children of these parents as well as themselves. Metanoesate, kai
the natural seed of Abraham are designed in these words, "For the promise is to you, and to your children." So the children here spoken of, are the children of remote godly parents. Two things here remain to be proven for clearing of the assumption: 1. That repentance is required as necessary antecedently to a right to baptism here enjoined. 2. That in the call to baptism, the children of those parents are comprehended as well as themselves.
1. As to the first, That repentance is required of the parents in this text, as necessarily pre-requisite to a right to the baptism urged by the apostle, is plain, if ye consider, in the first place, That if they had right to baptism antecedently to their repentance, the apostle could not have denied the same unto them till they did declare it; and that the rather, that they were now pricked at the heart for their murdering of Christ, and crying out, "What shall we do to be saved?" Yet we find the apostle requires, in the first place, that they should repent, and stays their baptism till they have evidenced their repentance, notwithstanding that their present perplexity required a speedy possession of those privileges they had right unto. And when the apostles do fall a-baptizing, they baptize those, and those only, who gladly received Peter's word, ver. 41. Further, how could they have been baptized antecedently to their repentance, seeing they were to be "baptized in the name of Jesus Christ," as says the text; and none but Christ's disciples ought to be baptized? Matth. 28:19. They could not be accounted Christ's disciples till they professed their faith in him, and their repentance; and consequently till then could have no right coram ecclesia to baptism in his name. Finally, they are called to be baptized for the remission of sins, non obtinendam, sed obsignandam, i. e. in testimony of remission of sins: but this could not be before faith, seeing it is by faith we obtain remission; and faith cannot be without repentance. Wherefore it is evident, they are called to repentance as necessary antecedently to baptism.
2. For the second, That the call to baptism here comprehends the children of these parents as well as themselves. Metanoesate, kai baptistheto ekastos humon. The authors of Antisynodalia Americana will have these words (if I right remember) read, "and every one of you be baptized," (it seems) that the sense may be, Every one of you that repent
be baptized. But as our translation is exactly according to the original, so the call to repentance and to baptism are of equal latitude, as the words plainly bear, and the nature of the things themselves, as was shown before; otherwise it was no sin in them that rejected baptism so to do, providing only they did not repent, though under this call: which methinks is no sound divinity. But to the point: This appears, if ye consider these particulars. 1. Here is express mention made of their children together with themselves, "For the promise is to you, and to your children." Now, those to whom is the promise, are by this call obliged to be baptized; but the promise was to their children as well as themselves; Ergo, If any doubt the major, I might prove it thus: If the gift of the Holy Ghost was to be given after baptism, then those to whom the promise is made, are called to be baptized; the former is true: Ergo, The reason of the consequence is, because the gift of the Holy Ghost and the promise being to them, are joined together; the latter as the ground of the former. The assumption appears from the apostle's own words, "Be baptized,— and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." 2. To what other end should mention be made of their children, but that the apostle would have them to repent, that so both they and their seed might receive the seal of the covenant? This, I think, must be granted, unless we will join hands with the Anabaptists, and delay the baptism of their children till such time as they were capable personally to evidence their repentance. 3. The scope of the apostle, which was to comfort those that were pricked at the heart for the murdering of the Lord of glory, doth prove this. They saw now what it was to be guilty of Christ's blood; and doubtless (as an awakened soul has a quick memory for bygone sins) they remembered well, that sometime they had cried out, "His blood be on us, and our children." Wherefore, that the plaster might be as broad as the sore, it was necessary that they should be taught the reception of their children to baptism, together with themselves; and so both were called together thereto. 4. In all examples of the parents' call to receive the first seal of the covenant, the children also are comprehended, whether under the Old or New Testament dispensations; and how can it be otherwise, seeing God has said, he will be the believer's God, and the God of his seed also.
ARGUMENT III. God threatens that he will visit the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them
that hate him; but promiseth to shew mercy to thousands of them that love him, and keep his commandments. I have already proven, that the promise is only to the immediate seed of godly parents; and by the same labour, that the threatening is only to the immediate seed of the ungodly: and as I said of the meaning of the promise, its being extended to thousands; so say I of the threatening, its being extended to the third and fourth generation, viz. successively, and one after another ungodly. God, in punishing the children, will remember the iniquity of their fathers and grandfathers; they being still the children only of the wicked. Now, whatever else the mercy promised doth comprehend, I think it will be denied by none but Anabaptists, and such as they, that it includes a visible right to the first seal of the covenant. By the same reason then, the threatening includes the contrary; and so God himself, in his holy and wise dispensations, has explained it, while he hath broken off wicked parents and their seed from the visible church, and all right to church privileges. This Scripture then affords us a twofold argument for our purpose.
ARGUMENT 1. From the threatening. If God visit the iniquity of the fathers upon the children of immediate wicked parents, then the children of immediate wicked parents have no right to baptism, though they be the remote seed of the godly; the former is true: Ergo, The sequel, which only needs proof, is thus evinced: The mercy promised to the children of those that love God, comprehends a grant of a visible right to the initiating seal made to them; Ergo, the judgment threatened to the children of wicked parents, comprehends a denuding them of, or a denying unto them, a visible right to the same: for contrariorum contraria sunt consequentia. And otherwise, they to whom the threatening visibly belongs shall have the mercy of the promise visibly belonging to them also; not without great appearance of confusion of those things which God hath so divided and distinguished. This reasoning the learned Zanchius yields to us in thesi,* though in hypothesi he is against it. His words are, "There is a certain antithesis betwixt the promise and threatening. Now, what doth he promise, when he says 'He will shew mercy to those that love him'? temporal good things only? not at all; but eternal life, according to that, 'He that doth these things, shall live in them:' and in many places he promiseth salvation to them that keep his law. Therefore also in the
threatening, he threatens eternal death." Yet the same learned man will not allow us to conclude from this, that the children of those parents who are excluded from the covenant for their iniquities and defections, are excluded also. But why, upon the same ground we may not argue as before is done, I see not. Nothing can strike against the one, that doth not equally militate against the other. But says the learned man, "Surely when we have come to the fourth generation, where those fathers also are wicked, and excluded from the covenant for their own wickedness; their children also, belonging to the fifth generation, must necessarily be supposed to be excluded from the covenant; and likewise their children, and so on. How then would it be true that the Lord says, he will not extend this curse but to the fourth generation at most?" I answer, with all deference to that judicious man, there is no absurdity in this consequence that he draws from the opinion of those that differ from him; yea, the threatening itself obligeth us to believe it, it being supposed they are still wicked one after another: for surely even the fifth generation, in the case supposed, are the children of those that hate God, and so liable to the threatening; only the fifth generation, according to the threat, hath not the sins of any of the former, but the fourth remembered against them in the punishment: and so on, till we come to the third and fourth generation again: whereby the Lord shews himself indeed slow to wrath, but abundant in goodness; while, on the other hand, the mercy promised extends to thousands. And thus we see how it remains true, that God will not extend this curse beyond the fourth generation, that is, visiting the iniquities of grandfathers upon the children. But nevertheless, if there should be thousands of quaternions of wicked generations, the denial of the mercy should be carried down through them all, according to the threatening. If the learned man mean, that we cannot refuse, according to our interpretation, to allow the fifth generation of successively wicked persons the seal of the covenant; I deny any such thing follows, but the contrary, as was cleared before. But if he take that to be true, it deserves consideration, how that can agree with God's dispensation, in visiting the iniquities of the fathers on the children among the Jews, sixteen hundred years and upwards; not to speak of the pagan nations. It can no more be inferred from thence, then, that God will not give the mercy to more than thousands of them that love him. But when God minds the mercy we speak of, either to the fourth or fifth generation, the mercy, I say, of
visible right to the first seal of the covenant in their infancy, we may expect he will deal with the third or fourth so as to make way for it.
ARGUMENT 2. From the promise. If the mercy promised belongs only to the immediate seed of godly parents, then children derive their visible right to the ordinance of baptism from their immediate, not from their mediate parents; the former is true: Ergo, the reason of the consequence is, because a visible right to the first seal of the covenant is comprehended in this mercy, whatever more it include; which I need not stand to prove, till the arguing of the orthodox from this text, against Anabaptists, be invalidated. The assumption I have already proven by three reasons. And I shall now add a fourth from the scope of the words. The scope plainly is this: that seeing it is natural for parents to desire the prosperity and happiness of their seed, and the evil that cometh on their children, especially by their means, is afflicting and heavy to them; therefore, as they would not ruin the fruit of their bodies, they should take heed that they depart not from the way of God's commandments; and as they would have their children to enjoy the mercy of God, they would shew themselves to be lovers of God, and keepers of his commandments. That this is the scope of the place, is past doubt with me. This the learned man before mentioned doth grant.* "If then," says he, "their children be dear to them, at least on their account let them not revolt from the true worship of God to idolatry. Surely this is the end of this commination." But how the contrary opinion agrees with the scope, I cannot see. Now, let us consider the Israelites to whom the law was immediately given. It is pleaded, that the open wickedness of immediate parents among them did not take away this mercy from their seed; but they derived their visible right to the seal from the holy root, which was Abraham alone, or Isaac and Jacob also. But these holy men were dead long before, so that there was no need to stir them up to keep God's commandments, being then in glory: and as for that generation of adult persons, it could have no influence on them, being so understood; what needed they fear the threat, seeing their infants were already secured from any harm they could do them, seeing they were the remote seed of the godly? The promise could have no influence on them either; seeing, by virtue thereof, however holy they were, their infants could have no advantage they had not before, from Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. So that
the threatening and promise both are rendered quite useless to them, and could have no tendency to the stirring up of them to a holy life; unless their fearing where no fear was, and hoping where there was no ground, could have efficacy on them. The same way is it rendered useless to us Gentiles, supposing once that we have had but one godly remote parent. I see no way to evite this, unless we say, that the mercy promised has no respect to a visible right to the seal of the covenant, and so gratify the Anabaptists; or deny this to be the scope of the place. Either of which they may venture on, that will; I dare not. It is in vain to say that the mercy in the promise comprehends many particular mercies; and though that one was secured to them as the children of remote godly parents, yet there might be some others that the children might meet with, through the holy life of their immediate parents. For, though it might be, that they should have many mercies, through the holy life of their immediate parents; yet none at all by virtue of this promise, which they had not before by their remote parents: for though the mercy promised comprehend ten thousand particular mercies, they are all in that one word made over to the children of those that love God; and if these be the remote parents, in the supposed case, then they are all made over unto the remote seed of the godly, though the immediate seed of wicked ones, as upon the account of the remote parents. But nothing can be more agreeable to the scope, than to understand it only of the immediate seed of godly parents: and it is easy to perceive what an incentive to a holy life it must needs be to every parent. It is very probable it would scar many from their open wickedness, if it were duly pressed doctrinally, and followed accordingly in the way of discipline. And I am truly apprehensive, that the blunting of the edge of this threat and promise, is one of the pillows of the security of our day, and fills our congregations with so many people as would not be tolerated in a well ordered commonwealth. I will add yet
ARGUMENT 3. From the threat and promise jointly considered. If the children of openly wicked immediate parents may be acknowledged by the church to have a right to the seal of the covenant, on the account of their remote godly parents, as well as the children of godly immediate parents; then the church should make no difference betwixt the children of those that love God, and those that hate him: but that ought not to be so. For where God in his word hath made a difference, the church ought
to do so too; for in all things revealed we are bound to follow God's judgment: but such practice seems to thwart with it, as the text shews; God having put so manifest a difference betwixt them, that he will visit the iniquities of the fathers upon the one, and shew mercy to the other. It seems then, we ought to separate betwixt the precious and the vile, put difference between the holy and profane, even in this case. Let none say, they know not who are the precious, who the vile, amongst infants. Here is God's revelation of his mind, for the terror of the wicked, that he will visit their iniquities on their children. If the Lord be pleased to bring elect vessels out of the loins of openly wicked parents, and of his free grace to give them his Holy Spirit, as no doubt he may do, and many times actually doth; yet de occultis non judicat ecclesia. We are to wait till we see the same evidenced by their personal carriage; and in the meantime, we go according to the plainly revealed word, leaving secret things unto the Lord: even as we are to look on the seed of visible believers as visible saints, and to deal with them as such, till by their walk they manifest the contrary. Wherefore, there is no ground to say, as Zanchy,* "that this is repugnant to God's eternal election, seeing that many times elect children are born of wicked parents and idolatrous reprobates." What though they be elected, we have no evidence of it; without which, as to us, it is as if it were not. Truly, if this should hold good, there is no infants of the most barbarous savages in the world but have a right to baptism; for who knows but they are elected, and in due time will be called? But I suppose, in admitting to baptism, the church looks to the party's being in Christ, and having the Spirit; not to his election immediately or solely; for even the elect may be for a time dogs and swine, not fit subjects of sealing ordinances. If any say, that they do make a difference betwixt those children requiring sponsors, in order to the administrating of the seal to the children of openly wicked parents; I answer, 1. I wish it were so ordinarily, that sponsors were required for the children of such parents as are not themselves visible believers. 2. If the godly parents die before the child's baptism, where is the difference? But, 3. There is no difference at all in point of right to the ordinance and church state: for still the one as well as the other is supposed to have right to the ordinance as such a seed; and the children of the godly are not baptized without sponsors either.
ARGUMENT IV. If the children be unclean, unless the unbelieving husband be sanctified by the believing wife, or the unbelieving wife be sanctified by the believing husband, then the children derive their right to baptism from their immediate parents; the former is true: Ergo, All this is clear from the testimony of the apostle, 1 Cor. 7:14. "For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now they are holy." So that the apostle plainly turns this matter of the children's holiness, and consequently of their right to the ordinance, on the state of the immediate parents, as the only hinge of it coram ecclesia. I do easily perceive an exception that will be entered against this argument by those that differ, to wit, that in this case there were no remote parents from whom the children could derive their right; these immediate parents being once both pagans, come of pagan parents, though now the father or mother was a believer; and so can make no general rule. ANSWER. Grant these parents to whose case the apostle applies this, were all come of mere pagans; which nevertheless will be impossible to prove, but that some of them might be the children of parents proselyted to the Jewish church; yet the rule that the apostle lays down here, is a general rule for all such cases wherein a believer is yoked with an unbeliever, "For the unbelieving —is sanctified: else were your children unclean," &c. This, I think, cannot be denied. Let us then suppose the believing, wife, a daughter of a believer, but the wife of an unbeliever: such a case not only may be, but no doubt has been. It is no strange thing to imagine an unbeliever to profess faith and repentance, and that to gain marriage with a believing woman; and thereafter to turn back again to infidelity, and that openly, when he has accomplished his design: yea, it is very supposable, and like unto the Lord's dealing in his ordinary dispensation of grace, that there were some in Corinth in that case, the father and the daughter called, but her husband left to remain in infidelity, or vice versa. In this case then, I ask, Whether or no the children of the believer and unbeliever should be holy, and have right to the seal of the covenant, though the unbelieving husband were not sanctified by the believing wife? If you say, they should be holy, as you must say, while so much stress is laid on a child's being the remote seed of the godly, (for so the child is in the supposed case), then you plainly contradict the apostle, teaching that unless the unbelieving husband were sanctified by the believing wife, the children
were unclean, not holy. If you say, they should not be holy, unless the unbelieving husband were sanctified by the believing wife, then you plainly derive the child's right from the immediate parent, and acknowledge that the piety of the remote parent giveth not a visible right to the ordinance unto the child; which is the very thing we plead for. Moreover, let us suppose amongst these Corinthians a believing father, his daughter a wife, and her husband, both unbelievers; which I think is a very rational supposition: I ask, whether or not their children be holy? If they be holy, then I would know what children under heaven are unholy. If they be not, then the piety of remote parents doth not evidence their seed to be holy, and infants derive not their right from godly remote parents. We have a case in the Old Testament which we shall consider here: Ezra. 10:3. "Now therefore let us make a covenant with our God, to put away all the strange wives, and such as are born of them." ver. 16. "And the children of the captivity did so." ver. ult. "And some of them had wives by whom they had children." Now, I would know whether or not those children born to the Jews of their strange wives, were holy children, and had right to the seal of the covenant? If they were, it is strange they should put away their holy children, or that the fierce wrath of the Lord should go out against them for keeping such a holy generation. This looks not very like God's way, to put out of his church a holy seed. To say they were to be put away because they rejected the covenant of God, is gratis dictum; surely some of them were not capable to reject the covenant. Yet those children put away, were the remote seed of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as much as Boaz, whom Salmon begat of Rahab a Canaanite; and Obed, whom Boaz begat of Ruth the Moabitess, and many others. These two are expressly owned by Matthew to be the children of Abraham, Matth. 1:2. 5: yet were not these children holy; and consequently, some of the children of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, were not holy; and that though born within the visble church: which, I think, should go far to prove the main point now under consideration, How was it then that they were unclean, and not holy? I know no other reason can be given, but that their mothers were not sanctified to their fathers for bringing forth of a holy seed. The contrary whereof was in the case of the Corinthians; which still hangs all on the state of the immediate parents. Whatever disparity be betwixt these two cases, here is all we are seeking after, viz. children come of godly remote parents, born within the church likewise, as that
phrase is commonly used, yet unholy, having no right to the seal of the covenant, because of the state of their immediate parents. And if a thousand differences betwixt these two cases should be produced, so long as they agree in the point for which they are adduced, the cause is safe.
ARGUMENT V. ult. A cursed seed have no right to the seal of the covenant; but the children of openly wicked immediate parents, though they be the remote seed of the godly, are a visibly cursed seed. This is plain from Deut. 28:18. where God tells the Israelites, even the seed of Abraham, that "if they did not hearken to the voice of the Lord, to observe to do all his commandments, the fruit of their body should be cursed." Hence it follows, that children's right to the seal of the covenant is derived only from their immediate parents, not from their remote parents: for, notwithstanding of the holiness of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, God will curse their remote seed, because of their immediate parents' wickedness. Now, whom God has declared in his word to be cursed, they are visibly cursed; which is inconsistent with a right to a sealing ordinance, as I shall afterwards prove, when I come to improve this argument further. And so much for the proof of infants deriving their right to church privileges, or to the sacrament of baptism coram ecclesia, from their immediate parents only.
I come now to offer some arguments to prove that none but the children of visible believers, or such as make a credible profession, have right before the church, or a visible right, to the sacrament of baptism. Having fixed the former point, viz. that infants derive their visible right to baptism, from their immediate, not their remote parents; now the question is, Whether or not it be necessary, in order to the child's visible right to baptism, that one of the immediate parents be a visible believer, or have a probable or credible profession? We offer the following arguments for the affirmative.
ARGUMENT I. If no infants but those whereof one of the parents do commend themselves and their seed to the church, either by their conversation, or by their baptism, have right before the church to that ordinance; then no children but those whereof one of the parents is a visible believer, have a visible right to the same; the antecedent is true: Ergo, the consequent also. The truth of the antecedent is acknowledged,
at least by some of those that differ, while they do necessarily require that it appear to the church, that one of the parents have been baptized, otherwise the children can have no visible right to the ordinance; though indeed they think this sufficient to entitle their children to baptism, though their walk be not as becomes the gospel in any tolerable measure. I suppose those learned men that do require the evidence of the baptism of one of the parents, understand it as the minimum quod sit, that the church can be satisfied in this matter with nothing less than this; though albeit this were wanting, if the parents commend themselves and their seed to the church, by a credible profession, or holy conversation, in the sight of men, they would look on this as giving their infants a visible right to the seal. If it be not understood thus, I cannot yield to it. I doubt not but in some cases, the administrator of baptism may have greater clearness to baptize the child of an unbaptized person, than of many that are certainly known to have been baptized. The child of such a parent may have a visible right to baptism; for it is plain, that an unbaptized parent may have faith and repentance, and that so as they may sufficiently appear to the church to be believers and penitent, while in the meantime there is not the least shadow of those things in many that are baptized. Now, by faith the soul is entered into covenant with God; and at the same time the parent is taken into covenant, his seed also is brought into the covenant: whence it appears, that both parent and child have a visible right to baptism, antecedently to the baptism of the parent. So these converts, Acts 2 they had visible right to baptism before they were baptized, and this by reason of their probable profession; which also gave their children a visible right thereto as soon as they themselves had it. So, put the case such parents should have died before they were baptized, it could not have robbed the children of their visible right which they had before to the seal of the covenant. Yea, I suppose, the truth of the antecedent is yielded by them all, viz. That one of these two, either the baptism, or else a visible godly conversation of one of the parents, is necessary to the child's visible right to baptism. As for those that go to the remote parents for the child's right, we are agreed in that the visible piety of parents is necessary. Only they say, the piety of the remote parents is necessary; we say, it is the immediate parent, as has been proven. Others express themselves thus, that the children of such as are probably judged within the covenant, have right to baptism. Now, this probable judgment
must needs proceed upon one of the two things mentioned. And as for those who say, that the infants of wicked parents being born within the church, have right to baptism, I think it is plain they mean by that, born of baptized parents. Either they mean it so, or that it is the place of their birth that gives them this privilege. I could scarcely have thought any could have been so absurd as to have affirmed the latter. Yet I find one zealous assertor of the real and visible title that the children of openly wicked parents have to baptism, tells us,* that there are many arguments urged by divines for it, that to him were never yet satisfactorily answered; whereof this is one: "That such children have their right supplied from the holiness of the place or people wherein they are born." I wish he had told us what divines those are that urge this argument. I doubt if he can shew us any of whom he will have much credit, that ever asserted such a thing. He might have left out the people here, for there are none born in people, but in the place where a holy people lives: but by this addition he seems to answer a question arising from his own words, which I fancy would puzzle many great divines; and that is, How a place now under the gospel dispensation is made holy, especially so holy that the very birth of an infant in it gives it a real title and visible right to the holy ordinance of baptism? ANSWER. There is a holy people lives in that place. But I would propose more questions still upon the back of that. What holiness is that that a holy people communicate to the spot of ground where they live? And what is the way how they make it holy? And by virtue of what appointment of God is it that English ground is holy, where a holy people lives? And whether or not we may suffer pagans to come in, and defile our holy place with their unclean feet? And how came it that the land of Egypt and Babylon were not made holy places, seeing they were places where God's holy people lived for many years? Why had not the Egyptian and Babylonish infants a right to circumcision from the holiness of the place and people wherein they are born? No doubt, if this learned man had been living in the seventh century, when Augustine came from the Bishop of Rome, and called the Britons to help him in the conversion of the Saxons that were heathens, he would have thought their answer very unmannerly, (as indeed it cannot be approven), viz. that they were not obliged to preach to their enemies, seeing the Saxons had spoiled them of their lands, and did still continue to prey upon them: but he would offhand not only have preached to them, but baptized their infants, in
regard of the holiness of the place and people wherein they lived: for, besides the ancient inhabitants, the queen was a Christian, and had her preacher; and the king was converted too afterwards by means of Augustine, and no doubt he did not aloue embrace the Christian religion. But enough of this. Paul used another way of arguing, 1 Cor. 7:14. "For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy;" though these infants were born in a place where God had a church. And I do not think we shall find many to conclude, if a pagan woman were cast out upon our coast, and brought forth a child, that ipso facto the child should have a right to baptism. But I proceed to prove the sequel of the major thus: The baptism of a parent that hath no credible profession, or is an openly wicked person, is not sufficient to commend himself to the church, or to commend his seed to her, for the seal of the covenant; Ergo, the sequel stands good. For if one of these two, the baptism, or the credible profession of the parent, be necessary to this end, then it clearly follows, that if his baptism be insufficient to that end, and yet he have no credible profession, his child hath no visible right to baptism: and so none but the children of visible believers are thus privileged. I prove the antecedent. That baptism that ought to be looked upon as unprofitable and non-baptism, cannot commend a man's seed to the church, as having visible right to baptism; but that baptism which is without a credible profession, ought to be looked upon as unprofitable and non-baptism: Ergo, the proposition is clear. The assumption I shall prove by the following reasons.
REASON I. The apostle tells us expressly, Rom. 2:25. "Circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision." I hope those that differ will allow us to argue from circumcision to baptism; and will easily acknowledge, that we may say the same concerning baptism, Baptism verily profiteth, &c.* Ursin, arguing for the necessity of church discipline, among other reasons gives this for it, "Those that are not yet baptized, must not be admitted to the supper; but baptism is not baptism to those that fall away from their baptism, Rom. 2:25. Ergo," I hope none will think he is arguing for the necessity of church disipline to be exercised against Turks, pagans, and Jews; but the openly wicked of whom we
speak; as is manifest from what he says in the same page. It is evident the apostle speaks here of the openly wicked Jews, who had the outward sign of circumcision, but a profane conversation; as is clear from the preceding verses. So that ver. 24. be plainly tells them, "the name of God was blasphemed among the Gentiles, because of them," (as it is in our case); which manifestly argues open wickedness, with a profession of religion. Yet because of their circumcision they valued themselves highly; but the apostle shews them they had no profit of it, but their circumcision was by their profane life made uncircumcision. "He answers," says a learned commentator* on the place, "That the outward sacramental symbols profit nothing without good life and manners; without which circumcision differs nothing from uncircumcision; that is, a Jew differs nothing from a heathen." If then God in his word hath pronounced the circumcision of openly wicked persons to be unprofitable and uncircumcision, and so hath declared his mind concerning the baptism of openly wicked Christians; the church ought to look upon it to be such as God hath declared it to be, that is, unprofitable and non-baptism. If this hold good, it says much to the point. I shall consider what exceptions may possibly be entered against it, so far as they occur to me.
EXCEPTION 1. It would follow then, that such should be re-baptized when they repent. ANSWER. I deny it would follow, more than that those to whom circumcision became uncircumcision by their profane life, ought to have been circumcised again upon their repentance; which was never done: and yet this was no new, but the good old way, that the apostle lays down here. Although, as Christ teacheth, by excommunication a man is made to be as a heathen; yet the re-baptizing of an excommunicated person upon his repentance, is not urged. I say then, with Ursin, in answer to the same objection, that "reception by baptism is ratified to penitents, even without the iteration of the sign." Indeed, if baptism were of the kind of physical causes, this exception might possibly have some force; for when a physical cause is unprofitable, and as good as none, there must be a new application, or else the effect is not produced; as when a plaster is laid to a sore, if it be unprofitable, and as good as none, there must needs be a new application made, or the party cannot be healed. But baptism is no physical cause, but a moral cause; which, though unprofitable, and as good as none to a person sometimes; yet,
without a new application, it may become profitable: As suppose a seal were appended to a blank paper, even the king's seal, and given to a man, what is he the better of it, what doth it profit? nothing at all: but if the king shall write on that paper a grant of a pension, then it profits indeed. But you see plainly there needs no iteration of the sign. The application is easy.
EXCEPTION 2. The apostle means, that circumcision profits nothing to justification, though otherwise it may. I answer, Non distinguendum ubi lex non distinguit. The apostle simply, without any limitation, pronounceth, That circumcision profiteth nothing, if a man be a breaker of the law. To which that is a plain contradiction, Circumcision profiteth something, though a man be a breaker of the law. Yea, he tells them roundly, it is uncircumcision, and therefore unprofitable, not only to justification, but to all intents and purposes. And I think it can scarcely be denied by any that considers the apostle's discourse, but that hereby he levels the openly wicked Jews with the heathens in point of circumcision, so that the one had as much real profit of it as the other, that is, none at all. Yet further, I do indeed believe, that the great thing the apostle is aiming at in these chapters, is justification by the free grace of God; and to this end, he endeavours, in this chapter, to beat down the boasting of the wicked Jews, (as, in the next chapter, he proves all, both Jews and others, to be guilty before God): for effecting of which, he lays out before them their vicious lives so unanswerable to the written law that God gave them; which has a native tendency to his main scope and design: and withal tells them, that their circumcision would not cover their wickedness. But notwithstanding of that, they were wicked men still, as he clearly shews, vers. 28, 29. "For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly:—But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly," &c. But I see no reason to understand the words of the text we are now upon, as the exception gives it, viz. That it profiteth nothing to justification, but in that respect is uncircumcision. Read the whole text accordingly; and I suppose we may find the weakness, yea and unsoundness of this exception. "For circumcision verily profiteth to justification, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision in point of justification." Now, by justification here, is either meant justification by free grace, or justification by works. If justification by the
free grace of God, according to the covenant of grace, be meant; how does circumcision profit to it? has that any hand in our justification? If justification by works, according to the old covenant, then I ask, by what appointment of God was ever circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of faith, made profitable for justification by works? Let any such appointment be produced, and then we shall see the law and the gospel confounded. Wherefore, though a man should keep the law of works, circumcision could profit him nothing to justfication: yea, possibly I may say, if he should go about it as a piece of God's worship, it should contribute to his condemnation, in regard it is no part of the law of works, and therefore to him should be will worship. And so, if any shall say, that though circumcision was never appointed to be a seal of the covenant of works, yet it might profit as a commanded duty, and as an act of obedience to the law of works; I confidently deny it, that it could be an act of obedience to the law of works; that could ever profit that way. And the reason is, because God never commanded it to be used but as a seal of the righteousness of faith: nor did it ever belong, before God, to any but such as were in the covenant of grace with him; nor, before the church, to any but such as were visibly in that covenant. The law and grace have two distinct dominions, Rom. 6:14; so that receiving of circumcision could no more be an act of obedience to the law of works, than the obeying of a particular law of the kingdom of England, can be an act of obedience to the law of Scotland, though both kingdoms be under one sovereign. Only I desire it to be noticed, that when I deny that the receiving, of circumcision could be an act of obedience to the law of works, I deny it only in the sense it is asserted in the instance against our answer to the exception; that is, that it could be an act of obedience to the law of works profiting to justification, thereby, as a part of a law righteousness; which is the plain sense of the instance. The reason why I add this caution, is this, because I am of opinion, that where the covenant of grace is revealed, and it is revealed only to lost sinners, and they are called to enter this covenant, and consequently to receive the seal of it; those sinners being under the covenant of works, as to its commanding and threatening power, though the promise of it is weak through the flesh, are, by virtue of that covenant and law of works, obliged to believe, accept of the covenant of grace, and to receive the seals thereof, and so to get out from that covenant of works. In this respect, to receive the seal of the
covenant of grace, is a remote act, at least, of obedience to the law of works, but not at all profiting as a part of our righteousness before God, or profiting to justification by that law. I cannot indeed apprehend how the covenant of works does not oblige every one that is under it to obey whatsoever God shall command them to do; so that, supposing a call to receive Christ made to one under the law, he is obliged by the law to receive Christ, and to submit to the law of Christ, which commands men to receive the seals of the covenant of grace, whosoever they be that are under it: and therefore I cannot deny but thus it is a remote act of obedience to the law of works, to receive the seals of the covenant of grace, in so far as it obligeth them to submit to Christ, whose law particularly enjoins this; though indeed the law of works leaves the soul as soon as it is in Christ, they dying to it, and it to them. The law then that the apostle speaks of here, I conceive to be the ten commands, as they are the law of Christ; to which obedience is performed only in point of sanctification. And thus indeed these persons might be profited by circumcision, if they did evidence their faith in, and love to Christ, by sincere keeping of his law; circumcision being a seal of the covenant of grace; and their keeping of the law sincerely, an infallible token that they were within the bond of that covenant, and had right to all the promises of it; the accomplishment whereof is confirmed by the seal. But while they, by their loose walk and wickedness, evidenced their hypocrisy, and that they were but Jews outwardly and in name, they were not a whit profited by circumcision.
EXCEPTION 3. This is understood of their circumcision before the Lord, not before the church. ANSWER. That cannot be proven from the text. But let it be so: Then, 1. I say, seeing God makes account of everything as it is in itself, for his judgment is according to truth, then their baptism who are profane in their lives, profiteth nothing, but their circumcision is made uncircumcision. 2. Seeing God hath not kept his judgment of it secret, but hath revealed the same in his word, so as every one may read what account he makes of it, it necessarily follows, that the church must account so of it, unless men may take liberty to let their judgment go another way than God's mind revealed, and look on them quite another way than God tells us he looks upon them.
EXCEPTION 4. The apostle plainly teacheth the profit of circumcision, chap. 3:1, 2. "What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision?" Much every way. For answer to this, we must take notice, that there are here two distinct questions, which are so many objections, of the Jews against his doctrine. He had in the former chapter levelled them with the heathens, and reckoned their circumcision for uncircumcision; he easily perceives the Jews would take this very ill, and therefore brings them in here with two questions in their mouths; the first, "What advantage hath the Jew?" the second, "or what profit is there of circumcision?" To the first of these, the apostle answers by way of concession, "Much every way," ver. 2. to wit, in respect of God, who had given them many things which were indeed advantageous in themselves; which things he had not given to the heathens: but not in respect of themselves; for they were no advantages to them, no advantages eventually. And so again, in this chapter, he puts the Jews and Gentiles in the same balance, by testimony from the Psalms. So that it is a kind of ironical concession, used also by the apostle towards these same persons, chap. 2:17, 18, 19, 20. As if he should say: "Ye have indeed much advantage every way, I confess: for unto you were committed the oracles of God; God gave you the revelation of his mind and will, when the poor heathens were left to walk in darkness, having nothing to guide them but the dim light of nature; but so much the more miserable are ye, and the greater shall your condemnation be, while ye walk as ye do." As for the second question, it is not here answered; but that "much every way" belongs allenarly to the first, which the words in the original plainly hold forth, which are these: Ti oun to perisson tou loudaiou, e tis he apheleia tes peritomes? Polu kata panta tropon. Polu, viz, to perisson But the second question he answers, chap. 4:11; where he tells them, what profit there is of circumcision,* and to whom it was profitable. Both these he sheweth in the person of Abraham, of whose fatherhood they boasted; "And he received circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of faith which he had yet before being uncircumcised." That is the profit of circumcision, that it seals the righteousness of faith; but it profits only those that have received and submitted to that righteousness: to the wicked it profits no more than a seal to set a blank. So that the argument stands good notwithstanding of these exceptions.
REASON II. The baptism of those persons to which the characters given by the Spirit of God in the Scriptures appear not to agree, ought to be reputed unprofitable, and their circumcision is uncircumcision; but such is the baptism of those who have no credible profession: Ergo, the major is plain: for no baptism but the Scripture baptism can be reputed profitable; and the Scripture characters of baptism must needs agree to Scripture baptism. The minor will appear if we take a view of some Scriptures speaking of baptism. Mark 1:4.—"the baptism of repentance, for the remission of sins." Matth. 28:19. "Disciple all nations, baptizing them," &c. Mark 16:16. "He that believeth and is baptized." Acts 2:38. "Repent and be baptized, for the remission of sins." Acts 22:16. "Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins," or, "be washed from thy sins," as some read it,* and the words will bear, kai aplousai tas hamartias sou. Gal. 3:27. "As many of you as have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ." 1 Pet. 3:21—"Baptism doth also now save us; not the putting away of the filth of the flesh." "For many are externally washed only, [which is the use of baptism not lawful, qui est usus baptismi non legitimus); few, so as they may call on God with a good conscience." Pareus in loc. "This purifying of the conscience is opposed indeed to washing simply carnal, but not to the sacrament of baptism; for to the entireness of baptism (ad integritatem baptismi) both concur the external and the internal washing, not one of them only; and when any hath received it worthily, that answer of a good conscience towards God is joined." Hoornbeek. Now, let it be considered how these things agree to the baptism of those that have no credible profession: What visible agreement is there betwixt them? nay, what visible disagreement is there not? If any shall say, that such persons profess all these things; I shall reply with the same learned man, speaking of the same Scriptures, Nunquid illa non plus dicunt quam nudam aliquam a nobis factum professionem?
REASON III. That baptism which the church cannot look upon as a seal of the righteousness of faith to him that hath it, they ought to make no account of it, but look on it as unprofitable; but such is the baptism of him that hath no credible profession: Ergo, the proposition is evident, if ye consider, that baptism is a sacrament of the covenant of grace, and all the sacraments of the covenant of grace, whether under the Old or New Testament, agree in this, that they are seals of the righteousness of faith.
Now, it is an undeniable maxim, Negato genere tollitur species; That which I cannot look upon as an animal, I cannot look on as a man. That baptism which is not a seal of the righteousness of faith, is non-baptism; and how can that baptism be profitable that sealeth not that which baptism is appointed of God to seal? The assumption I prove also: Where the church cannot look on a man as privileged with the righteousness of faith, they cannot look on his baptism as sealing the righteousness of faith to him; but so it is in the present case, where the person makes no probable or credible profession: Ergo, the assumption is clear, and the proposition also; for the having of the thing sealed is pre-supposed to the seal, as was said before. If they repent, it becometh indeed a seal to them, but otherwise it doth not. This I apprehend to be the truth. We have heard Pareus' judgment, that the bare outward washing, which is all that many get, is the unlawful use of baptism. Ursin tells us,* "The sacraments are no sacraments to them that have no true faith. Therefore," says he, "they are mad that say unbelievers receive, together with the signs, the things signified by the signs." And a little after he thus argues: "To whom nothing is promised in the word, to him the sacraments seal nothing. To the wicked nothing is promised in the word; therefore the sacraments seal nothing to the wicked." The learned Witsius teacheth us thus: "Baptism confers nothing on such [viz. to whom it belongs not stricto jure]; no grace, no salvation doth it signify or seal, no more than a piece of wax, adorned indeed with an elegant character, but appended to clean paper, on which nothing is written, and to be written; or, if you will, appended to a paper bespattered every where with so exceeding great blots, that no good can be written on it." It must be observed, that this very learned man is of opinion, that all federate elect infants are regenerated before baptism. That I dare not say; but, with the generality as I suppose of the orthodox, I think they are, in the judgment of charity, to be looked on as such, and that baptism is conferred to them as visible saints. Now, that opinion made the learned man to express himself so, "On which nothing is written, and to be written." And concerning adult persons, he tells us, "It cannot be that any adult person may well be baptized, but he that believeth." So that it is plain, according to him, baptism seals nothing to the unregenerate. Mr. Baxter gives us his judgment in the point thus: "Baptism is ordained to signify and seal, and thereby confer remission of sins; but not to all that have right in the
judgment of the church to be baptized; but only to those that have right to it before God, and to whom his word doth first give remission; that is, not to all whom we must baptize, as being probably true believers, but only to those that have true right to baptism and its benefits, as being true believers indeed." And if we would hear again who have right to baptism before God, he tells us elsewhere, "It is only solid true faith which is the condition of the promise of remission; therefore it is that only that gives right in foro Dei to the seal." But how, notwithstanding of all this, he condemns as an error in Mr. Tombes the following proposition, I do not understand. The proposition is,* "Every right administration of baptism is not God's sealing: actually God sealeth not, but when it is administered to a believer: it may be called a right act of the administrator according to God's appointment, but not God's sealing." We see here Mr. Tombes speaks plainly of the administration of baptism in respect of the administrator, not of the party to whom it is administered. I confess I incline very much to Mr. Tombes' error in this point; and so much the more freely, that I think, by what is said, it appears to be the judgment of others of more entire fame than he. Once more hear the learned Witsius. "Indeed," says he, "the administrators of holy things, who must act about every one from the judgment of charity alone, cannot distinguish the elect from the non-elect; and in so far they are not at all faulty (atque hactenus nihil peccant) if perhaps they baptize even them to whom baptism is not due stricto jure." And a little before: "If we consider the most strict right to baptism, it agrees to none but the elect in very deed and in the judgment of God." And who would think but Mr. Baxter himself had fallen afterwards into the same error with Mr. Tombes, at least when he says, "We ought to baptise them though they have no true right to baptism, because we are to take all for true believers that make a probable profession." Is not that a right act of the administrator which he ought to do, and must do? And yet, as he himself says, baptism is ordained to seal remission of sins, but not to all whom we must baptise. I hope none will say, God seals by baptism what he did not, or where he did not ordain it to seal. It would seem then very consequential to infer Mr. Tombes' conclusion from these premises. Mr. Baxter says indeed, in confutation of this position of Mr. Tombes, "That it is only the conditional promise which God sealeth by the sacraments, 'If thou believe in the Lord Jesus, thou shalt be saved.' " Possibly then one may think,