who have not that right and there are who have that right and are not visible Churchmembers 8. Nor is it true that the relation essentially includeth a right to the members station and to the inseparable benefits thereof For though the station in the body be included yet not a right to it yea the actual station is oft times without right which I think is sufficiently proved by Mr. B. himself in his dispute against Mr. Blake Sect. 39. asserting a dogmatical faith entitling to baptism 9. That though visible membership bee by Gods gift and this is to be by signification of Gods will yet it is not necessary it should be by any promise or declaration which may be termed moral or political sith the event it self is a signification of Gods will and of his gift 10. That if Churchmembership be contracted by a mutual consent and covenant as Mr. B. sets down 1. onely the elect can be visible Churchmembers for to them onely God hath covenanted to be their God or Christ their Saviour 2. Infants are not visible Churchmembers for they neither Covenant nor by any intimation in Scripture is it shewed or can bee that the parents or others obedience to God in Christ acknowledged or promised is virtually or reputatively by any law of God taken for the infants Covenant or consent Lastly this law which Mr. B. here sets down concerning the duty of the parents is not that law or ordinance of infants visible Churchmembership which Mr. B. asserts to be unrepealed For the law and ordinance of infants visible Churchmembership is not a precept of what another shall do but what they shall have not of what in duty a person is bound to but of what God doth give and grant And therefore all this tedious discourse of Mr. B. is but delusory sith instead of a law and ordinance determining that infants shall be visible Churchmembers he assignes another thing a precept of a duty and thinks if I prove not it repealed I prove not the law and ordinance of another thing repealed Mr B. adds As for the texts you cite Deut. 4.34 Levit. 20.24 26. 1 King 8.53 Isai. 43.1 In Deut. 4. is mentioned not the moral act of God by which he made them his people or took them for his own and founded the relation but the natural aâ—â—ions whereby he rescued them from the Egyptian bondage and took them to himself or for his use service and honour out of that land But I think sure they were his people and all their infants were Churchmembers before that taking by vertue of a former Covenant-taking Answ. The text expresseth that act of God whereby hee took the Jews for his people and consequently whereby he founded the relation of Churchmembers and if this act were a natural act then it follows contrary to Mr. Bs. conceits that a natural act may be it by which God takes a people to him which is the Scripture phrase whereby is signified his making them his Church If they were his people before and all their infants Churchmembers yet they might be made his people by repeated continued or new acts making or taking noting a beginning or continuance or completing of the estate they had formerly If they were by vertue of a former Covenant-taking yet I think Mr. B. cannot shew before that time a mutual Covenant-taking such as he said before the relation of Churchmembership is contracted by He adds As to Levit. 20. God did perform a twofold work of separation for Israel 1. By his Covenant and their entring Covenant with him 2. By local separation of their bodies from others It was the first that made them his people and Churchmembers and not the last the last was onely a favourable dealing with them as his beloved The same I say to the other two texts Sure you cannot think that corporal separation makes a Church-member What if an Egyptian that had no part in the Covenant had past out with the Israelites and got with them through the Red Sea do you think he had been therefore a Churchmember Suppose God had made no promise or Covenant with Abraham or his seed but onely taken them out of Chaldea into Canaan and thence into Egypt and thence into the Wilderness and thence into Canaan again Do you think this much had made them Church-members Then if the Turks conquer Greece or the Tartarians conquer China they are become Churchmembers because this seems as great a temporal prosperity at least And I think itâ—s past doubt that Lot was a Church-member in the midst of Sodom and the Israelites in Egypt before they were brought out as truly as after Answ. I grant that they were though not so completed when they had not liberty to sacrifice to God nor to keep any feast and perform other worship to God as when they were brought out unto which the texts refer the severing of the Israelites from other people that they should be Gods although I did not in my Letter restrain it to that local separation which yet the Scripture with me chiefly refers it to but also to the bringing them into the bond of the Covenant at Mount Sinai giving them Laws setling their Priesthood Tabernacle Army Government inheritance If the Turks or Tartars had such a local separation as I describe they had been Churchmembers The Egyptians that came out of Egypt with the Israelites were Churchmembers with the Israelites they becomming Proselytes If God had made no promise or Covenant with Abraham or his seed but onely taken them out of Chaldea into Canaan and withall made known his will concerning his grace in Christ given them Lawes and set up his worship among them they had been Churchmembers According to Mr. Bs. own arguings the promise or Covenant with Abraham and his seed made them not Churchmembers for they were Churchmembers before The Covenant Gen. 17. was not a mutual Covenant which is that by which according to Mr. B. visible Churchmembership is contracted The texts that I allege do sufficiently prove the people of Israel were taken to be Gods people by such a transeunt fact as I describe and consequently the infants visible Church-members as part of that people without the promise to believers and their seed to bee their God on condition of the parents accepting the mercy offered and re-engaging them to God which Mr. B makes the sole efficient of their holiness or visible Churchmembership as is shewed before He proceeds As to Gen. 12.1 Acts 7.2 Nehem. 9.7 which you also cite as there is not one of them that gives the least intimation that Infant-Church-membership then began so I shall farther enquire anon whether they contain any Covenant or promise Answ. They do each of them plainly shew the beginning of the taking of the Hebrews for Gods people by severing them from Idolaters and forming them into a Chruch and consequently of the Churchmembership which infants had in that people or nation For the texts
opposeth my position and whether he prove it or not But that the Reader may the better perceive where the point to be proved lies I shall set down distinctly what I conceive Mr. B. means and then what I assert and what Mr. B. should prove in opposition to my assertion 1. I conceive he imagines an offer of God to parents which he calls a promise or Covenant that upon their taking him to be their God he would be a God to their children even their infants 2. That parents are and were bound to accept of this offer for their children 3. That by it they do enter them into Covenant that is they do Covenant for them that they shall be Gods people and consequently they partake of the Covenant that God is their God 4. That by vertue of this entring into Covenant accepting and re-engaging them to God they are visible Churchmenbers I assert 1. There is no such offer promise or Covenant 2. That though there are precepts for parents to pray for their children to breed them up for God by example teaching c. yet they are not bound to believe this that upon their own faith God will take their infant children to be his and he will be a God to them nor to accept of this pretended offer sith there is no such promise or offer 3. That though parents may enter into Covenant for their children that is they may do it as those Deut. 29.12 either by charge and adjuration or by wishing a curse to them if they did not cleave to God as Nehem. 10.29 Josh. 6.25 and this may have an obligation on them beyond the precept and influence on them as a motive as the Oath to the Gibeonites Josh. 9.16 yet by this their entring into Covenant for them they do not make them partakers of the Covenant or promise that God wil be their God 4. That if there were such a promise and such a duty of accepting the pretended offer and re-engaging yet this neither did then nor doth now make infants visible Churchmembers So that the point between us is Whether there be such a precept to parents besides Circumcision of entring into Covenant accepting an offer of God to be their God for their children according to a promise that he will be so and re-engaging them to God whereby they become actually visible Churchmembers This Mr. B. affirms I deny He speaks thus Having thus opened the terms law and precept I prove the Proposition thus 1. If it was the duty of the Israelites to accept Gods offered mercy for their children to engage and devote them to him in Covenant then there was a law or precept which made this their duty and obliged them to it But it was a duty Ergo there was such a law or precept For the antecedent 1. If it were not a duty then it was either a sin or a neutral indifferent action But it was not a sin for 1. it was against no law 2. it is not reprehended nor was it indifferent for it was of a moral nature and ergo either good or evil yea sin or duty For properly permittere is no act of law though many say it is but a suspension of an act and so licitum is not moraliter bonum but onely non malum and ergo is not properly within the verge of morality 2. If there be a penalty and a most terrible penalty annexed for the non-performance then it was a duty But such a penalty was annexed as shall anon be particularly shewed even to be cut off from his people to be put to death c. If it oblige ad panam it did first oblige ad obedientiam For no law obligeth ad paenam but for disobedience which presupposeth an obligation to obedience 3. If it were not the Israelites duty to enter their children into Gods Covenant and Church then it would have been none of their sin to have omitted or refused so to do But it would have been their great and hainous sin to have omitted or refused it Ergo. Now to the consequence of the major There is no duty but what is made by some law or precept as it 's proper efficient cause or foundation Ergo if it be a duty there was certainly some law or precept that made it such Among men we say that a benefit obligeth to gratitude though there were no law But the meaning is if there were no humane law and that is because the law of God in nature requireth man to be just and thankfull If there were no law of God natural or positive that did constitute it or oblige us to it there could be no duty 1. There is no duty but what is made such by Gods signified will ergo no duty but what is made such by a law or precept For a precept is the sign of Gods will obliging to duty 2. Where there is no law there is no transgression Rom. 4.15 ergo where there is no law there is no duty for these are contraries it is a duty not to transgress the law and a transgression not to perform the duty which it requireth of us There is no apparent ground of exception but in case of Covenants Whether a man may not oblige himself to a duty meerly by his consent I answer 1. He may oblige himself to an act which he must perform or else prove unfaithfull and dishonest but his own obligation makes it not strictly a duty ergo when God makes a Covenant with man he is as it were obliged in point of fidelity but not of duty 2. He that obligeth himself to an act by promise doth occasion an obligation to duty from God because God hath obliged men to keep their promises 3. So far as a man may be said to be his own ruler so far may he be said to oblige himself to duty that is duty to himself though the act be for the benefit of another but then he may as fitly be said to make a law to himself or command himself so that still the duty such as it is hath an answerable command So that I may well conclude that there is a law because there is a duty For nothing but a law could cause that duty nor make that omission of it a sin Where there is no law sin is not imputed Rom. 5.13 But the omission of entring infanâ—s into Covenant with God before Christs incarnation would have been a sin imputed ergo there was a law commanding it 2. If it was a duty to dedicate infants to God or enter them into Covenant with him then either by Gods will or without it certainly not without it If by Gods will then either by his will revealed or unrevealed His unrevealed will cannot oblige for there wants promulgation which is necessary to obligation And no man can be bound to know Gods unrevealed will unless remotely as it may be long of himself that it is not to him revealed If it be Gods
revealed will that must thus oblige then there was some sign by which it was revealed And if there were a sign revealing Gods will obliging us to duty then there was a law For this is the very nature of the preceptive part of a law which is the principal part so that you may as well say that you are a reasonable creature but not a man as say that men were obliged to duty by Gods revealed will but yet not by a law or precept 3. We shall anon produce the law or precept and put it out of doubt that there was such a thing In the mean time I must confess I do not remember that ever I was put to dispute a point that carrieth more of it 's own evidence to shame the gain-sayer And if you can gather Disciples even among the godly by perswading them that there were duties without precepts or laws and benefits without donations covenants or promise confirming them then despair of nothing for the time to come You may perswade them that there is a son without a father or any relation without it's foundation or effect without it's cause and never doubt but the same men will believe you while you have the same interest in them and use the same artifice in putting off your conceits Answ. This tedious unnecessary discourse I have set together lest it should be said I omitted it because I could not answer it though I might have well done it and granted him his conclusion without any revocation of what I had written to him For his conclusion is that there was a law or precept to the Israelites to accept of Gods offered mercy for their children to engage and devote them to him in Covenant which I never denied onely I denied that this was any other then Circumcision or that this conferred the benefit that is made them visible Church-members or that this mercy as he calls it was offered by a Covenant to be a God to believers and their seed or that parents did by their act enter the children into Covenant that is Gods Covenant to be their God or Covenant to God in proper speech whereby they covenanted to be his people And for the first it seems to me 1. That Mr. B. can produce no other law or precept binding the Israelites to this duty besides that of Circumcision because he neither here nor elsewhere that I know of produceth any other 2. That he means no other by two passages in this discourse 1. because he saith there was a most terrible penalty annexed to this law obliging Israelites for non-performance as shall be anon particularly shewed even to be cut off from his people to be put to death c. which he neither shews to be any other nor do I think he could mean any other then that of Circumcision 2. He saith the omission of entring infants into Covenant with God before Christs incarnation would have been a sin imputed his limiting it to the time before Christs incarnation intimates he meant it of Circumcision 3. That he deals like as if he meant deceitfully in putting off the naming the law or precept to another place which it had been requisite for the Answerer and Reader to have found here that it might be discerned what law he meant And for the 2d I say if he could prove or produce that or any other law or precept yet if he did not prove that thereby the infants were made visible Churchmembers he proves not the contradictory to my writing The other two points belong to the two foregoing and following questions As for his confession though his injurious insinuations of me are so frequent and so frivolous that I could pass by them as the hissing of a Goose or the snarling of a Curre yet because his speeches do much wrong the truth and way of God through my sides I judge it fit to reply 1. That I see not reason to be ashamed of my assertion but Mr. B. hath cause to be ashamed of his own heedlesness and misrepresentation of my assertion and roving from the point he should prove 2. That I gather no Disciples to my self but endeavour to reform the abuse of Infant Baptism and to restore the right use of Christian Baptism according to the plain appointment of Christ in Scripture and practice of his Apostles 3. That he that will be perswaded by Mr. B. that infants are Disciples meant Matth. 28.19 and that in Gen. 1.26 3.15 is a law or ordinance of God for infants visible Churchmembership will believe any thing that he saith 4. That were it not for the opinion he hath obtained of godliness by his Book of Rest the esteem he hath gained by his writings for the Ministery and the advantage they have by his Book of Baptism to maintain their practice and station it were not likely so vain a Book would be esteemed among Schollers 5. That were it not for the affrightments of Mr. B. through his calumnies and slanders as if Ranters Quakers and all sorts of errours and sects sprang from Antipaedobaptism godly tender conscienc'd persons durst not maintain as they do so gross a corruption as their Baby sprinkling is nor neglect so great and fundamental a duty as Baptism is according to the Scripture But the Lord will judge betweene us I proceede The 5 th Qu. saith Mr. B. requireth me to lay down this assertion that there is no law or precept of God which doth not oblige to duty and no actual promise or donation which doth not confer the benefit This I aver on occasion of your last Letter where in contradiction to the former you confess the promises to the naâ—ural posterity of Abraham Gen. 17. and the Covenants made with Israel at Mount Sinai and Deut. 29. and a precept of Câ—rcumcision and precepts of God by Moses of calliâ—g the people and requiring them to enter into Covenant Exod. 19. Deut. 29. Yet you do not conceive that the infants of Israel were made visible Churchmembâ—rs by the promises in the Covenants oâ— the precepts forenamed If so then either you imagine that among all those precepts and promises there was yet no promise or Covenant that gave them the benefit of Churchmembership or precept concerning their entrance into that state or else you imagine that such promises were made but did not actually confer the benefit and such precepts were made but did not actually oblige Your words are so ambiguous in this that they signifie nothing of your mind to any that knows it not some other way For when you say there is no such particular promise concerning inâ—anâ—s visible Church-membership or precept c. besides Circumcision as in my Book of Baptism I assert who knows whether that exception of Circumcision be a concession of such a precept or promise in the case of Circumcision or if not what sense it hath and what you imagine that precept or promise to be which I assert and before the sence
that laid the foundation by legislation or promise making but Whether the effect were trasient or the act as it is in patienâ—e Whether the law were transeunt which was made by a transeunt fact and whether the moral action of that law were permanent or transient it being most certainly such a moral act that must produce a title or constitute a duty Gods writing the ten Commandements in stone was a fact soon past but the law was not soon past nor the moral act of that law viz. obligation There are verbal laws that have no real permanent sign and yet the law may be permanent and the obligation permanent because the sign may have a permanency in esse cognito and so the signifying vertue may remain by the help of memory though the word did vanish in the speaking Answ. The question between us is Whether the infants of the Jews were made visible Churchmembers by a promise of God to be the God of believers and their seed and a precept obliging the parents to accept of this mercy offered for their children and to enter them into Covenant or by the transeunt fact I describe The questions which Mr. B. here sets down so far as I understand them are no questions between us and therefore this exception is but roving from the matter in hand 2. Saith he When you come to point out this transient fact individually you say it is Gods taking the whole people of the Jews for his people which you term fact as conceiving it most comprehensive of the many particular acts in many generations whereby he did accomplish it 1. I did not well understand before that a fact did so vastly differ from on Act as to contain the acts rather then the facts of many generations Answ. Though I think in use there is some difference that act is applied to the particular actions fact to them as they amount to some thing brought to pass by them yet if there were no such difference me thinks if Mr. B. had not been minded to multiply exceptions unnecessarily he might have allowed me to use a term which in Disputes is frequent for my purpose especially sith he understands it 2. Saith he This is a long fact according to your measure even from Abrahams call out of Ur but how long it seems you are not well agreed with your self For in the first part of your Letter you enumerate to the other acts that compose this fact the bringing them into the bond of the Covenant at Mount Sinai giving them Laws setling their Priesthood Tabernacle Army Government inheritance But before you end you change yoâ—r mind and say the Churchmembership of the Israelites began as I conceive with Abrahams call and was compleated when they were brought out of Aegypt to God Exod. 10.4 But sure that was long before the setling their inheritance Your fact according to your last account was about 430 yeares in doing but according to your first opinion it was about 470 years long Answ. In my first and last account there is no change of my mind I did conceive that the taking the whole people of the Jews for his people was compleated when they were brought out of Aegypt to God Exod. 19.4 as Christ said It is finished John 19.30 and yet more was to be done because the chief or hardest thing then was done which would draw after it all the rest As after the great battel at Arbella Alexanders conquest might be said to be finished though more were after to be done I never meant to limit the fact to the time of their bringing out of Aegypt to God but included all other additionals though it were the main and which brought along with it the rest 3. Saith Mr. B. If it were one individual fact of about 470 years long that made infants Churchmembers then they could not be Churchmembers till that fact was past For the effect is not before the cause or causality of the efficient the relation cannot be before the fundamentum be laid and it seems this long fact was the laying of the fundamentum But the consequent is certainly false for infants were Churchmembers before the end or compleating of your long fact For they were Churchmembers you 'l grant when Ishmael and Isaac were circumcised Ergo it was not this long fact that made them Churchmembers Answ. I said I termed Gods taking the people of the Jews a fact as a collective term comprehensive of the many particular acts in many generations whereby he did accomplish it By which it may easily be perceived that I did not make the fact an individual action for I called it many acts nor did mean that the Churchmembership was not till all the acts were past but that it was accomplished by them that is they were brought to full stature and growth as a formed people and Commonwealth As we say a child is a man accomplished when he is brought to the years of a man and yet he is a man before And I answer to Mr. Bs. argument taken from my words that when I drew out the fact so long and said by it the infants were visible Churchmembers as a part of the Congregation of Israel my meaning was that respectively as the Congregation of Israel were made a Church by that fact so were the infants members By the call out of Ur whereby God separated Abraham and his house from other people the Congregation of Israel began to be Gods Church and if there had been infants they had been visible Churchmembers but they were not a compleated Church till they were brought out of Aegypt to God Exod. 19.4 nor infants members of a Church compleated till then when they were become a great nation and were formed into a Theocratical Commonwealth And being thus rightly understood as my words imported I said nothing which infers the absurdity of putting the effect afore the case nor the putting off infants visible Churchmembership till the end of 470 years 4. Saith he If you mean that it was not the whole but some part of this long fact that actually made infants Churchmembers then you would have assigned that part when that was the thing desired and which you pretended exactly to perform or at least you would not have told us it comprehended all these acts Answ. I did exactly tell Mr. B. in my Letter it began with the call of Abraham out of Ur and when I told him that the fact comprehended all those acts yet I added for explication whereby it was accomplished or compleated 5. Saith he And if each particular act did make infants Church-members or lay a sufficient ground of it then it seems that it was done before the institution of Circumcision For Gods calling Abraham out of Ur was before it So that the children born in his house must be Churchmembers upon that and a sufficient ground laid for his own to have been such if he had then had a natural issue
baptism He is a very rare bird that makes any fruitfull use of infant baptism which neither hath institution from God nor promise of blessing and was never known by the infant nor perhaps any person living can tell him there was any such thing Nor is there in this respect the same reason of it and Circumcision for Circumcision makes such an impression on the body as keeps the memory of it but by Baptism there is no print on the body by which it and the obligation by it may be remembred 3. Saith he The law of nature bindeth parents in love to their children to enter them into the most honourable and profitable society if they have but leave so to do But here parents have leave to enter them into the Church which iâ— the most honourable and profitable society Ergo. That they have leave is proved 1. God never forbad any man in the world to do this sincerely the wicked and unbelievers cannot do it sincerely and a not forbidding is to be interpreted as leave in case of such particâ—pation of benefits As all laws of men in doubtfull cases are to be interpreted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the most favourable sence So hath Christ taught us to interpret his own when they speak of duty to God they mâ—st be interpreted in the strictest sence When they speak of benefits to man they must be interpreted in the most favourable sence that they will hear Answ. Entering into the Church invisible is Gods onely woâ—k Entering into the Church visible Christian is by Baptiâ—m Plain Scripture proof c. pag. 24. â—e have neither precept nor example in Scripture since Christ ordained Baptism of any other way of admitting visible members but onely by Baptism Mr. Bs. minor then here is this that parents have leave to enter which is all one with admission their children into the visible Church by Baptism that is to baptize them But this is false For God hath forbidden parents to bring their infants to baptism in that he hath not appointed baptism for thâ—m as is proved at large in the 2d part of this Review much more to baptize them in their own persons according to Mr. Bs. hypotheses plain Scrip proof c. pag. 2â—1 except they be Ministers A not forbidding is not to be interpreted as leave in this case but a not commanding is a plain forbidding Mr. Collings provoc prov ch 5. No thing is lawfull in the worship of God but what we have precept or president for which who so denies opens a door to all Idolatry and superstition and will worship in the world If the law of nature bind parents to enter their children into the Church then it is a law that speaks of duty to God not of benefit to man for such laws contain grants of something from God not of what man is to do Now if it be a law of duty it must according to Mr. Bs. own rule be interpreted in the strictest sence which is the right sence they are bound to it as God appoints and no otherwise So Mr. B. against Mr. Bl. pag. 80. I take Gods precept to be the ground of Baptism as it is officium a duty both as to the baptizer and the baptized Mr. Ball reply abâ—ut nine positions p. 68. The Sacraments are of God and we must learn of God for what end and use they were ordained But by the institution of Baptism recorded in Scripture we have learned it belongeth to the faithfull to Disciples to them that are called Mr. B. mistakes when he conceives of baptism as a benefit to which a man hath right by promise or Covenant grant For though a benefit do follow to them that rightly do it yet it self is onely a duty and such a one as is onely by institution not by the law of nature nor belongs to paâ—ents for children but to each person for himself But Mr. B. goes on 2. It is the more evident that a not forbidding in such cases is to be taken for leave because God hath put the principle of sell preservation and desiring our own welfare and the welfare of our children so deeply in humane nature that he can no more lay it by then he can cease to be a reasonable creature And therefore he may lawfully actuate or exercise this natural necessary principle of seeking his own or childrens real happiness where-ever God doth not restrain or prohibit him We need no positive command to seek our own or childrens happiness but what is in the law of nature it self and to use this where God forbiddeth not if good be then to be found cannot be unlawfull Answ. 1. Infant baptism tends not to the preservation good welfare real happiness of them but to their hurt 2. It requires a positive command sith it is not of the law of nature 3. It is forbidden in that it is not commanded 4. There can be expected no blessing of God on it sith he hath promised none to it 3. Saith he It is evident from what is said before and elsewhere that it is more then a silent leave of infants Churchmembership that God hath vouchsafed us For in the forementioned fundamental promise explained more fully in after times God signified his will that so it should be It cannot be denied but there is some hope at least given to them in the first promise and that in the general promise to the seed of the woman they are not excluded there be no excluding term Upon so much encouragement and hâ—pe then it is the duty of parents by the law of nature to enter their infants into the Covenant and into that society that partake of these hopes and to list them into the Army of Christ. Answ. The point to be proved was that parents have leave to enter their children into the Church but a leave of infaâ—ts Churchmembership vouchsafed of God if there be good sense in the expression is another thing Infants Churchmembership is the infants state not the parents act and leave of it intimates a willingness in the infant to be a Churchmember to which God vouchsafes leave But whether there be sense or not in the expression it is not true that in the forementioned fundamental promise explained more fully in after times God signified his will that infants should be visible Churchmembers nor is it true that upon hope given in the first promise that they are not excluded is it the duty of parents without a positive command by the law of nature to enter their infants into the Covenant and into that society that partake of those hopes and to list them by baptism into the Army of Christ. Hopes of what may be is not a sufficient reason of baptizing a person Nor by these hopes is any more duty put on the parent then an other who hath the same hopes and may do it as viz. a Midwife Yea by this argument Midwives should be bound to baptize not only believeâ—s
of hope for them as the Paedobaptists grounds can truly give them and for reality of priviledge setting aside an empty title and rite as to them in infancy they grant them visible Church-membership when they profess the faith which in respect of Church-communion Paedobaptists themselves grant them not before but mock both Parents and children telling them they are in covenant and visible Church-members by their parents faith without their own yet denying them Church-communion which is due to every visible Church-member without their own personal avouching the faith besides their injurious dealing with them in their mock-baptism of them when it is not due nor does them any good and denying baptism to them yea persecuting them for seeking it after when it is due and might do them much good by engaging them to Christ and thereupon assure Christ to be theirs My fifth exception Master Blake passeth over as fore-spoken to ch 37. which hath answer before and my sixth as falling in with my tenth where I shall overtake him To my seventh wherein I excepted against Master Stephens for holding the command Be baptized every one of you in a covenant-sense as he calls it to be as if he had said Be baptized you and your children which I said to be a new devised non-sense such as we have no Dictionary yet to interpret words by To this saith Master Blake I am sure here is a non-sense device to talk of Dictionaries does Calepin or Scapula Rider or Thomasius help us to compare covenant and seal promises and Sacraments I reply that speech is non-sense in which the words used to signifie that which the speaker would signifie by them do not in the use of them so signifie But this speech Be baptized every one of you doth not in the use of the words signifie be baptized you and your children therefore that speech so used in that which Master Stephens calls Covenant-sense is non-sense This appears by Dictionaries in none of which every one of you is as much as you and your children Therefore that speech in that sense is a new devised non-sense As for Master Blakes words either they are non-sense or as bad For first to talk of Dictionaries is not a device an action of the mind but a speech an action of the tongue or hand and therefore it is non-sense to call it so Secondly to talk of Dictionaries is not non-sense for then all speech of Dictionaries should be non-sense and so all the verses before Râ—ders and others Dictionaries should be non-sense But to speak of Dictonaries otherwise then the words signifie so as the meaning cannot be perceived by them which he cannot say of my speech of Dictionaries As for Master Blakes question it is frivolous as much of the rest of his writing here is For though Dictionaries do not help us to compare covenant and seal promises and Sacraments yet they do help us to know the sense of words and discover to us the non-sense of words used otherwise then their signification is Master Blake himself in the 43. ch sect 2. refers me to the Dictionary about the word Pax. To my eighth exception that there is not a word of any scruple in the text as some have imagined if we be baptized our selves and not our children they will be in worse case then in the former dispensation in which they had the seal of the covenant nor is it likely that they were sollicitous about such an imaginary poor priviledge of their children He saith I am of his minde that there was no such scruple in their heads Master T. his unhappy conceit of casting the seed out of the Covenant was not then in being though I think the reason he gives is little to purpose yet I say this scruple raised by Anti-paedobaptists and heightened by Master T. as in many other so in this text is removed Ans. My exception then stands good against those who make that scruple the occasion of Peters mentioning their children And for my reason Master Blake had done better to give a reason of his censure then barely to say he thinks it to little purpose It is his calumny that I have any conceit of casting the seed out of the covenant and his conceit that the scruple mentioned is in this text removed hath been shewed to be but his dream My ninth exception was that Paedobaptists make for v. 39. to infer a right to baptism whereas it infers onely a duty which is proved in that v. 38. baptized is in the Imperative Mood To this saith Master Blake Master T. does grossely abuse his judgment in this way of refutation as though the right in which they stood could be no Topick from which in a moral way the Apostle might perswade them to baptism when Shecaniah perswaded Ezra to the reformation of the marriage of strange wives in these words Arise for the matter belongeth to thee Ezra 10.4 here was a motive in the moral way to call upon him to do it and an argument inferred that it lay upon Ezra as a duty by command from God to set upon it And to my reason he saith he hath quite forgotten that the words holding out their right are in the Indicative Mood For the promise is to you and your children And here is a notable correction of the Apostle he should have said if this had been his meaning you must be baptized and he saiâ—s Arise and be baptized Ans. Sure I am Master Blake doth most grossely abuse me in insinuating as if by my refutation the right in which they stood could be no Topick from which in a moral way the Apostle might perswade them to baptism when I proved that the Apostle did not from v. 39. infer a right to baptism which in a legal way they might claim but a duty to which in a moral way he perswades And therefore he shootes wide from the mark when he goes about to prove that a right may be a motive in a moral way to a duty And yet as if he could write nothing to the point his own allegation Ezra 10.4 is not to his own purpose the motive as himself alledgeth it being not a right to a privilege but a command from God The like roving talk is in his answer to my reason For whereas I alleged that verse 38. a right is not inferred from verse 39. but a duty because be baptized v. 38. is not in the Indicative but the Imperative Mood tels me the term is v. 39. is in the Indicative Mood which is nothing to my objection but like as in the contention between two deaf men in Sir Thomas Mores epigram he that was charged with theft answered his mother was at home The like random talk is in his insinuation of my notable correction of the Apostle who corrected not the Apostle but shewed the Paedobaptists conceit incongruous to the Apostles words He himself seems I think out of heedlesness to correct the Apostle when
he speaks thus And he â—aies Arise and be baptized which are not Peters words Acts. 2.38 but the words of Ananias to Saul Acts. 22.16 My tenth exception was usually Paedobaptists in their paraphrases put not in any thing to answer repent v. 38. which is true though Master Stephens be alleged in my sixth exception as paraphrasing it by covenant for your selves and your children Master Blake grants the Apostle presseth to a duty and such as was to have repentance precedent in his then hearers If so then he doth not infer a right to bapâ—ism barely from their interest in the promise What he saith right and duty very well stand together and that the Apostle fitly makes use of their interest as a motive I deny not It is true the Apostle mentioned more to whom the promise was then he then perswaded to repent for he mentions the promise as pertaining to the absent or unborn but he perswades none to be baptized but the penitent nor mentions any to whom the promise was but the called of God To my Argument from the precedency of repentance to baptism Acts. 2.38 against infant-baptism he answers as before ch 37. to which I have replyed before As for Master Stephens his paraphrase avowed by Master Blake as the Apostles meaning that if the Jewes who had crucified Christ would receive him as the particular Messiah the same promise should still continue to them and their children in the new dispensation it is far from the Apostles minde For the Apostle doth not make the eontinuance of the promise as the benefit consequent on their receiving Christ and the receiving of Christ the condition of continuance of the promise but the being of the promise is alleged as a thing already existent nor is there any likelyhood that the Apostle Peter would urge them to so hard duties as repentance receiving Christ by so slender a reason as the continuance of the promise of visible Church-membership and baptism to them and their infant children yea the text it self shewes that the things by which he would perswade them to receive Christ were the assurance of remission of sins and receiving the Gift of the Holy Ghost and the alleging the promise v 39 is to take away the great objection against these great benefits from their crucifying of Christ and their imprecation on them and their children Matth. 27.25 If then Master Stephens build his word of command to baptize father and child on that paraphrase he builds on a foundation which will not hold Master Blake addes To this the word repent refers as may be made plain But what he means by this assertion I do not well understand it being ambiguous what he means by this whether the paraphrase of Master Stephens that the same promise should still continue to them and their children in the new dispensation if they would receive Jesus as the particular Messiah or the word of command to baptize father and child and in like manner what kind of reference he means whether as a medium to prove it or as a motive to it If he mean the same with that which his allegations seem to tend to his meaning is that the promise of visible Church-state was to the Jewes as they had been formerly if they did receive Christ and the term repent refers to it as the motive Now though I grant that the promise Acts. 2.39 is alleged as a motive in a moral way to repentance v 38. yet I deny such a promise to be meant v. 39. as Mr. Bl. and Mr. Stephens fancy Nor do any of Mr. Blakes allegatione prove it For Acts 3.25 doth not speak of such a covenant as Master Blake means but of that Evangelical covenant wherein God promised Christ and saving blessings by him Nor are the Jews there termed children of the Covenant onely but also of the Prophets Now the Prophets there are the same with all the Prophets v. 24. and those Jewes to whom Peter spake were no otherwise their children then in that they had been raised up of and sent to that nation in their predecessors times and they are in like manner called children of the Covenant because they were the posterity of those ancestors specially Abraham to whom that Covenant was made But this doth not prove that they were then Gods visible people that the Covenant of visible Church-state did belong to them and their children or that such a covenant is meant Acts 2.39 What Master Blake allegeth from Matth. 8.12 Matth. 21.43 that they were in danger to be cast off doth prove rather the contrary thet the nation or body of the Jewish people who had rejected Christ were not in covenant with God and although those particular persons Acts 2.37 to whom Peter spake v. 38 39. were more awakened then others yet they could not be then said to be in the covenant of visible Church-state being not then believers in Christ. What Master Blake allegeth and infers from Matth. 21.31 32. Luke 7.29 30. I assent to but know not what it makeâ— for his purpose Yea me thinks his calling baptism to which Peter exhorted entrance into a new covenant-way crosseth Master Stephens paraphrase of continuing the same promise to them and their children In his third allegation he misreports me as if I excluded all consideration of right in the Jewes and their children from those words which are Acts 2.39 Whereas that which I said was this that from the promise Acts 2.39 what ever right be imported by it Peter doth not infer their being baptized as a right or privilege accruing to them in manner of a legal title and claim but as a duty to which he perswades in a moral way What good interpretation I give of those words v. 39. suitable to Peters exhortation I have set down Exam. pag. 61. Review part 1. pag. 41. and elsewhere Master Blake if he could should have overthrown it Master Cobbets exception is answered in the next section Mr. Bl. hath been oft told that the children are mentioned Acts 2.39 because of the imprecation Matth. 27.25 That the words Acts 2.38 39. are carried in that way that interest in Covenant and Covenant-Seals in Mr. Bls sense formerly ran is supposed but not proved by him That the Jews yet persisting in their adherence to Moses not embracing Christ should be in covenant and have thereby a right to baptism is such a dotage as me thinks Master Blake should disclaim That the words of the text Acts 2.39 hold out such a covenant-right as Master Blake imagins in Scripture-language according to the grand charter of heaven I will be thy God and the God of thy seed is said but not proved by Master Blake Whether my exceptions against the Paedobaptists exposition of Acts 2.38 39. or Master Blakes answers are frivolous shifts the intelligent Reader will perceive My Antipaedobaptism is enough to refute Master John Goodwins charge and my censure of his interpretations others have made good As for
sense of the duty oâ— by foundation of a duty may be understood the Rule according to which that duty is to be performed and this may be understood either thus to whomsoever there is a promise of that thing by which a duty is urged on others they are bound to do that duty and then it is false for Christ promised Matth. 28.19 20. to the Apostles whom he bid preach the Gospel and baptize that he would be with them and Matth. 18.20 to two or three gathered together to be in the midst of them doth it therefore follow that every two or three gathered together in his Name are commanded to preach and baptize or it may be understood thus that he to whom the promise is upon the doing of that duty is bound to do it and this I grant to be true but this will not serve Mr. Sidenhams turn for there is no promise to infants that upon their baptizing themselves they should have remission of sins nor is Mr. Sidenham so absurd as to make baptism infants duty but their right now as Mr. Sidenham would have it that because there 's a promise to infants therefore others are in duty bound to baptize them as having right to it it is false sith the institution of Baptism is not to whom God hath promised to be a God for that is according to his election which is unknown Rom. 9.6 7 8. but to them who are Disciples or believers in Christ Matth. 28.19 Mark 16.15 16. There are ambiguities in the speeches that commands in the Gospel do suppose promises that promises made to persons do include commands that all the New Testament Ordinances are annexed to promises which would be too tedious and unnecessary to unfold it is sufficient to shew they will not serve Mr. Sidenhams turn in the sense they are true and will as well serve to prove infants right to the Lords Supper as to Baptism That which he saith We have as much in the New Testament to prove infant-baptism from the true principles of right to Ordinances as they have for those whom they baptize for they baptize grown persons on such and such considerations and we shall hereafter shew we baptize on as strong and equivalent grounds is notoriously false for we baptize according to the qualification required in the institution of Christ and the Apostles and other Preachers baptizing and directing the use of Baptism in the New Testament which are acknowledged the true principles of right to Ordinances and it is acknowledged even by Paedobaptists that they have neither precept nor example in the New Testament of infant-baptism and therefore cannot have as strong and warrantable grounds as we who are Pistobaptists that is baptizers of believers Nor is it true that it is requisite we should shew them expressâ—command against Infant-baptism it is enough that they cannot prove in its institution Infants never by divine warrant enjoyed Baptism and for Circumcision it was more unlike than like to Baptism and of it an authentique repeal is easily shewed Acts 15. and elsewhere In the rest Mr. Sidenham shews not why infants should not have been baptized at first as well as grown men if it had been Christs minde Ishmael and all Abrahams males were circumcised the self same day in which Abraham was Gen. 17.26 27. and therefore if Paedobaptists Hypothesis were right infants as well as persons of years should have been baptized by the Apostles which they did not for in that it is not exprest it is enough to shew it was not done unless we make the Spirit of God defective in what was needfull to have been set down and to say as Mr. Sidenham doth There is enough to shew it was done though not written is with the Papists to maintain unwritten traditions Rule â—f manners There is no hint left by Christ or the Apostles to deduce as a infant-baptism from And it is false which he saith God hath always ordained some Ordinances in the administrationâ— of which for the most part the subject hath been purely passive He names nor can name any till the institution of Circumcision which was not till after the world had been above two thousand years The rest of his speech savours of this corrupt principle that what we conceive fit in Gods worship is to be accounted his minde This is enough in answer to the first Chapter In the second he saith untruly that the Covenant Gen. 17. was first made with Abraham and his seed in the name of all believers and their seed both Jews and Gentiles nor is it true that if he should finde the same Covenant reaching Gentile believers and their children as Abraham and his they cannot be denied the new external sign and seal of the same Covenant that is Baptism And for what he saith the Covenant Gen. 17. was a Covenant of pure grace I grant it so far as it was Evangelical but deny it to be a pure Gospel-covenant nor do any of his Reasons prove any more than I grant that there were Gospel-promises meant by God under promises of temporal mercies proper to Abraham and his natural posterity and those that joyned with them in their policy which I have proved before out of Scripture to be termed the Covenant it self without a Metonymy and God is said to keep that Covenant by establishing the Israelites in Canaan and therefore it is but vain talk that the promise of Canaan was but an additional appendix added ex super abundanti if he mean it of the Covenant Gen. 17. if he mean it of the Gospel-covenant it is more true that was added to the other as a more hidden sense under the promises of civil and domestick privileges I do not make a mixture in the Gospel-covenant but in the Covenant made with Abraham Gen. 17. nor by mixture do I understand any other than a composition of various parts not a mixture in the nature of it or substance or circumstances but that the Covenant made with Abraham had promises of two sorts some promises in the first obvious sense of the words proper to Abrahams natural posterity some spiritual common to all believers in the more hidden sense of the words which with what hath been said before is enough to answer that Chapter aâ—so proceeding upon mistakes of my meaning in the term mixt in many passages and the rest if not answered before I let pass because dictates without proof In the third after he hath allowed the distinctions of Abrahams seed into carnal and spiritual natural and believing he sets down six considerations 1. That Abraham 's spiritual seed were as much his fleshly seed also Isaac as Ishmael except Proselytes and Servants which may be granted with these limitations 1. That it be not understood universally for Christian believing Gentilesâ— neither Proselytes to Israel nor servants to them are Abrahams spiritual seed yet not at all Abrahams fleshly seed 2. That Isaac was as much Abrahams fleshly seed as
this doth not prove this is the Genus of Sacraments much less of all Sacraments Nor doth it any whit justifie the determining of doubts of conscience and so binding duties on mens consciences concerning meer positive rites without any institution of Christ or Apostolicall example meerly from this devised term The Seal of the Covenant and malâ—ing it so necessary to be acknowledged that it is pressed on persons to be admitted to the Lords Supper as it were a necessary Article of Faith 2. This term Seal of the Covenant applied to these Sacraments as being of their nature is so farre as my reading and memory reach but a novell term not used till the 16. Century in that not used among the learned Romanists and Lutherans at least not frequently I grant the Ancients say Men are sealed by baptism and sometimes by laying on of hands or anointing after baptism And this sealing is attributed to infant baptism by Nazianzen in his fortieth Oration But this sealing was not a confirmation of the covenant of grace but a confirmation of their faith received in Baptism The ancient Greeks call it the seal of Faith as the Latins call it the seal of Repentance and the Sacrament of Faith in respect of the profession of Faith as Grotius Annot. on Mat. 28.19 observes when he saith And such were the Interrogations of faith either in the first times or those next the first in respect of which by Basil and others it is called the seal of faith sealing of faith of repentance by Tertul. in his book of Repentance and this sealing was not to assure a promise but to strengthen and keep their faith or vertues Whence as Mr. Gataker observes in his Strictures on Dr. Davenants Epistle pag. 44 45. they accounted Baptism to some not as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a pardoning of sins but a seal of vertues and where Nazianzen calls â—t a Seal he expresseth it thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a seal as keeping and noting dominion No where do I find any of them use the term Seal of the covenant of grace applied either to Sacraments in generall or to baptism in special 3. But were the use of the term Seal of the covenant of grace in the Scripture or the writings of the Ancients yet it is against Logick to define a Sacrament by a Seal of the covenant as the genus and so to make it of its essence For it is a rule in Logick Definitio non fit ex verbis metaphoricis Scheibler Top. cap. 30 num 126. Ita Aristot Topic. lib. 2. c. 2. sect 4. Keckerm Syst. Logic lib. 1. sect cap. 8. Aristotle saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Every translated speech is doubtfull till reduced to proper for it may have divers senses Besides metaphors or borrowed speeches may be many as in this point we may call a Sacrament a Pledge as in the Common Prayer Book Catechism or a pawn earnest as well as a seal Chamier Paust Cath. tom 4. l. 2. c. 9. sect 10. You have also the similitude of a pledge somewhat divers from Seals but nevertheless tending to the same which we also doe most willingly use And if we should define a Sacrament by a pledge and from that metaphor infer that an infant must contract afore it receive the Sacrament as a pledge we might do it with as good reason as they who infer they are to be sealed because the seal followes the covenant Well doth Chamier call a Seal a Similitude which cannot shew what a Sacrament is but what it is like and therefore all metaphors are unfit to shew the quidâ—â—tative conceit of a thing nor are to be used in definitions except there be want of proper terms of which there is not in this case Now to define a Sacrament by a Seale of the covenant is to define it by a metaphor neither Baptism nor the Lords Supper are Seals in proper acceptation they make no visible figure or impression on the body therefore to use the term thus is an abuse much more when positions and duties are urged on mens consciences from it I will subjoyn Mr. Baxters words in his Apologie against Mr Blake Sect. 64. pag 11. Some sober men no way inclined to Anabaptism do think that we ought not to call the Sacraments Seals as being a thing not to be proved from the word for all Rom. 4. But I am not of their mind yet I think it is a Metaphor and to make it the subject of tedious disputations and to lay too great a stress upon a metaphoricall notion is the way not to edifie but to lose our selves Lastly were all this yielded to Mr M. that the term Seal of the covenant were the language of the Scripture and Ancients and fit enough to express the generall nature of Sacraments yet I conceive it of little moment to the ends to which it is applied For what is it to seal and not to confer grace but onely to assure And so the use of it is to represent to the mind as a morall instrument But that is not done to infants who are not naturally capable to understand the meaning therefore this term Seal of the covenant beyond sign of grace doth not take away the objection of Papists Lutherans or Anti-paedobaptists That without giving grace or faith by baptism it is in vain or without effect to baptize infants And in like manner the deriving from it Paedobaptism is very frivolous These things will appear by considering what Mr M. and others say of the covenant which they say is sealed and of the sealing there being little agreement among Paedobaptists whether the inward or outward covenant the absolute or conditionall be sealed whether the sealing be absolute or conditionall to the Major Minor or Conclusion I will examine what I find said by Mr M. First whose words are commended by Mr. Pryâ—â—â— in his Suspension suspended pag. 19 c. â—e saith In every Sacrament the truth of the covenant it self and all the promises of it are sealed to be Yea and Amen and this is sealed absolutely in baptism to all that partake of it But 1. there 's no Scripture that saith so That Rom. 5 8. is impertinent For Christ is not called the Minister of Circumcision because he did administer circumcision to others that were not true he circumcised none but he was a circumcised Minister for the truth he was of the circumcision that is a Jew not a Gentile Nor is it said his circumcision was to confirm the promises of the Fathers that they were true but that therefore he was a circumcised Minister for the truth of God that the promises of the Fathers might be confirmed by his ministring the truth of God in his preaching or in his accomplishment of what the promises foretold 2. Nor do I know any act in baptism that hath any aptnesse of it self or by institution to seal this position that the covenant of grace and
Mr. C. tells us Hence c. and this is the consectary he would infer from his fifth Conclusion and minding discourse about it But how from any thing said before That Christ is the head of the visible Church that visible Professors though not sincere are united to Christ as visible head this follows That Parents profession unites the child to Christ so as to give him right to baptism is a riddle to me If it were formed into an Argument thus If the visible professors confession of faith unites him to Christ as visible head Then it unites the child so far as to give him right to baptism But the visible professors c. Ergo. I should deny the consequence of the Major and expect it to be proved ad Graecas Calendas nor is there any proof in that which follows For were it granted that the parents act were the childs act yet it follows not that it is the childs act to give a right or title to baptism without an institution None of the texts produced no nor any other do shew that the parents act of professing faith did entitle the child to circumcision much less to baptism Cornelius his child was not entitled to circumcision though he and his house feared God was a devout man gave much alms to the poor and prayed to God alway Acts. 10.2 Even in circumcisi on the use of it had its rule onely from the command as I have often poved Not one of Mr. C. his Texts mentions the parents acts as entitling the child to fellowship of the church but obliging to duty Deut. 16.16 17 there 's an injunction That all the Males should thrice a year appear before God but this was enjoyned not to parents onely but also to children married or unmarried And if it prove any thing like what Mr. C. would it proves rather the males act to stand for the females than the parents for the children More likely in this the younger males did appear insteed of the aged weak so the childs act went for the parents However here 's nothing of the parents act giving right to initiation into fellowship of the Church there was nothing required to that in the national Church of Israel but their descent Deut. 26.17 18. there 's no mention of a parents act for his child intitling him to solemn initiation into fellowship of the Church What is said Thou hast avouched this day the Lord to be thy God is not said to be done by the parents for the children nor to be done to entitle them to solemn initiation into the fellowship of the Church Deut. 29.10 11 12 13 14. whose act soever is mentioned whether of the parents or Captains Elders Officers or men of Israel It was an act done in behalf of the nation both those born already and those to be born after not to entitle them to initiation into fellowship of the Church but to bind them the more firmly to their duty and therefore none of these instances are to the point of parents acts in the face of the visible Church taken as the Childrens acts for solemn initiation in Church fellowship Yet if they had that this had been enough for baptism and Church-membership in the Christian Gentile Churches will not be proved till the rule about Circumcision and the constitution of the Jewish Church be a rule to us about baptism and the Church-membership of the Christian Church which neither agrees with Christs or his Apostles appointment or the practise in the N. T. nor with the new english principles of Church constitution Goverment but Judiazing notions opposiâ—e to the Gospel What he saith the parents omission to circumcise his child is counted the childs act of breaking Gods Conant Gen. 17.14 depends on this that the parents omission of circumcision is the childs act of breaking Covenant but many Protestant Divines and others understand it of persons of years as Piscat Schol. in locum Diodati new Annot. Grotius c. And though Chamier counted it to be understood of the Infant Tom 4 Paustrat Cath. l. 3. c. 2. Sect. 20. c. Yet he expounds the verse passively thus the male the flesh of whose foreskin is not circumcised that soul shall be cut off from his people my Covenant is broken Either way expounded it is inpertinent to Mr. Cs. purpose they that expound it as Aben Ezrae apud Christoph. Cartwright on the place of the parent understand both the fault and the punishment to be his It is true Iohn 4.50 51. Matth. 15.22 to 29. Mark 9.12 to 18. parents believing is accepted for the cure of children and so Mark 2.5 the faith of the bringers of the palsy man was accepted but this doth not prove a title to baptism by the parents confession any more than by the Midwives or Gossips bringing to the Foâ—â— nor was it the confession of faith but reality though not known to men which Christ lookd on so that if this be a good reason the Fathers praying in Secret though not in the face of the visible Church should give Title to Baptism After many dictates without proof he tels us As the Covenant laid hold on by the lively faith of gratious parents as made with respect to their elect children hath mighty force to effect very gratious things in the elect feed yea albeit dying young as sundry of those elect ones of Abrahams race did Rom. 9.6 yea so as to make their outward washings to become effectual in Christ to an inward cleansing Ephes. 5.25.26 yea so as to bring in and bring home many of such covenant-children Whence those revolters beloved for their covenant-fathers sake as such Rom. 11.28 and hence made as a ground of their return v. 15 16. so is there such validity in the covenant invested with church covenant albeit but unworthily oft-times held forth by the parents which doth beget upon the children an externall filiall relation unto God and to his Spouse the visible church whence that respect of children of God and his church by vertue of that espousall covenant Ezek. 16.8 Even in the children of idolatrous members v. 20 21 23. Great is the force of this way of the covenant so cloathed Albeit many unworthy members are giâ—t up in it to hold them and theirs in externall communion Jer. 13.11 untill either the church be divorced from God or the particular members be disfranchised by some church-censure of such a covenant-privilege Answer Though this reasoning contain nothing but dictates unproved and incoherent yet sith it carries some shew of an Argument à comparatis I shal say somwhat to it 1. There 's not aword in the texts alleged that shews what Mr C. here asserts that the covenant laid hold upon by the lively faith of gracious parents as made with respect to their children hath mighty force to effect very gracious things in the elect seed Nor is there a word in those Texts to prove such a covnnant made to
were visible members of the Church universal in that they were of the Church Jewish therefore they are in the Christian properly so called contradistinct to the Jewish Which speech I use as commonly Divines do because though the Jewish Church were Christs Church yet the appellation of Christians being not afore the dayes of the Apostles Acts 11.26 we may fitly say the Church in the wilderness was not the Christian properly so called that is which is gathered out of the nations by the Apostles preaching nor Moses in the Christian Church nor Cornelius in the Jewish Church as Aegypt though in Africa and Persia though in Asia yet are not said to be in Asia the less or Africa propria Mr. B. proceeds Concerning the matter of the third Qu. I assert that it was not onely of the Jewes Commonwealth that infants were members of but of the Church distinct from it This is proved sufficiently in what is said before Answ. As yet I do not finde it proved that the Jewish Church was distinct from the Commonwealth or that there was any member of the Church who was not of the Commonwealth What is said about it sect 43. may be there seen by the Reader Moreover saith Mr. B. 1. Infants were Churchmembers in Abrahams family before Circumcision and after when it was no Commonwealth So they were in Isaacs Jacobs c. Answ. Abrahams family and Isaacs and Jacobs were a Common-wealth although they were but small they had government within themselves Abraham had his trained servants and made war of himself Gen. 14.14 Isaac made a league as a Prince coâ—ordinate Gen. 26.31 so did Jacob Gen. 31.53 These with other acts shew they were an independent Commonwealth 2. Saith Mr. B. The banished captivated scattered Jews that ceased to bee members of their Commonwealth yet ceased not to bee of the Church Answ. They were then of the Commonwealth of the Jews as they were of the Church both de jure and de facto they acknowledging themselves to be of that people and to aâ—here to their laws although somewhat restrained of their liberty as a captivated imprisoned King or subject is head or member of that Republique to which he hath not access 3. Saith Mr. B. The people of the land that became Jews in Hesters time joyned not themselves to their Commonwealth Nor the Sichemites Answ. The contrary is true as concerning the Sichemites is shewed before 4. Saith he Many Proselytes never joyned themselves to their Commonwealth Answ. Those Proselytes were not of the Jewish Church visible members 5. Saith he The children of Abraham by Keturah when they were removed from his family were not unchurched and yet were no members of the Jewes Commonwealth But I shall take up with what is said for this already undertaking more largely to manifest it when I perceive it necessary and useful Answ. Abrahams children by Keturah when out of the Common-wealth of the Hebrews were unchurched at least in respect of the Church of the Hebrews nor do I conceive Mr. Bs. larger manifestation of the contrary will be any thing but more words without proof SECT LV. Infants of the Jewes were not visible Churchmembers by Promise or Precept as Mr. B. teacheth MR. B. proceeds To the 4th Qu. I assert that 1. There was a Law or Precept of God obliging the parents to enter their children into Covenant with God by accepting his favour and re-engaging and devoting them to God and so entering them solemnly Churchmembers And 2. there was a Covenant promise or grant of God by which he offered the Church-membership of some infants and actually conferred it where his offer was accepted I should have mentioned this first and therefore will begin with the proof of this By these terme Covenant promise grant or deed of gift c. we understand that which is common to all these viz. A sâ—gne of Gods will conferring or confirming a right to or in some benefit such as we commonly call a Civil act of Collation as distinct from a mere Physical act of disposal I call it a signe of Gods will de jure because that is the general nature of all his legal moral acts they are all signal determinations de debiro of some due 2. I say conferring or confirming right to some benefit to dâ—fference it from precepts which onely determine what shall be due from us to God and from threatnings which determine what punishment shall be due from God to us Answ. That which Mr. B. asserts here is in opposition to what I said in my 2d Leâ—ter I confess infants were by Gods fact of takiâ—g the whole people of the Jews for his people in that estate of the Jewish paedagogy not by any promise or precept visible Churchmembers that is of the Congregation of Israel and in my 3d. I explaiâ— my self a promise conferriâ—g infants the benefit of Churchmembership with all the consequent priviledges a precept constituting the duty of devoting and dedicating the child to God and entring into Covenant which confers the benefit which were his own words in his first Letter so that if we prove by any other grâ—nt or deed of gift physical or moral which is not a promise of it by which it is conferred or by any Law which is not such a prâ—cept he contradicts not my speech and so disputes not ad idem Which whether he do or no will be perceived by examining what follows Having thus saith he explained the terms I prove the proposition If infants Churchmembership with the priviledges thereof were a benefit conferred which some had right to or in then was there some grant covenant or promise by which this right was conferred But the antecedent is most certain Ergo so is the consequent I suppose you will not deny that it was a benefit to be the covenanted people of God to have the Lord engaged to bee their God and to take them for his people to bee brought so near him and to bee separated from the common and unclean from the world and from the strangers to the covenant of promises that live as without God in the world and without hope Answ. I do not deny it but I deny that this is to be visible Church-members formally or connexively For men may be visible Church-members and yet not have all this benefit and they may have all this benefit who are not visible Churchmembers Hypocrites may be visible Churchmembers yet not be Gods covenanted people to have the Lord engaged to be their God and to take them for his people to be brought so near him c. And some believing Saints that are dumb may have all this and yet not be visible Churchmembers Mr. B. adds If it were asked what benefit had the Circumcision I suppose you would say much every way Answ. I should but I would add that to bee the Circumcision is not all one as to be visible Churchmembers Cornelius and his house were visible Churchmembers yet not the
of yâ—ur one syllable such is discerned by trying it by a whole volume I doubt you will make what your list of it However if you should mean that such precepts there are as have for their subject the avouching God to be their God the entring into Covenant Circumcision of infants but not their Churchmembership then 1. I have proved the contrary to the negative before 2. and more shall do anon 3. and it 's a palpable contradiction to the precedent affirmative But if you mean that Churchmembership of infants as well as others is the subject or part of the subject of those promises or precepts and yet that infants were not made or confirmed thereby it is the contrary that I am asserting and I have no further need to prove then by shewing the contradiction of your opinion to it self For an actual Covenant or promise that doth not give right to the benefit promised according to itâ—s tenour and terms is like a cause that hath no effect a father that did never generate and it 's all one as to say A gift or Covenant which is no gift or Covenant seeing the name is denied when the thing named and defined is granted So a precept or law to enter infants solemnly into Churchmembership which yet obligeth none so to enter them is as gross a contradiction as to say the Sun hath not heat or light and yet is truly a Sun Answ. I grant his assertion that there is no precept of God which doth not oblige to duty nor donation which doth not confer the benefit though sundry things which have the title of Gods lawes oblige not to duty and an actual promise doth not put the thing promised in present being as the next cause but the thing promised is thereby onely made future yea a promise that it shall be doth suppose it not to be and that there is something else the next and immediate cause of its actual being The imagined contradiction in my later to my former Letter is before cleared not to be so Sect. 53. Though I have said enough before in this and other fore going Sections yet to take away all colour of charging me with ambiguity 1. I acknowledge that the Covenant at Mount Sinai and the Covenant Deut. 29. did declare the people of the Jews to be Gods people or his visible Church in that the Covenant was mutual and open between them and God 2. That they were Gods visible Church not barely by Gods promise to them to be their God but by their promise to God Gods call of them made them his Church their promise to God with oâ—her acts made them visibly so 3. The promises of God Gen. 17. did not of themselves make the house of Abraham Gods visible Church 4. The call of God and such acts as whereby he separated them from others to bee his which were many made the house of Abraham Gods Church 5. The infants were members of that Church in that they were part of that peopâ—e 6. Such things as whereby they were visibly of that people their birth cohabitation c. did make them visible Churchmembers 7. Circumcision was one sign not by itsâ—lf but with other things whereby the male infants and adult were known to be of Gods visible Church 8. No promise of God nor duty of parents did make the infants actually visible Churchmembers as the next cause in act either formal or efficient If Mr. B. or any Reader will heed these passages with what goes before hee may easily discern my minde and acquit me from self-contradiction if not I think it in vain for me to use more words I pass on to that which follows SECT LVI That the People and thereby the Infants of the Hebrews were made visible Churchmembers by a transeunt fact is made good against Mr Bs. exceptions I Come next saith Mr. B. to the 6th Qu. Whether indeed there be any transeunt fact which without the causation of any promise or precept did make the Israelites infants Churchmembers This you affirm if you would be understood whether this your ground of infants Churchmembership or mine be righter I hope will be no hard matter for another man of common capacity to discern By a transeunt fact thus set as contradistinct to a law precept or promise either you mean the act of legislation and promise making or some other merely physical act If the former it is too ridiculous to be used in a serious business For you should not put things in competition excluding the one where they both must necessarily concur the one standing in a subordination to the other Was there ever a Law or Covenant made in the world any other way â—hen by a transeunt fact Sure all legislation is by some signification of the Soveraigns will And the making of that sign is a transeunt fact If it be by voice is not that transient If by writing is not the act transeunt If by creation it self the act is transeunt though the effect bee permament And certainly if legislation or promising be your transeunt fact you do very absurdly put it in opposition to a law or promise it being the making of such a law And the legislation doth no way oblige the subject but by the law so made nor doth the making of a promise grant or covenant confer right to the benefit which is the subject of of it any otherwise then as it is the making of that grant which shall so conferre it As the making of a knife doth not cut but the knife made and so of other instruments So that if the law oblige not or the grant confer not certainly the legislation or promise-making cannot do it I cannot therefore imagine that this is your sense without charging you with too great absurdity As if you should say It is not the will of the testator i. e. his testament that entiâ—leth the legatary to the legacy but it is the rranseunt fact of the testator in making that will or it is not the Soveraigns commission that authorizeth a Judge souldier c. but it is the transeunt fact of writing or making that commission It is not the sign that signifieth but the transeunt fact of making that sign Were not this a contemptible arguing To charge you with this were to make you tantùm non ununreasonable And yet I know not what to say to you that is how to understand you For if you mean a mere physical transient fact which is no such legislation or promise-making then it is far more absurd then the former For if it be not a signe of Gods will obliging to duty or conferring benefit then can it not so oblige to duty nor confer benefits It is no other transeunt fact but legislation that can oblige a subject to duty nor any other transeunt fact but promise or other donation that can convey right to a benefit or oblige the promiser A moral or civil effect must bee produced
let her not leave him that is there is no necessity that he should put her away that she should leave him conscience and duty to God ties them not to do so and this sense seems most probable to me though I reject not the other if some limitation more be added as thus let him not put her away nor shee leave him that is I forbid them to leave each other barely for the disparity of religion Now the reasons of this later explication are these 1. Because the phrase v. 15. let him depart is not an absolute command but a permission as the words following a brother or sister is not under bondage in such cases shew and the like is to bee said of the resolution v. 17. so let him walk that is so hee may walk and that it is the sense I gather from the instances in the following verses whereby the Apostle illustrates his determination v. 17. Is any man called being uncircumcised v 18. let him not become uncircumcised Is any called in uncircumcision let him not be circumcised Which speeches do not absoluâ—ely forbid the drawing up the fore-skin or the cutting it off there might bee cases in which either might be lawful but leave it at liberty and so much the words â—ollowing also intimate circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing but the keeping the commandements of God which expression intimates the iâ—differency of these and the non availing to ingratiate us to God which is not a fit reason for an absolute prohibition but for a determination concerning the liberty of either Then the Apostle v. 20. repeats his determination v. 17. Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called which though true of it is not meant of his â—hristian general calling as if he had said Let every man abide in Christianity wherein he was called which the words seem at first râ—ading to import for the words following v. 21. Art thou called being a servant do shew that the term calling v. 20. notes thâ— state of life antecedent to his being a Christian which by an elegant â—ntanaclasis is termed by the Apostle his calling And this the Apostle doth not enjoyn so as that he forbids any servant to be free but the meaning iâ— as Diodati in his Annot. rightly expounds it He may abide therein with a safe conscience and ought not rashly to change it neither through superstition nor by doing another any wrong but if he can do it for any just causes or through any lawfull means it is then lawfull for him to do it The same is repeated v. 24. and is to be understood not as oft preachers do understand it of a mans trade or imployment onely and as an absolute command that a man should not leave his iâ—ployment trade or function in which he was bred as of a tradesman to become a preacher c. but the calling is any state of life in which the person was found who was called to be a Christian as to be circuâ—cised or uncircuâ—cised a servant or freeman married or unmarried subject or Magistrate and so proves that Magistracy or any other state of life is consistent with Christianity And the Apostles determination is not of necessiâ—y as if a Christian might not alter the calling or state of life he was in when he was converted for then the servant might not become free nor the unmarried marry but of liberty that Christians should not think themselâ—es bound by their Christian profession to forsake these estates but they might continue in them And so is the resolution v. 12 13. to be expounded 2. This exposition is agreeâ—ble to the occasion of the Apostles determination which was the Corinthian Christians doubt of the lawfulness of their living together not of the inconvenience or convenience for in that they could have best resolved themselves and so the Apostles resolution is of the lawfulness of living together 3. This is further confirmed from the reason of his determination v. 12 13. in the first part of v. 14. which is apparently set down to meet with the reason of their doubt they thought that they might not live with the unbeliever because unholy The Apostle on the contrary determines though hee were unholy in himself yet he was to his wife as if hee had been holy and the reason is thus The wife may live with him as her husband who though an unbeliever is in respeâ—t of marriage use as if he were sanctified But so is the unbelieving husband Ergo. Which reason cannot be a meer Rhetorical argument to move the affection for it supposeth the unbeliever continuing such which was their vexation but an argument to satisfie their consciences Yet not of their duty that they must live together for it is heterogeneous to that end they were not bound to live together by reason of the sanctifiedness of the unbeliever buâ— Gods command which alone makes duty but of the lawfulness notwithstanding his infidelity by determining against the ground of their doubt the unlawfulness of living together with an unsanctified infidel As for the words following Else were your children unclean but now are they holy they cannot be the resolution of another doubt but 1. the forms of expression 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 else or otherwise and but now do plainly shew that those words do confirm what was said next before the unbelieving wife is sanctified to the husband 2. They shew that the thing was certain even to them that their children were not unclean and that it was absurd in their conceits that their children should be unclean Mr. Bl. himself saith Vindic. Faed pag. 323. Else implies a certainty that upon this account of sanctification of the parent from whom the ground of fear arose the children are holy a like certainty that were it not that they were thus sanctified they were unclean Which words do plainly set down the two propositions I conceived in the Apostles argument which Mr. Bl. terms a monster of absurdity for It is certain that upon this account of sanctification of the parent from whom the ground of fear arose the children are holy is equipollent to this All the children of those parents whereof one is sanctified to the other are holy and it is certain that were it not that they were thus sanctified they were unclean is equipollent to this none of the children of those parents whereof one is not sanctified to the other are clean or holy and hereby their fear is confessed to have been about their own living together and the ground of it the imagined non sanctifiedness of the parent and that else doth imply a certainty of the childrens holiness upon this account of sanctification of the parent which evidently shews that the childrens holiness is a consequent of the parents sanctification and brought to prove it and not to resolve another doubt of them Yea it were ridiculous to resolve a doubt by a doubt to resolve them
bound by the precept Gen. 17.9 the former seal ceasing and another substituted to baptise 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 bee meant of another Canaan then that part of the earth which the Israelites possessed For besides places before alledged wherein the terms everlasting and for ever are vsed 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 Ionadab the son of Rechab should not want a man to stand before God for ever and yet this could be true onely 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 Perâ—zites Jebusites c. I deny not that in the latent sense there may be a promise of eternal life to Abrahams 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. â—7 9. which though it be so in the English translation yet is it in Hebr. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 rendred by the Tigur And thou by Pareus But thou by Piscator Thou verily which is enough to shew there is no strength in Mr. Cs. inference sith there is no firm ground on which it rests 3. But were it granted that therefore Gen. 17.9 were the onely reading and that the command is to be meant also of Abrahams spiritual seed even in our days yet that the inference of the command v. 9. should be onely from the promise v. 8. or v. 7. and not also from the promises v. 4 5 6 I know no goâ—d reason iâ— or can be given 4. Were it that there could be good reason given thereof yet sith the promise v. 8. is mixt containing both spiritual promise if Mr. C. be in the right and promise pecuâ—iar to the natural seed of Abraham me thinks the precept should be onely to that spiritual seed which is also natural and not bind the Gentile believers sith they have no part of the promise as it concerns the pâ—ssession of the earthly Canaan from which the duty is inferred as well if not onely 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. â— 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 bâ— the reason of the command and the commandâ— 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 meere professours of faith are bound to keep Gods Covenant by vertue of the promise sith no promise is made to them 6. Were this also granted that the command is to every professour of faith to keep the Covenant as is enjoyned v. 9. then it remains still as a duty for every professour 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 circumciâ—â—ng or baptizing so as the circumcising of the child came under the command onely 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 in stead 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 it self 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 onely upon those words declaring that to be then the token Circumcision is now abolished yet the command of keeping the token of Abrahams Covenant is still in force and binding to Abrahams spiritual seed in their Generations therefore what is now the token of that Covenant must be observed in stead 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 Delphick jugling 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 enjoyned Gen. 17.9 but what Abraham was enjoyned 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
the token of Abrahams Covenant and yet the command Gen 17.9 â—0 1â— 12 13 4. bindâ—th not Nor is the other speech true For by the same authority according to Mr. C. the Passeover the Lords Supper were made tokens of the same Covenâ—â—t and yet â—or duties in stead of Circumcision 7. If when circumcision ceased there was 〈◊〉 be a duty in stead thereof by vertue 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 Gods 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 in stead of Circumcision But Mr. C. thinks to prove it onely by the way he takes in to illustrate his conceit about Gen. 17.9 something about the Sabbaâ—h Exod. 20.8 11. of which he saith thus The like manner of institution we have concerning the Sabbath therefore those who deny infant Baptism oftentimes deny the Sabbath and not without cause for there is the same reason of both and we may illustrate the one by the other The Lord intended in time to change the day from the 7th day to the first of the week as he intended in time to change the token of Abrahams Covenant Therefore in the 4th Commandment also the command is not primarily fixed upon the 7th or any day to be remembred and kept holy but upon the general duty that the rest day of the Lord be remembred and kept holy what ever that day fall to be Remember the Sabbath day that is the rest day to keep it holy and the Lord blessed the rest day and sanctified it And the remembrance and keeping of the 7th day is in the Commandment made a duty for this reason because that was declared to be then the day wherein God had entred into his rest after his making of the world And upon the same account when after the travel of his soul in the new creation he entred the second time into his rest as is declared that he did Heb. 4.9 10. because that was upon the first day of the week when he rose from the dead therefore by vertue of that command Remember the rest day to keep it holy the first day of the week is now to be remembred and kept holy in as much as that is now the rest day of the Lord our God as formerly the 7th day Answ. That those who deny infant Baptism do not or need not deny the Sabbath is shewed in my Examen part 2. sect 8. in my Praecursor sect 15. in the second part of my Review sect 3. and what Mr. C. haâ—h said for his opinion of inferring the Lords day Sabbath from Heb. 3 4. hath been examined before and shewed insufficient for his purpose That which now he brings from his conceit of the command Exod 20.8 11. is to me very doubtfull and yet were it certain would not answer Mr. Cs. expectation His conceit is doubtfull 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 Sabath 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 Bâ—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 Levit. 23 24 32 29. but no where 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 shew why I conceive Mr. Cs. exposition doubtfull 2. Yet were hiâ— interpretation granted it would not serve his turn here For 1. keeping Gods Covenant Gen. 7.9 is without any example or colour of reason reâ—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 â—orns day the one being a moral command and the other meerly 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 Passeover and Lords 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 ouâ— of the institution and practise 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 shewed 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 2ly FOr answer further it is to be considered that Baptism is now in the room of Circumcision and is the very same for substance to us as Circumcision was to them before Christ namely the token and seal of that Covenant made with Abraham and his seed as appeareth Gal 3.27 29. As many of you as have been baptixed into Christ have put on Christ. And if ye be Christs then are ye Abrahams seed and heirs according to the promise By which we see that whatever we have as Abrahams