xii. 3.—_In thee shall all families of the earth be blessed. And 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. _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, _ver._ 12. _He that
is_ eight days old _shall be circumcised among you, every_ man-_child
in your generations; he that is born in the house_, or bought with
money of any stranger, _which is not of thy seed_. _ver._ 24-27. _And
Abraham was_ ninety years old and nine, _when he was circumcised in
the flesh of his foreskin. And Ishmael his son was_ thirteen years
old, _when he was circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin. In the_
self-same day _was Abraham circumcised, and Ishmael his son. And_ all
the men of his house, _born in the house, and_ bought with money of
the stranger, _were circumcised with him_. Hence we learn,
The _nature_ and _extent_ of the _Abrahamic covenant or promise_.
Whatever _blessings_ are _promised_ to ruined man, must be _in virtue_
of the covenant of grace. All promised blessings, therefore, must
_imply_ an _exhibition_ of _gospel grace_. And the glad tidings of
salvation through Christ preached to the _gentile world_, is expressly
called—_The blessing of Abraham_ (Gal. iii. 14.) Not that this _link_
is the _first_ in the chain of exhibited mercy to the fallen race _in
general_, or with an universal and unlimited aspect, if the reasoning
in the last sections be just: but for its _explicitness_, and
_precious_ (because expressly diffusive) intendment, it may be justly
termed a _golden link_. In this respect Abraham may well be
styled—_The Father of us all_; not to the disavowal of Noah, with whom
the covenant was before ratified, or Eve, who received the _first_
intimation of it, and who in _this_ respect eminently may be
called—_The mother of all living_. The _covenant_ of grace, in its
external manifestation, containing _an exhibition of exceeding great
and precious promises_ to every human being on the face of the globe,
to whom providence directs the joyful news, may be compared to a
flowing stream: it proceeds ultimately from the immense ocean of
sovereign grace in Christ; its _first_ visible source we trace to
paradise, where it rises in a small spring, and glides on to Noah.
During this part of its progress, there were but few comparatively who
participated of its cleansing and healing virtues, though none were
debarred from it. This continuing to glide along, without
interruption, (notwithstanding God’s awful visitation of a corrupt
world by the deluge) we discern through the person of Noah _another_
source, whence is poured forth a second stream which empties itself
into the former channel. The streams thus _united_ become a river,
which flows on to Abraham—a river to which _all_ are invited, but
_few_ come, and these made willing by the omnipotent energy of _divine
influence_ which observes the laws of another—a _hidden_ dispensation,
running parallel as it were with the former; which was also the case
in the preceding period. Then, through the highly honoured person of
Abraham we behold another mighty spring copiously pouring forth the
waters of salvation, and again uniting itself to the former river; and
from him to Christ, with a wide majestic flow, it proceeds along the
consecrated channel of the Jewish nation; gradually increasing by the
accession of other streams, till it arrives at the Saviour’s finished
work; where, impatient of confinement, it breaks over its banks on
every side, and the healing waters flow to the most distant
regions—_That the blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles_.
(Gal. iii. 14, 8. compared with Gen. xii. 3. xviii. 18. xxii. 18.)
Paul expressly says, that “the _Gospel_” (even the very same as the
New Testament contains—_salvation by Grace_) “was preached to
Abraham:” And (Heb. iv. 2.) it was preached to his unbelieving
descendants in the wilderness.
As it is _natural_ to expect, that whatever exhibition of privileges
the parents enjoyed should be extended to their children, in common
with themselves; so we find that _in fact_ they are _expressly
included_ in _this_ dispensation as well as the preceding. The
covenant is established between God and Abraham’s _seed, in the very
same sense_ as with Abraham _himself_; the essence of which is—_to be
a God to him and his seed_. And lest it should be objected that the
term _seed_ refers to his _adult posterity_ who should tread in his
steps, to the exclusion of infants, all doubt is dissipated by the
appointment of applying the _seal_ of the covenant in early infancy.
_Sacrifices_ continuing in full force to _seal_ the covenant, till the
divine oblation should be made; and the _bow_ of the covenant
continuing as a token and _seal_ of it, until the Messiah’s _second_
coming; at the commencement of this period is given an _additional_
seal—_circumcision_. The very _nature_ of the rite shews that all
_females_ are excluded from being the subjects of it; as well as the
discriminating specification—_every man-child_. Here observe in
general, that children, in this rite, have the same privileges as
their parents. The males are treated as Abraham, and the females as
Sarah: _These_ therefore, had the covenant sealed in the same manner
as their honoured mother. Again: though Sarah and her sex were not the
_subjects_ of this rite, they were constant _witnesses_ to the
institution; and therefore there was an important sense in which
circumcision was a seal to Sarah and her daughters; a sense analagous
to that in which sacrifices were.
Every domestic head being, in truth, a prophet, priest, and king, in
his own family; a question must arise, Whether the covenant and its
seals are restricted to the parent head of the family, and his
children, or else extended to the _other domestics_? Nor would the
question be unimportant; for his _instructions_, his _prayers_, and
_commands_, answerable to his three-fold office, must be directed
accordingly. To this question right reason replies: If the covenant
and its seals are _beneficial_ to all capable subjects, benevolence
requires that they should be extended to the other _non-dissenting_
members—except forbidden by indisputable authority. This is the voice
of reason; and we find that this is the voice of God. The privilege is
common to the seed, and _to him that is born in the house, or bought
with money of any stranger_, which is not of the seed, Gen. xvii. 12.
It has been objected, “that the covenant with Abraham was a covenant
of _peculiarity_ only, and that circumcision was no more than a token
of _that_ covenant;” but if so, as Mr. Henry observes, “how came it
that all _proselytes_, of what nation soever, even _the strangers_,
were to be circumcised; though not being of any of the tribes, they
had no part or lot in the land of Canaan? The extending the seal of
circumcision to _proselyted strangers_, and to _their seed_, was a
plain indication, that the New Testament administration of the
covenant of grace would reach, not to the covenanters only, but their
_seed_.” But it has been proved that circumcision _sealed_ to Abraham
and his seed _the righteousness of faith_; and therefore it does not
affect the point in debate to contend that temporal promises were
sealed _also_.
We next appeal to the long and interesting period from Moses to
Christ, On which let the following observations be considered.
Whatever appertained to the Abrahamic covenant was not disannulled by
the Mosaic dispensation. This St. Paul asserts in plain terms, Gal.
iii. 17.
It may not be amiss to take notice, before we proceed, of Job’s
family; who, being as is generally supposed, cotemporary with Moses,
and unconnected with his history, deserves a previous regard. Of him
it is said, that “he _sanctified_ his children, and rose up early in
the morning, and _offered burnt-offerings_, according to the _number
of them all_—Thus did Job _continually_,” or, all the days. (Job i.
5.) On this I would only observe, let the _sanctifying_ be what it
may, the _sacrifices_ must have been of divine institution; and used
by Job, being an eminently righteous man, as the _seals_ of the
covenant of grace; with respect to his children _separately_.
Superadded to the foregoing seals of the covenant, is the _passover_;
a divine rite of the nature of a sacrifice, instituted in memory of
Israel’s deliverance out of Egypt, representing and sealing spiritual
blessings. “As to the _guests_, says Witsius, they were, first, all
native _Israelites_, who were not excluded by legal uncleanness. For
_all the congregation of Israel_ is commanded to solemnize the
passover. And, next, the _Proselytes_ circumcised and become Jews;
whether bondmen born in the house or bought with money, &c. Exod. xii.
48. _When a_ stranger _will sojourn with thee, and keep the passover
to the Lord, let_ all his males _be circumcised, and then let him come
near and keep it, and he shall be as one that is born in the land_.”
On this passage in Exodus, Dr. Jennings observes these two things;
“_First_, That when a man thus became a Proselyte, _all his males_
were to be circumcised _as well as himself_, whereby his _children_
were admitted into the visible church of God, _in his right_, as their
father. _Secondly_, That upon this, he should be _entitled to all the
privileges_ and immunities of the Jewish church and nation as well as
be subject to the whole law: He should be as one born in the land.” In
short; not only men and women, but also young children partook of this
ordinance, _as soon as they were capable_ of answering the revealed
design of it, for—no _positive_ rule was given them on this head, like
that of circumcision. It is manifest that since the injunction
respected not only individuals of such a description, but also
families _as such_, every member without exception had a _legal right_
to the ordinance; and nothing prevented _infants_ from a
participation, but what lay in the _natural_ incapacity to answer the
design of it.
“Besides the _ordinary_ and _universal_ sacraments of _circumcision_
and the _passover_, some _extraordinary_ symbols of divine grace were
granted to the Israelites in the wilderness, which in the New
Testament are applied to Christ and his benefits, and said to have the
same signification with our sacraments. And they are in order
these—The _passage_ in the cloud _through the Red Sea_—the _manna_
which was rained from heaven—The _water_ issuing out of the _rock_—and
the _brazen serpent_ erected by Moses for the cure of the Israelites.”
To this we may add, among other things, with the author now referred
to—the clear and familiar display of the _divine majesty_—and the
adumbration of divine mysteries daily _sealed_ by religious
_ceremonies_. Our subject does not call for an investigation of these
particulars, but I would remark in general, that the principle for
which we contend, is so far from being weakened, that it is abundantly
corroborated by the inspired testimony of every dispensation, and the
Mosaic in particular—That it is a common dictate of right reason,
children should from their earliest infancy share in their parents’
privileges, as far as they are capable, when no positive authority
contravenes it.
From the preceding induction of sacred evidence in favour of children
being sharers of the seals of grace in common with their parents, we
conclude, that for the space of four thousand years, that is to say,
_from the creation to Christ_, it was a rule _universally_ incumbent
on parents to treat their children as entitled to religious privileges
_equally_ with themselves, according to their capacity.—And as a
counterpart of what was observed of privileges, we may remark that, in
virtue of the same uniform principle, often when the parents were
punished with excommunication or death, their infant children were
included with them. As might be instanced in—the deluge—the
destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah—the case of Achan the Son of Zerah
(Josh. vii. 24.)—the matter of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram—the case of
the conquered nations (Deut. xx. 16, 17.)—and many more instances,
down to the destruction of Jerusalem. Far be it from us to suppose,
that the parents’ crimes and impenitence made their suffering children
incapable of _mercy_—that mercy which proceeds on an invisible plan,
and belongs to a purely spiritual dispensation. Yet, that children,
during their _dependence_ on their parents, should share equally with
them in judgment and mercies externally, is the effect of an all-wise
constitution coeval with mankind.
DR. WILLIAMS ON BAPTISM.
Footnote 74:
Tertullian observes on this passage, that if either parent were
christians,, the children were enrolled in Jesus Christ by early
baptism. And it fairly implies infant baptism in the days of Paul.
For, having declared that the unbelieving partner was not to be
divorced according to the law of Moses, which held the heathen to be
unclean; he pronounces the unbelievers set apart by such marriage to
God, as far as regarded that marriage; and in proof of this he refers
to a fact as known to the Corinthians, namely that the children of
such marriages were received into the church, and treated as holy,
that is devoted to God. Now if the children of such marriages were not
treated as heathens, but owned by the church, and this could be in no
other way than by receiving them by baptism, there can be no doubt,
that this was the case when both parents were believers.—Ακαθαρτος &
αλιος never mean _illegitimate_ and _legitimate_; and if they did,
this would be no proof that the unbelieving party was consecrated to
God, so as that the children should be clean and devoted to him.
Footnote 75:
All these scriptures which require faith, that is, the credible
profession of it, to precede baptism, are certainly directed only to
those who are at years capable of it, and not to infants. These
scriptures do not exclude infants whose claim is through the
church-membership of their parents, by which they are not “_unclean_,”
1 Cor. vii. 14. but _holy_, entitled to the promises made to the seed
of Abraham; and also by virtue of the commission to disciple _all
nations_, of which they are a part as much as their believing parents;
and by the practical exposition of that commission in the universal
baptism of infants in the christian churches for the first four
hundred years.
Footnote 76:
It may be objected, “If the preceding account be true, that baptism is
not an institution _merely positive_, as much so as any enacted under
the Mosaic dispensation; then the present economy hath no institutions
at all of that kind.” This objection supposes,
1. That precepts of a positive nature under the Mosaic dispensation,
were absolutely so in all their circumstances; so as not to leave any
thing to be inferred by the person or persons concerned, in the
discharge of the duty enjoined.—But if these things were so, if the
Jewish ritual was so express as to leave nothing to be determined by
inference, one might well wonder whence could spring so many _Targums_
and _Talmuds_, so many voluminous works intended to explain and
illustrate the various circumstances attending the performance of
these _positive duties_ among others. Are not these _unprescribed
circumstances_ of ritual worship, and other positive injunctions, what
in a great degree swell the interpretations of the _Rabbins_?—The
truth is, that there were many precepts under the Jewish economy
positive in a _considerable degree_, relative to the _subject_ as well
as the mode of an institute, and respecting the former, it was
sometimes particularly scrupulous, for reasons already assigned; but
it does not follow that ANY ONE of these were so strictly positive, as
not to take some things for _granted_ respecting the circumstances of
the duty, such as national custom, the common dictates of sense and
reason, traditionary knowledge, the general principles of the law of
nature, &c. And it should not be forgotten, that the administrator of
the Jewish rites had the subjects distinguished and characterized in a
_sensible manner_, which qualification was to be determined by the
same sort of evidence as any _facts_ in common life; but the
administrator of the Christian rites has no such grounds to proceed
on; his commission is of a _discretionary_ nature, arising from the
nature and design of the institutions themselves, as before shewn.
2. The objection again supposes, that there is some _excellency_ in an
institution being merely and absolutely positive, more than in one of
a mixed nature. But this supposition is vain and erroneous. For what
conceivable superior excellency can there be in any precept or duty on
account of its _positiveness_? Were there any force in the objection,
it would imply that the Christian dispensation is _less excellent_
than the Mosaic; as having fewer positive rites, and their proportion
of positiveness being also smaller. And it would also imply, that the
reasonable duties of prayer and praise, as founded on the law of
nature, as well as more fully enjoined by revelation, were _less
excellent_ than baptism and the Lord’s supper; and it would follow,
that the services of the church triumphant are in their own nature
_less excellent_ than those of the church militant; which are
consequences from the force of the objection equally genuine and
absurd. Our Lord’s answer respecting the first and great commandment,
shews at once that what is the most _important_ duty, is also the most
_natural_, and therefore the most remote from what is merely positive;
and that is the _love of God_. This matter has been fully shewn
before. In one word, the spirit of the objection is truly pharisaic.
Some may perhaps object, “that this has been always admitted as true,
that baptism and the Lord’s supper are positive institutions of the
New Testament; and that many pædobaptists have availed themselves of
this fort, in ascertaining the nature and enforcing the obligation of
the latter, and particularly bishop Hoadly. And as his lordship’s
principle, in his _Plain Account of the Sacrament of the Lord’s
Supper_, has been deemed unanswerable, Mr. Foot, Dr. Stennett, and
others, have taken but the same method in treating about baptism.” To
this I reply,
That, as principles taken upon trust, dignified titles, and lawn
sleeves, are light as a feather in the scale of argument; so, on the
other hand, I am satisfied the bishop of Winchester’s positions, taken
in a sound sense, nay, the _only_ consistent sense in which they can
be taken, are evidently true and important. The sum is this; that all
positive duties, or duties made such by institution alone, depend
entirely upon the will and declaration of the person who institutes or
ordains them, with respect to the real design and end of them, and
consequently, to the due manner of performing them. This is strictly
true, _in the degree that any duties are positive_, but no further.
And to denominate a precept or duty _positive_, though but _partially_
so, I have no objection, for the sake of distinguishing them from such
as are merely moral, and evidently founded on the reason and nature of
things. “Except we observe this caution,” as bishop Butler observes,
“we shall be in danger of running into endless confusion.”
It may be said, “If we resign this maxim, that a positive precept or
duty excludes all moral reasoning, analogy and inference, we open a
door to numberless innovations, and deprive ourselves of a necessary
barrier against the encroachments of popery, &c.” In reply to this
specious objection let it be observed,
1. That this maxim, whatever confidence our opponents place in it, is
a very _insufficient_ barrier for the defence of truth, if the
objection implies, that it is calculated to defend truth against
error, and not error against truth as well. For it is notorious, that
there is hardly any extravagance, in the whole compass of the
distinguishing peculiarities of religious practice, that is not
barricadoed by this very maxim. If _Protestants_ use it against
Papists, _Papists_ in their turn use it against Protestants. If the
Quakers are pursued and foiled when they occasionally quit this fort,
they soon rally their controversial forces, and, entrenching
themselves behind the strength of this maxim, become again victorious.
Whence passive obedience and non-resistance? Whence an opposition to
all _forensic_ swearing, in common with profane? Whence the Quakers’
nonconformity to what other serious Christians consider as lawful?
Their peculiar mode of salutation and address? Their method of
conducting religious worship? The little stress they lay on the
observance of the christian Sabbath? &c. Whence the popish absurd
figment of transubstantiation, apostolical succession, extreme
unction? &c.—On the contrary,
2. Not to distinguish between the _positiveness_ and _morality_ of a
precept, ordinance or duty, and not to ascertain their respective
_degrees_; and to deny that the _latter_ distinction admits of moral
reasoning, inference and analogy, open a wide door to _bigotry_, and
numberless glaring abuses of the sacred oracles. By rejecting the
analogy of faith and the _design_ of scripture herein, we give the
most effectual encouragement to every senseless intrusion. And what is
still more remarkable is, that the _more firmly_ any one adheres to
the undistinguishing positive scheme, in reference to any christian
ordinance whatever, the more closely will he be allied to the interest
of genuine bigotry. For it has a direct tendency to make the
unprescribed circumstances of a positive rite, _essential_ to the rite
itself, and consequently to make that necessary and essential which
the institutor has not made so. How far this is applicable to the
antipædobaptist’s cause, will be further considered.—The doctrine that
teaches the propriety of yielding our reason to positive institutions
_as such_, or in the _degree_ they are so, is just and proper, as
founded on the sovereign, absolute and manifest authority of the
Supreme Legislator; and in this view it has been of singular service
in refuting the cavils of deistical impiety. But to carry the
principle any further, tends to betray the cause of christianity into
the hands of infidels, and to breed unhallowed party zeal and
uncharitable animosities among its sincerest professors. “For who are
most likely to put weapons into the hands of _infidels_; they, who
seem to discard _reason_ in the investigation of truth, or they, whose
researches are founded on her most vigorous exertions, and most
rational decisions?—They, who make scripture bow to their preconceived
notions, in direct opposition to the dictates of reason and common
sense, or they, whose arguments are founded on a _coalition_ of
scripture and right reason?” Once more,