Anti-Paedobaptism Part 3, Section 15
SECT. XV. The dispute of Mr. John Geree about the extent of the Gospel covenant to prove thence infant-baptism, is examined, and it is shewed, that interest in the Covenant did not intitle to circumcision, nor is it proved it doth now to Baptism.
BUt Mr. John Geree Vindic. Paedobap. p. 6. would seem to dispute more accurately and after a syllogism which doth but repeat the conclusion in a new phrase, he disputes thus.
To whom the Gospel covenant is extended in the Churches of Christians to them the Sacrament of initiation appointed for that administration of the Covenant doth belong. To children of believing Christians, the Gospel covenant is extended in the Christian Churches, Ergo, to them the Sacrament of initiation doth belong.
To which I answer, Mr. Geree in this syllogism hath altered the term in his prosyllogism, it was in that [the sacrament of initiation instituted for Christian Churches] here it is [the Sacrament of initiation appointed for that administration of the Covenant] and wherein he supposeth; 1. The sacrament appointed for that administration of the Covenant. 2. The Sacrament of initiation appointed for the administration of the Covenant all one with the Sacrament of initiation instituted for the Christian Churches, and from thence would derive a rule for baptism. But that being a phrase not used in Scripture, nor perhaps deducible from it, and at best ambiguous, it serves for no proof, and therefore serves only to mislead those understandings which are apt to be caught with such chaff.
That the phrase is not used in Scripture, will not I suppose be denied, no where is baptism called either a Sacrament or a Sacrament of initiation, or said to be appointed for that administration of the Covenant, nor is it deducible from thence. For there is no place that I find, that makes this the proper and immediate use of baptism to be the administration of the Covenant, so that thereby either the making of the Covenant, or the conferring or assuring to the baptized the benefits of the covenant should be the next end of it self intended therein. The immediate and proper use of it is to be a sign that the person baptized repents of his sins, and renounceth specially his Gentile defilements, communion with Satan, and engageth himself to be Christs disciple; Yet I deny not but that by consequent in the manner of doing it by dipping or plunging under water, it minds us of Christs death▪ burial and rising again, and testifyeth our salvation by him, and so in a remote manner assures to us the benefits of the Covenant of grace. But in this manner it is the administration of election as well as the Covenant, and is an administration of the Covenant only to elect persons, and true believers, for it assures salvation onelyonly to them, not to all that are baptized, and therefore in this respect none but they can have title to it. So that if from hence, that baptism is the administration of the Covenant, a title be derived for infants to be baptized, it can intitle none but those to whom it administers the Covenant, which are only the elect or true believers. But the ambiguity of the expression is much more fallacious. For 1. when it is said, it is appointed for the administration of the Covenant, the expressions sometimes are, as if it were the administration it self, calling it the new administration, as I shew in my Apology, sect. 10. Mr. Geree here p. 10. baptism is a seal of a new administration, and then it is all one as to say the administration of the Covenant is appointed for the administration of the Covenant, which is either non-sense, or at least in…ptly spoken. 2. When they say [it is the administration of the Covenant] do they mean the outward or inward Covenant? The latter I presume they will not say, for then baptism should be an administration of the things promised therin, regenerarion, remission of sins, and if so, then it administers them in a natural way, and so it should in manner of a natural agent regenerate, &c. which is to confer grace ex opere operato, or in a moral way; but baptism can administer regeneration, remission of sins, &c. no other moral way but by assuring, or perswading, or the like, what ever way it be conceived it administers not the covenant to an infant in infancy, nor to any but the elect: now if it do not administer the covenant to any but such, then it is not baptism but to such, if baptism be in its nature the administration of the Covenant of Grace. If they mean baptism is the administration of the outward covenant, I am yet to learn what the outward covenant is, except they mean the outward administration, which is no other then baptism, as I shew Apology s. 10. and what is this then but to say, that baptism is the administration, or appointed for the administration of baptism?
3. When they say, it is the administration of the Covenant, do they mean the Covenant or promise of the baptized to God, or Gods promise to the baptized? If the former, then it is no more but this, that baptism is the administration, that is the signification of the baptized his engagement to be Christs disciple, which is indeed the best sense of it, but then it will not fit them, for so it is not in infants, for they signifie no profession or engagement of theirs by it. If the later, then by baptism God doth promise man; but thats not true, his promise is in the Word before baptism, or he signifies his promise formerly made, & this can derive no title to the persons to whom the promise is made, for the signifying that promise as past is as useful for others, either baptized or unbaptized, as the then baptized, and not at all of use or avail to infants, who cannot apprehend the signification; or he assures the benefits of the Covenant, and that can be only to elect or true believers; or that he contains them by it, and so it gives grace, ex opere operato.
4. The Covenant of grace is, I take it the Covenant of saving grace, opposite to the Covenant of works, the promise of justification by faith in contradistinction to the Law, Gal 3.18. This covenant was made mixtly, Gen. 17.4, 5, 6, 7, 8. purely Heb. 8.10, 11, 12. They should tell us whether they mean the one, or the other, or both. The former they seem to mean when they make baptism to succeed Circumcision, and to seal the same Covenant that it did. But then baptism should not be the new administration but belong to the old. And if it seal that Covenant then it assures the Land of Canaan, and greatness in it. But it seems they mean that it seals only the promise, I will be thy God and the God of thy seed, so Mr. Geree here, we find in the administration of the Gospel covenant to Abraham and his seed.
But if so, 1. Then it seals only a part of the Covenant that circumcision did, and so succeeds not in it's use, nor is there a reason given, but their own conceit, why it should seal one part, and not another.
2. If it seal or administer the Gospel-covenant, then it administers not this promise [that God will be a God to a believer, and his natural seed as such] For that is neither Gospel nor at all to be found, Gen. 17.7.
3. In that promise was foretold Christ to come of Abraham, and this was Gospel Gal. 3.16. But this is not administred by baptism, which signifies Christ already come.
4. In the spiritual sense it was made to Abrahams seed by faith, Gal. 3.29. Rom. 4.11, 12. But they are only the elect; Rom. 9.7, 8. and then it is an administration of that Gospel covenant onelyonly to elect persons, and true Believers.
5. There's ambiguity also in the term [the Gospel covenant is extended] The Gospel covenant is, The just shall live by faith, that God will be a God to Abrahams seed by faith. But Mr. Geree imagines a Gospel covenant, which is but a fiction, that God hath promised to be a God to the natural posterity of every believing Gentile.
6. For the extent of it how it is extended is ambiguous. For he cannot say it is extended in respect of the Gospel promise of righteousness and life to all the children of believers, it was not extended Ishmael to and Esau. Therefore he acknowledgeth it to be extended in the reality of it onelyonly to the Elect, onelyonly it is to be charitably presumed that they are elect, and therefore they are to be taken for persons in covenant till they discover the contrary. But he shews no rule of Scripture for such a Construction of the promise: sure such a construction was unknown to Paul, Rom. 9.6, 7, 8. when he expounded that very promise, Gen. 17.7. nor doth such a construction agree with the words, sith when God saith, I will be a God to thee and thy seed, the meaning according to M. Geree should then be [I will be a God to thee, that is, every believer, and to thy seed, that is every believers natural seed which are elect in reality, and to those that are not elect in charitable presumption of the Minister of baptism, till comming to years they discover the contrary] now what a non-sence exposition is this, to expound [thee] meant of Abraham by [every believing Gentile] and by [thy seed] which is meant of Abrahams seed onelyonly either natural or spiritual by faith to understand [every believers natural seed] and when it is said, God will be a God to them, that he will be a God only to some in reality, which is to make God to promise what he doth not perform, and to others, that men shall think he will be a God to them, which would be too poor a matter to be meant in that expression, and therein God should not promise what he will be or do, but what men shall think, which would be false, for it is not made good, or that they may charitably so presume of them, but in this sense it is not a promise at all, but a meer permission to men to think charitably of them, which I suppose they are as well bound to do of unbelievers children till they discover the contrary, and so no privilege to the believers children. And yet this too must be limitted to a certain time till they come to years and discover the contrary, and therefore by seed must be understood onelyonly the infant-seed, when they came to years, there's neither promise nor permission for men to think so charitably of them. And yet herein there is nothing but abuse of terms. For charitable presumption must have some ground, which is to be from some thing we perceive done to judge well of what we see not according to the rule 1 Cor. 13.7. Charity believeth all things, but in infants acts there's nothing that may be such a ground, but to the contrary they opposing their baptism by their crying, &c. If it be said, the promise is a ground, I answer, Mr. Geree confesseth the promise is not in reality but to the elect, nor to the elect till they believe, and therefore there is no ground from the promise till it be known the persons be elect or believers. But it will be said, we know nothing to the contrary. To which I reply, nor do we know any thing to the contrary, but that unbelieving Jews children are elect, and in the Covenant, and yet its not charitably presumed of them, so as to count them in the Covenant, and to judge them admissible to baptism. I think sith we perceive nothing of believers infants acts that may distinguish them from unbelievers, that we should rather suspend our thoughts of Gods election and covenant to them till they shew of what spirit they are, which is meet for an administrator of baptism, who as a wise Steward should give to every one his portion in due season, Luke 12.42. rather then have such a fond imagination of what God hath concealed.
And if it be true which Mr. Geree saith in his Vindic. Vindic. p. 42. That many of the Assembly intended the words in the Directory for baptism [The promise is made to believers and their seed] in Master Gerees sense, they have reason to be ashamed that they have so much abused the World with such a toy.
Yea but have they not a promise on which to ground this charitable presumption? I answer, surely the Jews have a more express promise, Ro. 11.26, 27. for their posterity then any believer now living hath for his children, and therefore if that be all the ground of baptizing believers infants, there's a like ground for baptizing Jews infants though parents be unbelieving, and they have wrong that it is not done, where it may.
But shall we make no difference between the children of believers and unbelievers? I answer, we are to conceive with a judgement of probability for the present that they are elect, and with a quieting hope for the future that they will be believers.
1. Because of Gods general indefinite promises.
2. Because by reason of the means of the knowledge of the Gospel which they have in their education, and living where the Gospel is taught, they are in a nearer possibility then others to be believers.
3. Because experience shews that God often doth continue godliness in religious families, though it often fall out otherwise. But that such an extension of the Gospel-covenant as Mr. Geree makes to the children of believing Christians, should entitle to baptism, is without all rule. And to his Syllogism, though it might be denied in respect of the form, by reason of the ambiguity of terms; yet I answer, by denying the Major in his sense, which I conceive is this, They to whom the Gospel Covenant is extended according to the charitable presumption of the Minister without the persons shewing by any act that he is in Covenant, to them the Sacrament of initiation to wit baptism doth belong, and shall examine his proof both of Major and Minor.
The Major, saith he, I prove by that of Peter Acts 10.47. when they had received the Holy Ghost, which was but an evidence of Gods receiving them into the Gospel covenant, Peter saith, can any forbid water that these should not be baptized, who are in covenant with God as well as we? They have the word or promise, which is the greater; who can inhibite the sign which is the less?
To this I answer, the proof rests on this, That the allegation of Peter that they had received the Holy Ghost, was brought for an evidence that God had received them into the Gospel Covenant, and so it may be said to the same purpose, who can forbid water that these should not be baptized who are in covenant with God as well as we?
But this is false. For their receiving the Holy Ghost is brought not to prove only that God had made his covenant of grace to them, but to prove that they were actual believers, as their works did shew upon hearing the word of faith, for saith he v. 46. they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God, & ch. 11.17. if God hath given them the like gift as unto us that believe on the Lord J…sus Christ, who was I that I could forbid God? And v. 18. it is said, when they heard these things they held their peace and glorifyed God, saying, then hath God also granted to the Gentiles repentance unto life.
Whence it appears that they were penitent believers, and this is proved by their acts; and therefore to be admitted to baptism, and not barely because the Gospel covenant was extended to them, much less because the Gospel covenant was extended to some of that sort, and to those particular persons onelyonly upon a charitable presumption, that Gods promise did belong to them for the future without any shew of repentance or faith at the present. It is false that we may say, that when by any other principle in Scripture any are demonstrated to be in the Gospel covenant, who can forbid water that these should not be baptized, who are in covenant with God as well as we? For though God should reveal that this or that person were elect, and that his Covenant did belong to him for the future, yet he were not to be baptized, till God revealed that he were a believer or disciple. For if so, than if God did reveal concerning any, as he did of Isaac and Jacob, that he were a child of the promise, though yet unborn in the Mothers womb, he were to be baptized, which is absurd. None are to be baptized afore born, therefore any principle whatsoever in Scripture demonstrating a person to be in the Gospel covenant is not sufficient to intitle to baptism, much less such an uncertain doubtful guess, called charitable presumption, that he is in the Covenant, as is without any particular declaration of Scripture, or other revelation from God concerning the person, or any shew of his that he is Gods child, which yet Mr Geree makes a sufficient warrant to baptize, nor is his reason of any force, for we might in like manner say, They have the election of God, which is the greater, who can inhibit the sign which is the less? It is not whether that which they have is greater, much less that which is conjectured, or hoped they have, which is the rule to baptize, but the manifest having of that qualification of faith or discipleship, which is prerequired to baptism according to the institution and primitive practice of it. But Mr. Geree hath more to prove his Major.
Besides, saith he, we find in the administration of the Gospel covenant to Abraham and his seed, whom God had thereby separated then to be his church, and evidenced it by an outward seal: there was so near a relation between the Covenant and Circumcision the Sacrament of initiation, whereby men were externally separated from the world, that circumcision was called the covenant, and the token of the Covenant, Gen. 17.10, 11. to shew us how the seal did follow the Covenant; and therefore when any were aggregated into the Jewish Church and taken into the Communion of the Covenant made with Abraham, they were initiated into that administration of the Covenant by the Sacrament of Circumcision.
To which I answer, letting pass his Phraseology, this reason goes upon these suppositions.
1. That by Circumcision God had administred his Covenant to Abraham and his seed, and separated them to be his Church, and evidenced it by Circumcision, and that the seal did follow the Covenant, when any were taken into Covenant they were circumcised, and therefore it must be so in baptism But if he mean that to as many as God appointed to be circumcised he administred the covenant of grace (which sense alone serves his turn) it is not true. Ishmael was circumcised, yet the Covenant not administred to him, nor he separated to be of his Church, not this evidenced by an outward seal, but the contrary declared concerning him afore his Circumcision, Gen. 17.18, 19, 20, 21. and he in the event cast out, and so the seal did not follow so the Covenant, but that it was imparted to them to whom the Covenant was not made, and not imparted to them to whom it did belong, as v.g to the females, nor were the Pros…lytes all taken into Communion of the Covenant made with Abraham, though they were taken into the Communion of the policy of Israel: nor … the calling circumcision the covenant or a token of the Covenant (which are all one) Gen. 17.10, 11. prove that all that were circumcised had the Covenant made to them: but this that Circumcision was a memorial that such a covenant was made with Abraham, and God would perform it. 2. That it must be in baptism as it was in circumcision. But for proof of that there's not a word brought by Mr. G. and what others bring is examined in its place. M. G. goes on thus.
Now for your exceptions against the connexion which we put between the Gospel-covenant, and the Sacrament of initiation annext to it, in any administration they will cleerly be wiped away; for what though (as you say) the Covenant made with Abraham were not a pure Gospel covenant, but had some external additaments? yet a Gospel covenant it was, and for substance the same with ours Gal. 3.8. The Gospel was preached before to Abraham; and as circumcision was the seal of initiation under that administration; so is baptism under the Christian administration; neither is the Gospel covenant now so pure as to exclude all temporal promises. For godliness even under the Gosspel, hath the promises of this life, and that which is to come, 1 Tim. 4.8.
Answ. The distinction of a pure and a mixt covenant was brought in by me to shew that Paedobaptists do but mislead people when in their writings and sermons they express themselves as if they would have men conceive that the Covenant with Abraham, Gen. 17. is all one with the Covenant of grace, and so that there is the same reason of baptizing infants because of the Gospel covenant, as there was of circumcising infants, because of the Covenant made with Abraham, Gen. 17. Now how doth Mr. Geree wipe this away? He tells his Reader, That I say, the covenant made with Abraham was not a pure Gospel Covenant, but had some external additaments. But neither do I so speak in my Exercit. pag. 2. nor Exam. part. 3. s. 2. nor any where else I know. I say the promises were mixt Exercit. pag. 2. Exam. part. 3. s. 2. now promises are not external additaments to the covenant, but integral parts, the covenant being nothing but a promise, or an aggregate of promises: yea I prove that the peculiar promise to Abrahams natural posterity inheriting of the Land of Canaan, &c. is frequently called by the name of the Covenant, Psal. 105.8, 9, 10, 11. Nehem. 9.8, &c. And for what he saith, That the covenant made with Abraham was a Gospel covenant; this is true according to the more infolded and hidden sense of the spirit, but not according to the outward face and obvious construction of the words, which in the first meaning spake of things proper to Abrahams natural posterity, though the Holy Ghost had a further aim in those expressions.
And whereas, he saith, The covenant made with Abraham was for substance the same with ours, Gal. 3.8. Though that promise mentioned Gal. 3.8. be no in the Covenant Gen. 17. to which Circumcision was annexed, but that Gent 12.3. and the term [substance] be ambiguous, yet I grant the Covenant made with Abraham according to those Gospel promises, which in the hidden meaning declared justification by faith, as the new covenant sealed with Christs blood doth, is the same in substance, meaning by it, the intent, purport and meaning of the Holy Ghost, though not in words or expressions; yet I deny that it was every way or in every respect in substance the same. For the promise, according to that sense in which they contain domestique or civil promises proper to Abrahams natural posterity were of the substance of the covenant, and for the confirming of them, circumcision was instituted of God, as well as for them in priority of order before the assuring of those Evangelical benefits. And for what Mr. Geree saith, That the Gospel is not so pure now as to exclude all temporal promises, it is true; yet the Gospel doth not promise as the Covenan… Gen. 17. the inheritance of the land of Canaan with rest, plenty, prosperity and greatness therein, but on the contrary such temporal blessings as are with persecution Mark 10.30. and do rather consist in inward comfort and content than in outward enjoyment of any earthly commodity: which proves that the Gospel promise for temporal things is clean different from that made to Abraham Gen. 17. concerning temporal benefits to his posterity.
Mr. Geree addes. Neither are the differences mentioned by you (page 4. of your Exercit. or elsewhere) to be between Circumcision and baptism any whit material to put a difference between the parties to be sealed by them in reference to our present controversy; sith notwithstanding these differences they agree in this main general; That the one was the Sacrament of initiation to all that were to be sealed under one administration of the covenant, the other in the other, which is enough to my purpose.
To which I say, the disparities between circumcision and baptism, are brought by me to invalidate the argument made by Paedobaptists to prove the succession of the one, into the place, room and use of the other, from the parities between them, which allegation to that end is made good before against Mr. Church, sect. 11. Those differences which I allege Exercit. p. 4. tend to demonstrate that there is not the same reason of circumcision and baptism in signing the Evangelical covenant, nor may there be an argument drawn from the administration of the one to the like administring of the other: which differences are very material to that end the different end and use of a thing, being the most apt reason for altering the application of it, As Mr. Rutherford, Divine right of Church Government, ch 6. q. 2. page 276, 277, 278. answering Era…tus, saith of the Sea, Cloud, Mannah, Water, because they had a mixt use, they were appointed to all, yet it follows not now the Sacrament of the Lords Supper must be given to wicked men. So by the very same reason, sith circumcision had a mixt use to signify political as well as Evangelical promises, to confirm the promise of Christ to come, and did belong to the Church, not oecumenical, but oeconomical or national, which baptism did not, therefore circumcision might belong to infants, and yet not baptism. And letting pass his phrase of administration of the Covenant, of which is enough said before, though the agreement, which he calls, The main general, be yielded him; that they are both sacraments of initiation, yet unless the same special rule of command, or example primitive be brought for the one as the other, infant-baptism cannot be proved from infant-circumcision.
Mr. Geree further tells me. But you add further p. 4. of your Exercit. that some were circumcised to whom no promise in the Covenant made with Abraham did belong; as Ishmael, of whom God had said his Covenant was not to be established with him. I answer, it is said indeed Gen. 17.21. my Covenant will I establish with Isaac. But by covenant there is not meant that covenant, which we stand in to God, in regard of our persons, for our own personal benefit: but the covenant of special prerogative, that Christ should come of, and the Church should remain in his posterity. Therefore notwithstanding that exception, Ishmael when circumcised, might be, and was a member of the visible Church in Abrahams family, and in regard of his person within the external administration of the Covenant with Abraham, and so in the judgement of charity no alien from the covenant of grace, but under it. This I might confirm by the opinion of some Hebrew Doctors, wherein they are followed by many, that the petition of Abraham for Ishmael Gen. 17.18. was not onelyonly for natural, but for spiritual blessings, and what he begged God granted, v. 20. But I clear it thus; God establisht his Covenant with Abraham and Isaac, not with Melchisedeck nor Lot; shall we therefore expunge them out of the Covenant of grace? how absurd were that? we only see their posterity enjoied not that privilege which God vouchsafed Abraham in Isaac and his seed. And therefore no more can be truly or rationally gathered from that place of Genesi touching Ishmael.
Answ. That which in my Exercit. page 4. I gathered from the instances of Ishmael, Esau, the strangers and others of Abrahams house their circumcision, and the non-circumcision of females, males under eight daies old, Melchisedeck, Lot, Job, the non-admission to baptism of circumcised Jews in covenant till they professed repentance and faith in Christ were.
That the right to Evangelical promises, was not the adequate reason of circumcising these or those, but Gods precept, as is exprest Gen. 17.23. Gen. 21.4.
2. That those terms are not convertible [federate and to be signed] which overthrows the chief Hypotheses, upon which the Paedobaptists argument from infant-circumcision for infant-baptism rests. For they all conclude thus, The reason why infants were circumcised, was that they were in covenant, therefore by like reason infants being in covenant should be baptized. Now if the reason of infants being circumcised, were not their being in covenant, but only the command, then there is not a like reason for infant-baptism, though they were in the Covenant, unless there were the like command. Now let us see what Mr. Geree saith to my first i…stance of Ishmael. I alleged that Ishmael was circumcised, though no promise in the Covenant made with Abraham, did belong to him, and that Abraham knew, therefore the reason of his circumcision (and the same is the reason of others) was not his being in covenant, but only Gods command to Abraham.
The antecedent is proved from the words Gen. 17.21. which are exclusive. And besides I alleged Rom. 9.6, 7, 8, 9. Gal. 4.29, 30. where expresly Ishmael is denied to be a child of the promise, or to be born after the promise. And I might have added Heb. 11.9. where Isaac and Jacob are distinguishingly reckoned as heirs of the same promise with Abraham, not Ishmael and Esau. Now what saith Mr. Geree to this? He …aith, The Covenant there is not meant that Covenant which we stand in to God in regard of our persons for our own personal benefit: but the Covenant of special prerogative to Isaac, that Christ should come of, and the Church should remain in his posterity.
But this is false, 1. For it was that covenant that made Isaac heir of the promise, which the Apostle Rom. 9.7, 8, 9. reckons as much as to be an elect person, it was the same covenant which was mentioned v. 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. which Mr. Geree, and other Paedobaptists call the covenant of grace, and usually make the interest in it the reason of circumcision, and was sealed by it, and That it was the same Covenant is apparent from v. 19. now then it was a covenant of personal benefit, if it derive grace to the person, or any other personal benefit. If it were only the Covenant containing the special prerogative mentioned, then it was not the covenant sealed to any but Isaac, not to any of the rest of Abrahams house that were circumcised.
2. It is insufficient. For it shews not that to Ishmael any promise, either Evangelical or Political in the Covenant made with Abraham, did belong, though he were circumcised, which he should have done, if he would have answered to the objection, and have vindicated his argument from it: As for his inference, Therefore notwithstanding that exception, Ishmael when circumcised might be, and was a member of the visible Church in Abrahams family and in regard of his person, within the external administration of the Covenant with Abraham, and so in the judgement of charity no alien from the covenant of grace, but under it.
I answer. I know not what it is to be under the external administration of the Covenant with Abraham, except it be to be circumcised; and therefore I count this speech, that Ishmael when circumcised might be within the external administration of the Covenant with Abraham, to be an inept tautology, as if he had said, Ishmael when circumcised might be circumcised. But were his speaking right, yet it is impertinent. For the thing he should have shewed was not, that Ishmael notwithstanding that exception was a visible Church-member, within the external administration of the Covenant with Abraham, or in the judgement of charity no alien from the covenant of grace, but that any of the promises in the Covenant made with Abraham Gen. 17. did belong to him, and so that he was circumcised because of his interest in the covenant. Yet how Abraham could in judgement of charity judge him no alien from the Covenant of grace, but under it, whom God so plainly excepted out of that Covenant, which Paedobaptists themselves take to be the Covenant of grace, I see not. It is true that God heard the petition of Abraham for Ishmael Gen. 17.18. but that God granted him spiritual blessings doth not appear, but the contrary v. 20. where the blessings granted upon Abrahams Petition for him are recited. However it is clear that he did exempt him from the covenant v. 21. and therefore he was not circumcised by vertue of his interest in the Covenant, nor did his circumcision seal that interest. As for what Mr. Geree saith, no more can be truly gathered from thence then what may be said of Melchisedec, or Lot, it is not true. For though its not said expressely that God established his covenant with them, yet they are reckoned among the righteous; and so in the Covenant of grace. But for Ishmael when Abraham begged for him, God answers how far he would grant for him, and then addes adversatively. But my covenant will I establish with Isaac, that is not with Ishmael, which can be no other then the covenant before mentioned, v. 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. which thing was further manifested by Gods ratifying Sarahs desire of Ishmaels election Gen. 21.10, 12. where he is excluded from Abrahams seed, from which the Apostle argueth Ishmael not to have been a child of the promise, nor elect,See Ainsworth Annotations on Gen. 21.12. nor born after the Spirit; but reprobate, a persecutor, born after the flesh. And therefore in my Exercit. I cited those texts, which Mr. Geree did ill to omit, sith they served for my purpose to prove that Ishmael had no part in the Covenant made with Abraham.
To the instance of Esau, Mr. Geree tels me, The case of Esau was but as that of Ishmael, and others that were of Israel, but were not Israel: they were under the external administration of the Covenant, though not really within the covenant of grace. This distinction you your self acknowledge in the fourscore and sixteenth page of your answer, when you say, it is one thing to be under the outward administration, another thing to be under the covenant of grace. Its true these are distinct, but those that are under the outward administration are to be reputed under the covenant of Grace, and thence were to be sealed; thus was it with Esau; for that sentence, the elder shall serve the younger, Gen. 25.23. could sound no higher in Isaac's apprehension then that difference which was put between Ishmael and Isaac.
To which I reply, If Ishmael were not really within the covenant of grace then Mr. Geree yields what I proved before, that the promise of the Covenant of grace did not belong to him; and if it were so, then Ishmael and Esau were circumcised, though no promise in the covenant Gen. 17.2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. did belong to them, and because this was revealed to Abraham and Isaac they were not reputed under the covenant of grace and thence to be sealed as Mr. Geree saith. Nor is it likely but Isaac did apprehend concerning Esau by the Oracle Gen. 25.23. that none of the promises in the covenant made with Abraham, Gen. 17.2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. did belong to him. However God appointing circumcision to these to whom he intended no interest in the covenant it follows, he made not interest in the covenant the adequate reason of each persons circumcision, but his own institution.
To the instance of strangers in Abrahams family, he answers; By Gods own testimony Abraham would keep none in his family, but such as were outwardly conformable to the waies of God, Gen. 18.19. and so were in the state of Proselytes and interessed in the Gospel covenant.
Answ. Whether Abraham did or might keep any infidel in his family was considered by me in the first part of this Review, s. 37. But for the text, Gen. 18.19. it doth not testify, that Abraham would keep none in his family, but such as were outwardly conformable to Gods waies, but that he would command them to keep Gods waies, and shall keep the way of Jehovah; but this being spoken indefinitely is equipollent onelyonly to a particular, as appears in Ishmael and Esau and others. But were this granted they were so conformable and were so proselytes and were in some sort interessed in the benefit of the Gospel covenant, yet it follows not that any promise in that covenant did belong to them, much less that such interest was the reason of their being circumcised. As for Mr. Gs. useful observation, that circumcision was not annext to the Covenant only because it was a mixt covenant, sith it was appliable to the Proselyte Gentiles, and their seed, that were not onelyonly without, but uncapable of interest in the land of Canaan; I know not what use there is of it for his purpose; it goes upon a mistake that circumcision was to be to none, but who had interest in the covenant Gen. 17. which I have refuted. The Gentile proselytes were to be circumcised because of the command, though it were not known that each, or any proselyte, or his seed, had interest in the Covenant. As for Mr. Gs. reason of his obsevation, it should seem by it he meant otherwise than he expressed, to wit, Circumcision was not annext to the Covenant only because of the temporal promises, which I grant, and yet hold the Covenant, Gen. 17.4, 5, 6, 7, 8. a mixt Covenant, and that persons were to be circumcised to whom no promise in the covenant made with Abraham did belong.
Mr. G. go…s on. To the other part of my exception against the connexion between the seal and covenant, as they speak, that many were not to be circumcised, to whom all or most of the promises of the Covenant did belong, as the females comming from Abraham, he saith.
For females we answer, That God under that administration was pleased (in reference to some things pointed at by the seal) to appoint a sign of which women were not capable; so were they particularly excluded from being sealed with the Sacrament of initiation under that administration.
To which I reply, 1. That women are not capable of circumcision is contradicted by those that say, that at this day in some parts of the world women are circumcised. Aethiopes Christiani mares octavo ab ortu die circumcidunt, & feminis etiam aliquid amputatur, ut Abrahami et aliorum sanctorum patrum exemplo ardentius in similis sanctitatis studium incitentur. Quarto deinde a circumcisione die mares, octavo autem foeminae salutaribus aquis expiantur, & Eucharistiam …o die infantes initiati in mica panis assumunt. Osorius lib. 9. rerum ab Emmanuele gest. Zuinger. theat. vit. Hum. vol. 27. l 3. tit. bapt. pag. 4172. Osiander Epit. Hist. Eccl. Cent. 12. l. 4. c. 4. Anno Christi 1187. Jacobitae baptismo & ciriumcisione utuntur circumcidentes masculos & femellas. Hornbeck. Append. ad disp. de bap. ve. thes. 8. Solebant Aethiopes cum baptismo etiam circumcidere baptizatum, mas an femina esset circumcidebatur. Doctor Field of the Church 3. book chap. 1. Speaking of the Jacobites in Syria, Sixtly, they use circumcision even of both Sexes, and of the Habassines, They are also circumcised both male and female.
The same hath Heylin in his Geography, describing Syria and Ethiopia, and before him (if my memory deceive me not) Brerewood in his Enquiry of Religions.
So that it is but a just of Mr. Blake, that women could no more be circumcised than barb'd, if these authors be of any credit. But were it true that women were not circumcised because uncapable, yet would God doubtless have appointed such a sign as they were capable of, if it were true that all that were in covenant must be signed. But if it be true which Mr. G. confesseth, That the females, though in covenant were particularly excluded from being sealed with the sacrament of initiation under that administration, then the connexion between the seal initial and the covenant, is not proved from circumcision. And as for that he saies, That in reference to some things pointed at by the seal▪ God under that administration was pleased to appoint a sign of which women were not capable; it is a plain confession, that God appointed circumcision for an end not common to believers at all times, or to such as were in the covenant of grace, but proper to the posterity of Abraham; and therefore though the covenant were granted to be the reason of circumcision, yet it follows not all must be baptized barely from the covenant of grace, because they were circumcised by reason of interest in it, sith this was not true, and as Mr. Geree confesseth, Circumcision was appointed in reference to some things proper to that time.
But he hopes to salve the matter thus: So, actually they were not circumcised, yet were they reputed as circumcised, as appears both by the place alleged by Mr. M. Exod. 12.48. and where the house of Israel is said to be circumcised, and also by that of Samsons parents, being displeased that he should take a wife of the uncircumcised Philistines Judges 14.3. For unless the Israelitish women were reputedly circumcised in the males, circumcision could make no difference between wife and wife; yea our Saviour should be born of the uncircumcised.
To which I answer: To be reputed as circumcised, may be understood thus, they were mentioned as circumcised, and this sense is false; for then it should be an errour, sith they were not circumcised: nor is in the text Exod. 12.48. any thing to that purpose; for the speech, no uncircumcised person shall eat the passeover, is to be limitted by the matter, of them that ought to be circumcised, and that Judge 14.3. of taking a wife of or from the Philistines uncircumcised, as if thereby were intimated that an Israelitess woman was reputed as circumcised, or that our Saviour should be born of the uncircumcised, if women were not reputed as uncircumcised, proves it not. For the terms [ciecumcised and uncircumcised] are spoken of the people, who are said to be circumcised from the chief part, not from all parts. I remember not where the whole house of Israel is said to be circumcised, but to be uncircumcised in heart, Jeremy 9.26. yet were there such a place, it must be understood of all that were to be circumcised. Or else the meaning is, they were reputed as circumcised, that is, they were admitted to the passeover if their males were circumcised, notwithstanding they were not in their proper persons circumcised, which sense is true. But then it serves not the turn to avoid the force of the instance brought to shew there is not a necessary connexion between interest in the covenant, and the persons right to the initial Seal, in his own person, which Mr. G: must prove to make good his Major. For he would have infant-females actually baptized, because in covenant; and his proof is, They that were in covenant were circumcised, which must be meant of all in covenant, and of actual circumcision in their own persons, or else it can prove but a particular of some, and their virtual baptism, to wit, female infants. But Mr. G. thinks to prevent this objection.
And whereas you object, that you may as well say, that children are virtually baptized in their parents, I deny it, because you have not the like proof for the one, as we have for the other. Besides women that are said to be virtually and reputatively circumcised in the males, were not actually to be circumcised at all: they were excluded, which you do not, nor cannot say of infants; when they are grown up you confess they may and ought to be baptized.
Answ. That which I said, was only by way of inference upon Paedobaptists suppositions; if virtual circumcision were all that might be claimed by virtue of the covenant it would not help Paedobaptists who would from the covenant prove a right of actual circumcision to infants, whereas by their own confession it onelyonly proves necessarily a virtual; and if so, how can it prove necessarily by their own principles any more than a virtual baptizing of infants? The same medium that doth not prove as necessary actual circumcision in the one, cannot prove as necessary actual baptism in the other. Now the force of this objection is not at all weakned by his reply. For my words were not concerning the fitness of the expression, that the one was as fit as the other, but that I might grant a virtual baptism to infants without detriment to my cause, if they assert no more from the covenant, but a virtual circumcision.
But had I said [you may as well say] (which yet I find not in my writings, but, we might grant, we may say Examen page 37. by like, perhaps greater reason it may be said Exercit. p. 4.) the speech might have been right notwithstanding Mr. Gerees exceptions, for there is no more proof for the use of this speech, that females may be said to be virtually circumcised in the males, then for this, infants may be said to be virtually baptized in their parents, neither being used in Scripture, and reason being as much for the one as the other. And though those that were infants when grown, being believers, are to be baptized, yet infants during their infancy are by more full evidence excluded from actual baptism, then females were from actual circumcision.
Mr. G. proceeds thus. For your second instance of infants dying afore they were eight daies old; I answer that they were particularly tyed to that day, whether for the Theological reason Levit. 12.2, 3. or for the Physical reason, that God would not suffer an incision to be made on the flesh of a tender infant; or till the seventh, that is▪ the Critical day was over; or whether to typifie the resurrection, we cannot determine; but till that day they were expresly excluded; yet therefore it remains clear that all that were within that administration of the Covenant, that were not expresly excluded, were circumcised, which is enough for my purpose. And so unless you can bring a rule that no infant of Christians shall have the Sacrament of initiation till 18 years or so, that instance of infants not being circumcised dying before the 8. day, is too short to reach up.
Answ. It is not enough for Mr. Gs. purpose, which was to prove, the seal did follow the covenant, and when any were aggregated into the Jewish church and taken into the communion of the covenant made with Abraham they were initiated into that administration of the Covenant by the Sacrament of Circumcision, unless he can prove that all that were in covenant, and in the Jewish Church were circumcised. But his own grant, That some in the Covenant, and Jewish Church, as females and males under eight daies old, were expresly excluded, overthrows his own position, and is enough for my purpose to prove, that all in the covenant were not circumcised. The reason why males afore the eighth day were not circumcised, whatever it were, is nothing for Mr. Gs. advantage, but against him, sith it doth more fully shew that God would not have them circumcised. Nor need I bring a rule that no infant of Christians shall have the Sacrament of initiation till eighteen years, or so, which goes upon his mistake, as if the instance I gave were as a proof of the time of baptism, it being brought only to shew a reason of my denial of his assertion, that the seal did follow the covenant. It is enough for me, that I prove (as I have done in the second part of the Review s. 5. &c.) that the rule is, that persons are not to be baptized till they be disciples or believers, and that infants are not such.
Mr. G. addes. Your third instances are of Adam, Abel, Noah page 36. of your answer, and Melchisedec, Lot, Job, pag. 4. Exercit. I answer either those were before the administration begun with Abraham, and so before the institution of seals, or such of them that were with or after him, either they join not themselves to that administration, and so were not to be sealed no more then the Proselytes of the Gate, or if they did unite to the Church in Abrahams family, then it is apparent they might lay claim to circumcision, as other proselytes did. And so indeed it is averred of Iob, that he was circumcised, by the Author of the book of true circumcision▪ which is ascrrbed to Hierom, cited by Iunius in his animadversion on Bellarmine, Controv. 4. l. 3. cap. 16. Not. 13.
Answ. Master Geree doth make shew of answering my allegation, but doth indeed confirm my proof, that sith Abel, Noah, Melchisedec, Lot, and many Proselytes of the gate were in the Covenant of grace, yet had not any initial sign or seal, as M. Geree calls it, to seal the Covenant, and some sealed after an initial seal was instituted though in the Covenant of grace, therefore there is not such a connexion between the Covenant, and the initial seal, that therefore a man must have the seal initial because he is in the covenant of grace, and that it was not from interest in the Covenant of grace, that persons were circumcised, but Gods special command upon such reasons as seemed best to him, but is not a reason for us to imitate in another ordinance without the like command. If one Author conceive Iob was circumcised, many do conceive otherwise, and there are more probable reasons he was not; sith there's no mention of his circumcision, or his observing any of the rites of the Law, or of any acquaintance he had with Israel, or any thing else that might induce us to believe he had communion with the policy of Israel.
Master Geree saith further; And wheras you say, Lastly, that the Jews comprehended in covenant and circumcised could not be baptized without faith and repentance. I answer, the reason is evident; because baptism was a seal of a new administration; and therefore they must join to that administration of the covenant as well as be in covenant, before they could be baptized.
Answ. I am beholding to Mr. Geree, who as before had given the reason why Melchisedeck, Lot, Iob, were not circumcised, though in Covenant because of their not joining themselves to that administration, or their not uniting to the Church in Abrahams family: so here again he doth not only grant what I allege, but gives a reason of it also, and such as quite overthrows his dispute. For if it were true that the Jews that were in covenant were not to be …aptiz…d without faith and repentance, then being in covenant is not a sufficient reason of an infants being baptized without faith and repentance, and if baptism were a seal of a new administration, then it must have a new rule, and so the old rule of circumcision is no direction to us about baptism, if Lot, the Proselytes of the gate, though in covenant, were not to be circumcised without joining to that administration, or the Church in Abrahams family, then right to circumcision was not from interest in the covenant common to all believers, but something proper to that Church-state, or administration, which is now voided: if therefore the Jews in covenant and circumcised must profess repentance and faith afore they were baptized, because they must join to the new administration of the covenant, then according to Mr. Gerees own confession, according to the new administration of the Covenant, faith and repentance are required of them that join to that administration of the Covenant. And therefore whereas Mr. Geree addes, we may therefore conclude, that those that are under the Gospel-covenant in any administration of it, have right to the seal of initiation under that administration; unless they be particularly excluded by God himself, and so the major is firmly proved; I may truly say, it is firmly proved that they that are under the Gospel-covenant in any administration of it, yet have not right to the seal of initiation under that administration, barely from the Covenant without a command, and that God himself hath excluded infants from baptism by Mr. Gerees own concession, without faith and repentance, and that in all this arguing Mr. G. hath dictated much and proved nothing. Let's see whether he speed better about proving the Minor.