the true God and believe the general Promises of a Messiah as we Christians are to believe and obey the Gospel more particularly revealed by Christ From hence I conclude seeing Infants at Eight Days old were circumcised and admitted into this Covenant with God by his own Appointment and Command this Command is a good Authority for the Baptizing of Infants which is but a new Way of Admission into the same Covenant For while there is no Alteration of the Substance of the Covenant but only of the external Ceremony of Admission which is the Seal of it all Things else are to continue as they were till God shall ordain otherwise by a new Law But when he did change the Seal from Circumcision to Baptism he did not by any express Law forbid Infants to be admitted Therefore by Virtue of the first Original Institution when God made this Covenant with Abraham by Circumcision and commanded Infants to be admitted we have Autority to admit them now by Baptism For where the Covenant and the Capacities are the same the Reason also must be of the same Force But to this Argument I have found it objected 1. That what was done in Abraham's Time was in the Minority of the Church when Things were obscurely represented but now that we have clear Light and in that respect are under a better Dispensation there is not the same Reason for admitting Infants which there was then All the Force of this Objection lies in the different Degrees of Revelation that have been made to Abraham and to us and this I readily acknowledge for a great Truth That which God intended in that Covenant with Abraham was but obscurely and in general set forth and the Particulars both of Faith and Practice and also of our Reward and Happiness are more fully and clearly brought to Light by Jesus Christ When therefore I asserted that our Covenant is the same with that made with Abraham and his Seed I speak of Generals not of Particulars and my Meaning is that Faith and Obedience were required in Abraham's Covenant as well as they are from us Not but that the particular Articles of that Faith and the particular Duties of that Obedience too are now more fully discovered and set in a clearer Light But I cannot see how this makes any Difference either as to the Capacity or the Right of Admission to this Sacrament because Children being equally insensible of both cannot be less capable of the one than of the other 2. It is objected that there was an express Command for the Circumcision of Infants but there is none for baptizing them To this I answer There was not the same Necessity for it There was an absolute Necessity for commanding Infants expresly to be circumcised because there was nothing Antecedent to that Institution that could give Light or Knowledge to direct to it But there was no such Necessity for an express Precept for Baptizing Infants because this might be learnt from the Autority of God in the Antecedent Institution under Abraham For they were certainly as fit Subjects of the one as of the other because the Conditions were the same and if as fit Subjects of the Covenant equally to be received by the Seal of it This I am inclined to believe was the first Ground of Baptizing Infants among Christians When the Apostles first began to preach the Gospel and especially to the Jews the Substance of their Preaching was that what God had long before declared by Abraham and the Prophets he had now fulfilled and accomplished by Jesus Christ From whence they were to learn that this Gospel was no new Thing but what had been long declared and prophesied in old Time The Covenant was the same the Religion was the same only brought into a clearer Light by a more perfect Revelation This was the Sum of St. Peter's Sermon Acts 3. 18. Those Things that God before had shewed by the Mouth of all his Prophets that Christ should suffer he hath so fulfilled And Acts 11. 25. Ye are the Children of the Prophets and of the Covenant which God made with our Fathers saying unto Abraham and in thy Seed shall all Nations of the Earth be blessed And for this Cause St. Paul says Rom. 15. 8. That Christ Jesus was a Minister of the Circumcision for the Truth of God to confirm the Promises made unto the Fathers And as this was the common Subject of the Apostles Preaching so those who were hereby convinced and prevailed on to believe were immediately admitted into the Christian Covenant by Baptism Here is indeed no express mention made of Infants because there was no Occasion for it Their own Reason and Understanding were sufficient to convince them that what God had authorized and commanded from the Beginning was a very good Example for them to imitate And consequently that when Circumcision was abolished from being any longer the Seal of God's Covenant and Baptism was instituted in its stead there was the same Reason for baptizing Infants that there had been for circumcising them God's having commanded the One was an Evidence of the Lawfulness of the Other And what they were sufficiently instructed in by the Autority of a Divine Precept and Command in the Old Testament was not absolutely necessary to be repeated in the New For to what purpose should there be a particular Revelation to discover that which Men might be sufficiently convinc'd of without one And yet again 2. The Baptism of Infants is founded on God's Word in that tho' there be no such Precept or Command of baptizing in which Infants are totidem verbis expressed yet there is such a Precept and Command in which Infants are certainly included And this I shall prove thus 1. From St. Peter's Words Acts 2. 39. Repent and be baptized that your Sins may be blotted out for the Promise is to you and your Children In which Words Children are fairly intimated at least to be entitled both to the Promises of the Covenant and to the Sacrament that confirms it I am not ignorant that some laugh at this Argument with a great deal of Scorn and Derision and think it ridiculous to mention it because Men and Women are often call'd Children in Scripture as the Children of Israel are often spoken of when Infants are not all intended but only Men of the Posterity of Israel I grant it and yet when they have laughed their fill I cannot think this Argument so ridiculous nor so much to be despised For tho' its true the Word Children if that were all might import no more than the Posterity Yet the Promise here spoken of is that very Covenant into which Children I mean Infants were commanded to be admitted So that if the Promise which God made with Abraham and his Children included Infants this Promise made to Christians and their Children will by the same Autority include Infants also for the Promise is still the same 2. The Precept for Baptizing is
alike But before I explain this Argument I cannot but observe to you by that little I have seen in these Controversies that the naming of such an Argument will raise some Mens Wonder who being quicker to wrangle about Words than to weigh the Reason of Things will break out into Exclamations and say Prove Baptism of Infants from the Example of God! Did Christ ever baptize an Infant Is there one Syllable of such a Practice in all Sacred Writ This must be the Old Thred-bare Argument from the Analogy between Baptism and Circumcision Infants under the Law or before it were Circumcised Ergo they may be Baptized and what a Non-sequitur is this But Sir after all that Raillery and Disdain with which this Argument is treated which has indeed been often urged and as often laughed at yet I must confess I cannot despise it but am perswaded that there is great Force in it if it be stated well and set in a true Light I do not then insist that one was a Type of the other nor argue from a bare Analogy as to Jewish Church Member-ship or the like but my Argument is this Baptism is now the Seal of the Covenant which was once sealed by Circumcision Infants were by God's own Command admitted then Ergo Infants may be admitted now Or thus God did admit Infants into a Covenant of Grace and Salvation thro' Jesus Christ and upon the Conditions of Faith and Obedience in that Covenant made with Abraham and confirmed by the Seal of Circumcision Baptism of Infants does but admit them into the same Covenant upon the same Conditions and as a Seal confirms that Covenant to them Ergo in Baptizing Infants we act by God's own Authority and Example for we do no more in baptizing them than by God's own Ordinance was done in Circumcising them The Rite indeed is changed it was Circumcising it is now Baptism What then The Use of both these Rites is still the same the One is a Seal of the Covenant of God and so is the Other a Seal of the same Covenant And so after all the pretended Non-sequiturs in this Argument from Circumcision to Baptism when the Use or main Design of both these Rites or Sacraments shall appear to be the same the Argument will have Force and the Change of the external Ordinances cannot lessen it In the Prosecution therefore of this Argument I have Two Things which you will challenge me to prove 1. That Circumcision when enjoyned Abraham was ordained to be the Seal of that Covenant which God made with him 2. That the Covenant with Abraham was the same with ours that is a Covenant of Grace and Salvation through Jesus Christ and upon the Conditions of Faith and Obedience And if these Propositions be found true the Consequence I think will be so clear as to want no Proof First That Circumcision when enjoyned Abraham was ordained to be the Seal of that Covenant which God made with him And this I think is very plain both from the Original Institution of Circumcision in the Old Law and the Explanations of it in the New As to the Old Testament God having made some Trial of Abraham by calling him out of his own Country and having found him readily observant in all that he commanded him declares Gen. 17. 2. that he will now establish a Covenant with him I will make my Covenant between me and thee and thou shall be a Father of many Nations Ver. 4. And again Ver. 7. I will establish my Covenant between me and thee and thy Seed after thee in their Generations for an everlasting Covenant to be a God unto thee and to thy Seed after thee And as every Contract among Men must have its Sanction and Establishment so here God declares after what Manner this Covenant should be confirmed Ver. 10. This is my Covenant which ye shall keep between me and you and thy Seed after thee every Man-Child among you shall be Circumcised Which Words do not make Circumcision the Substance of the Covenant but only the Manner of Establishing and Confirming it as appears from the following Verse And ye shall circumcise the Flesh of your Fore-skin and it shall be a Token or Sign of Covenant between me and you And again Ver. 13. My Covenant shall be in your Flesh for an everlasting Covenant that is a Token or Pledge in your Flesh of an everlasting Covenant Bishop Patrick in 〈◊〉 For as a Reverend Father of our own says It was not a meer Mark whereby they should be known to be Abraham's Seed and distinguished from other Nations but they were hereby made the Children of the Covenant and intitled to the Blessings of it and Circumcision was the Seal of it And this is farther evident from the New Testament for St. Paul in his Controversie with the Jews about Justification instances in Abraham whom he declares to be justified not for his being circumcised but for the Faith he had before it Rom. 4. 11. He received the Sign of Circumcision a Seal or Pledge of the Righteousness of that Faith which he had yet being uncircumcised a Seal of that Covenant by which God receives him as Righteous for his Faith And thus St. Peter Acts 7. 8. He gave him the Covenant of Circumcision that is he gave him the Covenant which he sealed and confirmed by Circumcision which is both a usual and very intelligible way of speaking So also St. Paul Gal. 3. 15. Brethren I speak after the Manner of Men if it be but a Man's Covenant yet if it be confirmed no Man disannulleth or addeth thereto And again Ver. 17. he speaks of the Covenant that was confirmed before of God in Christ plainly alluding to this Covenant with Abraham which was Sealed and had its Confirmation by Circumcision 2. The Second Observation was that this Covenant with Abraham of which Circumcision was the Seal is the same Covenant with that which we Christians are now admitted into with God by Christ Mr. Keach I remember disowns this and contrary to what I now maintain offers this Argument p. 47. That Covenant that was made to separate the natural Seed of Abraham from all other Nations of the World and made sure unto them the Earthly Promise of the Land of Canaan could not be a Covenant of Grace which concerns the infant-Infant-Seed of Believers under the Gospel He who often finds Fault with other Peoples Logic should take special Care of his own Here was one little but material Word omitted in this first Proposition It should have run thus That Covenant which was made only to separate c. The want of that only spoils the Consequence It might be made thus to separate Abraham's Seed and it might be made to other Ends too And so it might be a Covenant of Grace notwithstanding God intended by it that Distinction of his People also To prove then that the Covenant besides the Promises it contained of a Land of Canaan and
a numerous Seed was also a Covenant of Grace and Mercy and Salvation in Jesus Christ and consequently the same Covenant with ours Be pleased Sir to consider 1. That the Covenant was made on the same general Conditions 2. That it contained the same general Promises 3. That both were founded on the same Consideration and had regard to the same Mediator Jesus Christ. 1. That this Covenant which God made with Abraham was founded on the very same Conditions on which that is established which we Christians make with God in Christ the Sum of what the Gospel of Christ requires in order to the Salvation of our Souls is only a firm Faith and sincere Obedience And if this be so the Agreement in this respect is very exact God having required Faith and Obedience by the Covenant which he made with Abraham as strictly and as indispensably as he has done by Christ As to Faith the Case is so very plain and so universally acknowledged on all sides that I shall need to say but little upon it The Faith of Abraham was so eminently renown'd and so illustrious a Pattern to all succeeding Ages that to the everlasting Memory of it he is distinguished by that signal Character the Father of the Faithful and all Christians in the World are called his Children as we walk in the Steps of that Faith Rom. 4. 12. And that this Faith was the Condition of Abraham's being received into Covenant is evident not only from the Old Testament which says Gen. 15. 6. That he believed in the Lord and it was accounted to him for Righteousness but also from the New in which St. Paul convinces the Jewish Converts that the Works of the Law were not the Conditions of Justification and Salvation because Abraham himself was justified by Faith Rom. 4. 2 to 11. And that his Posterity were bound to this general Faith is plain in St. Paul's Vindication of his Orthodoxy on the very Account of his Believing all that is written in the Law and in the Prophets Acts 24. 14. And as Faith was one part of Abraham's Covenant so Obedience was another And this appears plainly by that Injunction which God gave him at the very same time that he was establishing his Covenant with him Gen. 17. 12. The Lord appear'd unto Abraham and said unto him I am the Almighty God walk before me and be thou perfect Which Words the Jews themselves look upon to be so much a Command of Universal Obedience as from thence to conclude that in Circumcision they all covenanted to have no other God but him See Bishop Patrick 2. As Abraham's Covenant is the same with ours in its Conditions so it is in its Promises too The Two great Blessings of the Gospel are Justification here and eternal Life hereafter As to the first of these that Abraham was Justified by his Faith and that consequently Justification is one of the great Benefits and Blessings of the Covenant God made with him is so plainly and expresly asserted in the Gospel that it is needless to go about to prove it And that eternal Life in the World to come was promised to Abraham and his Posterity by Christ as well as it is to us appears from hence that the Land of Canaan has always been looked on as a Type and Figure of Heaven and that not only by us in these latter Ages of the World but is so esteemed by St. Paul himself Heb. 3. 1. And from the Account which the New Testament gives of the Spiritual Meaning and Design of the Old when God declares to Abraham That he would be his God Gen. 17. 7. and to Isaac Gen. 26. 3. and to Jacob Gen. 28. 13 That he intended hereby to reward their Faith and Obedience with the Kingdom of Heaven is evident from the Words of Christ who from these Promises proves the Certainty of such a future State to the Jews among whom it was controverted Mat. 22. 31 32. And St. Paul tells us that Abraham and the Patriarchs expected such a Recompence to be couched under those Temporal Promises Heb. 11. 13. where he says These all died in Faith not having actually received the Promises that is the Blessings promised while they were on Earth but having seen them afar of and were perswaded of them and embraced them and confessed that they were Strangers and Pilgrims on Earth and desired or looked for a better Country that is to say an heavenly And what can be a better Proof that this was a Covenant of Grace than to find the chief Blessings of the Gospel here promised by God and believed and expected by the Patriarchs on the very Conditions of the Gospel But 3. Lastly Both these are founded on the same Consideration and equally have respect to the same Mediator Jesus Christ And for the Confirmation of this we all know that the Promises which God made to Abraham saying In thy Seed shall all the Nations of the Earth be blessed are truly and readily fulfilled only in Jesus Christ And as the Holy Spirit of God has taught us this so Christ tells us that Abraham himself understood it so For discoursing with the Jews about him he said John 8. 56. Your Father Abraham rejoyced and desired to see my Day and he saw it and was glad i. e. he was sollicitous more perfectly to understand the Substance of these Promises and he did understand them to be intended of me and was delighted in the Contemplation But whether all that succeeded this Patriarch had the same particular Communication of this great Mystery is not at all to our Purpose 'T is sufficient that the New Testament declares that what Blessings were thus graciously promised in this Covenant with Abraham were with Reference to and for the Sake of Jesus Christ that was to come And this St. Paul has expresly affirmed Gal. 3. 16 17. Now to Abraham and his Seed were the Promises made he said not to Seeds as of many but as of One and to thy Seed which is Christ So he goes on this I say that the Covenant which was confirmed before of God in Christ c. Affirming in short all that I have here been proving viz. that Circumcision was the Seal for the Confirmation of that very Covenant which God made with Abraham in Christ Four Hundred and Thirty Years before the Law was given So that Abraham had not only the same Covenant with us but the very same Gospel that is preached to us was preached to Abraham also Gal. 3. 8. The Scripture fore-seeing that God would justifie the Heathen through Faith preached before the Gospel unto Abraham What Gospel was it It was certainly the Gospel of Christ through whom alone it was said to Abraham In thee shall all the Nations of the Earth be blessed And it was certainly at the Time when he established that Covenant which was confirmed of God in Christ And all the Seed of Abraham that were circumcised were bound to worship
Divorce would be contrary to the Law of Christ unless for the Cause of Fornication 2. Ab absurdo from the Absurdity that would follow should they separate upon the Account of Religion thereby disowning their Marriage and consequently bastardizing their Children which the Apostle supposing them unwilling to do advises them to continue with their unbelieving Husband or Wife notwithstanding their Differences in Religion Thus this Text Mr. A says is expounded by Melancthon Camerarius and Musculus who also cites St. Jerome and Ambrose for it acknowledging that he had formerly abused it against the Anabaptists So that it seems in this we must consider both the Interpretation and the Autorities produced to confirm it As to the Argument I have these Things to offer 1. That such a Sense is put upon these Words as some of them are never found to have in all the Holy Scripture For tho' it is true that Holiness is sometimes used for Chastity and particularly 1 Thess 3. 3 4 7. in Opposition to Fornication yet Vncleanness is never taken for Illegitimacy or Bastardy in a litteral Sense as it is here rendred by Mr. A As to what is alleged concerning a godly or holy Seed Mal. 2. 15. which Mr. A by the Autority of Calvin and other Learned Interpreters would understand to be Legitimacy let those learned Interpreters be who they will it is very plain that they must take Legitimacy there not in a Litteral Sense but Figurative according to the usual Language of the Prophets who often express Idolatry by Whoredom and Fornication and call the Revolting into it the Marrying a strange God and going a whoring after Idols Ezek. 6. 9. St. Jerome and and the Chaldee Paraphrase by the holy Seed understand the Posterity of Abraham in Opposition to the Gentiles and the former says The Prophets Purpose here was to reprove the Jews for Marrying Wives of the Idolatrous Nations and he grounds this Interpretation on Ezra 9. 2. And if this be good the holy Seed is the People under Covenant with God in Distinction from the Gentiles And therefore I say again that tho' Uncleanness is used in the New Testament for Fornication and Sensuality yet not once for Bastardy nor Holiness for Legitimacy But I think I may say that whenever these Words are used and especially when they are set in Opposition one to another Uncleanness denotes something of the vile Pollutions that were common among the Idolatrous Heathens and Holiness when attributed to Persons always includes something of Distinction and Discrimination from the Heathens either by way of Personal Excellence or of Privilege And therefore 2. It is easie to shew that as these Words are not used for Bastardy and Legitimacy in any other place of the New Testament so that they cannot have any such Signification here Mr. A says That St. Paul here speaks of Matrimonial Chastity in Opposition to Fornication and that his Design was to shew that the Marriage was good notwithstanding their Difference in Religion and that they were therefore under no Obligation to separate on that Account which seems plainly to be one of the Scruples about which the Apostle wrote The Christians indeed had Scruples about their Cohabitation with Infidels But how does it appear that the Scruple was that after their Conversion to Christianity their Marriage was no longer valid or good How does this appear Their Scruple was I confess whether or no they were to separate on Account of their Difference in Religion But the Ground of that Scruple was not any Fear that their Marriage-Contract was invalid and their Cohabitation to be deem'd Fornication but a Tenderness upon Account of the Unbelievers being an Infidel and Idolater lest by so near an Alliance to such an one they should seem either to run into Danger or to partake of the Pollution and Guilt of Idolatry and Unbelief This is agreeable to the Apprehensions which we find that the Primitive Christians had An Instance of which Justin Martyr gives an Account of Of a Woman who upon her Conversion to Christianity finding that she could not reclaim her Husband from the abominable Lewdness of his Heathen Life would be divorced from him and tho' at the Importunity of her Friends she continued with him somewhat longer yet finding he grew worse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. lest she should be Partaker of his Iniquities and Impieties by cohabiting with him and being Partner with his Table and Bed she gave him a Bill of Divorce 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and was parted from him This remarkable Instance shews what the Apprehensions of the Primitive Christians as to this Matter were and gives no small Light to the Debate now in hand And that such as this was in Truth the Case upon which St. Paul there treats is farther evident from the Coherence of the Text with what goes before The Questions upon which St. Paul wrote were several First Whether Christians should then Marry which he rather dissuades as that which would more engage them in the Affairs of the World and make them less willing to suffer Persecution This he mentions both in the Beginning and End of the Chapter but then with this Restriction that they should rather marry than be subject to impulses of burning Lusts Ver. 9. Next to the Married he declares that they are bound by the Law of God not to separate if they can avoid it To the Married I command yet not I but the Lord Let not c. Ver. 10 11. Then comes the Case now in hand concerning those who were Married but not both Parties as yet converted to Christianity and among them it was a Question whether their Difference in Religion was a just Cause of Separation Now I say had the Ground of this Scruple been an Opinion or Fear that their Continuance in that married State had been equal to Fornication or Uncleanness St. Paul who knew very well that their Difference in Religion made no such Alteration in the Case would never have usher'd in his Determination with thus speak I not the Lord but thus not I but the Lord as V. 10. It is not credible or morally possible that He who was immediately influenced by the Holy Ghost in the Execution of his Apostolic Office should only give his Conjectural Judgment or meerly Prudential Determination in a Question In which both he and they were afore determined by the express Law and Institution of God and in which he knew himself to be so determined To the Married command I and yet not I but the Lord Let not the Wife depart from her Husband Ver. 10. Especially if the Consequence of their Separation would prove so pernicious as to Bastardize their Children as Mr. A supposes He was the more oblig'd to determine them by the Autority of God's Institution or Law It is I say incredible that he should usher in the Determination of so important a Question only by a Conjectural Order that could not