found in this Text and no such thing as a faederal Holiness Though if there was it would be no ground to Baptize an Infant upon as before The Arguments from Circumcision Examined Another and none of the least Arguments that is urged to prove Infants Baptisme by is from pretended Consequences from the Covenant made with Abraham Gen. 17. From whence it is thus argued THose to whom the Gospel Covenant belonged The Argument from Circumcision to them the Seal thereof appertained but to Believers and their Seed the Gospel Covenant belonged as Gen. 17.7 I 'le be a God to thee and to thy Seed and Acts 2.39 The Promise is to you and your Childâ—en Therefore to them the Seal thereof Circumcision so called Rom. 4.11 did appertain Gen. 17.10 For the Foederati were to be Signati those in the Covenant were to have the Seal thereof And therefore by Consequence it naturally followeth That if Circumcision the Seal of the Gospel Covenant belonged to the Seed of Believers under the Law then doth the Gospel Seal Baptisme much more appertain to the Seed of Believers under the Gospel which comes in the Place Room and Vse of Circumcision otherwise the priviledge under the Gospel would be less then that of the Law should Children be denied such a benefit Answer That this is falacious and false reasoning and that there is â—o natural Consequence at all from this Scripture to infer the Baptizing of Infants nor any ground to build the Gospel-Ordinance Baptisme upon the command of the Legal-Ordinance Circumcision may fully appear by examining the following particulars which are begged but not proved in the Argument 1. Whether Circumcision called here the Gospel Seal did of old belong to all in Gospel-Covenant 2. Whether the new or Gospel Covenant and that mentioned Gen 17. be one and the same 3. Whether the Seed mentioned was Abrahams Natural or Spiritual Seed 4. Whether Circumcision was a Seal of the new Covenant to the Children under the Law 5. Whether Circumcision was administred to Believers as Believers and to their Seed only 6. Whether Baptisme did succeed in the Place Room and Vse of â—ircumcision 7. Whetheo the not baptizing Infants makes the priviledges under the Gospel less then the Circumcising them under the Law To the first Circumcision not the Seal of the Gospel Covenant to all Believers Whether Circumcision called the Gospel-Seal did belong of old to all in Gospel-Covenant 'T is answered that the contrary doth manifestly appear upon a double account 1. Because some that were in the Gospel-Covenant were not Sealed and 2dly some that were out of the Covenant were Sealed therewith 1. 1. Many in Covenant not Sealed with it There were many persons in Covenant that were not Circumcised that were Foederati but not Signati as for instance all the Believers from Adam to Abraham who received no such Seal nor 2dly did any of the Believers out of Abrahams Family as Lot Melchisedeck Job that we read of received any such Seal neither 3dly did any of the believing Families in any Age receive it 2. Many out of the Covenant they were Sealed And 2dly there were some to whom the Covenant did not belong that received that called the Seal of Circumcision For of Ishmael God had said that this Covenant was not to be established with him but with Isaak and yet he was Circumcised Gen. 17.20 21 25. Gal. 4.29.30 And the same may be said of Esau Rom. 9.10 11 12.13 And as to all the Strangers in Abrahams House or bought with Money in Israel that were Circumcised it may well be doubted whether the New Covenant Promises did belong to them 2. The Covenant in Gen. 17 a mixt Covenant as the Seed was To the second Whether the Neâ— Covenant and that mentioned in Gen. 17. be the same In answer whereto it must be understood That as Abraham by Promise stood in a double Capacity viz. The Father of a Nation viz. the Natural Israelites so to be also a Father of many Nations comprehending the Spiritual Israel whether Jews or Gentiles throughout the world and so accordingly the Promises were of two sorts sometimes respecting his Natural Seed whether Domestick or National who were Typical of the Spirtual as the Birth of Isaac the deliverance of his Posterity out of Egypt the possessing of the Land of Canaan with many outward Temporal Blessings and benefits annexed thereto as Gen. 15.13 18.17.8.15 16. Acts 7.3 4 5 6. And others again respecting in a peculiar manner the Spiritual Seed the Family of the faithful viz. the Elect of whom through Christ he was Father and which are Evangelical and in an especial manner belonging to the new Covenant as Gen. 12.3.18.18 In thee shall all Nations be blessed which is called a Gospel-promise Gal. 3.8 9. so Gen. 15.5 So shall thy Seed be Gen. 17.5 A Father of many Nations And Verse the 8th To be his God and the God of his Seed And therefore must the mind of Wisdom rightly distinguish and truly apply the Promises that are many times so mixed that the one may be taken for the other and sure I am much of the mistake and error lies here in this very thing by applying that to the one which belongs to the other 3. The Seed in the 7th Verse the Spiritual Seed only But 3dly What Seed of Abraham is it to whom the Promise doth belong In the 7th Verse Whether the Natural or Spiritual and who those Children of Promise Acts 2.39 To the clearing the first namely That of the Seed Verse the 7th I shall refer you to the Exposition it self the Scripture hath given us hereof with the concurring sence of many judicious Expositors and all of them parties themselves 1. The Scriptures expounding this Text are Gal. 3.16 Gal. 3.16 Now to Abraham and his Seed were the Promises made he saith not to Seeds as of many but as of one and to thy Seed which is Christ And therefore saith Ver. 29. If you be Christs then are you Abrahams Seed Heirs according to Promise and farther Rom. 9.7 8. Ro. 9.7 8 Neither because they are the Seed of Abraham are they all Children but in Isaac shall thy Seed be called that is they which are the Children of the Flesh These are not the Children of God but the Children of the Promise are counted for the Seed And Rom. 4. 13 14. Rom. 4.13 14. For the promise that he should be the Heir of the World was not to Abraham or to his Seed through the Law but through the Righteousness of faith for if they which are of the Law be Heirs faith is made void and the Promise made of none effect Which so fully confirms the Seed here mentioned to whom the Promise belonged not to be the Carnal but Spiritual Seed and in farther confirmation thereof you have these following Authors and all of them Paedobaptists viz. Calvin Calvin upon Gen. 17.7 saith That
Children is used in Scripture shall by Children understand Infants must needs believe that in all Israel there were no men but all were Infants and if that had been true it had been the greater wonder they should overcome the Anakims and beat the King of Moab and march so far and discourse so well for they were all called the Children of Israel The fourth thing to be inquired into is Whether Circumcision was a Seal of the new Covenant to the Believers and their Seed To which I answer in the Negative that it was neither a Seal to them Circumcision only a Seal to Abraham not to Believers nor their Seed not much less a Seal to them of the new Covenant It is true it was a Seal Confirmation or Ratification of the faith that Abraham had long before he was Circumcised but so could it not be said of any Infant that had no faith It was a Sign put into the Flesh of the Infant but a Sign and Seal only to Abraham witnessing to him that he not only had a justifying faith but to the truth of the Promises viz. That he should be the father of many Nations Gen. 12.23 2dly The father of the faithful Rom 4.11 Heir of the World Rom. 4.13 That in hi◠all the Families of the Earth should 〈◊〉 blessed viz. in Christ proceeding fro◠him which was no wayes true of any Infant that ever was Circumcised for none had before their Circumcisio◠such a faith that intitled them to such singular Promises the scope in that place in the 4. Rom. being to shew That Abraham himself was not justified by Works no not by Circumcision but by faith which he had long before he was Circumcised and so but a Seal or Confirmation of that faith which he had before and to assure him of the truth of those special Promises made to him and his Seed both Carnal and Spiritual And to which purpose you have both Chrysostome and Theophylact Chrysost and The. as Mr. Lawr. P. 168. viz. It was called a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith because it was given to Abraham as a Seal and Testimony of that Righteousness which he had acquired by faith Now this seems to be the priviledge of Abraham alone and not to be transferred to others as if Circumcision in whom ever it was were a Testimony of Divine Righteousness for as it was the priviledge of Abraham that he should be the Father of all the faithfull 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 priviledge 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 all the Jews also were not the fathers of many Nations Secondly Much less was Circumcision a Seal of the new Testament as before for nothing is a Seal thereof but the Holy Spirit Eph. 1.13.4.30 Thirdly Neither is Baptisme more then Circumcision called a Seal It i◠called a Figure 1 Pet. 3.21 And 〈◊〉 is a sign as before But a sign and figure proper only to men of understanding representing Spiritual things and Mysteries And not as Circumcision which was a sign not improper for Infants because it left a signal impression in their flesh to be remembred all their days but so cannot Baptisme be to any Infants 5. Circumcision not administred only to believers their seed The fifth thing to be examined it Whether Circumcision was administred to Believers as Believers and to their See◠after them as such to which Baptisme was to Correspond It is answered by no means for it was an Ordinance which by the institution belonged to all the natural Linage and posterity of Abraham good or bad without any such limitation as was put upon Baptisme If thou believest with all thy Heart thou mayst Acts 8. or any such qualification to an Infant capable to receive it that he should have a believing Parent but will you deny Abraham to be a believing Parent and was not he a Father to them all What then he was a publick common Father which reaches not the case in hand for he was no such father to them neither have they any other in his stead therefore the Analogy holds not yet if they had would it avail for that Priviledge would not stand the natural Children of Abraham in any stead to admit them to Baptisme which though they claimed upon that account Mat. 3. John rejects them upon it calling them a Generation of Vipers bidding them bring forth fruits meet for Repentance and which only would give them admittance to the Baptisme of Repentance and that it was not enough to say they had Abraham for their father And to the same purpose doth our Saviour tell Nicodemus a Mr. in Israel that without the new Birth his Birth-priviledge would not avail him in the Gospel-priviledges Joh. 3. and with more severity doth he tell the Jews that however they bore up themselves as the Sons of Abraham yet without believing in Christ who could only make them free 6. Baptism came not in the room place use of Circumcision 1. Not in the room and stead they were Bond-slaves to sin and the Children of the Devil The sixth thing to be searched after is Whether Baptisme did succeed in the Room Place and use of Circumcision To which I answer by no means for the following Reasons 1. Not in the room and stead 1. Because then only Males not Females would be baptized because no other Circumcised but all believing women as well as men were to be baptized Acts 8.12 16.14.15 2. Because then some not all Believers should be baptized because not only women as before were not admitted but all Believers out of Abrahams Family to whom he was a Spiritual father because he was a Believer before he was Circumcised Rom. 4.11 12. Whereas all Believers according to the Commission were to be baptized 3. Because then the Circumcised needed not to have been baptized if they had been already sealed with the new Covenant-seal But Christ himself and all his Apostles and so many of the Churches were Circumcised yet nevertheless were baptized 2. Not to the ends and uses 2. Not to the ends and uses neither as suggested upon the following grounds 1. Because Circumcision was a sign of Christ to come in the flesh and Baptisme that he was already come in the flesh witnessing to his Incarnation Death Burial and Resurrection 2. Circumcision was to be a partition Wall betwixt Jew and Gentile but Baptisme testified the contrary viz. That Barbarian Scythian Bond and Free Jew and Gentile Male or Female were all one in Christ Cornelius the
it is manifest that the Promise understood of Spiritual blessing pertaineth not to the Carnal Seed of Abraham but to the Spiritual as the Apostle himself saith Rom. 4. 9. Chap. For if you understand the Carnal Seed saith he then that Promise will belong to none of the Gentiles but to those alone who are begotten of Abraham and Isaac according to the Flesh Estius Ann. Gen. 17.7 Ainsworth on Gen. 12.7 Ainsw thy Seed That is all the Children of Promise the Elect who only are counted Abrahams Seed Rom. 9.7 8. And in Christ are Heirs by Promise as well the Gentileâ— as the Jews Dr. Owen Dr. Owen in his Book called the Doctrine of Saints perseverance in Chap. 4. arguing from the Covenant of Grace to prove the unchangableness of the love of God begins with Gen. 17.7 saying That the effectual dispensation of the Grace of the Covenant is peculiar tâ— them only who are the Children of Promise the Remnant of Abraham according to Election with all that in alâ— Nations were to be blessed by him and his Seed Jesus Christ Ishmael though Circumcised was to be put out and not to be Heir with Isaac and a little after he writes thus what blessing then was here made over to Abraham All the blessings saith he that from God are conveyed in and by his seed Jesus Christ iâ— whom both he and we are blessed are wrapped therein what they are the Apostle tells you Eph. 1.13 They are all Spiritual blessings if perseverance if the continuance of the love and favour of God towards us be a Spiritual blessing both Abraham and all his Spiritual Seed all faithfull ones throughout the world are blessed with it in Jesus Christ and if Gods continuing to be a God to them for ever will enforce this blessing being but the same thing in another expression it is here likewise asserted Amesius Amesius de Praedest Chap 8. Ser. 6. saith There are many of the Seed of Abraham to whom the word of Promise doth not belong as Ishmael and Ishmaelites But if so there be many of the Seed of Abraham to whom the word of Promise doth not belong Then the rejection of many Jews who are of the Seed of Abraham doth not make void the word of Promise From whence may we not safely conclude that if the natural Posterity of Abraham were not within the Covenant of Grace by vertue of the Promise Gen. 17.7 Then much less are our natural Posterity but the former is true Rom. 9.6 7 8 9 10 11 12. so is the latter To which we might add divers others but let these suffice And from the contrary perswasion what dismal Consequences would arise The evil Consequences of the contrary For if God made his Covenant of Grace with the Posterity of Believers as this Doctrine asserts Then all the Posterity of Believers should certainly have Crace bestowed upon them for it is the Covenant of God which doth convey Grace Rom. 4.16 2 Cor â— 30. None missing of Grace from Goâ— faithfulness which Mr. Blake doth 〈◊〉 confidently affirm Mr. Bla. P. 6. saying Thâ— Christianity is hereditary that as tâ— Children of a Noble man is Noble tâ— Child of a Free man Free of a Turk Turk and of a Jew a Jew so the Chiâ— of a Christian is a Christian in contrâ—diction not only of Scripture whicâ— saith we are Children of wrath bâ— Nature but of all former and latter experience Then would Grace be a Birth Prâ—viledge and Regeneration as before tyed to Generation contrary to Jâ— 3.3 Jo. 1.12 13. Then must all the Posterity of Believers be saved without you will necessitate the Doctrine to be true thâ— men may fall from Grace Then must we tie up and confine thâ— Grace of Gods Covenant to the Children of Believers only and then whaâ— hope for the Children of unbelieverâ— contrary to the Experience of all Ageâ— For was not Grace extended to thâ— Gentiles who were not the Children oâ— Believers when the natural Brancheâ— the Children of believing Abraham were â—ut off Then is the Covenant of Grace it self overthrown concluding an Interest without faith Rom. 4.14 deriving a Tiâ—le by natural Generation And as to the other Scripture of the 2. Acts 38 39. Act. 2.38 answ urged as a Parallel to the other It is so indeed rightly understood but not at all in the sence supposed For first it is to be observed that the promise there made is the giving the Sperit called the promise of the Father prophecied of by Joel 2.28 and doth follow the receiving of Christ in the Gospel Eph. 1.13 Gal. 3.14 and the obeying his commands Acts 5.32 Therefore in the 38. Ver. Peter exhorts them to Repentance and faith in order to the receiving of it because the Promise is to them and their Children viz. to the Jews and to them that are afar off to the Gentiles also eâ—even as many of both as the Lord should call therefore the Promise is not made but upon condition of Calling and Faith and Baptisme Secondly It is remarkable that the Apostle doth first exhort to Repentance then to Baptisme shewing the order that Christ had directed to in the Commission neither is the Promisâ— mentioned as though of it self it gave right to Baptisme without Repentance but as a Motive why they should repent and be baptized that they mighâ— also as others had done before theâ— Eyes be made partakers of the Holâ— Spirit which the Prophets had foretold and Christ had promised where in Infants neither capable of Faith Repentance and Calling are not concerned in the Text and by Childrâ—â— spoken of are no other meant then thâ— posterily of the Jews for who know not that they are so called and that mâ— Child is my Child though 40. or 50 years old upon which Text Dr. Hamond in his Resolution concerning Infaâ—â— Baptisme Dr. Ham Sect. 81. hath to this purpose In the next place saith he 〈◊〉 attempted the disproving of all Arguments brought in defence of Pedobaptisâ— from Peters words Acts 2.39 Tâ— which saith the Dr. I answer That 〈◊〉 any have made use of that unconcludeâ—â— Argument I have nothing to say in defence of them I think the practise is founded upon better Basis then so and the word Children there is really the posterity of the Jews and not particularly their Infant Children And Dr. Talor upon this Scripture Dr. Tal. Page 233. saith That the words mentioned in St. Peters Sermon which are the only Records of the Promise are interpreted upon a weak mistake The Promise belongs to you and your Children therefore Infants are actually receptive of it in that capacity that is the Argument but the Reason of it is not yet discovered nor ever will for to you and your Children is to you and your Posterity to you and your Children when they are of the same capacity in which you are receptive of the Promise But he that whenever the word