Antipædobaptism, or no plain nor obscure scripture-proof of infants baptism, or church-membership, being the first part of the full review of the dispute about infant-baptism: containing an ample disquisition of the ingrassing, Rom. II. 17. the promise, Acts 2. 39. the holinesse of children, I Cor. 7.14. Whereby the expositions of those texts, and arguings thence for infant-baptism by Mr. Stephen Marshall, Mr. John Geere, Mr. Richard Baxter, Mr. Thomas Cobbet, Mr. Thomas Blake, Mr. Josiah Church; and the arguments of Mr. Nathaniel Stephens for the convertiblity of a word of promise and command, are fully refuted. By John Tombes, B.D.

SECT. IV.

Mr. Gs. arguments for Infant-Baptism from Rom. 11. 11, &c. are answered.

MR. G. conceived my Complaint of his non-syllogizing in his Vindic. Paedobap. from Rom. 11. needless, there being fair mediums for syllogismes held out. But finding it so frequently ob∣jected by writers that the respondent forms the argument otherwise than the Author, as for instance Dr. Homes in his animadv. on the first argument of my exercitation, and Mr. G. desiring Vind. Paedop. pag. 5. to have choice and liberty of ordering his own weapons, and hav∣ing found so much trouble in answering Mr. M. for not syllogizing from the places he allegeth, I conceived it fit to require M. G. to form his medios terminos into syllogisms, which being done, I answer to

them, having first premised, that I do not take these to be all one, to be under the Covenant with the parents, to be reputed members of the same visible Kingdom, and to be sealed with the parents: the last is that which is nearest the point: but if Mr. G. would have concluded plainly what is to be proved, he should in these plain terms thus have con∣cluded, The Children of Christians have the privilege of being baptized, as the Jews of being circumcised. But let us examine his arguments as he forms them.

That Church-state (saith Mr. G.) and those out-ward Church-privileges, which the Jews had by vertue of a pure Gospel-promise, that the Christian Jews retained: But that the Jews and their seed should be Gods visible Church and enjoy outward Church-privileges was a benefit that they had by a pure Gospel-Covenant. Ergo. The Major is clear from the sevententh verse of Romans 11. whence my second conclusion is proved, that the Jews that obtained me••cy kept their station. The Minor I prove. I will be thy God and the God of thy seed in their generations, Gen. 17. 7. is a pure Gospel-promise. But by vertue of that the Iews had this Church-state that they and their seed were the visible Church of God, and in∣joyed outward Church-privileges.

I answer. 1. The Conclusion, The Christian Jews retained this that they and their seed should be Gods visible Church and enjoy out∣ward privileges, is not either formally or equivalently the thing to be proved, which is, that the Christian Jews and their seed even in infancy were to be baptized, or in Mr. Gs. language sealed. For the Chri∣stian Jews and their seed are not all one with the Christian Jews and their infant-seed, nor is it all one to be Gods visible Church and to be baptized: for persons may be of the visible Church by profession as the Catechumeni, who are not yet baptized, or perhaps to be bap∣tized, and they may enjoy an outward Church-privilege as Ex. gr. prayer and laying on of hands as Christ did on little children, and yet not be baptized. 2. The Major of the Prosyloogism is palpably false, that the Jews that obtained mercy kept their station, if by station be meant their place or condition of Church-membership in the Iewish Church: for they were both cast out from it, and both did and were to leave it, at least after the time of the full promulgation of the Gospel; yea they could not continue their profession of Christ, and yet retain their station in the Iewish Church, by reason of the professed enmity of the potent party of that Nation to the name of the Lord Jesus. As for Rom. 11. 17. it speaks not of outward Church-privileges, but saving

benefits through faith. 3. I deny the Minor, and in the later syllo∣gism brought to prove it, I deny the Major, and say, that though the promise Gen. 17. 7. be according to the inmost sense a Gospel-cove∣nant, yet in that sense it is not a promise to Abraham and his natu∣ral seed, but to his spiritual seed elect and true believers, Rom. 9. 8. and 4. 11, 12, 16, 17. Gal. 3. 8. 9. 16. 29. Mat. 3. 9. John 8. 39. But in this sense the promise is not to any children of be∣lievers, but such as are believers or elect persons as Abraham was. But in that sense which is most patent it is a promise to the posterity of Abraham according to the flesh, and so it is no promise to our natu∣ral children, who are never called Abrahams seed till they be belie∣vers; and in this sense it is so farre from being a pure Gospel-promise, that it is rather to be counted a pure Law-promise of peculiar inheri∣tance in Canaan, and other privileges upon their keeping the law God gave them. 4. I deny also the Minor, that by vertue of that (mean∣ing if as the formal reason, adequat cause propter quam res est) the Iews had this Church-state (understanding it de jure, of right, which is in question, not de facto, of fact or event) that they and their seed (that is infant seed) were the visible Church of God, and enjoyed out∣ward church-privileges: particularly of infants. This is imagined but nothing brought by Mr. G. to prove it.

Mr. G. goes on. Again thus: What Gospel privilege the Nati∣on of the Jews had before their rejection, that they shall recover with advantage at their restauration. To have their seed to belong to Gods visible Kingdome with them, and enjoy outward Church-pri∣vileges was a Gospel-privilege belonging to the Jews before their fall. Ergo. The Major is clear from, Rom. 11. 25, 26. Hos. 1. 10, 11. & 2. 23. By which my fourth principle, which is in effect the Ma∣jor here, is confirmed. The Minor appears. For by being Gods visi∣ble Kingdome Christ and all his benefits were offered to them all, and made good to the elect, which ordinarily were among them, and none else, and therfore this was a Gospel-privilege being it conduced to salvation.

I answer. 1. To the Major. Gospel privileges of the Iews are of two sorts: some Personal that belong to the Gospel by vertue of the Evangelical covenant, as to be justifyed, sanctifyed, adopted, sav∣ed, heard, &c. by God: of these I grant the Major: Other Gospel∣privileges (if they may be so called, and not rather Legal) were Nati∣onal, which were temporary belonging to their minority or paedagogy, as to have Christ come in the flesh from that Nation, to have their male

infants circumcised, to be taught by types and shadowes, &c. and of these I deny the Major. Nor do the texts prove it, but speak onely of the first sort of Gospel-privileges. Now among the later sort I rec∣kon, that the Children with the parents or the whole Nation should be Gods visible Kingdome. And for the Minor I deny it; if it be understood of the Gospel-privileges of the first sort. As for the proof of it I wish it had also been put in form. However I answer to it as it is. And except 1. that Mr. G. proves not what he affirmed, be∣cause he changeth the Subject of his Minor proposition to be proved, which was, that the seed of the Jews did belong to Gods visible King∣dome with them, but in the proof it is, the Jews or the Nation of the Jews being Gods visible Kingdome. 2. I know not how to con∣ceive it conduced to salvation, that the Jews seed did belong to Gods visible Kingdome with them, and enjoyed outward Church∣privileges, nor how by it Christ and all his benefits were offered to them all and made good to the elect. 'Tis true that in some sort the Iews being Gods visible Kingdome did conduce to salvation, in that by that means they had the teaching of the Law and Prophets and Levitical rites, whereby Christ was offered in a dark man∣ner. But this was not in that the Iews Infants had the out∣ward privilege of Circumcision, but from the merciful provision God made for that Nation being his visible Kingdome. And though it be true that by being Gods visible Kingdome they had this offer of Christ in the manner acknowledged by me, and so it was in a sort or in some respect a Gospel-privilege, yet the manner of offering Christ by the Law, Prophets, Circumcision, Levitical Rites, was but a temporary Gospel-privilege, belonging to the paedagogy which is now done away, Gal. 4. 1. Col. 2. 17. Heb. 8. 12. & 10. 1. and rather in the Epistles of Paul and other parts of the N T term∣ed Law than Gospel, and this the Iews shall not recover in their restau∣ration.

Mr. G. addes, Again thus, what Church-state and privileges belonged to the Chistian Iews in Pauls time, and shall belong to the body of the Iewes when restored (degrees only excepted) that belongs to all Christian Gentiles. But to the former belongeth to have the covenant with them and their seed, so that the Children belong to the visible Kingdome of Christ. Ergo. The Major is my third princi∣ple grounded on Rom. 11. 17. And thus I have answered Mr. Ts. de∣sire with syllogisms.

I answer, The Major is not proved by Rom. 11. 17. which

speaks nothing of outward Church-state. And for the Minor, under∣standing it as Mr. G. doth, that it belongs to them to have the cove∣nant, that is in his phraseology the outward covenant or the initial seal of baptism, and to belong to the visible Kingdome of Christ as members to be baptized in infancy, I deny it, nor find I any thing brought to prove it. And thus I have also prevailed with my self to answer Mr. Gs. syllogisms, though deemed by me not worth so much labour. I will add a little more to vindicate my self though wearied with Mr. Gs. superficial writing.

Mr. G. of me. Now what saith he to all this. Why? 1. If I mean by the Gentiles assumed into the place of the Iews of the same Church-state, and by partaking of privileges belonging to that Church-state it is denyed. I answer. I do mean the same Church-state and Church-privileges that are not typical, and this is plainly proved by Rom. 11. 17. they are in their place in the Olive and so must enjoy at least what they had: neither hath he nor can he dis∣prove it: for though he hold the ingraffing is more than into the vi∣sible Church, yet he denies not that they had therby a visible Church-state too.

I reply: if he mean the Church-state and Church-privileges that are not typical, then he doth not mean the outward privileges of the Children of the Iews belonging to the Iewish Church as it was in that state before Christs comming, to wit, male-infant Circumcision. For that was typical, it signified Christ to come, as I have shewed in my Examen part 3. Sect. 9. pag. 90. and in my Apology Sect 14. pa. 66. confessed by Pareus Comment. on Genes. 17. 11. and the ge∣nerality of Protestant Writers, nor do I think it will be ever shewed that in the Circumcision of male-infants of the Iews there was any thing moral and perpetual. As for Rom. 11. 17. if because the Chri∣stian believers are in the Olive in the place of the Iews, they must enjoy at least what they had in the same outward Church-state and privileges, then must they have a Stately Temple, High-Priest, a place to have Gods name perpetually put, a peculiar Tribe for Priests, their chil∣dren to succeed them, a year of Jubilee, none to be bondmen, &c. for all these they enjoyed; And if these be proved to cease as ceremo∣nial and typical, I make no doubt but the like will be proved of male-infant circumcision. And for my grant if he had recited my words rightly the impertinency of them to his purpose had appeared: which were these, that I do not deny that the same people might be or were ingraffed ••nto the invisible Church by profession of faith and bap∣tism.

But this is nothing to prove that by my concession the Gentiles infants upon the conversion of the parents were to have the same out∣ward Church-state and privilege that the Jews had.

Mr. G. goes on. Neither saith he, is a believing Jew a loser in his seed by the comming of Christ: sith this was a peculiar privilege in the time of that Church-state, which now ceaseth to be a privilege: which he saith he hath further discust Examen part 3. Sect. 11. which I have viewed again, and there find, that as here so there he barely dictates without proof, which learned men cannot count satis∣factory, thus to defalk the covenant of grace in the extent of it in a thing where nothing typical is shewed or can be.

I reply, my work in examining the Sermon of Mr. M. was not to oppose but to answer, and of an answerer proofs are not required, but solutions of objections. My disputing in my Examen is approved by as able as any of my Antagonists, which I spare to allege. For the 11^th. Section of the 3^d. part of my Examen, when any tells me in what learned men cannot count it satisfactory it will give me the more occasion to revise it. All learned men are not of one size, many are best satisfyed with that which is slightest, and all are apt to magnifie that which they affect, as I find by Mr. Leys vaunt, Doctor Dow∣nams magnifying Mr. Husseys piece, Mr. Calamy and Mr. Vines Mr. Blakes answer to my letter, Mr. Geree and Mr. Roberts Mr. Church his Treatise. In that which, if God will, is intended to be done, I shall discuss Mr. Ms. Defence. In the mean time for that which Mr. G. saies I defalk the Covenant of grace in the extent of it in a thing wherein nothing typical is shewed or can be, I answer, To defalk is to cut off as with a sickle: the thing I do is denying of Baptism to infants, though male-infants of Iews were Circumcised. Circumcision Mr. M. acknowlegeth in his Defence pag. 187. be∣longs to the Covenant of grace, not as a part of it, but as a means of ap∣plying it: nor do I think either Mr. G. or Mr. M. would have said it was a necessary means of applying the covenant of grace to all in the covenant, or so as that an infant without it should not have had the covenant of grace applied to it. I know not well in what manner it is meant, that Circumcision and Baptism are means of applying the covenant of grace, whether ex opere operato, or ex opere operantis, whether morally or physically, or otherwise. By denying infant-bap∣tism, I know not wherein I cut off any part of the covenant of grace in the extent of it. I grant elect infants have or shall have the things promised it it, and further if Mr. G. stood to his own words in his

Vindiciae Paedop. pag. 13. he durst not extend them. To deny infant-baptism, withholds not infants from the covenant of grace either ex∣pressively or by good consequence: neither are all baptized in the co∣venant of grace, nor all unbaptized out of it, nor is the interest of a person in the covenant of grace the reason why he should be baptized, nor the want of it, the reason of denying baptism according to the admini∣stration of that ordinance by ordinary rule. Mr. G. saies, in the thing in which I defalk the Covenant of grace nothing is or can be shewed to be typicall. Setting aside his affected phrasifying (which I count but vain, if it be good sense) his meaning I conceive to be, that in the Circumcising of male-infants of Iews nothing is or can be shewed to be typical. I answer. If by [typicall] be meant that which did foresig∣nifie Christ to come and somthing belonging to the Gospel, then though it could not be shewed from Scripture that there was any thing typical in circumcision of male-infants, yet it may be proved to be wholly e∣vacuated now. Typical and Ceremonial I do not take to be all one: The ark of Noah was a Type 1 Pet. 3. 20. yet it is not to be rec∣koned among ceremonies; so the land of Canaan, Jonah being in the Whales belly, and other things. And there are hundreds of things in the Ceremonial Law, which are now acknowledged to cease, wher∣of few can be shewed to be Typical, however Interpreters take liberty to make them typifie some this thing, some that, according to their various fancies. It is enough that Circumcision in every part and cir∣cumstance of it was meerly positive belonging to the ceremonial law now evacuated; I do imagine by the reading of the first part of Mr. Cawdrey and Mr. Palmer their Sabbatum Redivivum chap. 2. pag. 36. that they conceive some general Laws of Seals of the Covenant to be moral not abolished, but are perpetual, though no where ex∣pressly laid down in the general, but under the particular seals of each age, and I imagine that one of these laws is, that the initial seal belongs to the infants of believers, and this may be proved from infant Cir∣cumcision. I confess the wit of man may do much: but till the Phi∣losophers stone be gotten I expect not to see it proved, that there is any thing in Circumcision moral and perpetual: when ever it is attempted, I doubt not some learned man or other will sift it to the bran. I pre∣sume it will be found that other lawes about ceremonies confessed to be abolished will be as substantially profitable in all ages as an initi∣al seal to the infants of Covenanters, as that of Tithes, of an oecume∣nical or national Bishop in answer to the High-Priest among the Iews, &c. Such an attempt I should look upon as the last but feeble prop to

uphold the ruinous cause of infant-baptism.

2. Mr. G. might have known that there want not learned men who make almost every thing of Circumcision to typifie something about Christ, as the Circumcising the infant to fore-shew he should be an infant, a male, that he should be a male, in the member for generation, to shew that he should be from the seed of Abraham, which perhaps cannot be demonstrated out of Scripture (nor can hun∣dreds of institutions in the Ceremonial law which Divines make typi∣cal) yet circumstances and consent of Writers make them very pro∣bable. And therefore if I mistake not Mr. Gs. meaning, his speech seems to me to have no likeness of truth:

Mr. G. goes on. For my fourth sectary if it be understood of pristine Church-state he denies it, but he grants the promise will be extend∣ed to them and their seed as the text imports Isa. 59. 20. Why then say I, he grants that now under the Gospel children shall be un∣der the promise (which is but a branch of the Covenant) and what is this, but that which he hath so stifly denied, and which we assert as the ground of the seal annext to it.

I answer, it is true, I granted of the Iewes when they shall be cal∣led under the Gospel, that the promise shall be extended to their seed, nor did I ever deny it, much less stifly deny it, as M. G. falsly chargeth me; yea in my Examen page 66. I say, I think at the calling of the Jews there shall be a more full taking in of the children of the Jews than is now of the Gentiles; according to that Rom. 11. 26. And so all Israel shall be saved. But how this shall be done I express in my Apology page 70. not by an outward Ordinance or initiall seal, as it is called, applied to Infants, but by communicating the Spirit and word of God to them and their seed, as the text alleged by M. G. im∣ports Isa. 59. 20. which M. G. leaves out, as if he had not been willing I should be understood: Which was his and other of my An∣tagonists frequent dealing with me. But that which I grant I yield only concerning the Elect, not the children of the Iews as their chil∣dren, and so not belonging to every Infant of a believing Iew. And thus I expound the promises in my Examen pag. 53, 54. nor will Mr. G. assert the promise of saving grace made to every child of a believer, nor doth he expound the promise, I will be thy God and the God of thy seed, in respect of saving graces any otherwise than of the Elect. But to make this, to wit, that the promise shall extend to many of the Jews Children at their calling, and in like manner to many of the be∣lieving Gentiles children in several ages, the ground of baptizing eve∣ry

believers (though but such by profession) child, whereof few per∣haps are elect, and whether any now living be elect is unknown to us, seems to me to be an attempt like the building of a Castle in the Air, that is a vain indeavour to establish a thing without a foundation. As for that which he saith the promise is but a branch of the Covenant, if he mean it (as is most likely) that the promise of saving Grace is but one part of the Covenant, the outward seal another, he oppo∣seth Mr. M. who in his Defence pag. 187. denies it to be a part of the Covenant, nor is it true. For the seal, as they call it, hath no o∣ther relation to it then as an outward adjunct: the Covenant it self con∣tains no parts but the promises, it being nothing else but an aggregate of mutual promises: If he mean that the Covenant is the root, that is the cause, the promise the branch as an effect, in that sense his speech is not right, the Covenant being nothing else but an aggregate of mutu∣al promises: nor do I know in what other sense to conceive of that parenthesis of Mr. Geree, except he means, that this is but one part of the Covenant, that to children besides the promise of Gods Spirit being in them, there are other promises of other graces, as of justification, a∣doption, glorifying: which were true, but nothing to Mr. Gs pur∣pose: nor is it likely that this is his meaning, that besides childrens be∣ing under the promise, there is another branch of the Covenant, that is their own promise to be Gods, for this were not true of infants.