Anti-Paedobaptism Part 3, Section 2
SECT. II. Dr. Homes his arguments to prove Infant-baptism from Gen. 17. are Examined.
Two wayes I finde Consequences framed, one in arguments formed syllogistically, the other in certain Conclusions or hypotheses from whence it is conceived they may deduce Infant-baptism. I begin with the former way. I had formed the argument from Gen. 17.7. &c. three wayes, in my Exercit. Sect. 1, 2, 3. and that without disadvantage to my Antagonists, notwithstanding D. Homes his exceptions. But I am content to view the forms D. Homes sets down, as more agreeable to their minde. In his Animadversion on my Exerc. chap. 2. pag. 6. he saith, Our first form of argument from Gen. 17.7. &c. is this. Where there is a Command for a thing never remanded on contramanded, there the thing is still in force. But there is a Command for signing the infants of a believer with the sign of the Covenant of grace, Gen. 17.7, 9. never yet remanded or contramanded: therefore the signing believers children with the sign of the Covenant of grace (namely baptism now) is still in force.
To which I answer, 1. The conclusion is not of the thing in question, which is not of the children of believers, but of the Infant-children of believers, as it was in the Minor, now a person of 20. years of age is a believers child, as well as one of two dayes old. 2. In the Minor (the sign of the Covenant of grace Commanded) is understood, either of the sign of the Covenant of grace expressed in the Conclusion, to wit, Baptism, and if so, it is denied that there is any such Command, Gen. 17.7, 9. to sign with the sign of the Covenant of grace believers infants, theres no Command but of circumcising the manchild of eight dayes old, not a tittle of baptism: or else of a sign of the Covenant of grace there expressed, and if so, the Minor is denied, that the Command for signing the Infants of a believer with the sign of the Covenant of grace, Gen. 17.7, 9. was never yet remanded or contramanded. It was expressely contramanded Acts 15.28. Gal. 5.1, 2, 3. If in the Conclusion by (the sign of the Covenant of grace) be meant as the words (namely baptism now) import, the rite of Christian Baptism, and in the Minor it be meant of the Command of Circumcision, then there is a fault of the syllogism in the form, it consisting of four terms. If in the Minor i… be meant of the sign of the Covenant indefinite, which is neither Baptism nor Circumcision, I deny there is such a Command, Gen. 17.7, 9. and the syllogism hath also fourth terms.
Two other forms he hath pag. 9. 2. Form of argument from Gen. 17. is this. To whom the Covenant in force runs in the same tenour in the New Testament as in the Old, to them the application of the first sign or seal of the New Testament may be applied▪ as well as the first of the Old Testament: But this tenour of the Covenant of grace still in force, is as true, and doth as truely run to a believing Gentile, I am thy God and the God of thy seed, as it did to Abraham the Father of believing Gentiles, Rom. 4. Gal. 3. Ergo, the first seal of the Covenant may be applied to believers children, now in the New Testament as well as in the Old to Abrahams. The Major is plain in Gen. 17. the tenor of the Covenant, and the application of the first seal, are Knit into a dependence one upon another. I am the God of thee, and thy seed, V. 7, 8. Therefore thou shalt circumcise every male, V. 9. &c. The Minor is unquestioned of any that I know.
Answer 1. The thing to be concluded was, that Baptism may be applied, but baptism and the first seal of the Covenant I do not take to be all one. Baptism or Circumcision I do no where finde in Scripture called the seal of the Covenant, much less the first seal, and why the blood of Christ, or the spirit of Christ, or the oath of God may not be called the first seal of the Covenant as well as these, I know not; again the Conclusion was to be (may be applied to infant-children of believers) where as the conclusion is (may be applyed to believers children) And the thing to be concluded was simply (baptism may be applied to Infants of believers) whereas it is propounded comparatively (now in the New Testament as well as in the Old to Abraham) now baptism was not applied to Abraham, and therefore the Conclusion may be granted (baptism may be applied to infants of believers now as well as to Abraham) that is, just never a whit, sith it was never applied to Abraham. 2. But besides, if the phrases (to whom the Covenant in force runs &c.) in the Major, and in the Minor, (doth as truely run to a believing Gentile) (as the words carry it) be meant onelyonly of the believer, and in the Major (the application to them) be meant onelyonly of the believing Gentile as in the Minor, then there are more than three term… in the syllogism, (applied to believers children) beeing not at all in either of the premises. But if it be put in the Major (may be applied to them and their Infants) and in the Minor (to a believing Gentile and his Infant children) I deny both Major and Minor. Nor the Major proved from Gen. 17.7, 8, 9. as in my Answer to M. Bailee, Sect. 3. in my Ample disquisition Sect 5. is made manifest, by shewing the nullity of the pretended connexion between the Covenant and the seal; The term (therefore) Gen. 17.9.) may be read (and) and it hath not reference to the promise onelyonly, V. 7. but to the rest of the promises, V 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. or rather to the whole Covenant, and the making of it, and it imports not a right by vertue of the Covenant, but a motive inforcing a Command, and this command being of circumcising the male onelyonly of 8. dayes old, shewes there is not a connexion between the Covenant and Seal, sith then it would belong to the female and male of the seventh day, they being in Covenant as well as the male of the eighth. The Minor he takes as unquestioned, But I deny it, till I finde it better proved than yet I have done. I omit the uncoutheness of the Phrase (to them the application of the first sign may be applied) and leave the D. to make good sense of it, which I cannot do.
His 3. form of Argument from Gen. 17. is, Where there is the same reason of a precept, there may be the same practice: But the promise which is the reason of the precept runs in the New Testament (as flowing from Gen. 17.) to believers and their children, The promise is to you and your children, Acts. 2.39. Ergo.
Answer. What is the Conclusion he would prove he leavs to be gathered. It should be, Infants of believers are to be baptized. But then the predicate in the Conclusion would be found in neither of the Premisses. For the precept Gen. 17.9. is onelyonly that male Infants of 8. days old of Abrahams house should be Circumcised. But a little after he puts this as the Conclusion, that the same reason on which the administration of circumcision was grounded, the administration of baptism was grounded. Which I grant true in this sense, that as the reason why Circumcision was administred to Infants was the Command of God, so the reason why Baptism is to be administred to believers, is the Command of Christ. But the D. would have it thus, that as infants were to be Circumcised by vertue of the promise, Gen. 17.7. so Infants of believers are to be Baptized by vertue of the same promise repeated Acts 1.39. concerning which, to omit the monstrosity of his syllogism, in which there are more than 4 terms, and neither the Predicate nor Subject in the Conclusion, Major or Minor, his speeches are without proof or trueth. For 1. it is not true, where there is the same reason of a precept there may be the same practice. For Levit. 19.5, 9, 10, 19, 23, 25, 26, 27, 28, 30. are precepts concerning Mosaical ceremonies or observances, as of offering a sacrifice, of peace offerings, not reaping the corners of the field, not sowing the field with mingled seed, not wearing a garment of linnen and woollen, not eating fruit of trees planted till the fourth yeer, not eating any thing with the blood, not rounding the corners of the head, reverencing the Sanctuary, to wit, the tabernacle or Temple, and these with other moral precepts mixed among them in the same Chapter, have in sundry of those verses, and the beginning and end of the Chapter, this as the common reason, I am the Lord, and yet we are not by the same reason tied to all the practices. 2. He doth not prove that the promise, Acts 2.39. is the same with the promise, Gen. 17.7. It is more likely to be either the promise, Act. 2.17, 33, 38. or Act. 2.30. or Act. 3.25. which were eminent promises, and related to the covenant of grace. 3. He doth not prove that (to you, Act. 2.39.) is (to you believers and to your children) that is, the Infants of believers as such: It doth not appear they were then believers when these words were spoken. 4. Nor is there a word that shews the promise was to them or their children, whether called or no. 5. Nor is it proved that the promise to Abraham and his seed, Gen. 17.7. was the onelyonly reason of the precept, vers. 9, 10. 6. If it were so proved, it is not proved, nor ever can be, that it was the formal adequate reason, why an Infant was circumcised. 7. Nor is there the least hint in the words, Act. 3.38, 39. that the reason why a person hath right to be Baptized, is barely the being of the promise to that person, or Gen. 17.7, 9, 10. any hint that the promise barely of it self, did either give right to Circumcision, or oblige to the duty, but in both places it is brought as a motive to excite to that duty, which the precept alone was the formal reason of, and in the former as well of Repentance as of being Baptized. So that when the Doctor hath formed his arguments, they are but mishapen things, having many ambiguities of speech, little or no proof for what he saith. And notwithstanding the Doctors cavils, I yet think the arguments from Gen. 17. were better formed by me in my Exercitation for Paedobaptists advantage, than by the Doctor in his Animadversions: But perhaps we may finde the Arguments better formed elsewhere.