SECT. VI.

TO return to my Author: His Sixth Question is, Whether Baptism did suc∣ceed in the room and use of Circumcision? He saith, By no means.

But the Body of our Learned and Pi∣ous Divines say, It doth, and our Divines Page  97have spoken to it so often, that I am loath to say any thing to it. Shortly my thoughts were these:

1. Circumcision came in upon Faith: Abraham believed, then he was Circum∣cised: And so doth Baptism.

2. Circumcision did sign Christ to come in the flesh. So saith my Author; and Bap∣tism signs he is come in the flesh.

3. Circumcision did signifie [you may say Seal] the Righteousness of Faith: So doth Baptism.

4. Circumcision signified Sanctification: so do Baptism.

5. Circumcision signified and sealed the Covenant between God and the Seed of A∣braham, Gen. 17.7, 8, 9, 10, 11. So doth Baptism.

6. Circumcision did oblige Israel to walk with God: so Baptism obligeth us.

7. Circumcision did distinguish Israel from other Nations: so Baptism distinguisheth us.

Circumcision respecting Christ to come, and Baptism Christ come. Hence the Jews though circumcised, yet coming under a new Dispensation, ought to be baptized: much more reason for this, than for Timo∣thy, who being a Disciple, Acts 16.1. no question was baptized, and yet after that circumcised by Paul, v. 3.

Circumcision (saith my Author) was to be a Bond and Obligation to keep the whole Law of Moses: but Baptism is contrary.

Ans. 1. For the Moral Law, the Rule of our Obedience, Baptism doth not solve us from that, but bind us to it: for Sanctification is held forth in our Baptism.

2. As for the Ceremonial Law where Christ was set forth in shadows, no won∣der, though when Christ is come, and the shadow's gone, that Baptism was contrary to it. Evangelium relatum & Revelatum. But what doth this hurt us?

3. Paul did not Circumcise Timothy, with that respect to Circumcision; the Jews did. The Jews did look to be justified by the observation of the moral and ceremonial Page  99Law both, Gal. 5.3. the 4th verse unties the knot. The false Apostles urged Circumci∣sion, Acts 15.1. according to the Law of Moses. [But Circumcision is not of Moses, but the Fathers, saith our Lord, John 7.22.] If you Circumcise thus, and seek Justification thus, you are fallen from grace, Gal. 5.4.

My Author goes on; Circumcision ini∣tiated the carnal Seed into a carnal Church, and gave them right to carnal Ordinances: But Baptism was to give the spiritual Seed an orderly entrance into the spiritual Church.

Ans. 1. These Carnal Ordinances had their Spiritual significations as well as ours.

2. The Element in Baptism, Water; do but wash the flesh, and may be said to be Carnal too in some sense, 1 Pet. 3.21.

3. There was a Spiritual Seed admit∣ed also into that Church by Circumcision, as well as now by Baptism, how many Saints were in that Church?

4. Chaff, Dross, Canaanites are no Spi∣ritual Seed, yet such have been admitted into your Spiritual Church, by Dipping. Page  100Mr. Hutcheson writes true and can testi∣fie it.

5. Define a Church, and you shall find all the Causes in that Church [a differ∣ence only between a Church, and such a Church] take it in the strictest notion. 1. The efficient Cause is God, that is here. Deut. 7.6. Ezra 9.21. 3ly, The formal Cause joyned in Covenant, with God and one with another, Deut. 29.12. Zech. 11.10, 14. Exod. 24.8. [Besides their Circum∣cision.] This some Brethren make the form of a Church: here it is. 4ly, Final Cause, To walk with God, and keep his Ordinances: it was here, Exod. 24.7. Mr. Baxter hath spoken so much to this, that I say no more.

Women were not circumcised, saith my Author.

Ans. No, how could they? 1. The A∣postle gives you an answer, 1 Cor. 11.3. 2ly, Rivet saith well; Sed quia in viris acti∣num, ut loquuntur, generationis & propaga∣tionis hominum est principium, quo transmit∣tunt corruptionem in posteros, signum ideo ob∣tinuit in praecipuo sexu, ita tamen, ut foemi∣nae viris annexae & in iis censerentur, qui fa∣miliorum capitae debebant esse.

For Acts 38.39. which my Author op∣poseth, and brings in Bishop Taylor, [a man cross to the Doctrine of the Church of England in point of Original Sin.] And Dr. Hammond on his side, telling us, It is an Ʋncludent Argument to infer Baptism from hence. [I do not wonder that Ana∣baptists make so much use of Dr. Taylor.]

Answ. With the Bishop's favour, there is a difference between these two Phrases, The Children of Israel, and this; You and your children. Here is a Copulative Con∣junction which is not there. They were the wounded Persons to whom Peter speaks, that asked him a question, but their Children did not ask, nor were pre∣sent with them most likely.

Calvin saith, Notandi autem, &c. But the three degrees are to be noted, to whom the Promise is made, 1. To the Jews. 2. To their Children. 3. To the Gentiles.

As for Dr. Hammond, though I honour him much for his great Learning one way, yet I think as to an Argument, whether it be Concludent or not, other men may know as well as he. Vossius, Rivet, Calvin, Gerhard, Aretius, and the Assembly of Di∣vines, [though slighted by him] do all conclude Infant-baptism from hence; they Page  102could judge of a Concludent Argument.

1. What this Promise is, I see there are very different Apprehensions. Some take it to be that in Joel 2.28. So Dr. Ham∣mond, and divers others. The Dutch say, Joel 2.28. & Gen. 17.7. Ahapide saith, The Promised Seed in whom all Nations should be blessed. Thus Aretius, The Promise of the Messiah, and the benefits that come by him, made to Abraham and his Seed, Gen. 13. To which the Apostle, Rom. 9.4. hath a respect, the Promises belong to them. Thus Aretius, and Horino inclines this way.

2ly, whatever the Promise be, it was that which the Jews and their Children were now under, [For to you do the bene∣fit of that Promise appertain if you will lay hold of it, saith Dr. Hammond on Text.] The Promise did appertain to them, both Parents and Children, but not to the Gen∣tiles as yet till they be called.

3ly, That 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is a general word I grant, seven or eight times used for little Chil∣dren in the New Testament. Fit mentitio li∣berorum 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 sine discretione aetatis, saith Vossius. Let your Children be little or great, to your Children the Promise doth Page  103belong, as well as to you. Matth. 27.25. His Blood be upon us, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and upon your Children; were not there the Chil∣dren distinct from the Parents? and do not Children there signify their little ones, their posterity, of what Age soever? would Bi∣shop Taylor deny it? and 'tis probable that God brought this Imprecation to mind, and Peter may aim at that.

Be the promise what it will then, I would try for one Argument from hence.

They that are Church-Members ought to be Baptised.

But Children of Believing Parents are Church-Members.

Therefore, they ought to be Baptised.

The Major, the Doctor, nor any else will deny.

The Minor, I prove thus.

They to whom Promises do appertain, they are Church-Members.

But to the Children of Believing Parents Promises do appertain. Therefore,

The Major is plain, no Promise belong to any person out of the Visible Church. Ephes. 2.12. while the Ephesians were out of the Visible Church, they were Strangers from the Covenants of Promise. Rom. 9.4. the Promise did belong to the Jews, not to Page  104us Gentiles, till grafted into Abraham's stock.

The Minor is proud from the words of the Apostle, The Promise is to you, and your Children, we are under the outward dispen∣pensation now; you nor your Children shall lose your Title to it, by Repenting and Believing, but then you shall feel the saving benefit added to pour outward Title. Again,

Let me add, If the Spirit be here meant, it must be so understood, that it may be the benefit of as many as ever God shall call to the Worlds End, be they never so many Millions; the words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 will force it. The Promise is to All, as many, be they never so many, if called. There are many called, few chosen, but if called, there is an Page  105outward Title to it, and to their Children, else the Sentence is not full; and I proved before we are fellow-Citizens of the same houshold, grafted into the same stock, Jew and Greek all one: The Jews and their Children were under it, when not effectual∣ly called. The Promise is to you and your Children, now they were Children of the Covenant. Act. 3.25. nor can there be any reason given, why the Children of the Be∣lieving Gentile should not be included, and meant here, as well as of the Jews. Hence, since the Doctor thus interprets the Promise of the Spirit.

They to whom the Promise of the re∣newing Spirit doth belong, they may be Baptised.

But to the Children of Believing Pa∣rents, the Promise of the renewing Spirit doth belong, as it did to the Jews. There∣fore the Children of Believing Parents may be Baptised.

That there can be Regeneration without the Spirit, no Christian will affirm. That there can be a Heavenly Inheritance with∣out Regeneration the Scripture denies. That the Spirit of God cannot Regenerate an Infant, he must be a strange Christian, [if any at all] who dares say it. If John Page  106was filled with the Spirit, from his Mothers Womb, God can give his Spirit to other Infants, though in a less measure.

As to the Text 1 Cor. 7.14. that Text hath been so cleared by our Divines, that I wonder my Author should not be fatisfied, but to come up with his Ligitimacy, as if that were the sense of Children being Holy. When as

1st. The Apostle is not writing to a Co∣rinthian Husband, that had two Wives, but only one Wife; as 12, 13, 14. v. so that if that Text, Mat. 2.15. could be brought to prove a Matrimonial-Holiness, then they were Holy, and Children Holy, before the Gospel came; but this is a Holiness arising from one of the Parents, being a Believer: Besides, Joseph, Benjamin, Solomon, and di∣vers others, were never called Bastards, or thought to be so, though Jacob and David had more Wives then one.

2ly, Then all the Children in Corinth, though the Parents were lawfully Marry∣ed, were Bastards, before the Gospel came.

3ly, When then the Apostle writes to the Saints in Corinth. 1 Cor. 1, 2. 2 Cor. 1.1. the meaning is, to you that are Legitimate, and not Bastards in Corinth. What difference between 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 there, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 here? Nei∣ther Page  107do your examples from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 help you at all.

For 1st. By an Antiphrasis, or Euphemis∣mus, the words signifies the quite contrary, Bless, and Curse, Holy, and Ʋnclean; [or Sodomite, as we Translate.]

2ly, The words are so used in an oppo∣site sense, in several other Scriptures, that prove one another.

3ly, The sense of the Text forces us so to render their signification.

1. But then you must Translate 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by some word which is quite contrary to Holiness, so that one expel the other: Con∣traria sunt pellentis naturae, but Legitimacy and Holiness are not contraries in respect of this Subject, for he may be Legitimate and Holy too, I know: you must then read else were your Children unclean, but now they are unclean. This is good Sense.

2. As the word Holy, is never taken in the Holy Page for Legitamacy, nor can you justify it by any Text, as we can the former, clearly by several Texts. A Seed accord∣ing to God's Institution in Marriage, ac∣cording to his appointment, Ordination in Mat. 2.15. and the Holy Seed. Ezra. 9.2. differ very much: besides, as I said, the Children of the Corinthians were Holy, if Page  108that were the Sense before the Gospel came.

3. Nor is there the least pressing necessi∣ty why it should not be taken, as in the Scriptures I mention. Nay, there is a pres∣ing necessity to force that it cannot be meant Legitimacy, because it follows upon the Faith of one Parent, which Legitimacy doth not.

For 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which you say alwaies signifies Authority, yet 1 Cor. 11.15. [I suppose you mean the tenth] it signifies a Vail.

Ans. Who translated the word so? I have viewed nine Translators, and they render it Power as we do. A Metonimy of the Sub∣ject, we know there is the meaning being, a covering in sign that she is under the Authority of her Husband. Gen. 24.65. A Phrase whereby the thing signified is ascri∣bed to the Sign, the propriety of the word is here meant and intended; that she shew her self to be under Authority. The Act∣hiopick Translation, to give the Sense, turn the Substantive into a Verb; but hower, this doth not at all suit your design. In the word Holy, here is no Metonimy, Sign, or thing signified.

I see nothing of moment more to an∣swer, and I doubt not my Author hath been bet∣ter answered by others, though I saw none, till I had done.