Anti-Paedobaptism Part 3, Section 83
SECT. LXXXIII. Interest in the Covenant gave not title to Circumcision, as Mr. M. in his 4th. conclusion would have it.
IN the Defence of his 4th. and 5th. concl. against my Examen Mr. M. saith, he will contract; and accordingly I shall be brief in my reply. He grants the order of circumcising infants is repealed, as I answered in examining his 4th. concl. but would have it added, that by Gods order Baptism succeeds in the room of it, which I have refuted. Then upon my saying that Circumcision was not a seal of the spiritual part of the Covenant, he censures this as pure Anabaptism, leaving out injuriously my limitation, to all that were circumcised, which if fairly added had cleared me; and perhaps if the so called Anabaptists had been rightly understood, they had been found as innocent as my self in this thing; I see enough in Paedobaptists dealing with me, to shew how great likelihood there is that the words of the Anabaptists in Germany were perverted.
Mr. M. p. 180, 181. excepts against me for saying that Ishmael and Esau had no part in the Covenant, denies that Ishmael had no part in it, when he himself grants that they did never partake of the spiritual graces of the Covenant, which is all one with that which I say, that the Covenant of grace was not made to them, they had no part in it; For sure they to whom the Covenant of grace is made, and have part in it, are all partakers of the spiritual graces of the Covenant, or else God keeps not his promise; and for this I bring Gen. 17.19, 20, 21. Rom. 9.6, 7, 8. Gal. 4.28, 29. (though I needed not, having Mr. Ms. own confession) and therefore it is most false he saith, I bring not one shadow of a proof for what I say.
But Mr. M. thinks to maintain his speech, that Ishmael had part in the Covenant, in that he was reckoned by circumcision to belong to the Covenant, and obliged to seek after the spiritual part of it▪ to have his heart circumcised, and to believe in the Messiah that was to come of Abrahams seed.
Answ. 1. It is contrary to Gen. 7.19, 20, 21. to say that Ishmael by Circumcision did belong to the Covenant, it runs upon this palpable mistake, that every one that was circumcised had thereby the Covenant sealed to him. 2. Those that were uncircumcised, all the people of the world were obliged to seek after the spiritual graces of the Covenant, to be holy, to believe; yet this doth not prove they had a part in the Covenant, and therefore this answer of Mr. M. is frivolous. And so likewise is that which he saith in answer to my words (not rightly set down, my words were not, right to Evangelical promises or any other benefit) that no benefit of the Covenant was the proper reason (I added, and adequate) why these or those were circumcised, but onelyonly Gods precept; though Gods command was the cause of the existence of the duty of Circumcision, yet the Covenant of grace was the motive to it, and these two are well consistent together. In which 1. he shews not whose motive it was, Gods or mans. If he mean it was Gods to command it, it is nothing to the purpose to shew right to the Covenant of grace to have been the proper adequate reason of the persons to be circumcised: if mans motive, it is false, whether we understand it of …he circumcised, who were infants, and therefore had no motive to it, but were passive onelyonly, or the circumciser; for in …brahams circumcising Ishmael Mr. M. saith I have given a very good instance to prove, that some may receive the outward sign of the Covenant, and a v…sible …anding in the Church, though he who administers the seal might by revelation know the inward grace is wanting ▪ Were his answer gran…ed, yet it proves not the contrary to my speech, but confirms it, though this point be one of the hinges on which his first & main argument turns▪ For i… it be true that the adequate reason o… pe…sons circumcising was not right to the Evangelical promises or other benefit in the Covenant, but Gods prec…pt onelyonly, then the pillar of Mr. Ms argument f…lls to the ground, All that are in the covenant are to be sealed, it being onelyonly true thus, All in the Covenant, whom God ha…h commanded … sealed are to be sealed.
What he saith after, that I grant what is in controversie, because I grant men may have a visible membership in the Church though they be not elected or sanctified, it is alike frivolous, it being never in controversie; but whether any may be said to be in or under the Covenant of grace, or to have the Covenant of grace made to them who are non elect, and never sanctified.
That which Mr. M. p. 182. calls a piece of odd Divinity, that Circumcision should seal righteousness to them who never are circumcised, nor reputed so, nor capable of being circumcised, nor might lawfully be circumcised, being understood as I express it of Abrahams personal Circumcision is the Apostles express Divinity, Rom. 4.11, 12. whose scope, say New England Elders in answer to the 3d. and 4th. position, p. 65. rightly, in that place is not to define a Sacrament, nor to shew what is the proper 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, &c. Nor is this any more odd Divinity then Mr. Ms. who asserts women virtually circumcised in the males.
That which he saith, that visible professours have a visible right to the spiritual part of Circumcision, I conceive false: For though they had a right to Circumcision or Baptism, which they might receive of men, yet they had no right at all to forgiveness of sins, justification, adoption, salvation▪ which are onelyonly from God, and onelyonly true believers had right to.
That which he saith, p. 182. that Circumcision was given the Jews in reference to their Church state, not in reference to their civil state, is not true, but said upon a mistake, as if the Church state and Civil were different in the Jewish Commonwealth.
That which he confesseth, that the formal reason of their being circumcised was the command of God, is enough to shew that interest in the Covenant did not give right to Circumcision, but the command of God; and therefore without shewing a command for infant Baptism, this is no good argument, they are in the Covenant therefore to be baptized, which enervates all Mr. Ms. dispute.
But he adds▪ The Covenant of grace, or their Church state was the motive to it, and the thing it related to; and this fully answers the objection; for it was commanded and observed as that which was a priviledge and duty belonging to the Covenant, and they used it as being in Covenant, the objection is wholly taken off.
To which I reply, 1. The Covenant of grace might be in some sense, and the Church state of Abrahams house in some respect, that is, to bee a sign of it, might be the end why God appointed Circumcision to Abrahams house; but motive, that is, impulsive cause, I see not how the Covenant of grace and the Church state can be termed, there being nothing but his own will, according to the counsel of which he worketh all things, Ephes. 1.11. that can be rightly termed a motive to him to command it. 2. But be it in the sense I allow it termed motive, or end, and a duty belonging to the Covenant as a sign of it, and the persons who used it, as Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob used it as being in Covenant; yet neither is it true that all that used it were in the Covenant of grace, nor was it appointed as a duty to be used by them to all and they onelyonly that were in the Covenant of grace▪ nor did God by the use of it, seal, signifie, assure or confer an estate in the Covenant of grace to every person whom hee appointed to bee circumcised, and therefore no part of the objection is taken off, that Circumcision was not the seal of the Covenant of grace to all circumcised persons, but was appointed to persons not under the Covenant of grace, and denied to persons that were, and consequently Mr. Ms. proposition not true; All that were in the Covenant were to bee sealed.
When Mr. M. said, persons were bound to conform to the manner of administration, and this manner of administration he made to bee temporal blessings and punishmenst. I took it he meant they should conform to them.
He tels me p. 183. That though I confidently asserted heretofore, that Ishmael, and Esau and others, were circumcised for some temporal respects, that Circumcision sealed the temporal or political promises, but yet in saying they received Circumcision neither in relation to outward things onelyonly, nor at all either as temporal blessings or types, but because God commanded, I do as good as deny it; sith if they were circumcised with respect to no…hing but the command, it sealed nothing, it was no seal at all. To which I reply, I find not that I asserted any where that Ishmael and Esau were circumcised for some temporal respects, and though I alledged Cameron, saying, that it sealed earthly promises, yet I never said it sealed them to Ishmael and Esau: Nor do I count it any absurdity, to say it sealed nothing to them, or it was no seal at all to them. And I conceive that Baptism which is no seal of such earthly promises, nor can be a seal of spiritual and saving grace to every natural child of a believer (of which he will not assert p. 116. of his Defence there is a promise made to them) when it is administred to reprobates is no seal of the Covenant of grace to them, nor any seal at all, and that he must as well as I do (if he will speak congruously to his own doctrine) say that such persons are to bee baptized by reason of Gods command and no other. Yet I do not say the command of Circumcision was not in reference to the Covenant of grace, as Mr. M. intimates: but this I say, though God commanded Circumcision, that he might signifie Christ to come, and Evangelical grace by him, yet neither the circumciser nor the circumcised did circumcise, or were to be circumcised because of the persons interest in the Covenant of grace, as the proper and adequate reason of the du…y of Circumcision, but because of Gods command, and yet I nothing doubt but that in the use of it, they and others that were neither circumcisers nor circumcised, as e gr. women were by faith to look on the Covenant of grace through these administrations, that is to expect Christ to come and blessing by him, which speeches are very easily consistent with my own words and Scripture doctrine, though Mr. M. did not understand it.
When Mr. M. alledged that Circumcision could be no seal of Canaan to Proselites, and I answered that yet the Covenant to Abraham had promises of temporal blessings, and that some were to be circumcised who had no part in the Covenant of grace, he tels me, 1. That he was proving that Circumcision was no seal of the land of Canaan, which I grant, if he mean it to some that were circumcised, yet if he mean it, to none, it is false. 2. He grants temporal blessings belong to the Covenant of grace, according to that 1 Tim. 4.8. But neither this nor any other Text proves, that the promises of a setled abode in a fruitful land with peace, prosperity, and outward greatness, and dominion therein, is promised to a Christian believer now, as it was to Abraham and Israel after the flesh, Gen. 17.4, 5, 6, 7, 8. but the promise of this life is upon the loss of outward things of a recompense in this life by receiving more, yet with persecution, Mark. 10.30. which can bee understood of no other then spiritual comforts, which may bee termed temporal blessings distinct from the everlasting life which in the world to come they shall have. 3. It was not his drift to prove that all that were circumcised had part in the spiritual graces of the Covenant, but that they had a visible membership and right to bee reputed as belonging to the Church. But this is not that whi…h hee was to prove that they were in the Covenant of grace.
Lastly, when I excepted agai…st his speech [that Ishmael was really taken into the Covenant of grace, and Esau, till by their Aposta…e they discovenanted themselves.] 1. That hee opposed the Apostle Rom. 9.7, 8. Gal 4.28, 29. Gen. 17.19, 20. Heb. 11.9. To this he repl…es not. 2. That by this speech he asserts falling from grace, this he denies because hee meant by their taking into the Covenant of grace not being under the spiritual grace of the Covenant, but the outward administration.
But 1. this is but non-sense and delusory. For the outward administration is not the Covenant of grace, Circumcision is not the Covenant of grace, nor visible profession, nor indeed could he mean it without trifling and mocking his reader when he argued, Infants of Believers are in the Covenant of grace, therefore are to bee sealed with Baptism or Circumcision. For infants of believers make no visible, profession and if his argument were, they were under the outward administration, that it, to be Circumcised or Baptized; and therefore they were to be sealed, that is to be Circumcised or Baptized, is mere trifling and delusory of the reader, who expects from his words, a proof that Gods promise of righteousness and eternal life by Christ (which is and nothing else the Covenant of grace) is made to every infant child of a believer. 2. If this were Mr. Ms. meaning, Ishmael and Esau did not discovenant themselves, for they did uncircumcise themselves, but shewed that they regarded not the blessing of Isaac.
But saith Mr. M. I have no doubt but that all indifferent Readers well enough understand what I meant, by being taken into the Covenant of grace, even such a taking in as when the Gentiles were taken in, instead of the Jews who were broken off, they were under the outward administration, visible professours, had an external calling, which is Gods act though a common one.
To which I reply, 1. If they were taken into the Covenant of grace as the ingraffed Gentiles, they were elect and true believers, if Esau and Ishmael fell from that state of the Covenant of grace Arminian Apostasie is asserted. 2. Neither the outward administration of Circumcision to Ishmael and Esau, nor their visible profession (whatever it were) was Gods act (which Mr. M. denies not taking into the Covenant of grace to be) therefore by neither of these can they with good sense be said to be taken really into the Covenant of grace. 3. What external call which should be Gods act distinct from the outward administration and visible profession mentioned, from which Ishmael and Esau fell, I understand not. 4. What ever external calling it be which he means and terms Gods act, though a common one, sure I am Mr. M. hath not shewed nor can shew that it is a real taking into the Covenant of grace, which I said truly, nor hath Mr. M. disproved or gain-said it, is Gods act, either of election or promise, or some act executing either of these, and the objection still stands good, persons were to bee circumcised who were in the Covenant of grace, Ishmael was appointed to be circumcised, though it were declared Gods Covenant did not belong to him, and therefore the reason of Circumcising persons was not the Covenant of grace, but onelyonly the will and command of God to have it so.