Truth and Peace, Chapter 1
CHAP. I. That the Covenant, Gen. 17. (ſtrictly taken) was not a Goſpel-Covenant, nor Circumciſion a Goſpel-Ordinance, as is affirmed by the Doctor.
THE Learned Author of the Book now under Conſideration, may rationally expect ſome Reply from thoſe whom he calls Anabaptiſts, or elſe interpret their Silence to be either a ſullen ſlighting of his Endeavours to convince them, or that they are not able (in their own Judgments) to ſhew the Inſufficiency▪ of his Arguments; and the rather, becauſe he has more obliged us to conſider his Writing, by his modeſt and friendly management of the Controverſy, than many of his Brethren who have bent their Stile againſt us.
We ſhall therefore (God willing) with no leſs Modeſty and friendly Demeanour, ſhew our Reaſons, why in our Judgment his Labours have not only come ſhort of proving the baptizing of Infants to be warrantable by God's Word, but has rather given us great cauſe to think, that the Caſe of Infant-Baptiſm cannot be made good by all that Learning and Art can do, it being wholly without Divine Authority. And to make this good, we will now conſider the chief of his Strength, in the ſeveral Pages of his Learned Treatiſe.
In pag. 1, & 2. he would have it believed, that the State of the Church from Abraham to Moſes, and from Moſes to Chriſt was parallel'd by the differing State of the Chriſtian Church from Chriſt to Conſtantine, and from Conſtantine onwards. For (ſaith he) there is ground for this diſtinction in the reaſon of the thing, as is evident to any Man who is capable of conſidering the difference betwixt the Church Chriſtian, before and after its Ʋnion with the Empire.
But here ſeems to be a very great miſtake in the very entrance of his Book, for it is certain that the Jewiſh Church from Abraham to Moſes, had very little of the Face of a Church-ſtate till his time, being as yet deſtitute of moſt of her Laws, both for Conſtitution and Government. Abraham himſelf owning a Prieſt ſuperior to himſelf, even after he was called of God, and had received the Promiſe both of being that Perſon in whoſe Seed all Nations ſhould be bleſſed, and that to his Seed God would give the Land of Canaan, as will appear to ſuch as ſhall peruſe theſe Scriptures; Gen. 12. 1, 2, 3. & 13. 15, 16. & 14. 18, 19, 20.
Now this Covenant which God made with Abraham, that in his Seed all Nations of the Earth ſhould be bleſſed, Gen. 12. which was indeed an Evangelical Promiſe or Covenant, (and in the Faith of which Abraham was juſtified, near thirty Years before Circumciſion had any being in the World) cannot be called the Covenant of Circumciſion. Neither yet when Circumciſion was inſtituted, was the Seed of Abraham formed into a Church-ſtate, in contradiſtinction to all the World beſide, for ſtill Melchiſedec was Priest of the moſt High God, and many righteous Men were then living, who outlived Abraham himſelf, and were truly Church-members, yea and Governors of Churches too, as well as Abraham, and yet they were not at all concern'd in the Covenant of Circumciſion: And hence it's evident, they being under the Covenant of Grace▪ the Covenant of Circumciſion, and the Covenant of Grace were then diſtinct, and not the ſame Covenant, ſo, but that the one might and did ſubſiſt without the other.
This then may ſerve to ſhew the Doctor's great Miſtake, in making the Church of Chriſt, from Chriſt to Conſtantine, parrallel to the Church from Abraham to Moſes, when in Truth a greater Diſparity can hardly be ſhewed: For though the Seed of Abraham till Moſes was in a State of Peregrination, as alſo was the Church of Chriſt till Conſtantine, yet the Church Chriſtian was then not only in her Purity, but alſo both for Conſtitution and Government, as compleat as ever ſhe was ſince, having received from Chriſt and his Apoſtles all the Rules of his holy Word (even the whole Counſel of God) neceſſary to her Church-ſtate; and therewith all the Gifts of the holy Spirit, in moſt plentiful manner, by which to ſtand perfect in all the Will of God.
And on the other ſide, the Seed of Abraham, till the Times of Moſes had neither Law, Prieſt-hood, nor Sacrifice, in a ſettled Churchway, only they were diſtinguiſhed by the Covenant of Circumciſion, as a People from whom in time the Saviour of the World ſhould proceed, and that they ſhould be ſeparated from the Nations, and ſettled in a plentiful Country, with Laws and ſpecial Protection from the Almighty till Shiloh ſhould come; and when the Meſſiah was manifeſted to Iſrael, the Covenant of Circumciſion ceaſed, and the glorious Goſpel-Covenant was now plenarily to be made known to all Nations for the Obedience of Faith, Rom. 16. And here we will take notice of that excellent Paſſage in Mr. Baxter, The Jews (ſaith he) were not the whole of God's Kingdom, or Church of Redeemed Ones in the World, but that as the Covenant was made with all Mankind, ſo amongſt them God had other Servants beſides the Jews, though it was they that had the extraordinary Benediction of being his peculiar Sacred People. Now as this was true all along, ſo it was more particularly manifeſt in the times of Melchiſedec and other holy Men that outlived Abraham.
What the Doctor means to compare Conſtantine with Moſes, is very doubtful: Is it to make Chriſtian Magiſtrates Legiſlators to the Church of Chriſt? We know indeed Moſes was a great Prophet, and appointed of God to give Laws and Statutes to Iſrael; but Conſtantine was not his Antitype, but Chriſt only: and whoſoever will not hear him ſhall be cut off, but not by the Imperial Sword, as God knows ſince the uniting of the Church Chriſtian to the Empire, viz. the Civil and Eccleſiaſtical Power for the management of Church-matters, there has been a very bloody Scene of Affairs in moſt Places where ſuch a kind of Unity of the Church with the Empire or Worldly Government has been found, and for the moſt part thoſe who held to the Truth in the greateſt Purity and Power of it, became a Prey to that Church who obtained that Grandeur and Advantage, of which England has of late, as well as formerly, been a terrible Inſtance.
Another remarkable difference betwixt the Church Chriſtian from Chriſt to Conſtantine, and that of the Seed of Abraham from his Days to Moſes, was this, The latter ſo far as it may be called a Church in that time was National, and dependant on the Family of Abraham, none being permitted to dwell in the ſame Family unleſs circumciſed. But the Church Chriſtian from Chriſt to Conſtantine was not National, nor dependant on any Family, as ſuch, but conſiſted only of ſuch in any Family as feared Ged, and wrought Righteouſneſs, Acts 10. 34, 35. And this being conſidered, will ſhew that the Church from Abraham to Moſes was not ſo Spiritual and Evangelical, as the Doctor would have it, but were rather natural Branches of Abraham's Family, and the greateſt part of them groſly ignorant of the Evangelical Covenant made with Abraham before he was circumciſed, which plainly appeared, not only in that they underſtood little of Moſes, as he foreſhewed the Coming of Chriſt, but alſo when Chriſt the true Seed, to whom the Promiſe was made, came to accompliſh it, they knew him not, nor the Voice of their own Prophets.
The Doctor brings Gal. 3. 17. & Rom. 4. 13. to prove that the Jewiſh Church was founded upon an Evangelical Covenant, for ſubſtance the ſame with that which ſince is made betwixt God and us through Chriſt. And he gives a Paraphraſe upon Rom▪ 4. from ver. 9 to 15. & Gal. 3. from v. 5 to 10. to prove that Faith was the Condition of the Abrahamical Covenant, which being underſtood of the Covenant or Promiſe, Gen. 12. of the bleſſing all Nations in the Seed of Abraham, and the Obligation or Condition of believing that Promiſe, to extend only to ſuch as had Means and Ability to believe it, is not denied by us; nor can it ſignify any thing to the Doctor's purpoſe, for ſure he cannot bring Infants under this Condition, which is the thing he drives at.
But for a more full Anſwer, Let us conſider where the ſtreſs of the matter lies between the Doctor and us: He would have this Evangelical Covenant to be the Covenant of Circumciſion, Gen. 17. We ſay, 'Tis the Covenant or Promiſe, Gen. 12. Now in the Doctor's Text Abraham is promiſed, that Nations ſhall come out of him, and that he ſhall be a Father of many Nations; but not a word of the Bleſſing which concerns all the Nations of the Earth. Now in our Text we have it full, In thee ſhall all Families of the Earth be bleſſed. But the beſt way is to let St. Paul reſolve this Doubt, even as he is quoted by the Doctor, Rom. 4. The Promiſe that he ſhould be Heir of the World was not given to Abraham, or to his Seed through the Law. And what Law was Abraham under, but the Law or Covenant of Circumciſion? The Apoſtle adds, But through the Righteouſneſs of Faith; and yet more plainly, Rom. 4. 10. How was it then reckoned? when he was in Circumciſion or in Ʋncircumciſion? Not in Circumciſion, but in Ʋncircumciſion. St. Paul moſt clearly refers to the Promiſe made Gen. 12. near thirty years before Abraham was circumcis'd. Now whether Circumciſion be of the Law, or whether it was a Goſpel-Ordinance, is the buſineſs to be conſidered.
The Doctor does expreſly affirm, that Circumciſion was a Goſpel-Ordinance, p. 24. And we ſay directly contrary, that it was a Legal or Jewiſh Ceremony. To prove that Circumciſion was no Goſpel-Ordinance we argue thus, That which could profit no Man, except he kept the whole Law, was no Goſpel Ordinance, &c. The Apoſtle proves the minor, Rom 2. 25. Circumciſion verily proſiteth if thou keep the Law; but if thou be a Breaker of the Law, thy Circumciſion is made Ʋncircumciſion. And we argue further from Gal. 5. 2. If Circumciſion bound Men to keep the whole Law, then it was no Goſpel-Ordinance, &c. The Aſſumption is proved by the Text; I teſtify again to every Man that is circumciſed, that he is a Debtor to do the whole Law. Circumciſion therefore could never be a Goſpel-Ordinance: for as the Goſpel frees us from the condemning Power, and from the Servitude of the Law, ſo every Goſpel-Ordinance holds forth that bleſſed Freedom to all faithful Men in both Reſpects. And hence it is clear that howſoever Circumciſion was a Seal of the Righteouſneſs of Faith to Abraham, it could not be ſo as a Goſpel-Ordinance (for he was a Breaker of the Law after this) any more than his Offering his Son Iſaac upon the Altar, Jam. 2. 21, 22. In which he was juſtified by Faith. And ſo was Abel in his Sacrifice, Gen. 4. Heb. 11. Yea theſe were evident Seals and Pledges of their Faith, as much as Circumciſion was to Abraham, yet none of thoſe can hence be proved to be Goſpel-Ordinances. For indeed at the rate of the Doctor's arguing, all the Sacrifices propitiatory, performed by faithful Men in the time of the Law, may be proved to be Goſpel-Ordinances as well as Circumciſion. And by his Conſequence all that took part in theſe Sacrifices, have a right to participate in all Goſpel-Ordinances which hold forth Chriſt and him crucified, as well as in Baptiſm. And becauſe the Doctor builds much upon this Topic▪ we will further try the Strength of it; That which was always in Compariſon of the Goſpel, a weak and beggarly Element, was never a Goſpel-Ordinance. But ſuch was Circumciſion. The Major is clear, becauſe 'tis the Property of all Goſpel-Ordinances to repreſent thoſe that are under them, perfect in Chriſt Jeſus, Gal. 1. 28. So that the Goſpel-Ordinances are neither weak nor beggarly; but as they are a part of the Goſpel it ſelf, are ſaid to be the Power of God unto Salvation. The Minor is true, becauſe the Ceremonies of the Law made nothing perfect; for if they had, then they had not ceaſed, Heb. 7. 18, 19. and 10. 1. And it is evident St. Paul calls the whole Ceremonial Law (a part whereof was Circumciſion) beggarly Elements, Gal. 4. 9. And they are all equally ceaſed.
And ſeeing upon this Ground the Doctor boldly affirms the Covenant of Circumciſion to be an Evangelical Covenant, becauſe Circumciſion did initiate thereinto, p. 5. My next Undertaking ſhall be to prove that the Covenant of Circumciſion (ſtrictly taken) was no Goſpel-Covenant, though called ſo very frequently by the Doctor, as p. 3, and 4. all which he would make good, becauſe St. Paul calls Circumciſion a Seal of the Righteouſneſs of Faith, and becauſe it ſignified the Circumciſion of the Heart, Deut. 10. 16. and 30. 6.
The contrary will appear from the very Recital of the Covenant it ſelf, as ſet down Gen. 17. from the Nature of Circumciſion being a Legal Ceremony (as we have proved) and chiefly becauſe the Covenant of Grace was not peculiar to Abraham and his, but common to others, though they were not circumciſed.
To begin with the very Expreſſions of the Covenant, Gen. 17. from ver. 4 to 15. Whoſo ſhall diligently read it, will not find one Word of the Promiſe of Bleſſedneſs to all Nations: But that Promiſe of the Meſſiah in whom all the Nations of the Earth ſhould be bleſſed was made (as we ſhewed) near thirty Years before this Covenant of Circumciſion was made, But it was rather aMr. Cox on the Covenants. Recital of God's Promiſe to Abraham, Gen. 13. when Abraham and Lot parted aſunder. And indeed of all the eight times which God ſpake to Abraham, we find the Promiſe of Bleſſing to all Nations in the Seed of Abraham, only expreſſed in the firſt time, Gen. 12. and in the laſt time that God ſpake to him, Gen. 22. And yet it is alſo true that St. Paul does include Abraham's Fatherhood over the Faithful in that Covenant, Gen. 17. 5. and 15. 5. And ſo Circumciſion was to him a Seal of the Faith which Abraham had, with reſpect to the Promiſes made at the former Appearings of God to him: But then it is as true that of this Faith it could be no Seal to any other Perſon, no not to Iſaac himſelf, becauſe it was Abraham alone that ſhould have this Honour to be the Father of the Faithful.
After this manner the ancient Chriſtian Church ſeems to have underſtood the Covenant of Circumciſion, as appears in Chryſoſtom and Theophilact as tranſlated by two learned Writers in theſe words: Circumciſion was called a Seal of the Righteouſneſs of Faith, becauſe it was given to Abraham as a Seal and Teſtimony of the Righteouſneſs which he had acquired by Faith: Now this ſeems to be the Priviledg of Abraham alone, and not to be transferred to others, as if Circumciſion in whomſoever it was, were a Teſtimony of Divine Righteouſneſs. For as it was the Priviledg of Abraham, that he ſhould be the Father of all Faithful, as well circumciſed as uncircumciſed, being already the Father of all uncircumciſed, having Faith in Ʋncircumciſion: He received firſt the Sign of Circumciſion, that he might be the Father of the Circumciſed. Now becauſe he had this Priviledg, in reſpect of the Righteouſneſs which he had acquired by Faith, therefore the Sign of Circumciſion was to him a Seal of the Righteouſneſs of Faith. But to the reſt of the Jews it was a Sign that they were Abraham's Seed, but not a Seal of the Righteouſneſs of Faith, as alſo all the Jews alſo were not the Fathers of many Nations.
And ſays another learned Writer; It is no ways difficult to conceive that Circumciſion might have a different reſpect, according to the differing Circumſtances and Capacity of its Subjects; yea that it had ſo in another Inſtance, hath been ſhewed already. It was a Seal of the Inheritance of Canaan to the Children of Iſrael, and did enſure the Promiſe thereof to them, and their Seed; but it gave their Bond-Servants no ſuch right or claim: Even ſo it was to Abraham a Seal of the Righteouſneſs of the Faith which he had, &c. but this aroſe from the peculiar and extraordinary Circumſtances and Capacity that he was in. For it is not poſſible to conceive, that Circumciſion ſhould be a Seal of the Righteouſneſs of Faith to one that never had Faith, nor the Relation of a Father to all Believers, as Abraham had.—And it is equally abſurd to ſay that Circumciſion was a Seal to all its Subjects of the Righteouſneſs of Faith, which they had while uncircumciſed, as to affirm that it was a Seal of a paternal or fatherly Relation to all Believers, unto every one that received it.
Again, From St. Paul, Gal. 6. 15. we may fairly argue thus: If the Covenant of Circumciſion had been the Covenant of Grace, and Circumciſion the Sign of the Covenant of Grace (as the Doctor would have it,) then had all true Subjects of it (as ſuch) been new Creatures in Chriſt Jeſus. But the true or right Subjects of the Covenant and Sign (as ſuch) were not new Creatures in Chriſt Jeſus, &c. This whole Argument is proved from the Text, which ſaith, In Chriſt Jeſus neither Circumciſion availeth any thing, nor Ʋncircumciſion, but a new Creature. Plainly thus the Jews were never the better (as to a Goſpel-Church-ſtate) for being the Seed of Abraham, or circumciſed: nor the Gentiles never the worſe (as to a Goſpel-ſtate) for being not the Seed of Abraham, and uncircumciſed. For there was no other way for either to be brought under the Priviledges of the Church Evangelical, and ſo to be in Chriſt Jeſus, but by Repentance, Faith and Baptiſm, or to be born again; for if any Man be in Chriſt, (in a Goſpel-Church-way) he is a new Creature, 2 Cor. 5. 17. Gal. 3. 26, to the end, and 5. 24. I deſire the Reader to peruſe theſe Scriptures.
We have proved already that Circumciſion was no Goſpel-Ordinance, yet we ſhall add, It could not be a Goſpel-Ordinance, becauſe Moſes gave it as an Obligation to keep the Ceremonial Law, or that intolerable Yoak of Bondage which none was able to bear. For though Circumciſion was before Moſes, yet it was given by him, John 7. 22. for this purpoſe, Gal. 5. 2, 3, 4. and it ſelf was a part of the Yoke of Bondage. Sacrifices were before Moſes, as well as Circumciſion, yet they were given alſo by Moſes. And hence when Paul oppoſed Circumciſion, it was objected that he taught Men to forſake Moſes, Acts 21. 21. And Circumciſion is expreſly called the Law of Moſes by Chriſt himſelf, John 7. 23. And therefore the Doctor was not well adviſed▪ to affirm it to be a Goſpel-Ordinance.
Again, The Covenant of Circumciſion, and the Sign it ſelf were not Evangelical, becauſe the Obligation to be circumciſed was peculiar to Abraham, and his Seed or Family, in ſuch a ſenſe, as none but they were obliged to be circumciſed. Men might and did walk with God, and pleaſe God, without being concerned in the Covenant of Circumciſion, as we have fully ſhewed. But all Men are equally bound to obey the Goſpel, and all the Ordinances of it, who have means to know them▪ they do belong to all Families, all Nations, as much as to any, Matth. 28. 19, 20. Mark 16. 15, 16. Rom. 16. 26. So did not the Covenant of Circumciſion.
How unlike the Covenant of Circumciſion was to the Covenant of Grace, (eſpecially in Reſpect of Infants) might have been perceived by the Doctor from his own Words, p. 8. where he tells us, God made Abraham thus ſeparate the Children with their Parents from all the World, and look upon them, as a part of his choſen peculiar People, by which they became relatively Holy, and differed from the Children of Ʋnbelievers▪ as much as their Parents did from Ʋnbelievers themſelves. Sure this is a cruel Sentence againſt poor innocent Babes. But I anſwer.
What Separation ſoever the Covenant of Circumciſion made betwixt Abraham's Family and the reſt of the World; It is certain it could not ſeparate them, nor any Perſons in the World, from the Covenant of Grace; there was nothing but Sin could do that, otherwiſe it had been a diſmal Separation indeed. And can the Doctor once think that Let was now ſeparated from the Covenant of Grace, becauſe he was not in the Covenant of Circumciſion?Mr. Brouhgton Conſent of Scripture. Sure he was a righteous▪ Man for all this. Yea, and other Holy Patriarchs were yet living, as Heber, Salah, Sem, and ſo was Melchiſedec (if he were not one of them) being Prieſt of the moſt high God. And as theſe, and doubtleſs many more, were good Men; ſo it's not to be queſtioned but they had their Holy Societies and Congregations; Melchiſedec being then the moſt eminent Type of the Son of God, that ever was, as he was King of Peace, and Prieſt: in which Offices he muſt needs be ſerviceable to many, as is well obſerved by Mr. Cox on the Covenants, p. 154.
The Doctor is greatly out in making the Infants of Unbelievers to be in as ill caſe as the Ʋnbelievers themſelves, ſeeing Unbelievers muſt periſh, Mark. 16. 16. But it is not revealed yet to be the Will of God that ſo much as one dying Infant ſhall periſh. And as to the reſt of Mankind, Mr. Baxter ſays very well; That as the Jews had by Promiſes and Prophecies and Types, more means to know God than any other Nations, ſo they were anſwerably obliged to more Knowledg and Faith than other Nations were, that had not, nor could have their means. More Proof, p. 95.
And why may not this be true, That the Effects of the Evangelical Promiſe to Abraham, to be a Father of the Faithful in all Nations, had very little Relation in a Goſpel-way, to the Age in which he lived, nor indeed till the times of the Goſpel, or till Chriſt the Seed to whom the Promiſes were made did come? And then indeed it was graciouſly verified, When by the Commandment of the everlaſting God [even Chriſt who is here ſo called] the Goſpel was made known to all Nations for the Obedience of Faith, Rom. 16.
Nor ſhall the Doctor's Allegations, p. 7. of the great Numbers of divers Nations which turned Jews, prejudice that which we have ſaid, ſeeing St. Peter affirms, that the Myſtery of the Goſpel was hid from theſe Nations and Ages, notwithſtanding their Circumciſion. For it is not to be ſuppoſed that theſe who turned Jews were better skill'd in the Myſtery of the new Covenant, or Covenant of Grace, than the Jews themſelves, who (God knows) were generally Strangers to the Steps of Abraham's Faith, and therefore little better in our Saviour's Judgment for being Abraham's Children, John 8. 37, 39. Nay ſo ignorant were the believing Jews themſelves, of the true Seed of Abraham, according to the Nature and Extent of the Covenant, Gen. 12. 3. That when Peter preached to the Gentiles, they contended with him, as doing that which was not lawful, for they yet underſtood not that the Grace of Repentance unto Life did belong to the Gentiles; nor did Peter, till a Miracle convinc'd him, underſtand this Grace himſelf, Acts 10. The great Acceſſion therefore of other Nations to the Jews Religion, is no Proof that they were in the Covenant of Grace, or that Circumciſion was a Goſpel-Ordinance: though there might be many among them that ſo feared God, and wrought Righteouſneſs, as to be (through his Mercy) accepted of him; and the like in other Nations [even all Nations] too, Acts 10. 34, 35. Yet theſe Acceſſions did contribute much to the Fulfilling God's Promiſe to Abraham in other Reſpects; as to make the Name of the God of Abraham to be great in the Earth; and alſo to advance the Name of Abraham the Friend of God.
The Doctor tells us, p. 3. That Faith was the Condition of the Abrahamical Covenant; that it was made with Abraham, as the Father of the Faithful, and in him with all Believers. But conſidering what we have proved before with reſpect to Abraham's peculiar Intereſt in the Covenant, we may well enquire what Covenant and Faith the Doctor means? ſeeing it could not be the Goſpel-Grace and Faith, which was the Condition of the Covenant of Circumciſion, as that Covenant belong'd to all that were circumciſed: Becauſe St. Paul tells us, whilſt the Law was in force (a part of which Law Circumciſion was, as we have proved) the time of Faith was not yet come. And that the Jews were ſhut up to the Faith which was afterward to be revealed, Gal. 3. 23, 25. And that the Law (a part whereof was Circumciſion) was added becauſe of Tranſgreſſion, till the Seed (to wit Chriſt) ſhould come. And ſhews likewiſe that there was no Law (as yet) given which could give Life. [The Covenant of Grace made with Adam, Gen. 3. And the Promiſe to Abraham, Gen. 12. And the Renewal of the Covenant of Grace to Noah, between them both, muſt of Neceſſity be here excepted] And therefore Eternal Life could not be had by the Covenant and Law of Circumciſion, as made to Abraham's Poſterity, otherwiſe than as it ſerved (as a Type or Figure) to direct them, to look for the Meſſiah to be born of Abraham's Seed, according to the Fleſh. And therefore the Promiſe, ſo much celebrated, Gal. 3. can by no lawful means be referr'd to the Covenant of Circumciſion, ſtrictly taken; and then all that the Doctor has ſaid to make the Covenant of Circumciſion a Goſpel-Covenant, and Circumciſion a Goſpel-Ordinance, will come to nothing, and conſequently his whole Book, becauſe it is mainly built upon this Foundation.
And that the Promiſe mentioned by St. Paul, Gal. 3. may and ought to be diſtinguiſhed from the Covenant of Circumciſion, will appear from the Date of the Promiſe, which was 430 Years before the Law, Gal. 3. 17. but the Covenant of Circumciſion wants 25 Years of this account. This is plain to ſuch as will conſider, that that great and bleſſed Promiſe, that in the Seed of Abraham all the Families of the Earth ſhall be bleſſed, Gen. 12. 3. was at leaſt 25 Years before the Covenant of Circumciſion, Gen. 17. And this is granted by the Learned Willit, who in his Hexapl. in Gen. p. 145. writes thus, From this Promiſe (Gen. 12.) made to Abraham, are we to count the 430 Years, which St Paul ſaith, were between the Promiſe and the Law, Gal. 3▪ and hereunto agreeth the Computation of Moſes, Exod. 12. 40. that the Iſraelites dwelt in Egypt 430 Years, not in Egypt only, but in Egypt and Canaan, as the Septuagint do interpret the place.
Now how this Promiſe had its Effect in the Ages before Chriſt's Incarnation, or how all the Families of the Earth were bleſſed in this promiſed Seed then, God only knoweth: for though the World had a Promiſe of a Saviour from the Beginning, Gen. 3. 15. yet that he ſhould be born of the Seed of Abraham, was not revealed till now. And leſt any ſhould ſtumble at this, that the Promiſe here made, Gen. 12. was not confirmed till Abraham, was circumciſed, he is to remember that St. Paul expreſly teaches the contrary, Gal. 3. 17. as I have ſhewed. And I will add the Judgment of a learned Writer upon the place who writes thus.
That the Goſpel was preached to Abraham, and the Covenant of Grace revealed to him, we have aſſerted in ſuch full terms in the Context, as none can rationally doubt thereof; and moreover in verſe 17. we have the time of God's eſtabliſhing this Covenant with him, ſo exactly noted, it was, ſaith the Text, 430 Years before the giving of the Law, viz. on Mount Sinai; now the Law was given in a very little time after the Children of Iſrael came out of Egypt; and from the Beginning of the firſt Promiſe to Abraham, which was, Gen. 12. 3. unto that very Night in which the Children of Iſrael were brought out of their Egyptian Bondage, is the Computation of theſe Years made, as will be evident to him that ſhall diligently compare the Chronologie of thoſe times with the expreſs Teſtimony of Moſes, Exod. 12. 41. And it came to paſs at the end of 430 Years, even the ſelf-ſame Day, it came to paſs that all the Hoſt of the Lord went out of the Land of Egypt. From the time of the firſt Promiſe, to the end of Iſrael's ſojourning in the Land of Egypt was 430 Years, though their Abode in Egypt was not near ſo long.
And hence (ſaith he) we collect, that in the Tranſaction of God with Abraham, recorded, Gen. 12. he did ſolemnly confirm his Covenant with him (although Moſes makes not expreſs mention of the term Covenant, until occaſion be offered, Gen. 15. 18.) for the Promiſe there mentioned, the Apoſtle-aſſerts to be the Covenant confirmed of God in Chriſt unto Abraham.
The Sum of all that has been ſaid is this, That the Covenant of Circumciſion properly taken, is not the Covenant of Grace, or a Goſpel-Covenant, nor the Sign thereof Circumciſion a Goſpel-Ordinance, as the Doctor maintains and affirms, that Circumciſion did ſeal to its Subjects the ſame Grace as Baptiſm does now: which cannot ſtand with Reaſon, becauſe thoſe who had been circumciſed, ſhould not then have been baptized for Remiſſion of Sins, for if Circumciſion did ſeal that Grace to its Subjects, why ſhould it be now conferred in Baptiſm? they came to Baptiſm not as Righteous, but as Sinners.
The Doctor's long Paraphraſe on Rom. 4. is rather deſtructive of, than advantagious to Infant-Baptiſm. For whilſt therein he makes Faith, yea ſuch as enables Men to walk in the Steps of Abraham's Faith, the abſolute Condition of the Covenant, &c. he can never make Infants the Sons and Daughters of Abraham by Faith; yet he endeavours to do this by telling us, that the Faith and Conſent of the Father, or the Godfather, or Congregation under which he was circumciſed, was believed of old by the Jews to be imputed to the Child, as his own Faith and Conſent, 1 Maccab. 2. 46. They had very good Ground, ſaith he, in Scripture for this their Opinion, becauſe the Infidelity and Diſobedience of the Parents in wilfully neglecting or deſpiſing Circumciſion, was imputed to the Children. And to ſtrengthen this Jewiſh Doctrine, he brings Auſtin with his, accommodat illis Mater Eccleſia aliorum pedes, ut veniant, aliorum cor ut credunt, aliorum Linguam ut fateantur: To all which very ſtrange Doctrines we reply;
By the Doctor's quoting 1 Maccab. 2. 46. it appears that the Cannonical Books would afford no Relief for theſe Jewiſh Fables. And he that looks upon the place in Maccabees, can find no ground to ſay that the Jews there did circumciſe any Children upon the Faith of Parents or God-fathers, for they did not ſtay for Conſent of Parents, but circumciſed them valiantly, or by Force, as in the Margin, which I take to be a bad Precedent to be brought into the Chriſtian Church, tho God knows they have been too forward in ſuch violent Proceedings. And no leſs ſtrange and unſound is his Interpretation of Gen. 17. 14. where he would make the Sin of Parents to be imputed to the uncircumciſed Infant. In which he is not ſo well adviſed as ſome Papiſts; and contrary to the Doctrine of Learned Proteſtants, who both in this caſe acquit the Infant both from Sin and Puniſhment. Cajetan (tho a Papiſt) ſpeaks well, Conſentaneum eſt, (ſaith he) It is fit that none ſhould be puniſhed but they which had committed the Fault: but Infants can commit no Fault, therefore the Puniſhment here deſign'd doth belong only to the grown Perſons; for they only are juſtly puniſhed, who only are juſtly blamed for the omiſſion of Circumciſion. And Dr. Willit, a Proteſtant, ſpeaks to the ſame ſenſe, It is no good reading (ſaith he) to ſay the uncircumciſed Manchild, but foreign the Male; for the Infant of eight Days old is of purpoſe omitted here, though mentioned, ver. 12. Hence then is inferred that there was no ſuch abſolute neceſſity of Circumciſion, that Children wanting it ſhould be damned. And ſaith Mr. Diodate, This is not to be underſtood of Children, but of thoſe, who by reaſon of their Age were capable of voluntary Rebellion, refuſing or contemning the uſe of the Sacrament.
As for Auguſtin, his Church accommodating Infants with others Feet to come to be baptized, and with the Hearts of others to believe, and the Tongues of others to confeſs; it ſhews that in his Judgment Baptiſm ought not to be given, but where 'tis ſought for, and where there is Faith and Confeſſion going before it. But that one may do theſe things for another, that is, one believe, and another to be baptized, we will anſwer it, as Jerom did another caſe, Non credimus, quia non legimus. We cannot find it ought to be ſo, neither in the Old Teſtament, nor in the New, and therefore we believe it not. And let the Doctor conſider whether upon ſuch Preſumptions as theſe, he may not allow the Feet, Heart, and Mouth of others for the Dead, that they alſo may be baptiſed, from 2 Maccab. 12. 43, 44. The Truth is, ſhould we admit the Dictates of the Doctor, in this and many Parts of his Book, it cannot be avoided but that many Innovations and Superſtitions uſed by the Papiſts and others would obtrude upon us.
In page 6, 7. the Doctor tells us, That the Gentiles, who were born of Gentiles in Abraham's Houſe, or bought with Mony as Servants were, and Blacks are now among us, were the ſpiritual Seed of Abraham, and Children of the Covenant. And thus alſo he makes the Medes, Perſians and Idumeans to be conſtituted in the Jewiſh Church by Regeneration, as the Church Chriſtian is; and calls them the Spiritual Seed of Abraham, becauſe they were turned Jews, and lived according to the Ceremonies of the Law. Which how uncertain theſe Dictates are, may be ſeen, when we conſider that St. Paul ſays, the Law is not of Faith; and that if thoſe that are of the Law be Heirs, Faith is made void, and the Promiſe of none Effect. And how Chriſt calls Circumciſion the Law of Moſes; and tells the circumciſed Jews themſelves, that they muſt be regenerated, and born again, or they could not enter into the Kingdom, (or Goſpel-Church) which ſhews plainly they were not regenerated in Circumciſion, and if they were not, then there is little hopes that their Slaves bought with Mony, as Blacks are now by us, had ſuch benefit by Circumciſion.
Nay, the Doctor is more bold, and tells us, That always it was underſtood that Children were called and elected by God in their Parents: which is ſuch a Scriptureleſs Doctrine, and of ſuch dangerous Conſequence, that we cannot but wonder that ſo wiſe a Man ſhould aſſert it. Does not St. Paul expreſly teach the contrary, where he ſaith, The Children of the Fleſh are not the Children of God: And that all are not Iſrael, that are of Iſrael: And though they be the Seed of Abraham, yet are they not all Children. How was it poſſible that he ſhould think that the Slaves and their Children were elected, only becauſe they were circumciſed, when Abraham's own Poſterity are not therefore elected, becauſe Abraham was their Father, and alſo circumciſed.
And will it not follow from the Doctor's Opinion, that Infants are alſo reprobated in their Parents? Yes, he ſays no leſs (I think) when he makes the Unbelievers Infants to differ from thoſe his Elect Infants, as much as the Unbelievers themſelves differ from the circumciſed▪ Parents whom he calls Believers. God be merciful to us, and bleſs us from ſuch Doctrine as this, that his antient way of Truth may be known upon the Earth, and his ſaying Health among the Nations: for Job and all holy Men, and poor Infants too which were not circumciſed, might for all that be elected. Seven or eight Pages the Doctor ſpends moſtly to ſhew how Chriſt did alter the Oeconomy of the Church in many Particulars, which do not directly concern our preſent Controverſy, in which there are many Dictates unproved, about the Reaſons why Chriſt made this Change. But we ſhall content our ſelves in ſetting down theſe two, which he thinks moved our Lord to lay aſide Circumciſion; and his firſt is, Becauſe by it the Jewiſh Nation was become odious and ridiculous to all other People upon the account of it.
But this Paſſage ſeems to caſt a Scandal upon God himſelf, as that he ſhould appoint any thing that ſhould make his People odious. Sure other Nations had Uſages far more offenſive than this could be, in their Idolatrous Services, and particularly the burning of their Children to Moloch. But the true reaſon why it was laid aſide, was, becauſe the diſtinction which it made between the Seed of Abraham and other People, as the Poſterity from whence Christ ſhould proceed, was now unneceſſary, becauſe Chriſt was born and manifeſted to the World: and chiefly becauſe the Ceremonial Law to which it was a ſtrong Obligation, and alſo a part of it was now to be diſannulled and taken out of the way, as an Handwriting of Ordinances, which was againſt us, and was contrary to us; Heb. 7. 18, 19. Coloſſ. 2. 14. Acts 15. 10. it was therefore meet it ſhould be taken away.
His ſecond Reaſon is more tolerable, but yet not true, for though Circumciſion was a painful Ordinance, yet the Goſpel requires as painful things as that was, of all that will be Chriſtians indeed, as the denying a Man's ſelf; and particularly in parting with Houſe, Land, Wife, Children, a right Hand, a right Eye, a right Foot, and our very Life, when God calls for them, in ſervice to the Defence of the Goſpel. Yea, let me tell the Doctor, had he come to Baptiſm it ſelf, after the Example of Chriſt, who came from Galilee to Jordan (I ſuppoſe 60 Miles) and that in the depth of Winter, to be dipped in a River, as Chriſt was in Jordan, he might poſſibly have found it as ungrateful to Fleſh and Blood as ſome have found it to part with their Foreskin; and add to this ſuch Repentance as truly qualifies for the Reception of Baptiſm, and the whole of it might poſſibly ſeem as ridiculous in the Eyes of the wiſe Men of this World, as Circumciſion it ſelf.
We conclude then that the Wiſdom of God was great to try the Pride and Haughtineſs of Man, in appointing Circumciſion in the Time of the Law, to bring Men to Legal Priviledges. And it is no leſs his Wiſdom in appointing Baptiſm, to bring down the Pride of the greateſt Nobles, and moſt delicate Ladies, (as well as others) by ſubmitting their Bodies under the Hands of a poor Miniſter to be dipped in Water, at all Seaſons, as they are found qualified for it by Faith and Repentance, to admit them to Goſpel-Priviledges.