INfants may lawfully be Baptized ; for they be admitted into the covenant of grace now by Baptism , as they were before , and under the Law , admitted into the same covenant by Circumcision .

I deny your consequence .

You must deny it , either because the covenant of grace made with Abraham , and his seed , is not the same in substance with that which is now actually in force with beleevers , and their Children , or Secondly because Baptism succeedeth not in the room of Circumcision .

I could deny your division : yet I say , to gratifie you , for both those reasons .

For the former . That the covenant made with Abraham , and his seed , is the same which is now actually in force with beleevers , appears by comparing Genes. 17. 2. with Galat. 3. 14. where it is clearly set forth , that the promise made to Abraham , came unto the Gentiles through Jesus Christ .

Here he distinguisheth of a towfold seed of Abraham , the naturall , and spirituall , and saith , that the covenant was made with Abrahams spirituall seed , and not the naturall .

Even all the children of Abraham were Circumcised , and consequently admitted into the covenant , not one excepted ; for every Man-child was to be Circumcised , Gen 17. 10. It appears by what hapned to Moses for not Circumcising his Child , Exod. 4 , 24. Even Ishmael was circumcised Genes. 17. 23. who belonged not to the promise , but was of the naturall seed ▪

Ishmael , and the naturall Children of Abraham were admitted to the externall part , namely outward priviledges , and temporall blessings , and not to the internall , or spirituall part thereof .

By the Internall part he must needs mean that part of it expressed Gen. 17. 7. in these words , To be a God unto thee , and unto thy seed after thee , and in the end of v. 8. I will be their God .

To justifie this his destinction , he referred us to Rom. 9. and I think v. 8. where the Children of the promise are contradistinguished from the Children of the flesh , or the naturall Children of Abraham ; So that the covenant was made not to the naturall Children of Abraham , but to such of them as were elect , and faithfull .

This covenant was made alike in the same extent , and latitude promiscuously with all the seed of Abraham ; and those that lost the promise , and the benefit of this covenant ( which men you call the naturall seed lost it not , ) because they were not at first comprehended in the covenant , but because of their own unbeleef , Rom. 11. 20. I confesse that the children of Isaac are , Rom. 9. called the Children of the promise , not in regard of any peremptory election , or designation to Faith , and Salvation , or on the contrary of any absolute reprobation of the seed of Ishmael .

For if it had been Pauls designe to declare the Children of Ishmael , yea , the greatest part of the Jewes , to have been rejected by a certain absolute decree , why should he v. 1. 2. so much lament their incredulitie ? wish himself accursed for their sakes , v. 3. and Rom. 10. v. 1. desire , and pray for their conversion ? since upon such an absolute decree of reprobating them , all that happened to them was inevitable .

But the Children of Isaac are called the Children of promise , First , because they onely were to inherite the land of Canaan ; and Secondly , because Christ according to the flesh was to descend from the progenie of Isaac , not of Ishmael .

I might have added , that if none but the elect , and faithfull , can be admitted into the covenant , there is no subject left for the ordinance of Baptism , it being impossible for man to know who are elect , spirituall , and true believers . Neither can you Baptize with right , or safety , all such grown persons as you Baptize , since you cannot be assured that they are elect , Spirituall or true believers , ( Revel. 2. 17. ) nor have any light to guide you , save that of charitable opinion , and conjecture .

I could wish you could prove that Infants of believers might be admitted to Baptism by virtue of their parents faith .

They were admitted into the same covenant by Circumcision , into which we are admitted now by Baptism , but Circumcision is a seal of the righteousness of faith , Rom. 4. 11. 12. Whence it will follow , that either they had the righteousness of faith inherently in themselves , or that of their parents imputed to them ( chuse you whether ) or else it will follow that Circumcision was a false seal .

It is not said there that Circumcision was the seal of righteousness of the Childrens faith , but onely of Abrahams own faith in particular .

But the covenant , or promise , was the same and alike to Abraham , and his seed , Rom. 4. 13. Gen. 17. 7. and alike to us believers , and to our Children , Act. 1. 39.

2. This truth appears yet further from . 1. Cor. 7. 14. Where we find that the faith of either of the parents make the Children holy , at least in that degree of holyness ( which is the meanest imaginable ) to be in capacitie of being admitted into the same covenant with their Parents .

The scope of the Apostle here , is to satisfie a scruple of the Corinth . viz. whether the believing yoak-fellow might live in the enjoying and use of the unbelieving yoak-fellow ? he resolves them in the affirmative , saying , The unbeleeving husband is sanctifyed in ( as 't is in the Greek ) or to ( not for or by ) the wife , &c. That is , he may lawfully use , and enjoy her , and she enjoy him — and their are Children holy , that is , legitimate .

But here is certainly some speciall priviledge set forth to the Children of believers accruing to them from the believing Parents . Besides , it had been no news to tell them they might have the lawfull use of one another , and that their Children were legitimate and no bastards . For where both husband and wiefe were unbeleevers , no man ever doubted but their enjoyment of one another was lawfull , and their issue legitimate .

The case is meant where both parties at their entrance into marrriage were unbelievers , but afterwards one of them happens to be converted , whether then they might cohabit , and enjoy the use of one another .

Though this were granted ( which I shall not contend about ) yet the Apostles sense can not be of the lawfull use , and enjoyment of each other , for the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sanctifyed , never denotes to be lawfull . Or if ever you shew me that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is render'd holy , signifies lawfull , I shall urge no further .

Ther 's that acception of the word 1. Tim. 4. 4 , 5. Every creature of God is good , and not to be refused , if it be received with thanksgiving , for it is sanctified ( 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ) by the word of God , and prayer ; here sanctifyed is for lawfully used , as standing in opposition to that which is refused .

The sense is , that such use of the creature is pleasing to God , as acknowledging him the author , and sender ; for suppose a sinful man eat his meat without invoking God for a blessing , hath he not a lawfull use of the creature ?

His next instance was 1. Thes. 4. 3 , 4 , 7. Where sanctification is used for chastitie , and might bear that sense in this place , 1. Cor. 7. 17. in agitation .

I deny it , for sanctification is there used in its full latitude , as appears by the context .

But I will descend to prove the second ground of my consequence , at the beginning , which you denied , viz.

That Baptism succeeded in the Room of Circumcision .

Mr. Tombs had told us that it was impossible , for then women should not be Baptized , because they were not Circumcised , [ which is Bellarmines Argument ] To which I answered , that indeed the males only were mentioned in the covenant of Circumcision , for in the eyes of all laws whatsoever , the women are but as ignoble creatures , and therefore the usuall stile of laws , and covenants is Si Quis and Qui in the masculine [ except such as particularly respect their sex ] ▪

2. That they are included in the word Seed , and because descended from man , did partake of the priviledge , and promise , annexed to the covenant . [ I thought also to have told him , that I well knew that before Christs time Baptism and Circumcision were both practised on the Proselites called Proselitae Justitiae ( as I co●ld have shewed out of severall authors ) yet that hinder'd not , but that Baptism now under the Gospell should be the sole mean● to admit us into the same covenant , into which the Jews w●●●dmitted by Circumcision . Even as the bread and wine we taken by the Jews at the eating of the Passeover , and now that the Jewish Passeover is abrogated , the bread and wine were only by Christ retained to commemorate his Passion , the true Passeover . 1. Cor. 5. 7.

And in like manner when Circumcision was abolished , yet was Baptism retained to admit the Infants of Christians , as Circumcision admitted them of the Jews ; But the time , and his close manner of disputing , not permitting this enlarging by recourse to the originall , and institution of Baptisme , which served more to Illustrate than convince , I kept to the tether allowed , and came at length to prove that proposition ] from Col. 2. 11 , 12. Where 1. the circumcision of Christ is set in opposition to the Jewish circumcision made with hands . 2. An explanation of what is meant by the circumcision of Christ in these words , being buryed with him in Baptism .

Paul here disswades them from the use of Jewish ceremonies ( which some would have introduced amongst them ) and particularly of Circumcision , because all those were but shadowes , but the body and realitie was of Christ .

T' is confessed the Apostle speaks here against imposers of Jewish ( and also Pythagorean ) doctrines and practises .

But see ye not here a double Circumcision , and the Circumcision of Christ described by being buried with him in Baptism . The word buried implyeth but the resemblance betwixt Christs death , and resurrection , with what is done in Baptism , where there is an Immersion or plunging in the water , to shadow his buriall , and Emersion or rising up out of the water , to represent his resurrection , which resemblance is more fully set forth Rom. c. 6.

Here Mr. Tombs interrupted me , and desired the people to take notice of my ingenuous confession , that Baptism was then practised by plunging . He read also a passage out of Casaubons annot ▪ on the New Test ▪ where he sayth that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to Baptize , denoteth a plunging of the whole body &c. Had he read out the passage , he might have found how that great scholar affirmes this to be a slender Argument against such as only sprinkle at Baptism : for , saith he , the vertue and efficacie of Baptism consistes not in that , meaning the manner of washing .

Here take notice that sprinkling took its rise from a corrupt custome .

Though plunging be confessed the more antient way , yet is this no ground for that over-uncharitable speech of yours , in your sermon yesterday : That our Baptism , meaning of Infants , and by sprinkling , was but a nullitie , and Mockery , which concludes our selves , and all our Ancestours , even all in the Western Church for 1500. years , under damnation .

For the Church hath power upon the sight of any inconvenience , and for order and decencies sake , to alter the circumstantials and externalls of any Ordinance .

What have they to doe to alter any thing from the form of Christs institution ?

That they have such a power is confessed by all divines , and he is none that denies it , yea , I believe it is acknowledged by your own practice .

Wherein ?

In the administration of the Lords supper , which was done by Christ in the Evening , and also then by his Apostles after their Love-feasts : The whole Church of God , ( and your self I suppose ) take it in the morning , which custome hath taken place , and obtained every where for very many ages , even from their dayes who immediatly succeeded the Apostles .

Thus advising him to be wise to Sobriety , and cease to imbroyl the Church of God ( so infinitly torn already ) and to submit to the judgment , and scarce-interrupted practise of the Western Churches even for 1500. years , To which Gods providence could not be so far wanting , as to suffer them to fall into such an Errour of admitting and retaining a Baptism ( which in his account was none ) we broke off .

Having repeated , he denyed the consequence .

Which he proved thus , Subcontrary propositions in a Contingent matter may be both true : But these , viz: ( some infants may not be Baptized , some infants may be Baptized ) are Subcontrary propositions in a Contingent matter . Therefore they may be both true .

Having repeated the Syllogism , he said there were four terms in it ▪

He enquired where ?

He answered in these words ( may be both true ) in the Premisses , and ( are both true ) in the Conclusion . C. He returned , that was Mr. Tombs Syllogism , none of his , reciting that distick of Martial .

Quem recitas meus est O Fidentine , logismus ,

Sed male dum recitas , incipit esse tuus .

Repeating it over again after him , said , that he ought to have brought in the conclusions , and both true .

Which he took thus away ; That which proves the thing denied , is sufficient ; But that Subcontrary propositions in a Contingent matter may be both true , proves the thing denied , that some infants may not be Baptized , some infants may be Baptized ; Therefore it is sufficient .

He denied the Minor , though it be an Axiom , Subcontrary propositions in a Contingent matter may be both true , yet it was not consequent that these subcontrary contingent propositions ( some Infants may not be baptized , some Infants may be baptized ) may be both true .

Which was proved thus . That which is affirmed and predicated of the Species , may , and is affirmed of every Individuum , and particular under that Species : But it is affirmed of the Species , that Subcontrary Propositions in a Contingent matter may be both true , therefore it may be affirmed of these particular Propositions ( some Infants may not be baptized , some Infants may be baptized ) that they may be both true ,

He said it was a fallacy , he went about to entrappe him , in confessing that subcontrary Propositions may be both true , where the subject is capable , but here the subject , ( to wit infants ) are not capable of Baptism .

C Then replyes he , they are not Contingent ( which is here required ) but Necessary Propositions , in materia necessaria , if the subject be not capable , but we speak of Contingent Propositions , the Predicate whereof may be affirmed or denied of the subject without contradiction ; which while he was framing into a Syllogism .

Mr. T. interrupted him , saying , what would the man say if he could speak ?

C : You love not to hear truth speak , but would strangle it in the birth , like the Egyptian Midwives ; but to give you further Satisfaction , I will prove that they are actually both true , especially that some infants may be baptized , for of the other there is no controvesie . Which he did thus , To whom belongs the Essence of Baptism , they may be Baptized ; But to some infants belongs the Essence of Baptism ; therefore some infants may be Baptized .

Which was proved thus ; To whom belongs the definition of Baptism , to them belongs the Essence ; But to some infants belongs the definition of Baptism ; Therefore to some infants belongs the Essence of Baptism .

He answered first to the Major , ( to whom belongs the definition of Baptism , to them belongs the Essence , ) it was idem per idem , proving of the same thing by the same .

To which was replyed , why then sayes Aristotle , that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , the definition is a manifestation of the Essence , and Logicians describe a definition to be explicatio rei Essentiae , the expression of the Essence of a thing , now that which expresses a thing ; and which is expressed , are two distinct things . Then he denied the Minor , which was proved thus .

The definition of Baptism , as of all other Relations , is made up of the fundament , correlative , and termini . But all these three fundamentum , correlatum , & terminus , belong to Infants ; Therefore the definit on of Baptism belongs to Infants .

He denied the Major , that Baptism was a Relation , or was made up of those ingredients .

He replyed , that seemed strange to him , seeing all the Divines , and Logicians that he had read , affirmed Baptism to be a Realation , and it was evident , it could be put in no other Predicament , ( as might be proved by Induction , but that the people understood it not ) seeing the whole nature of Baptism is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Relation to another .

He said he cared not for authorities , but bid him prove it .

Which he did thus ; Every Sacrament is a Relation ● But Baptism is a Sacrament ; Therefore Baptism is a Relation .

He said he might deny both Propositions , first the Major , for any thing he knew , every Sacrament was not a Relation ; And the Minor too , that Baptism was a Sacrament , for the word Sacrament was an invention of man , not grounded upon scripture .

Which both Propositions together were proved thus ; That which is an outward , and visible sign , of an inward , and invisible grace , is both a Relation , and a Sacrament ; But Baptism is an outward , and visible sign , of an inward , and invisible grace ; Therefore it is both a Relation , and a Sacrament .

He denyed the Minor , that Baptism was an outward , and visible sign , of an inward , and invisible grace .

He told him , it was St. Austens definition , avouched by learned men in succeeding ages , confirmed , and approved by the Church of England in the old Catechism .

Mr. Tombs said he looked for Artificiall or divine Arguments , not humane Testimonies , at which answer while Mr. C. seemed to be astonished , he took occasion to triumph , contumeliously saying he never heard such an Argument .

To which he replyed , Nor Alexander ever saw such a knot , as the Gordian , which made him cut it , when he could not untie it ; you teach me by experience to know that there is no disputing against them that deny all Principles ; as where you think the people do not understand , you make no scruple to deny clear truths in Logick , and Divinitie ; Therefore I see I must go to plain scriptures , that all the people may understand the absurdities . Now that the Definition of Baptism ( which was the thing denyed ) belongs to Infants , I prove thus .

If God institute Baptism for infants , Christ merited it for them , and they stand in need of it , then to infants belongs the Definition of Baptism ; But God instituted , Christ merited , and infants stand in need of Baptism ; Therefore to infants belongs the Definition of Baptism .