Vindiciæ foederis, or, A treatise of the covenant of God enterd with man-kinde in the several kindes and degrees of it, in which the agreement and respective differences of the covenant of works and the covenant of grace, of the old and new covenant are discust ... / [by] Thomas Blake ... ; whereunto is annexed a sermon preached at his funeral by Mr. Anthony Burgesse, and a funeral oration made at his death by Mr. Samuel Shaw.

CHAP. LVI. (Book 56)

The reality of connexion, between the Covenant and initial seale, asserted. (Book 56)

THe several minor propositions, in the syllogismes before laid down, being proved at large, in the foregoing discourse. So that nothing more needs to be added, yet if there be no necessa∣ry connexion, between the covenant, and the seale, the major propositions, will yet be called into question. Though it be granted, that infants be Church-members, are in covenant, have the promises, are Saints, are in the bosome of the Church by birth-priviledge, are children of the Kingdome, &c. Yet it will be said (though most unreasonably) that they are not yet to be baptized, I shall therefore 1. Bring Scripture proofes for the real connexion between the covenant and the seale, clearing those Scriptures from exceptions taken against them. 2. I shall make it good with arguments or reasons. 3. I shall returne answer to objections brought against that which is here asserted.

That all in covenant, are to enjoy the initial seal of the cove∣nant, let the words of God himself, in the institution of circum∣cision be considered, Gen. 17. 7, 9, 10, 11, 14. I will establish my covenant, between me and thee, and thy seed after thee, in their generations, for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee. Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee, in their generations. This is my covenant which ye shall keep, between me and you, and thy seed after thee, E∣very man-child among you shall be circumcised, and ye shall circum∣cise the flesh of your foreskinne, and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you. And the uncircumcised man-child, whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people. Here we see 1. A covenant entered. 2. A seal appoin∣ted, as the Apostle, Rom. 4. 11. calls it. 3. The necessary con∣nexion between the seal and covenant declared. They are to be circumcised, because they are in covenant, Having interest in the covenant. They have together with it, interest in the initial seal, against this is objected.

First, All the force of this proof hangs on the particle [therefore,] verse 9. and may be rendared; And thou, or, but thou, as well as, thou therefore, and is by others rendered. Tu autem, and Tu ve∣ro, which are neither of them illative termes. 1. We have no rea∣son but that it may be an illative as well as a copulative, and be∣ing an illative particle, he hath no exception against the strength of it. 2. I deny, that all the force of the proof hangs on that particle; look farther on into verse 10. This is my covenant, which ye shall keep between me and you, and thy seed after thee; every man-childe among you shall be circumcised, and take in with it Acts 7. 8. And he gave him the covenant of circumcision; And so Abraham begat Isaac, and circumcised him the eighth day, &c. and let them at more leisure finde an answer to this argument. That which God himself calls by the name of a covenant, ought not to be separated from it: But God calls circumcision by the name of a covenant, Ergo they ought not to be separated. 2. Let them consider the relation in which the Apostle puts this Sacrament of circumcision to the covenant, Rom. 4. 11. An instituted appointed signe and seale, is not to be divided from that which it signifies and seales, circumcision was an instituted appointed signe and seale of the covenant; therefore it is not to be divided from it.

Secondly, it is said, If it were granted, that [therefore] is the best reading; yet that the inference, verse 9. should be made from the Promise only, verse 7. I will be a God to thee and thy seed after thee, and not as well, if not rather from the Promise, verse 8. of giving to him and his seed the land of Canaan; I finde no sufficient reason given. This reference engages the adversary, 1. In a contradiction to himself, who sayes elsewhere, the promise of the Gospel was confirmed to Abraham by the signe of circumcision. He also con∣tends that it was a mixt covenant, made up of spiritual and tem∣poral mercies, and then it must take in the spiritual as well as the temporal Promise. All that know the nature of covenants, and use of Seales, know that the Seale ratifies all that the covenant containes: But the covenant (according to him) contained not barely the promise of the land of Canaan; and therefore the re∣ference, must carry it farther than the land of Canaan. 2. It engages him in a contradiction to the Apostle, who makes cir∣cumcision a signe and seale, not alone of the land of Canaan, but of the righteousnesse of faith.

Thirdly, It is said, But if it were yielded, that the inference were made peculiarly from the Promise, verse 7. to be a God to Abraham and his seed; it must be proved that every Believers Infant childe is Abrahams seed, afore it be proved that the Promise belongs to them. It must either be proved that they are Abrahams children▪ or have the priviledge of the Children of Abraham, which from Genesis 9. 27. Rom. 11. 17. is sufficiently proved, especially being con∣firmed by those Texts that carry the covenant in Gospel-times to the issue. And for his exception that the covenant was not made to every childe of Abraham, though it were true, yet it would not serve his purpose, provided, that we in Gospel-times are under the same covenant as was Isaac, to whom the promises were made, If some of Abrahams children were left out, that concerns not us, so that we are taken in; yet the instance is very weak to prove it. As appeares (saith he) verse 19. concerning Ishmael, and Heb. 11. 9. that Ishmael was himself in covenant, though not established in covenant, (as God there, and verse 21. pro∣mised concerning Isaac) not his seed never received, appeares not alone by the signe and seale which he received, verse 23. which yet is sufficient (for God to seale to a blanke is very strange; to signe a covenant to a man never in covenant) but also from Gal. 4. 30. What saith the Scripture? Cast out the bond-woman and her sonne, for the sonne of the bond-woman shall not be heir with the sonne of the free-woman. A man cast out of covenant, was before casting out, in covenant; Ejection supposes admission, unlesse we will give way to our Authors dreame of Ejection by non-admission. He was cast out after the time of the solemnity of his admission by circumcision, as may be seen, Gen, 22. For that of Heb. 11. 9. it is a mystery what he will make of it, un∣lesse he will conclude, that because Abraham sojourned in the land of Promise, that therefore none were in covenant that were not taken into that land; so Moses and Aaron will be found out of covenant.

It is further said, As for a visible Church-seed of Abraham, that is neither his seed by nature, nor by saving faith, nor by excellency, in whom the Nations of the Earth should be blessed, to wit, Christ; I know none such in Scripture, therefore some men have fancied such a kind of Church-seed, as it is called. I know not how saving faith comes in, when a faith of profession will serve the turne; The

whole of Abrahams seed had circumcision as a seale of the righ∣teousnesse of faith, when many of their Parents had no more than a faith of profession.

Fourthly, Were all these things yielded, yet the Proposition (as is said) would not be made good from hence. All these we see are made good against his exceptions. Let us now see the strength which is reserved for the last push, for overthrow of this Propo∣sition. The inference is not concerning title or right of infants to the initial seale, as if the covenant or promise of it self did give that; but the inference is concerning Abrahams duty, that therefore he should be the more engaged to circumcise his posterity. This should rather have been left to us for the strengthening of our proposi∣tion, than have made use of it himself for refutation of it. It was Abrahams duty to give them according to Gods command the initial Seale: in this we are agreed: whether it will thence follow that they had right and title to it, or were without right, let the Reader determine.

It is further said, He was engaged to circumcise onely those that are males, and not afore eight dayes, and not onely those that were from himself, but also, all in his house whose children soever they were, which apparently shewes that the giving Circumcision was not commensurate to the persons interest in the Covenant, but was to be given to persons as well out of the Covenant as in; If of Abrahams house, and not to all that were in the Covenant; to wit Females, which doth clearly prove that right to the initiall Seale, as it is called, of circumcision, did not belong to persons by vertue of the covenant, but by force of the command. If it could be proved that Abraham kept Idolaters in his house, professedly worshipping a false god, and gave circumcision to them in that faith and way of false worship; it would prove that a man might have the seale, and not be in covenant; but it would not prove that he might be in covenant, and be denied the Seale, and then infant-Baptisme might be of easier proof. Though they were not in covenant, though they were not holy, yet they might be baptized. But I will not yield so much; I do not believe that Abraham carried circumcision be∣yond the line of the covenant, and that he had those in his house which were aliens from God; seeing I finde that Testimony of the Lord concerning him, Gen. 18. 19. For I know him, that he will command his children, and his houshold after him, and they shall

keep the way of the Lord to do justice and judgement; that the Lord may bring upon Abraham that which he hath spoken of him. And that resolution of Joshua, That if others would serve the gods that their fathers served that were on the other side the floud, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land they dwell; yet he and his house would serve the Lord, Josh. 24. 14, 15. As it is a private mans duty to serve the Lord, and not Idols, so it is the Master of the Fami∣lies duty to see that the Lord and not Idols be worshipped in his house. As I do beleeve that if any of our adversaries had a pro∣fest Heathen in his Family, he would not keep him there, and not chatechize him, and that he would not during his profession of Heathenisme baptize him: So, I beleeve concerning Abraham, He catechized all that he took in as Heathens, and did not cir∣cumcise them in their Heathenisme. This some Paedobaptists (as is said) are forced to confesse, when they grant the formal reason of the Jewes being circumcised, was the command, and the covenant he makes only a motive. I wonder what need there is of an Argu∣ment to force such a confession. The reason I say, why Jewes were circumcised, and Christians baptized, is the command; were there a thousand covenants, and no institution of a signe, or seale, such a signe or seale, there could have been no circumci∣sion, nor no Baptisme. The command is the ground, and the covenant is the directory to whom application si to be made. We say, all in covenant are entituled to the Seale for admission; but we pre-suppose an institution. They will have all Beleevers, and all Disciples baptized, which they cannot conclude upon their faith and knowledge barely, but upon the command to baptize Be∣leevers and Disciples; So that the command is with reference to the covenant, with reference to interest in the covenant. From these foregoing exceptions a conclusion is drawne, that all this doth fully shew, that the proof of the connexion between, and the i∣nitial Seale without a particular command for it, is without any weight in it. And I conclude, that it fully shewes that the proof of the connexion between the covenant and the initial Seale, (pre-supposing the institution of such a Seale, and a general com∣mand) is of that weight that all are meere frivolous trifles that are brought for exceptions against it.

Another Scripture holding out the connexion between the covenant and initial seale is, Acts 2. 38, 39. Repent and be bap∣tized

every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sinnes, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, for the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are a far off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call. Here I must mind the Reader of that which I have already spoken on this text, concerning this text, Chap. On which words after a brief Analasis (which there may be seen) I have grounded this argument, They to whom the covenant of promise appertains, have right to Baptisme. But the cove∣nant of promise, belongs to men in a Church-state, and condition; together with their children, therefore, those that are in a Church-state, and condition, have right to Bap∣tisme together with their children. My businesse being then, to assert the just latitude of the covenant; without respect to Baptisme or any other seale, I spoke only to the minor proposition, that the covenant extends it selfe not alone, to men professedly in a Church-state, but also to their chil∣dren with them, and to that I think I have there spoke suf∣ficient. Now I am put upon the proof of the major. That they, to whom the covenant of the promise appertaines, have right to baptisme. If this faile, it must be confest, that the ground of infant-Baptisme, as to this Text, falls with it, seeing their right is not asserted, quâ infants, no more than the right of men of growth or men of yeares, quâ of growth, or in yeares, but as they stand in reference to God in coventnt, and this is clear in the Text. Be baptized, for the promise is to you, and to your children. Because they are vest∣ed in the promise, they have their right and interest in the seale. If this do not hold, the Apostles argument falls to evade this full and cleare argument, one is bold to say, that in the expounding of these words there are almost as many mistakes as words, when words are only brought to convince us, of so many mistakes, though in a multiplica∣tion of exceptions.

First, The Exposition is commonly carried as if the promise there meant, were the promise, Gen. 17. 7. To Abraham and his seed, and this expounded as if it were meant that God would be a God to every Believer, and to his seed, in respect at least of visible Church-Membership. When a promise is men∣tioned, and a seale, any man but he will presently under∣stand that promise, which is ra••ified by such a seale. For discovery of their mistake that make any other reference of it, I shall referre the Reader to what I have said on these words. Chap 48. and to Master Cobbets Vindication, Part. 1. Chap. 2. Sect. 3.

Secondly, it is said, They expound [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is Acts 2. 39.] as if it were a promise of a thing to come some outward priviledg to be conferred on them and their children, whereas the chief thing meant in the speech i••, that as is expressly said by Paul, Acts 13. 32, 33. Yet no man is quoted for this Expositi∣on of a thing to come, but on the contrary quotes Master Cobbet against it. It is meant of a present right for as yet they were not broken off from the Olive, not Gentiles g••••••∣fed in, in the instead.

Thirdly, It is said, It is taken as if [to you] were meant of those persons to whom he spake, as then Believers, and under that formal consideration, and then reasons are brought against it. I do not interpret it of any present explicite Faith in Christ as the Messiah; though now this conviction, that so evidently appeared, did evidence them to be in an hopeful way, and with that Scribe not to be far from the Kingdome of God, and therefore he takes his opportunity, and presseth it on to come into the way of Believers in Christ Jesus.

Fourthly It is said, [your children] is expounded of their Infant-children, yea, it is carried as if of them only To thi•• is sufficient spoken, Chap, 48.

As for that which follows; They would have the promise to be

to their children as theirs, whether they be called or no; which can be verified only in their sense of their infants, sith they maintain that even the children of Beleevers are not in covenant; the promise is not to them, they are not visible Church-members when they come to years of discretion, except they be called in their own persons, and accept the call. Children as theirs, whether they be called or no, is a contradiction; Children are called in their Parents call, and we say, they are in covenant, the Promise is made to them; they are visible Church-members till they reject the covenant, and deny their Membership, this is a calumny.

Fifthly, He sayes, Whereas it is urged, that when it is said the promise is to all that are afarre off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call, which is expounded of the Gentiles, it is not added to their children: To this in the same chapter sufficient is spoken.

A sixth, is the same with the tenth, and thither I shall refer the Reader.

Seventhly, It is said, And in like manner we hold the command, [Be babtized every one of you] in a covenant••sense (that is, a new devised non••sense, such as we have no Dictionary yet to interpret words by) be baptized you and your children. I am sure here is a non-sense devise to talk of Dictionaries, does Calepin or Scapula, Rider or Thomasius help us to compare covenant and seale, promises and Sacraments.

Eighthly, It is said, Some would possesse people with this conceit as if Peters scope were to take away by ver. 39. an objection or scruple they would make. If we be baptized our selves, our children shall be in worse case, in respect of the priviledge our children had in the former dispensation of the covenant, when they had the s••al of the covenant, if they be not to be baptized also; and that he answers them by assuring them that in this dispensation also their children were in covenant, and were to have the seale of the covenant. And then addes, There is not a word of any such scruple in the Text; nor i•• i•• likely that they were sollicitous about such an imaginary poor priviledge of their chil∣dren. I am of the same mind that there was no such scruple in their heads. This unhappy conceit of casting the seed out of covenant was not then in being, though I think the reason given is little to purpose.

Ninthly, He sayes, They all do most grossely abuse the meaning of

the Apostle, in interpreting the inference of the Apostle, signified by the particle [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, for, vers. 39.] which they would have to be this, you have right and war••ant to be baptized; For the promise is to you and your children, as if the illative particle did inferre a warrant, or right for them and theirs to be baptized; whereas the thing inferred is not any right, which in a legal way they might claime; but is a plaine motive in a moral way urged to perswade them to be baptized. They do grossely abuse their own judgement in this way of refutation, as though the right in which they stood, could be no Topick, from which in a moral way the Apostle might perswade them to Baptisme. When Shechaniah perswaded Ezra to the re∣formation of the marriage of strange wives in these words, Arise for the matter belongeth unto thee, Ezra 10. 4. Here was a motive in a moral way to call upon him to do it, and an Argument in∣ferred, that it lay upon Ezra as a duty by command from God to set upon it. The reason added is worthy of observation: This is ma∣nifest from the form of words, ver. 38. which if they had exprest a right to Baptisme by vertue of the promise, should have been in the indica∣tive mood in such a forme as this; you are to be baptized, you may be baptized, you have right to it, the Minister ought to do it; but the words are in the imparative mood, exhorting them and perswading them to it, They have quite forgotten, that the words holding out their right, are in the indicative mood, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. For the promise is to you and your children. And here is a notable correction of the Apostle, he should have said, if this had been his meaning, you must be baptized; and he sayes, Arise, and be baptized.

Lastly, It is said, In the paraphrases, which usually in their dis∣putes, Paedobaptists make of Acts 2. 38, 39. they put not any thing to answere the terme [repent] as if it stood for a cipher, but para∣phrase it thus, Ye may be baptized, you and your children; for the Promise is to you, and your children. The sixth exception was against our interpretation of the word repent, ver. 38. as if it were as much as to say, Covenant for your selves and your children; and here it is complained that it is left for a cipher. And the Author thinks he hath discovered the reason of this Omission. The put∣ting the word repent first, and be baptized after, doth manifest∣ly overthrow their paraphrase of a right to Baptisme from the word of promise, and shew that the particle, [For] doth not prove a right

to Baptisme, but presse to a duty; and such a duty as i•• to have repent∣ance precedent, and that in every person that is to be baptized. I con∣fesse it presseth to a duty, and such a duty as is to have repentance precedent in them that at that time were his hearers, to interest themselves, and with themselves their children in this priviledge; But right and duty do not shoulder out one the other, but very well stand together; encouraging to a duty which is a priviledge as well as a duty, he fitly makes use of their interest as a motive. And they might see that the Apostle puts the promise in a greater latitude than he urgeth repentance; He speakes to his hearers, when he sayes repent; and he tells them, that the promise is to them and to their children with them: Whereas our Author pres∣seth the precedency of the word, repent, to the command of be∣ing baptized, and elsewhere saith, P••••er doth exhort to Repentance and Baptisme together, and in the first place perswades to Repentance, then to Baptisme, which shewes Repentance to be in order before Bap∣tisme; I answer, as I did before Chap. 48. that these who had crucified Christ as a blasphemer, as a seditious person; an im∣postor, must needs repent before they would accept Baptisme in his name, or hope for remission of sinne by him. It had been lost labour for the Apostle to have pressed those that had crucified Christ, and retained their former opinion of him, to become Disciples to him, and to look to be saved by him; to perswade them to look for remission of sinnes in his blood, who took them∣selves to be without sinne in shedding of it, and yet notwithstan∣ding this guilt (of which the Apostle would have them to re∣pent) he shewes that they and their seed are under the promise of God, and puts them into a way in acceptation of Christ in the Gospel-tender, in his present way of administration to be con∣tinued his people still in covenant, and that (as is plainly enough signified) that they might enjoy it in their former latitude, to them and to their children. So that Master Stephens his Interpre∣tation so much sleighted by an adversary, and repeated not in his words, but in his own paraphrase upon them, is indeed the Apostles meaning. The Apostle (saith he. pag. 14.) doth speak to these Jewes who had crucified Christ; that if they would receive him as the particular Messiah, the same promise should still continue•• to them and their children in the new dispensation: And on this doth he build the word of command, to baptize father and childe;

To this the word repent here referres as may be made plaine.

First, By taking into consideration the present state of this people, and that in several particulars.

1. As yet they had the promises with them, and were children of the covenant, Acts 3. 25. Though the Apostle, Rom. 9. 4. do distinguish between the covenants and the promises; yet to have the promises here, and to be children of the covenant, there seemes to be one. If any can distinguish them, this people, had the honour of both of them; God had not yet cast them out of a Church-state and covenant-relation.

2. They were in present danger to be cast off according to what Christ had foretold, Mat. 8. 12. Mat. 21. 43. Being so fast riveted to the ceremonial Law which now was dead, and presently grew deadly: God denying any presence (as hath been said) with them, now the substanee was come.

3. These particular persons with whom Peter had to deale, were now well prepared for a free acceptation of a Gospel-way, under this administration, which Jesus Christ (having pulled down the Law of Ordinances) was to set up: Being amazed with the glory of the mircale which was wrought before their eyes, and convinced with the powerful application of the Pro∣phets by Peter in that elegant Sermon, they fell upon enquiry what they should do.

Secondly, By comparing other Texts of Scripture, which may serve as a Comment to the clearing of this; especially two Texts of two Evangelists, recording the words of Christ, and holding out the impenitent obstinacy of the Jewes, standing out against every call to repentance, respective to their rigid pertinacious ad∣hering to former dispensations, and opposition of that now ten∣dered and offered to them. 1. That of our Saviour Christ, Mat. 21. 31, 32. Christ having held before them, ver. 28. 29, 30. the parable of a certain man, that had two sonnes, and came to the first, and said, sonne, go work to day in my Vine-yard; He answered and said, I will not; but afterward he repented, and went; And he came to the second, and said likewise; and he answered and said, I go Sir, and went not, and made appeale to them, ver. 31. Whether of them twaine did the will of his father? and they answer∣ing,

the first: Jesus saith unto them, (as it followes in that and the next verse) Verily I say unto you, that the Publicans and Har∣lots go into the Kingdome of God before you; For John came unto you in the way of righteousnesse, and ye beleeved him not; but the Publicans and the Harlots believed him. And ye, when ye had seen it, repented not afterward, that ye might beleeve in him. The Publicans and Harlots answer to the first brother, who from a pro∣fessed rebellion against the command of God, by Johns preaching, were brought to repent, and accept of a Gospel-covenant, and enter into it by Baptisme. The chief Priests and Elders of the people (that here opposed Christ preaching the Gospel of the Kingdome) answer to the second brother that said, he would go into the Vine-yard, and went not; These repent not, but hold fast, and pertinaciously adhere to the way of old received, when the Publicans accept and imbrace the spiritual state of the Church by Christ set up. From this impenitence of these chiefe Priests and Elders with whom these joyned in crucifying Christ; Peter disswades, and exhorts to the repentance of the Publicanes and Harlots. The second Scripture which may give light to this text, is much parallel to this, Luke 7. 29, 30. Christ having given a large testimony to John and his Ministry; holds out the diffe∣rent effect that it took: First, in the people and the Publicanes, ver. 29. And all the people that heard him, and the Publicanes justified God, being baptized with the Baptisme of John. Secondly, in the Pharisees and Lawyers, ver. 30. But the pharisees and Lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves, be∣ing not baptized. They persisted in their old way, in oppositi∣on to that way held forth by John, approved by Christ, and re∣fused baptisme, These with whom Peter had to deale, had gone with the Priests and Pharisees, kept full pace with them even to the guilt of the death of Christ, they were now in a good way to follow the steps of the Publicanes and People, to embrace the counsel of God, and accept baptisme, their impenitence had held them from entrance into a new covenant-way by baptisme, Peter therefore exhorts to repent and be baptized.

Thirdly, This appeares by the Text it selfe, whereas they will have the illative particle For, to inferre no warrant or right in them to be baptized, but onely a motive in a moral way urged, as we have heard in the last exception. It is worth our enqui∣ry

to learne what good interpretation suitable to Peters exhor∣tation, they put here on those words, To you is the promise made, and to your children, excluding all consideration of right, in them and their children, Because Christ was promised to them and their children, therefore they must repent and be baptized. Not to in∣sist upon that just exception of Master Gobbet, page 23. That the Apostle doth not say, the promise was to you as in reference to the time of making it to the fathers, with respect unto them, or in refe∣rence to Christ, who was not now to come, but already come, as the Apostle proveth from ver. 3. to 37. Nor is it the use of the Scri∣pture when mentioning promises as fulfilled, to expresse it thus in the present tense, the promise is to you, or to such and such, but rather to annex some expression that way which evinceth the same, giving instance almost in twenty several texts, which utterly overthrows his exposition. Let them tell us why in this moral perswasive holding out a bare motive to perswade the parent onely, the children (not concerned in the thing and in an utter incapacity) should be mentioned. And why the words should be carried in that way that interest in covenant and covenant-seales formerly ran, and no right at all to covenant or covenant-seales intended? This glosse puts too much violence upon the words. But carry∣ing it on as a disswasive from persistance in their former way of old covenant legal rites, and perswading to embrace the way ap∣pointed by him, whom God had made both Lord and Christ, it singularly answers, as, to their present condition, yet in cove∣nant, though in eminent danger to be cast out of covenant, so, also to the words of the text, holding out a covenant-right in Scripture language according to the grand Charter of heaven. I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed; so that I hope by this time, the intelligent Reader will easily perceive the frivolous shifts instead of a ful refutation that's here brought to avoid Paedobaptists proofs of a word of command to Baptize infants from this Scripture.

As these Scriptures plainly hold out the necessary connexion of the covenant and initial seale, so, the evidence of reason is cleare for it. No man that stands enrighted or legally interested, in any priviledge, or possession, may be denied that ceremony or seal which is appointed for confirmation. A copy-hold being found the next immediate tenant, of a copy-hold-right must not be denied, but received according to the ceremony, or solemni∣ty

of the place, whensoever the King did grant, out letters-pat∣tents, the Lord Keeper might not deny the seale, the Lords Com∣missioners, may not now deny it to any, that by a just grant have interest. This were to keep a childe out of his fathers house, a servant from his place of abode and residence; when Christ was so much displeased with his Disciples on like occasion, these may well expect to be under as high displeasure. Having thus made good the point, it remaines that I take off some ob∣jections, and meet with some quarrels that are raised against it.

If there be any necessary connexion between the covenant and the seale, it must be (saith one) either, by reason of some necessary connexion between the termes which is none, for it is but a common accident to a man that hath a promise or a covenant made to him, that he should have a special signe, it may adesse vel abesse à subjecto, it may be present or absent from the subject. Giving some instances of covenants without seales. Answ. 1. By way of concussion it will be easily granted, that a covenant may stand alone with∣out a seale annexed? but where a seale is appointed for confirma∣tion, (as there hath been in the Church ever since God took a people to himself out of Abrahams loines) there is a necessary connexion. This answer he foresees, and sayes: But you will say, All that are foederati should be signati, since the solemne cove∣nant with Abraham; But neither is this certaine, sith we finde no such thing concerning Melchizedek and Lot, that lived in Abrahams time, nor concerning Job that it's conceived lived after his time. If we read nothing to confirme it, the Reader sees nothing to contradict it; There is added, But you will say, it is true of all the foederati in Abrahams family. But neither is that true, for male-children before the eighth day, and women though foederatae, yet were not to be signed. Is there no connexion between them, because he that receives into covenant and appoints the seale, hath prescribed a time when it shall be applied? A man that hath a grant from King or State, hath ipso facto right to the seale, and the right ne∣cessarily followes upon the grant, though he must stay till a seal∣ing day before he possesse it.

For the exception of women, though foederatae, yet were not to be circumcised; I say, 1. Master Marshal hath sufficiently an∣swered, that they were of the circumcision, and it was an excep∣tion

against Sampson by his parents that he would go to take a wife of the uncircumcised Philistines, Judg. 14. 3. Had he married in Israel, as he ought in obedience to God and his pa∣rents, he had married a wife of the circumcised, though that sex by nature is in an incapacity of that signe or seale. In diverse places of England, the husband being admitted by verdict of a Jury into an estate, the wife is virtually admitted; his admission is her admission, so it was in circumcision. 2. They had doubt∣lesse actually received that signe of circumcision as in New Testa∣ment times they do Baptisme, Acts 8. 12. Acts 16. 15. but that it was a signe whereof they were in an incapacity. It is far∣ther added, If then I should farther grant the conclusion, That in∣fants of beleevers were to be signati, yet you would not say they are to be partakers of the Lords Supper, because it is not appointed for them; So in like manner if it were granted you that infants of belee∣vers were to be signed, yet it followes not that they are to be baptized, unlesse you can prove that it is appointed to them; and the truth is, if it were granted that children were foederati, yet it were a high presumption in us to say therefore they must be signati, without Gods declaration of his minde; and if it were granted they must be signati, it were in like manner a high presumption in us to say, therefore they must be baptized, without Gods declaration of his minde concerning that Ordinance. To this a reply is made by another hand, that there is difference between a seale for initiation, and a seale for confirmation; a seale, wherein no more is of necessity, than to be passive; and that wherein we are to be active; yet to come more near to them, I am content to yield the conclusion, supposing that his argument is of force, Every Church-member hath true title to all Church-priviledges; But infants are Church-members, the Lords Supper is a Church-priviledge; and there∣fore infants have true title to it. But then I must distinguish jus ad rem, and jus in re, every infant hath right to it, yet by reason of in∣fancy hath his actual interest suspended; Paul by birth had right to all the priviledg of the Citie of Rome, being born free, Acts 22. 28. yet it does not follow that he was to give his vote, or appear in Assemblies as a free Citizen in the time of his minority; James the sixth was crowned in Scotland, and Henry the sixth in Eng∣land, in the time of their minority, so that they were reckoned among the Kings of Nations; yet neither of them did in their

own persons exercise regalia till yeares of discretion. As these infants of title were crowned, so infants that are Church-mem∣bers are to be baptized, when yet an infant can no more partake, as a Christian ought, of the Lords Supper, than an infant King can wield the great things of his Kingdome. An infant-heir from the first instant of his fathers death, and a posthumous childe from the time of his birth, stands seized of his fathers inheri∣tance; The whole title is vested in him, how ample soever, and in no other, and he is received into it, and lives upon it, yet he is held from the managing of it till he can improve for his own and the publike benefit; So that the taking into covenant is a sufficient declaration of Gods minde, that the signes and seals in an orderly way should be granted to them, and all these appeare to be cavils, and not answers.

As, these exceptions are causlesly taken against the connexion between the covenant and eale; so, quarrels are raised, against some phrases in common use among Divines relating to this thing, as making the metaphor of a seale the Genus of a Sacrament, which (if an errour) was the Apostles errour, Rom. 4. 11. and ma∣ny such like, with which it is needlesse to trouble the Reader.