Part 26
That the covenant or divine charter, first given to Noah, _included_ the preceding; it was the _same covenant_ with _additional grants_: for the Lord says, “I will _establish_ my covenant.” Lest Noah should infer that the drowning of the world in wrath disannulled the well known covenant, God dissipates his fears, by saying, “I will _establish_ my covenant.”
On Noah’s _account_, or _as belonging_ to him, _all his house_ or family was privileged. The privilege is,—“Come thou, and _all thy house_ into the ark.” The ground and reason of that privilege—“_for thee have I seen righteous_.” It is true, the natural dictates of reason and affection, whereby a _father pitieth his children_, and whereby an infidel _careth for his own, especially those of his own house_, would have prompted this righteous person to bring _all his family_, (except any adults _refused_ compliance) into the ark, (_the like figure whereunto is baptism_, as an inspired teacher assures us, 1 Pet. iii. 21.) yet the Lord was pleased to brighten his evidence and strengthen his obligations of duty by express revelation.
After the flood the institution of _sacrifices_ continued as the seal of the _first_ part of the covenant; and the _rainbow_ was instituted as the seal of the _additional_ part, or, as Pareus calls it, “_appendix_ of the covenant of grace.” And here it is worthy of notice, that as the first exhibition of the covenant and its seals respected the offspring of _fœderati_, and the _renewal_ or _establishment_ of it to Noah retained that privilege in full force: so also the _appendix_ of the covenant comprehended his _seed_.
Respecting this appendix of the covenant of which the rainbow was the seal, though we suppose, with Witsius, it was not formally and precisely the covenant of grace; yet we observe, with the same excellent author, “it does not seem consistent with the divine perfections, to make such a covenant with every living creature, but on _supposition_ of a covenant of grace, and having a _respect_ to it.” And as this covenant, in its universality, implied the covenant of grace, we are not to deny, but the promises of it were also _sealed_ to Noah and his seed by the rainbow. See Rev. iv. 3. x. 8.
It is observable, finally, that Noah his _sons_, and _their seed_ were _fœderati_, in this ratification of the covenant; consequently whatever _seals_ of the covenant belonged to Noah, belonged to _his sons_, and _their seed_, while non-dissentients.
Appeal we next to a very important period of sacred history, viz. From Abraham to Moses. On this also we make the following remarks.
The Abrahamic covenant _included_ the preceding dispensations, on the general principle—that grants and privileges continue in force until _repealed_. Which repealing, if it be not either _express_, or arise from the nature of the case, in itself _plain_, can have no binding influence, that is to say, no existence at all: except we maintain, that we are _bound_ to resign an important good without an assignable cause; which is in fact to maintain that we ought to _deny_ that to be, which is.
I suppose it will be granted, that the _principal blessing_ exhibited in the foregoing dispensations was _the righteousness of faith_; the great importance of which to the human race, in every age of the world, no one will deny who considers things _as they are_. This covenant, therefore, was in force to Abraham _prior_ to what is called the Abrahamic dispensation; and in this connexion we might mention Lot and his family. But, behold,
A most explicit ratification of it, with _superadded_ favours, Gen. 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.”