Light Broke Forth in Wales Expelling Darkness, Chapter 5
CHAP. V.
Wherein Mr. Owen's Argument for Infant-Baptiſm, taken from the Covenant God made with Abraham, is examined, and totally confuted.
SIR,
YOu in your fourth Chapter come to conſider and enquire who are the proper Subjects of Baptiſm, or who they are that ought to be baptiz'd. And firſt, you ſay, that Baptiſm doth not belong to all Men, but to the Faithful and their Seed: He that believeth and is baptized, ſhall be ſaved; Mark 16. 16. When the Eunuch ask'd Philip, See, here is Water, what doth hinder me to be baptized? He anſwered, If thou believeſt with all thy Heart, thou mayſt; Acts 8. It is plain, ſay you, that Baptiſm belongeth to them that believe: but ſay you, how doth it appear that Baptiſm doth belong to the Seed of ſuch? that will appear, you ſay,
1. From God's Covenant.
2. From Circumciſion under the Law.
3. From Chriſt's Command to baptize all Nations.
4. Becauſe they are holy.
5. Becauſe Chriſt bleſſed them.
6. Becauſe the Gentiles were ingrafted into the Privileges of the Jews.
7. Becauſe they can partake of that which is ſignified by Baptiſm.
8. From the form of Baptiſm under the Law.
9. Becauſe John baptized Infants according to the Practice of the Jewiſh Church.
10. Becauſe the Apoſtles baptized whole Houſes.
11. Becauſe the Chriſtian Church baptized Infants in every Age.
12. Becauſe 'tis a vertuous means to plant the Chriſtian Religion.
Sir, I ſhall examine all your Grounds, and anſwer each of your Argumenrs in order: And firſt of all, that of the Covenant with Abraham. You argue thus, viz. Abraham and his Seed were under the Covenant of Grace, we the Gentiles are a Seed to Abraham, and the Covenant of Grace belongeth as extenſively unto us as it did to Abraham, even to us and to our Children; and if the Children of the Faithful are in the Covenant of Grace, can any Man forbid them the Seal of the Covenant, viz. Baptiſm?
Anſw. 1. I anſwer, 'tis well, you cannot deny that Baptiſm belongs to the Faithful, viz. to Believers; we then are right who baptize ſuch: and if Faith both in order of Words, and in order of Practice in the Apoſtolical Days, preceded Baptiſm, then none but Believers ought to be baptized; but, by your own Confeſſion, Faith both in order of Words and Practice in the Apoſtolical Days did precede Baptiſm; 'tis not he that is baptized, and afterwards believes, but contrary ways, he that believeth and is baptized. Faith is required as prerequiſite to Baptiſm, in all that Chriſt enjoins Baptiſm upon, which Infants are not capable of.
2. As to your firſt Argument for Believers Seed to be baptized, from the Covenant made with Abraham, I ſhall ſhew it is invalid, and will do you no Service.
Firſt, Becauſe there was a twofold Covenant made with Abraham, one with his Natural Seed, as ſuch, the other with his true Spiritual, as ſuch: So that what you ſay that Abraham and his Seed were in the Covenant of Grace, viz. his Spiritual Seed, is not denied by us; but that all his Natural were in the Covenant of Grace the Apoſtle denies, and ſhews the contrary, Rom. 9. 6, 7, 8.
Now if I prove there were two Covenants made with Abraham, what is become of all you have ſaid in reſpect of this matter? And that it is ſo, let what followeth be conſidered.
1. We affirm, that the Covenant of Grace and the Covenant of Circumciſion made with Abraham is not the ſame or one intire Covenant.
2. We ſhall conſider whether there be the ſame reaſon of Circumciſion and of Baptiſm.
1ſt. We ſay there was a Covenant of Grace, or Goſpel-Covenant made with Abraham, and all Believers in him, or all his true Spiritual Seed.
2dly. But the Covenant of Circumciſion, or that Covenant God made with his Natural Seed, as ſuch, was a diſtinct Covenant from the Covenant of Grace; theſe two Covenants were ſignified to Abraham by Sarah and Hagar, as the Apoſtle ſhews in plain words, Gal. 4. 24. Which things are an Allegory; for theſe are the two Covenants, &c. And now fully and plainly to prove this great Truth, viz. that there were two Covenants made with Abraham, take this Argument.
Arg. If the Covenants take their Denomination from the Promiſes, and the Promiſes are diſtinct, viz. ſome Evangelical, belonging to thoſe that the Goſpel belongs unto; and others Domeſtick or Civil Promiſes, eſpecially and abſolutely reſpecting the Houſe, and Natural Seed of Abraham and Policy of Iſrael; then there were two Covenants made with Abraham: but this is ſo; Ergo, &c. To make it clear, and prove it, it is evident that that Promiſe was Evangelical, belonging to the Goſpel-Covenant made with Abraham, Gen. 17. 5. I have made thee a Father of many Nations: And ſo is that Promiſe, Gen. 15. 5. So ſhall thy Seed be: in which it is promiſed that there ſhall be of the Nations many, or a great number, that ſhall be Abraham's Spiritual Children by believing, Rom. 4. 17, 18. Alſo it was Evangelical, which we find in Gen. 12. 3. And in thy Seed ſhall all the Kindreds of the Earth be bleſſed. Theſe 'tis evident reſpect all Goſpel-Believers, who are the Spiritual Seed of Abraham: See Gal. 3. 8. And the Scripture foreſeeing that God would juſtify the Heathen through Faith, preached the Goſpel to Abraham, ſaying, In thee ſhall All the Nations of the Earth be bleſſed. And more directly to Chriſt, who is the Seed of Abraham, as Gal. 3. 16. Now to Abraham and his Seed were the Promiſes made: He ſaith not, And to Seeds, as of many, but as of one, and to thy Seed, which is Chriſt; that is, to Chriſt as the Head and Surety of the Covenant of Grace; and ſo primarily and directly to him, and then in him to all who are his, according to that Gal. 3. 29. And if you be Chriſt's, then are ye Abraham's Seed, and Heirs according to the Promiſe. See alſo Acts 2. 25.
2. Moreover, that the Domeſtick and Civil Promiſes were many, is plain: As, 1. Of multiplying the Seed of Abraham. 2. The Birth of Iſaac. 3. Of the Continuation of the Covenant with Isaac. 4. Of the coming of Chriſt out of Iſaac. 5. The Bondage of the Iſraelites in Egypt, and their Deliverance out from thence, and of their poſſeſſing the Land of Canaan, Gen 15. 18. Gen. 17. 8. And I will give unto thee, and to …y Seed after thee, the Land wherein thou art a Stranger, … the Land of Canaan, for an everlaſting Poſſeſſion; and I will be their God. So Gen. 15. 18. In that ſame day God made a Covenant with Abraham, ſaying; Unto thy Seed have I given this Land, from the River of Egypt unto the great River Eup…rates. Can you be ſo ignorant as to affirm, this Covenant-Contract made with Abraham, was made with the Natural Seed of believing Gentiles? Nay, or that it was made to Abraham's Spiritual Seed? Compare theſe Scriptures with Acts 7. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. and thus it appears, the Covenant made with Abraham is a mixt Covenant, or a twofold Covenant, one made with his Natural Seed, the other with his Spiritual …eed: and this is fully ſignified by Sarah and Hagar, the Free Woman and Bond Woman, and their S…ns Iſaac and Iſhmael, Gal 4. 22.
Secondly; The Seed of Abraham is many ways ſo called,
1. Chriſt is called the Seed of Abraham, as I ſaid before, Gal. 3. 16. by way of Emmency, as he is the Head, and Surety of the Goſpel-Covenant.
2. All the Elect, Rom. 9. 7. all Believers, Rom. 4. 11, 12, 16, 17, 18. Gal 3. 29. If ye be in Chriſt, then are ye Abraham's Seed, and Heirs according to the Promiſe.
3. There was a Natura Seed of Abraham, to whom the Inheritance did accure, this was Iſaac, Gen. 21. 22.
4. We read or another Natural Seed of Abraham to whom the Inheritance, it is poſitively ſaid, did not belong, as Iſhmael and the Sons of Keturah, Gen. 15. 5.
But now can the Infant-Seed of Believers, as ſuch, be ſaid to be the Seed of Abraham in any of theſe four reſpects? Add if you can a fifth.
(1.) As the Promiſe refers to Chriſt (ſo they cannot be …) who is Abraham's in a ſpecial manner, to whom God promiſed he would be a God to, and impart all Bleſſings of the Covenant unto, according to that glorious Compact or Covenant of Redemption made between him and the Father before the World began, upon the account of his bleſſed Undertaking as a Mediator and Surety, that ſo he might impart all thoſe purchaſed Bleſſings and Privileges to all who believe in him, or were given to him by the Father.
(2.) As the Promiſe refers to the Elect Seed, as ſuch, who had the Faith of Abraham, and … in his Steps, it cannot include the Infant-Seed o… believing Gentiles, as ſuch.
(3.) As the Promiſe refers to Iſaac, who was Abraham's own natural Son according to the Fleſh, as well as according to the Promiſe, they are not the Seed of Abraham.
(4.) As Iſhmael and the Sons of Keturah were the Seed of Abraham; ſo the Infant-Seed of believing Gentiles are not the Seed of Abraham. If you can …dd a fifth ſort of Abraham's Seed (I mean ſuch who are ſo called) from the Scripture, pray do when you write again.
Arg. From hence I thus argue: I… the Children of believing Gentiles, as ſuch, are not the Natural Seed, nor the Spiritual Seed of Abraham, then they can have no right to Baptiſm or Church-memberſhip, …y virtue of any Covenant-Tranſaction God made with Abraham.
But the Children of …eving Gentiles, a… ſuch, are not the Natural Seed, nor Spiritual Seed of Abraham: Ergo, They can have no right to Bapti… nor Church-Memberſhip, …y virtue of any Covenant Tranſaction God made with Abraham.
It is affirmed by ſome, that the Children of Believers are the Spiritual Seed of Abraham, till they by actual Sin, unrepented of, are otherwiſe.
Anſw. 1. T… which I anſwer. Then ſome of the true Spiritual Seed of Abraham may periſh eternally, and the Promiſe is not ſure …o all his Spiritual Seed; it is directly contrary to w…t S. Paul affirms in Rom. 4. 16. Therefore it is of Faith that it might be by Grace; to the end the Promiſe might be …re to all the Seed not to that only which is of the Law, but to that alſo which is of the Faith of Abraham, who is the Father of ….
From w…ence I argue:
Arg. 2. All they that are in that Goſpel Covenant which God made with Abraham, or who are his true Spiritual Seed, have the Promiſe of Everlaſting Life made ſure to them: But all the Infant-Seed of Believers, as ſuch, have not the Promiſe of Everlaſting Life made ſure to them; Ergo, The Infant-Seed of Believers, as ſuch, are not in that Goſpel-Covenant God made with Abraham, nor his true Spiritual Seed. Take another.
Arg. 3. If all the true Spiritual Seed of Abraham have the Faith of Abraham, and walk in the ſteps of Abraham, even that Faith Abraham had before he was circumciſed; then the Infant-Seed of Believers, as ſuch, are not the Spiritual Seed of Abraham.
But the true Spiritual Seed of Abraham have the Faith of Abraham, and walk in the ſteps of Abraham, even that Faith Abraham had before he was circumciſed: Ergo, The Infant-Seed of Believers, as ſuch, are not the true Spiritual Seed of Abraham.
As to the Major, ſee Rom. 4. 11, 12.
The Minor cannot be denied: No Man in his right Wits will affirm, the Infants of Believers, as ſuch, have the Faith Abraham had before he was circumciſed; nor do many of them; nor can they walk in the ſteps of Abraham, having not his Faith.
If any object and ſay, If Infants of Believers are not included in that Covenant made with Abraham, how can any of them who die in their Infancy be ſaved?
I anſwer, 1. Cannot God ſave dying Infants unleſs they were included in the Covenant made with Abraham? How then could the dying Infants of the Godly, who lived before that Covenant was made with Abraham, be ſaved?
God has many ways, through Chriſt's Undertakings, to ſave dying Infants, as Dr. Taylor notes, which we know not of: Secret things belong to God, and revealed things to us.
2. Were they in any ſenſe included in that Covenant made with Abraham, tho not accounted for his Natural or Spiritual Seed, yet it would not follow from thence that they ought to be baptized; becauſe the Females who were truly Abraham's Natural Seed, and ſome of them might be his Spiritual Seed too, yet were not circumciſed, no more than the Male Children of the Godly were before Abraham's time, &c.
3. Were they in Covenant as they are the Natural Seed of Believers? Then Baptiſm however does not bring them into the Covenant; and if ſo, their State is good, whether baptized or no: And if Baptiſm brings them into the Covenant of Grace, and makes the Covenant ſure unto them, then it would follow that 'tis in the Power of Men, either to bring their Children into the Covenant of Grace, or keep them out; and that it is in effect to ſay, Parents have Power to ſave or deſtroy their Children: and how abſurd that is, I will leave to all impartial Men to judg.
I ſhall, in the next place, prove, that the Covenant of Circumciſion was not a Covenant of Grace, or Faith, and therefore doth not concern the Infant-Seed of believing Gentiles.
1. I argue thus: That Covenant that was made to ſeparate the Natural Seed of Abraham from all other Nations of the World, and made ſure unto them the Earthly Promiſe of the Poſſeſſion of the Land of Canaan, could not be a Covenant of Grace, which concerns the Infant-Seed of Believers under the Goſpel.
But the Covenant of Circumciſion was made to ſeparate the Natural Seed of Abraham from all other Nations of the World, and made ſure unto them the Earthly Promiſe of the Poſſeſſion of the Land of Canaan: Ergo, The Covenant of Circumciſion could not be a Covenant of Grace, which concerns the Infants of Believers under the Goſpel.
The Major cannot be denied, becauſe the Goſpel, or ſecond Covenant is eſtabliſh'd upon no ſuch Earthly Promiſes as the Covenant of Circumciſion was, not that we ſhould have an Earthly Kingdom, or poſſeſs the Land of Canaan; but it is eſtabliſhed on better Promiſes than theſe, as Heb. 8. 6. Alſo if that Covenant concern'd us, or our Children, who are Gentiles, then the Gentiles had equal Right to that Earthly Inheritance; and then were not the Natural Seed of Abraham ſeparated from all other People upon the account of that Earthly Bleſſing as their Poſſeſſion only.
As to the Minor, ſee Gen. 17. I will eſtabliſh my Covenant between me and thee, ver. 7. And I will give unto thee, and thy Seed after thee, the Land wherein thou art a Stranger, all the Land of Canaan for an everlaſting Poſſeſſion; and I will be thy God, ver. 8. 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, ver. 10.
1ſt. There were ſome who were circumciſed, to whom the Promiſe of the Goſpel-Covenant God made with Abraham did not belong, as Iſhmael, Eſau, &c. God expreſly ſaid, that his Covenant (i. e. the Covenant of Grace) was not eſtabliſh'd with Iſhmael, but with Iſaac, and yet the Covenant of Circumciſion belonged to Iſhmael as well as to Iſaac. See Gen. 17. 20, 21. As for Iſhmael, I have heard thee: behold. I have bleſſed him, &c. But my Covenant will I eſtabliſh with Iſaac, whom Sarah ſhall bear unto thee, &c. Compare this with Rom. 7. 8, 9. Not becauſe they are the Seed of Abraham, are they all Children: that is, Children of the Covenant of Grace, or the Children of God; but the Children of the Promiſe are co…d for thy Seed: See Gal 4. 29, 30. Nay, all that were in Abraham's Houſe, whether born there or Strangers, or ſuch who were bought with his Money, were circumcited: But will you ſay, all theſe were in the Goſpel-Covenant God made with him?
Moreover, there were other Perſons in Abraham's Houſe, who no doubt might ſome of them be in the Covenant of Grace, and had the Promiſes belonging to them, who were nevertheleſs not circumciſed, namely, the Females; alſo Male-Infants dying before the eighth day coming from Abraham. Moreover, other Godly Men who were not of Abraham's Family, yet lived in his time, as Melchiſedec, Lot, Job &c. none of theſe had right to be circumciſed. But if any object, and ſay, the Females were circumciſed in the Males: I anſwer with Mr. Tombs, it is without Proof; and by like, nay perhaps greater Reaſon it may be ſaid, that the Children of Believers are baptized in the Perſons of their Parents, and therefore are not to be baptized in their own Perſons. Alſo 'tis apparent that the Jews comprehended in that Covenant made with Abraham, and circumciſed accordingly, were nevertheleſs not admitted to Baptiſm upon that root of account; which, had the Covenant of Circumciſion been a Goſpel-Covenant, i. e. of the ſame nature, I ſee no Reaſon why …ohn Baptiſt ſhould deny their Argument, i. e. We are Abraham's Seed, &c. Hence it plainly appears, that the right Evangelical Promiſes were not the adequate … o… Circumciſion; but, as I have before ſaid, … Precept or expreſs command of God to Abraham And from hence I ſhall infer this third Argument.
A…g. 3. That Covenant that was made with, or did belou, unto the Fleſhly Seed of Abraham, and ungodly ones as well as the godly, was not a Covenant of Grace, or Goſpel-Covenant.
But the Covenant of Circumciſion was made with, or did belong to the Fleſhly Seed of Abraham, as Iſhmael, Eſau, and all the Lineal Seed of Abraham, who were ungodly, as well as to the godly: Ergo, The Covenant of Cirumciſion was not a Covenant of Grace, or Goſpel-Covenant.
Arg. 4 If all who are in the Covenant of Grace, or Goſpel-Covenant, do know the Lord from the greateſt to the leaſt of them; then the Covenant of Circumciſion could not be the Covenant of Grace, or Goſpel-Covenant.
But all who are in the Covenant of Grace, or Goſpel-Covenant, do know the Lord from the greateſt to the leaſt of them: Ergo, The Covenant of Circumciſion was not the Covenant of Grace.
This Argument is fully proved by that in Jer. 31. 32; 33, 34 ſpeaking of the new Covenant which God would make with the Houſe of Iſrael, which ſhould not be according to the old, he goes on and tells us what God would do in the Goſpel-day. That he would put his Law into their inward Parts, and write it in their Hearts. And they ſhall teach no more every Man his Neighbour, and every Man his Brother, ſaying, Know the Lord; for they ſhall all know me, from the leaſt of them unto the greateſt of them, ſaith the Lord, &c.
And indeed in this very reſpect the Goſpel-Covenant is not according to the old, as the Lord ſaid it ſhould not be, as well as in divers other caſes: For many of thoſe who were in the old Covenant (to which Circumciſion did appertain) were Infants, though all of them were not taken in by Circumciſion; for Female Infants were received into that old Covenant without it. Now theſe Children who were taken into Covenant, did not know the Lord: Infants having no Underſtanding, know not their Righthand from their Left, it is therefore impoſſible they ſhould know the Lord; and therefore there was a neceſſity, after they were in that Covenant, that they ſhould be taught to know the Lord: Firſt, That God is, and what a God he is, and ſo to know him as to fear him, and ſerve him in Sincerity.
But in the Goſpel-Covenant God promiſed it ſhould be otherwiſe, all who were received into that Covenant ſhould be Adult Perſons, or ſuch who did know the Lord: which plainly implies no ignorant Infant ſhould be taken into that Covenant, and be a Member of that Church-State; for it ſo, then it would follow, ſuch would have the like need to be taught to know the Lord, as they had in the old Covenant Church State. And remarkable it is, that this Text doth clearly intimate, that all who ſhould be taken into the Goſpel-Covenant, or Goſpel-Church, ſhould be diſcipled or taught, firſt to know God; for to be taught or diſcipled is all one and the ſame thing, which agrees with Chriſt's great Commiſſion, Mat. 28. 19, 20. where he gave Direction: who, or what kind of Perſons they were to be that he would have his Apoſtles receive into his Goſpel-Church; and that they ſhould be all of them, firſt taught, or made Diſciples, and, as ſuch, be baptized, is clearly declared. Now that this Text in Jer. 31. refers to the Goſpel-Covenant is evident. ſee Heb. 8. 7, 8, 9, 10.
Arg. 5. That Covenant that was a part or branch of the old Covenant, or Covenant of Works, was not a Covenant of Grace, or Goſpel-Covenant.
But the Covenant of Circumciſion was a part or branch of the old Covenant, or Covenant of Works; Ergo, The Covenant of Circumciſion was not a Covenant of Grace, or Goſpel-Covenant.
The Major cannot be denied.
The Minor is eaſily proved. That which bound or obliged all thoſe who were under it, or did it, to keep the whole Law, and was alſo abrogated, or taken away by Chriſt, with all the other Rites and Shadows of the old Covenant, was a part or branch of the ſaid old Covenant. But Circumciſion bound or obliged all who were circumciſed to keep the whole Law, and alſo the ſame Rite of Circumciſion was abrogated, with all other Rites and Shadows of the old Covenant by Chriſt: Ergo, Circumciſion was a part or branch of the old Covenant; ſee Gal. 5. 3. I teſtify to every Man that is circumciſed, that he is a Debtor to keep the whole Law.
Arg. 6. The Covenant which was in its nature and quality as much a Covenant of Works, as that made with Adam, or the Sinai-Covenant, was not a Covenant of Grace, or Goſpel-Covenant, whereof Chriſt is the Mediator.
But the Covenant of Circumciſion was in its nature and quality as much a Covenant of Works, as that Covenant made with Adam, or the Sinai-Covenant: Ergo, The Covenant of Circumciſion was not a Covenant of Grace, or Goſpel-Covenant. Read Reverend Mr. Philip Cary's Defence and Proof of the Subſtance of this Argument, in his juſt Reply to Mr. John Flavel, p. 59, 60. Thus he ſays (and doubtleſs ſpeaks the Truth) viz.
That Adam's Covenant was a Covenant of Works, cannot rationally be denied; for as much as Life was implicitly promiſed to him on his Obedience, and Death was explicitly threatned in caſe of Diſobedience; upon theſe Terms he was to ſtand or fall. And that the Sinai-Covenant was of the ſame nature, he hath in the ſaid Treatiſe clearly proved, both of them requiring perfect Obedience, and neither of them admitting of Faith in a Redeemer. The Sinai Covenant commanded perfect Obedience under the pain of a Curſe; Curſed is every one that continueth not in all things that are written in the Book of the Law, to do them; Gal. 3. 10.
It accepted (as he ſhews) of no ſhort Endeavours, nor gave any Strength, and is called a Miniſtration of Death and of Condemnation, 2 Cor. 3. And moreover 'tis called in expreſs Terms, the old Covenant which God made with the Children of Iſrael when he brought them up out of the Land of Egypt, Heb. 8. 9. Alſo the new Covenant is ſaid to be directly contrary unto it, or not according to it, but oppoſed thereto, and that there was no Righteouſneſs by it, nor Life: for, as the Apoſtle ſhews, if there had, Chriſt is dead in vain; and beſides, the Apoſtle ſays 'tis done away. Now all theſe things being conſidered, Mr. Flavel 'tis evident doth but beat the Air, and darken Counſel; and all that he hath ſaid in his laſt Book in Anſwer to that worthy Gentleman Mr. Cary, deſerves no farther Anſwer.
Now, ſaith he, that the Covenant of Circumciſion is of the ſame ſtamp, is evident: for tho God promiſed to be a God to Abraham and to his Seed, Gen. 17. 7, 8. as he did alſo in the Sinai-Covenant to the ſame People in the Wilderneſs; yet ſtill it was on condition of Obedience, with an anſwerable Threatning in caſe of Diſobedience; Ver. 9, 10. 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 ſhall be circumciſed. Ver. 14. The uncircumciſed Male Child, whoſe Fleſh of his Foreskin is not circumciſed, that Soul ſhall be cut off from his People: he hath broken my Covenant. The ſame Terms, ſaith he, with the former. Beſides, 'tis evident that Circumciſion indiſpenſably oblig'd all that were under it to a perfect univerſal Obedience to the whole revealed Will o… God, a …ed before, Gal. 5. 3.
And as the Term were the ſame, ſo were the Promiſes; that which was the great Promiſe of the Covenant of Circumciſion, was the Land of Canaan, and God to be their God, in fulfilling that Earthly Promiſe to Abraham's Natural Seed, upon the Condition of keeping that Covenant on their parts.
That which Mr. Flavel hath ſaid in his laſt Reply (in his Book, called, A ſuccinct and ſeaſonable Diſcourſe) to Mr. Cary, is mainly to prove that there is but one Covenant of Works p 217, 218, &c.
To which I anſwer by way of Conceſſion; yet you muſt ſay, that Covenant had ſeveral Miniſtrations, and Additions, as had alſo the Covenant of Grace; becauſe the Covenant of Works was made with Adam, by which he ſtood in the time of his innocency juſtified and accepted by virtue thereof.
Could not God give ſuch a ſecond Miniſtration or Tranſcript of his righteous and holy Law, tho not to Juſtification, yet to aggravate his Sin, and to his juſt Condemnation? And doth not St. Paul aſſert the ſame thing? Rom. 3 1…, 20, compared with Rom. 7. 13. That Sin by the Commandment (or Law) might become exceeding ſinful: So Gal. 3. 19. Nay, I will … always when the Scriptures of the New Teſtament ſpeak of the old Covenant, or firſt Covenant, or Covenant of Works, it paſſes by in ſilence the Covenant made with Adam, and more immediately and directly applies to the Sinai Covenant, and to the Covenant of Circumciſion, as all careful Readers, who read the Epiſtles to the Romans, Galatians, and to the Hebrews, may clearly find. But to proceed; Tho we ſay there is but one Covenant of Grace, yet it is evident there were ſeveral diſtinct Miniſtrations of it, or Additions to it; and we ſay, the Promiſe of the Goſpel, or Goſpel-Covenant, was the ſame in all Ages, in reſpect of things promiſed, with the nature and quality thereof, which is a …ree and abſolute Covenant, without Works, or any Conditions or foreſeen A…s of Righteousneſs, or any thing to be done by the Creature, Rom. 4. 5. The Subſtance and Eſſential Part of this Covenant is Chriſt Faith, a new Heart, Regeneration, Remiſſion of Sins, Sanctification, Preſervation, and Everlaſting Life. Yet this Evangelical Covenant had divers Forms or Tranſcripts of it, which …ified thoſe things, and various Sanctions by which it was given forth and confirmed. To Adam the Promiſe was made, under the Name of the Seed of the Women bruiſing the Head of the Serpent; to Enoch, Noah, &c. in other Forms; to Abraham, under the Name of his Seed, in whom all the Nations of the Earth ſhould be bleſſed; to Moſes; by the Name of a great Prophet of his Brethren like unto him; and it was alſo ſignified to him under dark Shadows and Sacrifices: unto David under the Name of a Succeſſor in his Kingdom: In the New Teſtament in plain words, We all, with open face, beholding as in a Glaſs the Glory of the Lord; 2 Cor. 3. 18.
But now, becauſe there were ſo many Additions of the Goſpel-Promiſe and new Covenant, are there ſo many new Covenants? This being ſo, Mr. Flavel hath done nothing to remove Mr. Cary's Arguments, but they ſtand as a Rock. Take another of them.
Arg. 7. That Covenant in which Faith was not reckoned to Abraham or Righteouſneſs, could not be a Goſpel-Covenant, or a Covenant of Grace:
But the Scripture is expreſs, that Faith was not reckoned to Abraham for Righteouſneſs when he was circumciſed, but in Uncircumciſion, Rom. 4. 9, 10.
Ergo, The Covenant of Circumciſion was not a Goſpel-Covenant, or a Covenant of Grace.
Arg. 8 That Law or Covenant which is contradiſtinguiſhed, or oppoſed to the Righteouſneſs of Faith, could not be a Covenant of Faith, or a Gospel-Covenant.
But the Law or Covenant of Circumciſion is by the Apoſtle plainly oppoſed to, or contradiſtinguiſhed unto the Righteouſneſs of Faith, Rom. 4. 13.
Ergo, The Law or Covenant of Circumciſion was not a Goſpel-Covenant. And from hence Mr. Cary argues thus, By the way, ſaith he, let it be obſerved, in reference to the two foregoing Arguments which I have already proved, that that Covenant that is not of Faith, muſt be a Covenant of Works, there being no Medium betwixt them, and consequently muſt be the ſame for Subſtance with that made with Adam, and that on Mount Sinai with the Children of Iſrael.
Arg. 9. That Covenant that is plainly repreſented to us in Scripture as a Bondage-Covenant, in and by which there was impoſed ſuch a Yoke upon the Necks of the Jews, which neither thoſe in the Apoſtles time, nor their Fathers were able to bear, could be no other than a Covenant of Works, and not of Grace.
But the Scriptures do plainly repreſent ſuch was the nature of the Covenant of Circumciſion, Acts 15. 10. Gal. 5. 1, 2, 3. Ergo, The Covenant of Circumciſion was not a Goſpel-Covenant, but a Covenant of Works. Thus Mr. Cary argues alſo: And thus we have proved from God's Word, and ſound Arguments, that the Covenant of Circumciſion was not a Goſpel-Covenant.
Object. But leſt any ſhould think that we ſhut out all dying Infants from having any Benefit by Chriſt.
Anſw. I anſwer, I doubt not but God might comprehend them in-that glorious Covenant or Compact made between him and, our Surety in the Covenant of Redemption: But, as I ſaid before, ſecret things belong to God.
But let me here add one word or two further, i. e. Circumciſion, you ſay, was a Privilege: ſo we ſay too, but not ſuch a Privilege as you do imagine.
1. It doth profit as a Privilege, becauſe it was given as a Token or a Sign to Abraham's Natural Seed, that they ſhould have the Land of Canaan for an everlaſting Poſſeſſion.
2. As a Token or Sign to them of the giving forth of the Law on Mount Sinai. He dealt his Laws and Statutes to Iſrael, he did not ſo to any other Nation; this Rite could not therefore be a Goſpel-Rite, nor the Covenant it was a Sign of a Goſpel-Covenant, in which the Gentile Chriſtians are concern'd. And thus Paul argues, Rom. 31. What Advantage then hath the Jew? or what Profit is there in Circumciſion? Ver. 2. Much every way; chiefly, becauſe unto them were committed the Oracles of God. You may ſoon know the nature of that Covenant made with Abraham's Natural Seed, and of Circumciſion which was a Sign of it; the chiefeſt Privilege which attended it, was the giving to them, i. e. the People of Iſrael, the Law of the Ten Commandments.
3. Circumciſion, by the Doctrine of St. Paul, was a Privilege if they kep: the Law: For Circumciſion verily profiteth, if thou keepeſt the Law; but if thou be a Breaker of the Law, thy Circumciſion is made Uncircumciſion, or a Nullity, and profiteth thee nothing; that is, if thou keep not the Law perfectly. And thus ſpeak our late Annotators on the place, If thou [Jew] keep the Law perfectly, to which Circumciſion obligeth, Gal. 5. 3. If otherwiſe thou tranſgreſſeſt the Law, thy Circumciſion availeth thee nothing, it gives thee no Privilege above the uncircumciſed. What is now become (this being ſo) of that mighty Privilege Abraham's Seed (as ſuch) had by Circumciſion, if the chief Profit or Privilege was, becauſe unto them the Land ſhould be given, which could not give Life, but was a Covenant of Works? then the chiefeſt Profit lay not in it, as it was an Ordinance of Initiation into the Church: ſure, had Paul been of the Judgment of Pedo-baptiſts, he would have rather paſt by that Privilege, when he ſpoke of Circumciſion, which he calls the chief, and have ſaid, chiefly in that it was a Seal of Church-Memberſhip. But ſince he ſpeaks the quite contrary, who ſhall we believe, you, or the great Apoſtle of the Gentiles? And evident it is, he confirms the ſame Doctrine, Gal. 5. 3. For I teſtify to every Man that is circumciſed, that he is a Debtor to keep the whole Law. And hence 'tis ſaid to be a Yoke of Bondage which neither they nor their Fathers could bear, Acts 15. becauſe it obliged them to univerſal O…edience, or to keep the Law perfectly, and brought them under a Curſe if they did not, Gal. 3. 10.
Theſe things conſidered, fully ſhew of what ſtamp and nature Circumcition was, together with that Covenant to which it did appertain.
You ſav the Covenant made with Abraham did include Spiritual Bleſſings.
And I grant the Covenant of Grace made with Abraham principally included Spiritual Bleſſings; but the Covenant with his Natural Seed, as ſuch, did not include Spiritual Bleſſings: All Spiritual Bleſſings are made in Chriſt, and to none but to the Elect in him. Moreover, we deny not but the Covenant of Circumciſion was made as well with Abraham's Spiritual Seed that ſprang from his Loins, as unto his Carnal Seed; and ſo Circumciſion and the Land of Canaan were of uſe to his Spiritual Seed, as the one typified the Circumciſion of the Heart, and the other the Celeſtial Reſt.
You ſay that Infants were always in the Covenant of Grace; and to proveit, you mention Act. 2 38, 39. Repent, and be baptized every one os you, &c. For the Promiſe is to you, and to your Children, &c.
Anſw. Do we deny that the Promiſe of Pardon and of the holy Spirit doth belong to our Children or Off-ſpring that …o believe, or are called by the Lord? We grant it readily, but we do deny that this Promiſe here refers to our Seed as ſuch. Dr. Taylor, late Biſhop of Down, on this Text ſays,
And to your Children, that is, to you and to your Poſterity, to you and to your Children, when they are of the ſame Capacity in which you are, effectually receptive of the Promiſe; but (ſaith he) if whenever the word [Children] is uſed in Scripture, we ſhould by Children underſtand Infants, we muſt believe that in all Iſrael there were no Men, but all …ere Infants; and if that had been true, it had been the greater Wonder they ſhould overcome the Anakims, and beat the King of Moab, and march ſo far, and diſcourſe ſo well, for they were all called the Children of Israel
The Promiſe appertains not to Infants in that Capacity and Conſiſtence, but only by the Title of their being Reaſonable Creatures, and when they come to act Faith, of which by Nature they have the Faculty. If it did, yet Baptiſm (ſaith he) is not the Means of conveying the Holy Ghoſt; for when Peter ſays, Repent and be baptized, and ye ſhall receive the holy Spirit, it ſignifies no more than this; Firſt, Be baptized, and then by Impoſition of Hands, &c. which was another Myſtery and Rite, ye ſhall receive the Promiſe of the Father, &c. But then, ſaith he, from hence to argue, that whereever there is a Capacity of receiving the ſame Grace, there alſo the ſame Sign is to be adminiſtred, and from hence to inſer Pedo-baptiſm, is an argument very fall… cious, upon ſeveral Grounds. 1. Becauſe Baptiſm is not the Sign of the Holy Ghoſt, but by another Myſtery, it was conveyed ordinarily and extraordinarily, (that is, by laying on of Hands, as the Doctor mentioned before). 2. If the Suppoſition were true, the Propoſition built upon it is falſe; for, ſaith he, they that were capable of the ſame Grace, are not always capable of the ſame Sign; for Women under the Law of Moſes, altho they were capable of the Righteouſneſs of Faith, yet they were not capable of the Sign of Circumciſion; for God doth not always convey his Grace in the ſame manner.
Thus far Reverend Dr. Jer. Taylor, Lib. of Proph. p. 234, 235.
For what the Biſhop hath ſaid anſwers all you affirm on this Text for Infants Baptiſm. The Promiſe of the Spirit we grant runs to Believers, and to all their believing Seed and Off-ſpring, be they Jews or Gentiles; and this Text proves nothing more. It did not belong to the Jews Seed, as ſuch, but only to their Children that did believe, and ſo it doth to the Gentiles, that were ſometimes afar off, that believe, and to their Children that God ſhall alſo call, as he doth call their Parents.
That which you ſeem to affirm from this Text is this, viz. that there is ſuch a Covenant made with Gentile Believers, and with every particular Believer, and his Carnal Seed, as God made with Abraham, which is ſtrange Divinity. We have proved that there was a Covenant of Peculiarity made with Abraham and his Natural Seed, to which Circumciſion did belong, and by virtue of that Covenant, as appertaining to the Fleſh. There was under the Law a knowing of Men, the Jews in that Legal and External Covenant had the Preference above the Gentiles; but that Covenant is taken away, and that Partition Wall is pulled do…n, and now the Jews have no Advantage upon that account above the Gentiles, or the Gentiles above the Jews, old things being paſſed away, and old Church State and Church-Memberſhip gone; ſo that all you ſay upon this Scripture and Argument ſignifies nothing.
And remarkable 'tis that Peter ſpake theſe words to the Jews, The Promiſe is to you and your Children, &c. But to ſay, the Promiſe runs to them and to their Infants, as to Baptiſm and Church-Memberſhip under the Goſpel, as Circumciſion and Legal Church-Memberſhip did under the Law, is notoriouſly faiſe; none of the Jews Children were allowed Baptiſm, or received into the Goſpel-Church, but only ſuch that did believe, nor of the Gentiles neither; when their Children believe, or are called, then they may be baptized, and they have right to the Promiſe of the holy Spirit.
The Promiſe and Bleſſing of Abraham, you ſay, comes on the Gentiles through Chriſt, and by Faith, therefore, ſay I, not in a fleſhly Line, and by Birth-Privilege
You ſay, Abraham's Bleſſing was not Perſonal unto him and unto his Seed, this Bleſſing came upon the believing Gentiles, therefore, ſay you, it muſt come on the Faithful, and on their Seed; for it cannot be termed Abraham's Bleſſing if it come not upon the Gentiles in an eſſential form to Abraham's Covenant; that is, I will be a God unto thee, and to thy Seed, unleſs this Bleſſing come upon the Gentiles in the ſame manner, and in the ſame Enlargement, it being not Abraham's Bleſſing, but a part of it, being cut in the middle. I will be a God to you Gentiles, but not to your Seed; is this Abraham's Bleſſing, how unlike to it? there is a great difference between an Eſtate ſettled on a real Man, and that being alſo ſettled on his Children.
Anſw. 1. You talk …s if you were ignorant what Abraham's Bleſſing w…s, the Bleſſing of Abraham was not the External Privileges of the Covenant of Grace (which it ſeems is all you plead f…r about your Infant Seed) but the ſpiritu…l Part an… Bleſſing of the Covenant, namely, Juſtification, Pardon of Sin, Adoption, and Eternal Life.
2▪ As to Abraham's Seed, doth not the Apoſtle tell you, that, To Ab…aham and to his Seed the Promiſe was made: He ſaith not, to Seeds, as of many, but to thy Seed, which is Chriſt; Gal 3 16 Now you contend for Seeds, as of many, even to all the fleſhly Seed of Abraham, and fleſhly Seed of all Believers Sir, no Gentiles but ſuch as are Chriſt's, … …braham's Seed; none but ſuch that believe, and h…ve Abraham's Faith.
The …nheri…ance, which is God to be our God by way of ſpecial Intereſt, … ſettled upon all Believers, and their Children that have the ſame Faith, not their Carnal Seed as ſuch, but only God's Elect Ones.
3. I have proved (it is true) that there was a Legal and External Covenant made with Abraham, and his Fleſhly Seed, in which Covenant God was ſaid to be the God of the whole Houſe of Iſrael, and was bound to them; but that Covenant is aboliſhed and the new Covenant is not according to that, but quite different, the Fleſhly Seed are not in a Relative External Covenant: … Chriſt's Goſpel-Church is not National. This being conſidered, it appears, that wh…t you ſay concerning Abraham being the Father of the Gentiles, ſignifies nothing for your purpoſe; for he was not the Father of any Gentiles, but of ſuch that believe in Chriſt, or Elect Ones; and this you ſeem to acknowledg in theſe words, viz. the believing Gentiles are a Seed to Abraham, Gal. 3. 29. But, Sir, what's this to the Buſineſs? prove if you can, that the▪ fleſhly Seed of Gentile Believers, as ſuch, are a Seed to Abraham, for 'tis that which we utterly deny, and on that foot of account the whole Controverſy depends. You ſay the Children of the Fleſh are not accounted to be the Children of God, when they break their Covenant with God; and John Baptiſt calleth ſuch a Generation of Vipers.
Anſw. 1. This is the ſenſe of the Apoſtle, ſtrange! Can thoſe that are the Children of the Covenant of Grace, ceaſe to be ſuch? May the Children of God degenerate into Dogs, Wolves, and Vipers? I thought that ſuch as are God's Children, or Heirs according to the promiſed Covenant of Grace made with Abraham can never ceaſe being the Children of God; how elſe is the Promiſe ſure to all Abraham's Spiritual Seed? Do not all the Children of God partake of God's Divine Nature, and are not they all Heirs of God? Are you an Arminian? Do you plead for final falling out of God's Covenant, or from a State of t…ue Grace? that muſt follow what you ſay here, or your Argument is gone and loſt for ever.
2. Reader, 'tis plain that Iſhmael, Eſau, &c. and many more of Abraham's Natural Seed, nay all, as ſuch, or …s ſo ſimply conſidered, were not accounted for his Spiritual Seed, or the Children of God, but only ſuch that are God's Elect Ones, or ſuch as believe in Chriſt: and 'tis plain that none of the true Children of God can degenerate ſo as to ceaſe being his Children; I mean, they cannot fall totally and finally from a State of Grace, and become Vipers, &c. as Mr. Owen acknowledges ſome of Abraham's Seed did, which clearly ſhews that thoſe Jews never were in the Covenant of Grace God made with Abraham; But, ſay you, they were nevertheleſs in the outward Diſpenſation of God's Covenant, &c.
Anſw. 1. True, the Privileges of Abraham's Natural Seed, as ſuch, were great, as to outward Rites and Prerogatives; the Covenant did appertain to them [mark it!] (Covenants) there were two Covenants, 'tis not ſaid Covenant. 1. They had right to all the External Privileges of the Legal Covenant; and the outward Diſpenſation of the Goſpel, and Adoption by Faith was firſt to be offered unto them, but neither they nor their Children, as ſuch, had right to Juſtification, Adoption, &c. or any outward Rite or Sacrament of the Goſpel; no, not until they did believe, and had the things ſignified in the Sacrament. But,
2 That Covenant that gave Abraham's Natural Seed, as ſuch, a Prerogative above the Gentiles, was that Partition-Wall that is now broken down, (… antea) i. e. that Covenant is aboliſhed, and Jews and Gentiles ſtand now upon equal ground; here are not fleſhly Privileges now that one hath above the other; no knowing of Men nor things after the Flesh, or by Birth in a fleſhly way, through or by reaſon of an Externa Covenant, as under the Law. You argue as many … have done before you, Children of Believers were once in Covenant, who dares be ſo bold as to ſay they are caſt out?
Answ. 1 … being once Members of the Jewiſh Church both not prove they were ever Members of the Goſpel Church: The Male Infants of God's Prieſts under the old …ov…an, when grown up, had other Privileges, if we muſt …all …umciſion … Privilege, which the Sons of Chriſts Miniſters have no right to under the Goſpel, and yet no where in expreſs words in the New Teſtament excluded from that Privilege.
2. But I have proved the Covenant for Infants Incovenanting under the Law, was no Goſpel-Covenant and ſo concern not … Infant.
3. According to that Maxim, Omnis privatio intimat habitum; you know that every Diſpoſſeſſion implieth a Poſſeſſion: Infants therefore cannot … caſt out of the Goſpel-Church, … one they can be proved they were admitted. If you or an… Man living can tell us in what viſible Adminiſtration h… were admitted hurch Members before Abraham's days, which was above 2000 Years, you ſay ſomewhat: you … they were always in Covenant.
Mr. … makes mention of a two… Covenant. 1. In relation to El…ion. 2. To … in Covenant in fa…ie viſibilis Eccleſiae. To this I answer; The Covenant of Circumciſion belonged to the Children of the Fleſh, to Ihmael, and Eſau, as well as …, who were not in the Election of Grace: therefore all thoſe who were circum…iſed were not ſo in Covenant. Children of Unbelievers may be in that ſenſe in Covenant as well as Children of Believers, as many of them afterwards prove to be, nay may be more of them than of the Children of Believers.
2. As touching Infants being in Covenant in facie viſibilis Eccleſiae, in the face of a viſible Church. I anſwer; Tho they were ſo in all the Jewiſh Churches under the old Covenant, ſome with Circumciſion were brought in, and ſome without it; yet that Covenant and Covenant-Seed are (as I have and ſhall yet prove) caſt out, which will be a final Anſwer.
Thus I argue;
If the Covenant for incovenanting of Infants was the old Covenant ſignified by Hagar, and that Covenant-Seed ſignified by Iſhmael are caſt out; then the Natural or Fleſhly Seed of Believers are caſt out, or not to be admitted into the Goſpel-Church.
But the Covenant for incovenanting of Infants was the old Covenant ſignified by Hagar, and that Covenant-Seed ſignified by Iſhmael are caſt out.
Ergo, The Natural or Fleſhly Seed of Believers are caſt out, or not to be admitted into the Goſpel-Church. See Gal. 4. 22, 23, 24, 25, 26. For it is written that Abraham had two Sons, the one by a Bond-woman, the other by a Free-woman. Ver. 24. Which things are an Allegory; for theſe are the two Covenants; the one from Mount Sinai, which gendereth to Bondage, which is Hagar, &c. Ver. 30. Nevertheleſs, what ſaith the Scripture? Caſt out the Bond-woman and her Son▪ for the Son of the Bond-woman ſhall not be Heir with the Son of the Free-woman.
1. By Hagar is meant, all agree, the old Covenant; and by caſting her out, is held forth the aboliſhing, or taking away of the old Covenant. He took away the firſt, that he might eſtabliſh the ſecond; Heb. 10. 9.
2. By Iſhmael is meant the Natural Seed of Abraham, and ſo the Natural Seed of all Godly Men of his Race that ſucceeded him, who were Members of that Church. And as the late Annotators note, by this place is ſignified the total Deſtruction of the Jewiſh Church, which conſiſted of Parents and their Children, or the whole Nation of Iſrael. This Church and Church-Seed, and manner of Church-Memberſhip is caſt out and gone for ever.
We ſay that Children were once admitted Members of the Jewiſh Church; but evident it is, that God hath now quite pulled down, and razed that Houſe to the Foundation thereof, I mean that National Church of the Jews, and broke up Houſe-keeping, and turned the Bond-woman and her Son, i. e. the Fleſhly Seed or Natural Off-ſpring of Abraham, out of Doors; the natural Branches are broken off, and God hath now built him a new and more glorious, and Spiritual Houſe under the Goſpel, into which he admitted none as his Houſhold Servants, to dwell in this his Spiritual Family, or Goſpel Church, but Believers only, or ſuch as profeſs themſelves ſo to be. Ye, ſaith St. 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 Privileges of it are aboliſhed, or pulled down, and a new own built and ſet up, into which Infants are not to be admitted, is very evident: Heb. 7. 12. For the Prieſthood being changed, there is made of neceſſity a Change alſo of the whole Law, which muſt needs include Circumciſion, with all Appurtenances and Privileges belonging to it. And therefore as Infant Church-Memberſhip came in with the Law of Circumciſion, and as a direct part of the old Covenant or old Law; ſo likewiſe plain it is that it went out, and was diſannulled with it.
Take again my former Simily, viz. What Privileges ſoever are given to any Perſon by an Act of Parliament, which ſaid Law was to continue ſo long in force and no longer, than when that time was expired; and another Parliament makes a new Law, where many things are contained that were in the laſt Law, but thoſe divers Privileges given to thoſe Perſons in the former Law are left out in this latter Act: would it not be a piece of Folly for any of them to plead thoſe Privileges by virtue of a Law that is gone, and now not in any force? But to come a little nearer the caſe in a more apt Simily: Suppoſe a Man ſhould have a Legacy bequeathed to him by the Will and Teſtament of his Friend, and yet afterwards his Friend ſees good to make another Will, which is his laſt Will and Teſtament, and in this laſt Will and Teſtament he leaves him quite out, not mentioning his Name, bequeathing no ſuch Legacy to him; would it not be Folly in him to ſue for that Legacy left him in the firſt Will and Teſtament?
Sir, the Caſe is thus in hand, we read of two Covenants or Teſtaments, an old and a new, a firſt and a ſecond. Now in the old Will or old Teſtament, Infants were admitted to this Privilege of Church-Memberſhip in that Legal or National Church of the Jews; and National Church-Privileges are now made null and void by the Goſpel-Covenant, which is Chriſt's laſt Will and Teſtament, in which Infant Church-Memberſhip is quite left out, their Names not being mentioned, as having right to any Goſpel-Ordinance, as Baptiſm, the Lord's-Supper, &c.
If we would know the Mind of God herein, we muſt of neceſſity have recourſe to Chriſt's laſt Will and Teſtament. Since the Goſpel is ſo called, and that the firſt or old one is taken away, and there is no Man can prove any one old Rite that did appertain to the Natural Off-ſpring of Abraham, or Believers, remains to them, which is not mentioned in the new of laſt Will or Teſtament of Jeſus Chriſt; 'tis plain they had (or leaſtwiſe ſome of them) other external Privileges beſides that of Circumciſion, and yet I ſee no Man contend for any one Rite, but only this they call the Seal of the Covenant. Why might not Miniſters plead for all their Sons to have right to the Miniſtry, ſince that Privilege was given them in the Old Teſtament; and that all Male-Children that open the Womb to be holy to the Lord, which Bleſſings belonged to them under the Law, and alſo plead for the Tenths and Firſt-fruits? &c.
I deſire you and all Pedo-baptiſts carefully to conſider and weigh what I have ſaid; I have ſhew'd you and them how Infants, who were once in Covenant, i. e. in the Jewiſh or old Covenant, are caſt out, or left out; for indeed they were never admitted into the New Teſtament-Church; but ſince they are not put in, and the old Covenant, and old Church-Memberſhip are caſt out and gone, in vain it is for any to plead their Right by an abrogated Law. Beſides,
You ſay, Circumciſion was the Seal of that Covenant, by virtue of which Infants had Right to Church Memberſhip: if ſo, 'tis evident that Covenant is gone, becauſe 'tis cancelled; for the tearing off, or breaking off the Seal, we all look upon as cancelling a Covenant.
That Circumciſion (the Seal as you call it) is broken off, I am ſure you cannot deny; Sir, what is then become of your Covenant for incovenanting Children?
Object. But may be you will object and ſay, that you do not contend for that particular Rite or Inſtitution of a viſible Church-Memberſhip of Infants, perpetual in all Ages, and an indefinite Seal.
Reply 1. How doth it appear the Infants of the Godly before Abraham's time, had any Right to viſible Church-Memberſhip, or what Seal had they?
2. Such a Right is a meer Figment-like Idea Platonica. All Inſtitutions meerly poſitive are of ſuch Rite in particular, and an initial Seal is meerly poſitive, as Signs that are not natural, but by the Will of the Appointer; and therefore there is no initial Seal indefinite.
Sir, now you have no way left, but to ſee ſince the old Covenant is cancelled, whether you can find the Baptiſm of Infants in the New Teſtament, and there taught, laid down and prefix'd to it, as Circumciſion was to the Old? Do that and you do all; do not that, and all you do is juſt nothing. You with others ſeem to ſay that the Privileges of the Goſpel are ſtraiter and narrower than thoſe of the Law.
Answ. If you once imagine, that the outward or external Privileges of the Goſpel are larger, or ſo large as thoſe were under the Law, you are greatly miſtaken. The Jews and Jewiſh Teachers or Prieſts had many external Privileges, which Chriſtians and Miniſters under the Goſpel have not; they had a lovely Country promiſed to them, a Land that flowed with Milk and Honey: outward Peace, Riches, and gathering of Wealth, where Privileges belonged to them; but we under the Goſpel have no ſuch Privileges, but are to expect Perſecution, and what not? Yet our Privileges are better and greater, tho more ſpiritual; 'tis a Covenant eſtabliſhed upon better Promiſes: Our Children, when grown up, ſit under the clear and glorious Light of the Goſpel, which they and theirs then held forth but in dark Shadows.
Moreover, then the Church-ſtate was confined to the Natural Seed of Abraham, &c. but now all in all Nations who repent and believe the Goſpel; the poor Gentiles are now become fellow-Heirs indeed. Our ſpiritual Privileges do infinitely excel theirs, but not in Externals; now are greater Infuſions of the Holy Spirit.
O, Sir, what Privileges had the Gentiles or their Children then! is not the caſe mended with us?
Again, 'tis objected by ſome Pedo-baptiſts, If it were the Will of God, Infants under the Goſpel ſhould be reckoned as out of his Covenant who were in Covenant, then it follows, ſay they, that our Saviour was unfaithful, or forgetful to his Church, in that he never acquainted her with this Alteration; but not one word by way of Prohibition do we find in all the New Teſtament: from whence we may conclude, that Chriſt's not repealing the Practice of initiating Infants, nor forbidding their Admiſſion into the Church by Baptiſm, &c.
Anſw. 1. I anſwer, Had it been the Will of God that Infants ſhould under the Goſpel be admitted into the Church by Baptiſm, Chriſt, you might rather ſay, had been forgetful or unfaithful in not giving the leaſt Intimation of his Mind and Pleaſure therein, who declared all things plainly from the Father, and was faithful as a Son over his own Houſe.
2. That which is not contained in his laſt Will and Teſtament in this and other matters, is ſufficient to declare his Mind and Will in the Negative. And ſo you know 'tis in all laſt Wills and Teſtaments among Men, if it be not expreſſed in the Affirmative, it needs not be expreſſed in the Negative; and if not, becauſe 'tis not forbidden it may be done, ſo may an hundred things more; nay many Jewiſh Rites, and Popiſh Innovations too, for where are they forbid? The Sum therefore of my Anſwer is this: The Privileges, which are …ites, Ordinances, or Sacraments, are not ſo many as you would have, or ſo many as the Jews of old had; nor are they to be adminiſtred according as they fancy or approve of, or according to their Reaſonings, but according to God's expreſs Appointment. Rightly doth Mr. Ball in his—Book ſpeak, Poſit. 3, 4. pag. 38. But in whatſoever Circumciſion and Baptiſm do agree or differ, we muſt look to the Inſtitution, and neither ſtretch it wider, nor draw it narrower than the Lord had made it: for he is the Inſtituter of the Sacraments according to his good Pleaſure; and it is our part to learn of him, both to whom, how, and to what end the Sacraments are to be adminiſtred, how they agree and wherein they differ: In all which we muſt affirm nothing but what God hath taught us, and as he hath taught us.
Were it not thus, how could we deny or oppoſe the Papiſts ſeven Sacraments? or condemn Salt, Oil, Spittle to be uſed in Baptiſm, which they uſe in it, ſeeing theſe are not forbid? But well ſaith Tertullian, Is it lawful becauſe 'tis not forbidden? 'tis therefore unlawful becauſe 'tis not commanded.
'Tis further ſuggeſted by the Pedo-baptiſts by way of Objection, viz. That it lays a mighty Stumbling-block (I mean the Baptiſt Principle) in the way of the Jews Converſion to Chriſtianity: Will this, ſay they, encourage a Jew's Converſion to embrace the Religion of Jeſus, to tell him of the high and glorious Privileges that he ſhall be intereſted in himſelf upon his believing on him, but for his Children they are c…ſt out?
Anſw. Did this ſtumble them in the Apoſtolical Days, who were told that Circumciſion availed nothing, nor Uncircumciſion? The truth is, if Circumciſion availed nothing, but was a Yoke of Bondage, then why ſhould that ſtumble them? It might be a greater Stumbling-block in their way, to tell them their Church-ſtate, and all their Privileges are now gone, and now they muſt not look upon themſelves better than the Gentiles; no more Scepter in Judah, no Land of Canaan, no Temple, no High-Prieſt, the Levites Sons, as ſuch, now no more Miniſters, no Succeſſion of Prieſthood: What of all this, when they hear of better Privileges for them? and that their Infants who die may go to Heaven, tho not circumciſed, nor baptized? And if they live to be Men and Women, and do believe, (or God pleaſe to call them) the Promiſe of Pardon of Sin, and of the Holy Spirit is to them, and that they ſhall be ſaved Act. 2. 39. Are not they and all others told, that old things are paſſed away, and all things are become new? &c. 2 Cor. 5. 16. Wherefore henceforth we know no Man after the Fleſh. It ſeems then that heretofore there had been a knowledg of Perſons after the Fleſh, and 'tis plain there was, becauſe the Jews were of the Natural or Fleſhly Seed of Abraham, and were therefore all of them admitted to the Privilege of external Church-Memberſhip, while others were exempted: But we ſee the Apoſtle reſolves henceforth to diſclaim any ſuch Value, Eſteem, Preference, or Knowledg of them, or any others upon the account of meer fleſhly Deſcent: And to this very purpoſe immediately ſubjoins in the following Verſe, Therefore if any Man b… in Chriſt, he is a new Creature: old things now are paſt away, and all things are become new: the old Church and old Church-Memberſhip, Privileges, Rites and Ordinances; and a new Church-ſtate, new Ordinances, new Rites, a new Seed, and a new way of Introduction unto the Participation of Goſpel-Privileges and Church-Memberſhip; and if this ſhould ſtumble them, who can help it? we know they have ſtumbled upon as bad a Rock as this.
Moreover, denying Infants any Right to Goſpel-Ordinances, cannot fill the Mouths of Jewiſh Children with clamorous and paſſionate Complaints againſt Chriſtianity, becauſe they could not ſee Jewiſh Children had ſuch benefit by Circumciſion as you intimate: No, no, they muſt yield to the Sovereign Will of the great Lord, and plead for no more Privileges, nor any otherwiſe than he ſeems good to ordain and appoint.
I am ſure if what you and other Pedo-baptiſts ſay was true, it is enough to fill the Mouths of poor Unbelievers Children among us who are Gentiles, with clamorous Complaints againſt their Parents, if they did regard what you ſay; and doubtleſs there are more of them, I mean, more Children born of Ungodly Parents, than ſuch born of Godly Parents: And what may they ſay, and how may they expoſtulate their own Condition? Alas! alas! ſad is our State, our Parents were wicked and ungodly People, and we are by that means left of God; to us belongs no Covenant, no Sacraments, nor hopes of Mercy; God hath taken none but the Children of godly Perſons into Covenant! We are baptized, alas! but had no right to it; our Condition is as bad as the State of the Children of Pagans and Turks! Sir, if People did conſider well the Purport of this Doctrine, they muſt needs have their Hearts riſe againſt all the Broachers of it: Nay, all or moſt Children may be in doubt, whether their Parents were truly Godly, and ſo in Covenant or not; for if not, you muſt fly to ſome other Argument to prove their Baptiſm and Church-Privileges, than that of their Parents being in Covenant. True, the caſe under the Law was another thing; for if their Parents were Jews, or the Natural Seed of Abraham, whether Godly or not, yet they knew they had right to thoſe external Privileges.
I have ſeen ſome Arguments fram'd by a Pedo-baptiſt, in order to the proving that the Covenant made with Abraham, was a Covenant of Grace; and he endeavours to prove the ſame, 1. From the Language and Expreſſion of it. 2. From the Duration of it. 3. From the Bleſſings by it.
1. The Language and Expreſſion of it, Gen. 17. 7. I will be a God unto thee, and to thy Seed after thee. Now (ſay they) is not this a pure Goſpel-Phraſe, and ſhews it to be a Covenant with Abraham in Chriſt? I pray how comes the Almighty God (who, upon the breach of the Covenant of Works made with us in Adam, became our enraged Enemy) to be a God unto fallen Man, any other ways than by a Mediator? &c.
Anſw. 1. I have proved that there was a twofold Covenant made with Abraham, and I deny not but the Covenant of Grace made in Chriſt was promiſed to Abraham, which takes in only the true Spiritual Seed, and to all thoſe God is in a ſpecial manner become a God unto.
2. Evident it is, all manner of God's covenanting Tranſactions ſince the Fall, of what nature ſoever, have been no other ways than through the Interpoſition of a Mediator, as that with Noah about the Flood, &c. Gen. 9. 8, 9. in that God ſhewed himſelf to be the God of the whole World, and ſo he is by Creation and Providence; yet it doth not follow that Covenant was the Covenant of Grace; or that God hath received them into ſpecial Favour with himſelf. So when God gave out that fiery Law on Mount Sinai, he told them, Exod. 20. 2. I am the Lord your God, &c. this was the very Introduction to that part of the Law which was written in Stone; but nevertheleſs the Apoſtle expreſly calls it, a Miniſtration of Death and Condemnation, 2 Cor. 3. 7, 8. and that it killed and could not give Life. Now muſt this be a Covenant of Faith or Grace? How is it then that the Apoſtle Paul ſays, the Law is not of Faith; alſo the Covenant of Grace giveth Life? But I argue thus, The Law could not give Life; Ergo, The Law was not a Covenant of Grace. So much for the firſt Note or Obſervation.
2. The ſecond Obſervation is, The Duration or Continuance of this Covenant made with Abraham, the Lord calls …t an Everlaſting Covenant, &c.
Anſw. This might have been left out, only it adds to the Number: this is anſwered by the Objector himſelf (be he who he will) in ſaying the Hebrew word for Everlaſting, ſometimes ſignifies no more than a long Continuance of Time: We know it very well; and thoſe Moſaical Rites that ended in Chriſt, are ſaid to be for everlaſting. But when the Lord ſaith he will be a Perſon's God for ever and ever, or everlaſtingly, it denotes his being ſo to all Eternity: But God never ſaid he would be the God everlaſtingly, or to all Eternity, to all who were concern'd in the Covenant of Circumciſion; nor was he Iſhmael's God ſo, tho circumciſed; and has he not caſt off that whole Nation of the Jews, with whom he made that Covenant? and is not ſo their God now, tho he is, I confeſs, to all Eternity, or everlaſtingly, the God of all Abraham's Spiritual Seed; viz. all true Believers in Chriſt.
3. The third and laſt Argument or Note to prove the Covenant of Circumciſion a Covenant of Grace, is taken from the Benefits and Bleſſings conveyed by it. To be a God unto him, and to his Seed, and that everlaſtingly, is a moſt comprehenſive Goſpel-Bleſſing; for hereby (ſay they) God gives a Perſon an Intereſt in all that he is, and in all that he has, ſo far as can be communicated to a Creature. This Bleſſing promiſed to Abraham comprehends Chriſt, Grace, Holineſs here, and Glory and Happineſs hereafter. And accordingly we find the Apoſtle, Heb. 8. uſes the ſame Expreſſion with this of God's to Abraham, I will be to them a God, and they ſhall be to me a People.
Anſw. This is idem, & bis idem culpandum eſt, the ſame again which is already anſwered. Is God everlaſtingly a God to Abraham and to all his Fleſhly Seed, and to Believers, who are the Spiritual Seed of Abraham, and to all their Fleſhly Seed; I ſay, is this ſo? Does God give himſelf, all he is, and all he has, to every Believer, and to all his Fleſhly Seed? Have all their Children, or every one of them, Chriſt, Grace, Holineſs here, and Glory and eternal Happineſs hereafter? Or, are they not to be juſtly blamed who jumble things ſo confuſedly together? 'Tis true, the Covenant of Grace made with Abraham, and all his true Spiritual Seed (who are the Elect) have Intereſt in all God is, and has, ſo far as it can be communicated to Creatures; and we know they have Chriſt (as well as are Chriſt's, as Paul notes, Gal. 4.) and Grace here, and ſhall have Glory hereafter. But a multitude of Abraham's Natural Off-ſpring, and the Natural Off-ſpring of Believers has neither Chriſt nor Grace, nor ſhall be ſaved, but periſh eternally. Therefore this may ſerve for an Anſwer, with what I have proved before, touching the nature of that twofold Covenant made with Abraham.
Let us come to what is further aſſerted:
If the Covenant which God made with Abraham be one and the ſame with the Covenant of Grace, then our Infant-Seed have right to Baptiſm.
Anſw. This has been urged before, and I have already anſwered it, only I ſhall add a Paſſage or two of Martin Luther's.
Paul therefore concludeth with this Sentence (ſaith he) They which are of Faith, are the Children of Abraham: That Corporal Birth, or Carnal Seed makes not the Children of Abraham before God. As if he would ſay, there is none before God accounted as the Child of this Abraham (who is the Servant of God, whom God hath choſen and made righteous by Faith) through Carnal Generation, but ſuch Children muſt be given before God as he was a Father, but he was a Father of Faith, was juſtified and pleaſed God; not becauſe he could beget Children after the Fleſh, not becauſe he had Circumciſion under the Law, but becauſe he believed in God. He therefore that will be a Child of the believing Abraham, muſt alſo himſelf believe, or elſe he is not a Child of the Elect, the believing and the juſtified Abraham, but only the begetting Abraham, which is nothing elſe but a Man, conceived, born and wrapt in Sin, without the Forgiveneſs of Sin, without Faith, without the Holy Ghoſt, as another Man is, and therefore condemned: ſuch alſo are the Children carnally begotten of him, having nothing in them like unto their Father, but Fleſh and Blood, Sin and Death; therefore theſe are all damned. This glorious boaſting then we are the Seed of Abraham, is to no purpoſe. Thus far, and much more to the ſame purpoſe he excellently debates upon.
Mr. Perkins on the Galatians, concerning the Covenant m…de with Abraham: The Seed of Abraham (ſaith he) is the Seed not of the Fleſh, but of the Promiſe: And this Seed is firſt Chriſt, and then all that believe in Chriſt; for all theſe are given to Abraham by Promiſe and Election of God. Moreover, this Seed is not many, (as Paul obſerveth) but one. It is objected, that the word Seed is a Name collective, and ſignifies the whole Poſterity of Abraham. Anſw. It doth ſometimes (ſaith he) but not always; for Eve ſaith of S…th, God hath given me another Seed. Again (he ſaith) this one particular Seed of Abraham, is Chriſt Jeſus, here call'd by the Name Chriſt, firſt and principally the Mediator; and then, ſecondarily, all Jews and Gentiles believing that are fit and grafted into Chriſt by Faith. St. Paul ſaith, the Children of the Fleſh, theſe are not the Children of God; but the Children of the Promiſe are the Seed of Abraham, Rom. 9. 8.
Now this Covenant we grant thus made with Abraham, is one and the ſame with the Covenant of Grace; but what does this ſignify to the Infants, or Fleſhly Seed of Believers, as ſuch? And thus I ſhall paſs to your next Argument.
You ſay, the Children of the Faithful are in God's Covenant, becauſe Chriſt is the Mediator of a better Covenant, which was eſtabliſhed upon better Promiſes, Heb. 8. 6, &c. But, ſay you, if the Children of the Faithful are excluded from the Covenant, then the Covenant is worſe, and not a better Covenant? It was a great Prerogative of Children being in Covenant, Rom. 9. 4. for the Promiſes of God belonged to them; but if the Covenant be ſhortened in Privileges, how is it a better Covenant? &c.
Anſw. 1. I anſwer; It is granted by us that the Children of the Jews, whether they were believing Jews, or unbelieving Jews, godly Perſons or ungodly Perſons, they were in that external Covenant God made with Abraham's Natural Seed, as ſuch, or with the whole Houſe of Iſrael under the Old Teſtament, or old Covenant: But the Promiſes and that Covenant then ran not to the Seed of believing Jews only, but if they were Abraham's Seed, I mean his Natural Seed, whether Believers or Unbelievers. Circumciſion belonged to the Male-Infants, as ſuch, and all other external Privileges, but the Covenant of Grace made with Abraham ran only then as it runs now, viz. to all the Elect only, not to their Carnal Seed, as ſuch, but to their Spiritual Seed. If you are a Believer, you are in the Covenant of Grace; and if your Child in Infancy be one of God's Elect, that decretively is in the ſame Covenant of Grace, but not actually until it doth believe, and has actual Union with Christ by Faith, and partakes of the holy Spirit, which is the Bond of that Union, and Seal of the Covenant of Grace. No external Rite can be the Seal of the Spiritual Covenant. If therefore Circumciſion was a Seal of any Covenant, it was the External and Legal Covenant: tho Abraham, 'tis true, received it as the Seal of the Righteouſneſs of his Faith, even of that Faith he had being uncircumciſed; and in that ſenſe it could be a Seal to no other Perſon but to Abraham only: for who beſides him had the Righteouſneſs of Faith before they were circumciſed, and that they ſhould be Fathers to all that believed, not only of believing Jews, but believing Gentiles alſo? for ſo ran the Covenant of the Righteouſneſs of Faith God made with Abraham. And has God made ſuch a Covenant with you, or with any Believer now? Or, is there any ſuch Covenant-Head under the Goſpel, ſave Jeſus Chriſt alone? Abraham was but a Typical Father; the Covenant made with him and his Natural Seed, as ſuch, typified Chriſt, and all his Spiritual Seed.
2. We have proved in the Legal or Old Covenant, there were many other external Privileges beſides Circumciſion, and external viſible Church-Memberſhip, ſeveral of which we have mentioned; to which we may add, they had a right to the Land of Canaan, and to a Civil Government and Governours among themſelves, or a Political Commonwealth, as alſo a right to a glorious external Temple. But, Sir, is the Goſpel Covenant worſe than that Legal Covenant, becauſe we and our Children have not ſuch Promiſes and external Privileges? Certainly if God pleaſes to open your Eyes, you will ſoon ſee and confeſs your Miſtake. Beſides, the Apoſtle calling it a better Covenant, and better Promiſes, clearly ſhews they are not external Privileges, but ſpiritual: and ſo in that ſenſe I have proved the Privileges and Promiſes of the Covenant of Grace, do far exceed the Privileges the Jews had then; and our Childrens Privileges are greater alſo, tho not to be received as Members into the Goſpel-Church till they do believe.
You ſay, the Covenant of Grace that God made with Abraham was an immutable Covenant, it was confirmed by an Oath, Heb. 6. 13, 17, &c. therefore if the Children are excluded the Covenant (you ſay) it is mutable; and if ſo, what is become of the Oath and the Promiſes of God? Where is the ſtrong Conſolation? Where is the Immutability of God's Counſel? Therefore (ſay you) thoſe that do caſt out the Children of the Faithful …rom the Covenant of Grace, &c. weaken their Conſolation, and nullify the eternal Covenant, and make God a Liar, 1 John 5. 10.
Anſw. 1. I anſwer; Here you charge us home, and lay horrid Evil at our Doors, that do deny the Children of Believers, as ſuch, to be in the Covenant of Grace: but how unjuſtly and unrighteouſly we are charged by you, I ſhall, God aſſiſting, make appear.
2. Sir, Are all Believers Children in the Covenant of Grace? I affirm, and will ſtand by it, if ſo, they ſhall all be ſaved, becauſe all and every Soul that was, or is in the Covenant of Grace made with Abraham, ſhall be ſaved, becauſe it is an immutable Covenant, and God's Promiſe and Oath are paſſed to ſecure them of Eternal Life. Sir, the Natural Seed of Abraham, as ſuch, never had any ground of ſtrong Conſolation; God never made a Promiſe, and bound it with an Oath, that they ſhould all be ſaved; I ſpeak of Abraham's Fleſhly Seed, as ſo conſidered, or as ſuch; for if he had made ſuch an immutable Covenant with them, and confirm'd it by his Oath, What is become of his Promiſes and Oath, ſince he hath caſt off Abraham's Natural Seed? O how prepoſterouſly you argue! See Rom. 9. 6. Not as tho the Word of God hath taken none Effect: For they are not all Iſrael which are of Iſrael: Neither becauſe they are the Seed of Abraham are they all Children; but in Iſaac ſhall thy Seed be called, i. e. They that are the Children of the Fleſh, i. e. as ſuch, theſe are not the Children of God; but the Children of the Promiſe are counted for the Seed. Sir, this Text ſays as much as we do affirm. The Spiritual Seed of Abraham, viz. all the Elect of God, or Believers only, are in the immutable Covenant, and have ſtrong Conſolation; but who can tell or know who they are that are God's Elect Ones until they believe, or are under effectual Vocation? and that Election runs only to Believers Seed, as ſuch, you will not ſay: For many Children of Unbelievers we ſe… daily are in God's eternal Election by their ſpecial Vocation, and many Children of Believers are not elected, becauſe never called..
2. Were it the immutable Counſel of God, that all Believers Children ſhould be called, adopted, juſtified and eternally ſaved, you had ſaid ſomething, and then all their Natural Seed might have ſtrong Conſolation indeed. But alas, alas, how many Godly Mens Children prove wicked and ungodly, and ſo live and die! Were theſe ſuch, think you, that ever were in the Covenant of Grace God ma…e with Abraham? Had they ever any ground of ſtrong Conſolation?
3. Come, Sir, the Odium falls on your ſelf. I argue thus: If all the Children of Believers are in the Covenant of Grace God made with Abraham, and yet many of them eternally periſh, what then is become of the immutable and everlaſting Covenant of Grace? nay of the Promiſes and Oath of God? and alſo of the Doctrine of final Perſeverance? O what Shame do you Pedo-baptiſts bring upon your ſelves, by arguing after this blind manner for your Babes Baptiſm!
4. But perhaps you will ſay, you argue for the external Privileges of the Covenant of Grace to belong to your Children, as ſuch, and not the ſpiritual and ſpecial Bleſſings of it.
Anſw. If ſo, the caſe is ſtill worſe: for then it will follow, that God in the Covenant of Grace hath by his Promiſe and Oath, and Immutability of his Counſel, given to all Perſons ground of ſtrong Conſolation, that only have a ſhare in the outward Rites and external Parts of the Covenant of Grace.
Sir, deliver your ſelf as well as you can from being ground to pieces between theſe two Mill-ſtones.
But why muſt your Children only have but part of the external Privileges of the Covenant of Grace, who only partake of Baptiſm, and not of the Lord's-Supper? Is not Faith required of all ſuch that ought to be baptized, as well as it i… required in all that partake of the Lord's Supper to examine themſelves? neither of which Infants are capable to do.
It i… manifeſt that the Children of the Faithful, as ſuch, are not in the Covenant of Grace God made with Abraham; but that there was a twofold Covenant made with him, and that the Covenant of Grace only appertains to the Elect of God, whether they be Children of Believers or Children of Unbeliever…, which is not known to us until they are grown up, and are brought by the Spirit of God under ſpecial Vocation and Regeneration; and that they are the Adult only, viz. ſuch as believe, that have right to Baptiſm, but that not by virtue of the Covenant of Grace, but by virtue of the poſitive Command of Chriſt in the New Teſtament. Sir, you miſtake again, it was not by virtue of the Covenant of Grace, that Perſons had right to Circumciſion; for if ſo, then Lot, and Melchiſedec, and Abraham's Males as ſoon as they were born had a right to it, as alſo his Females; nothing gave right to Abraham's Male-Infan…s to Circumciſion but the meer poſitive Command of God to him, which extended only to thoſe Males in his own Houſe, or bought with his Money, and not till the eighth day: for ſuch that died before the eighth day, tho Males, had no right to be circumciſed, nor had his Females any right thereto; ſo none but Believers, when they can give an account of their Faith, by virtue of Chriſt's expreſs and poſitive Command, ought to be baptized. Pray remember the Covenant of Grace, as ſuch, gives no right to Baptiſm; for if it did, all Believers or Elect Perſons had right to it from the firſt Introduction or Declaration of it to Adam upon the Fall. No, no, it is a pure Goſpel-Ordinance, and meerly poſitive, and only depends upon the Will and Pleaſure of the Law-giver, Jeſus Chriſt.
Honoured Britains, who inhabit North and South Wales, let me intreat you to conſider how falſe the Concluſion is that Mr. Owen draws, concerning the Right the Infants of the Faithful have to Baptiſm; namely, that if they are in the Covenant of Grace, then they ought to be baptized: For as he, nor no Man elſe can prove, the Infants of Believers, as ſuch, are in the Covenant of Grace; ſo it would not follow, were that granted, that they ought to be baptized, it being not the Covenant of Grace, but the expreſs and poſitive Command of Chriſt that gives Perſons juſt Right thereunto. Suppoſe Chriſt had not commanded Believers to be baptized, would any Man have adventured to baptize them, or conclude it was their Duty becauſe they were in Covenant with God? Or would Abraham have been circumciſed himſelf, becauſe in the Covenant of Grace, had he not received a poſitive Command ſo to be? Certainly he was long in the Covenant of Grace before he was circumciſed, and did not ſin thereby, becauſe God had not given that Precept to him until he was old.
Moreover, it was the expreſs Command of God that gave right to his Male-Infants to be circumciſed, and not only thoſe of his Seed that were in the Covenant of Grace, but Iſhmael, and others who were not Children of the Promiſe, or in the Covenant of Grace, were circumciſed, and alſo it was not Lot's Duty, tho in the Covenant of Grace, to be circumciſed, becauſe not one that dwelt in Abraham's Family, or his Natural Seed, nor commanded by the Lord to be circumciſed, or to circumciſe his Infants.