe who deny baptifm to all becaufe they are infants, I knew not who they be, thercafon why it isdenyed them is not bccaafe they arc infants, but becaufe in infancy they appear not to be dif- ciplcs, or believers in Chrift, who only by che command are appointed to be bzptizedj and I agree withMr.L^'/ori^, That the Sacraments do belong to the elcft not as ele^t, but as vilible members and Profeflbrs ( and that upon this account Simon Migui was baptized, though Mr- Lyford is raiftakcn in faying Pcccr baptized Simon Mugia, which was done by Philif)) whereby Mr. Ljford doth indeed overthrow his difpute. For if the Sacraments belong to the Eleft as vifible Members and Profeflbrs, then to all and onely vifible members and Profeflburs. For what belongs to any quatenui ipfim as fuch,belongs to all and onely fuch unjverfally and reciprocally, and foif he will ftand to his own words , though children be in the Covenant or eleft, yet till they be vifible members and Profeflbrs they are not to be baptized, which doth plainly refute his own Argument, vi^, the Major of his own fyllogifm : nor need we by our reafon know whether a perfon be elected that we may baptize him,but whe- ther he be a vifible member and Profeilbr. SECT. XIV. The Argument! of Mr. Stalham, Mr. Brinlley, Mr. Hall, and x namelcj? Au^ thor,fromtheCovcnjnt for infum-baptifm, are examined. MR. Stalkam in thd Conference at Terling page 4. argued thus. They who are included in the fubftance of the Gofpel covenant are not to be excluded from the feal of the Covenant. But infants are included in the fub- ftance of the Gofpel covenant, and therefore not to be excluded from the feal of the Gofpel Covenant. But in this Argument the Condufion is not of baptifm in particular , and foconcludcsnot what Was to be concluded , and fith circumcifion sccording to hi'm was a feal of the Golpcl covenant, it might be true of it and fo gran- ted. Yet the Major if univerfal is not true, no not of circumcifion. For wo- men and infant-males afore the eigth day were excluded from the feal of the Covenant, though they were included in the fubftance of the Gofpel covenant^ , s his phrafiology is , nor hath he a word in all the conference to prove his Ma- o" ; and for his Minor , fetting afide his phrafifying, if this be his meaning }• All the- infants of believers, or the infants of believers, in as much as they are their children, have the fubftance of the Gofpel- Co vcnantj that is the pro- mife (51) miUjGen.ij.y. asJt is a Gofpel promifc made to them 3 it is falle and con- trary to Romnns p. 7,8. nor is there any thing in the conference there brought that proves it. M:.fobn BrinJIey of Ptedobipt, page 1 i.jz. makes this his firft and grand argument for the baprifm of infants. It cluldrcn of believing parents be within the Covenant, then they may be baptized, B'lt they are within the covenan:, Erg'j. The Major he takes as granted, though I deny it zs being mcft fthe. The Minor he would prove, i . From AHs 2 ? 9. where he makes the p.-omile to be of remiflion of fms , but that belongs only to the penitent believer, and therefore proves not thai it belongs to the infant of a believer, without repen- tance and faich. 2. In that they were in the old Teftament in the Covenant. But he l.imUlf page 3 J. faithj All infants of believing parents are in the outward vifible co- venant. As for the covenant it felf, to fp^ak p.-opcrly and llri^ly , it depends up - on Goiis elediop. Neither doth it belong to any but thofe who are elected. What juggling then doth he ufe to tell us that they are in covenant , and that thepromiLe bclongeth to them without any difference* of elcft and non-tk.5i ; and p. II. he faith, To whomfocver the C(?venant it felf belongerh, to then bclongeth this feal of the Covenant. And fo his Minor muft be, but the Co- venant it fclf belongs to infants cf believers : and yet to fay, the covenant it feJfj dothnot belong to any but thofe who are eleftedj but the oJiward viable covenant to all. But what this outward vifible covenant is, he tells us not. I canno: underftand any other than Circumcifion, for that was the outward vifible covenant in the old Teftament, and then his Minor allerts infants are in Covenant as they were in covenant in the old Teftament, that is , they are to be circumcifed. Befidcs what interfering is there in Psdobaptiitsj' Mr. iul- bum^ahh, they are included in the fublhnce of the G/pcl covenaat, Mr. Br;n,% faith, the Covenant it felf (and then furclynot the fabitance of the . Gofpel covenant) belongs not to any but eled, but the outw ard vifible cove- nant, that is a new nothing, belongs to them all. And thus pccple are cheated by thefe Doftors. 3, In that they are federally holy, i.Cor.y.^^. but of it enough already in . the firft part of the Kevkve, So much for M'. Br/K/Zc/j one cf M. HJ/i Champions. Le: us fee what Mifter Tboma/s Hull himfelf in his tout Giixrdcd page $. arguesj To whomfoever the covenant it felf belongs, to them alfo belongs the feal of the Covenant j But the covenant belongs ro Believers and their childitn,; Ergo the leal of the Covenant belongs to thgo the Chriftian G>;ntiles have the fame privilege that their children fliould be baptized in their infancy. To which I anfwer, letting pafs the exception to the (juatemity of terms, and (53) end cottceiving [what piivilege] is put for [whatfoever' piinlege univerfitlly 1 without which the argument would be all of particular*, and io the Syllogifm naughtj I deny the Major , and my reafon is, becaufe were it a privile e or nor, what was done in the ufe of ciicumcifion by vertue of an exprefs command, is not to be done irt the uTeof baptifm, withour the like command. If it were, the Apoilles did ill In not bap izing a whole Nation old and young together^ and we do iU in keejnng away the young ones of believers baptized from the Lords fupp^r, when being circumcifed they were not debarred from the Paflb- yer. The other argument is in thefe words. To whom the otitward vifible covenant of God manifcftly belongs, to them inthedaiesof theGofpel, the initiating ordinance, w^. bap'ilm belongs. But unto the infant-feed of believers the external vilible Covenant of God doth manifcftly belong. Ergo to the intant-feed of believers in the daies of the Gofpel the initiating Ordinance , vi^, baptifm belongs. To which I anfwer, what outward vifible covenant he means, except bap- tifm, I know not. If he fpeak as Mr. M. fpeaks, and fome others, I have (hewedinmy^fo/ogj'feft.io.thatbyitismeant the outward adminiftration of the Covenant, which is no other now but baptifm. Now if this be the meaning of the Author, the Major contains a trifling tautology, in effcd: this. They that are to be baptized, are to be baptized, and the Minor and Ccn- clufion being all one, the Minor is to be denied, and the argument hifled out oC Schools as a ridiculous foppery. S E C T. X V. The dijpute of Mr, John Gerce ahmt the extent of the Gofpel covenant to prove thence tnfani-bapifmyii examined^ aniitifflKrvedj thAtintcreSlin the Ce- vemnt did not intitle to circumcifion, nor is it frevd it doth now to Bap- tifm. But Mr. ^ohn Geree P'indic.Padobap. p.6. would fecm to difpute more ac- curately and aftir a fyllogifm which doth bjit repeat the conclufion in a new phrafe, he difpates thus. To whom the Gofpel covenant is extended in the Churches of Chriftians to them the Sacrament of initiation appointed for that adininillration of the Covenant doth belong. To children of believing Chriftians, the Gofpel cb- renant is extended in the Chriftian Churches, Ergo, to them the Sacrament of initiation doth belong. To which I anfwer, Mx. Geree in this fyllogifm hath altered the term in his profyllogifm, it was in that £the facrament of initiation inftituted for Chri- ftian Churches] here it is [the Sacrament of initiation appointed for that ad- miniftration of the Covenant] and wherein he fuppofeth i i . The facrament appointed for that adminiftration of the Covenant, z. The Sacrament of initiation appointed for the adminiftration of the Covenant all one with the Sacrament of initiation inftituted for the Chriitian Churches, and feom thence would derive a rule for baptilbi But that being a phrafe not ufed in Scripture, CJ4) Scripture, nor p£rliaps Reducible firom it, and at beft ambiguous , it fervcs fof no proofj and therefore fei ves only to millead thofe underltandings which are apt to be caught with fuch chaflf. That the phrafe is not ufed in Scripture, will not I fuppofe be denied, no where is baptilm called_ei^)t^a Sacrament or a Sacrament of initiationjor faid to be appointed for that adminiftration of the Covenant, nor is it deducible fiOin thenc. For there is no place that 1 find, that makes this the proper and immediate ufe of baprifm to be the adminiltration of the Cwenant, fo that . thereby either the making of the Covenant, or the conferring or ail'uring to the baptized the benefits ot the covenant fliould be the n^xt end of- it fclf intended therein. Tiie immediate and p.oper tile of i; is to be a fign that the perfon baptized rcp^:nts cf his fins, and reno;inceth fpcci ally his Gentile de^ tilements, communion with Satan, andengageth himfelfto be Chrifts dif- ciplcj Yet I deny not but that by confcqucnt in the manner of doing it by dipping or pliin2,ing under water, it minds us of Chrifti death, burial and rilmg again, and teftifyeth our falvatioxi by him, and fo in;a remote manner allures to us the benefits of the Covenant of grace. But in this mannw.it is the adminiftration of eledion as well as the Covenant, and is an adminiftra- tion of the Covenant only to eleft pcrfons, and true believers , for it afiures ialvation onely to them, no: to all that are baptized, and therefore in this re- fpeft none but they can have title to it. So that if from hence, that baprifm is the adminiftration of the Covenant, a title be derived for infants to be bapti- sed, it can intitlc none but thoTe to whom it adminifters the Covenant, which are only the eleft or true believers. But the ambiguity of the txpreflion is much more fallacious. FOr i. \vh:n i: is faid, i: is appointed for the adminiftration of the Covenant, the expreflTions fomctimes are, as if it were the adminiltra- tion it felf, calling it the new adminiftration, as I (hew in my ylpolog)/ ,(€&.. lo. Mr. Gene here p.io^baptifm is a fesl of a new adminiftration, and then it is all one as to fay the adminiftration of the Covenant is appointed for the ad- miniftration of the Covenant, which Is either non-fenfc , or at . leaft ineptly fpokcn. 2, Whenthcyfay [it is the adminiftration of the Covenant] do they mean the outward ct inward Covenant .? The latter I prefunoe they will not fay, for then baptifm fliould be an adminiftration of the things promifed ther- in, re^enerarion, remiflionoffins, and if fo, then it adminifters them in a na- tural way, and fo it fhould in msmner of a natural agent regeneratc,&c. which is to confer grace ex opere opcr.i'.o , o: in a moral wayj but baptifm can ad>r.i- niftcr regeneration, remiffibnof fins, &c. no other moral way but by alTu- ring, or perfwading , or the like , what ever way it be conceived it admi- ni&rs not the covenant to an infant in infancy, nor to any but the eleft : now- if it do not a iminifter the covenant to any but fuch, then it is not baptifm but to fuch, if baptifm be in its nature the adminiftration of the Covenant of Grace. If they mean baprifm is the adminiftration of the outward covenant, I am yet to learn what the outward covenant is, except they mean the outward adminiftration, which is no other then baptifm, as I (hew j^po'.ogy L lO. and what is this then but to fay, that baptifm is the adminiftration, or appointed for the adminiftration of baptifm ;' 3 . When they fay, it is the adminiftration of the Covenant, do they nfcan th.' Covenant or promifct)f the baptixed to God , or Gods promife to .the bap- tiiedi' (S5) tiled f If the former, then it is no more but this, that baptifm is the admi- nifttation,that is the fignification of the baptized his engagement to be Chrifts difciple,which is indeed the bcft fenlc of it, but then it will not fit them , for fo it is no: in intants.for they fignific no profvlfion or engagement of theirs by it.If the later.then by baptifm God doth promife manj but thats not true, his piomife is in the Word befoie bnptifm^cr lie fignifies his promile formerly made, & this can derive no title to the pevfons to whom the piomife is made, for the fignify- ing thatpromife as pa{> is as ullful lor others, cither baptized or unbaptized, as the then baptized, and not at all of iifc or avail to infants, who cannot appre- hend the fignificationj or he allures the benefits of the Covenant, and that can be only to cle^ or true believers^ or that he contains them by it, and foic gives grace, ex opcre opcrdto. 4. The Covenant of grace is, I take it the Covenant of faving grace, op- pofue to the Covenant of works, the ptomife of juftification by faith in con- tradiitinftion to the Law, Cii/ 5.18. This covenant was made mixtly. Gen. 17.4.^,6,7,8. purely Hci. 8. 10,1 1,1 2, They (hould tell us whether they mean the cnc, or tha other, or bcth. The former they feem to mean when they make baptiim to luccccd Circumcifion, and to feal the fame Covenant that it did. But then bapiifm lliould not be the new adminillration but belong to the old. And if it feai that Covenant then it afllucs the Land of Cu7uan, and greatnefs in it. But it kcms they mean that it feals only the promifc, I will be thy God and the Goi of thy feed, fo M\ Gerce lierej we find in the admini- ilration of the Gofpel covenant to Abr;ihxm and his feed. But if to, I . Then it feals only a part of the Covenant that circumcifion did, and fo fucceeds not In it's ufe,nor is there a reafon given, but their own conceit, why it (hould feal one part, and not another. 1. If itfealoradminifter thcGcfpel-covenant, thenit adminiilcrs not this promife [that God will be a God to a believer, and his natural feed as fuch ] For that is neither Gofpel nor at all to be found, Gen.ij.j. 3. In that promife was foretold Chrill to come of Abruhum, and this was Gofpel Gd.^ .16. But this is no: adminiftied by bapaun, which fignifies Clirift already come. 4. In the fpiritual fenfe it was made to Abrubxnis feed by faith, Gd!. j . 29. Iiom.4.ii>i2. But they are only the cleft; Rowz.p. 7,8. and then it is an admi- niflration of tha: Gofpel covenant onely to eleft pcrfons , and true Belie- vers. 5. There's ambiguity alfo in the term [the Gofpel covenant is extended 3 The Gofpel covenant is. The juft fliall live by faith, that God will be a God to Abrjkdms feed by faith. B ^t Mr. Gerce imagines a Goipel covenant, which is but a fidioa, that God hath promifed to be a God to the natural pofterity of every believing Gentile. 6. For the extent of it how it is extended is ambiguous. Forhecarmot fay it is extended in rcfped of the Gofpel promife of righteoufnefs and life to all the children of believers, it was not extended IflmdeL to and Efdu. Therefore he acknowledgeth it to be extended in the reality of it onely to the Elcft, onely it is to be charitably prefumcd that they are eleft, and therefore they are to be taken for perfons in covenant till they dilcover the contrary. But he (hews ns rule of Scripture for fuch a Conftruftion of the promife : fure fuch a conftru- dion ftion was unknown to VmU R6m.g.6ji9. when he expounded that very pro- mife, Gen.17.7. nor doth fuch a conftrudion agree with the words , fith when God faith, I will be a God to thee and thy feed, the meaning according to H^.^ercc ftiould then be [I will be a God to thee, that is, every believer, and to thy feed, that is every believers natural feed which are cicd in reality, and to thofe that arc not eleft in charitable prefumption of the Minifler of baptifm, till camming to years they difcover the contrary] now what a non-fence expo- fitjon is this, to expound [thee] meant of Abral^im by [every believing Gen- tile] and by [thy feed] which is meant of Abrii})xmsktiont\y either natural or fpiritual by faith to undaftand [every believers natural feed] and wlien it is faid, God will be a God to theoii that he will be a God only to fome in reali- . ty, which is to make God to promife v/hat he doth not perform, and to others, that men fhall think he will be a God to them, which would be too poor a matter to be meant in that expreilion, and therein God lliould not promi.'c what he will be or do, but what men {hall think, which would be ^alfe, for it is not made good, or that they may charitably fo prefume of them, but in this fenfe it is cot a promife at all, but a mcer permiflion to men to think charitably of them, which I fuppofe they are-aywell bound to do of unbelievers children till , they difcover the contrary, and fo no privilege to the believers children. And yet this too muft be limitted to a certain time till they come to years and dif- cover the conti-ary, andthereforcby feedmuftbeundcrftoodcnely the infant" feed, when they came to years, theie's neither promife nor permiflion for men totbinkfo charitably of them. And yet herein there is nothing but abufe of tarns. I*or charitable prefumption muft have fome ground, which is to be from . fome thing we perceive done to judge well of what we fee not according to the rule 1 C'or.i j.7.Charity believeth all things,but in infants ads there's nothing that may be fuch a ground, but to the contrary they oppofing their baptifm by their crying, &c. If it be faid, the promife is a groand , I anfwer, Mr. Geree confefieth the promite is not in reality but to the cleft , nor to the elcd till they believe, and therefore there is no ground from the promife till it he known the perfonsTjc cle^ or believers. But it will be faid, we know nothing to the con- trary. To which I rejJy, nor do we know any thing to the contrary , but that unbelieving Jews children are eled , and in the Covenant, and yet its not cbaiitably prefumed of them, fo as to count them in the Covenant , and to judge them adminfible to baptifm. I think fith we perceive nothing of belie- vers infants ads that may diftinguifh them from unbelievers/that we fhould ra- ther fufpend our thoughts of Gods cledion and covenant to them till they (hew of what fpirit they arc, which is meet for an adminiUrator of baptifm, who as a wife Steward fliould eiveto every one his portion in due feafon, Lu\e 11. 4i, rather then have fuch a fond imagination ofwhat God hath concea- led. And if it be true which Mr^Gfr'^e faith in his Vindic.Vindic. p. 42. That many of the Aflembly intended the words in the Direftory for baptifm [ The promife is made to believers and their feed] in Mafter G trees fenfe , they have rcafon to be afliamed that they have fo much abufed the World with fuch a ttjy. ■ - . ••■ -'' Yea but have they not a promife on which to ground this charitable prefump- tion?! anfwer/urely the Jews have a more exprefs promife,RM i .x6;Z7.for their po- (51) poftetity then any believer now living hath for his children i and therefore if that be all the giound of baptizing believers infants, there's a like ground for baptiziJ^g Jews infants though parents be unbelieving, and they have wrong that it is not done, where it may. But fliall we nwke no difference between the children of believers and unbe- lievers ? I anfwer, we arc to conceive with a judgement of probability for the prefent that they are eled,and with a quieting hope for the future that theyJwiU . be believers. I . Becaufe of Gods general indefinite proniiles. ^ I. Becaufe by reafon of the means of the knowledge of the Gofpel which they have in their education , and living where the Gofpel is taught, they arc in a nearer poffibility then others to be believers. 9. Becaufe experience fhews that God often doth continue godlinefs in reli- gious families, though it often fall out otherwife. But thatfuch an extenfion of the Gofpel-covenant as Mr. Goee makes to the children of believing Chri- ftians , (liould entitle to baptifm, is without all rule. And to his Syllogifm , though it might be denied in refped of the form, by reafon of the ambiguity cf terms i yet I anfwcr, by denying the Major in his fenfe, which I conceive is this , They to whom the Gofpel Covenant is extended according to the cha- ritable prefumption of the Minifter without the perfons (hewing by any aft that he is in Covenant, to them the Sacrament of initiation to wit baptifm doth belong, and (hall examine his proof both of Major and Minor. The Major, laith he, I prove by that of Peter A^s 10.^7. when they had received the Holy Ghoft, which was but an evidence of Gods receiving them into the Gofpel covenant, Peter faith, can any forbid water that thefe ihould not be baptized, who are in covenant with God as well as we .'' They have the word or promife, which is the greater 5 who can inhibite the fign which is the lefsi' ^ ^ To this I anfwer, the proof refts on this, Thatthe allegation of Peter that they itt$ received the Holy Ghoi^jwas brought for an evidence that God had received them into the Gofpel Covenant, and fo it may be faid to the fame ' purpofe, who can forbid water that thefe ftiould not be baptized who are in co- venant with God as well as we ? But this is falfe. For their receiving the Holy Ghoft is brought not to prove only that God had made his covenant of grace to thtm, but to prove that thty vtere aftual believers, as their works did (liew upon hearing the word of faith , for faith he v.46. they heard them fpeak with tongues and magnify God, & ch, I I.I 7. if God hath given them the like gift as unto us that believe, on the Lord JtfLis Chrift, who was I that I could forbid God ? And v.i8. it is faid, when they heard thefe things they held their pesce and glorifyed God/aying,then hath God alfo granted to the Gentiles repentance unto life. Whence it appears that they were penitent believcrs',and this is proved by their afts J and therefore to be admitted to baptifm, and ftot barely becaufe tlie Gofpel covenant was extended to them, much Icfs becaufe the Gofpel covenant was extended to lome of that fort, and to thofe particular perfons onely upon a charitable prefumption, that -Gods promife did belong to them for the future without any (hew of repentance or faith at the prefent. It is falfe that we may ^v, that when by any other principle in Scripture any are demonftrated to be I in. ^58} % the Gotpel covenant, who can forbid water that thefe fliouU not be hittl ss* ^d , who are In covenant with God as well as we ? For though God flionld re- veal that this or that pcrfon were cleft , and that his Covenant did belong to him for the future, yet he were not to be baptised, till God revealed that he were a believer or difciple. For if fo, than if God did reveal concerning any , zshc di^ oi I faxc and facob, that he were a child of the promife, though yet unborn in the Mothers womb, he were to be baptized, which is abfuKd. None are to be baptized afore born, therefore any principle whatfocver in Scripture detsonftrating a perfon to be in the Gofpel covenant is not fufficient to intitle to baptifm, much lefs fuch an unceitain doubtful guefs, called charitable pe- fumption, that he is in the Covenant, as is without any particular declaration of Scripture, or other revelation from God concerning the perfon, or any ihtyt of his that he is Gods child, which yet Mr Geree makes a fufficient warrant to baptize, nor is his reafon of any force, for we might in like manpei fay , They have the eleftion of God, which is the greater, who can inhibit the fign which is the lefs ? It is not whether that which they have is greater, much lefs that which is conjcftured, or hoped they have, which is the rule to baptize, but the manifcft having of that qualification of faith or dilcipleflaip, which is prcrecjuircd to baptifm according to the inftitution and primitive practice of it. But Mr.Geree hath more to prove his Major. Befides , faith he, we find in the adminiftration of the Gofpel covenant to Abra})X'm and his feed, whom GoJ had thereby feparated then to be his church, and evidenced it by an outward fe?l •' there was fo-near a relation between the Covenant and Circumcifion the Sacrament of initiation, whereby men were externally feparated from the world, that circumcifion was called the covenant, and the token of the Covenant, Gen.17. 10,11. tg ihcw. us how the feal did follow the Covenant j and therefore when any were aggregated into the JewiHi Church and taken into the Communion of the Covenant made with Abra- banti they were initiated into that adminiftration of the CovenantJby the Sa- crament of Circumcifion. To which I anfwer, letting pafs.his Phrafcology, this reafon goes upon thefe fuppofitions. 1 . That by Circumcifion God had adminiftred his Coyenant to Abradant and his feed, and feparated them to be his Church, and evidenced it by Cir- cumcifion, and that the feal did follow the Covenant, when any were taken in- to Covenant they were circumcifcd, and therefore it muft be fo in baptifm But if he mean that to as many as God appointed to be circumcifcd he adminiftred the covenant of grace fwhich fenfe alone ferves his turn) it is not true. iP:mX" el wascircumcifed, yet the Covenant n5t adminiilred to him, no: he fipara- ted to be of his Church , not this evidenced by an outward feal, but the con- trary declared concerning him afore his Circumcifion, Oert.iy. 18, 19, 20, zi. and he In the event catt out, and fo the feal did not follow fo the Covenant , but that it was imparted to them to whom the Covenant was not made, and not imparted to them to whom it did belong, as v.g to the females, nor were the Profelytcs all taken into Communion of the Covenant made with Abra- ham, though they were taken into the Communion of the policy of Ifrael: nor do the calling circumcifion the covenant or a token of the Covenant ^which are all one) Gfn.ij.iO;! i.~ prove that all that were ciicumcifed had the the Covenant made to them : but this that Circumcifion *aj a memorial that fuch a corenant was made with ^&r^;iehern.^.2,S(.c. And for what he faith, That the covenant made with Abrahum was a Gofpii covenant j this is ti-ue according to the more in- folded and hidden fenfe of the fpirit , but not according to the outward face and obvious conftrudion of the words, which in the firft meaning fpake of things pioper to A- rJuns natural pofterity, though the Holy Ghoft had a fur- ther aim in thofe expreflions. And whereas, he faith, The covenant made with Abraham was for fubftance the fame with ours, Gd.^ *8- Though that piomife mentioned G^/.j.S. be no in the Covenant Ger.ij. to which Circuracilion was annexed, but that Gent 12.3. and the term [fubftance] be ambiguous, yet I grant the CovenaRtTradc with Abrah.m according to thoie Gofpel promifes, which in the hidden mean- ing declared juftihcati on byfaiih, as the new covenant fealcd with Chrifts bloQwl doth, is the fame in fubftance, meaning by it, the intent , purport and meaning of the Holy Glioft, though not in words or expreftions j yet I deny that it was; every way or in every refpeft in fubftance the fame. Fortheprc- mife,according to that ienfe in which they contain domeftique or civil promi- fes proper to Abr^hms natural pofterity were of the fubftance of the covtnanta ■ X 2 and (60) and for the confirming of them, drcumcifion was inftituted of God , as well as for th3m in priority of orde r before the afluiing of thofe Evangelical benefits. And tor what Mr.Geree faith, That the Gofpel is not fo pure now as to exclude - all temporal piomifes, it is true; yet the Gofpel doth not promife as the Cove- nant Gew.17. the inheritance of the land of C/[ JO.50. and do rather confift in inward comfort and content than in outward enjoyment of any earthly commodity : which proves that the Gofpel p. omife for temporal things is clean different from that made to Abrdlum (Jen.jy. concerning temporal benefits to his pofterity. M-. Gerec addes. Neither are the differences mentioned by yoa (page 4. of your Exercit. or clfcwhere) to be between Circumcilion and baptifm any whi: material to put a difference between the parties to be fcaled by them in reference to our prefent controverfy ; fith notwithft anding thefe differences they agree in this main general j That the one was the Sacrament of initiation to ail that were to be fealed under one adminiftration of the covenant, the other fti the 0- ther, which is enough to my purpofe. To which I fay, the difparitics between circumcifion and baptifm, are brought by me to invalidate the argument made by Paedobaptifts to prove the fucceffionof the one, into the place, room and ufe of the other, from the pa- rities between them, which allegation to that end is made good before againft "Mx.i^hunhj feft. 1 1 . Thofe differences which I allege Exercit. p.4. tend to de- inonftrate that there is not the fame reafon of circumcifion and baptifm ia figning the Evangelical covenant, nor may there be an argument drawn from the adminiftration of the one to the like adminiitring of the other : which dif- ferences are very material , to that end the different end and ufe of a thing , b.ing the moft apt reafon for altering the application of it. As Mr.Rutherjordj Divine right of Cbunh Government ^ch. 6.<\,i. page 276, 2,77, 278. anfwering Era^m , faith of the Sea, Cloud, Mannah, Water, becaufe they had a mixc ufe, they were appointed to all, yet it follows not now the Sacrament of the Lords Supper muft be given to wicked men. So by the very fame reafon,fith cir- cumcifion had a mixt ufe to fignify political as well as Evangelical promifesj to confirm the promife of Chrift to come, and did belong to the Chui ch , not oecumenical, but oecono.nical or national, which baptifm did not, therefore circumcifion might belong to infants, and yet not baptifm. And letting pafs his pbafe of adminiftration of the Covenant, of which is enough faid before, though the agreement, which he calls. The main general, be yielded him J that they are both facraments of initiation, yet unlefs the fame fpecial rule of command, or example primitive be brought for the one as the other, infant-bap- tifm cannot be proved from infant-circumcifion. Mr. Geree further tells me. But you add further p.4. of your Exercit. that fomc were circumcifed to whom no promife in the Covenant made with Abra.' frim did belong > ds Tjhnjael, of whom God had faid his Covenant was not to be eftablifhed with him. lanfwer, it is faid indeed Ge?2. 17. 21. my Cove- nant will I cftablifh with Ifaac. But by covenant there isnot meant that cove- nant, which we ftand in to God, in regard of our pcrfons, for our own pcr- fbnal benefit; but the covenant of fpecial prerogative, that Chrift fhould tome of, and the Church fhou-ld remain in his pofterity. Therefore notwith- ftanding (61) ftanding that exception, Ijhmael when circumcifcdj might be, and was a mem" ber of the vifible Church in Abrahami. family , and in regard of his pcrfon within the external adminiftiation of the Covenant with Abrtibam, and fo in the judgCiBent of charity no alien tiom the covenant of grace, but under it. This 1 mi^^ht confirm by the opinion of fome Hebrew Doftors, wherein they are followed by many, that the ipetirion of Abraham for Ijhmael Gen.i 7.1 S. was not ooely tor natural, but for fpiritual blcffings , and what hi begged God granted, v.20. Bat I clear it thus ; God eftabliftit his Covenant with Abra- ham and Ifaac y not with Melchifedecli nor Lot; ftiall we therefore expunge them out of the Covenant of grace ? how abfurd were that ? we only fee their pofterity enjoied not that privilege which God vouchfafed Abraham in Ifuc and his feed. And therefore no more can be truly or rationally gathered from that place of Gene ft touching ///;OTae/. Anfw. That which in my £xemr.pagc 4. I gathered from the inftances of Jjhmaelj EfiU, the ftrangers and others of Abrahams houfe their circumcifi- on, and the non-circumcifion of females, males under eight daies old , Mel- chijedecfi , Lot, "^ob, the non-admiffion to baptifm of circumcifed Jews in covenant till they profefled repirntance and faith in Chrift were. That the right to Evangelical promifes, was not the adequate reafon of cir- cumcifing thefe or thofe, but Gods precept, asisexpreitGcw. 17.13. GeK. Z1.4. z. That thofe terms are not convertible [federate and to be figned ] which overthrows the chief Hypotheses , upon which the Pzdobaptifts argument from infant- circumcifion for infant-baptifm refts. For they all conclude thus. The reaCon why infants were circumcned, was that they were in covenant, therefore by like reafon infants being in covenant (hould be baptized. Now if the rea- fon of infants being circumcifed , were not their being in covenant, but only the command, then there is not a like reafon for infant-baptifm, though they were in the Covenant, unlefs there were the like command. Now let us fee what Mr.Geree faith to my firft irftance of Ijhmael. I alleged that Ijhmael was circu cifed, though no promife in the Covenant made with Abrahami did be- long to him, and that Abrahatn. knew, therefore the reafon of his circumcifion Cand the fame is the reafon of others) was not his being in covenant, but oa-^ ly Gods command to Abraham. The antecedent is proved from the words Gen, 17.11. which are exdufive. And befides I alleged R.om.^. 6, 7, 8, 9. Gal./^,zp,io. where exprefly Iflmael is denied to be a child of the promife, or to be born after the promife. And I might have added Heb.i 1.9. where Ifaac and ^acob are diftinguifhingly recko- ned as hcis of the fame promife with Abraham, not Ijhrmel and E(au. Now what faith "Mx^Geree to this? He faith. The Covenant there is not meant that Covenant which we ftand in to God in regard of our peifons for our owa, perfonal benefit : but the Covenant of fpecial prerogative to ijaac, that Chriit (hould come of, and the Church (hould remain in his pcfteriiy. But this is falfe, 1. For it was that covenant that made J/irfc heir of the promife, which the ApoftleiJcwJ.p. 7, 8, 9, reckons as much as to be aneied perfon, it was the fame covenant which was mentioned v. 1,4, $,6,7,8. which Mr. Geree , and other Paedobapcifts call the covenant of grace, and ufually make the i»tereft in it the leafon of oiicuipciiion, and was fealed by it, and that. That it was the fame Covenant is apparent from V.15. now then it was a coi venant of perfonal benefit , if it derive grace to the perfon, or any other per- fonai benefit. If it were only the Covenant containing the fpecial preroga- tive mentioned, then it was not the covenant fealed to any but Ifaac , not to any of the reft of Abrahams houfe that were circumcifed. 2. It is intufficient. For it (hews not that to Ijhnuel any promife , either Evttngdicd or Political in the Covenant made with Abraham, did belong , though he were circumcifed, which he ftiould have done, if he would have an- fwered to the objcftion, and have vindicated his argument from it : As fot his inference, Therefore notwithftanding that exception,! flmael when circum- cifed might be, and was a member of the vifible Church in Abrahams family and in regard of his perfon, within the external adminiltration of the Cove- nant with Abraham , and fo in the judgement of charity no alien from the co- venant of grace, but under it. I anfwcr. I know not what it is to be under the ejcternal adminiftration of the Covenant with Abraham, except it be to be circumcifed> and therefore I count this fpeech, that Ijhmacl when circumcifed might be within the external adminiftration of the Covenant with y46r(i&<«»i, to be an inept tautology, as if he had (aid, J/?wae/ when circumcifed might be circumcifed. But were his fpeaking right, yet it is impertinent. For the thing he /hould have ftiewed was not , that IJhmael notwithftanding that exception was a vifible Church-mem- ber, within the external adminiftration of the Covenant with ^^/•/t/'/tw:, or in the judgemeut of charity no alien from the covenant of grace, but that any of the promifes in the Covenant made with Abraham Gen. 1 7. did belong to him, and fo that he was circumcifed becaufe of his intcreft in the covenant. Yet how Abruham could in judgement of charity judge him no alien from the Covenant of grace, but under it, whom God fo plainly excepted out of that Covenant, which Pxdobaptifts thcmfelves take to be the Covenant of grace , I fee not. It is true that God heard the petition of Abraham for Ijljmad Gen. 17.18. but that God granted him fpiritual bleffings doth not appear, but the -contrary v. 20. where the bleffings granted npon Abral;ams Petition for him arc recited. However it is clear that he did exempt him fiora the covenant .v. zi, and therefore he was not circumcifed by vertue of his intereft in the Covenant, nor did his circumcifion feal that intereft. As for what Mr. Geree faith , no more can be truly gathered from thence then what may be faid of Mekhijedec, or Lotjit is not true.- For though its not faid exprcflely that God eftablifhcd his covenant with them, yet they are reckoned among the righteousj and fo in the Covenant of grace. But for Ijhmael when Khd^a-n begged for iiim, God an- fwers how far he would grant for liim, and then addes adverfatively. But my covenant will I eftablifh with l[aac, that is not with Ijhmaely which can be no other then the covenant before mentioned, T'.i,43f ,6,7,8. which thing was fur- ther manifeftcd by G^ds ratifying i'^irii^j defire of Jjhmads eleftion Gen.ii, 10,11. where he is excluded from Abrahams ked, from which the Apoftle argueth Ijhmael not to have been a child of the promife. See Airtfrvorth An- nor eleft , nor born after the Spirit 5 but reprobate, a notations on Gen. pcrfecutor, born after the flefh. And therefore in my XX. iz. Excrc/^. I cited thofe texts, which Mr. Gcree did ill to omit, fith they fcryed fox my purpofe to prove that <6i) J^dd hzi no ^rt in the Covenant made ivith hbraha»u To the inftance of E/i«, "Mx.Gene tels me, The cafe of Efm was fcut a$ thatof/j/^wi^ie/jand others that were ©f //r-if/, but were nox I frael -. thty were under the external adminiftration of the Covenant, though not really within the covenant of grace. This diftinftion you your lelf acknowledge in the fourfcore and futeenth page of your anfwer , when you fay , it is one thing to be imder the outward adminiftration , another thing to be un- der the covenant of grace. Its true thefe arc diftinftj butthofe that are under the outward adminiftration are to be reputed under the covenant of Gacc^and thence were tobefealed J thus was it with £/4«j for that fentence, the elder ihall ferve the younger, Cen.i^.%1. could foand no higher in Ifaac's apprehen- fion then that diiFerence which was pwt between Ijhmud and Ifaac. To which I reply. If J//'W4e/ were not really within the covenant of grace t ben Mx-Geree yields what I proved before, that the piOHiife of the Covenant of grace did not belong to him; and if it were fo , then IJJmael stnd Efau were drcumcired,thongh no promife in the covenant Cen.17. 1,4, jj 6, 7,8. did be- long to them , «nd becaufe this was revealed to Abraham and Ifaac they were roc reputed under the covenant of grace and thence to be fealed as Mr. Goce. faith. Nor is it likely but ifaac did appiehend concerning Efau by the Oracle Gev.z^ .23 . that none of the promiits in the covenant made with Abraham , Gcw.17. , 54;V^37j8- did belong to him. However God appointing circumcifi- on to thefc to whom he intended no inteteft in the covenant it follows, he made not intertft in the covenant the adequate rea(bn of each perfons circumcidon > t>ut his^ own inftitution. To the inftance of ilrangers in Ahrakims family, he anfwcrs 5 By Gods own teftimony Abraham would keep none in his family , but fuch as were cut- wardly conformable to the waies of God, Gen, iS.i^. and fo were in the ibte of Profclytes and intereffed in the Gofpcl covenant. Anfw. Whether Abraham did or might kcp any infidel in his family was. confidered by me in the firft part of this Review^ f. 37. But for the text, Gen». 18.19. it doth not teftifyj that Abraham would keep none in his family , but fuch as were outwardly conformable to Gods waies, but that he wowld com- •mand them to keep Gods waits J and ihail keep the way of Jehovah 3 but this •feeing fpoken indefinitely is eejuipolknt onely to a paiticular, as appears in Ifhmael ana Elau and others. But were this granted they were fo conformable, and were fo profelytes and were in fome fort interefled in the benefit of the Go- fpel coven3nt;,yct it follows not that anypromife in that covenant did btiong to 5hem, much lefs that fuch intereft was the reafon of their being circumcilied. As foe Mr. Gs. ufeful obfervation, that circumcifion was not annixt to the. Covenant only becaufe it was a mixt covenant, fith it was appliabie to the Profclyte Gentiles, and their feed, that were not onely without, but uncapa-" ble of iatercft in the knd of Canaan j I know not what ufe there is of it for his parpofe 5 it goes upon a miltake that circumci(:on was to be to none , but- who had intereft in the covenant Gen.17. which 1 have refuted. The Gsntile. p-ofelytes were to be circumcife.i becaufe of the command, though it were not known that each, or any profeiyre, or his feed, had interdi in the Covenant, As for Mr.Gs. realon of his obfevation , it Ihould feem by it he meant other- wife than he exprcfled, 10 wit, Circumcifion W5S not annext. to Uie Covenant j only C^4) ®n\y becaufe of the temporal promifes, which I grant, and yet hold the Co- ^enaot, 0611.17.45556758. a mixt Covenant, aadthat perfcns were to be <^iicumcircd to whom no promife in the covenant made with Abraham did be- long. Mr.G. ^0 s oa To the other part of myeyception againft the connexion between the feal and cofiftant, as they fpeak, that many wer« not to be cir - cumcifed , to whom all or moft of the promifes of the Covenant did belong , as the females comming from Abraham, he faith. For females we anfwer , That God under that adminiftraticn was plcafeJ (in reference to feme things pointed at by the-feal) to appoint a fign of which women were not capable j fo were they particularly excluded from being fealed with the Sacrament of initiation under that adminiftration. To which I reply, i . That women are not capable of circumcifion is coh- tradifted by thofe that fay , that at this day in feme parts of the world women ^re circumcifed. JEthiepes ChriUkvi mares o^avo ab ertu die circumciduntf ^ fcminii etiam aliquid amfutatUTj ut Ahrahami et aliorum [an^erum patrum ex" ^mplo ardemiui infimilUfaniiitatisjhdmm mitcntuY. ^arto ddnde a circum- cifiene die mares^ ocfavo nut em fcemina fdutaritia Aquis expiantur, (3' Eucharijii~ am eo die infantes irinati in mica panis affvmunt. Oforius Ub.^. rerum ah Em- manuele geit.Zuinger.theat.vit.H\\mrJol.i7.l 3. tit.bapt.pag. ^17%. Ofiander -Epit.Hift.Eccl.Cent. I a. /.4.C. 4. Anno Chrifii 11 87. Jacobitx baptifmo ^cir~ iumcijione uturtur circumcidentesmafados (^ femellaf. Hornbeck. Append, ad difp. debap. ve. thef. 8. S elebant £.thic!^is cum baptifmo etium arcumcidere baptiyuum, msi6 an feminn e(j'et circumdAebatur. Dodor Field of the Church g. beck chap. I. Speaking of xht "fuccbites in Syria, Sixtly, they ufe circumci- sion even of both b exes y,znAoi xh&Haba^ fines. They are aljo cir cumcifed both male and female. The fame hath Heyiin in his Geography, defcribing Syria and Ethiopia, and before him (if my memory deceive me not) Brereroood in his Enquiry of Rem ligitns. So that it is but a jcft of Mr. Blak^ , that women cculd no more be circum- cifed then barb'd, if thefe suihors be of any credit. But were it true thai wo- men were net circumcifed becaufe uncapable , yet would God doubtlefs have appointed fuch a fign as they weie capable of, if it were true that all that were in covenant muft[be figned. But if it be true which Mr- G. ccnfefleth. That the females, the ugh in covenant were particularly excluded from being fcalcd with the facrament T)f initiation nnder that adminiftration, then the connexion between the feal initial and the covenant, is not pioved fiom circumcifion. And as for that he faies. That in reference to fome things pointed at by the feal, God under that adminiftration was pleafed to appoint a fign of which wo- men were not ccpablij it is a plain ccnftflion, that Gcd appointed circumcifion for an end Kot common to believers at all times, or to fuch as were in the co- venant of grace, but proper to the pcfterity of Abraham j and therefore though the covenant were granted to be the reafon of circumcifion, yet it follows not all muft be baptized barely from the covenant of grace, becaufe they were cir- cumcifed by reaion of intercft in it, fith this was not true, and as Mr. Gcree confcfitth, Ciicumcificn was appointed in reference to fomc things proper to that time. But (65) Sttt lie hopes to falvc the matter thus : So, afiually they were not circumci-' fcAj yet were they reputed as civcumcifcd, as appears both by the place alleged ^fyMr.Af.JExe'^.ii.48. and whaethe houfe ot I/r yea our Saviour ftiould be born of the un- circumciled. To which I anfwer: To be reputed as circumcifed, may be underftood thus,' they were mentioned as circumcifed, and this fenfe is falfej for then it (hould beanerrour, (ith thty were not circumcifed : nor is in the text Exod. 11.48. any thing to that purpofej for the fpeech, no uncircumcifed perfon fhall eat the pafleover, is to be limitccd by the matter, of them that ought to be circumci- fed ,and that "^udge- 14. 5. of taking a wite of or from the PbiiiSiincs uncircum- cifed , as if thereby were intimated that an //r;id/Vc/? woman was reputed as circumcifed, or that our Saviour {hould be born of the uncircumcifed , if wo- men were not reputed as uncircumcifed, proves it not. For the terms [ciecum- Cifed and uncircumcifed] are fpoken of the people , who are faid to be circum- cifed from the chuf part, not from all parts. I remember not where the whole houte of IjraeL is laid to be circumcifed , but to be uncircumcifed in heart , ^remy 9.26. yet were there fuch a place, it mufl be underftood of all that were to be circumcifed. Or elfe the meaning is, they were reputed as circumcifed, that is, they were admitted to the palVeover i< their males were circumcifed , notwithftanding they were not in their proper perfons circumcifed, which fenfe is true. But then it ferves not the turn to avoid the force of the inftance brought to {hew there is not a necefiary connexion between intereft in the covenantjand the perfons right to the initial Seal,in liis own pirfonjwhich Mr G: muft prove to make good his Major. For he would have infant-females aftually baptized, becaufe in covenant j and his proof is. They that were in covenant ivere cir- cumcifed, which mail be meant of all in covenant, and of actual circumci- fion in their own perfons, or elfe it can prove but a particular of feme , and their virtual baptilm, to wit, female infants. But M,G. thinks to prevent this objcdion. And whereas you objeft, that you may as well fay, that children are vir- tually baptized in their parents, I deny it, becaufe you have not the like proof for the one, as we have for the other. Befides women that are faid to be virtuallv and reputativcly circumcifed in the males, were not aftually to be cir- cumcifed a: all : they were excluded, which you do noc , nor cannot fay of infants 5 when they are grown up you confefs they nu^y and ought to be bap- Anfw, That which I faid, was only by way of inference upon PsBaobaptifts luppofitionsi if virtual circumcifion were all that might be claimed by virtue of the covenant it would not help Pxdobaptifts who would from the covenant prove a ri^ht of adual circumcifion to infants, whereas by their own contefTion it onely proves neccflarily a virtualj and if fo, how can it prove neceflarily by their own principles any more than a virtual baptizing of infants .' The fame tneiium that doth not^^rove as necellary adual ci cumcihon in the one, canrot prove as neceflary aftual baptifm in the other. Now the force of this objedion (66) is not at all weakned by his reply. For my words were not concerning the fit-, nefs of the exprcflion , that the one was as fit as the other, but that I might giant a virtual baptifm to infants without deniment to my caufe , if they af- lert no more from the coyenantj but a. virtual circiimci/ion. Blu had I faid [you may as well fay] (which yet I find not- in my' writings, but, we might grant J we may fay Ex.twen page 37. by like, perhaps greater reafon it may be laid E-xcrc/cp. 4. ) the fpeech might have been right notwith- ftanding M;'. Gcrecs exceptions., for there is no more proof for the ufe of thir fpeech, that females may be faid to be virtually circumcifed in the males, then for this, infants may be faid t© be virtually baptized in their parents , neither, being ufed in Scripture, and rcafon being as much for the one as the other. And though thofe that were infants when grown, being believers, arc to be bap- tized, yet infants during their infancy are by more full evidence excluded from sft ;al baptifm, then females were from aftual circumcifion. Mr. G. proceeds thus. For yourfecond inftance of infants dying afore they were eight ^daies old 5 I anfwer that they were particularly tycd to that day , whether for the Theological reafcnleivf.ii.ijj. or for the Phyfical reafon , that God would not fufFer an incifion to be made on the flcfh of a tender in- fant j or till the feventh, that is, the Critical day was over ; or whether to typihe the refurreftion , we cannot determine j but till that day they werecx- prcfly excluded ', yet therefore it remains clear that all that were within that adminiftration of the Covenant , that were not exprelly excluded, were cir- cumcifed , which is enough for my purpofe. And fo unlefs you can bring a rule that no infant of Chriltians fhall have the Sacrament of initiation till 1 8 years or fo, that inftance cf infants not being circumcifed dying before the 8. day, is too (liort to reach up. Anfw. It is not enough for Mr. G?. purpofe, which was to prove, the feal did follow the covenant, and when any were aggregated into the Jewidi church and taken into the communion of the covenant made with Abrahxm. they were initiated into that adminiftration of the Covenant by the Sacrament of Cir- cumcifion, unlefs he can prove that all that were in covenant, and in the Jew- i{h Chiuxh were circumcifed. But his own grant. That fome in the Cove- nant, and Jewish Church , as females and males . under eight dales old, were exprefly excluded, overthrows his own pofition, and is enough for my pur- pofe to prove, that all in the covenant were not circumcifed. The reafon why males afore the eighth day were not circumcifed, whatever it were , is nothing for Mr. Gs. advantage, but againft him, fith it doth more fully fhew that God would nor hr.ve them circumcifed. Nor need I bring a rule that no infant . I anfwer cither thofe were before the adminiftrration begun with Atjuham, and fo before the inftitu- lion (61 ) tion of feals, or fuch of them that were with or after him , either they join not themfelves to that adminiftration, and fo were not to be fealcd no more then the Profelytes of the Gate, or if they did unite to the Church in A W- hums family, then ic is apparent they might lay claim to circumcifion, as other profelytes did. And fo indeed it is arerred of lob^ that he was circumcifed, by the Author of the book of true circumcifion , which is afcrrbed to Hkromy cited by lunm in his animadverfion on Bellarminc, Controv. 4. 1. 3 . cap. i^. Not. ig. Anfw. Mafter G^rce doth make fliew of anfwering my allegation, but doth indeed confirm my proof, that fith Abel, Moah, Mdchifeiec, Lot, and many Profelytes of the gate were in the Covenant of grace, yet had not any initial fign or feal, as 'M.-Geree calls it, to Teal the Covenant, and fome fealed after an initial feal was initituttd though in the Covenanc of grace , therefore there is not fuch a connexion between the Covenant, and the initial feal, that there- fore a man muft have the feal initial becaufd he is in the covenant of grace, and that it was not from imereft in the Covenant of grace, thatperfons were cir- cumcifedjbut Gods fptcial command upon fuch teafons as feemed bcft to him 5 but is not a reafon foi us to imitate in another ordinance without the like com- mand. If one Author conceive lob was circumcifed, many do conceive other- wife, and there are more probable reafons he was notj fith there's no mention of his circumcifion, or his obferving any of the rites of the Law, or of any acquaintance he had with Ifrael, or any thing elfe that might induce us to be- lieve he had communion with the policy of IfracL Matter Ueree faith further j And wheras you fay, Laftly, that the Jews com- ^xhended in covenant and circumcifcd could not be baptized without faith and repentance. I anfwer, the rdafon is evident j becaufe baptifm was a feal of a new arminilttation ; and therefore they muft join to that adminiftration ot the covenant as well as be in covenant, before they could be baptized. Anfw. I am beholding to Mr. Geree , who as before had given the reafon why Mdcbifcdccfi, Lot, lob, were not circumcifed, though in Covenant be- caufe of their not joining themfelves to that adminiftration , or their not uni- ting to the Church in Abrabann family; fo here again he doth net only grant what I allege , but gives a reafon of it alfo, and fuch as quite overthrows his dilputc. For if it were true that the Jews that were in covenant were not to be baptized without faith and repentance, then being in covenant is not a fuf- . ficient rtafon of an infants being baptized without faith and repentance, ,antl ^if baptifm were a feal of a new adminiftration, then it muft have, a new rule , and fo the old rule oi circumcifion is nodiredion to us about baptifm, if L« , the Profelytes of the gate, thoughin covenant , were not to be circusiciicd without joining to that adminiftration^ or the Church in Abrah..ms family, then ri;^ht to circumcifion was not from incerelt in the covenant common to "all believers, but fomething proper to that Church ftijte, or adminiftration, ' .which is now voided: if therefore the Jews in covenant and circumcifed muft p/orefs repentance snd fiiith afore they were baptized,, becaufe they muft join to the new adminiftration of the covenant, then according to Mr. Gcrces own confeflionjaccording to the new adminiitration of the Covenant, faith and re- pentance are required ot them that join to that adminiftration of the Covenant. And therefore whereas Mx.Qcree addes, v/e may thsrclore conclude, that thofe ■ *■ K z ' 'that (6S) that are under the Gofpel-corcnant in any adminiftratJon of it, have right to the fcal of initiation under that adminiftrationj unlcfs they be particularly ex- cluded by God himfelf, and fothe major is firmly proved J I ma y truly fay, it is fiimly proved that they rhat are under the Gofpel-covenant in any admi- njftration of it, yet have not right to the feal of initiation under that admini- ftration, barely from the Covenant without a command, and that God him- felf hath excluded infants from baptifm by Mr. Gerees own concefllon , with- out faith and repentance, and that in all this arguing Mr. G. hath dilated much and proved nothing. Let's fee whether he fpeed better about proving the Minor. { , , _- — i— — —. ■; ' ■—'''''.'- "■■ i,-n -: .' SECT. XVI. That tbe Go^el-Covcnant it not extended to infants of believers , asfucb, NOw the Minor, faith he, that children are under the Gofpel-Covenant inthc Chriftianadminiftration of it, that we prove by the Scripturci ^ mentioned, as firft, Gen.17. 7. I will cftablifh my Covenant between me and thee, and thy feed after thee in their generations for an everlafting covenant to be a God unto thee and thy feed after thee. To comprehend the meaning of this place we are to confider. What the privilege is tbat is here promifed : 2. what the extent of it is. Firft for the privilege it fcif, as Calvin hath well obfdrv- ed by vertue of this promife, the Church was fettled in Abrahams family, and It was feparated from the reft of the World, as light from darknefs. And thie people of JfrAeli^Jbrahims^c^tnvj') wasthehoufe and fheepfold of God 5 And other nations like wild beafts ranging about without in the wildernefs of the World. And by this privilege the dignity of adoption belonged to all the Ifraelites in common, Kow.p.4. To whom pertaineth the adoption. And fo, though by nature they were no better than others j yet by reafon of this pro- mife they had a birth-privilege, whereby they were ftparated from others,which is apparently held forth, Gd.z. 1 5. We who are Jews by nature, not finntrs of the Gentiles y as "Mx. Blaise hath truly obferved i And fith you grant the Jews a birth- privilege, asp.io6» and p.78. of your Anfwer, you needed not have quarrelled with this plain proof. But now among thcfe that had this outward privilege of common sdoptjon (to be reputed children when the Gentiles were reputed as Dogs, A/ and that they make to confift in faving graces^ the. tcmporalbenefitstheyrefcr to the adminiilration that then was, they will n,ot have it called a mixt covenant , and this covenant of grace they will have to be fealed by circumcifion out of Rom. 4. 1 1 . and they fay this was made to be- lievers and their feed, and thence they have falvation if they die in infancy , and without this there is no ground of hope of the falvation of any infant de- ceafed; and they argne they are to have the feal, becaufe they -are in covenant , which if they underftand not of that covenant , of which that ordinance is the feal, what colour is there to derive thence a title unto that feal on them who have intereft in another covenant, which it doth not feal ? Their argu- ment is. He hath right to the Conveyance, who hath right to the Land : buc thefe men who dare not afiert that the covenant of faving grace belongs to all , believers natural children, yet will have them all to have right to baptilm which feals faving graces, though perhaps a veiy few, and thofs :ill unknown peifons "have right to that Covenant , onely becaufe a promife of outward and reputa-- live adoptien, though not faving graces belongs to ail. Belides what ground, "hath Mr.G. to call this promife the Gjfpel-covenam '' Rom. 1.16, 17. Gul-i.S, 9, &c. the Gofpel -covjnant is. The jult fnall live by faith; it is that which tontains promife of fandification, rfmillion of Cms, Sec. Hebrews 8. 10, 1 1, II. & 10. 16, 17. Munhcw i6.i8. The evcrlafting covenant that hath the furemevcies of David, IfaUh 55.3 Af?.f i?. 343 H^, 39. Hctnrwj- 13. 20. and of which Jcfus is the Surety or Mediator, Hcbieicss 7.22. & 1 1. 24. what amockage then is this of people :o tcU them the Covenant of grace is made to th€ir.. their children, and the Cofpel-covenant is extended to theai r and that God hath p-oniCed to be their God , and that they are confederatewich their parents, and yet in fine all that they dare aflert is, God hath promifed to the feed of be- lievers an external , reputative adoption, though not real: fuch < haft' they catch their auditors with. But is this promife that- God will fettle his Church in A^''i/^-^*''^'^3i-nily, and feparate them from the reil of the World, as light from darknefs, as Mr.G. exprefly makes it, indeed the Gofpel- Covenant ^ I dare freely fay , it is Jewifh, Anti-tvaugelical, diredly oppohte to the Gof- pel-covenant. For the Gofpel- covenant is. That God would blefs all Nati- ons in Abrafum through faith, Gal.g .8,9- Gentiles as well as Jews , yea the Gentile-believers infteid of the Jews broken offby unbelief. If then this be the Gofpel covenant, I will be the God of thy feedj that is, in Mr. Gs. fenfe, I will feparate AbraJnms family from the relt of the world to be my Church , then the Church under the G'^fpel covenant is not Catholick contrary to the article of the Creed, and fo thi G )fpel-covenant continues the middle wall of partition. But perhaps Mailer GcreCj helps the matter in that which fol- loweth. For the fecond thing, faith he, the extent of this privilege ( though there were fomething in it peculiar to AhrjhArn^ysX was it not limitted to him alone,, but thofe that were of Kbriibxm inherited his promife to have God their God, and the God of their feed. As what was faid tofof/.'«iZ, Jofh.i. $ I will not leave thee nor forfakc thee, was not bounded to his perfon , but applicable to all ccnfcientious Ifraelites ; yea to all Chriftians in Gods way and work, as the Apoftle -pplieth itHfi. ij.j. So this privilege or the Covenant to have God the God of their feed, is to be applyed to all Ifraelites, yea to all of any nation that have his faith and tread in his ftcps r they that do the work of A ■ brjJ).im may claim the promifes oi Abrubxm, that be ordinary and eflential parts of the Covenant. Anfw. Mr.G. Will have the promife [I will be a God to thy feed] to promife the fettling of the Church in Abrahams family feparated from the refl of the World as rii,ht from darknefs j if this be fo, how can it be a promife to another nation, that their children fliould be adopted outwardly and reputatively?Forjit by this promife A'orihu.mf natural pofterity have a privilege whereby they are fe- this promiie is common to other nations with them. But faith he, The promife parated from all other nations, furely its no better than a contradiftion to fay to '^ofl)ua, ToP\ I .f .was not bounded to his perfon, He/;.! 5. 5. which I grantj nor do I doubt, but pro:iiifes made to Abraham, David, Joliiua, &c. do belong to all true believers, where the holy Ghoft doth fo expound them , and where th: promife is of a thing which other Scriptures do clear to belong to them. But ther: is no fuch thing in the piomife oiGcn.ij.j. Malter Gcrec brings nothing but his own airertion to prove it, nor do I know any thing brought by any elfe, bu: what the Author of the little book, intitled. Infants b.-prifm proved law- ful by Scripture, printed Anno 1644. liath. Who thus argued, That which was promifed to Abraham, as a believer , is promifed tn every b:liever. But God promifed to be a God to Abraham,and his feed as a believer : Ergo: To which lanfwered, if [as] be taken rcdupucatively fo as that the meaning be under that formal confideration, to him being a bclievcr,an'd to (7^) to every one being a believer, as to himj I deny the Majorj it was not made to him as a believer, fm.ply under that confideration, but though it were made upon hisfaithj as a motive of making that covenant with him , yet not under that formal conlidcration (imply as a believer, fo as that the covenant ihould be faid to be made to every believer, as to him. As in like manner, though Pcccr Matthew 1 6 i8 lo had the promife of building the Chuich, and the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and of binding and looiing, conferred on him byreafonof his confeffion of Chrift, veife i6, yet every one that confelicth Chrift as he did, hath not that tiiat proruife : If any ask how it was made to Abraham .•' I anfwer, fo far as concerns the fpiritual part, it is cieer from Ro- . mans 4 ii ii i6 i8, that it was made to him as Father of believers, and in that conftruftion, though it belong to Gcmiles, yet it belongs oneiy to belie- ving ekft Gcmiles, Romans 978 Galatians 3 19, or to Chrift , whether p;rfonalor myftical, verfe 16. But that it belongs not in that fenfe, no not to all or any, either of Jews or G.'ntiles, who are not eled, is apparent from Ro- mans 978, no meer formal profeflbr can lay claim to it. As for the pro- mife of outward privileges, as to be of the vilible Church, to Iiave the Ordi-, nances of Gads worfliip , fo the promife is made to Abraham as a natiu-al Father ot his inheriting pofterity by Ifaac, and to that feed by Ifaac which was to inherit in Abrahams family : and to that natiual feed which God would ^ bring out of Egypt, and fettle in Canaan, andthis was but unto the time of reformation, as it is termed, Heb. chap. 9. verf. 10. Npw that thofe words, I will be thy God, and the God of thy feed , {hould be txpoimded thus, I will be the God of every Gentile believer, either in piofeflion or reality, that his natural pofterity fhould be Gods vifible Church, or vilible Church-mem- bers, hath not the leaft intimation in Scripture, but much againft it, nor can. be brought by any fhew of right conftruftion to be the meaning. For I would, know under which term of thefe [thee, or thy feed] every fuch natural childe, even an infant fhauid be meant 5 under [thy feed] they muft fay, but tlic Scri- pture placeth believers themfelves, and thofe only reall believers under that term , as is proved before, and other places fpcak to like parpofe, John S . 5 9. Mitth. 5.9. Luke 19.9 therefore without addition to tr.c text, believers natural feed are not there placed. Nor were the promife true in Mr. Gcreo fenfe. For God doth not make good the prsmiie in that fenfe to every believer and his na- tural feed, many G:ntile believers have had their children perfecutors, not vi- fible Church-members J and may have ftill j yea in that fenfe which M'. Gcree himlelf expounds it, it was only verified of the natural pofterity of Abraham, yet not of every particular child of his, but of the nation till Chrifts com- ming.^ As for the dictate of Mr. G. they th.at do the works of Abraham, may claim the promifesof Abraham, that be ordinary and eftenrial parts of the covenant, it intimates fome promifes of the covenant to be cilentisl, fome not, fome ordl-) nary, fome extraordinai y parts of the covenant. Bat thefe are new diftindions, with which I meet not clfcwhere, nor know I how to underftand whit promifes he makes ordinary, nor what extraordinary, what ciiJntial pirts of the covenant, what nor. That Covenant being but once made in my conceit, therefore had all the promifes of the fame fort , whe- ther ordinary or extraordinary, and a covenant being an aggregate of promilts, . r7*> cetttains tbeprcmlfes as*the mattcrj and the making together as the form, whicti are the eflential parts ofthe Covenant, there's no promife but being the matter of the covenant is an eflential part, or rather all the promifes together are the matter ,and each piomife is an integral part of the whole number .of promifes. And therfore his fpeech is not eafie to be underftood. I grant that thty who are of the faith of Abraham, may claim the promiTc of Juftification, and other (aving bltflings. But for vifible Church-member- (hip of natural pofterity, or other domeftique promifes made to Abraham, nei- ther the natural polterity of Abraham, nor the trueft believing Gentile , can by a juft claim to them, but that notwithilanding that promife, God is free to make their children or the children of Gentile, or Jew Infidels his people , his vifiblc church, and to fettle hi$ worfhip with them. Mr. Gctce writes thus, and that this privilege of having God to be the God of our feed, was not pcrfonal, and peculiar to Abraham , but propagated to his feed, may hence appear, becaufe the fame in etfcd is promiled to other gpd- ly Jews, which is here promifed to Abraham, Deut.jo.^. And the I ord thy God will circumcife thy heart, and the heart of thy feed. Anfw. The promife to Abraham, according to Mt". Gs. cxpofition, was. That he would be a God to all in regard of external denomination, and ex- ternal privilege of a Church, andtotheeleft in regard of fpiritual adoption grace and glory. Sure this is not the fame in effed with that, DwUt.30.6. which is nothing of external privileges of a Church, but of circumciiing their hearts, and the heart of their feed, to love the Lord their God with a'l their hearr, and with all their foul, that they might live : which can be true only of the tied. Befides, it is promifed to them at their return from captivity J and upon their returning to the Lord, and obeying his voice according to all that^e comman- ded them that day, they and their children, with all their heart, and all their foul, V. 2. which fure cannot be ordinarily applied to them in their infancy, and therefore this text is very impertinently alleged to prove an cxteinal privi- lege to infants of meer reputed believerSjCvcn in their infancy. Mr. Bixter him- felf in his Friendly accommodation with Mr.Bcdford p.361. hath thefe words. The text feems plainly to fpeak of [ their feed] not in thdr intant-ftate, but in their adult, i'e/zf.go. For firft,verfe z. the condition of the promife is ex- pvefly required, not only of the parent, but of the children thcmfelves by name. 2. And that condition is the perfonal performance of the fame ads , which are required of the parents, viz. to return to the Lord, and obey his voice with all their heart and foul. 3. The circumcifion of the heart promifed, is fo annexed to the ad , that it appeareth to be meant only of thofe that were capable of the aCt, ver. 6. The Lord thy God will circumcife thine heart, and the heart of thy feed, to lovc the Lord thy Gocij fo that it is not meant of thofe that are uncapable of fo loving. Mr. G. yet adds. And thus much that place, Acf. s.39. doth hold forth and contribute to infant-biptifm, to ihew that children are ccmpiehended in the Covenant with their fathers, and both thefe laft pi'omifes being of Evangelical privileges they muft needs be communicable to all under the Golpcl-covcnant ; To then it remains that God Hill is in covenant with every believer, and his (ted, Anfw. That Ads 2. 39. neither (hews that children ( of believers ) are com- comprehended (univerfallyr aud neceflaiily) with theif ptfent j, nor contribute* ought to infant -bapcifmj is fnewcd in the forepart of this Review f.5. and not" withftanding any thing faid by Mr. Geree ic yet remains to be proved , that God is in Covenant with every believer and his feed. The reft of that feSion of Mr.Gerce, is about my expounding Mr. Ms. fc- cond conclufion, which I ftiall review as far as is meet when I come to it. I have difpatched at laft the anfwering thofe that argue fyllogiftically from the covenant, and feal for infant -baptifm. But moft go another way by laying down conclufions, and framing hypochefes, and I proceed to take a view of their writings. SECT. XVII. Mr. Cottons, The Afl'emblies, and London Minifters way of arguing for Iti" fant-bifti[mfrom the Covenant and ciraimctfionj is recited^ and the metbodc of the fiOHrrprogtcfi in the Reuievp, expreffed. MR. ^hn CottiH in his Dialogue, ch. 3 . goes this way, and exprefleih himielf in four things, Xhat I . God made a covenant of grace with Abraham, and his feed , Gen, 17' 7- z. Gave him a commandment to receive the fign of circumcifion the feal of the covenant of grace, to him and his feed, Gew.i j.^jio. 3 . The Lord hath given that Covenant of grace which was then to Abraham -and his feed, now to believers and our feed. 4. And hath given us bapti.m in the room oi circumcifion. The Aflcmbly at H^'eUminQer in their confeflion of faith, chap 2 5. art. a. af- fert, T^at the vifible Church confifts of all the children of thofe that profefs the true Religion, and cite to prove it, i Co; .7. 14. Acts 2. 39. E-^eiiicL 16. io, 21. ^orn. II. \6.Gen. 5. 15. and 17.7. of thefc, one of the Texts, to wit. Gen. 3.15. I meet not with in the writings of the defenders of infant- baptifm, to my remembrance, except once in Mr. Baxter to prove a conditio- nal covenant made with all Adams pofterity, I do no: imagine what ufe that Text is of to prove infants of thofe that profefs the true Religion to be vifiblc Church -members. Whether the feed of the woman be meant of all men , or by excellency of Chiift, or of true believers (which are all the fenfes I conceive) yet how from any of thefe (hould be gathered that infants of profellburs of the true Religi* on, as fuch, and not as of humane kinde, (hould be meant by the feed of the iioman, or that the bniifirig of the Serpents head ftiould prove, infants of them that profefs the true Religion to be vifible Church- members is a riddle , which I cannot yet refolve. Ch.zS. art. 4. they fayjinfants of one or both be- lieving parents are to be baptized, and in the margin circ. Gen, 17. 7. 9. with Ga/.3.9.i4. C0/.2.1I5I2. IcABs 1-1^,1^. & Kom. 4.11,12.1 Lor.-j.x/^.Maf. 5,8, ly. Marii lo. ijji^ji^ji^. L«^e 18.15. what they would gather from L thefc (74) tficfe texts may be gheffed fi-om the Direftory about baptifm , where they di- reft the Minifter to teach the people, That baptifm is a feal of the covenant of grace, of our ingrafting into Chiift, &c. That the promife is made to bilie- rers and their feed, and that the feed and pofterity of the faithful, born within the Church, have by their birth-intereft in the Covenant, and right to the feal of it^ and to the outward privileges of the Church under the Gofpel , no lefs then the children of Abraham in the time of the old Teftament, the covenant ef grace for fubftance being the fame, and the grace of God, and confolation of believers more plentiful then before, that the Son of God admitted little children into his prefence, enabracing them, and blefling them, faying , For of luch is tlie Kingdom of God; that children by baptifm, are folemnly recei- ved into the bofome of the vifible Church, that they are Chriftians, and fede- rally holy before baptifm, and therefore are they baptised. Moft of which propofitions are ambiguous, few of them true, or have any proof from the texts alleged in the Confeffion j and if they were all true ( fet- ting afide one or two which exprels the condufion in a difterent phrafc) they would not infer the ConcluGon. The fiift propofition is ambiguous, it being doubtful in whatfenfe baptifhi is faid to be a feal of the Covenant of grace, whether in a borrowed or proper Icnfe, fo as it be the definition or ^ewKx of it, or onely an adjunft of it, or whether it feal the making of the Covenant, or the performing of it , or the thing covenanted , what they mean by the covenant of grace, which is that covenant; whether it feal all or a part of it, whether it feal Gods covenanting to us, or our covenanting to God. Nor is there any proof tor it from KS'W. 4. II, which neither fp:aks of baptifm, nor of any ones Circumcifion but A» br Alums, nor faith of his Circumcifion, that it was the feal of the Covenant of grace, as they, it is likely, mean. The next propofition is fo ambiguous, that M'-W'. and Mr. G. are driven to devife fenfes which the words will not bear to make it true, as I Ihew in my A- pology, f.9. The words feem to bear this fenfe. That the p.omife of Juftifica- tion , adoption,. &c. is made to believers and their feed. But fo it is apparently felle, contradidedbythe ApoitleKe/«.9.7,8. and by other texts, nor is it pro- ved from Gi'». 17.7. compared with Gi'. 3. 9. 14. Acis z. gp. or any other of their texts, yea in that fenfe it is difclaimed by Mafter MarjMU, and Mafter G-ree. The next is ambiguous alfo. For how the feed of the faithful may be faid to be born within the Church, or what intei eft in the covenant, and right to the feal of it, and what outward privileges they have by their birth, or what outward piivileges they have in like meafure as the children of Abrshum, is as uncert.iin as the reft, and how any of the texts prove it, is uncertain. Surely Gi/.j.p. 14. fpeaks only of the privileges of Juftification and Sanftificaciouj which Abruhd-ms children by faith , and no otheii, not every believers pofterity or natural feed have, nor is there a word G-n- 17.7. of any privilege to our na- tural feed as fuch. The next too is doubtful, Jit being uncertain what they mean by the fubftance of the Covenant, what they make accidental in it, and what fubftantial > nor is it eafie to conceive what they mean when they fay, the grace of God and confolation of believers is more plentiful thenbcfore> or how any of the texts prove (is) prove iCj or what this Is to their purpofe, that the enlargement of a^ believer^ comfprt intitles his child to bapcitna, nor what is meant when it is faid, That children by baptifm are received into the bofom of the viGble Church, and yet after withheld from the Lords Supper without any Ecclefiaftical cenfure , nor do I know how they mean or prove them to be Chrillians > or federally holy- afore baprifm. For my part jIn thofe propofitions I deprehend little truth or plain fenfe J but that the Diredoiy in that part is a meer riddle, fitter for Schollars to ftudy, than for teaching of the people. Xhe London Minifteis (of whom it is likely a confiderable part were of the AlT-mblyj in thtir fta Vivinum re^m.Ecc/.pagc jz. fpeak thus. So infants of Chriftian parents under the New Tcltament are commanded to be baptized by confequence, for that the intants of Gods people in the old Teftament were commanded to be circumcifedjGew. 17. For the privileges of believers under the New Tcftament, are as large as the privileges of believers under the old Tcftament, and the children of believers under th; New Tefta- ment are fedcL-ally holy, and within the covenant of God as well as the chil-. drcnof believers under the old Teftament, Gfn. 17. compared with Rom, 11. i6. I Cor.7.14. And what objeftions can be made from infants incapacity now againil their baptifm , might as well then have been made againft their' being circumcifed. And why children (hould once be admitted to the like ini- tiatijig Sacrament (the Lord of the Covenant, and Sacrament no where for- bidding themj there can be no juft ground. And baptifm fuccceds in the room of Circumciiion, Co/, i. ii, 12. concerning which I fay , there's no proof from Gen. 1 7. compared with iv(Jw. 1 1.16. i Cor. 7. 14. to prove the children of believers federaly holy as they would,nor is there any proof fromC'o/.z.i i ,1 j, toprovethefucceffion of baptifm in the room of circumcifion. And though infanti have not a natural incapacity to be dipped in water, yet they have a na- tural incapacity to profefs faith in Chrift, which is now rev:iuired to baptifia though not required to circumcilion. And there is an objection that may be made againft infant-baptifm, to wit, the want of a command , which could not be objefted againft infant male circumcilion; and this is a juft ground to exclude infants fi'om baptifm, yea the very fame ground they give for exclu- ding them the communion , and the very fame ground which Pacdobriptilb do continually, in books and Sermons urge againft Popilh and Prelatical ceremo- nies. But forafmuch as Mr. Af. did direct his Defence of infant-baptifm to thcAflembly, and Mr. P'lw inhis fufpenfion fufpendedjp.zi. feems to have taken his book to be approved by the Alfembly, and he is of any I meet with in print likelitft to have p'oduced their ftrength, and for other reafons^therefore I conceive my felf bound to examine his defence in the third part of it, referring the Reader to what of that or any other is already dilpatched , taking in fomewhat of Mafter B/i/^-j , and fome others by the way, and then to exa- mine fuch parts of M^.Cobbets luft Vinikitiony as are not yet examined fo far as I find neceflary, and at laft examine fo much of Mr. Bi. difputc about his fccond argument as is not yet diipatched. sect: (16) SECT. xvin. Hf. MarlhalU veply to thefrji feHion of the third pan of my Examcn about tht connexion between the Covenant, andfeal, is reviewed. MR. M. in his Sermon page 8. thus difputed. My firft Argument is this ; The infants of believing parents are /«»j time as (ince. 4(1 But he thinks in his third anfwer to make good the connexion, when he faith. And 5. from Abrahams time, and fo forward I lay it was Go-ls will , that fuch as are in Covenant (hould be fealed with the initial feal of the Covenant;, fuppofing them only capable of the feal, and no Ipjcial bar pat in againll them- by Go'i himfelf. To which I anfwer. H: faith a&er, it you pleafe to ftate the general Pro- pofition as you needs muft , That all who hnce Ahnh-ims time are fcedtran , OT Covenanters with G 3d, m.uil by Gods own appointment receive the feal of admi(rion into covenant, unlefs they be either uncapabie of it, or are exemp^ ted by a particular difpcnfation. So that one of thde two propofujons is that which makes up his Enthymeme an cntiie fyllogiOr, and hisfyllogifrnmuii ftand Htnd in one or other of thefe forms. I^rom Abrahams time all fuch as are in covenant (hould be fealed with the initial Teal of the covenant, fuppoling them onely capable of the fcal , and no fpecial bar put in againft tlicm by God himfelt. But all the infants of believing parents are in covenant, and they are capa- ■ ble of the feal, and there is no fp>;cial bar put in againft them by God himfelf. Ergo, They fhould be fealed. Orthusj All who Cmct Jbr:iJ)smf time are /tpio^iffj or Covenanters with ■God, mulf, by Gods own appointment receive the feal of admiflion into co- venant, unlefs they be cither uncapable of it, or are exempted by a particular difpenfation. All infants of believers fince Abrahams time, are fcsderan or co- venanters with-God, neither uncapable of the feal, nor exempted by a parti- cular difpenfation ; Ergo, all infants of believers Iince Abrahdms time, muft> by Gods own appointment, receive the feal of admiflion into covenant. To which I anfwer, Mr- M. tells me, I muft needs ftate thus the general ^Propofitior. But it is a pretty art he hath, as elfewhcretocall that my Minor which was his own not mine ; fo here to fay, I muft needs Itate the general Propofition thus, which is of his own framing. However, he is not wronged, 'that it is thus framed. Let us then view it, and try whether ( except in that of ciiciiincifion^ there be any truthj fenfe or confideratenefl'e in it. As for circumcifionjif it be meant onely of it , then the Conclufion can be of it only, and as the truth is, his argument concludes only that infants of believers are robe circnmcifcd. I . I had in my Eximcn noted a fault in his Argument in his Sermon , in that his Conclufion was of a fign of the Covenant indefinite, and not of bap- tifm only, whereas the Lords Supp:r is alfo a fign of the Covenant, which he would not have delivered to infants. And to it he anfwers, That he clearly in his Sermon (hewed this Propofiti- on to be only mcnnt of the initial fign, and not of the other. But this doth not excufe his fi ilt , who taking upon him to prove infant-baptifm, con- cludes another thing in the argument, though he might pcihaps , fome pages of, where the Reader looks not for an explication of his argument, limit his fpeech to the initial fcal. And for what he tells me, he is fui c that I who durft baptize an infant known to me to be regenerate, durft not give the other Sacrament to it, there being felf examiination aftd ability to difctrn the Lords body prerequired to the one, not'tothe othci j I told him in my Apology f.io. I duift do the one as I duiit do the other, and tliat felf examinatien and ability to difcern the Lords body is as well required to baprifm, as the Lords Supper, A£fs z. 38. (^7^ 8.37. Kom. 6.5,4. But were it, that I dui-ft not do the one as the other, yet this would not help Mr.M. who would prove the title to the initial fealjby that proof of in- tereft in the Covenant, which will conclude as well title to the after , as the initial feal. For the proof is ufnally the feal muft follow the covenantj which if true , then not only the initial, but alfo the after-feal muft follow it. But waving this, is the fault mended in his Defence { doth he conclude definitely of bap- tifm here ;" nay notwithllanding he was warned, yet choril fcmpcr oberrdt e/i- dem, he ftill runs into the fame fault, concluding in both forms of an initial feal (79) feal indefinitely, not definitely of baptifm, and theKfore may be interpreted to conclude of clrcumcifion as well as of baptifm, yea rather his aflertion (" if tbeie be any good fenfe of it) is of the circumciling therf baptizing of infants, fithallbisp:oof is about the initial fign of circumciGon, and the limitations he puts into the Major are, that it may be true of clrcumcifion. But this is not all the fault in his new forms : notwitlift^nding I complain- ed in my Exjmcnjeci.i . of his ambiguitiesj which I rtiewed in my Afolog) f. 9,10. and Pojifcript i.6. yet as if either he could not, or would not, fpeak di- ftinftly, he retpins the fame fault in his Lefencc. Wheress I conceive the co- venant of grace now contains only the promife of faring grace, he faith p 90. T'le C ""vcnant of grace contains not onely faving grace, but the adminiftra- tion of it alio in outward ordinances and Church piivileges j bur fhews not where, nor in which covenant of grace there are promifes of the adminiftrati- on of faving grace in outward ordinances and Church privileges. It is true, circumcilion is called the Covenant, GfK. 17. 13. hy a Meton)musiS Mr.Af, confeflethpage 7 2 but not becaufc it was contained in the Covenant; it is not Mc[ 6ny.nl J. contincmU pro comemo, but fignxti pro figno : now that the fign ftiould be f&id to be contained in the covenant, is icarfc good fenfe j fure it is notmcet tobe ufedindilpurcs. And therefore whoever ufeth the covenant of grace for any other than the covenant of faving grace, or faith it contains any other than promifes of faving grace, feems to affed aaibiguities unmeet fordilpute, as not willing to be nnderftood. Again page yz. heexp;efleth the covenant of grace he means 10 be that Gcw. 17. 7. and he cannot but know it to have diverfe meaningss one that God will be a God to ylbra!?2ni , and his fpiritual feed, which he confefltth pag. 102. to be the cled, when he faith. Secondly by the word [feed] was meant the children ot the promife the eleft , Roiv.^.^. and in this fenfe it is i!eayed by him, that God hath made a promife of faving grace to the natural feed of believers, and fo they are not in this co-- venant in this fenfe. Yet the U/Vcfi'erj' when it fpjaks of baptifm, as the fcaL of the covenant , means it in this fenle, as the worths before recited fhevv, for what elle can be meant when they diitinguifli between intereft in the covenant, and right to the feal of it, and the ouiward privileges of the Church under the Go'psl. And Ro?«. 4. 1 1, is alleged in the Confeffion of Faith, for the proof of this , that it is the feal of the Covenant of grace s new that text fpeaks of being a feal ef the righteoufnefs of faith, which is a faving grace, and in the. Confeflionof faith, ch.7.art,j. and in the greater Catechifm, they make the Covenant of grace to offer lire and falvation by Chrift, to promife faith, and to be made with Chrift, and in him with all tlie eled, as his feed j and fo the Argument from the Covenant of grace to the Seal, muft mean it thus, or elfe it is frivolous. For if the Seal mul^ follow the Covenantj it muft follow the, Covenam which is fealed by it, which is only the promife. of faving grace, there being no flrev/ of confequence in i:,inf3rts of believers have not the cove- nant of faving grace, but of outward Ordinances and Church privileges, theiefore they are to be fealed with that feal, which feals only faving graces. And yet methinks they fhould not have avouched as the Virecior} doth, that^ the pofterity of the faithful have by their birth intereft in that Covenant, con- fidering how the Apoftk determines Kom.^.%. the children of the ficfh may not be the children of God, nor the feed, nor children of the proauic Another fcnf« . (So) fenfc of the promifcj Gtn.17.7. is, I will be a God to AhMm , and his na- tural feed by 1\dAc znd^atob : But in this fenfe it is picper only to the Jewes , and the argument is as frivolous: God promifcd to be a God to the Jews , therefore in^nt-Gentiks who have nothing to do with that piomife, muft have baptifmj which is no feal or token of that promife at all. If Mr. M. would have done fomething to his purpofe, he (hould have (hewed, not as he doth p. 1065I075&C. in many words quite befides the bufinefs, how the Covenant is taken ftrictly and largely, and how they may be faid to be in covenant in fome fenfe, who have a vilible right , without faving grace , but have Ihcwed in which words there is any promife that may infer right to Gcniiie-believers in- fants to be baptized, Gen. 17.7. or how lie csn prove What he faith, page loj. That baptilm feals that promife in which God engagethhimfJf to be the God of believing Chriftians, and their feed/ I would fain know in what words, in tefpeft of what blcflings and gifts, and in what maimer or upon what terms God thus engageth himlflf. The Apofl)e faith G*/.^. 16. To Abrsham and hisfeed were the promifcs made. I no where find they were made to a Gentile believer and his feed. The like playing with ambiguities is in the ufc of the phrafes, foederate, in Covenant, being under the Covenant, being in Covenant^ Covenanters. When he faith. Infants of believers are fcederati or Covenanters with God, or enter into Covenant, according to the plain meaning of the word, they {hould be afleited to be fuch as make a promife to God. For what is a Covenanter but one that makes a promife .•' how do men enter into covenant, but by feme ad teltifying aflent to a promife .' now in this fenfc I fl.ould grant his Major, and deny his Minor, which in this feme is againft fenfe. For when did any hear or fee, or otherwife perceive an infant of a believer make a promife to Gcd or by any aft of his, fhew his alfent to own God for his God. In the other form he faith. All fuch as are in the Covenant ihould be fealed 'and that expreflion fecms to have this f:nfe. That God by his sft c f promife as his words are page 10?. cngpgeth himfelf to be the God of bdiev'n^ CI ri- ilians, and their ked, which his words import, page 91. where having faid. All fuch as are in tl e Covenant flicuid be fealed, to piove it he allegtth , Gen. 17- 739jIo,i4. Where the very ™und why God would have them fealed is 'becaufe of the Covenant, I will eftablifh ray Covenant between me and thee and thy feed after thee, &c. So that the fenfe of his argument fliould be thus, All they who are in cove- nant, that is, to whom God hath piomifed to be theii God, they fhould be fea- led, &c. But all infants of believing, even Gentile parents, are in Covenant that is, God hath proniifed to be their God; Ergo. Of which I would deny both Major and Minor the minor being cxprefly con- trary toKo.9.8.thou2h it were underftocd of true believers, and moft ceitainly falfe of believers only in profeflion, to whom, efpecially thcfe of the Gentiles , God never promifed to be God, much lefs to their natural feed 5 yet the minor muft be true of them, or elfe this argument proves not they are to be baptized , which is their praftife. But feeing the Argument for infant-baprifm will not hold in thefe fcnfes of the promife. Gen. 17,7. (though the firft fenfe be that which they give of that promife, when they difputc againft Arminknsj and apply it to the de^ oncly, a< ( Si) as the words of m^a^y (heWj dted in my Exumn part.j.S.4. in my Pracurfor S. JO. Mr- ^. himCelf Co expounds it with Mr. Bayn pag. 101. of his Ve fence J therefore Mr. M. hath another len(c to which he flies. Ho talks of an outward and an inward Covenant, page 1 20. and page 1 1 z. he tells us, Tiiat he means all the infants of believers are in the outward Covenant, that is , they are to be reputed as in the Covenant, in refpeft oi the outward adminiftration, out- ward Ordinances and Church-piivileges, which when it comes to application is meant of ko other than baptifm now, and circumcifion heretofore, and therefore as I (hew in my Apology S.io. the Major prcpofiticn is meerly nuga- tory in this fenfe ; All that are in the Covenant, that is, that are to have the initial feal (hould be fealed with the initial feal, which were true, but lidicu- loiis. And in truth I may (how ever it be cenfurcd^ apply to the difcourfe in this argument, be it Mr.^j. or the AlVemblics, the Poets words, PdrrKrw»t montesi mfcetur riiiculm mui. And yet there is more (huffling in this thing. Mr. M. to make fome Ihew of anfwering my inftances of women and males under eight daies old, not being circuraciiedj though in covenant, limits his Major in the hvft form thus [fup- pofing them onely capable of the feal, and no fpecial bar put in againft them] in the other form thus [unlefs they be either uncapable of it, or are exempted by particular difpenfation] By the Bar, he means Gods prohibition, as theie words, page 93. (hew, God forbad them to have the feal till they were eight daies old. But a prohibition and a difpenfation are not all one/ a I?rohibition is of a thing, that may not be doncs a difpenfation fuppofeth the thing is to be done, yet frees the perlon from doing it in lorae cafes for fome time. But let- ting pafs this exception againft the expre(fions, I would know how God put a bar, or forbad infants under eight daics old to be circumcifed. I know no oikcc but thiSjthat God appointed the eighth day for them to be circumcifed. Now if t'lis be a forbidding to ci:xumcife before (as I acknowledge it is,and fodo many Proteftant Divines, as Farcm Ccmmcnt. in Gen. 1 7.1 1 . Errant majci li in fx- dere ^b;utcro, (^c. anticipiirc verofignum nee li^ebat, ncc opus crut') then that is forbidden, which is otherwife than God appointed ; andJCth our Lord Chrift hath not appointed any to be baptized till they be difciples,he hath proliibited a- ny to be baptized till they be difciples, and fo, what ever the London 2*Iini]iers- fay in their words above recited,there is juft ground even a prohibition, againlt baptizing infants. And fo the Minor of Mr.Ms. argument is not true. Upon all this^ debate I profefs I find fo nuch incon{ideratenefs,or confufednefs,cp non- fenfe, or untruth, or trifling, if not juggling in Mr. Ms. arguing, that I muft vary my anfwer, as I find his meaning Sometimes denying the Syllogifm as be- in crmon j All that are in Covenant are to be f«aled. And the for- bidding, being onely by not appointing it, xhc propofition can be true onely in this fenfe j All thole in Covenant are to be circumcifcd, to whom it is appoin- ted, and no other j But infants are in Covenant, and to them it is appointed to be fealed with the initial feal in the NcwTellament ; Ergo. Wherein I (hould grant the Major , and deny the Minor, and infer that without appointment intercfl in the Covenant did not make capable, no not of Circumcifion, though it's likely infants might have born ic in the end of the fevesith day as well as on the eighth. I alleged that no females in Abrabttms family, thoiigh in Covenant, were to be circumcifcd. To this Mr.Af. anfwers. For the women, they were not Sub" iccinm ciZpax circumciflonis, there was in them a natural impediment againft it, therefore could it not be enjoined them :and fuppofe fome men amon^jit them , or fome who turned profelytes to them, had not had a prapiuium ( as fome fort of Eunuchs) this Ordinance had not reached them ; whether the wifdom of God purpofely chofe a fign that women might not be capable of receiving ir, for fome typical ufe, as fome conjedurc, it is lufficient they were not capable of it, and were exempted from it by God himfelf. Aofw. If it be true, which many Authors relate, ih^t the HabuJJtncyi ami Jacobites do at this day, ciicumcife females 5 then it is not tuc, they were un- capable of it by reafon of natural impediment. But if it be true which Mr. M. V faith, yet Gods chofing a fign of which they were not capable, and that for a typical ufe, when he might have chofen one as baptifm , of which both ftxes were capable, it is an evidence. That it was not the Will of God fince Abra,'' fea»t> time, and fo forward, that all in Covenant ihould be fealed with the in- itial f^^al, which was Mr Mi-, propofition, Nordohistwo limitations added- in his defence help him. For if incapacity and non-appointment be a fufEci.- ent exemption from the initial feal, yea a prohibition of it, then his propofition is but what I contend for , that thofe in covenant to whom God appoints it- and noother, are to have the initial feal j which is as much as I would evince, that it is not bare intereft in the Covenant without inftitution or appointment that '^ives right to a perfon to claim either circumcifion or baptifm, nor war- rants°a baptizer to admit a perfon to baptifm. And therefore though it were yielded that all infants of believers were iii covenant, yet they have not right (S6) «o eitker initial fcal without a command, or inftitution concerning e«ch rite. As for Mr.Afx. general propofition as lie ftates it, as it advantageth it him not for the reafon laft given^ fo i: may be granted, if he mean by exemption or particular difpenfation, the non-appointment of ic. For then I am lure infants of believers are exempted from baptifm till they be proved difciples of Chrift , or belicTers by profeffioni which if it could be proved, we need not fcrch it from circumcifion and rhe Covenant. From which they that deduce infant -baptifm » do but in vain weary themfclves and others, as they that feek to draw water out "bf a pumice Hone. But there is fome more in Mr.Af. about woraens circumcifion, which I muft not omit. M —Vf ■ in his Sermon had anlwered, that women were circumcifed victuallY in the M:ilcs. To which I anfwered, that a virtual circumciijon was not enough to make good his argument : For then his Syllogifm mult have four terms, thus. They that are in Covenant mult be fealed a-^ally in their nowperionSj or virtually in ethers. But infants of believers are in the Cove- nant, therefore they are to be fealed. If the Condulion be meant of adual fealint' ia their own perfons then there are four terms, and moit in the Con- dulion then in the premiflls. But if itbe meant disjundivcly, they are to be fealed aftually or virtually: then it is lefs than is to be proved, hisbufinefs be- in^ to prove that they wert to be fealed aftually. For a virtual fealini^ is Icfs than Mr. Af. would have, and might be granted without any detdment to the caufe of Anti-pxdobapciim. To this Mr.A/. makes no anfwer at allj but char- aeth me with a fcoft' where there was noncj tells me it is like refuting Bellxrmine with, Thou, licji : whereas I did ihew wherein his anfwer was infufiicient, and tiiatby putting his Syllogifm into form, according to his own meaning, and then (hewing how it would not conclude what he Ihould prove. And to this in his Defence he makes noaniwer, but tells us, what his plain meaning was, which is nothing to the prcient point : he ihould have ihewjd how , with that expofition or limitation his argument would prove aftual fealiag of infants in their own perfons. But to flight a reaion and fpeak nothing to it, is not to an- Iwer, buttofhift. But I aUo laid, to fpeak exaftly, women were not circumcifed virtually in the Males : For that luppofeth they might receive it in their own pcrfonSjWher- as it had been a (in in them to be circumcifed, God not tppoinring it ; which is confirmed by the lii-e, it wouLl be iin for the male to be circumcifed afore the eighth day, (ith it was not appointed : which may now be confirmed by Mr. Ms. words, that, God forbad them to have the leal till they were eioht dales old. To this faith Mr.3/. But fi. ft give me leave to obferve by the way how you oinch me with a point of Law , that no man can be faid virtually to have that by his Proxy or Atturncy, which he might not actually receive himfelf in his own perlon. I queftion whether this b. good Law ; but I am con(ident it is bad Divinity j lure we finned virtually iti^Adum, yet we could not aduaily , though the (in oi yidim be ours by imputation. The S'.m is virtually hot, yet PhiloTopiiers fay, it's not adually, And the Jews of old offered to God fuch things by the hands of the Pricfts, who were their Proxies in that work, which they might not offer in uKir own perfons, yea and receivcu fuch things by the hand (87) hand of the High Pricft (who bare their names k the moil holy place) v/hiib they might not receive in their own pepfons immcdiiitely ; and the Saints now in this world do virtually and quoad effecium juris, receive fome fuch privileges in Chrill their Advocate , who in their right is at Gods right hand, which here they are not capable of receiving immediatrly in their own perfons. Anfw. My words were not as Mi'. M. recited them, but thus. He is faid virtually to have a thing by another, as by a Proxy or Atturncy , that might receive it by himfelfi ytiqnoj^i effecium juris, according to the efted ofjLaw another's receiving it is, as if he had received it.In fvhich I underlland by [ha- ving a thing] that having a thing which is by polTeffion of it, as a benefit, privilege, commodity, and by [might receive it] without any prohibition in Law, and that he receives it not in his own perlon, is onely from fome tempo- rary impediment, as minority, abfence or the like. And this according to that skill I have in fuch terms, I conceive ftijl to be the meaning of them. Nor do Mr.A/j. inftances take me any whit off from it, being without fear of being chargeable with bad Law or Divinity. For our finning in Adam is not recei- ving ffmcthing as a benefir; the Suns heat is natural , not by vertue of any Political Law, it is not having as a proxy or atturncy for another j the High Prici^s offering for the people was an aftion in their ftead, not receiving a be- nefit for them, and what they received for the people which they might not re- ceive in their own perfons immediately was not by reafon of any prohibitioo , but ftrom fome other caufe, nor were they in imparting it, the peoples Proxies or Atturneys, but Gods : were it an anfwer from God or any other thing they received for them, if God had immediately communicated it to them, it had not been their fin. And the like mny be faid of what Chrili receives for us as our Advocate. But the circumcifing of women had been a fin forbidden, ac- cording to Mr. Af^fy/xiZ/f and others doftrine before recited, they were prohi- bited to be circumcifed, it being limitted to the males on the 8. day. Mr.Af- addes. I alfo obiter defire you to remember this exprcffion of yours, that it had been a fin for a child to have been circumcifed after the eight day was paft , and try how you will reconcile this with another opinion of yours delivered elfewherc ; viX_. That Circumcifion might be adminiltred oftner then once j furely thofe other times mult be after the 8. day. Anfw. Where I deliver this, that Circumcifion might be adminiiired oftner than once, I remember not, except in my Examen^ page 1 1 8. However I con- ceive no neceifity of Cii'cumcifion or baprifm above once, yet I profefs my idf uniatisfyed in this, that there is either a command that a perfon be but once circumciled, or a perfon once onely baptized. And my rcaion of the fpcech is from hence, i Cor. 7. 18. the Apoftle faith, ]s one called circumcifed,- ^tV fT/OTAc&w, Let him not be drav/n up, that is, let him not draw up his fore- skin: we tranflate it. Let him not become uncircumcifed. Whence ic may be p?rceived,that fome Jews had an art to draw up their fore-skin. Now in fuch a cafe, while the Law ilcod in force, I conceive he was bound to be circumcifed a^ain, becaufe it was to abide in his flefh, Gejj.iy.i^.Nor do my words at all contradict this, when I fay more fully theii Mr .A/, recites tlicm j It had been a fin for a child to be circumcifed afore, or after the eigth day in them tliat al- tsicd or iwervcd from the appointment of God •• wheie 1 make the fin not to be the (SS) the doing of it, on the eighth day, and then doing it again ( though I deny not but unneceflarily to do it after the eight day had been fin, that day being de- tcinuned for it) but not doing ic that day which God appointed by thofe that altered or fwer\-ed from that appointment unneceiiarily : which in the cafe men- tionedj and any other of the like^might be done after the eighth day. But MA/.will confirm his proofs,thatthe women were circumcifed in' the men. My firft;, faith he to me, was, that the whole houfe of Ifrael are in the Scri- pture Caid to be circumcifed. You anfwer, that by the whole houfe of Ifiacl muft not be meant all, but the Mtjor part. But Sir do you imagine that any of your judicious Readers can be fatisfyed with thisanfvvcr, when ( you know well enough) that the Circumcifion is put for the Church and people of Gad In cppofition to the uncircumcifed, that is, all the reft of the World who were not the people of God. When Peter was to go to the circumcifionjandP^a// to the Gentiles to preach the Gofpel; does not circumcifion include the women Jews as much as the men in oppofirion to Gentilcs,as well as the word Gsntiles includes v\ omen Gentiles as well as the men^ to whom PmI was fent ? Gal.i.S,^. Surely it muft needs be grantedjthat not only theMajor or nobler part, but the whole nation of thejews "both men and women, are there meant by ciiOimcificn, which could not have been, if in fome fenfe they were not to be accounted circumcifed. Anfw. My Anfwer might fatisfic any judicious Reader jfpecially if the tixts had been fairly fet down by Mr. M. wherein I (hew all Ifrael, and all the "houfe of //?-.zf/ muft be underilood Synecdochically , i Sam^j.^. AHsz.iS, Acfs 13-24. And if in the term [circumcifion] be not a Synecdoche of the whole for the parr; not onely every individual in Ifracl muft be in fome fenfe accounted circumcifed, but be aftually circumcifed alfo in their own pcrfons. Nor againftjfuch a Synecdoche doth it make, that circumcifion ftantls in cp- pofition to the uncircumcifed, which is meant of every individual. For neither is ititrue^whcn the uaciiciimcifed are mentionedjit is meant of every individa- al; there being many of thofe nations that were circumcifed j and if it were tiue, yet the oppofition doth no: prove every individual Jew circumcifed, any more then when they are c.illcd the holy Nation in cppofition to the Gentiles : as when it was faid, //r^e/was holincfs to the Lord, fcrem. a. j. every Ifruel- itc or Jevp muft be counted holy in fome fenfe : but the terms are aftributcd Synecdochically. And for the other inftance, I grant circumcifion muit include Gd.z.%. women as well ? s menj becaufc Pcfc/- was to go to therr; but this proves not that women were in fome fenfe accounted circumcifed in the males but that they are part of the nation which were called the Circumcifion Sy- necdochically , becaufe of the males. And for the term Gentilcsj there muft be in like manner a Synecdoche conceived of the whole for a part, elfe he ftiould be fent to peach to infant males as well as women of years. Secondly, faith Mr. M. I argued thus, no uncircumcifed might eat the PaP- lKx:ver J £rgo their women might not have eaten it, if in fome lenfe they had not been circumcifed. Your anfwer is. This is tobe limitted /■ro fubjecia ma- icrix J none that ought to be circumcifed might eat the Pafleover , unlefs they were circumcifed. But this anfwer is altogether infuflricienr. For where is this diftinCtion of yours found or founded in the word of God ? other Diftinftions 2^ut eating the Pafleover arc cleerly foupd; the clean might eat it, the unclean might (^9) Blight not fiat it, the cirtamcifcd might, the uncirouncired might not ; But of your limitation there is altum Jilemium. Anfw. M'.'^-r. conclufion is. That in tome fcnfe women were circumciled , and bet'oie m lonaefenfe they were counted circumcifed , neither of which is the fame with this [they were circumcifed virtually in the males, or the males wei'C lircumcifed ia. their ftead as their Proxy or Atturney.] 2. My aniwer was right, and to his Demand, where it js found in the word of God .'' I anfwer by another demand, where is his limitation found in Gods word, that women mj^ht eat the Paileover, becaufe they were in fome fenfe ac- counted circumcifed .•' Sure the wo ds are, Exod.ii. 48. No' uncircumcifed perfon (hall eat thereof, not as Mr.^/. none but thofe that are counted in fome i'enfe circumcifed may eat thereof; If there be in Scripture that which doth neceflltate to a limitation of that fpcech, my limitation is as well in Scripture as his is : yea my limitation is pbin and eafie, whereas his limitation is liable to this objection, that when Gods Law requires perfons to be circumcifed that they might eat the Pafleover, if Ml, x\fy. limitation or explication be good, it (hould require no more but this, that perfons in fome fcnlc fhould be accounted circumcifed, Foi-fo Mr.M. underftands- the Law, and then, though the males were not aftuaily circumcifed,. but virtually, in fome fenfe, fo accounted they miaht eat it, without breach of the Law, which abfurdity doth not follow on ■ my limitation, but follows inevitably on Mr-WJ". ' 1. Saith Mr.3-/. I demand further, where is there any command or infiitu- • rion tor women to eaa the P2ircover(more than for women now to eat the Lords Supper) unlefs it be founded upon circumcifion ? yet in pradice we know they did eat it f and if they eat it not as circumcifed perfons, tell me by what right they did it. Anfw. I have proved Ex^men part.g.S.i a.pag.i i a. Pojifcript to my Apology Sii. that 1 Cor.i 1.2,8. &' 10.17. and ii.ig.i^fifj- 10. 7. are exprcfs precept and examp'e for vvomens receiving the Lords Supper. And for eating the Paie- over,thijre is an exprefle precept, That all the Congregation of T/rja iliall keep it, Exod. 11.47. in which women were meant, and they were to eat according to the number of theSouls v.4.and no leaven was to be in their habitation, v. zo» therfore either women muli eat the Pafleover, or eife they muft not eat bread : fo that we need not gc to circumcifion tor womens eating the Pafleover. Yea, if we ufe no other way than that of Mir.A/.ic will not be proved that women ought to eat it. "For Exodui 1 2.48. no mention is made of any circumcifed who are to eat it, but malesj and though it be faid , no uncirctimclfed mi^ht eat, yet i: is not faid, all circumcifed rauft eat , much iefs they that are omy in iome fenfe counted circumcifed. But Mr-Ai. feeksto make his advantage ot this p>.i:n thus. If you fay tliey were included in the Houfliold Exod.iz.^./^. every houfhold was to eat the Pafchal Lamb, and there was no exception ot women s I ^^^plyj firft cram but the fame confcquence, that when we read fo Frequently in the New T. that whole hou/holas were baptized, and no exception of children , that therefore all the children in thofe houfholds were baptized, and this Cca- rroverfy is quickly ended. Anfw. If it were granted that we had no other way to prove women \vere to cat the Pafchal Lamb ( which yet we need not, as I have fhewed) but from N Exo. (90) Ex(jrf.ia.3,4« iflthateveiyhouflioldwastoeatthcLamb, and there waj no exception of Women, yet the confequence were not good j whole hou/holds were baptized, therefore infants, becaufe not exprefly excepted. For as Exod, 1 z. 5 4 infants are excepted from being required o eat the Lamb, though not in exprefs words, yet becaufe the thing to be done was not fuch as could agree to infants of a few daies old, fuppofe eight or nine. So where A£f.\6.i 5,^5. and x8.8. I Cor.i.i6. the houdiold is faid to be baptized, befides this, that no infants are exprefled, in the fame chapter or elfewherc, the fpeech is plainly in- terpreted to be meant of thofe that heard the word, and believed, as j4Sfs the eleventh chapter, and fourteenth verfe, and ch.i6. v.3i,34. and i8.8.i6or.i6. 15. as if the holy Ghoft had of purpofe prevented this mif^onftruflion and frivolous confequence of Psdobaptifts. But faith Mr.M. I add fuither, it is not faid the whole houihold ftiall eat it, for all uncircumcifed perfons were forbidden to eat it, and none but circumcifed perfons had warrant to eat it. Anfw. Itisfaid, JExorf. 12.4. they ftiall eat the Lamb according to the number of Souls, i.e. hminum Pifc.Schol. in locum, every man according to his eating, which is a plain precept for women to eat who could eat. Yea further, faith Mr.Af. fu^fe fome words in the inftitution (hould reach the Jewifh women , yet how doth it reach the women Gentiles who fhould prove Profelytes to them ? For Exorfos chapter iz. verfe 48, 49. there is order taken for the male ftranger , let all his males be circumcifed, and then let him comenear and keep it, but there is not any word that takes order for the ftran- gers females. Anfwer. It is faid verfe fourty feven. That all the Congregation of l[ra€l ftiall keep it, and the Profelytes of Righteoufneflc, women as well as men were of that Congregation, and verfe fourty nine, it is faid, OneLawfhall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the ftranger that fojourneth among you: if then the Law appointed the Ifrxelitijh women to eat, the fame law appointed the Profelyte Women to cat. So that notwithitanding Mr.Af j^. vain hope, my exception againft the confequence of his Argument, They are fcederati j Therefore they are ts be fignan , ftand good and it is not yet proved , that bare intcreft in the Covenant Genefs 17. or the Covenant of grace did inti- tle to Circumcifion, much lefs to baptifm, which were enough to overthrow his firft argument. But fith it is my task , I will now go on to the reft of his Difpute, ta- king in by the way Mafter BUk'^s third feftion of the 42.chapter of his Ftn- dk.fcederif. SECT. (91) SECT. XIX. /fr.Blakes exceptions agmfimy Speeches in the point about the cennexion between the Ctvenant, and initial [eat, are refelled. MR. Blake aflcrts a reality of connexion between the Covenant and initi- al feal,and firlt he meddles vvi:h my Examen,and then with my Anti-px- dobapcirm. To my objeftion that the Propofition is not true, that all that were federate in ^^rii^j^tti" family, were to be figned, for neither Males afore the eighth day, nor females were to be circumcifed, befides his avouching Ma- tter Marjhalli anfwer as fufficient, which is reviewed before, he faith. Is there no connexion between them, beeaufe he that receives into Covenant and ap- points the feal, hath prefcribed a time when it (hall be applyed/ To which I fay, it poves that there is not a connexion between being fede- rate, and to be finned , to make this Propolition true. All that are federate are to be figned, bareiy in that they are federate. For they are federate the firft , fe- cond, third, fourth, fifth, Iixth, feventh day, as well as the eighth, yet not to be figned, whereas if there was fuch a connexion between them according to Gods wilL that the one being.put, the other is to be put, they would be to beii^nedasfoonascver they are federate. And if it be Gods will that they (hould be figned, but not till the appointed time after, I might fay that though infants were federate, yet they were not to be figned with baptifm till Gods ap- pointed time, which is not till they be difciples, and fo infant baptifm is not provea from their being in Covenant, che Major Propofition, All that are in Covenant are to be figned, being true only with this limitation , in the ap- pointed time, which is not for baptifm till they be Difciples. And whereas in anfwer to my objeftion, that if infants have right to the fcal by being in co- venant, then they have right to the Lords Supper, he anfwcrs. I . That in baptifm there is no more of neccflicy than to be paffive. This is falfe, for baptif:n is enjoined as a duty, and fuch as is to have repentance and faith antecedent Mark cliap. i6, i6. Acis the z. chap. 38. Acl^ cliap. $. Ycrfe 37- i. He grants that infants have true title to the Lords Supper , jus ai rem , not jus in re, a right to it, yet by reafon of infancy have their actual intereft fufponded. But I. ftill Mr.B/j^e fpeaks of the Lords Supper ,andofbaptifm,as of privile- ges meerly, whereas the Scripture fpeaks of each as a duty as well as a privi- lege. a. By the fame diftlndion an anfwer is given to him concerning infants baptifm, that though they have the right to it, yet by reafon of infancy,- the aftual intereft of it is to be fufpended, they being no more able to profefs the faith, till they be grown to fome riper age then a Cradle King to rule a King- dome. So that Mr.Blalies anfwcrs yield more exceptions againli Mr. Mj, argument, confirm it not at al, but (hew how wc may grant his Major , and yet fo limit it that it will be too (hort of proyin'g baptilm of federate perfons in infan- N a "cy ; (9i) try ; and thtfe paflages 'of Mafter Blalie appear to te Cavils and not An- wers. He next fets upon, the fifth feftion of the fiift part of my Review , and excepts, I . That I Hiew not where to find Mr. iBaiUees words* But if he had looked- into my Letter mentioned^ he had found them quickly in the third feftion. 2. That I denyed the Metaphor of a feal to be rightly made^ the genus of a rite, asof baptifm, to which he replies in his flirting fafhion. We fhall expgd' another letter to fhew Saint Pads definition, Rom -4.1 1 . to be alike light (who runs upon the fame enour, if an errout) when he faies that Circumcifion is a fign and feal , there is the ^cnwj- and the differentia, lies in thefe words to di- ftinguifti it from other figns, and feals of the righteoufnefs of faith. The na • ture of a Sacrament ftands in a figure , and the whole efficacy of it in the ufe. And how elfe then fhould the nature and ufe of it be held out ? To which I a nfwer, Faid doth not give a definition, Rflw.4. 1 1 . of circum- cifion, much Icfs doth he define a Sacrament in general. E very Definition is reciprocal with the thing defined, but Mr.B/. I prefume will noffayj every cir- cvHncifion is a feal of the righteoufnefs of faith, and every feal of the righte- oufnefs of faith is circumcifion. Bcfides individuals are not wont to be de- fined, but what is there faid is faid of the fingular circumcifion oi Abrnhum , and no other. The title given to Abrahams circumcifion doth but {hew what the ufe of it was to him, not what was the conitant nature, and ufe of it on and to others. Which appears from the particularizing circumftances fo cx- aftly noted by the ApoiHe, to wit, the times of his juftification and circum- cifion , which do (hew that it was appropriated to Abrahams circumcifion, on his own body, what he there faid of Circumcilion. There is no more rcafon to make this the definition of Circumcifion [the feal of the righteoufnefs of faich] then to make that [ i Tim 6.10. the root of all evil] the definition of the love of money, or that lHeb.6.16. the end of allftrife] the definition of an oath, or that [v.i9. the anchor of the foul firm and ftable] the definition of' hope, ortiiat [Hei.i I.I. the evidence of things not feen 3 the definition of faith A feal cannot be the genus of it, being a M-taphotjf ' ' j Metaphor (hews not what it is, -but what it is like. Circumcifion is an aftion as it is from the agent, as in the fubjeft a pafTion. The relation that comes to it is not from its. natui'e, but by inftitution, and is the end of it, rather than the gew/Iow furely Gods promife to ^/jro^uwz, and his feed Gc«. 17. 7. which is ufually made the promife whereby infants of believers are in cc veaant, was many thoufand years fince, 430. years before the law, Gul. 3, 16.17. Therefore even according to the ufual language of Paedobaptifts infants of be- lievers are in Covenant afore they arc born : whichjMr- bl. had no caufe to carp at fas he doth) but that it is almoft all his art , cfpecially when I had to prevent it , fo diftinftly added to Ihcw ray meaning [ have the promife of grace made to them 3 If Mr. Bl. have any other way whereby infants are in the co- venant, as the parents vow, or profeflion, or furetie for them, according to it 5 I fuppofe, infants may be faid to be in covenant afore thty are born , iith fuch vows, profefTion and promifes may be made for them afore they arc born- Let-s conGdtr what M.B- faith.He tels us,he reads not of a covenant adually made with any unborn. ^ And as I conceive by his Appendix to his Vindk.joedcrU, as an addition to his firfl chapter, his reafon is, becaufe he conceives that it is of the General nature of a covenant properly fo called, that there be a mutual contraft and agreement, which I Ihall examine when I conlider M-. Cotkrx part. I .c.?. fed. 9. of his lujl Vindic. For prefent, if this be true , neither can a Covenant be adually made with an infant born, (ith an infant born can no more contrad, or agree, or confent, then one unborn. Neverthelefs I conceive,, there is a covenant adually made -with perfons unborn Gen. 9. u. where God faith. This is the token of the Covenant which I make between mc and you, and every living creature, that is, with you, for perpetual generations : which doth expi'efs a covenant adually made with every living crcamre of all iilh for pei-petuai generations; therefore for ihoufands oC perfons ur.born. Tfea- whttt (9^) where he faith, he readeth of a Covenant entered into with thofe that '^ere not picfent, J)em,zg.i ^°3 ^4- If'^- 53- Hi 12" ^fii^' 1- 7, 8. Heb. 1. $,6. Heb. 10.7, 15, 16. Hcb. 8. 6. Hcb. 13. zo. it muft of neceffity be made with many perlons unborn. But Mr.B/u^e adds. Mr. Tombs (eems here to make the Covenant and eledion to be one and the fame, as by this paflage , fo by that which follows J but thefe Scripture ftill diftinguiihes. To wiiich I fay, it is true that I make the dzSi and thofe that are in the Co- venant of grace one and the fame, but neither in that patTagc of any other , do I make the covenant and eleflion to be one and the fame^ as lA'-^BUtie miilakes me. He faith further -, We find promifes and prophecies, as t« the taking into Covenam in time to come, E-^e^.zo. 37. but not any fuch refpcdive to ele- ction. Towhichlfgy, the prophecy of taking into Covenant, J<^)' is indeed to be deduced from the command. J,. To them belongeth the initial feal, whether of the Jewilh or Gfarift- ian Church, who have iritereft or title to the Covenant of grace. For the Con- clufion of Mr.B/doth not fay any thing at all concerning the initial feal of the Chriftian Church, but only of circumcifion. fourthly, To his Syllogifm I anfwer, i ; That God calls circumcifion the . Covenant only by a metonymia of the thing fignified for the fign. 1. That [ought not to be feparated from it] may be underilcod of every perfon that hath intereft in the covenant, or of every perfon to whom it is commanded, and when it is not difp§nfed with: in the former fenfe I deny the major, it is not true, that what God himfelf calls by the name of a covenant ou<^ht not to be feparated from it, or that Gods calling any fign the Covenant, proves that all in covenant are to have that fign on them. For neither was it true of circumcifion, fith neither were males afore the eight day or females in covenant, nor any in the wildernefs to be circumcired,^ God either not com- manding it, ordifpenfingwiththeobfervationof itj. nor is it true of any o- ther fi^n called the Covenant (if there b; anyj without Gods command undi- fpenfed with. Mr. BUf{e faith further, i. Let him confider the relation in which the A" poftle puts this Sacrament of circiuncifion to the covenant Rom./^..ii. an in- ftituted appointed fign and feal is not to be divided from that which it fignifies, . and feal is not to be divided from that which it fignifies and feals J circumcifi- on was an inftituted appointed fign and feal of the covenant j therefore it is not tobedividedfromit;. Anfw. 1 • Neither doth the Apoftie, Rom 4.1 1 . make circumcifion the fign and feal of the Covenant mentioned Gen. 17. nor of any covenant to be kept , for the time to come, but of a benefit Abnhdm had before obtained Gen,i 5.6.. towit,righteoufnefs by faith, being yet uncircumcifed, nor is any ones cir- cumcifion befides Abrahams, on his own perfon, called, the feal of the righte-, oufnefs of faith. z. The Conclufion is, neither of the Propofitions to be proved , that the. rcafon why Abrahams infants were to-be circumciCed, was their intereft in the covenant, that to them belongeth the initial feal, whether of the Jewifli, or the Chriftian Church, who have intereft or title to the Covenant of grace. 3. The Major propofition is true in this fenfe, an inftituted appointed fign and feal, is not to be divided in our conceit of it, from that objeft or thing which it fignifies or feals. But in this lenfe the Conclufion would be true only of an intelleftual divifion from the objeft , which is nothing to the purpofe. That fenfe in which it would be to his purpofe is this, An.inftituted appoints cd fi^'n and feal, is not to be divided , that is, not to be withheld or denied to any psrfon or fubjeft , who ha:h by promife or pofleffion intereft in the thing; fianifyed and fcalcd by that fign. But in this fenfe it is falfe^ for circumcifion was not to be to any female, towhomyetthe promife of Canun fignified by it, belonged J Nor indeed doth any fuch fign belong to any perfon meerly from intereft in the thing fignified, but from the command and will of the Ap- Bointer. I faid if [therefore Gen.17.9.] were allowed to be the bett reading, yet that the inference, v.9.fbould be made from the promife only^ v.7. and not as weU, if ('102) iT not father fiom the promile, verfe 8. I find no fufficiint rcafon given. To this Matter B/4^ replies. This reference engageth me, i. in a contra- di^ion to my felf, Excrcit. pige 5 . the piomilVof the Gofpel was confiimed to Jbrdham by the fign of Circumcifion, and that the covenant made with A- brjibamGeriAj. was a mixt covenant, z. In a contradidion to the Apoflle, who makes ciicumcilion align and feel ^ notalqnjeof the land of CariMfiy h\xt of the righteoufnefs of faith. _ Anfw. Either I have loit all my skill in LogLfi, or elfe there is not the leaft colour of this charge, but Mx.BUke writes as one that fcribies any thing that comes fiift into his fancy, A contradidion is of two p.-opofuions oppolite in quantity and quality, the one univeifal , the other particular ; the one affir- mativcj the other negative, my propoJltions are. If it were granted that [ther- fore Gen.17.9.'} is the beft reading j yet that the inference verfe p. (hould be made from the promifc onely, verfe 7. and not as well, if not raZher fi-om the promife veife 8. I find no fufficient reafon given j the promife of the Gofpel was confirmed to Abrahun by the fign of Circumcifion, the Covenant Gen, 17. was a mixt covenant made up of fpidtual and temporal mercies; The Apoftle Row. 4. II. faith yfWwr/i received the /ign of Circumcifion a feal of therighteoutnefs of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcifed. If Mailer B/j^e (hew- in thefe propofitions I will not fay contradidion onely the greatcil of oppofitions , but any contrariety at all, let me be taken for a heedlels Scrib- ler 5 if not, let Mafter bUkf bear the blame. His other words [all that know the natuje of Covenants, and ufe of feals know that the feal ratifies all that the Covenant contains. But the Covenant ( Mafter Toynbs being judge) contained not barely the promife of the land of Ca/iJun, and therefore the reference muft carry it further than the Land of Co.' nxin'] what are they but a grant of my exception, that the reference Gen. 17. 9. muft be not onely to the promile verfe 7. as if infants were circumcifed meerly becaufe of the promife , I will be a God to thee , end to thy feed, but alio to the promife verfe 8. and that they were circumcifed alfo .btcaufe of that promife of the Land of dinxnn, which belongs not to us , and therefore the reafon of circumcifion of infants from the Covenant Gf/i. 1 7. can be no rule to us to whom fome of thofe promifes belong not. If the feal ratifies all that the covenant contains,then it ratifies the promife of the Land of Canuan, and in refpeft of that it was to Abrahams infants, which not belonging to our in- fants the reafon of circumcifing infants, if it be taken from the covenant, it will not pertain to our infants to whom that promife belongs not. I faid , if it were yielded that the inference were made peculiarly from the promife, verfe 7. to ht a. God to A bmham and his ksdj it muft be proved, that every believers infant-child is Abrahams feed, afore it be proved the promife belongs to them. / To this Mafter Blaise faith. It muft either be proved that they are Abrabams children, or have the privilege of the children of Abraham, which from Gene- fis <^. 27. Rom. II. 17. is fufficiently proved, cfpecially being confirmed by thufe texts that carry the covenant in Gofpel times to the ifliie. Anfw. What privilege ot the children of Abraham he (hould mean, except the promife, I will be a God to them, which fhould belong to every btiievers infant child; I underftand not. The privilege of circiimciUon , or vifible Church- Chmch-memberfhip In the Chriftian Chuicli is neither inferred from the pro- mifeGew.17.7. nor from GfTif^j 9. 17. R0wz.11.17. nor is there one text that carries the Covenant in Gofpel times, I mean that covenant of .which Chrill is Mediator, mentioned He&. 8. 10. Heb.jo.i6. (befides which I Jjnow no covenant in Gofpel times) to the ifl'ue, that is, all the natural infant-iilue of every believer , and that neither thofe texts mentioned , nor any other produ- ced by Mr.B/. Mr.Af. Mt.Cobbet, or any other prove it, will be fhewed in that which follows. Forprcfent my fpeechis light, the promife is not, I will be a God to thee , tnd'to thy feed , and to him that hath the privilege of thy chil- dren. This is Matter Bliilies addition to the Text. And therefore no man can prove the promife belongs to the infant-child of a believer, till he be proved to bQAbrM)^ms(czA: Whatfoever privilege of Abrahams cbildtcn, any child may have, yet from that promife none can claim privilege, but Abral?am and his feed, lith the promife is made to no other , and therefore no child of ours can claim an intercll in that promife till he be Abraham i feedj which Mailer Blafies fllift doth no whir avoid. To my exception, that the Covenant was not made to every child of Abra- ham, he faith. Though it were true, yet it would nor ferve my purpofe, provi • ded, that we in Gofpel times are under the fame covenant as was Ifaac ; if fome of A ^'■^i'w^w J' children were left out , that concerns not us, fo that we are ta» ken in. But I reply, furc if it were true, it were much to my puipofe to (hew the In- sufficiency oi the Psedobaptifts inference, from Gcw. 17. 7. that every child of a Gentile believer is not in covenant by vertue of that promife, if it be true that the Covenant was not made to every child of Abraham. No Pxdobap- tift hitherto that I know hath had the face to avouch that our children by ver- tue of that promife are more in covenant than Abraham children j Mafter Bl, himfelf faith. To make the inference good from Gew.17.7. that believers chil- dren by virtue of that promife have title to the initial feal,it muft eitha' be pro- ved that they are Abrahams children, or have tbepiivilegtof AbrJ?ams chil- dren J If then the covenant was not made to every child of Abralum, then every child of Abraham had not tht privilege b y the covenant , and then if it were oranted that our children by that covenant had the privilege of Abrulums child, yet it could not be proved thence, that every child of ours hath the pri- vilet^e of the Covenant, fith every child of Ab-raham had it not. Nor doth Mr. . B/j-. provifo at all helphim. Pori. it being granted, that we in Gofpel-titnes are under :the famccove-- nant as was T(aac, and that we are taken in, I'thoagh without the limitations , fiift of the covenant onely, as it contains promifes of faving.grace > fecondly, onely of true believers before God, I deny it ^ yet it follows not that our chil- dren are taken in. • 2^_ Nor if it were true, that our children are taken in, doth it follow tliat all our children are taken in, by vertue of that promife Gen. 17. 7. fith neither all Abrahams children; nor zlllfaais children were taken in by it, Ejau being exprefsly excluded. Row. 9 10,11,1^,13. and clfewhere, nor doth God llik himfelf the God of Efams he did of ^acob. But Mr. Blaf^e faith , my inilance from Gen. 17. 19. Heb. 11. 9. is very weak to prove, that the Covenant was not made to every child of Abraham, JJlmael .-•^ Ci04) Ijlmid himfelf was in Covenant, though not eftabliflied in covenant (as God there, and verfeii. promifed concerning /f^<«c) nor his feed never received, appears not alone by the fign and feal which he leceived verf.23. which yet is fufficient (for God to feal to a blank is very ftrange ; to fign a covenant to a man never in Covenant) but alfo from G fecondly, That to them belongeth the initial fealj whether of the JewijTi or Chriftian Church, who have intereft or title to the Covenant of grace. B;i: if the inference be not of title or right in the p^rfons to be clrcumciicdj but of duty in the adminiftrator, and the propoliiious be of title or right from the Covenant, and not of duty, the advafarics-pi'opofttionsare not rightly ga- thered from that inference, which is not concerning right or title but duty. As for Mafter B-Uiies jeer rather than anfwer,it is unworthy a ferious fober man. For my fpcech did not intimate that the infants were circumcifed without right or title, but that the inference. Gen. 17.9. was of duty, not of title or right, and that what title the infants had to circumcifion it was not, as Paedobaptifts fuppofe, from the intereft in the Covenant wiiich the circumcifed had, but the comm'and of God to the circumcifer, and therefore there is not any connexion between intereft in the Covenan: and title or right to the initial feal wichoac the command, nor this propofttion true. All they who are in Covenant are to beiealed with the initial feal, unlefs this limitation b: added ,• when it is commanded. Now if this limitation be put, then, though the infants of be- lievers were granted to be in Covenant , yet they are not to be baptized, till over and befides their being in Covenant a command for their baprifm be Ihew- ed, which hath not been yet, nor I think ever will be. There are fome more of Mr. BLIics jeers or flirts rather than fober and ferl- ons anfwerS yet remaining. To what I faid, that Khriii)xm was engaged to cir- cumcife only thofe that are males , and not afore eight daies, and not onely thofe that were from himfclf, but alfo all in his houfe , whofe children fpever rhev were, which apparently ihews that the giving circumcifion was not com- menfurate to the perlbns intereft in the Covenant, but it was to be given to perfons as well out of Covenant as in, if of Abrj.h.^s houfe, and not to all that were in the Covenant, to wit, females : wiiich doth cleerly prove that rioht to the initial feal, as it is called, of circamcifion did not belong to per- fons by vcrtuc of the Covenant, but by force of the command, Mr. blMi^ in hisfli.tin'gfailiion thusfpeaks. If he can prove that Abraham kept Idolaters in his houfe, prcfeffedly worfhipping a talfe God, and gave Ci-cumcilion to them in that faith and way of worlliipj it would prove tiiat a man mighr hE.ve the fc^l, and not be in Covenant, And it will prove a man might have the feal, and not be in covenan t,though I cannot prove any Idolater in Abrahams 'houfe, if I can prove there were or might be infanfs or youn^ ptirfons who were children of Idolaters , for fuch were not in covenant as the teed of believers, or by their own picfcflion. Bar, faith he, it wou'd not prove that he might be in covenant, and be de- nied the feal. Trn:- but tiiis that infant-maks under eight daics old, and females in covenant might be denyed the kal, would prove it. And then, faith M:-B/. infant-baptifmmightbcof ealier proof. Thou^ they were not in Covenant, though they were not boly, yet they might be P X bap- bflptizect. I reply, I grant that psrfons in Covenant might be danjed Cir cumcifioni but think infant-baptifm never a whit the eafier proved. I ft-* circuincifion is commanded of all in Abrahams houfe, whether in covenant or no, but baptifm to none bccaufe he is in covenant, or holy , but becaufe a difciple, which is not true of any infant ordinarily^. Bntj faith Maftcr Bklie., I will not yield fo much j I do not believe that JbrJ)Mi carried circumcifion beyond the line of the Covenant, and that he had thofc in his houfe which were aliens from God j feeing I find that telli- mony of the Lord concerning him, Genefis chap. i8. verfe 19. and find that refolution of ^ojhua, Jofliua chap. 14. verfe 14, 15* I believe A- bfdhxm catechized all he took in as Heathens, and did not circumcife them as Heathens. Aofw. I believe he did not circumcife them as Heathens , but as his own bought with his money, and of his houfe, and if he bought any infants, or young children (which was then, and hath been fince ufual, where men and women are fold as flaves) he did circumcife infant or young males of heatheii Idolaters. For the command of God was he fliould, and yet thofe infant or young males of heathen Idolaters could not be catechized , nor were in Covenant, either by their own profeflion, or their parents right , or any pro- mife of God to them j and therefore circumcifion in that cafe muft be carried beyond the line of the Covenant. To what I added of Maftcr A/jr/&4//j- Confeflion, That he granted the for- mal reafon of the Jews, being circumcifed , was the command , and the co- venant he makes only a motive , Defence page 182. Mafter Blu^e fpcaks thus. I wonder what need there is of an argument to force fuch a Confeflion. The reafon I fay, why Jews were circumcifed , and Chriftians baptized , is the tfommand j were there a thoufand Covenants and no inftitution of a fign or feal, fuch a fign or feal, there could have been no circumcifion , no bap- tifm. The command is the ground, and the Covenant is the Direftory to whom application is to be made: we fay, all in Covenant are enti- taled to the feal for adnjiifion j but we prefuppofe an inftitution. I reply , If the formal reafon wliy the Jews were circumcifed were the Command, and the Covenant onely the motive , then the command was the differencing reafon J for the form diftinguilheth, and the formal reafon is the reafon which differenceth. Motives are not direftions what to do, but commands, the fame motive may be to contrary commands. The Command is the Diredory to whom application is to be made both of circumcifion and baptifm. The command doth exprefs not only the ad to be done, but alfo the • perfons to whom. The Covenant is no Diredory to whom circumcifion , or baptifm is to be applyed. The whole Covenant of Circumcifion is exprefled, Gcncjh 17. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. But there is not a word who are to be circumcifed , but after. There is not thelealt hint in the inftitution of baptifm, Mut- tkevfi chap. 18. verfe 19. Mdrii chap. 16. verfe 15. of any Covenant God makes to man. To imagine God commanded circumcifion and baptifm, and yet not to tell who are to be baptized or circumcifed but from the Covenant, which no man knoweth to whom it belongs, is to imagine God gives a ■ blind command, which no wife Mafter would do. It is not true, all in cove- nant arc entitled to the feal for admiflion, for then kijiales, males under eight ^ daies (^09) dales old, bellevtrs oat of Ahrahams houTe, Profelytes of the gate ha'^ been entitled to Circumcifion, for they were in Covenant as well as thofe who were to be circumcifed. And it ij as certain on the other fide that Ijlmu£li Efxu, the infants of ftran- gCrs bought by Abraham^ with his money, were to be circumcifed, though they were not in Covcnantj and therefore linferreit as certain, that being in co- venant orintereft in the covenant, or having thepromifes of the Covenant, Gencfis 17. 4, f, 6, 7, 8. or the newCovcnant in Chrifts blood Hcb. 8. 10, 1 1, 12. and 10. 16, 17. or any other Evangelical Covenant, all, or fome of them made to a p^rfon did not intitle a perfon to circumcifionjnor doth now to bap- lifm, nor can be without the command or inftitution of Chrift , or pri» mitive example, a rule,Direftory or fufHcient warrant for any to baptize a per- fon, nor acquit him from profening and abufing baptifm, and therefore ther* is «o fuch reality of connexion between the Covenant and feal, that this pro- pofition is thereby proved true, All in Covenant are intitkd to the feal for ad- miffion : or thus falfe, fome of thofe who are not in covenant are intitled to the feal (as they call it) for admiflTion ; and Mafter Bbf^es cenfure of my ex- ceptions as frivolous trifles (hews his weaknefle in difputcs , there being very little in his arguings or anfwers but flirts, quips , dictates and impertinen- cies. What he addes of my grants difcovers the like vanitv 5 For though I fay that believers , and difciples are to be baptized, not barely on their faith and knowledge, but upon the Command to baptize fuch, yet how it follows which Mr.B/J^e faith, fo that the command is with reference to the Covenant, with reference to the inteteftin the Covenant, is to me ameer inconfequence, un- lefs he imagine the command and Covenant all one, which to aflert were ridi- culous. And who will believe that I attribute as much to the Covenant rc- fpeftive to this feal, when I fay Examen page the feveatieth eight. That the common privilege of Circumcifion belonging to the Jews , did not arife from the Covenant of grace , according to the fubftance of it, but accor- ding to the adminilbation that then was , as Mz&a MarJIuU to the Com- mand, when he faid. The Command was the formal reafon of the Jews being circumcifed. When I do not at all make circumcifion to arife from the Covenant as any reafon of the duty, much lefs the formal reafon of it, but as from the oc- cafion of it, whereas Mafter A/, makes t\m comiMrnd, the very formal reafon of the exiftence of the duty . Seft. (no) S E CT. XXI. Tbe ten Exceptions of thefrft fun of my Review agmfi Piedohptifts expaji^ tion imd aUegjLiion of Aftsi. 58,39. for the connexion bctvieen Covemrcf and fed Arevindicaxei from M^er Blakes 4>!/'wer , Vindic. Foederis, ch. 37.43. MR. BlA^e addes fome fnatches againft my ten exceptions to Psedobap- tifts expofition of Acxs z. 38, 59. To the firft which was, that the pro- mii'e is no: proved to be that Genefis 17. 7. and A^s 3.25. Acfs z, 30. lead us to Tome othei- , he faith, when a promife is raemioned and a feal, any man bat he will prefently under ftand that promife , which is ratified by fuch a Seal. To which I reply. Where is there mention of a feal r or of a promile fea- led or to be fealed as he fpeaks .' If there were , is there no other promife to be ratified by fuch a Seal but that t Did circumcifion feal no other promife but that r" Doth the Scripture give the leaft hint of fealing that promife. Gnu 17.7. underftood as P^dobaptiib expound itj that God would be a God to every believer, and to his feed , in refpeft at leaft of vifible Church-member- fhip, yea though he be a believer onely by profeflion ? They ufe to tell us that Circumcifion leals the righteoufnefs of faith,from Rom. 4.11. But to feal this and to feal the promife, Gen. 17.7. (as Pxdobaptiiis do rack rather than ex- pound the words) are as much different as are the payment of Gold, and lead. Have jiot Icamedmen expounded the promife/ome of that mentioned, ver. 3 8. of the gift of the holy Ghoft, fome of other promifes ^ why then doth Matter Blah^e to ineptly intimate me to be lingular in my conceit / why doth he lo ' falfely infmuatc that no more than barewords can be found for my expofitron i when I bring two texts to confirm it, and Mv.Bl. faith not a word to infirm my alleging them P what he refers me to in his 3 7. ch. and Mx.Ccbbct (hall be exa- mined in its. place. To the fecond , which was that [the promife is Jcfs 2. 39] is expounded, 1 . of a promife of a thing to come, whereas it may feem rather from A^s 1 3 . 3 1, 3 3 . to be meant of a promife already fulfilled, 2. That the thing to come promifed was fome outward privilege to be con- ferred on them and their children. Mr. Bki^c faith, yet he quotes no man for this expofition of a thing to come, but on the contrary quotes Mr. Cobbet in the margin agairft it. It is meant of a pvefent rightj for as yet they were not broken off from the oiivc, no: Gentiles graffed in. Anfw. I. That Pajdobaptii^s do underftand the words Acfs 2. 39. of a promife of fome thing to come appears , i, in that many of them make it the fame with this, I will be a God to a believer, and his feed. 5o Matter A/^r/tjJ/ Defence page 1 26. Mr. Drerv ubifuprUy M:. Blake out of Cahiin, Vindic.fa:derisip2gt z'/o, and others. Now a promife that he will be a God to them is a promife of a thing to ccme. z. Jn that they difclaim the fupjlement fuppkment [Is fulfilled^ as Mr"." Cohbct Ju^.^indicpm i. cli.i. TeA.j. and u- fuaily, ttBe^iiih&EnglijhVireStory, Mr.B/^^e and others expound ic, the promifc is made , which pi-oves it is, according to them , meant of fomerhing JO comCi not ot a thing paft, for if it were icfliould be a promife fulfilled.Mr. Cebbet, it is true, faitb> the promiic in prafenti is to you in relped of external right ; but then he muft needs mean it , that the promire was in prxfemi made of external right to cpmejor eUVhe mull mcanic of a promife fulfilled, which lie denies. And for the othef » that Pxdobaptlils do expound it of outward privilege to be conferred on them, and their children , befides "Mx.Cobbets words cited? and other in the fame fcdion j fAf:. Hid[on yindic. pgz zi^. faith, This promife A3s 1.39. is that external covenant to which baptiim doth belong , and the Ajbford Difputants tor Infants-bapdfm, grant, That the promife of the eternal inheritance, life and falvation is not made, much lefs made good to any upon teems of the parents faith, but upon our own perfonal belief, and obedience, but the piomile of outvyard privileges, and of right to participati- on of Ordinances as to be bap-uzd, and inchurcht, this belongs to children - upon their parents faith, and in this laft fenfe it is, that Pcf(?r faies the piomifc is to you and your children, &c. i. e. you and youi's have the privilege of right to baptifm. To my third exception, that [to you] is taken, as- if it were meant of thofe perfons to whom he fpake , as then believers, and under that formal condder- ation, Mr. BUk^ Laith, I do not interprete it of any prefent explicit £aith in Chrift as the Meffiah j but now this conviftion , that fo evidently appeared , did evidence them to be in an hopeful way,3nd with that Scribe not to be tar from the Kingdom of God, and therefore he takes liis opportunity, and pref- feth it on to come into the way of believers in Chriil Jaus. Anfw. This grant is fufficient, firft, tojuilify my exception, fccondly, to overthrow Mr. Blai{eSi and other Paedobaptifls inference from this text , I . That in this text the Covenant in New Teliair.€nt times is held cut in this latitude to believers and their feed, Vindk.jxl.cha^.n. For if they i ad not any prefent, explicit faith in Chriil as the Mej}iah, then they were no: bc- licveis. z. That this fpeech [the promife is to you, and to your children] is equi- pollent to this promife [I will be a God to beliipvei-s and their feed] for if they were not then believers, it had been falfe if the Apoitle had faid as they would have him, the promife that Goi will be a God to believers and their feed , is inprixfenti to you and your children, when they were not believers. Tomy fourth Exceprion, that [your children ] is expounded of their in- fant-children i yea it is carried as if of them onely, he faith, to this is fuf- ficient fpoken, ch.37. I (hall therefore look back to that chapter , page z/o. he faith, A.7-f 1. 39. an etfedual call canno: be meant (which the Apollle calls a call according to pai-p::'e) proper onely to the ele(5t, fothe vilible feal would be limitted to inviSble me.nbers. But this is no: true, for then the being of the promife would be limi::ei to ;hem, not bsptifm. It is falfe which MUte: B/iJ^e fuppjfe:h , that baptifm is limitted to ihem to whom the p/omife is, and that the being of the promife to a perfon in- ti:les to his bap:ifm.Hv Laithj it is a call unto fuch 3 Church-ibte as the whole (Hi) tion of the Jews did thga enjoy as the firft-bofn in the family . To which I repl/j The whole Nation of the Jews enjoyed a Church-ftate , by which they were joyned in one national fociety under an high Prieft, and ocher Prieft . offering facrifice 4 at the Temple, whither the Church-members were to bring their gifts, and to obfervethe Levitical rites. It is a dotage with a witnefs to conceive that Peter meant y43j 2. 39, that the^promifc was to them or thofe afar off, whom Godfhould call to this Church-ftatc. It is certain that the calling of the Jewes and Gentiles, by tlie Gofpel was to remove them out of that fociety, and Church-ftate, as appears by v. 40. nor did th^ Apoftles ever affociate the Chriftians to the Jews as Profelytes to them , nor did they ever draw them into any fuch Church-ftate, as the Jews had to take in a whole Nation, City, or Family, comprehending Infants into the Chriftian church, but onely fo many as believed as v. 41 . 41, &c. fliew : yea to call them to fuch aChurch-ftate as the Jewes had,had been to call them not to baptifm,but to ci cumcifion and the obfervation of i\/o/ej Law, The call of God, jcfs z. 3 9. is no other then what is mentioned in the new Teitament to be Saints, to his Kingdom and Glory, to tlic fellowfliip of his fonne by his word and fpi- rit, or one of them at Icaft, yea the prOmile being meant of Chrift , which Matter BU{c doth not deny, as will appear in that which followes , it can be expounded onely of thofe that are effe^lually called , (ith to them onely Chrill belongs: on the other fide to underftand it of a call unto fuch a Church- ftate as the whole nation of the Jewes did then enjoy, is to limit the piomiCe to Jewifli profelytes, or to national Chriftian Churches, which is a wild con- ceit, unfit for a ferious and fober Divine. But Mafter Blake goeth on from wheaee thi« Argument may be drawn, thofe to whom the Covenant of Pro- raife appertains have a right to baptifm. But the Covenant of Promife apper- tains to men in a Church-ftate and Condition and to their Children. The Major cannot be denied by any that will not make themfelves the Apoftles op- pofites. The Minor propofition is now onely to beconfidered, that the Cove- nant of promife to men in a Church-ftate and Condition is in that latitude as to compri2>.> their Children, Por which the words of the Apoftle are full and clear. To you is the promife made, and to your Cliildrcn, on which CitZv/n rightly comments. Peter obferves (faith he)a due order when he aflignes the firft place of honour to the Jewcs^ that it takes in Children, it depends on the word of promife Gen. ij. 7. I will be thy God and the Gc^d of thy feed, where God joynes children with their parents in the piiviledge of Adopnon, where Adoption is taken in the Apoftles fenfe, Rom. 9. 5. to the inheritance of pri- vileges belonging to all Church-members, as he after explains himfelf. Anf. The Mujor is ambiguous, and in fome feiif • it is true, and in fome fenfcfalfe. It is true in this fenfe, Thofe to whoir .:. Covenant of Promife by their beleiving, and Covenanting to be Chrifts D' ip'cs, appcrtain3,r!ave a light to baptifoi. But in this fenfe (in which Mailer Bialie fcems to undeiftand it, for he comprehends Infants in the Covenant ) Thofe to whom the Cove- nant of Promife by Gods A&s of Promife, whether of faving Grace or Church- pdvilegcs, appertains without their perfonal believing or covenanting, have a right to baptifm, it is falfe. Nor is the Contradictory thereto oppcfit to any thing the Apoftle faith, who doth indeed exhort to repentance and baptifmjbut doth not from the promife without each p:rfoRS repentance afciibe a right to b.ip- (113) baptifiu to any parent oi' child, the promife is not urged by him lo declare a right to baptiini of it felf without repentance, but to encourage to repentance and baptifm into vht Name of Chrift as thtir duty. The Minor alfo is ambigu- ous, it being uncertain what he means by the Covenant of Promife, whether theCovcnant whereby the perfons promife tcGcd, or God to rhem^and if of this iattcr,whetherthe Covenant whereinGod promifcth to thcm^be of feving-graces, or ofChurch-priviledgesjifhe mean it of the formerjSc underiland it univerfally, it is manifeftly falfccontrary to Scripture and cxpcriencci whether tlie Church- (tate be in refpcft of the vifible or inviliblc Church, there is no fuch promife of G;>i jtliat if tne Parent be in a Church-ftate or condition, fo as to be cleft, or true bcleiverjmUch lefs if he be onely in the vifible Church, that his child,as his childjfhall be in the Covenant of faving grace, have Chrift,his Spirit,remiffion of finsjand lire everlaiting by him.Nor is it true of the promife of Church-privi- ledgesjthat God will take the child of him who is in a Church-ilate and condi- tion for a vifible Church-membcrjCapable of the initial feat, (becaufc he is hJs child) without the childs perfonal faith and repentance. Nor do I know of any Covenant of Promife now under theGofpelof fuch outwardChurch-pavilcdges, but take it to be a faftion of Pxdobaptiftsjnor is there in theApoftlcs words any thing to prove the Afznor.For neither doth the text fay,the promife is that. Gen. i7.7.nor that it is madcjbut onely [is]nor doth iay, it is to you as in a Church- ftate and condition, and to your children as the children of men in a Church- i^ate and condition. And for Cdvins words neither are they plain for Mr. BU. puipofc.nor if they were,{l]ould I take them for an oracle,b.ut rtioiild expeft better pioofthen his or Matter 5/j- fayings.As for tlie Adoption, K(J»z. 9. 5, it is clear {torn the text,and confefled by Mafler Kutherford^Y^wt right of Presbytery ch. 4. Seft. 4. pag. 192. to have been a prerogative of the J ewes, as was the giving of the LaWjthe defcent cf Chrift, &c. and therefore it is untruly fuggefted by Mafter Bli;^e to be an inheritance of priviledges belonging to all Church-mem- bers, or that the Apoftle doth after fo explain himfdfi and Mafter BUke continues his want of diftating without proofe. He next takes on him toan- fwer objedions. One is, that the children are the fame with fons and daughter mentioned, v. 17. from Joel i. 28. and confequently the prc;nife is of the fpi- lit of prophecy, and appertaining to none but thofe of age and capacity for pro- phecy. To which heanfwers,!. That tie promife cannot be that extraordinary oift of the Holy Gholt in that vifibic way, becaufe it is enlarged to all thc'Lord fhallcall: but all thefc have not the HolyGhoft in that extraordinary way, nor ary promife of it. I confefs, this anfwer is good againft chofc that expound the words thus, the promife of the gif: of p;ophecy, ^odi. 28. is to you and your children, and to all afar oft", as the fubjefts to whom this gift is proraifedj tor then it would not be true, fith all had not that gift, 1 Cor, iz. 28. yet it may be true in this fenfc. The promife of the gift of the Spirit in that vifible way, is fulfilled to you and your children, and all afar off called by God, as the p:;rfons who had benefit by it, and fo were the F/Vi/j a«/ of thofe gifts pro- mifed as having the benefit of them, though not the fubjefts in whom they were. i. Saith Mafter BUhyC, Iiowever the promife be extended , yet that promife is on condition of their baptilm, and is an encouragement to baptifm, and in that latitude as they had formerly known the command of ciicumciii-' on. To which I fay>i.lf the promife be intej prcted fo as to belong to all ohat arc Q b.. ''eleiversjand call on the Name of the Lord, as here followes, then the promifc is to the eleft onely, and the call into the vifible Church, which Mafter BlaffC before denied . z . Though extraordinary gifts were given after baptifm often, yet they were given alfo before, ^3 J" lo. 44, &c. and therefore I doubt it is not true which Mafter B/^/^c faith, that promife of extraordinary gifts is on condition of their baptifm, nor doth the text aflert it . 3 , As the promife is an encouragement to baptifm, fo it is to repentance, which is firft required afore baptifm by the Apoftle . 4 . There is not a word in the text. Acts 2. 38, 39. wliich yields a proofe of any of thofe pofitions which Mafter B/. fo importunely obtrudes, i.That baptifm is there urged as a fign and feal of the promife . z . That they were encouraged to baptifm in that la- titude as tiicy had formerly known the command of Circumcifion . 3 , That the Scripture delivereth, and the Apoftle r.rgeth the promife as to men and their pofterity, to them and theirs, fo as that God promifeth to be a God in Covenant to his and their i'eed. 4. That the Apoftle holds this out to draw them on to this feal of the Covenant, to accept baptifm on the fame terms that Abraham did circumcifion. But Maiter Blafie his chiefeft oppoGtion about this text is againft me, and therefore he bends himfelf againft the fourth Seftion of my Excrcit. And firrt. he excepts againft my words, that the promife made (which reading I then followed, but fince like rather the fupplement [fulfilled] is the fending of Je- • fus Chrift and blefling by him, as is expounded, Acis 3, 15, 26. Acis 13. 31. Rom. 15. 8, 9. Thus I anfwcr, it is true that Jefus Chrift is the moft t'minent mercy promifed, and may be called the promifc virtudUcr^ being the ground of all promifcs, and therefore fome Interpreters have mentioned the gift of Chrift on this occafion. But it is plain that Gods Covenant and this gift are to be diftinguillied j Chriit is promifed in priority to the Jew, before the Gentile j The Jew then is taken into Covenant before this gift of Chrift can be of them expeded : It is therefore the covenant it felf (entred with pa- rent and child, root and branch] that is here meant, as Calvin in the words be- fore obferves , from which the giving of Chrift in the flcfli followes . And ,therefore Diodati fully pitches upon the true fenfe of it, feeing as you are Abra- hiims children, you are within the Covenant, you ought to acknowledge Chrift to be the head and foundation of the covenant. The covenant I will be thy God and the God of thy feed is here meant, which from Abrnbam had been the Jewes piiviledge,Ko»i.9. To which I reply. If Chri(^ may be called the promife virtually, then it is no obfcuring the text, to int>erpret the being of the promife to them of the fend- ing of Jefus Chrift and bkiTing by him, nor d9th this hinder the diftinguifh- ing of Gods covenant and this gift, or the promjfing of Chrift to the Jew be- fore the Gentile, or the Jewes taking into covenant before this gift of^Chrift can be expededof them, or that the giving of Chrift in the ilefh followed the covenant it felf entered with parent and child, root and branch, meaning Ahrn- /.'^r/z and his feed, as the Ap^ftl^j G;i/. 3. 16, undcrftands it; and therefore in , all this there is nothing brought by Matter Bldl{_c, which makes void my inter- pretation^ but confirms it rather. But for fuch a covenant as Mafter Blafie ima- gines of Gods being God to every believer and his infant child, in refpe^ of Church-memberiliip in the Church vifible of ChriftianSj and other outward V Church- Church-pi-iviledgss, I find no Word in all the Saiptme. And for P foi^zri his words, if he fo meant what he fpeaks of their beingjn covenant, bccaufe they YiQ^t JbrAhums chlUixn by natural defccnt, he anlwered from the fenfe of the placej but Mafter Bb^e hath more to fay to me. I had faiti, the limitation, as many as the Lord our God fliall call, fliewes that the promife belongs to them, not fimply asjevves, but as called of pod, which is more exprcUy affirmed, ^r?x 3. i6. To this Mafter B/j/{e anCvvers, I wander how it came into Mafter T. his head to call this application a limi- tations it plainly enough' fpeaks his boldnefs in dealing with the Scriptures i had the Apoftle faid, to you is the promife made, and to your feed, in caie God (hall giVe you a call, he had fpoke to Malter T. his purpofe: but faying, to you and to as manr as the Lord your God (hall call, it plainly ftiewes that he docs not limit, but amplifie the mercy, extending it not barely to the Jewes (who in prdent by reafon of fruition of ordinances were a people near to the Lord, Pfxl. 148. 14' but alfo to the Gentiles, who, £pfee/. 2. 17 • were afarre To which I reply, A limitation of a propofition is the determining of it according to what the predicate agrees to the fubjeft , or doth not agree, as Kecfierm°irji. Log. I z. feft. i. c. 4. And thus do the words [as many as the Lord (not as Matter BUtie, your, but) our God (hall call] limit the copu- lative propofition [the promife is to you and to your children, and to all that are afar off] determining to which of each of thefe, and in what refped the promife is to them. And to take away Mafter B/j^ex wonderment (the fruic of ignorance, and often of folly) which he and his brother Buxccr do ohen ex- prefs about me, that they may defcribc me as fome ftrange example of Gods jud^^men: in biafting my intelleftuals, I will tell him how it came into my head to call thole words a limitation of the propofition. Firft, the placing of the words at the end of the propofition, did give me occafion to take them for a limitation. Secondly, the term g^^; as many as] is a limitting term, appro- p -iatinc^ the thing faid to thofe fubjeds forenamed , who were fo qualified as to be called by the Lord. Thirdly, (which was the prime inducement; I conceived the fp'cch of Peter had not been true without that limitation, And this I long fmcet'old Mafter A/, in my Exam, part. g. S cd. 6. pag. 60. If the pro- mife be of faving graces, if of Chrift fent, it of the outward ordinances of baptVm, &c. if "of the Holy Ghoft in extraordinary gifts, it is none of thefe waves true without that limitation. For neither pod promiled faving gra- ces,'nor outward ordinances, nor extraordinary gifts, , nor lent Chrift to them, their children, or all that are afar oft" without calling them, and every of'them '. And but that Mafter Bis. Mafter By. and fuch like wonderers heedlefnefs and peeviflinefs are no ftrange thing to me,I fhould vvonda" that Ma- fter B^-t'-e (hould no better heed my words in my Examen , nor Vioiau his vfords ''who,he faitb,fully pitches upon the true fenfc of it) which in fiisAnnot. onA^s. I. 39. are thefe, (hall call, namely by his Gofpel.So he doth rcftrain th" rrr/''/ifei- to whom the promifes are direded onely -to thofe, who by GoJs eift b-lieve in Chrift j fee ilriw. c, 8 . Gd. 4. 28. which had Mafter B/^e fai-hfully fct down iftfteadcf fome other wor.:'.^ I find in him, his Reader might haye'diicerned how falfe it is, that the promife is to an infant child of a bclievtr, Qji ?S (ll6) 5S his chili, without caHiogJ and have difccrned tViat it is not my device onely , but that which others before me apprehended, and fo no more boldnefs in my dealino with the Scriptures then was meet, an d the Apoilles woids to have this plain fcnfcj the promife is to you, being called of Godj and toyourchildrenj being called of God, and to all afar oft", btin^ called of Godj and to no other. And to requite Maitcr BUic, I may more truly fay, It's a wonder how it came into Mailer BUi{cs liead to call this limitation an amplification . For tiiough the words [to all that are afar off] contain an amplification of the mercy ei- ther to the poftcrity of tliejcwes, ortathofe in thedifperfion, or to the Gen- tiles (of which I will not now difpute) yet the words [as many as the lord our God fliall call] area plain limitation of his fpeech, as I have proved. But Mailer BUi^e addes of mc , i. In that he faitii , this piomiie belongs to them not fimply as Jewes, but as called, is a full contradiftion j A Jew un- called (' at this time before the Kingdome was taken from them) is as much as a convert unconverted, or a Gentile difciple undifcipled : In cafe he think to come off by limiting it to an effeduall call, the Scripture by himfelf quoted doth evidently contradift itj Cliriftcameto give them that efteduall calling, and not onely to thofe that were thus called. Anf. Mailer B/u/i« charge of contradifticns is as frivolous as his wonder- ment. Mailer BU^ies conceit of a calling into fuch a Church-ilate , as the whole nation of the Jewes did then enjoy, is birt a dream of his own, for which he hath not one Scriprure nor other proofe. The calling is to communion with Chrift, and an effeduall calling, elfe the propolltion were not true 5 nor is there any contradi-flion in any of the places by me quoted, to this cxpofition, the promife of Chrift is fulfilled for the remifllon of your fins, and )'our chil- drens, and all that are afar off, as many as the Lord our God ihall effeftually call, and no otiieii nor hath Mailer BUlie (hewed any. For though Chi-ilt came to give effeftual calling, yet it is true aHb, he came to give remijlion onely to tliofe that were thus calledj nor is there any oppofitionj much lefs contradidion in thofe fp:eches. Mifter .B/:Z^f goes on. Heyetfaid, Teter doth exhort to repentance and- bapcifm together, and in the firft place perfwades to repentance, then to bap- tifm, which ftiewes repentance to be in order before baptifm. To which he an- fweis, not by denying it, but by giving a reafon of it, becaufe they had cru- cified Chrift, &c. To which I reply, this grant ihewes that t-hey Iiad not right to bap'-ifm without repentance, though the promife were to them, they were in the Church-ftate of the Jewes, &c. and confequently Mafter BUi^a propofition falfe. Thofe to whom the Covenant of promife jippertains (in his fenfe) have a right to baptifm. What he addes, And yet he fl.ewes that they and their feed are under the piom.ife of God, and puts them into a way in accep- tation of Chiill in the Gofpel-tender ,in his p;efentv/ay of adminiftrationj to be continued his people flill in Covenant, and that (as is plainly enough fignified) that they might enjoy it in their former latitude to tlieni and to their childrenjchat the Jewes (even thofe that had not yet embraced Ghriil)were not yet difpolleft of the promife,but ftood as a people of God in vifible covenant,and their children, in the fenfe in wliich Muftv;r BUlic means is falfej and yet were it true, it is againft Mafter BLikcs propofition, fith notwichftanding this be- in gin coyenantjyet were they not admifed or to be admitted to baptifm without rcpen- rq):ntance. He addesj Mafter T. hath yet this cva(ion:and faith, the text fpealts not exprefly of infants, but of children indefinitely j and if infants be not chil- dren, we will be content that they be caft out of covenant, and will holdnd plea for their Chuich-niemberfliip and baptifm. Anf. As infants are children, foare men and women of twenty, or more years olJ, and therefore the term (children) unlefs it be proved to be taken u- niverfally or particularly of infants, the Covenant-flatc(as they call it) though we fliould grant fuch an cftate there meant,would not be thence concluded. And yet infants were to be circumcifed not fimply bccaufe they were Abrahams feed, nor becaufein Covenant, but by reafonof Gods command. And though a woman and difciple be not Symnyma, yet women being numbred among dilci- ples, it is an expi-efs example of womens coming together to break bread, which mentions the difciples breaking bread j nor was I at all put to it , much lefs hard put to it, when this came infer ananfwtr. For without this an anfuet was given before to the Argument, and this was added as an over-plus, and fo was that which Mafter BUl^emhh\zs at in that which foUotves. I had faid the textfpeaks not of the children of the Gentiles at all, (of whom we are) but of the children cf the JewSi and therefore if that promife be cx^ tended to infants, which do:h not appear, the promife is to be expounded fo as to note fome thing peculiar to the Jewes infants. To this Maiter £7j/{c:hus faith, If the Gofpei held out any fuch tranfcending priviledges appertaining to the feed of the Jewes abovf the Gentiles, Maiter r. may whicn he thus attempts. And when the Apoftle addes, to thofe rhat are afar off, even as manyas the Lord {hall call, he plainly means the Gentiles, as appears, comparing E^hcf. 2^ And though I take not the boldnefs to adde to the words, and to their children, as Mafter r. challenges Dcftor H. yet it is clear, that the fame is underftocd there in reference to the children of the Gentiles, that is expreft before to the children of the Jewes. If any fnall grant an inheritance to Tilius and his heirs forever, and to Ciiiia, erery one will underi^and that the heirs of CaussYS meant as well as the heirs of Thii:^, efpeciallyif it can be proved out of the grant it felf, that the priviledge conveyed to Ciiui, is as ample as that to Titi- v.\ We can prove the priviledges granted to the Gentiles in the Gpfpcl tobee- t^ual to thofe granted to the Jewes 3 when the Jewes children arc unaer the pro- mife with tlieir Parents, the children of believing Gentiles cannot be exclu-- ded. To which I reply, that it appeared not plainly to Bcyt^Annot. in locum, that by thofe afar off, A6ts 2.59. are meant the Gentilesy but rather the pofterity of the Jewes, which fnould be in after Generations, or thofe in the difperiions amon. (1 1 8) among the Gentiles. 'Fol- it feemes unlikely that Vetcf did then confider or de- clare The calling of the Gentiles, who was fo averfe from preaching to Corndi- us,jns lo. or that it would have been born with them, when even the bre- thren expoftulated with him for that faft, A^s. -i i. j. nor do I think ^^fi lohuiiidK^AP^^S' i- 39. ^he fame with a^^OT.i'^y'|g,.^jt^j^yEpfce/: 2. 1 J . this latter noting manifeftly temotenefs from God in rei'peft of knowledge and communion, the former remoteneCs from them to whom he fpake, either in defccnt or diftance of place. However were it reiolved that the Genlfles are meant,.^cfj-. z. 59. as many Interpreters conceive^ yet it is too much bold- nefs to adde to the text [and to their children] and riot much lefs in Mafter Bl, that it is undevftooi, when there is neither word in the text, nor defeft of fenfe without it,nor any ancient copy,which necellnate that addition or fupplement. And for Mafter BUfies cafe in law, it is not cppofite. For, yicfs z. 59. there is no mention of a grant to them and their heirs for evcr,but onlya promifc to them - and their children,which there is no nece(rity,nor I think intention in Peter in thofe words to extend to any other then were then cxiitent. But if it were oppoGte, yet fo far as I know their mindes, either by fuch experience in law- cafes, or converfe with Lawyers, (with whom I fometimes lived) I prefume they would fay otherwife then Mafter B/^/je, that a grant of an inheritance to TifWJ and his heivs for ever,' and to C'^wx, without mentioning his heirs, is not a grant to the heirs of Caiiis, no not though it could be proved the privi- ledge conveyed to Cuius is as ample as that to Tunis . As for what Mafter bUI[C tells us, he and others can prove of the priviledgcs of-the Gentiles granted in the Gofpel equal to the Jewes, I yield it, if meant of believing Jewes and Gen- tiles, andfaving fpititual bleflings in Chrift, according to that, Epibe/". g. 6. But meant (as Mafter Blatie would have i:) of vifible Church-mcmberftiip, and the in'tial feal, I take it to he a vain brag, neither he nor any other having yet proved it, or that the Jewes or Gentiles children are or were univerfally under the pronifeol the Covenant of Grace, which is Evangelical, with their be- lieving Parents, and by reafon of their faith, I know no more about ^ci- 2. 58, 59. in that ch. to be anfwered. I return to his anfwerto my exceptions ch. 45. pag. 59J. he thus didates after his falTiion, Children as theirs whe- ther they be called or no, is (he kncwcs with us) a contradidion j children are called in their Parents call, and we fay they are in covenant, the promife is made to them, they are viliblc Church-members till they rejeft the covenant, and deny their memberfhip. To which I fay, Iknowm.any things to be taken for truths and contra- dictions with Psdobaptii^s, which were neither truths, . nor contradidions : but this concdt that [Jewes children uncallei^as calling is meant. Acts z. 39.] is a contra.iidion. I had not fo mean an opinion of M^ikcv bUl^cs and other P.'sdobaptifts intelkduals, as to imagine they would own it, till Mafter Elafie vented this fcppery, which how vain it is was fhevved above. In like manner I was fecu'e of ever meeting with fuch a foolery as this of Msfter £/ti/{c , chil- dren are called in their Parents call, till I read the like in his brctha- Baxccts vain- mcckritlcd-bock plain Sciipt. proof, &c. ch. 5. that le that convcrtcth the Parent, maketh both him and his inf;mts difciples: to which I have fsid fomcwhat in my Review, part. z. fed. iz. And for the other fpeech that they are in covenant, the promifc is made to them, they are vihble Church-menTbcrs . • till (119) till they rejcft the Covenant, and deny their member/hip^ it contains fundry inconfiftencies with P3edobaptifts hypothefes. For firlt, thi^ fay, the children of believers are in covenant, and vilSble Church-members as theirsj children as theirs, whether they be called or no is (he knc^^'es with us_) a ccn- tradiftion,faith Mafter BUke here. If fo, then they are in( Jeenant, ana vifible Church-members while theirS;«^/ and difcover to us the pron-fenfe of words ufed otherwife tlien their fignification is. MiSta BUliC himfelf in the 4:;. ch. fed:. 2. refers me to the Diftionary about the word P^x. To my eighth exception that there is not a word of any fcruple in the text, as fome have imagined, if wc be baptized our felves, and not our children, they will be in worfe cafe then in the foimer difpenfation, in which tiiey had the feal of the covenants nor is it likely that they were follicitous aboat fuch an imaginary poor priviled^c of their children. He faith, I am of his minde, that there was no fuch fcruple in their heads. Mafter T. his unhappy conceit of calling the feed out of the Cove- nant was not then in being, though I think the reafon he gives is little to pur- pofe, yet I lay, this fcruple raifed by Anti-p3edGbaptiH:Sj and heightened by Matter T. as in many other, fo in this text is removed. Anf. My exception then ftands good a jainft thofe who make tfeat fcruple the occafion of Peters mentioning their children. And for my reafon. Matter Blalie had done better to give a reafon of his cenfure, then barely to fay he thinks it to little purpofe. It is liis calumny that I have any conceit of catting the feed out of tlie covenant, and his conceit that the fcruple mentioned is in this text removed, hath been lliewed to be but his dream. My ninth exception was that P.rdobaptifts make [for v. 39. ] to infer a ri^ht to baptifm,whercas it infers oncly a duty, which is proved in that [v.:; 8. baptized] is in the Iraperathe Mood. To this faith Mafter BUkc, Maftor T*. doesgroflelyabufe his judgment in this way of refutation, as though the right in which they flood, could be no Topick,from which in a moral way the Apo- ftle might perfwade them to baptifni; when Shccanin}) perfwaded E\rx to the reformation of the marriage of fl:rangc wives in thcfc words; Ai'ife, for the matter belongeth tothee, S'^r^io. 4. here was a motive in the moral w.^.y to call upon him to do it, and an argument inferred, that it lay upon E\ra as a duty by command fiom God to fet upon it. And to my reafon he faith, he hatli quite forgotten, that the words holding out tlieir right are in the Inii- cdUveMood. For theprcmifeis to you and your children. And here is a no- table corredion of the Apoftle, he fliould have faid, if this had been his mean- ing, you mull b^ baptized i and he faicSjArife, and be baptized. Anf. Sure I am Matter BUI^e dotli mott groflely abufe me, in infinuating as If by my refutation, the right in which they flood could be no Tcpick, fiom which in a moral way the Apoflle might perfwadc them to baprifm, when I proved that the Apoflle did not from v. 59. infer a right to baptifm, which in a legal way they mij,ht claim, but a duty, to which in a moral way he per- fwades. And therefore he ihootes wide from the mark, when he goes about to .prove that aright may be a moriveina moral way to a duty. And yet as if he could write nothing to the point, his own allegation, E^ra 10. 4. is not to his own purpofe, the motive as himulf alledgeth, it being not a right to a privi- Icd^e, IcgC; but a command from God. The like roving talk is in his anfvverto my reafon. For whereas I alleged thatverfejS. a ri^ht is not inferred from vcrfc 90. but a duty, becaufe [be baptized, v. j8.] is not in the Indie At ivc, but the Imperative Mood^tds me the term [is v. 59.] is in the Indicative Mood^ which is nothing to my objedion, but like as in the contention between two deaf men in Sir Thomas ^orcj tpigram, he that was charged with theft anfwered, his mother was at home. The like random talk is in his infinuation of my no- table correction of the Apoftle, who correded not the Apoflle, but (hewed the rxdobaptiils conceit incongruous to the Apoftles words i He himfell feems (1 think out of heedlcfnels) tocorreft the Apoftle, when he Ipjaks thus. And he laies, Arife and be baptized, which are not Feters words,^^j. z. j 8. but the Yiorisoi Annniyj toiml, yiiis. it. 16. My tenth exception was, ufually Pxdobaptifts in their para phrafes put not in any thing to anfwer [repent, v. 38.] which is true, though Malter Stephens be alleged in my fixth txctption, as paiaphrafing it by covenant , for your fcives and your chiLiren, Malter i/d^e grants the Apoitle prtfleth to a duty, and fuch as was to have repentance precedent in his then hearers : If fo, then he doth not infer a right to bapeifm barely from their inteieft in the ptomife. What he faith, right and duty very well Itand together, and that the Apoftle fitly makes ufe ot their intereft a"s a motive, I deny not. It is true, the Apcftle mentioned more to whom the piomife was then, he then perfwaded to repent, for he mentions the promife as pertaining to the abfent, or unborn j but he perfwadcs none to be baptized but the penitent, nor mentions any to whom the promife v^as, but the called of God. To my Argument fi-om the precedency of repentance to baptifm, JSts, 2. ■38 .' againii infant-bapti(m,heanrwers as before, ch. 57. to which I havera- piyed before. As for M'fter Stephens his par&phrafe avowed by Matter Blalie as the Apoftles meaning, that it ihejewes who had crucified Cluift, would receive him as the particular MeJJialy, the fame promife fliould ftiil continue to them and thtir children in the new difpcnfation, it is far from the Apyftle* mindc. For the Apoftle doth not maketlie continuance of the promife as the benefit confequenc on their receiving Chrift, and the receiving of Chrift the condition of continuance of the prorr.iic ; but the being of the p.omife is al- leged as a thing already exiftent, nor is there any likelyhood that the Apoltle Peter would Urge them tofo hard duties as repentance, receiving Chrift bv fo flender a reafon as the continuance of the promife of vifiblcChurcfe-mcmbcrfliip and baptifm to them and theii infant children, yea, the text it (elf ft.cwes that the things by which he would perfwade them to receive Chriit, were the alfu- rance of rcmiffion of lins , and receiving the Gift of the H:;ly Ghoft, and the alleging the promife, v 39 is to take away :he great objcdion againft thefe great benefits from their crucifying of Chiilt, and their irrprecaticn on them and their children, 3f,knj build his word ol command to baptize father and child, on that paraphrafc, he builds on a foundation which will not hold. M-^fter 6/./^c addcs ; To this the word repent refers, as may be made plain. But what he means by this aifertion I do not well undtrftand, it being ambiguous, what he means by [this] whether the paraphrafeof M^ftcr Stephens , that the fame promife llriould liill continue to them and theij: children i» the new difpcnfation, if they would receive Jcfus as , R tk the paitlcufer Mejjkb, or the word of command to baptize father and child^ and in like manner what kind of reference he means, whether as a medium to prove it, or as a motive to it. If he mean the fame with that which his alle- gations feem to tend to, his meaning is, that the promife of vifible Church- Itate, was to the Jewes as they had becn^formerty, if they did receive Chrift, and the term [repent] refers to it as the motive. Now though I grant that the promiie, ^^j. x. 39. is alleged as a motive in a moral way to repentance v. 38. yet I deny fuch a promife to be meant jV. 39. asMr. £/. and My. Stephens fancy. Nor do any oi Mr.Bklies aUegatione prove it. For ABs j.zj. doth not fpeak of fuch a covenant as Mafter Btafie meansy but of that Evangelical co- venant wherein God promifed Chrift and faving bleflings by him. Nor are the Jews there termed children of the Covenant onelyjbut alio ot the Prophets.Now the PropheiS there are the fame with all the Prophets, v. 14. and thofc Jewcs to whom, Peter fpake, were no othcrwife their children, then in tliat they had been raifed up of, and fent to that nation in their predeceiTors times, and tliey are in like manner called children of the Covenant, bccaufe they were the poftcrit^ of thofe anceftors, fpecially Abrakam}Xo whom that Covenant was made. But this doth not prove that they were then Gods vifible people, that the Covenant of vifible Church-ftate did belong to them and their children, or that fuch a covenant is meant, Af?J" a. 39. What Mafter Blaf^e allegeth from Mattb. 8. ix, Mtuth. zi, 4^. that they were in danger to be caftcff, doth prove rather the contrary, thet the nation or body of the Jewilh people who had reje^edChrift, were not in covenant With Godi and although thofe particular perfons, ABs x, 37. to whom F«£r fpake, V. 38, 39. were more awakened then others, yet they could not be then (aid to be in the covenant of vifible Church-ftate , being not then believers in Chrift. What Mafter BUi^e allegeth and infers frqm Matth. 21. 31, 31. Lai^e 7, 29, 30. laflentto, but know not what it makes for his purpofe. Yea, me thinks his calling baptifm to which Peter exhorted, en- trance into a new covenant-way, crofleth Maiter i"(e/>^f/Jj- paraphrafe of con- tmuing the fame promife to them and their children. In his third allegation hemifrtports me,asif lexcluded all confideration of right in the Jewes and their children from thof* words which are, A8s 2.39. Whereas that which I faid was thisjthat from the promifc,y4^j- 1.39. (whatever right beimportcd by it) Faer doth not infer theu- being baptized as a right or privilege,accruing to them in manner of a legal title and claim,but as a duty to which he perfwades in a moral way. What good interpretationi give of thofewords,v.39.fuitabletoFeffry exhonaticnji have fetdown,Exam.pag.6i.Revicw.part.i.pag.4i.andclfewhere Mafter S/.?^e,if he could, flrouldhave overthrownit. Mafter Cei?kr J exception is anfwercd in the next fcftion.Mr.£/.hath been oft told that the children are mea-* lioned AUs 2. 39,becaufe of the imprecation , Matth. 27. 25. That the words, A^J" 2.58,39.are carried in that way,that intcreft inCovenant and Covenant- - Seals in Mr.£/^ fenfe formerly ran,is fuppofed.but not proved by him. That the Jews yet perfifting in their adherence to Aiojesy not embracing; Chrift, fhould be in covenant and have thereby a right to baptiLnjis fuch a.dotage as me thinks Mafter Bla^ie ftiould difclaim. That the words of the text, A^s 2. 39. hold out fuch a covcnant-rjghr, as Mafter ^/i^eimagini, in Scripture-language, according to the gi and charter of heaven, I will be thy God and the God of thy feed, is faid^but not proved by Maft€r£A/^e. Whether my exceptions againft the f"3) the Pxdobaptifts ctpoGtion of AHs i. 58, jp, or Matter BUkes anfvrers are frivolous ftiifts ths intelligent Reader will perceive. My Antipaedcbapt/im is cnonp,h to idaizM'i^ZT John Goodvins charge, and my cenfurc of his inter- pretations others have made good. As for the text Malbr Bldf^e mindes mc of, ffotgS. X. it may appear from my writings to be more pertinently applyable tohi[nfelf> then me. Had ever any man (hewed me fomuch confufed fcrib- ling, fo many irrational unproved didates, fo many impertinent allegations in my writings as I and Mailer Blaise have (hewed in his, I would have filenccd my ielf from writing any more, except a retractation of my former bookes. SECT. xxn. jinimidverjionT on ch. i: part. i. of Mailer Thomas Cobbet hujufivindi" cxtion touching the explication 0/ A^s 1. 38, 59. in wbicbhii expofition isfbeiv- cd t9 be vain, arid minejailijied. TWo points the Pzdobaptills do endeavour to confirm from A^s i. ?8,J9. I. That the children of believers are in the Covenant, i. That this being in covenant gives them right to baptifm. This latter point is that wiiich I am yet upon, for which how infufficient that text is hath been (hewed in anfwer to Maft;r B/a^f. My intent was in this place to havefaidno more of this text tilllcarae to examine Matter 3//. x. Concl. But fith Matter BLxlie tets mc Mifter ccft&ff hathj p. zj. feid that which utterly overthrowes my expofition, I ihall examine what he faith, 5^«/ivr>dzc.ch. z.,part. i. Sift. 3. Heargues thus againtt my expofition. Firtt, the promife is to you, that isj fiufilled to you accordingly as made to Abrdham, for fending of Chrift, &c. there wants Scripture-proof, to make this fenfe of the promife, is to you, (i.e.) is fulfilled to you, nor yet doth that in A^s j. 25, 16. ye are the children of the proiniL, &c. p-ove this fenfe. Anf. My fenfe of the words is this. The promife of ralfing up of Chrift is now fulfilled to you, chat is, for your benefit in the remi(rion of your fins and bleffing you, b;ing called of G^i, and in like manner to your chilJecn, and to aU that a-e afar cif , This :o be the fenfe I gather, i. Fiom Scriptures which feem to me to fpiskfuitably thereto. The firft is Peters fp;ech i.i the fame ch. v. 30 ot l2vi.i. Therefore beia^ a Prophet, and knowing that God had fworn with an oath to hiTij tlatof the fruit of his ioynes he would raife up Chrift to fit on his throne , &c. Henc: 1 argue. It i» moft lik.ly that Peterj v. 59. meant a p;omife mentioned before, and known to tntm to whom he ipakc. Not the piOTiife of the miraculous i;ifc of the Hjly Ghoi\, for recljns to be pre- fentlyexpreflld; therefore the pomife mentione^i, .. j d, ji, ?i. The fecond is Alt s I. 18, 19, 2i, 23. 24, ay, 26. whuic.T rgue. Pis n;oft likely that fenfe is beft which hath molt cnnfonancy with tht ipeecbofthe fame Au- thor to the Tame perfons.to the fame purpoi"e,on tb. like occafion. But the words, AHs I. 18, 19) iZ; 23, 24, 25, 26. arefuch, and my lenfeof Acts 2. 38, 39, loath moft confonancy with thofe words. For in tlwt Ipeechbe et« boruio repentance, V, 19. becaufc that wasfuliiil«t which was foretold by Ri the the ProphetSjto wit,Chiift$ refurrcftionjand v. x $. the covenant mentioned i» that of bkfling all the kinreds of the earth in j^bt'ohams fecd,that is.Chiift. And thai this was fulfilled, v. z6, in raifmg up Chrift, and this was firft to them, V) wit, for their benefit, by blefling and converting them : which hath much confonancy with my fenfeof yJ5i i. 38, 39. therefore my fenfe is mcft like- ly. A third is /Ms 1^. jt, 33, &c. which though it were fpokenby ano- ther, to mt,PMU, and to other company, yet by one endued 6y the lame Spirit, to p^rfons in refpift of their nation, and eftatc like, alleging v. 3?. 36, 37. the fame text and almoft in the fame words which Peter ufed, JBs i. 27, 31, 3 2. Now in that place Paul makes the promife to the Fathers to be the railing up of Chrift, and fp^aks of it as to them, in that it was fulfilled, and that for their benefitjthe forgivenefs of fins^v. 38. and thereupon exhorteth to repentance and embracing of Chrift v. 40. Somewhat to like purpofe might be alleged from Row. 15. 8, &c. But this is enough tc (hew that my expofition doth not want Scripture-proof 2. I gather my fenfe thus. The term [k] is in the prefent tenfe. This Mafter Coiia takes notice of when fee faith, that thcAr poftledoth not fay, thep:omife was to you. The propofition muft be under- ftood either as a propoGticn [ccurdi adjcSii, as Logicians (p:ak, the promife is to youjthat is, the promife exiles to youjfo as that the Verb fubftantive (hould note meer exiftence : But this conftru^ion [the promife exiiles or hath exiftence to you] feems to me to be defedive in fenfe or truth. For the promife being a tran- fcunt aft,was not then exiftent. Nor were it true, do I conceive to what pur- pofe he ftiould mention the bare exiftence of the promife, which could be nei«. ther comfort to them, nor motive to the duty he prefled. O^' clfe the piopofi- tion muft be tenii adjecfiy and if fo, there muft be a fupplement either ot the term [made] or the term [fulfilled] For I know no third. But not the term"^ [made] For then the fenfe fhould be [the promife is now made to you, &c -^ ' but this is not true, the promife was not then made to them, but to their fa- thers,^^^ 13. 3 a. therefore the fupplement [fialfiilled] is moft probable,it be- ing the term ufed, /43j- 3. 18. and 13. 33. 3. This expofition of mine feems. to me to be right, becaufe it is oppofite to the Apoftles fcope, which was todi- red ane ered thofe affrighted Jewes to whom he fpake. Now the fenfe that I ' give is very proper to comfort them againft the horrour of their faft in crucify- iogChrift,and wiftiing his blood to be on them and their children,^4n^.27.2f . by telling them as P«frdici,^^j 3. 13, 14, ly, 16, 17, 18. that though they did unwittingly kill Chrift, yet God had thereby fulfilled his promife, e- ven for their good and their children, even as '^ofeph when he told his brethren. Gen. 45. 5. Gen. fo. 19, 20, that though they thought evil againft him, yet Gal meant it unto good,to bring to pafsja5 it is this day to fave much peo- ple alive. And this fenfe is a very fit motive to move them to repent and be baptized in the Name of Chrift for remiflion of fins, by teftifying that the jx'omife offending Chrift was falfilled in the raifing of Chrift from the dead, 4i My expofition is confirmed, becaufe all other expofitions have lefs evidence, ' and are more liable to exceptions. The moft likely expofition after that which I give,feems to be that which expounds the promife to be that of giving the ho- ,iy Ghoft in the miraculous gifts, which is called,v. 33. the promife,L;/^e 24. 49., and was mentioned in the next words before, ./4ffx 2. 38. And of this I coofcfs the fenfe may be good thus unjierftood. The pronufc of giving the ho- ly ly Ghoftj^f/ X. x8. is fulfilled in that which ye fee ind hcarc,/<(?j i. j^. to you J and your children, and all that are afar off, that isj for their benefit, by moving them to own Chrift. But mc thinks if the promife were meant of that giftjit mould be meant thus. The promife is to you, that is, God hath prcmi- led to give to each of you, &c. this gift of the holy Ghoft, becaufe the words immediately before, V. 38. are, and ye (hall receive the gift of the holy Ghoft. But thus the propofition AioulJ not be true; For all afar off who were called cf God, had not that gift, and therefore it was not promifed them. Nor had this fcnfe been fo fit as to comfort them.fith that gift might be given,snd was to p:r- fons whom God rejefted. As for the other expofjtion, tliat the p.omife is, that God will be a God to them and their children, as to Abrabjm and his feed, Ocn, 17. 7. it cannot be the proTiife meant, y^fl? J 1. 39. For, i. there is not the leaft intimation in the text of that promile. i. There was no fuch promife in all the Scripture,that God would be a God to rhofc to whomFffer then fpake, and to their children as theiAhildren, no nor fuch a promife as this, I will be a God. to a believer and his feed. For if this p.-omife were made to the feed of e- very believer,then either Goa keepjs it,or not. If not, then he breaks his wordi if he do, then he is a God to them. But that is not true: For neither in faving graces, norinEcclcfiafticalpriviledges.v.g. Church-memberlliip and bcptifm, is God a God to every one that is the feed or natural child of a believer. Yet if it were irue,it bad been falfe, being fpoken to thofe J ewes, who were not then believeis, nor perhaps many of them evet believers in Chrift. And iris moft falfcjthat theCbriftian Church- memberfliip and baptiim did belong to the Jews as Jews, by vertue of any covenant made with that nation. For then fchn Bsp- tift did ill to expoftuiatc with them for coming to his kz^-Aim^Iat^h^ 3.7. and to diffwade themfrom alleging they had Abrxbim to th^ir father, v. 9. and to tell them of another fort of children oi Abrdhim that had more rigiit to it then they. Yea,^^n the Bsptiftand the Apoftles did ill to require p^rfonai repentance and believing, if they had right to fuch priviiedi;cs by a promife without them. Nor is the promife faid to be to any children, but thofe that are called of God, and therefore not to infants uncalled, and confequently this Scripture is very ill appl/cd to prove federal; holynefs of believers infants. Mailer Ldbbet addes, Secondly, it is fending of Chrift or of Chrift lent. But let it be conlidered, i. That the Apoftle doth not fay, thepromife was to you, as in reference to ther time of making it to the Fathers, with rcfpect unto them, or in reference :o Chrift, who was not now to come, but already come, as the Apoftie proveth- fromv, 3} to 37. Nor is it the ufe of the Scripture, when mentioning promi- fes as fulhUed, to exprefs it thus in the prefent tenfe : the promife is to you, or to fuch and fuch, but rather to annex fame expreflion that way, which evin- ceth the fame, for which let Ro»i. 1 5 . 8. 1 Johm , 15. Efhe[. 3. 6. Nf/;e , ^r 8, Z3. 1 Cbron . 6. 15. i lyings 8. 56. Aclsi. 16, 17, 33 . and '?• 3*' ??• ^''A ^^' 45- ^^^ *?• ^4' ^■^^^^- !• i^j i?' *nd 21 . 4^ Lw^ei. 54, 55, 68, 69. and Pfal. iii. ^, Rom, 11. 26, 27. be confl- dered. Anf. I . How the verb fubftantive [is] in the prefent tenfe, and the [romife referred to Chrift, who was now come, agrees with the words and fcope of the A poftle, is already (hewed. And myfenfeis like or the fame with Mafter .Vr. when be faid in his Sermon, pa. 17. The plain ftrcn^thof the argument, is God hath now rcmembred his coveaant to Abraham in fending that bleffed feed, and the new Annot. in Locunii The promife is to you, Chrift is promifed both to Jewes and Gantiles ; But the Jewes had the firft place. Which is agreeable to the fpeeches ofj Afar;, Lw^e I . f4> 5^ and of Z^rcfe^rij^, v. 68, 69, 71, T^-y 7? 5 74j 75« 2.. It is true, thatiheexpreflionin that manna- is not u- fual, and it is confefled t4iat in the places cited and many more the fulfilling of a promife is othevwife expreflcd. But what then ? doth it follow that is not the meaning which I give i If it did, by the fame reafon^ neither Matter Cofr- hets is right. For it is ufual to exprefs a promife belonging to fome of a thing yettobcdoneinfomeotherexpreflions, as I ^e<;» 1. 2 J. zPet.i. 4. yea,in the place Rowi, 9. 4. of which Matter Cobbetipa. 51. faith, for the promife i to you or belongs to you, as Kom. 9. 4. hath it, the expreffion is not in the Dative<:afe, as JSfs i. 59. but in the Genitive. But it is needfuU to con- fider how Matter C'otkt himfelf expounds the words, Seft. i. He faith thus. The promife is to your chiUren : not, was toyo», &c. as intending any le- gal bletting, but, a promife then in force after Chrifts afcenfion, to efttti fomc promifed blcffing [t'TAy^ih^tb] ^^^^ ^o fignify the free promife, or covenant of grace, to which they tiad rilible right. Sed. 3 . remiflion of fins may not be excluded, but mutt be one principal thing intended. It is that promife to which baptifm the feal is annexed. Sed. 4. Nor was Abrahams charter lefs then what here avowed by the Apottle, Scil. that the promife even of fins, did belong to the Jewes, and to their children in refpeft of external tight and ad- miniftration, and no more is pleaded for. But repent and be baptized de futHr ro'y for the promife in prafentt is to you, Scil. in rcfp^ft of external right. Sed. 7. And this promife here mentioned,. .4 f/j i. j8, 39. containing in it remiflion of fins, and fo the righteoufnefs of faith. The promife of remilTi- on of fins is or belongeth to you} Scil. in the external right and adminiftrati- on of it. So then according to Matter Cobbets expofition the promife meant is rcmilTionot fins, and of this it is faid that it is, not, it was to them, and the manner how is, that it is to them, or it belongs to them in ■ he txternal right and adminittration of it. The promife or covenant he means here belonging to them to bt Abrahams chancY, Gen. 17, 7. ferem. 31. 33, 34. holding out at leatt an external interelt therein to :hem being Jewes, not yet believing Fathers, or repenting : for that is rather mentioned as fxerted after many words bcfides, v. 40, 41. yea, rather they were ofFenfive members of the Jew- ifh Church (which was tlien a true vifible Gofpel- Church) they were as per-, fons under cenfure, though they had jut ad bapdfmum, yet not jus in baptijmo without repentance, yet they were covenant-Fathers, and difpenfers of the ex- ttmal right of it to their children, though their children were not called. And herein is the difference between them and thcrfe afar oft} the Gt;ntiles}it is to the Jews adua)ly,tothe Gentiles deprajenti,onc[y intentionally, till they be called of God, whichheunderftands norof aneffeftualfavingcall, but calling in- to vifible covenant and church-eftate, and then it belongs to their children as to the Jewes. This I gather to be his meaning out of fcattcrcd pafl'ages, 5ed, 4, $, 7. I (hall, 1. obferve fome thirgs concerning the expofition in general. i. Clear my own expofition from objcdions. 3. Make fome animadvcrfions on feveral pafl'ages in the latter Sedions of this ch. of Matter Co^kt. I obferve that he brisgsno proof but his ownfayingy that the promife Is that that, Gw. tj. T-'orthat It belongs to any in external rieht or adminiftrati- on, or that the Apoftle meant the belonging o< the promile to them in refpeft of external right and adminiftration. For to fay, it is the promife to vviiich baptifm feals, is to prove an unknown thing by a more unknown, fuh baptifm neither there^nor elfcwha-e is termed the feal of the piomife or covenant, nor doth the Apoftle mention baptilm asfcalingoradminiftring the promife, nor do I underltand that there is any fuchthing as an external right and admini- ftration of the promife, orby vertucof the promife, but by reitue of rhe com- mand. And therefore I judge all this talk to be a parcel of gibberilh, whicli the Scripture yields no hint of, but Paedobaptifts have formed it from thofe l^^ding errors, that the nature of Sacraments is to be Seals of the covenant, that the reafon of a pjrfon being circumcifed, was intercit in the covenantjGcw. 17, 7. that there is the fame reafon of baptifm asofcircumcifion Bcfides, I would know to what the right is, and of what th: adminiftration is which he cals externaljand in wliat fenfe it is called external. External he feems to make all one with quoid homines, (^ in foro Ecclcjix, and the promife is of remifli- on of finSi the fenfe then is, you have a right and adminiftration of remiffion of fins inrefped of men, and in the Court of the Church. Aright is a title to a thing which a man may claim, an adminiftration is a ferving or bringing in, as when a Deacon gives money to the poor, Gcha^i reacheth water to Elt- Jbih, If there be fenfe in M^fter Cobbets expofirionjthis fhould b: the meaning. You Jewes who crucifiedChrift,and your children,though neither y^t bciievers, not repenting perfons, have a right and adminiftration of the promii'e of re- miflSonof fins. Gen. 17. 7. though not in refpcft of God or the Court cf heaven or your own confciences, yet before or by men or in the Court of the Church, lo that you may claim abfolurion from them, and they do or ought to adminifter it to you by a fentence or baprifm or fome other way. Which were to make the Apofties fpeak non- fenfe, and impious fallhood : Ncn-lenfe, the words bearing no fuch meaning according to the Sciipture-ufe or other appro- ved authors •• FaKhood , in that he (hould tell them they had fuch a right and adminiftration as they had not, and this impious, fith it tends to harden them in impenitency and unbelief, and to juftify Preachers or Churches in an un- righteous fentence, wherein remiilion of fins is prouounced to belong to perfons impenitent and unbelieving in fenfu compojiio while !uch. . The like ir.ay be faid if the right be meant to vifible Church-memberfhip, and baptifm aftd ad- miniftration of them, thefpeechwouldbenon-fenkj neither Scripture, nor a- ny Author at that time expreffing thefe things by that which Peter fpake, A^s 1. J 9. and the fpeech were falfe, they then haying no right or adminiftration of either, and it had been impious to fay fo to them j for it had tended to move them to alTume that to them, and to jultify the yielding it to them, which had been injurioufly and profanely both arrogated and yielded to them, Yet further, what a ridiculous faive had this been to confciences fo torruied with the fenfe of that moft horrid aft of killing Chrift, to tell them,the promile of tcifcifllon of fins was to them in refpect of external right and adminiftration before mca or in the face of the Church, though not betore God or in their own confciences , or that they had outward ti^ht and adminiftiation of vihble Church-member- ftiip and^baptifm, I may ule his o^n viovds, mutatis mm indif'f S:ct- 6. They were not 'troubled for want of extcrnail right and admiiiiftration, and to tell them . ^hem of fuch right and adminiftration was both impertinent and unfatisfafto«^ ty, and it could minifter but little comfort to (in-fick foulestopromife them ^uch things, which they might have, and yetdie in their fins, Matth. 7. ij. Befidesjit feems to be a contradiction to fay, the promife is to you ie prafentif in refpeft of external right and adminiftiation, and yet you have not jui in re, and in like manner to fay that the promife is to all afar cS ie p, ajentii in refpeft of external right and adminiftration, and yet it belongs not to them aftually, but intentionaly. And whence haih Mafter Cobbet warrant to fay that the pro- '- mife belongs ne way to the Jewes, and another way to the Gentiles ? or that the promife belonged to the Jew and his child in refped of txcernal right and adminilliation, though uncalled ? Laflly, that I not grate any further on this foare, where doth Mafter Cobbet find in Scripture any mention of Gods calling into vifible covenant,and Church-eftate.-* or how can it be true that the Church to which thofe Jewes who ciucifyed Chrifl joyned, containing the unbelieving Scribes and Pharifees and High Pricfts, and the people of the Jewes confent- ing with them,was a Gofpel-Church,vifibly intereiled in the covenant ot grace, the Subjed of the Gofpel, and the fame eflentially with that Gofpel or Chrifti- anChurchj and that there was no other vifible Church, then that of the Jewes f Credatfudxus dpellA, nea ego. But of thcfe fomcwhat in the animadverfions fol- lowing. MallerCoWrtagainft my expofition writes further thus. 2. They kmw al- ready to their coft, that Chriit indet;d was fent amongft them, and to be that Jefus or Saviour ol his people from their lins, y^^j- 2. 36, 37. compared with Mxichi. 21. And this was cold comfort to them, to cell them of rhat which wounded them, unlels there be withall fome promife annexed and {uppofed m his being come. The promife meerly of Chrills coming could not comfort them, unlets aUb in and by Chrift come in the flelh, there be fome promife made to them touching the removall of thole burdens of guilt which lay upon ihem 3. The bltfling principally p.cpoimded to them, for their reviving, healing, fuc- cour, and fupport, it was not Cbrifts fending, norhisbein^jlenr, but emifli- on of fins, V. 38. wherefore unlefs the A poftle argue impertinently, this may not be excluded, but muft be one principall thing intended. 4. It is that pro- mife to which baptifm the feal is annexed, now the feal is ever to the covenant, which is not barely to Chrifts being fent in the iiefli, but to benefits contained in promifes by his coming. Anf. Had Mafter Cobbet heeded my words in my Exam. pag. 60. And was it not a comfortable Argument for men in that cafe to be told, that not- withftanding all this the p omife of Chrift aud remiflion of fins by him, was yet to tliem and their ciiildren, &c. And pag. 61. The promife which is made to Abmbdm is now fulfilled in fending Chrift to you and your children, an-l to all that are afar off as many as the Lord our God {hall call, that they might be turned from their iniquity, and baptized in his Name for the remifli- on of their fins, thefe objedions had been fparcd, they proceeding all againft me upon this miftake (wiiichmy words heeded might have rtdityed) as if I had expounded the promife, ^^j 2. 39. of Chrifts being fent and coming without fome promife annexed, and particularly that of remiflion of fins by Chrift- Whereas I did cxpiefly include it in my paraphrafe (as m.y words reci- ted fhew) gathering it from the mention of it, v. 38. and conceiving it to be im- (119) implyed in the cxprcflion [to youj v. j^.Jthat iSiforyoui'benefir by remifli- onui your Tins. And therefore thcfc three objeftionsare anfwcred by fhewing how according to my txpofition the promife of Chiift fcnt includes alfo the be- nefit of rcPiinipn of fins. But on the contrary all thefe objeftions are againll "biU^sx Cohbcis own expolition. For, .i. It had been but cold comfort to teU them of a promife of remiflion of fins onely in external light and adminiftra- tion. 2. It had not been available for their reviving, healing, fuccour, andfupport. 3. According to Foedobaptifts fuppolitions, bsptifm isnot a fcal of that covenant in which remiflion of fins in external right and adminiftra- tion onely is promifed, but, asitisinthe Diredory, it is a Ser.l of the cove- nant of grace, of our ingrafting into Clu'ill, and of out union with him, of remiflion of fins, regeneration! adoption, and life eternal. Therefore the pio- miitjASis I. 59. according to Mafter Cobbcts own arguments, and Pxdobap- tifts hypothefes is not of remiflion of fins onely in excernal right and admi- niflration. Mafter C'ofckfj third exception, Sed. 3. about thofe afar ofT, whe- ther//rjc/wi in the difpcrfion, or in after ageS;or the Gavilcs be meant, hath been confidered before. But whereas he faith. The Apoftles aforePacr.v Sermon, A£fs 10. knew by Chrifti declaration of his minde to all his Apoitles touch- iag the difcipling and inchurching of the Gentiles tlie conveifion of them, one- ly they knew not whether it might be by joyning them fivft by way cf additi- on, as profelytes to the Jewes, rather then by gatheringthem into other diftmd: Churches; his fpeech is not right. For, i . Though it is truCjChrift had de- clared his minde, Manh. z8. 19. Marlii6. 15 . about converfion of the Gsntiles, yet either Tcter underftood not Chrifts minde, or did not remem- ber it afore the vifion, AHsio. z. It is apparent from y^t?j- 1 1 . 3. that the exception againft Peter was not for that he had gathered' Corv.elim and his com- pany into a diftind Church, and not joyned them as Profelytes to the Jewes, but that he went in to men uncircamcifedjand did cat with them, which fliewes they held it unlawfuU fo much as to preach and couverie with any uncircumci- kCi, though he were a profelyte of the gate, as Cernelm appears to have been. As for not joyning the Gentiles as profelytes to the Jewes, they knew that well enough, that they were not to be fo joyned, fith neither '^ohn the Baptift, nor Ghrift or his Difciplesdid ever by baptifm joyn any as profelytes to the Jewes, but did take even the Jewes themfelves (who embraced their Dodrine) into di- ftind Cl.urches or Schooles, though they did not ercd any new political Stares or Common- v/ealths, as the nation of the Jewes was. Mafter Go jkt farther excepts againft me in thefe words. 4. It's aflirmed, that this promifed of fending Chrift was to them, their children, and thofe afaroC as many as our God {hould call, that they may be turned from their iniqui:y, and be baptized for remiflion cf fins, and yet alfo that the promife, what ever it be fuppofed to be,was to them all, with that limitation, that they repent, or that they be called. What ? is it to as many as the Lord fiiall call, or convcrtjor caufe to repent ? and yet is it, that they may be turned from rhcir iniquity.' is it to perfons called, and yet alfo to uncalled perfons? is it to them that they may be called, yet the perfons to whom the promife is, 'areas many as arc fuppofed to be called .'' how can thefe two be right? yea, I' is to them all, upon condition that they be called, and yet alfo, that it is to them, that they may be called. Why, if it be to them, that by Chrift they may be called, then S 'is. Is that promife to perfons as yet uncalled, and their calling is an effed follow- ing their intereft in that promife as a caufe, and not preceding their imercft in the promife as a condition. Anf. the promife is of fending of Chrift for remiffion of fins, thejf cal- ling is a eonfequent of Chriib being fent, who was fent to turn them from i- ni^uity, that is, to call themjand this calling was for a further benefit, remiffi- on of iins thiCJgh Chrifl fert, and fo their calling is a condition of the re- miflion of fins by Chriii fent, r.cr is the promile of remiflion of fins by Chrift fent to any but thofc who are called. The calling is a eonfequent to Chrifls fending as a prior benefit, and an antecedent to remiffion of fins as a fubfequent. And thus the knot Mailer Cobbet conceives is eafily loofed. SECT. XXIII. The arguments drawn from Ads 2. 38, 39. againjl tke connexion between co- venant-intcrejl and b^pifm-rigbt, and mfant-baptifm are vindicated from Majier Cobbets anfrvers. THere are other paflagcs in the following Seftions, on which I animadvert, Seft. 4. he faith, A^si. he doth not intend it thus, your children (/.e.) Abrahams children j for Abraham is confidercd rather by himjis a patern , ha- ving the precedential Copy of the Covenant mentioned. And it had been in- congruous tohave faid; It is to your children, that is, to Abrahams chil- dren. Concerning which paflage I fay, that though I conceive it a miftake to ui^derftand by [your children] Abrahams children, yet Mailer Cobbets words intiiriatefundry things which are liable to animadverfions. i. The promife, AHs i. 39. is fuppofed by others, and by Mailer C'o/^kif, Seft. 7. to be that, Genij.f, I will be a God to thee and thy feed after thee, but this was the co- venant it felfj and not a precedential Copy of the covenant mentioned. I think Mafter Cobbzt cannot /hew any other after Copy, in which God promifed to be the God of a believer and his feed, which it is confeflcd he did to Abraham, z. That Abraham fhould be confidered rather as a pattern to fathers, then as a particular perfon is faid without any proof; nor is it true, 1. Becaufe it is un- ilerftood in Scripture as meant of Abraham as a particular perfon. Gal. 3.16, &c. 2. Becaufe if he were confidered as a pattern, the promife fliould be to others as to him, G'c». 17, 7. but that is not tiue, the promife is made to %\onzht(\^i:szsioAbrahiiyd,Gcn. 17. 7. And whereas Mafter Cobbet ohkx\c$ that the promife to them and their children cannot be meant of the children as their children after the Spirit, becaufe they could not be fuch fpiritual fathers to any children of theirs, themfelvcs being not yet fuch relates, as believing fathers,nor having fuch correlates as cluldren after the Spirit; this doth plainly iliew that the promife to them and their children is not all one with a promife to believers and their children, and the mention of the children, y^^j 2. 39, is not to intimate any priviledge arifing to the child from the faith of the pa- tent. For, as Mafter Cobbet laith truly, as yet they afted not faith and repen- tance, nor doth Peter fay. The pcomife is or belongs to youj for you have re- pent ed. fi30 pented, and confequently believed. As foi' Maftei- Cvhbeis inference that if th imprecation oft lie Jewes,Af4«/;. tj. 2f. were the occafion of Percj-j- words Acis 1. 19' then the promife muft be alfo to their babes, on whom they wifti- ed Chi'ifts blood, elfe the plaifter were too narrow for their wounds lifmg from the guilt of bloud wifticd upon their children, including, and not excladiag their babesj it foUowes not. For, i. Though babes be children, yet children indefinitely pat without any univerfal fign may be meant of others then bab:s or infants. 2. The wifli may be meant of infants, and the promife alio, yet not to take place or to be accompliflied on them or to then, in thdr infancy. That curfe and that promife which is made to a manschiJaicn being fur pre- fent infants, is verifyed if it happen to them at twenty years old, they being then the fame perfons, which they were when they werebut aday old. j. VVill Matter Cobbet aiVcrt, the promife muft be as large as the curfe .•' If lo, then the promife muft belong to their children, elder or younger, whether believing or unbelieving, penitent or impenitent, forthewifn waionall abfolutely. But Maftcr Cobbet (1 prefume) will not aflTert the promife of remiflion of fins was in prjefenti to all the children of the Jewesto whom Peter fpake, elder and younger, believing and unbelieving, penitent and impenitent in refped of ex- ternal right andadminiitration. Therefore he muft limit the term [your chil- dren] if he will have his own expofitionto hold good, and confequently the children, A^s 2. 39. muft be fewer then thofe the imprecation lighted on. Mat, 27. 2$. Sid^., 5- That which Mafter Cobbet {^ith, that thofe who fay the promife made to AbriJ^an of fending Chrift and now fulfilled, is to them, in eftcct fay as thofe that expound [the promife is to you] that is, is oflered to you, is not right. Fot the fulfilling notes fomeiliing palt, the ofter is of fomething to be yet done or attained, yet it is true that the fpeech oi Peter did contain not one- Iv an offir, but alfo an allurance of remiflion of fins to the called by vertue of tht o.omife fulfilled in Chrifts coming. of thefenfeof the words, Aiisi, 25. I have fpoken fomewhat before. The terms [children of the prophets and of the covenant] are appropriated to the Jewes,as Kom. 9, 4. they being the onely people to whom the prophets werefent, zsBeyL unnot . inlocim, ideB,li ejtis quibuspeculiunter dcflinati fuerunt prophet je,(^ qtiibufcum fxdus eji (xncuunii ex Hebrxorum idiotifmo, quern fuprd diquoties annotxvimus, Hucpertinct quod ait Pmlus, Rom. 9. 4. And :3ks nor of Gods ma- tchig a covenant, but o(Mofes,v. 14. and this covenant was obliging to duty, no: cxpreflmg covcnant-giace. That which Mailer Cebbet. faith , that the righteoutnefs of faith according to the covcnant,Gcw. 17. 7. which containeth the promife of juflification, was by circumcidon vifibly lealed unto the Jewes ", ■ & their cnildren byGods owaappointment,circuracifion being in the Sacramen- tal nature of it, a vifible feal of the righteoufnefs of faith it felf, and not raeer- iy in a peru^ijl rcfpefl ro yihr^tb.m, as applyed by his faith to juflification, hath either none or veif little truth. For though it be true that the ^i-omi(c,Geii. 1 7. 7. was of the righceoufnelsof faith according to the more hidden fenfe of the wo;ds, yet it wasfoonely to thcl'piritual kcd of Abrabam by faith, Ro'n. 4, 12, 16. Gal. 3. 75 9) ^9' Nor was circumcffjon appointed by God to feal ittj Jewes and their children, nor circumcifon in the Sacramental nature of it, a viiible feal of the righicoufnefs of faith, nor is any mans circumcifion Termed in the Scripture aitalof the righreoufnefs of faith, but Abrshann ^ which was not a leal as applyed by his faith to his juflification, but as a kal to him that he had the righteoufnefs of faith before he was circumcifed , and that ail that believe as he did fliallbc juflified, as he was, Ko>;r. 4. 11, 12. Mailer C'ciccf addes. Nor will it fuffice to fay, that covenant was a mixt co- venant. It held iorth temporal things indeed, but by vertue of a covenant of grace, P/ jm iid rem^ though not jus in re, afore they were believers on Ghrifty nor had they any right to baptifm in that they were members of the Church of the Jewes, nor was the commifli- on of bsptiuu hrll given by God to ^ohn Baptift in reference to that Church of the Jewes, .as a feal of their memberfhip therein, but of their owning '^obry dodrinc, becoming his difciples, and joyned into a School or Church diilinft from the Pharafees, and other Jewi ill Church-ruicrs, though they adhered till after Chrifts death to the law of iVofcx and templc-feivice. Nor is. there any ti-uth in it that Peter required of the Jewes repentance afore baptifm,,4^j 2.38. becaufe though they had covenant or Church-right thereto, yet being aduir members under offence, and admonillied thereof by Peter. : they might for their- iheii-obftinacyagainftfuchan admonition notwhhftanding Church or Co- venant-right have been debarred that feal. For, i. The Chriftian Church and the Jewifh Church of which thofe Jewes were members were in rheir piofefll- on not onely diftindj but alio oppolite; therefore there was no Church-tityht from being members in the one to be members of the other. 2 . For their fad ot which they were admonifhdc by Peter, they were fo far from beino in dan- ger of being caft out of the Jewifh Church in which they were members, that they were more fure of being caft out for repenting of their (in, and being bap- tized into the Name of Chrift, fobn 9. zz. j. Peter doth not ad in his fpeech, ASls 1. 38, 59. as an Elder in the J^ewilh Church, for he was none, but as an Apoflle of Chrilt; nor was their fad objeded to them as an offence to the Church of which they were, but confefled by themfelves as an heavy burden that lay on their confcicnce; nor was Peters advice given to remove a Church- cenfure for re-admiflion to a feal, but to eafe their confciences, and to brin