Anti-Paedobaptism Part 3
His next Argument is, Infants of Christians are rightly called the Lord's children, for his manner hath been to call the children of his people his children. In the old world some were called the sons of God, as children of his people, Gen. 6.2, 3. And the infants of the Israelites were called by him, his children born to him, Ezek. 16.20, 21. and their lawful seed, a seed of God. And the Jews were accounted to him great and small in every age until the breaking off; and the same was prophesied of the Gentiles, when they shall be converted, and of the Jews when they shall be grafted in again: and the Psalmist calls himself the Lord's servant, as he was the son of his handmaid: therefore such infants are rightly judged to be of the Church, which is the House of God.
Answ. Not one of these Texts proves the Church-membership of Christians infants. The term Sons of God, Gen. 6.2, 3. is attributed to persons before the Flood, and those not infants, but such as took them wives of all that they chose, which could not be said of infants; nor are they said to be Sons of God, because children of believers, but because they professed the true worship of God, Dei filios profession Christ. Cartwright Eborac. Annot. in locum, Such as descending from Seth and Enoch professed the true worship of the true God, New Annot. I omit the opinions of Josephus, Aquila, and many of the Ancients, recited by Mr. Gataker against Pfochenius, cap. 13. and the other of the Chaldee Paraphrase, R. Solomon, Symmachus, that they are called Sons of God, because Sons of Potentates or Judges, of which Mr. Cartwright ubi supra, and that of others Sons of God, that is, eminent men, because I think the other is more right: however they are not called Sons of God, that is, visible Church-members by their descent, but by their profession, which is not to be said of infants.
It is true Ezek. 16.28, 21. the children of Israel are said to be born to God, that is, of right as their Land was the Lord's Land, Hos. 9.3. and this did aggravate their sin, that those that were of right his were sacrificed to Idols: now this was by reason of that peculiar interest which God had in that people, verse. 8. But that what is said of the sons of the Jews is true of all the infants of believers, or that this is enough to entitle the infants of Christians to visible Church-membership, and the initial seal, as they call it, is yet to be proved.
Of Mal. 2.14, 15. I have spoken sufficiently in the first part of this Review, Sect. 13.26. of the Ample Disquisition: to which I add that in the second Edition of the New Annot. these words are added suitable to my Exposition of a legitimate seed; All other seed is spurious, not a lawful seed; nor such fathers are lawful fathers, who so pervert the order and Ordinance of Matrimony, God puts his mark of infamy upon the seed itself, Deut. 23.2. which shows that with Calvin that Author understood, by a Seed of God, a legitimate seed.
That which is said Psalm 22.30. A seed shall serve him, it shall be accounted to the Lord for a generation, hath no show of anything for infants visible Church-membership: it cannot be expounded of infants while such: for how can it be said, They shall serve the Lord ? But it notes only a continuance of the Church promised in a people, who should when some decease, stand up after them to serve the Lord. The impertinency of that Jer. 30.20. is shown before. As little to the purpose is that Psalm 116.16. He doth not say, he was the Lord's Servant as he was the son of his handmaid ; and it was to express his mean condition or humility, as Mary, Luke 1.48. not his privilege, and his subjection to God, not his right he could clame from God; yet if there were any privilege imported in this title ( son of thine hand-maid ) Mr. Church must prove it to be Church-membership, and that not proper to him as a Jew, but common to all Christians ere it will serve his turn, which he cannot do.
Enough is said before in the Ample Disquition, to prove that 1 Cor. 7.14. children are not denominated holy, because they appertain to the Church.
The remnant to be called holy, Isai 4.3. are either such Jews as in the captivity escaped alive, who should be holy in respect of their worship, not serving Idols, but the living God, or such converted believers in the Christian Church as should be written in the Book of Life, which makes nothing to infants Church-membership.
The Church is not called the circumcision, Rom. 3.30. & 15.8. but the Jewish people.
The Christians infants are not rightly judged to be of the Church Christian, because the Hebrews children were of the Church Jewish, God now not taking one whole Nation for his Church, but Disciples of Christ in all Nations.
Abraham is said, Rom. 4.11. to have received the sign of circumcision a seal of the righteousness of faith, which he had yet being uncircumcised ; but that any other man's circumcision was so to him, much less that every infants circumcision was such to them, I read not: sure the tenor of the words imports no more than this, that Abraham's circumcision in his own person was an assurance to all believers though themselves uncircumcised of righteousness by faith to be imputed to them also. What Divines though of never so great esteem thence infer of the nature of circumcision, that it is a seal of the righteousness of faith, of all Sacraments, that it is their nature to be seals of the covenant of grace, that to whom the covenant belongs to them the seal belongs, and consequently to infants, are but their mistakes, not the Doctrine of the Text.
Of Mark 10.14 enough is said before. Of infants may be the Kingdom of God, yet they not in the visible Church.
The speech ( out of the Church is no salvation ) is true of the invisible Church of the elect, and is so expounded by Dr. Morton Apol. Cath. and others; of the visible it is not true; Rahab had been saved though she had never been joined to the visible Church of the Jews.
What I said, that it is uncertain whether the infants brought to Christ, Mark 10.14. were the infants of Christian disciples or believers, is true; for it is not said, their Parents brought them, and though it be probable they that brought them believed on Christ, yet it is uncertain whether they believed him to be the Christ, or some eminent Prophet, as Matth. 16.14. Luke 7.16.
The Daughter of the Syrophoenician was called a Dog, Matth. 15.26. not because she was not a believers child, but because a Gentiles child, not an Israelitess.
Though Di • t. 30.6. Isai 44.3. Circumcision of the heart and the spirit be promised to the seed of the godly, yet it is not promised to any but the elect, as the fuller promise, Isai. 54.13. is expounded by Christ himself, John 6.45. and therefore not as Mr. Church saith, to children, as they are the children of God's People, if ( as ) be taken reduplicatively; for then all the children of God's People should have the spirit promised. Nor is the spirit promised to them in their infancy, and yet if it were, till they show it, we have no warrant to take them for visible Church-members, or to baptize them without special revelation.
It is largely proved above that Acts 15.10. no infant is called a Disciple.
There may be hope of infants salvation, they may be of the body of Christ, though they be not of the visible Church.
Our infants and ourselves though believers are yet Heathens, that is, of the Nations by birth, and had been reputed Dogs as well as the Woman of Canaan's child, Matth. 15.26. if we had then lived: but in the sense as it is now used, and as it was a Title of infamy and rejection, Matth. 18.17 we are not to be called Heathens, that is, infidels, and whose society is to be shunned; nor our infants, who are neither infidels nor believers, they being not capable of faith in that state ordinarily: as in Logic they say, a Whelp till the ninth day is neither blind nor seeing, there being a middle of abnegation of either extreme, by reason of the incapacity of the subjects, so we may say our infants are neither infidels nor believers.
What Mr. Church allegeth out of Rev. 22.15. serves only to beget hatred towards Antipaedobaptists: for ( without ) there is meant of being without the city or heavenly Jerusalem, verse. 14. and Dogs, there are ranked with Sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and such like; neither of which needs be said of infants; though we say, they are not visible members in the Christian Church, and that they are not yet believers.
Christ an infant was head of the Church, yet visibly he appeared not the head of the Church, till he was manifested to be so. Infants may be members of Christ the head invisibly, but not visibly till they show faith.
SECT. X. Infants capacity of some respects different from discipleship, entitles them not to Baptism.
IN the third Argument is not much more than was said before, and is answered. Jews infants were meet for circumcision, because of the command to them; ours not meet for Baptism, because we have no command or example: it is true Matth. 18.22. A little child is made a Pattern to those that are saved, in respect of humility or freedom from ambition: but it doth not thence follow that this mere negation of ambition doth qualify them for Baptism, unto which, actual Discipleship or Profession is ordinarily necessary. Christ admittted to him, and blessed little children, Mark 10.13. but did not appoint to baptize them, which it is likely he would, if he had judged them meet for it. If Parents may enter into covenant for their children, and dedicate them by solemn vow, as Hannah did, (of which there is cause of doubt whether now it is to be done as then) yet it follows not they are to be baptized, since Baptism is to be the persons own engagement, not another's for him: yea if this reason be good each Parent may baptize its own child, though a woman, since Hannah could dedicate her child by vow to God: If Israel be holiness to the Lord, Jer. 2.3. yet it follows not believing Gentiles infants are meet for Baptism, Joel 2.16. the children that suck the breast are required to fast: if this prove them meet for Baptism, by like reason should the Ninevites children and cattle be meet too, Jonah 3.5, 7, 8. The Psalmist was cast on God from his mothers belly, Psal. 22.10. not by dedication to God, but by special providence, as verse. 9. shows. Infants of Christians, it is rightly judged may have in them the principal things signified by Baptism, but not that they have them till they show it. If Mr. Church could make it good that God undertakes for what is wanting in the infants of his people through infancy, as he doth for what is wanting in his people through infirmity, he should say somewhat to purpose: but I am out of hope to find any good proofs from him, but trifling dictates and impertinent allegations, Psalm 119.122. is a Prayer, wherein the Psalmist prays God, to be surety for him for good, that is, says the New Annot. to put himself between him and his enemies, as if he were his Pledg: it is no undertaking he will, and if it be, it is nothing for his infants, surely not to supply what is wanting in them by reason of infancy for Baptism; He will circumcise the hearts of his people's children, Deut. 30.6. but this is meant of their elect children only, and not necessarily to be performed in infancy. Christ's promise Matth. 18.19. is upon condition of agreement by two or three to ask in his Name, nor is it said for them and theirs, however not without subordination to his secret purpose, and other limitations.
That of Isai 22.24, is rightly expounded in the New Annot. by learned Mr. Gataker, All his kindred and allies with their issue as well small as great shall partake of Eliakims honor, in one employment or other: so that this with the other Texts, might as well prove a man in the Moon, as that which Mr. Church infers, Therefore such infants are judged meet for Baptism.
His next, that Christians infants have righteousness by imputation, Rom. 5.19. as they have guilt by imputation, is true only of the elect, but makes them not meet for Baptism till they are called. What he says, Shows of grace are not necessary to the judging infants of Christians meet for Baptism, is said without proof; the contrary is proved before. All his Reasons he brings to prove it, serve as well to prove them not necessary that a person be judged meet for the Lord's Supper.
Infants may be rightly judged to have original sin in them without shows, because the Scripture says so, but tells us of none meet for Baptism, but disciples and believers. The Israelites infants did as much eat the Lord's Supper, as were baptized, 1 Cor. 10.1, 2, 3, 4. If the Text proves the one, it proves the other.
Baptism is called Baptism unto repentance, Matth. 3.11. as well as Baptism of repentance, It is well it is confessed that Johns Baptism was called the Baptism of repentance ; but it is true also that it is often so called Mark 1.4. Luke 3.3. Acts 13.24. & 19.4. and but once unto repentance : and it might have been observed which Beza notes on Matth. 3.11. that it might be there read ( at repentance, or when they repent ) as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Matth. 12.41. is rendered, ( at the preaching of Jonah) however if it be read ( unto repentance ) the meaning is to the same effect, that when he baptized them they professed repentance for the present, and for the future.
In answer to the Objection, infants by like reason should have the Lord's Supper, he tells us, that the ceremonies are different, in the one the person is to be active, in the other passive: but the Scripture says not so, but requires Baptism as a duty, and thereto profession of faith as a prerequisite. He saith, Baptism is the Sacrament of entrance into the church, the other of progress ; but this proves the rather that infants should have the Lord's Supper, since they are to grow and make progress after their entrance. What he saith, it cannot be given to infants, is false: for they can take Bread and Wine, and it was given them six hundred years together, as many both Protestants and Papists confess.
What he saith Argument 4. pag. 30. Sealing the covenant by an initial Sacrament to infants of God's people aforetime was not peculiar to that church-state, is manifestly false: for that sealing was no other than circumcision, which if it were not proper to the Jewish Church-state, nothing was.
It is frivolous which Mr. Church says, The commission to baptize must be expounded by the command to circumcise.
What is said about the antiquity of infant-baptism is elsewhere answered, Exam. part. 1. Apol. Sect. 15, 16. Precursor Sect. 3. Dionysius Areopagita is a spurious Author, as whole Juries of Protestants and Papists confess. Salmasius saith in his Letter to Colvius, pag. 179. that he is no elder than the since age, pag. 441. it is certain that he wrote about the since age. There's plainer proof for Episcopacy being in use nearer the Apostles days than for Paedobaptism: it is no intolerable presumption but a certain truth in them that assert, that infant-baptism is not so ancient as is pretended, as now taught is a late innovation.
In his fifth Arg. he undertakes to show, Infants have great profit by Baptism, but either asserts a mere Title, or a Profit which they have not by their Baptism, or that which they may have without it. It is not true, that there is the like profit to infants by baptism as by circumcision ; for the one is appointed and not the other, and there is no penalty for omitting infant-baptism as for neglecting infant-circumcision, nor any promise or privilege assigned to infant-baptism as to infant-circumcision.
SECT. XI. The Agreements between Circumcision and Baptism, do not justify Infant-baptism, and the validity of sealing Infants with an initial seal now, is shown to be null.
HIs sixth and last Argument runs thus, The promise was sealed by the initial Sacrament aforetime to infants of visible Professors, seeking it for them both Jews and Gentile, therefore it may be sealed to the infants of Christians by the initial Sacrament.
The Antecedent he proves not, it is in effect no more than the infants of Jews and Proselytes were circumcised, only Mr. Church useth the affected Phraseology of Paedobaptists to call that sealing the Promise by the initial Sacrament, which is no more than circumcision, which it is false did seal, or assure to every circumcised person the Promise of propriety in God, or any other Promise made in the covenant with Abraham, Gen. 17. And he says, It was sealed to infants of visible Professors ; intimating it was done to them by reason of their Profession, and not to others; whereas the infants of any in his house, whether born in Abraham's house, or bought with his money, who were not of his seed, but a strangers children, were by command to be circumcised. He puts in his conclusion ( our Baptism ) for ( sealing by the initial Sacrament ) But to let pass these stale Paralogisms; he takes on him to prove the consequence by six Arguments.
The first is, The principal Promise is not made void. He means that Gen. 17.7. but gives no reason why that should be the principal Promise, and not that v. 4. But I grant that Promise Gen. 17.7. meant of Abraham's seed by faith is not made void. He thence concludes, Therefore it may be sealed to the infants of Christians by the initial Sacrament in this dispensation ; which is not a proof of the consequence, but of the conclusion of the former Argument; nor is there any force in this inference: for though the Promise were still in force as then, yet it is not a sufficient reason to baptize an infant, the command being not to baptize persons in covenant, but disciples of Christ.
In his second he tells us, Sealing that Promise by an initial Sacrament to infants of God's people (which was the substance of circumcision, and a distinct thing from it) did not of right cease with the Jewish church-state; for it was not peculiar to that church as a national church; for that Promise was sealed to infants by the initial Sacrament long before the existence of a national church, and to Infants of strangers which were not of that nation Gen. 27.2. Sealing the promise by an initial Sacrament is principally in reference to the Catholik church. For shows of grace are sufficient to it, though • the parties have not joined themselves to any particulor church Acts 18.36, 37. and 10 47. and one that cannot be rightly judged to be of the catholic church cannot have the promise sealed to him by an initial Sacrament, though he be a member of a particular church.
Answer. That which Mr. church saith ( sealing that promise by an initial Sacrament to Infants of God's people was the substance of circumcision and a distinct thing from it▪ ) is many ways faulty in respect of falsehood, and obscurity. For 1. the substance of circumcision as a type or shadow is Christ exhibited, as the Apostle Col. 3.7. not the promise of God to every Infant of a believer by profession 2. as circumcision was asign or taken of the covenant made with Abraham ; and it is true the promise Gen. 17.7. was the thing signified by it, but not only that part, I will be the God of thy seed, but also the other, I will be thy God, yea and all the rest of the promises as ver. 4. thou shalt be a father of many nations, fruitfulness, descent of Kings ver. 6. inheritance of Canaan ver. 8. yet how the promises or the sealing of them should be the substance of circumcision I do not understand. Circumcision was a ceremony consisting of an action and a relation. Circumcision as an action hath no other substance or essence but the cutting off the little skin, as a relation, the signifying, or sealing is the very relation, but it is a trifling speech to say, paternity is the substance of paternity, if the promises sealed be meant to be the substance yet no Logicians I know so speak, to call the object of sight the substance of sight, the thing signified the substance of the sign. Faith is Heb. 11.1. said to be the substance of things hoped for, but there the act is said to be the substance of the object, not the object the substance of the act, & so the covenant should not be the substance of circumcision, but circumcision, the substance of the covenant. 3. It is more unintelligible to me, how sealing the promise by an initial Sacrament to Infants of God's people was the substance of circumcision and yet a distinct thing.
For, first, if he mean that it was the substance of circumcision as a relation, that is the essence of it (in which sense only I know how to understand his speech) then sure it was the very same and no distinct thing, the essence being not a distinct thing from the essentiate, the thing defined and definition are not two distinct things, though the notion be formally distinct; if he mean that sealing that promise by an initial Sacrament should be the Genus to circumcision, yet so it should not be a distinct thing, the Genus and species are not distinct really but formally, Quae formaliter distinguunter non habent se ut res et. res Kick. • ist. log. lib. 1. part. 2. cap, 5. nor was there any other sealing that promise by an initial Sacrament then by circumcision, and therefore no real distinction, all the distinction was merely notional or verbal, circumcision being one word, and sealing with the initial seal at that time another, yet both expressing the same thing. If any imagine a sealing with an initial seal then that was not circumcision let him show what it is and were commanded: Mr. Church himself pag. 41. calls circumcision the initial Sacrament aforetime. 2. Sealing the promise by an initial Sacramment is said to be the substance of circumcision, yet pag. 41. he saith it was a distinct thing from sealing the promise, and only a ceremony for that time. Wherein sundry inconsistences seem to be 1. that sealing the promise by an initial seal should be the substance of circumcision, & yet circumcision a distinct thing from it. Is the substance of a being a distinct thing from it? the substance of a man a distinct thing from a man? 2. that Sealing the promise should be the substance of circumcision, and yet circumcision only a ceremony for that time. Is that a ceremony to a thing which is the substance of it? 3. that circumcision doth cease yet not that sealing the promise by that initial Sacrament which was no other then circumcision. Let him that can read these riddles, I am no such Ocdipus as to unfold them. But let Mr. Church use what gibberish he please I know no other initial Sacrament then that of circumcision mentioned in the Old Testament, nor any sealing then commanded but it, and if it cease, then all the ruls about it cease to bind, and so are no rule to us now. But saith he pag. 41. The sealing of promise is not ceased, far seals are added in dispensation to the covenant. To which I reply. A thing is said to cease either of right or of fact which was of right to be or had being before but not now. There was no sealing by an initial seal aforetime that had being of right or of fact aforetime but circumcision, which Mr. Church saith was the initial seal aforetime, therefore circumcision ceasing, sealing with the initial seal aforetime ceased, there being no other foretime. But saith Mr. Church it is not ceased, for seals are added in this dispensation to the covenant, he means doubtless baptism and the Lord's Supper, and by seals other seals, and so his reason is sealing of the promise by an initial Sacrament which was aforetime is not ceased, because other seals are added, which is as if one should say, the night is not past because the sun is risen, the reason is good to the contrary, there are other seals added, therefore the sealing with the initial seal, aforetime is ceased. But, saith he, it did not of right cease with the Jewish church state: For it was not peculiar too that church as a national church.
Answer. If circumcision were not particular to the Jewish Church-state I know nothing peculiar to it. And if it were not peculiar to that church as a national church why was the nation peculiarly called the circumcision, and other people the uncircumcision Rom. 3.30. And for that which is alleged, that promise was scaled to Infants by the initial Sacrament long before the existence of a national church and to Infants of strangers which were not of that nation, I conceive neither is true. For circumcision was not till Abraham's nation were a Church. For he had before that time taught them the way of the Lord Gen. 18. • 9. and they worshipped the true God, as appears by the many altars he built to Jehovah▪ And though Abraham's house was but a small nation, yet it was a nation. And though Infants of strangers were circumcised, yet it was not without in corporation into that nation, so that they were of that nation if not by birth, yet as proselytes added thereto; nevertheless if it had been before the existence of the national church of the Jews, it might cease with that church-state, as the distinction of clean and unclean beasts was before Abraham's days, as appears by Gen. 17.2. and yet that distinction ceased with the Jewish Church state.
As for his second reason it is of no force. For when he saith, Sealing the promise by an initial Sacrament is principally in reference to the Catholic Church ▪ he means it, I conceive, of baptism, else Acts 8.36, 37. & 10.47. are cited to no purpose. But there is no color of consequence in Mr. Churches reason, thus framed, Baptism joined men to the Universal Church, therefore Circumcision was not peculiar to the Jewish Church-state, or that it ceased not with the Jewish Church-state. As for his other assertion, That [one that cannot be rightly judged to be of the Catholic Church, cannot have the promise rightly sealed to him by an initial Sacrament, though he be a Member of a particular Church,] it being of no weight to the present Argument, I shall not so fitly meddle with it till I come to answer the 20. ch. of Mr. Bs. first part of Plain Scripture proof, &c.
As for his third Argument, it proves not the Consequence. [For though faith and repentance be required of some afore circumcision] yet it was not required of infants afore circumcision. But afore baptism it is required of all Mat. 28.19. Mark 16.16. Acts 2.38. & 8.36, 37, 38.
To the fourth, I say though [infants now are capable of the promise as the Jews infants were,] and that [they could bear baptism as well as the Jews infants could circumcision, yet without a like command (which cannot be found) they are not to be baptized as the other were to be circumcised.
As for the fifth Argument, it is false, That [baptism is as appliable to infants as circumcision was; for there is not the like command, without which though it were, that no more action were required in the subject to be baptized then in the subject to be circumcised (which is false, as appears from Matt. 28.19. Mark 16 16. Acts 2.38. Acts 8.36, 37, 38.) and though it were that the parities were more between them then they are, yet they make no rule for baptism without a command or institution. But it is false which he saith, that baptism is the same Sacrament with Circumcision And as for the twelve parities, brought by Mr. Church, some are doubtful, as the first [that they are both initial Sacraments of the Covenant of grace] in some sense with some limitations it may be true, but in other, even in that sense it is commonly taken, it is not true; to wit, that the essence of them consists therein, and that they are so to all rightly circumcised or baptized.
The second is likewise ambiguous, in some sense true, in some false. Those that might not be rightly judged to be in the promise might be circumcised, however it be concerning baptism. And those that may be rightly accounted to be of the Church, meaning the invisible, yet are not therefore to be baptized.
The third likewise is doubtful by reason of the different ways of being accounted to the Church, and the doubt whether a person be to be accounted of the Church afore baptism or after. The Words Acts 2.41.47. seem to prove that they are added to the Church after baptism.
Neither is the fourth or fifth certain. For women ordinarily entered into the Church aforetime without circumcision, and did eat the Passover.
The eighth is not true of every circumcised persons circumcision, nor of every baptized persons baptism, that it is an external seat of the righteousness of faith.
In the tenth something is untrue. For in the new Dispensation (as the phrase is) are not both temporal and spiritual promises sealed as well as in the former, if he mean it of the same temporal promises, we have better promises Heb. 8.6 but not the • ame, not the promise of the land of Canaan, of greatness, prosperity, &c. but rather a prediction of persecution, if we will live Godly in Christ Jesus. Christians have Christ, and all other things by that part of the Covenant made with Abraham, which is spiritual, but not by that part which is proper to the Israelites.
In the eleventh Mr. Church seems to be out in his computation about the beginning of baptism, and end of Circumcision. He saith [Circumcision of right ended when baptism began to be an initial Sacrament, and that was not surely till John began to baptize, which was not till the fifteenth year of Tiberius, as is plain from Luke 3.1, 2. now mark his reason, For Christ's Circumcision was the period of it. Now if Christ's circumcision was the period of it, then it did cease almost thirty years before baptism began to be an initial Sacrament, Christ being circumcised in the Reign of Augustus. But whence doth he gather that Circumcision of right ended, when Baptism began to be an initial Sacrament?
For my part I find no such thing in Scripture. If our Lord's words John 7.22, 23. do not prove it was then in force, yet those speeches of the Apostle Ephes. 2.14, 15, 16. of abolishing the Law of Commandments in Ordinances, and slaying the enmity by his Cross, and Col. 2.14. of blotting out the handwriting of Ordinances, which was against us, and took it away nailing it to his Cross, do determine that Circumcision did of right continue until Christ's death, and so some years after, baptism began to be a Sacrament initial. The usual Doctrine is, that the Ceremonies of the Law became dead with Christ, deadly after the open promulgation of the Gospel, and calling of the Gentiles, Diodati annot. on Matth. 27.51. And this breach was a sign that by the death of Christ all Mosaical Ceremonies were annihilated. But Mr. Church tells us, Circumcision ceased to be needful when John began to baptize, for the Law is said to continue but until John, Luke 16.16. To which I answer, I know not why Circumcision should not be as needful as the Pass over, which our Savior himself observed Luke 22.15. and offering the gift to the Priest that Moses commanded, Matth. 8.4. I presume the command of Circumcision was in force till after Christ's death as well as the command of the Passover, seventh day Sabbath and other things. As for Mr. Church his reason if it were good, That circumcision was needless when John began to baptize, because it is said the law was until John, by the same reason he might say▪ all the rest of the Law, yea and the Prophets were needless, when John began to baptize. But the meaning is, the Ministry of the Law and Prophets continued, till John, or as it is Matth. 11.13. all the Prophets and the Law prophesied until John, that is, declared Christ's coming as future, and when John began then the Kingdom of God began to be preached, and therefore Mark 1.1, 2. The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ the Son of God is said to be upon John's preaching; for then the Messiah was named as present, Behold the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the World, John. 1.29.
Lastly saith Mr. Church [the Apostle plainly teacheth that Baptism is the same Sacrament to Christians that Circumcision was to God's people aforetime Col. 2.11.12. arguing against the continuance of Circumcision: in this Dispensation he uses two Arguments, which argue no less. For 1. Christ being come (who was the body of the old shadows) they of right ceased. 2. That baptism was now the sign of our Mortification, for which circumcision served aforetime.]
To which I answer, neither doth the Apostle plainly, that is, in express terms, teach Col. 2.11, 12. what ever Mr. Church, or Mr. Calvin say, That baptism is the same Sacrament to Christians that circumcision was to God's people aforetime, nor do his reasons prove it. For by the same reason we might say it of putting away of leaven out of their houses, and keeping the Passover with unleavened bread: baptism is the same Sacrament to Christians that the feast of unleavened bread was to God's people aforetime. For 1. Christ being come (who was the body of the old shadows) they of right ceased. 2. That baptism is now the sign of Mortification, for which keeping the feast with unleavened bread served aforetime, 1 Cor. 5.7, 8.
But were all these parities between circumcision and baptism, which Master Church mentions, right, yet they prove not his Conclusion, That the initial sacrament in this dispensation is as appliable to infants of Christians as the initial sacrament aforetime was to infants of God's people. For if not all these, yet as many other parities may be reckoned, at least according to Paedobaptists Hypotheses, between baptism and the Passover, as, that they are both Sacraments of the Covenant of grace, both ceremonies to be used about those that might rightly be judged in the promise, and accounted of the Church, the ordinary way of communion in the Church, not allowed to those without, engaging to observancy of the Covenant according to the several administrations, signs of mortification, external seals of the righteousness of faith distinguishing God's people from infidels, to cease at Christ's coming, &c. and yet I suppose Mr. Church will not have them the same Sacrament. Yea as many disparities between circumcision and baptism may be reckoned as Mr. Church reckons parities, as that the one was a shadow of Christ to come, not the other; the one a token of the mixed covenant made to Abraham, which was of promises peculiar to the Jews, not the other; the one a domestic action to be done in the house, the other an Ecclesiastic belonging to the Church; the one to be done by the parents in that respect, not so the other; the one with cutting off a part, not the other; the one with drawing blood, not the other; the one to males only, the other to females also; the one to be on the eighth day whatever it were, the other not limited to any precise day; the one made a visible impression on the body, and that permanent, not so the other; the one to be done with an artificial and sharp, the other with a natural and not wounding instrument; the one to all males belonging to the house of Abraham even infants, but not to others though Godly, except they joined themselves to that family: the other to believers or disciples of all nations; the one engaging to keep Moses his Law, not so the other. But be the disparities or parities what they will, the only rule in these mere positive rites is the institution or command: so that were the Sacraments (as they are called) the same in kind, use, analogy, or what other way they may be deemed the same, yet without a rule of command or example intimating such a command, we are not bound to do the like in the one, as we do in the other.
As for the sixth Argument, That nothing can be soundly collected from the scriptures against infant-baptism ; the contrary hath appeared above in the second part of this Review Sect 5. &c. what he grants that it may be soundly gathered that all of riper years should be discipled before baptism from the commission Matth. 28.19. doth also prove, that they had no Commission to baptize any but discipled persons, and so none but those of riper years, not infants unless there be shown some other Commission: which is not to be found in the Scripture, but only in corrupt tradition of antiquity, and the Jewish arguings of latter Divines, and is not yet found any other then will-worship.
To all which Mr. Church further brings answer is made before, the vindicating of my objections will most fitly come in the reply to Masters Marshalls Defense, to which I shall hasten after the dispatch of some few other Authors.
SECT. XII. Doctor Featley his argument for Infant-baptism from the Covenant, is examined.
MR. Rutherford is another of the Authors, whose writing Mr. Baxter tells, yet remains to be answered. But I know not any writing of his in which he doth directly dispute against Anti-paedobaptists.
I confess I have met with a dispute against those of the Congregational way of Discipline in his Peaceable and temperate Plea, c. 12. q. 12. for denying baptism to those infants whose next parent is not a known believer in some gathered Church, who yet do hold and practice baptism of such infants, whose next parent is a Church-member. But that dispute going only against them, and upon his grounds denied and refuted by me elsewhere, it were out of my way to answer what he saith there. If there be any other writing of his, I presume someone or other of the Antagonists I refute, have the strength of it: yet I intend if such a one do occur to me, to give account of it as I shall find meet.
Mr. Robert Baillee is another to whose writing Mr. B. points me. But his first Argument I have already enervated in the Addition to my Apology in my letter to him, and answering his three first criminations, especially the third, and have shown, sect. 1. that he doth but calumniate, when he charges us to affirm, That no infants have any place in the Covenant of grace, or any Gospel promises till they be called by the word, and by an actual faith have embraced the Gospel. What other arguments he brings are answered either in answering Others that bring the same, or its intended shall be answered in fit place.
There are many others who have written of this argument in the English tongue, each of which forms his Argument from the Covenant to the initial seal, from infant circumcision to infant-baptism, with some difference in terms, or phrasifying, though in effect all of them are reduced into the three forms in the 1, 2, 3. sect. of my Exercitation, and rest on these false principles, that interest in the Covenant of grace was the adequate reason of a persons title to circumcision, and is the adequate reason of a persons title to baptism, and that there is the like reason of baptizing infants of believers, as of circumcising infants of Abraham by virtue of the like interest in the Covenant, though there be not the like command for the one as for the other, nevertheless that it may not be said I have neglected anything conceived worth answering, or to have slighted any of their labors, I shall briefly answer the Arguments of such as have come to my hands, and then more largely answer Mr. Geree, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Cobbet, Mr. Blake, Mr. Baxter, who have opposed my writings, taking in others by the way, as I see fit.
Dr. Featley is one that hath been a Leader of the Prelatical party, and is judged by them to have proved Paedobaptism learnedly. His dispute is in his Dipper d • pt, p. 46. arg. 5. thus.
[All they who are comprised within the Covenant, and are nowhere prohibited to receive the seal thereof, may and ought to receive it: But children are comprised within the Covenant of faith, whereof circumcision was a seal, Rom. 4.11. and now baptism is, Ergo children may and ought to receive Baptism.
Of the Major or first Proposition there can be no doubt; for it is unjust to deprive a Man of the confirmation of that to which he hath a true right or title. And for the Minor or Assumption, it is as clear, for so are the words of the Covenant Gen. 17.17. I will establish my Covenant between me and thee, and thy seed after thee.]
Against which I except, first, That the Syllogism is many ways faulty; 1. That he puts in the Conclusion [children] as all one with infants. 2. That in the Conclusion there is this term not expressed in the Major [may and ought to receive baptism] for that which is in the Major [may and ought to receive the seal of the Covenant] is not all one with [may and ought to receive baptism] baptism and seal of the Covenant being not equipollent, besides Circumcision, passover, Lord's Supper, the Ephesians are said to be sealed with the holy spirit of promise Ephes. 1.13. nor is the term [seal of the Covenant] applied to Sacraments any other than a novel expression, neither used in Scripture, nor the Ancients. Rom. 4.11. doth not term circumcision (much less other Sacraments as they are called) a seal of the Covenant of faith, as the Doctor misallegeth it, but a seal of the Righteousness of faith, which he had being yet uncircumcised. Whence it appears that it was a Seal of what he had, not of a covenant concerning what he was to have: and this is said only of Abraham's circumcision, with such an observing of particularizing circumstances, as show it to be appropriated to Abraham's circumcision, what ever is said of circumcisions being a seal of the righteousness of faith, however Divines dictate to the contrary, and therefore what the Doctor adds in the Minor (which multiplies the terms in the Syllogism) [and now baptism is] asserting thereby baptism to be a Seal of the Covenant of faith, is said without proof, though I should not stick to grant it in this sense, that to the true believer his baptism assures righteousness according to God's Covenant, and the true believer by baptism gives testimony or assurance of his faith according to his Covenant, as being unwilling to wrangle about terms if we agree in the meaning. But in the sense Paedobaptists use it, as containing the nature of a Sacrament, I shall reject it in that which follows. 3. Against the Doctors omission of some words in the Minor, [and are nowhere prohibited to receive the seal thereof] which were in the Major. 4. That the term [and are nowhere prohibited to receive the seal thereof] is ambiguous. For it may be understood either of an express prohibition in forbidding terms, or a prohibition by consequence. It is granted in so many express words, infants are not prohibited to receive baptism, no nor the Lord's Supper, yet they are by good consequence to be denied both, in as much as both are disagreeing from the institution and practice of those rites in the New Testament. Wherefore to the Doctors argument, I except against the form of it, as containing more then three terms, the predicate in the conclusion not being in the Major, part of the medium in the major being left out in the Minor. And if it be thus formed [all they who are comprised within the covenant of faith, and are nowhere prohibited to receive the seal thereof, may and ought to be baptized: But infants of believers are comprised, &c. Ergo. ] I deny the Major if meant of God's covenant to us, or promise either of faith or righteousness to infants by it, as the alleging Gen. 17.7. imports the Doctor meant. But grant it of those who are comprised within the Covenant of faith by their covenanting to be believers, in which sense I deny the Minor, that children, that is infant-children are comprised in the Covenant of faith by their covenanting to be believers; yea and if the proposition be universal, all children, or all infant-children of believers are comprised in God's covenant of faith or promise that he will give them faith or righteousness by faith, I deny it. Nor is the Major proved by the Doctor. For it is no unjust thing to deny baptism to a person to whom it is not appointed; now baptism is appointed to disciples or believers, not to whom God promiseth to give faith or righteousness by faith. Besides were it true that God had so promised it and confirmation of it were due; yet without institution confirmation by baptism were not due; God hath other ways to confirm it, as by his Oath Heb. 6.17. the blood of his Son, 1 Cor. 11.25. his Spirit, 2 Cor. 1.22. A man that is bound to pass an estate, and to seal it, may not be bound to a further Confirmation by fine and recovery. Besides its no injustice not to confirm ones right who doth not claim and prove it. But this infants do not. And for the Minor, the words Gen. 17 7. have nothing about the second part of the proposition, nor do indeed prove any to be comprised in that promise, but Abraham and his seed, of which sort none of Gentile-believers children are, but those that are true believers as he was, or elect by God to adoption of children. The objection the Doctor brings in is not rightly framed, nor do I deny the answer the Doctor gives is sufficient to overthrow it as so formed. But what the Doctor dictates, That all true believers and their children are to be reckoned among children of the promise, is contradictory to the Apostles determination Rom. 9.7, 8. as the Apostle is expounded by Dr. Featly himself in the New Annot. on Rom. 9.8. in which he thus speaks, not all they who are carnally born of Abraham by the course of nature are the children of God to whom the promise of grace was made; but the children of promise, that is, those who were born by virtue of the promise, those who by God's special grace were adopted (as Isaac by a special, and singular promise was begot by Abraham ) they only are accounted for that seed mentioned in the Covenant, I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed.
SECT. XIII. The Arguments of Mr. William Lyford, from the Covenant for infant-baptism are examined.
MR. William Lyford in his Apology for Infant-baptism page 33. thus disputes. All that are taken into the Covenant of grace ought to receive the initial sign [what ever the sign be that God shall choose] and that according to the commandment of God, and our Lord Jesus Christ. But infants are taken into Covenant with their parents, as is proved; therefore by the Commandment of the Lord they ought to receive the sign which God hath enjoined to be used, and that sign is baptism.
To which I answer, by denying the Major, and for his proof out of Gen. 17.7, 12. I deny,
1. That there is any command for any other initial sign but Circumcision.
2. That circumcision is there appointed to all who are taken into the Covenant of grace, not to Lot, Melchizedek, Job or their children, not to the females of Abraham's house, not to the males under eight days old, not to the Proselytes of the gate as Cornelius was.
3. That the adequate reason why any was to be circumcised was interest in the Covenant, Gen. 17.7. but the command only. For both Ishmael who was not in the covenant was to be circumcised because of the command, and as hath been shown, others in the covenant were not to be circumcised through defect of the command. Nor is the Minor true, if understood of all the infants of believers, or any of them as their infants, nor is there a word to prove it Gen. 17.7. which is only a promise to Abraham's seed, and they of the Gentiles are only true believers or elect persons. But perhaps Mr. Lyford mends the matter in the next form, which is this pag. 34.
If infants have a right to the covenant and the initial sign thereof, then it is a wrong to deny it to them. But infants have a right to the Covenant and the initial sign thereof, both by God's original grant, Gen. 17.11.14. and by Christ's confirmation of that Covenant made to their Fathers, Rom. 15 8. therefore it is a wrong to deny it them. The Covenant under which we are, is the Gospel Covenant, made long since with us Englishmen and our infant-seed, with a command of giving them the sign, which at first was circumcision, and now baptism by the same Divine authority enjoined and commanded to be given without any exception of any within the Covenant.
I answer by denying the Minor, and to the proof by denying that Gen. 17.11, 14. there is command of any other initial sign than Circumcision, or that circumcision is commanded to all that had a right to the Covenant, or that the Gospel Covenant was made long since with us Englishmen, and our seed as our seed, or that there was in that of circumcision any command to us to baptize infants, or that Divine authority hath commanded baptism to be given without any exception of any within the Covenant. But I affirm he hath commanded only to baptize those in the Covenant who are disciples or believers. But Mr. Lyford adds further p. 37.
All those to whom the blessings and promises in the Covenant do belong, t them also belongs baptism, the sign thereof (by the doctrine of St. Peter, and of Jesus Christ himself) But to infants of believing parents, the blessings and promises of the Covenant do belong before actual faith, therefore by the Doctrine of the Holy Ghost in Scripture, such infants ought to be baptized before actual faith.
The Major or first part of this Argument is the very reason of the Text. The Minor proposition, viz. that the blessings and promises of the Covenant do belong to infants before actual faith is proved by these reasons. 1. By the express words of Peter, which say, the promise is to your children. 2. By the express words of our Savior, of such is the Kingdom of Heaven. 3. By example of Isaac and Jacob, they were children of the promise before actual faith, and had applied unto them the seal of the righteousness of faith. 4. Some infants dying are saved, they are members of Christ's Kingdom, therefore the blessing of the covenant, viz. regeneration and remission of sins through the blood of Christ do also belong to them.
To which I answer, blessings of the covenant are of sundry sorts, such as certainly accompany salvation, regeneration, justification, adoption, or such as are common to reprobates, as to have teachers, example, and acquaintance with the godly, &c. Both these may belong to them in present possession or assurance for the future: when they belong to them in present possession, it is either discernibly or indiscernibly. Actual faith may be in the exercise or habit. Infants of believers are elect or non-elect. It is true all those to whom the blessings of the Covenant which accompany salvation belong in present possession discernibly, to them also belongs baptism: but so the Minor is false, understood of all infants of believers: they belong not to all, but only to the elect, nor them certainly in present possession, much less discernibly during infancy: or if it be discernible, then they have actual faith, and so the Minor is not true, that to infants of believing parents the saving blessings of the covenant do belong in possession discernibly before actual faith. If it be meant of the blessings of the Covenant in future assurance only the Major is false. Nor is it true that the Major is the very reason of the text Act. 2.38, 39. It is false that this is Peters reasoning, therefore does the sign belong to Peters hearers because the promise did first belong to them. For the term [ 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for ] does not infer a right which they might claim, but imports a motive to duties, and of these duties first to repentance, and then baptism: so that if from thence a right be concluded, they must conclude as well a right to repentance in the first place, and then to baptism. Nor is it true that Acts 10.47, 48. the Apostles discourse is reduced to M. Lyford's form of argument, or says as he says, They that receive the same grace are capable, yea have right to the same sign, but infants are capable of the same grace, therefore of right they are to have the same sign, i. e. the Sacrament of baptism. For although the Major be granted of actual possession of the spirit and magnifying God, yet it is not true only of the promise thereof. But the Minor [infants are capable of the same grace] alters the term, which is in the Major thus [they have received the same grace] and so Mr. Lyford syllogism hath four terms. Nor doth the Apostle say, they that are capable of the same grace are to be baptized as well as we, but, none can forbid water to baptize them that had received the Holy Ghost, and so were manifestly actual believers as well as themselves, though they were of the Gentiles: which when it appears in infants I should yield they are to be baptized, but not merely because of the promise or capacity of grace, for the promise agrees to Jews children elect, and capacity of grace to Turks children, and therefore if either or both these did entitle to baptism, the infant-children of such might be baptized. And for his proofs of the Minor, it is false, that to infants of believing parents the blessings and promises of the covenant do belong before actual faith, is proved by the express words of Peter. For though he say, the promise is to your children, yet he doth not say, to you as believers, or to your children in infancy as the children of believers, nor before actual faith, Yea the words [as many as the Lord our God shall call] do require actual faith afore the possession of the blessings of the promise: Nor is this any miserable shift: nor is it true, that those words are quite a new thing clearly relating to another sort of people, than his present hearers, and not to them, for that expression limits all the Subjects, and is put after all joined by copulative particles, and therefore is to be conceived to limit all of them. Nor is the speech true of any of them without that limitation. Nor is it true which Mr. Lyford says, That the words do not exegetically expound to which of his hearers children the promise did belong. For they are a manifest limitation excluding some and including others.
And what he saith, that Peter says [this promise does belong to them that are afar off, and their children, as well as to you and your children] is manifestly false. But of this text I have spoken in the first part of this Review, sect. 5. more fully.
To his second proof, I say it is false, that the express words of our Savior (of such is the Kingdom of Heaven) prove his Minor. For [of such] is not all one with [infants of believing parents] nor when it is said [of such is the Kingdom of heaven] is it all one with this [the blessings and promises of the Covenant do belong to them afore actual faith] the Kingdom of heaven is not said to be of them, because their parents were believers, its uncertain whether they were so or no; and if they were, another reason may and ought to be conceived of their interest in the Kingdom of heaven, to wit Christ's special and effectual blessing: nor is it said the Kingdom of heaven belongs to them in actual possession; and if it were so meant, and yet they were not appointed to be baptized (as it appears by the Evangelists they were not) it is a good presumption, Christ would not have infants, notwithstanding their interest in the Kingdom of heaven, to be baptized till they became believers by profession, and knew what their engagement is th •• eby.
To his third, it is true, Isaac and Jacob were children of the promise before actual faith, yea before they were born, and therefore if the interest in the Covenant had been a sufficient reason of Circumcision, they should have been circumcised afore the eighth day, which because they were not, it is an argument, that not the Covenant, but the Command intitled them to Circumcision.
To the fourth, I never denied, that to some infants the covenant belongs; nor that they are saved, regenerated in infancy, but I deny, that this is true of all infants of believers. For the very instances brought prove the contrary, that though Isaac and Jacob were children of the promise, yet Ishmael and Esau begotten by believing parents were not, who yet were to be circumcised: nor is any a child of the promise because he is the child of a believer, but because he is elect of God.
As for Mr. Lyford's answer to the Objection in conference with him, it is indeed no answer. For he that objects that the blessings of the Covenant, belong to elect infants, not to all, and therefore under that pretence all in general are not to be baptized, doth not by that speech grant, that baptism belongs to one infant, or to any because elect, but only shows the insufficiency of the adversaries proof for that practice: As for those who deny baptism to all because they are infants, I know not who they be, the reason why it is denied them is not because they are infants, but because in infancy they appear not to be disciples, or believers in Christ, who only by the command are appointed to be baptized; and I agree with Mr. Lyford, That the Sacraments do belong to the elect not as elect, but as visible members and Professors (and that upon this account Simon Magus was baptized, though Mr. Lyford is mistaken in saying Peter baptized Simon Magus, which was done by Philip ) whereby Mr. Lyford doth indeed overthrow his dispute. For if the Sacraments belong to the Elect as visible Members and Professors, then to all and only visible members and Professors. For what belongs to any quatenus ipsum as such, belongs to all and only such universally and reciprocally, and so if he will stand to his own words, though children be in the Covenant or elect, yet till they be visible members and Professors they are not to be baptized, which doth plainly refute his own Argument, viz. the Major of his own syllogism: nor need we by our reason know whether a person be elected that we may baptize him, but whether he be a visible member and Professor.
SECT. XIV. The Arguments of Mr. Stalham, Mr. Brinsley, Mr. Hall, and a nameless Author, from the Covenant for infant-baptism, are examined.
MR. Stalham in the Conference at Terling page 4. argued thus, They who are included in the substance of the Gospel covenant are not to be excluded from the seal of the Covenant. But infants are included in the substance of the Gospel covenant, and therefore not to be excluded from the seal of the Gospel Covenant.
But in this Argument the Conclusion is not of baptism in particular, and so concludes not what was to be concluded, and since circumcision according to him was a seal of the Gospel covenant, it might be true of it and so granted. Yet the Major if universal is not true, no not of circumcision. For women and infant-males afore the eight day were excluded from the seal of the Covenant, though they were included in the substance of the Gospel covenant, s his phrasiology is, nor hath he a word in all the conference to prove his Maor; and for his Minor, setting aside his phrasifying, if this be his meaning; All the infants of believers, or the infants of believers, in as much as they are their children, have the substance of the Gospel-Covenant, that is the promise, Gen. 17.7. as it is a Gospel promise made to them, it is false and contrary to Romans 9.7, 8. nor is there anything in the conference there brought that proves it.
Mr. John Brinsley of Paedobapt. page 11.32. makes this his first and grand argument for the baptism of infants.
If children of believing parents be within the Covenant, then they may be baptized, But they are within the covenant, Ergo.
The Major he takes as granted, though I deny it as being most false.
The Minor he would prove, 1. From Acts 2.39. where he makes the promise to be of remission of sins, but that belongs only to the penitent believer, and therefore proves not that it belongs to the infant of a believer, without repentance and faith.
2. In that they were in the Old Testament in the Covenant. But he himself page 33. saith, All infants of believing parents are in the outward visible covenant. As for the covenant itself, to speak properly and strictly, it depends upon God's election. Neither doth it belong to any but those who are elected. What juggling then doth he use to tell us that they are in covenant, and that the promise belongeth to them without any difference of elect and non-elect; and p. 11. he saith, To whomsoever the covenant itself belongeth, to them belongeth this seal of the Covenant. And so his Minor must be, but the Covenant itself belongs to infants of believers: and yet to say, the covenant itself, doth not belong to any but those who are elected, but the outward visible covenant to all. But what this outward visible covenant is, he tells us not. I cannot understand any other than Circumcision, for that was the outward visible covenant in the Old Testament, and then his Minor asserts infants are in Covenant as they were in covenant in the Old Testament, that is, they are to be circumcised. Besides what interfering is there in Paedobaptists? Mr. Stalham saith, they are included in the substance of the Gospel covenant, Mr▪ Brinsley saith, the Covenant itself (and then surely not the substance of the Gospel covenant) belongs not to any but elect, but the outward visible covenant, that is a new nothing, belongs to them all. And thus people are cheated by these Doctors.
3. In that they are federally holy, 1. Cor. 7.14. but of it enough already in the first part of the Review. So much for Mr. Brinsley, one of Mr. Halls Champions.
Let us see what Master Thomas Hall himself in his Font Guarded page 9. argues;
To whomsoever the covenant itself belongs, to them also belongs the seal of the Covenant; But the covenant belongs to Believers and their children: Ergo the seal of the Covenant belongs to them also.
Answ. If Mr. Hall mean in the Minor, that the Covenant itself belongs to all the children of believers, then he contradicts Mr. Brinsley (out of whom he saith in his Epistle to him and Mr. Blake he gathered his weeds) who saith, it belongs only to the Elect, and if he mean it only of the elect, then he can conclude only concerning the elect; if he mean the outward visible covenant, than it is either circumcision, and then he asserts circumcision to belong still to infants; or he means baptism, and then his Minor and Conclusion is all one, and his Argument a mere inept tautology, unless he mean some other new nothing. And indeed this Argument of Mr. Hall is like the rest concluding of the seal of the covenant indefinitely when he should conclude of baptism, using in the Major and Minor the term [the covenant belongs] but not explaining what covenant, to whom or how it belongs, using children for infants, so that there is nothing but equivocation in his Speeches.
And for his propositions in the sense they are commonly taken, neither Major nor Minor is true, nor is the Major proved though he say it is clear. For though he that hath right to a temporal inheritance hath right likewise to the seal • and deeds that do convey that inheritance to him, yet in Law it is not necessary that there be a sealing to each inheritor by himself. A man may have a deed sealed for him to another as a Feoffee in trust, as is usual in the Case of young Orphans, to one man is conveyed the estate of many. So that besides the frivolousness of this conceit to make the term [seal of the Covenant] of the Essence of baptism, though it be but a metaphor not found in Scripture, and thence, and the use in civil Negotiations, to make a rule for the service of God; yet were this kind of proof allowed, the Major is not true, that to whomsoever the covenant itself belongs to them als • belongs the seal of the Covenant, meaning it in their own persons. For a Feoffee in trust may have the Estates of many conveyed to him, and so the parent by this reason may be baptized for the child. And for the other reason it is also insufficient, Abraham's posterity being in covenant receive the sign of Circumcision the seal of the Covenant, for the seal of the Covenant is as large as the Covenant itself. But neither is it true that the Seal of the Covenant in Abraham's posterity was as large as the Covenant itself, the women being in Covenant and yet not to be sealed in their own persons: nor if it were true doth it prove the Proposition. For if it were so by virtue of a particular command, then it follows not that if it were so then it must be so now without the like command. Nor is the Minor proved from Gen. 17.7, 10, 11. Acts 2.38, 39. For in the one is affirmed only that God will be a God to Abraham and his seed, which is not all one with every believer and his seed; in the other, whatever the promise be and howsoever Peter meant it was to them and their children, yet it is not said to you believers, and to your children as the children of believers, for then he had spoken false they being not then believers, and therefore it proves not that the covenant belongs to Believers and their children. This is enough to show the vanity of Mr. Halls disputing. For the rest of his Book, he being a gatherer out of others, as he saith, and in most things he should argue, referring us as an Index to their writings, I think it best to rid my hands of him, and to deal with his Authors he points to.
There were sent to me by some friends these two following Arguments in manuscript, as judged by some unanswerable.
The first thus. What privilege the proselyted Gentiles had who joined themselves to Abraham's Family in reference to their infant seed in the Ordinance of Circumcision, the like privilege the Christian Gentiles in the New Testament have in reference to their infant-seed in the Ordinance of baptism. But the Proselyted Gentiles had this privilege, that when they were circumcised their children were circumcised in their infancy. Ergo the Christian Gentiles have the same privilege that their children should be baptized in their infancy.
To which I answer, letting pass the exception to the quaternity of terms, and conceiving [what privilege] is put for [whatsoever privilege universally] without which the argument would be all of particulars, and so the Syllogism naught; I deny the Major, and my reason is, because were it a privilege or not, what was done in the use of circumcision by virtue of an express command, is not to be done in the use of baptism, without the like command. If it were, the Apostles did ill in not baptizing a whole Nation old and young together, and we do ill in keeping away the young ones of believers baptized from the Lord's supper, when being circumcised they were not debarred from the Passover. The other argument is in these words.
To whom the outward visible covenant of God manifestly belongs, to them in the days of the Gospel, the initiating ordinance, viz. baptism belongs. But unto the infant-seed of believers the external visible Covenant of God doth manifestly belong. Ergo to the infant-seed of believers in the days of the Gospel the initiating Ordinance, viz. baptism belongs.
To which I answer, what outward visible covenant he means, except baptism, I know not. If he speak as Mr. M. speaks, and some others, I have shown in my Apology sect. 10. that by it is meant the outward administration of the Covenant, which is no other now but baptism. Now if this be the meaning of the Author, the Major contains a trifling tautology, in effect this, They that are to be baptized, are to be baptized, and the Minor and Conclusion being all one, the Minor is to be denied, and the argument hissed out of Schools as a ridiculous foppery.
SECT. XV. The dispute of Mr. John Geree about the extent of the Gospel covenant to prove thence infant-baptism, is examined, and it is shown, that interest in the Covenant did not entitle to circumcision, nor is it proved it doth now to Baptism.
BUt Mr. John Geree Vindic. Paedobap. p. 6. would seem to dispute more accurately and after a syllogism which doth but repeat the conclusion in a new phrase, he disputes thus.
To whom the Gospel covenant is extended in the Churches of Christians to them the Sacrament of initiation appointed for that administration of the Covenant doth belong. To children of believing Christians, the Gospel covenant is extended in the Christian Churches, Ergo, to them the Sacrament of initiation doth belong.
To which I answer, Mr. Geree in this syllogism hath altered the term in his prosyllogism, it was in that [the sacrament of initiation instituted for Christian Churches] here it is [the Sacrament of initiation appointed for that administration of the Covenant] and wherein he supposeth; 1. The sacrament appointed for that administration of the Covenant. 2. The Sacrament of initiation appointed for the administration of the Covenant all one with the Sacrament of initiation instituted for the Christian Churches, and from thence would derive a rule for baptism. But that being a phrase not used in Scripture, nor perhaps deducible from it, and at best ambiguous, it serves for no proof, and therefore serves only to mislead those understandings which are apt to be caught with such chaff.
That the phrase is not used in Scripture, will not I suppose be denied, nowhere is baptism called either a Sacrament or a Sacrament of initiation, or said to be appointed for that administration of the Covenant, nor is it deducible from thence. For there is no place that I find, that makes this the proper and immediate use of baptism to be the administration of the Covenant, so that thereby either the making of the Covenant, or the conferring or assuring to the baptized the benefits of the covenant should be the next end of itself intended therein. The immediate and proper use of it is to be a sign that the person baptized repents of his sins, and renounceth specially his Gentile defilements, communion with Satan, and engageth himself to be Christ's disciple; Yet I deny not but that by consequent in the manner of doing it by dipping or plunging under water, it minds us of Christ's death▪ burial and rising again, and testifieth our salvation by him, and so in a remote manner assures to us the benefits of the Covenant of grace. But in this manner it is the administration of election as well as the Covenant, and is an administration of the Covenant only to elect persons, and true believers, for it assures salvation only to them, not to all that are baptized, and therefore in this respect none but they can have title to it. So that if from hence, that baptism is the administration of the Covenant, a title be derived for infants to be baptized, it can entitle none but those to whom it administers the Covenant, which are only the elect or true believers. But the ambiguity of the expression is much more fallacious. For 1. when it is said, it is appointed for the administration of the Covenant, the expressions sometimes are, as if it were the administration itself, calling it the new administration, as I show in my Apology, sect. 10. Mr. Geree here p. 10. baptism is a seal of a new administration, and then it is all one as to say the administration of the Covenant is appointed for the administration of the Covenant, which is either non-sense, or at least in • ptly spoken. 2. When they say [it is the administration of the Covenant] do they mean the outward or inward Covenant? The latter I presume they will not say, for then baptism should be an administration of the things promised therein, regenerarion, remission of sins, and if so, then it administers them in a natural way, and so it should in manner of a natural agent regenerate, &c. which is to confer grace ex opere operato, or in a moral way; but baptism can administer regeneration, remission of sins, &c. no other moral way but by assuring, or persuading, or the like, what ever way it be conceived it administers not the covenant to an infant in infancy, nor to any but the elect: now if it do not administer the covenant to any but such, then it is not baptism but to such, if baptism be in its nature the administration of the Covenant of Grace. If they mean baptism is the administration of the outward covenant, I am yet to learn what the outward covenant is, except they mean the outward administration, which is no other then baptism, as I show Apology s. 10. and what is this then but to say, that baptism is the administration, or appointed for the administration of baptism?
3. When they say, it is the administration of the Covenant, do they mean the Covenant or promise of the baptized to God, or God's promise to the baptized? If the former, then it is no more but this, that baptism is the administration, that is the signification of the baptized his engagement to be Christ's disciple, which is indeed the best sense of it, but then it will not fit them, for so it is not in infants, for they signify no profession or engagement of theirs by it. If the later, then by baptism God doth promise man; but thats not true, his promise is in the Word before baptism, or he signifies his promise formerly made, & this can derive no title to the persons to whom the promise is made, for the signifying that promise as past is as useful for others, either baptized or unbaptized, as the then baptized, and not at all of use or avail to infants, who cannot apprehend the signification; or he assures the benefits of the Covenant, and that can be only to elect or true believers; or that he contains them by it, and so it gives grace, ex opere operato.
4. The Covenant of grace is, I take it the Covenant of saving grace, opposite to the Covenant of works, the promise of justification by faith in contradistinction to the Law, Gal 3.18. This covenant was made mixedly, Gen. 17.4, 5, 6, 7, 8. purely Heb. 8.10, 11, 12. They should tell us whether they mean the one, or the other, or both. The former they seem to mean when they make baptism to succeed Circumcision, and to seal the same Covenant that it did. But then baptism should not be the new administration but belong to the old. And if it seal that Covenant then it assures the Land of Canaan, and greatness in it. But it seems they mean that it seals only the promise, I will be thy God and the God of thy seed, so Mr. Geree here, we find in the administration of the Gospel covenant to Abraham and his seed.
But if so, 1. Then it seals only a part of the Covenant that circumcision did, and so succeeds not in it's use, nor is there a reason given, but their own conceit, why it should seal one part, and not another.
2. If it seal or administer the Gospel-covenant, then it administers not this promise [that God will be a God to a believer, and his natural seed as such] For that is neither Gospel nor at all to be found, Gen. 17.7.
3. In that promise was foretold Christ to come of Abraham, and this was Gospel Gal. 3.16. But this is not administered by baptism, which signifies Christ already come.
4. In the spiritual sense it was made to Abraham's seed by faith, Gal. 3.29. Rom. 4.11, 12. But they are only the elect; Rom. 9.7, 8. and then it is an administration of that Gospel covenant only to elect persons, and true Believers.
5. There's ambiguity also in the term [the Gospel covenant is extended] The Gospel covenant is, The just shall live by faith, that God will be a God to Abraham's seed by faith. But Mr. Geree imagines a Gospel covenant, which is but a fiction, that God hath promised to be a God to the natural posterity of every believing Gentile.
6. For the extent of it how it is extended is ambiguous. For he cannot say it is extended in respect of the Gospel promise of righteousness and life to all the children of believers, it was not extended Ishmael to and Esau. Therefore he acknowledgeth it to be extended in the reality of it only to the Elect, only it is to be charitably presumed that they are elect, and therefore they are to be taken for persons in covenant till they discover the contrary. But he shows no rule of Scripture for such a Construction of the promise: sure such a construction was unknown to Paul, Rom. 9.6, 7, 8. when he expounded that very promise, Gen. 17.7. nor doth such a construction agree with the words, since when God saith, I will be a God to thee and thy seed, the meaning according to M. Geree should then be [I will be a God to thee, that is, every believer, and to thy seed, that is every believers natural seed which are elect in reality, and to those that are not elect in charitable presumption of the Minister of baptism, till coming to years they discover the contrary] now what a non-sense exposition is this, to expound [thee] meant of Abraham by [every believing Gentile] and by [thy seed] which is meant of Abraham's seed only either natural or spiritual by faith to understand [every believers natural seed] and when it is said, God will be a God to them, that he will be a God only to some in reality, which is to make God to promise what he doth not perform, and to others, that men shall think he will be a God to them, which would be too poor a matter to be meant in that expression, and therein God should not promise what he will be or do, but what men shall think, which would be false, for it is not made good, or that they may charitably so presume of them, but in this sense it is not a promise at all, but a mere permission to men to think charitably of them, which I suppose they are as well bound to do of unbelievers children till they discover the contrary, and so no privilege to the believers children. And yet this too must be limited to a certain time till they come to years and discover the contrary, and therefore by seed must be understood only the infant-seed, when they came to years, there's neither promise nor permission for men to think so charitably of them. And yet herein there is nothing but abuse of terms. For charitable presumption must have some ground, which is to be from something we perceive done to judge well of what we see not according to the rule 1 Cor. 13.7. Charity believeth all things, but in infants acts there's nothing that may be such a ground, but to the contrary they opposing their baptism by their crying, &c. If it be said, the promise is a ground, I answer, Mr. Geree confesseth the promise is not in reality but to the elect, nor to the elect till they believe, and therefore there is no ground from the promise till it be known the persons be elect or believers. But it will be said, we know nothing to the contrary. To which I reply, nor do we know anything to the contrary, but that unbelieving Jews children are elect, and in the Covenant, and yet its not charitably presumed of them, so as to count them in the Covenant, and to judge them admissible to baptism. I think since we perceive nothing of believers infants acts that may distinguish them from unbelievers, that we should rather suspend our thoughts of God's election and covenant to them till they show of what spirit they are, which is meet for an administrator of baptism, who as a wise Steward should give to everyone his portion in due season, Luke 12.42. rather then have such a fond imagination of what God hath concealed.
And if it be true which Mr. Geree saith in his Vindic. Vindic. p. 42. That many of the Assembly intended the words in the Directory for baptism [The promise is made to believers and their seed] in Master Gerees sense, they have reason to be ashamed that they have so much abused the World with such a toy.
Yea but have they not a promise on which to ground this charitable presumption? I answer, surely the Jews have a more express promise, Ro. 11.26, 27. for their posterity then any believer now living hath for his children, and therefore if that be all the ground of baptizing believers infants, there's a like ground for baptizing Jews infants though parents be unbelieving, and they have wrong that it is not done, where it may.
But shall we make no difference between the children of believers and unbelievers? I answer, we are to conceive with a judgment of probability for the present that they are elect, and with a quieting hope for the future that they will be believers.
1. Because of God's general indefinite promises.
2. Because by reason of the means of the knowledge of the Gospel which they have in their education, and living where the Gospel is taught, they are in a nearer possibility then others to be believers.
3. Because experience shows that God often doth continue godliness in religious families, though it often fall out otherwise. But that such an extension of the Gospel-covenant as Mr. Geree makes to the children of believing Christians, should entitle to baptism, is without all rule. And to his Syllogism, though it might be denied in respect of the form, by reason of the ambiguity of terms; yet I answer, by denying the Major in his sense, which I conceive is this, They to whom the Gospel Covenant is extended according to the charitable presumption of the Minister without the persons showing by any act that he is in Covenant, to them the Sacrament of initiation to wit baptism doth belong, and shall examine his proof both of Major and Minor.
The Major, saith he, I prove by that of Peter Acts 10.47. when they had received the Holy Ghost, which was but an evidence of God's receiving them into the Gospel covenant, Peter saith, can any forbid water that these should not be baptized, who are in covenant with God as well as we? They have the word or promise, which is the greater; who can inhibit the sign which is the less?
To this I answer, the proof rests on this, That the allegation of Peter that they had received the Holy Ghost, was brought for an evidence that God had received them into the Gospel Covenant, and so it may be said to the same purpose, who can forbid water that these should not be baptized who are in covenant with God as well as we?
But this is false. For their receiving the Holy Ghost is brought not to prove only that God had made his covenant of grace to them, but to prove that they were actual believers, as their works did show upon hearing the word of faith, for saith he v. 46. they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God, & ch. 11.17. if God hath given them the like gift as unto us that believe on the Lord J • sus Christ, who was I that I could forbid God? And v. 18. it is said, when they heard these things they held their peace and glorified God, saying, then hath God also granted to the Gentiles repentance unto life.
Whence it appears that they were penitent believers, and this is proved by their acts; and therefore to be admitted to baptism, and not barely because the Gospel covenant was extended to them, much less because the Gospel covenant was extended to some of that sort, and to those particular persons only upon a charitable presumption, that God's promise did belong to them for the future without any show of repentance or faith at the present. It is false that we may say, that when by any other principle in Scripture any are demonstrated to be in the Gospel covenant, who can forbid water that these should not be baptized, who are in covenant with God as well as we? For though God should reveal that this or that person were elect, and that his Covenant did belong to him for the future, yet he were not to be baptized, till God revealed that he were a believer or disciple. For if so, than if God did reveal concerning any, as he did of Isaac and Jacob, that he were a child of the promise, though yet unborn in the Mothers womb, he were to be baptized, which is absurd. None are to be baptized afore born, therefore any principle whatsoever in Scripture demonstrating a person to be in the Gospel covenant is not sufficient to entitle to baptism, much less such an uncertain doubtful guess, called charitable presumption, that he is in the Covenant, as is without any particular declaration of Scripture, or other revelation from God concerning the person, or any show of his that he is God's child, which yet Mr Geree makes a sufficient warrant to baptize, nor is his reason of any force, for we might in like manner say, They have the election of God, which is the greater, who can inhibit the sign which is the less? It is not whether that which they have is greater, much less that which is conjectured, or hoped they have, which is the rule to baptize, but the manifest having of that qualification of faith or discipleship, which is prerequired to baptism according to the institution and primitive practice of it. But Mr. Geree hath more to prove his Major.
Besides, saith he, we find in the administration of the Gospel covenant to Abraham and his seed, whom God had thereby separated then to be his church, and evidenced it by an outward seal: there was so near a relation between the Covenant and Circumcision the Sacrament of initiation, whereby men were externally separated from the world, that circumcision was called the covenant, and the token of the Covenant, Gen. 17.10, 11. to show us how the seal did follow the Covenant; and therefore when any were aggregated into the Jewish Church and taken into the Communion of the Covenant made with Abraham, they were initiated into that administration of the Covenant by the Sacrament of Circumcision.
To which I answer, letting pass his Phraseology, this reason goes upon these suppositions.
1. That by Circumcision God had administered his Covenant to Abraham and his seed, and separated them to be his Church, and evidenced it by Circumcision, and that the seal did follow the Covenant, when any were taken into Covenant they were circumcised, and therefore it must be so in baptism But if he mean that to as many as God appointed to be circumcised he administered the covenant of grace (which sense alone serves his turn) it is not true. Ishmael was circumcised, yet the Covenant not administered to him, nor he separated to be of his Church, not this evidenced by an outward seal, but the contrary declared concerning him afore his Circumcision, Gen. 17.18, 19, 20, 21. and he in the event cast out, and so the seal did not follow so the Covenant, but that it was imparted to them to whom the Covenant was not made, and not imparted to them to whom it did belong, as v.g to the females, nor were the Pros • lytes all taken into Communion of the Covenant made with Abraham, though they were taken into the Communion of the policy of Israel : nor 〈◊〉 the calling circumcision the covenant or a token of the Covenant (which are all one) Gen. 17.10, 11. prove that all that were circumcised had the Covenant made to them: but this that Circumcision was a memorial that such a covenant was made with Abraham, and God would perform it. 2. That it must be in baptism as it was in circumcision. But for proof of that there's not a word brought by Mr. G. and what others bring is examined in its place. M. G. goes on thus.
Now for your exceptions against the connection which we put between the Gospel-covenant, and the Sacrament of initiation annexed to it, in any administration they will clearly be wiped away; for what though (as you say) the Covenant made with Abraham were not a pure Gospel covenant, but had some external additaments? yet a Gospel covenant it was, and for substance the same with ours Gal. 3.8. The Gospel was preached before to Abraham ; and as circumcision was the seal of initiation under that administration; so is baptism under the Christian administration; neither is the Gospel covenant now so pure as to exclude all temporal promises. For godliness even under the Gosspel, hath the promises of this life, and that which is to come, 1 Tim. 4.8.
Answ. The distinction of a pure and a mixed covenant was brought in by me to show that Paedobaptists do but mislead people when in their writings and sermons they express themselves as if they would have men conceive that the Covenant with Abraham, Gen. 17. is all one with the Covenant of grace, and so that there is the same reason of baptizing infants because of the Gospel covenant, as there was of circumcising infants, because of the Covenant made with Abraham, Gen. 17. Now how doth Mr. Geree wipe this away? He tells his Reader, That I say, the covenant made with Abraham was not a pure Gospel Covenant, but had some external additaments. But neither do I so speak in my Exercit. pag. 2. nor Exam. part. 3. s. 2. nor anywhere else I know. I say the promises were mixed Exercit. pag. 2. Exam. part. 3. s. 2. now promises are not external additaments to the covenant, but integral parts, the covenant being nothing but a promise, or an aggregate of promises: yea I prove that the peculiar promise to Abraham's natural posterity inheriting of the Land of Canaan, &c. is frequently called by the name of the Covenant, Psal. 105.8, 9, 10, 11. Nehem. 9.8, &c. And for what he saith, That the covenant made with Abraham was a Gospel covenant; this is true according to the more infolded and hidden sense of the spirit, but not according to the outward face and obvious construction of the words, which in the first meaning spake of things proper to Abraham's natural posterity, though the Holy Ghost had a further aim in those expressions.
And whereas, he saith, The covenant made with Abraham was for substance the same with ours, Gal. 3.8. Though that promise mentioned Gal. 3.8. be no in the Covenant Gen. 17. to which Circumcision was annexed, but that Gent 12.3. and the term [substance] be ambiguous, yet I grant the Covenant made with Abraham according to those Gospel promises, which in the hidden meaning declared justification by faith, as the new covenant sealed with Christ's blood doth, is the same in substance, meaning by it, the intent, purport and meaning of the Holy Ghost, though not in words or expressions; yet I deny that it was every way or in every respect in substance the same. For the promise, according to that sense in which they contain domestic or civil promises proper to Abraham's natural posterity were of the substance of the covenant, and for the confirming of them, circumcision was instituted of God, as well as for them in priority of order before the assuring of those Evangelical benefits. And for what Mr. Geree saith, That the Gospel is not so pure now as to exclude all temporal promises, it is true; yet the Gospel doth not promise as the Covenan • Gen. 17. the inheritance of the land of Canaan with rest, plenty, prosperity and greatness therein, but on the contrary such temporal blessings as are with persecution Mark 10.30. and do rather consist in inward comfort and content than in outward enjoyment of any earthly commodity: which proves that the Gospel promise for temporal things is clean different from that made to Abraham Gen. 17. concerning temporal benefits to his posterity.
Mr. Geree adds. Neither are the differences mentioned by you (page 4. of your Exercit. or elsewhere) to be between Circumcision and baptism any whit material to put a difference between the parties to be sealed by them in reference to our present controversy; since notwithstanding these differences they agree in this main general; That the one was the Sacrament of initiation to all that were to be sealed under one administration of the covenant, the other in the other, which is enough to my purpose.
To which I say, the disparities between circumcision and baptism, are brought by me to invalidate the argument made by Paedobaptists to prove the succession of the one, into the place, room and use of the other, from the parities between them, which allegation to that end is made good before against Mr. Church, sect. 11. Those differences which I allege Exercit. p. 4. tend to demonstrate that there is not the same reason of circumcision and baptism in signing the Evangelical covenant, nor may there be an argument drawn from the administration of the one to the like administering of the other: which differences are very material to that end the different end and use of a thing, being the most apt reason for altering the application of it, As Mr. Rutherford, Divine right of Church Government, ch 6. q. 2. page 276, 277, 278. answering Era • tus, saith of the Sea, Cloud, Manna, Water, because they had a mixed use, they were appointed to all, yet it follows not now the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper must be given to wicked men. So by the very same reason, since circumcision had a mixed use to signify political as well as Evangelical promises, to confirm the promise of Christ to come, and did belong to the Church, not oecumenical, but economical or national, which baptism did not, therefore circumcision might belong to infants, and yet not baptism. And letting pass his phrase of administration of the Covenant, of which is enough said before, though the agreement, which he calls, The main general, be yielded him; that they are both sacraments of initiation, yet unless the same special rule of command, or example primitive be brought for the one as the other, infant-baptism cannot be proved from infant-circumcision.
Mr. Geree further tells me. But you add further p. 4. of your Exercit. that some were circumcised to whom no promise in the Covenant made with Abraham did belong; as Ishmael, of whom God had said his Covenant was not to be established with him. I answer, it is said indeed Gen. 17.21. my Covenant will I establish with Isaac. But by covenant there is not meant that covenant, which we stand in to God, in regard of our persons, for our own personal benefit: but the covenant of special prerogative, that Christ should come of, and the Church should remain in his posterity. Therefore notwithstanding that exception, Ishmael when circumcised, might be, and was a member of the visible Church in Abraham's family, and in regard of his person within the external administration of the Covenant with Abraham, and so in the judgment of charity no alien from the covenant of grace, but under it. This I might confirm by the opinion of some Hebrew Doctors, wherein they are followed by many, that the petition of Abraham for Ishmael Gen. 17.18. was not only for natural, but for spiritual blessings, and what he begged God granted, v. 20. But I clear it thus; God established his Covenant with Abraham and Isaac, not with Melchizedek nor Lot ; shall we therefore expunge them out of the Covenant of grace? how absurd were that? we only see their posterity enjoied not that privilege which God vouchsafed Abraham in Isaac and his seed. And therefore no more can be truly or rationally gathered from that place of Genesi touching Ishmael.
Answ. That which in my Exercit. page 4. I gathered from the instances of Ishmael, Esau, the strangers and others of Abraham's house their circumcision, and the non-circumcision of females, males under eight days old, Melchizedek, Lot, Job, the non-admission to baptism of circumcised Jews in covenant till they professed repentance and faith in Christ were.
That the right to Evangelical promises, was not the adequate reason of circumcising these or those, but God's precept, as is expressed Gen. 17.23. Gen. 21.4.
2. That those terms are not convertible [federate and to be signed] which overthrows the chief Hypotheses, upon which the Paedobaptists argument from infant-circumcision for infant-baptism rests. For they all conclude thus, The reason why infants were circumcised, was that they were in covenant, therefore by like reason infants being in covenant should be baptized. Now if the reason of infants being circumcised, were not their being in covenant, but only the command, then there is not a like reason for infant-baptism, though they were in the Covenant, unless there were the like command. Now let us see what Mr. Geree saith to my first i • stance of Ishmael. I alleged that Ishmael was circumcised, though no promise in the Covenant made with Abraham, did belong to him, and that Abraham knew, therefore the reason of his circumcision (and the same is the reason of others) was not his being in covenant, but only God's command to Abraham.
The antecedent is proved from the words Gen. 17.21. which are exclusive. And besides I alleged Rom. 9.6, 7, 8, 9. Gal. 4.29, 30. where expressly Ishmael is denied to be a child of the promise, or to be born after the promise. And I might have added Heb. 11.9. where Isaac and Jacob are distinguishingly reckoned as heirs of the same promise with Abraham, not Ishmael and Esau. Now what saith Mr. Geree to this? He • aith, The Covenant there is not meant that Covenant which we stand in to God in regard of our persons for our own personal benefit: but the Covenant of special prerogative to Isaac, that Christ should come of, and the Church should remain in his posterity.
But this is false, 1. For it was that covenant that made Isaac heir of the promise, which the Apostle Rom. 9.7, 8, 9. reckons as much as to be an elect person, it was the same covenant which was mentioned v. 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. which Mr. Geree, and other Paedobaptists call the covenant of grace, and usually make the interest in it the reason of circumcision, and was sealed by it, and That it was the same Covenant is apparent from v. 19. now then it was a covenant of personal benefit, if it derive grace to the person, or any other personal benefit. If it were only the Covenant containing the special prerogative mentioned, then it was not the covenant sealed to any but Isaac, not to any of the rest of Abraham's house that were circumcised.
2. It is insufficient. For it shows not that to Ishmael any promise, either Evangelical or Political in the Covenant made with Abraham, did belong, though he were circumcised, which he should have done, if he would have answered to the objection, and have vindicated his argument from it: As for his inference, Therefore notwithstanding that exception, Ishmael when circumcised might be, and was a member of the visible Church in Abraham's family and in regard of his person, within the external administration of the Covenant with Abraham, and so in the judgment of charity no alien from the covenant of grace, but under it.
I answer. I know not what it is to be under the external administration of the Covenant with Abraham, except it be to be circumcised; and therefore I count this speech, that Ishmael when circumcised might be within the external administration of the Covenant with Abraham, to be an inept tautology, as if he had said, Ishmael when circumcised might be circumcised. But were his speaking right, yet it is impertinent. For the thing he should have shown was not, that Ishmael notwithstanding that exception was a visible Church-member, within the external administration of the Covenant with Abraham, or in the judgment of charity no alien from the covenant of grace, but that any of the promises in the Covenant made with Abraham Gen. 17. did belong to him, and so that he was circumcised because of his interest in the covenant. Yet how Abraham could in judgment of charity judge him no alien from the Covenant of grace, but under it, whom God so plainly excepted out of that Covenant, which Paedobaptists themselves take to be the Covenant of grace, I see not. It is true that God heard the petition of Abraham for Ishmael Gen. 17.18. but that God granted him spiritual blessings doth not appear, but the contrary v. 20. where the blessings granted upon Abraham's Petition for him are recited. However it is clear that he did exempt him from the covenant v. 21. and therefore he was not circumcised by virtue of his interest in the Covenant, nor did his circumcision seal that interest. As for what Mr. Geree saith, no more can be truly gathered from thence then what may be said of Melchizedek, or Lot, it is not true. For though its not said expressly that God established his covenant with them, yet they are reckoned among the righteous; and so in the Covenant of grace. But for Ishmael when Abraham begged for him, God answers how far he would grant for him, and then adds adversatively. But my covenant will I establish with Isaac, that is not with Ishmael, which can be no other then the covenant before mentioned, v. 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. which thing was further manifested by God's ratifying Sarah's desire of Ishmael's election Gen. 21.10, 12. where he is excluded from Abraham's seed, from which the Apostle argueth Ishmael not to have been a child of the promise, nor elect, nor born after the Spirit; but reprobate, a persecutor, born after the flesh. And therefore in my Exercit. I cited those texts, which Mr. Geree did ill to omit, since they served for my purpose to prove that Ishmael had no part in the Covenant made with Abraham.
To the instance of Esau, Mr. Geree tells me, The case of Esau was but as that of Ishmael, and others that were of Israel, but were not Israel : they were under the external administration of the Covenant, though not really within the covenant of grace. This distinction you yourself acknowledge in the fourscore and sixteenth page of your answer, when you say, it is one thing to be under the outward administration, another thing to be under the covenant of grace. Its true these are distinct, but those that are under the outward administration are to be reputed under the covenant of Grace, and thence were to be sealed; thus was it with Esau ; for that sentence, the elder shall serve the younger, Gen. 25.23. could sound no higher in Isaac's apprehension then that difference which was put between Ishmael and Isaac.
To which I reply, If Ishmael were not really within the covenant of grace then Mr. Geree yields what I proved before, that the promise of the Covenant of grace did not belong to him; and if it were so, then Ishmael and Esau were circumcised, though no promise in the covenant Gen. 17.2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. did belong to them, and because this was revealed to Abraham and Isaac they were not reputed under the covenant of grace and thence to be sealed as Mr. Geree saith. Nor is it likely but Isaac did apprehend concerning Esau by the Oracle Gen. 25.23. that none of the promises in the covenant made with Abraham, Gen. 17.2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. did belong to him. However God appointing circumcision to these to whom he intended no interest in the covenant it follows, he made not interest in the covenant the adequate reason of each persons circumcision, but his own institution.
To the instance of strangers in Abraham's family, he answers; By God's own testimony Abraham would keep none in his family, but such as were outwardly conformable to the ways of God, Gen. 18.19. and so were in the state of Proselytes and interested in the Gospel covenant.
Answ. Whether Abraham did or might keep any infidel in his family was considered by me in the first part of this Review, s. 37. But for the text, Gen. 18.19. it doth not testify, that Abraham would keep none in his family, but such as were outwardly conformable to God's ways, but that he would command them to keep God's ways, and shall keep the way of Jehovah; but this being spoken indefinitely is equipollent only to a particular, as appears in Ishmael and Esau and others. But were this granted they were so conformable and were so proselytes and were in some sort interested in the benefit of the Gospel covenant, yet it follows not that any promise in that covenant did belong to them, much less that such interest was the reason of their being circumcised. As for Mr. Gs. useful observation, that circumcision was not annexed to the Covenant only because it was a mixed covenant, since it was appliable to the Proselyte Gentiles, and their seed, that were not only without, but uncapable of interest in the land of Canaan; I know not what use there is of it for his purpose; it goes upon a mistake that circumcision was to be to none, but who had interest in the covenant Gen. 17. which I have refuted. The Gentile proselytes were to be circumcised because of the command, though it were not known that each, or any proselyte, or his seed, had interest in the Covenant. As for Mr. Gs. reason of his obsevation, it should seem by it he meant otherwise than he expressed, to wit, Circumcision was not annexed to the Covenant only because of the temporal promises, which I grant, and yet hold the Covenant, Gen. 17.4, 5, 6, 7, 8. a mixed Covenant, and that persons were to be circumcised to whom no promise in the covenant made with Abraham did belong.
Mr. G. go • s on. To the other part of my exception against the connection between the seal and covenant, as they speak, that many were not to be circumcised, to whom all or most of the promises of the Covenant did belong, as the females coming from Abraham, he saith.
For females we answer, That God under that administration was pleased (in reference to some things pointed at by the seal) to appoint a sign of which women were not capable; so were they particularly excluded from being sealed with the Sacrament of initiation under that administration.
To which I reply, 1. That women are not capable of circumcision is contradicted by those that say, that at this day in some parts of the world women are circumcised. Aethiopes Christiani mares octavo ab ortu die circumcidunt, & feminis etiam aliquid amputatur, ut Abrahami et aliorum sanctorum patrum exemplo ardentius in similis sanctitatis studium incitentur. Quarto deinde a circumcisione die mares, octavo autem foeminae salutaribus aquis expiantur, & Eucharistiam • o die infantes initiati in mica panis assumunt. Osorius lib. 9. rerum ab Emmanuele gest. Zuinger. theat. vit. Hum. vol. 27. l 3. tit. bapt. pag. 4172. Osiander Epit. Hist. Eccl. Cent. 12. l. 4. c. 4. Anno Christi 1187. Jacobitae baptismo & ciriumcisione utuntur circumcidentes masculos & femellas. Hornbeck. Append. ad disp. de bap. ve. thes. 8. Solebant Aethiopes cum baptismo etiam circumcidere baptizatum, mas an femina esset circumcidebatur. Doctor Field of the Church 3. book chap. 1. Speaking of the Jacobites in Syria, Sixthly, they use circumcision even of both Sexes, and of the Habassines, They are also circumcised both male and female.
The same hath Heylin in his Geography, describing Syria and Ethiopia, and before him (if my memory deceive me not) Brerewood in his Enquiry of Religions.
So that it is but a just of Mr. Blake, that women could no more be circumcised than barb'd, if these authors be of any credit. But were it true that women were not circumcised because uncapable, yet would God doubtless have appointed such a sign as they were capable of, if it were true that all that were in covenant must be signed. But if it be true which Mr. G. confesseth, That the females, though in covenant were particularly excluded from being sealed with the sacrament of initiation under that administration, then the connection between the seal initial and the covenant, is not proved from circumcision. And as for that he says, That in reference to some things pointed at by the seal▪ God under that administration was pleased to appoint a sign of which women were not capable; it is a plain confession, that God appointed circumcision for an end not common to believers at all times, or to such as were in the covenant of grace, but proper to the posterity of Abraham; and therefore though the covenant were granted to be the reason of circumcision, yet it follows not all must be baptized barely from the covenant of grace, because they were circumcised by reason of interest in it, since this was not true, and as Mr. Geree confesseth, Circumcision was appointed in reference to some things proper to that time.
But he hopes to salve the matter thus: So, actually they were not circumcised, yet were they reputed as circumcised, as appears both by the place alleged by Mr. M. Exod. 12.48. and where the house of Israel is said to be circumcised, and also by that of Samsons parents, being displeased that he should take a wife of the uncircumcised Philistines Judges 14.3. For unless the Israelitish women were reputedly circumcised in the males, circumcision could make no difference between wife and wife; yea our Savior should be born of the uncircumcised.
To which I answer: To be reputed as circumcised, may be understood thus, they were mentioned as circumcised, and this sense is false; for then it should be an error, since they were not circumcised: nor is in the text Exod. 12.48. anything to that purpose; for the speech, no uncircumcised person shall eat the passover, is to be limited by the matter, of them that ought to be circumcised, and that Judge 14.3. of taking a wife of or from the Philistines uncircumcised, as if thereby were intimated that an Israelitess woman was reputed as circumcised, or that our Savior should be born of the uncircumcised, if women were not reputed as uncircumcised, proves it not. For the terms [ciecumcised and uncircumcised] are spoken of the people, who are said to be circumcised from the chief part, not from all parts. I remember not where the whole house of Israel is said to be circumcised, but to be uncircumcised in heart, Jeremy 9.26. yet were there such a place, it must be understood of all that were to be circumcised. Or else the meaning is, they were reputed as circumcised, that is, they were admitted to the passover if their males were circumcised, notwithstanding they were not in their proper persons circumcised, which sense is true. But then it serves not the turn to avoid the force of the instance brought to show there is not a necessary connection between interest in the covenant, and the persons right to the initial Seal, in his own person, which Mr. G : must prove to make good his Major. For he would have infant-females actually baptized, because in covenant; and his proof is, They that were in covenant were circumcised, which must be meant of all in covenant, and of actual circumcision in their own persons, or else it can prove but a particular of some, and their virtual baptism, to wit, female infants. But Mr. G. thinks to prevent this objection.
And whereas you object, that you may as well say, that children are virtually baptized in their parents, I deny it, because you have not the like proof for the one, as we have for the other. Besides women that are said to be virtually and reputatively circumcised in the males, were not actually to be circumcised at all: they were excluded, which you do not, nor cannot say of infants; when they are grown up you confess they may and ought to be baptized.
Answ. That which I said, was only by way of inference upon Paedobaptists suppositions; if virtual circumcision were all that might be claimed by virtue of the covenant it would not help Paedobaptists who would from the covenant prove a right of actual circumcision to infants, whereas by their own confession it only proves necessarily a virtual; and if so, how can it prove necessarily by their own principles anymore than a virtual baptizing of infants? The same medium that doth not prove as necessary actual circumcision in the one, cannot prove as necessary actual baptism in the other. Now the force of this objection is not at all weakened by his reply. For my words were not concerning the fitness of the expression, that the one was as fit as the other, but that I might grant a virtual baptism to infants without detriment to my cause, if they assert no more from the covenant, but a virtual circumcision.
But had I said [you may as well say] (which yet I find not in my writings, but, we might grant, we may say Examen page 37. by like, perhaps greater reason it may be said Exercit. p. 4.) the speech might have been right notwithstanding Mr. Gerees exceptions, for there is no more proof for the use of this speech, that females may be said to be virtually circumcised in the males, then for this, infants may be said to be virtually baptized in their parents, neither being used in Scripture, and reason being as much for the one as the other. And though those that were infants when grown, being believers, are to be baptized, yet infants during their infancy are by more full evidence excluded from actual baptism, then females were from actual circumcision.
Mr. G. proceeds thus. For your second instance of infants dying afore they were eight days old; I answer that they were particularly tied to that day, whether for the Theological reason Levite. 12.2, 3. or for the Physical reason, that God would not suffer an incision to be made on the flesh of a tender infant; or till the seventh, that is▪ the Critical day was over; or whether to typify the resurrection, we cannot determine; but till that day they were expressly excluded; yet therefore it remains clear that all that were within that administration of the Covenant, that were not expressly excluded, were circumcised, which is enough for my purpose. And so unless you can bring a rule that no infant of Christians shall have the Sacrament of initiation till 18 years or so, that instance of infants not being circumcised dying before the 8. day, is too short to reach up.
Answ. It is not enough for Mr. Gs. purpose, which was to prove, the seal did follow the covenant, and when any were aggregated into the Jewish church and taken into the communion of the covenant made with Abraham they were initiated into that administration of the Covenant by the Sacrament of Circumcision, unless he can prove that all that were in covenant, and in the Jewish Church were circumcised. But his own grant, That some in the Covenant, and Jewish Church, as females and males under eight days old, were expressly excluded, overthrows his own position, and is enough for my purpose to prove, that all in the covenant were not circumcised. The reason why males afore the eighth day were not circumcised, whatever it were, is nothing for Mr. Gs. advantage, but against him, since it doth more fully show that God would not have them circumcised. Nor need I bring a rule that no infant of Christians shall have the Sacrament of initiation till eighteen years, or so, which goes upon his mistake, as if the instance I gave were as a proof of the time of baptism, it being brought only to show a reason of my denial of his assertion, that the seal did follow the covenant. It is enough for me, that I prove (as I have done in the second part of the Review s. 5. &c.) that the rule is, that persons are not to be baptized till they be disciples or believers, and that infants are not such.
Mr. G. adds. Your third instances are of Adam, Abel, Noah page 36. of your answer, and Melchizedek, Lot, Job, pag. 4. Exercit. I answer either those were before the administration begun with Abraham, and so before the institution of seals, or such of them that were with or after him, either they join not themselves to that administration, and so were not to be sealed no more then the Proselytes of the Gate, or if they did unite to the Church in Abraham's family, then it is apparent they might lay claim to circumcision, as other proselytes did. And so indeed it is averred of Job, that he was circumcised, by the Author of the book of true circumcision▪ which is ascrrbed to Jerome, cited by Junius in his animadversion on Bellarmine, Controv. 4. l. 3. cap. 16. Not. 13.
Answ. Master Geree doth make show of answering my allegation, but doth indeed confirm my proof, that since Abel, Noah, Melchizedek, Lot, and many Proselytes of the gate were in the Covenant of grace, yet had not any initial sign or seal, as M. Geree calls it, to seal the Covenant, and some sealed after an initial seal was instituted though in the Covenant of grace, therefore there is not such a connection between the Covenant, and the initial seal, that therefore a man must have the seal initial because he is in the covenant of grace, and that it was not from interest in the Covenant of grace, that persons were circumcised, but God's special command upon such reasons as seemed best to him, but is not a reason for us to imitate in another ordinance without the like command. If one Author conceive Job was circumcised, many do conceive otherwise, and there are more probable reasons he was not; since there's no mention of his circumcision, or his observing any of the rites of the Law, or of any acquaintance he had with Israel, or anything else that might induce us to believe he had communion with the policy of Israel.
Master Geree saith further; And whereas you say, Lastly, that the Jews comprehended in covenant and circumcised could not be baptized without faith and repentance. I answer, the reason is evident; because baptism was a seal of a new administration; and therefore they must join to that administration of the covenant as well as be in covenant, before they could be baptized.
Answ. I am beholding to Mr. Geree, who as before had given the reason why Melchizedek, Lot, Job, were not circumcised, though in Covenant because of their not joining themselves to that administration, or their not uniting to the Church in Abraham's family: so here again he doth not only grant what I allege, but gives a reason of it also, and such as quite overthrows his dispute. For if it were true that the Jews that were in covenant were not to be • aptiz • d without faith and repentance, then being in covenant is not a sufficient reason of an infants being baptized without faith and repentance, and if baptism were a seal of a new administration, then it must have a new rule, and so the old rule of circumcision is no direction to us about baptism, if Lot, the Proselytes of the gate, though in covenant, were not to be circumcised without joining to that administration, or the Church in Abraham's family, then right to circumcision was not from interest in the covenant common to all believers, but something proper to that Church-state, or administration, which is now voided: if therefore the Jews in covenant and circumcised must profess repentance and faith afore they were baptized, because they must join to the new administration of the covenant, then according to Mr. Gerees own confession, according to the new administration of the Covenant, faith and repentance are required of them that join to that administration of the Covenant. And therefore whereas Mr. Geree adds, we may therefore conclude, that those that are under the Gospel-covenant in any administration of it, have right to the seal of initiation under that administration; unless they be particularly excluded by God himself, and so the major is firmly proved; I may truly say, it is firmly proved that they that are under the Gospel-covenant in any administration of it, yet have not right to the seal of initiation under that administration, barely from the Covenant without a command, and that God himself hath excluded infants from baptism by Mr. Gerees own concession, without faith and repentance, and that in all this arguing Mr. G. hath dictated much and proved nothing. Let's see whether he speed better about proving the Minor.
SECT. XVI. That the Gospel-Covenant is not extended to infants of believers, as such.
NOw the Minor, saith he, that children are under the Gospel-Covenant in the Christian administration of it, that we prove by the Scriptures mentioned, as first, Gen. 17.7. I will establish my Covenant between me and thee, and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant to be a God unto thee and thy seed after thee. To comprehend the meaning of this place we are to consider. What the privilege is that is here promised: 2. what the extent of it is. First for the privilege itself, as Calvin hath well observed by virtue of this promise, the Church was settled in Abraham's family, and it was separated from the rest of the World, as light from darkness. And the people of Israel (Abraham's posterity) was the house and sheepfold of God; And other nations like wild beasts ranging about without in the wilderness of the World. And by this privilege the dignity of adoption-belonged to all the Israelites in common, Rom. 9.4. To whom pertaineth the adoption. And so, though by nature they were no better than others; yet by reason of this promise they had a birth-privilege, whereby they were separated from others, which is apparently held forth, Gal. 2.15. We who are Jews by nature, not sinners of the Gentiles; as Mr. Blake hath truly observed; And since you grant the Jews a birth-privilege, as p. 106. and p. 78. of your Answer, you needed not have quarrelled with this plain proof. But now among those that had this outward privilege of common adoption (to be reputed children when the Gentiles were reputed as Dogs, Matth. 15.26.) there were some that were separated by the secret election of God, and really made partakers of sanctifying and saving grace, and so not only adopted outwardly, and reputatively, but also really; in comparison of whom the other Israelites are sometimes spoken of, as no sons of Abraham, Rom. 9.6, 7. Though externally they were the children of the Kingdom, and in reference to the Gentiles they are so styled, Matthew 8.11, 12. So then the privilege is, that he would be a God to all in regard of external denomination, and external privileges of a Church, and to the elect in regard of spiritual adoption, grace and glory.
Answ. It is true, I granted page 78. of my Examen, that the Jews had a birth-privilege; yet denied it to be from the Covenant of grace according to the substance of it, as Mr. M. speaks, but that special love God bare to Abraham's posterity. Nor do I deny that the people of Israel, till broken off, were in common estimation God's children, children of the Kingdom, nor Dogs, nor unclean as the Gentiles, and that these titles did belong to all by external denomination, really to the elect. Nor do I much gainsay that by virtue of the promise, I will be a God to the seed of Abraham, the Church was settled in Abraham's family, though it doth not appear to me that the Apostle did so expound this promise, but expressly contradistinguisheth the children of the promise, to the children of the flesh, Rom. 9.8. And his doctrine there is plain, that the elect are they only to whom the promise, I will be the God of thy seed, Gen. 17.7. was made: yea Exercit. page 2, 3. I expound the promise, as in respect of some peculiar blessings, belonging to Abraham's natural seed. Nor did I quarrel with Mr. Blake for proving from Gal. 2, 15. a birth-privilege belonging to the Jews, but excepted against him for that he contended to have the seed of believing Gentile-parents under the Gospel to be under the first member of the division in the text, to wit, Jews by nature : which exception I have made good in my Postscript to my Apology S. 9. which I intend to vindicate from Master Blake's Reply, Vindic. foed. cha. 35. in that which follows. But then what doth this advantage to prove Mr. Gs. Minor. To children (meaning all or else his conclusion can be but particular) of believing Christians the Gospel-covenant is extended in the Christian Churches? Is this the Gospel-covenant to make a people only reputatively and outwardly, but not really adopted: Is this that which circumcision did seal? Is this the covenant of grace which the seal is to follow? What kind of juggling is there with these men?
They contend the Covenant Gen. 17.7. to be the same with the Covenant of grace for substance, and that they make to consist in saving graces, the temporal benefits they refer to the administration that then was, they will not have it called a mixed covenant, and this covenant of grace they will have to be sealed by circumcision out of Rom. 4.11. and they say this was made to believers and their seed, and thence they have salvation if they die in infancy, and without this there is no ground of hope of the salvation of any infant deceased; and they argue they are to have the seal, because they are in covenant, which if they understand not of that covenant, of which that ordinance is the seal, what color is there to derive thence a title unto that seal on them who have interest in another covenant, which it doth not seal? Their argument is, He hath right to the Conveyance, who hath right to the Land: but these men who dare not assert that the covenant of saving grace belongs to all believers natural children, yet will have them all to have right to baptism which seals saving graces, though perhaps a very few, and those all unknown persons have right to that Covenant, only because a promise of outward and reputative adoption, though not saving graces belongs to all. Besides what ground hath Mr. G. to call this promise the Gospel-covenant? Rom. 1.16, 17. Gal. 3.8, 9, &c. the Gospel-covenant is, The just shall live by faith: it is that which contains promise of sanctification, remission of sins, &c. Hebrews, 8▪ 10, 11, 12. & 10.16, 17. Matthew 26.28. The everlasting covenant that hath the sure mercies of David, Isaiah 55.3. Acts 13.34, 38, 39. Hebrews 13.20. and of which Jesus is the Surety or Mediator, Hebrews 7.22. & 12.24. what a mockage then is this of people to tell them the Covenant of grace is made to their children, and the Cospel-covenant is extended to them: and that God hath promised to be their God▪ and that they are confederate with their parents, and yet in fine all that they dare assert is, God hath promised to the seed of believers an external, reputative adoption, though not real: such chaff they catch their auditors with. But is this promise that God will settle his Church in Abraham's family, and separate them from the rest of the World, as light from darkness, as Mr. G. expressly makes it, indeed the Gospel-Covenant? I dare freely say, it is Jewish, Anti-evangelical, directly opposite to the Gospel-covenant. For the Gospel-covenant is, That God would bless all Nations in Abraham through faith, Gal. 3.8, 9. Gentiles as well as Jews, yea the Gentile-believers instead of the Jews broken off by unbelief. If then this be the Gospel covenant, I will be the God of thy seed; that is, in Mr. Gs. sense, I will separate Abraham's family from the rest of the world to be my Church, then the Church under the Gospel covenant is not Catholic contrary to the article of the Creed, and so the Gospel-covenant continues the middle wall of partition. But perhaps Master Geree, helps the matter in that which followeth.
For the second thing, saith he, the extent of this privilege (though there were something in it peculiar to Abraham ) yet was it not limited to him alone, but those that were of Abraham inherited his promise to have God their God, and the God of their seed. As what was said to Joshua, Josh. 1.5 I will not leave thee nor forsake thee, was not bounded to his person, but applicable to all conscientious Israelites; yea to all Christians in God's way and work, as the Apostle applieth it Heb. 13.5. So this privilege or the Covenant to have God the God of their seed, is to be applied to all Israelites, yea to all of any nation that have his faith and tread in his steps: they that do the work of Abraham may claim the promises of Abraham, that be ordinary and essential parts of the Covenant.
Answ. Mr. G. Will have the promise [I will be a God to thy seed] to promise the settling of the Church in Abraham's family separated from the rest of the World as light from darkness; if this be so, how can it be a promise to another nation, that their children should be adopted outwardly and reputatively? For▪ if by this promise Abraham's natural posterity have a privilege whereby they are sethis promise is common to other nations with them. But saith he, The promise parated from all other nations, surely its no better than a contradiction to say to Joshua, Josh. 1.5. was not bounded to his person, Heb. 13.5. which I grant; nor do I doubt, but promises made to Abraham, David, Joshua, &c do belong to all true believers, where the holy Ghost doth so expound them, and where the promise is of a thing which other Scriptures do clear to belong to them. But there is no such thing in the promise of Gen. 17.7. Master Geree brings nothing but his own assertion to prove it, nor do I know anything brought by any else, but what the Author of the little book, intitled, Infants baptism proved lawful by Scripture, printed Anno 1644. hath,
Who thus argued, That which was promised to Abraham, as a believer, is promised to every believer.
But God promised to be a God to Abraham, and his seed as a believer: Ergo:
To which I answered, if [as] be taken reduplicatively so as that the meaning be under that formal consideration, to him being a believer, and to everyone being a believer, as to him, I deny the Major; it was not made to him as a believer, simply under that consideration, but though it were made upon his faith, as a motive of making that covenant with him, yet not under that formal consideration simply as a believer, so as that the covenant should be said to be made to every believer, as to him. As in like manner, though Peter Matthew 16 18 19 had the promise of building the Church, and the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and of binding and loosing, conferred on him by reason of his confession of Christ, verse 16, yet everyone that confesseth Christ as he did, hath not that that promise: If any ask how it was made to Abraham? I answer, so far as concerns the spiritual part, it is clear from Romans 4 11 12 16 18, that it was made to him as Father of believers, and in that construction, though it belong to Gentiles, yet it belongs only to believing elect Gentiles, Romans 9 7 8 Galatians 3 29, or to Christ, whether personal or mystical, verse 16. But that it belongs not in that sense, no not to all or any, either of Jews or Gentiles, who are not elect, is apparent from Romans 9 7 8, no mere formal professor can lay claim to it. As for the promise of outward privileges, as to be of the visible Church, to have the Ordinances of God's worship, so the promise is made to Abraham as a natural Father of his inheriting posterity by Isaac, and to that seed by Isaac which was to inherit in Abraham's family: and to that natural seed which God would bring out of Egypt, and settle in Canaan, and this was but unto the time of reformation, as it is termed, Heb. chap. 9. verse. 10. Now that those words, I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed, should be expounded thus, I will be the God of every Gentile believer, either in profession or reality, that his natural posterity should be God's visible Church, or visible Church-members, hath not the least intimation in Scripture, but much against it, nor can be brought by any show of right construction to be the meaning. For I would know under which term of these [thee, or thy seed] every such natural child, even an infant shauld be meant; under [thy seed] they must say, but the Scripture placeth believers themselves, and those only real believers under that term, as is proved before, and other places speak to like purpose, John 8.39. Matth. 3.9. Luke 19.9. therefore without addition to the text, believers natural seed are not there placed. Nor were the promise true in Mr. Gerees sense. For God doth not make good the promise in that sense to every believer and his natural seed, many Gentile believers have had their children persecutors, not visible Church-members, and may have still; yea in that sense which Mr. Geree himself expounds it, it was only verified of the natural posterity of Abraham, yet not of every particular child of his, but of the nation till Christ's coming.
As for the dictate of Mr. G. they that do the works of Abraham, may claim the promises of Abraham, that be ordinary and essential parts of the covenant, it intimates some promises of the covenant to be essential, some not, some ordinary, some extraordinary parts of the covenant.
But these are new distinctions, with which I meet not elsewhere, nor know I how to understand what promises he makes ordinary, nor what extraordinary, what essential parts of the covenant, what not. That Covenant being but once made in my conceit, therefore had all the promises of the same sort, whether ordinary or extraordinary, and a covenant being an aggregate of promises, contains the promises as the matter, and the making together as the form, which are the essential parts of the Covenant, there's no promise but being the matter of the covenant is an essential part, or rather all the promises together are the matter, and each promise is an integral part of the whole number of promises. And therefore his speech is not easy to be understood.
I grant that they who are of the faith of Abraham, may claim the promise of Justification, and other saving blessings. But for visible Church-membership of natural posterity, or other domestic promises made to Abraham, neither the natural posterity of Abraham, nor the truest believing Gentile, can lay a just claim to them, but that notwithstanding that promise, God is free to make their children or the children of Gentile, or Jew Infidels his people, his visible church, and to settle his worship with them.
Mr. Geree writes thus, and that this privilege of having God to be the God of our seed, was not personal, and peculiar to Abraham, but propagated to his seed, may hence appear, because the same in effect is promised to other godly Jews, which is here promised to Abraham, Deut. 30.6. And the Lord thy God will circumcise thy heart, and the heart of thy seed.
Answ. The promise to Abraham, according to Mr. Gs. exposition, was, That he would be a God to all in regard of external denomination, and external privilege of a Church, and to the elect in regard of spiritual adoption grace and glory. Sure this is not the same in effect with that, Deut. 30.6. which is nothing of external privileges of a Church, but of circumcising their hearts, and the heart of their seed, to love the Lord their God with all their heart, and with all their soul, that they might live: which can be true only of the elect. Besides, it is promised to them at their return from captivity, and upon their returning to the Lord, and obeying his voice according to all that he commanded them that day, they and their children, with all their heart, and all their soul, v. 2. which sure cannot be ordinarily applied to them in their infancy, and therefore this text is very impertinently alleged to prove an external privilege to infants of mere reputed believers, even in their infancy. Mr. Baxter himself in his Friendly accommodation with Mr. Bedford p. 361. hath these words. The text seems plainly to speak of [their seed] not in their infant-state, but in their adult, Deut. 30. For first, verse 2. the condition of the promise is expressly required, not only of the parent, but of the children themselves by name.
2. And that condition is the personal performance of the same acts, which are required of the parents, viz. to return to the Lord, and obey his voice with all their heart and soul.
3. The circumcision of the heart promised, is so annexed to the act, that it appeareth to be meant only of those that were capable of the act, ver. 6. The Lord thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the Lord thy God; so that it is not meant of those that are uncapable of so loving.
Mr. G. yet adds. And thus much that place, Act. 2.39. doth hold forth and contribute to infant-baptism, to show that children are comprehended in the Covenant with their fathers, and both these last promises being of Evangelical privileges they must needs be communicable to all under the Gospel-covenant; so then it remains that God still is in covenant with every believer, and his seed.
Answ. That Acts 2.39. neither shows that children (of believers) are comprehended (universally and necessarily) with their parents, nor contributes ought to infant-baptism, is shown in the forepart of this Review s. 5. and notwithstanding anything said by Mr. Geree it yet remains to be proved, that God is in Covenant with every believer and his seed.
The rest of that section of Mr. Geree, is about my expounding Mr. Ms. second conclusion, which I shall review as far as is meet when I come to it. I have dispatched at last the answering those that argue syllogistically from the covenant, and seal for infant-baptism. But most go another way by laying down conclusions, and framing hypotheses, and I proceed to take a view of their writings.
SECT. XVII. Mr. Cottons, The Assemblies, and London Ministers way of arguing for Infant-baptism from the Covenant and Circumcision, is recited, and the method of the future progress in the Review, expressed.
MR. John Cotton in his Dialogue, ch. 3. goes this way, and expresseth himself in four things,
That 1. God made a covenant of grace with Abraham, and his seed, Gen. 17.7.
2. Gave him a commandment to receive the sign of circumcision the seal of the covenant of grace, to him and his seed, Gen. • 7.9, 10.
3. The Lord hath given that Covenant of grace which was then to Abraham and his seed, now to believers and our seed.
4. And hath given us baptism in the room of circumcision.
The Assembly at Westminster in their confession of faith, chap 25. art. 2. assert, That the visible Church consists of all the children of those that profess the true Religion, and cite to prove it, 1 Cor. 7.14. Acts 2.39. Ezekiel 16.20, 21. Rom. 11.16. Gen. 3.15. and 17.7. of these, one of the Texts, to wit, Gen. 3.15. I meet not with in the writings of the defenders of infant-baptism, to my remembrance, except once in Mr. Baxter to prove a conditional covenant made with all Adams posterity. I do not imagine what use that Text is of to prove infants of those that profess the true Religion to be visible Church-members.
Whether the seed of the woman be meant of all men, or by excellency of Christ, or of true believers (which are all the senses I conceive) yet how from any of these should be gathered that infants of professors of the true Religion, as such, and not as of human kind, should be meant by the seed of the woman, or that the bruising of the Serpents head should prove, infants of them that profess the true Religion to be visible Church-members is a riddle, which I cannot yet resolve. Ch. 28. art. 4. they say, Infants of one or both believing parents are to be baptized, and in the margin cite, Gen. 17.7.9. with Gal. 3.9.14. Col. 2.11, 12. & A • ts 2.38.39. & Rom. 4.11, 12. 1 Cor. 7.14. Mat. 28.19. Mark 10.13, 14, 15, 16. Luke 18.15. what they would gather from these texts may be guessed from the Directory about baptism, where they direct the Minister to teach the people, That baptism is a seal of the covenant of grace, of our ingrafting into Christ, &c. That the promise is made to believers and their seed, and that the seed and posterity of the faithful, born within the Church, have by their birth-interest in the Covenant, and right to the seal of it, and to the outward privileges of the Church under the Gospel, no less then the children of Abraham in the time of the Old Testament, the covenant of grace for substance being the same, and the grace of God, and consolation of believers more plentiful then before, that the Son of God admitted little children into his presence, embracing them, and blessing them, saying, For of such is the Kingdom of God; that children by baptism, are solemnly received into the bosom of the visible Church, that they are Christians, and federally holy before baptism, and therefore are they baptized.
Most of which propositions are ambiguous, few of them true, or have any proof from the texts alleged in the Confession; and if they were all true (setting aside one or two which express the conclusion in a different phrase) they would not infer the Conclusion.
The first proposition is ambiguous, it being doubtful in what sense baptism is said to be a seal of the Covenant of grace, whether in a borrowed or proper sense, so as it be the definition or genus of it, or only an adjunct of it, or whether it seal the making of the Covenant, or the performing of it, or the thing covenanted, what they mean by the covenant of grace, which is that covenant; whether it seal all or a part of it, whether it seal God's covenanting to us, or our covenanting to God. Nor is there any proof for it from Rom. 4.11. which neither speaks of baptism, nor of any ones Circumcision but Abraham's, nor saith of his Circumcision, that it was the seal of the Covenant of grace, as they, it is likely, mean.
The next proposition is so ambiguous, that Mr. M. and Mr. G. are driven to devise senses which the words will not bear to make it true, as I show in my Apology, s. 9. The words seem to bear this sense, That the promise of Justification, adoption, &c. is made to believers and their seed. But so it is apparently false, contradicted by the Apostle Rom. 9.7, 8. and by other texts, nor is it proved from Gen. 17.7. compared with Gal. 3.9.14. Acts 2.39. or any other of their texts, yea in that sense it is disclaimed by Master Marshall, and Master Geree.
The next is ambiguous also. For how the seed of the faithful may be said to be born within the Church, or what interest in the covenant, and right to the seal of it, and what outward privileges they have by their birth, or what outward privileges they have in like measure as the children of Abraham, is as uncertain as the rest, and how any of the texts prove it, is uncertain. Surely Gal. 3.9.14. speaks only of the privileges of Justification and Sanctification, which Abraham's children by faith, and no other, not every believers posterity or natural seed have, nor is there a word Gen. 17.7. of any privilege to our natural seed as such.
The next too is doubtful, it being uncertain what they mean by the substance of the Covenant, what they make accidental in it, and what substantial; nor is it easy to conceive what they mean when they say, the grace of God and consolation of believers is more plentiful then before, or how any of the texts prove it, or what this is to their purpose, that the enlargement of a believers comfort entitles his child to baptism, nor what is meant when it is said, That children by baptism are received into the bosom of the visible Church, and yet after withheld from the Lord's Supper without any Ecclesiastical censure, nor do I know how they mean or prove them to be Christians, or federally holy afore baptism.
For my part, in those propositions I deprehend little truth or plain sense; but that the Directory in that part is a mere riddle, fitter for Scholars to study than for teaching of the people.
The London Ministers (of whom it is likely a considerable part were of the Assembly) in their Jus Divinum regim. Eccl. page 32. speak thus.
So infants of Christian parents under the New Testament are commanded to be baptized by consequence, for that the infants of God's people in the Old Testament were commanded to be circumcised, Gen. 17. For the privileges of believers under the New Testament, are as large as the privileges of believers under the Old Testament, and the children of believers under the New Testament are federally holy, and within the covenant of God as well as the children of believers under the Old Testament, Gen. 17. compared with Rom. 11.16. 1 Cor. 7.14. And what objections can be made from infants incapacity now against their baptism, might as well then have been made against their being circumcised. And why children should once be admitted to the like initiating Sacrament (the Lord of the Covenant, and Sacrament nowhere forbidding them) there can be no just ground. And baptism succeeds in the room of Circumcision, Col. 2.11, 12. concerning which I say, there's no proof from Gen. 17. compared with Rom. 11.16. 1 Cor. 7.14. to prove the children of believers federaly holy as they would, nor is there any proof from Col. 2.11, 12. to prove the succession of baptism in the room of circumcision. And though infants have not a natural incapacity to be dipped in water, yet they have a natural incapacity to profess faith in Christ, which is now required to baptism though not required to circumcision. And there is an objection that may be made against infant-baptism, to wit, the want of a command, which could not be objected against infant male circumcision: and this is a just ground to exclude infants from baptism, yea the very same ground they give for excluding them the communion, and the very same ground which Paedobaptists do continually, in books and Sermons urge against Popish and Prelatical ceremonies. But forasmuch as Mr. M. did direct his Defense of infant-baptism to the Assembly, and Mr. Prynne in his suspension suspended, p. 21. seems to have taken his book to be approved by the Assembly, and he is of any I meet with in print likeliest to have produced their strength, and for other reasons, therefore I conceive myself bound to examine his defense in the third part of it, referring the Reader to what of that or any other is already dispatched, taking in somewhat of Master Blake's, and some others by the way, and then to examine such parts of Mr. Cobbets Just Vindication, as are not yet examined so far as I find necessary, and at last examine so much of Mr. Bs. dispute about his second argument as is not yet dispatched.
SECT. XVIII. Mr. Marshalls reply to the first section of the third part of my Examen about the connection between the Covenant, and seal, is reviewed.
MR. M. in his Sermon page 8. thus disputed, My first Argument is this; The infants of believing parents are foederati, therefore they must be signati.
They are within the Covenant of grace;
Therefore are to partake of the seal of the Covenant.
To this I answered by denying both the antecedent and the consequence: and first I disputed against the consequence, Exam. part. 3. s. 1.
Mr. M. in his Reply would have the Reader to consider my advantage from the much silence in the Scripture to make my work have a specious probability, that the like specious plea might be made against the justification of infants, especially if his dispute should be carried as mine is, altogether in the way of making exceptions against arguments, but not positively affirming anything.
Thus what others have counted my virtue, and have commended, beyond what it is fit for me to express, Mr. M. unjustly seeks to draw into suspicion, as if there were sophistry and guile in it, as he did in other things, as I show in my Apology.
But me thinks a considerate Reader should take this to be the course of a diffident man. If there be much silence in Scripture about infants, why do Mr. M. and others avouch their baptism; with so much peremptoriness. If their justification could be no better proved then their baptism, it would be no article of my faith. My disputation is carried in that way which is used by Disputants that examine writings Scholastically, wherein it is defective Mr. M. should show.
That I made exceptions against arguments was agreeable to my work, being to answer as Mr. M. was to prove: no man is to expect regularly anymore of a Respondent. Yet that I positively affirm nothing is an untruth with a witness: yea in many points where it was not necessary I positively set down my tenet and my proofs, and answer objections to the contrary. The resolving questions about baptism how it should be, could not reasonably be expected in my Examen.
2. Mr. M. takes on him to prove his consequence by mine own principles, to wit, that I yield that such as are regenerate, sanctified, &c. may be baptized, which he saith is in plain English, that such as are covenanters ought not to be denied the initial seal of the covenant.
But I do not think the speeches the same, either in plain English, or Mr. Ms. own English, or mine. Not in plain English. In plain English a Covenanter is one that makes a promise.
Is a Scottish Covenanter any other then one that makes a promise or subscribes to the Covenant? But a person regenerate or sanctified may make no promise, nor do I think when Mr. M. calls infants federate, or in the Covenant of grace, he means they make a promise, but that a promise is made to them. Nor in Mr. Ms. own English. For when he saith, they are in covenant, he means, infants are in some sense under the covenant of grace in respect of the outward administration and Church privileges, which is not all one as to be regenerate, sanctified, &c. nor in my English. For the being in covenant which I grant, gives a title to baptism, is meant of their present state, so as that not only the promise is made to them, what God will do for them afterwards, but for the present they are actually sanctified, regenerate, believers, disciples, as mine own words, cited by Mr. M. show; So that Mr. M. doth but abuse me, and the Reader, endeavoring to possess him with this conceit, as if his consequence were proved by mine own principles.
But Master Marshall not trusting to this, answers, more particularly:
1. I grant with you that there is no necessary dependence between a promise and a seal, the addition of a seal to a promise is of free grace as well as the promise itself. Which if true, then theres no necessary connection between the Covenant and Seal, and so this proposition is not true. All that have the promise are to be sealed. For if it be true it is in some degree of necessity, to wit, de omni. As for his reason, it is frivolous; there is no necessary dependence, because both are of free grace. For those things that are of free grace have a necessary dependence as, to be predestinate, called, justified, glorified. But he means, the nature of the terms makes not a necessary connection between them.
If that be his meaning, Mr. Baillee his Colleague is deserted, who would infer a necessary connection from the nature of the terms, which I have refuted in my Addition to my Apology, S.3.
But Mr. M. adds. Nor 2. did I ever think, that by God's revealed will this proposition was true in all ages of the Church. All Covenanters must be sealed, I carried it no higher than Abraham's time, when God first added this new mercy to his Church, vouchsafing a seal to the Covenant.
Answ. If this be true, then there is nothing moral and perpetual in seals, as they call them, of the Covenant. For such thing are from the beginning, and belong to Gentiles as well as Jews, and therefore it is in vain to derive infants sealing barely from the Covenant of grace. For since that, as Mr. Ms. first Conclusion speaks, for substance hath always been one, and the same both to the Jews and Gentiles, if there were a connection between it, and the seal it should have been as well before Abraham's time as since.
But he thinks in his third answer to make good the connection, when he saith,
And 3. from Abraham's time, and so forward I say it was God's will, that such as are in Covenant should be sealed with the initial seal of the Covenant, supposing them only capable of the seal, and no special bar put in against them by God himself.
To which I answer. He saith after, if you please to state the general Proposition as you needs must, That all who since Abraham's time are foederati, or Covenanters with God, must by God's own appointment receive the seal of admission into covenant, unless they be either uncapable of it, or are exempted by a particular dispensation. So that one of these two propositions is that which makes up his Enthymeme an entire syllogism, and his syllogism must stand in one or other of these forms.
From Abraham's time all such as are in covenant should be sealed with the initial seal of the covenant, supposing them only capable of the seal, and no special bar put in against them by God himself.
But all the infants of believing parents are in covenant, and they are capable of the seal, and there is no special bar put in against them by God himself.
Ergo, They should be sealed.
Or thus; All who since Abraham's time are foederati, or Covenanters with God, must, by God's own appointment receive the seal of admission into covenant, unless they be either uncapable of it, or are exempted by a particular dispensation. All infants of believers since Abraham's time, are foederati or covenanters with God, neither uncapable of the seal, nor exempted by a particular dispensation: Ergo, all infants of believers since Abraham's time, must, by God's own appointment, receive the seal of admission into covenant.
To which I answer, Mr. M. tells me, I must needs state thus the general Proposition. But it is a pretty art he hath, as elsewhere to call that my Minor which was his own not mine; so here to say, I must needs state the general Proposition thus, which is of his own framing. However, he is not wronged, that it is thus framed. Let us then view it, and try whether (except in that of circumcision) there be any truth, sense or considerateness in it.
As for circumcision, if it be meant only of it, then the Conclusion can be of it only, and as the truth is, his argument concludes only that infants of believers are to be circumcised.
1. I had in my Examen noted a fault in his Argument in his Sermon, in that his Conclusion was of a sign of the Covenant indefinite, and not of baptism only, whereas the Lord's Supper is also a sign of the Covenant, which he would not have delivered to infants.
And to it he answers, That he clearly in his Sermon shown this Proposition to be only meant of the initial sign, and not of the other. But this doth not excuse his fault, who taking upon him to prove infant-baptism, concludes another thing in the argument, though he might perhaps, some pages of, where the Reader looks not for an explication of his argument, limit his speech to the initial seal.
And for what he tells me, he is sure that I who durst baptize an infant known to me to be regenerate, durst not give the other Sacrament to it, there being self examination and ability to discern the Lord's body prerequired to the one, not to the other; I told him in my Apology s. 10. I durst do the one as I durst do the other, and that self examination and ability to discern the Lord's body is as well required to baptism, as the Lord's Supper, Acts 2.38. & 8.37. Rom. 6.3, 4. But were it, that I durst not do the one as the other, yet this would not help Mr. M. who would prove the title to the initial seal, by that proof of interest in the Covenant, which will conclude as well title to the after, as the initial seal.
For the proof is usually the seal must follow the covenant; which if true, then not only the initial, but also the after-seal must follow it. But waving this, is the fault mended in his Defense? doth he conclude definitely of baptism here? nay notwithstanding he was warned, yet chorda semper oberrat eadem, he still runs into the same fault, concluding in both forms of an initial seal indefinitely, not definitely of baptism, and therefore may be interpreted to conclude of circumcision as well as of baptism, yea rather his assertion (if there be any good sense of it) is of the circumcising then baptizing of infants, since all his proof is about the initial sign of circumcision, and the limitations he puts into the Major are, that it may be true of circumcision.
But this is not all the fault in his new forms: notwithstanding I complained in my Examen sect. 3. of his ambiguities, which I shown in my Apology s. 9, 10. and Postscript s. 6. yet as if either he could not, or would not, speak distinctly, he retains the same fault in his Defense. Whereas I conceive the covenant of grace now contains only the promise of saving grace, he saith p 90. The Covenant of grace contains not only saving grace, but the administration of it also in outward ordinances and Church privileges; but shows not where, nor in which covenant of grace there are promises of the administration of saving grace in outward ordinances and Church privileges. It is true, circumcision is called the Covenant, Gen. 17.13. by a Metonymia as Mr. M. confesseth page 32 but not because it was contained in the Covenant: it is not Metonymia continentis pro contento, but signati pro signo : now that the sign should be said to be contained in the covenant, is scarce good sense; sure it is not meet to be used in disputes. And therefore whoever useth the covenant of grace for any other than the covenant of saving grace, or saith it contains any other than promises of saving grace, seems to affect ambiguities unmeet for dispute, as not willing to be understood. Again page 92. he expresseth the covenant of grace he means to be that Gen. 17.7. and he cannot but know it to have diverse meanings; one that God will be a God to Abraham, and his spiritual seed, which he confesseth pag. 102. to be the elect, when he saith, Secondly by the word [seed] was meant the children of the promise the elect, Rom. 9.8. and in this sense it is denied by him, that God hath made a promise of saving grace to the natural seed of believers, and so they are not in this covenant in this sense. Yet the Directory when it speaks of baptism, as the seal of the covenant, means it in this sense, as the words before recited show, for what else can be meant when they distinguish between interest in the covenant, and right to the seal of it, and the ou • ward privileges of the Church under the Gospel. And Rom. 4.11. is alleged in the Confession of Faith, for the proof of this, that it is the seal of the Covenant of grace; now that text speaks of being a seal of the righteousness of faith, which is a saving grace, and in the Confession of faith, ch. 7. art. 3. and in the greater Catechism, they make the Covenant of grace to offer life and salvation by Christ, to promise faith, and to be made with Christ, and in him with all the elect, as his seed; and so the Argument from the Covenant of grace to the Seal, must mean it thus, or else it is frivolous. For if the Seal must follow the Covenant; it must follow the Covenant which is sealed by it, which is only the promise of saving grace, there being no show of consequence in it, infants of believers have not the covenant of saving grace, but of outward Ordinances and Church privileges, therefore they are to be sealed with that seal, which seals only saving graces. And yet methinks they should not have avouched as the Directory doth, that the posterity of the faithful have by their birth interest in that Covenant, considering how the Ap • stle determines Rom. 9.8. the children of the flesh may not be the children of God, nor the seed, nor children of the promise. Another ense of the promise, Gen. 17.7. is, I will be a God to Abraham, and his natural seed by Isaac and Jacob : But in this sense it is proper only to the Jews, and the argument is as frivolous: God promised to be a God to the Jews, therefore infant-Gentiles who have nothing to do with that promise, must have baptism, which is no seal or token of that promise at all. If Mr. M. would have done something to his purpose, he should have shown, not as he doth p. 106, 107, &c. in many words quite besides the business, how the Covenant is taken strictly and largely, and how they may be said to be in covenant in some sense, who have a visible right, without saving grace, but have shown in which words there is any promise that may infer right to Gentile-believers infants to be baptized, Gen. 17.7. or how he can prove what he saith, page 103. That baptism seals that promise in which God engageth himself to be the God of believing Christians, and their seed? I would fain know in what words, in respect of what blessings and gifts, and in what manner or upon what terms God thus engageth himself. The Apostle saith Gal. 3.16. To Abraham and his seed were the promises made. I nowhere find they were made to a Gentile believer and his seed.
The like playing with ambiguities is in the use of the phrases, foederate, in Covenant, being under the Covenant, being in Covenant▪ Covenanters. When he saith, Infants of believers are foederati or Covenanters with God, or enter into Covenant, according to the plain meaning of the word, they should be asserted to be such as make a promise to God. For what is a Covenanter but one that makes a promise? how do men enter into covenant, but by some act testifying assent to a promise? now in this sense I should grant his Major, and deny his Minor, which in this sense is against sense. For when did any hear or see, or otherwise perceive an infant of a believer make a promise to God, or by any act of his, show his assent to own God for his God.
In the other form he saith, All such as are in the Covenant should be sealed, and that expression seems to have this sense, That God by his act of promise as his words are page 103. engageth himself to be the God of believing Christians, and their seed, which his words import, page 92. where having said, All such as are in the Covenant should be sealed, to prove it he allegeth, Gen. 17.7, 9, 10, 14. Where the very ground why God would have them sealed is because of the Covenant, I will establish my Covenant between me and thee, and thy seed after thee, &c.
So that the sense of his argument should be thus, All they who are in covenant, that is, to whom God hath promised to be their God, they should be sealed, &c. But all infants of believing, even Gentile parents, are in Covenant, that is, God hath promised to be their God: Ergo.
Of which I would deny both Major and Minor the minor being expressly contrary to Ro. 9.8. though it were understood of true believers, and most certainly false of believers only in profession, to whom, especially th • se of the G • ntiles, God never promised to be God, much less to their natural seed; yet the minor must be true of them, or else this argument proves not they are to be baptized, which is their practice.
But seeing the Argument for infant-baptism will not hold in these senses of the promise, Gen. 17.7. (though the first sense be that which they give of that promise, when they dispute against Arminians, and apply it to the elect only, as the words of many show, cited in my Examen part. 3. S. 4. in my Precursor S. 10. Mr. M. himself so expounds it with Mr. Bayn pag. 102. of his Defense ) therefore Mr. M. hath another sense to which he flies. He talks of an outward and an inward Covenant, page 120. and page 112. he tells us, That he means all the infants of believers are in the outward Covenant, that is, they are to be reputed as in the Covenant, in respect of the outward administration, outward Ordinances and Church-privileges, which when it comes to application is meant of no other than baptism now, and circumcision heretofore, and therefore as I show in my Apology S. 10. the Major proposition is merely nugatory in this sense; All that are in the Covenant, that is, that are to have the initial seal should be sealed with the initial seal, which were true, but ridiculous. And in truth I may (how ever it be censured) apply to the discourse in this argument, be it Mr. Ms. or the Assemblies, the Poets words, Parturiunt montes, nasc • tur ridiculus mus.
And yet there is more shuffling in this thing. Mr. M. to make some show of answering my instances of women and males under eight days old, not being circumcised, though in covenant, limits his Major in the first form thus [supposing them only capable of the seal, and no special bar put in against them] in the other form thus [unless they be either uncapable of it, or are exempted by particular dispensation] By the Bar, he means God's prohibition, as these words, page 93. show, God forbad them to have the seal till they were eight days old. But a prohibition and a dispensation are not all one: a Prohibition is of a thing, that may not be done; a dispensation supposeth the thing is to be done, yet frees the person from doing it in some cases for some time. But letting pass this exception against the expressions, I would know how God put a bar, or forbad infants under eight days old to be circumcised. I know no other but this, that God appointed the eighth day for them to be circumcised. Now if this be a forbidding to circumcise before (as I acknowledge it is, and so do many Protestant Divines, as Parcus Comment. in Gen. 17.11. Errant masculi in foedere abjutero, &c. anticipare vero signum nec licebat, nec opus erat ) then that is forbidden, which is otherwise than God appointed: and since our Lord Christ hath not appointed any to be baptized till they be disciples, he hath prohibited any to be baptized till they be disciples, and so, what ever the London Ministers say in their words above recited, there is just ground even a prohibition, against baptizing infants. And so the Minor of Mr. Ms. argument is not true. Upon all this debate I profess I find so much inconsiderateness, or confusedness, or non-sense, or untruth, or trifling, if not juggling in Mr. Ms. arguing, that I must vary my answer, as I find his meaning sometimes denying the Syllogism as being tautological, and not having three terms, or which is all one, any medium to prove his Conclusion by, but only repeating the Conclusion in different phrases, and those some of them new minted gibberish or non-sense, sometimes the Major, sometimes the Minor, sometimes both. However, since it is my task, I shall view what he saith.
Page 92. he saith thus, Which is apparent in the very first institution of an initial seal Gen. 17.7, 9, 10, 14. Where the very ground why God would have them sealed is because of the Covenant, I will establish my Covenant between me and thee, and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting Covenant to be a God unto thee, and thy seed after thee: thou shalt keep my Covenant therefore: and this is my Covenant which ye shall keep; every man-child among you shall be circumcised, and afterward in the fourteenth, the seal is by a metonymia called the Covenant, for that it is apparent, not only that God commanded them who were in covenant to be circumcised, but that they should therefore be circumcised because of the Covenant, or in token of the Covenant between God and them; and he that rejected or neglected the seal, is said not only to break God's commandment, but his Covenant. So that because the initial seal was added to the Covenant, and such as received it received it as an evidence of the Covenant, or because they were in Covenant▪ I therefore concluded, that by God's own will, such as enter into Covenant ought to receive the seal, supposing still they were capable of it. So that to lay circumcision upon God's command, and the Covenant of grace too, are well consistent together; for the command is the cause of the existence of the duty, but the Covenant of grace is the motive to it.
Answ. Here is all Mr. Ms. strength to prove his Major, that it was God's will that such as are in Covenant from Abraham's time, and so forward, should be sealed with the initial seal of the Covenant, which he after alters thus. Such as enter into Covenant ought to receive the seal. But there is nothing but confusedness and impertinency in all this passage.
1. He tells us, There is the institution of an initial seal Gen. 17.7, 9, 10, 14. which he must understand of an initial seal in general or indefinite, or else it reacheth not to baptism, and so it is impertinently alleged. But it is palpably false that there is in those words any other initial seal instituted then circumcision, and I dare boldly say, it is a mere dotage to maintain that in those words there is any rule about baptism or any other ordinance of God then circumcision. The very words are, thou shalt keep my Covenant, and this covenant is demonstrated to be male-circumcision and no other, of which the time and part are precisely set down.
2. He should prove that all that were in covenant had title to the initial seal or right; but his Conclusion is of their duty, not of their title. Now it cannot be said to be infants duty; the command was not given to them, nor doth Mr. M. I think, assert it as their duty, but as their privilege; and yet all that the text inferreth, or Mr. M. concludes from it, concerns the connection between the duty of circumcising, which belongs not to infants, and the covenant, not between the Privilege of circumcision passively taken, which belongs to infants and the Covenant, which is another impertinency.
3. Be it granted that the proposition to be proved is of duty in parents or Ministers, yet he is necessitated to grant the command was the cause of the existence of the duty, and more plainly page 182. The formal reason of their being circumcised, was the command of God: which if true, there's no duty without the command, whatever interest there might be in the Covenant: and therefore the proposition is true, all that enter into Covenant ought to receive the seal if it be commanded, not otherwise: and so neither infant-circumcision nor infant-baptism can be proved from the bare interest in the covenant, without a particular command for each of them.
4. He saith, the Covenant of grace was the motive, page 182. the Covenant of grace, or their Church-state was the motive to it, and the thing it related to. But he tells us not to whom it was a motive. A motive is an impulsive cause, whereby a person is persuaded or induced to do a thing. But it was not the motive to infants, for they conceived not of it. His words [the very ground why God would have them sealed, is because of the Covenant] do intimate, that he means the covenant was the motive to God to give the command. But what it makes to his purpose I do not conceive. For though that were the motive to God, yet God's motive is not the rule of the duty, but his command to us; nor the evidence of our privilege, but his declaration of his Will. But be it a motive to Abraham, yet it was but a motive for the more full engagement of him to that which without that motive he had been to do by reason of the Command, nor any further evidence of privilege then was imported by other Declaration of God's will.
5. Though Circumcision did relate to the Covenant, and it was received as an evidence of the Covenant, yet this proves not that it was received by each person, because he was in covenant, nor that the being in Covenant was the rule of the using that rite, that they which were in Covenant should have it, and they that were not in Covenant, should not have it, which is the thing to be proved, but is certainly false, as I have by many instances shown.
6. If all this were granted, yet that this rule did reach further then the use of circumcision is not proved here: and what is brought elsewhere shall be shown in it's place to be much short of proving any such general rule about an initial seal, as is here by Mr. M. averred. But let us see what his proof amounts to about circumcision.
1. He urgeth, That circumcision is called a token of the Covenant; But this proves no more then this, that the use of Circumcision was to be a sign God made such a Covenant, and would fulfill it: not that everyone that was in Covenant was to be circumcised, or that everyone that was to be circumcised was in covenant.
2. That it is termed the Covenant. But this proves no more than the former, since it is acknowledged to be so called only by a metonymia, of putting the thing signified for the sign.
3. The particle [therefore] is thus urged: God not only commanded them who were in covenant, 〈◊〉 b • circumcised, but that they should [therefore] be circumcised because of the covenant, or in token of the Covenant between God & them;
But 1. The particle [therefore] though it be in our last translation, yet in the Hebrew it is only 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and may be rendered, And thou, or, But thou, as by the Tig •• : it is & 〈◊〉 , by Parcus, tu autem, Piscator, tu vero.
2. Let it be read [therefore] and the inference be from the Covenant; yet that the inference is from the promise in the seventh verse only, and not from the eighth verse, which is next, or the rest of the promises, v. 4, 5, 6, cannot be shown.
3. Let these things be granted: yet that it imports this rule to be taken from the Covenant, those who are in Covenant are to be circumcised, not others, hath no color of proof, nor any show of truth in it, since it is clear in the case of Ishmael to whom that promise di • not belong nor any in that covenant, yet he was to be circumcised, and others were not to be circumcised, to whom the promises were made.
4. He urgeth thus: And he that rejected or neglected the seal is said not only to break God's commandment, but his Covenant: so that because the initial seal was added to the Covenant, and such as received it, received it as an evidence of the Covenant, or because they were in covenant. To which I reply.
Two ways a man may be said to break God's covenant: one by breaking the command, which was in reference to the Covenant, or enjoined in testimony of it; and if this be his sense, then Mr. Ms. speech is trifling, when he saith, he that rejected or neglected the seal, is said not only to break God's commandment, but his Covenant, sit being all one to break the command and the covenant. The other sense is; he hath broken my covenant, that is, as Piscat. sch. on Gen. 17.14 as much as is in him, by depriving himself of the grace of God, promised in the Covenant. For otherwise the incredulity of man doth not make void the faith of God, Rom. 3.3. But take it either way, it proves not that which was to be proved, that the rule about circumcising persons was their interest in the Covenant. All that follows on this is, that the observance of circumcision was strictly enjoined under this penalty, that otherwise they should be cut off from God's people, and so deprived of the benefit of the Covenant signified; but this doth not prove that everyone circumcised was in the Covenant, and should have the benefit of the Covenant. So that though it be granted which Mr. M. says, That to lay Circumcision upon God's command, and the Covenant of grace too, are well consistent together; Yet his Major is not proved, That it was God's Will that such as are in Covenant from Abraham's time, and so forward, should be sealed with the initial seal of the Covenant, supposing them only capable of the seal, and no special bar put in against them by God himself. Nor is Mr. M. more happy in answering my exceptions.
Whereas you allege, saith he, concerning Melchizedek, Lot, Job ; we find no such thing, that they either received this seal of Circumcision or were tied to it. I reply, its very hard for you to prove that Melchizedek was then alive: and had he been alive, he was of an higher Order, and above that Paedagogy.
Answ. I grant it cannot be demonstratively proved, that he was alive: yet it being probable he was, who not many years before met Abraham, though he were in Covenant, yet being not appointed to be circumcised, it overthrows the proposition by which Mr. Ms. Enthymeme was to be proved, That all that are foederati, must be signati. Yea Mr. Ms. answer here, That he was above that Paedagogy, doth plainly intimate that circumcision was peculiar to that Paedagogy, and so the rule about circumcision not obligatory to Christian Gentiles, to whom that Paedagogy is abolished, and who have a Priest of an higher Order, to wit, that of Melchizedek. As for Lot, he denies not that he then lived, but saith, That no Scripture saith he was not circumcised, which he saith of Job also, whose time is uncertain, by reason of th • Scripture-silence, though probably he was of Esau's posterity. But in matters of fact, à non Scripto ad non factum non valet consequentia.
Nevertheless for Lot, it seems to me very unlikely he should be circumcised living then in Sodom, not in Abraham's house, and no mention made of him, when Abraham circumcised his own house, and Lots posterity being after uncircumcised Jerem. 9.26. And for Job, what time soever he lived, it is likely he was an Edomite ; who are reckoned for uncircumcised Ier. 9.26. and there are no passages that give any intimation of his acquaintance with Israel. But if these serve not the turn, the example of Cornelius undeniably uncircumcised, and not blamed for want of it, though undoubtedly in the Covenant of grace, being one that feared God with all his house, and his prayers and alms heard, therefore he was not to be circumcised though in the Covenant of grace, nor all that enter into Covenant ought to be sealed with the initial seal, though capable, and no bar put in against them by God.
I instanced in male infants of Jews under eight days old, who were not to be circumcised, though in Covenant. Mr. M. answers, To that of infants there was a peculiar exemption of them by God himself; whether for any typical reason, or in regard they were not fit in nature to undergo so sharp a pain, as was to be endured in Circumcision before the seventh and Critical day was past, or whether for any other cause, I dispute not; it is sufficient, God forbad them to have the seal till they were eight days old.
Answ. This is a grant of the objection, and overthrows the proposition of Mr. M. in his Sermon ; All that are in Covenant are to be sealed. And the forbidding, being only by not appointing it, the proposition can be t • ue only in this sense; All those in Covenant are to be circumcised, to whom it is appointed, and no other; But infants are in Covenant, and to them it is appointed to be sealed with the initial seal in the New Testament: Ergo.
Wherein I should grant the Major, and deny the Minor, and infer that without appointment interest in the Covenant did not make capable, no not of Circumcision, though it's likely infants might have born it in the end of the seventh day as well as on the eighth.
I alleged that no females in Abraham's family, though in Covenant, were to be circumcised. To this Mr. M. answers. For the women, they were not Subjectum capax circumcisionis, there was in them a natural impediment against it, therefore could it not be enjoined them: and suppose some men amongst them, or some who turned proselytes to them, had not had a praep • tium (as some sort of Eunuchs) this Ordinance had not reached them; whether the wisdom of God purposely chose a sign that women might not be capable of receiving it, for some typical use, as some conjecture, it is sufficient they were not capable of it, and were exempted from it by God himself.
Answ. If it be true, which many Authors relate, that the Habassines, and Jacobites do at this day, circumcise females; then it is not true, they were uncapable of it by reason of natural impediment. But if it be true which Mr. M. saith, yet God's choosing a sign of which they were not capable, and that for a typical use, when he might have chosen one as baptism, of which both s • xes were capable, it is an evidence, That it was not the Will of God since Abraham's time, and so forward, that all in Covenant should be sealed with the initial seal, which was Mr. Ms. proposition. Nor do his two limitations added in his Defense help him. For if incapacity and non-appointment be a sufficient exemption from the initial seal, yea a prohibition of it, then his proposition is but what I contend for, that those in covenant to whom God appoints it and no other, are to have the initial seal; which is as much as I would evince, that it is not bare interest in the Covenant without institution or appointment that gives right to a person to claim either circumcision or baptism, nor warrants a baptizer to admit a person to baptism. And therefore though it were yielded that all infants of believers were in covenant, yet they have not right to either initial seal without a command, or institution concerning each rite.
As for Mr. Ms. general proposition as he states it, as it advantageth it him not for the reason last given, so it may be granted, if he mean by exemption or particular dispensation the non-appointment of it. For then I am sure infants of believers are exempted from baptism till they be proved disciples of Christ, or believers by profession; which if it could be proved, we need not fetch it from circumcision and the Covenant. From which they that deduce infant-baptism, do but in vain weary themselves and others, as they that seek to draw water out of a pumice stone.
But there is some more in Mr. M. about women's circumcision, which I must not omit. Mr. M. in his Sermon had answered, that women were circumcised virtually in the M • les. To which I answered, that a virtual circumcision was not enough to make good his argument: For then his Syllogism must have four terms, thus. They that are in Covenant must be sealed actually in their now persons, or virtually in others. But infants of believers are in the Covenant, therefore they are to be sealed. If the Conclusion be meant of actual sealing in their own persons then there are four terms, and more in the Conclusion then in the premisses. But if it be meant disjunctively, they are to be sealed actually or virtually: then it is less than is to be proved, his business being to prove that they were to be sealed actually. For a virtual sealing is less than Mr. M. would have, and might be granted without any detriment to the cause of Anti-paedobaptism. To this Mr M. makes no answer at all, but chargeth me with a scoff where there was none, tells me it is like refuting Bellarmine with, Thou liest : whereas I did show wherein his answer was insufficient, and that by putting his Syllogism into form, according to his own meaning, and then showing how it would not conclude what he should prove. And to this in his Defense he makes no answer, but tells us, what his plain meaning was, which is nothing to the present point: he should have shown how, with that exposition or limitation his argument would prove actual sealing of infants in their own persons. But to slight a reason and speak nothing to it, is not to answer, but to shift.
But I also said, to speak exactly, women were not circumcised virtually in the Males: For that supposeth they might receive it in their own persons, whereas it had been a sin in them to be circumcised, God not appointing it: which is confirmed by the like, it would be sin for the male to be circumcised afore the eighth day, since it was not appointed: which may now be confirmed by Mr. Ms. words, that God forbad them to have the seal till they were eight days old.
To this saith Mr. M. But first give me leave to observe by the way how you pinch me with a point of Law, that no man can be said virtually to have that by his Proxy or Attorney, which he might not actually receive himself in his own person. I question whether this be good Law; but I am confident it is bad Divinity; sure we sinned virtually in Adam, yet we could not actually, though the sin of Adam be ours by imputation. The Sun is virtually hot, yet Philosophers say, it's not actually. And the Jews of old offered to God such things by the hands of the Priests, who were their Proxies in that work, which they might not offer in their own persons, yea and received such things by the hand of the High Priest (who bare their names in the most holy place) which they might not receive in their own persons immediately: and the Saints now in this world do virtually and quoad effectum juris, receive some such privileges in Christ their Advocate, who in their right is at God's right hand, which here they are not capable of receiving immediatrly in their own persons.
Answ. My words were not as Mr. M. recited them, but thus. He is said virtually to have a thing by another, as by a Proxy or Attorney, that might receive it by himself; yet quoad effectum juris, according to the effect of Law another's receiving it is, as if he had received it. In which I understand by [having a thing] that having a thing which is by possession of it, as a benefit, privilege, commodity, and by [might receive it] without any prohibition in Law, and that he receives it not in his own person, is only from some temporary impediment, as minority, absence or the like. And this according to that skill I have in such terms, I conceive still to be the meaning of them. Nor do Mr. Ms. instances take me any whit off from it, being without fear of being chargeable with bad Law or Divinity. For our sinning in Adam is not receiving something as a benefit: the Suns heat is natural, not by virtue of any Political Law, it is not having as a proxy or atturney for another; the High Priests offering for the people was an action in their stead, not receiving a benefit for them, and what they received for the people which they might not receive in their own persons immediately was not by reason of any prohibition, but from some other cause, nor were they in imparting it, the people's Proxies or Attorneys, but God's: were it an answer from God or any other thing they received for them, if God had immediately communicated it to them, it had not been their sin. And the like may be said of what Christ receives for us as our Advocate. But the circumcising of women had been a sin forbidden, according to Mr. Marshalls and others doctrine before recited, they were prohibited to be circumcised, it being limited to the males on the 8. day. Mr. M. adds.
I also obiter desire you to remember this expression of yours, that it had been a sin for a child to have been circumcised after the eight day was past, and try how you will reconcile this with another opinion of yours delivered elsewhere; viz. That Circumcision might be administered oftener then once; surely those other times must be after the 8. day.
Answ. Where I deliver this, that Circumcision might be administered oftener than once, I remember not, except in my Examen, page 118. However I conceive no necessity of Circumcision or baptism above once, yet I profess myself unsatisfyed in this, that there is either a command that a person be but once circumcised, or a person once only baptized. And my reason of the speech is from hence. 1 Cor. 7.18. the Apostle saith, Is one called circumcised, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Let him not be drawn up, that is, let him not draw up his foreskin: we translate it, Let him not become uncircumcised. Whence it may be perceived, that some Jews had an art to draw up their fore-skin. Now in such a case, while the Law stood in force, I conceive he was bound to be circumcised again, because it was to abide in his flesh, Gen. 17.13. Nor do my words at all contradict this, when I say more fully then Mr. M. recites them; It had been a sin for a child to be circumcised afore, or after the eight day in them that altered or swerved from the appointment of God: where I make the sin not to be the doing of it, on the eighth day, and then doing it again (though I deny not but unnecessarily to do it after the eight day had been sin, that day being determined for it) but not doing it that day which God appointed by those that altered or swerved from that appointment unnecessarily: which in the case mentioned, and any other of the like, might be done after the eighth day. But M. M. will confirm his proofs, that the women were circumcised in the men.
My first, saith he to me, was, that the whole house of Israel are in the Scripture said to be circumcised. You answer, that by the whole house of Israel must not be meant all, but the Major part. But Sir do you imagine that any of your judicious Readers can be satisfied with this answer, when (you know well enough) that the Circumcision is put for the Church and people of God in opposition to the uncircumcised, that is, all the rest of the World who were not the people of God.
When Peter was to go to the circumcision, and Paul to the Gentiles to preach the Gospel; does not circumcision include the women Jews as much as the men, in opposition to Gentiles, as well as the word Gentiles includes women Gentiles as well as the men, to whom Paul was sent? Gal. 2.8, 9. Surely it must needs be granted, that not only the Major or nobler part, but the whole nation of the Jews both men and women, are there meant by circumcision, which could not have been, if in some sense they were not to be accounted circumcised.
Answ. My Answer might satisfy any judicious Reader, specially if the texts had been fairly set down by Mr. M. wherein I show all Israel, and all the house of Israel must be understood Synecdochically, 1 Sam. 7.3. Acts 2.36. Acts 13.24. And if in the term [circumcision] be not a Synecdoche of the whole for the part; not only every individual in Israel must be in some sense accounted circumcised, but be actually circumcised also in their own persons. Nor against such a Synecdoche doth it make, that circumcision stands in opposition to the uncircumcised, which is meant of every individual. For neither is it true, when the uncircumcised are mentioned, it is meant of every individual, there being many of those nations that were circumcised; and if it were true, yet the opposition doth not prove every individual Jew circumcised, anymore then when they are called the holy Nation in opposition to the Gentiles: as when it was said, Israel was holiness to the Lord, Jerem. 2.3. every Israelite or Jew must be counted holy in some sense: but the terms are attributed Synecdochically. And for the other instance, I grant circumcision must include Gal. 2.8. women as well as men, because Peter was to go to them: but this proves not that women were in some sense accounted circumcised in the males, but that they are part of the nation which were called the Circumcision Synecdochically, because of the males. And for the term Gentiles, there must be in like manner a Synecdoche conceived of the whole for a part, else he should be sent to preach to infant males as well as women of years.
Secondly, saith Mr. M. I argued thus, no uncircumcised might eat the Passoever; Ergo their women might not have eaten it, if in some sense they had not been circumcised. Your answer is, This is to be limited pro subjecta ma • eria, none that ought to be circumcised might eat the Passover, unless they were circumcised. But this answer is altogether insufficient. For where is this distinction of yours found or founded in the word of God? other Distinctions about eating the Passover are clearly found: the clean might eat it, the unclean might not eat it, the circumcised might, the uncircumcised might not: But of your limitation there is altum silentium.
Answ. Mr. Ms. conclusion is, That in some sense women were circumcised, and before in some sense they were counted circumcised, neither of which is the same with this [they were circumcised virtually in the males, or the males were circumcised in their stead as their Proxy or Attorney.]
2. My answer was right, and to his Demand, where it is found in the word of God? I answer by another demand, where is his limitation found in God's word, that women might eat the Passover, because they were in some sense accounted circumcised? Sure the words are, Exod. 12.48. No uncircumcised person shall eat thereof, not as Mr. M. none but those that are counted in some sense circumcised may eat thereof: If there be in Scripture that which doth necessitate to a limitation of that speech, my limitation is as well in Scripture as his is: yea my limitation is plain and easy, whereas his limitation is liable to this objection, that when God's Law requires persons to be circumcised that they might eat the Passover, if Mr, Ms. limitation or explication be good, it should require no more but this, that persons in some sense should be accounted circumcised. For so Mr. M. understands the Law, and then, though the males were not actually circumcised, but virtually, in some sense, so accounted they might eat it, without breach of the Law, which absurdity doth not follow on my limitation, but follows inevitably on Mr. Ms.
2. Saith Mr. M. I demand further, where is there any command or institution for women to eat the Passover (more than for women now to eat the Lord's Supper) unless it be founded upon circumcision? yet in practice we know they did eat it? and if they eat it not as circumcised persons, tell me by what right they did it.
Answ. I have proved Examen part. 3. S. 12. pag. 112. Postscript to my Apology S. 11. that 1 Cor. 11.28. & 10.17. and 12.13. Acts 20.7. are express precept and example for women's receiving the Lord's Supper. And for eating the Paseover, there is an express precept, That all the Congregation of Israel shall keep it, Exod 12.47. in which women were meant, and they were to eat according to the number of the Souls v. 4. and no leaven was to be in their habitation, v. 20. therefore either women must eat the Passover, or else they must not eat bread: so that we need not go to circumcision for women's eating the Passover. Yea, if we use no other way than that of Mr. M. it will not be proved that women ought to eat it. For Exodus 12.48. no mention is made of any circumcised who are to eat it, but males; and though it be said, no uncircumcised might eat, yet it is not said, all circumcised must eat, much less they that are only in some sense counted circumcised. But Mr. M. seeks to make his advantage of this point thus.
If you say they were included in the Household Exod. 12.3, 4. every household was to eat the Paschal Lamb, and there was no exception of women; I reply, first grant but the same consequence, that when we read so frequently in the New T. that whole households were baptized, and no exception of children, that therefore all the children in those households were baptized, and this Controversy is quickly ended.
Answ. If it were granted that we had no other way to prove women were to eat the Paschal Lamb (which yet we need not, as I have shown) but from Exod. 12.3, 4. in that every household was to eat the Lamb, and there was no exception of Women, yet the consequence were not good; whole households were baptized, therefore infants, because not expressly excepted. For as Exod. 12.3, 4 infants are excepted from being required to eat the Lamb, though not in express words, yet because the thing to be done was not such as could agree to infants of a few days old, suppose eight or nine. So where Act. 16.15, 33. and 18.8. 1 Cor. 1.16. the household is said to be baptized, besides this, that no infants are expressed, in the same chapter or elsewhere, the speech is plainly interpreted to be meant of those that heard the word, and believed, as Acts the eleventh chapter, and fourteenth verse, and ch. 16. v. 32, 34. and 18.8. 1 Cor. 16.15. as if the holy Ghost had of purpose prevented this misconstruction and frivolous consequence of Paedobaptists.
But saith Mr. M. I add further, it is not said the whole household shall eat it, for all uncircumcised persons were forbidden to eat it, and none but circumcised persons had warrant to eat it.
Answ. It is said, Exod. 12.4. they shall eat the Lamb according to the number of Souls, i. e. hominum Pisc. Schol. in locum, every man according to his eating, which is a plain precept for women to eat who could eat.
Yea further, saith Mr. M. suppose some words in the institution should reach the Jewish women, yet how doth it reach the women Gentiles who should prove Proselytes to them? For Exodus chapter 12. verse 48, 49. there is order taken for the male stranger, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it, but there is not any word that takes order for the strangers females.
Answer. It is said verse forty seven, That all the Congregation of Israel shall keep it, and the Proselytes of Righteousness, women as well as men were of that Congregation, and verse forty nine, it is said, One Law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you: if then the Law appointed the Israelitish women to eat, the same law appointed the Proselyte Women to eat. So that notwithstanding Mr. Ms. vain hope, my exception against the consequence of his Argument, They are foederati; Therefore they are to be signati, stand good and it is not yet proved, that bare interest in the Covenant Genesis 17. or the Covenant of grace did entitle to Circumcision, much less to baptism, which were enough to overthrow his first argument.
But since it is my task, I will now go on to the rest of his Dispute, taking in by the way Master Blake's third section of the 42. chapter of his Vindic. foederis.
SECT. XIX. Mr. Blake's exceptions against my Speeches in the point about the connection between the Covenant, and initial seal, are refelled.
MR. Blake asserts a reality of connection between the Covenant and initial seal, and first he meddles with my Examen, and then with my Anti-paedobaptism. To my objection that the Proposition is not true, that all that were federate in Abraham's family, were to be signed, for neither Males afore the eighth day, nor females were to be circumcised, besides his avouching Master Marshall • answer as sufficient, which is reviewed before, he saith, Is there no connection between them, because he that receives into Covenant and appoints the seal, hath prescribed a time when it shall be applied?
To which I say, it proves that there is not a connection between being federate, and to be signed, to make this Proposition true, All that are federate are to be signed, barely in that they are federate. For they are federate the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh day, as well as the eighth, yet not to be signed, whereas if there was such a connection between them according to God's will, that the one being put, the other is to be put, they would be to be signed as soon as ever they are federate. And if it be God's will that they should be signed, but not till the appointed time after, I might say that though infants were federate, yet they were not to be signed with baptism till God's appointed time, which is not till they be disciples, and so infant baptism is not proved from their being in Covenant, the Major Proposition, All that are in Covenant are to be signed, being true only with this limitation, in the appointed time, which is not for baptism till they be Disciples. And whereas in answer to my objection, that if infants have right to the seal by being in covenant, then they have right to the Lord's Supper, he answers.
1. That in baptism there is no more of necessity than to be passive. This is false, for baptism is enjoined as a duty, and such as is to have repentance and faith antecedent Mark chap. 16.16. Acts the 2. chap. 38. Acts chap. 8. verse 37.
2. He grants that infants have true title to the Lord's Supper, jus ad rem, not jus in re, a right to it, yet by reason of infancy have their actual interest suspended.
But 1. still Mr. Blake speaks of the Lord's Supper, and of baptism, as of privileges merely, whereas the Scripture speaks of each as a duty as well as a privilege.
2. By the same distinction an answer is given to him concerning infants baptism, that though they have the right to it, yet by reason of infancy, the actual interest of it is to be suspended, they being no more able to profess the faith, till they be grown to some riper age then a Cradle King to rule a Kingdom.
So that Mr. Blake's answers yield more exceptions against Mr. Ms. argument, confirm it not at all, but show how we may grant his Major, and yet so limit it that it will be too short of proving baptism of federate persons in infancy: and these passages of Master Blake appear to be Cavils and not An • wers.
He next sets upon the fifth section of the first part of my Review, and excepts,
1. That I show not where to find Mr. Baillees words. But if he had looked into my Letter mentioned, he had found them quickly in the third section.
2. That I denied the Metaphor of a seal to be rightly made, the genus of a rite, as of baptism, to which he replies in his flirting fashion. We shall expect another letter to show Saint Paul's definition, Rom. 4.11. to be alike light (who runs upon the same error, if an error) when he says that Circumcision is a sign and seal, there is the genus and the differentia lies in these words to distinguish it from other signs, and seals of the righteousness of faith. The nature of a Sacrament stands in a figure, and the whole efficacy of it in the use. And how else then should the nature and use of it be held out?
To which I answer, Paul doth not give a definition, Rom. 4.11. of circumcision, much less doth he define a Sacrament in general. Every Definition is reciprocal with the thing defined, but Mr. Bl. I presume will not say; every circumcision is a seal of the righteousness of faith, and every seal of the righteousness of faith is circumcision. Besides individuals are not wont to be defined, but what is there said is said of the singular circumcision of Abraham, and no other. The title given to Abraham's circumcision doth but show what the use of it was to him, not what was the constant nature, and use of it on and to others. Which appears from the particularizing circumstances so exactly noted by the Apostle, to wit, the times of his justification and circumcision, which do show that it was appropriated to Abraham's circumcision, on his own body, what he there said of Circumcision. There is no more reason to make this the definition of Circumcision [the seal of the righteousness of faith] then to make that [1 Tim 6.10. the root of all evil] the definition of the love of money, or that [ Heb. 6.16. the end of all strife] the definition of an oath, or that [v. 19. the anchor of the soul firm and stable] the definition of hope, or that [ Heb. 11.1. the evidence of things not seen] the definition of faith A seal cannot be the genus of it, being a Metaphor, for a Metaphor shows not what it is, but what it is like. Circumcision is an action as it is from the agent, as in the subject a passion. The relation that comes to it is not from its nature, but by institution, and is the end of it, rather than the genus, rather for what it is, than what it is. A seal is an artificial body compound of a substance and figure, which cannot be said of Circumcision. What Mr. Bl. saith, that the nature of a Sacrament stands in a figure, cannot be true of such a figure as is in a Seal, for so baptism, the Passover, the Lord's Supper should be no Sacrament since they do not make any figure on the body, nor of figure of speech, for so a Sacrament should not be a visible sign, but an audible. I grant the use of it is to resemble by a visible sign some other thing, as the breaking bread, Christ's body broken, and in that sense it may be called a figure as Augustine called the bread the figure of Christ's body. But the use belongs to the difference to distinguish it from the same action or passion used to another purpose, not to the genus. And yet sign and seal of the righteousness of faith, cannot be the difference to distinguish a Sacrament from the preaching of the Gospel, for the preaching of the Gospel by word or writing is a sign or seal of the righteousness of faith. What is said Rom. 4.11. that Abraham received the sign of circumcision, the seal of the righteousness of faith, is not all one with this [a seal of the Covenant of grace] For it is added [which he had yet, being uncircumcised] and therefore was a sign not of a promise or covenant, concerning a thing to be done, but of a thing accomplished or already done. I see not how Rom. 4.11. either the general nature of a Sacrament, or the special nature of circumcision may be said to be defined. Nor do I conceive it true which Mr. Bl. saith, the whole efficacy of a Sacrament is in the use: I suppose baptism, and the Lord's Supper have their efficacy in comforting, moving to holiness, love, &c. after the use. The nature and use of a Sacrament may be otherwise held out then Mr. Bl. doth, which I now omit. It is sufficient at present to show the emptiness of Mr. Bls. dictates. And for my rejecting of the common use of the terms of seals of the Covenant, and initial seals as Synonymous to sacraments and baptism, especially in disputes wherein proper terms should be used, I have given sufficient reason from the abuses of Paedobaptists inferring errors from a late devised term, and imposing on men's consciences: yet I profess, if baptism were granted to be a seal or initial seal, that I think that it would not follow, that it hath that relation to the Covenant; that infants in Covenant must not be denied it, but that it is a frivolous argument, infants are in covenant, therefore they must have the initial seal of the Covenant: for which if I had no other reason, yet that one of Mr. Bl. that though a person be in Covenant, and have right to the seal, yet he is not to have it till the appointed time, it were sufficient to justify my censure.
Mr. Bl. excepts against my speech, that to have the promise, and to be a disciple or believer, are not all one, for he conceives to have a promise in Scripture phrase is to possess it, as those Jews after the flesh did possess, Rom. 9.4▪ And how to possess a promise without faith, he doth not yet understand.
Whereto I reply, that I find the term [promise] used in Scripture sometimes metonymically for the thing promised,, as Luke • 4.49. when Christ saith, I send the promise of the Father upon you, he means the Holy Ghost promised, and it is true in this sense, to have a promise is to possess it. But in proper acception the term [promise] notes the act of the person promising, as Gal. 3.16. to Abraham and his seed were the promises made, or spoken. So likewise v. 17, 18. And in this sense he hath a promise, who hath not possession of the thing promised, and thus we usually say, I have not yet such an office, revenue, estate, &c. but I have a promise of it. In which sense I took it, and so it is true, that in this sense, a man may have the promise, and not be a believer or disciple as yet. And thus I conceive it taken in all the three places in the New Testament 2 Cor. 7.1. 1 Tim. 4.8. Heb. 7.6. and in this sense a person may have a promise afore he is a believer.
Mr. Blake further excepts against me:
That 1. I make these terms all one, to have a promise, and to be a child of the promise.
2. That I make a child of the promise, Rom. 9.8. to be all one with to be an elect person, as Isaac and Jacob, v. 10, 11, 12. were children of the promise, to whom the promise was made before they were born.
But Mr. Blake saith, That to have a promise, and to be a child of promise, are two different things in Scripture; yet shows not the difference between them. In that expression Rom. 9.8. the child of the promise (according to the usual Hebraisms, Child of light, Child of wrath, Son of perdition, which note the person who is the subject or object of those several terms attributed) is a person of whom, or for whom, the promise is made, and so it is all one with [to have the promise.]
But saith M. Bl. if the child of the promise were all one with to be elect, then (according to me) all the Jews according to the flesh were elect persons; they had the promises, yea those that were actors in Christ's death Acts 2.39. which he must needs yield to be an absurdity.
To which I reply, I do not conceive how this is true according to me, that if children of the promise be all elect, all the Jews according to the flesh were elect persons. Sure I nowhere make all the Jews according to the flesh children of the promise.
Yea the text Rom. 9.8. is so express against it, that the children of the flesh, are denied to be children of God's, that is, children of the promise, which the words show to be equipollent. Yea it is the express determination, v. 6. that all that are of Israel, to wit, by natural generation, are not Israel, to whom the promise was made; nor all children (that is, of God, and of the promise) who are the seed of Abraham, v. 7. But that no other were children of the promise, though the seed natural of Abraham and Isaac : but elect persons, the Apostle doth not only assert, but prove it in Esau and Jacob, v. 10, 11, 12, 13. It is true, Rom. 9.4. it is said the promises were the Israelites: but whatever the promises there meant were, whether of spiritual or corporal good things, yet it follows not that of every Israelite were the promises anymore than that of every Israelite, v. 5. was Christ according to the flesh. Nor Acts 2.39. is it said that all the Jews according to the flesh had the promises. But that the promise was to them, their children and all afar off, whom God should call: the promise is attributed to none but the called of God. The generality of Anti-Arminian Protestants make children of the promise to be all one with the elect, Rom. 9.8. some I allege in my Exam. part. 3. sect. 4. some more in my Precursor, and more I meet with in my reading. It is not true which Mr. Bl. saith, that Isaac being born by promise, all his posterity originally were of the same birth, for the Apostle concludes the contrary of Esau, Rom. 9.10, 11, 12. The text Gal. 4.28. is rightly brought to show that all Jews according to the flesh, are not the children of the promise, but as Mr. Dioson, we, that is believing Christians, who were born after the spirit, and presented by them that were born after the flesh, v. 29. that is, by the unbelieving Jew, who stuck to the legal covenant. Nor need we say, that all the visible Churches of Galatia were born after the spirit, but only that the true believers in them were so. Nor is there a word of any privileges inferior to justification, as the series of the text shows, and many learned Protestants clearly express. That which Master Blake saith, he will maintain, that everyone in Covenant is a believer, a disciple, that believers are same formally, such as in act assent to Gospel revelations; some virtually, such as have the privileges of professing believers, that infants in Covenant are virtually believers, in that they are honored with the privileges of believers, and that this distinction the Scripture warrants, are all vain dictates, there being not one Scripture that ever calls any a believer from a privilege, but from the act of assent or profession of faith, nor is there the least color for it out of Scripture to call infants in covenant believers without their own act of assent or profession of faith, and therefore I let pass these speeches of M. Bl. as idle unproved talk, of which his book is full.
Mr. Bl. excepts against my speech, some not yet born, some not yet called are in the covenant, have the promise of grace made to them. I have read (saith he) of a covenant entered with those that at the instant time of the making of the Covenant were present, and with those that were not present, Deut. 29.15. with men of years, and them with their little ones, Deut. 29.11. But I read not of a covenant actually made with any unborn.
Answ. My expression [are in Covenant] I confess that I remember not used in the Scripture, yet it is usual in the writings of Paedobaptists, who usually say, infants are in the Covenant of grace with their parents. The Assemblies larger Catechism avoucheth infants of parents, professing faith in Christ within the Covenant. Mr. M. in his Sermon p. 8.15, &c. And this expression of theirs I knew not how to conceive they meant otherwise then thus, Infants have God's promise of grace made to them, or for them, as in the Directory, the promise is made to believers and their seed. For infants said to be in the covenant must be so by some act either their own, or the administrators, or God's. Not by any act of their own, for they do nothing to that effect; not by the administrator of baptisms act, for he doth nothing but baptize, and if his act be bringing into Covenant then bringing into covenant is all one with baptizing, and if an infidels child be baptized it is in Covenant. Besides Paedobaptists assert they are within the Covenant afore they are baptized, as the Directory saith, they are foederally holy before baptism It remains then that it is by God's promise. Now surely God's promise to Abraham, and his seed Gen. 17.7. which is usually made the promise whereby infants of believers are in covenant, was many thousand years since, 430. years before the law, Gal. 3.16.17. Therefore even according to the usual language of Paedobaptists infants of believers are in Covenant afore they are born: which Mr. Bl. had no cause to carp at (as he doth) but that it is almost all his art, especially when I had to prevent it, so distinctly added to show my meaning [have the promise of grace made to them] If Mr. Bl. have any other way whereby infants are in the covenant, as the parents vow, or profession, or surety for them, according to it; I suppose, infants may be said to be in covenant afore they are born, since such vows, profession and promises may be made for them afore they are born Let's consider what M. B saith. He tells us, he reads not of a covenant actually made with any unborn. And as I conceive by his Appendix to his Vindic. foederis, as an addition to his first chapter, his reason is, because he conceives that it is of the general nature of a covenant properly so called, that there be a mutual contract and agreement, which I shall examine when I consider Mr. Cobbers part. 1. c. 3. sect. 9. of his Just Vindic. For present, if this be true, neither can a Covenant be actually made with an infant born, since an infant born can no more contract, or agree, or consent, then one unborn. Nevertheless I conceive, there is a covenant actually made with persons unborn Gen. 9.12. where God saith, This is the token of the Covenant which I make between me and you, and every living creature, that is, with you, for perpetual generations: which doth express a covenant actually made with every living creature of all flesh for perpetual generations, therefore for thousands of persons unborn. Yea where he saith, he readeth of a Covenant entered into with those that were not present, Deut. 29.15. he reads of a covenant made with persons unborn, as Piscator, Ainsworth, Jackson, Grotius, the New Annot. The notes out of the Arch-bishop of Yorks Library, &c. do conceive, and reason proves it: since that covenant was made only with Israel, not with any other people then existent, but there was none of all Israel then born, which was not there that day, as appears from v. 10. therefore those that were not there with them that day, can be no other then persons unborn, and so Mr. Blake saith not true, that he hath not read of a covenant actually made with any unborn. But were it granted that by them that were not present were meant persons existent then, there is no reason why a covenant may not as well be said to be actually made with the unborn as with the absent, who do not express any actual consent or agreement. Surely if it be true that the Covenant of grace was made with Christ afore the world for all the elect, or in the beginning of time,