Anti-Paedobaptism Part 3, Section 31
SECT. XXXI, Of the novelty and vanity of Mr. Marshals and others doctrine about Sacraments, being seals of the covenant, and the severall sealings of them.
BUt Mr. M. desires me a little to consider the nature of a Sacrament in what sense it is a seal, and he te…s me, that in every Sacrament the truth of the Covenant in it self, and all the promises of it are sealed to be Yea and Amen; Iesus Christ became a Minister of the Circumcision to confirm the promises made unto the Fathers, and so to every one who is admitted to partake of baptism according to the rule which God hath given to his Church to administer the Sacrament, there is sealed the truth of all the promises of the Gospel, that they are all true in Christ, and that whoever partakes of Christ, shall partake of all these saving promises, this is sealed absolutely in Bapiism.
Answer. Mr M. would have me to consider the nature of a Sacrament, in what sense it is a seal, and I am very willing so to do, as knowing that as Mr. M. imagines that I am mislead for want of considering thereof, so I am sure Mr. M. and other Paedobaptists are both mistaken, and do abuse others in this point, by reason of their inconsideratenass, or superficial consideration of this thing. The word Sacrament is a Latin word in profane Authors signifying an oath made by a Souldier to his Generall; in Ecclesiastick Writers it is applied to all the mysteries of religion, and it is used most by the African Writers, Tertullian, Augustine &c. as the word Mystery is by the Greeks, Chrysostome Cyril, &c. Chamier Paustrat. Cath tom, 4. l. 4. c. 4. Sect. 14. Saepe jam dictum latissimam fuisse olim Saramenti significationem: serò tandem contractam in angustos istos terminos quos hodie vix migrat: quod diligenter attendendum. Certè sacramenti definitionem nullam est invenire ante Augustinum, qui suo exemplo posteris praiit, deinde Augustini definitione, &c. Whence I inferre, that as the term Sacrament, so the definition of a Sacrament is but a novelty, and possibly the great contentions about the number of the Sacraments, some making seven, some three, most Protestants two onelyonly, would be lessened, if moderate learned men had the handling of it. I confesse that sundry Texts of Scripture do plainly shew the two rites of Baptism and the Lords Supper to be the chief rites of the Church, as 1 Cor. 10, 1, 2, 3, 4. & 12, 13. Eph. 4, 5. Mark 16.16. 1 Cor. 10.16, 17. & 11.23, &c. Yet that the Scripture either calls these Sacraments, or sets down one generall nature of them in a certain definition of them, cannot be demonstrated. They are certain rites appointed for certain vses according to certain rules; but such a nature or essence genericall as distinguisheth them from all other rites, as laying on of hands, &c. denied to be Sacraments I find not in Scripture. Divines elder and later, have framed their definitions according to their own conceits. After Augustines time that definition was commonly received in Schools, That a Sacrament is a visible sign of an invisible grace: yet the Ancients did rent such speeches as occasioned the opinion commonly received in Schools afore the reformation by Luther and Zuinglius, that they did conferre gratiam ex opere operato, give grace by the …a…e outward use of them. Zuinglius denying them to be any more than signs, the Lutherans denying that they give grace by the bare use of them without the concurrence of faith, to which the Lutherans ascribe all the efficacie; the Papists object the baptizing of infants who did not believe, used by them all: whereupon the opposers of infant-baptisme, falsly termed Anabaptists, proved infant-baptism inconsistent with their own doctrine. I wil set down Mr. Bedfords words in his Epistle to Mr. Baxter, printed in the Friendly Accommodation between them, pag. 352. The Anabaptists took occasion from that position of Luther, No Faith no Baptism. Coetaneous with him was Zuinglius and others, who to overthrow the reall presence, insisted upon it …hat Sacraments were but signs for representation; and when that doctrin was once broached▪ the Anabaptists could easily make their advantage of it. To answer whom the Lutherans maintain, that by baptism, or before they are made believers, as the words of the Lutherans in the Conference at Mont…elgard, cited by me in my Examen part 3. sect. 15, p. 143. shew, Osiander epist. Histor. Eccl. Cent. 26. l. 2. c. 68. pag· 449. Cum autem baptismus …it lavacrum regenerationis (teste Paulo) sentimus nos Deum dare fidem infantibus vel ante baptismum ad preces parentum & Ecclesiae, vel in ipso actu baptismi & regenerationis, quae si…e fide esse non potest. And to this opinion did many in England warp, when the face of the Church of England became ceremonious, and tended to symbolizing with the Lutheran Protestants, or with the more moderate not Jesuited Papists in the time of the late Prelates potency, as may be seen by the passages cited by me in Examen part. 3… ▪ Sect. 15. pag. 143. and by the printed writings of Dr. Davenant, Dr. Ward, Mr, Thomas Bedford, which have been refuted by Mr. Gataker and Mr. Baxter, nor is it likely but still the same mind is in Mr. Bedford, notwithstanding the late Synectism, or rather clawing of one another which hath been between him and Mr. Baxter in their painted Frindly Accommodation. In which Mr. Cranfords Epistle hath these words to Mr. Bedford, Brother you know my mind, that I conceive the ground of Anabaptisme to have been the erroneus Doctrine, de nudis signis, as is …leare in the Ecclesiasticall Stories of old, and most arguings of Anabaptists. Which shewes they fear Infants Baptim will not be maintained without this doctrine of giving by Baptism to the elect at least initiall seminall regerating grace reall or relative. But Mr. Baxter thinks otherrwise, that that doctrine will increase Anabaptism, Leaving them to their severall fancies, I proceed.
Mr. Calvin, and w…th him many others▪ take another course to avoyd extreams, neither making Baptism a naked sign, which is imputed to Zuinglius, nor ascribing to it the giving of grace by the work wrought, with the Papists, nor holding such initiall seminall regeneration or seed of Faith at Baptism, given at least to the elect, as Lutherans and others (which perhaps will be found as much as the Papists ascribe to it) but ascribing to Baptism and the Lords Supper, not onelyonly signification, but also obsignation, and so making this the generall nature of Sacraments to be seals of the Covenant of grace, which they say is made to infants of believers, though they want not faith at or before Baptism; and from this promise they desire a title to the baptism of Infants of believers, as is shewed out of Calvin above. But 1. there is much ambiguity in their determinations about the covenant of grace what it is, and what it contains, and in what sense it belongs …o infants of believers as such, and what believers infants it belongs …o, and how baptism seals it. So that in their speeches there is much equivocation, and frequent saying and unsaying, as chiefly about the promise, Gen. 17.7. I will be thy God and the God of thy seed after thee: which is one way expounded in their Commentaries on Rom. 9.7, 8, and elsewhere, as meant of saving graces, and applied onelyonly to the elect and true believers in their disputes against Arminius: But elsewhere expounded of every Gentile visible professor of faith in Christ, and his naturall seed, as if thereby the outward privileges of visible Church membership, and initiall seal were promised and applied to all infants of believers, whether elect or not in their disputes against Anabaptists, as may be perceived by this and other writings published by me. 2. The objection still holds, How can baptism seal to an infant? Every seal is a sign, though every sign be not a seal; but baptism is no sign to an infant, sith it signifies nothing to it at the time of baptism, because the infant hath not understanding to perceive the use of it; and when the infant comes to understanding there's no print of baptism to represent anything to the person baptized some years before. If the person know anything of it, it is by report, which is no visible sign, but audible to the baptized. 3. A a seal is an assuring sign to the eye of what is promised to the eare: but baptism assures nothing to an infant without faith, therefore it seals nothing without faith▪ And thus in Mr Perkins his Exposition of the fifth principle of his Catechism. Heretofore we were taught, A Sacrament is a sign to represent, a seal to confirm, an instrument to convey Christ and all his benefits to them that do believe in him. Faith therefore was a necessary prerequisite in the person to whom the Sacrament was a seal of the Covenant of grace, which infants wanting it is no seal to them, and consequently no Sacrament, as Mr. Gataker argues in another case, Discep. de bapt. inf. vi & effic. pag. 192. …f it be a seal of the essence of a Sacrament.
The main if not the onelyonly Texts whence they …etch this Doctrine of making the nature of Sacraments to be Seals of the covenant of grace▪ are Rom. 4.11. Gen. 17.7, 10, 11. In the former it is said, Abraham received the sign of Circumcision a Seal of the righteousness of faith which he had yet being uncircumcised; and in the other Circumcision is termed the Covenant ▪ and token of the Covenant. Vide Gat…k. Discept. de vi▪ & effic. inf. baptism. pag. 243.Whence [the seal of the Covenant of grace] is either made the definition of a Sacrament in generall, or at least the genus of it, and in the writings of Paedobaptists …ls of the Covenant and Sacraments are used as terms of the same signification. I… the Confession of faith of the Assembly, chap. 27. art. 1. Sacraments are holy signs and seals of the Covenant of grace, and they cite but two texts for it, Rom. 4.11. Gen. 17.7.10 Yea, in the Ordinance of Parliament Octob. 20▪ 1645. about Rules concerning examining persons to be admited to the Lords Supper, this is one principle which every one who is admitted to the Lords Supper, is required to give account of, that Sacraments are seals of the covenant of grace in the blood of Christ: so that in effect it is made as one of the first Credenda, or articles of faith necessary for all to know. On the contrary, I have seen a little book in English of one Mr. Jackson, in which are nineteen arguments to prove circumcision no seal of the covenant of grace. For my part, as I express my self in my Examen, pag. 117. I should not st…ck to yeild that the rites of the New Testament called Sacraments, may be called seals of the covenant of grace, being …ightly expounded in this sense, that they sh…w forth Christs death, and thereby to the true believer, the benefits of the covenant of grace are assured: yet considering how Writers make this the very Genus in the definition of them, and of their nature and essence, and thence inferre duties and draw arguments to determine cases of conscience about the use of Sacraments as they are called, and make it a necessary point to be acknowledged by all, I reject it, and except against this use of that term for these reasons.
First, Because this use of that term is not in or from the holy Scripture, That term Seal of the covenant of grace, is not expressly in the holy Scripture, I suppose will not be denied: if it be, let it be shewed where. Though the term Seal, and the true Token of the Covenant, be ascribed to circumcision, Rom. 4.11 Gen. 17.11. yet is not the term Seal of the Covenant of grace, applied to any Sacrament, no not to circumcision. Nor is the term Seal of the righteousness of Faith, Rom. 4.11. of the same sense with the term Seal of the covenant of grace. For the Seale of the covenant of grace in the ordinary acception, is as much as an assuring sign or mean of the grace of the covenant to be bestowed, Rom. 4.11. it is said, that Abraham received the sign of Circumcision, a Seal of the righteousness of Faith, which he had being yet uncircumcised, and therefore it was rather a seal of certification of what he had, than a prediction or promise what he should have. Mr. Baxter against Mr. Blake, pag. 104. saith truly, That circumcision was the Seal of the righteousness of Faith, even a justifying faith already in being, Rom. 4.11, 12. The New England Elders in their Answer to the third and fourth of the nine positions, pag. 65. say truly thus, The scope of the Apostle in that place, Rom. 4 11, is not to def…ne a Sacrament, nor to shew what is the adequate subject of the Sacrament, but to prove by the example of Abraham that a sinner is justified before God, not by works but by faith (thus) As Abraham the Father of the faitfull was justified before God, so must his seed be, that in all believers whether Iewes or Gentiles, circumcised or uncircumcised, for therefore Abraham received circumcision which belonged to the Iewes, to confirm the righteousness which he had before, even whilst he was uncircumcised, that he might be the Father of both. And to speak truth, to conceive that circumcision there is made the seal of the covenant of grace, that is, that God would be the God of Abraham and his seed for the future, sanctifying, justifying, saving him and them, …is indeed to evacuate the force of the Apostles argument, which is, that righteousness is not appropriated to the Lawes by the Law, but common to the Gentiles with them by faith, because Abrahams circumcision sealed to him the righteousness of faith, which he had before he was circumcised. Nor do I see that which Camier. Paust. Cath. tom. 4. l. 2. c. 10. Sect. 47. saith, doth prove that circumcision Rom. 4.11. is meant of a Seal of a promise, because Gen. 17. in the institution it was termed a token of the covenant, for the Apostle, Rom. 4 11. mentions not what God appointed circumcision to be to every circumcised person, but what peculiar use Abrahrms circumcision had to him and all believers though uncircumcised. And though it is true, that righteousness of faith supposeth a word of God, or a promise or covenant of grace, yet Ro 4.11. the citcumcision there mentioned is said to seal not a promise of something future, but something past and already had many years before, Gen. 15.6.
But were it granted, that ci…cumcision there sealed the promise to come, to wit, that part of the covenant, Gen. 17.4. Thou shalt be a father of many Nations, and that v 7. And I will establish my covenant between me and thee, and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant to bee a God unto thee and thy seed after thee, or that Gen. 15.5. So shall thy seed be, mentioned Rom. 4.17, 18. and so did assure a future estate to others as well as an estate already ob…ained to Abraham, yet this is ascribed in that place to no ones circumcision but Abrahams. For 1. The occasion and scope of the passage shew it is meant of Abrahams circumcision, it being alleged to prove, that Gentiles were to be justified by faith though uncircumcised, because Abraham was justified by faith afore circumcision, and his circumcision after did but seal (not convey) the righteousness of faith we had before. 2. The expression [He received] standing in opposition to [yet being uncircumcised] shewes that the receiving of the seal of circumcision was in his own person. 3. The end of receiving it sh…wes it more plainly: for it was, That he might be the father of them that believe. But this was the end onelyonly of Abrahams personall circumcision: Neither Ishmaels, nor Isaacks, nor any others personall circumcision were, that Abraham might be the father of them that believe, but onelyonly Abrahams. 4. The time exactly noted of his believing, and imputation of right…ousness to him, distinguished from the time of his receiving circumcision shew plainly that it was the same person who had the one and the other, and the receiving it not as a command to execute it upon others, but as a sign and seal to himself, and all believers whether circumcised or uncircumcised, evidently shew it is spoken Rom 4.11. of Abrahams personall circumcision and of no others.
As for Gen. 17.10 11. it is true Circumcision is termed the Covenant, and a token of the Covenant: But it is not said of that promise onelyonly, v▪ 7. nor of that promise in the Gospel sense, and therefore it cannot there be proved to be a token or seal of the Covenant of grace; but it followeth that Rom. 4.11. Gen. 17, 7.10, are impertinently alledged by the Assembly to prove this proposition, Sacraments are holy signs and seals of the Covenant of grace. Yea the end of circumcision was conceived generally by the Jewes, and so used to bind men to observe the Law of Moses for righteousness. And thus they taught who are mentioned Acts 15.1. Except ye be circumcised after the manne… of Moses yee cannot be saved. And v. 5. That it was needfull to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the Law of Moses, Acts 21.20▪ 21. Thou seest brother how many thousands of Jewes there are which believe, and they are all zealous of the Law, and they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jewes which are among the Gentiles, to forsake Moses, saying, That they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customes, and the Apostle Gal. 5.2, 3, saith, Behold I Paul say to you, That if any of you be circumeised Christ shall profit you nothing. For I testifie again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to keep the whole Law. So that circumcision in the ordinary use may seem to have been a seal of the Law rather than of the Gospel or covenant of grace; and if your baptism be of the same nature with circumcision, it is so far from being a rite of the Gospel, that it rather binds us to observe the Law. But fourthly, were it granted that it was in the use of it according to the institutton a seal of the covenant of grace, how doth it follow from thence, that this is the nature of every Sacrament? Whence will it be evinced that that is the Genus of every Sacrament which is not so much as once attributed to them. The Passover is counted a Sacrament, and we find that it signified the Passover over the Isralites houses, and sparing their first born, and that it typified Christ, 1 Cor▪ 5.7. But this doth not prove that it was a seal of the covenant of grace any more than Jon…hs being in the Whales belly, which was a type of Christs buriall, was a seal of the covenant of grace. I grant we are said to be baptized into Christs death, to be buried by baptism into death, Rom 6 3▪ 4▪ to be buried with him in Baptism, and therein to be raised up through the faith of the operation of God who raised him from the dead, Col. 2.12, and that they who are baptized into Christ, have put on Christ, Gal. 3.27. And the Cup is called the new Testament in his blood, 1 Cor. 12.25. And therefore I should yelld to call both th…se ordinances signes memorative of Christs death in the first place, and by consequence seals of the New Testament and its benefit…s, specially the Cup in the Lords Supper. But this doth not prove this is the Genus of Sacraments, much less of all Sacraments. Nor doth it any whit justifie the determining of doubts of conscience, and so binding duties on mens consciences concerning meer positive rites without any institution of Christ, or Apostolicall example, meerly from this devised term, The Seal of the Covenant, and mal…ing it so necessary to be acknowledged, that it is pressed on persons to be admitted to the Lords Supper, as it were a necessary Article of Faith.
2. This term Seal of the Covenant, applied to these Sacraments, as being of their nature is, so farre as my reading and memory reach, but a novell term, not used till the 16. Century, & in that not used among the learned Romanists and Lutherans, at least not frequently. I grant the Ancients say, Men are sealed by baptism, and sometimes by laying on of hands or anointing after baptism. And this sealing is attributed to infant baptism by Nazianzen in his fortieth Oration. But this sealing was not a confirmation of the covenant of grace, but a confirmation of their faith received in Baptism. The ancient Greeks call it the seal of Faith, as the Latins call it the seal of Repentance, and the Sacrament of Faith, in respect of the profession of Faith, as Grotius Annot. on Mat. 28.19. observes when he saith, And such were the Interrogations of faith either in the first times, or those next the first in respect of which by Basil and others, it is called the seal of faith, sealing of faith, of repentance, by Tertul. in his book of Repentance, and this sealing was not to assure a promise, but to strengthen and keep their faith or vertues. Whence as Mr. Gataker observes in his Strictures on Dr. Davenants Epistle, pag. 44, 45. they accounted Baptism to some not as foreign, a pardoning of sins, but a seal of vertues; and where Nazianzen calls …t a Seal, he expresseth it thus, foreign foreign, a seal as keeping and noting dominion. No where do I find any of them use the term Seal of the covenant of grace, applied either to Sacraments in generall, or to baptism in special.
3. But were the use of the term Seal of the covenant of grace in the Scripture, or the writings of the Ancients, yet it is against Logick to define a Sacrament by a Seal of the covenant as the genus, and so to make it of its essence. For it is a rule in Logick, Definitio non fit ex verbis metaphoricis, Scheibler Top. cap. 30 num. 126. Ita Aristot, Topic. lib. 2. c. 2. sect. 4. Keckerm. Syst. Logic. lib. 1. sect. cap. 8. Aristotle saith, foreign, Every translated speech is doubtfull till reduced to proper, for it may have divers senses. Besides, metaphors, or borrowed speeches, may be many, as in this point we may call a Sacrament a Pledge, as in the Common Prayer Book Catechism, or a pawn, earnest, as well as a seal Chamier. Paust. Cath. tom. 4. l. 2. c. 9. sect. 10. You have also the similitude of a pledge somewhat divers from Seals, but nevertheless tending to the same, which we also doe most willingly use. And if we should define a Sacrament by a pledge, and from that metaphor infer, that an infant must contract afore it receive the Sacrament as a pledge, we might do it with as good reason as they who infer they are to be sealed because the seal followes the covenant. Well doth Chamier call a Seal a Similitude, which cannot shew what a Sacrament is, but what it is like; and therefore all metaphors are unfit to shew the quid…tative conceit of a thing, nor are to be used in definitions except there be want of proper terms, of which there is not in this case. Now to define a Sacrament by a Seale of the covenant, is to define it by a metaphor, neither Baptism nor the Lords Supper are Seals in proper acceptation, they make no visible figure or impression on the body, therefore to use the term thus is an abuse, much more when positions and duties are urged on mens consciences from it. I will subjoyn Mr. Baxters words in his Apologie against Mr Blake, Sect. 64. pag, 11. Some sober men no way inclined to Anabaptism, do think that we ought not to call the Sacraments Seals; as being a thing not to be proved from the word; (for all Rom. 4.) But I am not of their mind, yet I think it is a Metaphor, and to make it the subject of tedious disputations, and to lay too great a stress upon a metaphoricall notion, is the way not to edifie, but to lose our selves.
Lastly, were all this yielded to Mr M. that the term Seal of the covenant were the language of the Scripture and Ancients, and fit enough to express the generall nature of Sacraments, yet I conceive it of little moment to the ends to which it is applied. For what is it to seal and not to confer grace, but onelyonly to assure? And so the use of it is to represent to the mind as a morall instrument. But that is not done to infants, who are not naturally capable to understand the meaning, therefore this term [Seal of the covenant] beyond. [sign of grace] doth not take away the objection of Papists, Lutherans, or Anti-paedobaptists That without giving grace or faith by baptism, it is in vain or without effect to baptize infants. And in like manner the deriving from it Paedobaptism is very frivolous. These things will appear by considering what Mr M. and others say of the covenant which they say is sealed, and of the sealing, there being little agreement among Paedobaptists, whether the inward or outward covenant, the absolute or conditionall be sealed, whether the sealing be absolute or conditionall, to the Major, Minor, or Conclusion. I will examine what I find said by Mr M. First, whose words are commended by Mr. Pry… in his Suspension suspended, pag. 19, &c. …e saith, In every Sacrament the truth of the covenant it self, and all the promises of it are sealed to be Yea and Amen, and this is sealed absolutely in baptism to all that partake of it.
But 1. there's no Scripture that saith so: That Rom. 5 8. is impertinent: For Christ is not called the Minister of Circumcision because he did administer circumcision to others, that were not true, he circumcised none, but he was a circumcised Minister for the truth, he was of the circumcision, that is, a Jew not a Gentile. Nor is it said his circumcision was to confirm the promises of the Fathers that they were true; but that therefore he was a circumcised Minister for the truth of God, that the promises of the Fathers might be confirmed by his ministring the truth of God in his preaching, or in his accomplishment of what the promises foretold. 2. Nor do I know any act in baptism that hath any aptnesse of it self, or by institution to seal this position, that the covenant of grace and all the promises of it are Yea and Amen. 3. Yet were it so, this sealing is not to Infants, who have no intelligence thereof, and so no confirmation thereof by baptism. 4. Nor doth this sealing any more pertain to the children of believers, than unbelievers, it is but of the truth of the covenant in it self, not of any persons interest in it. 5. This is as well sealed by the baptism of others, yea by the baptism of any one deceased, most of all by Christs baptism, as by each persons own baptism. 6. This sealing may be not onelyonly to them that are baptized, but to them that deny baptism, yea to Infidels, yea to Devils, who may and do believe the truth of the covenant it self, and all the promises of it to be Yea and Amen, and have it sealed as well to them by the baptism of a person as to the baptized, and better than to an infant. But perhaps Mr M. helps the matter in the second or third.
But as to the second (saith he) which is interesse meum, or the receivers interest in that spirituall part of the covenant, that is sealed to no receiver absolutely, but conditionally; in this particular all Sacraments are but Signa conditionalia, conditionall seals sealing the spirituall part of the covenant to the receivers upon condition that they perform the spirituall part of the covenant. Thus our Divines use to answer the Papists, thus Dr. Ames answers to Bellarmine, when Bellarmine disputing against our doctrines, that Sacraments are Seals, alledges then they are falsly applied oftentimes; he answers to Bellarmin, Sacraments are conditionall Seals, and therefore not Seals to us but upon condition.
Answer. The spirituall condition is faith, so Ames Bell. enerv. tom. 3. l. 1. …. 1. q. 4. th. 11. Sacramenta non sunt testimonia completa & absoluta, nisi credentibus. Sacraments are not compleat and absolute testimonies but to the believing. Now if the Sacraments seal onelyonly conditionally, they seal onelyonly this proposition, that he that believeth shall be justified, saved, &c. But this is all one with sealing the truth of the covenant in it self: nor doth this seal the baptized persons interest in the covenant any more than the unbaptizeds; no more to the infants of believers than of unbelievers, not at all to any till they believe, and so to no infants ordinarily, and if then the baptizing of them must be derived from this interest and sealing of the covenant, either none are to be baptized till they do believe, or all alike are to be baptized. Besides, if Sacraments be but conditionall signes, or testimonies incompleat, and conditionall till persons believe, then they are but conditionall incompleat Sacraments till a person believes, sith to be a sign & seal is of the nature of a Sacrament; and if so, then infants have not a compleat Sacrament or absolute, but an incompleat and conditionall baptism, and consequently though the baptizer begin to baptize the infants, yet he cannot say he doth baptize them, but must wait till they be believers, and then he may say he baptizeth them, and gives them a compleat Sacrament, and is bound to baptize them when they come to years whom he did wash in infancy, or else he mocks them, which is the mind of Christ indeed, that he that believeth should be baptized, and no other, Mark 16.16. Besides, whether there be any conditionall sealing may be a uqestion. Mr. Baxter Apologie against Mr Blake, Sect. 77. pag. 140. speaks of it as a strange thing useless and vain. But this I shall leave till I examine Mr. Baxters exceptions against me about the condirional covenant and sealing, onelyonly I take notice of his words Sect. 79. pag. 141, A conditional seal is not a seal till the condition be performed, and infers, that if baptism be a conditionall seal, it is no seal, and consequently no sacrament to an infant untill he doth perform the condition.
Mr M. adds, Now for the third thing the obligation which is put upon the receiver, a bond or tie for him to perform, who is admitted to receive the Sacrament, this third I say is also absolute, All circumcised and baptized persons did or do stand absolutely ingaged to perform the conditions required on their part, and therefore all circumcised persons were by the circumcision obliged to keep the Law, that is, the legall and typicall administration of the covenant which was then in force, and infants among the rest, are bound to this though they had no understanding of the covenant, or that administration of the Covenant when this seal was administred to them.
Answer. It is true, God required that his covenant should be kept, which is expressed to be, That every man child among the Hebrewes should be circumcised, Gen, 17.9, 10. but this was the duty of the parents, not of the infants, who were to be circumcised not to circumcise. And it is true, That all circumcised persons were by the eircumcision obliged to keep the Law. And if circumcision sealed this, its sealing of this was the sealing of a command not a promise of God, for they are not obliged to keep Gods promise (that is the work of God alone) but his precept, so that this sealing is not of the covenant of grace at all: yea by this sealing obliging to keep the whole Law, the covenant of works is sealed rather than the covenant of grace, as the Apostles speech shews, Gal. 5▪2, 3, 4, And this sealing belongs to all infants and elder persons, for all are tied to perform the condition of the covenant, that is to repent and believe. And if hence be derived a title to baptism, either all are to be baptized because all are obliged to the condition of repentance and faith, or none are to be baptized but penitent & believing persons. To speak the plain truth, the right use of baptism is first to seal to God, testifying our repentance and faith by it, afore God seals to us by it any benefit of the covenant of grace. To conclude, Mr. M. hath not yet acquitted himself from putting a seal to a blank, which Mr Calvin counts a profanation of the Sacrament when he baptizeth an infant, who hath neither a promise of spiritual grace from God, nor doth perform the condition of the covenant, nor understand by baptism any thing of the covenant, nor professe any accptance of the covenant, nor is or can be known to have any part in the covenant of grace, nor is there indeed any thing but vanity in this discourse of Mr. M. or the Paedobaptists doctrine about Sacraments being seals of the covenant of grace, and the interest of believers infants therein.