The Covenant of God Entered with Mankind, Chapter 56
CHAP. LVI.
The reality of connexion, between the Covenant and initial ſeale, aſserted.
THe ſeveral minor propoſitions, in the ſyllogiſmes before laid down, being proved at large, in the foregoing diſcourſe. So that nothing more needs to be added, yet if there be no neceſſary connexion, between the covenant, and the ſeale, the major propoſitions, will yet be called into queſtion. Though it be granted, that infants be Church-members, are in covenant, have the promiſes, are Saints, are in the boſome of the Church by birth-priviledge, are children of the Kingdome, &c. Yet it will be ſaid (though moſt unreaſonably) that they are not yet to be baptized, I ſhall therefore 1. Bring Scripture proofes for the real connexion between the covenant and the ſeale, clearing thoſe Scriptures from exceptions taken againſt them. 2. I ſhall make it good with arguments or reaſons. 3. I ſhall returne anſwer to objections brought againſt that which is here aſſerted.
That all in covenant, are to enjoy the initial ſeal of the covenant, let the words of God himſelf, in the inſtitution of circumciſion be conſidered, Gen. 17. 7, 9, 10, 11, 14. 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 to thy ſeed after thee. Thou ſhalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy ſeed after thee, in their generations. This is my covenant which ye ſhall keep, between me and you, and thy ſeed after thee, Every man-child among you ſhall be circumciſed, and ye ſhall circumciſe the fleſh of your foreskinne, and it ſhall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you. And the uncircumciſed man-child, whoſe fleſh of his foreskin is not circumciſed, that ſoul ſhall be cut off from his people. Here we ſee 1. A covenant entered. 2. A ſeal appointed, as the Apoſtle, Rom. 4. 11. calls it. 3. The neceſſary connexion between the ſeal and covenant declared. They are to be circumcised, becauſe they are in covenant, Having intereſt in the covenant. They have together with it, intereſt in the initial ſeal, againſt this is objected.
Firſt, All the force of this proof hangs on the particle [therefore,] verſe 9. and may be rendared; And thou, or, but thou, as well as, thou therefore, and is by others rendered. Tu autem, and Tu vero, which are neither of them illative termes. 1. We have no reaſon but that it may be an illative as well as a copulative, and being an illative particle, he hath no exception againſt the ſtrength of it. 2. I deny, that all the force of the proof hangs on that particle; look farther on into verſe 10. This is my covenant, which ye ſhall keep between me and you, and thy ſeed after thee; every man-childe among you ſhall be circumciſed, and take in with it Acts 7. 8. And he gave him the covenant of circumciſion; And ſo Abraham begat Iſaac, and circumciſed him the eighth day, &c. and let them at more leiſure finde an anſwer to this argument. That which God himſelf calls by the name of a covenant, ought not to be ſeparated from it: But God calls circumciſion by the name of a covenant, Ergo they ought not to be ſeparated. 2. Let them conſider the relation in which the Apoſtle puts this Sacrament of circumciſion to the covenant, Rom. 4. 11. An inſtituted appointed ſigne and ſeale, is not to be divided from that which it ſignifies and ſeales, circumciſion was an inſtituted appointed ſigne and ſeale of the covenant; therefore it is not to be divided from it.
Secondly, it is ſaid, If it were granted, that [therefore] is the beſt reading; yet that the inference, verſe 9. ſhould be made from the Promiſe only, verſe 7. I will be a God to thee and thy ſeed after thee, and not as well, if not rather from the Promiſe, verſe 8. of giving to him and his ſeed the land of Canaan; I finde no ſufficient reaſon given. This reference engages the adverſary, 1. In a contradiction to himſelf, who ſayes elſewhere, the promiſe of the Goſpel was confirmed to Abraham by the ſigne of circumciſion. He alſo contends that it was a mixt covenant, made up of ſpiritual and temporal mercies, and then it muſt take in the ſpiritual as well as the temporal Promiſe. All that know the nature of covenants, and uſe of Seales, know that the Seale ratifies all that the covenant containes: But the covenant (according to him) contained not barely the promiſe of the land of Canaan; and therefore the reference, muſt carry it farther than the land of Canaan. 2. It engages him in a contradiction to the Apoſtle, who makes circumciſion a ſigne and ſeale, not alone of the land of Canaan, but of the righteouſneſſe of faith.
Thirdly, It is ſaid, But if it were yielded, that the inference were made peculiarly from the Promiſe, verſe 7. to be a God to Abraham and his ſeed; it must be proved that every Believers Infant childe is Abrahams ſeed, afore it be proved that the Promiſe belongs to them. It muſt either be proved that they are Abrahams children▪ or have the priviledge of the Children of Abraham, which from Geneſis 9. 27. Rom. 11. 17. is ſufficiently proved, eſpecially being confirmed by thoſe Texts that carry the covenant in Goſpel-times to the iſſue. And for his exception that the covenant was not made to every childe of Abraham, though it were true, yet it would not ſerve his purpoſe, provided, that we in Goſpel-times are under the ſame covenant as was Iſaac, to whom the promiſes were made, If ſome of Abrahams children were left out, that concerns not us, ſo that we are taken in; yet the inſtance is very weak to prove it. As appeares (ſaith he) verſe 19. concerning Iſhmael, and Heb. 11. 9. that Iſhmael was himſelf in covenant, though not eſtabliſhed in covenant, (as God there, and verſe 21. promiſed concerning Iſaac) not his ſeed never received, appeares not alone by the ſigne and ſeale which he received, verſe 23. which yet is ſufficient (for God to ſeale to a blanke is very ſtrange; to ſigne a covenant to a man never in covenant) but alſo from Gal. 4. 30. What ſaith the Scripture? Caſt out the bond-woman and her ſonne, for the ſonne of the bond-woman ſhall not be heir with the ſonne of the free-woman. A man caſt out of covenant, was before caſting out, in covenant; Ejection ſuppoſes admiſſion, unleſſe we will give way to our Authors dreame of Ejection by non-admiſſion. He was caſt out after the time of the ſolemnity of his admiſſion by circumciſion, as may be ſeen, Gen, 22. For that of Heb. 11. 9. it is a myſtery what he will make of it, unleſſe he will conclude, that becauſe Abraham ſojourned in the land of Promiſe, that therefore none were in covenant that were not taken into that land; ſo Moſes and Aaron will be found out of covenant.
It is further ſaid, As for a viſible Church-ſeed of Abraham, that is neither his ſeed by nature, nor by ſaving faith, nor by excellency, in whom the Nations of the Earth ſhould be bleſſed, to wit, Chriſt; I know none ſuch in Scripture, therefore ſome men have fancied ſuch a kind of Church-ſeed, as it is called. I know not how ſaving faith comes in, when a faith of profeſſion will ſerve the turne; The whole of Abrahams ſeed had circumciſion as a ſeale of the righteouſneſſe of faith, when many of their Parents had no more than a faith of profeſſion.
Fourthly, Were all theſe things yielded, yet the Propoſition (as is ſaid) would not be made good from hence. All theſe we ſee are made good againſt his exceptions. Let us now ſee the ſtrength which is reſerved for the laſt puſh, for overthrow of this Propoſition. The inference is not concerning title or right of infants to the initial ſeale, as if the covenant or promiſe of it ſelf did give that; but the inference is concerning Abrahams duty, that therefore he ſhould be the more engaged to circumciſe his poſterity. This ſhould rather have been left to us for the ſtrengthening of our propoſition, than have made uſe of it himſelf for refutation of it. It was Abrahams duty to give them according to Gods command the initial Seale: in this we are agreed: whether it will thence follow that they had right and title to it, or were without right, let the Reader determine.
It is further ſaid, He was engaged to circumciſe onelyonly thoſe that are males, and not afore eight dayes, and not onelyonly thoſe that were from himſelf, but alſo, all in his houſe whoſe children ſoever they were, which apparently ſhewes that the giving Circumciſion was not commenſurate to the perſons intereſt in the Covenant, but was to be given to perſons as well out of the Covenant as in; If of Abrahams houſe, and not to all that were in the Covenant; to wit Females, which doth clearly prove that right to the initiall Seale, as it is called, of circumciſion, did not belong to perſons by vertue of the covenant, but by force of the command. If it could be proved that Abraham kept Idolaters in his houſe, profeſſedly worſhipping a falſe god, and gave circumciſion to them in that faith and way of falſe worſhip; it would prove that a man might have the ſeale, and not be in covenant; but it would not prove that he might be in covenant, and be denied the Seale, and then infant-Baptiſme might be of eaſier proof. Though they were not in covenant, though they were not holy, yet they might be baptized. But I will not yield ſo much; I do not believe that Abraham carried circumciſion beyond the line of the covenant, and that he had thoſe in his houſe which were aliens from God; ſeeing I finde that Teſtimony of the Lord concerning him, Gen. 18. 19. For I know him, that he will command his children, and his houſhold after him, and they ſhall keep the way of the Lord to do juſtice and judgement; that the Lord may bring upon Abraham that which he hath ſpoken of him. And that reſolution of Joſhua, That if others would ſerve the gods that their fathers ſerved that were on the other ſide the floud, or the gods of the Amorites in whoſe land they dwell; yet he and his houſe would ſerve the Lord, Joſh. 24. 14, 15. As it is a private mans duty to ſerve the Lord, and not Idols, ſo it is the Maſter of the Families duty to ſee that the Lord and not Idols be worſhipped in his houſe. As I do beleeve that if any of our adverſaries had a profeſt Heathen in his Family, he would not keep him there, and not chatechize him, and that he would not during his profeſſion of Heatheniſme baptize him: So, I beleeve concerning Abraham, He catechized all that he took in as Heathens, and did not circumciſe them in their Heatheniſme. This ſome Paedobaptists (as is ſaid) are forced to confeſſe, when they grant the formal reaſon of the Jewes being circumciſed, was the command, and the covenant he makes only a motive. I wonder what need there is of an Argument to force ſuch a confeſſion. The reaſon I ſay, why Jewes were circumciſed, and Chriſtians baptized, is the command; were there a thouſand covenants, and no inſtitution of a ſigne, or ſeale, ſuch a ſigne or ſeale, there could have been no circumciſion, nor no Baptiſme. The command is the ground, and the covenant is the directory to whom application si to be made. We ſay, all in covenant are entituled to the Seale for admiſſion; but we pre-ſuppoſe an inſtitution. They will have all Beleevers, and all Diſciples baptized, which they cannot conclude upon their faith and knowledge barely, but upon the command to baptize Beleevers and Diſciples; So that the command is with reference to the covenant, with reference to intereſt in the covenant. From theſe foregoing exceptions a concluſion is drawne, that all this doth fully ſhew, that the proof of the connexion between, and the initial Seale without a particular command for it, is without any weight in it. And I conclude, that it fully ſhewes that the proof of the connexion between the covenant and the initial Seale, (pre-ſuppoſing the inſtitution of ſuch a Seale, and a general command) is of that weight that all are meere frivolous trifles that are brought for exceptions againſt it.
Another Scripture holding out the connexion between the covenant and initial ſeale is, Acts 2. 38, 39. Repent and be baptized every one of you, in the name of Jeſus Chriſt, for the remiſſion of ſinnes, and ye ſhall receive the gift of the Holy Ghoſt, for the promiſe is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are a far off, even as many as the Lord our God ſhall call. Here I muſt mind the Reader of that which I have already ſpoken on this text, concerning this text, Chap. On which words after a brief Analaſis (which there may be ſeen) I have grounded this argument, They to whom the covenant of promiſe appertains, have right to Baptiſme. But the covenant of promiſe, belongs to men in a Church-ſtate, and condition; together with their children, therefore, thoſe that are in a Church-ſtate, and condition, have right to Baptiſme together with their children. My buſineſſe being then, to aſſert the juſt latitude of the covenant; without reſpect to Baptiſme or any other ſeale, I ſpoke only to the minor propoſition, that the covenant extends it ſelfe not alone, to men profeſſedly in a Church-ſtate, but alſo to their children with them, and to that I think I have there ſpoke ſufficient. Now I am put upon the proof of the major. That they, to whom the covenant of the promiſe appertaines, have right to baptiſme. If this faile, it muſt be confeſt, that the ground of infant-Baptiſme, as to this Text, falls with it, ſeeing their right is not aſſerted, quâ infants, no more than the right of men of growth or men of yeares, quâ of growth, or in yeares, but as they ſtand in reference to God in coventnt, and this is clear in the Text. Be baptized, for the promiſe is to you, and to your children. Becauſe they are veſted in the promiſe, they have their right and intereſt in the ſeale. If this do not hold, the Apoſtles argument falls to evade this full and cleare argument, one is bold to ſay, that in the expounding of theſe words there are almoſt as many miſtakes as words, when words are only brought to convince us, of ſo many miſtakes, though in a multiplication of exceptions.
Firſt, The Expoſition is commonly carried as if the promiſe there meant, were the promiſe, Gen. 17. 7. To Abraham and his ſeed, and this expounded as if it were meant that God would be a God to every Believer, and to his ſeed, in reſpect at leaſt of viſible Church-Memberſhip. When a promiſe is mentioned, and a ſeale, any man but he will preſently underſtand that promiſe, which is ra…ified by ſuch a ſeale. For diſcovery of their miſtake that make any other reference of it, I ſhall referre the Reader to what I have ſaid on theſe words. Chap 48. and to Maſter Cobbets Vindication, Part. 1. Chap. 2. Sect. 3.
Secondly, it is ſaid, They expound [foreign is Acts 2. 39.] as if it were a promiſe of a thing to come ſome outward priviledg to be conferred on them and their children, whereas the chief thing meant in the ſpeech i…, that as is expreſsly ſaid by Paul, Acts 13. 32, 33. Yet no man is quoted for this Expoſition of a thing to come, but on the contrary quotes Maſter Cobbet againſt it. It is meant of a preſent right for as yet they were not broken off from the Olive, not Gentiles g… fed in, in the inſtead.
Thirdly, It is ſaid, It is taken as if [to you] were meant of thoſe perſons to whom he ſpake, as then Believers, and under that formal conſideration, and then reaſons are brought againſt it. I do not interpret it of any preſent explicite Faith in Chriſt as the Meſſiah; though now this conviction, that ſo evidently appeared, did evidence them to be in an hopeful way, and with that Scribe not to be far from the Kingdome of God, and therefore he takes his opportunity, and preſſeth it on to come into the way of Believers in Chriſt Jeſus.
Fourthly It is ſaid, [your children] is expounded of their Infant-children, yea, it is carried as if of them only To thi… is ſufficient ſpoken, Chap, 48.
As for that which follows; They would have the promiſe to be to their children as theirs, whether they be called or no; which can be verified only in their ſenſe of their infants, ſith they maintain that even the children of Beleevers are not in covenant; the promiſe is not to them, they are not viſible Church-members when they come to years of diſcretion, except they be called in their own perſons, and accept the call. Children as theirs, whether they be called or no, is a contradiction; Children are called in their Parents call, and we ſay, they are in covenant, the Promiſe is made to them; they are viſible Church-members till they reject the covenant, and deny their Memberſhip, this is a calumny.
Fifthly, He ſayes, Whereas it is urged, that when it is ſaid the promiſe is to all that are afarre off, even as many as the Lord our God ſhall call, which is expounded of the Gentiles, it is not added to their children: To this in the ſame chapter ſufficient is ſpoken.
A ſixth, is the ſame with the tenth, and thither I ſhall refer the Reader.
Seventhly, It is ſaid, And in like manner we hold the command, [Be babtized every one of you] in a covenant…ſenſe (that is, a new deviſed non…ſenſe, ſuch as we have no Dictionary yet to interpret words by) be baptized you and your children. I am ſure here is a non-ſenſe deviſe to talk of Dictionaries, does Calepin or Scapula, Rider or Thomaſius help us to compare covenant and ſeale, promiſes and Sacraments.
Eighthly, It is ſaid, Some would poſſeſſe people with this conceit as if Peters ſcope were to take away by ver. 39. an objection or ſcruple they would make. If we be baptized our ſelves, our children ſhall be in worſe caſe, in reſpect of the priviledge our children had in the former diſpenſation of the covenant, when they had the ſ…al of the covenant, if they be not to be baptized alſo; and that he anſwers them by aſſuring them that in this diſpenſation alſo their children were in covenant, and were to have the ſeale of the covenant. And then addes, There is not a word of any ſuch ſcruple in the Text; nor i… i… likely that they were ſollicitous about ſuch an imaginary poor priviledge of their children. I am of the ſame mind that there was no ſuch ſcruple in their heads. This unhappy conceit of caſting the ſeed out of covenant was not then in being, though I think the reaſon given is little to purpoſe.
Ninthly, He ſayes, They all do moſt groſſely abuſe the meaning of the Apoſtle, in interpreting the inference of the Apoſtle, ſignified by the particle [foreign, for, verſ. 39.] which they would have to be this, you have right and war…ant to be baptized; For the promiſe is to you and your children, as if the illative particle did inferre a warrant, or right for them and theirs to be baptized; whereas the thing inferred is not any right, which in a legal way they might claime; but is a plaine motive in a moral way urged to perſwade them to be baptized. They do groſſely abuſe their own judgement in this way of refutation, as though the right in which they ſtood, could be no Topick, from which in a moral way the Apoſtle might perſwade them to Baptiſme. When Shechaniah perſwaded Ezra to the reformation of the marriage of ſtrange wives in theſe words, Ariſe for the matter belongeth unto thee, Ezra 10. 4. Here was a motive in a moral way to call upon him to do it, and an Argument inferred, that it lay upon Ezra as a duty by command from God to ſet upon it. The reaſon added is worthy of obſervation: This is manifeſt from the form of words, ver. 38. which if they had expreſt a right to Baptiſme by vertue of the promiſe, ſhould have been in the indicative mood in ſuch a forme as this; you are to be baptized, you may be baptized, you have right to it, the Minister ought to do it; but the words are in the imparative mood, exhorting them and perſwading them to it, They have quite forgotten, that the words holding out their right, are in the indicative mood, foreign. For the promiſe is to you and your children. And here is a notable correction of the Apoſtle, he ſhould have ſaid, if this had been his meaning, you muſt be baptized; and he ſayes, Ariſe, and be baptized.
Laſtly, It is ſaid, In the paraphraſes, which uſually in their diſputes, Paedobaptiſts make of Acts 2. 38, 39. they put not any thing to anſwere the terme [repent] as if it ſtood for a cipher, but paraphraſe it thus, Ye may be baptized, you and your children; for the Promiſe is to you, and your children. The ſixth exception was againſt our interpretation of the word repent, ver. 38. as if it were as much as to ſay, Covenant for your ſelves and your children; and here it is complained that it is left for a cipher. And the Author thinks he hath diſcovered the reaſon of this Omiſſion. The putting the word repent firſt, and be baptized after, doth manifeſtly overthrow their paraphraſe of a right to Baptiſme from the word of promiſe, and ſhew that the particle, [For] doth not prove a right to Baptiſme, but preſſe to a duty; and ſuch a duty as i… to have repentance precedent, and that in every perſon that is to be baptized. I confeſſe it preſſeth to a duty, and ſuch a duty as is to have repentance precedent in them that at that time were his hearers, to intereſt themſelves, and with themſelves their children in this priviledge; But right and duty do not ſhoulder out one the other, but very well ſtand together; encouraging to a duty which is a priviledge as well as a duty, he fitly makes uſe of their intereſt as a motive. And they might ſee that the Apoſtle puts the promiſe in a greater latitude than he urgeth repentance; He ſpeakes to his hearers, when he ſayes repent; and he tells them, that the promiſe is to them and to their children with them: Whereas our Author preſſeth the precedency of the word, repent, to the command of being baptized, and elſewhere ſaith, P…er doth exhort to Repentance and Baptiſme together, and in the firſt place perſwades to Repentance, then to Baptiſme, which ſhewes Repentance to be in order before Baptiſme; I anſwer, as I did before Chap. 48. that theſe who had crucified Chriſt as a blaſphemer, as a ſeditious perſon; an impoſtor, muſt needs repent before they would accept Baptiſme in his name, or hope for remiſſion of ſinne by him. It had been loſt labour for the Apoſtle to have preſſed thoſe that had crucified Chriſt, and retained their former opinion of him, to become Diſciples to him, and to look to be ſaved by him; to perſwade them to look for remiſſion of ſinnes in his blood, who took themſelves to be without ſinne in ſhedding of it, and yet notwithſtanding this guilt (of which the Apoſtle would have them to repent) he ſhewes that they and their ſeed are under the promiſe of God, and puts them into a way in acceptation of Chriſt in the Goſpel-tender, in his preſent way of adminiſtration to be continued his people ſtill in covenant, and that (as is plainly enough ſignified) that they might enjoy it in their former latitude, to them and to their children. So that Maſter Stephens his Interpretation ſo much ſleighted by an adverſary, and repeated not in his words, but in his own paraphraſe upon them, is indeed the Apoſtles meaning. The Apoſtle (ſaith he. pag. 14.) doth ſpeak to theſe Jewes who had crucified Christ; that if they would receive him as the particular Meſſiah, the ſame promiſe ſhould ſtill continue… to them and their children in the new diſpenſation: And on this doth he build the word of command, to baptize father and childe; To this the word repent here referres as may be made plaine.
Firſt, By taking into conſideration the preſent ſtate of this people, and that in ſeveral particulars.
1. As yet they had the promiſes with them, and were children of the covenant, Acts 3. 25. Though the Apoſtle, Rom. 9. 4. do diſtinguiſh between the covenants and the promiſes; yet to have the promiſes here, and to be children of the covenant, there ſeemes to be one. If any can diſtinguiſh them, this people, had the honour of both of them; God had not yet caſt them out of a Church-ſtate and covenant-relation.
2. They were in preſent danger to be caſt off according to what Chriſt had foretold, Mat. 8. 12. Mat. 21. 43. Being ſo faſt riveted to the ceremonial Law which now was dead, and preſently grew deadly: God denying any preſence (as hath been ſaid) with them, now the ſubſtanee was come.
3. Theſe particular perſons with whom Peter had to deale, were now well prepared for a free acceptation of a Goſpel-way, under this adminiſtration, which Jeſus Chriſt (having pulled down the Law of Ordinances) was to ſet up: Being amazed with the glory of the mircale which was wrought before their eyes, and convinced with the powerful application of the Prophets by Peter in that elegant Sermon, they fell upon enquiry what they ſhould do.
Secondly, By comparing other Texts of Scripture, which may ſerve as a Comment to the clearing of this; eſpecially two Texts of two Evangeliſts, recording the words of Chriſt, and holding out the impenitent obſtinacy of the Jewes, ſtanding out againſt every call to repentance, reſpective to their rigid pertinacious adhering to former diſpenſations, and oppoſition of that now tendered and offered to them. 1. That of our Saviour Chriſt, Mat. 21. 31, 32. Chriſt having held before them, ver. 28. 29, 30. the parable of a certain man, that had two ſonnes, and came to the firſt, and ſaid, ſonne, go work to day in my Vine-yard; He anſwered and ſaid, I will not; but afterward he repented, and went; And he came to the ſecond, and ſaid likewiſe; and he anſwered and ſaid, I go Sir, and went not, and made appeale to them, ver. 31. Whether of them twaine did the will of his father? and they anſwering, the firſt: Jeſus ſaith unto them, (as it followes in that and the next verſe) Verily I ſay unto you, that the Publicans and Harlots go into the Kingdome of God before you; For John came unto you in the way of righteouſneſſe, and ye beleeved him not; but the Publicans and the Harlots believed him. And ye, when ye had ſeen it, repented not afterward, that ye might beleeve in him. The Publicans and Harlots anſwer to the firſt brother, who from a profeſſed rebellion againſt the command of God, by Johns preaching, were brought to repent, and accept of a Goſpel-covenant, and enter into it by Baptiſme. The chief Prieſts and Elders of the people (that here oppoſed Chriſt preaching the Goſpel of the Kingdome) anſwer to the ſecond brother that ſaid, he would go into the Vine-yard, and went not; Theſe repent not, but hold faſt, and pertinaciouſly adhere to the way of old received, when the Publicans accept and imbrace the ſpiritual ſtate of the Church by Chriſt ſet up. From this impenitence of theſe chiefe Prieſts and Elders with whom theſe joyned in crucifying Chriſt; Peter diſſwades, and exhorts to the repentance of the Publicanes and Harlots. The ſecond Scripture which may give light to this text, is much parallel to this, Luke 7. 29, 30. Chriſt having given a large teſtimony to John and his Miniſtry; holds out the different effect that it took: Firſt, in the people and the Publicanes, ver. 29. And all the people that heard him, and the Publicanes justified God, being baptized with the Baptiſme of John. Secondly, in the Phariſees and Lawyers, ver. 30. But the phariſees and Lawyers rejected the counſel of God againſt themſelves, being not baptized. They perſiſted in their old way, in oppoſition to that way held forth by John, approved by Chriſt, and refuſed baptiſme, Theſe with whom Peter had to deale, had gone with the Prieſts and Phariſees, kept full pace with them even to the guilt of the death of Chriſt, they were now in a good way to follow the ſteps of the Publicanes and People, to embrace the counſel of God, and accept baptiſme, their impenitence had held them from entrance into a new covenant-way by baptiſme, Peter therefore exhorts to repent and be baptized.
Thirdly, This appeares by the Text it ſelfe, whereas they will have the illative particle For, to inferre no warrant or right in them to be baptized, but onelyonly a motive in a moral way urged, as we have heard in the laſt exception. It is worth our enquiry to learne what good interpretation ſuitable to Peters exhortation, they put here on thoſe words, To you is the promiſe made, and to your children, excluding all conſideration of right, in them and their children, Becauſe Chriſt was promiſed to them and their children, therefore they muſt repent and be baptized. Not to inſiſt upon that juſt exception of Maſter Gobbet, page 23. That the Apostle doth not ſay, the promiſe was to you as in reference to the time of making it to the fathers, with reſpect unto them, or in reference to Chriſt, who was not now to come, but already come, as the Apoſtle proveth from ver. 3. to 37. Nor is it the uſe of the Scripture when mentioning promiſes as fulfilled, to expreſſe it thus in the preſent tenſe, the promiſe is to you, or to ſuch and ſuch, but rather to annex ſome expreſſion that way which evinceth the ſame, giving inſtance almoſt in twenty ſeveral texts, which utterly overthrows his expoſition. Let them tell us why in this moral perſwaſive holding out a bare motive to perſwade the parent onelyonly, the children (not concerned in the thing and in an utter incapacity) ſhould be mentioned. And why the words ſhould be carried in that way that intereſt in covenant and covenant-ſeales formerly ran, and no right at all to covenant or covenant-ſeales intended? This gloſſe puts too much violence upon the words. But carrying it on as a diſſwaſive from perſiſtance in their former way of old covenant legal rites, and perſwading to embrace the way appointed by him, whom God had made both Lord and Chriſt, it ſingularly anſwers, as, to their preſent condition, yet in covenant, though in eminent danger to be caſt out of covenant, ſo, alſo to the words of the text, holding out a covenant-right in Scripture language according to the grand Charter of heaven. I will be thy God, and the God of thy ſeed; ſo that I hope by this time, the intelligent Reader will eaſily perceive the frivolous ſhifts inſtead of a ful refutation that's here brought to avoid Paedobaptiſts proofs of a word of command to Baptize infants from this Scripture.
As theſe Scriptures plainly hold out the neceſſary connexion of the covenant and initial ſeale, ſo, the evidence of reaſon is cleare for it. No man that ſtands enrighted or legally intereſted, in any priviledge, or poſſeſſion, may be denied that ceremony or ſeal which is appointed for confirmation. A copy-hold being found the next immediate tenant, of a copy-hold-right muſt not be denied, but received according to the ceremony, or ſolemnity of the place, whenſoever the King did grant, out letters-pattents, the Lord Keeper might not deny the ſeale, the Lords Commiſſioners, may not now deny it to any, that by a juſt grant have intereſt. This were to keep a childe out of his fathers houſe, a ſervant from his place of abode and reſidence; when Chriſt was ſo much diſpleaſed with his Diſciples on like occaſion, theſe may well expect to be under as high diſpleaſure. Having thus made good the point, it remaines that I take off ſome objections, and meet with ſome quarrels that are raiſed againſt it.
If there be any neceſſary connexion between the covenant and the ſeale, it muſt be (ſaith one) either, by reaſon of ſome neceſſary connexion between the termes which is none, for it is but a common accident to a man that hath a promiſe or a covenant made to him, that he ſhould have a ſpecial ſigne, it may adeſſe vel abeſſe à ſubjecto, it may be preſent or abſent from the ſubject. Giving ſome inſtances of covenants without ſeales. Anſw. 1. By way of concuſſion it will be eaſily granted, that a covenant may ſtand alone without a ſeale annexed? but where a ſeale is appointed for confirmation, (as there hath been in the Church ever ſince God took a people to himſelf out of Abrahams loines) there is a neceſſary connexion. This anſwer he foreſees, and ſayes: But you will ſay, All that are foederati ſhould be ſignati, ſince the ſolemne covenant with Abraham; But neither is this certaine, ſith we finde no ſuch thing concerning Melchizedek and Lot, that lived in Abrahams time, nor concerning Job that it's conceived lived after his time. If we read nothing to confirme it, the Reader ſees nothing to contradict it; There is added, But you will ſay, it is true of all the foederati in Abrahams family. But neither is that true, for male-children before the eighth day, and women though foederatae, yet were not to be ſigned. Is there no connexion between them, becauſe he that receives into covenant and appoints the ſeale, hath preſcribed a time when it ſhall be applied? A man that hath a grant from King or State, hath ipſo facto right to the ſeale, and the right neceſſarily followes upon the grant, though he muſt ſtay till a ſealing day before he poſſeſſe it.
For the exception of women, though foederatae, yet were not to be circumciſed; I ſay, 1. Maſter Marſhal hath ſufficiently anſwered, that they were of the circumciſion, and it was an exception againſt Sampſon by his parents that he would go to take a wife of the uncircumciſed Philiſtines, Judg. 14. 3. Had he married in Iſrael, as he ought in obedience to God and his parents, he had married a wife of the circumciſed, though that ſex by nature is in an incapacity of that ſigne or ſeale. In diverſe places of England, the husband being admitted by verdict of a Jury into an eſtate, the wife is virtually admitted; his admiſſion is her admiſſion, ſo it was in circumciſion. 2. They had doubtleſſe actually received that ſigne of circumciſion as in New Teſtament times they do Baptiſme, Acts 8. 12. Acts 16. 15. but that it was a ſigne whereof they were in an incapacity. It is farther added, If then I ſhould farther grant the concluſion, That infants of beleevers were to be ſignati, yet you would not ſay they are to be partakers of the Lords Supper, becauſe it is not appointed for them; So in like manner if it were granted you that infants of beleevers were to be ſigned, yet it followes not that they are to be baptized, unleſſe you can prove that it is appointed to them; and the truth is, if it were granted that children were foederati, yet it were a high preſumption in us to ſay therefore they muſt be ſignati, without Gods declaration of his minde; and if it were granted they muſt be ſignati, it were in like manner a high preſumption in us to ſay, therefore they muſt be baptized, without Gods declaration of his minde concerning that Ordinance. To this a reply is made by another hand, that there is difference between a ſeale for initiation, and a ſeale for confirmation; a ſeale, wherein no more is of neceſſity, than to be paſſive; and that wherein we are to be active; yet to come more near to them, I am content to yield the concluſion, ſuppoſing that his argument is of force, Every Church-member hath true title to all Church-priviledges; But infants are Church-members, the Lords Supper is a Church-priviledge; and therefore infants have true title to it. But then I muſt diſtinguiſh jus ad rem, and jus in re, every infant hath right to it, yet by reaſon of infancy hath his actual intereſt ſuſpended; Paul by birth had right to all the priviledg of the Citie of Rome, being born free, Acts 22. 28. yet it does not follow that he was to give his vote, or appear in Aſſemblies as a free Citizen in the time of his minority; James the ſixth was crowned in Scotland, and Henry the ſixth in England, in the time of their minority, ſo that they were reckoned among the Kings of Nations; yet neither of them did in their own perſons exerciſe regalia till yeares of diſcretion. As theſe infants of title were crowned, ſo infants that are Church-members are to be baptized, when yet an infant can no more partake, as a Chriſtian ought, of the Lords Supper, than an infant King can wield the great things of his Kingdome. An infant-heir from the firſt inſtant of his fathers death, and a poſthumous childe from the time of his birth, ſtands ſeized of his fathers inheritance; The whole title is veſted in him, how ample ſoever, and in no other, and he is received into it, and lives upon it, yet he is held from the managing of it till he can improve for his own and the publike benefit; So that the taking into covenant is a ſufficient declaration of Gods minde, that the ſignes and ſeals in an orderly way ſhould be granted to them, and all theſe appeare to be cavils, and not anſwers.
As, theſe exceptions are cauſleſly taken againſt the connexion between the covenant and eale; ſo, quarrels are raiſed, againſt ſome phraſes in common uſe among Divines relating to this thing, as making the metaphor of a ſeale the Genus of a Sacrament, which (if an errour) was the Apoſtles errour, Rom. 4. 11. and many ſuch like, with which it is needleſſe to trouble the Reader.