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. V.

A digression about the nullity of connexion between the Covenant and initial seal as it is called, and the invalidity of proofs for it from Gen. 17. 7, 9. Acts 2. 38, 39. the mistakes about which text are shewed, and Mr. Stephens his arguments answered upon occasion of Mr. Gerees words.

MR. G. addes of me; Neither (saith he) will there be two di∣stinct estates, one of the Jews, of holy Fathers and Children, another of the Gentiles who have only personal privileges, none for their seed; But by his leave this will follow unless he grant that the promise or Covenant is to Christian Gentiles and their seed too: and if he grant that, whether the seal of initiation will not follow the Covenant I leave to be weighed by proofs set down in their places.

I answer. Mr. G. still maims my words, leaving out both my

tenet from which I say the absurdity he conceives will not follow, and the reason I give to avoid that absurdity. 1. He supposeth I grant that the promise or Covenant is to Christian Jews and their seed at their Conversion, and therefore unlesse I grant that the promise or Covenant is to Christian Gentiles and their seed too, there will be two distinct estates of Christians, one of Jews, another of Gentiles. To which I say, I never granted that the promise or Co∣venant of grace is universally to he Iews and their seed at their calling, but that perhaps there shall be a more ample taking of them and their children into Covenant than of the Gentiles and theirs: nor did I e∣ver deny that the Covenant of grace is made to believing Gentiles, and such seed of theirs as are elect, with which limitation the indefinite promises Deut. 30. 2. 6. Isa. 54. 13. and the rest are to be limit∣ted: nor ever yielded that the Covenant or promise did belong to either of them as their natural seed, and so to every of their children, but to the elect only: And therefore it will not follow from my grants, that I make two distinct estates (except in degrees) of Christian Jews and Gentiles. 2. He supposeth that the seal of initiation will follow the Covenant, and so the Jews children are to be sealed at their cal∣ling, and consequently the Gentiles, unless I will make two distinct estates of them. To which I answer, the seal of initiation is but a late devised term, which the Scripture useth not, and because so much abuse is made of it, to wit, from a meer Metaphor that's not once used in Scripture to infer lawes and rules to bind mens consciences, I therefore take liberty to reject it. Baptism is the word the Scripture useth, and that is a proper term; and for proofs proving this conse∣quence. The promise or Covenant of Grace is to a person, therfore he is to be baptized, I find none in any of my Antagonists writings which require much weighing. Mr. M. in his Defence when he should have shewed the connexion between the Covenant and the Seal declines the proving it, and wrests my words, as if I had granted it, though I plainly argue against it, in my Examen part 3. Sect. 1. If there be any proof in him it is from the particular institution of Circumcision, because it is said Gen. 17. 7. I will be a God to thee and thy seed af∣ter thee, & v. 9. Thou shalt [therefore] keep my Covenant, whence he would gather, that the reason why Abrahams infants were to be circumcised was their interest in the Covenant, and hence it is en∣deavoured to form a general rule thus: To them belongeth the initi∣al seal whether of the Jewish or Christian Church who have interest or title to the Covenant of Grace. But 1. all the force of this proof

hangs on the particle [therefore v. 9.] which is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the He∣brew, and may be rendered, And thou, or but thou, as well as thou therefore, and is by others rendered Tu autem, and Tu verò, which are neither of them illative terms. 2. If it were granted that [therefore] is the best reading, yet that the inference v. 9. should be made from the promise onely v. 7. I will be a God to thee and thy seed after thee, and not as well, if not rather, from the promise v. 8. of giving to him and his seed the Land of Canaan, I find no sufficient reason given. 3. But if it were yielded that the inference were made peculiarly from the promise, v. 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 that promise belongs to them, and so that covenant shall be made to every believers child which was not made to every child of Abraham, as appears v. 19. concerning Ishmael, & Heb. 11. 9. 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. 4. Lastly were all these things yielded that it is to be read [therefore] and that the inference v. 9. were from the pro∣mise, v. 7 and not at all from the peculiar promise to the Jews, v. 8. and that the promise, v. 7. did belong to the Church-seed as they call it of Abraham, 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 Abraham, duty, that therefore he should be the more engaged to circumcise his posterity, and yet onely 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 commen∣surate to the persons interest in the Covenant, but was to be given to persons as well out of the Covenant as in, if of Abrahams house, and not to all that were in the Covenant, to wit, females: which doth clearly prove that right to the initial seal, as it is called, of Circum∣cision did not belong to persons by vertue of the Covenant, but by force of the command: which Mr. M. was forced to confess in his De∣fence pag. 182. when he granted the formal reason of the Iews being circumcised was the command, and the Covenant he makes only a motive. All which doth fully shew, that the proof of the connexion between the Covenant and the initial seal without a particular com∣mand

for it is without any weight at all in it. Mr. Robert Bailee▪ in his Anabaptism dictates without proof something to prove a connex∣ion between the initial seal and the Covenant, from the nature of the terms, which I have shewed to be of no weight in my letter to him, both because it is vain to make the Metaphor of a seal to be the ge∣nus of a rite, it's like to the defining man [a tree turned upwards] to call a sacrament a seal is not to shew what it is, but to what it is like, and also because there being the same nature [of seal of the covenant] agreeing to the after-seal as well as the initial, if the argument be taken thence it will prove infants must have the one by vertue of the na∣ture of the terms as well as the other. But his dictates are so fallacious and feeble when they are discovered, that I need add no more to refute them. After these Mr. Nathaniel Stephens in a book intituled A pre∣cept for the Baptism of Infants out of the New Testament, to which two ministers of Coventrey have prefixed an Epistle wherein they judge the book as judiciously written, and therefore seems to be of some account, having abused sundry texts of Sceipture, to make good the title of his book, he asserts as he calls it pag. 29. a Convertibility between the word of promise and the word of command. Concerning which po∣sition it is to be observed that Logicians do distinguish between conver∣tibility, convertency and conversion. Conversion is of propositions, convertency of Relatives, convertibility of simple terms, whereof one may be predicated reciprocally on the other in the Nominative case, as when we say, A man is a reasonable living body, and a reasonable living body is a man. Now in this sense I know not convertibility to be of any terms, but of words that are synonymous, as to say Is∣rael is Iacob, and Iacob is Israel, or when the one is the definition, and the other the thing defined; one is the most proper difference or most proper accident, the other the kind or subject thereof: But how absurd it would be to say the word of command is the word of pro∣mise, and the word of promise is the word of command, any man un∣derstands, that knowes a word of command to be a speech not enun∣ciative in the Imperative Mood, but a word of promise is a speech enunciative in the Indicative Mood. But the Author it seems means this, that to whomsoever Christ is promised▪ or God hath promised to be their God, to them there is a command to be baptized, and that they should baptize their infants. Concerning which I grant if the persons be believers, or disciples of Christ, that they having the pro∣mise are also commanded to be baptized: but they are not command∣ed to be baptized barely in that they have the promise, but in that

they are believers or Disciples. But to have the promise to belong to a person, and to be a disciple or believer are not all one. A man is not a disciple or believer till he is called, but to be a child of the pro∣mise, Rom. 9. 8. is all one with to be an elect person, as Isaac and Iacob, v. 10, 11, 12. were Children of the promise, to whom the promise was made afore they were born, and so at this day thousands not only of infants but elder persons, not onely among believers but also infidels, particularly the Iews, Rom. 11. 26, 27. some not yet born, some not yet called, are in the Covenant, have the promise of grace made to them, and yet are not commanded to be baptized till they believe and are disciples. Nor can a persons being in Covenant be the direction to a minister whom to admit to baptism, sith it is un∣known to him who be in the Covenant of Grace, who not; nor is a judgement of charity to be a ministers rule whom to baptize, but a judgement of ministerial prudence to discern who are disciples by their profession according to Christs institution, nor is there any place for a judgement of charity in infants who neither speak nor do any thing which may shew them to be rather believers than unbelievers. Out of which I infer that all these kinds of speeches are but vain speeches, that the Covenant of Grace without any other command is a command to baptize an infant, that to deny infants right to baptism is to defalk the Covenant of Grace, that the command to baptize disciples is all one as to command to baptize persons in Covenant, with many the like frivolous suggestions still inculcated in writings and Sermons of Paedobaptists, though the vanity of them is often demonstrated as by o∣thers so in my writings. As for Mr. Stephens his assertion of the Convertibility as he calls it between a word of Promise and a word of Command, which in plain words should be they to whom the pro∣mise or covenant of grace is made, they are commanded to be baptized and their natural children even infants by vertue of the promise without any other command, it is chiefly grounded on Acts 2. 38, 29. in the expounding of which there are almost as many palpable mistakes as there are words in the 39^th. v. For

1. The exposition is commonly carried as if the promise there meant were the promise Ge. 17. 7. to Abraham & his seed: and this expounded as if it were meant, that God would be a God to every believer and to his seed in respect at least of visible Church-membership, which children they call Abrahams Church-seed (which exposition of the promise Gen. 17. 7. hath no footing in Scripture, nor is there any thing from the Scripture to prove visible Church-members of the Gen∣tiles,

which are not true believers, to be called Abrahams seed, much less their infants) whereas the promise from Peters words Acts 3. 25. seems to be that Gen. 12. 3. In thy seed shall all the Kinreds of the earth be blessed, which verse 26. expounds of Christ Jesus, or that to David Acts. 2. 30.

2. They expound [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, is, Acts 2. 39.] as if it were a promise of a thing to come, some outward privi∣lege to be conferred on them and their chil∣dren, * 1.1 whereas the chief thing meant in the speech is, that as it is expressely said by Paul Acts 13. 32, 33. we declare unto you glad tidings, how that the promise which was made unto the Fathers God hath fulfilled the same unto us their Children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again. So that the sense is not The promise is, that is, there is some outward privilege promised to be conferred on you and your children: but The promise is, that is, is fullfilled now at last after long expectation, in that God hath raised up his son Jesus and sent him to bless you in turning away every one of you from your ini∣quities, Acts 3. 26. And by consequence remission of sins is to be enjoyed by them that repent upon their calling.

3. It is taken as if [to you] were meant of those persons to whom he spake as then believers, and under that formal consideration. But 1. it may seem probable from the partitive article v. 41. [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 They that gladly received the word, and v. 44. All that believed] all to whom Peter spake did not after believe, though it is said v. 43. fear was upon every soul. 2. However, it is clear that they were not believers till after Peters speech. Nor is the contrary proved from their being pricked in heart v. 37. which it is said they would not have been if they had not believed that Jesus was the Christ. For though this prove that they had some sense of the greatness of Christs person, yet this faith was onely with horror, as in the Devils, from the conscience of the evil of their sin in crucifying him, not such a faith as whereby they did embrace Christ and the profession of him, and addict themselves to him, till Peter had spoken the words v. 38. 39. 40. now the promise is not made to a person and his seed that believe Christs greatness with horror without imbracing him and the profession of him. And this might be confirmed in that after the expression of their horrour v. 37. Peter exhorts them to repent v. 38: and v. 40. with many other words to save themselves from that crooked generation. 2. It is

most probable that [to you] is meant [to you as Jews] to whom Christ was first sent and exhibited, according to that Acts 13. 46. It was neces∣sary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you, espe∣cially those of Jerusalem, according to the prophecy Micah 4. 2. And therefore they are called Children of the Prophets, and of the Covenant, that is the people to whom the Prophets came, and to whom the Covenant was at first assured and made known, and to whom first Christ was sent Acts 3. 25, 26. which is strengthened by the di∣stinction between [you] and [those a far off] by which term if the Jews in the dispersion be meant, then [you] notes those then present who were Jews, if the Gentiles, then [you] must be expounded of the Jews as Jews, not as believers; for so they a far off from whom [you] are di∣stinguished being Gentiles [you] notes Jews as contradistinct.

4. [Your Children] v. 39. is expounded of their infant-children, yea it is carried as if of them onely. For they would have the promise to be to their children as theirs whether they be called or no, which can be verified onely in their sense of their infants, sith they maintain that even the Children of believers are not in Covenant, the promise is not to them, they are not visible Church-members when they come to years of discretion except they be called in their own persons, and ac∣cept the call. By which means they are necessitated to expound it thus, The promise is to you being called, to your children whether they be called or no, to all that are afar off as many as the Lord our God shall call, as if the limitation [as many as the Lord our God shall call] were to be put at both ends, but to be left out in the middle, to salve their fancy.

5. Whereas it is urged that when it is said The promise is to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call, which is expounded of the Gentiles, it is not added [to their children] Dr. Homes in his animadv. on my Exercit. Sect. 4. is not afraid to add it, and when he foresaw that it would be objected to him, he answers that Translators put in many words in their translation, to which there are no words answerable in the original text, as if because they adde words necessary to make up the sense, it might be allowable to him to add to the texts when there is no such necessity. His reasons are only why he thinks it should be added, but he brings no copy to prove that ever it was added.

6. Mr. Stephens hath an interpretation of the word [repent] which I know not that any else hath, as if when it is said [repent v. 38.] it were as much as to say [covenant for your selves and Children] as

if repentance were all one with covenanting, and repentance for their own sins were covenanting for their Childrens good.

7. And in like manner he holds the command [be baptized every one of you] in a Covenant-sense as he calls it (that is a new devised non-sense, such as we have no Dictionary yet to interpret words by) be baptised you and your Children.

8. Some would possess people with this conceit as if Peters scope were to take away by v. 39. an objection or scruple they would make. If we be baptized our selves our Children shall be in worse case in re∣spect of the privilege our children had in the former dispensation of the Covenant, when they had the seal of the Covenant, if they be not to be baptized also, and that he answers them, by assuring them that in this dispensation also their children were in Covenant and were to have the seal of the Covenant. Wheras there is not a word of any such scruple in the text, nor is it likely that they were sollicitous about such an imaginary poor privilege of their children, when their consciences were so oppressed about the grand crime they were guilty of in crucify∣ing the Lord Iesus. I may use Mr. Cobbets words Just. Vindic. par. 2. chap. 2. Sect. 6. with some alteration, They were not troubled for want of such outward Church-privileges, and to tell them of such external right to the promise was both impertinent and unsatisfactory, and it could minister but little comfort to sin-sick souls to promise them such privilege, which they might have, and yet die in their sins, Matt. 7. 23. More likely to take off the fear they had from the imprecation mentioned Mat. 27. 25. Peter tells that in Christs crucifying and raising from the dead, was fulfilled the promise which would in the event save them and theirs if they and theirs did believe; somewhat like un∣to the comfort Joseph gave to his Brethren in a like streight Gen. 45. 5. and 50. 19. 20.

9. They all do most grossly abuse the meaning of the Apostle in interpreting the inference of the Apostle signified by the particle [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, for, v. 39.] which they would have to be this, you have right and warrant to be baptized. For the promise is to you and your Children, as if the illative particle did infer a warrant or right for them and theirs to be baptized. Whereas the thing inferred is not any kind of right which in a legal way they might claim, but is a plain motive in a moral way urged to perswade them to be baptized. And this is manifest from the form of words v. 38. which if they had exprest a right to Baptism by vertue of the promise, should have been in the Indicative Mood in such a form as this, You are to be baptized, you may be baptized, you have right to it, the Minister ought to

do it: but the words are in the Imperative Mood exhorting them and perswading them to it, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, be baptized every one of you, that is, be ye perswaded to perform this duty. Which is confirmed from the first duty he urgeth them to, which is urged in the Imperative Mood 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, repent ye, and to which baptizing is join∣ed by the copulative particle [and] which cannot be expounded without non-sense of a right they might claim, but of a duty they were to practise. Which is confirmed from v. 37. to which v. 38 is an answer. Now v. 37. they ask what shall we do? And Peter answers v. 38. repent and be bap∣tized, which to interpret of a right they might claim, and not of a du∣ty they were to do, had been ridiculous, as when the question is about Onyons, to answer about Garlick, as the Latin Proverb hath it.

10. And lastly, in the paraphrases which usually in their disputes Paedobaptists make of Acts 2. 38, 39. they put not in any thing to answer the term [repent] as if it stood for a Cipher, but paraphrase it thus, Ye may be baptised you and your Children, for the promise is to you and your Children, whereas the putting the word [repent] first, and [be baptized] after, do manifestly overthrow their paraphrase of a right to Baptism from the word of Promise; and shew that the particle [For] doth not prove a right to Baptism, but press to a duty, and such a duty as is to have Repentance precedent, and that in every per∣son that is to he baptized. For first they are bid every one to repent, and then every one to be baptized. I hope by this time the intelligent Reader will easily perceive how frivolously Acts 2. 38, 39. is alleged by Paedobaptists to prove as it is called the convertibility of a word of Promise and a word of Command to baptize infants. To shew which I was the more incited by the speech of Mr. John Goodwin in his Pre∣face to the Reader (a 4) before his Thrasonical book intituled Re∣demption redeemed, in which after his fashion of wording things he thus speaks. They who suffer their judgements to be incumbred with the error of Antipaedobaptism must upon the account of their inthralment under the said error, maintain many uncouth, harsh, irrational, venturous and daring interpretations and expositions of many texts and passages of Scripture, and particularly of these, Gen. 17. 7. 1 Cor. 7. 14: Acts 2. 39. & 16. 15. 1 Cor. 1. 16. 1 Cor. 10. 2. besides many others, which frequenly up∣on occasion are argued in way of Defence and proof of the lawful∣ness of Infant-baptism. I forbear to recriminate, I doubt not but there are and will be found men that will sift his book, and shew the monstrosity of his conceits about Gods decrees, knowledge, intentions,

&c. of his expositions of Acts 4. 27, 28. &c. But for my exposi∣tion of the texts he mentions, when he hath read and seriously weighed this writing with my former, me thinks he should be ashamed, if not recant that censure of his. His seven erronious and Anti-evangelical opinions he chargeth the holding Anti-paedobaptism with shall be ex∣amined in their place, and his many mistakes therein shewed. For present I referr the Reader to this Treatise to consider whether Paedo∣baptists or Anti-paedobaptists do bring the more plain and fair exposi∣tions of the Scripture; and return to Mr. Stephens, who pag. 29. speaks thus. I endeavour to prove the convertibility between the word of Promise and the Word of Command first from particular examples; in the Sacrament of Circumcision, the word of promise is, I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed; in relation to this promise the Lord did command Abraham to cir∣cumcise all his males Gen. 17. 7, 8, 9. In this institution there is a mutual relation and convertibility between the word of Promise and the word of Command. For as many as had a right to be cir∣cumcised by the word of promise, had a right to be circumcised by the word of command. Againè converso, there must needs be then a convertibility between these two in the sacramental action. Again in the Institution of the Passeover, Exod. 12. 13, &c.

I answer. If this be his meaning by his convertibility of the word of promise and command, that whoever hath right by the initial seal by the one, hath right by the other, I know none would deny it, for it would follow that there should be a command to deny a person his right if it were not true. But however this his phraseology may take with them that know not how to distinguish between chalk and cheese, this is it he must prove if he will prove any thing to his purpose, that to whomso∣ever there is a promise of grace, or of Gods being their God, they are to have the initial seal by a word of command, and vice versa. Which how false, it is shewed above. And for his proof it is but from two particulars, and therefore not a full induction; and neither of the in∣stances he gives serve his turn. Not the former. For the promise was to the females as well as the males, they were Abrahams seed, God was their God, they were to inherite the Land of Canaan, as the daughters of Zelophehad, and yet were not to be circumcised: but of this enough before. The other is less to the purpose, for the Sacra∣mentall action as it is called of striking the blood Exod. 12. 13. was upon the posts, not on the persons, either parents or first born sons to whom the promise of saving their lives was made, nor did all or only

those eat the Paschall Lamb, and unleavened bread, to whom the promise was made: as for instance, not the infants first born of a day or two old. Therefore these very instances are so far from proving his convertibility, that they plainly prove the contrary, that without a particular command distinct from the word of promise, a person hath not right to the initial or after-seal as they call it, though he have the word of promise, sith in both these instances persons had no command to partake of the rite, though they had the promise signified by it. I go on to the next.

Secondly, saith he, This is made manifest by the generall nature of the Covenants between men and men: There must needs be a con∣vertibility between these two parts that do contract, as may appear by the Indentures between them. If this be so in the generall nature of Covenants, it must necessarily hold in the Sacramentall Covenant betwixt God and man. There must needs be between the word of promise, which is Gods part, and the word of Command that doth contain the duty of man in the Sacramentall action, there must needs be (I say) between these two a near relation.

I answer, It is true, in Covenants usually there is a mutuall con∣tract, and there are mutuall performances to which persons are enga∣ged thereby. And if it be true that such a Convertibility must needs be between those persons that do contract according to the generall na∣ture of Sacramentall Covenants, then there can be no Covenant be∣tween God and an Infant, sith an Infant cannot contract, and so this very argument is against the baptizing of Infants. If any say, Parents do contract for them, to it I say, be it so, then according to this argu∣ing they should also seal or be sealed for them. But as I say in my Ex∣amen Part 4. Section 4. I insist not on this Argument, it proceeding only according to Paedobaptists hypotheses, and serving onely to shew the vanity of them. But for the thing, it is certain that however the words of faedus, pactum in Latin, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in Greek, Covenant in English, be used, the Hebrew 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and the Greek 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, used in the old and new Testament do not alwaies import a mutuall con∣tract, and mutuall performances. God is said to establish a Cove∣nant with all living, Gen. 9. 9, 10. between whom and God there neither is nor can be mutuall contract and performance. And the term sometimes rendred [Covenant] is not onely rendred [Testa∣ment] but also the Holy writers do illustrate the new Covenant rather by the metaphor of a Testament than of a Covenant, 1 Cor. 11. 25. Gal. 3. 15. Heb. 9. 16, 17. and where the promises are set down

without any reciprocall contract or duty exprest, Heb. 8. 10, 11, 12. and 10. 16, 17. Rom. 11. 26, 27. So that it cannot be proved to be the generall nature of Covenants that there should be such a conver∣tibility as that both must seal or contract or perform. In Testaments or Wills which have the name of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, sometimes trans∣lated [Covenant] there is no such mutuall contract or duty, or sealing: there is a single Covenant as well as a mutuall. So that this argument from the general nature of a Covenant, to prove that they to whom God promiseth to be God, they are commanded to be Baptized, is of no weight.

But saith Mr. Stephens, there must needs be between the word of promise, which is Gods part, and the word of command that doth contain the duty of man in the Sacramentall actions, there must needs be (I say) between these two a near relation. To which I answer, Though in mutuall Covenants between God and man, there be a word of command inferring duty, yet this is not from the generall na∣ture of Covenants between men and men. For in mutuall Covenants between men and men who are equalls, there is no word of command, but onely of promise on both sides: And therefore the word of com∣mand conjoined with Gods promise is not from the generall nature of Covenants, but the superiority that God hath over men. And be it granted there is between the word of command, and promise, in the sa∣cramentall action a near relation, yet it proves nothing to his purpose that to every one to whom the promise is there is a command he should be baptized. There are many sorts of relations, of those that are not onely secundùm dici, but also secundùm esse, relatives between which there is a near relation, and a command too of something to be done in relation to promise, yet no command that the person to whom the promise is should be tied to something. As in the promise that is named by Mr. Stephens himself, the first born was not commanded to do any thing, though the promise were to save his life, and what com∣mand can there be to a still-born infant in the Covenant of grace? So that in these dictates of Mr. Stephens there is a meer emptiness of any solid proof.

Thirdly, saith he, this is evident from the very definition of a Sa∣crament: For the form and being of a Sacrament by and through which it is defined doth stand in the analogy, proportion, correspon∣dence, mutuall relation between the outward sign set forth in the word of command, and the inward grace contained in the word of promise: now then, if there be no mutuall habitude and relation between these

two, we shall take away the very being and form of a Sacrament.

Answer: I acknowledge two rites of the Christian Church-Baptism and the Lords Supper, and that the Jews had many more rites appoint∣ed them: But the term Sacrament, & what is delivered by Protestant wri∣ters about the definition of a Sacrament, and many things they inferre thence, I think are not found in Scripture. If M. Stephen▪ would have argued from the definition of a Sacrament, he should have set down a fixed definition of it out of Scripture. The name Sacrament, and the definition Mr. Stephens alludes to [a visible sign of invisible grace] so far as I can find, began much about Augustines times, whose sayings we regard with liberty of examination. But the visible sign is not the word of command, but the duty of him to whom the command comes; nor is the inward grace the promise, but the thing promised, so that the proof concludes not a covertibility between the word of promise and the word of command, but between the thing promised and the thing commanded. Besides, if it be granted that there is a mu∣tuall habitude and relation, so as that the one is a sign of the other, and it may be said that the Sacramentall action commanded, or the word of command is the sign of the promise or thing promised, and that is sign∣ed by it, yet this proves not the convertibility Mr. Stephens should prove, for this notwithstanding, it remains to be proved that to whom soever the promise belongs, to them the Sacrament belongs. Yea to shew how inconsiderate this arguing is, sith by the grants of the Author the definition of a Sacrament doth as well belong to the Lords Supper as to Baptism, if it take away the form of a Sacrament to deny that to whom the promise belongs to them Baptism belongs, it will upon the very self same ground prove, that to deny the Lords Supper to Infants (which I suppose Mr. Stephens doth) to whom the promise belongs, takes away the form of a Sacrament.

Fourthly, saith he, this doth appear from the weakness of that which is usually alleged to the contrary: and therefore though it may be true (as some say) that a promise may be without a seal; yet when men have once put their seal, it is necessary that there must be a correspondence between the seal, and the Covenant. In like manner it is not absolutely necessary that the Covenant of grace or the word of promise should be set forth with outward signs that appear to the sen∣ses: yet the Lord having once in the word of Institution appointed the outward sign to signifie the inward grace, in such a case as this is it is necessary that there should be a mutuall relation between the word of promise and the word of command. They that deny this (to

my understanding) do not onely go against the experience of Belie∣vers, but also against the common sense of men.

Answer. It is true they that deny a relation between the sign and thing signified go against common sense of men, and they that deny there is benefit and comfort at least in doing our duty in the holy use of Baptism and the Lords Supper, they go against the experience of Belie∣vers. But there is no such thing as either of these in denying▪ Mr. Ste∣phens his convertibility between a word of promise, and command, contained in such propositions as these, Every person to whom God hath promised inward grace is commanded to be baptized, and every person that is commanded to be baptized, hath a promise of inward grace from God. For the truth of this (if it were true) is not known by experience of Believers, but by reason, nor can it be against com∣mon sense of men, Sacraments being onely positive rites, they are not naturall signs, but instituted, and so without revelation of Gods mind no man knows but it may be as well a Sacrament to shave a mans hair, as to baptize him in water: so that in this speech of his is meer vanity. And in the rest there is heedlesness or unskilfulness. For first he doth ignorantly confound the word of promise which is Gods act, with the inward grace which is effected by God many hundreds of years sometimes after the promise, Rom. 11. 26, 27. and the word of command which is Gods act, with the duty of man, and the sign of Gods grace and promise: whereas a word of command may be, and yet the duty or thing commanded not done, and words being signs of the things they express, a word of command can onely express a com∣mand not a promise, which is expressed by other words.

2. Most unskilfully as one that understood not himself, he thinks when he hath concluded there must be a correspondence between the seal and the Covenant, a mutuall relation between the word of promise and the word of command, this is all one with his asserted convertibili∣ty: wheras there may be a relation between the Covenant of grace and Baptism either as a memorative or sealing sign, and this may be mutuall, and there may be a relation & correspondence (though what he means by it I cannot well tell his expressions are so indistinct and obscure) be∣tween a word of promise and command, and yet these propositions not true, every person to whom God hath promised inward grace is commanded to be baptized, and every person that is commanded to be baptized hath the promise of inward grace, which is the onely convertibility that is any thing for his purpose.

He is pleased to censure it as weak which is usually brought to the

contrary. Me thinks he should not be ignorant that in my Examen of Mr. Ms. Sermon Part 3. Sect. 1. there is a formed dispute about it: Of which when Mr. M. replied to my Examen in his Defence, he hath rather thought good to possess mens minds as if there we••e no such disagreement as my words bear shew, between him and me therein, when the very title of the Section, and the whole series of my discourse, shewes it is my drift to overthrow the imaginary connexion between the Covenant and seal, which is the hinge on which Mr. Mr. first and main argument turnes. If Mr. Stephens think it so weak it will be no hard matter for him to answer it: But then let him not nibble at it, but in a scholastick way set upon it, and overthrow it, and he will say something to his purpose. Otherwise to mention onely one thing, to wit, that a promise may be without a seal, and then to bring in an answer which is in that place overthrown, is but to shift, and not to dis∣pute. There are many reasons which moved me to prosecute this large digression being once entered into it, I now return to Master Ge∣ree.

Mr. G. yet addes, And unless he grant this privilege to Christian Gentiles, there will follow a partition-wall thus far to make distinct Conditions of persons under the Gospel, contrary to Eph. 2. 14. where Christ hath made Jews and Gentiles equal.

I answer, it is true Christ hath made believing Jews and Gentiles equal, and now and wherein is expressed Ephes. 2. 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22. But it is no whit contrary to Ephes. 2. 14. to affirm that though the Infant-males were circumcised, yet the Gentile belie∣vers infants are not to be baptized, there being no command for this as for that. Nor by making their condition distinct in this, any part of the partition Wall which Christ brake down is made up: but in very truth by this inference, The Jews infants were to be circumcised, therefore ours are to be baptized, is the partition Wall made up again in the A∣postles sense: sith it supposeth that the command of Circumcision in some sort bindeth upon which that inference is made.

Mr. G. saith in the close. Thus have I answered Mr. Tombes his large dissertation which I again seriously commend unto him; being not a little grieved to see so much ability and industry cast away to darken manifest truth in my apprehension.

I reply. Thus I have examined Mr. Gerees answer, being much wearied with his unconcocted writings, and sorry to see so much want, I will not say of ability but of industry in him, and so much darkness in not apprehending so manifest a truth as this, That the ingraffing Rom.

11. 17. &c. is by giving faith into the invisible Church according to election. Against which I pass on to examine what Mr. Richard Baxter of Kederminster, and Mr. Thomas Cobbet of Lyn▪ in New-England, have said to the contrary.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Cobbet Iust. vind. part 1. ch. 2. sect. 4. the promise in praesenti is to you in respect of externall right.