Anti-Paedobaptism Part 3, Section 79
SECT. LXXIX. Neither did Circumcision seal Mr. Cs. additional Promise, nor was Abraham thence termed Father of Believers.
THe first thing Mr. C. observes is, that in the promise to Abraham there's an addition made to the former promise to Adam, Gen. 3.15. which I grant, but not such an addition as Mr. C. conceivs.
The next is, that to this promise of making believers blessings to families and nations, God made an addition of the seal of Circumcision, and the application of this seal to infants is part of the se…l, thereby signifying and confirming that promise of such blessing. So Gen. 17.10, 14. Had not the application of it to the infant been part of the token of the Covenant the childs not being circumcised had not been a breach of the Covenant; nor could the Lord have said, this is my Covenant, that the manchild be circumcised, if the application of that ordinance to the child, had not in it a signification and confirmation of something in the Covenant.
Answ. There are these things to be proved: 1. That Circumcision was a seal of the Covenant made to Abraham Gen. 17. 2. That Circumcision was a seal of this promise of God, of making believers blessings to families and nations in order to the multiplying the seed, and encrease of the Kingdome of Christ. 3. That the application of this seal to infants is part of the seal. 4. That thereby was signified and confirmed that promise of such blessing. But the proof is of other things, 1. that the application of Circumcision to the infant is part of the token of the Covenant. 2. The application of that ordinance to the child, had in it a signification and confirmation of something in the Covenant; For neither is it all one to bee a token and to bee a seal of the Covenant, there being other tokens then seals; and signe and token being the same, though distinguished Rom. 4.11. they are unfitly confounded by Mr. C. nor is it all one to signifie something in the Covenant, and to signifie this thing in the Covenant, that God would make believers blessings in Mr. Cs. sense. Not doth either of Mr. Cs. middle terms prove either of his conclusions. For the childs not being circumcised had been a breach of the Covenant, as being a breach of the command of God enjoyned then, though circumcising the child had been no part of the token of the Covenant, and the Lord might have said, this is my Covenant that the man child bee circumcised, that is, this is my command in my Covenant, if the application of that ordinance to the child, had not in it a signification and confirmation of something in the Covenant. But allowing that Circumcision is called the Covenant by a metonimy of the thing signified for the signe, and that it signified something in the Covenant beeing applied to infants, yet not one of Mr. Carters propositions is proved thereby; For 1. it may be a signe and not a seal. 2. It might be a seal of the Covenant Gen. 17. yet not of that promise Gen. 22.18. which is in another Covenant, not in that Gen. 17. 3. If it were a seal of that promise Gen. 22.18. yet not in Mr. Cs. new devised sense. 4. …o omit the ineptness or non sense of the speech, the application of this seal to infants is part of the seal. For what doth hee mean by the application of this seal to infants but onelyonly Circumcision, and hee before called Circumcision the seal which hee meant; so that his speech can have no other construction then this, Circumcision of infants is part of Circumcision, which is inept or non-sense, I say further that the speech is not true. For if it bee a part it is either essential or integral, I know no other sort of parts it can bee meant of; But it it is not a part essential, for then without application to infants there should bee no seal, and so a Proselyte had not the seal though hee were Circumcised, unless hee had an infant manchild and hee circumcised, nor integral, for the Circumcision of a Proselyte was entire Circumcision or seal (as they speak) without his manchilds Circumcision.
Thence also, saith Mr. C. is that in Acts 7.8. that is, he did it according to that Covenant of Circumcision, so as the application of the seal to the infant was part of the Covenant to bee performed on the part of Abraham and his seed in their generations, even by his spiritual seed to a thousand generations, in that which is the same for substance, and equivalent to circumcision, as we shall see anon.
Answ. That God gave Abraham the Covenant of Circumcision, and so, or accordingly, or he (according to the Copies that have foreign no… foreign) begate Isaac, and circumcised him the eighth day is not denied, nor that he did this according to the Covenant of Circumcision, that is according to the command of God concerning Circumcision as a signe of his Covenant Gen. 17. in which sense it is granted that the applica…ion of the seal (meaning circumcision) to the (male) infant was part of the Covenant to be performed on the part of Abraham and his seed in their generations, but this proves not what Mr. C. undertook to prove, that it was part of the seal, or part of the token of the Covenant (it beeing not all one to bee part of the Covenant and part of the seal or token of the Covenant) unless Mr. C. confounds them (as he seems to do) nor is there any word of God for application of any seal to the infant but Circumcision, the text is express for Circumcision, this is my Covenant which ye shall keep between me and you and thy seed after thee, every man child shall bee circumcised, which can bee understood of no other then Circumcision, without making God to speak non-sense, and making God command a thing in words which they signifie not, and making God to command a thing indefinite and indeterminate, which no wise Law-giver doth, and making a pronoun demonstrative to import not the definite thing expressed, but some other individuum vagum, of which it is uncertain what it is, contrary to the very exposition of the Holy Ghost Gen. 17.23. where it is expresly said, that Abrahams Circumcising was as God had said unto him, contrary to what Abraham, and all interpreters Jewish and Christian (that I have ever met with afore Mr. C.) have conceived, and which i… it be granted it will follow that if the male child of Abrahams posterity had not been circumcised, but had another seal of the Covenant applied to it, the Covenant or Command Gen. 17.9, 10, 11, 12. had not been broken, Moses had kept the command if he had baptised his son, though he did not circumcise him. These and many more absurdi…ies follow on that portentous opinion, which I guessed long since by some words of Mr. Cawdrey and Palmer in the first part of thei… Sabb. Rediv. ch 2. §. 32. to have been hatching to maintain the Judaizing conceit of infant Baptism from infant Circumcision, that they might not seem therein to run on the rock of holding the Law of Circumcision yet in force; yet might have some colour for a command of infant Baptism, Gen. 17.9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14. where infant Circumcision is commanded and nothing else, but I found it not so expresly vented by any afore Mr. C. Now what saith he for it? …. That this part of the Covenant was to be performed by Abrahams spiritual seed. But hee doth not prove that it was to bee performed by Abrahams spiritual seed of the Gentiles after Christs comming. Hee urgeth the words of the Psalmist Psalm. 105.8. Hee hath remembred his Covenant for ever: the word which hee commanded to a thousand generations. But first, The word is not meant of the command of a seal to bee applied to infants, but of his own promise, which hee will have firme as his Command, Psalm. 133.3. & 42.8. & 44.4. as the New Annotat. and Piscat. on the place, which also appears from the words following, which terme it Gods Covenant hee made with Abraham, and his oath unto Isaac, which is expressed vers. 11. which cannot be understood of his Command to us what we should do, but his promise of what hee himself will do. Secondly, the word commanded signifieth Gods decree within himself; Or as Diodati in his note on the place, Hee commanded] which hee appointed by his soveraign and irrevocable decree, as the word commanded is used Psalm. 133.3. and elsewhere. Thirdly, To a thousand generations, notes not just so many; But as Piscator in his scholi… on the place, it is by a synecdoche of the kinde, as if it were said unto many ages. And this must needs bee granted, sith the Covenant however it bee granted to imply in the latent sense the promise of the heavenly inheritance, yet in the patent sense must bee understood (as v. 11.44. compared shew) of the earthly Canaan: which they had not a thousand generations, but for many ages; as Exod. 20.6, To thousand generations is meant not precisely so many and no more, but a long time indefinite, beyond three or four generations: and thus must also bee understood the promise of the land of Canaan to bee for ever, to be an everlasting possession, that is, for a long time, as frequently it is used Exod. 21.6. Exod. 40.15. 1 Sam. 2.35. Levit. 23.14, 21, 31, 41, &c. What hee saith of Baptism being the same for substance and equivalent to Circumcision, unless hee mean it, that infant Baptism and infant Circumcision are one equivalent to the other, and the same for substance in this sense [they are of no force not obliging Christians nor benefiting them] it will be found in examining that which follows, to have no truth.
Mr. C. adds, And that this blessing upon families and posterity was signified, held forth, and sealed by circumcising the child, appeareth further by that promise uttered in that phrase, Deut. 30.6. which kind of expression intimates, that the promise of the conversion of their children was held forth, and confirmed in that seal. As when the Apostle saith wee are baptized into one body, is signified and sealed in Baptism our union with Christ in one body, because else those words had been in no capacity to have been so used in that sense, as they are used both by the Apostle and by Moses.
Answ. 1. The phrase of circumcising the heart, Deut. 30 6 being used to express conversion or change of the heart, doth shew indeed that there is some resemblance between them, yet that it is so by institution is not proved, no more then because by breaking up our fallow ground, together with circumcising, the same thing is si…nified Jer. 4.3, 4. and by washing, Isa. 1.16. therefore plowing and washing are by institution to bee used to that end, 2. But be it granted that Circumcision was instituted to signifie the ch…nge of the heart, as baptism our union with Christ in one body, yet this proves not that it was to signifie and seal a promise of something future, but rather what was already done. For if it signifie as Baptism, then it signifies conversion already effected, Baptism being a sign that the person was united to Christ and to all his members by one spirit, as the very terms 1 Cor. 12.13. foreign wee have been baptised, foreign we have been drencht, shew. And though the words Deut. 30.6. are a promise, yet the term [circumcise] of it self, and in like manner the use of circumcision, according to the institution, may as well note a thing done, as a thing promised to bee done. 3. Nevertheless let it bee granted that circumcision did in the institution of it note conversion of the heart, and signified a promise of it as being a token of the Covenant in which that was covertly promised, yet this proves not that it held forth a blessing upon families and posterity. For there is no mention Deut. 30.6. of families, though there be of posterity, and that mention which is of posterity, is of them not in their infant, but adult estate, and upon condition of the childs returning to God, and obeying his voice as well as the parents, as Mr. Baxter rightly observes in his Friendly accommodation with Mr. Bedford p. 361. I may add, that the promise there is expressed onelyonly concerning one case, to wit repentance in captivity, v. 1, 2.3, 4. and the promise (as appears from v. 5.) is a promise peculiar to the Israelites. 4. But were this further granted, that thence might be proved that circumcision by institution signified the promise of conversion of posterity, and that this were to Gentile believers, yet this is nor that which Mr. C. would evince, that the application of the seal to infants in that it was to infants sealed this promise, or that the promise was sealed in Mr. Cs. sense, so as that God would ordinarily cast elect children on elect parents, and make parents a blessing, so as that Abrahams seed by faith should be multiplied in families and nations by them.
What Mr. C. adds, That the sign had not held proportion with the thing signified; namely, there had been nothing in the sign to signifie and seal that blessing upon posterity, had the application of it to infants been left out, is but a vain dictate. For 1. if the sign held similitude with the thing signified, though it held not proportion so as to be applied to all whose conversion was signified it might serve for the use of a sign, as a conveyance to a Father may assure the childs interest; and therefore that which Mr. C. dictates, that for this reason infants were to be circumcised, to seal that promise of believers being a blessing, added to Adams Covenant, is a vain conceit without proof, sith it might have been as well assured if the parents had been circumcised onelyonly, as well as when the male infants onelyonly were circumcised.
And that which he saith further is most false, and vain, Nor indeed had there been any use of the application of it to the infant, nor that made a part of the Ordinance, had there not been such a branch in the Covenant as a blessing upon families and posterity to be thereby signified and sealed. For besides this, that Mr. C. proves neither that branch in the Covenant, nor that use of infant Circumcision, it is clear by Stephens speech, Act. 7.5, 6, 7, 8. that Abraham circumcised Isaac in assurance of the land of Canaan, and that he received the Covenant of Circumcision to that end: and that the circumcising of infants had this use, to signifie Christ to come, seems plainly to be delivered by the Apostle, Col. 2.17. and by the general consent of Divines. Much more vain is that which he adds, So as if that priviledge be denied unto infants, that which was given to us in Abrahams Covenant is rejected, as he saith Gen. 17. The uncircumcised man-child shall be cut off from his people, he hath broken my Covenant. For neither if Mr. Cs. sense of the promise Gen. 22.18. Gen. 12.2, 3. be rejected, is there any thing which was given to us in Abrahams Covenant rejected, nor had the denying of Circumcision to infants necessarily inferred the rejecting of that which was given in Abrahams Covenant; nor do the words Gen. 17.14. import, that by not circumcising the person omitting it had rejected that which was given in Abrahams Covenant, for so Moses not circumcising his son had rejected the Covenant; but the breaking the Covenant was onelyonly meant of breaking the command of that which was the token of the Covenant. Much less is this true of those that deny infant Baptism, that they reject the spiritual blessings given in Abrahams Covenant, Baptism being not by Christs institution a seal of Gods Covenant or promise to us, unless by consequence, much less the mixt Covenant of Abraham, as it contained domestical benefits proper to Abrahams house, much more less the new conceited promise of Mr. C. Nor was infant Baptism ever commanded by God, but invented by men in a fond imitation of Jewish Circumcision; and as long as we keep close to the institution Matth. 28.19. and baptize and are baptized upon believing in testimony of our union with Christ and his Church, 1 Cor. 12.13. we may securely flight Mr. Cs. doom of being cut off from Gods people, which after Mr. Cotton refuted by me in the second part of this Review, sect. 11. he hath vainly here renewed to affright silly people with.
Mr. C. adds, That Abraham was called father of believers, 1. from believing this additional promise given in order to the increase of his spiritual seed, which he proves from Rom. 4.18. Gen. 15.5. 2. From his receiving the seal of that promise, Rom. 4.11. From which place we may observe, 1. That Circumcision was a seal of the righteousness of faith. 2. That because it was a seal of that righteousness, which he had before he was circumcised, he therefore became the Father of all that believe, whether circumcised or not. Now had not this seal been given him that he might be the Father of believers, his receiving it at this or that time, whether before, or after his believing to righteousness, had made nothing for the universality of his relation as a Father of all believers.
Answ. I grant that Abrahams believing the promise, Gen. 15.5. and his receiving Circumcision a seal of that righteousness of faith he had in uncircumcision, was the reason of his title of Father of believers. And I grant that Abrahams personal Circumcision was a seal of the righteousness of faith to all believers circumcised or uncircumcised, and therefore he had it afore his Circumcision, that it might not be judged as proper to the circumcised. But 1. I deny, That the promise was Gen. 15.5. as Mr. Cs. additional promise is, that Every believer should be a blessing to his family and posterity, so as that God should ordinarily cast elect children on elect parents; but that Abraham, though then childless, should have innumerable children by natural generation, though he were and his wife aged, and more by believing as he did. 2. The Scripture doth not say, that Abrahams Circumcision was a seal of the promise Gen. 15.5. but a seal of the rightiousness of faith he had, Gen. 15.6. it was not a seal of a promise of a thing future, but of a benefit obtained many years before. 3: I find not any ones Circumcision, but the Circumcision which Abraham had in his own person, stiled the seal of the righteousness of faith, nor to any but him that believes as he did. 4. That his receiving the seal is not made the reason of Abrahams relation of Father of all believers, but justification by faith afore he received Circumcision. Nor do I find that any of Mr. Cs. assertions is proved from Rom. 4.11, 18. that Circumcision was a seal of the Covenant, Gen. 17. or of Mr. Cs. additional promise, or that the application to infants was part of the seal, or that by it Mr. Cs. imagined promise was confirmed, and therefore this Text is impertinently alledged also
Mr. C. adds▪ That it was not Abrahams faith onelyonly, nor his degree of faith above others which gave him that title, appeareth 1. because others were as eminent believers as he before him. 2. There was something given which believers had not, at least in such a way had not before, in reference to which he was so called, therefore it was not for his faith onelyonly, nor the eminency thereof. 3. There is nothing in faith or the eminency thereof, that could occasion that his name to be given to him; but it was in reference to something which he was to have as a Father this additional promise and the seal thereof, he was the first Father that received this blessing which was a blessing upon parents and their children; and because at least in a great part by vertue thereof the holy seed was to be propagated and encreased. And believers are said to be his seed, because that promise and Covenant made to Abraham concerning the Lords blessing and multiplying his seed, is so much a cause of their being brought forth unto Christ; his ordering his election so as to bestow his blessing thus by families and nations, being that which makes the Kingdome of Heaven like leaven, one believer ordinarily being the means of the conversion of another.
Answ. The title [Father of believers] is a relative, with which Abraham was denominated from his Fatherhood as the form denominating, and this form denominating was from his begetting justified believers as the foundation, this begetting justified believers I know not how otherwise it should be then by his exemplary faith, and Gods declaration of his justification by it; which the Apostle doth plainly intimate, Rom. 4.11. by expressing Abrahams children in this phrase, walking in the steps of his faith. The object indeed of this faith was the promise Gen. 15.5. not Mr. Cs. imagined promise to other believers, and so the promise was the occasion, and in some sort the cause of the title, as the object may be said to be the cause of the act in somewhat an abusive expression. His personal Circumcision was a sign or seal of that whence the title came, the righteousness of faith; and a token of that Covenant wherein God declared it, Gen. 17.4, 5▪ But Circumcision did not make him such, he was such afore Circumcision was instituted, Gen. 17.4, 5. Nor is it said Rom. 4.11. that his receiving Circumcision was that he might be the Father of the faithfull, but his having righteousness by faith before Circumcision made him the Father of justified believers of all nations. Nor do Mr. Cs. reasons prove the contrary. For 1. though others faith might be as strong, yet no ones faith was so …minently exemplary, the time and other circumstances considered; and this is apparent from Rom. 4.18, 19, 20, 21. 2. Abraham had that exemplary faith, and promise and declaration of God, which no Saint had before in the manner I have explained it. 3. This was fit to denominate him Father of believers, as Sara the Mother of obedient and well doing wives, 1 Pet. 3.6. by her exemplary obedience to her husband, and we are termed children of God by following him, Ephes. 5.1. wicked men children of the Devil by doing his lusts, Joh. 8.44. It is true, we are to look to other examples, chiefly Christs, Heb, 12, 1, 2. yet none of meer men so eminently believed as Abraham, and therefore no meer sinfull man is propounded as a Copy or pattern equal to him. As for Mr. Cs. reason, it is not right. For 1. Mr. Cs. additional promise in his sense is but a figment. 2. There is not the least hint in Scripture of that as th… reason of the title. 3. If he were the first Father that received this blessing, then it was two thousand years and more afore God ordered his ele…tion as Mr. C. imagines, then believing parents had not this blessing before, whereas if there were such a blessing, it was rather before then after Abrahams time; for we find not any setled Ministery by which the spiritual seed was multiplied afore Abrahams time, therefore it is more likely to have been by believing parents; but after Abrahams time we read of Prophets and Apostles, Priests and Teachers appointed to that end. And if Abraham were the first who received this blessing, then this was not perpetual, and so the application of the seal to infants not moral, sith the foundation of it beg…n but in Abraham. Sure I am, this directly crosseth Mr. Richard Baxters conceit of infants visible Churchmembership by promise Gen. 3.15. which I leave to them to contend about. What Mr. C. saith of the reason of the title of Abrahams seed given to believers, is quite besides the Scripture, Rom. 4.11, 16. Gal. 3.7 Joh. 8.39. And what he saith of one believers being ordinarily the means of conversion of another, is true rather of others, specially preachers of the Gospel, then parents, housholders, Princes: and I wish it were better considered by him, whether by his dictates all along in making the multiplying of the spiritual seed to be by every believers being a blessing to families and nations, by ascribing ordinarily conversion hereunto; and that p. 38. not onelyonly by common providence, or so much by good education and example, but by vertue of a special word of blessing, a creating word of promise to all believers, without which other means of conversion had not had such efficacy and power in turning sinners to God, do not cross the Apostles speech, Ephes. 2.20. be not contrary to the experience both of the first and continued gathering of the Churches of Christ, and do not indeed undermine and blow up a select Ministery for conversion, as being useless, without assurance of Gods blessing, God having provided another way, and ordinarily working by it according to a special promise. And how much this tends to justifie that disorder of every gifted brothers pretended prophesying and teaching in the Churches, which is the occasion of the jangling and schisms by which Churches are torn asunder and perverted, is easily discernable. But of this onelyonly by the way. What Mr. C. hath summed up, p. 70. hath been examined, and found to be a fardel of mistakes: Let's view the rest.
Those insinuations which are p. 71. as if Antipaedobaptists did easily part with ancient entailed priviledges, wherein the Saints have rejoyced for so many ages; wanted so much compassion on their children, as not to blot their names out of Heaven, or thrust them out of the Kingdome of Christ into the Kingdome of Satan; have been so often discovered to be false and gross abuses, as that were not men resolved to use any artifices to uphold an ill cause by creating prejudices against their adversaries, they would leave them. But Mr. C. thinks to prove infant Baptism from hence, and thus he argues.