Anti-Paedobaptism Part 3, Section 3
SECT. III. Master Drew's Argument for Infant-baptism from Gen. 17. is examined, and it is shewed, there is not the same reason of Infant-Baptism, as of Infant-Circumcision.
MAster John Drew is one of those to whose writings Master Baxter refers me, and is said by the Author of the lawfulness of obeying the present government, to have written with sharp reasons and mild language. Let's see how he hath disputed pag. 23. of his serious address; Where there is the same reason of a precept or command enjoyning any practice continued, there may and must be the same practice continued: But the reason of the command for signing Infants of Covenanters with the first signe or seal of the Covenant under the Old Testament continues still in force for that practice under the New Testament. Therefore now that command is in force to all persons in Covenant, as it was then.
Answ. The command in force then to all persons in Covenant, is expressed by himself in the words before, pag. 22.23. the command of Circumcision, Gen. 17.11, 12. when he saith (All the Infants of those in Covenant with God were signed with the first signe or seal of the Covenant then instituted and commanded by the Lord, which was Circumcision) so that if he mean, as his words are, this is his meaning in his conclusion (that command which is Gen. 17.11, 1…. to Circumcise the flesh of the foreskin of Abrahams males of eight dayes old, is now in force to all persons in Covenant, as well as it was then) which neither hath nor can have any other sense (taking words as they are used by other men) but that still all in Covenant with God, are bound by th… command, Gen. 17.11, 12. to Circumcise their male children of eight dayes old; which is to maintain that which the Apostles have abro…ted, Act. 15. to intangle us with the yoak of bondage, which the Apost…e saith, would make Christ unprofitable to us, Gal. 5.1, 2, 3. But it will be said, he means not the command of Circumcision, but the command of signing with the first sign or seal of the Covenant. Ans. If he means so, he rather juggles than disputes. For the words speak of the command, which is Gen. 17.11, 12. and that is no other than of Circumcision; no such command of signing Infants of Covenanters with the first signe or seal of the Covenant in the Old Testament, besides that of Circumcision, is either there or any where else that I know of; if there be let it be shewed. But this is the manner of Paedobaptists, in their disputes to imagine a command of sealing, as they call it, with the first seal, the Infants of Covenanters abstractively or distinctly from Circumcision in the Old Testament, Gen. 17. which is indeed a meer fiction, with which they mock their auditors and readers, who unwarily take what they say without examination. Now this were an answer sufficient to this argument; yet because this mans reasoning is so commended, let's view his proofes.
For proof of the Major thus he writes. For when God giveth the reason of any command, that reason is the ground of the command; and till that reason ceaseth, he is very bold with God, that dare exempt himself from the practice. And again, If the first proposition be denied, viz, where there is the same reason of a precept continued, there must be the same practice, then every man may set himself free from any command of God, and who can say unto him, what doest thou? For the Lord commands nothing without a reason, if there be no reason exprest, the reason of his will is implyed, which is as cogent and binding as all reasons in the world, till he makes it appear that it ceaseth. This is very clear.
Answ. The reason of a Command may be understood, either of the reason why Cod commands a thing, or the reason why we are bound to observe that command. The reason why God commands is various, sometimes one thing, sometimes another, sometimes expressed, sometimes concealed. And sometimes the same reason is given of very various commands, as I said before (I am the Lord your God) is Levit. 19. the promiscuous reason of moral and ceremonial and judicial commands; yea that the very reason which 1 Pet. 1.14, 15, 16. is given for the command to be obedient children, not fashioning themselves according to their lusts in their ignorance, but to be holy in all manner of conversation, is cit…d from Levit. 11.44, 45. and is the very reason why he forbids the Israelits to eat certain meats, or to touch certain things unclean by the Law. And therefore by Master Drew's reasoning (the reason of the precept not ceasing) we are bound still to the precept, Levit. 11. of abstaining from meats unclean by the Law, and from touching things legally defiling. But though there may be many motives to do it the rather, yet the onelyonly formal adequate reciprocal reason why we are bound to observe any thing, is the command of our Lord revealed to us. besides which, we are to look no further, nor are we to neglect it, till by some declaration of his will, it appears we are discharged. Thus Abraham was bound to offer his son Isaac on the Altar, because of Gods command, without knowing any other reason; yea though he had known the reason from the end to be fulfilled, yet he had not been discharged till God signified it by the Angel, that he should not slay him. Now then to Master Drews argument. I… he understand the reason of the precept in the first sense his major is false; the reason why God gave a precept may continue, and yet the practice is not to continue, as Levit. 11▪ 44, 45. On the otherside the reason of a precept may not reach, and yet the precept reach; as though God brought not us out of Egypt, which is the reason of the command, Deut. 5.6, 7. yet the command pertains to us, and vers. 15. It is said, Remember that thou wast a bondman in Egypt, therefore the Lord thy God commanded thee to keep the Sabbath day. Where I presume Master Drew will say the command reacheth us, though the reason of it do not. And as for his inference, That if it be denied, where there is the same reason of a precept there must be the same practice, then every man may set himself free from any command of God, it is true, if by the same reason of a precept, he understand the reason of a precept in the second sense, for the reason why we are bound to observe his precept, to wit, the declaration of Gods will it should continue: but if he understand it in the first sense, for that reason which God gives, why he declared his will, and bound us to observe it, though it continue. yet the precepr may not be in force, nor on the other side doth the precept alwayes cease to binde, though that reason cease, as is proved before.
Now that reason of the precept Gen. 17.11, 12. which is vers. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. is a reason of the first sort, and not of the latter. And indeed in more positive rites which are by institution the precept continues not in force, however rhe reason God used to inforce it, remaine, except the institution be continued. Rightly Pareus comm. in Gen. 8.20. to an Objection, That sacrifices are to be continued, because the cause is perpetual, Answereth, The perpetual cause of a thing necessarily co-hering with the thing, as a Cause continued with its effect, makes the same perpetual. But the said causes or ends do not so co-here with the sacrifies of the Ancients, but onelyonly by appointment, that is divine ordination, which was that those sacrifices should be the confirmation of the faith of the fathers, and a signification of gratitude, unto the coming of the Messiah, &c. The like may be said of the ends of Circumcision, and the occasion of appointing it.
But let us view Master Drew's proof of the Minor, The reason (saith he) of the command for signing Infants of Believers under the Law, with the first signe or seal of the Covenant, was this promise, I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed, as is evident, Gen. 17.7, 8. compared with the 9.10. and 11. verses, where this promise of God, and the application of the first seal are knit into a dependence one upon another: I will establish my Covenant between me and thee, &c. to be a God unto thee and thy seed after thee; therefore thou shalt Circumcise every male, as a token of the Covenant, vers 11. But this same reason of the command continues in force under the Gospel; God doth as truely say to every Believing Gentile now, I am thy God and the God of thy seed, as he did to Abraham the Father of believing Gentiles, so he is called Rom. 4.11. Therefore I may conclude, that Believers under the Gospel, have the same command for signing their Infants with the first seal of the Covenant of promise (which now is baptism) as Abraham had to signe his under the Law with the first signe, &c. which then was Circumcision; and now Sirs, if the blessing of Abraham be come upon you, and if you be heirs according to the promise, you may easily finde a command for Baptizing your Infant seed.
Answ. If Master Drew would prove what is to be proved, he should prove that the proper formal reason obliging to the duty of Circumcision, Gen. 17.9, 10, 11. was the promise, I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed after thee. But that is false. For the formal reason being put, the thing is put without any other thing, and it being not put, the thing is not put, though other things be put. But if the promise had been put, yet Abraham had not been obliged to Circumcise, unless a command were put, and the command being put, Abraham was bound to Circumcise, though God had made no promise.
Therefore, though the promise might be a motive to do it, yet as Master Mars…all truely confesseth, Defence of his Sermon pag. 182. the formal reason of the Jews being Circumcised was the command; and therefore till Master Drew shew we have the same command to Baptize Infants, as Abraham had to Circumcise Infants, he can never shew we have the same or equal reason for Infant-baptism, as was for Infant-circumcision. But Master Drew thinks to prove his Minor from Gen. 17.7, 8. compared with the 9, 10, 11. vers. Where it is evident (saith he) this promise of God, I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed, and the application of the first seal, are knit into a dependence one upon another.
But he doth but dictate without any cleer explication, or thorough consideration of what he saith. For 1. He doth not plainly tell us, that the dependence he imagines to be one upon another of the application of the first seal and the promise, I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed, is upon that promise alone, and not upon the other promises, vers. 4, 5, 6, 8. And if he do so mean, yet he brings nothing to p…ove it, and it …s unequal he should expect we should take it on his word, sith if we gather any thing from the placing of the words, the reason of the command, vers. 9, 10, 11, 12. may as well be from the promise of giving him and his seed the land o… Canaan, vers. 8. as the promise, vers. 7. 2. Whereas the promise vers. 7. hath diverse senses, one, so as to be meant of Abraham as a natural father, and his seed according to the flesh, another, of Abraham as a spiritual father, and his spiritual seed, he neither brings a word, nor do I think can, why the reason of the Command, vers. 9, 10, 11, 12. should be from the promise made to Abraham as a spiritual father, and to his spiritual seed (which alone is for his purpose to bring Gentile-believers children to be in the promise) rather than to Abraham as a natural Father and to his natural seed, especially those of them that were to inherit the land of Canaan: yea it is manifest, that if the dependence were, as he saith, it is to be interpreted of Abrahams seed by nature, sith the command there was given to the natural seed of Abraham only, and them that joyned to them. 3. Nor doth Mr. Drew shew what dependence one upon another they are knit into, whether contingent or necessary, or if necessary, in what degree of necessity, Whether, de omni per se or quatenus ipsum. This last seems to be most likely, and the dependence this, To whomsoever that promise is made, that person is to have the first seal; and whosoever is to have the first seal, to that person the promise is made. But this were evidently false. For it appears from v. 19. that the promise was not made to Ishmael, and yet he was to have the first seal, & others of Abrahams house had not the promise who were to be signed with Circumcision, and the females had the promise made to them, and yet were not to be signed. If it be said they were vertually signed, it serves not Master Drew's turn, who asserts a dependence of the promise and actual signing in the person federate. 4. Nor doth he shew from what term or words his imagined dependence is evident. The onelyonly term I know, he or any other gathers the supposed dependence from, is vers. 9. (therefore) But in the Hebrew it is foreign which in the most usual sense is, And thou, noting a further addition to his speech, not an illation of one thing from another. And so the Tigurines read & tu, And thou, Pareus Tu autum, But thou, Piscator, Tu vero, Thou verily. So that the evidence is very small, which is from so uncertain a light. 5. Nor doth he nor can he shew from the comparing Gen. 17.7, 8. with 9, 10, 11. any dependence of application of any other first signe, than Circumcision upon the promise there. The Command of an indfinite first seal, there or elswhere to believers Infants, is a meer figment. 6. That dependence which is implyed by the term (therfore) is not at all such as intimates a right competent to Infants, but a duty enjoyned to parents, which Infants are nor capable of. And therefore if any see a command for Baptizing of Infants in that place, it is but a parallax, or decep…io visus, a mistake of sight, as in him that thinks he sees two Suns or two Moons at once. The Minor also in his Argument is to be proved.