Imágenes de página
PDF
ePub

this is a rule and direction to us now, if infants have a right to baptifm, they ought to be admitted to the Lord's fupper.

3dly, Baptifm, he fays, is appointed for a like end as circumcifion; namely, for the admiffion of perfons into the church, which is not true; circumcifion was appointed for another end, and not for that: the Jewish church was national, and as foon as an infant was born, it was a member of it, even before circumcifion; and therefore it could not be admitted by it; nor is baptifm for any fuch end, nor are perfons admitted into a visible church of Chrift by it; they may be baptized, and yet not members of a church: what church was the eunuch admitted into, or did he become a member of, by his baptifm?

4thly, This writer affirms, that "the holy Spirit calls baptifm circumcifion, "that is, the circumcifion made without bands, having the fame fpiritual defign; "and is termed the chriftian circumcifion, or that of Chrift; it answering to "circumcifion, and being ordained by Chrift in the room of it." To say that baptifin is ordained by Chrift in the room of circumcifion, is begging the queftion, nor is there any thing in it that anfwers to circumcifion, nor is it called the circumcifion of Chrift, in Col. ii. 11. which I fuppofe is the place referred to; for not that, but internal circumcifion, the circumcifion of the heart is meant, which Chrift by his Spirit is the author of, and therefore called his; and the fame is the circumcifion made without hands, in oppofition to circumcifion in the flesh; it being by the powerful and efficacious grace of God, without the affiftance of men; nor can baptifm with any fhew of reafon, or appearance of truth, be fo called, fince that is made with the hands of men; and therefore can never be the circumcifion there meant.

5thly, He infers that baptifm is appointed in the room of circumctfion, from their fignifying like things, as original corruption, regeneration, or the circumcifion of the heart; being feals of the covenant of grace'; initiating ordinances, and alike laying men under an obligation to put off the body of fin, and walk in newness of life; and alfo being marks of diftinction between church-members and others'. But baptifm and circumcifion do not fignify the like things; baptifin fignifies the fufferings, death, burial, and refurrection of Christ, which circumcifion did not; nor does baptifm fignify original corruption, which it takes not away; nor regeneration, which it does not give, but pre-requires it; nor is baptifm meant in the paffage referred to, Titus iii. 5. nor are either of them feals of the covenant of grace, as has been fhewn already; nor initiating ordinances, or what enter perfons into a church-ftate: Jewish infants were churchmembers, before they were circumcifed; and perfons may be baptized, and yet * Rom. vi. 4, 6.

Deut. xxx. 6. 1 Ezek. xvi. 21.

Tit. iii. 5.
Matt. xvi. 26.

i Rom. iv. 11.

not

not be members of churches; and whatever obligations the one and the other may lay men under to live in newness of life, this can be no proof of the one coming in the room of the other. Circumcifion was indeed a mark of diftinction between the natural feed of Abraham and others; and baptifm is a diftinguishing badge, to be wore by thofe that believe in Christ, and put him on, and are his spiritual feed; but neither of them diftinguish church-members from others; the paffages referred to are impertinent. But I proceed to confider

The fixth argument in favour of infant-baptifm, taken from "the fameness of the covenant of grace made with Jews and Gentiles, of which circumcifion was the feal, from the seal and dispensation of which, the Jews and their children are cut off, and the Gentiles and their feed are engrafted in "." In answer to which, let it be observed, 1. That the covenant of grace is indeed the fame in one age, and under one difpenfation, as another; or as made with one fort of people as another, whether Jews or Gentiles; the fame bleflings of it that came upon Abraham, come upon all believers, Jews or Gentiles; and the one are faved by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, as the other; but then, 2. The covenant of grace was not made with Abraham and his natural feed, or with all the Jews as fuch; nor is it made with Gentiles and their natural feed as fuch; but with Chrift and his spiritual seed, and with them only, be they of what nation, or live they in what age they will. 3. Circumcifion was no feal of the covenant of grace, nor does Romans iv. 11. prove it, as has been shewn already; and therefore nothing can be inferred from hence with respect to baptifm. 4. The root or stock from whence the unbelieving Jews were cut off, and into which the believing Gentiles are engrafted, is not the covenant of grace, from which those who are interested in it can never be cut off; but the gospel church-state, from which the unbelieving Jews were rejected and left out, and the believing Gentiles took in, who partook of all the privileges of it": though no mention is made throughout the whole of the paffage of the children of either; only of fome being broken off through unbelief, and others standing by faith; and therefore can be of no service in the cause of infant-baptifm.

The Seventh argument is taken from "the extent of the covenant of grace being the fame under the New Teftament, as before the coming of Chrift, who came not to curtail the covenant, and render worse the condition of infants; if they were in the covenant before, they are fo now; no fpiritual privilege given to children or others can be made void "." To which may be replied, 1. That the extent of the covenant, as to the conftitution of it, and perfons interested in it, is always the fame, having neither more nor fewer; but with respect

m Gal. iii. 14.

• Rom. xi. 29.

222

Acts xv. 11. Rom. iv. 11. and xi, 15, 17.
Jer. xxx. 20.

Rom, xi, 17-25.

respect to the application of it, it extends to more perfons at one time than at another; and is more extenfive under the gospel-difpenfation than before; it being applied to Gentiles as well as Jews: and with respect to the bleffings and privileges of it, they are always the fame, are never curtailed or made void, or taken away from those to whom they belong; which are all Chrift's spiritual feed, and none elfe, be they Jews or Gentiles. But, 2. It fhould be proved that the infant-feed of believers, or their natural feed as fuch, were ever in the covenant of grace; or that any fpiritual privileges were given to them as such; or it is impertinent to talk of curtailing the covenant, or taking away the privileges of the feed of believers. 3. If even their covenant-interest could be proved, which it cannot, that gives no right to any ordinance, or to a positive inftitution, without a divine direction; there were many who were interested in the covenant of grace, when circumcifion was appointed, who yet had nothing to do with that ordinance. 4. Baptifm not being allowed to infants, does not make their condition worfe than it was under the former dispensation; for as then circumcifion could not fave them, fo neither would baptifm, were it administered to them; nor was circumcifion really a privilege, but the reverse; and therefore the abrogation of it, without fubftituting any thing in its room, does not make the condition of infants the worfe; and certain it is, that the condition of the infants of believing Gentiles, even though baptism is denied them, is much better than that of the infants of Gentiles before the coming of Chrift; yea, even of the infants of Jews themselves; fince they are born of christian parents, and fo have a chriftian education, and the opportunity and advantage of hearing the gofpel preached, as they grow up, with greater clearness, and in every place where they are. The text in Romans xi. 29. regards not external privileges, but internal grace; that in Jeremiah xxx. 20. refpects not infants, but the pofterity of the Jews; adult perfons in the latter day.

66

[ocr errors]

The eighth argument is taken from the everlaftingness of the covenant of grace, and runs thus; "The example of Abraham and the Ifraelites in circumcifing their children according to the command of God, fhould oblige us "to baptize our children; because circumcifion was then a feal of the everlafting covenant, a covenant that was to laft for ever, and not ceafe as the legal ceremonies; which God hath confirmed with an oath; and therefore "can have fuffered no alteration for the worfe in any thing with refpect to "infants" The anfwer to which is, 1. That the covenant of grace is everlafting, will never ceafe, nor admit of any alteration, is certain; but the covenant of circumcifion, which is called an everlasting covenant, Genefis xvii. 7.

66

was

P This alfo is an anfwer to what the author of The baptifm of Infants a reasonable Service fuggefts in P. 7, 12, 16. 9 Gen. vii. 17. Heb. vi. 13, 18. Mic. vii. 18, 20. Gal. iii. 8.

was only to continue during the Mofaic difpenfation, or unto the times of the Meffiah; and is fo called for the fame reason, and just in the same sense as the covenant of the priesthood with Phinehas is called, the covenant of an everlasting priesthood. Though the covenant of grace is everlasting, and whatever is in that covenant, or ever was, will never be altered; yet it fhould be proved there is any thing in it with refpect to infants, and particularly which lays any foundation for, or gives them any claim and right to baptifm. 3. Though circumcifion was a fign and token of the covenant made with Abraham, and his natural feed, it never was any feal of the covenant of grace. And, 4. The example of Abraham and others, in circumcifing their children according to the command of God, lays no obligation upon us to baptize ours, unless we had a command for their baptifm, as they had for their circumcifion.

66

The ninth argument is formed thus; "Baptifm is to be administered to the "feed of believers, because it is certainly very dangerous and blameworthy, "to neglect and despise a valuable privilege appointed by God from the beginning, to the offspring of his people." But it must be denied, and fhould be proved, that baptifm is a privilege appointed by God from the beginning, to the offspring of his people; let it be fhewn, if it can, when and where it was appointed by him. This argument is illuftrated and enforced by various obfervations; as that "that foul was to be cut off that neglected circumcifion; and "no just excuse can be given for neglecting infant-baptifm, which is ordained "to be the feal of the covenant inftead of circumcifion:" but we have seen already, that baptifm does not come in the room of circumcifion, nor is it a feal of the covenant of grace; and there is good reason to be given for the neglect of infant-baptifm, because it never was ordained and appointed of God. Moreover it is faid, "that the feed of believers were formerly, under the Old Testa"ment, in the covenant together with their parents; and no one is able to fhew "that they have been caft out under the New, or that their condition is worse, "and their fpiritual privileges lefs, under the gofpel, than under the law:" but that believers with their natural feed as fuch, were together in the covenant of grace under the Old Teftament, should not be barely affirmed, but proved, before we are put upon to fhew that they are caft out under the New; though this writer himself, before in the fixth argument, talks of the Jews and their children being cut off from the feal and difpenfation of the covenant; which can never be true of the covenant of grace; nor do we think that the condition of infants is worse, or their privileges lefs now, than they were before, though baptifm is denied them, as has been obferved already. It is further urged, that "it is not to be imagined, without prefumption, that Chrift ever intended to

[merged small][ocr errors]

"cut them off from an ordinance, which God had given them a right unto;" nor do we imagine any fuch thing; nor can it be proved that God ever gave the ordinance of baptifm to them. As for what this writer further observes, that had Chrift took away circumcifion, without ordaining baptifm in the room of it, for the children of believers; the Jews would have cried out against it as an excommunication of their children; and would have been a greater objection against him than any other; and would now be a hindrance of their converfion; and who, if they were converted, would have baptifm or circumcifion to be a feal of the covenant with them and their children, it deferves no answer; fince the clamours, outcries, and objections of the Jews, and their practice on their legal principles, would be no rule of direction to us, were they made and gave into, fince they would be without reafon and truth; for though Chrift came not to destroy the moral law, but to fulfil it'; yet he came to put an end to the ceremonial law, of which circumcifion is a part, and did put an end to it: the text in Jeremiah xxx. 20. refpects the reftoration of the Jews in the latter day, but not their old ecclefiaftical polity, which fhall not be established again, but their civil liberties and privileges.

The tenth argument ftands thus ; " Children are to be baptized under the "covenant of grace, because all the covenants which God ever made with men "were made not only with them, but also with their children;" and instances are given in Adam, Noah, Abraham, Ifaac and Jacob, Levi, Phinehas, and David. The covenant of works was indeed made with Adam and his feed, in which covenant he was a federal head to his offspring; but the covenant of grace was not made with him and his feed, he was no federal head in that; nor is that made with all mankind, as it muft, if it had been made with Adam and his feed this is an inftance against the argument, and fhews that all the covenants that ever God made with men, were not made with them and their feed; for certainly the covenant of grace was made with Adam, and made known to him '; and yet not with his feed with him; nor can any instance be given of the covenant of grace being made with any man, and his natural feed. There was a covenant made with Noah and his pofterity, fecuring them from a future deluge, but not a covenant of grace fecuring them from everlasting destruction; for then it must have been made with all mankind, fince all are the posterity of Noah; and where then is the diftinction of the feed of believers and of unbelievers? Besides Ham, one of Noah's immediate offspring, was not interested in the covenant of grace. As for the covenant made with Abraham, his fon Ishmael was excluded from it"; and of Ifaac's two fons one of them was rejected"; and • Which may likewise be an answer to the fame thing hinted by the author Gen. iii.15.

Matt. v. 17.

of The baptifm of Infants a reasonable Service, p. 28.

[blocks in formation]
« AnteriorContinuar »