Opinion in opposition to an innumerable company of our judgment and that not without sufficient ground if the forementioned reasons be well weighed The other is Dr. Taylor who speaks not his own sence upon the Text but personates as he tells us an Anabaptist we may see his own proper judgment in his last piece viz. The consideration of the practice of the Church in baptizing Infants of believing Parents pag. 48.49 It is saith he in our case as it was with the Jews children our children are a holy Seed for if it were not so with Christianity how could S. Peter move the Jews to Christianity by telling them the promise was to them and their children For if our children be not capable of the Spirit of promise and holiness and yet their children were holy it had been a better Argument to have kept them in the Synagogue than to have called them to the Christian Church And indeed if the Christian Jews whose children are circumcised and made partakers of the same promises title and inheritance and Sacrament which themselves had at their first conversion to the faith of Christ had seen their children shut out from the new Sacrament of Baptism it is not to be doubted but they would have raised a storm greater than could easily be suppressed since about their circumcision they had raised such tragedies and implacable disputations and there had been great reason to look for a storm for their children were circumcised and if not baptized then they were left under a burthen which their fathers were quit of for S. Paul said unto you whosoever is circumcised is a debtor to keep the whole Law these children therefore that were circumcised stood obliged for want of Baptism to perform the Laws of ceremonies to be presented to the Temple to pay their price to be redeemed with silver and gold to be bound by the Law of pollutions and carnal ordinances ad therefore if they had been thus left it would be no wonder if the Jews had complained and made a tumult they used to do it for less matters and this may serve to ballance what the Author quotes form the Doctors lib. of Proph. p. 233. Except 4. Because saith he Circumcision was only a Seal to Abraham not to believers and their Seed a Seal of the Faith that Abraham had long before he was circumcised but so could it not be said of any Infant that had no faith Repl. In this the Author doth quadrare with the Papists So say the Jesuites and so say the Antipaedobaptists Bellarmin and after him others object that Circumcision in Rom. 4. Bellarmin lib. 1. de Sacramentis is not said to be a Seal vniversally to any faith but only a Seal of the individual faith of Abraham which is clear saith he in that it is expresly said it was a Seal of the righteousness of the faith that he had being yet nncircumcised that he might be the father of all that believe but only Abraham could be such a father c. your collection saith he is naught when you say Circumcision was a Seal of Abrahams faith that therefore it is so to others for you conclude a general from a particular So he and his followers limits the use of Circumcision as a Seal of the righteousness of faith to Abraham only Paraeus gives an acute reply to this Paraus ad locum Quod omni Speciei inest toti generi recte tribuitur sicut igitur valet Homo Equus quodvis animal sentit movetur sensus motus differentia Systatica generis recte dicitur Sic. valet circumcisio est 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 addita foederi obsignationis causâ ergo Dr. Sclater on the fonrth of Romans thus That which belongs in common to all the Species may well enough be attributed to the general for that which all the Species have in common they have from their general But why saith Dr. Sclater should circumcision be a Seal to Abraham only and not to others as well as him was the Covenant made with him only or with his Seed also or was Circumcision a sign of the Covenant to Abraham only or else to his Seed also if the Covenant belong to all if Circumcision was to all a sign of their being in the Covenant why not to all also a Seal of righteousness Forsooth say the Papists one end of Abrahams Circumcision was peculiar to Abraham as that he should be the father of all Believers therefore this also of being a Seal of the righteousness of faith Answ And I wonder why we may not conclude by like reason that to Abraham only it was a Sin of the Covenant because this end they mention had place in Abraham only But let us more nearly view the reasons it was Abrahams privilege only to be the father of all Believers both circumcised and uncircumcised ergo his privilege only to have circumcision a Seal of righteousness how prove they that consequence Because Paul joins both together and therefore they are of like privilege Answ Why may we not say ut supra that the necessity of the sign of Circumcision was also Abrahams privilege because it also is joined to the rest But for fuller satisfaction view the scope of the Text which is this to shew that justification belongs to Believers of both people the proof is from a sign Abraham had righteousness in uncircumcision therefore righteousness belongs to the uncircumcised for this was that the Lord mystically intended to signifie in justifying of Abraham before Circumcision and in commending Circumcision to him justifyed but why doth he mention that end of Circumcision as sealing up the righteousness of faith Answ To obviate an objection which might be made in this manner if Abraham was justified before Circumcision what profit received he by that Sacrament Answ It sealed unto him the righteousness of faith and shall we say now it was Abrahams privilege to be confirmed in perswasion of righteousness belike then his posterity either needed not such confirmation and so Abrahams privilege shall be to be the only weakling in faith that needs means of confirmation or else his Seed shall lack that help that Abraham had for establishment though the Covenant was equally made to them Thus far Dr. Sclater and I repent not may pains he hath so cleared the point that I know not what either Papist or Antipaedobaptist can say against it I shall add that which every one will subscribe to that the children of Abraham stood in much more need of a Seal to confirm their faith then he himself with whom the Covenant was originally made and for that reason was called the father of the faithful as well as for the eminency of his faith It could not be saith the Author a Seal to an Infant that had no faith Repl. I perceive he hath read Bellarmin for he jumps in with him his words are these If it be a Seal of Faith in that Baptism comes
in the place of Circumcision it is in vain to baptize Infants and why because they have not Faith Farther saith he Isaac received not the sign of Circumcision as a Seal of the righteousness of the Faith which he had being yet uncircumcised seeing he was not in the faith till after Circumcision to which there needs no other answer than this viz. Isaac was confederate with his Father Abraham and upon that account to be circumcised which engaged to actual Faith and upon actual believing it sealed this righteousness of Faith to him It was a Sign put into his flesh only Repl. We must take heed of extremes The Papists hold that Sacraments do justify and confer grace modo non ponamus obicem peccati mortalis provided that we put no bar of mortal sin which because Infants cannot do they are all discharg'd by Baptism from the guilt of original sin Against this Mr. Calvin in his Institutions doth vehemently inveigh terming it Doctrina diabolica a devilish Doctrine because men hereby are taught to rest in a corporeal Element more than in God himself and with as much zeal doth he condemn the Doctrine of nuda Signa which makes the Sacraments to be only bare and naked Signs Caveamus saith he Calvin Instit de Sacram ne vim Sacramentorum enervemus usumque prorsùs evertamus We must take heed we do not lessen the virtue of the Sacraments and quite subvert their use So Chamier as Mr. Blake observes is no less zealous against the Papists and Anabaptists Chamier lib. 1. de Sacram in Gen cap. 10. Sect. 11. For he having mentioned the use of Sacraments as distinguishing Signs addeth Hic tamen nec solus est finis nec praecipuus Sacramentorum itaque Anabaptistas aeque cum Bellarmino improbamus quibus Sacramenta nihil sunt quam Signa instituta ad discernendum Christianos a Judaeis Paganis ut Romanis olim toga erat signum quo discernebantur a Graecis palliatis This is not the only or chief end of Sacraments therefore we oppose the Anabaptists as well as Bellarmin who esteem Sacraments nothing more than signs distinguishing Christians from Jews and Pagans as heretofore a Gown was a sign whereby the Romans were known from the Grecians so that upon consideration how apt men are to flye into extremes we may conclúde that in medio consistit veritas the truth lies betwixt both as in this so in very many other points As touching the business of Circumcision it it was a sign indeed or mark of distinction to distinguish the people of God from Aliens to separate betwixt Jews by nature and sinners of the Gentiles and it was also a Seal to ratifie and confirm what the Covenant did hold forth and promise For God having entered Covenant with Abraham and his Seed Gen. 17.10 This is my Covenant which ye shall keep between me and you and thy Seed after thee every man-child among you shall be circumcised And whereas the Author and Bellarmin before him saith it was a sign and a Seal to put into the flesh of the Infant only it was a sign and a Seal to Abraham Mr. Cobbet enervates this Argument in his Vindication p. 54. by shewing 1. That the initiatory Seal is not primarily and properly the Seal of a mans faith or obedience but of Gods Covenant rather The Seal is to the Covenant even Abrahams Circumcision was not primarily a Seal to Abrahams faith of righteousness but to the righteousness Faith exhibited and effected in the Covenant yea to the Covenant it self which he had believed unto righteousness hence the Covenant of Grace is called the righteousness of Faith Rom. 10.1 2. I farther answer that 't is granted Infants have not actually the use of Faith but to that end was Circumcision administred to the children of the Jews as Baptism is now to our Infants that when in time to come they should believe to righteousness as all the Elect who live to age do their Faith might receive confirmation by their Circumcision in Infancy and this was that which heightned David's confidence in his encounter with Goliah reflecting upon Gods Covenant of which the Circumcision which he received in his Infancy was a sign and a Seal He goes on Neither is Baptism more than Circumcision called a Seal it is sign proper only to men of understanding representing spiritual Mysteries Repl. And why not as proper to Infants as to men of understanding because they represent spiritual Mysteries and if this be all the reason he can give he might better have said nothing for what thinks he of Circumcision did not that represent and shadow out diverse spiritual Mysteries scilicet our corrruption by nature and the nature of mortification by cutting of the foreskin Was not the glorious mystery of our Redemption by the blood of Christ signified by the blood-shed in Circumcision and yet this Ordinance was applyed to poor ignorant Babes to use the Authors Dialect and how slightly so ever he speaks of an Ordinance of like resemblance for signification yet the wisdom of God thought fit to have those circumcised that were void of understand-standing I find the Author and his party too bold in censuring of things that do any way cross their idol-opinion and the wisdom of God himself shall suffer rather than they will recede from the errour they have suck'd in yea ' its observable that some of them are as pertinacious and inflexible in their principle of opposition to Infant-Baptism and lay out as much zeal in this matter as if their Salvation were concern'd in it And not as Circumcision which was a Sign not improper for Infants Mr. Tombes Examen page 84. line 12. because it left a signal impression in their flesh to be remembred all their days but so cannot Baptism be to any Infants and some carry it farther how shall Infants know they have been baptized Repl. It is true Circumcision left a signal mark upon the Jewish Infants but what of that had they any other way to know this mark was given them for any such religious end and purpose as a sign or seal of the Covenant betwixt God and them but by the testimony of others For instance suppose an Infant born blind as we read of such a one in the Gospel was circumcised who could never see that signal mark he must be beholding to others both to be taught the religous end of Circumcision as well as to have intimation of the character he received in Circumeision It is well known that the same Ceremony is used by other nations though not as a Sacrament as the Inhabitants of Colchis the Ethiopians the Egyptians The Israelites therefore when grown up had no other way to know that signal mark was given to a religious purpose which was the principal end that Ordinance pointed at than by the information of their Parents or other witnesses And the Jewish Doctors tell us there was one appointed for that
purpose whose name they called Baal Berith and Sandak that is the Master of the Covenant and to this sence Junius and Tremelius interprets that in Isaiah chap. 8.2 where 't is said that he took unto him faithful witnesses viz. Vzziah the Priest and Zacheriah Faithful witnesses to what why to the Circumcision of his Son Mr. Brinsley and from hence it is conceived ariseth that aneient custom of witnesses grown now into a meer formality in baptizing children Concerning which Reverend Mr. Cotton hath these remarkable passages Mr. Cottons Grounds and Ends of Infant-Baptism that when children are baptized upon the profession of their God-fathers and God-mothers for so they call it it is not the intendment or Doctrine of the Church to baptize them upon the Covenant or profession of them which is one of the mistakes of our Author p. 184. of his Treatise but to bind the sureties that when the child groweth up to years of discretion they shall assist the Parents in the Christian education of the child that he may learn and practice those good things which at his Baptism they promised or undertook for his as appeareth by the charge given to the Sureties I shall add that the same Office may be much mere needful in case the childs Parents dye before it comes to years of discretion 5. Except Circumcision was not administred to Believers as Believers and to their Seed but according to the Institution to all the natural lineage and Posterity of Abraham good or bad Repl. In which passage there are two mistkes for 1. Abraham was a Believer and was not Circumcision administred to him as a Believer and to his Seed The whole body of the Israelites professing the worship of the true God wer accounted Believers and all the world besides Infidels without God and afar off Eph. 2.12 17. But as for the Jews they have the name of Gods people his peculiar people they are said to be near unto him Psal 148.14 A people called by his name 2. Chron. 7.14 And God owns them as his Eph. 3.15 And all upon account of the Covenant God made with Abraham and his Seed and 't is upon the account of the Covenat of free-grace that any among the sons of men are the people of God 'T is true indeed the Apostle says Rom. 9. All were not Israel that were of Israel all were not godly by virtue of Election and Regeneration there were many of them his people nay most for though Israel be as the Sea-sand yet a remnant only shall be saved By Covenant relation or external profession only as there are Believers only by profession now under the Gospel by virtue of which they are esteemed within the Covenant and admitted to the privileges annexed 2. That confident assertion too is spoken without book namely That Circumcision belonged to all the lineage of Abraham good and bad For 1. His Female-posterity were not circumcised personally this he himself objecteth against us and that right enough for the command was only for the Males not Females by reason of their incapacity 2. If any credit may be given to the Jewish Doctors as who is so silly as to deny it them in a matter of Fact of this nature they tell us that the Male-children of an excomunicated person that remained impenitent were not circumcised and that this was one of the ways by which they punished impenitent excommunicated persons Buxtorf hath it out of the Epistles of the Rabbins Godwin 's Moses and Aaron lib. 5. cap. 2. pag. 181. and we have the same attested in Godwin's Jewish Antiquities 3. Moreover during so long a time as the Israelites were in the wilderness there was not one Infant of all that were born there circumcised and so they wanted the signal mark We see in some cases the Ordinance was suspended as Christ allows us a dispensation in respect of the Sabbath and we may say of Circumcision as he did of the Sabbath Circumcision was made for man and not man for Circumcision Circumcision belonged to all the posterity of Abraham good and bad as he says before without any such limitation as is put upon Baptism if thou believest with thy heart thou mayst Repl. And why was that But because not only the Eunuch there but the rest of the adult persons that we read of in the Acts who were baptzed were the first Subjects of the Ordinance and that requires personal profession of Faith was in Abraham who was circumcised but it was not so with his children and they were all of them Aliens for not only the Gentiles but Jews also were to be look'd upon as such in reference to the new administrantion of Baptism and therefore it was necessary they should make a profession of their Faith Mr. Geree Vind. Paedoboptist and acceptance of the Govenant-under the new administration before they were admitted to the Seal thereof Baptism so if any Minister of the Gospel should preach to Jews and Pagans they are to have some account of their Faith before they ought to baptize them but upon their believing and being baptized the promise takes in their children also to a participation of the same Ordinance For as we have before hinted Abraham believed first and afterward was circumcised but he having a Covenant made with him and his Seed Isaac his Son was circumcised before Faith So was it with the Proselytes and their children so that here lyes the fallacy when that shall be taken for a rule absolutely necessary in the administration of Baptism which is only so in some respect Farther to what he saith of no such qualification mentioned that the Parent should be a Believer to capacitate the Infant for Baptism It may suffice to tell him there was no need thereof for the Apostles knew well enough the Covenant in the former administration to extend to visible Believers and their Seed which was never repealed by the coming of Christ But will you deny Abraham to be a believing Parent was not he a Father to them all what then he was a publick common Father which reaches not the case in hand neither have they any other in his stead therefore the Analogy holds not Repl. This is a poor shift for that Abraham was a publick Father we all hold according to that of the Apostle Rom. 4.11 He received the Sign of Circumcision a Seal of the righteousness of Faith which he had yet being uncircumcised that he might be the Father of them all that believe though they be not circumcised that is the uncircumcised Gentiles that believe as well as of the Jews But why is he termed the father of Believers in both people I suppose no better reason can be given than what I find in Doctor Sclater upon the fourth of Romans namely because from him the Blessing of the Covenant is derived as an inheritance passeth from the Father to the Son or because in him the Covenant is made with all
Believers and their Seed But what is this to the children of Believers what benefit redounds to them that do not actually believe nor profess the Faith of Abraham having not the use of reason the same Learned Doctor gives this answer although Infants have not actually the use of reason nor can actually believe yet to that end as Circumcision heretofore Baptism is ministred to Infants that when in time to cime they shall believe to righteousness their Faith may receive confirmation by Baptism in infancy received as Davids Faith did against Goliah he reflecting upon his Circumcision the sign and Seal of Gods Covenant with him when he went out against Goliah that uncircumcised Philistine To this purpose saith Augustin In Abraham praecessit fidei justitia accessit Circumcisio signaculum justitiae fidei c. In some justification goes before the Seal as in Abraham and Cornelius in others the Seal is before righteousness Sicut in Isaac qui octavo suoe nativitatis die circumcisus est praecessit Signaculum justitiae fidei c. As in Isaac who was circumcised the eighth day the Seal preceded Faith Ita in Baptizatis infantibus c. So in infants that are baptized August de Bapt. contra Donat. l. 4. c. 24. Excep 6. Because Baptism came not in the room place and use of Circumcision and the reasons he brings to prove it are diverse we shall now examine them First he saith It must not be look'd upon to come in the room and stead of it by any means and why 1. Because then Males Mr. Tombes Examen p. 4. not Females would be baptized Reader we must now give thee notice that we are to renew our combat with Mr. Tombes for this first reason is his Examen pag. 4. And the old Answers will do well euough 1. The reason why Females were excluded from an actual participation of Circumcision was their incapacity 2. They were virtually circumcised Mr. Marshal Defence of Infant Baptism and reputed among the circumcised ones in that they were admitted to the Passeover when the express command of the Law was that no uncircumcised parson must eat of it Exod. 12.48 And farther it appears they were reputatively circumcised by that passage where 't is said the whole house of Israel was circumcised and by that of Sampsons Parents who were displeased that he took a wife of the uncircumcised Philistins Judg. 14.3 for if the Israelitish women had not been accounted circumcised in the Males Circumcision could have made no difference between Wife and Wife 2. His next reason is Because all Believers out of Abrahams Family were not circumcised Mr. Tombes Exer p. 4 Mr Tombes Exercit. p. 4. He gives instances of those out of Abrahams Family that were not circumcised Repl. I have answered this before that some of them lived before the ordinance of Circumcision was instituted and others for other reasons were not circumcised as I have shewn but I love not to repeat 3. His third reason is because then the circumcised needed not to have been baptized if they had beem already sealed with the new Covenant Seal but Christ himself and all his Apostles c. were circumcised yet nevertheless were baptized Repl. If this deserves an Answer take this The Covenant of Grace both under the Law and Gospel is one and the same for substance though as to the external administration thereof there is a difference and accordingly the Seals are different The Landlord if he please may break the old Seal and set on a new one to the grant he makes to his Tenant 2. He saith it comes not in its room and stead as to the ends and uses Repl. Though as to some circumstances there be a difference between Circumcision and Baptism in regard of their ends and uses yet there is no material difference as to substance But let us see his reasons why Baptism succeeds not Circumcision as to the ends and uses which are these 1. Because Circumcision was a sign of Christ to come in the flesh but Baptism that he was already come Tombes exerc pag. 4. Answ There is a very good harmony notwithstanding that quoad substantiam as to the substance they both look at Christ and agree in the main The one signifies and seals the remission of sins by and through the blood of Christ to be shed the other through that blood already shed There is an agreement in the signification though not in the manner of signification 2. He saith Circumcision was to be a partition-wall between Jew and Gentile but Baptism testifyed the contrary Mr. Tombes again quoting Cameron for it Exerc. pag. 4. and then p 6 Circumcision separated the Israelited from all nations but Baptism signifieth that all are one in Christ Repl. Though Baptism be no partition-wall between nation and nation yet the end and use of Baptism is to distinguish Christians from Pagans Turks and Infidels One of the ends of Baptism is to be a badge of distinction betwixt those who are within and those who are without as the Apostle speaks 1 Cor. 5.12.13 3. The Author farther tells us Circumcision initiated the carnal Seed into the carnal Church and gave them right to carnal Ordinances but Baptism was to give the spiritual Seed an orderly entrance into the spiritual Church and a right to partake of the spiritual Ordinances Repl. Although I have ground to hope my Antagonist is a spiritual or godly man yet he talks here at a carnal rate for what thinks he of Isaac and Jacob and Christ himself they were the spiritual Seed as well as the carnal or fleshly Seed of Abraham for as concerning the flesh Christ came of him As for his expression of carnal Ordinances it is Scripture language Heb. 9 10. And the Apostle means those Levitical outward Ceremonies which were placed in terrene and earthly matters that reached only the flesh or did sanctify only to the purifying of the flesh But sure the circumcised had right to all the other Ordinances of a spiritual nature as well as those and the Author is to rash in calling the Church of God under the Old Testament a carnal Church I scruple not to say it is a carnal speech of him But 't is observable all is carnal with some men that doth not suit with their Genius when in the mean time the carnality lieth unseen by them in their own proud censorious self-conceited contentious spirits And did indeed Circumcision initiate into the carnal Church that is the Church of God under the old Testament was Jesus Christ the head of a carnal Church he was the head of the Church under the Law as much as of the Church now in the days of the Gospel and will any sober man say he was the head of a carnal Church This were heterogenous indeed that a spiritual head should be joined to a carnal Church But I pray what singular virtue do these men see and find in Baptism that they so
much advance it above Circumcision what is there in it of it self since they keep such ado about it more than in Circumcision It is altogether in it self as carnal as Circumcision and the people that submit to it as carnal as others and as carnal and perverse an use do some of them make of it as the Jews did of Circumcision Some I know are more wise and sober than the rest but too too many make an idol of their Baptism they make it a fire-brand of contention and the beginning and end of all Religion When as to speak plainly the Baptism of water of it self due reverence being still had to all Gods Ordinances in their places is as low and carnal a thing as poor a Ceremony as empty a sign and shadow as Circumeision Baptism and Circumcision as to the letter are just alike as to any intrinsecal worth the one relates to the letting out of a little blood the other to the washing of the filth of the flesh The cleansing of ones hands and feet from dirt is the same with it Mr. Sydenham 's sober Exercit. and as efficacious and acceptable as this of it self In a word there is a Circumcision in the flesh and a Circumcision in the heart the former carnal the later spiritual and so there is a Baptism of the flesh and a Baptism of the spirit The Apostle derides Circumcision in the flesh where that of the heart was wanting by giving it the contemptible name of Concision Blakes Covenant sealed And as Circumcision was Uncircumcision so Dipping is Non-Baptism where that of the spirit is wanting 4. Lastly he saith Circumcision was to be a Bond to keep the whole Law Repl. The place is Rom. 2.25 Circumcision verily profiteth if thou keep the whole Law The Apostle intends both ceremonial and moral Law as else where he speaks He that is circumcised is a Debtor to the whole Law the meaning is he that is circumcised with an opinion that he shall be justified thereby that same man is fallen from Grace that is from the way of justification by a Covenant of Grace Mr. Blakes Covenant sealed and puts himself under a Covenant of works and so is bound to keep the Law in every punctilio nevertheless Circumcision in it self was properly a Bond binding the faithful to Evangelical Obedience walk before me and be upright or sincere Gen. 17.1 Circumcision which was the Seal of the righteousness of Faith did oblige Abraham to walk perfectly or sincerely before God and hereunto also Baptism obligeth us 5. He adds Circumcision was administred to all Abrahams natural Seed without any profession of Faith whereas Baptisim is to be administred to the spiritual Seed of Abraham only upon profession Repl. Here 's a double mistake for first we have shewed before that the children of excommunicated persons that were impenitent were denyed Circumcision Godwin's Moses and Aaron lib. 5. cap. 2. pag. 181. So Buxtorf Secondly we find some baptized in the fourth of Matthew and Lydias house when none that we hear of professed Faith but her self 6. Lastly He draws low is come to the Dregs Note here Mr. Tombs and he differs for Tombs grants they are both the same Sacraments for the spiritual part viz. Sanctification by the Spirit and juslification by the Blood of Christ Examen p. 83. tells us Circumcision was a sign of Temporal Blessings and Benefits to be enjoyed in the land of Canaan whereas Baptism was to be a sign of spiritual Benefits Repl. But I pray what Temporal Blessings and Benefits in the land of Canaan did they enjoy who never entred into it But this is but an evasion learn'd from the Jesuites as before For Canaan or temporal Blessings were not the only things which Circumcision sealed neither yet the main thing for Gen. 17.7 God promised Abraham to be his God and the God of his Seed this was the grand promise the main of the Covenant which Circumcision sealed up temporal Blessings were but an Additament The Text saith Circumcision was a Seal of the righteousness of Faith and so of all spiritual mercies as much as Baptism Nor is Baptism only a seal of spiritual blessings this will not be owned for a true position in Divinity for Baptism sealeth our deliverance out of afflictions as well as out of corruption yea it sealeth to us the raising our bodies from death out of the grave Cottons Grounds and Ends of Infant-Baptism as well as our souls out of the death in sin Baptism sealeth a much temporal as spiritual blessings for he that gives Christ how shall he not with him give us all things else and indeed Mr. Tombes like a Divine acknowledgeth that both Circumcision and Baptism signifie the righteousness of Faith and sanctification of the heart Exerc. p. 6. and Exam. p. 83. After all this unsound stuff the Author is pleased to grant there is some Analogy little without doubt betwixt the one and the other and since he toucheth it only with a light finger I shall give you the Analogy between them more fully The Analogy betwixt Circumcision and Baptism 1. Circumcision was a Seal of the Covenant made with Believers and their Seed 2. By Circumcision Believers and their Seed had entrance into the Church of the Jews 3. Circumcision shadowed forth the corruption of our nature by cutting off the foreskin of the flesh 4. Circumcision shadowed out also mortification to sin or regeneration by cutting of the fore-skin and casting it away 5. In Circumcision there was blood-shed which pointed at our Redemption by Christ 6. Circumcision was a Bond to Evangelical Obedience Gen. 17.1 Walk before me and be upright So is Baptism 1 Pet. 3.21 So are Believers and their Seed by Baptism into particular Gospel Churches Baptismal washing points at the same 1. Pet. 3.21 The same is signified by Baptism Rom. 6.3 4. called by Peter the laver of Regeneration The water in Baptism represents the same viz. the doing away the guilt of sin by his blood So also is Baptism 1. Pet. 3.21 Notwithstanding all this if we will follow the Authors advice we must not by any means conclude that Baptism comes in the room of Circumcision and for this reason which lies at the bottom because then he must renounce his opinion for it will thence follow that Infant-Baptism is an Ordinance of Jesus Christ But he hath learn'd from Mr. Tombes to give a ponderous reason why though there be some Analogy we must not own it to come in the room and stead of Circumcision Tombes again Exercitation p. 7. viz. Because there is an Analogy between other things and Baptism and we may on the same account say it comes in the room and stead of them As the Ark Manna Rock and from such like Arguments drawn from Analogies what Jewish Rites may by our wits be introduced to the countenancing the Papists in their High-Priest-Hood Tythes But will he never have done
Christ in whom the Covenant was confirmed to them and their seed Cottons Dialogue of Childrens Baptism p. 130. For as Mr. Cotton observes The Axe was laid to the Root of the Tree even to the stock of Abraham and all the Branches that grew upon it and were ingrafted into it so that now if they brought not forth this good fruit to believe in Christ who was then come whom the Jews generally rejected as an Impostor they and their children were cut off from the Covenant of Abraham and must say no more We have Abraham to our Father but if they held forth Repentance and Faith in Christ then the Covenant that was made to them and to their Children before did still continue to them and to their children and that 's the ground and meaning of Peters exhortation Act. 2.38 39. Repent and be Baptized every one of you in the Name of the Lord for the promise is to you c. Now what prejudice can this be to the Baptisme of Believers Infants who are admitted in the right of their Parents laying hold on the Covenant for themselves and their seed now under the new Administration as Members of the Church of Christ and in Covenant with God 2. Neither will we take the Authors word for what follows Nothing now but fruit meet for Repentance gives right to Baptisme without some qualification For first I demand what fruit of Repentance John saw in that great multitude which he then Baptized viz. Jerusalem Judea and all the Regions round about Jordan ver 5. which could not be less then some thousands of whom he could have no cognizance as to their fruits of repentance 2. I farther demand whether he could judge this great multitude which were strangers to him to be all the Spiritual seed of Abraham And since the Author observes from Johns words they had no right to Baptism from being Abrahams natural seed neither could he look upon them all as the spiritual seed let him tell us on what account he baptized them 3. It is like he will tell us they confessed their sins ver 6. and so were Baptized But will any man think they did all do so or is it said he baptized no other but such It will be hard for any man to prove that John did impose this upon them We find as Mr. Marshal notes that he Baptized them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to Repentance not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as state in Actual Repentance and his calling upon them for Repentance and Preaching the Baptism of Repentance shews that this was the lesson which they were all to learn not that they all manifested it before he Baptized them For ought we can find from the Text the Pharisees and Sadduces were Baptized by him and had they been such Penitents it had been great uncharitableness to call them Vipers We have the Author over-lashing again in the next words for he lies open every where Nothing saith he short of the spirits birth can orderly admit to Water-birth and Spiritual ordinances But since you are not Infallible let it be supposed you have been mistaken in your judgment and have baptized a person which afterward appears to be unregenerate Did you admit him orderly or no you will say you did because he was Baptized under the apprehension of being regenerate The Church lookt upon him as such and saw nothing to the contrary Very good now you are come about to what I would have and indeed if the New Testament-Church did consist only of the spiritual seed real Godly ones how abominably is the Ordinance prophaned when it so happens as it often doth that any Hypocrites are Baptized and when it appears that the Title which they had to Baptisme was but seeming will it not follow that all that was done in reference to them was a Male-Administration and Null ab initio Mr. Blakes Covenant sealed and as God looks upon them as unbaptized though they have been dipt so ought the Church to look upon them and if these Hypocrits shall repent and be converted are they not bound to offer themselves a-fresh to Baptism and can the Church refuse them and thus according to the Authors principle there will be need of a Multiplication of Baptisms He concludes this Chapter with the sayings of two Doctors as wide in judgement from each other as the two Poles yet it seems he can make them meet to serve his purpose The first is Dr. Owen who is much engaged for his Elogy but nothing at all for wresting his sentences from his intention 'T is well known the learned Dr. like to the rest of his Brethren of the Congregational way is a zealous Assertor of Infant-Baptism and the import of what he says in his Catechisme is no more then what all Congregational men hold namely That the matter of the Church is a Society or Fellowship of visible Saints and this according to the singular dexterity of this Antagonist who beats us still with our own Weapons is found to be point blank against Infant-Baptism But we shall clear this point in the next Chapter under which it falls properly to be spoken of The other Gentleman is Dr. Taylor we have said enough of him before how much he was for Infant-Baptism notwithstanding he plays the Orator and tells us he will act the part of an Anabaptist and shew what may be said for them though they are in an Errour but let us hear what he says for according to the Author he doth rarely accomodate that which he thinks is truth when as it is only by bestowing a few complements upon an error we shall seldom meet with such a parcel of affected words delivered in such a strain as did notably fuit with the Genius of the times when he writ them that is before the turn of times when men were high flown and above Ordinances The Baptism of Children saith he is an outward duty a work of the Law a Carnal Ordinance it makes us adhere to the Letter without regard to the spirit to be satisfied with shadows to return to Bondage to relinquish the mysteriousness the substance the spirituality of the Gospel c. This is brave stuff indeed high towring language I never met with the like unless it were in Mr. Saltmarsh his shadows flying away and beams of Glory And is not the Baptism of Believers think you bravely accomodated with these Rhetorical Flowers Is there one grain of Logick or Reason in all he saith And then at last the Doctor doth so well accommodate that which H.D. calls the truth that he attempts to maintain it by two gross errors delivered in one breath for saith he if the Mystery goes not before the Symbol yet it always accompanies it but never follows it in order of time But first I would fain know who told the Doctor that Grace always accompanies Baptisme for that I take to be the plain English of Mystery and Symbol without the help
why then should it stand in force against Infants in their own persons not capable of contemning and whose Parents desire it but are prevented by necessity Alas poor infants that you free from contempt in your selves and your Parents also must yet away to Hell for bare want of Baptism and yet grown persons as Papists themselves acknowledge in the same want have access to Heaven so they be free from contempt Can we imagine bare want to be more prejudicial to Infants then to grown men But what Reader if it appear that the place cannot be understood of Baptism at all I must leave it to thee to judge of what is offered to shew that 't is only Regeneration and not Baptism that is concerned in the Text for Water and the Spirit here by an Exegesis are one or if you will according to the judgement of Dr. Taylor by Water is meant the effect of the Spirit Nor is this the single judgment of Dr. Taylor but very many others who in their time were the Magna Ecclesiae lumina who so interpret it amongst whom are Calvin Beza Piscator Calvin indeed acknowledgeth the ancient Expositors followed Chrysostome that the Text was to be understood of Baptism yet professeth himself of another mind Beza in his Annotations of the place declares himself to the same purpose that he understood by Water in that place is meant rather the effect of the spirit then the Sacrament of Baptism sin verò malimus Christum cum Pharisaeo disserentem Aquae nomine ad externas ablutiones allusisse c. I rather conceive Christ reasoning with this Pharisee under the name of Water doth allude to those external washing which were useless without the cleansing of the Spirit Et Spiritus nomen sit exegesis that is a figure which signifies a dark speech made clear by another word which here is the Spirit nominis aquae sicut alibi spiritus ignis in baptismo conjunguntur By the name of Water we are to understand by an Exegesis the Spirit as elsewhere the Spirit and Fire are joyned Though the Order be inverted there and he gives the reason of it So Piscator except a man be born of Water that is ex spiritu sancto exserente quasi vim aquae Of the holy Spirit which operates in the soul as Water doth in the body and he also referrs to the same place Mat. 3.5 Of being Baptized with the Spirit and with Fire We have also the great Chamier arguing the same seeing in this sense the words bear an absolute truth without any limitation The Author concludes this with sporting himself at the different grounds upon which the Assertors of Infant-Baptism hold it out as the Fathers upon one ground the Lutherans upon another the Calvinist differing from them the Episcoparians one way the Presbyterians another and the Independents have a peculiar ground varying from them all Now thanks be to Mr. Tombes his eleventh Argument against Infant-Baptism for all this Exercitation pag. 33. The Assertors of Infant-Baptism little agree amongst themselves saith he upon what ground they may build it Cyprian and others draw it from the Universality of grace and the necessity of Baptism to Salvation Austin brings the faith of the Church others the Church of England substitute the promised surety in the place of the Faith and Repentance of the Baptized The Lutherans the faith of the Infant others the faith of the next Parent in Covenant in a gathered Church Reply This saith Mr. Geree unto him hath art I will not say Sophistry in it and what though divers men have let fall different grounds yet none of those are the main upon which they ground it for that 's the Covenant of Gods grace that takes in the Child with the Parent if saith he I should from several ways or Arguments used by the Antipaedobaptists say they did oppose Infant-Baptism on several grounds therefore their opposition were invalid you would think my answer unsolid and so do I your Argument Father I desire the Author to reflect upon his own party who oppose childrens Baptism by denying that Covenant made to Abraham was a Covenant of Grace some say it was Temporary some Typical some mixt and I know not what So they much differ in the foundation of their practice Some build it on a bare confession of sin whatever the man be as to grace some on profession of Faith some on signs of grace c. Mr. Geree saith well weakness in mens sight variety of fancy and principles carry men into different ways of defending the same truth The Author now frames his exceptions against those Scriptures which hold forth a Covenant-Right to the Children of Believeers 4. Argument from federal holiness excepted against and from whence we inferr their baptizing and thus he begins Paedobaptists being loth to part with the Tradition and yet seeing the rottenness of the ancient ground upon which 't was built found out this new foundation for it of Covenant-Holiness of which Zwinglius about 120 years for aught that he can learn was the first Founder and singular from all that went before him All this is from Master Tombes The Author a notorious Plagiary having taken all in his 43. pages following from Mr. Tombes his two Books of Exerc. and Examen I mean as to the substance of it and most in his words and method only indeed he hath two quotations out of Dr. Taylor and one out of Dr. Owen Mr. Tombes Exercit. p. 11. and so throughout to the endc of this Chapter both Arguments Authorities Scriptures and Cryticismes with this difference that he varies a little in some things and doth not speak so warily as he Mr. Tombes in his Examen part 3. pag. 35. begins the Argument as framed by us from the connexion between the Covenant and the Seal but this man ends it with that and the Scriptures are in both one viz. Gen. 17.7 Acts 2.39 I need not therefore much trouble my self for an Answer to the Author for the same which Mr. Marshall gave Tombes doth the work to a hair The Author tells us that for ought he could learn Zwinglius was the first Founder of the Argument for Baptism from federal Holiness and this indeed he learnt from Mr. Tombes his Exercitation pag. 11. whose words are Whether any in the Ages before the last past expounded it of federal holiness I am not yet certain and in the two last lines of page the 79. of his Examen he hath it thus viz. None that ever I met with expounded it of federal Holiness till the controversie of the Anabaptists in Germany To this I will seek for no other answer then what Mr. Marshal gives him the cause saith he I confess depends not upon this whether such an interpretation was then first put But it discovers some defect in your reading and then shews Athanasius one of the most Ancient Greek Fathers and Tertullian one of the most Ancient of the
Author and all the party conclude that the Seed to whom the Covenant belongs is the Spiritual and not the Carnal Not being born after the flesh but believing that makes us children of the promise To this exception of his in which their greatest confidence lies I reply Repl. 1. It is built on a most gross corrupting and abusing the Scriptures Let us then diligently consider those two places in the Galatians And afterwards that in the Romans First touching that in the former place the words are verse 16. He saith not to Seeds as of many but of one which is Christ Beza upon the Text saith obscurus locus est it is a place not easily understood a dark Scripture and indeed too dark and intricate for Antipaedobaptists so boldly to ground their opinion upon so directly contrary to the sence of many plain places The question is what doth the Apostle mean here by Christ By Christ cannot be meant Christ solely personal for then no Believer should be accounted for the Seed but only Christ who as concerning the flesh came of Abraham And he and none else should be concerned in the promises But it is to be understood of Christ mystical as Beza there notes Apostolus eo nomine non solum caput sed membra cum suo capite designans the Apostle by the word Christ denoting both Head and Members Capnt Corpus unus est Christus the Head and the Body make up one mystical Christ the word Christ being to be taken collectively in this place so we have it 1 Cor. 12.12 to which Beza refers And if this be the sence of it as what else can rationally then as Mr. Sydenbam notes this Text will make rather for us than against us for if we exclude all Infants from being of the Body of Christ we must in so doing unavoidably exclude them from Salvation for he is Saviour to no more than he is head of which is his Body As for the words in the nine and twentieth verse that will afford the Antipedobaptists little relief the words are If ye be Christs then are ye Abrahams Seed and Heirs according to promise from whence saith the aforesaid Author they argue the Apostle here describes who are the Seed so that now no children born of believing parents can be the Seed for they must be Christs according to that v. 16. We are all the children of God through Faith in Christ Jesus But let such understand what Beza saith on the place namely that the Claramontanus Bible hath the words thus and he thinks more right 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If you be one in Christ then are ye Abrahams Seed which comports well with the former verse There is neither Jew nor Greek neither bond nor free c. but ye are all one in Christ Jesus and if ye be all one then Abrahams Seed From which 1. It is clear that the Design of the Apostle is to take away all difference between Jew and Gentile and to hodl forth their unity in Christ and that this is the very scope of the place Beza shews fully in his Annotations upon it and that now there is no distinction betwivt them as formerly But the Gentiles are become Abrahams Seed as well as the natural and believing Jews Quod unius Seminis nomine collectivo significatur as before in the sixteenth verse which is pointed out to us by the collective name of one Seed 2. The Apostle here hath no intent to shew the distinction of Abrahams Seed as the Subject of the outward priviledges and administrations of Ordinances but to shew that none are spiritually and really Abrahams Seed and Heirs of promise but such as are Christs one in him with Abraham for if this should be the distinction of Seed as the subject of outward Ordinances it would be as much against professing Believers as Infants for the proposition from this Text as our Opposites draw it is thus none but those who are Christs are Abrahams Seed and none are Christs but real Believers and therefore none but they must be baptized But how weak is this 1. Because if none but such are Abrahams Seed and consequently none but such the subjects of Baptism then visible Believers are not the subjects of Baptism for they may not be Christs no more than Infants 2. None must be baptized at all upon this account for who knows who is Christs according to Election and saving Faith To say we have charitable grounds to believe visible professors are Christs till we see the contrary is not to the question as stated nor as it lies in the Text the Text saith If ye be Christs then ye are Abrahams Seed they say none are in Christ but real Believers See Chapter the fifth of the first part of the Authors Treatise and none must be baptized but the spiritual Seed and that will require not only a judgment of charity but infallibility to determine And besides the Apostle is describing here what the real and spiritual Seed are as having an inward right to Christ and not what the apparent Seed of Abraham was for he speaks to the Galathians who were visible professors and Believers then in appearance and he puts them upon a trial of themselves whether they were Christs or no. I have been the larger in quoting something from Beza but more from Mr. Sydenham who speaks abundance of reason that you may see how wretchedly this Text is abused by our Opposites And how far wide it is from the purpose for which they usually bring it Now for that other place Ram. 9.7 8. They that are the children of the flesh these are not the children of God but the children of the promise are counted for the Seed What do they gather from hence Why that Infants because children of the flesh are not under the promise this indeed is well argued for this is to make the Apostle contradict himself in the same breath for the Text saith In Isaac shall thy Seed be called Now that was a child of Abrahams flesh and yet a child of promise too And from hence issueth three undeniable Propositions as Mr. Sydenham noteth 1. That Abrahams spiritual Seed were as much his fleshly Seed also Isaac as Ishmael except Proselytes and Servants 2. The Covenant was administred to all Abrahams natural and fleshly children as if they had been his spiritual and before they knew what faith was or could actually professs Abrahams faith 3. When there is mention of Abrahams carnal Seed in opposition to his spiritual Seed it cannot be meant primarily or solely of those that descended from his flesh for then Isaac and Jacob were the carnal Seed yea Christ himself who as concerning the flesh came of Abraham It must be therefore understood 1. Of those of Abrahams Seed which degenerated and slighted the Covenant of the Gospel such as Ishmael and such of whom the Apostle speaks of Rom. 9.1.2.3 his Brethren and Kinsmen after the flesh
Arise and be Baptized and wash away thy Sins hath a favorable aspect upon Gods designing and blessing that Ordinance for the sealing of pardon in reference to grown Persons 2. To work Grace and Regeneration This is Mr. Tombes his 7th Argument against Infant-Baptism Exer. pag. 30. and to effect Salvation by the work done Although the Author knows all Protestants disclaim this and condemn it for a damnable Error yet he seems indirectly at least to charge it upon the Church of England which for my part I look upon it as very unjustly done What means else those reflections of his pag. 148. upon that passage in the Service-Book in the Rubrick before the Catechism viz. That Children being Baptized have all things necessary for their Salvation and be undoubtedly saved and then after Baptism the Priest must say We yield thee hearty thanks that it hath pleased thee to Regenerate this Infant with thy Holy Spirit just comporting saith he length and breadth with Pope Innocent's first Canons Answer 'T is fit the Church of England should be believed in what sence she intends those words Baptism by the Ancients was commonly called Regeneration or a new-Birth so 't is by the Scripture Tit. 3.5 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Washing of the new-Birth or Regeneration and we may learn it in her Articles which speaks her at an infinit distance from the absurd and irrational Error of Salvation by merit or ex opere operato and 't is not for others to put what interpretation they think meet especially such as are Obnoxious to her Lash Will you hear what Mr. Cotton of New-England an Independant as they call them speaks in Vindication of the Church of England in this particular matter and at a place where he needed not her favour and as I take it at a time when she could not help him which are circumstances that will not suffer us to suspect him of flattering or fawning We have it in his grounds and ends of Children's Baptism Notwithstanding saith he those expressions in the Service Book yet the Church of England doth professedly teach the contrary Doctrine not only in their Pulpits but in Books allowed by publique Authority She doth assert that the Scraments do not beget Faith nor Regeneration ex opere operato but they are signs and seals thereof Nor do I find that the publique Prayers of the Church are contrary hereunto but as in judgment they do believe that God by Covenant promiseth to pour clean Water upon us and our Seed Ezek. 26.25 Is 48.3 and that he Sealeth the Covenant and Promise by Baptism 3. That it was an Apostolical Tradition And for that we have the Testimonies of Origen and Cyprian as before Mr. Tombes his 4th Argument against Infant-Baptism Exerc. p. 28. Chap. 3. Part 2. who lived near the Apostles days and in which Chapter we have also shewn how Tradition is both by the Fathers of old and Reformed Churches taken in a safe sence different from that corrupt one of the Papists and not derogatory to the authority of the Scripture 4. That Children have Faith and are the Disciples of Christ Answer No Paedobaptists ever held Children had personally actual Faith for their condition is insufficient for the production of Intellectual Acts but as for the habit and grace of Faith the inherent infused power of believing it is more than any Antipaedobaptist in the World can prove they have not for 1. Their condition makes them not uncapable of Sin and Corruption in the Roots and Principles of it most of them confess it Anabaptistae ut Paedobaptismum prorsus tollerent peccatum negârunt Originale ut non sub esset causa cur Infantes Baptizarentur Dr. Prideaux Lect. 22. pag. 331. though some of them deny Original Sin and therefore not of the Roots and Principles of grace of which Faith is one for the acts of both are Moral and Intellectual But whether Infants Baptized have any such thing as a distinct habit of Faith or no this question of their Baptism depends not upon it It is a hidden thing The ground on which we give them Baptism must be visible and so it is viz. their being the Seed of Believers and hereby visibly entitled to the Covenant and so to the Seal of it We look not to what they have but to whom they pertain viz. to God as being the Seed of his Servants That they are Disciples is sufficiently proved Chap. 1. Part. 1. 5. That all Children of Believers are in the Covenant and federally Holy That 's abundantly made good Chap. 3. Part 2. 6. By defiling and polluting the Church viz. 1. By bringing false matter therein who are no Saints by calling being neither capable to perform duties nor enjoy priviledges Notwithstanding their inability to perform Duty yet they are capable of enjoying Priviledges as we have abundantly made good Chap. 6. Part 1. and are as true matter for the Church now under the Gospel as formerly under the Law as is there made out 2. By laying a foundation of much Ignorance and Profaness Cujus contrarium est verissimum The contrary is most true for 1. Infant-Baptism layes a singular good foundation for knowledg for in that Children are taken into Christs School they are in a near capacity to be taught and those who recommend them to that Ordinance are obliged to promote their knowledg and to see them brought up 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Nurture and Admonition of the Lord. And we know the Liturgy of the Church of England But the neglect hereof is much to be lamented the Children are not lookt after as they should be nor do Ministers mind them of their duty gives charge You must remember that it is your part and duty to see that this Infant be taught so soon as he shall be able to learn And that he may know these things the better ye shall call upon him to hear Sermons and chiefly you shall provide that he may learn the Creed the Lords-Prayer and the ten-Commandments in the English Tongue and all other things that a Christian man ought to know and believe to his Souls health c. Secondly it laies a good foundation for Holiness They are minded by their Baptism to cast of the Devil's service as soon as they are able to reflect that they were from their very Cradles dedicated to God whose Livery they have worn And some have repelled great temptations by virtue of their engagement to God by Baptism in their Infancy hence saith Mr. Ford in his 2d Dialogue concerning the Practical use of Infant-Baptism pag. 87. There is a very Prophane Spirit fomented under the Wings of Anabaptism for how can it be otherwise than such which endeavours to extirpate so considerable a means for the advance of Conversion and Sanctification as he shews Infant-Baptism to be Hence saith he arise grievous prejudices against those Ministers Societies and Ordinances in which God hath been wont
words and deeds of Christ are infinite which are not recorded Joh. 20.30 and 21.25 Many things Christ did that were not written and of the Acts of the Apostles we may suppose the same in their proportion and therefore what they did not is no rule to us unless they did it not because they were forbideen So that it can be no good Argument to say The Apostles are not read to have Baptized Infants therefore Infants are not to be baptized but thus We do not find they are excluded from this Sacrament and Ceremony of Christian Institution therefore we may not presume to exclude them Now since all contradiction against Infant-Baptism depends wholly upon these two grounds The Negative Argument in matter of fact and the pretences that faith and repentance are required to Baptisme since the first is wholly nothing and infirm upon an infinite account and the second may conclude that Infants can no more be saved then be baptized because faith is more necessary to Salvation then to Baptisme it being said he that believeth not shall be damned and it is not said he that believeth not shall be excluded from Baptism it follows that the Doctrine of those that refuse to Baptize their Infants is upon both its legs weak and broken and insufficient Thus far the Learned Doctor To conclude this whereas the Apostles Preached up faith and Repentance before Baptism it was requisite they should do so according to their Commission having to do with Aliens grown up as not only the Gentiles but the Jews were in reference to the new Administration for these being the first subjects of Baptisme it was necessary they should make profession of their faith before they were admitted to it but not so in their Children to be Baptized no more then in Isaac and the Children of the Proselytes to be Circumcised Abraham believed first and afterward was Circumcised Gen. 17.24 And why so Because he was the first subject of that Ordinance and therefore could not be admitted to it but by his own faith But as for Isaac his Son he was Circumcised before believing and so was it with the Proselytes and their Children when any Gentile was converted to the Jewish Faith he had a personal Right to be circumcised and his Child likewise was Circumcised at eight days old as was the custome of the Jewish Church by virtue of Gods Covenant giving it a parental Right The Author is very unhappy at Citations for usually they serve not his purpose He acquaints us out of Bede that men were instructed into the knowledge of the Truth then to be Baptized as Christ hath taught because without Faith it is impossible to please God Magdeburg Cent. 8. pag. 220. But this Bede himself tells us was the method used amongst the Inhabitants of this Island when Paganish In initio nascentis Ecclesiae apud Britannos Beda lib. 2. Angl. Hist cap. 14. When a Church first of all began to be planted amongst the Britains and he tells us it was at that time when Gregory sent from Rome Austin and forty other Preachers and afterward Paulinus who converted Ethelbert the Saxon King but of this we shall speak more hereafter when we shall shew how Bede himself was for Infant-Baptisme notwithstanding the Author so perverts his words His other Citation is Erasmus who in his Paraphrase upon Mat. Observeth and t is a great Observation indeed That the Apostles were commanded first to teach and then to baptize c. Every Child that can read observes the same Probabile est tingere Infantes institutum fuisse ab Apostolis c. but if you would know his judgment about Infant-Baptism you may read it in his Ratio concionandi lib. 4. where he conceives it probable that the Apostles ordain'd and practised it And truly amongst other probable reasons this seems to be one if it be not a Demonstration namely because we do not read of any children of believing Parents who were Baptized when they came to years of discretion That they were Baptized I presume saith Brinsley our Adversaries will not deny and if so Note No Children of Believing Parents Baptized afterwards to be found from John the Baptist to John the Evangelist ending his Ministry which was about 60. years An Argument sufficient if not to convince the Adversary that they were Baptized in Infancy yet to stop their mouths Brinsley Doctrine and Practice of Paedobaptisme pag. 75. let them shew where and when For this let all the Sacred Register be searched from the time that John the Baptist began his Ministry to the time that John the Evangelist ended his which was about 60 years during which time thousands of Children of Believing Parents were grown up to maturity and if in all that time they can but shew any one instance of any child born of a believing Parent whose Baptism was deferred till he came to years of discretion and that then he was Baptized we will then acknowledge there is some strength in their Negative Allegation viz. We read of no children Baptized therefore There were none CHAP. III. Containing his Argument that Believers Baptisme is the only true Baptisme from the example of Primitive Saints Reply TO this there needs no more then what we have before said Sydenhams Christian Exercitation pag. 7. For as Mr. Sydenham says all that they urge as to Examples of actual Believers being baptized all along the new Testament especially the Acts and that if thou believest thou mayst We can freely grant without any damage to Infant-Baptism For 1. We say as they Professing Believers grown men were first Baptized and so they ought to be who are to be the first subjects of the Administration of an Ordinance instancing as before in Abraham c. he was 99. years old when circumcised and he must be first Circumcised before he could convey a right to his seed now you may as well argue Abraham was first circumcised when so old therefore old persons are to be Circumcised and none else as because grown persons were Baptized therefore not Infants when they must be first Baptized themselves for children are Baptized by the promise first to them and in them to their seed Now for as much as all the Examples brought by the Author out of Act. 8.12 18.8 22.14 Speak of grown persons that were the first subjects of Baptism and Jews that were Aliens too as well as the Gentiles in regard of the new Administration it makes nothing against Infant-Baptism that being of another circumstance and the disagreeing of it from them argues not the unlawfulness of it and as the same Author farther argues 2. An Affirmative Position is not exclusive of subordinates because Believers were said to be Baptized Ergo not their Seed is not true reasoning for their seed were comprehended with them in the same promise as before and as we shall more fully shew hereafter Let us now see what his Quotations of Authors or Testimonies
will amount unto in this Chapter His first Testimony is from Luther de Sacrament Tom. 3. fol. 168. where he saith Luther hath these words viz. That in times past it was thus that the Sacrament of Baptism was Administred to none except it were to those that acknowledged and confessed their faith c. The which when I read I was not well assured but that my Antagonist might be guilty of Forgery knowing Luther to be a most fierce and zealous opposer of their way wherefore I did very carefully examine the third Tome of Luther concerning Sacraments I read the 168. pag. and read it again with a friend and do profess that there is not one syllable to the purpose for which the Author brings him no nor in any page thereabout The next that he Cites is Bullinger who it â—â—ns hath such words as these in his houseâ—â—k 48 Sermon Baptism hath no prescribed â—e by the Lord and therefore it is left to the â— choice of the Faithful I have not the book by me to examine the â—â—th of this but however I am certain there â—othing in that passage against Infant-Baptism â—hat this testimony can do us no hurt and we â—â—w very well how large a book Bullinger hath 〈◊〉 Contra Anabaptistas against the Anabaptists â—hat I wonder the Author should bring him 〈◊〉 The Reader may observe how zealous an â—rtor of Infant-Baptisme this Learned and â—â—ly Divine was by that one passage of his in 〈◊〉 Compendium of the Christian Religion de â—cto Baptismo ac de Infanâ—s Baptizandis lib. 8. pag. 〈◊〉 viz. Quoniam autem Christianorum liberi in faedere Dei suni Christus etiam Infantium salvator est cumque ad ipsos pertineat ut veteris ac novi Testamenti literae testentur-Baptismus Faeperis figillum iis negari non debet That because the â—dren of Believers are in â—â—nant with God and 〈◊〉 is their Saviour and â—romise also belongs to 〈◊〉 as both the Old and 〈◊〉 Testament do witâ—â—â—â— Baptisme which is the 〈◊〉 of the Covenant is not to be denyed them 〈◊〉 And after this concludes Hortor autem â—â—omnes pios ac verè Christianos ut studiose â—â—terque sibi a contentiosa venenata Anaâ—â— arum sectâ caveant quae externa specie quiâ—â— Hypocrisi splendet reverà autem paestilenâ—â— est haeresis atque plurimas baereses quibus oâ—â—te aliquot secula Ecclesia Chrsti turbata lacerata fuit in se complectitur illisque plurimos homines inficit I forbear to English it out of respect to some which I believe are Godly and yet opposite to the Baptisme of believers Children Lastly The Author quotes a great deal out of Mr. Baxters Disputations with Mr. Blake about Right to the Sacraments but we have before spoil'd his Market by giving the Reader a Key out of the same Book by which he may understand him So that all those Examples from John the Samritans the Eunuch Paul Lydia the Jaylor Crispus c. doth but mind us again of the Authors dis-ingenuity in traducing that Worthy Divine CHAP. IV. Wherein he labours to prove Believers the only Subjects of Baptisme from the Spiritual ends of the Ordinance where he gives us an Induction of the particular ends of Baptisme as follows 1. THe first end of Baptisme saith he is that the Baptized might have that represented in a Sign or Figure and Preached to his Eye in the Ordinance which had been Preacht to his Ear and Heart by the word and Spirit respecting the whole Mystery of the Gospel and his duty and obligation therein A Sign being as Paraeus observeth some outward thing appearing to the sence through which some inward thing is at the same time apprehended by the understanding Repl. I. I deny this to be the primary end of Baptism For not to insist upon that which hath given too great advantage to Antipaedobaptists That the first end of Baptisme is to give a solemn entrance or admission into the Church I conceive it to be more true to affirm That the first and chief end of Baptisme is to be the Initiatory sign or seal of Gods Covenant and favour to us in Christ For as Dr. Ames observes in his Bellarminus enervatus Tom. 2. lib. 2. unless persons are to be reputed Members of the Church Nisi habendi tales essent viz. fidelium infantes pro membris ecclesiae non deberent Baptizari Baptismus enìm suâ naturâ est sigillum insitionis jam factae in Christum atque adeò in Ecclesiam Act. 10.47 48. they ought not to be Baptized for Baptism in its own nature is the seal of our being already ingrafted into Christ and so consequently into the Church Acts 10.47 48. He speaks concerning the Baptism of the Children of Believers and affirms they ought not to be Baptized but under this consideration that they are members of the Church which we shall hereafter make good in its proper place 2. I acknowledge that to Adult persons Baptisme reprefents in a sign that to the eye which is Preacht to the eare respecting the Mysteries of the Gospel c. Although I see not how it can be so in the way of Dipping for how can persons under water see apprehend or hear any thing during that time when and whereby the Sences and Understandings of men are so confounded that they have no power to exercise their faith or reason as they should and since plunging over head and ears puts people into such an amazing condition not without frights especially in the more tender Sex some being neer throtled or drown'd it is to be susspected to be none of Christs appointments for one would think that at such a juncture of time especially when an Ordinance is celebrated representing so many Gospel Mysteries it is requisite the mind should be in a more omposed posture then theirs are like to be in whose heads are under Water We grant Baptism to be a sign of spiritual Mysteries represented to the eye of such as are grown up and rightly Baptized As Circumcision was a sign of the same import to Abraham and it is of present and immediate use to the aged Rom. 4. Abraham reeived the sign of Circumcision as the Seal of the righteousness of Faith and we acknowledge also both the Sacraments are of immediate and present use to the aged and in this sence we are to understand Paraeus speaking of Sacramental Signes but let it be considered that the children of Abraham received the sign of Circumcision as well as Abrabam and yet they were void of understanding and judgment and knew no more of the spiritual Mysteries represented therein then our Infants do in the Ordinance of Baptism Circumcision represented the same Mysteries that Baptism doth and yet those poor Israelitish Babes that were Circumcised knew not that the cutting-off the fore-skin shadowed out the corruption of nature and the nature of Mortification the blood shed in the act also held
union before Baptism baptized into one body doth not here shew the essential constitution of a Church but the confirmed union and the argument is inserted more to prevent Schism then to express the way of first imbodying or constitution of Churches as the whole context demonstrates CHAP. V. Containing his fifth Argument That Believers Baptism is the only Baptism from the New Testament-dispensation so differing from that of the old THe Argument is taken from the New-Testament-Dispensation so different from the Old The Old Testament-Church saith the Author was National consisting of the Natural and Fleshly seed of Abraham therefore were Infants by Circumcision added thereto but the new Testament-Church was by Christs appointment to be a separated people out of all Nations consisting only of the spiritual seed of Abraham and therefore Believers upon profession of Faith by the Ordinance of Baptism were added thereto Repl. 1. What of all this If there any ground from hence that Believers Baptism is the only true Baptism 'T is true the Church Dispensation is altered Mr. Baxters plain proof for Infants Church-Membership and Baptism but the Covenant of Grace is not altered The Dispensation differs under the new Testament only in regard of Ceremonial accidents as Temple Priesthood Sacrifice but the Essentials of the Covenant still remain viz. I will be thy God and the God of thy seed and this is the grand Charter of Church-Membership which takes in the Child with the Parent and consequently entitles it to Baptism as shall be hereafter shewn for if their Church relation can be made good their Baptism will follow upon it If therefore the Author could have proved that the covenant had been altered as to its essentials he had said something worth a hearing 2. Whereas he says the old Testament Church was National it is a Truth and yet the Nation of the Jews was not the Church of God as they descended from the Loyns of Abraham by Natural Generation according to the Flesh but only with reference to Gods gracious Covenant made with Abraham and his seed which I wish the Opposers of Infant-Baptisme would consider and as this Covenant was made with Abraham and his seed after the flesh so likewise is it still the same with Believers and their natural seed under the Gospel-Dispensation by virtue of the same gracious covenant made to them and their seed Act. 2.39 For the promise is unto you and to your children and to all that are afar off the Gentiles 3. Antipaedobaptists may do well to consider yet farther what Mr. Baxter makes good in his plain proof viz. That Infant Church-Membership did take place as an Ordainance of God before Cirscumcision was enjoyned or the Ceremonial law Instituted and why then it should cease with it is more then ever yet could be shewn He makes it appear it was no part of the Typical Administration of the old Testament but a moral Institution of God even from the beginning of the World God ever made a distinction between the seed of the faithful and the seed of the wicked as visibly belonging to two several Kingdoms the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Sathan Mal. 2.15 therefore are they called a Holy Seed and a Holy Seed are Members of the Church and so consequently the Subjects of Baptism the Seal of Admission thereunto 4. Notwithstanding the Dictates of H. D. that the Baptism of Believers is the only true Baptism we shall retain our practice in Baptizing our children and thankfully own and acknowledge it as a Gospel-priviledge till the opposers thereof can produce some clear proof out of Scripture that the Old Ordinance of the Church-Membership of Believers is repealed We see how imperiously another sort of people do impose their conceits and how confidently they call for our subscription to their Light as they term it as if it were a duty to deliver up our Reason captive to their absurd imaginations We respect Antipaedobaptists as a more sober people yet strangely over-grown with self-conceitedness as if the word of God came out from them and it came to them only in regard of the true knowledge of the spirits mind in it Let them produce but one plain Scripture that God hath made void the Antient Charter and Grant and we will readily yield up the cause But we have Scripture and reason as well as they and are the more confirmed in what we hold by observing how weakly they dispute against it All the Reason the Author brings to make good his Assertion is Because under the New Testament dispensation Christ hath appointed the Church to be a separated people out of the Nations consisting only of the spiritual seed of Abraham and therefore believers only upon profession of faith are to be admitted to Baptism and so added to the Church To which I answer First That under the New Testament-Dispensation Christ hath appointed the Church to be a separated people out of the Nations is a certain truth but that this Church consists only of the spiritual seed of Abraham is false Qui benè distinguit benè docet He that distinguisheth well teacheth well What our Antagonist says is true in regard of the Invisible Mystical Church of Christ which is a company of real Saints that have spiritual Union and Communion with Christ and with one another but not so with respect to the outward visible Church which is the Society of those that profess true faith for the exercise of Church-union and Communion among themselves and many of these are Hypocrits and shall perish Dr. Ames an excellent person that understood what the New Testament-Church was a little better then our Author Med. lib. 1. c. 32. art 9. tells us the same And such saith he was the Church of Corinth and Ephesus wherein all held not Communion for life and of such Christ spèaks Joh. 15.2 Every branch in me that beareth not fruit And hath these words in Opposition to what Bellarmine falsely chargeth on Protestants viz. Falsum est internas virtutes recuiri a nobis ut aliquis sit in Ecclesia quoad visibilem ejus statum It is false that inward vertues Grace are required of us to put a man into the Church according to the visible state of it The Lord Dupless is in his Excellent Treatise of the Church distinguisheth aright The Invisible Church containeth none but good or in the Authors Dialect the Spiritual seed of Abraham The Visible both good and bad that only the Elect this all those indifferently that are brought into her by the Preaching of the Gospel By all which it is evident that the Author stragles out of the Road of Protestant Divines and is fallen upon the confines of Thomas Colliers General Epistles or the wild Notion of Mr. Dell who in his Book intituled The way of Peace pag. 6. gives this definition of the Church viz. The New Testament-Church is a spiritual Invisible Fellowship gathered up into the Unity of Faith Hope and
Love and saith it is no outward visible society gathered together into the consent and use of outward Forms and Worship Now although both are out yet I acknowledge the Author is more sober then Dell for he is for an External Visible Church under the New Testament-Dispensation for he tells us Believers upon the profession of faith are to be Baptized and added thereunto and yet take him in his own sence he cannot be excused from error and confusion for by Believers he means the Spiritual seed before mentioned not such as are Believers Equivocally or Analogically by profession only but in reality or truth as appears by the following words upon Profession of Faith by the Ordinance of Baptism were added to the Church As if when mention is made in the Acts of so many thousands that believed it did imply they were all of the Spiritual Seed Regenerated persons Annanias Saphira Symon magus who is said to believe whereas it denotes no more then a visible profession of faith which is all that the Apostles and Primitive Churches had cognizance of and this is seen in Hypocrits who are not the Spiritual Seed of Abraham And this H. D. might have learnt as well as other things from Mr. Tombes who in his Examen pag 159. tells us Profession of Faith and holyness is a sufficient warrant to Baptism And in good earnest one would think by observing the lives and conversations of some of their Proselytes they took them in upon easier terms 2. Sydenhams Exercitaon c. 3 p. 25. We further argue That if none but the spiritual seed of Abraham be the subjects of Baptism then visible believers or such as make a profession of Faith are not the Subjects of Baptism for they may not be more the spiritual seed i.e. Godly then infants 3. Nay according to this Reasoning none must be Baptized at all for who can tell who are the spiritual seed who belong to Christ according to Election and saving Faith Nor will that evasion serve their turn we have charitable ground to believe they are such because of their profession which is enough to satisfie the Church for if according to the Author the New Testament-Church is made up only of a spiritual seed it is necessary the Church should not only have a judgement of charity but infallibility to determine who are the spiritual seed 4. And since the Author and those of his way disclaim all pretence to Infallibility and are contented with the judgment of charity to distinguish of the spiritual seed knowing nothing to the contrary Hanc veniam petimus pray give us leave to act a like charity towards the children of Believers For first they may be capable subjects of Election Jacob was such a one in his Mothers Womb Rom. 9 11 Neither was it his singular priviledge but what is common to all that are Objects of Election which is free without respect to any thing wrought or to be wrought 2. They may be capable of sanctification Christ himself whilst in the Womb is termed The Holy thing which proves the nonage of Infants makes them not incapable of grace supposing Gods will and it shews God would have it so that some of them should be sanctified because Christ passed through each age to sanctifie it to us Ideo per omnem venit aetatem infantibus infans factus sanctificans Infantes in parvulis parvulus sanctificans hanc ipsam habentes aetatem simnl exemplum illis pieatis effectus justitiae s bjectionis As Irenaeus that lives neer the Apostles speaks John was filled with the Holy Ghost and what is that but the graces of the spirit although he was no more enabled to exert or put forth any act of Grace then he was able to put forth an act of reason nevertheless his soul wanted not the faculty of reason from his Mothers Womb and what though we may not say all Infants of Believers are a like filled with the Holy Ghost as John was yet may we truly say that are all as capable thereof as John 3. They are also capable of Glory of Salvation or else it would be sad but Christ hath told us of such is the Kingdom of Heaven that is Specifically as you shall see proved hereafter 4. God calls them holy 1 Cor. 7.14 and so may we By what hath been said I suppose it is evident to the impartial Reader that the Infants of Believers are as much the spiritual seed of Abraham as visible professing believers and we have as much ground if not more to look upon them as such as we have for grown Christians untill they manifest the contrary for as for the former we own them as Godly and admit them into the Church upon their own Testimony only in a visible profession which may be deceitful but the Infants of Believers are taken into Covenant with their Parents and are visible Church-Members and hereby come to have right to Baptism For the two former we have an express Divine Testimony and that they were once accounted such and the Covenant being the same as to the essential spiritual priviledges of it none of which can be made appear to be repealed It will follow that Believers Children must not be denyed the sign and seal of the Covenant they having altogether as warrantable a Right thereunto as grown Christians or Believers This is Bucers arguing on Mat. 19.13 14. Si jam ad Ecclesiam pertinent c. Cur eis signum Baptismi quo in Ecclesiam Christi qui ad eam pertinent recipi solent negaremus Bucer an Mat. 19.13 14. Let us now hear what is said to the contrary in what follows He conceives the seed of Believers have no right to Baptism Why Because saith he Though the Jews had right to circumcision as Abrahams natural seed under the old Testament yet this would not serve the turn under the new Mat. 3.9 John Baptist dischargeth them of that priviledge of Abrahams Natural Seed that admitted into the Old Church from any such right in the new Think not to say that ye have Abraham to your Father that ye are the Children of a Godly Parent That which serv'd their turn under Moses would not avail under Christ Nothing now but the fruits of Repentance give right to the Bapisme of repentance c. And must we take all this for Gospel We shall upon examination find no weight in it and nothing prejudicial to the Baptizing the children of Believers For 1. Let it be considered that these Jews to whom John spake were to come under a New Administration of the Covenant and the first subjects of this Administration must be persons able to give an account of their faith and repentance and Christ the Messiah was now come who was the chief blessing of the Covenant yea the substance of it and therefore 't was necessary that as these Jews relyed on the Covenant of Abraham so they should hold forth their relyance on
Type of Heaven and an Explanation of the primary grand promise to be their God giving intimation that he would as cetrainly bring them to the Heavenly as to the Earthly and to the spiritual everlasting glorious rest as well as to that Temporal or Corporeal rest upon which Reverend Mr. Cotton hath an excellent observation Mr. Cottons grounds and ends of Baptism of children p. 40. viz. That it was from hence that Jacob gave such solemn charge by Oath unto Joseph and Joseph to his Brethren the one to bury his dead body in Canaan the other for the Transportation of his bones to Canaan which they would never have done for an earthly inheritance but to nourish in the hearts of their posterity Faith and desire of Communion in the Church Joshua Heb. Salvator Dominus Salvator The Saviour or Lord Savionr and of their rest in Heaven whereof Canaans rest was a Type whereunto not Moses but Joshua must bring them that is not the Law but Jesus Except 3. A third Exception is Because the Seed in the seventh verse to whom the Covenant belonged This is Tomb'ss again Exerc. pag. 48. was not the Carnal but Spihitual seed only which he attempts to prove by Scripture and Authority the Scriptures are Gaol 3.16 and 24. and Rom. 9.7 8. Before I shall shew how grosly these Scriptures are mistaken and wrested to a quite different sense from what the Apostle intends as shall be made appear by the context and design of the Apostle in this Chapter I shall premise a few things as 1. The Covenant of Grace contains in it only spiritual good things Temporals are more properly Additionals then of the Essence of it 2. The Covenant of Grace is but One the Identity or sameness of the Covenant Mr. Tombes confesseth to be one and the same both to Jews and Gentiles Exercit. p. 39. 3. Though this Covenant be but one yet all are not in it after one and the same manner some are in it only by participation of external Church priviledges others by being interessed in the internal saving benefits thereof by means of those priviledges 4. The whole body of the Jews as they descended from the Loyns of Abraham by propagation and before they were Regenerated were according to Scripture Testimony taken by God into Covenant and were so esteemed by God himself in one respect or other Hence God saith he made his Covenant with them all Deut. 29. speaking there of the renewing of the Covenant of Grace verse 10.12 13 14 15. And the Apostle is express Rom. 9.6 To them appertained the Covenant and they are said not to be strangers to the Covenant of promise as the Gentiles but in the same Eph. 2.11 12. And such as Apostatized from God are said to break the everlasting Covenant Isa 24.5 And in the new Testament to count the blood of the Covenant an unholy thing Heb. 10.29 Which expressions argue that in some sense they must be in and under the Covenant that is in regard of external privileges only for it is certain they were never in it efficaciously and savingly as the Elect choice seed of Abraham for then they could never have fallen away they were in it in regard of external Covenant-privileges and common graces which Hypocrites and Reprobates may partake of and in this very sense Christ speaking of the Jews collectively calls them The Children of the Kingdom Matthew 8. and the Apostle the Children of the Covenant 5. And as it was under the old Testament so is it under the new the Covenant is the same norwithsTanding the difference of Administration And as it was then so is it now Gal. 4.24 29. Some are born of Agar and some of Sarah Mr. Cottons grounds and ends of Infant Baptism some the spiritual seed Secundum propositium Electionis chosen according to Gods will and gracious intention from all Eternity God principally intending the Coventant for them these may be said to be spiritually savingly in regard of powerful efficacy operation of the Covenant upon them within e Covenant Others are in it quoad externam Oeconomiam Hypocrites in Covenant quoad externam Oeconomiam in regard of external priviledges They are in Christ only by profession Branches in appearance not spiritually and savingly engraffed Joh. 15. There profession speaks them within the Covenant in facie visibilis Ecclesiae as Mr. Marshal speaks by virtue whereof they derive a right to the Seals and Sacraments of the New Testament 6. There are two sorts which may be reputed in Covenant under the New Testament as well as under the Old in regard of external and visible Oeconomy or external Church priviledges 1. Such as stand by their own visible profession as all first Covenanters do so te Proselytes under the Old Testament and all visible Saints or else 2. Such as stand in a Political Moral consideration as in the right of another through a free promise The distinction is common amongst our Divines but I quote it from Mr. Sydenham cap. 4. p. 31. Of his Christian Exercitation And he illustrates it by a Princes giving a Title of Honour or a piece of land to one and his Heirs they are all interested in it yet some prove fools or traitors and are afterwards incapable and this distinction he shews holds in the New Testament for if men deny a being in Covenant in regard of external priviledges as well as special grace or as he speaks if they deny an external as well as an internal being in Covenant Then 1. None can administer an external Ordinance an outward sign to any for we must go by external rules in these actings 2. We set a Seal to a blank to all grown persons who are baptized without we know them certainly in the Covenant and that who knows for our Judgment will no more hinder the Seal from being a blanck to grown Professors than to Infants without they prove real at last much more he speaks there which I omit Having premised these Propositions we shall now examine what force there is in the Scriptures for to prove what he would have referring what is said to the judgment of the impartial Reader The first Text is that in the 3. Gal. 16 Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made he saith not to Seeds as of many but as of one and to thy Seed which is Christ And if ye be Christs then are you Abrahams Seed v. 29. The other is Rom. 9.7 8. Neither because they are the Seed of Abraham are they all children but in Isaac shall thy Seed be called that is they which are the children of the flesh these are not the children of God but the children of the promise are connted for the Seed And Rom. 4.13 For the promise that he should be Heir of the World was not to Abraham or to his Seed through the Law but through the righteousness of Faith c. Hence Mr. Tombs the