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. XX. The exceptions which in the first part of my Review, sect. 5. are made against the proof of connexion between the covenant and initial seal, are confirmed a∣gainst Mr. Blake, vindic. foed. 42. ch. sect. 3. (Book 20)

Mr. Bl. proceeds to vindicate the proofs for the reality of connexion between the Covenant and initial seal from Gen. 17. and Acts 2.38, 39. from my An∣swers.

And to my answer that the particle rendered [therefore Gen. 17.9.] may be rendered [and, or, but thou] he saith, 1. we have no reason but that it may be an illative as well as a copulative; and being an illative particle, he hath no exception against the strength of it.

Whereto I reply: There need be no reason given, why it should be read [and or but] and not [therefore] but this, that either of those are the usual accep∣tions of the particle, that [and] is the most frequent use of it, that it may well be so in that place, and that learned interpreters do so render it. Which being not denyed, there is no strength in that proof which is made barely from the term [therefore Gen. 17.9.] to infer that to them belongeth the initial seal, whether of the Jewish or the Christian Church, who have interest or title to the Covenant of grace. For he that will prove from it, must assert that it must be ren∣dered [therefore] for a certain conclusion cannot be inferred from an uncertain medium.

Whereas Mr: Bl. only asserts, it may be an illative as well as a copulative particle, and not that it must be, he intimates a grant of what I answer, that it may be a copulative as well as an illative particle,

What he adds, that it being an illative particle, I have no exception against the strength of it, is manifestly untrue, sith I added three more exceptions a∣gainst the proof of that proposition from thence.

But Master Blake proves the same from verse 10. taking in Acts 7.8. and would have me at more leisure find 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.

To which I answer, First, if the Conclusion be good, then circumcision and the Covenant ought not to be separated; but the covenant according to Master Marshall, Master Blake, &c. remains the same; therfore according to Master Blake circumcision ought to remain still to our children, they being in covenant.

Secondly, If the Conclusion were good, then the females and males afore the eight day being in covenant must be circumcised:

Thirdly, The conclusion is neither of those propositions, which were to be proved, to wit, 1. That the reason why Abrahams infants were to be cir∣cumcised, was their interest in the Covenant▪ For though it were granted that circumcision and the covenant ought not to be separated, yet it proves not the reason of this conjunction to be from interest in the covenant, sith it may be,

yea, is indeed to be deduced from the command.

2. To them belongeth the initial seal, whether of the Jewish or Christ∣ian Church, who have interest or title to the Covenant of grace. For the Con∣clusion of Mr. Bl. doth not say any thing at all concerning the initial seal of the Christian Church, but only of circumcision.

Fourthly, To his Syllogism I answer, 1. That God calls circumcision the Covenant only by a metonymia of the thing signified for the sign.

2. That [ought not to be separated from it] may be understood of every person that hath interest in the covenant, or of every person to whom it is commanded, and when it is not dispensed with: in the former sense I deny the major, it is not true, that what God himself calls by the name of a covenant ought not to be separated from it, or that Gods calling any sign the Covenant, proves that all in covenant are to have that sign on them. For neither was it true of circumcision, sith neither were males afore the eight day or females in covenant, nor any in the wilderness to be circumcised, God either not com∣manding it, or dispensing with the observation of it; nor is it true of any o∣ther sign called the Covenant (if there be any) without Gods command undi∣spensed with.

Mr. Blake saith further, 2. Let him consider the relation in which the A∣postle puts this Sacrament of circumcision to the covenant Rom. 4.11. an in∣stituted appointed sign and seal is not to be divided from that which it signifies, and seal is not to be divided from that which it signifies and seals; circumcisi∣on was an instituted appointed sign and seal of the covenant; therefore it is not to be divided from it.

Answ. 1. Neither doth the Apostle, Rom. 4.11. make circumcision the sign and seal of the Covenant mentioned Gen. 17. nor of any covenant to be kept for the time to come, but of a benefit Abraham had before obtained Gen. 15.6. to wit, righteousness by faith, being yet uncircumcised, nor is any ones cir∣cumcision besides Abrahams, on his own person, called, the seal of the righte∣ousness of faith.

2. The Conclusion is, neither of the Propositions to be proved, that the reason why Abrahams infants were to be circumcised, was their interest in the covenant, that to them belongeth the initial seal, whether of the Jewish, or the Christian Church, who have interest or title to the Covenant of grace.

3. The Major proposition is true in this sense, an instituted appointed sign and seal, is not to be divided in our conceit of it, from that object or thing which it signifies or seals. But in this sense the Conclusion would be true only of an intellectual division from the object, which is nothing to the purpose. That sense in which it would be to his purpose is this, An instituted appoint∣ed sign and seal, is not to be divided, that is, not to be withheld or denied to any person or subject, who hath by promise or possession interest in the thing signifyed and sealed by that sign. But in this sense it is false, for circumcision was not to be to any female, to whom yet the promise of Canaan signified by it, belonged; Nor indeed doth any such sign belong to any person meerly from interest in the thing signified, but from the command and will of the Ap∣pointer.

I said if [therefore Gen. 17.9.] were allowed to be the best reading, yet that the inference, v. 9. should be made from the promise only, v. 7. and not as well,

if not rather from the promise, verse 8. I find no sufficient reason given.

To this Master Blake replies, This reference engageth me, 1. in a contra∣diction to my self, Exercit. page 3. the promise of the Gospel was confirmed to Abraham by the sign of Circumcision, and that the covenant made with A∣braham Gen. 17. was a mixt covenant. 2. In a contradiction to the Apostle, who makes circumcision a sign and seal, not alone of the land of Canaan, but of the righteousness of faith.

Answ. Either I have lost all my skill in Logick, or else there is not the least colour of this charge, but Mr. Blake writes as one that scribles any thing that comes first into his fancy. A contradiction is of two propositions opposite in quantity and quality, the one universal, the other particular; the one affir∣mative, the other negative, my propositions are. If it were granted that [ther∣fore Gen. 17.9.] is the best reading; yet that the inference verse 9. should be made from the promise onely, verse 7. and not as well, if not rather from the promise verse 8. I find no sufficient reason given; the promise of the Gospel was confirmed to Abraham by the sign of Circumcision, the Covenant Gen. 17. was a mixt covenant made up of spiritual and temporal mercies: The Apostle Rom. 4.11. saith Abraham received the sign of Circumcision a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised. If Master Blake shew in these propositions I will not say contradiction onely the greatest of oppositions, but any contrariety at all, let me be taken for a heedless Scrib∣ler; if not, let Master Blake bear the blame.

His other words [all that know the nature of Covenants, and use of seals know that the seal ratifies all that the Covenant contains. But the Covenant (Master Tombs being judge) contained not barely the promise of the land of Canaan, and therefore the reference must carry it further than the Land of Ca∣naan] what are they but a grant of my exception, that the reference Gen. 17.9. must be not onely to the promise verse 7. as if infants were circumcised meerly because of the promise, I will be a God to thee, and to thy seed, but also to the promise verse 8. and that they were circumcised also because of that promise of the Land of Canaan, which belongs not to us, and therefore the reason of circumcision of infants from the Covenant Gen. 17. can be no rule to us to whom some of those promises belong not. If the seal ratifies all that the covenant contains, then it ratifies the promise of the Land of Canaan, and in respect of that it was to Abrahams infants, which not belonging to our in∣fants the reason of circumcising infants, if it be taken from the covenant, it will not pertain to our infants to whom that promise belongs not.

I said, 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-child is Abrahams seed, afore it be proved the promise belongs to them.

To this Master Blake saith, It must either be proved that they are Abrahams children, or ••ave the privilege of the children of Abraham, which from Gene∣sis 9.27. Rom. 11.17. is sufficiently proved, especially being confirmed by those texts that carry the covenant in Gospel times to the issue.

Answ. What privilege of the children of Abraham he should mean, except the promise, I will be a God to them, which should belong to every believers infant child, I understand not. The privilege of circumcision, or visible

Church-membership in the Christian Church is neither inferred from the pro∣mise Gen. 17.7. nor from Genesis 9.27. Rom. 11.17. nor is there one text that carries the Covenant in Gospel times, I mean that covenant of which Christ is Mediator, mentioned Heb. 8.10. Heb. 10.16. (besides which I know no covenant in Gospel times) to the issue, that is, all the natural infant-issue of every believer, and that neither those texts mentioned, nor any other produ∣ced by Mr. Bl. Mr. M. Mr. Cobbet, or any other prove it, will be shewed in that which follows. For present my speech is right, the promise is not, I will be a God to thee, and to thy seed, and to him that hath the privilege of thy chil∣dren. This is Master Blakes addition to the Text. And therefore no man can prove the promise belongs to the infant-child of a believer, till he be proved to be Abrahams seed: Whatsoever privilege of Abrahams children, any child may have, yet from that promise none can claim privilege, but Abraham and his seed, sith the promise is made to no other, and therefore no child of ours can claim an interest in that promise till he be Abrahams seed, which Master Blakes shift doth no whit avoid.

To my exception, that the Covenant was not made to every child of Abra∣ham, he saith, Though it were true, yet it would nor serve my purpose, provi∣ded, that we in Gospel times are under the same covenant as was Isaac; if some of Abrahams children were left out, that concerns not us, so that we are ta∣ken in.

But I reply, sure if it were true, it were much to my purpose to shew the in∣sufficiency of the Paedobaptists inference, from Gen. 17.7. that every child of a Gentile believer is not in covenant by vertue of that promise, if it be true that the Covenant was not made to every child of Abraham. No Paedobap∣tist hitherto that I know hath had the face to avouch that our children by ver∣tue of that promise are more in covenant than Abraham children; Master Bl. himself saith, To make the inference good from Gen. 17.7. that believers chil∣dren by virtue of that promise have title to the initial seal, it must either be pro∣ved that they are Abrahams children, or have the privilege of Abrahams chil∣dren; If then the covenant was not made to every child of Abraham, then every child of Abraham had not the privilege by the covenant, and then if it were granted that our children by that covenant had the privilege of Abrahams child, yet it could not be proved thence, that every child of ours hath the pri∣vilege of the Covenant, sith every child of Abraham had it not. Nor doth Mr. Bls. proviso at all help him.

For 1. it being granted, that we in Gospel-times are under the same cove∣nant as was Isaac, and that we are taken in, (though without the limitations, first of the covenant onely, as it contains promises of saving grace; secondly, onely of true believers before God, I deny it) yet it follows not that our chil∣dren are taken in.

2. Nor if it were true, that our children are taken in, doth it follow that all our children are taken in, by vertue of that promise Gen. 17.7. sith neither all Abrahams children, nor all Isaacs children were taken in by it, Esau being expressly excluded, Rom. 9 10, 11, 12, 13. and elsewhere, nor doth God stile himself the God of Esau as he did of Jacob.

But Mr. Blake saith, my instance from Gen. 17.19. Heb. 11.9. is very weak to prove, that the Covenant was not made to every child of Abraham,

Ishmael himself was in Covenant, though not established in covenant (as God there, and verse 21. promised concerning Isaac) nor his seed never received, appears not alone by the sign and seal which he received vers. 23. which yet is sufficient (for God to seal to a blank is very strange; to sign 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 son, for the son of the bond woman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman A man cast out of Covenant, was before casting out in Covenant; ejection supposes admission, unless we will give way to Mr Tombs his dream 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.

Answ. The Apostle Rom. 9. answering the objection, that if the Jews were rejected from being the children of God then the promise falls, or takes not effect, which God made to Abraham and his seed to be a God to them, answers verse 7, 8, 9, in these express words, neither because they are the seed of Abraham are they all children, but in Isaac shall thy seed be called, That is, they which are children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise, are counted for the seed: For this ••is the word of promise, at this time will I come, and Sarah shall have a Son. Which words if they do not affirm, that the promise or covenant, Gen. 17.7. was not made to all Abrahams seed, and particularly that it was not made to Ishmael, I can∣not perceive any pertinency in the Apostles speech to the answering the objecti∣on made, nor know how to understand his words, nor do I remember that I ever met with an interpreter, which did not thence conceive, that the Apostle in those words did assert, that the promise or covenant was not made to Ishmael. Some I have produced Exam. part 3. S. 4. so conceiving, and many more might be alleged if it were necessary. But the words of God to Abraham, Gen. 17.19, 20, 21. do sufficiently prove, that the Covenant Gen. 17.7. was not made to Ishmael, and therefore he was not in Covenant by Gods act of promise. For when Abraham upon Gods promise concerning Sarah and her son, ver. 15, 16. had laughed verse 17. and petitioned for Ishmael, verse 18. God answers verse 19. by repeating his promise concerning Isaac, and saith, he would e∣stablish his Covenant with him for an everlasting Covenant, and with his seed after him, verse 20. Then tells him he heard him concerning Ishmael, and re∣cites what he would do for him; which expresseth how far he had heard his pe∣tition. And then follows verse 21. But my Covenant will I establish with I∣saac, which b••ing adversative hath this plain sense, that he would do that for Ishmael which he had expressed, verse 20. But he would establish his Covenant, that is, confirm and perform what he had promised before verse 7, 8. in Isaac not in Ishmael; he promised not to be a God to Abraham and his seed, by Ish∣mael in their generations, nor to give them the Land of Canaan.

As for what Master Blake saith, that Ishmael himself was in Covenant, though not established in Covenant; it seems to intimate that he conceives, that God made the Covenant to him, but did not establish it. But sure God makes no Covenant with any which he doth not establish; if he did, he should not be true. Nor is there any such emphasis in the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, I will esta∣blish, which doth intimate, that the Covenant was made to Ishmael, but e∣stablished, that is, confirmed, and to be certainly performed onely to Isaac,

for the phrase used elsewhere, Gen. 9.9, 11. doth express no more than is meant v. 12. this is the token of the Covenant I make between, me and you.

As for Master Blakes proof that Ishmael was in Covenant, because he was circumcised, Gen. 17.23. it rests upon these unproved false suppositions.

1. That circumcision was appointed to men because they were in covenant with God.

2. That God did by circumcision sign the covenant to him that was circumcised·

3. That every one that was appointed by God to be circumcised was in co∣venant. As for the speech that God doth not seal to a blank, it is a speech the Scripture useth not, and it having various senses may be true in some sense, in other false. A blank is such a paper as hath no writing in it, or wherein there is some empty space left to write more in, whether persons names, or promises, or other matter. By Gods sealing Mr. Bl. means the using of Circumcision, baptism, the Passeover, the Lords Supper, according to Gods appointment. That which he conceives to be sealed thereby is the Covenant, Gen. 17.7. which he makes all one with the Covenant of grace, and by proving every Sa∣crament to be a Seal of the Covenant of grace, from Rom. 4.11. his meaning should be, that God seals in the administrators right use of every Sacrament to every person, that he is in Covenant, that he hath the righteousness of faith, else God should seal to a blank. But in that sense I do aver it to be most true, that God doth seal to a blank, that is, that many thousands had circumcision, the Passeover, baptism, and the Lords supper, according to Gods institution and appointment, who were never in Covenant with God, nor did God seal, that is, assure to them their interest in the Covenant, Genesis 17. or the Co∣venant of Grace in Gospel times, or the righteousness of faith. But in this sense I grant it to be true that God doth not seal to a blank, that is, when he ap∣points any sign or seal of a Covenant, he doth not appoint it a sign and seal of a Covenant that hath no promises, or wherein the persons to whom, and the promises are not sufficiently exprest, yet he doth command that sign to be used upon persons to whom is no promise in that covenant, as well as those to whom it is made, yea the using it on one person may seal to thousands, who are not to have it on their own persons, as the circumcising of Abraham himself was a seal of the righteousness of faith to all believers of the Gentiles, who were not to be circumcised. And if every ones Circumcision should seal to him, the righteousness of faith, then circumcision should by Gods appointment seal that which is not true, which is not to be said of God.

Nor doth Mr. Blake prove from Galatians 4.30. that Ishmael was first in Covenant, because he was after cast out; for the casting out is not appointed to be out of the Covenant, for that Abraham could not do, to whom this speech is directed, it is God that puts in and out of his Covenant, but the ca∣sting out is out of Abrahams family, which was to be done by Abraham. If it be replyed, that this was a sign of casting out of Covenant, and therefore supposed he was in Covenant, I answer so it was a sign of casting out of the inheritance, out of the righteousness of faith, out of the Kingdom of heaven, which yet neither he, nor those whom he typified, and so were cast out with him, ever had.

What he calls my dream of ejection by non-admission, doth but shew Mr. Blakes own oscitancy.

For Matthew 8.12. it is said, the children of the Kingdome, that is, the Jews shall be cast out, to wit, of the Kingdom of heaven, where Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob sit down, into outer darknesse; and yet those children of the Kingdom, were never in the Kingdom of heaven, nor ever should be.

Ishmaels casting out after the time of the Solemnity of his admission by circumcision, doth not prove he was in covenant before. Neither circumcisi∣on, nor baptism, doth admit men into covenant with God. If they did, then administrators could put men in and out of Covenant with God; but that is Gods prerogative, not in mans power. Even according to Paedobaptists sup∣positions, persons are first to be in Covenant afore they are to be baptized, ther∣fore baptism doth not admit them into Covenant.

Master Blake addes; For that of Hebrews 11.9. it is a mystery, what he will make of it, unlesse he will conclude, that because Abraham sojourned in the Land of promise, that therefore none were in Covenant, that were not ta∣ken into that Land, so Moses and Aaron will be found out of Covenant.

To which I reply. The mystery might have been unveiled, if Mr. Blake had heeded that the Author of that Epistle calls onely Isaac and Jacob of those that dwelt with Abraham in tents, heirs with him of the same promise, therefore Ishmael and Esau were not heirs with him of the same promise, though he dwelt in tents with them, and consequently were not in the Covenant, or had not the Covenant or promise of Abraham made to them.

Upon those words of mine; 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, though some men have fancied such a kind of Church-seed, as it is called.

Master Blake thus animadverts. I know not how saving faith comes in, when a faith of profession will serve the turn. Abrahams seed had circumcisi∣on as a seal of the righteousness of faith, when their parents had no more than a faith of profession.

To which I reply, a meer faith of profession will not serve turn to make any Gentile to be rightly according to the Scripture termed Abrahams seed. None of them in Scripture are counted Abrahams seed, but either true believers be∣fore God, or elect persons. No where doth the Scripture say, that the Cir∣cumcision which any of Abrahams seed had was as a seal of the righteousness of faith to them, when their parents were true believers, much less when their pa∣rents had no more than a faith of profession. Mr. Blakes talk, that all that which my three former exceptions gainsaid is made good, is but vain, as the rest of his arguing. Let us here see what he addes further.

I had said, Lastly, were all these things yielded, yet the proposition could not be made good from hence, sith the inference is not concerning title or right of infants to the initial seal, 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 ingaged to circumcise his posterity.

Hereupon Mr. Blake tells me, I should rather have left this to my adversa∣ries for the strengthening of their proposition, than have made use of it my self for refutation of it. It was Abrahams duty to give them according to Gods

command the initial seal▪ in this Master Tombs and we are agreed; whether it will thence follow that they had right and title to it, or without right, let the Reader determine.

Answ. The Adversaries propositions to be refuted were, first, That the reason why Abrahams infants were to be circumcised, was their interest in the Covenant, which they would gather from Gen. 17.7, and 9. put together; secondly, That to them belongeth the initial seal, whether of the Jewish or Christian Church, who have interest or title to the Covenant of grace. But if the inference be not of title or right in the persons to be circumcised, but of duty in the administrator, and the propositions be of title or right from the Covenant, and not of duty, the adversaries propositions are not rightly ga∣thered from that inference, which is not concerning right or title but duty. As for Master Blakes jeer rather than answer, it is unworthy a serious sober man. For my speech did not intimate that the infants were circumcised without right or title, but that the inference, Gen. 17.9. was of duty, not of title or right, and that what title the infants had to circumcision it was not, as Paedobaptists suppose, from the interest in the Covenant which the circumcised had, but the command of God to the circumciser, and therefore there is not any connexion between interest in the Covenant and title or right to the initial seal without the command, nor this proposition true. All they who are in Covenant are to be sealed with the initial seal, unless this limitation be added, when it is commanded. Now if this limitation be put, then, though the infants of be∣lievers were granted to be in Covenant, yet they are not to be baptized, till over and besides their being in Covenant a command for their baptism be shew∣ed, which hath not been yet, nor I think ever will be.

There are some more of Mr. Blakes jeers or flirts rather than sober and serl∣ous answers yet remaining. To what I said, that Abraham was engaged to cir∣cumcise only those that are males, and not afore eight daies, and not onely those that were from himself, but also all in his house, whose children soever they were, which apparently shews that the giving circumcision was not com∣mensurate to the persons interest in the Covenant, but it was to be given to persons as well out of Covenant as in, if of Abrahams house, and not to all that were in the Covenant, to wit, females: which doth cleerly prove that right to the initial seal, as it is called, of circumcision did not belong to per∣sons by vertue of the Covenant, but by force of the command, Mr. Blake in his flirting fashion thus speaks. If he can prove that Abraham kept Idolaters in his house, professedly worshipping a false God, and gave Circumcision to them in that faith and way of worship; it would prove that a man might have the seal, and not be in Covenant. And it will prove a man might have the seal, and not be in covenant, though I cannot prove any Idolater in Abrahams house, if I can prove there were or might be infants or young persons who were children of Idolaters, for such were not in covenant as the seed of believers, or by their own profession.

But, saith he, it would not prove that he might be in covenant, and be de∣nied the seal. True, but this that infant-males under eight daies old, and females in covenant might be denyed the seal, would prove it.

And then, saith Mr. Bl. infant-baptism might be of easier proof. Though they were not in Covenant, though they were not holy, yet they might be

baptized. I reply, I grant that persons in Covenant might be denyed Cir∣cumcision, but think infant-baptism never a whit the easier proved. I ft-circumcision is commanded of all in Abrahams house, whether in covenant or no, but baptism to none because he is in covenant, or holy, but because a disciple, which is not true of any infant ordinarily.

But, saith Master Blake, I will not yield so much; I do not believe that Abraham carried circumcision beyond the line of the Covenant, and that he had those in his house which were aliens from God; seeing I find that testi∣mony of the Lord concerning him, Genesis chap. 18. verse 19. and find that resolution of Joshua, Joshua chap. 24. verse 14, 15. I believe A∣braham catechized all he took in as Heathens, and did not circumcise them as Heathens.

Answ. I believe he did not circumcise them as Heathens, but as his own bought with his money, and of his house, and if he bought any infants, or young children (which was then, and hath been since usual, where men and women are sold as slaves) he did circumcise infant or young males of heathen Idolaters. For the command of God was he should, and yet those infant or young males of heathen Idolaters could not be catechized, nor were in Covenant, either by their own profession, or their parents right, or any pro∣mise of God to them; and therefore circumcision in that case must be carried beyond the line of the Covenant.

To what I added of Master Marshalls Confession, That he granted the for∣mal reason of the Jews, being circumcised, was the command, and the co∣venant he makes only a motive, Defence page 182. Master Blake speaks thus. I wonder what need there is of an argument to force such a Confession. The reason I say, why Jews were circumcised, and Christians baptized, is the command; were there a thousand Covenants and no institution of a sign or seal, such a sign or seal, there could have been no circumcision, no bap∣tism. The command is the ground, and the Covenant is the Directory to whom application is to be made: we say, all in Covenant are enti∣tuled to the seal for admission; but we presuppose an institution.

I reply, If the formal reason why the Jews were circumcised were the Command, and the Covenant onely the motive, then the command was the differencing reason; for the form distinguisheth, and the formal reason is the reason which differenceth. Motives are not directions what to do, but commands, the same motive may be to contrary commands. The Command is the Directory to whom application is to be made both of circumcision and baptism. The command doth express not only the act to be done, but also the persons to whom. The Covenant is no Directory to whom circumcision, or baptism is to be applyed. The whole Covenant of Circumcision is expressed, Genesis 17.4, 5, 6, 7, 8. But there is not a word who are to be circumcised, but after. There is not the least hint in the institution of baptism, Mat∣thew chap. 28. verse 19. Mark chap. 16. verse 15. of any Covenant God makes to man. To imagine God commanded circumcision and baptism, and yet not to tell who are to be baptized or circumcised but from the Covenant, which no man knoweth to whom it belongs, is to imagine God gives a blind command, which no wise Master would do. It is not true, all in cove∣nant are entitled to the seal for admission, for then females, males under eight

daies old, believers out of Abrahams house, Proselytes of the gate had been entitled to Circumcision, for they were in Covenant as well as those who were to be circumcised.

And it is as certain on the other side that Ishmael, Esau, the infants of stran∣gers bought by Abraham, with his money, were to be circumcised, though they were not in Covenant, and therefore I inferre it as certain, that being in co∣venant or interest in the covenant, or having the promises of the Covenant, Genesis 17.4, 5, 6, 7, 8. or the new Covenant in Christs blood Heb. 8.10, 11, 12. and 10.16, 17. or any other Evangelical Covenant, all, or some of them made to a person did not intitle a person to circumcision, nor doth now to bap∣tism, nor can be without the command or institution of Christ, or pri∣mitive example, a rule, Directory or sufficient warrant for any to baptize a per∣son, nor acquit him from profaning and abusing baptism, and therefore there is no such reality of connexion between the Covenant and seal, that this pro∣position is thereby proved true, All in Covenant are intitled to the seal for ad∣mission: or this false, some of those who are not in covenant are intitled to the seal (as they call it) for admission: and Master Blakes censure of my ex∣ceptions as frivolous trifles shews his weaknesse in disputes, there being very little in his arguings or answers but flirts, quips, dictates and impertinen∣cies.

What he addes of my grants discovers the like vanity; For though I say that believers, and disciples are to be baptized, not barely on their faith and knowledge, but upon the Command to baptize such, yet how it follows which Mr. Blake saith, so that the command is with reference to the Covenant, with reference to the interest in the Covenant, is to me a meer inconsequence, un∣less he imagine the command and Covenant all one, which to assert were ridi∣culous. And who will believe that I attribute as much to the Covenant re∣spective to this seal, when I say Examen page the seventieth eight, That the common privilege of Circumcision belonging to the Jews, did not arise from the Covenant of grace, according to the substance of it, but accor∣ding to the administration that then was, as Master Marshall to the Com∣mand, when he said, The Command was the formal reason of the Jews being circumcised.

When I do not at all make circumcision to arise from the Covenant as any reason of the duty, much less the formal reason of it, but as from the oc∣casion of it, whereas Master M. makes the command, the very formal reason of the existence of the duty.