Anti-Paedobaptism Part 3

Thence also, saith Mr. C. is that in Acts 7.8. that is, he did it according to that Covenant of Circumcision, so as the application of the seal to the infant was part of the Covenant to be performed on the part of Abraham and his seed in their generations, even by his spiritual seed to a thousand generations, in that which is the same for substance, and equivalent to circumcision, as we shall see anon.

Answ. That God gave Abraham the Covenant of Circumcision, and so, or accordingly, or he (according to the Copies that have 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 no • 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ) begat Isaac, and circumcised him the eighth day is not denied, nor that he did this according to the Covenant of Circumcision, that is according to the command of God concerning Circumcision as a sign of his Covenant Gen. 17. in which sense it is granted that the applica • ion of the seal (meaning circumcision) to the (male) infant was part of the Covenant to be performed on the part of Abraham and his seed in their generations, but this proves not what Mr. C. undertook to prove, that it was part of the seal, or part of the token of the Covenant (it being not all one to be part of the Covenant and part of the seal or token of the Covenant) unless Mr. C. confounds them (as he seems to do) nor is there any word of God for application of any seal to the infant but Circumcision, the text is express for Circumcision, this is my Covenant which ye shall keep between me and you and thy seed after thee, every man child shall be circumcised, which can be understood of no other then Circumcision, without making God to speak non-sense, and making God command a thing in words which they signify not, and making God to command a thing indefinite and indeterminate, which no wise Law-giver doth, and making a pronoun demonstrative to import not the definite thing expressed, but some other individuum vagum, of which it is uncertain what it is, contrary to the very exposition of the Holy Ghost Gen. 17.23. where it is expressly said, that Abraham's Circumcising was as God had said unto him, contrary to what Abraham, and all interpreters Jewish and Christian (that I have ever met with afore Mr. C. ) have conceived, and which i • it be granted it will follow that if the male child of Abraham's posterity had not been circumcised, but had another seal of the Covenant applied to it, the Covenant or Command Gen. 17.9, 10, 11, 12. had not been broken, Moses had kept the command if he had baptized his son, though he did not circumcise him. These and many more absurdi • ies follow on that portentous opinion, which I guessed long since by some words of Mr. Cawdrey and Palmer in the first part of thei • Sabb. Rediv. ch 2. §. 32. to have been hatching to maintain the Judaizing conceit of infant Baptism from infant Circumcision, that they might not seem therein to run on the rock of holding the Law of Circumcision yet in force; yet might have some color for a command of infant Baptism, Gen. 17.9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14. where infant Circumcision is commanded and nothing else, but I found it not so expressly vented by any afore Mr. C. Now what saith he for it? • . That this part of the Covenant was to be performed by Abraham's spiritual seed. But he doth not prove that it was to be performed by Abraham's spiritual seed of the Gentiles after Christ's coming. He urgeth the words of the Psalmist Psalm. 105.8. He hath remembered his Covenant forever: the word which he commanded to a thousand generations. But first, The word is not meant of the command of a seal to be applied to infants, but of his own promise, which he will have firm as his Command, Psalm. 133.3. & 42.8. & 44.4. as the New Annotat. and Piscat. on the place, which also appears from the words following, which term it God's Covenant he made with Abraham, and his oath unto Isaac, which is expressed verse. 11. which cannot be understood of his Command to us what we should do, but his promise of what he himself will do. Secondly, the word commanded signifieth God's decree within himself; Or as Diodati in his note on the place, He commanded] which he appointed by his sovereign and irrevocable decree, as the word commanded is used Psalm. 133.3. and elsewhere. Thirdly, To a thousand generations, notes not just so many; But as Piscator in his scholi • on the place, it is by a synecdoche of the kind, as if it were said unto many ages. And this must needs be granted, since the Covenant however it be granted to imply in the latent sense the promise of the heavenly inheritance, yet in the patent sense must be understood (as v. 11.44. compared show) of the earthly Canaan : which they had not a thousand generations, but for many ages; as Exod. 20.6, To thousand generations is meant not precisely so many and no more, but a long time indefinite, beyond three or four generations: and thus must also be understood the promise of the land of Canaan to be forever, to be an everlasting possession, that is, for a long time, as frequently it is used Exod. 21.6. Exod. 40.15. 1 Sam. 2.35. Levite. 23.14, 21, 31, 41, &c. What he saith of Baptism being the same for substance and equivalent to Circumcision, unless he mean it, that infant Baptism and infant Circumcision are one equivalent to the other, and the same for substance in this sense [they are of no force not obliging Christians nor benefiting them] it will be found in examining that which follows, to have no truth.

Mr. C. adds, And that this blessing upon families and posterity was signified, held forth, and sealed by circumcising the child, appeareth further by that promise uttered in that phrase, Deut. 30.6. which kind of expression intimates, that the promise of the conversion of their children was held forth, and confirmed in that seal. As when the Apostle saith we are baptized into one body, is signified and sealed in Baptism our union with Christ in one body, because else those words had been in no capacity to have been so used in that sense, as they are used both by the Apostle and by Moses.

Answ. 1. The phrase of circumcising the heart, Deut. 30 6 being used to express conversion or change of the heart, doth show indeed that there is some resemblance between them, yet that it is so by institution is not proved, no more then because by breaking up our fallow ground, together with circumcising, the same thing is si • nified Jer. 4.3, 4. and by washing, Isa. 1.16. therefore plowing and washing are by institution to be used to that end, 2. But be it granted that Circumcision was instituted to signify the ch • nge of the heart, as baptism our union with Christ in one body, yet this proves not that it was to signify and seal a promise of something future, but rather what was already done. For if it signify as Baptism, then it signifies conversion already effected, Baptism being a sign that the person was united to Christ and to all his members by one spirit, as the very terms 1 Cor. 12.13. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 we have been baptized, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 we have been drenched, show. And though the words Deut. 30.6. are a promise, yet the term [ circumcise ] of itself, and in like manner the use of circumcision, according to the institution, may as well note a thing done, as a thing promised to be done. 3. Nevertheless let it be granted that circumcision did in the institution of it note conversion of the heart, and signified a promise of it as being a token of the Covenant in which that was covertly promised, yet this proves not that it held forth a blessing upon families and posterity. For there is no mention Deut. 30.6. of families, though there be of posterity, and that mention which is of posterity, is of them not in their infant, but adult estate, and upon condition of the child's returning to God, and obeying his voice as well as the parents, as Mr. Baxter rightly observes in his Friendly accommodation with Mr. Bedford p. 361. I may add, that the promise there is expressed only concerning one case, to wit repentance in captivity, v. 1, 2.3, 4. and the promise (as appears from v. 5.) is a promise peculiar to the Israelites. 4. But were this further granted, that thence might be proved that circumcision by institution signified the promise of conversion of posterity, and that this were to Gentile believers, yet this is nor that which Mr. C. would evince, that the application of the seal to infants in that it was to infants sealed this promise, or that the promise was sealed in Mr. Cs. sense, so as that God would ordinarily cast elect children on elect parents, and make parents a blessing, so as that Abraham's seed by faith should be multiplied in families and nations by them.

What Mr. C. adds, That the sign had not held proportion with the thing signified; namely, there had been nothing in the sign to signify and seal that blessing upon posterity, had the application of it to infants been left out, is but a vain dictate. For 1. if the sign held similitude with the thing signified, though it held not proportion so as to be applied to all whose conversion was signified it might serve for the use of a sign, as a conveyance to a Father may assure the child's interest; and therefore that which Mr. C. dictates, that for this reason infants were to be circumcised, to seal that promise of believers being a blessing, added to Adams Covenant, is a vain conceit without proof, since it might have been as well assured if the parents had been circumcised only, as well as when the male infants only were circumcised.

And that which he saith further is most false, and vain, Nor indeed had there been any use of the application of it to the infant, nor that made a part of the Ordinance, had there not been such a branch in the Covenant as a blessing upon families and posterity to be thereby signified and sealed. For besides this, that Mr. C. proves neither that branch in the Covenant, nor that use of infant Circumcision, it is clear by Stephens speech, Act. 7.5, 6, 7, 8. that Abraham circumcised Isaac in assurance of the land of Canaan, and that he received the Covenant of Circumcision to that end: and that the circumcising of infants had this use, to signify Christ to come, seems plainly to be delivered by the Apostle, Col. 2.17. and by the general consent of Divines. Much more vain is that which he adds, So as if that privilege be denied unto infants, that which was given to us in Abraham's Covenant is rejected, as he saith Gen. 17. The uncircumcised man-child shall be cut off from his people, he hath broken my Covenant. For neither if Mr. Cs. sense of the promise Gen. 22.18. Gen. 12.2, 3. be rejected, is there anything which was given to us in Abraham's Covenant rejected, nor had the denying of Circumcision to infants necessarily inferred the rejecting of that which was given in Abraham's Covenant; nor do the words Gen. 17.14. import, that by not circumcising the person omitting it had rejected that which was given in Abraham's Covenant, for so Moses not circumcising his son had rejected the Covenant; but the breaking the Covenant was only meant of breaking the command of that which was the token of the Covenant. Much less is this true of those that deny infant Baptism, that they reject the spiritual blessings given in Abraham's Covenant, Baptism being not by Christ's institution a seal of God's Covenant or promise to us, unless by consequence, much less the mixed Covenant of Abraham, as it contained domestical benefits proper to Abraham's house, much more less the new conceited promise of Mr. C. Nor was infant Baptism ever commanded by God, but invented by men in a fond imitation of Jewish Circumcision; and as long as we keep close to the institution Matth. 28.19. and baptize and are baptized upon believing in testimony of our union with Christ and his Church, 1 Cor. 12.13. we may securely flight Mr. Cs. doom of being cut off from God's people, which after Mr. Cotton refuted by me in the second part of this Review, sect. 11. he hath vainly here renewed to affright silly people with.

Mr. C. adds,

Answ. I grant that Abraham's believing the promise, Gen. 15.5. and his receiving Circumcision a seal of that righteousness of faith he had in uncircumcision, was the reason of his title of Father of believers. And I grant that Abraham's personal Circumcision was a seal of the righteousness of faith to all believers circumcised or uncircumcised, and therefore he had it afore his Circumcision, that it might not be judged as proper to the circumcised. But 1. I deny, That the promise was Gen. 15.5. as Mr. Cs. additional promise is, that Every believer should be a blessing to his family and posterity, so as that God should ordinarily cast elect children on elect parents; but that Abraham, though then childless, should have innumerable children by natural generation, though he were and his wife aged, and more by believing as he did. 2. The Scripture doth not say, that Abraham's Circumcision was a seal of the promise Gen. 15.5. but a seal of the rightiousness of faith he had, Gen. 15.6. it was not a seal of a promise of a thing future, but of a benefit obtained many years before. 3: I find not any ones Circumcision, but the Circumcision which Abraham had in his own person, styled the seal of the righteousness of faith, nor to any but him that believes as he did. 4. That his receiving the seal is not made the reason of Abraham's relation of Father of all believers, but justification by faith afore he received Circumcision. Nor do I find that any of Mr. Cs. assertions is proved from Rom. 4.11, 18. that Circumcision was a seal of the Covenant, Gen. 17. or of Mr. Cs. additional promise, or that the application to infants was part of the seal, or that by it Mr. Cs. imagined promise was confirmed, and therefore this Text is impertinently alleged also

Mr. C. adds▪

Answ. The title [ Father of believers ] is a relative, with which Abraham was denominated from his Fatherhood as the form denominating, and this form denominating was from his begetting justified believers as the foundation, this begetting justified believers I know not how otherwise it should be then by his exemplary faith, and God's declaration of his justification by it; which the Apostle doth plainly intimate, Rom. 4.11. by expressing Abraham's children in this phrase, walking in the steps of his faith. The object indeed of this faith was the promise Gen. 15.5. not Mr. Cs. imagined promise to other believers, and so the promise was the occasion, and in some sort the cause of the title, as the object may be said to be the cause of the act in somewhat an abusive expression. His personal Circumcision was a sign or seal of that whence the title came, the righteousness of faith; and a token of that Covenant wherein God declared it, Gen. 17.4, 5▪ But Circumcision did not make him such, he was such afore Circumcision was instituted, Gen. 17.4, 5. Nor is it said Rom. 4.11. that his receiving Circumcision was that he might be the Father of the faithful, but his having righteousness by faith before Circumcision made him the Father of justified believers of all nations. Nor do Mr. Cs. reasons prove the contrary. For 1. though others faith might be as strong, yet no ones faith was so • minently exemplary, the time and other circumstances considered; and this is apparent from Rom. 4.18, 19, 20, 21. 2. Abraham had that exemplary faith, and promise and declaration of God, which no Saint had before in the manner I have explained it. 3. This was fit to denominate him Father of believers, as Sara the Mother of obedient and well doing wives, 1 Pet. 3.6. by her exemplary obedience to her husband, and we are termed children of God by following him, Ephes. 5.1. wicked men children of the Devil by doing his lusts, Joh. 8.44. It is true, we are to look to other examples, chiefly Christ's, Heb, 12, 1, 2. yet none of mere men so eminently believed as Abraham, and therefore no mere sinful man is propounded as a Copy or pattern equal to him. As for Mr. Cs. reason, it is not right. For 1. Mr. Cs. additional promise in his sense is but a figment. 2. There is not the least hint in Scripture of that as th • reason of the title. 3. If he were the first Father that received this blessing, then it was two thousand years and more afore God ordered his ele • tion as Mr. C. imagines, then believing parents had not this blessing before, whereas if there were such a blessing, it was rather before then after Abraham's time; for we find not any settled Ministry by which the spiritual seed was multiplied afore Abraham's time, therefore it is more likely to have been by believing parents; but after Abraham's time we read of Prophets and Apostles, Priests and Teachers appointed to that end. And if Abraham were the first who received this blessing, then this was not perpetual, and so the application of the seal to infants not moral, since the foundation of it beg • n but in Abraham. Sure I am, this directly crosseth Mr. Richard Baxter's conceit of infants visible Church membership by promise Gen. 3.15. which I leave to them to contend about. What Mr. C. saith of the reason of the title of Abraham's seed given to believers, is quite besides the Scripture, Rom. 4.11, 16. Gal. 3.7 Joh. 8.39. And what he saith of one believers being ordinarily the means of conversion of another, is true rather of others, specially preachers of the Gospel, then parents, householders, Princes: and I wish it were better considered by him, whether by his dictates all along in making the multiplying of the spiritual seed to be by every believers being a blessing to families and nations, by ascribing ordinarily conversion hereunto ; and that p. 38. not only by common providence, or so much by good education and example, but by virtue of a special word of blessing, a creating word of promise to all believers, without which other means of conversion had not had such efficacy and power in turning sinners to God, do not cross the Apostles speech, Ephes. 2.20. be not contrary to the experience both of the first and continued gathering of the Churches of Christ, and do not indeed undermine and blow up a select Ministry for conversion, as being useless, without assurance of God's blessing, God having provided another way, and ordinarily working by it according to a special promise. And how much this tends to justify that disorder of every gifted brothers pretended prophesying and teaching in the Churches, which is the occasion of the jangling and schisms by which Churches are torn asunder and perverted, is easily discernible. But of this only by the way. What Mr. C. hath summed up, p. 70. hath been examined, and found to be a fardel of mistakes: Let's view the rest.

Those insinuations which are p. 71. as if Antipaedobaptists did easily part with ancient entailed privileges, wherein the Saints have rejoiced for so many ages; wanted so much compassion on their children, as not to blot their names out of Heaven, or thrust them out of the Kingdom of Christ into the Kingdom of Satan ; have been so often discovered to be false and gross abuses, as that were not men resolved to use any artifices to uphold an ill cause by creating prejudices against their adversaries, they would leave them. But Mr. C. thinks to prove infant Baptism from hence, and thus he argues.

SECT. LXXX. Mr. Cs. conceit, as if Gen. 17.9. were a command in force to Abraham's spiritual seed in the N. T. is shown to be vain.

Answ. Hitherto Paedobaptists have been wont to deduce infant Baptism, from the connection between the promise Gen. 17.7. to be a God to Abraham and his seed, and the command v. 9, 10, 11, 12, 13.14. which it seems Mr. C. dares not rest on, but takes another way, and yet seems not very certain what to pitch upon. For whereas p. 70. to clear the duty of infant Baptism, he sums up his suppositions; That God made to Abraham Gen. 22.17, 18. & 12.2, 3. an additional promise of believers being a blessing to families and nations, that for confirmation of this he added a seal, to wit Circumcision, that the application of it to infants was part of the token of the Covenant, thereby that additional promise was sealed, in reference to them Abraham was called the Father of all them that believe ; who would not think that he would have inferred infant Baptism from these suppositions, and the conn • xion between his additional promise and seal? But instead thereof, as if all he had before discoursed had been out of the way he meant to take, whether because there is a great distance between the command Gen. 17.9. and the promise Gen. 22.17, 18. or whether he saw his exposition would not stand good, he now goes another way to work, and thinks to deduce infant Baptism from the connection between the promise Gen. 17.8 and the precept v. 9. and his inference is thus made; The promise is concerning Canaan to be an everlasting possession to Abraham's seed, ergo to his spiritual seed in the N. T if so, then the command lieth upon the spiritual seed still v. 9. and this the word [therefore] v. 9. implies. That precept ties only to keep the Covenant by seal • ng with the seal of it, their children, v. • 0. explains what seal should be for that time now another is come in the room of it, which is for substance the same, and equivalent to it▪ parents are bound by the precept Gen. 17.9. the former seal ceasing and another substituted to baptize their children. This is as near as I well can gather it, the force of Mr. Cs. discourse. Against which I except, 1. That the term [ everlasting possession, Gen. 17.8.] doth not prove it to be meant of another Canaan then that part of the earth which the Israelites possessed. For besides places before alleged, wherein the terms everlasting and forever are used for a time of some few ages, and shorter, Numb. 25.13. God promiseth a Covenant of an everlasting Priesthood to Phinehas and his seed after him ; and yet we know that Priesthood was to cease Heb. 7.12. It is promised Ier. 35.19. that Jonadab the son of Rechab should not want a man to stand before God forever, and yet this could be true only of some ages: Therefore Mr. Cs. reason is of no force from the term [ everlasting ] to infer the extent of that promise to the N. T. Nor indeed can the reason be good. For if it were, then God should not promise at all the possession of the earthly Canaan in that place: But that is manifestly false; for the Text saith, Gen. 17.8. that God would give to Abraham and his seed, the land of Canaan, wherein Abraham was then a stranger : which can be understood of no other then that part of earth which is elsewhere called the land of the Canaanites, Per • zites, Jebusites, &c.

I deny not that in the latent sense there may be a promise of eternal life to Abraham's spiritual seed, though I find no passage in the N. T. so expounding the promise Gen. 17.8. yet sure it is but bold presumption to build any doctrine on an allegory not expounded so by the Holy Ghost; and it is in mine apprehension, a great usurpation of the Divine prerogative, to impose duties on men consciences by arguments drawn from such devised senses. 2. That Mr. C. builds his inference upon the conjunction [ therefore, Gen. • 7 9.] which though it be so in the English translation, yet is it in Hebr. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 rendered by the Tigur. And thou ; by Pareus, But thou ; by Piscator, Thou verily ; which is enough to show there is no strength in Mr. Cs. inference, since there is no firm ground on which it rests. 3. But were it granted that [ therefore, Gen. 17.9.] were the only reading, and that the command is to be meant also of Abraham's spiritual seed even in our days, yet that the inference of the command, v. 9. should be only from the promise v. 8. or v. 7. and not also from the promises v. 4, 5, 6 I know no go • d reason i • or can be given. 4. Were it that there could be good reason given thereof, yet since the promise v. 8. is mixed, containing both spiritual promise (if Mr. C. be in the right) and promise pecu • iar to the natural seed of Abraham, me thinks the precept should be only to that spiritual seed which is also natural, and not bind the Gentile believers, since they have no part of the promise as it concerns the p • ssession of the earthly Canaan, from which the duty is inferred as well, if not only, as from the promise of the heavenly Canaan, 5. But were all that Mr. C. would have here granted, that the term [ everlasting possession, v. 8.] proves it meant of the times of the N. T. that [therefore] v. • . proves the command extends to the spiritual seed now, that it is from the promise, v. 7. or 8. not from the rest v 4, 5, 6. that it is to Gentile believers now, and not peculiar to Israel after the flesh, yet sure if the promise b • the reason of the command, and the command • belongs to them to whom the promise belongs, it belongs to no other▪ and therefore to none but elect persons to whom that promise is made; no mere professors of faith are bound to keep God's Covenant by virtue of the promise, since no promise is made to them. 6. Were this also granted, that the command is to every professor of faith to keep the Covenant as is enjoined v. 9. then it remains still as a duty for every professor of Christian faith to circumcise his males of eight days old (which is contrary to Christianity;) For there is no other thing commanded there then Circumcision But to prevent this, Mr. C. saith.

It is to be observed, that this command of God is primarily fixed upon the general duty, namely, the Covenant to be kept, and not upon this or that way of keeping▪ either by circumci •• ng or baptizing: so as the circumcising of the child came under the command only upon this, because it was declared then to be the token of the Covenant; and by the words it is supposed, that when it should cease to be the token of the Covenant, it should no longer be a duty; and what else, by the same authority, should be made the token of the same Covenant, would be the duty instead thereof. Mark the words, he doth not say, Thou shalt therefore circumcise every man-child among you as a token of the Covenant between me and you; for so had that been made the token for perpetuity, to have continued so long as the Covenant itself. But 1. in general he saith, v. 9. that is, they should observe and perform the token of the Covenant whatever that prove to be; and he addeth in the 2 d. place, v. 10, 14. therefore, as I said, as for Circumcision, that was a duty only upon those words, declaring that to be then the token. Circumcision is now abolished▪ yet the command of keeping the token of Abraham's Covenant is still in force, and binding to Abraham's spiritual seed in their Generations; therefore what is now the token of that Covenant must be observed instead thereof.

Answ. No wise and just Law-giver would ever make such a command of a general duty concerning ceremonies or rites then undetermined, but to be determined two thousand years after, Thou shalt keep my Covenant, that is, what ceremony I shall now appoint thee, or what I shall hereafter appoint when I take that away: such indefinite dis-junctive commands so ambiguous, un-intelligible, to be understood at one time one way, at another time another way, are so like Delphic juggling answers, as that I dare not ascribe them to the Almighty. Many absurdities follow on this conceit of Mr. C. which I have before set down. For present these arguments from the Text are against it. 1. There is nothing enjoined Gen. 17.9. but what Abraham was enjoined in his own person to do as well as his seed after him in their generations; this is proved from the express words, And God said unto Abraham, thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, and again, thou and thy seed after thee in their generations, twice is this imposed on Abraham distinctly named, and the term [ therefore ] spectially applied to him, and after with difference, from yet with his seed, so that to deny this, is to deny it's light when the Sun shines at noon day. But to Abraham's person was not enjoined to observe and perform the token of the Covenant whatever that prove to be, for then he had been bound to baptize, which is absurd, Ergo. 2. This precept is as well to Abraham's natural seed in their generations, as to his spiritual seed, for the precept belonging to those to whom the promise belongs, and it cannot be denied the promise v. 8. to belong to Abraham's natural seed, at least such as Moses, David, afore Christ, it follows they were bound to observe and perform the token of the Covenant what ever that p • ove to be, and consequently to baptize, which is absurd. 3. If this precept be to the spiritual seed of the Gentiles, then Gentile believers are bound to observe and perform the token of the Covenant whatever that prove to be: But Circumcision the text itself makes the token of the Covenant, Ergo, Gentile believe • s by this exposition are bound to circumcise. 4. From v. 10. That Covenant was enjoined v. 9. and no other, which is expressed v. 10. This is proved from the form of words which do plainly show God's meaning, this is the covenant Which ye shall keep, which are as express as words can be that he meant no other Covenant to be kept then what is set down v. • 0, &c. But that is only Circumcision, therefore no other is there enjoined v. 9. But what need I so fully refu • e that which hath no proof at all brought for it, but Mr. Cs. word! It's enough to tell him that it is his dream, and to let the Lord Mayor and Aldermen of London know that they have been enamored on a vain phantasme. And • et were it grant • d him and them, it will never serve their turn to prove infant Baptism by.

For 1. The command Gen. 17.9. is not in these words [thou shalt keep the token of my Covenant therefore] but [ thou shalt keep my Covenant therefore ] and therefore if according to Mr. Cs. exposition it be a general duty not fixed upon this or that way of keeping, and there are other ways of keeping the Covenant then by keeping the token of the Covenant, the words may be meant of other duties then seals, as he calls them of the Covenant, as particularly what is required Gen. 17.1. to walk before God and be perfect, upon which God promiseth to make his Covenant v. 2. and so the precept Gen. 17.9. may be observed without any seal at all. 2. But if it be limited to the keeping of the token of the Covenant, yet it follows not it must be either baptising or circumcising, there being other tokens of the Covenant besides these, as the Passover, the Lord's Supper, and therefore i • it command them to observe the token of the Covenant what ever it prove to be, it ties them to observe the Lord's Supper, and if it must be observed • y this rule here, then it must be given to infants as well as Bap • ism. 3. Hence ariseth a further exception, that if it were yielded, that a token of the Covenant indefinite • s commanded, and Baptism meant after Circu • cision, yet sure the command ties not to observe Baptism after the rule of Circumcision, bu • after the institution of Baptism in the • ew Testament. And the reason is plain, the command v. 9. being only of a general duty comma •• s not the particular rite, neither Circumcision nor Baptism▪ therefore there is no rule how to observe Baptism Gen. 17.9. Then v 10.11, 1 • , • 3, 14. is by Mr. Cs. • wn exposition • rule only about Circumcisi • n, who, and whom, and when • o circumcise, nor do I think Mr. C. dares sa • , that the rule about the manner of circumstances of circumcising, is a rule about the manner of circumstances of •• ptising, for then the house • older should be bound to baptize all his males of eight days old, servants, and children, and among them himself if unbaptized, none afore eight days old, no female, none but his own house, he should wash not the face, but the privy member. If Mr. C. to serve his turn yet devise another general law about the manner of observing the • ites of the New Testament, besides the particular institutions and examples of Christ and his Apostles in the New Testament — erit mihi magnus Apollo, and if Mr. C. or any o • her, find a • y institution or example of infant Baptism in the New Testament, I shall believe they can cut a whetstone with a rasour.

4. Saith Mr. C▪ It is supposed by the words, that when circumcision should cease to be the token of the covenant, it should no longer be a duty, and that circumcision is now abolished. But 1. if v 9. be a command still in force, and bind to observe still the token of the Covenant what ever it proved to be, and that was Circumcision, then it binds still to observe Circumcision 2. It is said, v. 13. He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money must needs be circumcised, and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. Now if Mr. Cs. reasoning be good, the promise is v. 8. of an everlasting possession, therefore it extends to the spiritual seed even in the New Testament; by the same reason, since v. 14. it is said God's covenant shall be in their flesh (which is by carnal Circumcision) for an everlasting covenant, God's command is in the New Testament to Abraham's spiritual seed, true believers of the Gentiles, that they be circumcised in their flesh, contrary to Gal. 5.2. Act. 15 24. 5. It is supposed that Baptism in the New Testament is the token of Abra • ams covenant, which is not proved, but is m • nifestly false: For then by it every believer should be assured of the land of Canaan, that K • ngs shall come of him, &c. as is promised, Gen. 17. v. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. but that is false, and a mere Jewish conceit. 6. It is said withou • any show of proof, that by the words it is supposed, that what else besides circumcision by the same authority should be made the token of the same covenant, would be the duty instead thereof : But neither do the words say, or suppose, that when circumcision should cease to be a token of the covenant, it should no longer be a duty ; nor that what else by the same authority should be made the token of the same covenant, would be the duty instead thereof ; there's not a word that tends to either supposal, nor can be either true. For the Jews Circumcision was not abolished by any words Gen. 7. but by the Apostles declaration, Act. 15. which doth not in the least hint any colection of its ceasing from Gen. 17. but from the calling of the Gentiles: Nor is the reason there or anywhere else of its ceasing, taken from its ceasing to be the token of Abraham's • ovenant, but from the calling the Gentiles, the coming of faith, &c. Yea, the Jewish • ircumcision still used ceaseth not to be the token of Abraham's Covenant, and yet the command Gen 17.9, • 0, 1 • , 12, 13 4. bind • th not. Nor is the other speech true. For by the same authority, according to Mr. C. the Passover, the Lord's Supper, were made tokens of the same Coven •• t, and yet • or duties instead of Circumcision. 7. If when circumcision ceased there was 〈◊〉 be a duty instead thereof by virtue of the command. Gen. 17.9. and because of the promise of an everlasting possession, v. 8. it must extend to the New Testament to the spiritual seed, and be of a spiritual blessing ; by the same reason, Circumcision being made an everlasting covenant, v. 14. the command Gen. 17.9. should be of a spiritual keeping of God's Covenant, and the Circumcision that comes in the stead of Circumcision in the flesh should be Circumcision of the heart and obedience, which the New Testament seems to intimate, Rom. 2.26, 28, 29. 1 Cor. 7.19. Phil. 3.3. Col. 2.11. 8. It is supposed, but not proved, that Baptism is instead of Circumcision▪ But Mr. C. thinks to prove it, only by the way he takes in to illustrate his conceit about Gen. 17.9. something about the Sabba • h, Exod. 20.8, 11. of which he saith thus.

Answ. That those who deny infant Baptism do not, or need not deny the Sabbath, is shown in my Examen, part 2. sect. 8. in my Precursor, sect. 15. in the second part of my Review, sect. 3. and what Mr. C. ha • h said for his opinion of inferring the Lord's day Sabbath from Heb. 3, & 4. hath been examined before, and shown insufficient for his purpose. That which now he brings from his conceit of the command, Exod 20.8, 11. is to me very doubtful, and yet were it certain, would not answer Mr. Cs. expectation. His conceit is doubtful to me for these reasons, 1. because if his conceit were right, when it is said Remember the Sabbath day, and the Lord blessed the Sabbath day, the term [ Sabbath day ] should be conceived as a genus or species comprehending under it the rest day of the Jews and the Christians, and such other rest days as God should appoint to be observed. B • t against this are these things: 1. That I find not where the term [ Sabbath day ] is meant or applied to any other then the 7th. day of the week. I grant that other days are termed [Sabbaths, Sabbaths of rest,] Levite. 23, 24, 32, 29. but nowhere that I yet find, is any day besides the last of the week termed the Sabbath day. 2. The blessing of the Sabbath day, Exod. 20.11. was the same with the blessing, Gen. 2.3. For it is a narration of what God did in the beginning, and that day was the seventh in order after the six days in which he created his work. 2. Me thinks the Evangelist Luke 23.56▪ when he saith, they rested on the Sabbath day according to the commandment (which commandment is that Exod. 20.8, 11.) and that Sabbath being by the confession of all the last day of the week, doth plainly expound the fourth Commandment of that particular Sabbath which was the seventh day in order from the creation, and the last day of the week. I confess there are difficulties from this exposition, concerning the evacuating of the fourth Commandment, which being besides my present business, I shall not now insist on, it being sufficient for my present purpose to show why I conceive Mr. Cs. exposition doubtful.

2. Yet were hi • interpretation granted, it would not serve his turn here. For 1. keeping God's Covenant, Gen. 7.9. is without any example or color of reason re • trained to seals (as they are termed) of the Covenant, and made the genus to Circumcision and Baptism, as the term [ Sabbath ] may be to all Festivals 2. If it were, yet there is not the same reason of Circumcision and Baptism as of the Sabbath and the • orns day, the one being a moral command, and the other merely ceremonial 3 If the meaning were Gen. 17.9. that a duty were commanded in general to keep the token sign, or seal of the Covenant, then it is a command concerning any token of the Covenant, the Passover and Lord's Supper, as well as Circumcision and Baptism; and if so, then they are to be observed according to the rule there, v. 10, 11, 12, 13, 14. and if so, they are to be applied to male infants of eight days old as well as Baptism, or according to the rules delivered in the institution of each rite; and if so, the command Gen. 17.9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14. will make nothing for infant Baptism, unless it can be proved ou • of the institution and practice in the N. T. But to prevent this, Mr. C. saith.

SECT. LXXXI. The succession of Baptism to Circumcision and their identity for substance to us is shown to be unproved by Mr. Carter, Mr. Marshal, Mr. Church, Dr. Homes, Mr. Cotton, Mr. Fuller, Mr. Cobbet, from Col. 2.11, 12. or elsewhere.

Answ. If this were granted, yet Mr. Cs. purpose were not obtained, that the application of the seal to infants were justified by the command Gen. 17.9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14. for the reasons before given. But because I conceive these assertions contain errors, such as do mislead Pae • obaptists, I shall examine Mr. Cs. allegations, and together with them Mr. Marshals reply to my Examen about his third Conclusion, and what I find material in other of my Antagonists about the point of Baptisms succeeding Circumcision.

Two assertions are laid down here by Mr. C. 1. That Baptism is now in the room of Circumcision. 2. That it is the very same for substance to us as circumcision was to Jews before Christ. Neither of which are true, or proved by anything brought by Mr. C. or any other, though this be the chief thing they allege for infant Baptism; and Mr. Church, p. 50. out of Dr. Whitaker, tells us, all the Anabaptists will not be able to resist this argument from circumcision. Let's try the strength of it. The latter position seems to be this, That as circumcision was to the Jews, so Baptism now to us is the token and seal of the covenant made with Abraham and his seed. But this is not all one as to be the very same for substance. To be the very same for substance, is an expression that is scarce capable of good sense; neither Baptism nor Circumcision in proper acception being substances, or having substance, except as the subject of them, as all accidents have. As substance is put for essence, so it cannot be said they are the same for substance, since cutting is one thing, washing another; and other Paedobaptists usually term them different administrations, Circum • ision the old, Baptism the new. I grant Circumcision was the token of the Covenant made with Abraham and his seed, Gen. 17. but that it was a seal of that Covenant in the sense usually meant by Paedobaptists, or that any ones Circumcision was a seal but Abraham's, much less that every ones Circumcision was a seal of the Covenant of grace to him and his seed is more then I find in Scripture, and how often I have proved it false, may be seen in many of my writings, specially the 3d. part of this Review. But that Baptism is the seal of that Covenant made with Abraham and his seed, is not true. For 1. Baptism seals not at all the promise of the land of Canaan, Gen. 17.8. nor any other of the promises made to the natural seed of Abraham. 2. Nor doth it seal the spiritual promises of the coming of Christ the calling of the Gentiles, as they were made to Abraham, and by Circumcision assured to be accomplished. For then Baptism, as Circumcision was, should be a shadow and type of Christ to come, and should cease as it did 3. The Evangelical Covenant, or the promise o • righ • eousness or eternal life by faith, granted to be in the latent sense comprised in that Covenant, I find nowhere in Scripture said to be sealed by Circumcision, but rather that circumcision did bind persons to the keeping of the Law for righteousness, Gal. 5.2, 3. nor by baptism but by consequent. The Scripture rather makes it a seal (if it must be so called) of our promise to God, then of God's promise to us. Nor is there anything Gal. 3.27.29. to prove either of Mr. Cs. conclusions, that Baptism now is the seal of the Covenant made to Abraham and his seed ; or that it is now in the room of Circumcision. For neither is it said that what we have as Abraham's seed, is sealed to us in Baptism; we are said indeed to put on Christ by Baptism, but that, whether the putting on be meant of spiritual union, or outward profession it is ascribed to faith, v. • 6. and our Baptism rather is made our seal to Christ, then God's to us: nor is there anything spoken v. 29. of any seed of Abraham but by faith, & so our Baptism cannot seal that Covenant which was made to Abraham's natural seed, which was the use of Circumcision, and therefore that Baptism is the seal of that Covenant, or in the room of Circumcision, is not proved thence. But let's view what is further said for them or either of them.

That our Baptism succeeds in the room, place, and use of Circumcicision, is the common speech of Paedobaptists; against it, 1. I argued in my Examen, that Baptism was a concomitant to circumcision, it was among the Jew long afore Christ came, and it was by Divine appointment, from the Baptism of John till Christ's death, now that which succeeds comes after, is not concurrent. To this Mr. M. replied, 1. by concession, and thence would gather an argument for infant Baptism, which is enervated in the 2d. part of this Review, sect. 24. 2. Saith he, A Lord Major elect succeeds the old, though the old continue after his election for a time, Defense p. 171.

But this is not true, a Lord Major elect doth not succeed till he be sworn, in the interim he is no Lord Major in being, but only in possibility and probability which may never be. A successor hath no place while the predecessor is present, Jewel. Defense of the Apol. part. 2. c. 3. div. 5.

2. I argued that in no good sense can Baptism be said to be in the room and place of circumcision; For neither in proper acception have either room or place, nor taking room and place for the subjects circumcising and ci • cumcised, baptizing and baptized, is it true; parents though private persons might circumcise, not so in baptism, women were to be baptized, not so in circumcision. These things are answered by Mr. M. either with censures of me, which are but vain, this arg • ing being necessary to clear truth, or by reference to what he had said before, which is also fully refuted in the third part of this Review, sect. 18. I further said, If by room and place be meant the society into which the circumcised and baptized were to be initiated, it is not true. For Baptism initiated into the Christian, circumcision into the Jewish church.

To this Mr. M. If you mean only the several administrations, the Church of the Jews being Christ's Church under one administration, the Christian Church the same Church of Christ under another administration; you speak truth, but not to the purpose; my conclusion never said Circumcision and Baptism do initiate into the same administration of the Covenant: but if you mean, that the Church of the Jews and we are not one and the same Church, you speak pure Anabaptism indeed, and contradict the Scripture expressly, which everywhere makes the Church of the Jews and the Gentiles one and the same Church, though under divers administrations. I count it needless to annex any proofs, because I think you dare not de • y it.

Answ. I do not mean only the several administrations, if I had so spoken I might have perhaps been judged to speak non-sense, from which I can hardly acquit Mr. Ms. speeches, that Circumcision and Baptism do initiate into different administrations of the Covenant, and yet they are termed the divers administrations, and the Church of Jews and Gentiles by reason of them under divers administrations, which kind of expressions, though frequently used by Paedobaptists, yet I can discern little in them but non-sense, or tautologies, or self-contradictings. My meaning was very obvious. That the Christian Church, properly so called, contradistinct from the Jewish visible Church is one society, and that Baptism enters into the visible Church Christian, that the visible Church Jewish contradistinct to the Christian is another society, and Circumcision entered into it, not into the Christian. And these things are so manifest that I thought it needless to bring proofs. Who knows not that circumcised Proselytes were in the Jewish Church visible, and not in the Christian, and baptized disciples of Christ cast out of the Jewish church, who remained among the disciples of Christ & in his Church? that the Jewish Church visible persecuted the Christian Church visible? Yea this is so apparent that Mr. M. both in his Sermon p. 27. speaks to the same purpose; None might be received into the Communion of the Church of the Jews until they were circumcised▪ nor in the communion of the Church of the Christians until they be baptized, our Lord himself was circumcised as a professed member of the Church of the Jews, and when he set up the new Christian Church, he would be initiated into it by the Sacrament of Baptism ; And in his Des. p. 169. I reply that the Christian Church was not fully set up and completed with all ordinances of worship, government, officers, till afterwards, is readily granted, but that it was not in fieri in erecting and framing, and that Baptism was administered in reference to the Christian Church, and that by Baptism men were initiated into this new administration or best edition of the Church, I think no sound Divine did ever question▪ p. 171. I answer Johns Baptism and Ministry was a praeludium to Christ, and was wholly in reference to the Christian church, which then began to be molded; and though there was not a new distinct Church of Christianity set up, yet all this was preparing the materials of it, and John did not admit them by Baptism as members to the Jewish Paedagogy, which was then ready to be taken away, but into that new administration which was then in preparing. So that what Mr. M. terms in me the speaking of pure Anabaptism indeed, is no other then his own, and is so manifest as cannot be denied to be true, nor is at all contradicted by the Scripture, which never makes the Church Christian visible and the Jewish to be one and the same, but the Church invisible by election and believing of Jews and Gentiles to be one and the same mystical body of Christ, Ephes. 3.6. Now this one thing demonstrates that Baptism succeeds not into the place or office of Circumcision, since they had different institutions; were for Churches, as Mr. M. speaks, under divers administrations, whereof the one was national gathered by natural descent, or Proselytism, the other only by the preaching of the Gospel and faith. As S • lmatius in his apparatus to his book Of the primacy of the Pope p. 20, 21. proves the modern Bishops neither to succeed into the place of the Apostles, nor the first Bishops because of their different institution, name, function and ordina • ion, so in like manner I prove that Baptism succeeds not in the place of Circumcision, because of its different institution, name, office, and state it hath from it. Which i • further proved thus. The command of Circumcision was different from the command of Baptism, the command of Circumcision not inferring Baptism; to which Mr. M. replies, Now this follows that therefore Baptism doth not succeed in the room of Circumcis • on • cannot guess; the Lord's day succeeds the 7th day in being God's Sabbath, but certainly the institution of it was long after the other.

Answ This proves that the one is not s • ated on the command of the other, Baptism on the command of Circumcision, they having d • fferent commands Gen. 17.10, &c. Matth. 28.19. and consequently no rule for baptizing in the command of Circumcision, nor the command of circircumcising infants a virtual command for baptising, the rules of administering each of these being to be taken from their several commands and approved examples of practice, and no other.

Lastly, that Baptism succeeds Circumcision in the same use and end, is more untrue. For the uses of Circumcision were so far from being the same with the use of Baptism, that they are rather contrary. For the uses of Circumcision were to engage men to the use of the rest of the Jewish ceremonies, to signify Christ to come out of Abraham's family, to be a partition wall between Jew and Gentile.

To this Mr. M. answers.

Answ. Mr. Ms. grant, that the uses were part of the Jewish Padagogy, and that it is wholly vanished, and therein circumcision hath no succession, doth infer that Circumcision and all its uses are vanished, and have no succession: For it had no uses but what did belong to the Jewish Paedagogy, the initiating was into the Jewish Church, or rather the family of Abraham, (which speech I used as conceiving that term more comprehensive and more proper, in as much as the family of Abraham was it into which Circumcision did initiate first afore the people of Abraham's house were termed the Church of the Jews,) and that covenant which circumcision did signify and confirm, was peculiar to the Jews, although Christ were typified by circumcision and righteousness by faith in the latent sense, promised in the Covenant, Gen. 17. which yet no more proves Baptism to succeed circumcision then to the cloud, sea, Manna, water out of the Rock, the Ark of Noah, the Passover, the sacrifices of the Law, high Priest, washings, &c. And if then this be all the use that Baptism succeeds circumcision in, to confirm the Covenant so far as it was spiritual, it succeeds as well to all these, and so doth the Lord's Supper to circumcision, & from the comands of those rites, a rule might be drawn to administer Baptism by, as well as from circumcision. Piscator in his observat. on Numb. 28, 29. makes Baptism to succeed circision and the purifyings to be often iterated, but the truth is it succeeds to neither, Christ is instead of all these Col. 2.17. and succeeds to them, and to say that Baptism succeeds to the use of circumcision, as it signified the Gospel promise to Abraham, must make it to signify Christ yet to come in the flesh; For which reason I say still boldly, though it were (as I think it is not) against all Divines and Churches since the Apostles time, that to say Baptism succeeds in the room and place of circision, is a proposition erroneous and very dangerous.

Mr. M. saith to this p. 174. 1. That he had confuted before what I say, that the covenant with Abraham is not the same with the New-covenant but in part, to which there is a full reply before, in all the sections of the third part of this Review, wherein the Covenant with Abraham is defended to be mixed, to wit, the 4th, 25th, 26th, 27th. 2. That the Cloud, Sea, Manna, water of the Rock &c. were extraordinary signs, not standing Sacraments to be used in all generations, and yet so far as God hath made them parallel, what hurt is there in saying Baptism succeeds them ? To which I answer, 1. The sacrifices and purifyings were as much standing Sacraments, and that in more generations then circumcision and the Passover. 2. That there is this hurt to Mr. Ms. cause, that if he grant that Baptism succeeds to them as well as circumcision, then a rule may be taken from the use of those in the administration of Baptism as well as from circumcision, which is only proved from the succession of the one to the other, nor is it wildly said by me, if the confirming or signifying the same covenant, prove Baptism to succeed circumcision, it proves the Lord's Supper to succeed it, which according to Mr. M. hath the same general state, signification and use, from which alone Mr. M. and other Pae • obaptists gather the succession of Baptism to circumcision, from Col. 2.11, 12. & not from the particular use of initiating, and if so a rule from circumcision to give the Lord's Supper as succeeding it to infants, as well as Baptism may be drawn, which were absurd in Mr. Ms. conceit. I have hitherto shown the falsehood of Paedobaptists assertion about Baptisms succession to circumcision; Let's review their proofs of it.

Mr. M. in his defense p. 174. saith,

Answ, Though I deny not that we have the same thing which was signified by Circumcision, while we are buried with Christ by Baptism; yet I deny that the Apostle plainly or obscurely sets Baptism in the same state, or makes it of the same use to us as Circumcision was to the Jews: Nor do I find anything in the Apostles words from whence it may be gathered, that the Circumcision of the flesh was the Sacrament of it to them, except it be meant only of Christ's personal Circumcision. For it is plain, that what is said v. 11. that they were circumcised with the circumcision not made with hands, in the putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, in or through the circumcision of Christ, is expressly applied to Christ's Circumcision, and not to the Circumcision of any other person but Christ: nor can be, since of no man's Circumcision besides Christ's is it true, that we are in or by it circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting • off the body of the sins of the flesh : Nor are we thus circumcised by Christ's Circumcision as the sacrament, token, or seal of spiritual Circumcision, as that only which sacramentally represented it, or as a seal of the Covenant in which it was promised; but as the effectual pattern, according to which by Divine predestination we are to be conformed, Rom. 8.29. in whom we are said to be buried, raised, v. 12. quickened, set in heavenly places, Ephes. 2 5. concrucified; Gal. 2.20. fellow sufferers, Rom. 8.17. Phil. 3.10. Whence I argue, If our Baptism be hence gathered to succeed in the same state and use with Circumcision, then it succeeds to Christ's Circumcision, for none other is here meant; and if so, then each believers Baptism is the effectual pattern by virtue of which we have spiritual Circumcision. But this is so absurd, that it is not much short of blasphemy, therefore the inference of Baptisms succession to Circumcision from hence is without any ground, and I did truly say in my Examen, that it was an ignis fatuus that hath misled men in gathering it hence. Nor is it true, that there is a word in the Text that intimates, that either our Baptism seals anything to us, except our union and conformity to Christ, to which though Circumcision of the heart be antecedent, concomitant, or consequent, yet it is not the same; and therefore the sealing of the same thing by Baptism as by Circumcision, is not rightly hence inferred.

As for what Mr. C. saith, p. 79, 80. that there is the same spiritual fruit of Circumcision and Baptism, those only who are in Christ have it, because they have it by the circumcision of Christ, and the like of Baptism; that the benefit and fruit of circumcision, which is the circumcision made without hands, they had by being buried and risen with Christ in Baptism and therefore that they were complete in Christ, is all granted, and confirms my argument against the imagined sucession of ordinary Circumcision to ordinary Baptism, and of their being the same in substance and use. For hereby it is plain, that what spiritual fruit is ascribed to Circumcision, it is not ascribed to ordinary Circumcision, no nor to Abraham's, (notwithstanding what Mr. C. would deduce from Rom. 4.11, 12.) but to Christ's: Nor is the spiritual fruit, Col. 2.11, 12. ascribed to Baptism, but to the burial and resurrection of Christ represented in Baptism. As for what Mr. C. adds as the Apostles meaning, that they were complete in Christ in the Ordinances of the Gospel, is his own fiction; for the Apostle is so • ar from saying we are complete in Christ in the Ordinances of • he Gospel, that as I prove, Exam. p. 91, 92. out of the Text, the words of Beza, Aretius, (whose sayings are by Mr. M. in his Defense, p 175. owned as true,) and Mr. Ms. own words, that the Apostle asserts our completeness in Christ without any outward Ordinance either of Law or Gospel. And this I think Mr. C. himself dare not deny. For since • he completeness is in spiritual benefits, mortification, renovation, remission of sins, as Mr. C. acknowledgeth, if we have our completeness in Christ by Baptism, we have these spiritual benefits by it, and we have them not without it. What Mr. M. saith, p. • 75. of my abuse of Aretius, is answered in my Apology sect. 1 • . p. 60. Aretius his testimonies out of the Fathers cited p. 176. prove nothing concerning the meaning of Col. 2.11, 12. though they show that some of the Ancients conceived of Baptisms succession to Circumcision as he did. To what I argued in my Examen, p. 92. that by this doctrine, that Baptism is instead of Circumcision, the Apostles argument for the disannulling the Jewish ceremonies, both here and Heb. 9. & 10.1. & 13. in the Epistle to the Galatians, ch. 3. & 4. and Ephes. 2. is quite evacuated, who still useth this argument to prove the abolition of the ceremonies of the law, because they have their complement in Christ, not in some new Ordinance added instead of them; for if there be need of other Ordinances (besides Christ) instead of the old, then Christ hath not in himself fullness enough to supply the wa • t of them, and this abolition is not because of Christ's fullness, but other Ordinances that come instead of the abolished; and though our Ordinances may be said to imitate theirs, yet Christ's only succeeds them.

Mr. M thus saith. I answer, it is very true▪ that whoever should plead (as Mr. C. doth) that we have any of our completeness in any outward Ordinance would evacuate the Apostles argument, but yet they by his own appointment help us to apply this completeness, they argue not that all our completeness is not in Christ, Christ only succeeds all the Jewish Ordinances as the body doth the shadow: We plead not, as the Papists do, that the Jewish Sacraments were types of ou • s, they were types only of Christ; but yet ours succeed them to be like signs of the covenant of grace, and so the Apostle doth in this place.

To which I reply. 1. If it be contrary to the Apostle to plead that we have any of our completeness in any ou • ward Ordinance, then it is contrary to • he Apostle to make Baptism and the Lord's Supper to succeed Circumcision and the Passover, since • hat only Col. 2.10, &c. is made to succeed them wherein we are complete without them. 2. What Mr. M. means by applying the completeness of Christ, and how Baptism and the Lord's Supper help us to apply this completeness, I do not readily understand. I conceive it applied no otherwise then by faith, nor they to help any otherwise then by exciting it, which I am sure they do not to infants, and so Baptism of infants is no help to them to apply the completeness of Christ. 3. Though Baptism and the Lord's Supper argue not that all our completeness is not in Christ, yet the doctrine of Mr. M. that Baptism is in the same state, and of the same use to us as circumcision was to the Jews, that it succeeds into its place, doth so a • gue as I have shown. 4. If Christ only succeeds all the Jewish Ordinances, as the body succeeds the shadow, then Christ only is made Col. 2.11, 12. the successor to Circumcision: for there is no other succession there spoken of, as appears by the phrases of completeness in him as the head, v. 10. circumcised by the circumcision of Christ, v. 11. buried with him, risen with him, v. 12. quickened together with him, v. 13. dead with him from the rudiments of the world, v. 20. so as that by holding him as the head being knit together the whole body increaseth with the increase of God, v. 19. and chiefly that which is said v. 17. which are a shadow of things to come, but the body is of Christ. 5. If the Jewish Sacraments were not types of ours, then the reason of their ceasing from the succession of ours is taken away, for that rests only on this, that they were types, and ours the truth. 6. If ours succeed only in that they are like signs of the Covenant of grace, then they succeed all the sacrifices, washings, annointings of the law as well as these: we may conclude succession of Baptism to Noah's Ark, &c. But in the administration of an Ordinance we are not to be ruled by bare analogy framed by ourselves or delivered by the spirit of God, but by the institution of God.

To this Mr. M. saith, Defense, p. 177.

Answ. 1. If this were true, then to tie Baptism to the eighth day, to be of all in the family, &c. should according to Mr. Ms. s • ppositions be right. 2. There's not a word in the Apostle Col 2. to show that ours succeed the Jewish Sacraments to be like signs of the covenant of grace. Yea, I urged that the Apostle rather resembles burial to Circumcision then Baptism, and makes the analogy between Circumcision and Christ's burial, and cited the words of Chrysostom and Theophilact on the place to that purpose, Exam p. 93.

To this Mr. M.

I reply, 1. I said not Circumcision is compared to burial, but that Col. 2.11, 12. burial rather resembles Circumcision then Bap • ism, and the analogy is between them. Which is true, since buried with him, v. 12. answers to circumcised by his circumcision, v. 11. and the analogy is, that as the one so the other is the effectual pattern of our mortification; and not between our burial and baptism, as Mr. M. And to this are the words cited by me apposite. Nor are the words of Chrysostom, that we put off sins in Baptism, for Mr. Ms. purpose, to prove analogy conceived by the Apostle between the Jewish common Circumcision, or our burial and our baptism. 2. I said Baptism is named with faith, Col. 2.12. as the 2 means whereby we have communion with Christ, and are complete in him. Exam. p. 94.

To this Mr, M.

To this is replied in my Apology, sect. 5. p. 28. that Mr. M. perverts my words, my arguing being no other then this, Baptism is alleged as one of the means whereby we come to be complete in Christ, (which Mr. M. denies not, but avows as his sense,) therefore there was another reason besides the succession of it into the place of circumcision, why the Apostle there mentions it, which Mr. M. denied. And this consequence (however Mr. M. in his flout term it) is good, except it were true, that every means whereby we are complete in Christ succeeds circumcision, the contrary whereof is confessed by Mr. M. in acknowledging faith to be one of the means whereby we are complete in Christ, Col. 2.12. which yet succeeds not circumcision, according to him. Mr. Ms. censure of my speech, that the misunderstanding Col. 2.11, 12. was an ignis fatuus, as arrogant, is shown in my Apology, sect. 5. p. 29. to be injurious: And what he saith in his Defense, p. 179. of my position, that circumcision was not a token of the Covenant to the Jews children, is another injury, in that he leaves out the words [in sone sense] which was set down a little before in my Appendix, p. 174. which being added, there is nothing in them contrary to the Text, Gen. 17. but enough thence to prove my speech true.

What Mr. C. urgeth p. 81, from 1 Cor. 5.7, 8. of the Lord's Supper succeeding the Passover, That the Apostle could not have expressed by such phrases taken from the Passover the celebrating the Lord's Supper, had not the Passover and the Supper been the same for substance, is not right. For 1. that by keeping the feast is meant eating the Lord's Supper, is not proved; and Beza, Diodati, the new Annot. with others, paraphrase the words thus, Let us lead our life. 2. Our obedience, gifts, doing good, are termed sacrifices, yet these phrases prove not them to be the same in substance in Mr. Cs. sense. 3. Christ is expressly in the Text 1 Cor 5.7. termed our Passover, therefore the Text makes the sacrifice of Christ to suc • eed the Passover; not the Lord's Supper.

But Mr. Drew, p. 3 • ▪ thinks to prove the succession of Baptism to Circumcision, because as he saith in my Exercit. p. 3. &c. I readily grant that Baptism is an Ordinance set up by the appointment of Christ to serve for the same spiritual ends that circumcision did. To which I say, that all I grant there, is, that Circumcision and Baptism signified and confirmed the promise of the Gospel, but I added, according to different forms and function, and I ascribed no more to Circumcision then to the Paschal lamb, the rain of Manna, &c. But this is not the same with that which Mr. Drew injuriously imposeth on me. Yet if it were, it would not prove Baptisms succession to Circumcision, as is before shown, and if it did it would as well prove its succession to the Passover, Manna, the water out of the Rock, &c. which he will not assert I think. The rest which he saith, about Col. 2.11, 12. is the same with what others say, and hath been answered in my Examen part. 3. sect. 9. in my Appendix, and in this section and in other parts of this Review.

As for Mr. Cotton, who is one of those to whose writing Mr. Drew refers us for proof of Baptisms succession to Circumcision, from Col. 2.10, 11, 12. his conceit is grounded upon this mistake in hi • book of Baptism p. 128. That the Apostle pleadeth our completeness in Christ, notwithstanding our want of circumcision, in that we en • oy the like fullness of benefit in our Baptism as the Jews did in their circumcision, which hath been often shown to be false. For there is no mention of a benefit to the Jews, but to the Colossians, and this benefit was not bare outward Circumcision, or any outward Church privilege, but the inward Circumcision in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, and this not by the Jews Circumcision, but Christ's circumcision in his own person, nor is it true that the fullness of benefit there is ascribed to ordinary Baptism, nor can be rightly so conceived. And what Mr. Cotton saith in the same place against those who say that Baptism being granted to succeed Circumcision, yet it follows not infants must be baptized, That succession is the substitution of later things for former things in the same sub • ect, if the subject be changed, so far as there is a change of the subject there is no succession, and therefore if infants be not baptized as they were circumcised, Baptism succeeds not circumcision, is false and against himself. 1. False, for we know though there were a law made that after infant Kings all should be adult, and after women Queens, all should be male Kings, yet they should be true successors, as King James to Queen Elizabeth, Henry the 7th to Edward the 5th or Henry the 6th. 2. Against himself, For thereby is proved Baptism doth not succeed circumcision, since there is a change in the subject, women being baptized, who were not circumcised, and parents or masters of families being to circumcise, but preachers of the Gospel only to baptize.

As for what Dr. Homes (to whom Mr. Drew also refers) in his Annimadvers. on my Exercit. p. 28, 29. brings to prove Baptisms succession to Circumcision, it's upon alike mistakes. For 1. it is not true that the Apostles scope Col. 2.12. in mentioning Baptism, is to answer the objection Dr. Homes imagines, and to show that we are as complete as the Jews, because Christ hath appointed another sign, to wit Baptism, instead of the Jews Circumcision. 2. Nor doth the Apostle affirm or intimate, that if we have not Baptism in the room of Circumcision to us Believers and our infants, we are not so complete as the Jews, by Christ. 3. Nor is it true that the Apostle doth call off the Colossians from circumcision by the consideration of their Baptism as in the room of circumcision. 4. Nor doth the Apostle make such analogy between Baptism and Circumcision as Dr. Homes saith he doth. 5. Nor if he did, would this prove such a succession of Baptism to Circumcision as Paedobaptists would have, that the command of infant Circumcision must be a command for infant Baptism.

Mr. Thomas Fullers argumentation for the succession of Baptism to Circumcision in all the essentials of it, as he speaks in his Infants advocate▪ ch. 7. is alike vain. For there is no inconvenience that I know, to say no ordinance doth succeed Circumcision; his talk of Sacraments being pillars of the Church, is but phrasifying instead of disputing, nor do I know how it can be true. Nor do I know, that all or any graces Evangelical are conferred in baptism or were in circumcision of the Jews, much less that the conferring of such grace, is essential to either of them ; nor is it true, that Col. 2.11, 12. Christians are said by Baptism to be spiritually circumcised ; and by the same proportion the believing Jews may be said by Circumcision to be spiritually baptized : For it is not by Baptism but before it, that regularly persons are spiritually circumcised, nor were the believing Jews by Circumcision to be spiritually baptized but before it; Nor is there any such affinity, much less essential sameness between them, as that a command about the one should be a command to us about the other. Nor do I find anything in that Author which needs further answer, he having added nothing to the cause, but some peculiar words and expressions without any strength.

What Mr. Cobbet hath about this point Just. vindic part. 2. c. 2. sect. 9, 10, 11. I shall further examine. Sect. 9. he sets down eight propositions, which if they were all granted, yet they do not prove that point, which is in question, that an a • gument from analogy between mere positive ceremonies, ri • es or Sacraments is of validity, so as that it may be concluded thus; So it was in a ceremony of the Old Testament, therefore it must be so in the New, without any other precept or example therein: Concerning the insufficiency thereof, I have disputed so largely in the 2d. part of this Review sect. 2, 3. as that I need to say no more here. Nor doth anything Mr. C. brings concerning the fullness of the Scripture, Christ or the Apostles arguing, prove such kind of arguing good in mere positive rites, however matters of faith and manners are determined and proved by them from the Old Testament. Nor should it be granted (as it is not) that there is the same main ground of Circumcision and Baptism, yet would it follow the rule of the one is a rule about the other, without the like institution. Yet what Mr. C. hath set down as the main ground that God would once have his Covenant of grace (which he means p 201. of the very Covenant of saving grace, not of any mere outward Covenant) to be to the whole Church and Church seed ; and the rest of his hypotheses, pag. 195. are so fully shown to be mistakes in this Review, that I think it needless actum agere. And for the tenth section in which he makes a tedious paraphrase, and dictates many things without proof, concerning Col. 2.10, 11, 12. they proceed upon the mistakes above shown, as if the Apostle answered this objection, If Gentile believers have not an initiatory seal for them and their children they should not be so complete as the Jews in outward Ordinances, and that the Apostle answers that they have Baptism instead of Circumcision. He • himself more truly saith, pag. 199. That Baptism is named Col. 2.12. as an outward mean whereby be enchurched Gentiles especially, come ordinarily to have communion with Christ, and to be complete in him, and therefore not in outward Ordinances; nor by Baptism can it be said we are complete in outward ordinances, since himself makes it only the initiatory seal, but completeness is not in the enjoyment of the initiatory only, but of all ordinances.

As for what he saith Section eleven, for the succession of Baptism to Circumcision, that it is sufficient to prove it that they agree in their common Author, Sacramental nature, and end (which yet is false▪) the answer is good that these things prove it not, since there are the same or more parities of Baptism and the Passover, and more disparities between Baptism and Circumcision, which are sufficient to show that the command concerning the one is not a command concerning the other. For i • the command bind to baptize infants, it binds only to baptize males at eight days old, and not afore; nor is it any answer to say, The command of Circumcision binds in the substantials of it though not in the circumstantials ; • or first, if the command bind it binds in every point as well as in one. 2. The state of infancy is as much a circumstance as the eighth day. 3. In the command of Circumcision, I know not anything which may be termed substantial, unless he mean the act of cutting off the fore-skin of the flesh, which he will not have us tied • o, for then we must not baptize our infants but circumcise them. As for what he speaks of the command to seal with an initiatory seal of the Covenant indefinite believers and their children, it is a mere figment, as hath been before shown. There is nothing else that I conceive needful to be added in this place, I go on to finish the rest.

SECT. LXXXII. Notwithstanding Mr. Cs. allegations of Acts 2.38, 39. 1 Cor. 7.14. Rom. 11 16, •• Mark. 10.14. Acts 15.10. Matth. 28.19. the N. T. appear • to be silent about Mr. Cs. additional promise, and infants Baptism.

HAving more largely noted the unproved dictates and mistakes of Mr. Carter hitherto. I shall be briefer in the rest • o what he saith pag. 81, 82, 83, 84. there needs no more to be said but this, that the blessing upon posterity which Mr. C imagines, m • ght have been signified, though adult persons only had been circumcised, we have plain Scriptures which warrant us to alter circumcision wholly and abolish i • , besides which we know no other command Gen • 7▪ 9 the texts Acts 8.12. Gal. 3 27 28. do as plainly show that Baptism is to be of none but believers, and that but adul • persons are to 〈◊〉 bap • ized, • s that women are to be baptized, i • Circumcision were a priv • ledge Acts 7.8. we have abundant warrant to take it away; nor doth the text Rom 11 29. hinder it, which is not meant of outward privileges, which are common to elect and reprobate (as the privilege of Circumcision was) but of saving grace, to wit election and effectual calling, and therefore is palpably abused by Mr. C. to prove that God takes not away the outward privilege from his people now, which was by circumcision, we justly require a precept or example in the N. T to warrant infant Baptism, no command of a mere positive right of the Old Testament, being a rule to us about a mere positive right of the new, as is fully proved by me in the 2d. part of this Review, Sect. 2, 3.

What Mr. C. saith pag. 85, 86, 87, 88, 89. That the N. T. is not altogether silent in this matter, because of Peters words, Acts 2.38, 39. is false. For neither is there a word Acts 2.38, 39. of Mr. Cs. imagined additional promise of making every believer a blessing, so as to cast ordinarily elect children on elect parents, nor that the application of the initial seal is to signify this promise, nor that the application of it to infants is of the substance of this Covenant nor that the command Gen. 17.9. is yet a command that lieth upon Abraham's spiritual seed now in the New Testament, nor that Baptism is now in the room of Circumcision, and is the very same in substance for us, nor if Mr. Cs. exposi • ion were granted, would any of these follow, but the contrary. For first, if the promise be the same wi • h that verse. 17. out of Joel, yet sure it is not the same with Mr. Cs. additional promise, the promise of receiving the holy Ghost being not all one with this, that the parent believing shall be a blessing to his posterity as Mr. C. fancies, the promise of receiving the Holy Ghost being of a thing terminated on the receiver, but Mr. Cs. additional promise of a thing conveyed to posterity, the promise of receiving the Holy Ghost being as well, if not chiefly to the children, Acts. 2.17, 18. but the additional promise of Mr. C. is only to the parent. 2. Were the promises the same, yet this would not serve Mr. Cs. turn, but be against him. For if the promise Acts 2.39. be the same with that verse. 17, 18. then it is a promise to children of dreaming dreams, seeing visions, and prophesying, but this cannot be meant of infant children, it neither was so fulfilled in the Apostles days, nor in any after time, it would be a prodig • to hear an infant prophesy, much less is it true of the ordinary gifts of the spirit, v. 18. 3 The limitation also is against him, For if it be true which he saith p. 88. That Peter maketh the Gentiles case parallel with the Jews, and saith that the same promise did also belong to them yet with the same limitation, namely, to so many of them only as the Lord our God shall call, implying that it is an effectual call to faith and repentance, that gave to any such a privilege, either Jew or Gentile, and p. 87. the words of the Apostle cannot be meant, that the promise did belong to them and their children only as Jews, Abraham's natural seed, but as believers, and upon their conversion (which I conceive true) then it is false that it belongs to infants as the natural seed of their parents, though believers, and therefore the promise Act. 2.39. is not Mr. Cs. additional promise, which is of believing parents being a blessing to posterity, nor is the promise or imagined privilege consequent thereupon, belonging to infants until they repent and believe. 4. That which he saith p. 87. that Act. 2.38. is an invitation to repenting and believing Jews to be baptized they and their children, is so far from being for his purpose, that it is manifestly against it. For if the invitation be of everyone to repent first, and then every of them so repenting to be baptized, then it is not an invitation to infants to be baptized, nor of parents to baptize them. Yea, this is so apparent in the Text that the very words are directed expressly to those persons who were pricked in their hearts, and said Men and brethren what shall we do, that they should be every of them baptized, v. 38. without so much as mentioning their children in the invitation. Nor doth anything after done by them, v. 41. &c. show that they understood that they were directed by Peter to cause their children, whether infant or adult, to be baptized upon their repentance and believing only. Yea, if as Mr. C. saith, John the Baptist had cleared that point, Matth. 3.8, 9. that to the Jews as Abraham's seed natural Baptism did not belong, it belongs not now to a believers seed. But the truth is, Mr. Cs. exposition is in many things false or uncertain. It is uncertain whether the promise Acts 2.39. be the same with that which is mentioned v. 17, 18. or that v. 30. of which I have spoken enough before. It is false that the promise Acts 2.17, 18. can be meant of ordinary gifts. For the Apostle saith v. 16. that what was spoken by the Prophet was the thing they then saw performed, which was speaking with tongues v. 4, 11. the great things of God, which was extraordinary; and if the promise v. 17, 18. had included ordinary gifts, it had been impertinently alleged to show the fulfilling of it then in those miraculous gifts. Nor doth Mr. C. prove it to be so meant. For 1. though the last days in Scripture signify all that space of time from the coming of Christ in the flesh to the end of the world, 1 Tim. 4.1. 2 Tim. 3.1. Heb. 1.2. & 9.26. yet it follows not the promise is yet in fulfilling, it is sufficient to verify the prophecy that it hath been fulfilled in any part of the last days. 2. Nor is there anything v. 18. to prove the prophesying there to be a distinct thing from the prophesying, v. 17. or prophesying in either to be an ordinary gift, or common to all God's servants. Nor do Rev. 19.10. compared Rev. 12.17. or Rev. 1.9. prove that every believer hath the spirit of prophecy. For Johns suffering for the testimony of Jesus may be understood, yea being distinct from the word of God Rev. 1.9. seems to be meant of his giving testimony of Jesus as an Apostle or Prophet extraordinary; and the having the testimony of Jesus, Rev. 12.17. being distinct from keeping the commandments of God, imports the testimony there meant to be of that which was testified by extraordinary revelation, against which the Dragon warred, and a blessing is to the observers, Rev. 1.3 And that Rev. 19.10. is meant of those who had extraordinary revelation, is manifest, in that Rev. 22.9. where the same thing is expressed, and there what is Rev. 19.10. thy brethren which have the testimony of Jesus, is, thy brethren the prophets, and the prophets are distinct from them that keep the words of that book. Besides, if every believer had the spirit of prophecy, then every believer should be a prophet, and should be set by God in the Church next after Apostles, afore Teachers; which doth expressly gainsay the Apostle, 1 Cor. 12.28, 29. and fully proves the prophesying mentioned 1 Cor. 14. to be no ordinary gift, which every believer hath. Nor doth it follow, the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophesy, therefore every testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophesying, the speech being indefinite, not universal; and the words being the speech of the Angel, showing wherein he was fellow-servant to John, plainly intimate he meant it of the special testimony of Jesus which he was fellow servant to John in, as the Title of the Book shows, Rev. 1.1. The Revelation of Jesus Christ which God gave to him to show to his servants what things must shortly be, and sending signified them by his Angel to his servant John. I omit what Piscator conceives in his scholie on the place, that the words are to be read in an inverted order thus, the spirit of prophesy is the testimony of Jesus, that is, which is received from him. Nor is it true, that the promise John. 16.13. is to all believers, however Preachers do so often misapply it, but to the Apostles. And it may be doubted, whether the words 1 John 2.20, 27. be meant of all believers, or of those that were strong or we • l instructed by John as his li • tle children, v. 14. and if it be meant of all believers, yet it must be understood with limitation of all things necessary to salvation, or of all things needful to withstand the seducers he mentions, not a word • hat mentions their prophesying. Nor doth Joh. 7.39. prove every believer a prophet; nor may it be gathered from 1 Thes. 5.19, 20. that such preaching, which we must suppose may bring us something that is not good, is called prophesying, but that something may be termed prophesying which is not; and therefore the spirits are to be tried whether they be of God, for many false pro • hets are gone out into the world, as John speaks, 1 Epist. 4.1.

Nor is it true, that Peter exhorts the Jews, Act. 2.38. to repent, that is, to go on as they had begun. For though they had some horror of conscience, v. 37. yet not repentance, unto which Peter exhorts, v. 38. nor doth any word used by Peter intimate that they had begun to repent. And what Mr. C. adds to the clause to as many as the Lord our • od shall call, not only to them, but also to their children, is too bold dealing with the Scripture, there being not a word in the Text which implieth that addition, and therefore is not justified by his allegations of Psal. 1.6. Prov. 10.24. What other arguments for Mr. Cs. purpose have been urged from Act. 2.38, 39. have been largely answered already. I go on.

Mr. C. adds, p. 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99. a large discourse▪ in whi • h 1. there is p. 97. a confession which doth invincibly prove infant Baptism to be will worship, and his speech false which he used p. 8 • . that the New Testam • nt is not altogether silent in this matter ; and it is this. Whoever shall confine himself only to the N. T. to find out the law of God's worship and service, he shall never find it, not only as to infant Baptism but also to all other Ordinances whatsoever For if infant Baptism be not to be found in the N. T. then the N. • . is altogether silent about that matter: and if it be not there, then it is will worship, there being no law about a mere positive rite or ceremony in force to us Christian Gentiles now, which was give • n to the Jews in the Old Testament, as I have proved, Exam. par. 3. sect. 12. pag. 116, 117. Review, par. 2. sect. 2, 3. 2. There is in the same p. 97. a false and dangerous speech, that Christ spake so little in his N. T. concerning the law which is the rule which he hath set for his service of his house; namely, because he could look upon that, for the greatest part, to be done already, to wit, in the Old Testament ▪ Which if true, then the laws about the ceremonies of the Jews are our rule, we are still under the yoke of bondage, popish, prelatical ceremonies are still justifiable, a Bishop or Archbishop above Presbyters and Bishops, appeal to Synods, their power to decide controversies, to excommunicate, a national Church constitution, are still to be retained, for these, or that which was proportionable to these, was according to the Rule of God's house then. Nor is there a word in any of the Scriptures which Mr. C. alledgeth, for this his purpose.

Not Luke 16.16. the meaning whereof is not, as Mr. C. fancies, That in the times before John was the season to instruct men in the law, since in the Gospel ; but as it is Mat. 11.13. All the prophets and the law until John prophesied, that is, foretold of Christ's coming as future; but the Kingdom of God, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Luke 16.16. from then is Evangelized, or told as good tidings already begu • to be, a • Diodati annot. on Mat. 11.13. Johns prerogative above the precedent prophets is, that they have only foretold and described things to come▪ but he hath delivered the present salvation, and in him is begun the Evangelical Ministry, and the legal and figurative Ministry is ceased. Yet if Mr. Cs. exposition were allowed, it prov • s not that in the Law or Old Testament the rule about the service or mere positive worship of God in the N. T. is set, but rather the contrary; for if that were the season then for it, and now is the season for another thing, it follows, that it is unseasonable to take a rule for God's hou • e in mere positive worship from the Old Testament.

The alleging Psal. 78.1. by Mat. 13.3, 9, 35. proves not that a rule for rituals is to be fe • cht from the Old Testament, although it may be useful for to prove doctrines about the Gospel, God's providence, moral duties, &c.

Though it be granted which Mr. C. concludes pag. 96. the general nature of the Law to be one and the same to the people of God under both Testaments, (which is easily yielded since the general nature is invariable, and the same to all forever) yet it follows not that the Laws about • eremonies are the same to the people of God under both Testaments, if so, we are still under the yoke of Circumcision and the Legal rites, and under the Law. And indeed Mr. C. hath in this thing vented many false and dangerous speeches, that to us in Christ the Law hath been as it were incorporated with the Gospel, as thereby become part of the covenat of grace the Law given by 〈◊〉 is called the Testa • ent of Christ, as well as • he Law given to us by • hrist himself▪ that the Old Testament, this the New, and both confirmed by his blood; that in the type by the blood of Bulls and Goat • th •• in the answer type by his own blood. And yet he sa • th, the Apostle R • m. 1 • 6 applieth Deut. 30 • 2, 14 to the Gospel in opposition to the Law, as in itself considered without the Gospel, or as a covenant of works ; which words are contrary to his former. For if the Gospel be opposed to the Law by the Apostle, as it is in itself considered is without the Gospel, is a covenant of works, then the Law is not incorporated with the Gospel, or thereby become part of the covenant of grace, nor is the Law given by Moses called the Testament of Christ, nor confirmed by his blood, but the blood of Bulls and Goats, ill termed Christ's blood, being opposed Heb. 9.12. In like manner it is a dangerous assertion which he hath pag. 95. In the covenant of works the Law was, Do this and live; but in the covenant of grace it is, Do this in the strength of Christ and live: which if right, we live, that is, are justified (for so his words following explain it) by the doing the works of the law in the strength of Christ; which (if I do understand it) is the very doctrine of Bellarmine, Tom. 4. de justify. l. 1. c. 19. and other Papists, saying the Apostle excludes not works done after grace by faith from justification, but afore faith: Which Protestant Divines commonly refute, as • areus in his Castigations, Ames in his Bellarm. enerv. Chamier, Tom. 3. paustr. lib. 22. c. 2. Abbots defense of Perkins, p. 502. Rivet. sum contr▪ tract. 4. qu. 10. Pemble vind. Fidei, sect. 2. c. 3. sect. 4. c. 1, 2. alleging the Apostles words concerning Abraham, who had not to glory before God, nor was justified by works, Rom. 4.1, 2, &c. And me thinks Mr. Carters next words contradict his former, when he saith, Our state and condition as subjects of his Kingdom, dependeth not upon our keeping the Law but upon free grace in Christ by faith. But of this by the way. That which he alledgeth about the term God's house, 1 Tim. 3.15. 2 Cor. 6.16. and separate, Act. 13.2. 2 Cor. 6.17. that we cannot understand them without the Old Testament, though it were true, yet proves no more but this, that in explaining the meaning of words allusive to things there described, the Old Testament is necessary; but not that which is to be proved, that in observing the rites of the N. T. we are to fetch rules and commands by way of Analogy from the ritual commands of the old.

Mr. C. adds, p 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112. something more about the Texts 1 Cor. 7.14. Rom. 11.24. Mar. 10.14. Acts 15.10. Mat. 28.19. which having been so largely handled in the former parts of this Review, I need only to refer the Reader thither. Yet I add, it is but said without any proof, that 1 Cor. 7.14. that children are termed holy, because they come under the word of blessing from God, in as much as that word was confirmed not only unto Abraham, but also to all believers, Gen. 22.17, 18. That which God blesseth he sanctifieth, and separateth from that which is common or unclean. For 1. there's not a word brought to show that ever any child is in Scripture termed holy by reason of such an indefinite promise to believing parents. 2. Nor that the scope, analysis, allusion in the Text▪ leads to such an exposition. 3. Nor doth it follow, that because God blessed and sanctified the Sabbath day therefore what God blesseth he sanctifieth: God blessed Noah and his sons, Gen. 9.1. yet all of them were not sanctified; yea, many Texts of Scripture apply blessings to unsanctified persons, Psal. 107.38. Ierem. 12.1. much less is it true, that who is termed holy or sanctified is blessed, the unbeliever is in the text sanctified as the children holy, yet not blessed. 4. That this exposition is far from the Apostles scope and arguing, is so largely demonstrated in the first part of this Review and elsewhere, that I judge it surperfluous to refute further these unprooved dictates here.

I deny not that the Jews Rom. 11.24. are termed natural branches by birth according to the Covenant of God with Abraham, the Gentiles the wild Olive by nature as neglected by God, yet it is not true that ever the Gentiles engraffed are made natural branches, since they never descend from Abraham the root by natural generation, and though it be true they enjoy saving graces which the believing Jews had, called v. 17. the fatness of the Olive tree, yet it is not true that the Gentile believers children enjoy the outward privileges the Jews had by birth, or are any of them engraffed and partakers of the Olive tree but the elect and believers, or that they are to be accounted holy by us, till God hath purified their hearts by faith, Acts. 15.9. And as we cannot say certainly any infant of a believer is inherently holy, so neither can we say they are any of them holy as separated to God and to be received into Church relation, till they profess the faith, such promise and purpose of election as Mr. C. imagines being nowhere to be found, and if it were it is not sufficient to make them relatively holy in Church relation, without profession of faith by each person so accounted, there being no rule whereby we are to baptize any but disciples, upon their own profession so judged, no not though God had made such a covenant to each believer as Mr. C. imagines: But we are to baptize persons who profess the faith, though we know not them to be inherently holy, or in the Covenant of grace.

Mr. Cs. other reason pag. 103. Why such children are by the Apostle called holy, because they are not only within the Covenant of Abraham, but also are appointed of God to be a subject recipient of the seal of that Covenant ▪ is another unproved dictate and refuted by the same reasons by which the former is refelled.

What Mr. C. urgeth against my sense of holy that is legitimate, 1 Cor. 7.14. that it had been but affirming the thing, is shown to be false in the first part of this Review sect. 16. And it is false which he imagines that the Apostle thus reasoned, that after my exposition except one of the married couple be believer their children are bastards, or that he • scribed the sanctification to the faith of the believer, which and what else he saith about the scruple from Ezra 10.11. and 9.12. is so fully answered in the first part of this Review sect. 11, &c. to the end of the Book, that me thinks Mr. C. should afore he had printed his Sermons have viewed them, and not thus have printed these stale objections often answered, without showing the insufficiency of the answers, if he meant candidly, as one that endeavored to cl • er the truth.

But Mr. C. takes notice of this objection against the basis of his building, that upon this account not only children of believers, but also nations must be reputed holy, because the promise is that believers shall be blessings also unto nations; To this he answers, The case is not the same, for children are immediately under this word of blessing in the family relation, as the people of God in the Church are immediately under that blessing, which the Lord commandeth out of Zion. But as for nations, they are under it in a remote capacity by means of what the Saints are in their families and in the Church. Therefore although such as are of the Church, and the children also of such families are holy, yet it followeth not that therefore the nation should be holy.

Ref. I reply, the objection in form stands thus; They which come under the word of blessing from God, in as much as that word was confirmed not only unto Abraham, but also to all believers, Gen. 22.17, 18. & 12.2, 3. must be reputed holy. This is the effect of Mr. Cs. words p. • 04. and the main ground of all his discourse for infant Baptism, I subsume. But nations, yea all nations come under the word of b • essing from God, in as much as that word was not only confirmed unto Abraham, but also to all believers, Gen. 22.17, 18. & 12.2, 3. and if the word families be taken (as Mr. C. seems to take it) for households, and all households, then the same objection is concerning, all in households, servants, wives as well as children, they come under the ble •• ing according to Mr. Cs. exposition; Ergo, according to Mr. Cs. arguing and exposition, nations, yea all nations, families, households, all in them are holy and to be baptized, which being absurd his opinion is also absurd. The minor is in the texts, and Gal. 3.8. as Mr. C. expounds them, Ergo, the conclusion follows from his own principles. His answer is neither true nor pertinent. Not true, for children are not immediately under this word of blessing in the family relation, nor the people of God in the Church (meaning the visible) are immediately under that blessing, but only believers in the families or Church, as the Apostle determines, Gal. 3.8, 9. Nor according to Mr▪ Cs. exposition are the children more immediately under the word of blessing as confirmed to Abraham, then the wife, servants, sojourners, neighbors. For the children are not under the blessing but as the children of believers, and so according to his own exposition pag. 37. God's choice shall be by Families and Nations, so that he will ordinarily cast the lot of the Saints in Neighbourhoods and places together, and if so the blessing or choice is as immediately promised to Nations, neighbourhoods, others in the same house as to children, nor are the nations in a more remote capacity then the Saints in the families and in the Church. Nor is the answer pertinent if it were true: For the major proposition, which is his own, is not limited to them that come under the word of blessing immediately in his sense, for then he should exclude nations, neighbourhood • , families, contrary to the text, which mentions the blessing of all kindreds and nations, and not only the children, and to his own exposition which extends it to neighbourhoods and places together.

Mr. C. not trusting to this, saith; To this I add, that children are in the power of parents and at their disposing; and so as when they, in their sanctification, or being made holy, give up themselves to God by faith, and obedience to his Ordinances, their children are therein virtually given up also, in as much as a believer in some respect giveth up to God together with himself all in his power. Now this cannot be said of any nation whatsoever.

Answ. But 1. The parents giving up all to God is not that which makes Children to be holy neither according to truth, for they are made holy by God's act whither of Covenant or other act of consecration or separation to himself, not by man's act of giving up by vow or otherwise to God, yea if the act of man's giving up all in his power to God, makes children holy, it makes servants, cattle holy to God, nor according to Mr. C. himself, who ascribes it to God's election, and word of blessing 2. If this be the way of making holy, by giving up all at his disposing to God, then a believer at his first conversion makes holy to God himself, for he giveth himself to God, makes holy to God persons not yet bego • ten, and so visible Church members according to Mr. B. subjects recipient of the seal of the Covenant, according to Mr. C. pag. 103. yea by this reason a believers horse may be said to be holy to to God, and baptizable. 3. This addition takes away his former answer. For if the giving up all to God in his power at his disposing by the believer make them holy, children are no more immediately holy then servants, wife, &c. all being together given up to God in one act whether virtually or formally. 4. If a believers giving up to God together with himself all in his power, and at his disposing make them holy, then a believing •• ing and State do make the whole nation holy who are their subjects and so the objection stands good, that the whole nation is according to Mr. Cs. conceit to be reputed holy

But Mr. C. saith,

Answ. This objection is mine in my Exercit. sect. 5. but otherwise then Mr. C. here sets it down. For 1 it is not there brought as an objection by itself, but as a reason of my denial of this proposition universally understood, They who are holy with Covenant holiness may be baptized. 2. I did not say the whole people of the Jews, who now are unbelievers, but the elect of the Israelites no • yet called are holy in respect of the Covenant, and are not yet therefore to be baptized. Yet neither to the objection as mine, nor as framed by himself, doth Mr. C. give a sufficien • answer. For he grants the two places 1 Cor. 7.14. Rom. 11.16. are parallel, and in that sense they have been both above alleged to prove that branch of God's covenant with Abraham concerning a blessing upon posterity, in order to the multiplying of believers. And yet it is as true, that there is a great difference between them. Now this grant is enough to prove that persons or people may be federally holy, and yet not baptizable, which is the objection. Nor doth the difference which he imagines (if there be such a difference) in the two places, anything at all infringe it. For whether federal holiness in one place be ascribed to a whole people in respect of a part or to particular persons, the connection between federal holiness and baptizability, is shown to be null; and the major denied not true universally understood, and so the objection is confirmed by this grant, not infringed.

Yea whereas Mr. C. pretends the difference to be great between the places, the very thing be assigns makes no difference. He saith, The Apostle saith expressly 1 Cor. 7.14. of such particular persons that they are holy, but of Rom. 11.16. the scope of the Apostle is to set forth the kind or sort of people, namely Jews, not the particular persons that should be called. But herein he opposeth himself in the words next before, where he thus makes the Apostle to intend both; Thus we are to understand that of the Apostle Rom. 11. when he saith, of the people of the Jews that they are holy, namely, what properly and peculiarly belongeth to a part, even to those of them who either then were, or afterwards should be converted, be ascribeth to the whole, and in respect of that part he calleth the whole body of that people holy. Now if he call a part holy which should be called, he sets forth the particular persons. And 1 Cor. 7.14. sets out the kind or sort of children as well as the particular persons, whether after Mr. Cs. opinion, the children of believers, or after mine, the children of married persons. And that which he argues makes against him for me. For if that which is ascribed to the whole people belongeth by a synecdoche to a part, even those who are or shall be converted, then what is said either Gen 12.2, 3. or 22.17, 18. or Rom. 11.16, 17, 24. of families, nations, branches, lump, may be understood synecdochically of a part of families, nations or people, and those believers as Paul Gal. 3.8, 9. determines as converts as Mr. C. and so not children of believers, much less infants necessarily included in the families, nations, branches engraffed, lump that is holy, and consequently all Mr. Cs. arguing, made void by his own concession, which hitherto he hath framed from Abraham's Covenant to prove infant Baptism. And what he argues, That the lump which is termed holy Rom. 11.16. and the whole people termed beloved v. 28. is to be understood of the better part, and of those that were then unborn, and of such a lump as should have a being successively, and part after part, and so cannot be actually holy then when the Apostle spake, it doth all exactly agree with my explication of the engraffing of the branches in my Apol. sect. 14. in the first part of this Review sect. 1, 2, &c. And doth well serve to answer the arguments for the engraffing parent and child into the visible Church Christian against the sense I give for the engraffing into the invisible Church, by giving of faith according to election. Nor did I ever say, the Apostles meaning Rom. 11.16. was that th • se particular persons of the Jews who pers • st • n unbelief, or that the whole people of the Jews are now in the times of the New Testament holy in any sense whatever, but grant they are broken off from the holy root, verse. 20. are cast • away, verse. 15. are enemies, and so unclean and profane, and therefore not holy, v. 28. yet this meant, but of some, v. 17. a part, v. 25. and all these things do well accord together, and with the perseverance of Saints asserted against Arminians, since the people of the Jews are not by me asserted to be broken off from the invisible Church of elect and true believers in respect of what particular persons broken off were in their own persons, but in respect of what the particular persons were in a former age of the same nation or people.

Mr. C. p 109. imagines that Christ saith, of little children is the Kingdom of God, because of his sained additional promise : but he brings not a word to prove it, nor doth the Text yield any proof that they were believers children; and I have proved the Kingdom of God is meant of that of glory. Review, par. 2. sect. 18.

And for his conceit, that Christ bid suffer them to come to him because of the additional promise of Mr. C. it is without proof, and not agreeable to Mr. Cs. own concei • . For if Christ would intimate, that this is part of the Gospel of the Kingdom, that believers should be blessings to their children, namely, so as they should be means of their conversion, he should rather have directed the Apostles to suffer them to be brought to their parents to be educ • ted, then to himself to lay hands on them. And Christ's anger against his Disciples argues no such intimation, nor his saying that of them is the Kingdom of God, proves their right to Baptism as doth the receiving the Holy Ghost, Act. 10.47. For that shown Cornelius actually a believer, so did not Christ's speech of the little children, which expressed not their present but future estate, as is proved, Review, par. 2. sect. 19. Nor is there a word brought by Mr. C. to prove that Christ's command was given to his Disciples for a perpetual obligation to the Disciples of Christ, in all ages then to come, to bring infants to Christ in an external way, and therefore by Baptism. For though it were recorded after his ascension, yet it follows not it was recorded to learn this, to have a way of bringing infants to Christ by Baptism, there being something else to be learned by it, and it is rather a sure proof that Christ did not teach that by his command, since neither then nor after do we find the Apostles did baptize an infant; and the phrase of coming to him cannot import Baptism, since he did not baptize, Joh. 4.1, 2. and if any standing rule were intended by Christ's command, it should be rather laying on hands and praying for infants, then baptizing them.

Though it be granted, that to whom Christ is a King he is also a Prophet, yet it follows not, that infants being such as of whom is Christ's Kingdom, they are his Disciples as meant Mat. 28.19. much less that they are made Disciples, when their parents are converted, because they are then in the way of the Spirits teaching, Christ being a Prophet to other then Disciples meant Mat. 28.19. Nor is there the least hint. Act. 15.10. of infants being Disciples, and the notion of Disciples by the parents conversion, or by being in the way of the spirits teaching (which yet is not shown, but fancied by Mr. C. ) are mere devised whimzies refuted by me, Review, par. 2. sect. 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15. Nor is any sufficient answer given hereby, or by Mr. C. elsewhere, or any other, or ever will be to the argument as brought by me against infant baptism, Review, par. 2. sect. 5. and elsewhere.

What Mr. C. saith,

Answ. 1. Such a synecdoche in any institution of a rite is nowhere to be found as this which Mr. C. dreams of, baptizing them into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, that is, enter them into the practice of the worship of the Gospel, not only Baptism, but also breaking of bread, &c. 2. We know the Apostles commission did extend as well to the setting up of other Ordinances, viz. breaking of Bread, 1 Cor. 11.23. as of Baptism, but not in the word baptizing, Mat. 28 19. but in the word teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you, v. 20. 3. There is this very thing which Mr. C. himself saith against baptizing infants, it is as if he had said, Go teach them, and enter them into the practice of the worship of the Gospel : For sure Christ did not bid them teach infants, nor do I think Mr. C. would have them entered into the practice of the Gospel worship, but only baptized. And so Mr. Cs. answer is a strengthening of the argument. Enough in answer to Mr. C. being unwilling to make more exceptions on passages which need correction: why I have said so much, the reason is given, sect. 77.

SECT. LXXXIII. Interest in the Covenant gave not title to Circumcision, as Mr. M. in his 4 th. conclusion would have it.

IN the Defense of his 4th. and 5th. concl. against my Examen Mr. M. saith, he will contract ; and accordingly I shall be brief in my reply. He grants the order of circumcising infants is repealed, as I answered in examining his 4th. concl. but would have it added, that by God's order Baptism succeeds in the room of it, which I have refuted. Then upon my saying that Circumcision was not a seal of the spiritual part of the Covenant, he censures this as pure Anabaptism, leaving out injuriously my limitation, to all that were circumcised, which if fairly added had cleared me; and perhaps if the so called Anabaptists had been rightly understood, they had been found as innocent as myself in this thing; I see enough in Paedobaptists dealing with me, to show how great likelihood there is that the words of the Anabaptists in Germany were perverted.

Mr. M. p. 180, 181. excepts against me for saying that Ishmael and Esau had no part in the Covenant, denies that Ishmael had no part in it, when he himself grants that they did never partake of the spiritual graces of the Covenant, which is all one with that which I say, that the Covenant of grace was not made to them, they had no part in it; For sure they to whom the Covenant of grace is made, and have part in it, are all partakers of the spiritual graces of the Covenant, or else God keeps not his promise; and for this I bring Gen. 17.19, 20, 21. Rom. 9.6, 7, 8. Gal. 4.28, 29. (though I needed not, having Mr. Ms. own confession) and therefore it is most false he saith, I bring not one shadow of a proof for what I say.

But Mr. M. thinks to maintain his speech, that Ishmael had part in the Covenant, in that he was reckoned by circumcision to belong to the Covenant, and obliged to seek after the spiritual part of it▪ to have his heart circumcised, and to believe in the Messiah that was to come of Abraham's seed.

Answ. 1. It is contrary to Gen. 7.19, 20, 21. to say that Ishmael by Circumcision did belong to the Covenant, it runs upon this palpable mistake, that everyone that was circumcised had thereby the Covenant sealed to him. 2. Those that were uncircumcised, all the people of the world were obliged to seek after the spiritual graces of the Covenant, to be holy, to believe; yet this doth not prove they had a part in the Covenant, and therefore this answer of Mr. M. is frivolous. And so likewise is that which he saith in answer to my words (not rightly set down, my words were not, right to Evangelical promises or any other benefit) that no benefit of the Covenant was the proper reason (I added, and adequate) why these or those were circumcised, but only God's precept; though God's command was the cause of the existence of the duty of Circumcision, yet the Covenant of grace was the motive to it, and these two are well consistent together. In which 1. he shows not whose motive it was, God's or man's. If he mean it was God's to command it, it is nothing to the purpose to show right to the Covenant of grace to have been the proper adequate reason of the persons to be circumcised: if man's motive, it is false, whether we understand it of • he circumcised, who were infants, and therefore had no motive to it, but were passive only, or the circumciser; for in • brahams circumcising Ishmael Mr. M. saith I have given a very good instance to prove, that some may receive the outward sign of the Covenant, and a v • sible •• anding in the Church, though he who administers the seal might by revelation know the inward grace is wanting ▪ Were his answer gran • ed, yet it proves not the contrary to my speech, but confirms it, though this point be one of the hinges on which his first & main argument turns▪ For i • it be true that the adequate reason o • pe • sons circumcising was not right to the Evangelical promises or other benefit in the Covenant, but God's prec • pt only, then the pillar of Mr. Ms argument f • lls to the ground, All that are in the covenant are to be sealed, it being only true thus, All in the Covenant, whom God ha • h commanded 〈◊〉 sealed are to be sealed.

What he saith after, that I grant what is in controversy, because I grant men may have a visible membership in the Church though they be not elected or sanctified, it is alike frivolous, it being never in controversy; but whether any may be said to be in or under the Covenant of grace, or to have the Covenant of grace made to them who are non elect, and never sanctified.

That which Mr. M. p. 182. calls a piece of odd Divinity, that Circumcision should seal righteousness to them who never are circumcised, nor reputed so, nor capable of being circumcised, nor might lawfully be circumcised, being understood as I express it of Abraham's personal Circumcision is the Apostles express Divinity, Rom. 4.11, 12. whose scope, say New England Elders in answer to the 3d. and 4th. position, p. 65. rightly, in that place is not to define a Sacrament, nor to show what is the proper adequate subject of the Sacrament; but to prove by the example of Abraham, that a sinner is justified before God not by works, but by faith, &c. Nor is this anymore odd Divinity then Mr. Ms. who asserts women virtually circumcised in the males.

That which he saith, that visible professors have a visible right to the spiritual part of Circumcision, I conceive false: For though they had a right to Circumcision or Baptism, which they might receive of men, yet they had no right at all to forgiveness of sins, justification, adoption, salvation▪ which are only from God, and only true believers had right to.

That which he saith, p. 182. that Circumcision was given the Jews in reference to their Church state, not in reference to their civil state, is not true, but said upon a mistake, as if the Church state and Civil were different in the Jewish Commonwealth.

That which he confesseth, that the formal reason of their being circumcised was the command of God, is enough to show that interest in the Covenant did not give right to Circumcision, but the command of God; and therefore without showing a command for infant Baptism, this is no good argument, they are in the Covenant therefore to be baptized, which enervates all Mr. Ms. dispute.

But he adds▪

To which I reply, 1. The Covenant of grace might be in some sense, and the Church state of Abraham's house in some respect, that is, to be a sign of it, might be the end why God appointed Circumcision to Abraham's house; but motive, that is, impulsive cause, I see not how the Covenant of grace and the Church state can be termed, there being nothing but his own will, according to the counsel of which he worketh all things, Ephes. 1.11. that can be rightly termed a motive to him to command it. 2. But be it in the sense I allow it termed motive, or end, and a duty belonging to the Covenant as a sign of it, and the persons who used it, as Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob used it as being in Covenant; yet neither is it true that all that used it were in the Covenant of grace, nor was it appointed as a duty to be used by them to all and they only that were in the Covenant of grace▪ nor did God by the use of it, seal, signify, assure or confer an estate in the Covenant of grace to every person whom he appointed to be circumcised, and therefore no part of the objection is taken off, that Circumcision was not the seal of the Covenant of grace to all circumcised persons, but was appointed to persons not under the Covenant of grace, and denied to persons that were, and consequently Mr. Ms. proposition not true; All that were in the Covenant were to be sealed.

When Mr. M. said, persons were bound to conform to the manner of administration, and this manner of administration he made to be temporal blessings and punishmenst. I took it he meant they should conform to them.

He tells me p. 183. That though I confidently asserted heretofore, that Ishmael, and Esau and others, were circumcised for some temporal respects, that Circumcision sealed the temporal or political promises, but yet in saying they received Circumcision neither in relation to outward things only, nor at all either as temporal blessings or types, but because God commanded, I do as good as deny it; since if they were circumcised with respect to no • hing but the command, it sealed nothing, it was no seal at all. To which I reply, I find not that I asserted anywhere that Ishmael and Esau were circumcised for some temporal respects, and though I alleged Cameron, saying, that it sealed earthly promises, yet I never said it sealed them to Ishmael and Esau: Nor do I count it any absurdity, to say it sealed nothing to them, or it was no seal at all to them. And I conceive that Baptism which is no seal of such earthly promises, nor can be a seal of spiritual and saving grace to every natural child of a believer (of which he will not assert p. 116. of his Defense there is a promise made to them) when it is administered to reprobates is no seal of the Covenant of grace to them, nor any seal at all, and that he must as well as I do (if he will speak congruously to his own doctrine) say that such persons are to be baptized by reason of God's command and no other. Yet I do not say the command of Circumcision was not in reference to the Covenant of grace, as Mr. M. intimates: but this I say, though God commanded Circumcision, that he might signify Christ to come, and Evangelical grace by him, yet neither the circumciser nor the circumcised did circumcise, or were to be circumcised because of the persons interest in the Covenant of grace, as the proper and adequate reason of the du • y of Circumcision, but because of God's command, and yet I nothing doubt but that in the use of it, they and others that were neither circumcisers nor circumcised, as e gr. women were by faith to look on the Covenant of grace through these administrations, that is to expect Christ to come and blessing by him, which speeches are very easily consistent with my own words and Scripture doctrine, though Mr. M. did not understand it.

When Mr. M. alleged that Circumcision could be no seal of Canaan to Proselytes, and I answered that yet the Covenant to Abraham had promises of temporal blessings, and that some were to be circumcised who had no part in the Covenant of grace, he tells me, 1. That he was proving that Circumcision was no seal of the land of Canaan, which I grant, if he mean it to some that were circumcised, yet if he mean it, to none, it is false. 2. He grants temporal blessings belong to the Covenant of grace, according to that 1 Tim. 4.8. But neither this nor any other Text proves, that the promises of a settled abode in a fruitful land with peace, prosperity, and outward greatness, and dominion therein, is promised to a Christian believer now, as it was to Abraham and Israel after the flesh, Gen. 17.4, 5, 6, 7, 8. but the promise of this life is upon the loss of outward things of a recompense in this life by receiving more, yet with persecution, Mark. 10.30. which can be understood of no other then spiritual comforts, which may be termed temporal blessings distinct from the everlasting life which in the world to come they shall have. 3. It was not his drift to prove that all that were circumcised had part in the spiritual graces of the Covenant, but that they had a visible membership and right to be reputed as belonging to the Church. But this is not that whi • h he was to prove that they were in the Covenant of grace.

Lastly, when I excepted agai • st his speech [that Ishmael was really taken into the Covenant of grace, and Esau, till by their Aposta • e they discovenanted themselves. ] 1. That he opposed the Apostle Rom. 9.7, 8. Gal 4.28, 29. Gen. 17.19, 20. Heb. 11.9. To this he repl • es not. 2. That by this speech he asserts falling from grace, this he denies because he meant by their taking into the Covenant of grace not being under the spiritual grace of the Covenant, but the outward administration.

But 1. this is but non-sense and delusory. For the outward administration is not the Covenant of grace, Circumcision is not the Covenant of grace, nor visible profession, nor indeed could he mean it without trifling and mocking his reader when he argued, Infants of Believers are in the Covenant of grace, therefore are to be sealed with Baptism or Circumcision. For infants of believers make no visible, profession and if his argument were, they were under the outward administration, that it, to be Circumcised or Baptized; and therefore they were to be sealed, that is to be Circumcised or Baptized, is mere trifling and delusory of the reader, who expects from his words, a proof that God's promise of righteousness and eternal life by Christ (which is and nothing else the Covenant of grace) is made to every infant child of a believer. 2. If this were Mr. Ms. meaning, Ishmael and Esau did not discovenant themselves, for they did uncircumcise themselves, but shown that they regarded not the blessing of Isaac.

But saith Mr. M.

To which I reply, 1. If they were taken into the Covenant of grace as the engraffed Gentiles, they were elect and true believers, if Esau and Ishmael fell from that state of the Covenant of grace Arminian Apostasy is asserted. 2. Neither the outward administration of Circumcision to Ishmael and Esau, nor their visible profession (whatever it were) was God's act (which Mr. M. denies not taking into the Covenant of grace to be) therefore by neither of these can they with good sense be said to be taken really into the Covenant of grace. 3. What external call which should be God's act distinct from the outward administration and visible profession mentioned, from which Ishmael and Esau fell, I understand not. 4. What ever external calling it be which he means and terms God's act, though a common one, sure I am Mr. M. hath not shown nor can show that it is a real taking into the Covenant of grace, which I said truly, nor hath Mr. M. disproved or gain-said it, is God's act, either of election or promise, or some act executing either of these, and the objection still stands good, persons were to be circumcised who were in the Covenant of grace, Ishmael was appointed to be circumcised, though it were declared God's Covenant did not belong to him, and therefore the reason of Circumcising persons was not the Covenant of grace, but only the will and command of God to have it so.

SECT. LXXXIV. The enlargement of our privileges, proves not Infant Baptism as Mr. M. in his 5th. conclusion, would have it.

MR. Ms. 5th. Conclusion was,

To what I said, that if he meant his conclusion of privileges of the substance of the Covenant of grace, it is to be denied: Mr. M. confessed they were the sameboth to Jews and Gentiles ; but in respect of the administration I granted it, he answers, 1. if this were granted it hurts not him, it's sufficient if the administration be now more comfortable to Believers and their children. To which I reply, that this grant enervates the argument to which this conclusion tends. For if the privileges of the Covenant of grace belonging to the substance of it be not enlarged, but the same in substance to Jews and Gentiles, then no privileges of the Covenant of grace are enlarged; for all the privileges of the Covenant of grace belong to the substance of it, and to true believers or elect only, the visible membership and initial seal contended for, were no privileges of the Covenant of grace, nor such as all believers could claim for their children, they were personal privileges to the Church of the Jews, and belonging to that administration (as Mr. Ms. phrase is) or as I would speak to that peculiar national Church state which God vouchsafed that people, out of special ends and respect to that people, of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, and consequently by denying those privileges we deny no privileges of the Covenant of grace to believers for their children, nor ascribe less grace to them then the Jews had. And if the administration be now more comfortable to believers and their children, it being in that Circumcision and the yoke of the Law are taken away, it follows, it is more comfortable to us, that no such thing as Circumcision was is put on our children. Mr. M. and Paedobaptists do grossly mistake, as if Circumcision did belong to Jews and their Children because of their interest in the Covenant of grace, which neither is nor ever will be proved.

2ly. Saith Mr. M. If there be no more honourableness in those privileges, which belong to the substance of the Covenant, how comes it to pass, that in your answers to those several texts which I and others bring to prove the enlargement of privileges under this last administration, you interpret them of those privileges which belong to the substance of the Covenant, or the spiritual part of it?

Answ. In those answers I do not so interpret those texts of those privileges which belong to the substance of the Covenant, or the spiritual part of it as more honorable then the privileges belonging to the substance of the Covenant of grace, or spiritual part of it now then to believers afore Christ, but say that the promises of the new Covenant, which is the Covenant of grace, are better then the promises of the Covenant at Mount Sinai, which was the Covenant of works.

Thirdly, saith Mr M. Seeing that under this last administration these privileges are communicated not only with more clearness, but in greater abundance, I wonder you should say they are no more honorable and comfortable now then they were then, is not abundance of grace more honorable and comfortable then a little grace?

Answ. It is, but yet not privileges belonging to the substance of the Covenant of grace. For this clearness and abundance comes not from the substance of the Covenant of grace, but to use his phrase, from the administration, in respect of which I granted they are many ways enlarged and made more honorable.

But then saith Mr. M. This will serve our turn well enough; for this was a privilege belonging to their administration, that their infants were under it as well as themselves; yield that for ours and the controversy is ended.

Answ. The yielding that the privileges of believers under the N. T. are enlarged, more honorable, and more comfortable, in respect of the administration, will not serve Mr. Ms. turn, except it be yielded of this particular, that the infants of Christian believers are visible Christian Church members, and to be entered by Baptism, as well as the Hebrew infants of and into the Church of Israel by Circumcision, which would indeed end the controversy if yielded, but was not so by me, who granted privileges of believers now more enlarged in respect of the administration, because the preaching of the Gospel, which is that whereby the Covenant of grace is administered, is enlarged to Gentiles as well as Jews, and more honorable, because preached by Christ himself, and more comfortable because in plain words without shadows.

Mr. M. adds.

Answ. Those external Ordinances applied Christ to them no otherwise then as shadows of the substance, which is Christ, nor doth Mr. M. in his Sermon, p. 10, 11. express their administrations of the Covenant of grace otherwise then as figures, signs, types, and sacraments of spiritual things: so that if we have nothing in lieu of them as they were shadows, but Christ, we have nothing in lieu of them as external Ordinances to apply Christ to us; nor did they make us complete in Christ, nor is it absurd to affirm that no external Ordinances now do.

But saith Mr. M. Circumcision was indeed a part of that administration, and obliged them to the rest of that manner of administration, as Baptism doth now to ours; but did it not also belong to the substance ? Answ. No. Was it not a seal of the righteousness of faith, of Circumcision of heart, &c. Answ. Abraham's was, not every ones Circumcision. Doth not the seal belong to the thing sealed? the conveyance and seal annexed to it are no part of the purchased inheritance, but do they not belong to it? Answ. They do, but not as of the substance of the thing sealed, or the inheritance purchased, or the Covenant whereby it is promised: but as the sign whereby the futurity of it is confirmed. Now surely he should use non sense, who should • erm the sign or seal the substance of the Covenant or thing promised, being neither essential nor integral parts of them, but only adjuncts, without which they may be or not be entirely.

To my saying, That 'tis so far from being a privilege to our children to have them baptized, to have Baptism succeed in the stead of Circumcision, that it is a benefit to want it, God not appointing it;

Answ. Mr. M. by clipping my words hath misrepresented my speech; he hath left out, that Circumcision was a privilege belonging not to the substance of the Covenant, but to the administration which then was; a privilege to the Jews in comparison of the heathens, but a burden in comparison of us, which was in that it signified Christ to come, the obligation of the law, for which reasons I judged it a great privilege to us and our children, that they have neither it, nor any other thing in the place and u • e of it, but Christ manifested in the flesh, because if we had anything in the use of it, Christ must be expected to come in the flesh, and Jesus denied to be the Christ, and we debtors to keep the whole law. And then I determined absolutely, that the want of infant Baptism is no loss to us and our children; not a loss in respect of duty, God having not appointed it; nor of privilege, God making no promise of grace to be confirmed by it to the infants of believers; which last words being left out by Mr. M. the reason of my words is omitted, and my speech misrepresented; but thus set down Mr. Ms. exceptions appear but cavils. For he supposeth our privileges of the Covenant of grace are enlarged by enjoying the Sacrament of Baptism ; but I know not any privileges of the Covenant of grace, but effectual calling, justification, adoption, sanctification, glorification; and if there be any other termed saving graces, or which accompany salvation, and to say these are enlarged by enjoying the Sacrament of Baptism, especially when administered to infants, is as much as to say it confers grace ex opere operato. And I grant for us to have wanted Baptism had been a privilege, God not appointing it, nor promising anything upon the use of it, nor declaring his acceptance of it, which is the case of infant Baptism. Sure I know none but would think it a burden to be baptized, or be covered with water, though but for a moment, were it not God commanded it, and accepted of it as a service to him. And the like is true of Circumcision, the want of which, being so painful, was a benefit, but for the command and promise of God signified by it. Such actions as are no way privileges, but sins, without God's precept and promise, it is better to want them then have them, or act them; such is infant Baptism; and if it be in the place and use of Circumcision, it is a heavy burden, no benefit now, but a yoke of bondage.

I said Mr. M. was to prove either that Circumcision did belong to the substance of the Covenant of grace, and he answers, That Circumcision, though a part of their administration, did yet belong to the substance; not as a part of it, but as a means of applying it : Which speech how frivolous it is, is shown before, sect. 25. p. 165, 166. and in this section. Or that the want of Circumcision, or some Ordinance in the place and use of it, is a loss of privilege of the Covenant of grace to us and our children.

To this he saith,

Answ. 1. If it be a privilege to have nothing succeed Circumcision as it bound to that manner of administration, then it is a privilege to have nothing succeed it in its use, which confirms my before speech carped at by M. M. 2. How vain the talk of Paedobaptists is about Sacraments being seals of the Covenant of grace, is shown before sect. 31. 3. A Covenant with a seal is a greater benefit then a Covenant without a seal when there is more assurance and better estate thereby procured, but if as good assurance and estate be by a Covenant without a seal, it is no greater benefit to have a seal, then to have a Covenant without it. 4. There is a seal of the Covenant of grace, which succeeds Circumcision as the substance the shadow, and that is Christ's Cirumcision, Col. 2.11. and his bloodshedding, Mat. 26.28. Heb. 9.15. &c. besides the seal of God's spirit.

But saith Mr. M. the thing I was to prove was that our privileges are enlarged, not extenuated; which appears, partly, in that we have freedom in what was burdensome to them in their manner of administration : which he meant of Circumcision by his alleging Act. 15.10. and thereby it is manifest that it is false which he said before, that Circumcision did belong to the substance of the Covenant as a means of applying it. For that speech doth imply, that the Covenant of grace could not be applied without Circumcision, for that which is of the substance of a thing, what way it is of the substance of it, is necessary to the being of that of which it is of the substance, otherwise it were a common accident, not of the substance of it: But without Circumcision the Covenant of grace might be applied, yea, according to Mr. M. it is and may be better applied, for otherwise our privileges were not enlarged in being freed from it.

Partly, saith Mr. M. because our Covenant is established upon better promises, Heb. 8.6. To this I answered, the Covenant which had not so good promises was the Covenant at Mount Sinai, v. 9. which was not the Covenant of grace (for then it should have the best promises, there being no better promises then are in the Covenant of grace, nor could it be broken as that was, nor occasion finding f • ult as that did;) but it must needs be the Covenant of works as the Scripture doth plainly deliver, Rom. 10.5. Gal. 3.10, 12, & 4.24. Heb. 12.18. &c. and for this I alleged some of Mr. Ms. own words in his Sermon, p. 10. That the Law was added not as a part of Abraham's Covenant, that in that giving the Law there was something of the Covenant of works made with Adam in Paradise.

To this Mr. M. returns an answer, bemoaning me as running into a needless and erroneous digression; that he said indeed in his sermon, that the moral Law was added 430 years after the Covenant was made with Abraham, not as a part of that Covenant, but as a Schoolmaster to whip them to Christ; that they finding the impossibility of keeping the Law, might more earnestly long after Christ, exhibited in those shadows of rites and sacrifices, &c. But to say that this Covenant mentioned Heb. 8. was the Covenant of works, is a most erroneous doctrine; look into the Text, and you shall find that the Covenant which is there mentioned (which God finds fault with, and calls the first Covenant, in opposition to this better Covenant) had Ordinances of Divine worship, had a Sanctuary a Tabernacle, Priests and High Priests, Sacrifices, and other rites belonging to the administration of it. Sir, was this the Covenant of works? I hope you will not own it in your next.

Answ. It is, and I do still own it in the 43d. section of this part of my Review, and do requite Mr. Ms. pity of me with the like bemoaning his ignorance, and, if I mistake not, the Assemblies error about this in their Confession of faith, ch. 7. art. 5. I have looked into the Texts, and I find Mr. M. mistaken in the meaning of Gal. 3.24. perhaps following the unnecessary supplement in our last English translation, where is added [ to bring us ] which the Text hath not, but only the law was our boy-leader unto Christ, that is until Christ, as v. 23, 25. show, and the meaning is plain, that the Apostle compares the Law to a teacher, or guide, or overseeer of a child in his minority to which the Israelites were confined, not in respect of its severity as Mr. M. makes it, to whip them to Christ, but as a teacher directing them though imperfectly by figures and types until Christ, and faith in him were revealed. In like manner he mistakes when he saith, God finds fault with the first Covenant, the words being For complaining of them, Heb. 8 8. nor complaining or finding fault with it: and when it is translated v. 7. if the first Covenant had been faultless, it is not intimated as if it were faulty, but they were faulty, as verse. 8. shows, and the Covenant is termed non 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 not from the fault of it, but of them, which occasioned complaints of them, and therefore it were better translated without complaint or plaintless, then faultless. As for what Mr. M. alledgeth from Heb. 9.1. it no more proves that the Covenant at Mount Sinai was the Covenant of Gospel grace, and not of works, then because the tree of life was a symbol, type, or shadow of Christ, or our blessed estate in him, therefore the Covenant made with Adam in Paradise before his fall, was not a Covenant of works, but of Gospel grace; or Noah's Ark typified Baptism, therefore the Covenant with Noah, Gen. 9. was a Covenant of Evangelical grace. The Covenant of grace and of works are denominated from the promise and condition, not from God's intent in some things commanded. When our Lord Christ, Mar. 10.19. told the young man of entering into life, he propounded the Covenant of works, yet he had another end therein, to wit, to try and discover him. Though the commands about the Sacrifices, High Priest, &c. were to typyfie Christ, yet the Law as it was propounded Covenant wise is manifestly declared to be the Covenant of works, Rom. 10.5. Gal. 3.10, 12. yea, Mr. Ms. own words prove it. For 1. where he cites the addition of the Law, Gal. 3.17. the Law is not restrained to the moral Law, but contains all the commands of the Sacrifices, &c. as well as the moral Law, which were added because of transgressions, not only to restrain them, but also for the expiating of some offenses against the Law, so as to obtain a partial temporary forgiveness by them, as is manifest from Levite. 4. &c. Now the whole Law as delivered 430 years after the Covenant with Abraham, is contradistinct to the Covenant confirmed before in Christ, or the promises; therefore as it was a Covenant, Exod. 19.5, 8 it was a Covenant of works. 2. If it were not a part of the Covenant with Abraham, it was not the Covenant of grace, for such was Abraham's Covenant; but according to Mr. M. the Law was no part of that Covenant, Ergo. 3. That which was a Schoolmaster to whip, was not the Covenant of grace, for the Covenant of grace doth not terrify or whip, but such is the Law according to Mr. M. Ergo. 4. That which was impossible to be kept, was not the Covenant of grace, for that is never broken, but such was the Law or Covenant at Mount Sinai according to Mr. M. Ergo. 5. If in the giving the Law there was something of the Covenant of works made with Adam in paradise, then it was a Covenant of works, this he must grant, unless he will have a mixed Covenant, partly of grace and partly of works, which he opposeth in his answer to me about Abraham's Covenant; But in the giving that Law according to Mr. M there was something of the Covenant of works made with Adam in Paradise, Ergo. 6. That which God finds fault with is not the Covenant of grace, but acc • rding to Mr. M. God finds fault with it, Ergo. 7. That which is termed the first Covenant in opposition to this Covenant is not the Covenant of grace; But such according to Mr. M. is that at Mount Sinai, Ergo. 8. The Covenant of grace is the better Covenant, But such was not that at Mount Sinai, according to Mr. M. Ergo. And truly I find so many Protestant Divines terming the Covenant at Mount Sinai the Covenant of works, Perkins on Gal. 4.24. Pemble of Justification sect. 4. c. • . Cotton in his way of Congregational Churches cleared p. 46, 47. however in some respect he will have it to have been a Covenant of grace, yet to the carnal seed • aith, it was a Covenant of works, and proves it out of Paul ; And adds, And so have the chiefest German Divines as well as Piscator and Polanus, t • ken the Covenant on mount Sinai to be a Covenant of works. See Piscator Ezek. 16. observat. ult. in v. 60. and 62. and Polanus ibidem. and Synt. Th. l. 6 c. 33. Pisc. observe. e v. 6. Heb. 8. Dicson paraph. Gal 4.21, 22, 23, 24. Hebr 8.6, 9. Becman. Th Exercit. 5. p. 67 De saedere operum aut legis legimus, Exod 19.5. Deut. 5.2. 1 Reg. 8.21. Jer. 31.32. Heb 8.8, 9, 10. To whom I add my Antagonists Mr. Geree vindic. vindic. p. 9. Mr. Baill • e in his Anabaptism, pag. 141. and might do many more if it were necessary. This is enough to show my doctrine to have been unjustly termed most erroneous by Mr. M. being Paul's, Mr. Ms. and others named, and therefore rightly owned by me.

To my words Exam. p. 10;. The next Scripture you thus express, The glory of theirs had no glory in respect of ours, 2 Cor. 3.10. But this passage is plainly meant of the Covenant at Mount Sinai, which is called the letter, v. 6 The ministration of death written and engraven in stones so glorious, that the children of Israel could not steadfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance, which glory was to be done away, v. 7. The ministration of condemnation, v 9. which I suppose you do not understand of the Covenant of grace, and therefore it is impertinently alleged, Mr. M answers thus

Answ. I wonder that a man of such note should wonder at that of which the reason is given, and should take upon him to defend his own Sermon, and yet pass by my reason against his allegation without rehearsal or answer to it. In form it stands thus. That which was the letter which killeth, written in Tables of stone opposite to the New Testament, and the spirit which giveth life, the ministration of death, of condemnation by Moses, was the Law or Covenant of works, for it is only the Covenant of works, not that of grace how darkly soever delivered, of which these things can be said. But such was the Law or Covenant at Mount Sinai, Ergo. 'It is true, it was the Apostles scope to hold forth the preeminence of the Ministry of the Gospel, but not barely above the Ministry of Moses veiled Ceremonies, for the Apostle prefers it before the Ministry of the Letter written and engraven in stone, v. 3, 7. which was the moral Law, but above the Ministry of the whole Law, which comprehending all the commands Mosaical promulgated Covenant-wise, and not singly Moses ceremonies, are by me termed the Covenant of works, and of this I am still confident.

Mr. M. skips over his impertinent allegation of Gal. 4.1, &c. and grants 1 Pet. 2.9. the spiritual part to belong only to the invisible Church, of which he denies not the whole v. to be meant, but only tells me, the whole nation of the Jews who had the honor to be termed holy, the children of God, Deut. 14.1. to have the adoption, Rom. 9.4. were not inwardly holy, or effectually called ; which I readily grant, nor need I prove that Rom. 9.4. Deut. 14.1. were not privileges which the visible Church of the Jews enjoyed, having not denied it, but do expressly grant of Rom. 9.4. that it speaks of peculiar privileges of the Jews, and prove thence the Jews had some privileges above us, and that the want of some privileges they had may be recompensed by some privileges we have, and thence gathered that is a feeble reason, from the Jewish privilege of infant Circumcision, to prove infant Baptism; yet nothing that Mr. M brings, shows 1 Pet. 2.9. to be meant of any other then the elect, nor that believers privileges of the Covenant of grace are enlarged.

What he saith, that the comfortable manner of administration, and baptism are enlarged beyond Circumcision, to females, and all nations, is granted; but this groves not privileges of the Covenant of grace to be enlarged to each believer now, although there are more believers now And for Gal 3.28. the words [ there is neither male nor female ] are not added to show Baptism to be administered to whom Circumcision was not, for then [ neither bond nor free ] should be added for the same reason, which had not been right, for bondmen were circumcised formerly, as well as then baptized; But to show a general equality of all believers in Christ, and therefore that passage is meant only of true believers.

Having shown the impertinency of Mr. Ms. allegations for his 5th. conclusion, I answered the argument drawn thence for infant Baptism thus. 1. It is no good argument, God gave such a privilege to the Jews, Ergo we must have such a privilege too, without God's institution, but arrogant presumption to claim it. 2. That God gave many peculiar privileges to the Jews which we have not, as that Abraham was the father of the Faithful, Mary the Mother of CHRIST; no family out of which CHRIST came but Abraham's, no nation that God hath promised after many hundred years rejection to re-engraff besides the Jews.

This Mr. M. endeavored to prevent in his Sermon, by saying, These were personal privileges belonging to some particular persons, not the whole Church of the Jews, nor from the Covenant, but that to have infants belong to his Church, and to have the initial seal are, and if that we have it not for ours, the grace of God is straitened as to our posterity, which he counts absurd,

Hereto many things are replied by me. 1. That this was never a privilege to believers, that their children should be in the Covenant of grace, God never made such a promise to every true believer, that he would be God to every believer and his natural seed, nor commanded that we should repute the infants of believers to be in the Covenant of grace. This hath been largely handled in my review of Mr. Ms. second conclusion. 2. That the pretended privilege of a Believers infant children's visible Church membership and title to the initial seal was not from the Covenant of Gospel grace, but from the peculiar dealing of God towards the nation of the Hebrews, out of peculiar reasons concerning that Church state which that people were to have until Christ came, which is largely discussed in answer to Mr. Baxter's second main argument Section 50, &c. of this part of the Review. 3. That even then when it was a privilege to the Hebrew people, yet title to the initial seal was not common to all Believers children, not to those under eight days old, nor to females, nor to Proselytes of the gate, as v. g. to Cornelius and his children. 4. That a privilege there is to the Jews, even to the Nation, and that arising from God's Covenant of Gospel grace, that their posterity shall after some hundred years rejection be re-engraffed, and yet this not to any Gentile Believer, Prince, Preacher, or Martyr concerning their posterity, and therefore it is no absurdity to say, that in some respect the privileges of the Covenant of grace, even of the substance of it, were more large to some of the Hebrew believers, then to the Gentiles in respect of posterity. 5. That the personal privileges of Abraham, Mary, &c. were more truly pertinent to the Covenant of grace, though not common to all Jews, then infants visible Chvrchmembership and title to the initial seal. 6. That privileges are mere arbitrary things, and that no reason why they are given to some and not to others, is needful to be assigned besides the donors will. 7. That there is no more reason to say God grace is less now, because infants are not visible Church members and baptized; then it is to say it is less because Christ is not descended from them, they are not Fathers of the faithful. 8 That there were many privileges which the Jews had which we have not, as those Rom. 3.1. & 9.4. to have a Temple, High Priest on earth, &c. 9. That the want of these is abundantly recompensed by Christ's coming without any particular thing of the same kind in the stead of them, and therefore the want of Church membership and initial seal, may in like manner be said to be recompensed by his coming. 10. That the privilege the children of Levi had, that their posterity should inherit the Priesthood, be maintained by the offerings of the people, be exempt from many burdens, is not now to Ministers children, nor anything instead of it, and yet there is as much reason from the Covenant of Levi why Ministers children should have this privilege, or somewhat instead of it as from the Covenant of Abraham, that our children should have Baptism instead of Circumcision. 11. That young children were to eat the Passover, and yet children of three or four years old are not admitted to the Lord's Supper; and consequently after the rate of Mr. Ms. reasoning, the grace of God is straitened to us in respect of our posterity. 12. That the grace of God is not denied by not baptizing infants, for that would infer that it did give grace. 13. That by denying infants visible Church membership and Baptism, we do not put them out of the Covenant of grace, or Church of God. 14. That Baptism is a duty rather then a priviviledge 15. That the use of it is rather for us to seal to God by it, that is, to testify the repentance and faith of the baptized, then for God to us, as assuring by it the promise of Gospel grace. 16. That by baptizing an infant the parent is not assured that the child is in the Covonant of grace. 17. That through the want of infants visible Church membership, such as the Jews children had, we have no loss of privilege, but rather benefit, it being a state of imperfection. 18. That the want of the initial seal which the Jews had is a benefit it having a burden annexed to it. 19. That children have no less of the grace of God by their want of Christian visible Churmembership and Baptism then the Jews infants had. 20. That parents have as much cause of comfort concerning their children without these as they have by them.

Mr M. p. 191. speaks thus; I think indeed it would take with no sober Christian thus to argue: The Jews had it, therefore we must have it. But Sir to argue thus, God gave such a privilege to the whole Church of the Jews, that their infants should be reputed to belong to his Church, and have the initial seal. Therefore if he have not granted to Christians that their infants shall also be reputed to belong to his Church, and partake of the initial seal; then his grace to Believers under the N. T. is straitened as to their posterity. This argument appears so clear to me, that I must confess myself one of those dull ones, who know not how to deny the consequence.

Answ. Mr. M. hath ill recited my frame of the argument, which he rejects, by leaving out the chief words [without an institution]. Yet his new frame mends not the matter, but indeed is in effect all one with that which he saith would take with no sober Christian For [the Jews] and [the whole Church of the Jews] are the same, and [had it] and [must have it] expressed but the same which Mr. M. saith in more words: Nor doth he put in anything of God's will or institution to have it so, and therefore there is no more reason why his new frame should take with any sober Christian, then the former. Yet I shall view it as it is And 1. I deny the antecedent, God did not give the privilege to the whole Church of the Jews, that their infants should have the initial seal, meaning it of all. 2. I deny the consequence, if by [grace] he mean Gospel grace; though infants of Christians be not reputed to belong to the visible Church, nor are baptized, yet the grace of the Gospel, that is, remission of sin, sanctification, adoption, glorification (which is that the Scripture makes Gospel grace) is not straitened to Christians as to their posterity. And the reasons of this denial are so plain to me, that I see no clearness in it, but should take myself dull if I should not discern its weakness. For the infant visible church membership being by reason of the peculiar national churchstate of the Jews, and circumcision of infants by reason of that which was proper to the Hebrew people, or policy, into which proselytes were admitted, not from the Covenant of grace common to all believers in all ages, it is easy to perceive that notwithstanding the altering of these (which God hath done,) the grace of God is as much now to our children as to theirs.

And here I think meet to answer Mr. Geree 's argument as he frames it, vindic. Paedobapt. pag. 38. I do grant the sequel of the major, If children of Christian parents be excluded the Covenant, then are the privileges of the N. T. more restrained : But that we exclude them from the Covenant of grace is false, we only deny the fictitious Covenant of Paedobaptists, that God hath promised to be the God of believers and their seed: nor is it any harsh divinity, or derogatory from the incarnation of Christ, to say, the Jews converted, whose infants had the birth privilege of membership in the Jewish Church by natural generation, have not the privilege of membership in the Christian, which is by spiritual regeneration. Nor doth the term [ natural branches, Rom. 11.21, 24.] ever agree to Gentiles engrafted, but that they are still branches of the wild Olive by nature, nor any of them in the true Olive without faith or election.

Nor doth Mr. Geree show how he that denies baptism to infants denies the grace and mercy of God to us, if the grace of God be not tied to the Sacraments. Nor doth he show that the privileges of believers young children of 4.5, or 6 years old are not as much straitened if they who were admitted to the Passover are not admitted to the Lord's Supper. For though the reception into the Covenant and Church were sufficiently done in Baptism ; yet they should not have the privilege of growth and nutrition, which the Jews young children had by the Passover, if Paedobaptists doctrine of the Passover, and Lord's Supper be right. But I return to • r M.

Mr. M. tells me, That though I say my instances of Abraham's, the Virgin Mary's and Jews privileges not being now to us, do press his conclusion; yet that I speak no word to vindicate them from his answer, and therefore he gathers that by this time • see that now some personal privileges▪ which a few of the Jews had, may be denied us, yet it makes nothing against his argument; but if the common privileges which everyone of them had were denied us, our privileges were straitened.

Answ. Mr. M. doth not rightly say I spake not a word to vindicate my instances from his answer. For besides all or most of those twenty things either in my Exercit. sect. 3. or in my Examen, par. 3. sect. 3, 4, 10, 11, 12. and elsewhere, which do enervate his answer, I did directly reply, that neither was his privilege of the initial seal to infants any other then personal, not a branch of the Covenant of grace common to all in Covenant, for which by virtue of the Covenant they might rely upon God ; and for this I alleged the faithful before Abraham, Melchizedek and Lot in his time, Job and Cornelius after his time; and therefore if the want of privileges personal, as he terms them, doth not show a straitening of God's grace to us now, neither doth the want of infant visible Church membership and Baptism now show it.

That of Melchizedek, Lot, and Job, Mr. M. saith, hath been often answered ; but he hath nowhere shown, that they were not in the Covenant of grace, or that by virtue of the Covenant they and their infants had right to the initial seal. And as for Cornelius, I never intended to prove, that he was a member of the Church of the Jews, nor that the privileges and church membership of these proselytes of the gate were as honorable as those of the proselytes of the covenant, but that though he were in the Covenant of grace, yet he had not the privilege of church membership in the Church of the Jews, nor circumcision; and therefore these privileges, whatever they were, were not branches of the Covenant of grace common to all in Covenant for which by virtue of the Covenant they might rely on God, as Mr. M. asserted.

To what I said, to be Father of the faithful, Mother of Christ, the privileges Rom. 9.4. & 3.2. do as much belong to the Covenant of grace as Circumcision, Mr. M. answers nothing. Upon the words by me used, that the phrases Rom. 11.2 • , 24. do seem to me to import, that the Jews had this privilege to have their children reckoned in the outward administration, as branches of the Olive by their birth, which the Gentiles have not, (which speech I have altered in the first part of this Review, p. 64, 93.) Mr. M. asks, But if we Gentiles have it not, then are not we, I pray you, straightened in that particular ? Answ. Yea. And I demand further, when we are graffed in and so naturalized with them, do we not partake of all the fatness or privileges of the Olive with them? what Scripture ever denied it? Answ. That we by engraffing are made natural branches, is denied▪ it is granted, we are partakers of all the fatness and privileges of the Olive, to wit, spiritual graces, but not of the privileges which the natural branches had by birth.

Mr. M. adds.

Answ. The natural privilege which I say the Jews had, was, that their children were in the visible Church Jewish, and their males to be circumcised; this by their Baptism they were deprived of, it being then no privilege, after Christ exhibited in the flesh and preached, to be in the visible Church Jewish opposite to the Christian, and to be circumcised. Nor is it true, that the converted baptized Jews were in the Olive afore they believed in Christ, or kept their station in the visible Church Jewish, but were cast out, or that they should have had greater privileges of the Covenant for their children, if they had continued in the visible Church Jewish, and been to be circumcised, then the Gentiles, whose children were not visible Christian visible church members, nor to be baptized, as is abundantly proved by me from Scripture and otherwise in the foreparts of this Review.

To Mr. Ms. speech, as if we expunged infants out of the Covenant, it was answered, that it was a calumny, whereto he replies, But do not you avouch, that the infants of the Jews had this peculiar privilege and birthright to be under the administration of the Covenant, which ours have not ? Answ. I still avouch it in the sense the phrase seems to be taken for being Jewish visible church members, and to be circumcised; but what he adds, which you know is the only thing controverted betwixt us, is manifestly false, it being never so much as questioned by me. He adds, May not I boldly say, that once the infants of all covenanters had this privilege ? Answ. No. May I not also exact of you to show when and where this was taken away? Answ. It hath been often shown, infant-male circumcision in the Synod, Act. 15.24, 28. infants church membership Matth. 28.19. were taken away, of which there is enough said before, sect. 50, &c. where infant visible church membership is proved to be altered, and yet infants not expunged out of the Covenant of the Gospel, as Mr. M. suggests. On the contrary, Mr. Ms. conceit as if the denying them visible church membership and baptism were putting them out of the Covenant of grace, I intimated to come too near the Popish opinion, of the necessity of infants baptism to their salvation, which I thought worth answering, since it is all one in my conceit to say, that by denying baptism to them we put them out of the Covenant, and to say we damn them, it being certain none are saved but those who are in the Covenant of grace.

To that which he saith of our doctrine bringing discomfort to parents, in that we leave their infants in the state of infidels, account them actually to belong to the visible Kingdom of the Devil deny them the benefit of the promise I will be the God of thee and thy seed, acknowledge no more promise for them, then for the children of Turks I answer, these are mere calumnies sufficiently discovered to be so, Exam. par. 2. sect. 10. Apolog. sect. 14.

SECT. LXXXV. Mr. Cobbers dictates, Just. Vindic. par. 2. ch. 1. touching children's baptismal right, are examined and refelled.

MR. Cobbet Just. vindic. par. 2. sect. 1. sets down this as his position, That the initiatory seal follows the covenant ; but he proves it not: And whereas to the objection against it, that from Adams time to Abraham's, there was no initiatory seal to those who were in Covenant; nor in Abraham's time to Melchizedek, Lot, Job ; he answers, That such extraordinary cases and times are very impertinently urged by some to inf • ringe the force of ordinary rules and principles: I say, his answer is insuff • cient. For 1. this only is an answer where it is proved that there is such an ordinary rule and principle from which these cases swerve: But no such rule or principle can be shown of an initiatory seal belonging to persons in Covenant, from which this should be counted an exception; therefore this is not an extraordinary case. 2. Besides, extraordinary cases make a just exception from an ordinary rule for some, by reason of some peculiar accident not happening to others: But to all in Covenant from Adam to Abraham, there is not, nor can be shown any such peculiar accident which happened not to others, which was the reason of omitting an initiatory seal by those in Covenant: Ergo, it was not because of extraordinary cases that it was omitted, but because there was no such rule. 3. Extraordinary cases are few and rare, but the omission of an initiatory seal was constant, and universal by those in Covenant until Abraham's time, therefore it was not an extraordinary case. 4. Extraordinary cases and times are but for a little while: But this omission was for above 2000. years, which me thinks Mr. C. should not so dote as to count an extraordinary time; sure the time wherein Circumcision was in force was shorter, and it was in that time often omitted, and therefore we may by Mr. Cs. dictates as well say, the initiatory seal was extraordinary, and the ordinary rule was, that those in Covenant were not to have an initiatory seal, specially considering that even in Abraham's time, and after, it was omitted by Melehizdek, Lot, Job. Nor is it of any weight to say that there was not a visible political Church then; For. 1. no doubt in their families were visible political Churches as well as in Abraham's. 2. The initiatory seal, as they call it, might and was to be to persons without a visible political Church as to the Eunuch Acts. 8. to Moses children in Midian &c Nor is it of any weight to say these Churches were not to continue : For 1. that is not so certain as to be taken for granted. 2. Abraham's posterity were not to continue still the Church of God, though they were to continue longer then the posterity of J • b and Lot. 3. But if this were a sufficient reason, why they should not have an initiatory seal solemnly instituted for them, because they were not sucessively to continue, then should not the Churches which were not successively to continue (of which doubtless there were many from whom the Candlestick was quickly removed) have had baptism instituted for them. 4. By Mr. Cs. reasoning, his rule the initiatory seal follows the covenant must be thus limited, in ordinary times and cases when and where there is a visible political Church which is successively to continue. Which if it were granted him, yet it will never serve his turn to prove this universal proposition, from which Paedobaptists infer infant Baptism, All that are in the covenant are to have the initiatory seal or to be baptized. But neither is it true in ordinary times, where there is a visible political Church successively to continue. For it is not true of those in Covenant in Abraham's house, neither the females, nor males of seven days old only were to have the initiatory seal, though in Covenant. To that which is said, that the females had not a superfluous fore • skin, besides what hath been said before to the contrary, I say 1. this however infringeth Mr. Cs. rule, that in ordinary times in visible political Churches successively to continue, the seal initiatory follows the covenant, for it doth not so in the female Hebrews. 2. If God's will had been as Mr. C. would have it, he could have appointed an initiatory seal common to females with males. But what saith M. C. to the instance of the males of 7. days only to infringe his rule? I find nothing except this be an answer, in that case of the females as in some other, that law of circumcision had something peculiar in it, albeit it had other things in common with that of Baptism, which I take to be a sufficient proof against him, that the rule of Circumcision is not a rule to us about Baptism; and that his proposition is not true, that in ordinary times and cases, respecting the political visible Church and its administrations, such little ones as are of parents in such visible church-state, they have external right unto the enjoined initiatory visible seal, of which they are outwardly capable, and ought not to be denied the use and benefit of it.

There is also an objection against the principle fore-mentioned, All that are in covenant are to have the initial seal, or as Mr. C. speaks, the initiatory seal follows the Covenant, that if the connection be between seal and Covenant, it is as well besween the after seal as the initial, and so they may as well plead for infants coming to the Lord's Supper, as in Cyprians time, and as the young ones of the Jews did partake of the Passover. To this Mr. C. saith, Male infants were not to appear at the Passover, if so, then they must appear at the Feast of Tabernacles & must carry boughs, from Deut. 16. •• , 17. compared with Levite. 23.34, 35, 38, 39, 40. that though persons have a covenant right in general, yet their jus in re is to be suspended and not elicited in case of incapacity, or of extreme coldness of the country, or sickness &c.

Answ. 1. If infants were not to appear at the Passover, yet young children not to be admitted to the Lord's Supper were, nor doth the text tie them all to carry boughs who were to appear. 2. The objection holds as much concerning the young ones at Jerusalem, who were to eat the Passover, and by Mr. Cs. reasons such young ones should be at the Lord's Supper, as having Covenant interest and therefore jus ad rem, nor is there any such incapacity or danger to them in eating the Lord's Supper to suspend their jus in re, as is to be baptized in Greenland, or in extreme weakness and sickness; and therefore • y Mr. Cs. reasons they ought not to be denied the Lord's Supper. 3. If infants Covenant-right to the Lord's Supper be su • pended because of their defect of understanding to examine themselves, their Covenant-right to Baptism is as justly susp • nded til they repent and believe, which are as much and more required to Baptism as self examination to the Lord's Supper. And if it be true then Mr. Cs. position is not right, that infants ought not to be denied the use and benefit of Baptism. 4. If it were in Cyprians time a corruption to give infants the Lord's supper, so it was to baptize them, being on the same reason of no greater an • iquity. But let's view what he saith for the clearer handling of his Thesis.

Sect. 2. He saith, that mixed commands of God having some part circumstantial and vanishing, some part substantial and abiding, the later is binding to us since Christ's time, albeit the former be not ; and he instanceth in a 7th. day Sabbath: But neither he nor any other have yet proved any such substantial part abiding in the command of Circumcision, and how little the instance given i • to his purpose, is shown before, §. 77, 80, 81.

That which Mr. C. saith sect. 3. is granted, that consequential commandments grounded on Scripture are Scripture commandments, but that any command o • a positive rite in the Old Testament is a command to us about a positive right of the new, or that in mere positive worship that should not be excluded which is not expressed, is not granted; to the contrary somewhat is said in the 2d part of this Review, §. 2, 3, 5. and elsewhere. I have often said prove infant Baptism by good consequence, and I shall yield.

That federal ordinances, such as are the seals, are as well privileges as precepts, which Mr. C. sect. 4. asserts, when they are rightly admininistred, is granted; but it is denied that the Passover, Baptism, the Lord's Supper, are federal ordinances or seals of the Covenant of grace in Mr. Cs. sense, who p. • 31. makes Circumcision in the nature of it to be a seal of the righteousness of faith ; and in like manner those ot • er, which he calls