Anti-pædobaptism, or, The third part being a full review of the dispute concerning infant baptism : in which the arguments for infant baptism from the covenant and initial seal, infants visible church membership, antiquity of infant baptism are refelled [sic] : and the writings of Mr. Stephen Marshal, Mr. Richard Baxter ... and others are examined, and many points about the covenants, and seals and other truths of weight are handled / by John Tombes.

SECT. XVII. Mr. Cottons, The Assemblies, and London Ministers way of arguing for In∣fant-baptism from the Covenant and Circumcision, is recited, and the methode of the future progress in the Review, expressed. (Book 17)

MR. John Cotton in his Dialogue, ch. 3. goes this way, and expresseth himself in four things,

That 1. God made a covenant of grace with Abraham, and his seed, Gen. 17.7.

2. Gave him a commandment to receive the sign of circumcision the seal of the covenant of grace, to him and his seed, Gen. ••7.9, 10.

3. The Lord hath given that Covenant of grace which was then to Abraham and his seed, now to believers and our seed.

4. And hath given us baptism in the room of circumcision.

The Assembly at Westminster in their confession of faith, chap 25. art. 2. as∣sert, That the visible Church consists of all the children of those that profess the true Religion, and cite to prove it, 1 Cor. 7.14. Acts 2.39. Ezekiel 16.20, 21. Rom. 11.16. Gen. 3.15. and 17.7. of these, one of the Texts, to wit, Gen. 3.15. I meet not with in the writings of the defenders of infant-baptism, to my remembrance, except once in Mr. Baxter to prove a conditio∣nal covenant made with all Adams posterity. I do not imagine what use that Text is of to prove infants of those that profess the true Religion to be visible Church-members.

Whether the seed of the woman be meant of all men, or by excellency of Christ, or of true believers (which are all the senses I conceive) yet how from any of these should be gathered that infants of professours of the true Religi∣on, as such, and not as of humane kinde, should be meant by the seed of the woman, or that the bruising of the Serpents head should prove, infants of them that profess the true Religion to be visible Church-members is a riddle, which I cannot yet resolve. Ch. 28. art. 4. they say, Infants of one or both be∣lieving parents are to be baptized, and in the margin cite, Gen. 17.7.9. with Gal. 3.9.14. Col. 2.11, 12. & A••ts 2.38.39. & Rom. 4.11, 12. 1 Cor. 7.14. Mat. 28.19. Mark 10.13, 14, 15, 16. Luke 18.15. what they would gather from

these texts may be ghessed from the Directory about baptism, where they di∣rect the Minister to teach the people, That baptism is a seal of the covenant of grace, of our ingrafting into Christ, &c. That the promise is made to belie∣vers and their seed, and that the seed and posterity of the faithful, born within the Church, have by their birth-interest in the Covenant, and right to the seal of it, and to the outward privileges of the Church under the Gospel, no less then the children of Abraham in the time of the old Testament, the covenant of grace for substance being the same, and the grace of God, and consolation of believers more plentiful then before, that the Son of God admitted little children into his presence, embracing them, and blessing them, saying, For of such is the Kingdom of God; that children by baptism, are solemnly recei∣ved into the bosome of the visible Church, that they are Christians, and fede∣rally holy before baptism, and therefore are they baptized.

Most of which propositions are ambiguous, few of them true, or have any proof from the texts alleged in the Confession; and if they were all true (set∣ting aside one or two which express the conclusion in a different phrase) they would not infer the Conclusion.

The first proposition is ambiguous, it being doubtful in what sense baptism is said to be a seal of the Covenant of grace, whether in a borrowed or proper sense, so as it be the definition or genus of it, or onely an adjunct of it, or whether it seal the making of the Covenant, or the performing of it, or the thing covenanted, what they mean by the covenant of grace, which is that covenant; whether it seal all or a part of it, whether it seal Gods covenanting to us, or our covenanting to God. Nor is there any proof for it from Rom. 4.11. which neither speaks of baptism, nor of any ones Circumcision but A∣brahams, nor saith of his Circumcision, that it was the seal of the Covenant of grace, as they, it is likely, mean.

The next proposition is so ambiguous, that Mr. M. and Mr. G. are driven to devise senses which the words will not bear to make it true, as I shew in my A∣pology, s. 9. The words seem to bear this sense, That the promise of Justifica∣tion, adoption, &c. is made to believers and their seed. But so it is apparently false, contradicted by the Apostle Rom. 9.7, 8. and by other texts, nor is it pro∣ved from Gen. 17.7. compared with Gal. 3.9.14. Acts 2.39. or any other of their texts, yea in that sense it is disclaimed by Master Marshall, and Master Geree.

The next is ambiguous also. For how the seed of the faithful may be said to be born within the Church, or what interest in the covenant, and right to the seal of it, and what outward privileges they have by their birth, or what outward privileges they have in like measure as the children of Abraham, is as uncertain as the rest, and how any of the texts prove it, is uncertain. Surely Gal. 3.9.14. speaks only of the privileges of Justification and Sanctification, which Abrahams children by faith, and no other, not every believers posterity or natural seed have, nor is there a word Gen. 17.7. of any privilege to our na∣tural seed as such.

The next too is doubtful, it being uncertain what they mean by the substance of the Covenant, what they make accidental in it, and what substantial; nor is it easie to conceive what they mean when they say, the grace of God and consolation of believers is more plentiful then before, or how any of the texts

prove it, or what this is to their purpose, that the enlargement of a believers comfort intitles his child to baptism, nor what is meant when it is said, That children by baptism are received into the bosom of the visible Church, and yet after withheld from the Lords Supper without any Ecclesiastical censure, nor do I know how they mean or prove them to be Christians, or federally holy afore baptism.

For my part, in those propositions I deprehend little truth or plain sense; but that the Directory in that part is a meer riddle, fitter for Schollars to study than for teaching of the people.

The London Ministers (of whom it is likely a considerable part were of the Assembly) in their Jus Divinum regim. Eccl. page 32. speak thus.

So infants of Christian parents under the New Testament are commanded to be baptized by consequence, for that the infants of Gods people in the old Testament were commanded to be circumcised, Gen. 17. For the privileges of believers under the New Testament, are as large as the privileges of believers under the old Testament, and the children of believers under the New Testa∣ment are federally holy, and within the covenant of God as well as the chil∣dren of believers under the old Testament, Gen. 17. compared with Rom. 11.16. 1 Cor. 7.14. And what objections can be made from infants incapacity now against their baptism, might as well then have been made against their being circumcised. And why children should once be admitted to the like ini∣tiating Sacrament (the Lord of the Covenant, and Sacrament no where for∣bidding them) there can be no just ground. And baptism succeeds in the room of Circumcision, Col. 2.11, 12. concerning which I say, there's no proof from Gen. 17. compared with Rom. 11.16. 1 Cor. 7.14. to prove the children of believers federaly holy as they would, nor is there any proof from Col. 2.11, 12. to prove the succession of baptism in the room of circumcision. And though infants have not a natural incapacity to be dipped in water, yet they have a na∣tural incapacity to profess faith in Christ, which is now required to baptism though not required to circumcision. And there is an objection that may be made against infant-baptism, to wit, the want of a command, which could not be objected against infant male circumcision: and this is a just ground to exclude infants from baptism, yea the very same ground they give for exclu∣ding them the communion, and the very same ground which Paedobaptists do continually, in books and Sermons urge against Popish and Prelatical ceremo∣nies. But forasmuch as Mr. M. did direct his Defence of infant-baptism to the Assembly, and Mr. Pryn in his suspension suspended, p. 21. seems to have taken his book to be approved by the Assembly, and he is of any I meet with in print likeliest to have produced their strength, and for other reasons, therefore I conceive my self bound to examine his defence in the third part of it, referring the Reader to what of that or any other is already dispatched, taking in somewhat of Master Blakes, and some others by the way, and then to exa∣mine such parts of Mr. Cobbets Iust Vindication, as are not yet examined so far as I find necessary, and at last examine so much of Mr. Bs. dispute about his second argument as is not yet dispatched.