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. XXXIX. Mr Baxter hath not proved that the absolute promise or covenant is not it that i•• sealed in Baptism and the Lords Supper. (Book 39)

HE adds, But that this absolute Promise, or Covenant (if you will call it so) is not it that is sealed in Baptism and the Lords Supper, I prove against Mr T. thus, clearly.

Answer. He should prove nothing against me though he should prove nei∣ther the absolute nor conditional promise to be sealed in baptism and the Lords Supper. For though it be true, that in some sense I grant Baptism and the Lords Supper to seal the covenant of grace, yet in the sense and to the purposes Paedo∣baptists use to say the covenant is sealed by them, I reject it, and can freely yeild that the use uf Baptism and the Lords Supper is not to seal Gods Covenant either absolute or conditionall to us, except by remote conse∣quence,

but to signifie our duty of engaging our selves to be Christs Disciples in Baptism, and to remember his death in the Lords Supper. But Mr Bs dis∣pute in this is against himself, in that his arguments will overthrow his own assertion of infant-baptism, and against his fellow Paedobaptists, who make baptisme to seal the promise of Regeneration from Titus 3.5, and the pro∣mise of being a God to Abraham and his seed from Gen. 17.7. which the A∣postle Rom. 9.6, 7, 8. makes absolute, and appropriates to the elect. I need not cite again Paedobaptists speeches, making baptism the seal of Regenera∣tion, and of the Covenant, Gen. 17.7. having cited before, Sect. 30, sundry, to wit, the Assembly in the Directory, Mr M &c. In the Assembly at Westmin∣ster their confession of faith, chap. 28. Baptism is ordained by Jesus Christ to be to the baptized a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, of his ingrafting into Christ, of Regeneration, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God through Je∣sus Christ to walk in newness of life. Artic. 27 of the Church of England. Bap∣tism is a sign of Regeneration or Newness, whereby as by an instrument they that receive baptism rightly are graffed into the Church, the promises of forgiveness of sin, and of our adoption to be the sons of God, by the holy Ghost, are visibly signed and sealed. In the French Confess. Artic, 35. By Baptism, as by a certain and stable seal, this promise is sealed, that Chri••t will be to us sanctification and justifi∣cation. In Mr Gatakers two books against Dr Davenant, there are so many passages out of the chiefest Protestant Writers which do make baptism the sign and seal of Regeneration, and of the promise of it, that it would be tedious to transcribe them, I shall poynt at some pages wherein they may be found. Discept. de vi bapt. infant. pag. 23, 52, 110, 117, 1••8. Strict. in Daven. Ep. pag. 76, 77, 78. There is one passage which he cites often out of Vorstius, That the Gospel Preachers are wont to acknowledge one onely generall effect of Baptism, to wit, the sealing of a double saving grace promised in the Gospel concer∣ning the remission together and the purging out of sins by the Blood and Spirit of Christ, which is by inward renovation, which is absolutely promised. Yea Mr Ga∣taker, a man deservedly much valued by Mr B. Discept. de bapt. infant. saith, That Baptism doth equally if not primarily design internall renewing, regeneration, mortification, quickning, which in that sign are not onely most clearly shadowed, but also painted, both the thing it self doth lowdly speak, and the holy Scripture doth most expressly, Rom. 6.3, 6. Col. 2.11, 12. Tit 3.5. Eph. 5 25. And though all express not the sealing of regeneration alike by baptism, some placing it in the assuring to the conscience, some in the giving of title, some of regeneration already given, some of regeneration to be attained in time, yet all make i•• the seal of that covenant wherein God promiseth it, and do commonly distinguish it from the Lords Supper, which they make the seal of growth as they do bap∣tism, of new-birth and entrance into the Church. So Mr M. in his Sermon, p. 43, 51. But let us hear what Mr B. opposeth,

1▪ That which is sealed to by the Sacrament, is a proper covenant, ha∣ving a restipulation on our parts as well as a promise on Gods part. But an absolute promise is not a proper covenant with such a mutuall engage∣ment, but properly a meer promise or prophesie, therefore it is not this ab∣solute promise which is sealed by the Sacraments. The Major M. T. can∣not deny; for he pleaded it himself ••n the pulpit as a reason to prove that infants might not be baptized, because they could not engage themselves.

And he brought that passage in my foresaid Appendix, pag. 68. as attesting it, where I say it is a mutuall engaging sign or seal: As it is given it is Gods seal, as it is accepted it is ours. And indeed the very definition of a proper Covenant (of which Grotius de jure belli, and other Lawyers, will inform you) sheweth as much that it must be a mutuall engage∣ment. Now in that absolute promise [I will take the hard heart out of their bodies &c.] There is no such matter, but onely God telleth what he will do.

Answer. According to my own judgement I use not to te••m Sacraments Seals of the Covenant, nor did I urge Mr Bs words otherwise than as an Ar∣gument ad homin••m, to prove from his own words, that infants have not bap∣tism rightly according to his own grants. 1. because there is no restipulation on infants part, therefore there is no covenant properly so called between God and them, and so baptism of infants is not a seal of a covenant, and conse∣quently according to the supposition of Paedobaptists, no Sacrament. 2▪ Bap∣tism is saith Mr B. a mutuall engaging sign or seal, as it is given it is Gods seal, as i•• is accepted it is our: But in infant-baptism there is no mutuall engagement or signing. Infants promise nothing, nor sign or accept of any thing, Ergo infant-baptism is not, according to Mr Bs own grants, right; nor are these objections avoided by saying the parents covenant for them: for neither is there any the least ground o•• hint in Scripture that for baptismall covenanting the parents covenant should go for the childs covenant, nor do in the practice of baptizing the parents restipulate though they declare their faith, and if they should promise or engage for the child, they should sin, and so should and have those that have promised as sureties the infant should believe and obey Christ, which they have not been able to perform, but have taken on them Christs prerogative, Heb. 7.22. Nor is the baptism of the infant his sign or seal, he being meerly passive, as they say, and so doing no act, nor engaging thereby, and if the parent do engage for the child, the parent should be baptized for the child, if baptism be the baptized party his seal. But as I said, I do not call bap∣tism a seal of the covenant, and therefore am not tied at all to answer this Argument, except to shew the fuci••ity of it. For which end, 1. the mann••r of speech is liable to exception in the use of the term Proper Covenant] which I imagine Mr. B. useth unskilfully for Properly so called. 2. There is no proof of the Major, from this, that Baptism or the Sacrament is a mutuall enga∣ging sign or seal. For that proves rather that baptism or the Sacrament it self is a proper covenant, than that, that which is sealed by the Sacraments is a pro∣per Covenant. 3. Nor doth it follow, That if the very definition of a proper Covenant be, that it must be a mutuall engagement, that which is sealed by the Sa∣craments must be a proper covenant, but onely proves that upon supposition, that the covenant sealed to by the Sacraments, must be a proper covenant, that then it must be with restipulation or mutuall engaging. 4. though Lawyers do determine that a covenant properly so called, is a mutuall engagement, yet this proves not that which in Scripture is termed the covenant which they say baptism seals, is such. Yea, in all the places (that I know) where the cove∣nant of grace is mentioned, there is no restipulation at all mentioned, nei∣ther Gen. 17. nor Jer. 31. nor Luke 1. nor Heb. 8 & 10. But where there is a restipulation, it is rather the covenant of the Law than of the Gospel. 5. That

which is a meer prophesie or promise, is as properly 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which we translate Covenant, as a mutuall engagement, as I shall shew hereafter a∣gainst Mr. Bl. 6. Nor do I know why that may not be a mutuall engage∣ment if the absolute promise were sealed to by the Sacrament as well as if the conditionall. For if the engagement in the conditionall covenant on Gods part is, that if he believe he shall be justified; and on mans part, that he will believe: or rather in baptism he testifies, he doth believe. The absolute pro∣mise is to give faith: Is not God and Man in like manner engaged by bap∣tism in sealing this as well as the other? 7. I know not how it can be truly said, That Baptism as given is Gods seal, and as accepted Mans seal. For nei∣ther doth God give baptism to be accepted but his promise, nor is the baptized said to accept baptism, but the promise. Nor is there any act of God which may be called his Seal, but he covenants, and I presume they will not confound Covenant and Seal. 8. Nor doth the infant accept, or seal, or engage, and therefore in infant-baptism there is no covenant or seal. 9 By this description of Mr. B. there should be a mutuall seal, and so a severall seal, and not bap∣tism Gods and Mans seal too. For according to the manner of sealing Cove∣nants which are mutuall as the one party seals with his own seal, so the other party seals with his own distinct seal; and so if baptism be Gods seal, the party bap••ized should have another seal to signifie his engagement. 10. Mr. B. tells me, that Grotius de jure belli, and other Lawyers will inform me, that the very definition of a proper Covenant is, that it must be a mutuall engagement. But he doth not tell me where it is in Grotius, nor in what other Lawyer. I have lightly looked over the ••1. Chapter of the second book of Grot. de jure belli ac pacis, which is, de promissis, and some other following, and find not that which Mr. B. saith, but find ch. 11. sect. 5. that he determines that of an infant is no promise, because the use of reason is required to a promise, and therefore in infant-baptism there is no restipulation or mutuall engagement, and so no proper co∣venant by Mr B. his doctrine. But what ever other Lawyers say, I am mista∣ken if it be not usuall with the Lawyers in conveyances to use this expression, That the seller is said to covenant to and with such a person, who makes no restipulation or reciprocall engagement. And both in the Scottish covenant, and in our solemn League and Covenant, I find covenanters engaged to do many things without any restipulation or reciprocall engagement, and there∣fore do not conceive it necessary to a covenant that it be a mutual engagement, or with restipulation. Mr. B. adds,

2. If it were the absolute promise of the first grace that is sealed by the Sacra∣ments, then the Sacraments must be given to no man, or to all men: but that is ab∣surd, therefore so is the former. The consequent is manifest, because that absolute promise or prophesie is onely of the elect, and that before regeneration. Now no man hath any sign given him, so much as probable by which to judge of the unregenerate elect, so that it must either be given to all or none.

Answer. The whole frame of this Argument depends on these mistakes, 1. That a person hath title to baptism by vertue of its interest in Gods cove∣nant of grace, and that accordingly a Minister is to baptize. 2. That a pro∣bable sign of such interest warrants the baptism of the party so interessed, which I have often proved to be false, and that nothing but manifest discipleship cer∣tainly known to the baptizer, warrants him to do it. And indeed if we must

baptize according to that rule of persons interest in the covenant, probably signified. Salvages in New England are to be baptized upon the probable signes they give of being wrought upon by a Sermon afore they know and pro∣fess the faith of Christ, and few or no infants are baptized, there being either no sign given to any man of their being in covenant, or at most but of very few of the baptized.

Mr. B. Ap. to his Aphor. p. 70. If a Minister adventure to administer it up∣on probability, then should he be guilty of proph••ning the ordinance.

3. Saith Mr B. Or we may argue thus: It may be known to whom that co∣venant belongs which is sealed by the Sacraments. But it cannot be known (be∣fore the fulfilling, no not at all) to whom (particularly) that absolute promise doth belong; therefore that abs••lut promise is not it which is sealed by the Sacra∣ments.

Answer. 1. By denying the Major. 2. By retorting the argument thus, It may be known to whom that covenant belongs which is sealed by the Sacra∣ments: But it cannot be known ordinarily in this to whom (particularly) the conditionall promise of the covenant of grace belongs, for to none (particu∣larly) besides the elect belongs the promise of justification, adoption and glo∣rification. Therefore the conditionall promise is not it which is sealed by the Sacraments.

4. Sai••h Mr. B. If (according to Mr T. his judgement) that absolute promise must be fulfilled to a man before he be capable of receiving the Sa∣craments which are seals of the covenant of grace, then is it not that abso∣lute promise which is the covenant of grace sealed to by the Sacraments: But according to Mr. T. his judgment) that absolute promise must be fulfil∣led to a man before he be capable of (a right) receiving the Sacraments, which are seals of the covenant of grace: Therefore it is not that abso∣lute promise which is the covenant so sealed to. The Antecedent is evident, ••f you consider, 1. That it is the promise of the first renewing grace which we speak of (for all after grace is promised conditionally) 2. That Mr. T. pleadeth that believers onely are disciples, and such disciples onely must be baptized. 3. That faith is a part of this first grace abs••lutely promised (as is commonly judged) The giving of a new soft heart, is the giving the seed of all graces, and so of faith. The consequence is evident, be∣cause the mercy promised in the covenant which is sealed, is not given be∣fore the first sealing: But the mercy promised in that absolute promise is (according to Mr. T. and in part the truth) given before the first sealing of the Covenant of grace; therefore, &c. God doth not promise a Seal to a man that hath a new heart to give him a new heart, or to a man that is a believer, that he will give him to be a believer; except we speak of the continuance or increase of faith and newnesse which is not the thing in question.

Answer. The consequence of this argument may be denied, and the reason of it also: For according to the Apostle, Abraham received the sign of Cir∣cumcision, a seal of the righteousnesse of faith, which he had yet being uncircumci∣sed; Rom 4▪11. If then the sealing of the covenant of grace by baptism be the same with the sealing of the righteousness of faith by circumcision, Rom. 4.11 (which is the common tenent of many Paedobaptists, who from this Text draw a

definition of Sacraments, though falsly, as is shewed before) then the mercy promised in the covenant which is sealed, is given before the first sealing. Yea, if the conditionall covenant be sealed to believers now, justification which is the mercy promised in the covenant which is sealed▪ is given before the first sealing. For a man is justified actually as soon as ever he believes, as I am confident Mr. B will grant: Bu•• he is not regularly baptized till after his believing, there∣fore a believer is justified, and consequently the mercy promised in the first co∣venant which is sealed, is given before the first sealing, That all after grace is promised conditionally, is said by Mr. B. without proof, and how inconsistent it is with the promises of perseverance, how much it undermines the doctrine of the Saints perseverance, how it disables the godly to plead the promises, and takes away their comforts when they are sensible of their f••i••ings, if the af∣ter graces of recove••y after fal••s, and perseverance to the end, be promised con∣di••ionally, I need no•• shew it here, ••i••h Dr. Owen hath done it amply in his Treatise of Perseverace, ch. 4▪ 5, &c. Dr. Kendall in his sancti sanciti, ch. 3. and wou••d be here a digressi••n▪

5. Saith Mr. B. The benefits of the Covenant of grace which are sealed by the Sacraments, are (by those of age) to be received by faith. But the benefits of the absolute promise of the first grace are not to be received by faith: Therefore this is not the covenant of grace so sealed. The Major is evident: Mr. T. saith, one∣ly believers must be baptized as disciples: The Minor is proved before. Faith is part of the thing promised, and we do not by faith receive our first faith, or our power to believe.

Answer. It is not I onely, but Mr. B. himself, who speaks in effect what I say, Plain Script. pr••of, &c. pag. 299, ••00. of the first edition when he saith,

That in the insti••ution, and every example of baptism through all the Bible, the first grace is prerequisite as a condition, is undeniable, as might be manifest by a recitall of the particular Texts could we stay so long upon it. John required a profession of repentance in those he baptized. Jesus first made them Disciples, and then by his Apostles baptized them, John 4.1. The solemn institution of it as a standing ordinance to the Church, which tells us fully the end is in Matth 21.19, 20. Go and disciple me all Nations, baptizing them; &c. Now for the aged, a disciple and a belie∣ver are all one, Mark 16 16. He that believeth and is baptized shall be sa∣ved, Acts 2.38. Repent and be bap••ized every one, &c. 41 They that gladly received his word were baptized, Acts 8.12, 13. The Samaritans believed and were baptized both men and women. Simon himself believed and was baptized, Acts 8.36, 37. If thou believest with all thy heart thou maist (be baptized) and he answered, I believe, &c. Paul believed upon Ananias instruction, and then was bapt••zed, Acts 10.47, 48. & 16.15, 33. & 18.8. & 19.4, 5, &c. You see it is still required, that at all age do first believe and then be baptized.

I acknowledge he puts in these words [for the aged at all age] by which he would prevent the inference from his own words against infants baptism, in∣timating that there are an institution and examples of infant baptism else∣where. But this is but a vain caution, when his own proposition is, That in the institution & every example of baptism through all the Bible, the first grace (to wit Faith) is prerequisite as a condition, is undeniable. So that which he intimates

in his caution, is contradictory to himself, and a palpable falshood, there be∣ing no other institution or example of baptism to any but disciples or believers in all the Bible; and therefore baptism of infants who are not believers or disciples, is a manifest abuse, deviation from Christ and his Apostles ap∣pointment and practice, by Mr. B. his own words, and consequently will-worship and profanation of that ordinance. As for the present objection, I deny the Major if it be universall, though Mr. B. saith, it is evident, but proves it not, nor doth any concession prove i••. For though I grant persons are to be believers afore baptism, yet it doth not follow that the benefits of the covenant of grace, which is sealed by the Sacraments, are to be receiv••d by fa••th, and not before. It is Mr. B. his mistake, that the promise to which there is sealing, must be fulfilled af••er and not before. The contrary is manifest in Abrahams circumcision, in baptism as I shewed before, and in the Lords Sup∣per. For even in that very instant of Mr. B. Plain Script proof, &c. pag. 296. to prove the Sacrament to be a mutuall engaging sign, when he saith, Receiving the Elements is ••ur engaging sign, that we receive Jesus Christ to be our onely Saviour and Lord; as giving is Gods si••n that he giveth us Christ: the sealing on the part of the receiver is to a thing fulfi••led, that he receives Christ, and of the giver that he gives him.

6. Saith Mr. T. The covenant sealed by the Sacrament, is a plainly propounded unquestion••ble Covenant: But this absolute promise of the first grace is not such but very dark and doubtfull (and the most learned cannot agree whether there be any such thing:) ••herefore, &c.

I have spoken my judgment of this in the Appendix of my Aphorisms. The places alledged to prove an absolute promise of the first grace, some learned divines I say do not prove it; because he new and soft heart there mentioned, may be a further degree of newness and sof••ness, or though there be no condition there expressed, yet it is in other places, and therefore to be so understood there: To which end they cite Deut. ••0▪ where God promiseth the very same blessing (to circumcise their hearts that they may love the Lord, &c.) on a condition which is here thought to be promised absolutely. Mr. T. could not understand Mr. Blake about this.

Answer. If Mr▪ B. mean by unquestionable Covenant, that which no learned man hath questioned, the Major is false, and must be revoked by Mr. B. if he will maintain the conditionall covenant to be sealed to by the Sacrament, for that hath been questioned by learned men; who have denied the covenant of grace to be conditionall, and they think this to be a very good proof, that the holy Scripture where it speakes of the new Covenant, mentions the promises without condition. If he mean unquestionable de jure, which ought not to have been questioned, and which though it seem dark and doubtfull to some, yet is plainly propounded by God, and is in it self perspicuous; the Minor is false. As for what Divines say, it little moves, when the Scripture opposeth the new spirit and soft heart to a strong heart, as being in them before, and to which the new spirit, new heart of flesh, succeed. Ezek. 11.19. & ••6, 26▪ not to a lesse new or fleshly heart. And if elsewhere conditions be put and not there, the pro∣mises in those places are not proved conditionall, though to me the coditions Deut. 30.1; 2, seem not to be of the promise, v. 6. but of the promise v. 3. I do not value Mr. B. his judgement so much as to be drawn by it any farther

than his reasons carry me, which, I take it, are the same in his Appendix, with these in his mock-titled book which I have answered. I give Mr Baxter our new Doctor Sub••ilis, leave to quip me with my dulness in being grown such an old superannuated dotard, as that I could not understand Mr Blake, time was when I thought I could have understood as profound a Doctor, but now I am content not to understand such deep notions, I should say non-sense as these▪ Disciple all, covenant all, &c: I hope I shall have by Divine assistance, so much understanding as to demonstrate the frivolousness of those dictates in Mr Blakes and Mr Baxters writings, whereby they have befooled the men of this age, and my Strange and wild doctrine, as Mr B. calls it, will supplant Mr B. his familiar and tame doctrine, without speaking like Mr Sal••marsh and the An∣tinomians, and my speech about Mr M, will be justified after the clearing my self from the fourth imagined error, to which I now hast.