lest any should stumble at this that the Promise here made Gen. 12. was not confirmed till Abraham was circumcised he is to remember that St. Paul expresly teaches the contrary Gal. 3. 17. as I have shewed And I will add the Judgment of a learned Writer upon the place who writes thus That the Gospel was preached to Abraham and the Covenant of Grace revealed to him we have asserted in such full terms in the Context as none can rationally doubt thereof and moreover in verse 17. we have the time of God's establishing this Covenant with him so exactly noted it was saith the Text 430 Years before the giving of the Law viz. on Mount Sinai now the Law was given in a very little time after the Children of Israel came out of Egypt and from the Beginning of the first Promise to Abraham which was Gen. 12. 3. unto that very Night in which the Children of Israel were brought out of their Egyptian Bondage is the Computation of these Years made as will be evident to him that shall diligently compare the Chronologie of those times with the express Testimony of Moses Exod. 12. 41. And it came to pass at the end of 430 Years even the self-same Day it came to pass that all the Host of the Lord went out of the Land of Egypt From the time of the first Promise to the end of Israel's sojourning in the Land of Egypt was 430 Years though their Abode in Egypt was not near so long And hence saith he we collect that in the Transaction of God with Abraham recorded Gen. 12. he did solemnly confirm his Covenant with him although Moses makes not express mention of the term Covenant until occasion be offered Gen. 15. 18. for the Promise there mentioned the Apostle-asserts to be the Covenant confirmed of God in Christ unto Abraham The Sum of all that has been said is this That the Covenant of Circumcision properly taken is not the Covenant of Grace or a Gospel-Covenant nor the Sign thereof Circumcision a Gospel-Ordinance as the Doctor maintains and affirms that Circumcision did seal to its Subjects the same Grace as Baptism does now which cannot stand with Reason because those who had been circumcised should not then have been baptized for Remission of Sins for if Circumcision did seal that Grace to its Subjects why should it be now conferred in Baptism they came to Baptism not as Righteous but as Sinners The Doctor 's long Paraphrase on Rom. 4. is rather destructive of than advantagious to Infant-Baptism For whilst therein he makes Faith yea such as enables Men to walk in the Steps of Abraham ' s Faith the absolute Condition of the Covenant c. he can never make Infants the Sons and Daughters of Abraham by Faith yet he endeavours to do this by telling us that the Faith and Consent of the Father or the Godfather or Congregation under which he was circumcised was believed of old by the Jews to be imputed to the Child as his own Faith and Consent 1 Maccab. 2. 46. They had very good Ground saith he in Scripture for this their Opinion because the Infidelity and Disobedience of the Parents in wilfully neglecting or despising Circumcision was imputed to the Children And to strengthen this Jewish Doctrine he brings Austin with his accommodat illis Mater Ecclesia aliorum pedes ut veniant aliorum cor ut credunt aliorum Linguam ut fateantur To all which very strange Doctrines we reply By the Doctor 's quoting 1 Maccab. 2. 46. it appears that the Cannonical Books would afford no Relief for these Jewish Fables And he that looks upon the place in Maccabees can find no ground to say that the Jews there did circumcise any Children upon the Faith of Parents or God-fathers for they did not stay for Consent of Parents but circumcised them valiantly or by Force as in the Margin which I take to be a bad Precedent to be brought into the Christian Church tho God knows they have been too forward in such violent Proceedings And no less strange and unsound is his Interpretation of Gen. 17. 14. where he would make the Sin of Parents to be imputed to the uncircumcised Infant In which he is not so well advised as some Papists and contrary to the Doctrine of Learned Protestants who both in this case acquit the Infant both from Sin and Punishment Cajetan tho a Papist speaks well Consentaneum est saith he It is fit that none should be punished but they which had committed the Fault but Infants can commit no Fault therefore the Punishment here design'd doth belong only to the grown Persons for they only are justly punished who only are justly blamed for the omission of Circumcision And Dr. Willit a Protestant speaks to the same sense It is no good reading saith he to say the uncircumcised Manchild but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Male for the Infant of eight Days old is of purpose omitted here though mentioned ver 12. Hence then is inferred that there was no such absolute necessity of Circumcision that Children wanting it should be damned And saith Mr. Diodate This is not to be understood of Children but of those who by reason of their Age were capable of voluntary Rebellion refusing or contemning the use of the Sacrament As for Augustin his Church accommodating Infants with others Feet to come to be baptized and with the Hearts of others to believe and the Tongues of others to confess it shews that in his Judgment Baptism ought not to be given but where 't is sought for and where there is Faith and Confession going before it But that one may do these things for another that is one believe and another to be baptized we will answer it as Jerom did another case Non credimus quia non legimus We cannot find it ought to be so neither in the Old Testament nor in the New and therefore we believe it not And let the Doctor consider whether upon such Presumptions as these he may not allow the Feet Heart and Mouth of others for the Dead that they also may be baptised from 2 Maccab. 12. 43 44. The Truth is should we admit the Dictates of the Doctor in this and many Parts of his Book it cannot be avoided but that many Innovations and Superstitions used by the Papists and others would obtrude upon us In page 6 7. the Doctor tells us That the Gentiles who were born of Gentiles in Abraham ' s House or bought with Mony as Servants were and Blacks are now among us were the spiritual Seed of Abraham and Children of the Covenant And thus also he makes the Medes Persians and Idumeans to be constituted in the Jewish Church by Regeneration as the Church Christian is and calls them the Spiritual Seed of Abraham because they were turned Jews and lived according to the Ceremonies of the Law. Which how uncertain these Dictates are may be seen when we consider that St. Paul
in Ceremonies I have intituted my Book as you see The last and most Friendly Debate concerning Infant-Baptism And glad should I be to see an end of the Controversy by an Agreement in the Truth or a brotherly Condescension in such things on either part as may be without Sin. That I have undertaken this Task was not the Fruit of my own Choice but indeed I was particularly desired by Letter from some Persons of Quality and Learning to give a brief and distinct Answer to the Contents of the Case of Infant-Baptism which they commend for the temper 〈◊〉 which it is framed and for that it is very nervous in Argument insomuch that till it was answered it was so satisfactory that more need not be said on their part And now I hope they will do me the Justice as to read me with Patience and to judg without Prejudice knowing that shortly we must all appear before the Judgment-Seat of Christ and receive from him the things done in the Body whether they be good or bad The Last and Most FRIENDLY DEBATE CONCERNING INFANT-BAPTISM CHAP. I. That the Covenant Gen. 17. strictly taken was not a Gospel-Covenant nor Circumcision a Gospel-Ordinance as is affirmed by the Doctor THE Learned Author of the Book now under Consideration may rationally expect some Reply from those whom he calls Anabaptists or else interpret their Silence to be either a sullen slighting of his Endeavours to convince them or that they are not able in their own Judgments to shew the Insufficiency of his Arguments and the rather because he has more obliged us to consider his Writing by his modest and friendly management of the Controversy than many of his Brethren who have bent their Stile against us We shall therefore God willing with no less Modesty and friendly Demeanour shew our Reasons why in our Judgment his Labours have not only come short of proving the baptizing of Infants to be warrantable by God's Word but has rather given us great cause to think that the Case of Infant-Baptism cannot be made good by all that Learning and Art can do it being wholly without Divine Authority And to make this good we will now consider the chief of his Strength in the several Pages of his Learned Treatise In pag. 1 2. he would have it believed that the State of the Church from Abraham to Moses and from Moses to Christ was parallel'd by the differing State of the Christian Church from Christ to Constantine and from Constantine onwards For saith he there is ground for this distinction in the reason of the thing as is evident to any Man who is capable of considering the difference betwixt the Church Christian before and after its Vnion with the Empire But here seems to be a very great mistake in the very entrance of his Book for it is certain that the Jewish Church from Abraham to Moses had very little of the Face of a Church-state till his time being as yet destitute of most of her Laws both for Constitution and Government Abraham himself owning a Priest superior to himself even after he was called of God and had received the Promise both of being that Person in whose Seed all Nations should be blessed and that to his Seed God would give the Land of Canaan as will appear to such as shall peruse these Scriptures Gen. 12. 1 2 3. 13. 15 16. 14. 18 19 20. Now this Covenant which God made with Abraham that in his Seed all Nations of the Earth should be blessed Gen. 12. which was indeed an Evangelical Promise or Covenant and in the Faith of which Abraham was justified near thirty Years before Circumcision had any being in the World cannot be called the Covenant of Circumcision Neither yet when Circumcision was instituted was the Seed of Abraham formed into a Church-state in contradistinction to all the World beside for still Melchisedec was Priest of the most High God and many righteous Men were then living who outlived Abraham himself and were truly Church-members yea and Governors of Churches too as well as Abraham and yet they were not at all concern'd in the Covenant of Circumcision And hence it 's evident they being under the Covenant of Grace the Covenant of Circumcision and the Covenant of Grace were then distinct and not the same Covenant so but that the one might and did subsist without the other This then may serve to shew the Doctor 's great Mistake in making the Church of Christ from Christ to Constantine parrallel to the Church from Abraham to Moses when in Truth a greater Disparity can hardly be shewed For though the Seed of Abraham till Moses was in a State of Peregrination as also was the Church of Christ till Constantine yet the Church Christian was then not only in her Purity but also both for Constitution and Government as compleat as ever she was since having received from Christ and his Apostles all the Rules of his holy Word even the whole Counsel of God necessary to her Church-state and therewith all the Gifts of the holy Spirit in most plentiful manner by which to stand perfect in all the Will of God. And on the other side the Seed of Abraham till the Times of Moses had neither Law Priest-hood nor Sacrifice in a settled Church-way only they were distinguished by the Covenant of Circumcision as a People from whom in time the Saviour of the World should proceed and that they should be separated from the Nations and settled in a plentiful Country with Laws and special Protection from the Almighty till Shiloh should come and when the Messiah was manifested to Israel the Covenant of Circumcision ceased and the glorious Gospel-Covenant was now plenarily to be made known to all Nations for the Obedience of Faith Rom. 16. And here we will take notice of that excellent Passage in Mr. Baxter The Jews saith he were not the whole of God's Kingdom or Church of Redeemed Ones in the World but that as the Covenant was made with all Mankind so amongst them God had other Servants besides the Jews though it was they that had the extraordinary Benediction of being his peculiar Sacred People Now as this was true all along so it was more particularly manifest in the times of Melchisedec and other holy Men that outlived Abraham What the Doctor means to compare Constantine with Moses is very doubtful Is it to make Christian Magistrates Legislators to the Church of Christ We know indeed Moses was a great Prophet and appointed of God to give Laws and Statutes to Israel but Constantine was not his Antitype but Christ only and whosoever will not hear him shall be cut off but not by the Imperial Sword as God knows since the uniting of the Church Christian to the Empire viz. the Civil and Ecclesiastical Power for the management of Church-matters there has been a very bloody Scene of Affairs in most Places where such a kind of Unity of the
Church with the Empire or Worldly Government has been found and for the most part those who held to the Truth in the greatest Purity and Power of it became a Prey to that Church who obtained that Grandeur and Advantage of which England has of late as well as formerly been a terrible Instance Another remarkable difference betwixt the Church Christian from Christ to Constantine and that of the Seed of Abraham from his Days to Moses was this The latter so far as it may be called a Church in that time was National and dependant on the Family of Abraham none being permitted to dwell in the same Family unless circumcised But the Church Christian from Christ to Constantine was not National nor dependant on any Family as such but consisted only of such in any Family as feared Ged and wrought Righteousness Acts 10. 34 35. And this being considered will shew that the Church from Abraham to Moses was not so Spiritual and Evangelical as the Doctor would have it but were rather natural Branches of Abraham's Family and the greatest part of them grosly ignorant of the Evangelical Covenant made with Abraham before he was circumcised which plainly appeared not only in that they understood little of Moses as he foreshewed the Coming of Christ but also when Christ the true Seed to whom the Promise was made came to accomplish it they knew him not nor the Voice of their own Prophets The Doctor brings Gal. 3. 17. Rom. 4. 13. to prove that the Jewish Church was founded upon an Evangelical Covenant for substance the same with that which since is made betwixt God and us through Christ And he gives a Paraphrase upon Rom 4. from ver 9 to 15. Gal. 3. from v. 5 to 10. to prove that Faith was the Condition of the Abrahamical Covenant which being understood of the Covenant or Promise Gen. 12. of the blessing all Nations in the Seed of Abraham and the Obligation or Condition of believing that Promise to extend only to such as had Means and Ability to believe it is not denied by us nor can it signify any thing to the Doctor 's purpose for sure he cannot bring Infants under this Condition which is the thing he drives at But for a more full Answer Let us consider where the stress of the matter lies between the Doctor and us He would have this Evangelical Covenant to be the Covenant of Circumcision Gen. 17. We say 'T is the Covenant or Promise Gen. 12. Now in the Doctor 's Text Abraham is promised that Nations shall come out of him and that he shall be a Father of many Nations but not a word of the Blessing which concerns all the Nations of the Earth Now in our Text we have it full In thee shall all Families of the Earth be blessed But the best way is to let St. Paul resolve this Doubt even as he is quoted by the Doctor Rom. 4. The Promise that he should be Heir of the World was not given to Abraham or to his Seed through the Law. And what Law was Abraham under but the Law or Covenant of Circumcision The Apostle adds But through the Righteousness of Faith and yet more plainly Rom. 4. 10. How was it then reckoned when he was in Circumcision or in Vncircumcision Not in Circumcision but in Vncircumcision St. Paul most clearly refers to the Promise made Gen. 12. near thirty years before Abraham was circumcis'd Now whether Circumcision be of the Law or whether it was a Gospel-Ordinance is the business to be considered The Doctor does expresly affirm that Circumcision was a Gospel-Ordinance p. 24. And we say directly contrary that it was a Legal or Jewish Ceremony To prove that Circumcision was no Gospel-Ordinance we argue thus That which could profit no Man except he kept the whole Law was no Gospel Ordinance c. The Apostle proves the minor Rom 2. 25. Circumcision verily prositeth if thou keep the Law but if thou be a Breaker of the Law thy Circumcision is made Vncircumcision And we argue further from Gal. 5. 2. If Circumcision bound Men to keep the whole Law then it was no Gospel-Ordinance c. The Assumption is proved by the Text I testify again to every Man that is circumcised that he is a Debtor to do the whole Law. Circumcision therefore could never be a Gospel-Ordinance for as the Gospel frees us from the condemning Power and from the Servitude of the Law so every Gospel-Ordinance holds forth that blessed Freedom to all faithful Men in both Respects And hence it is clear that howsoever Circumcision was a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith to Abraham it could not be so as a Gospel-Ordinance for he was a Breaker of the Law after this any more than his Offering his Son Isaac upon the Altar Jam. 2. 21 22. In which he was justified by Faith. And so was Abel in his Sacrifice Gen. 4. Heb. 11. Yea these were evident Seals and Pledges of their Faith as much as Circumcision was to Abraham yet none of those can hence be proved to be Gospel-Ordinances For indeed at the rate of the Doctor 's arguing all the Sacrifices propitiatory performed by faithful Men in the time of the Law may be proved to be Gospel-Ordinances as well as Circumcision And by his Consequence all that took part in these Sacrifices have a right to participate in all Gospel-Ordinances which hold forth Christ and him crucified as well as in Baptism And because the Doctor builds much upon this Topic we will further try the Strength of it That which was always in Comparison of the Gospel a weak and beggarly Element was never a Gospel-Ordinance But such was Circumcision The Major is clear because 't is the Property of all Gospel-Ordinances to represent those that are under them perfect in Christ Jesus Gal. 1. 28. So that the Gospel-Ordinances are neither weak nor beggarly but as they are a part of the Gospel it self are said to be the Power of God unto Salvation The Minor is true because the Ceremonies of the Law made nothing perfect for if they had then they had not ceased Heb. 7. 18 19. and 10. 1. And it is evident St. Paul calls the whole Ceremonial Law a part whereof was Circumcision beggarly Elements Gal. 4. 9. And they are all equally ceased And seeing upon this Ground the Doctor boldly affirms the Covenant of Circumcision to be an Evangelical Covenant because Circumcision did initiate thereinto p. 5. My next Undertaking shall be to prove that the Covenant of Circumcision strictly taken was no Gospel-Covenant though called so very frequently by the Doctor as p. 3 and 4. all which he would make good because St. Paul calls Circumcision a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith and because it signified the Circumcision of the Heart Deut. 10. 16. and 30. 6. The contrary will appear from the very Recital of the Covenant it self as set down Gen. 17. from the Nature of Circumcision being
a Legal Ceremony as we have proved and chiefly because the Covenant of Grace was not peculiar to Abraham and his but common to others though they were not circumcised To begin with the very Expressions of the Covenant Gen. 17. from ver 4 to 15. Whoso shall diligently read it will not find one Word of the Promise of Blessedness to all Nations But that Promise of the Messiah in whom all the Nations of the Earth should be blessed was made as we shewed near thirty Years before this Covenant of Circumcision was made But it was rather a Recital of God's Promise to Abraham Gen. 13. when Abraham and Lot parted asunder And indeed of all the eight times which God spake to Abraham we find the Promise of Blessing to all Nations in the Seed of Abraham only expressed in the first time Gen. 12. and in the last time that God spake to him Gen. 22. And yet it is also true that St. Paul does include Abraham's Fatherhood over the Faithful in that Covenant Gen. 17. 5. and 15. 5. And so Circumcision was to him a Seal of the Faith which Abraham had with respect to the Promises made at the former Appearings of God to him But then it is as true that of this Faith it could be no Seal to any other Person no not to Isaac himself because it was Abraham alone that should have this Honour to be the Father of the Faithful After this manner the ancient Christian Church seems to have understood the Covenant of Circumcision as appears in Chrysostom and Theophilact as translated by two learned Writers in these words Circumcision was called a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith because it was given to Abraham as a Seal and Testimony of the Righteousness which he had acquired by Faith Now this seems to be the Priviledg of Abraham alone and not to be transferred to others as if Circumcision in whomsoever it was were a Testimony of Divine Righteousness For as it was the Priviledg of Abraham that he should be the Father of all Faithful as well circumcised as uncircumcised being already the Father of all uncircumcised having Faith in Vncircumcision He received first the Sign of Circumcision that he might be the Father of the Circumcised Now because he had this Priviledg in respect of the Righteousness which he had acquired by Faith therefore the Sign of Circumcision was to him a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith. But to the rest of the Jews it was a Sign that they were Abraham ' s Seed but not a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith as also all the Jews also were not the Fathers of many Nations And says another learned Writer It is no ways difficult to conceive that Circumcision might have a different respect according to the differing Circumstances and Capacity of its Subjects yea that it had so in another Instance hath been shewed already It was a Seal of the Inheritance of Canaan to the Children of Israel and did ensure the Promise thereof to them and their Seed but it gave their Bond-Servants no such right or claim Even so it was to Abraham a Seal of the Righteousness of the Faith which he had c. but this arose from the peculiar and extraordinary Circumstances and Capacity that he was in For it is not possible to conceive that Circumcision should be a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith to one that never had Faith nor the Relation of a Father to all Believers as Abraham had And it is equally absurd to say that Circumcision was a Seal to all its Subjects of the Righteousness of Faith which they had while uncircumcised as to affirm that it was a Seal of a paternal or fatherly Relation to all Believers unto every one that received it Again From St. Paul Gal. 6. 15. we may fairly argue thus If the Covenant of Circumcision had been the Covenant of Grace and Circumcision the Sign of the Covenant of Grace as the Doctor would have it then had all true Subjects of it as such been new Creatures in Christ Jesus But the true or right Subjects of the Covenant and Sign as such were not new Creatures in Christ Jesus c. This whole Argument is proved from the Text which saith In Christ Jesus neither Circumcision availeth any thing nor Vncircumcision but a new Creature Plainly thus the Jews were never the better as to a Gospel-Church-state for being the Seed of Abraham or circumcised nor the Gentiles never the worse as to a Gospel-state for being not the Seed of Abraham and uncircumcised For there was no other way for either to be brought under the Priviledges of the Church Evangelical and so to be in Christ Jesus but by Repentance Faith and Baptism or to be born again for if any Man be in Christ in a Gospel-Church-way he is a new Creature 2 Cor. 5. 17. Gal. 3. 26 to the end and 5. 24. I desire the Reader to peruse these Scriptures We have proved already that Circumcision was no Gospel-Ordinance yet we shall add It could not be a Gospel-Ordinance because Moses gave it as an Obligation to keep the Ceremonial Law or that intolerable Yoak of Bondage which none was able to bear For though Circumcision was before Moses yet it was given by him John 7. 22. for this purpose Gal. 5. 2 3 4. and it self was a part of the Yoke of Bondage Sacrifices were before Moses as well as Circumcision yet they were given also by Moses And hence when Paul opposed Circumcision it was objected that he taught Men to forsake Moses Acts 21. 21. And Circumcision is expresly called the Law of Moses by Christ himself John 7. 23. And therefore the Doctor was not well advised to affirm it to be a Gospel-Ordinance Again The Covenant of Circumcision and the Sign it self were not Evangelical because the Obligation to be circumcised was peculiar to Abraham and his Seed or Family in such a sense as none but they were obliged to be circumcised Men might and did walk with God and please God without being concerned in the Covenant of Circumcision as we have fully shewed But all Men are equally bound to obey the Gospel and all the Ordinances of it who have means to know them they do belong to all Families all Nations as much as to any Matth. 28. 19 20. Mark 16. 15 16. Rom. 16. 26. So did not the Covenant of Circumcision How unlike the Covenant of Circumcision was to the Covenant of Grace especially in Respect of Infants might have been perceived by the Doctor from his own Words p. 8. where he tells us God made Abraham thus separate the Children with their Parents from all the World and look upon them as a part of his chosen peculiar People by which they became relatively Holy and differed from the Children of Vnbelievers as much as their Parents did from Vnbelievers themselves Sure this is a cruel Sentence against poor innocent Babes But I answer What Separation
soever the Covenant of Circumcision made betwixt Abraham's Family and the rest of the World It is certain it could not separate them nor any Persons in the World from the Covenant of Grace there was nothing but Sin could do that otherwise it had been a dismal Separation indeed And can the Doctor once think that Let was now separated from the Covenant of Grace because he was not in the Covenant of Circumcision Sure he was a righteous Man for all this Yea and other Holy Patriarchs were yet living as Heber Salah Sem and so was Melchisedec if he were not one of them being Priest of the most high God. And as these and doubtless many more were good Men so it 's not to be questioned but they had their Holy Societies and Congregations Melchisedec being then the most eminent Type of the Son of God that ever was as he was King of Peace and Priest in which Offices he must needs be serviceable to many as is well observed by Mr. Cox on the Covenants p. 154. The Doctor is greatly out in making the Infants of Unbelievers to be in as ill case as the Vnbelievers themselves seeing Unbelievers must perish Mark. 16. 16. But it is not revealed yet to be the Will of God that so much as one dying Infant shall perish And as to the rest of Mankind Mr. Baxter says very well That as the Jews had by Promises and Prophecies and Types more means to know God than any other Nations so they were answerably obliged to more Knowledg and Faith than other Nations were that had not nor could have their means More Proof p. 95. And why may not this be true That the Effects of the Evangelical Promise to Abraham to be a Father of the Faithful in all Nations had very little Relation in a Gospel-way to the Age in which he lived nor indeed till the times of the Gospel or till Christ the Seed to whom the Promises were made did come And then indeed it was graciously verified When by the Commandment of the everlasting God even Christ who is here so called the Gospel was made known to all Nations for the Obedience of Faith Rom. 16. Nor shall the Doctor 's Allegations p. 7. of the great Numbers of divers Nations which turned Jews prejudice that which we have said seeing St. Peter affirms that the Mystery of the Gospel was hid from these Nations and Ages notwithstanding their Circumcision For it is not to be supposed that these who turned Jews were better skill'd in the Mystery of the new Covenant or Covenant of Grace than the Jews themselves who God knows were generally Strangers to the Steps of Abraham's Faith and therefore little better in our Saviour's Judgment for being Abraham's Children John 8. 37 39. Nay so ignorant were the believing Jews themselves of the true Seed of Abraham according to the Nature and Extent of the Covenant Gen. 12. 3. That when Peter preached to the Gentiles they contended with him as doing that which was not lawful for they yet understood not that the Grace of Repentance unto Life did belong to the Gentiles nor did Peter till a Miracle convinc'd him understand this Grace himself Acts 10. The great Accession therefore of other Nations to the Jews Religion is no Proof that they were in the Covenant of Grace or that Circumcision was a Gospel-Ordinance though there might be many among them that so feared God and wrought Righteousness as to be through his Mercy accepted of him and the like in other Nations even all Nations too Acts 10. 34 35. Yet these Accessions did contribute much to the Fulfilling God's Promise to Abraham in other Respects as to make the Name of the God of Abraham to be great in the Earth and also to advance the Name of Abraham the Friend of God. The Doctor tells us p. 3. That Faith was the Condition of the Abrahamical Covenant that it was made with Abraham as the Father of the Faithful and in him with all Believers But considering what we have proved before with respect to Abraham's peculiar Interest in the Covenant we may well enquire what Covenant and Faith the Doctor means seeing it could not be the Gospel-Grace and Faith which was the Condition of the Covenant of Circumcision as that Covenant belong'd to all that were circumcised Because St. Paul tells us whilst the Law was in force a part of which Law Circumcision was as we have proved the time of Faith was not yet come And that the Jews were shut up to the Faith which was afterward to be revealed Gal. 3. 23 25. And that the Law a part whereof was Circumcision was added because of Transgression till the Seed to wit Christ should come And shews likewise that there was no Law as yet given which could give Life The Covenant of Grace made with Adam Gen. 3. And the Promise to Abraham Gen. 12. And the Renewal of the Covenant of Grace to Noah between them both must of Necessity be here excepted And therefore Eternal Life could not be had by the Covenant and Law of Circumcision as made to Abraham's Posterity otherwise than as it served as a Type or Figure to direct them to look for the Messiah to be born of Abraham's Seed according to the Flesh And therefore the Promise so much celebrated Gal. 3. can by no lawful means be referr'd to the Covenant of Circumcision strictly taken and then all that the Doctor has said to make the Covenant of Circumcision a Gospel-Covenant and Circumcision a Gospel-Ordinance will come to nothing and consequently his whole Book because it is mainly built upon this Foundation And that the Promise mentioned by St. Paul Gal. 3. may and ought to be distinguished from the Covenant of Circumcision will appear from the Date of the Promise which was 430 Years before the Law Gal. 3. 17. but the Covenant of Circumcision wants 25 Years of this account This is plain to such as will consider that that great and blessed Promise that in the Seed of Abraham all the Families of the Earth shall be blessed Gen. 12. 3. was at least 25 Years before the Covenant of Circumcision Gen. 17. And this is granted by the Learned Willit who in his Hexapl. in Gen. p. 145. writes thus From this Promise Gen. 12. made to Abraham are we to count the 430 Years which St Paul saith were between the Promise and the Law Gal. 3 and hereunto agreeth the Computation of Moses Exod. 12. 40. that the Israelites dwelt in Egypt 430 Years not in Egypt only but in Egypt and Canaan as the Septuagint do interpret the place Now how this Promise had its Effect in the Ages before Christ's Incarnation or how all the Families of the Earth were blessed in this promised Seed then God only knoweth for though the World had a Promise of a Saviour from the Beginning Gen. 3. 15. yet that he should be born of the Seed of Abraham was not revealed till now And
the Law and to nail them to his Cross as we have shewed not to establish them in his Church But the Truth is whoever revives them pulls down his Church And it were the false Apostles that would have conformed the Church of Christ to the Platform of the old Jewish Church Acts 15. 5. But the true Apostles withstood them and decreed that the new Church should observe no such things but they establish what the Light of Grace and the positive Law of God had made necessary before to all Mankind Acts 15. 23 to 30. Gen. 9. 4. Thus far were the Apostles from building the Church of Christ with Jewish Materials That as the great Curcellaeus says The Apostle writ that Epistle to let the Gentiles know they were freed from Moses's Law lest by their hearing him read every Sabbath they might think they were bound to obey his Laws And it is strange that the Doctor should now make Christ and his Apostles Anabaptists as he does for he will have them to have been baptised as well as circumcised to initiate them into the Jewish Church and he will have that very Baptism consecrated by Christ instead of Circumcision to initiate into his Church sure he has little reason to write against Anabaptism when he is one of the greatest Asserters of it that ever was but more of this pretended Baptism anon St. Paul above all the rest rejects the old Materials and builds all with new Old things are passed away behold all things are become new 2 Cor. 5. There is verily a disannulling of the Commandment going before for the Weakness and Vnprofitableness thereof Heb. 7. 18. He calls the whole Mass of Jewish Ceremonies Beggarly Elements And is it like that he would build the Gospel-Church with such Materials much less with that supposed Baptism of Jewish Proselytes or of Jews themselves which the Doctor knows was at best but of Mans Institution Let us view the old Jewish Church and the new Gospel-Church in a few Particulars briesly The Members of the Jewish Church were Natural called natural Branches Rom. 11. that is they were the Seed of Abraham according to the Flesh The Members of the Christian Church are spiritual grafted contrary to Nature into the good Olive and born of God. The Circumcision of the Jewish Church was outward in the Flesh made with Hands The Circumcision of the Gospel-Church is that of the Heart in the Spirit made without Hands in putting off the Body of the Sins of the Flesh by the Circumcision of Christ Their Sacrifices were carnal carnal Ordinances Heb. 10. Our Sacrifices are Spiritual 1 Pet. 2. 2 3 4. Their Ministers were chosen of one Family or Tribe and did succeed by natural Descent and were Ministers of the Letter Ours are given by Christ as the Fruit of his Ascension into Heaven and are Ministers of the Spirit Ephes 4. Their two Sacraments served chiefly to seal their Right to the Land of Canaan and that the Messiah should come of the Seed of Abraham according to the Flesh and to commemorate their Deliverance out of Egypt Ours seal Remission of Sins by Faith in the Blood of Jesus and our Inheritance in the Kingdom of Heaven to all Eternity In short Their Services made nothing perfect Heb. 10. Ours present every Man perfect in Christ Jesus Col. 1. 28. But let us come to this pretended Insant-Baptism among the Jews which is so much made use of by the Doctor as if it were the very thing that must give Life to Insant-Baptism in the Christian Church And indeed Dr. Hammond from whom this Doctor seems to borrow much makes the Jewish baptizing of Proselytes the Original and ours but the Copy That our Saviour should thus highly approve of a Jewish Ceremony as to consecrate it to be the initiatory Sacrament into his Church is no way to be believed For he condemned all such Ceremonies of their own devising to be but vain Worship Mat. 15. 9. and will he then establish this their Tradition if indeed they had any such The Baptism of John was that which he established both by his own Submission to it and Divine Testimony concerning it Matth. 3. 15. 21. 25. Nor did John take up his Baptism from the Jews as many Learned Men of the Church of England do teach of late For he was a Prophet immediately sent of God to baptize with Water John 1. 33. And he that says John's Baptism was originally of the Jews as this Doctor and Dr. Hammond do teach denies John to be a Prophet and does dissent herein from many Learned Protestant Writers whose Testimonies I will therefore here bring against them who with one Mouth bear witness that John's Ministry and Baptism was Evangelical and not Ligal Jewish or of his own devising Diodate on John 1. 6. Divine Light being now extinguished the Son of God himself came into the World to light it again by the Gospel whereof John the Baptist was the first Preacher And on Matth. 11. 13. John's Prerogative above the precedent Prophets is they have only foretold and described things to come but he declared the present Salvation and in him began the Evangelical Ministery and the Legal and figurative Ministery ceased This could not be true had he taken his Baptism from the Jewish Church Dr. Willit in his Synopsis John preached the Baptism of Repentance for the Remission of Sins which was all one with the Baptism of Peter Act. 2. 38. And it is absurd that Christ the Head and the Church the Members should not have the same Baptism And that John ' s Baptism was not of John ' s devising but of God's Appointment Dr. Fulk on Mat. 3. Dr. Fulk John by his Doctrine and Baptism prepared a way to Christ not to the Baptism of Christ for he preached not his own Baptism but the washing away of Sins by Christ Therefore he also was a Minister of the Baptism of Christ This new Device of founding the Christian Baptism upon Jewish Baptism is dangerous opening a Gap to the Quakers and other Notionists to contemn it as a Legal Ceremony Yet the Doctor boldly tells us That Christ was obliged to lay by Circumcision and consecrated this Ceremony used by the Jews instead of it The Enemies of Christ durst not say as Dr. Hammond and this Doctor does say that the Baptism of John was of Jewish Original They knew such a Speech must deny John to be a Prophet And yet these Learned Men have not Learning enough to consider this We know the Pharisees were very zealous for the Traditions of the Jewish Church but it 's certain they had no Zeal for the Baptism of Repentance for they rejected it against themselves Luke 7. 20. And here this holy Ordinance is expresly called the Counsel of God which shews it was not originally a Rite or Ceremony of humane Institution or Jewish Ceremony But now let us see whether the Doctor may not possibly be mistaken in asserting that the
quoting the Text thus In whom also they are circumcised with the Circumcision made without Hands in putting off the Body of the Sins of the Flesh by the Circumcision of Christ Having been buried with him in Baptism Does not the Doctor by this Addition to the Text assert the thing which he would deny or else denies what Paul asserts for St. Paul does make Circumcision a Shadow or Figure of the Circumcision of Christ made without Hands why else does he call the Work of Grace in the Heart by that Name of Circumcision as he also doth Rom. 2. 29 But the Doctor does refer this Circumcision to Baptism having been buried with him in Baptism but then if this be his meaning Circumcision must needs have something in it umbratical of Baptism which yet he denies and therein contradicts Mr. Philpot who affirms even Baptism to be the Circumcision made without Hands The Truth is this Text can never be made serviceable to Infant-Baptism as Mr. Philpot and the Doctor would have it seeing no more are here said to be baptized than had put off the Body of the Sins of the Flesh Nor as we have it Rom. 6. no more are here buried with Christ in Baptism than were dead with him And this alone might serve to shew that God expects not that Infants should be baptized seeing they can neither die to Sin nor rise to Newness of Life and to what purpose they should be buried before they be dead no good reason can be shewed Here we are told again that Circumcision was a real Consignation of the Covenant of Grace every way as real and substantial an Ordinance as Baptism is now It is only called a Seal in the special case of Abraham And if it was every way as real and substantial as Baptism is now to what end were the Circumcised baptized also in the Jewish Church as the Doctor says they were And why does Paul call it a beggarly Element And how could it be the Yoke of Bondage or the Obligation to it and a Seal of the Covenant of Grace too A Seal or Sign of the Covenant of Grace frees Men from the Yoke of Bondage and of this Evangelical Baptism is a real and substantial Consignation where the Subject is qualified for it Had Circumcision been such a real and sustantial Ordinance to consign the Covenant of Grace it would not have ceased if St. Paul's Argument hold Heb. 10. 1 2. But it is abolished as well as other Ceremonies of the Law which is a sign it did not make the Comers thereunto perfect any more than the other Legal Ceremonies Whereas had it consign'd the Covenant of Grace more could not be expected from a ritual to make the Subjects of it perfect And this Perfection have the Ordinances of the Gospel as we have shewed before but here the Ceremonies of the Law failed CHAP. III. Wherein the Doctor 's first Question is answered viz. Whether Infants are capable of Baptism THE Doctor counts it Rashness to deny Infants to be capable of Baptism and saith Nothing can reflect more Dishonour upon the Wisdom of God and the Practice of the Jewish Church And the Sum of what he brings to prove them capable of Baptism is to repeat what he has said before about the Identity of the Covenant of Circumcision and that which is made with us in the Gospel and concludes that because Infants were admitted to Circumcision therefore they are to be admitted to Baptism and affirms that Circumcision was as spiritual an Ordinance as Baptism yea that it was a Gospel-Ordinance If therefore I repeat the same things which I have said before the Reader will I hope hear with that for Answer then I say though we deny not but that the Covenant of Circumcision did comprehend all those Dignities which pertain'd to Abraham for the Greatness of his Faith to be the Father of many Nations yet every Man that reads and considers the Tenor of the Covenant as set down Gen. 17. may easily see these things belonged to none but him and therefore Circumcision could seal the Righteousness of Faith in those peculiar Promises whether we consider the numerousness of his Seed or that Christ should be born of his Seed and so the Nations blessed in his Seed but to Abraham only because none of these Promises were made to any but to him We have also shewed how and in what respects the Covenant of Circumcision could not be the Covenant of Grace because none but Abraham ' s Family was bound to keep it nor damned no nor blamed if they did not enter into it but the case is otherwise with the Gospel for now God commandeth by the Gospel all Men every where to repent and he that believeth not the Gospel when made known to him shall be damned Can it enter into the Doctor 's Heart to think that all the World was now left under Condemnation without Mercy except Abraham and his Family Surely it was not in the Days of Abraham as it was in the Days of Noah as if God had only found Abraham righteous before him in all the Earth No we have proved there were other righteous Men and some superiour to Abraham himself wherefore God's peculiar Kindness to Abraham did not argue that God had rejected and taken the Covenant of Grace from all the World besides but it is certainly a presumptuous way of arguing that because God made Infants of eight days old capable of Circumcision by his Command to circumcise them that therefore we ought to take them to be capable of Baptism tho we have no Command to baptize them and then fly to the Identity of the Covenants to make it good when there is no Identity at all to be found between them But to concess a little Let us now suppose for Argument sake that the Covenant of Circumcision was the Covenant of Grace as the Doctor would have it yet it will not follow that an Interest in the Covenant of Grace does infer an immediate Right always either to Circumcision or Baptism and this the Doctor must grant because Infants of five six or seven days old had an Interest in the Covenant made with Abraham and yet had no right to Circumcision till the eighth day Also the Infants of the other Patriarchs had an Interest in the Covenant of Grace yet had no right to Circumcision at all Nor could they nor the Patriarchs themselves be cut off from the Covenant of Grace tho they were not circumcised And all the Females of Abraham's Family had Interest in the Covenant of Grace but had no right to Circumcision and the reason was God did not appoint them to be circumcised And yet so foolish have some Nations been as to circumcise Females without any command from God and therefore it s less strange that Men now force on their Superstition of Infant Baptism without God's Command also But what if all the Infants in the World be under the Mercy of
than good speed nor outrun the Rule which God has given to direct us Now these Words Exclude Infants from Baptism are rather scandalous than pertinent Does the Doctor exclude Children from the Lord's Table because he does not bring them to Communion there in their Infancy sure he does what he can to bring them to obey God in that Ordinance with what speed he lawfully may and so do we in the case of Baptism As for the relative Nature of Circumcision though it was no Absurdity to make Infants Members of the Jewish Church by it when God bad them do so yet had any Man taken upon him to have made them Members of the Church in the old World by such a Sign it would have been absurd enough It was no Absurdity for Abraham to offer up his Son Isaac to slay him with his own Hand when God did command it but it would be Absurdity to purpose for us to do so having no such Command and yet we are to sacrifice all that 's dear to us even our own Lives but it must be in such a way as God requireth This talk therefore of the relative Nature of Circumcision is very vain we say did the Lord require us to baptize our Infants and to give them the Communion there could be no Absurdity in either but then he would have diversified the time for Participation of these Ordinances as he did in the case of Circumcision for the 8th day though it was the precise time for the Admission of Infants yet it was no rule at all to the Adulti Shew now that God has required Baptism at a precise day to the younger sort and prefixed no precise day of Age to the elder sort for thus he did in the Circumcision and the Dispute will soon end Circumcision did relate necessarily to all Servants bought with Mony in Abraham's House as Members of his House but the case is not such in Baptism And it was yet never proved that those Persons who were thus circumcised were to be qualified for it by Faith and Repentance but it rather seems to have been done at first in Abraham's House either in Obedience to Abraham's Authority over them as his Bondmen Servants or Child or else by plain force for seeing Abraham circumcised all his that very day they had little time to have Faith and Repentance wrought in them nor is there one word of Abraham's preaching any thing to them But 't is said He took Ismael his Son and circumcised him and all that were born in his House and all that were bought with Mony every Male the self same day Here was bloody Work and Dr. Willit thinks the Number of the Males was so many that Abraham could not circumcise them in one day and that he used the help of others to do it And what Faith and Repentance could be expected from Ishmael at 13 Years of Age especially considering that he was not the Child of Promise nor to have the Covenant established with him And who will say that Abraham or the Jewish Church either had any Commission from God to teach all Nations circumcising them this way he never went but if he bought any of them them he would and did circumcise And where is the new Birth made the Qualification for Circumcision No Man can give an Instance of it But nothing is more common in the case of Baptism surely the plain Truth in short is this Circumcision did relate generally to a carnal Seed and to a Terrestrial Inheritance but Baptism relates only to a spiritual Seed and a Celestial Inheritance And let not the Doctor reflect upon us as he does p. 27. but we pray the Doctor to consider whether God was not as wise and had as great Goodness for and care of Infants and others too from Adam to Abraham as from Abraham till Christ's time And yet the Doctor knows there was no outward sign appointed for initiating Infants as the Doctor speaks and wherein does it appear that God was more gracious to Infants by or through Circumcision than he was to the Infants of the other Patriarchs The Fathers tell us as quoted by learned Protestants that Circumcision did not profit the Soul of the Infant nihil animae Circumcisionem illum profuisse Chrysost Hom. 39. in Gen. And yet the Wisdom of God was great in appointing Circumcision so early seeing it must be the Mark to distinguish the Family of which Christ should be born c. for the pain was more easy to be born in Infancy than when they attained to Manhood Neither is it by any means to be supposed that God by giving this Ceremony to Abraham c. did neglect all the Infants in the World as to the Business of Salvation which I must mention because the Doctor ever and anon is dropping such Passages as may deceive his Reader with such Apprehensions though I am sure the Doctor does believe no such thing He was still the God of the Spirits of all Flesh and all Infants were still his Offspring and never rebelling against him his gracious Nature would not suffer them to perish without Remedy and Remedy they could have none by Circumcision for it was not appointed for them And indeed to conceit our selves that our wise and good God should make either Circumcision or Baptism or any other Ritual necessary to the Salvation of poor dying Infants is a poor low conceit of God and contrary to all Rules which he has given to Men to extend Mercy or Justice For seeing it is not possible for them to have the one or the other but at the Will of others God's ways are so equal that he will never punish them for want of either but the Truth is he required the first but of a few in comparison and the latter not so much as of one Infant whence then is there such a quoil about Infant-Baptism One great Pretence of the Doctor for Infant-Baptism is taken from the ends of Baptism some of which he will have Infants to be capable of and therefore to be baptized This is the sum of what he says in a multitude of Words in several Pages But upon a right Discovery of the ends of Baptism as they are really such his Antecedent will vanish The Ends of Baptism be they what they will are to be considered in such a sense as that ordinarily without Baptism such things cannot be obtained And of these ends Remission of Sins and Eternal Life are the principal Acts 2. 38. Mark 16. 16. Now where ever or upon whomsoever God calls for Obedience in Holy Baptism as the way in which these Ends are by them to be obtained there the Duty of Baptism being refused these Ends are lost as appears in the Case of the Pharisees and Lawyers Luke 7. 29. They rejected the Counsel of God against themselves being not baptized Now I deny that Remission of Sins and Eternal Life are propounded to or in the Case of Infants as the
says the Law is not of Faith and that if those that are of the Law be Heirs Faith is made void and the Promise of none Effect And how Christ calls Circumcision the Law of Moses and tells the circumcised Jews themselves that they must be regenerated and born again or they could not enter into the Kingdom or Gospel-Church which shews plainly they were not regenerated in Circumcision and if they were not then there is little hopes that their Slaves bought with Mony as Blacks are now by us had such benefit by Circumcision Nay the Doctor is more bold and tells us That always it was understood that Children were called and elected by God in their Parents which is such a Scriptureless Doctrine and of such dangerous Consequence that we cannot but wonder that so wise a Man should assert it Does not St. Paul expresly teach the contrary where he saith The Children of the Flesh are not the Children of God And that all are not Israel that are of Israel And though they be the Seed of Abraham yet are they not all Children How was it possible that he should think that the Slaves and their Children were elected only because they were circumcised when Abraham's own Posterity are not therefore elected because Abraham was their Father and also circumcised And will it not follow from the Doctor 's Opinion that Infants are also reprobated in their Parents Yes he says no less I think when he makes the Unbelievers Infants to differ from those his Elect Infants as much as the Unbelievers themselves differ from the circumcised Parents whom he calls Believers God be merciful to us and bless us from such Doctrine as this that his antient way of Truth may be known upon the Earth and his saying Health among the Nations for Job and all holy Men and poor Infants too which were not circumcised might for all that be elected Seven or eight Pages the Doctor spends mostly to shew how Christ did alter the Oeconomy of the Church in many Particulars which do not directly concern our present Controversy in which there are many Dictates unproved about the Reasons why Christ made this Change. But we shall content our selves in setting down these two which he thinks moved our Lord to lay aside Circumcision and his first is Because by it the Jewish Nation was become odious and ridiculous to all other People upon the account of it But this Passage seems to cast a Scandal upon God himself as that he should appoint any thing that should make his People odious Sure other Nations had Usages far more offensive than this could be in their Idolatrous Services and particularly the burning of their Children to Moloch But the true reason why it was laid aside was because the distinction which it made between the Seed of Abraham and other People as the Posterity from whence Christ should proceed was now unnecessary because Christ was born and manifested to the World and chiefly because the Ceremonial Law to which it was a strong Obligation and also a part of it was now to be disannulled and taken out of the way as an Handwriting of Ordinances which was against us and was contrary to us Heb. 7. 18 19. Coloss 2. 14. Acts 15. 10. it was therefore meet it should be taken away His second Reason is more tolerable but yet not true for though Circumcision was a painful Ordinance yet the Gospel requires as painful things as that was of all that will be Christians indeed as the denying a Man's self and particularly in parting with House Land Wife Children a right Hand a right Eye a right Foot and our very Life when God calls for them in service to the Defence of the Gospel Yea let me tell the Doctor had he come to Baptism it self after the Example of Christ who came from Galilee to Jordan I suppose 60 Miles and that in the depth of Winter to be dipped in a River as Christ was in Jordan he might possibly have found it as ungrateful to Flesh and Blood as some have found it to part with their Foreskin and add to this such Repentance as truly qualifies for the Reception of Baptism and the whole of it might possibly seem as ridiculous in the Eyes of the wise Men of this World as Circumcision it self We conclude then that the Wisdom of God was great to try the Pride and Haughtiness of Man in appointing Circumcision in the Time of the Law to bring Men to Legal Priviledges And it is no less his Wisdom in appointing Baptism to bring down the Pride of the greatest Nobles and most delicate Ladies as well as others by submitting their Bodies under the Hands of a poor Minister to be dipped in Water at all Seasons as they are found qualified for it by Faith and Repentance to admit them to Gospel-Priviledges CHAP. II. That the Story of the Jews baptizing Infants is either a Fable or if they had such a Humane Tradition it 's rather destructive of Sacred Baptism to ground it on that Tradition than any way advantagious to it IN pag. 18. the Doctor says Hitherto I have given the Reasons of altering the Jewish Oeconomy But then my Undertaking obliges me to prove that Christ and his Apostles did build with many of the old Materials and conformed their new House as much as they could after the Platform of the Old. This will appear from Baptism it self which was a Ceremony by which Proselytes both Men and Women and Children were initiated yet so much Respect had our Saviour for the antient Orders and Customs of the Jewish Church that being obliged to lay by Circumcision he consecrated this instead of it though it were but a meer human Institution to be the Sacrament of Initiation into his Church and a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith. So likewise the Lord's Supper was certainly of Jewish Original Answer This Doctrine that Christ and his Apostles did build their new House of the old Materials of the Jewish Church and that they conform'd their new House as much as they could to the Platform of the Old seems to hold no Agreement with the Doctrine and Practice of Christ and his Apostles whether we consider the Subjects Ordinances or Ministery of the Church The Doctrine and Ministery of John the Baptist is called the Beginning of the Gospel Mark 1. 1. And he would not admit of one Stone or Member of the old Church as such to be laid into the Gospel-Church Begin not to say within your selves we have Abraham to our Father God is able of these Stones to raise up Children unto Abraham Bring forth Fruits meet for Repentance Every Tree which bringeth not forth good Fruit is hewn down Matth. 3. So great a Change do we find that the old Materials in respect of Membership in the new House would not do when yet there was but an Introduction to make ready a People prepared for the Lord. Christ came to fulfil the Ceremonies of