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. XVIII. Mr. Marshalls reply to the first section of the third part of my Examen about the connexion between the Covenant, and seal, is reviewed. (Book 18)

MR. M. in his Sermon page 8. thus disputed, My first Argument is this; The infants of believing parents are foederati, therefore they must be signati.

They are within the Covenant of grace;

Therefore are to partake of the seal of the Covenant.

To this I answered by denying both the antecedent and the consequence: and first I disputed against the consequence, Exam. part. 3. s. 1.

Mr. M. in his Reply would have the Reader to consider my advantage from the much silence in the Scripture to make my work have a specious probability, that the like specious plea might be made against the justification of infants, especially if his dispute should be carried as mine is, altogether in the way of making exceptions against arguments, but not positively affirming any thing.

Thus what others have counted my vertue, and have commended, beyond what it is fit for me to express, Mr. M. unjustly seeks to draw into suspition, as if there were sophistry and guile in it, as he did in other things, as I shew in my Apology.

But me thinks a considerate Reader should take this to be the course of a diffident man. If there be much silence in Scripture about infants, why do Mr. M. and others avouch their baptism; with so much peremptoriness. If their justification could be no better proved then their baptism, it would be no arti∣cle of my faith. My disputation is carried in that way which is used by Dis∣putants that examine writings Scholastically, wherein it is defective Mr. M. should shew.

That I made exceptions against arguments was agreeable to my work, be∣ing to answer as Mr. M. was to prove: no man is to expect regularly any more of a Respondent. Yet that I positively affirm nothing is an untruth with a witness: yea in many points where it was not necessary I positively set down my tenet and my proofs, and answer objections to the contrary. The resolving questions about baptism how it should be, could not reasonably be expected in my Examen.

2. Mr. M. takes on him to prove his consequence by mine own principles, to wit, that I yield that such as are regenerate, sanctified, &c. may be baptized, which he saith is in plain English, that such as are covenanters ought not to be deny∣ed the initial seal of the covenant.

But I do not think the speeches the same, either in plain English, or Mr. Ms. own English, or mine. Not in plain English. In plain English a Cove∣nanter is one that makes a promise.

Is a Scottish Covenanter any other then one that makes a promise or sub∣scribes to the Covenant? But a person regenerate or sanctified may make no

promise, nor do I think when Mr. M. calls infants federate, or in the Covenant of grace, he means they make a promise, but that a promise is made to them. Nor in Mr. Ms. own English. For when he saith, they are in covenant, he means, infants are in some sense under the covenant of grace in respect of the outward administration and Church privileges, which is not all one as to be regenerate, sanctifyed, &c. nor in my English. For the being in covenant which I grant, gives a title to baptism, is meant of their present state, so as that not only the promise is made to them, what God will do for them after∣wards, but for the present they are actually sanctified, regenerate, believers, disciples, as mine own words, cited by Mr. M. shew; So that Mr. M. doth but abuse me, and the Reader, endeavouring to possesse him with this conceit, as if his consequence were proved by mine own principles.

But Master Marshall not trusting to this, answers, more particularly:

1. I grant with you that there is no necessary dependance between a promise and a seal, the addition of a seal to a promise is of free grace as well as the pro∣mise it self. Which if true, then theres no necessary connexion between the Co∣venant and Seal, and so this proposition is not true. All that have the promise are to be sealed. For if it be true it is in some degree of necessity, to wit, de om∣ni. As for his reason, it is frivolous; there is no necessary dependance, because both are of free grace. For those things that are of free grace have a necessary dependence as, to be predestinate, called, justified, glorifyed. But he means, the nature of the terms makes not a necessary connexion between them.

If that be his meaning, Mr. Baillee his Collegue is deserted, who would in∣fer a necessary connexion from the nature of the terms, which I have refuted in my Addition to my Apology, S.3.

But Mr. M. addes. Nor 2. did I ever think, that by Gods revealed will this proposition was true in all ages of the Church. All Covenanters must be sea∣led, I carried it no higher than Abrahams time, when God first added this new mercy to his Church, vouchsafing a seal to the Covenant.

Answ. If this be true, then there is nothing moral and perpetual in seals, as they call them, of the Covenant. For such thing are from the beginning, and belong to Gentiles as well as Jews, and therefore it is in vain to derive infants sealing barely from the Covenant of grace. For sith that, as Mr. Ms. first Con∣clusion speaks, for substance hath alwaies been one, and the same both to the Jews and Gentiles, if there were a connexion between it, and the seal it should have been as well before Abrahams time as since.

But he thinks in his third answer to make good the connexion, when he saith,

And 3. from Abrahams time, and so forward I say it was Gods will, that such as are in Covenant should be sealed with the initial seal of the Covenant, supposing them only capable of the seal, and no special bar put in against them by God himself.

To which I answer. He saith after, if you please to state the general Pro∣position as you needs must, That all who since Abrahams time are foederati, or Covenanters with God, must by Gods own appointment receive the seal of admission into covenant, unless they be either uncapable of it, or are exemp∣ted by a particular dispensation. So that one of these two propositions is that which makes up his Enthymeme an entire syllogism, and his syllogism must

stand in one or other of these forms.

From Abrahams time all such as are in covenant should be sealed with the initial seal of the covenant, supposing them onely capable of the seal, and no special bar put in against them by God himself.

But all the infants of believing parents are in covenant, and they are capa∣ble of the seal, and there is no special bar put in against them by God himself.

Ergo, They should be sealed.

Or thus; All who since Abrahams time are foederati, or Covenanters with God, must, by Gods own appointment receive the seal of admission into co∣venant, unless they be either uncapable of it, or are exempted by a particular dispensation. All infants of believers since Abrahams time, are foederati or co∣venanters with God, neither uncapable of the seal, nor exempted by a parti∣cular dispensation: Ergo, all infants of believers since Abrahams time, must, by Gods own appointment, receive the seal of admission into covenant.

To which I answer, Mr. M. tells me, I must needs state thus the general Proposition. But it is a pretty art he hath, as elsewhere to call that my Minor which was his own not mine; so here to say, I must needs state the general Proposition thus, which is of his own framing. However, he is not wronged, that it is thus framed. Let us then view it, and try whether (except in that of circumcision) there be any truth, sense or consideratenesse in it.

As for circumcision, if it be meant onely of it, then the Conclusion can be of it only, and as the truth is, his argument concludes only that infants of believers are to be circumcised.

1. I had in my Examen noted a fault in his Argument in his Sermon, in that his Conclusion was of a sign of the Covenant indefinite, and not of bap∣tism only, whereas the Lords Supper is also a sign of the Covenant, which he would not have delivered to infants.

And to it he answers, That he clearly in his Sermon shewed this Propositi∣on to be only meant of the initial sign, and not of the other. But this doth not excuse his fault, who taking upon him to prove infant-baptism, con∣cludes another thing in the argument, though he might perhaps, some pages of, where the Reader looks not for an explication of his argument, limit his speech to the initial seal.

And for what he tells me, he is sure that I who durst baptize an infant known to me to be regenerate, durst not give the other Sacrament to it, there being self examination and ability to discern the Lords body prerequired to the one, not to the other; I told him in my Apology s. 10. I durst do the one as I durst do the other, and that self examination and ability to discern the Lords body is as well required to baptism, as the Lords Supper, Acts 2.38. & 8.37. Rom. 6.3, 4. But were it, that I durst not do the one as the other, yet this would not help Mr. M. who would prove the title to the initial seal, by that proof of in∣terest in the Covenant, which will conclude as well title to the after, as the initial seal.

For the proof is usually the seal must follow the covenant; which if true, then not only the initial, but also the after-seal must follow it. But waving this, is the fault mended in his Defence? doth he conclude definitely of bap∣tism here? nay notwithstanding he was warned, yet chorda semper oberrat ea∣dem, he still runs into the same fault, concluding in both forms of an initial

seal indefinitely, not definitely of baptism, and therefore may be interpreted to conclude of circumcision as well as of baptism, yea rather his assertion (if there be any good sense of it) is of the circumcising then baptizing of infants, sith all his proof is about the initial sign of circumcision, and the limitations he puts into the Major are, that it may be true of circumcision.

But this is not all the fault in his new forms: notwithstanding I complain∣ed in my Examen sect. 3. of his ambiguities, which I shewed in my Apology s. 9, 10. and Postscript s. 6. yet as if either he could not, or would not, speak di∣stinctly, he retains the same fault in his Defence. Whereas I conceive the co∣venant of grace now contains only the promise of saving grace, he saith p 90. The Covenant of grace contains not onely saving grace, but the administra∣tion of it also in outward ordinances and Church privileges; but shews not where, nor in which covenant of grace there are promises of the administrati∣on of saving grace in outward ordinances and Church privileges. It is true, circumcision is called the Covenant, Gen. 17.13. by a Metonymia as Mr. M. confesseth page 32 but not because it was contained in the Covenant: it is not Metonymia continentis pro contento, but signati pro signo: now that the sign should be said to be contained in the covenant, is scarse good sense; sure it is not meet to be used in disputes. And therefore whoever useth the covenant of grace for any other than the covenant of saving grace, or saith it contains any other than promises of saving grace, seems to affect ambiguities unmeet for dispute, as not willing to be understood. Again page 92. he expresseth the covenant of grace he means to be that Gen. 17.7. and he cannot but know it to have diverse meanings; one that God will be a God to Abraham, and his spiritual seed, which he confesseth pag. 102. to be the elect, when he saith, Secondly by the word [seed] was meant the children of the promise the elect, Rom. 9.8. and in this sense it is denyed by him, that God hath made a promise of saving grace to the natural seed of believers, and so they are not in this co∣venant in this sense. Yet the Directory when it speaks of baptism, as the seal of the covenant, means it in this sense, as the words before recited shew, for what else can be meant when they distinguish between interest in the covenant, and right to the seal of it, and the ou••ward privileges of the Church under the Gospel. And Rom. 4.11. is alleged in the Confession of Faith, for the proof of this, that it is the seal of the Covenant of grace; now that text speaks of being a seal of the righteousness of faith, which is a saving grace, and in the Confession of faith, ch. 7. art. 3. and in the greater Catechism, they make the Covenant of grace to offer life and salvation by Christ, to promise faith, and to be made with Christ, and in him with all the elect, as his seed; and so the Argument from the Covenant of grace to the Seal, must mean it thus, or else it is frivolous. For if the Seal must follow the Covenant; it must follow the Covenant which is sealed by it, which is only the promise of saving grace, there being no shew of consequence in it, infants of believers have not the cove∣nant of saving grace, but of outward Ordinances and Church privileges, therefore they are to be sealed with that seal, which seals only saving graces. And yet methinks they should not have avouched as the Directory doth, that the posterity of the faithful have by their birth interest in that Covenant, con∣sidering how the Ap••stle determines Rom. 9.8. the children of the flesh may not be the children of God, nor the seed, nor children of the promise. Another

ense of the promise, Gen. 17.7. is, I will be a God to Abraham, and his na∣tural seed by Isaac and Jacob: But in this sense it is proper only to the Jewes, and the argument is as frivolous: God promised to be a God to the Jews, therefore infant-Gentiles who have nothing to do with that promise, must have baptism, which is no seal or token of that promise at all. If Mr. M. would have done something to his purpose, he should have shewed, not as he doth p. 106, 107, &c. in many words quite besides the business, how the Covenant is taken strictly and largely, and how they may be said to be in covenant in some sense, who have a visible right, without saving grace, but have shewed in which words there is any promise that may infer right to Gentile-believers in∣fants to be baptized, Gen. 17.7. or how he can prove what he saith, page 103. That baptism seals that promise in which God engageth himself to be the God of believing Christians, and their seed? I would fain know in what words, in respect of what blessings and gifts, and in what manner or upon what terms God thus engageth himself. The Apostle saith Gal. 3.16. To Abraham and his seed were the promises made. I no where find they were made to a Gentile believer and his seed.

The like playing with ambiguities is in the use of the phrases, foederate, in Covenant, being under the Covenant, being in Covenant▪ Covenanters. When he saith, Infants of believers are foederati or Covenanters with God, or enter into Covenant, according to the plain meaning of the word, they should be asserted to be such as make a promise to God. For what is a Covenanter but one that makes a promise? how do men enter into covenant, but by some act testifying assent to a promise? now in this sense I should grant his Major, and deny his Minor, which in this sense is against sense. For when did any hear or see, or otherwise perceive an infant of a believer make a promise to God, or by any act of his, shew his assent to own God for his God.

In the other form he saith, All such as are in the Covenant should be sealed, and that expression seems to have this sense, That God by his act of promise as his words are page 103. engageth himself to be the God of believing Chri∣stians, and their seed, which his words import, page 92. where having said, All such as are in the Covenant should be sealed, to prove it he allegeth, Gen. 17.7, 9, 10, 14. Where the very ground why God would have them sealed is because of the Covenant, I will establish my Covenant between me and thee, and thy seed after thee, &c.

So that the sense of his argument should be thus, All they who are in cove∣nant, that is, to whom God hath promised to be their God, they should be sea∣led, &c. But all infants of believing, even Gentile parents, are in Covenant, that is, God hath promised to be their God: Ergo.

Of which I would deny both Major and Minor the minor being expresly con∣trary to Ro. 9.8. though it were understood of true believers, and most certainly false of believers only in profession, to whom, especially th••se of the G••ntiles, God never promised to be God, much less to their natural seed; yet the minor must be true of them, or else this argument proves not they are to be baptized, which is their practise.

But seeing the Argument for infant-baptism will not hold in these senses of the promise, Gen. 17.7. (though the first sense be that which they give of that promise, when they dispute against Arminians, and apply it to the elect onely,

as the words of many shew, cited in my Examen part. 3. S. 4. in my Praecursor S. 10. Mr. M. himself so expounds it with Mr. Bayn pag. 102. of his Defence) therefore Mr. M. hath another sense to which he flies. He talks of an outward and an inward Covenant, page 120. and page 112. he tells us, That he means all the infants of believers are in the outward Covenant, that is, they are to be reputed as in the Covenant, in respect of the outward administration, out∣ward Ordinances and Church-privileges, which when it comes to application is meant of no other than baptism now, and circumcision heretofore, and therefore as I shew in my Apology S. 10. the Major proposition is meerly nuga∣tory in this sense; All that are in the Covenant, that is, that are to have the initial seal should be sealed with the initial seal, which were true, but ridicu∣lous. And in truth I may (how ever it be censured) apply to the discourse in this argument, be it Mr. Ms. or the Assemblies, the Poets words, Parturiunt montes, nasc••tur ridiculus mus.

And yet there is more shuffling in this thing. Mr. M. to make some shew of answering my instances of women and males under eight daies old, not being circumcised, though in covenant, limits his Major in the first form thus [sup∣posing them onely capable of the seal, and no special bar put in against them] in the other form thus [unless they be either uncapable of it, or are exempted by particular dispensation] By the Bar, he means Gods prohibition, as these words, page 93. shew, God forbad them to have the seal till they were eight daies old. But a prohibition and a dispensation are not all one: a Prohibition is of a thing, that may not be done; a dispensation supposeth the thing is to be done, yet frees the person from doing it in some cases for some time. But let∣ting pass this exception against the expressions, I would know how God put a bar, or forbad infants under eight daies old to be circumcised. I know no other but this, that God appointed the eighth day for them to be circumcised. Now if this be a forbidding to circumcise before (as I acknowledge it is, and so do many Protestant Divines, as Parcus Comment. in Gen. 17.11. Errant masculi in foe∣dere abjutero, &c. anticipare vero signum nec licebat, nec opus erat) then that is forbidden, which is otherwise than God appointed: and sith our Lord Christ hath not appointed any to be baptized till they be disciples, he hath prohibited a∣ny to be baptized till they be disciples, and so, what ever the London Ministers say in their words above recited, there is just ground even a prohibition, against baptizing infants. And so the Minor of Mr. Ms. argument is not true. Upon all this debate I profess I find so much inconsiderateness, or confusedness, or non-sense, or untruth, or trifling, if not juggling in Mr. Ms. arguing, that I must vary my answer, as I find his meaning sometimes denying the Syllogism as be∣ing tautological, and not having three terms, or which is all one, any medium to prove his Conclusion by, but only repeating the Conclusion in different phrases, and those some of them new minted gibberish or non-sense, sometimes the Major, sometimes the Minor, sometimes both. However, sith it is my task, I shall view what he saith.

Page 92. he saith thus, Which is apparent in the very first institution of an initial seal Gen. 17.7, 9, 10, 14. Where the very ground why God would have them sealed is because of the Covenant, I will establish my Covenant between me and thee, and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everla∣sting Covenant to be a God unto thee, and thy seed after thee: thou shalt keep

my Covenant therefore: and this is my Covenant which ye shall keep; every man-child among you shall be circumcised, and afterward in the fourteenth, the seal is by a metonymia called the Covenant, for that it is apparent, not on∣ly that God commanded them who were in covenant to be circumcised, but that they should therefore be circumcised because of the Covenant, or in token of the Covenant between God and them; and he that rejected or neg∣lected the seal, is said not only to break Gods commandment, but his Cove∣nant. So that because the initial seal was added to the Covenant, and such as received it received it as an evidence of the Covenant, or because they were in Covenant▪ I therefore concluded, that by Gods own will, such as enter into Covenant ought to receive the seal, supposing still they were capable of it. So that to lay circumcision upon Gods command, and the Covenant of grace too, are well consistent together; for the command is the cause of the existence of the duty, but the Covenant of grace is the motive to it.

Answ. Here is all Mr. Ms. strength to prove his Major, that it was Gods will that such as are in Covenant from Abrahams time, and so forward, should be sealed with the initial seal of the Covenant, which he after alters thus. Such as enter into Covenant ought to receive the seal. But there is nothing but con∣fusedness and impertinency in all this passage.

1. He tells us, There is the institution of an initial seal Gen. 17.7, 9, 10, 14. which he must understand of an initial seal in general or indefinite, or else it reacheth not to baptism, and so it is impertinently alleged. But it is palpably false that there is in those words any other initial seal instituted then circumcision, and I dare boldly say, it is a meer dotage to maintain that in those words there is any rule about baptism or any other ordinance of God then circumcision. The very words are, thou shalt keep my Covenant, and this co∣venant is demonstrated to be male-circumcision and no other, of which the time and part are precisely set down.

2. He should prove that all that were in covenant had title to the initial seal or right; but his Conclusion is of their duty, not of their title. Now it can∣not be said to be infants duty; the command was not given to them, nor doth Mr. M. I think, assert it as their duty, but as their privilege; and yet all that the text inferreth, or Mr. M. concludes from it, concerns the connexion between the duty of circumcising, which belongs not to infants, and the covenant, not between the Privilege of circumcision passively taken, which belongs to infants and the Covenant, which is another impertinency.

3. Be it granted that the proposition to be proved is of duty in parents or Ministers, yet he is necessitated to grant the command was the cause of the existence of the duty, and more plainly page 182. The formal reason of their being circumcised, was the command of God: which if true, there's no duty without the command, whatever interest there might be in the Covenant: and therefore the proposition is true, all that enter into Covenant ought to receive the seal if it be commanded, not otherwise: and so neither infant-circumcision nor infant-baptism can be proved from the bare interest in the covenant, with∣out a particular command for each of them.

4. He saith, the Covenant of grace was the motive, page 182. the Cove∣nant of grace, or their Church-state was the motive to it, and the thing it rela∣ted to. But he tells us not to whom it was a motive. A motive is an impulsive

cause, whereby a person is perswaded or induced to do a thing. But it was not the motive to infants, for they conceived not of it. His words [the very ground why God would have them sealed, is because of the Covenant] do in∣timate, that he means the covenant was the motive to God to give the com∣mand. But what it makes to his purpose I do not conceive. For though that were the motive to God, yet Gods motive is not the rule of the duty, but his command to us; nor the evidence of our privilege, but his declaration of his Will. But be it a motive to Abraham, yet it was but a motive for the more full engagement of him to that which without that motive he had been to do by reason of the Command, nor any further evidence of privilege then was im∣ported by other Declaration of Gods will.

5. Though Circumcision did relate to the Covenant, and it was received as an evidence of the Covenant, yet this proves not that it was received by each person, because he was in covenant, nor that the being in Covenant was the rule of the using that rite, that they which were in Covenant should have it, and they that were not in Covenant, should not have it, which is the thing to be proved, but is certainly false, as I have by many instances shewed.

6. If all this were granted, yet that this rule did reach further then the use of circumcision is not proved here: and what is brought elsewhere shall be shew∣ed in it's place to be much short of proving any such general rule about an ini∣tial seal, as is here by Mr. M. averred. But let us see what his proof amounts to about circumcision.

1. He urgeth, That circumcision is called a token of the Covenant; But this proves no more then this, that the use of Circumcision was to be a sign God made such a Covenant, and would fulfill it: not that every one that was in Covenant was to be circumcised, or that every one that was to be circum∣cised was in covenant.

2. That it is termed the Covenant. But this proves no more than the for∣mer, sith it is acknowledged to be so called only by a metonymia, of putting the thing signifyed for the sign.

3. The particle [therfore] is thus urged: God not only commanded them who were in covenant, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 b•• circumcised, but that they should [therfore] be circum∣cised because of the covenant, or in token of the Covenant between God & them;

But 1. The particle [therfore] though it be in our last translation, yet in the Hebrew it is only 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and may be rendered, And thou, or, But thou, as by the Tig••••: it is & 〈◊〉〈◊〉, by Parcus, tu autem, Piscator, tu verò.

2. Let it be read [therefore] and the inference be from the Covenant; yet that the inference is from the promise in the seventh verse onely, and not from the eighth verse, which is next, or the rest of the promises, v. 4, 5, 6, cannot be shewed.

3. Let these things be granted: yet that it imports this rule to be taken from the Covenant, those who are in Covenant are to be circumcised, not others, hath no colour of proof, nor any shew of truth in it, sith it is clear in the case of Ishmael to whom that promise di•• not belong nor any in that covenant, yet he was to be circumcised, and others were not to be circumcised, to whom the promises were made.

4. He urgeth thus: And he that rejected or neglected the seal is said not on∣ly to break Gods commandment, but his Covenant: so that because the initi∣al

seal was added to the Covenant, and such as received it, received it as an evi∣dence of the Covenant, or because they were in covenant. To which I reply.

Two waies a man may be said to break Gods covenant: one by breaking the command, which was in reference to the Covenant, or enjoyned in testimony of it; and if this be his sense, then Mr. Ms. speech is trifling, when he saith, he that rejected or neglected the seal, is said not only to break Gods command∣ment, but his Covenant, sit being all one to break the command and the cove∣nant. The other sense is; he hath broken my covenant, that is, as Piscat. sch. on Gen. 17.14 as much as is in him, by depriving himself of the grace of God, promised in the Covenant. For otherwise the incredulity of man doth not make void the faith of God, Rom. 3.3. But take it either way, it proves not that which was to be proved, that the rule about circumcising persons was their interest in the Covenant. All that follows on this is, that the observance of circumcision was strictly enjoined under this penalty, that otherwise they should be cut off from Gods people, and so deprived of the benefit of the Co∣venant signified; but this doth not prove that every one circumcised was in the Covenant, and should have the benefit of the Covenant. So that though it be granted which Mr. M. saies, That to lay Circumcision upon Gods com∣mand, and the Covenant of grace too, are well consistent together; Yet his Major is not proved, That it was Gods Will that such as are in Covenant from Abrahams time, and so forward, should be sealed with the initial seal of the Covenant, supposing them only capable of the seal, and no special bar put in against them by God himself. Nor is Mr. M. more happy in answering my exceptions.

Whereas you allege, saith he, concerning Melchisedec, Lot, Job; we find no such thing, that they either received this seal of Circumcision or were ty∣ed to it. I reply, its very hard for you to prove that Melchisedeck was then alive: and had he been alive, he was of an higher Order, and above that Pae∣dagogy.

Answ. I grant it cannot be demonstratively proved, that he was alive: yet it being probable he was, who not many years before met Abraham, though he were in Covenant, yet being not appointed to be circumcised, it overthrows the proposition by which Mr. Ms. Enthymeme was to be proved, That all that are foederati, must be signati. Yea Mr. Ms. answer here, That he was above that Paedagogy, doth plainly intimate that circumcision was peculiar to that Paedagogy, and so the rule about circumcision not obligatory to Christian Gen∣tiles, to whom that Paedagogy is abolished, and who have a Priest of an high∣er Order, to wit, that of Melchisedec. As for Lot, he denies not that he then lived, but saith, That no Scripture saith he was not circumcised, which he saith of Job also, whose time is uncertain, by reason of th•• Scripture-silence, though probably he was of Esaus posterity. But in matters of fact, à non Scri∣pto ad non factum non valet consequentia.

Nevertheless for Lot, it seems to me very unlikely he should be circumcised living then in Sodom, not in Abrahams house, and no mention made of him, when Abraham circumcised his own house, and Lots posterity being after un∣circumcised Jerem. 9.26. And for Job, what time soever he lived, it is likely he was an Edomite; who are reckoned for uncircumcised Ier. 9.26. and there are no passages that give any intimation of his acquaintance with Israel. But

if these serve not the turn, the example of Cornelius undeniably uncircumcised, and not blamed for want of it, though undoubtedly in the Covenant of grace, being one that feared God with all his house, and his prayers and alms heard, therefore he was not to be circumcised though in the Covenant of grace, nor all that enter into Covenant ought to be sealed with the initial seal, though ca∣pable, and no bar put in against them by God.

I instanced in male infants of Jews under eight daies old, who were not to be circumcised, though in Covenant. Mr. M. answers, To that of infants there was a peculiar exemption of them by God himself; whether for any typi∣cal reason, or in regard they were not fit in nature to undergo so sharp a pain, as was to be endured in Circumcision before the seventh and Critical day was past, or whether for any other cause, I dispute not; it is sufficient, God for∣bad them to have the seal till they were eight daies old.

Answ. This is a grant of the objection, and overthrows the proposition of Mr. M. in his Sermon; All that are in Covenant are to be sealed. And the for∣bidding, being onely by not appointing it, the proposition can be t••ue onely in this sense; All those in Covenant are to be circumcised, to whom it is appoin∣ted, and no other; But infants are in Covenant, and to them it is appointed to be sealed with the initial seal in the New Testament: Ergo.

Wherein I should grant the Major, and deny the Minor, and infer that without appointment interest in the Covenant did not make capable, no not of Circumcision, though it's likely infants might have born it in the end of the seventh day as well as on the eighth.

I alleged that no females in Abrahams family, though in Covenant, were to be circumcised. To this Mr. M. answers. For the women, they were not Sub∣jectum capax circumcisionis, there was in them a natural impediment against it, therefore could it not be enjoined them: and suppose some men amongst them, or some who turned proselytes to them, had not had a praep••tium (as some sort of Eunuchs) this Ordinance had not reached them; whether the wisdom of God purposely chose a sign that women might not be capable of receiving it, for some typical use, as some conjecture, it is sufficient they were not capable of it, and were exempted from it by God himself.

Answ. If it be true, which many Authors relate, that the Habassines, and Iacobites do at this day, circumcise females; then it is not true, they were un∣capable of it by reason of natural impediment. But if it be true which Mr. M. saith, yet Gods chosing a sign of which they were not capable, and that for a typical use, when he might have chosen one as baptism, of which both s••xes were capable, it is an evidence, That it was not the Will of God since Abra∣hams time, and so forward, that all in Covenant should be sealed with the in∣itial seal, which was Mr. Ms. proposition. Nor do his two limitations added in his Defence help him. For if incapacity and non-appointment be a suffici∣ent exemption from the initial seal, yea a prohibition of it, then his proposition is but what I contend for, that those in covenant to whom God appoints it and no other, are to have the initial seal; which is as much as I would evince, that it is not bare interest in the Covenant without institution or appointment that gives right to a person to claim either circumcision or baptism, nor war∣rants a baptizer to admit a person to baptism. And therefore though it were yielded that all infants of believers were in covenant, yet they have not right

to either initial seal without a command, or institution concerning each rite.

As for Mr. Ms. general proposition as he states it, as it advantageth it him not for the reason last given, so it may be granted, if he mean by exemption or particular dispensation the non-appointment of it. For then I am sure infants of believers are exempted from baptism till they be proved disciples of Christ, or believers by profession; which if it could be proved, we need not fetch it from circumcision and the Covenant. From which they that deduce infant-baptism, do but in vain weary themselves and others, as they that seek to draw water out of a pumice stone.

But there is some more in Mr. M. about womens circumcision, which I must not omit. Mr. M. in his Sermon had answered, that women were circumcised virtually in the M••les. To which I answered, that a virtual circumcision was not enough to make good his argument: For then his Syllogism must have four terms, thus. They that are in Covenant must be sealed actually in their now persons, or virtually in others. But infants of believers are in the Cove∣nant, therefore they are to be sealed. If the Conclusion be meant of actual sealing in their own persons then there are four terms, and more in the Con∣clusion then in the premisses. But if it be meant disjunctively, they are to be sealed actually or virtually: then it is less than is to be proved, his business be∣ing to prove that they were to be sealed actually. For a virtual sealing is less than Mr. M. would have, and might be granted without any detriment to the cause of Anti-paedobaptism. To this Mr M. makes no answer at all, but char∣geth me with a scoff where there was none, tells me it is like refuting Bellarmine with, Thou liest: whereas I did shew wherein his answer was insufficient, and that by putting his Syllogism into form, according to his own meaning, and then shewing how it would not conclude what he should prove. And to this in his Defence he makes no answer, but tells us, what his plain meaning was, which is nothing to the present point: he should have shewed how, with that exposition or limitation his argument would prove actual sealing of infants in their own persons. But to slight a reason and speak nothing to it, is not to an∣swer, but to shift.

But I also said, to speak exactly, women were not circumcised virtually in the Males: For that supposeth they might receive it in their own persons, wher∣as it had been a sin in them to be circumcised, God not appointing it: which is confirmed by the like, it would be sin for the male to be circumcised afore the eighth day, sith it was not appointed: which may now be confirmed by Mr. Ms. words, that God forbad them to have the seal till they were eight daies old.

To this saith Mr. M. But first give me leave to observe by the way how you pinch me with a point of Law, that no man can be said virtually to have that by his Proxy or Atturney, which he might not actually receive himself in his own person. I question whether this be good Law; but I am confident it is bad Divinity; sure we sinned virtually in Adam, yet we could not actually, though the sin of Adam be ours by imputation. The Sun is virtually hot, yet Philosophers say, it's not actually. And the Jews of old offered to God such things by the hands of the Priests, who were their Proxies in that work, which they might not offer in their own persons, yea and received such things by the

hand of the High Priest (who bare their names in the most holy place) which they might not receive in their own persons immediately: and the Saints now in this world do virtually and quoad effectum juris, receive some such privileges in Christ their Advocate, who in their right is at Gods right hand, which here they are not capable of receiving immediatrly in their own persons.

Answ. My words were not as Mr. M. recited them, but thus. He is said virtually to have a thing by another, as by a Proxy or Atturney, that might receive it by himself; yet quoad effectum juris, according to the effect of Law another's receiving it is, as if he had received it. In which I understand by [ha∣ving a thing] that having a thing which is by possession of it, as a benefit, privilege, commodity, and by [might receive it] without any prohibition in Law, and that he receives it not in his own person, is onely from some tempo∣rary impediment, as minority, absence or the like. And this according to that skill I have in such terms, I conceive still to be the meaning of them. Nor do Mr. Ms. instances take me any whit off from it, being without fear of being chargeable with bad Law or Divinity. For our sinning in Adam is not recei∣ving something as a benefit: the Suns heat is natural, not by vertue of any Political Law, it is not having as a proxy or atturney for another; the High Priests offering for the people was an action in their stead, not receiving a be∣nefit for them, and what they received for the people which they might not re∣ceive in their own persons immediately was not by reason of any prohibition, but from some other cause, nor were they in imparting it, the peoples Proxies or Atturneys, but Gods: were it an answer from God or any other thing they received for them, if God had immediately communicated it to them, it had not been their sin. And the like may be said of what Christ receives for us as our Advocate. But the circumcising of women had been a sin forbidden, ac∣cording to Mr. Marshalls and others doctrine before recited, they were prohi∣bited to be circumcised, it being limitted to the males on the 8. day. Mr. M. addes.

I also obiter desire you to remember this expression of yours, that it had been a sin for a child to have been circumcised after the eight day was past, and try how you will reconcile this with another opinion of yours delivered elsewhere; viz. That Circumcision might be administred oftner then once; surely those other times must be after the 8. day.

Answ. Where I deliver this, that Circumcision might be administred oftner than once, I remember not, except in my Examen, page 118. However I con∣ceive no necessity of Circumcision or baptism above once, yet I profess my self unsatisfyed in this, that there is either a command that a person be but once circumcised, or a person once onely baptized. And my reason of the speech is from hence. 1 Cor. 7.18. the Apostle saith, Is one called circumcised, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Let him not be drawn up, that is, let him not draw up his fore∣skin: we translate it, Let him not become uncircumcised. Whence it may be perceived, that some Jews had an art to draw up their fore-skin. Now in such a case, while the Law stood in force, I conceive he was bound to be circumcised again, because it was to abide in his flesh, Gen. 17.13. Nor do my words at all contradict this, when I say more fully then Mr. M. recites them; It had been a sin for a child to be circumcised afore, or after the eigth day in them that al∣tered or swerved from the appointment of God: where I make the sin not to be

the doing of it, on the eighth day, and then doing it again (though I deny not but unnecessarily to do it after the eight day had been sin, that day being de∣termined for it) but not doing it that day which God appointed by those that altered or swerved from that appointment unnecessarily: which in the case men∣tioned, and any other of the like, might be done after the eighth day. But M. M. will confirm his proofs, that the women were circumcised in the men.

My first, saith he to me, was, that the whole house of Israel are in the Scri∣pture said to be circumcised. You answer, that by the whole house of Israel must not be meant all, but the Major part. But Sir do you imagine that any of your judicious Readers can be satisfyed with this answer, when (you know well enough) that the Circumcision is put for the Church and people of God in opposition to the uncircumcised, that is, all the rest of the World who were not the people of God.

When Peter was to go to the circumcision, and Paul to the Gentiles to preach the Gospel; does not circumcision include the women Jews as much as the men, in opposition to Gentiles, as well as the word Gentiles includes women Gentiles as well as the men, to whom Paul was sent? Gal. 2.8, 9. Surely it must needs be granted, that not only the Major or nobler part, but the whole nation of the Jews both men and women, are there meant by circumcision, which could not have been, if in some sense they were not to be accounted circumcised.

Answ. My Answer might satisfie any judicious Reader, specially if the texts had been fairly set down by Mr. M. wherein I shew all Israel, and all the house of Israel must be understood Synecdochically, 1 Sam. 7.3. Acts 2.36. Acts 13.24. And if in the term [circumcision] be not a Synecdoche of the whole for the part; not onely every individual in Israel must be in some sense accounted circumcised, but be actually circumcised also in their own persons. Nor against such a Synecdoche doth it make, that circumcision stands in op∣position to the uncircumcised, which is meant of every individual. For neither is it true, when the uncircumcised are mentioned, it is meant of every individu∣al, there being many of those nations that were circumcised; and if it were true, yet the opposition doth not prove every individual Jew circumcised, any more then when they are called the holy Nation in opposition to the Gentiles: as when it was said, Israel was holiness to the Lord, Jerem. 2.3. every Israel∣ite or Jew must be counted holy in some sense: but the terms are attributed Synecdochically. And for the other instance, I grant circumcision must include Gal. 2.8. women as well as men, because Peter was to go to them: but this proves not that women were in some sense accounted circumcised in the males, but that they are part of the nation which were called the Circumcision Sy∣necdochically, because of the males. And for the term Gentiles, there must be in like manner a Synecdoche conceived of the whole for a part, else he should be sent to preach to infant males as well as women of years.

Secondly, saith Mr. M. I argued thus, no uncircumcised might eat the Pas∣soever; Ergo their women might not have eaten it, if in some sense they had not been circumcised. Your answer is, This is to be limitted pro subjecta ma∣••eria, none that ought to be circumcised might eat the Passeover, unless they were circumcised. But this answer is altogether insufficient. For where is this distinction of yours found or founded in the word of God? other Distinctions about eating the Passeover are cleerly found: the clean might eat it, the unclean

might not eat it, the circumcised might, the uncircumcised might not: But of your limitation there is altum silentium.

Answ. Mr. Ms. conclusion is, That in some sense women were circumcised, and before in some sense they were counted circumcised, neither of which is the same with this [they were circumcised virtually in the males, or the males were circumcised in their stead as their Proxy or Atturney.]

2. My answer was right, and to his Demand, where it is found in the word of God? I answer by another demand, where is his limitation found in Gods word, that women might eat the Passeover, because they were in some sense ac∣counted circumcised? Sure the words are, Exod. 12.48. No uncircumcised person shall eat thereof, not as Mr. M. none but those that are counted in some sense circumcised may eat thereof: If there be in Scripture that which doth necessitate to a limitation of that speech, my limitation is as well in Scripture as his is: yea my limitation is plain and easie, whereas his limitation is liable to this objection, that when Gods Law requires persons to be circumcised that they might eat the Passeover, if Mr, Ms. limitation or explication be good, it should require no more but this, that persons in some sense should be accounted circumcised. For so Mr. M. understands the Law, and then, though the males were not actually circumcised, but virtually, in some sense, so accounted they might eat it, without breach of the Law, which absurdity doth not follow on my limitation, but follows inevitably on Mr. Ms.

2. Saith Mr. M. I demand further, where is there any command or institu∣tion for women to eat the Passeover (more than for women now to eat the Lords Supper) unless it be founded upon circumcision? yet in practice we know they did eat it? and if they eat it not as circumcised persons, tell me by what right they did it.

Answ. I have proved Examen part. 3. S. 12. pag. 112. Postscript to my Apology S. 11. that 1 Cor. 11.28. & 10.17. and 12.13. Acts 20.7. are express precept and example for womens receiving the Lords Supper. And for eating the Pase∣over, there is an expresse precept, That all the Congregation of Israel shall keep it, Exod 12.47. in which women were meant, and they were to eat according to the number of the Souls v. 4. and no leaven was to be in their habitation, v. 20. therfore either women must eat the Passeover, or else they must not eat bread: so that we need not go to circumcision for womens eating the Passeover. Yea, if we use no other way than that of Mr. M. it will not be proved that women ought to eat it. For Exodus 12.48. no mention is made of any circumcised who are to eat it, but males; and though it be said, no uncircumcised might eat, yet it is not said, all circumcised must eat, much less they that are only in some sense counted circumcised. But Mr. M. seeks to make his advantage of this point thus.

If you say they were included in the Houshold Exod. 12.3, 4. every houshold was to eat the Paschal Lamb, and there was no exception of women; I reply, first grant but the same consequence, that when we read so frequently in the New T. that whole housholds were baptized, and no exception of children, that therefore all the children in those housholds were baptized, and this Con∣troversy is quickly ended.

Answ. If it were granted that we had no other way to prove women were to eat the Paschal Lamb (which yet we need not, as I have shewed) but from

Exod. 12.3, 4. in that every houshold was to eat the Lamb, and there was no exception of Women, yet the consequence were not good; whole housholds were baptized, therefore infants, because not expresly excepted. For as Exod. 12.3, 4 infants are excepted from being required to eat the Lamb, though not in express words, yet because the thing to be done was not such as could agree to infants of a few daies old, suppose eight or nine. So where Act. 16.15, 33. and 18.8. 1 Cor. 1.16. the houshold is said to be baptized, besides this, that no infants are expressed, in the same chapter or elsewhere, the speech is plainly in∣terpreted to be meant of those that heard the word, and believed, as Acts the eleventh chapter, and fourteenth verse, and ch. 16. v. 32, 34. and 18.8. 1 Cor. 16.15. as if the holy Ghost had of purpose prevented this misconstruction and frivolous consequence of Paedobaptists.

But saith Mr. M. I add further, it is not said the whole houshold shall eat it, for all uncircumcised persons were forbidden to eat it, and none but circumcised persons had warrant to eat it.

Answ. It is said, Exod. 12.4. they shall eat the Lamb according to the number of Souls, i. e. hominum Pisc. Schol. in locum, every man according to his eating, which is a plain precept for women to eat who could eat.

Yea further, saith Mr. M. suppose some words in the institution should reach the Jewish women, yet how doth it reach the women Gentiles who should prove Proselytes to them? For Exodus chapter 12. verse 48, 49. there is order taken for the male stranger, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it, but there is not any word that takes order for the stran∣gers females.

Answer. It is said verse fourty seven, That all the Congregation of Israel shall keep it, and the Proselytes of Righteousnesse, women as well as men were of that Congregation, and verse fourty nine, it is said, One Law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you: if then the Law appointed the Israelitish women to eat, the same law appointed the Proselyte Women to eat. So that notwithstanding Mr. Ms. vain hope, my exception against the consequence of his Argument, They are foederati; Therefore they are to be signati, stand good and it is not yet proved, that bare interest in the Covenant Genesis 17. or the Covenant of grace did inti∣tle to Circumcision, much less to baptism, which were enough to overthrow his first argument.

But sith it is my task, I will now go on to the rest of his Dispute, ta∣king in by the way Master Blakes third section of the 42. chapter of his Vin∣dic. foederis.