Anti-Paedobaptism Part 3, Section 80
SECT. LXXX. Mr. Cs. conceit, as if Gen. 17.9. were a command in force to Abrahams spiritual seed in the N. T. is shewed to be vain.
IF this be granted, that the promise made to Abraham Gen. 17. especially that part of i… v. 8. concerning Canaan to bee an everlasting possession to his seed bee of such extent, and made also to his spiritual seed of the New Testament, it will follow that that command of God in those words next following v. 9. is to bee meant also of his spiritual seed even in our dayes, and as a command that now lieth upon the same spiritual seed in all generations, in as much as that command is brought in with a therefore, upon the promise made to the same seed in the words v. 8.
Answ. Hitherto Paedobaptists have been wont to deduce infant Baptism, from the connexion between the promise Gen. 17.7. to be a God to Abraham and his seed, and the command v. 9, 10, 11, 12, 13.14. which it seems Mr. C. dares not rest on, but takes another way, and yet seems not very certain what to pitch upon. For whereas p. 70. to clear the duty of infant Baptism, he sums up his suppositions; That God made to Abraham Gen. 22.17, 18. & 12.2, 3. an additional promise of believers being a blessing to families and nations, that for confirmation of this hee added a seal, to wit Circumcision, that the application of it to infants was part of the token of the Covenant, thereby that additional promise was sealed, in reference to them Abraham was called the Father of all them that believe; who would not think that he would have inferred infant Baptism from these suppositions, and the conn…xion between his additional promise and seal? But in stead thereof, as if all hee had before discoursed had been out of the way hee meant to take, whether because there is a great distance between the command Gen. 17.9. and the promise Gen. 22.17, 18. or whether he saw his exposition would not stand good, he now goes another way to work, and thinks to deduce infant Baptism from the connexion between the promise Gen. 17.8 and the precept v. 9. and his inference is thus made; The promise is concerning Canaan to be an everlasting possession to Abrahams seed, ergo to his spiritual seed in the N. T if so, then the command lieth upon the spiritual seed still v. 9. and this the word [therefore] v. 9. implies. That precept ties onelyonly to keep the Covenant by seal…ng with the seal of it, their children, v. …0. explains what seal should be for that time now another is come in the room of it, which is for substance the same, and equivalent to it▪ parents are bound by the precept Gen. 17.9. the former seal ceasing and another substituted to baptise their children. This is as near as I well can gather it, the force of Mr. Cs. discourse. Against which I except, 1. That the term [everlasting possession, Gen. 17.8.] doth not prove it to bee meant of another Canaan then that part of the earth which the Israelites possessed. For besides places before alledged, wherein the terms everlasting and for ever are vsed for a time of some few ages, and shorter, Numb. 25.13. God promiseth a Covenant of an everlasting Priesthood to Phinehas and his seed after him; and yet we know that Priesthood was to cease Heb. 7.12. It is promised Ier. 35.19. that Ionadab the son of Rechab should not want a man to stand before God for ever, and yet this could be true onelyonly of some ages: Therefore Mr. Cs. reason is of no force from the term [everlasting] to infer the extent of that promise to the N. T. Nor indeed can the reason be good. For if it were, then God should not promise at all the possession of the earthly Canaan in that place: But that is manifestly false; for the Text saith, Gen. 17.8. that God would give to Abraham and his seed, the land of Canaan, wherein Abraham was then a stranger: which can be understood of no other then that part of earth which is elsewhere called the land of the Canaanites, Per…zites, Jebusites, &c.
I deny not that in the latent sense there may be a promise of eternal life to Abrahams spiritual seed, though I find no passage in the N. T. so expounding the promise Gen. 17.8. yet sure it is but bold presumption to build any doctrine on an allegory not expounded so by the Holy Ghost; and it is in mine apprehension, a great usurpation of the Divine prerogative, to impose duties on men consciences by arguments drawn from such devised senses. 2. That Mr. C. builds his inference upon the conjunction [therefore, Gen. …7 9.] which though it be so in the English translation, yet is it in Hebr. foreign rendred by the Tigur. And thou; by Pareus, But thou; by Piscator, Thou verily; which is enough to shew there is no strength in Mr. Cs. inference, sith there is no firm ground on which it rests. 3. But were it granted that [therefore, Gen. 17.9.] were the onelyonly reading, and that the command is to be meant also of Abrahams spiritual seed even in our days, yet that the inference of the command, v. 9. should be onelyonly from the promise v. 8. or v. 7. and not also from the promises v. 4, 5, 6 I know no go…d reason i… or can be given. 4. Were it that there could be good reason given thereof, yet sith the promise v. 8. is mixt, containing both spiritual promise (if Mr. C. be in the right) and promise pecu…iar to the natural seed of Abraham, me thinks the precept should be onelyonly to that spiritual seed which is also natural, and not bind the Gentile believers, sith they have no part of the promise as it concerns the p…ssession of the earthly Canaan, from which the duty is inferred as well, if not onelyonly, as from the promise of the heavenly Canaan, 5. But were all that Mr. C. would have here granted, that the term [everlasting possession, v. 8.] proves it meant of the times of the N. T. that [therefore] v. …. proves the command extends to the spiritual seed now, that it is from the promise, v. 7. or 8. not from the rest v 4, 5, 6. that it is to Gentile believers now, and not peculiar to Israel after the flesh, yet sure if the promise b… the reason of the command, and the command… belongs to them to whom the promise belongs, it belongs to no other▪ and therefore to none but elect persons to whom that promise is made; no meere professours of faith are bound to keep Gods Covenant by vertue of the promise, sith no promise is made to them. 6. Were this also granted, that the command is to every professour of faith to keep the Covenant as is enjoyned v. 9. then it remains still as a duty for every professour of Christian faith to circumcise his males of eight days old (which is contrary to Christianity;) For there is no other thing commanded there then Circumcision But to prevent this, Mr. C. saith.
It is to be observed, that this command of God is primarily fixed upon the general duty, namely, the Covenant to be kept, and not upon this or that way of keeping▪ either by circumci…ng or baptizing: so as the circumcising of the child came under the command onelyonly upon this, because it was declared then to be the token of the Covenant; and by the words it is supposed, that when it should cease to be the token of the Covenant, it should no longer be a duty; and what else, by the same authority, should be made the token of the same Covenant, would be the duty in stead thereof. Mark the words, he doth not say, Thou shalt therefore circumcise every man-child among you as a token of the Covenant between me and you; for so had that been made the token for perpetuity, to have continued so long as the Covenant it self. But 1. in general he saith, v. 9. that is, they should observe and perform the token of the Covenant whatever that prove to be; and he addeth in the 2d. place, v. 10, 14. therefore, as I said, as for Circumcision, that was a duty onelyonly upon those words, declaring that to be then the token. Circumcision is now abolished▪ yet the command of keeping the token of Abrahams Covenant is still in force, and binding to Abrahams spiritual seed in their Generations; therefore what is now the token of that Covenant must be observed in stead thereof.
Answ. No wise and just Law-giver would ever make such a command of a general duty concerning ceremonies or rites then undetermined, but to be determined two thousand years after, Thou shalt keep my Covenant, that is, what ceremony I shall now appoint thee, or what I shall hereafter appoint when I take that away: such indefinite dis-junctive commands so ambiguous, un-intelligible, to be understood at one time one way, at another time another way, are so like Delphick jugling answers, as that I dare not ascribe them to the Almighty. Many absurdities follow on this conceit of Mr. C. which I have before set down. For present these arguments from the Text are against it. 1. There is nothing enjoyned Gen. 17.9. but what Abraham was enjoyned in his own person to do as well as his seed after him in their generations; this is proved from the express words, And God said unto Abraham, thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, and again, thou and thy seed after thee in their generations, twice is this imposed on Abraham distinctly named, and the term [therefore] spectially applied to him, and after with difference, from yet with his seed, so that to deny this, is to deny it's light when the Sun shines at noon day. But to Abrahams person was not enjoyned to observe and perform the token of the Covenant whatever that prove to be, for then hee had been bound to baptise, which is absurd, Ergo. 2. This precept is as well to Abrahams natural seed in their generations, as to his spiritual seed, for the precept belonging to those to whom the promise belongs, and it cannot be denied the promise v. 8. to belong to Abrahams natural seed, at least such as Moses, David, afore Christ, it followes they were bound to observe and perform the token of the Covenant what ever that p…ove to be, and consequently to baptise, which is absurd. 3. If this precept be to the spiritual seed of the Gentiles, then Gentile believers are bound to observe and perform the token of the Covenant whatever that prove to be: But Circumcision the text it self makes the token of the Covenant, Ergo, Gentile believe…s by this exposition are bound to circumcise. 4. From v. 10. That Covenant was enjoyned v. 9. and no other, which is expressed v. 10. This is proved from the form of words which do plainly shew Gods meaning, this is the covenant Which yee shall keep, which are as express as words can bee that hee meant no other Covenant to bee kept then what is set down v. …0, &c. But that is onelyonly Circumcision, therefore no other is there enjoyned v. 9. But what need I so fully refu…e that which hath no proof at all brought for it, but Mr. Cs. word! It's enough to tell him that it is his dream, and to let the Lord Mayor and Aldermen of London know that they have been enamoured on a vain phantasme. And …et were it grant…d him and them, it will never serve their turn to prove infant Baptism by.
For 1. The command Gen. 17.9. is not in these words [thou shalt keep the token of my Covenant therefore] but [thou shalt keep my Covenant therefore] and therefore if according to Mr. Cs. exposition it be a general duty not fixed upon this or that way of keeping, and there are other wayes of keeping the Covenant then by keeping the token of the Covenant, the words may be meant of other duties then seals, as he cals them of the Covenant, as particularly what is required Gen. 17.1. to walk before God and be perfect, upon which God promiseth to make his Covenant v. 2. and so the precept Gen. 17.9. may be observed without any seal at all. 2. But if it be limited to the keeping of the token of the Covenant, yet it follows not it must be either baptising or circumcising, there being other tokens of the Covenant besides these, as the Passeover, the Lords Supper, and therefore i… it command them to observe the token of the Covenant what ever it prove to be, it ties them to observe the Lords Supper, and if it must bee observed …y this rule here, then it must be given to infants as well as Bap…ism. 3. Hence ariseth a further exception, that if it were yeelded, that a token of the Covenant indefinite …s commanded, and Baptism meant after Circu…cision, yet sure the command ties not to observe Baptism after the rule of Circumcision, bu… after the institution of Baptism in the …ew Testament. And the reason is plain, the command v. 9. being onelyonly of a general duty comma…s not the particular rite, neither Circumcision nor Baptism▪ therefore there is no rule how to observe Baptism Gen. 17.9. Then v 10.11, 1…, …3, 14. is by Mr. Cs. …wn exposition … rule onelyonly about Circumcisi…n, who, and whom, and when …o circumcise, nor do I think Mr. C. dares sa…, that the rule about the manner of circumstances of circumcising, is a rule about the manner of circumstances of …ptising, for then the hous…older should bee bound to baptise all his males of eight dayes old, servants, and children, and among them himself if unbaptized, none afore eight days old, no female, none but his own house, he should wash not the face, but the privy member. If Mr. C. to serve his turn yet devise another general law about the manner of observing the …ites of the New Testament, besides the particular institutions and examples of Christ and his Apostles in the New Testament — erit mihi magnus Apollo, and if Mr. C. or any o…her, find a…y institution or example of infant Baptim in the New Testament, I shall believe they can cut a whetstone with a rasour.
4. Saith Mr. C▪ It is supposed by the words, that when circumcision should cease to be the token of the covenant, it should no longer be a duty, and that circumcision is now abolished. But 1. if v 9. be a command still in force, and bind to observe still the token of the Covenant what ever it proved to be, and that was Circumcision, then it binds still to observe Circumcision 2. It is said, v. 13. He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money must needs be circumcised, and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. Now if Mr. Cs. reasoning be good, the promise is v. 8. of an everlasting possession, therefore it extends to the spiritual seed even in the New Testament; by the same reason, sith v. 14. it is said Gods covenant shall be in their flesh (which is by carnal Circumcision) for an everlasting covenant, Gods command is in the New Testament to Abrahams spiritual seed, true believers of the Gentiles, that they be circumcised in their flesh, contrary to Gal. 5.2. Act. 15 24. 5. It is supposed that Baptism in the New Testament is the token of Abra…ams covenant, which is not proved, but is m…nifestly false: For then by it every believer should be assured of the land of Canaan, that K…ngs shall come of him, &c. as is promised, Gen. 17. v. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. but that is false, and a meer Jewish conceit. 6. It is said withou… any shew of proof, that by the words it is supposed, that what else besides circumcision by the same authority should be made the token of the same covenant, would be the duty in stead thereof: But neither do the words say, or suppose, that when circumcision should cease to be a token of the covenant, it should no longer be a duty; nor that what else by the same authority should be made the token of the same covenant, would bee the duty in stead thereof; there's not a word that tends to either supposal, nor can be either true. For the Jews Circumcision was not abolished by any words Gen. 7. but by the Apostles declaration, Act. 15. which doth not in the least hint any colection of its ceasing from Gen. 17. but from the calling of the Gentiles: Nor is the reason there or anywhere else of its ceasing, taken from its ceasing to be the token of Abrahams …ovenant, but from the calling the Gentiles, the comming of faith, &c. Yea, the Jewish …ircumcision still used ceaseth not to be the token of Abrahams Covenant, and yet the command Gen 17.9, …0, 1…, 12, 13 4. bind…th not. Nor is the other speech true. For by the same authority, according to Mr. C. the Passeover, the Lords Supper, were made tokens of the same Coven…t, and yet …or duties in stead of Circumcision. 7. If when circumcision ceased there was … be a duty in stead thereof by vertue of the command. Gen. 17.9. and because of the promise of an everlasting possession, v. 8. it must extend to the New Testament to the spiritual seed, and be of a spiritual blessing; by the same reason, Circumcision being made an everlasting covenant, v. 14. the command Gen. 17.9. should be of a spiritual keeping of Gods Covenant, and the Circumcision that comes in the stead of Circumcision in the flesh should be Circumcision of the heart and obedience, which the New Testament seems to intimate, Rom. 2.26, 28, 29. 1 Cor. 7.19. Phil. 3.3. Col. 2.11. 8. It is supposed, but not proved, that Baptism is in stead of Circumcision▪ But Mr. C. thinks to prove it, onelyonly by the way he takes in to illustrate his conceit about Gen. 17.9. something about the Sabba…h, Exod. 20.8, 11. of which he saith thus.
The like manner of institution we have concerning the Sabbath; therefore those who deny infant Baptism, oftentimes deny the Sabbath; and not without cause, for there is the same reason of both, and we may illustrate the one by the other. The Lord intended in time to change the day from the 7th. day to the first of the week, as he intended in time to change the token of Abrahams Covenant: Therefore in the 4th. Commandment also, the command is not primarily fixed upon the 7th. or any day to be remembred and kept holy, but upon the general duty, that the rest day of the Lord be remembred and kept holy, what ever that day fall to be. Remember the Sabbath day, that is the rest day, to keep it holy; and the Lord blessed the rest day, and sanctified it. And the remembrance and keeping of the 7th. day is in the Commandment made a duty for this reason, because that was declared to be then the day wherein God had entred into his rest after his making of the world. And upon the same account, when after the travel of his soul, in the new creation, he entred the second time into his rest, as is declared that he did, Heb. 4.9, 10. because that was upon the first day of the week, when he rose from the dead; therefore by vertue of that command, Remember the rest day to keep it holy; the first day of the week is now to be remembred and kept holy, in as much as that is now the rest day of the Lord our God, as formerly the 7th. day.
Answ. That those who deny infant Baptism do not, or need not deny the Sabbath, is shewed in my Examen, part 2. sect. 8. in my Praecursor, sect. 15. in the second part of my Review, sect. 3. and what Mr. C. ha…h said for his opinion of inferring the Lords day Sabbath from Heb. 3, & 4. hath been examined before, and shewed insufficient for his purpose. That which now he brings from his conceit of the command, Exod 20.8, 11. is to me very doubtfull, and yet were it certain, would not answer Mr. Cs. expectation. His conceit is doubtfull to me for these reasons, 1. because if his conceit were right, when it is said Remember the Sabbath day, and the Lord blessed the Sabath day, the term [Sabbath day] should be conceived as a genus or species comprehending under it the rest day of the Jews and the Christians, and such other rest days as God should appoint to be observed. B…t against this are these things: 1. That I find not where the term [Sabbath day] is meant or applied to any other then the 7th. day of the week. I grant that other days are termed [Sabbaths, Sabbaths of rest,] Levit. 23, 24, 32, 29. but no where that I yet find, is any day besides the last of the week termed the Sabbath day. 2. The blessing of the Sabbath day, Exod. 20.11. was the same with the blessing, Gen. 2.3. For it is a narration of what God did in the beginning, and that day was the seventh in order after the six days in which he created his work. 2. Me thinks the Evangelist Luke 23.56▪ when he saith, they rested on the Sabbath day according to the commandment (which commandment is that Exod. 20.8, 11.) and that Sabbath being by the confession of all the last day of the week, doth plainly expound the fourth Commandment of that particular Sabbath which was the seventh day in order from the creation, and the last day of the week. I confess there are difficulties from this exposition, concerning the evacuating of the fourth Commandment, which being besides my present business, I shall not now insist on, it being sufficient for my present purpose to shew why I conceive Mr. Cs. exposition doubtfull.
2. Yet were hi… interpretation granted, it would not serve his turn here. For 1. keeping Gods Covenant, Gen. 7.9. is without any example or colour of reason re…trained to seals (as they are termed) of the Covenant, and made the genus to Circumcision and Baptism, as the term [Sabbath] may be to all Festivals 2. If it were, yet there is not the same reason of Circumcision and Baptism as of the Sabbath and the …orns day, the one being a moral command, and the other meerly ceremonial 3 If the meaning were Gen. 17.9. that a duty were commanded in general to keep the token sign, or seal of the Covenant, then it is a command concerning any token of the Covenant, the Passeover and Lords Supper, as well as Circumcision and Baptism; and if so, then they are to be observed according to the rule there, v. 10, 11, 12, 13, 14. and if so, they are to be applied to male infants of eight days old as well as Baptism, or according to the rules delivered in the institution of each rite; and if so, the command Gen. 17.9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14. will make nothing for infant Baptism, unless it can be proved ou… of the institution and practise in the N. T. But to prevent this, Mr. C. saith.