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. LXVIII. Neither from Rom. 4.11. nor by other reason hath Mr. B. proved, ch. 18, 19. part. 1. of Baptism, That Infant Churchmembership was partly natural, partly grounded on the Law of Grace and Faith. (Book 68)

CH. 18. Mr. B. writes thus.

My 13th. arg. is from Rom. 4. almost all the Chapter, wherein the Apostle fully sheweth, that the pro∣mise (upon which his priviledges were grounded) was not made to Abraham upon legal grounds, but upon the ground of faith: From whence I might draw many ar••••ments, but for brevity, I desire you to peruse the Chapter; onely from the eleventh verse: And hee received, &c. From whence I thus argue. If infants then usually were entred and engaged Churchmembers by that Circum∣cision which was a seal of the righteousness of faith, and was not given on legal grounds; then that Churchmembership of in∣fants is not repealed: (as beeing built on grounds of Go∣spel, and not Law, and sealed with a durab••e seal, that is, the seal of the righteousness of faith.) But the antecedent is plain in the text.

Answ It is true Rom. 4.13, 14, 16, 20, 21. there is mention of Gods promise to Abraham, and in particular two speeches are cited v. 17. Gen. 17.5. I have made thee a father of many nations (which implies a promise) & v. 18. Gen. 5.5. So shal thy seed be, & it is true the privile••ges of justification by faith, of the father of believers, of heir of the world, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 by faith, and the promise but that his visible Churchmemhership 〈◊〉〈◊〉 infants was by promise is not said, nor is there a word in that Chapter or elsewhere, ••o prove that Churcmembership of infants was built on grounds of Gospel and not Law, or that it was sealed, or that the seal was durable which was termed the seal of the righteous∣ness of faith, or that the Circumcising of any person besides Abra∣ham was a seal of the righteousness of faith, and therefore I deny the minor, which hee termes the antecedent, and the consequence of the major also. For if his reason were good, I might by the same medium thus argue, If that Circumcision by which infants were u∣sually then entred and engaged Churchmembers was a seal of the righteousness of faith, and was not given on legal grounds then that Circumcision of infants is not repealed, But the antecedent is plain in the Text, Ergo. What answer Mr. B. gives to this argument will also answer his own, and I presume he will not hold Circumcision unrepealed, which hee must if his argument be good.

Mr. B. addes,

I urged this on Mr. T. many years ago, and all his answer was, that Abrahams Circumcision was a seal to o∣thers that should come after, of the unrighteousness of Abrahams faith but no otherwise. A strange answer, and very bold! I hear that

since he answereth, that it was onely such a seal of Abrahams righte∣ousness by faith, but not of others afterward.

Answ. I am sure Mr. B. in this (as he doth almost in every thing I have spoken, written or done, which he hath had occasion to mention) doth mis-report me, my an••wer to him and others was not as he and they represent it. This is my answer, 1. That Rom. 4.11. no other persons Circumcision but Abrahams is termed the seal of the righteousness of faith▪ 2. That to Abraham his Circumcision was a seal of that righte∣ousness by faith, which hee had afore bee was circumcised. 3. That Abra∣hams personal Circumcision is a seal of the righteousness of faith to all that believe as he did, and to no other. 4. That the usu••l Ci••cu••cision of infants, was not a seal of the righteousness of faith, or of the Cove∣nant of grace to every circumcised person.

But, saith Mr. B. 1. The Text seems to speak of the nature and use of Circumcision, and the end of its institution: as being ordained at first of God to seal onely a Gospel righteousness of faith, and not a legal righ••eousness of works or ceremonies.

Answ. 1. If Circumcision were at first ordained of God to seal a Gospel righteousness of faith, then it did not seal visible Churchmem∣bership of infants (for that is not a Gospel righteousness of faith, sith it may bee without Gospel righ••eousness or faith, and these may bee without it) as Mr. B. saith in this Chapter. 2. The nature, use and end of Circumcision in others, is not at all expressed Rom. 4.••••. but onely of Abrahams. 3. The use and end of Circumcision was at first to signifie that Covenant God entered into with Abraham, Gen. 17. after to binde the circumcised to observe the law of Moses, as the Apostle concei∣ved it Gal. 5.3.

2. Saith he,

Doth God institute a standing ordinance to endure till Christ, to have one end for him to whom it was first given 〈◊〉〈◊〉 another to all others? Is not the nature, end, and use of Sacram••••ts or holy engaging signs and seals, the same to all? though the fruit be not alway the same. These are poor shifts against a manifest truth, which deserve not answer.

Answ. 1. Doth not Mr. B. of baptism p. 2. ch. 2. himself answer, that baptism, which he terms a Sacrament or holy engaging signe and seal, hath more ends and uses then one, and that the infant is capable of some, though not of others: yea though he make the end to be in the definiti∣on of Sacraments that it is of their nature to be signs, and so no Sacra∣ments but what do signifie; yet hee will have baptism to bee a Sacra∣ment to an infant to whom it never is any signe or signifies any thing, for the baptised infant either never saw it, or never saw it as a signe of the engagem••nt Mr. B. speaks of, and so it is never a signe to the baptised, the Baptism leaving no visible impression on the bo∣dy as Circumcision did, to signifie to the infant when hee comes to age. Whence I infer, 1. That according to Mr. Bs. own doctrine, the Sacrament of Baptism hath one end to those to whom it was first gi∣ven to wit, to signifie their owning of Christ as their Lord, and another end to almost all others, to wit, infants, to seal them Gods promise without

their personal owning of Christ. 2. That according to him, the na∣ture, end, and use of Sacraments, or holy engaging signs and seals is not the same to all; for Baptism is no holy engaging sign to an infant, who doth neither signifie by it, nor hath any thing signified to it by it, no nor is naturally capable of it, and consequently it is no Sacrament to it, sith it is not either actually or potentially a sign to the infant, no not when grown up of any thing signified by it. 2. Doth not Mr. B. acknowledge, that Abrahams Circumcision did seal the righteousness of saith which he had being yet uncircumcised? sure he will not deny this, which the Apostle expresly teacheth. But sure it had not that end in all others, therefore he must acknowledge one end of Circumcision for A∣braham which to all others it had not 3. About the nature, end, and use of Sacraments, I have expressed in part my mind before, sect 31. Nor either there or here do I use any shifts against a manifest truth, but Mr. B. ha••h levied a company of poor feeble arguments, which but for the shallowness or prejudice of Paedobaptists, deserved not an answer.

Ch. 19. he saith thus. My 14th. arg. is this: If the law of infants churchmembership were no part of the ceremonial or meerly judicial law, nor yet of the law of works, then it is not repealed. But it was no part of the ce∣remonial law, nor meerly judicial, nor part of the law of works (as such.) therefore it is not repealed. The consequence is evident, seeing no other laws are repealed. The antecedent I prove in its parts. 1. None will say it was part of the law of works; for that knows no mercy to those who have once offended: But churchmembership was a mercy.

Answ. 1. Mr. B. should have first proved any such law at all (which he hath not proved yet) distinct from the law of Circumcision; and this is my answer to this argument, that there is no such law at all, and this is enough. Yet I add, 2. If his pre••ended law of infants visible churchmembership be no part of the law of works, then it is not of the law of nature, which before and after he asserts; for the law and Cove∣nant of nature, is the law and Covenant of works, which I think Mr. B. wil not deny, surely it is not of grace in Christ; Ergo. That is not of grace in Christ which was afore the fall; but such is the law of nature, Ergo. 3. That the law of works knows no mercy to those who have once offen∣ded, is a dictate of Divines, which needs proof. That the law at mount Sinai was a law of works, is proved before, sect. 43. But that yeelded some mercy, Levit. 4.2, 20, 26, 31, 35. Numb. 15.22, 23, 24, 28. Ergo. 4. How far, and in what manner visible churchmembership of infants was a mercy, and how it is otherwise now, is shewed before, sect. 64, 66.

2. Saith Mr. B. If it were part of the ceremonial law, then 1. let them shew what it was a type of, and what is the antitype that hath succee∣ded it, and prove it to be so, if they can.

Answ. 1. I do not take every thing typical to have been ceremo∣nial; nor every ceremonial thing to be typical: Or if it be so, yet I am sure, of every thing ceremonial which was typical, Mr. B. cannot shew what was the antitype in particular, at least he cannot prove it. When Mr. B. hath shewed and proved what was the antitype to all the dishes, bowls, snuffers, and other utensils about the tabernacle, and of every

thing appointed concerning them, their colour, fashion, mettal, &c. and of every rite prescribed Israel by Moses, there may be some equity in Mr. Bs. task. But till then it is enough to tell him, that to it with other things typified, Christ, Col. 2.17. succeeded. The churchmem∣bership by birth hath had churchmembership by faith to succeed it, as is before proved from Gal 3. and if that be not enough, let Mr. B. an∣swer, and not slight what Mr. Samuel Fisher writes in his Baby baptism meer Babism, about the ceremonial holiness of the Jews infants, pag. 112.113, 114, 115, 116, &c.

2. Saith he, If the very materials of the Church were a ceremony, then the Church it self should be but a ceremony. And so the Church in Abraham•• family should be more vile then the Church in the family of Noah, Melchizedech, Sem, Job, Lot, &c. which were more then cere∣monies.

Answ. The Levitical priesthood was ceremonial, and yet not the materials, that is the men, a ceremony; so churchmembership might be a ceremony, yet not the churchmembers. But I do not term either the one or the other a ce••emony, it is sufficient that it was a meer positive thing alterable and that it was altered.

3. Saith he, And that it was no part of the meerly judicial law, ap∣pears thus. 1. As was last said, then also the Church in Abrahams fami∣ly should be more vile then the aforesaid▪ for their churchmembership was not a piece of meer policy, as we call the judicials.

Answ. I•• it we••e by any law that infants were Churchmembers, it is more likely to be 〈◊〉〈◊〉 judicial law then any other of the ••hree sorts of the Mosaical laws, which Divines do so distinguish. And to the argument I say, 1. By making infants Churchmembership to be by a mixt or meer judicial law in Abrahams family, it is not made a piece of meer civil po∣licy not Eccl••siastical, for the Jew•• Commonwealth was a holy policy, and the members of the State were members of the Church and conse∣quently, it is rather made more excellent by referring it to the meer ju∣dicial laws, as the constitution of the Sanhed••in and other things are, and the admitting of the proselytes and their children was by the El∣ders of the Jews. 2. How to say concerning the families of Noah, &c. we cannot resolve, sith we find little or nothing of them, no mention of Noahs infants, or Melchizedecs, Sems, Jobs, or Lots except Amm••n and Moab, nothing said of their Churchmembership, or of the government of the families, what it was, or by what law.

2. Saith he, It cannot be shewn that it hath any thing of the nature of a meer judicial law in it (except we may call the moral laws or Gospel promises judicial, upon which meer judicials are built:) why is it not as much of the judicial law to have women Churchmembers as children? yet who dare say that this is meerly judicial?

Answ. It can be shewn, that if there be such a law, it is a meer ju∣dicial law, because it belonged to the ordering of the Commonwealth or policy of Israel, as it is termed, Ephes. 2.12. and the entring of prose∣lytes was to be done by the eldership of the people, and not by the priests. And this we da••e say of the womens visible Churchmembership

as well as the infants, and that neither of them were by a moral law o•• Gospel promise as Mr. B. fancies.

3. Sai••h he, It is of the very law of nature to have infants to be part of a Kingdome, and the Kings subjects. And Mr. T. hath told me his judge∣ment; that the Jews Church and Commonwealth was all one: therefore according to Mr. T. his grounds, it must needs be requisite even natu∣rally that infants should then be Churchmembers. I thinke this is past denial.

Answ. Kingdomes themselves are not of the law of nature, no nor of the law of nations, if they were, all other government then of Kings were against these laws, much less can it be o•• the law of nature to have infants to be part of a Kingdome, and the Kings subjects. According to my judgment, the Jews Church and Commonwealth were not all one na∣turally, but by institution; and therefore, according to my grounds, it is not requisite even naturally that infants should then be Churchmem∣bers. So that I find none o•• these things past denial.

4. Saith he, The promise that took them in, and the seal were both grounded on the righteousness of ••aith, as is proved before; therefore not a meer judicial.

Answ. Neither were they taken in by a promise, nor was the pro∣mise or the seal grounded, that is, made or given by reason of the righ∣teousness of faith, to or in those to whom they were made or given. Nor is any such thing before proved by Mr. B.

5. Saith he, In••ants were Churchmembers long before the time of Moses, when the Jews were formed into a Commonwealth, and the ••udi∣cial laws given them. And as the Apostle argues, the law which was ma∣ny hundred years after, could not make void the promise, and so it could not be that this was part of the meerly judicial law.

Answ. The Jews were formed into a Commonmealth, and judi∣cial laws given, as may appear by the appointment of Onan and Sh••lah to take their brothers wife, Gen. 38 8. and the sentence of Judah con∣cerning Tamar, v. 24. before Moses time, though then both were com∣pleated. Though the law makes not void the promise, yet the law of infants visible Churchmembership, if there were any such, might be meerly judicial.

6. Saith he, That it is neither a meer judicial, nor proper to the Jews▪ appeareth thus. That which was proper to the Jews, was given to them one∣ly; that is, onely to Isaac and his seed, on whom the Jewish priviledges were intailed. But many hundreds were circumcised as Churchmembers (among them many infants) in Abrahams family, before ever Isaac was born; and all the proselytes with their infants afterward that would come in. The children of Keturah and their children, and the children of Ish∣mael, &c. were once all Churchmembers; let any shew when they were unchurched, except when they unchurched themselves by their wickedness; or let any shew that the same sons of Keturah, who must circumcise their sons as Churchmembers while they were in Abrahams family, must leave them uncircumcised and unchurched when they were removed from that family. Did God change laws, and revoke such mercies and priviledges to

the seed of Abraham, meerly because of their removing from his house, and change of place? Who dare believe such fancies, without one word of Scrip∣ture? Remember therefore, that it is here plainly proved, that infants Churchmembership was not proper to the Jews.

Answ. That which wa•• proper to the Jews was not proper to Isaac onely and his seed, but common to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacobs family, or the people that either by birth or proselytism were Hebrews: When Ishmael was cast out, and the sons of Keturah sent away from Isaac, Gen. 25.6. they were not Churchmembers, nor their children, no more then the circumcised children of the Jews by strange wives when they were separated from the holy seed, Ezra 10. & Nehem 13. which the Lord did for that reason which he judged fit, however it seem to us. Nor is this conceit a fancy, but plain from those Scriptures named and others, which still reckon the Ishmaeli••es, Edomites, Ketureans, and posterity of Jews by prohibited women and separated from the congregation of Is∣rael, as a profane people, and so not Churchmembers. Nor do I think they were bound to circumcise their infants as Churchmembers, or did it when separated from the Hebrew people. So that Mr. B. hath not yet proved, that infants Churchmembership was not proper to the Jews, but that it is partly natural, and partly grounded on the law of grace and faith, as he speaks.