Gold Refined, Chapter 10
CHAP. X. Wherein the great Arguments, and pretended Scripture-Proofs for Infant-Baptiſm, concerning the Covenant Circumciſion, and Infants Church-memberſhip, are Examined, and Anſwered.
ONE main and great Argument the Pedobaptiſts bring for that practice is this, viz.
Children of Believers are in Covenant,I. Argument from the Covenant made with Abraham. as well as their Parents. The Covenant made with Abraham was the Covenant of Grace, or Goſpel-Covenant, to which the Seal of Circumciſion was annexed; and as Circumciſion belonged to the Children of the Faithful under the Law, ſo Baptiſm belongs to the Children of the Faithful under the Goſpel, or elſe the Priviledges under the Goſpel would be leſs than thoſe were under the Law.
Anſw. There hath been enough ſaid, over and over, by Mr. Tombs, Mr. Danvers, and many others, to detect and utterly vanquiſh the weakneſs of this Argument.
As, firſt, it hath been proved, that the Covenant of Grace made with Abraham and his Seed, doth not intend his Carnal Seed according to the Fleſh; but his Spiritual Seed, or ſuch who had the Faith of Abraham. And one would think the Apoſtle might be believed in his expounding that Text, viz. To Abraham and to his Seed were the Promiſes made, Gal. 3. 16. He ſaith not, And to Seeds, as of many, but as of one, And to they Seed, which is Chriſt. Compare this with v. 29. If ye be Chriſt's, then are ye Abraham's Seed, and Heirs. according to the Promiſe And again, in Rom. 9. 7, 8. he ſaith, Neither becauſe they are the Seed of Abraham, are they all Children; but in Isaac ſhall thy Seed be called. That is, they which are the Children of the Fleſh, theſe are not the Children of God: but the Children of the Promiſe are counted for the Seed.
Could the Apoſtle in plainer words have detected the Error of theſe Men, if he had met with them in his day? 'Tis true, he did meet with ſome, viz. the Jews, or Abraham's natural Seed, who were ſo blind as thus to argue from the Covenant made with Abraham; and concluded, they were the true Seed and Children of God, becauſe they were the Off-spring of Abraham according to the Fleſh. But as John Baptiſt firſt endeavoured to undeceive them, when he ſaw the Scribes and Phariſees coming to his Baptiſm—by saying,Mat. 3. 7, 8, 9. Think not to ſay with in your ſelves, ye have Abraham to your Father, &c. So in the next place, our Bleſſed Saviour himſelf, in John. 8. likewiſe ſhewed them their great Error and Miſtake herein, and that they might be the Children of the Devil, notwithſtanding they were the Seed of Abraham according to the Fleſh, and thought themſelves ſafe as being in that Covenant made with him.
The Covenant of Grace there made with Abraham and his Seed, extends to none but the Holy and Elect Seed, to none but the Spiritual Seed, to ſuch who are Chriſt's, or true Believers in Chriſt only. Now if the Covenant of Grace comprehends none of Abraham's carnal or fleſhly Seed, but the ſpiritual Seed only, to what purpoſe is there ſo many Sheers of Paper printed by Mr. Baxter, Mr. Sidenham, &c. to prove the carnal Seed of Believers to have right to the Seal of the Covenant? Their Buſineſs is to prove all Believers Children to be in the Covenant in the firſt place, or all they ſay is nothing.
But, Secondly, if they could prove all the Children of Believers to be in that Covenant made with Abraham, yet it doth not from thence follow neither, that therefore their Children may be baptized, unleſs they can ſhew the Lord Jeſus hath injoined them ſo to be, becauſe Baptiſm wholly depends upon the Authority of Chriſt's Inſtitution, or poſitive Preſcription. 'Tis not enough for any to ſay, if Children are in Covenant, they may be baptized. Who tells them so? Hath Chriſt any where required it? doth he say they ought, or that it belongs to them? Had it been Abraham's Duty to circumciſe his Children, becauſe they were in Covenant with him, before God gave him a poſitive Law ſo to do; certainly, had he done it without any Command of God, and have called it God's Ordinance, he had ceas'd being called any more Faithful Abraham. Come, Sirs, your Conſequences and Concluſions you have ſo long made a noiſe of, will make no Goſpel-Precept, nor hold equal weight with the Ballance of the Sanctuary.
For, thirdly, pray conſider, Were there not divers in the Covenant of Grace, i. e. in that Spiritual, or Goſpel-Covenant God made with Abraham, in that very day and time that the Law of Circumciſion was given forth? and yet they were not, from that Ground, to be circumciſed, nor were they at all circumciſed, becauſe God did not command them ſo to be? Was not Lot a Godly Man, and in the ſame Covenant of Grace? together with Melchiſedec and others I might mention? Theſe were in Covenant, and yet without the Seal, as you call it; we do not read they were circumciſed. And do you not think that many of the Females of Abraham's off-ſpring were in that Covenant of Grace? yet they had no right to Circumciſion, the Seal (as you called it) of the Covenant, becauſe none but Males were required or commanded to be circumciſed. Suppoſe Abraham ſhould have gone without a Command or Word from God, and have Circumciſed his Females, and have reaſoned after the rate you do, viz.
My Female children are in Covenant; and ſince the Covenant belongs to them, the Seal of the Covenant belongs to them, which is, Circumciſion, therefore I will circumciſe them alſo; would God have allowed him to do any ſuch Act, think you? You will reply, I am ſure that God would never have born with Abraham in doing any ſuch thing, becauſe he muſt have done it without a Command.
And, pray, how can you think he will bear with you in Baptizing Children of Believers, ſith you have no more Command from God ſo to do, than Abraham had to Circumciſe his Female Children?
You reply, They are in Covenant, and therefore to them belongs the Seal of the Covenant; even ſo ſay we, his Females might be in the ſame Covenant, and yet you would have condemned ſuch an Act in him, though grounded upon the very ſame foot of an Account, which you ſtand upon your own Juſtification in, and acknowledg no Fault, but contrarywiſe blame, nay, reproach us for holding an Error, becauſe we cannot do and practice as you do in this caſe, without any Authority from God's Word.
4ly. To prove further, that the Right of Circumciſion wholly depended upon the abſolute Will, Pleaſure, and Soveraignty of God, as Baptiſm now doth; and that his Will, and not ours, nor any Conſequence that may be drawn from being in the Covenant, can give a Perſon a right thereto, without his Command or allowance; 'tis to be conſidered, that there were thoſe commanded to be Circumciſed, who were not (as there is probable ground to believe) in that holy and bleſſed Covenant of Grace, God ſaid his Covenant should not be eſtabliſhed with Iſhmael, but with Iſaac, yet he was Circumciſed, Gen. 17. 20, 21, 25. Gal. 4. 29, 30. The ſame might be ſaid of Eſau, and thouſands more of Abraham's Carnal Seed: It was, it appears from hence, God's Soveraign Will and Pleaſure that gave right to Circumciſion, and not being in the Covenant.
Queſt. But was not Circumciſion a Seal of the Covenant of Grace under that Diſpenſation, as Baptiſm is now a Seal of the ſame Covenant under this Diſpenſation?
Anſw. No, for Circumciſion was only a Seal to Abraham's Faith, or a Confirmation of that Faith he had long before he was Circumciſed; but ſo it could not be ſaid to be to any Infant that had no Faith. It was indeed a Sign put into the Fleſh of Infants; but a Sign, and Seal too only to Abraham, witneſſing to him that he had a Juſtifying Faith; but to the Truth of the Promiſes, there was 'tis evident, a two-fold Covenant made with Abraham, 1. That he ſhould be the Father of many Nations, and that the Land in which he was a Stranger ſhould be given to his Seed; theſe Promiſes ſeem to relate to his Carnal Seed.
2. That he ſhould be the Father of the Faithful, Rom. 4. 11. Heir of the World, Rom. 4. 13. and that in him, and in his Seed all the Families of the Earth ſhould be bleſſed, that is, Jeſus Chriſt, Gal. 3. 16. Now none could receive Circumciſion as ſuch a Seal to them, but Abraham, becauſe none before circumciſed had ſuch a Faith, which intitled them to ſuch ſingular Promiſes: The Apoſtle in the fourth of the Ro…ans ſhews, that Abraham was not juſtified by Works, nor by Circumciſion, but by Faith, which he had long before he was circumciſed; and ſo but a Seal or Confirmation of that Faith he had before, and to aſſure him of the Truth of the Promiſes made to him and to his Carnal and Spiritual Seed.
You ought not therefore to call Circumciſion a Seal to any but to Abraham, neither ought you to call it a Seal of any other thing to him than what the Scripture calls it a Seal of, viz. And he received Circumciſion a Seal of the Righteouſneſs of the Faith which he had being yet uncircumciſed, Rom. 4. 11.
And that you may ſee we are not alone in this matter,Chryſoſt. Theophilact. Pag. 117. ſee what Chryſoſtom and Theophilact, as I find them quoted by Mr. Danvers; It was called a Seal of the Righteouſneſs of Faith, becauſe it was given to Abraham as a Seal and Teſtimony of that Righteouſneſs which he had acquired by Faith. Now this ſeems to be the Priviledg of Abraham's alone, and not to be tranferred to others; as if Circumciſion in whom ever it was were a Teſtimony of Divine Righteouſneſs; for it was the Priviledg of Abraham that he ſhould be the Father of all the Faithful, as well uncircumciſed as circumciſed, being already the Father, having Faith in Uncircumciſion, 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 all the Jews alſo were not the Fathers of many Nations.
Moreover, it is evident a Seal is a Confirmation of that which a Perſon hath made over to him, and it doth inſure him of it. Now to call Circumciſion a Seal of the Covenant of Grace, 'tis all one as to ſay all that were circumciſed, were aſſured of all the Bleſſings of that Covenant, then muſt all that were circumciſed be pardon'd and ſaved; and ſo alſo would it follow in the caſe of Baptiſm, were that acknowledged to be a Seal to all thoſe that are baptized of the new Covenant. But in a word, we know nothing called a Seal of the New Covenant, but the holy Spirit, which the Saints were ſaid to be ſealed with after they believed, Epheſ. 1. 13. & 4. 30. unto the day of Redemption; God by ſetting his Seal upon us aſſures us that we are his, and that we ſhall have Eternal Life.
Baptiſm is called a Figure, but no where a Seal and a Sign or Figure proper only to ſuch who have Underſtanding to diſcern the Spiritual things and Myſteries that are repreſented thereby, and wrought in them.
Object. Say what what you will, the Promiſe and Covenant of Grace was to Abraham and his natural Off-ſpring.
Anſw. Why do you not believe the Apoſtle who tells you the quite contrary, and that he ſaid not of Seeds as of many, but to thy Seed, which is Chriſt?
But it you will have it as you ſay, ſee what abſurd Conſequences will follow and ariſe from your Notion: And firſt take what Calvin ſaith,Calvin on Gen. 17. 7. 'Tis manifeſt, ſaith he, that the Promiſe underſtood of Spiritual Bleſſings pertaineth not to the Carnal Seed of Abraham, but to the Spiritual, as the Apoſtle himſelf ſaith, Rom. 4. 8, 9. for if you underſtand the Carnal Seed, ſaith he, then that Promiſe will belong to none of the Gentiles, but to thoſe alone who are begotten of Abraham and Iſaac according to the Fleſh;Eſtius. Anno Gen. 17. 7. by this it appears you go about to ſhut out your selves and Children too from having any part in that Covenant made with Abraham.
Secondly, If God made the Covenant of Grace with Abraham and his Carnal or Fleſhly Off-ſpring, and ſo with all Believers and their Children, then all their Off-ſpring muſt have ſaving Grace beſtowed upon them and a new Heart, becauſe theſe things are ſome of the chief Bleſſings contained in the new Covenant.
Now do you ſee that all the Children of Believers have the Grace of God beſtowed upon them, ſo that they are new Creatures? certainly no, for as Abraham had his Iſhmael, and Iſaac his Eſa…, and David his Abſolom, ſo have moſt or many Believers wicked and ungodly Children, and ſo they live and die to the great Grief of their Souls: You can't think that God fails in his Promiſe, and that the Covenant of Grace is not so firm and ſure as the Scripture declares it to be, one of them will follow, or you muſt conclude your ſelves miſtaken in your Notion: But certainly they cannot miſs of Grace if Mr. Blake is right;Agr. Blake, p. 6. for, ſaith he, Chriſtianity is hereditary; that as the Children of a Noble-Man are Noble, the Child of a Free-Man free, of a Turk a Turk, and of a Jew; a Jew ſo *If he had ſaid, Thoſe who are born of the Spirit are ſpiritual, he had ſpoke Truth.the Child of a Chriſtian is a Chriſtian. We will grant him they are ſo called, but withal muſt tell him, the Children of Chriſtian People are by Nature the Children of Wrath as well as others.
Fourthly, This would render Grace to be a Birth-Priviledg, as Mr. Danvers obſerves, and Regeneration tied to Generation, contrary to the Scripture and all good Doctrine; as if a Believer doth not only beget a Child in natural Generation, but a Saint alſo.
Fifthly, Then the Apoſtle ſpake not true in saving the Children of the Fleſh, theſe are not the Children of God, i. e. of the Promiſe, Rom. 9.
Sixthly, And it alſo would follow, that all the whole Off-ſpring of Believers ſhall be ſaved, without you will aſſert the Doctrine of James Arminius, that there is a falling away from Grace.
Seventhly, And would it not follow alſo, that all the Children of Believers know God, and need not be taught,Jer. 31. 34. ſaying, Know the Lord, for (you know who ſaith) they ſhall all know me, from the leaſt of them to the greateſt of them; that is, all thoſe who are in the New Covenant, which you ſay all Believers Children are, even in the ſame Covenant of Grace made with Abraham.
Eighthly, And then it follows alſo that the Covenant of Grace and Spiritual Bleſſings made with Abraham, is tied up to Believers and their Seed only; and if ſo, what will become of all poor Unbelievers and their periſhing Off-ſpring?
Object. But does not Baptiſm come in the room of Circumciſion, the one being a Figure of the other?
Anſw. There is no ground ſo to believe, ſince the Scripture gives not the leaſt hint of any ſuch thing.
1. For firſt, if it had, then when Baptiſm came in and was in force, Circumciſion muſt have ceaſed immediately: but after Baptiſm was commanded and adminiſtred, we find Circumciſion in being, and was not diſannull'd till the Death and Reſurrection of our Saviour. Now it would have vanquiſh'd, as Shadows do, as ſoon as Baptiſm the Antitype came in force, had it been a Type or Figure of Baptiſm, or come in the room of it.
2. If Baptiſm had come in the room of Circumciſion, then the Church of God under the Goſpel would have been juſt like the National Church of the Jews, viz. made up of the Fleſhly Seed;1 Pet. 2. 4, 5, 6, 7. but the Apoſtle ſhews thè contrary, it conſiſts of lively Stones, that is, a ſpiritual and not a carnal Seed.
3. Then Males only and no Females would have been baptized; becauſe none but Male Children were to be circumciſed, as God commanded.
4. Circumciſion was adminiſtred on Abraham's natural Seed without any Profeſſion of Faith; but none are to be admitted to Baptiſm but by a Profeſſion of Faith, Repentance and Regeneration.
The firſt Birth, or being born in a fleſhly way by Carnal Generation, gave Abraham's natural Seed a Right to Circumciſion; whereas the Spiritual Birth or Regeneration gives a Right only to Baptiſm according to Chriſt's Commiſſion, as we have proved.
5. 'Tis evident Circumciſion figured forth another thing, viz. the Deſtruction of the Body of Sin by Jeſus Chriſt, and the Circumciſion of the Heart, and therefore not Baptiſm, &c.
Very full and moſt excellently you have to this Point Dr. Taylor, Dr. Taylor Biſhop of Down, p. 228.who ſaith, That the Argument from Circumciſion is invalid upon infinite Conſiderations: Figures and Types prove nothing, unleſs a Command go along with them, or ſome Expreſs to ſignify ſuch to be their purpoſe; for the Deluge of Waters, and the Ark of Noah were a Figure of Baptiſm, ſaid Peter; and if therefore the Circumſtances of the one ſhould be drawn to the other, we ſhould make Baptiſm a Prodigy rather than a Rite. The Paſchal Lamb was a Type of the Euchariſt, which ſucceeds the other, as Baptiſm doth to Circumciſion; but becauſe there was in the Manducation of the Paſchal Lamb, no Preſcription of Sacramental Drink, ſhall we thence conclude that the Euchariſt is to be adminiſtred but in one kind? And even in the very inſtance of this Argument, ſuppoſing a Correſpondency of the Analogy between Circumciſion and Baptiſm, yet there is no Correſpondency of Identity; for although it were granted, that both of them did conſign the Covenant of Faith, yet there is nothing in the Circumſtance of Childrens being circumciſed that ſo concerns that Myſtery, but that it might very well be given to Children, and yet Baptiſm only to Men of Reaſon, becauſe Circumciſion leſt a Character in the Fleſh, which being imprinted upon Infants did its work to them when they came to Age; and ſuch a Character was neceſſary, becauſe there was no word added to the Sign; but Baptiſm imprints nothing that remains on the Body, and if it leaves a Character at all, it is upon the Soul, to which alſo the Word is added, which is as much a part of the Sacrament, as the Sign it ſelf: for both which Reaſons it is requiſite that the Parties baptized ſhould be capable of Reaſon, that they may be capable both of the word of the Sacrament, and the impreſs made upon the Spirit; ſince therefore the Reaſon of this Parity does wholly fail, there is nothing left to infer a neceſſity of complying in this Circumſtance of Age any more than in the other Annxes of the Type; then the Infant muſt alſo preciſely be baptized upon the eighth day, and Females muſt not be baptized, becauſe not circumciſed: but it were more proper if we would underſtand it right to proſecute the Analogy, form the Type to the Antitype by way of Letter, and Spirit, and Signification. And as Circumciſion figures Baptiſm, ſo alſo the Adjuncts of the Circumciſion, ſhall ſignifie something ſpiritual in the Adherences of Baptiſm; and therefore as Infants were circumciſed, ſo ſpiritual Infants ſhall be baptized, which is ſpiritual Circumciſion; for therefore Babes had the Miniſtry of the Type, to ſignify that we muſt, when we give our Names to Chriſt, become Children in Malice, and then the Type is made compleat, &c. Thus far the Doctor.
Queſt. But why may …ot Infants be baptized now as well as Children were circumciſed heretofore?
Anſw. Levit, 10, 1, 2.You may as well aſk, why Nadab and Abihu might not have offered ſtrange Fire, or why might not the Prieſt? carry the Ark in a Cart.—The Reaſon why they ought to do neither of thoſe things were, becauſe God commanded them not ſo to do. In like manner, say we, Children muſt not be baptized, becauſe God hath given no Command to do it. Circumciſion was expreſly commanded, both as to the Subject, Time, Age and Sex, which was as you have heard, the Male Children at eight days old,Gen. 17. 10, 12, 14. with a ſevere Penalty of the Parents Diſobedience.
But there is not one hint, or the leaſt colour of ground for the baptizing of Infants in all the New Teſtament, as hath been proved; and yet the Goſpel is, as one obſerves, as expreſs in the matter of Baptiſm, as firſt, touching the Subject Men and Woman: Secondly, As to the Time, viz. when they believe: Thirdly, As to the Qualifications of Baptiſm, i. e. Faith and Repentance: Fourthly, As to the end and uſe of it, to ſignifie the Death, Burial, and Reſurrection of Chriſt, with our Death unto Sin, and riſing again to newneſs of Life. Can any think the Servant should be ſo careful to give Directions from God in every caſe about the circumciſing of Children under the Law, and the Son of God not to be as expreſs in all parts of inſtituted Worſhip and our Duties under the Goſpel? This can't be thought; ſee what the Apoſtle saith, which we before hinted, Heb. 3. 5, 6.
Queſt. But Children were Members of the Jewiſh Church as well as Adult Perſons,Mr. Smythies Vnworthy Communicant, p. 88. ſith Mr. Smythies, and ſo ſay other Pedo-Bap…iſto, as … Ba…ter, and many more; and ſince they were comprehended with their Parents in that Church-ſtate … are ſo ſtill▪ under the Goſpel, and therefore to ….
Anſw. That Children were then admitted Members of the Jewiſh Church is granted, and 'tis as evident that God hath now quite pulled down that Houſe of his, (I mean that National Church-state) and broke up Houſe-keeping, and turned the Bond-Woman and her Son, (i. e. the Fleſhly Seed, Servants and Infants) all out of doors; the natural Branches are broken off, and God hath now built him a new, a glorious, and more ſpiritual Houſe, into which he admitteth none as his Houſhold-Servants to dwell in his Spiritual Family, but Believers only, or ſuch as profeſs ſo to be:1 Pet. 2. 5▪ Ye alſo (saith Peter) as lively Stones, are built up a Spiritual Houſe, &c. and that the old Houſe, the Jewiſh Church-state, with all the Appurtenances, Rites, and Priviledges of it, is pulled down, and a new one built, into which Infants are not to be admitted, is very evident from what the Apoſtle ſpeaks, Heb. 7. 12. For the Prieſthood being changed; there is made of neceſſary a Change alſo of the whole Law, which muſt needs include Circumciſion with all the Appurtenances and Priviledges belonging to it. And therefore as Infants Church-memberſhip came in with the Law of Circumciſion, so it went out and was diſanull'd with it; they were, 'tis true, of the Houſhold of old, but it was by a poſitive Law: Shew us the like now and you do your buſineſs, or elſe you say nothing; For evident it is that what Priviledges ſoever are given to any Perſons by an Act of Parliament, which ſaid Law was to continue in force for ſo long a time and no longer, when that time is expired and another Parliament makes a new Law, wherein many things are contained that were in the firſt, but thoſe certain Priviledges given to thoſe Perſons in the former Law, are left out in this latter Act, it would … be a ſolly for any of them to … thoſe Priviledges by virtue of a Law that is gone, and now not in force. Or if a Man ſhould have a Legacy bequeathed to him by the Will and Teſtament of his Friend, and yet afterwards his Friend ſees cauſe to make another Will, which is his laſt Will and Teſtament, and in the laſt Will leaves him quite out and gives him no ſuch Legacy, it would be a fooliſh thing for him to ſue for the Legacy left him in the firſt Will, which is void in Law by his Friends laſt Will and Teſtament. Juſt ſo it is here; there was an old Law wherein Infants were admitted to the Priviledges of being Members of the National Church of the Jews, and ſo alſo it was in the old or former Will and Teſtament; but that Law was to continue but till Chriſt came, and now he has made a new Law wherein Infant-Church-memberſhip is quite left out, and the Lord Jeſus has made another Will, his laſt Will and Teſtament, wherein the old Priviledg is not be queathed to Infants: Now is it not folly in you to plead for that old Priviledg that was in the former Teſtament? you muſt find your Infant-Church-memberſhip in the New Teſtament, as muſt alſo the Seventh-day-Sabbath-Men the old Jewiſh Sabbath*For tho a time for the Worſhip of God is moral, yet the ſeventh day of the Week was a meer poſitive Law, given only to the People of Israel., or elſe they and you too ſay nothing, but render your ſelves weak and ſtrangely be-clouded: and certain I am, there is now no Inſtitution, no Law, no Preſcription, no Rule, no Example for keeping the Seventh-day-Sabbath in the new Law, in the new and laſt Will and Teſtament of Jeſus Chriſt; nor no Inſtitution, no Law, no Precept, no Example contained therein for Infant-Church-memberſhip, no not the leaſt hint or intimation that Infants ſhould be fellow-Citizins with the Saints, and of the Houſhold, of God, neither are they ſo to be accounted till they believe, and are to do Service in the Houſe: for though we account our Children of our Family notwithſtanding they can't do any Service therein, yet that is no Argument they may be Members of God's Church, unleſs by any Law or Inſtitution God has made them ſo to be. The Houſhold of God is called the Houſhold of Faith, or a Family that conſiſteth of Believers; therefore unleſs you can prove Infants to be Believers, they are not of this Houſe; for all that are to have admiſſion there muſt be Believers, or profeſs themſelves ſo to be,Baxter on Confirmation. as Mr. Baxter acknowledges, or elſe no place for them there, which Infants cannot do.
Object. But it is ſtill objected, that as the Jews and their Children were broken off, ſo the Gentiles and their Children are ingrafted in their room, as Rom. 11. 20. becauſe of Vnbelief they were broken off, and thou ſtandeſt by Faith, &c.
Anſw. We anſwer, that the Reaſon why the Jews and their Children were broken off, was not becauſe they had not believing Parents, for Abraham, Iſaac and Jacob were ſtill the Parents of them all, they were Abraham's Seed, according to the Fleſh, when they were broken off as well as before; but the true reaſon was, becauſe the terms of ſtanding in the Church were now altered: For before the Goſpel-Diſpenſation came, they ſtood Members of the old Jewiſh Church, though as much unbelieving for many Generations, as they were when they were broken off; but now Abraham's Church-state is at an end, and all the Priviledges and Immunities ceaſe, the Jewiſh Church muſt give way to the Goſpel-Church, the Meſſiah being come, and about to build him up a new and more glorious and ſpiritual Houſe, into which none are of right to enter but ſuch as are profeſt Believers; for the old Houſe or Jewiſh Church-state was not intended to abide for ever, but only until the time of Reformation, and then the Law muſt be changed, yea the Covenant changed, which they not believing, nor cloſing in with, were broken off, they being willing to abide in the old Houſe ſtill, and to remain Church-Members upon the account of a meer fleſhly and natural Birth, crying out, Abraham is our Father,Rom. 8. and we are his Seed, and are free, and never were in Bondage, wherefore they were broken off, and that whether they would or not, by reaſon of their Unbelief; that is, becauſe they would not believe Chriſt was the true Meſſiah, and that the old Covenant and all the Priviledges thereof were flying away, the Subſtance and true Antitype of all thoſe Shadows being come, viz. the Lord Jeſus Chriſt.
So that thus they were broken off by Unbelief, and thou and thine, O Gentile Believer, ſtand by Faith, mark it, thou ſtandeſt by Faith; not by virtue of any Birth-Priviledg whatſoever, but by Faith, thy ſtanding is by Faith; yet not thy Seed by thy Faith, but thou thy ſelf by thine, and they by their own; Faith is that by which (thou ſtanding and not thy Seed) haſt right to ſtand in the Church, and not they; but if thy Seed have Faith, and thou haſt none, they have right in the Church, and thou ſhalt be excluded.
Moſt certain it is, that under the Law the natural Seed or Progeny of Abraham, were all holy with an External, Ceremonial, or Typical Holineſs, and conſequently they were then all admitted to an external Participation of Church-Priviledges. But remarkable to this purpoſe is that Paſſage of the Apoſtle, 2 Cor. 5. 16. Wherefore henceforth know we no Man after the Fleſh; it ſeems then, that heretofore there had been a knowledg taken of Perſons after the Fleſh; and 'tis as plain there was, that becuaſe the Jews were of the natural or fleſhly Seed of Abraham, they were therefore all of them admitted to the Priviledg of an external Church-memberſhip, while others were exempted. But we see the Apoſtle reſolves henceforth to diſclaim any such cognizance of them, or any others upon the account of a meer fleſhly Deſcent: And to this very purpoſe immediately ſubjoyns in the following Verſe, Therefore if any Man be in Chriſt, he is a new Creature: old things are paſt away, all things are become new; the old Church, and old Church-memberſhip, Rites, Ordinances and Priviledges, and a new Church-ſtate, new Ordinances, a new Seed, and new way of Introduction unto the Participation of the Priviledge of Church-memberſhip now under this new and more glorious Diſpenſation, viz. the Goſpel: Nothing but a new Creature will ſerve the turn; for God expects that they that worſhip him, do now worſhip him in Spirit and is Truth; the Priviledg of being admitted into God's Houſe, and to ſtand before his Preſence in the actual Celebration of Goſpel-Ordinances, being now entailed only upon the Spiritual Seed, even ſuch who as lively Stones are built up a ſpiritual Houſe, a holy Prieſthood to offer up ſpiritual Sacrifices acceptable to God by Jeſus Chriſt; 1 Pet. 2. 3, 4, 5. or ſuch at leaſt as make a viſible Profeſſion thereof.
And therefore, when this new and more ſpiritual Diſpenſation was about to be actually introduced and eſtabliſhed, John who was the Harbinger of it gives ſufficient notice thereof; and to this purpoſe deals plainly with the Jews, i. e. the Phariſees and Sadduces that came to be baptized of him, and tells them upon this account, Mat. 3. 9, 10. Think not to ſay within your ſelves, We have Abraham to our Father: For I ſay unto you, that God is able of theſe Stones to raiſe up Children to Abraham. And now alſo is the Ax laid unto the root of the Trees: Therefore every Tree that bringeth not forth good Fruit, is hewn down, and caſt into the Fire. It cannot be denied but that they had Abraham to their Father as much now as before, only the terms of their ſtanding in that Church was now changed; ſo that every Tree now of whatſoever natural Stock or external Production, that bringeth not forth good Fruit, muſt be hewn down; and the reaſon is rendred for that, Now the Ax is laid to the root of the Trees, mark it, now 'tis ſo; it was not so before, the Ax was never till now laid thus unto the root of the Trees: which muſt needs be underſtood in reference to that Birth and Fleſhly Priviledg ſpoken of before, which they had ſo long boaſted of, as the whole Context shews. But now God is reſolved to make other manner of work of it under the Goſpel-Diſpenſation than he did before. Now the root of the Trees are ſtruck at, a Bar put, natural Deſcent or Extraction from a Religious Root, (i.e. Godly Parents) will not now ſerve turn, as in time paſt it did, to give any true Right or Title to Church-Priviledges. Moreover, if God now will not ſuffer any of the natural Branches to abide on their own natural Stock, viz. Abraham, be ſure he will not admit any Gentiles, that are not natural Branches of Abraham, to be grafted into the good Olive, without Faith and Regeneration.
Object. But if Children may not be baptized, this makes the Priviledg of Believers Children under the Goſpel leſs than was theirs under the Law; for their Children were admitted Members of the viſible Church by Circumciſion; and we cannot but conclude, that our Priviledges for our ſelves and for our Children, are at leaſt as large, great and comfortable as theirs, and therefore our Infants are to be baptized.
Anſw. To this we reply, that we do not doubt but that our Priviledges, in reſpect of the Covenant of Grace, and all Spiritual Bleſſings are as great and comfortable as theirs were; but the Covenant of Grace, the Bleſſings and Divine Priviledges thereof, were neither made to the Jews natural Poſterity, nor to ours; and although Circumciſion was a Priviledg in ſome reſpect to the Jews above what the Heathens had,Act. 15. 10. yet it is termed by the Apoſtle an intolerable Yoke; Now therefore why tempt ye God to put a Yoke upon the Necks of the Diſciples, which neither our Fathers nor we were able to bear? Their Children were not circumciſed as Children of Believers, and ſo ſealed with a new Covenant-Seal, as being made new Covenant-Children thereby; Circumciſion did not confer Grace, nor make them Heirs of the Kingdom of Heaven, it was therefore no more than an external Priviledg to the natural Lineage and Seed of Abraham, as a typical and ſhadowy thing, whereby his Poſterity was to be mark'd, to diſtinguiſh them from all the Nations of the Earth, and to keep that Line clear, from whence Chriſt according to the Fleſh was to come, and to be a Sign in their Fleſh to put them in mind that God would perform the Promiſe of the Meſſiah made to Abraham, and alſo to oblige them to keep the Law; for he that was circumciſed was a Debtor to keep the whole Law.
Hence it was the Jewiſh Chriſtians, inſtead of looking upon Circumciſion to be a Priviledg upon a ſpiritual account, could not but acknowledg it a great Mercy they were delivered from it; and hence 'tis the Apoſtle exhorts the Saints to ſtand faſt in that Liberty in which Chriſt had made them free, Gal. 5. 1, 2, 3, 4.and not be intangled again in the Yoke of Bondage.
Neither ought ſuch a thing (as Mr. Danvers obſerves) to be any more eſteemed the loſs of a Priviledg than our not injoying literally a Holy Land, City, Temple, a Succeſſion of High-Prieſts, and Prieſthood, by Generation or Lineal Deſcent. (For you know their Children were Prieſts ſucceſſively in their Generations, a Levite begat a Prieſt or Miniſter, as well as they and other Tribes begat Church-Members.)
Now though all theſe outward Priviledges are gone, yet our Priviledges being more ſpiritual, are greater both to our ſelves and Offſpring; they look'd for Chriſt to come as held forth under many dark Types and Shadows, we are aſſured he is come and has accompliſh'd what was foretold of him, We behold in the Glaſs of the Goſpel as with open face the Glory of the Lord; 2 Cor. 3. 18.all thoſe Types are explained and ſpiritualized to us, viz. Circumciſion, the Worldly Sanctuary, Tabernacle, the Candleſtick, Table, Shew-bread, Cherubims, Mercy-seat, &c. which things and many more were Figures for the time then preſent, and were Shadows of good things to come, but the Body or Subſtance of them is Chriſt, who hath put an end to them, and muſt we now needs find out ſome other carnal or external Rites to come in the room or ſtead of theſe or ſome of theſe, or elſe think our Priviledges are leſs than theirs? whereas indeed our Priviledges it appears are inlarged, and far greater than theirs were, and hence they longed many of them to ſee thoſe things that we see, &c. Inſtead of being a fleſhly Nation we are a holy …, a holy City, a ſpiritual and holy Temple, a Royal Prieſthood, and holy (not carnal) Church-Members; Church-Members by Regeneration not by Generation, not by the firſt Birth, but by the new and ſecond Birth; if we and our Children have not the ſame Priviledges don't let us complain, whereas God hath been more rich and bountiful to us, we and our Children sit under the clear and glorious Revelation and Miniſtration of the Goſpel, can we or ours be loſers by this Change? Alas! as far as Chriſt excels Moſes and Aaron, the Goſpel the Law, the Antitype the Type, the ſpiritual Birth the carnal, the extent of all Nations the Confines of Judea; ſo far, ſaith one are we better and not worſe, and our Priviledges not leſſer but far greater; our Children have great advantages in having ſuch Parents and Miniſters to inſtruct them, to pray for them, and to ſet before them a good Example; beſides, as ſoon as capable, they with others have the Goſpel preached clearly to them, and Grace offered and tendered univerſally to all far and near, with Ho, every one that thirſteth, come ye to the Waters, &c. Iſa. 55. 1. The Spirit alſo is in a glorious manner communicated, to inable them and others to believe now in the Goſpel-days. The Law was hard, Do this, and live; and Circumciſion laid them under a Bond to do and keep all that God in his Law required, yea and under a Curſe if they continued not in all things that were there injoyned, which brought them into miſerable Bondage and Captivity; but now 'tis but to believe, and thou ſhalt be ſaved: the Spirit ſaith, the Scripture was not yet given—to wit, in that manner nor meaſure as afterwards,Joh. 7. 39. becauſe Chriſt was not yet glorified.
So that it is no Abſurdity to grant that the Jews might have Priviledges in ſome things more than we; and yet our Caſe and Condition with our Children, to ſpeak ſimply, better than theirs, tho the Covenant of Grace is not enlarged nor leſſened in reſpect of the ſubſtance of it; the Promiſes of Grace are ſtill belonging to the Elect, to thoſe that were given to Chriſt, to Believers, and to no other, nor never were; but the Priviledges we have above them do abundantly recompence the defect of thoſe Priviledges of theirs, whether real or ſuppoſed: And the truth is, Priviledges are ſo arbitrary and various, depending ſo much upon the Soveraignty of God, that he gives them as he thinks good, and oft-times takes them away without aſſigning any ſpecial Reaſon of it; ſo that no Arguments can be drawn ſafely, as our Brethren do, viz. God gave ſuch a Priviledg to the Jews, therefore we muſt have ſuch a Priviledg too, except we can prove it is God's Will it ſhould be ſo. This Argument therefore is of no force, without an Inſtitution, here we are again, and here we will ſtand; Circumciſion wholly depended upon a poſitive Law; 'tis in vain therefore to attempt to prove, that becauſe the Jews had a Priviledg to circumciſe their Children, therefore we muſt have a Priviledg to baptize our Infants, ſith they had a Command to do what they did, and we have none; beſides, we have shewed there is no Scripture that proves the Baptiſm of Infants is a Priviledg granted by the Lord in lieu of Circumciſion, it being indeed no Duty or Priviledg at all.
Laſtly, before I cloſe with this, take what Mr. Danvers ſays,Danvers on Bapt. p. 180. If it ſhould be taken (saith he) for granted, that Circumciſion was a Seal of the New Covenant belonging to all the Children of Iſrael; then would not the baptizing of the Children of Believers anſwer it, neither amount to ſo great a Priviledg, nor be equivalent to it for theſe Reaſons:
1ſt, There were all the Families and Tribes of Iſrael (and all proſelyted Strangers) with their Children, without diſtinction of good or bad, to be circumciſied: But here only one of a City, and two of a Tribe; for Believers are but thin ſown, and the Children of Unbelievers and wicked Men are to receive no such benefit in the Judgment of many.
And,Beſides, they are at a loſs to know what to do if the Father only, or the Mother only is a Believer. 2dly, You would be very ſhort in another reſpect, as being at an utter uncertainty when you have a right Subject; for if the Parent is an Hypocrite, or no elect Perſon, which is out of your reach to underſtand, you cannot know whether the Child be fit for Baptiſm; for the Seed of a wicked Man you muſt not meddle with by any means; whereas there was not the leaſt doubt or scruple in Iſrael as to the Subject, for the Father being one of Abraham's Seed and circumciſed, it was an infallible mark they were right.
And, 3dly, neither can the Child when he is grown up have any certain knowledg that such a Ceremony had paſt upon him in Infancy, he having no infallible mark thereof; whereas the circumciſed Infant had an infallible Character and Mark in his Fleſh, to aſſure him that he had received that Rite.
Object. But what hope can we have of our Infants if they muſt not be admitted unto Chriſtian Baptiſm, nor reputed as Members of the common Body and Church of the Faithful?
Anſw. We anſwer; Firſt, if the hope of the Parent for the Child's Salvation be grounded upon the Adminiſtration of an external Rite or Ordinance in Infancy, then neither had the Patriarchs for above two thouſand Years any hope of their Children, ſith they had neither Circumciſion, Baptiſm, nor any other External Rite, which we find otherwiſe by Noah's Prophecy, Gen. 9. 26, 27.
Secondly, We aſk, whether God hath left it in the Power of the Parent to ſave or deſtroy the Soul of his Child, which your Doctrine doth import?
Thirdly, We demand what hopes are intended, and by what Scriptures the ſame are annexed to the Adminiſtration of an Ordinance in Infancy?
Fourthly, We do ſay there is a ground of hope in Believers in behalf of their Children, which is grounded upon plain Scripture without baptizing them.
Fifthly, Doth Baptiſm confer Grace or regenerate the Child? Though ſome have ignorantly aſſerted that, yet we find many of you of another mind.
Sixthly, This Argument ſeems to carry in it this Concluſion, i. e. That Chriſtian People by Infants Baptiſm are aſſured according to Goſpel-grounds of the Salvation of their Children: But there is no Proof for it, it is but a Fancy, and we ſuppoſe 'tis not received as a Truth by many that oppoſe us in this Point.