# John Gill on Baptism



## AV1611

I am a paedobaptist but I have been trying to understand the Reformed Baptist case for excluding infants. So being a fairly sensible chap I turned to John Gill who states:

"Seeing circumcision was no seal of the covenant of grace, baptism, which it is pretended was instituted in the room of it, can be no seal of it neither, and so not to be administered as such to the children of professed believers, as is said ."

This he repeats in most of his pamphlets on baptism. Could anyone explain this to me...what was Gill thinking? Have I missed something?


----------



## Blueridge Believer

Here is Mr. Gill's treatise on infant baptism. It's a long read, but maybe it will help you to understand his position better dear brother.

John Gill on infant baptism


----------



## AV1611

Blueridge reformer said:


> Here is Mr. Gill's treatise on infant baptism. It's a long read, but maybe it will help you to understand his position better dear brother.
> 
> John Gill on infant baptism



I will read that later thanks. Would you agree with him?


----------



## Blueridge Believer

AV1611 said:


> I will read that later thanks. Would you agree with him?



Well, I am a Baptist afterall brother. I would probably use a bit more "tact" that brother Gill, but then comparing my self to him would be like a three year old trying to discourse on nuclear physics!


----------



## Herald

Blueridge reformer said:


> Well, I am a Baptist afterall brother. I would probably use a bit more "tact" that brother Gill, but then comparing my self to him would be like a three year old trying to discourse on nuclear physics!



James, I would love to hear your take on nuclear fusion. Care to send me some of your research?


----------



## Blueridge Believer

BaptistInCrisis said:


> James, I would love to hear your take on nuclear fusion. Care to send me some of your research?



I sent a bunch of stuff to M.I.T. for review. I'll send it to you.


----------



## AV1611

Blueridge reformer said:


> Well, I am a Baptist afterall brother. I would probably use a bit more "tact" that brother Gill, but then comparing my self to him would be like a three year old trying to discourse on nuclear physics!



I know how you feel brother. The thrust was my attempting to assertain if you agree that baptism is not the seal of the covenant of grace? Forgive me but I have had that drummed into me so much I cannot see how anyone could possibily disagree. If you do, on what grounds?


----------



## Herald

Richard - would you say that the covenant of grace and the new covenant are one in the same? Just curious.


----------



## Blueridge Believer

AV1611 said:


> I know how you feel brother. The thrust was my attempting to assertain if you agree that baptism is not the seal of the covenant of grace? Forgive me but I have had that drummed into me so much I cannot see how anyone could possibily disagree. If you do, on what grounds?



And I know how you feel as well dear brother. I know you to be a most reasonably man who tries to examine things carefully. I do not believe that water baptism is a seal of the covenant of grace. I believe the Spirit is:



2Cr 1:22 Who hath also sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts. 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eph 1:13 In whom ye also [trusted], after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eph 4:30 And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.


----------



## AV1611

BaptistInCrisis said:


> Richard - would you say that the covenant of grace and the new covenant are one in the same? Just curious.



As I sit now I would say that there is only one CofG which was made in eternity between the Triune God and Christ and the elect in him. The NC is an administration of that one CofG as explained by Gill here.


----------



## Blueridge Believer

Thanks for that link brother. I'll try and read that one tonight. Anytime I begin to read brother Gill I usually have a short circuit between my ears after a couple of hours. All of his material is rich, but for those of us with a limited intellect it can be a labor.


----------



## AV1611

Blueridge reformer said:


> Thanks for that link brother. I'll try and read that one tonight. Anytime I begin to read brother Gill I usually have a short circuit between my ears after a couple of hours. All of his material is rich, but for those of us with a limited intellect it can be a labor.



I have a general policy that I read Gill at least thrice before I fully grasp what he is saying.


----------



## Blueridge Believer

AV1611 said:


> I have a general policy that I read Gill at least thrice before I fully grasp what he is saying.




You get him that quick?  Sometimes, I just give up.


----------



## AV1611

Gill's most systematic treatment that I have yet come across is:



> *CHAPTER 4.
> 
> The Argument for Infant-baptism, taken from the Covenant made with Abraham, and from Circumcision, the Sign of it, considered.*
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------​
> The minister in this debate, in answer to his neighbor’s requiring a plain scripture institution of infant-baptism, tells him; if he would "consider the covenant of grace, which was made with Abraham, and with all his seed, both after the flesh, and after the Spirit, and by God’s express command to be sealed to infants, he would there find a sufficient scripture instance for infant-baptism:" And for this covenant he directs him to Genesis 17:2, 4, 7, 10, 12. He argues, that this covenant was a covenant of grace; that it was made with all Abraham’s seed, natural and spiritual, Jews and Gentiles; that circumcision was the seal of it; and that the same institution, which requires circumcision to be administered to infants, requires baptism to be also administered to them, that succeeding circumcision, [page 10-18]. Wherefore,
> 
> First, The leading inquiry is, whether the covenant made with Abraham (Gen. 17), was the covenant of grace; that is, the pure covenant of grace, in distinction from the covenant of works; which is the sense in which it is commonly understood, and in which this writer seems to understand this covenant with Abraham; for of it, he says [p. 13], "it was the covenant of grace, that covenant by which alone we can have any grounded hope of salvation:" But that it was the covenant of grace, or a pure covenant of grace, must be denied: For,
> 
> 1. It is never called the covenant of grace, nor by any name which shews it to be so; it is called the covenant of circumcision, which God is said to give to Abraham (Acts 7:8) but not a covenant of grace; circumcision and grace are opposed to one another; circumcision is a work of the law, which they that sought to be justified by, fell from grace (Gal. 5:2-4).
> 
> 2. It seems rather to be a covenant of works, than of grace; for this was a covenant to be kept by men. Abraham was to keep it, and his seed after him were to keep it; something was to be done by them; they were to circumcise their flesh; and not only he and his seed were to be circumcised, but all that were born in his house, or bought with his money; and a severe penalty was annexed to it: In care of neglect, or disobedience, such a soul was to "be cut off from his people" (Gen. 17:9-14). All which favor nothing of a covenant of grace, a covenant by which we can have a grounded hope of salvation, but the contrary.
> 
> 3. This was a covenant that might be broken, and in some instances was (Gen. 17:14); but the covenant of grace cannot be broken; God will not break it (Ps. 89:34), nor man cannot: It is a covenant ordered in all things, and sure; it cannot be moved; it stands firmer than hills, or mountains.
> 
> 4. It must be owned, that there were temporal things promised in this covenant, such as a multiplication of Abraham’s natural seed; a race of kings from him, with many nations, and a possession of the land of Canaan (Gen. 17:6, 8). Things which can have nothing to do with the pure covenant of grace, any more than the change of his name from Abram to Abraham [v. 5].
> 
> 5. There were some persons, included in this covenant made with Abraham, of whom it cannot be thought they were in the covenant of grace, as Ishmael, Esau, and others; and on the other hand, there were some, and even living at the time when this covenant was made, and yet were not in it; who, nevertheless, were in the covenant of grace, as Arphaxad, Melchizedek, Lot, and others; wherefore this can never be reckoned the pure covenant of grace.
> 
> 6. The covenant of grace was only made with Christ, as the federal head of it; and who is the only head of the covenant, and of the covenant-ones; wherefore, if the covenant of grace was made with Abraham, as the federal head of his natural and spiritual seed, of Jews and Gentiles; then there must be two heads of the covenant of grace, contrary to the nature of such a covenant, and the whole current of scripture: Yea, this covenant of Abraham’s, so far as it respected his spiritual seed, or spiritual blessings for them, it and the promises were made to Christ (Gal. 3:16). No mere man is capable of covenanting with God, of stipulation and restipulation; for what has man to restipulate with God? The covenant of grace is not made with any single man; and much less with him on the behalf of others: When, therefore, at any time we read of the covenant of grace, being made with a particular person, or with particular persons, it must always be understood of making it manifest to them; of a revelation of the covenant, and of an application of covenant-blessings to them; and not of any original contract with them; for that is only made with them in Christ. To which may he added,
> 
> 7. That the covenant of grace was made with Christ, and with his people, as considered in him, from everlasting; for so early was Christ set up as the mediator of it; the promise of eternal life in it was before the world was; and those interested in it, were blessed with all spiritual blessings and grace before the foundation of it; now could there be a mediator so early, a promise of eternal life so soon, and blessings of grace provided, and no covenant subsisting? wherefore the covenant made with Abraham in time, could not, strictly and properly speaking, be the covenant of grace. But,
> 
> 8. To shorten this debate, it will be allowed, that the covenant made with Abraham was a peculiar covenant, such as was never made with any before, or since; that it was of a mixed kind; that it had in it promises and mercies of a temporal nature, which belonged to his natural seed; and others of a spiritual sort, which belonged to his spiritual seed: The former are more numerous, clear, and distinct; the latter are comprised chiefly in Abraham’s being the father of many nations, or of all, that believe, and in God being a God to him and them (Rom. 4:11, 12, 16, 17). Which observation makes way for the next inquiry,
> 
> Secondly, With whom this covenant was made, so far as it respected spiritual things, or was a revelation of the covenant of grace; as for the temporal things of this covenant, it does not concern the argument. It is allowed on all hands, that they belonged to Abraham, and his natural seed: But the question is, whether this covenant, so far as it may be reckoned a covenant of grace, or a revelation of it, or respected spiritual things, was made with all Abraham’s seed after the flesh, and with all the natural seed of believing Gentiles? This question consists of two parts,
> 
> 1st, Whether the covenant made with Abraham, so far as it was a covenant of grace, was made with all Abraham’s seed, according to the flesh? Which must be answered in the negative. For,
> 
> 1. If it was made with all the natural seed of Abraham, as such, it must be with his more immediate offspring; and so must be equally made with a mocking and persecuting Ishmael, born after the flesh, the son of the bond-woman, as with Isaac, born after the Spirit, and the son of the free woman; and yet we find, that Ishmael was excluded from having a share in spiritual blessings, only temporal ones were promised him; and, in distinction and opposition to him, the covenant was established with Isaac (Gen. 17:19, 20, 21). Again, if this was the case, it must be equally made with a profane Esau, as with plain-hearted Jacob; and yet it is said, Jacob have I loved, and Esau have I hated (Mal. 1:1, 2).
> 
> 2. If it was made with all Abraham’s seed according to the flesh, it must be made with all his remote posterity, and if and good to them in their most corrupt state; it must be made with them who believed not, and whole carcasses fell in the wilderness, and entered not into rest; it must be made with the ten tribes, that revolted from the pure service of God, and who worshipped the calves at Dan and Bethel; it must be made with the people of the Jews in Isaiah’s time, when they were a sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity, a seed of evil-doers, children that were corrupters; whole rulers are called the rulers of Sodom, and the people the people of Gomorrah (Isa. 1:4, 6, 10), it must be made with the Scribes and Pharisees, and that wicked, adulterous, and hypocritical generation of men in the time of our Lord, who were his implacable enemies, and were concerned in his death; who killed him, persecuted his apostles, pleased not God, and were contrary to all men. What man, that seriously considers there things, can think that the covenant of grace belonged to these men, at least to all; and especially when he observes, what the apostle says, they are not all Israel, which are of Israel; neither because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children? (Rom. 9:6, 7). Yea,
> 
> 3. If it was made with all that are the seed of Abraham according to the flesh then it must be made with Ishmaelites and Edomites, as well as with Israelites; with his posterity by Keturah, as well as by Sarah; with the Midianites and Arabians; with the Turks, as well as with the Jews, since they descended and claim their descent from Abraham, as well as these. But,
> 
> 4. To shut up this argument; this covenant made with Abraham, be it a covenant of grace, seeing it could be no more, at most, than a revelation, manifestation, copy, or transcript of it, call it which you will; it can never be thought to comprehend more in it than the original contract, than the eternal covenant between the Father and the Son. Now the only persons interested in the everlasting covenant of grace, are the chosen of God and precious; whom he has loved with an everlasting love; gave to his Son to be redeemed by his blood; for whom provision is made in the same covenant for the sanctification of their nature, for the justification of their persons, for the pardon of their sins, for their perseverance in grace, and for their eternal glory and happiness: So that all that are in that covenant are chosen to grace here, and glory hereafter, and shall certainly enjoy both: they are all secured in the hands of Christ, and are redeemed from sin, law, hell, and death, by his precious blood; and shall be saved in him with an everlasting salvation; they have all of them the laws of God put into their minds, and written on their hearts; they have new hearts and new spirits given them, and the stony heart taken away from them; they have the righteousness of Christ imputed to them; they have their sins forgiven them for his sake, and which will be remembered no more; they have the fear of God put into their hearts, and shall never finally and totally depart from him; but, being called and justified, shall be glorified (Jer. 31:33, 34; 32:40; Ezek. 36:25-27; Rom. 8:30).
> 
> Now if this covenant was made with all Abraham’s natural seed, and comprehends all of them, then they must be all chosen of God; whereas there was only a remnant among them, according to the election of grace (Rom. 11:5): they must be all given to Christ, and secured in his hands; whereas there were some of them, that were not of his sheep, given him by his Father, and so did not believe in him (John 10:26); they must be all redeemed by his blood; whereas he laid down his life for his sheep, his friends, his church, which all of Abraham’s seed could never be said to be: In a word, they must be all regenerated and sanctified, justified and pardoned; must all have the grace of God, and persevere in it to the end, and be all eternally saved; and the same must be said of all the natural seed of believing Gentiles, if they also are all of them in the covenant of grace. But what man, in his senses, will affirm there things? And, upon such a principle, how will the doctrines of personal election, particular redemption, regeneration by efficacious grace, not by blood or the will of man, and the saints’ final perseverance, be established? This Gentleman, whole pamphlet is before me, is said to have written with some success against the Arminians; but sure I am, that no man can write with success against them, and without contradiction to himself, that has imbibed such a notion of the covenant of grace, as this I am militating against.
> 
> 2dly, The other part of the question is, whether the covenant made with Abraham, so far as it was a covenant of grace, was made with all the natural seed of believing Gentiles? which also must be answered in the negative: For,
> 
> 1. It will be allowed, that this covenant respects Abraham’s spiritual seed among the Gentiles; even all true believers, all such that walk in the steps of his faith; for he is the Father of all them that believe, whether circumcised or uncircumcised, Jews or Gentiles (Rom. 4:11, 12, 15); but not the natural seed of believing Gentiles. They, indeed, that are of the faith of Abraham, are his children in a spiritual sense, and they are blessed with him with spiritual blessings, and are such, as Christ has redeemed by his blood; and they believe in him, and the blessing of Abraham comes upon them: But then this spiritual seed of Abraham is the same with the spiritual seed of Christ, with whom the covenant was made from everlasting, and to them only does it belong; and to none can spiritual blessings belong, but to a spiritual seed, not a natural one. Let it be proved, if it can, that all the natural seed of believing Gentiles, are the spiritual seed of Abraham, and then they will be admitted to have a claim to this covenant. But, though it appears, that believing Gentiles are in this covenant, what clause is there in it, that respects their natural seed, as such? Let it be shown, if it can; by what right and authority, can any believing Gentile pretend to put his natural seed into Abraham’s covenant? The covenant made with him, as to the temporal part of it, belonged to him, and his natural seed; and with respect to its spiritual part, only to his spiritual seed, whether Jews or Gentiles and not to the natural seed of either of them, as such.
> 
> 2. The covenant made with Abraham, and his spiritual seed, takes in many of the seed of unbelieving Gentiles; who being called by grace, and openly believing Christ, are Abraham’s spiritual seed, with whom the covenant was made: That there are many among the Gentiles born of unbelieving parents, who become true believers in Christ, and so appear to be in the covenant of grace, must be allowed; since many are received as such into the communion of the Paedobaptists, as well as others; and, on the other hand, there are many born of believing Gentiles, who do not believe in Christ, are not partakers of his grace, on whom the spiritual blessings of Abraham do not come; and so not in his covenant. Wherefore, by what authority do men put in the infant seed of believing Gentiles, as such, into the covenant, and restrain it to them, and leave out the seed of unbelieving Gentiles; when, on the contrary, God oftentimes takes the one, and leaves the other?
> 
> 3. That all the natural seed of believing Gentiles cannot be included in the covenant of grace, is manifest, from the reason above given, against all the natural seed of Abraham being in it; shewing, that all that are in it are the elect of God, the redeemed of Christ, are effectually called by grace, persevere to the end, and are eternally saved; all which cannot be said of all the natural seed of believing Gentiles: And if all the natural seed of Abraham are not in this covenant made with him, as it was a covenant of grace, it can hardly be thought that all the natural seed of believing Gentiles should.
> 
> 4. Seeing it is so clear a case, that some of the seed of unbelieving Gentiles are in this covenant, and some of the seed of believing Gentiles are not in it, and that it cannot be known who are, until they believe in Christ, and so appear to be Abraham’s spiritual seed; it must be right to put off their claim to any privilege supposed to arise from covenant interest, until it appear that they have one.
> 
> 5. After all, covenant interest gives no right to any ordinance, without a positive order and direction from God. So, for instance, with respect to circumcision; on the one hand, there were some persons living at the time that ordinance was instituted, who undoubtedly had an interest in the covenant of grace, as Shem, Atrphaxad, Lot, and others, on whom that was not enjoined, and who had no right to use it; and, on the other hand, there have been many that were not in the covenant of grace, who were obliged to it: And so with respect to baptism, it is not covenant interest that gives a right to it; if it could be proved, as it cannot, that all the infant seed of believers, as such, are in the covenant of grace, it would give them no right to baptism, without a positive command for it; the reason is, because a person may be in covenant, and as yet not have the prerequisite to an ordinance, even faith in Christ, and a profession of it; which are necessary to baptism and the Lord’s Supper. This leads me on,
> 
> Thirdly, To another inquiry, whether circumcision was a real of the covenant of grace to Abraham’s natural seed; the writer, whole performance I am considering, affirms, that it was by God’s express command to be sealed to infants; and that circumcision is the real of it [p. 10, 36]. But this must be denied: circumcision was no seal of the covenant of grace; for,
> 
> 1. If it was, the covenant of grace, before that took place, must be without a real; the covenant subsisted from everlasting, and the revelation of it was quickly made after the fall of Adam; and there were manifestations of it to particular persons, as Noah, and others, before this to Abraham, and no circumcision enjoined: Wherefore, from Adam to Abraham, according to this notion, the covenant must be without a real; nay, there were some persons living at the time it was instituted, who were in the covenant, yet this was not enjoined them; as it would, if this had been designed as a seal of it.
> 
> 2. Circumcision, in the institution of it, is called a sign, but not a seal; it is said to be תוא Oth, a Token, or Sign (Gen. 17:11); but not םתוח Chothem, a Seal; it was a sign or mark in the flesh, which Abraham’s natural seed were to bear, until the promises made in this covenant were accomplished; it was a typical sign of the pollution of human nature, propagated by natural generation, and of cleansing from it by the blood of Christ, and of the inward circumcision of the heart; but did not seal or confirm any spiritual blessing of the covenant, to those on whom this mark or sign was let; it is never called a seal throughout the whole Old Testament; and so far is there from being any express command, that the covenant of grace should be sealed to infants by it, that there is not the least hint of it given.
> 
> 3. It is indeed in the New Testament called a seal of the righteousness of faith (Rom. 4:11); but it is not said to be a real of the covenant of grace, nor a seal to infants: it was not a seal to Abraham’s natural seed; it was only so to himself. The plain meaning of the apostle is, that circumcision was a seal to Abraham, and assured him of, or confirmed his faith in this, that he should be the father of many nations, in a spiritual sense; and that the righteousness of faith which he had, when he was an uncircumcised person, should also come upon, and be imputed unto the uncircumcised Gentiles: and accordingly, this mark and sign continued until the gospel, declaring justification by the righteousness of Christ, was preached, or ordered to be preached to the Gentiles; and could it be thought that circumcision was a real to others besides him, it could at most be only a seal to them that had both faith and righteousness, and not to them that had neither.
> 
> 4. If it was a seal of the covenant of grace to Abraham’s natural seed, it must be either to some or all; if only to some, it should be pointed out who they are; and if to all, then it must be sealed, that is, confirmed, and an interest in it assured of, to a mocking Ishmael; to a profane Esau; to Korah, Datban, and Abiram, and their accomplices, whom the earth swallowed up alive; to Achitophel, that hanged himself; to Judas, that betrayed our Lord; and to all the Jews concerned in his crucifixion and death; since there is reason to believe they were all circumcised. But,
> 
> 5. The covenant made with Abraham, so far as it was a covenant of grace, was not made, as we have seen, with all Abraham’s natural seed; and therefore circumcision could not be a seal of it to them. I pass on,
> 
> Fourthly, To another inquiry, whether baptism succeeded circumcision, and so became a real of the covenant: of grace to believers, and their natural seed? This must be answered in the negative; for,
> 
> 1. There is no agreement between them, in the subjects to whom they are administered; circumcision was administered to Jews only, or such as became proselytes; baptism both to Jews and Gentiles, without any distinction, that believe in Christ; circumcision was administered to infants, baptism only to adult persons; circumcision belonged only to the males, baptism to male and female: Seeing then the subjects of the one and the other are so different, the one cannot be thought to succeed the other.
> 
> 2. The use of the one and the other is not the same; the use of circumcision was to distinguish the natural seed of Abraham from others, until Christ was come in the flesh; the use of baptism is to be a distinguishing badge of the spiritual seed of Christ, such as have believed in him, and put him on; the use of circumcision was to signify the corruption of human nature, the necessity of regeneration, of the circumcision without hands, and of cleansing by the blood of Christ; the use of baptism is to answer a good conscience towards God to represent the sufferings, burial, and resurrection of Christ, and prerequires repentance and faith.
> 
> 3. The manner of administering the one and the other is very different; the one is by blood, the other by water; the one by an incision made in one part of the body, the other by an immersion of the whole body in water; the one was done in a private house, and by a private hand; the other, for the most part, publicly, in open places, in rivers, and before multitudes of people, and by a person in public office, a public minister of the word. Now, ordinances so much differing in their subjects, use, and manner of administration, the one can never be thought to come in the room and place of the other. But,
> 
> 4. What puts it out of all doubt, that baptism can never be said to succeed circumcision is, that baptism was in force and use before circumcision was abolished, and its practice discontinued, or ought to be discontinued. Circumcision was not abolished till the death of Christ when, with other ceremonies of the law, it was made null and void; but, unto that time, it was the duty of Jewish parents to circumcise their infants; whereas some years before this, John came preaching the doctrine of baptism, and administered it to multitudes; our Lord himself was baptized, three or four years, according to the common computation, before his death; now that which is in force before another is out of date, can never, with any propriety, be said to succeed or come in the room of that other.
> 
> 5. It has been proved already, that circumcision was no seal of the covenant of grace to Abraham’s natural seed; and therefore, could it be proved, as it cannot, that baptism succeeds it, it would not follow that baptism is a real of the covenant of grace; there are many persons who have been baptized) and yet not in the covenant of grace, and to whom it was never sealed, as Simon Magus, and others; and, on the other hand, a person may be in the covenant of grace, and it may be sealed to him, and he may be comfortably assured of his interests in it, though, as yet, not baptized in water. The author of the dialogue before me says, [p. 16] that it is allowed on all hands, that baptism is a token or real of the covenant of grace; but it is a popular clamor, a vulgar mistake, that either that or the Lord’s-Supper are seals of the covenant of grace. The blood of Christ is the seal, and the only seal of it, by which its promises and blessings are ratified and confirmed; and the holy Spirit is the only earnest pledge, seal, and sealer of the saints, until the day of redemption.[61]
> 
> And so all that fine piece of wit of our author, about the red and white seal, is spoiled and lost: [p. 17]. Upon the whole, we may see what sufficient scripture institution for infant-baptism is to be found in the covenant made with Abraham; since the spiritual part of that covenant did not concern his natural seed, as such, but his spiritual seed, and so not infants, but adult persons, whether among Jews or Gentiles, that walked in the steps of his faith; and seeing there is not one word of baptism in it, and much less of infant-baptism; nor was circumcision a seal of it, nor does baptism succeed that, or is a seal of the covenant of grace: Hence also, it will appear, what little reason there is for that clamorous outcry, so often made, and is by our author, of lessening and abridging the privileges of infants under the gospel dispensation, and of depriving them of what they formerly had; or for an harangue upon the valuable blessing, and great and glorious privilege they had, of having the covenant of grace sealed unto them by circumcision; or for that demand, how, why, and when, children were cut off from this privilege? or for such a representation, this being the care, that the gospel is a less glorious dispensation, with respect to infants, than the former was, [pp. 19, 20, 22,30]. Seeing the covenant of grace was never sealed to infants by circumcision; nor was that bloody and painful rite accounted a rich and glorious privilege; far from it; especially as it bound them over to keep the whole law, it was a yoke of bondage, an insupportable one: and it is a rich mercy, and glorious privilege of the gospel, that the Jews and their children are delivered from it; and that Gentiles and their children are not obliged to it: And as for the demand, how, why, and when, children were cut off from it, it is easily answered, that this was done by the death of Christ, and at the time of it, when all ceremonies were abolished; and that for this reason, because of the weakness, unprofitableness, and burdensomeness of that, and them: And as for the gospel-dispensation, that is the more glorious, for infants being left out of its church-state; that is to say, for its being not national and carnal, as before, but congregational and spiritual; for its consisting, not of infants without understanding, but of rational and spiritual men, of believers in Christ, and prosessors of his name; and these not in a single and small country, as Judea, but in all parts of the world, as it has been, at one time or another, and it will be in the latter day: And as for infants themselves, their care is as good, and their privileges as many and better, than under the legal dispensation; their salvation is not at all affected by the abrogation of circumcision, or through want of baptism to succeed it. As the former did not real the covenant to them, and could not fare them, so neither could the latter, were it administered to them: To which may be added, that being born of Christian parents, and having a Christian education, and the advantage of hearing the gospel, as they grow up, and this not in one country, but many, must exceed all the privileges the Jewish children had under the former dispensation.



From: _The Divine Right of Infant-Baptism, Examined and Disproved_

Thoughts?


----------



## JM

It's difficult to argue with Gill.


----------



## AV1611

JM said:


> It's difficult to argue with Gill.




I nknow but I am just not sure about his dismissing the Abrahamic Covenant as being part of the Covenant of Grace. I am trying to see the implications on issues unrelated to baptism but related to having theAC as an administration of the CofG.


----------



## KMK

Does this quote by Gill from the argument above encapsulate the disagreement between paedos and credos? 

"3. It is indeed in the New Testament called a seal of the righteousness of faith (Rom. 4:11); but it is not said to be a real of the covenant of grace, nor a seal to infants: it was not a seal to Abraham’s natural seed; it was only so to himself. The plain meaning of the apostle is, that circumcision was a seal to Abraham, and assured him of, or confirmed his faith in this, that he should be the father of many nations, in a spiritual sense; and that the righteousness of faith which he had, when he was an uncircumcised person, should also come upon, and be imputed unto the uncircumcised Gentiles: and accordingly, this mark and sign continued until the gospel, declaring justification by the righteousness of Christ, was preached, or ordered to be preached to the Gentiles; and could it be thought that circumcision was a real to others besides him, it could at most be only a seal to them that had both faith and righteousness, and not to them that had neither."

Or am I naive to think that our differences could be narrowed down to the interpretation/application of one verse?


----------



## etexas

AV1611 said:


> I know how you feel brother. The thrust was my attempting to assertain if you agree that baptism is not the seal of the covenant of grace? Forgive me but I have had that drummed into me so much I cannot see how anyone could possibily disagree. If you do, on what grounds?


AV1611, as an Anglican would you not agree with Apostolic teaching teaching that as a Dominical Sacrament, that like all other 7 Sacraments it imparts Divine Grace so long as performed within a construct of Apostolic succession? To move it out of said construct would invalidate the Sacrament. It seems attempting to "get" Gills teaching on the matter would be moot.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

If I wasn't utterly exhausted with discussions over these last 2 weeks I would take this up more fully.

Gill sounds good because he uses Old English and his mistakes sound really intelligent. Nevertheless, he errs immediately in his use of Galatians 5 wrt how Paul uses circumcision and goes downhill from there. Such a common Baptistic error to cite Paul's use of circumcision in Galatians and elsewhere as if he associates Abraham's circumcision with the Law. He never does so.

A few thoughts on this errant use of circumcision to "prove" that Paul sees no significance in circumcision:

http://www.solideogloria.com/story/2006/07/10/03.15.01
http://www.solideogloria.com/story/2006/07/11/22.34.41
http://www.solideogloria.com/story/2006/09/14/00.43.29

Oh, and by the way, I have an undergraduate degree in Nuclear Engineering and would be happy to explain Nuclear Fusion to confused Baptists as well.


----------



## Theoretical

I follow Jesus said:


> AV1611, as an Anglican would you not agree with Apostolic teaching teaching that as a Dominical Sacrament, that like all other 7 Sacraments it imparts Divine Grace so long as performed within a construct of Apostolic succession? To move it out of said construct would invalidate the Sacrament. It seems attempting to "get" Gills teaching on the matter would be moot.


7 Sacraments?

XXV. Of the Sacraments. (from the 1801 American Version - I'm not sure which version Richard's church uses, sorry for any issues in it)

"Sacraments ordained of Christ be not only badges or tokens of Christian men's profession, but rather they be certain sure witnesses, and effectual signs of grace, and God's good will towards us, by the which he doth work invisibly in us, and doth not only quicken, but also strengthen and confirm our Faith in him.

There are two Sacraments ordained of Christ our Lord in the Gospel, that is to say, Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord.

Those five commonly called Sacraments, that is to say, Confirmation, Penance, Orders, Matrimony, and Extreme Unction, are not to be counted for Sacraments of the Gospel, being such as have grown partly of the corrupt following of the Apostles, partly are states of life allowed in the Scriptures, but yet have not like nature of Sacraments with Baptism, and the Lord's Supper, for that they have not any visible sign or ceremony ordained of God.

The Sacraments were not ordained of Christ to be gazed upon, or to be carried about, but that we should duly use them. And in such only as worthily receive the same, they have a wholesome effect or operation: but they that receive them unworthily, purchase to themselves damnation, as Saint Paul saith."


----------



## Semper Fidelis

If you want to debate Ecclesiology let's move this there.

Max: You need to keep the discussion related to Gill here. I know you unintentionally opened up  but you can't really carry that debate in this particular thread.


----------



## etexas

SemperFideles said:


> If you want to debate Ecclesiology let's move this there.
> 
> Max: You need to keep the discussion related to Gill here. I know you unintentionally opened up  but you can't really carry that debate in this particular thread.


Sorry Rich! Wanted to stay away from said  , really I was just wondered why some would be interested in Gill's opinions at all. Rubbish!


----------



## AV1611

I follow Jesus said:


> AV1611, as an Anglican would you not agree with Apostolic teaching teaching that as a Dominical Sacrament, that like all other 7 Sacraments it imparts Divine Grace so long as performed within a construct of Apostolic succession?



There are only two sacraments, Baptism and the Lord's Supper, as taught by the 39 Articles. Baptism does not impart grace without faith:



> *XXV. Of the Sacraments.*
> SACRAMENTS ordained of Christ be not only badges or tokens of Christian men's profession, but rather they be certain sure witnesses and effectual signs of grace and God's good will towards us, by the which He doth work invisibly in us, and doth not only quicken, but also strengthen and confirm, our faith in Him.
> There are two Sacraments ordained of Christ our Lord in the Gospel, that is to say, Baptism and the Supper of the Lord.
> Those five commonly called Sacraments, that is to say, Confirmation, Penance, Orders, Matrimony, and Extreme Unction, are not to be counted for Sacraments of the Gospel, being such as have grown partly of the corrupt following of the Apostles, partly are states of life allowed in the Scriptures; but yet have not the like nature of Sacraments with Baptism and the Lord's Supper, for that they have not any visible sign or ceremony ordained of God.
> The Sacraments were not ordained of Christ to be gazed upon or to be carried about, but that we should duly use them. And in such only as worthily receive the same, have they a wholesome effect or operation: but they that receive them unworthily, purchase to themselves damnation, as Saint Paul saith.





> *XXVII. Of Baptism.*
> BAPTISM is not only a sign of profession and mark of difference whereby Christian men are discerned from other that be not christened, but is also a sign of regeneration or new birth, whereby, as by an instrument, they that receive baptism rightly are grafted into the Church; the promises of the forgiveness of sin, and of our adoption to be the sons of God, by the Holy Ghost are visibly signed and sealed; faith is confirmed, and grace increased by virtue of prayer unto God. The baptism of young children is in any wise to be retained in the Church as most agreeable with the institution of Christ.



The only apostolic succession is doctrinal:

*2 Timothy 2:2* "And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also."


----------



## AV1611

trevorjohnson said:


> Though I am a baptist, I would agree with Rich's assessment.
> 
> I have never liked Gill much. And I am not particulary convinced by his arguments here. The Covenant with Abraham is the Covenant of grace, though there be externals that have changed .



Which is why I was confused reading Gill. As I understand it there is one CofG made in eternity with various dispensations or administrations in time which change. Therefore the sign and seal can switch from circumcision to baptism and you could possibly exclude infants from the latter because whilst the Abrahamic Covenant is an administration of the CofG as is the New Covenant, the NC does not equal the AC necessarily.


----------



## Blueridge Believer

I follow Jesus said:


> Sorry Rich! Wanted to stay away from said  , really I was just wondered why some would be interested in Gill's opinions at all. Rubbish!




many of us here regard brother Gill very highly brother.


----------



## etexas

Blueridge reformer said:


> many of us here regard brother Gill very highly brother.


Good one James!!!!!!!!!! I don't mind getting a "burn" as long as it is a loving one!


----------

