Infant Baptism from Heaven and Not of Men, Chapter 9
CHAP. IX.
The third ſubordinate Propoſition laid down; how handled declared. The firſt Argument for its confirmation propoſed and proſecuted, where that Command, concerning the keeping of the Covenant, Gen. 17.9. is largely ſpoken to.
I Come now to the third and laſt ſubordinate Propoſition, viz.
That all thoſe that are under, or are the actual Subjects of that Promiſe, wherein God ingaged himſelf to be a God to Abraham, and his Seed in their Generations, ought, according to the will of Chriſt, to be baptized: all that are the Subjects of that Promiſe are the due and proper Subjects of Baptiſm: There may be, its true, a tender of the Promiſe to ſuch who ought not to be baptized, they may refeſe that tender, but to whom the Promiſe doth actually belong, the Ordinance of Baptiſme ought, according to the will of Chriſt, to be applyed.
This Propoſition I ſhall endeavour to prove in hypotheſi, or as applied to the particular ſubject of our main Propoſition, viz. the Infant-ſeed of one or both believing Parents; and thus ſuppoſing, and taking it for granted (as being already proved) that they are the actual Subjects of that Promiſe, I ſhall prove that they ought, according to the will of Chriſt, to be baptiſed, and that by theſe three Arguments,
Firſt, If it be the duty of believing Parents, not only to be baptized themſelves, but to take care that their Infant-ſeed, as joynt Subjects with themſelves of that promiſe, be alſo baptized, then it is according to the will of Chriſt, that not only believing Parents themſelves, but their Infant-ſeed alſo ſhould be baptized: but the former is true, therefore the latter.
The Conſequence in the Major propoſition is unqueſtionable, what a Believer is bound to take care be done, the doing of that muſt undoubtedly be according to the will of Chriſt.
But 'tis the Minor propoſition will be denied, viz. That it is the duty of believing Parents, not only to be baptized themſelves, but to take care that their Infant-Seed, as joynt Subjects with themſelves of the ſame promiſe, be baptized.
But the truth of this is evident from the expreſs Command of God, Gen. 17.9. And God ſaid unto Abraham, Thou ſhalt keep my Covenant therefore, thou and thy Seed after thee in their Generations.
Now that it may appear, that this Command doth conſtitute it to be the duty of believing Parents, not only to be baptized themſelves, but to take care that their Infant-ſeed be alſo baptized, I ſhall diſtinctly ſpeak to theſe five things.
Firſt, That by Covenant in this place is mainly, if not only meant, the Token of the Covenant, and by keeping the Covenant, the application and reception of that Token.
Secondly, That the Covenant that Abraham, and his Seed in their Generations, were, or were to be received into, alwayes had and was to have a Token annexed to it.
Thirdly, That this Command requiring Abraham, and his Seed in their Generations, to keep the Covenant, obliges not only Parents to have the Token applyed to themſelves or themſelves to receive and bear it, but to apply or take care that it be applyed, according to divine appointment, to their Infant-ſeed.
Fourthly, That as Circumciſion was the Token of the Covenant during the old Teſtament adminiſtration, ſo Baptiſm is the Token of the Covenant under the New.
Laſtly, That this Command doth equally and alike oblige believing Parents in their Generations, reſpective to Baptiſm, the preſent Token of the Covenant, as it did the Jews, reſpective to Circumciſion, the then Token of the Covenant.
For the firſt, That is paſt all rational doubt evident; God himſelf ſhews what he intended by Covenant, and what by keeping of that Covenant: When he applyes this Command, as more generally laid down to Abraham and his natural Seed in particular, verſe 10. So verſe 13. My Covenant ſhall be in your fleſh, plainly declaring, that by Covenant he intended the Token of the Covenant, and by keeping of this Covenant, the application and reception of that Token, though not affirming Circumciſion to be the only Covenant to be kept, and conſequently not limiting the Command to it.
And here let us a little inquire into the ſence and meaning of this term Token; the Hebrew foreign is uſually tranſlated by the Seventy foreign, both the Hebrew and Greek ſignifie, Signum tam nudum quam prodigioſum, a ſign both ordinary and prodigious, and ſo is expreſt by the Apoſtle, Rom. 4.11. foreign and Sign or token here we are to take in a pure logical notion, and thus we may define it with Auſten, to be, Id quod ſeipſum ſenſui & preter ſe aliquid animo repreſentat: Or as a later Author, Signum eſt quod ſeipſum ſenſibus & id cujus ſignum eſt intellectui aufert: A Sign in this logical notion is, that which is obvious to, or perceivable by ſence, and through the medium of ſence preſents to the mind or underſtanding what it is a ſign of: Whence it is evident, that this term, Token or Sign, is not expreſſive of all the uſes or ends that the Token of the Covenant here commanded was deſigned or appointed to: the term abſtractly taken, only expreſſes the general nature and deſign of that Ordinance, but expreſſes not the various uſes and ends it was in particular appointed to; what theſe uſes and ends are, muſt be gathered from other Scriptures, wherein God himſelf hath declared them, of which I ſhall ſpeak when I come to the fourth Particular.
But let that ſuffice in brief for the firſt particular to be ſpoken to.
Secondly, That the Covenant that Abraham, and his Seed in their Generations, were, or were to be received into, alwayes had, and was to have a Token annexed to it; that is, it had, and was to have an outward Ordinance or Inſtitution annexed unto the adminiſtration of it, which though of various uſes, and ſerving to various ends, not expreſly declared in that term Token, abſtractly taken, yet might be denominated the Token of the Covenant. This is evident two wayes.
Firſt, A priore, from the Command of God, injoyning Abraham's Seed in their Generations to keep it.
Secondly, A poſteriori, or de facto, from the actual inſtitution and appointment of ſuch a Token.
For the firſt, Let the words in Gen. 17.9. be diligently obſerved, And God ſaid unto Abraham, Thou ſhalt therefore keep my Covenant, thou and thy Seed after thee in their Generations. Now God would never have injoyned Abraham, and his Seed in their Generations, to keep his Covenant, that is, the Token of it, had he not intended to annex a Token to it. And obſerve it, the Command lyes on Abraham's Seed in their Generations, without any limitation, and conſequently is incumbent upon Abraham's Seed, while he hath a Seed upon earth. Hence it is evident, that as God intended to annex a Token to that Covenant, then entred with Abraham and his natural Seed, ſo he intended to annex a Token to his Covenant (whether the ſame, or another, it is all one as to our preſent purpoſe) into which Abraham's ſpiritual Seed, viz. believing Gentiles, in after Ages ſhould be received, we ſee the Command lyes upon Abraham's Seed in their Generations unlimitedly.
Now Believers under the new Teſtament, as hath been proved, are Abraham's Seed, and conſequently muſt needs lye under the Obligation of this Command, whence there muſt needs be a Token annexed to the Covenant into which they are received, for otherwiſe they would lye under an Obligation to keep the Token of the Covenant, and yet have no Token appointed them by God, to keep which would be abſurd: And that this Command is obliging to Abraham's myſtical or ſpiritual Seed, is evident by this Argument.
The ſame perſons intended in the Promiſes of the Covenant, are intended in the Command, injoyning the Token: But Abraham's myſtical Seed, as well as his natural Seed, are intended in the Promiſes; therefore they are alſo intended in the Command.
We evidently ſee, the Promiſes and the Command run in one and the ſame extent and latitude; I will eſtabliſh my Covenant between me and thee, and thy Seed after thee in their Generations, to be a God to thee and thy Seed after thee, there's the Promiſe: Thou ſhalt therefore keep my Covenant, thou and thy Seed after thee in their Generations, there's the Command.
Now if God hath not limited the Command to ſome of Abraham's Seed, then we muſt not do it: But God hath no where limited the Command to ſome of Abraham's Seed; therefore muſt not we.
If any ſhould ſay, He hath limited that Command.
Let that limitation be produced, and it ſhall ſuffice; till then we ſhall conclude, the Command is of an equal extent with the Promiſe.
Now there being a Command incumbent upon Abraham's whole Seed myſtical, as well as natural, to keep the Covenant, that is, as God himſelf expounds it, the Token of the Covenant, there muſt needs be a Token to be kept.
Secondly, This is evident, de facto, for the Covenant under the firſt Teſtament adminiſtration that will not be denyed, and for the Covenant under the new Teſtament adminiſtration, the truth of what I affirm will appear, when I come to ſhew that Baptiſm is the preſent Token of the Covenant.
And therefore thirdly, That this Command, requiring Abraham, and his Seed in their Generations, to keep the Covenant, obliges not only Parents to have the Token of the Covenant applyed unto themſelves, or themſelves to receive and bear it, but alſo to apply or take care that it be applyed to their Infant-ſeed. The truth of this will again appear two wayes.
Firſt, From the Letter of the Command, Thou ſhalt therefore keep my Covenant, thou and thy Seed in their Generations. Now under this phraſe, thy Seed in their Generations, both Parents and their Infant-ſeed are included; they are both included in the Promiſe, as hath been already proved, and therefore muſt needs be both included in the Command injoyning the keeping of the Covenant, Hence, that the Covenant be kept by the Seed as well as by the Parents themſelves, is according to the expreſs letter of the Command, which duty of keeping, as to be performed by the Infant-ſeed, can only intend their reception and bearing of it; and ſo far the Infant-Seed as well as the Parents are under the Obligation of the Command: hence an Infant, not receiving or bearing the Token of the Covenant, is ſaid to have broken the Covenant, verſe 14. becauſe the Infants as well as the Parents are under the Obligation of the Command to keep the Covenant.
Now if ſo be the Covenant be to be kept, not only by Parents, but by their Infant-ſeed, it will undeniably follow, that Parents are to take care that it be kept by them, in as much as they, as ſuch, are incapable of taking care of it themſelves, the care muſt lye upon ſome body, and upon whom, if not upon their Parents? We ſee that God hath throughout the Scripture made it the duty of Parents to take care of, and ſee to the performance of his will relating to their children, as might be evidenced in variety of inſtances were it needful.
Secondly, The truth of this appears from the clear and expreſs diſcovery that God made of his mind and will as to Circumciſion, the ancient Token of the Covenant, and thus as God injoyned the token of the Covenant to be applyed to the Infant-ſeed of Covenant-parents, ſo he impoſed the care of the application of that Token unto the Seed upon the Parents, Every man-child among you ſhall be circumciſed, verſe 10. He that is eight dayes old, ſhall be circumciſed among you, verſe 12. The Child in the application of the Token was paſſive, and though upon whom the care of the application of the Token to the Infant-ſeed was laid, is not expreſly declared in this place, yet that it was upon the Parents is ſufficiently evident throughout the Scripture. We ſee how angry God was with Moſes, when the circumciſion of his Child was neglected; and in that God ſo fully declared his mind in reſpect of Circumciſion, the then Token of the Covenant, it is a full comment upon the Command, as more generally laid down, viz. That as in that phraſe, Thy Seed in their Generations, he intended both Parents and Infant-ſeed; ſo that the care of the Childs receiving and bearing the Token of the Covenant (which is the whole of its keeping of it) did appertain to the Parents as their duty.
And hence let it be obſerved, that the will of God concerning Circumciſion, ſhews us what is his will concerning Baptiſm, that as the one, ſo the other ſhould be applyed to the Infants of believing Parents, as well as to the Parents themſelves, and that the care of the application of the one, as well as of the other, lyes upon the Parents.
Where note, that I argue not from Anallogy, but only take that diſcovery God makes of his will concerning Circumciſion, as a Comment upon that Command injoyning the keeping of the Covenant, as more generally laid down.
But not to inlarge upon this, by what hath been ſaid the truth of the third particular ſufficiently appears.
Fourthly, That as Circumciſion was the Sign or Token of the Covenant, during the old Teſtament adminiſtration, ſo Baptiſm is the Sign or Token of the Covenant under the new Teſtament adminiſtration. Where note, that when I ſay, Circumciſion was, and Baptiſm is, the Sign or Token of the Covenant, I would be thus underſtood, viz. that Circumciſion was, and Baptiſm is, that Ordinance or Inſtitution that God then did annex, and now hath annexed to the Covenant, ſerving to, and performing of thoſe various uſes and ends, with reference unto thoſe to whom it was, and is to be applyed, that he propoſed to himſelf, as the reaſon and ground of his annexing a Sign or Token in the general to the Covenant eſtabliſhed between himſelf and Abraham, and his Seed in their Generations.
That Circumciſion was this Ordinance or Inſtitution, is expreſly declared, Geneſis: 17.10, 11.
That Baptiſm is the preſent Sign or Token of the Covenant will appear theſe two wayes.
Firſt, More generally, and thus: Unleſs Baptiſm be the preſent Sign or Token of the Covenant, the Covenant, during this preſent adminiſtration, is left wholly deſtitute of any Sign or Token at all; let the Sign or Token be produced in caſe Baptiſm be not it.
'Tis true, it may be it will be ſaid, That the Covenant under, the preſent adminiſtration, hath no external Sign or Token annexed to it, neither is it neceſſary that it ſhould; the Spirit is the Seal of the Covenant of Grace, and the more plentiful powrings forth of the Spirit upon Believers, eſpecially under that notion of a Seal, makes an outward Sign or Token wholly unneceſſary.
To that I anſwer:
Firſt, That though Believers are ſaid to be ſealed with the Spirit, yet the Spirit is no where called the Seal of the Covenant, neither indeed can it in propriety of ſpeech be ſo called; for if the Spirit were the Seal of the Covenant, it ſhould be given to all that are under the Covenant, the contrary thereunto both Scripture and experience abundantly declare, the Seal of me Covenant muſt be as extenſive as the Covenant whereof it is the Seal. Now take the Spirit as a Seal, that is, as given for that particular uſe and end, viz. to aſſure and aſcertain the Subject recipient of it, of the good promiſed in the Covenant, and ſo it is certain he is not given to every one truly and internally in covenant for a long time, nor to ſome poſſibly while they live. How many live many years, and it may be at laſt dye without any ſenſible aſſurance of their covenant-ſtate, or injoyment of the good promiſed; I ſo that the Spirit cannot properly be called the Seal of the Covenant, he is rather (as I may ſo expreſs it) a private Seal given by God to this or that particular Believer, according to the good pleaſure of his own will.
Secondly, I anſwer, That to ſeal and aſſure to thoſe who are admitted into covenant with God, their injoyment of the good promiſed is not the only uſe and end, with reference whereunto the Sign or Token of the Covenant is appointed.
Hence ſuppoſe it ſhould be granted, that the Spirit is the Seal, yea, the only Seal of the Covenant of Grace, yet that doth no way oppoſe the truth of what we here affirm concerning Baptiſm, for though it ſhould be not or that particular uſe, nor appointed for that ſpecial end which yet it is, as will appear by and by, yet it may be the Sign or Token of the Covenant, it may be of thoſe other uſes, and ſerve to thoſe other ends that God did propound to himſelf, as the reaſon and ground of his annexing a Sign or Token in the general, to the Covenant, ſo that it is certain, the Spirit cannot … rationally ſuppoſed to be that Sign or Token of the Covenant, which Abraham's Seed in their Generations were injoyned to keep; and conſequently, for ought what is ſaid of the Spirit, unleſs Baptiſm be the preſent Token of the Covenant, it is wholly deſtitute of any Sign or Token at all, which that it cannot be, hath been proved already: as for the Lords Supper, I ſuppoſe, none will ever imagine that that can be the Token here injoyned, if they ſhould, their vanity will eaſily appear.
Secondly, This will more clearly appear, if we compare Baptiſm with Circumciſion, the former Token of the Covenant, that Circumciſion was the Token of the Covenant is unqueſtionable; and hence look what Ordinance under the new Teſtament doth moſt fully agree with Circumciſion, in regard of the uſes and ends, which as the Token of the Covenant, it was appointed for, and did ſerve unto, that muſt needs be the Ordinance deſigned by our Lord Chriſt, for the Token of the Covenant, upon the ceſſation of Circumciſion: And here for the evidencing what is affirmed, I ſhall do theſe two things.
1. Inſtance in ſome of the more eſpecial uſes and ends whereunto Circumciſion was appointed, and whereunto it, as the Sign of the Covenant, did ſerve.
2. Shew the exact agreement of Baptiſm with Circumciſion, in regard of thoſe uſes and ends: Where let it be carefully obſerved, that it is no way neceſſary, for the proving Baptiſm to be the preſent Sign or Token of the Covenant, that I ſhould prove an exact agreement between it and Circumciſion in all cicumſtances, nor yet in regard of all the uſes or ends of the one and of the other; if it be evident, that their agreement be ſuch as will evidence Baptiſm to be the Token of the Covenant, upon the ceſſation of Circumciſion, it is enough as to my preſent purpoſe, and that may be ſufficiently evident by their agreement in ſome things, though they ſhould diſagree in others, eſpecially there being no other Ordinance that can with any ſhew of reaſon be pretended to be that Token, the application and reception of which is here enjoyned Abraham's Seed in their Generations, a little may ſuffice to prove, that Baptiſm is that Ordinance, when there is no other Ordinance that can, with any ſhew of probability, be ſuppoſed to be it.
I ſhall therefore only inſtance in a fourfold uſe and end, whereunto Circumciſion, as the Sign and Token of the Covenant, was appointed, and whereunto it did ſerve; and then ſhew the agreement of Baptiſm with Circumciſion, in regard of thoſe uſes and ends. The firſt and two laſt I ſhall do little more than mention, and a little inſiſt upon the ſecond.
Firſt, Circumciſion, as the Sign and Token of the Covenant, was the ſolemn Rite or Ordinance, whereby perſons were admitted into, and incorporated in the Jewiſh Church, and by the reception of which they became actual Members of that Church, and conſequently was that ſolemn Rite or Ordinance, whereby perſons were incorporated in, and united to the myſtical Body of Chriſt as viſible: The proving of this, I ſuppoſe, is needleſs, 'twill ſurely be denyed by none. And therefore,
Secondly, Circumciſion was to ſeal and aſſure to the Subjects of it, their enjoyment of the good things, benefits and bleſſings promiſed in, according to the true tenour of, the Covenant, to the adminiſtration of which it was annexed: See this in a particular Inſtance, viz. Remiſſion of ſin, or the Righteouſneſs which is of Faith: Circumciſion was a Seal of the Righteouſneſs of Faith, that is, it did ſeal and aſſure, to the due Subjects of it, the non-imputation of their ſin, or the imputation of righteouſneſs to them, upon condition of their Faith. Thus it is ſaid of Abraham, He received the ſign of Circumciſion, a ſeal of the righteouſneſs of faith, which he had being yet uncircumciſed, Rom. 4.11. The Apoſtle here ſhews us one ſpecial uſe and end of Circumciſion, reſpective to all to whom it was duly applyed.
Object. But here it is objected, That to have Circumciſion a Seal of the Righteouſneſs of Faith, was a priviledge peculiar to Abraham the Father of the faithful, and was not of that uſe, nor appointed for that end, to all to whom it was rightfully applyed: therefore it is ſaid, He received the ſign of Circumciſion, a ſeal of the righteouſneſs of faith, that he might be the Father of all that believe. And hence it may ſeem, that he receiving Circumciſion under that notion and conſideration, upon a reaſon and ground peculiar and proper to himſelf, the priviledge was peculiar and proper to him, and not common to any other with him, there not being the ſame reaſon and ground of their receiving of it under the ſame notion and conſideration.
To that I anſwer two things.
Firſt, Thoſe words, That he might be the Father of all them that believe, depend not only upon the words immediately foregoing, but upon the tenth verſe taken in conjunction with the former part of v. 11. he did not only receive Circumciſion as a Seal, that he might be the Father of all them that believe, but he both had righteouſneſs imputed to him while in uncircumciſion, and alſo received the Sign of Circumciſion as a Seal, that he might be the Father of them that ſhould believe, whether circumciſed or uncircumciſed: So that he did not receive Circumciſion, as a Seal of the righteouſneſs of faith, upon any reaſon peculiar and ſpecial to himſelf, any more than he had righteouſneſs imputed to him, upon a reaſon peculiar and proper to himſelf: And conſequently, upon the ſame account that our Oppoſites appropriate circumciſion as a Seal of the righteouſneſs of faith to Abraham himſelf, and deny it to be of the ſame uſe to his Seed, they may appropriate the imputation of Righteouſneſs through Faith and Circumciſion it ſelf to him alone, and deny that any of his Seed had Righteouſneſs imputed unto them, or ought to have been circumciſed.
Secondly, I anſwer, That the Apoſtle here rather ſpeaks of the finis cui, than the finis cujus of Abraham's receiving Circumciſion as a Seal: My meaning is this, Abraham received circumciſion as a Seal, not barely for the ſake of that relation, of his being a Father of them that ſhould believe, as it was a good benefit or priviledge to himſelf, but he received it under that notion and conſideration, In eorum gratiam qui credituri ſint, for their ſake to whom he ſhould ſuſtain the relation of a Father: And ſo the meaning is, He received the Sign of Circumciſion as a Seal of the Righteouſneſs of Faith, not barely that he might ſuſtain the relation of a Father to all that ſhould believe, as that was a good to himſelf, but that he might as a Father, or common perſon, be a pattern to all that ſhould ſuſtain that relation of Children to him, in regard of the good which they, as his Children, ſhould receive.
Now then having removed this Objection, I ſhall offer two or three Arguments to prove, that Circumciſion was appointed for this uſe and end. viz. to ſeal and confirm the whole Covenant to all to whom it was, according to the will of God, to be applyed.
The firſt ſhall be taken from the end of Abraham's receiving of it, as here declared by the Apoſtle: And thus I argue, If Abraham received Circumciſion, as a Seal of the Righteouſneſs which he had through Faith, that he might be the Father of, and as the Father of a pattern to all that being circumciſed ſhould believe, then to all that, being circumciſed, did believe, their circumciſion was and, ought to be looked upon and improved by them, as a Seal of that Righteouſneſs they had through Faith: But the former is true, therefore the latter. For the Conſequence in the Major propoſition. I ſuppoſe, that will not be denyed, it being paſt all rational doubt, that if Abraham received Circumciſion under that very notion and conſideration as a Seal, that he might be the Father of, and as the Father of, might be a pattern to all that, being circumciſed, ſhould believe as he did: Then look of what uſe it was to him, or to what end he received it; it muſt needs be of the ſame uſe, and appointed for the ſame end unto them, to whom he was a pattern as receiving it. And therefore 'tis only the Antecedent that can be queſtioned, which yet is ſo evident, that to underſtanding and unprejudiced perſons the proving of it may ſeem wholly ſuperfluous. That Abraham received Circumciſion under this very notion, as a Seal of the righteouſneſs which he had through faith, that he might be the Father of all them who being circumciſed did believe, is expreſly affirmed by the Apoſtle; all that can be doubted of is, whether he was, in regard of the uſe and end of it, as received by himſelf, a pattern to all to whom he was a Father: But now this is undeniable, in as much as his paternity or fatherhood, as I may ſo ſpeak, in part, if not principally, confiſted in his being a pattern and example to all tow hom he was a Father. This title of a Father is in a peculiar and ſpecial manner given to, and predicated of Abraham, in this very regard, that he was ſet up as the great pattern, according to which God would act towards, and deal with, all that ſhould after believe, or be admitted into a covenant-relation with himſelf: Hence in this very place the Apoſtle tells us, that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteouſneſs, which is all one as to ſay, righteouſneſs was imputed to him through faith, when he was in uncircumciſion, that he might be the Father of the uncircumciſed, that righteouſneſs might be imputed to them alſo, viz. according to the pattern ſet in Abraham himſelf.
So again, Gal 3.7. Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteouſneſs. Mark, the deſign of the Apoſtle is to prove, that righteouſneſs is through faith, from the firſt pattern ſet in Abraham. Now ſayes he, verſe 7. Know ye therefore, that they which are of the faith are the children of Abraham; and then cloſes, verſe 9. So then they which are of faith, are bleſſed with faithful Abraham; that is, as they are bleſſed with him with the ſame bleſſings, ſo they are bleſſed with him after the ſame manner, viz. through faith. Now as Abraham had righteouſneſs imputed to him through faith, that he might be the Father of all that believe, and, as a Father, a pattern to them, in regard of the imputation of righteouſneſs: So he received Circumciſion as a Seal of that righteouſneſs, that he might be the Father of them that ſhould believe of the circumciſion, and, as a Father, a pattern to them, in regard of the uſe and end of Circumciſion, which both he and they in common received: So that it is evident, that (ircumciſion was of that uſe, and appointed for that end, viz. to be a Seal of the righteouſneſs of faith, not only to Abraham himſelf, but to all his Seed, during the continuance of that inſtitution.
Secondly, That Circumciſion was of this uſe, and appointed for this end, with reference to the temporal benefits promiſed in the Covenant, is evident from hence, becauſe it could be of no other uſe, nor appointed for any other end, with reference to ſome of them. Hence I argue, If Circumciſion had ſome reference to the temporal good things promiſed in the Covenant, it was annexed to, and could have no other reference or reſpect but as a Seal, aſſuring the injoyment of them, then that muſt needs be its uſe and end, with reference to thoſe good things promiſed: but the former is true, therefore the latter.
The Conſequence in the Major propoſition cannot be denyed, for if Circumciſion had ſome reference to the temporal good things promiſed in the Covenant, and it could have no other reference; but as a Seal or Sign aſſuring the injoyment of them, then that muſt needs be its uſe and end reſpective unto them, this will not be denyed.
Secondly, For the Antecedent, that conſiſts of two branches.
Firſt, That Circumciſion had ſome reference to, or was of ſome uſe, and appointed for ſome end, reſpective to the temporal good promiſed; this is evident from the indefiniteneſs of the expreſſion, The Token of my Covenant; 'twas the Token of the Covenant abſolutely taken, not of ſome part of the Covenant, but of the whole Covenant, and therefore muſt needs in its uſe and end have ſome reference to the whole good promiſed in the Covenant: But this, I ſuppoſe, will be granted by our Oppoſers, they generally affirming, that the ſpecial, if not the only uſe and end of Circumciſion, did refer and relate to the temporal part of the Covenant, or to the Covenant as it was a temporal Covenant,
And therefore ſecondly, That it could have no other reference, or could be of no other uſe, with reference to theſe Promiſes, but only this, viz. To ſeal or aſſure the injoyment of the good promiſed: Take it of the Land of Canaan; for what uſe, and to what end could Circumciſion be inſtituted, reſpective to that Promiſe, but to ſeal or aſſure the injoyment of the good promiſed, upon condition of the obſervation of the Articles of the Covenant? Whence the Concluſion is undeniable,: So that, I ſay, Circumciſion was the Seal of the whole Covenant, we ſee it:
Firſt, In reſpect of the ſpiritual good promiſed, as pardon of ſin, the righteouſneſs of faith.
Secondly, In reſpect of the temporal good promiſed, and that Circumciſion did ſeal the temporal part of the Covenant, is not only evident from Scripture and Reaſon, but is the general acknowledgment of our Oppoſers themſelves; therefore I ſhall take it for granted, and upon that Suppoſition infer a third Argument, to prove that it was of that uſe, and appointed for that end, viz. To be a Seal, or an aſſuring Sign of the whole good, whether temporall or ſpirituall convey'd, and made over by the Covenant, and conſequently was a Seal of the Covenant abſolutely taken. And therefore,
Thirdly, If Circumciſion, as the Token of the Covenant, was a Seal of ſome Promiſes contained in it, then it was a Seal of all the Promiſes of it: But the former is true, therefore the latter.
That this Covenant, now entred with Abraham and his Seed, was a ſpiritual as well as a temporal Covenant, or did conſiſt of ſpiritual as well as temporal Promiſes, hath been already proved, Now that Circumciſion was the Token of the Covenant, is expreſly affirmed by God himſelf, This is the Token of my Covenant; and that as the Token it was of that uſe, and appointed for that end, with reference to the temporal part of the Covenant, hath been before proved, and is granted by our Oppoſers, and therefore muſt needs be of that uſe, and appointed for that end, reſpective to all the Promiſes of the Covenant: Ʋbi lex non diſting uit non diſtinguendum eſt, Let any reaſon be ſhewed why it ſhould not be a Seal, or an aſſuring Sign, of the ſpiritual part of the Covenant, as well as of the temporal part, till which be done, the indefiniteneſs of its reference to the whole Covenant, expreſt by that indefinite phraſe, The Token of my Covenant, is an undoubted warrant to take it, as of the ſame uſe, and appointed for the ſame end, reſpective to all the Promiſes of the Covenant, that it was to any: from all we ſee, that Circumciſion was a Seal, or an aſſuring Sign or Token; and that's the ſecond uſe and end of Circumciſion, the former Token of the Covenant.
Thirdly, The uſe and end of Circumciſion was, to oblige and ingage the perſon receiving of it to keep exactly to the Articles of this Covenant; hence is that paſſage, Jer. 4.4. Circumciſe your ſelves to the Lord: But this, I ſuppoſe, is granted on all hands, I ſhall not at all ſtand upon it.
Fourthly and laſtly, The uſe and end of Circumciſion was, to be a viſible badge, to diſtinguiſh the people of God from all other people, and to be a viſible Sign of their covenant-relation, or to be a Sign, whereby they did viſibly appear to belong to God in Chriſt, in a contradiſtinction from the reſt of the world.
Secondly, That Baptiſm doth agree with Circumciſion, in regard of theſe uſes and ends, is ſufficiently evident, and conſequently muſt needs be the Sign and Token of the Covenant here injoyned, ſince the laying aſide of Circumciſion: Let us ſee it in the particulars.
Firſt, For the firſt uſe and end of Circumciſion, viz. Its being that ſolemn Rite and Ordinance, by which perſons were admitted into, and incorporated in the Church, or myſtical Body of Chriſt, as viſible: That Baptiſm is of this uſe, and appointed for this end, is expreſly declared by the Apoſtle, 1 Cor. 12.13.
Secondly, For the ſecond uſe and end of Circumciſion, viz. to aſſure the party to whom it was applyed, of the injoyment of the good things, benefits and bleſſings promiſed in the Covenant. That Baptiſm is of this uſe is ſufficiently evident from that paſſage of Peter, 1 Pet 3.21. where Peter having ſpoken of the ſalvation of Noah and his houſe in the Ark, ſayes he, The like figure whereunto Baptiſm now ſaveth us, and telleth us how it ſaveth, both negatively and poſitively; negatively, it is not by waſhing the body from its outward filth, but poſitively, by giving or effecting the anſwer of a good conſcience towards God, through the reſurrection of Chriſt from the dead. What the Apoſtle means by this anſwer of a good conſcience, Interpreters are not agreed, neither doth it concern my preſent purpoſe to determine; that which I only intend is, that by the reſurrection of Chriſt, through a right uſe and improvement made of Baptiſm, a believing Soul comes to have a good conſcience, that is, an acquitting conſcience. Now what uſe or improvement can be made of Baptiſm, in order to the cleanſing and purifying the conſcience, by means whereof it becomes good, as the Apoſtle ſpeaks, but as it is looked upon, and applyed as a Seal, or an aſſuring Sign, ſealing and aſſuring to the Soul the remiſſion of ſin, through the purchaſe of Chriſts death, as declared valid and effectual by his riſing from the dead: this uſe and end of Baptiſm is alſo clearly implyed and held forth in the Apoſtles Exhortation to thoſe trembling Jews, Acts 2.38. Repent and be baptized every one of you in the Name of Jeſus Chriſt, foreign, for or unto the remiſſion of ſin. Now under what notion or conſideration doth the Apoſtle exhort to Baptiſm, reſpective to remiſſion of ſin? It cannot be under the notion of a proper cauſe, for Baptiſm is no proper cauſe of the remiſſion of ſin, neither is it ſo much as a neceſſary condition, as Faith and Repentance in the adult are, for then none could receive remiſſion of ſin without it; but that is falſe, as is evident in the caſe of the Thief upon the croſs, and the like is the caſe of many others, who are converted immediately before death. Neither doth he exhort to it barely under the notion of a Sign, that phraſe, foreign, implyes ſome reference that Baptiſm hath to remiſſion of ſin, beyond what it would have, were it only nudum Signum, a bare Sign or repreſentation of the remiſſion of ſins by the blood of Chriſt, and therefore he muſt needs exhort to it under the notion of a Seal or aſſuring Sign: And for the further clearing up of this, let the caſe and condition of theſe trembling Jews be conſidered, as they had ſinned in crucifying of Chriſt, and were under the guilt of that ſin, and under an Obligation to ſuffer deſerved puniſhment, ſo they were under a deep ſence of that their ſin, and that wrath or puniſhment due to them upon the account thereof. Now as the Apoſtle exhorts them to repent (with which a ſaving faith in Chriſt muſt be ſuppoſed to concur) with a direct reference to their obtaining remiſſion of ſin, in foro Dei; ſo he exhorts them to be baptized, with a peculiar reference to the pacification of their conſciences, that they might not only have remiſſion of ſin in the Court of Heaven, but have that remiſſion ſealed and confirmed to them, to the quieting their afflicted conſciences, or to the working in them good conſciences: But that is a ſecond uſe and end of Baptiſm.
Thirdly, For the third uſe and end of Circumciſion, viz. To oblige and ingage the perſons to whom it was applyed, to a due and faithful performance of all conſequent duties required in the Covenant. This is true alſo of Baptiſm; Baptiſm is not only a ſealing or confirming Sign, but an obliging Sign, by it the perſon baptized is obliged to take God in Chriſt for his God, and give up himſelf to him, in univerſal and conſtant obedience to his will: This is clearly held forth in that Propoſition foreign, Baptiſm is ſaid to be, foreign, Into the Name of the Father, Matth. 28.19. foreign, Into Chriſt, Gal. 3.27. But this, I ſuppoſe, will be granted on all hands, I need not ſtand upon it.
Fourthly, For the laſt uſe and end of Circumciſion, viz. To be an outward Sign or badge of that covenant-relation the Soul was taken into with God in Chriſt, whereby the perſon was known and taken notice of, as viſibly belonging unto God, as one of his covenant-people. This again is true of Baptiſm; hence thoſe that are baptized are ſaid to put on Chriſt, Gal. 3.27. As many as were baptized into Chriſt have put on Chriſt, they viſibly appear as Members of his myſtical Body, as contradiſtinguiſhed from the non-baptized; from all it evidently appears, that Baptiſm is indeed that Ordinance, appointed by our Lord Chriſt under the new Teſtament, ſerving to, and performing of thoſe uſes and ends, with reference unto which, a Sign or Token in the general was annexed to the Covenant eſtabliſhed between God and Abraham, and his Seed in their Generations. But let that ſuffice for the fourth particular.
Laſtly, That this Command doth alike oblige believing Gentiles, reſpective to Baptiſm, that it did the Jews, reſpective to Circumciſion. As it obliged the Jews, during that firſt Teſtament adminiſtration, to be circumciſed themſelves, and ſee that their Infant ſeed were circumciſed with them; ſo it doth ſtill oblige believing Parents to be baptized themſelves, and ſee that their Infant-ſeed be baptized with them: This is evident from the conſideration of two things in the Command.
Firſt, The extenſiveneſs of it; it reaches Abraham's Seed in their Generations, as we have afore proved.
Secondly, The applicability of it, as more generally laid down to Baptiſm, as well as to Circumciſion: And for the clearing up of this, let it be carefully obſerved, that the Command obliging Abraham, and his Seed in their Generations, to keep the Covenant, meaning as before noted, the Token of the Covenant, did not at all intimate, much leſs determine, what that Token ſhould be; it only conſtitutes the general duty of Abraham, and his Seed in their Generations, reſpective to the Token of the Covenant, whatever that ſhould after be determined by God himſelf to be: the words are plain and expreſs, Thou ſhalt keep my Covenant, thou and thy Seed after thee in their Generations; not thou and thy Seed ſhall be circumciſed or baptized, but thou and thy Seed in their Generations ſhall keep the Covenant: Hence the Command, as thus generally laid down, obligeth no more to the application or reception of circumciſion, than to the application or reception of Baptiſm, and indeed to neither of them, ſimply and abſolutely conſidered; it only enjoyned the application and reception of the Token of the Covenant, but did not determine what that was, or ſhould be; and had God only thus generally and indefinitely commanded the keeping of the Covenant, without ſpecifying what this Covenant ſhould be, for Abraham himſelf to have been circumciſed, or to have circumciſed his Seed, had been a Sin, and an act of will-worſhip: but now when God had determined Circumciſion to be the then Token of the Covenant, this general Command was to be applyed by him to that inſtitution in particular, and his receiving of it himſelf, and applying it to his Seed, was warranted, yea, injoyned by this Command; ſo then that particular inſtitution of Circumciſion was laid aſide, and Baptiſm inſtituted for the ſame uſes & ends: that Command was no longer to be applyed to Circumciſion, but unto Baptiſm ſet up in the ſtead of it; and doth equally oblige Chriſtians to the application and reception of Baptiſm, as it did the Jews, during the firſt Teſtament adminiſtration, to the application and reception of Circumciſion; the command only injoyning the obſervation of the Token of the Covenant, not determining what that was or ſhould be; as it injoyned of it ſelf neither Circumciſion nor Baptiſm, ſo it inioyned both the one and the other, as they were determined by God to be the Token of his Covenant; ſo that we have as an expreſs command, comparing this command with that, Matth. 28.19. for baptiſme of Infants, as the Jews had for the circumciſing their Infant-ſeed; The command to keep the Covenant lying upon Abraham's Seed in their Generations, which, as I have ſaid, as it injoyned Parents to receive or have the Token of the Covenant applyed unto them, and unto their Infant-ſeed, ſo it conſtituted it to be a duty of the Infant-ſeed of Believers, to receive and bear the Token as applyed unto them. So that what would we have more, indeed what can be more plainly ſpoken: would we have had God ſaid, thou ſhalt keep my Covenant, thou and thy Seed after thee in their Generations. Circumciſion before the Meſſiah come, and Baptiſm after.
I, you will ſay, had it been ſo expreſt it would have prevented this controverſie.
But to what purpoſe ſhould it have been ſo expreſt? Is it not all one, Thou ſhalt keep my Covenant therefore, thou and thy Seed in their Generations, not determining what Covenant ſhould be kept, and then for God firſt to inſtitute Circumciſion as the Token of the Covenant, and then lay that aſide, and ſubſtitute Baptiſm in the room of it; the command ſtill remaining in its full force, without the leaſt intimation of a repeal: is not the command ſtill legible, and is it not plain enough, it lyes upon Abraham's Seed in their Generations? And is it not evident, that believing Gentiles are Abraham's Seed? And is it not plainly expreſt, that Baptiſm is the preſent Token of the Covenant, as Circumciſion of old was? So that if we will not call for a command, and when it is brought ſhut our eyes againſt it, here we have as an expreſs command for the baptiſm of the Infant-ſeed of believing Parents, as the Jews had for the circumciſing their Infant-ſeed.
But yet for the further explanation, illuſtration and confirmation of what I have in this particular aſſerted, let two things be obſerved.
Firſt, How the Lord doth vary the phraſe, when he comes to ſpecifie the Covenant then to be kept; 'tis not ſaid, This is my Covenant which thou and thy Seed in their Generations ſhall keep, but, This is my Covenant which ye ſhall keep between me and you, every man-child among you ſhall be circumciſed, and you ſhall circumciſe the fleſh of your fore-skin, and it ſhall be a token of the Covenant between me and you, verſe 10, 11. So again verſe 12. He that is eight dayes old ſhall be circumciſed among you, every man-child in your Generations. A plain intimation, that he purpoſed a change in the Token of the Covenant, and that Circumciſion ſhould continue the Token of it, only during the firſt Teſtament adminiſtration, while the Covenant it ſelf was to be continued in an eſpecial manner in Abraham's natural loin and poſterity.
Secondly, Let it be obſerved, That this Command ſtands not alone in regard of this interpretation we have put upon it, but hath its parallel: there are other commands in the old Teſtament that muſt be neceſſarily interpreted and underſtood after the ſame manner.
I ſhall give you a twofold inſtance in the commands of the Moral Law.
Firſt, Take an inſtance in the ſecond Commandment, Thou ſhalt not make to thy ſelf any graven Image. Now will any ſay, that this Command is only negative, doth only prohibit groſs Idolatry, according to the letter of the command. Surely 'tis agreed on all hands, that it requires ſomething poſitive, viz. That the external worſhip that God himſelf appoints, be exactly obſerved and performed, according to the way and manner himſelf hath determin'd in his Word; and thus when God had appointed and eſtabliſhed that worſhip, conſiſting in ſacrifice, obſervation of dayes, and the like, in and by which his people, under the firſt Teſtament, were to worſhip and ſerve him, that command was to be applied to that kind of worſhip, and did require the exact obſervation and performance thereof, according to the way and manner declared by God himſelf. But now then that kind of worſhip was laid aſide, and other Ordinances and Inſtitutions appointed, in and by which the people of God were and are to worſhip and ſerve him: the Command is of alike authority as before, and doth alike oblige and bind the people of God, to the exact obſervation and performance of that worſhip now eſtabliſhed, according to the way and manner declared in the Word, as it did oblige and bind the people of God, under the firſt Teſtament, with reſpect to the worſhip then eſtabliſhed: Though there be an alteration and change made in the particular Ordinances and Inſtitutions, in and by which God will have worſhip tender'd up to him; yet the Command, as more generally laid down, as requiring the exact obſervation and performance of whatever worſhip is of Gods own inſtitution, is of the ſame authority and force that ever it was; though it doth not oblige us generally to the ſame acts of worſhip that it did oblige the Jews unto, yet it equally obligeth us to thoſe acts and duties now preſcribed by God, as it did the Jews to that worſhip preſcribed unto them: The Command, as more generally propoſed, doth not ſpecifie any paticular acts or duties, in and by which God would be worſhipped, it only requires in the general, that whatever act or duty God himſelf appoints, be exactly obſerved and performed, and that according to the way and manner declared by himſelf: the very ſame is the caſe of this Command, injoyning the keeping of the Covenant. The Command, as I have ſaid, as thus generally propoſed, ſpecifies not what that Covenant is or ſhould be, only requires the application and reception of the Token of the Covenant, and conſequently to Circumciſion, when that was appointed as the Token of the Covenant, and during its continuance; but upon the ceſſation of that, to Baptiſme, as that Ordinance which God hath declared to be the preſent Token of the Covenant.
Secondly, Take another Inſtance in the fourth Commandment, Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy. Here is a Command more generally laid down, injoyning the keeping holy the Sabbath or reſt-day, not ſpecifying which day ſhould be that reſt-day. Now when the Seventh day was inſtituted as that day of reſt, this general Command was to be applyed to that particular day, and did require the keeping of that day holy; but when the Seventh day was laid aſide, and another day, viz. The firſt day of the week, inſtituted by Chriſt as that reſt day; now that Command, as ſo generally propoſed, is to be applied to this particular day, and equally obligeth us Chriſtians to the keeping holy the firſt day of the week, as it did the Jews to keep holy the ſeventh; hence we have no expreſs command in the new Teſtament for the keeping holy the firſt day of the week, neither is there any need there ſhould that command, to remember the day day of reſt, and keep it holy, being equally applicable to one day as to another, and God having determined the day, the command is to be applyed unto it as ſo determined by God; which again is the very caſe of this command, under conſideration; it determines not the Covenant to be kept, but requires that the Covenant, whatever God determines it to be, be kept, and conſequently as it firſt obliged to the application and reception of Circumciſion, ſo now it obligeth to the application and reception of Baptiſm.
Now then to come to a cloſe of this firſt Argument, we ſee the Promiſes are true, and conſequently the concluſion is certain, namely, That it is the will of Chriſt, that the Infant-ſeed of believing Parents ſhould be baptized.