Light Broke Forth in Wales Expelling Darkness, Chapter 7
CHAP. VII.
Proving Infant-Baptiſm is not lawful, becauſe Circumciſion under the Law belonged unto the Male-Infants of the Jews, containing an Anſwer to Mr. James Owen's firſt Chapter.
IF, ſay you, Circumciſion under the Law belonged unto Infants, then Baptiſm under the Goſpel belongeth unto them; for even as Circumciſion was, ſo Baptiſm is the Seal of the ſame Covenant of Grace, and ſignifieth the ſame things.
Anſw. 1. I anſwer; If Circumciſion did not belong to Infants under the Law, any otherwiſe than by expreſs and poſitive Command of God, which gave them right thereto; then if God hath not commanded Believers to baptize their Infants, it is not their Duty to baptize them, but their Sin if they do it. But I have proved it was the expreſs Command of God only that gave Male-Infants proceeding from Abraham's Lo…s Authority to be circumciſed; and God hath given no ſuch Command to Believers to baptize their Infants; therefore Baptiſm doth not belong to the Infants of Believers, as ſuch, under the Goſpel, as Circumciſion did belong to Male-Infants under the Law.
2. I have proved Circumciſion was not the Seal of the Covenant of Grace, tho it was a Seal to Abraham of the Righteouſneſs of his own Faith, yea of that Faith he had being not circumciſed. A Seal I have ſhewed gives an undoubted Right of all thoſe Bleſſings and Privileges to thoſe Perſons to whom the ſaid Covenant is ſealed, and ſo it did to Abraham: but it was no Seal of the Bleſſings of the Covenant of Grace to Iſhmael, Eſau, and many thouſands more who were commanded to be circumciſed. Were this therefore true that Mr. Owen aſſerts, That Circumciſion was a Seal of the Covenant of Grace to all that were circumciſed in Infancy, then they were all ſaved, even all the Males that proceeded from Abraham's Loins, many of which proved as vile and wicked Men as moſt that ever lived in the World. Nor, Reader, is Baptiſm a Seal of the Covenant of Grace under the Goſpel; for if ſo, it would ſeal all Goſpel-Bleſſings to all Perſons that are baptized: who then (were it ſo) but would be baptized, and baptize his Children? Brethren, the holy Spirit only is the Seal of the Covenant of Grace, or Goſpel-Covenant, vid. Epheſ. 1: 13, 14. cap. 4. 10.
You proceed, to ſhew in ſeveral reſpects, that Circumciſion and Baptiſm ſignify the ſame things.
1. You ſay, becauſe Original Corruption cometh by Natural Generation.
2. Becauſe we are born in Uncleanneſs, we muſt be waſhed in our Infancy.
Anſw. 1. Suppoſing that Circumciſion did, and Baptiſm doth ſignify the Corruption or Filthineſs of Original Sin, or Uncleanneſs; muſt we therefore baptize our Infants without any Authority, Command or Example in God's Word?
2. Doth Baptiſm waſh away Original Corruption? I know the Papiſts aſſert it doth do this, but how do they or you prove it? Baptiſm, St. Peter ſaith, doth not waſh away the Filthineſs of the Fleſh, or Corruption of Natural Pollution, 1 Pet. 3. 21.
3. Your Reverend Brother Mr. Stephen Charnock fully proves that Baptiſm is not Regeneration, that can't cleanſe from Sin. Anſwer his Arguments in his Book of Regeneration. What tho thoſe Baptiſts in Germany you ſpeak of, underſtood that the antient erring Fathers that introduced Infant-Baptiſm, did bring it in to waſh away Original Sin; Cannot Chriſt cleanſe Elect dying Infants from Original Sin by virtue of his Blood, in a way unknown unto us? Muſt we deny Original Sin, or own Infant-Baptiſm does cleanſe from it? Strange Divinity! you prove nothing.
4. You ſay, all were not regenerated in Circumciſion, but God bleſſed his own Ordinance in his own time, for the Regeneration of his Elect, &c. So ſay you, not that all are regenerated in Baptiſm, but becauſe Baptiſm ſheweth the neceſſity of Regeneration, and being effectual in time unto all thoſe that are elected, for working Regeneration in them.
Anſw. 1. You ſay, all were not regenerated in Circumciſion, and ſo, not that all are, ſay you, regenerated in Baptiſm, &c.
Sir, take heed you do not deceive the Souls of People. I deny that ever any one Soul was regenerated in Infancy, either in Circumciſion or Baptiſm; nor did God ever ordain either of thoſe external Ordinances to regenerate young or old.
2. I know the Scripture, and worthy Divines hold forth that Baptiſm is a Sign of preſent Regeneration; they that ought to be baptized, i. e. Believers, do riſe out of the watery Grave, as Dr. Sherlock aſſerts, new born Creatures; but thus do not Infants whom you baptize, or rather rantize.
3. Prove, if you can, that God ever bleſſed Circumciſion or Baptiſm to the Regeneration of any Elect Infants when grown up: But if none but Elect Infants are the Subjects of Baptiſm, why do you baptize, as you call it, all the Infants of Believers? Are all their Children elected, and none but theirs? Are not many Children of Unbelievers elected? Why then are ſuch not to be baptized, as well as the Children of the Faithful?
Sir, we know not who are elected till called, and Baptiſm belongs to none but ſuch who can make a Profeſſion of their Faith, and give Evidence of effectual Calling, and preſent Regeneration. You write but your own Phantaſie, not God's unerring and certain Truth.
4. You ſay, Abraham's Heart was circumciſed, before the Fleſh of his Fore-skin; but you intimate his Childrens Fleſh was circumciſed before their Hearts were circumciſed. In the ſame manner, you ſay, our Anceſtors the Gentiles, were firſt Fruits unto Chriſt, and were regenerated before baptized; but their Seed are baptized before they are regenerated. To Abraham, you ſay, it was a Seal of the Covenant of Grace he had, and of the Righteouſneſs of his Faith before circumciſed; but to his Seed it was a Sign of the Righteouſneſs of Faith they were bound to receive for Juſtification, after they were circumciſed: and ſo you ſpeak of Believers Seed in reſpect of Baptiſm.
Anſw. 1. I anſwer; Abraham only received Circumciſion as a Seal of the Righteouſneſs of his Faith, &c. But prove that Circumciſion did bind all his Children to receive by Faith Juſtification: 'tis a bold Aſſertion. I have proved, that Circumciſion did not appertain to the Covenant of Grace, but to the external or fleſhly Covenant God made with Abraham, and in him with the whole Nation of the Jews: and therefore 'tis poſitively affirmed by the Apoſtle, That ſuch that were circumciſed were bound to keep the whole Law, Gal. 5. 3. not to receive by Faith Juſtification. Your Parallel between Circumciſion and Baptiſm ('tis true) well futes with the Human Contrivance of thoſe that firſt invented Infant-Baptiſm, who would thereby fain make the Goſpel-Church National, as the Jewiſh Church was, and confirm the old Church-Right and Church-Memberſhip, which is taken away, and a new Church-ſtate erected, which doth not conſiſt of Believers, and their Carnal Seed, as ſuch, but only of the Spiritual Seed of Abraham, who are Believers or living Stones, who are built up a Spiritual Houſe, 1 Pet. 2. 5, 6. The Goſpel-Church is not National but Congregational, ſay what you pleaſe to the contrary.
2. Therefore as the Faithful at firſt among the Gentiles and Jews too, received Baptiſm as Believers, being regenerated before baptized, ſo muſt we unleſs you have a new Goſpel, or freſh Authority to change the Adminiſtration of Goſpel-Ordinances, and the Goſpel-Church. I thought the Water as it juſt came forth of the Fountain was moſt pure, you do but plead for the muddy Water that has run through the Popiſh Stream.
You ſay, Circumciſion was a Sign of Admiſſion into the Church of God, every Male did come in through that Door; the uncircumciſed had no right to the Privileges of the viſible Church. So you would have Baptiſm to run.
Anſw. 1. 'Tis not true what you ſay, Circumciſion was not the Door into the Jewiſh Church, they were all born Members of that National Church, and therefore their Females were as truly Members (that were not required to be circumciſed) as their Males.
2. Tho we grant Baptiſm is the initiating Ordinance into the Goſpel-Church, yet it admits of no Members but Believers only; if any others upon a falſe Faith get into it, they have no juſt Right thereto, and, when diſcovered, are to be put out.
3. Sir, tremble at the Thoughts of what you ſay! It is not we, but Chriſt in his Bleſſed Goſpel, that excludes Infants, or the Natural Seed of Believers, as ſuch, from being Members of the Goſpel-Church; he hath ſhut up that Door, viz. by Generation, i. e. being the Seed of Abraham, or Seed of Believers, as ſuch, and hath opened the Door of Regeneration: 'Tis we that believe, and our Children that the Lord our God ſhall call, and none elſe.
4. Sir, Circumciſion was ſo far from being any ſuch a Privilege as you intimate, that the Apoſtle calls it ſuch a Yoke of Bondage, that neither they nor their Fathers were able to bear, Act. 15. And in Anſwer to what you ſay, p. It was not for their Sin, nor the Sin of their Parents that Infants are excluded, or not received into the Goſpel-Church, but becauſe it was the good Pleaſure of God to erect another, and more ſpiritual Church-ſtate, and to remove the old Way, and Typical Church-ſtate of Iſrael.
5. Therefore for you to intimate as if we were ſo unnatural, as to caſt our Children out of God's Houſe, is not to be indured; it doth but reflect on the Wiſdom of God: we are more faithful to our Children (and not like the Oſtritch) than you, for we would not allow them that Right which God hath not; nor make them think in Baptiſm they were regenerated and made Members of God's Church, and ſo deceive, and put them upon a Temptation not to ſeek out for any other Regeneration, and Goſpel-Right to Church-Memberſhip.
You ſay, Circumciſion was an Obligation to put off the Body of the Sins of the Fleſh, and, ſay you, Baptiſm putteth us under the ſame Obligation, &c.
Anſw. Baptiſm can oblige none to put off the Body of Sin, but ſuch that are the true Subjects of it, by virtue of Chriſt's holy Inſtitution, which are only Believers, ſuch who before baptized have received the Spirit of God ſo to do: But you, without any Warrant from Chriſt, would put this hard Obligation on your poor Infants, whereas you know nor whether ever God will give them his Spirit or Grace, to enable them ſo to do: And as one Pedo-baptiſt lately ſaith, If they do not diſcharge this Obligation, viz. their Baptiſmal Covenant, they are guilty of Perjury, and 'tis the damning Sin.
O cruel Parents! you liſt your Infants into the Spiritual War by your pretended Baptiſm, and arm them not. The Graces of the Spirit are the Believers Spiritual Armour and Weapons, theſe they have when liſted, I mean baptized; but Infants, as ſuch, have not this Armour on when baptized: Alas! poor Babes they have too much Guilt upon them naturally! O the Weight that lies upon them! but you Pedo-baptiſts add to it by your Tradition of a Baptiſmal Covenant, that God never appointed them to come under.
Therefore you object, How can Children be bound to that which they are ignorant of? You anſwer, They were ignorant of the Bond of Circumciſion, and yet were bound over to the Law to take him to be their God, and to depart from the ways of Sin, &c.
Anſw. Becauſe God obliged and bound over the Jews by Circumciſion in their Infancy in that Legal Covenant, to love the Lord their God with all their Hearts, to take him to be their God, and to depart from all the ways of Sin, nay to keep the Law perfectly, (which ſhewed the neceſſity of Chriſt's Righteouſneſs and Merits) which was nevertheleſs upon this reſpect a Yoke of Bondage, which Yoke by Chriſt we and our Children are delivered from: Will you adventure to bring your poor Children under another like Yoke of Bondage? Chriſt's Yoke is eaſy, and his Burden is light, becauſe he gives all that are to be baptized his Spirit, and a changed Heart to love God, and cleave to him, and ſerve him; but you make his Yoke as hard as the Yoke of Circumciſion, by putting Baptiſm on your poor Infants, to oblige them thereby to be regenerated and love God with all their Hearts, before Grace in the Habit of it is infuſed into them, and all this without the leaſt Authority from Chriſt or the Goſpel. O cruel Parents! Sirs, who hath required this at your Hands? You ſhall hear more of this hereafter.
You do intimate, that 'tis true Circumciſion did oblige to keep the Law perfectly ſince the Law, but from the beginning it was not ſo; for, ſay you, Circumciſion was not of Moſes, but of the Fathers, Joh. 7. 22.
Anſw. Was not the Moral Law from the beginning? and were not thoſe that were circumciſed bound to keep the Moral as well as the Ceremonial Law? How then dare you ſay, and prove it not, that from the beginning it was not ſo, i. e. It did not bind Abraham's Natural Seed exactly to keep the Moral Law, that is, to love God with all their Hearts, and their Neighbours as themſelves, yea to leave and loath all Sin?
Circumciſion I have proved was no Seal nor part of the Covenant of Grace, but of, and part of the Covenant of Works; ſo that you run into a dangerous S…are, and deceive the People unwarily by your Ignorance of the two Covenants made with Abraham, and not diſtinguiſhing Circumciſion from being a Seal to Abraham's Faith, and not a Seal in common to all his Children. It was a Sign to them in their Fleſh, but no Seal of the Covenant of Grace. You further run a Parallel between Circumciſion and Baptiſm, as ſome others before you have done: Pray take my former Anſwers to all you ſay here which I have given to other Pedo-baptiſts upon this foot of account.
1. Others formerly have (as well as you do now) affirmed, That Baptiſm comes in the room of Circumciſion.
2. They run a Parallel between Circumciſion and Baptiſm, and would have them both ſignify the ſame thing in an exact Analogy. …:
… Say they, which you ſeem to affirm alſo, If Baptiſm ſucceeds in the room of Circumciſion, then as the Jewiſh Infants were circumciſed, ſo the Infants of Chriſtians may and ought to be baptized: But Baptiſm ſucceeds in the room of Circumciſion: Therefore as their Children were circumciſed then, ſo may ours be baptized now.
Anſw. 1. There is no neceſſity that a Goſpel-Ordinance muſt ſucceed in the room of a Legal or Jewiſh Ordinance. What if I affirm, that no Ordinance ſucceeds in the room of Circumciſion? Were there not many other Rites and Ordinances under the Law, or Old Teſtament, beſides Circumciſion? and yet you cannot find, or once imagine any Goſpel-Rite or Ordinance to come in the room of them reſpectively, for that then it would follow, there would be as many Chriſtian Rites, Precepts and Ordinances, as there were Jewiſh Rites, Precepts and Ordinances, which, as one obſerves, were more than three hundred.
2. Beſides, as Dr. Taylor obſerves, If Baptiſm came in the room of Circumciſion, you muſt baptize your Children always on the eighth day, and you muſt not baptize your Females at all, becauſe none but Male Infants were then circumcised.
3 And whereas you ſay that Baptiſm ſignifies the ſame things that Circumciſion did, it is not true, as will appear to all underſtanding Men, if they conſider theſe Particulars following, which are ſo many Diſparities, viz.
(1.) Circumciſion was a Shadow of Chriſt to come; Baptiſm is a Sign he is already come, was dead and buried.
(2.) Circumciſion was a Sign of the Covenant made with Abraham and his Natural Seed; Baptiſm is a Sign of the peculiar ſpiritual Privileges made to Saints, as ſuch, and no others.
(3.) Circumciſion was a Domeſtick Action, i. e. to be done in the Houſe; Baptiſm an Eccleſiaſtick, belonging to the Goſpel-Church.
(4.) Circumciſion was to be done by the Parents in that reſpect; Baptiſm is to be done only by Goſpel-Miniſters.
(5.) Circumciſion was the cutting off the Foreskin of the Fleſh, which drew Blood; Baptiſm is to be done by dipping the whole Body into the Water, without drawing of any Blood.
(6.) Circumciſion belonged to Male-Children only; Baptiſm belongs to Males and Females alſo.
(7.) Circumciſion was to be done preciſely on the eighth Day; Baptiſm is not limited to any preciſe Day.
(8.) Circumciſion made a viſible Impreſſion on the Body, which the Party might perceive when he came to Age of Underſtanding; Baptiſm leaves no Impreſſion on the Body.
(9.) Circumciſion belonged to Abraham's Houſe, to his Male-Infants only, or ſuch who were bought with his Money, and not the Male-Infants of any other Godly Men in his days, unleſs they join themſelves to his Family; Baptiſm belongs to Believers in all Nations.
(10.) Circumciſion bound thoſe who came under that Rite to keep the whole Law of Moſes; Baptiſm ſignifies we are delivered from that Yoke of Bondage.
(11.) If Circumciſion ſignified the ſame things, and conſequently, particularly the ſealing the Covenant of Grace, then thoſe that were circumciſed needed not to be baptized, becauſe ſealed before with the ſame Seal, or that which signified the ſame thing; but Chriſt and all his Apoſtles, and many others, who were circumciſed, were nevertheleſs baptized.
(12.) Circumciſion ſignified the taking away the Sins of the Fleſh, or the Circumciſion of the Heart; but Baptiſm ſignifies the Death, Burial and Reſurrection of Chriſt, which Circumciſion did not.
(13.) Circumciſion was to be a Partition-Wall betwixt Jew and Gentile; but Baptiſm teſtifieth that Jew and Gentile, Male and Female, Barbarian and Seythian, Bond and Free, are all one in Chriſt Jeſus.
Therefore there are divers Diſparities and different Significations between Circumciſion and Baptiſm.
4. And what tho we ſhould grant that Circumciſion was then the initiating Ordinance, and Baptiſm is ſo now in Goſpel-Times, i. e. an Ordinance of Initiation; yet Circumciſion initiated none into the Jewiſh Church, but ſuch who were by expreſs and poſitive Command of God to be circumciſed, who were only Male-Infants (for the Females were initiated without it); even ſo Baptiſm, tho it be an initiating Ordinance, yet none are to be initiated thereby, but only thoſe who by the expreſs Command are required to be baptized, and they are only ſuch who believe, or make Profeſſion of their Faith. Sir, Precepts that are meerly poſitive, greatly differ (you know well enough) from Precepts that are purely Moral in their own nature. Laws that are of meer poſitive Right, wholly depend upon the abſolute Will and Pleaſure of the great Legiſtator; and in all Caſes and Circumſtances we muſt keep to the expreſs words of the Inſtitution, we muſt venture to do no more, nor leſs nor do any thing in any other manner than God hath commanded, as appears in Nadab and Abihu and Uzzah's Caſes; the firſt for offering of ſtrange Fire, which thing God commanded them not (tho God in expreſs words no where forbid them ſo to do) were cut off, Levit. 10. 1, 2.
When God commanded Abraham to circumciſe on the eighth day, did he not virtually forbid him to do it on the ſeventh or ninth day? Therefore this ſort of reaſoning of yours is meerly ſophiſtical, and you do but darken Counſel with Words without Knowledg. Again, 'tis affirmed by you and other Pedo-baptiſts, That God hath no where declared that Infants ſhould be excluded; you mean, he hath no where forbid in expreſs words the baptizing of Infants: No more, ſay I, has he forbid Honey, Wine, Oil, Salt, and Spittle to be uſed in Baptiſm; the former was uſed by ſome of the Antient Fathers, and the latter is ſtill in the Romiſh Church: Where are we forbid to baptize Bells, and conſecrate Water, as the Papiſts do to make it holy Water? Alſo where are Infants excluded from the Lord's-Table? If therefore any thing may be done in God's Worſhip which you ſuppoſe is not forbid, and bears alſo ſome proportion in Signification with Jewiſh Rites, all Popiſh Rites and Ceremonies may be let in at the ſame Door: For the Pope, Miter, Popiſh Veſtures, Candle and Candleſticks, &c. they no doubt will tell you are of like Signification with the High-Prieſt under the Law, with the Prieſt's Veſtures, and other Ceremonies among the Jews. Whither will this lead you? 'tis dangerous to be led by ſuch a Guide.
But to proceed, we will come to that grand Proof for Infant-Baptiſm you mention, i. e. That Baptiſm doth come in the room of Circumciſion, which is in Col. 2. 11, 12. In whom alſo ye are circumciſed with the Circumciſion made without Hands, by the Circumciſion of Chriſt; buried with him in Baptiſm, &c. It is affirmed, That the Deſign of the Apoſtle here is to take the Coloſſians off from the old Sacrament of Circumciſion: He informs them that there was no Reaſon why they ſhould be fond of it, becauſe they were compleat without it, Chriſt having ſubſtituted a new Circumciſion in the room of it, namely, Baptiſm; and accordingly Chriſtians may now be ſaid, by Baptiſm, to be ſpiritually circumciſed, as the Jews were ſaid to be ſpiritually baptized.
Anſw. This Expoſition of this Text there is no ground to admit of; the Apoſtle ſpeaks of the Power or Virtue of Chriſt's Circumciſion: His Deſign is to ſhew we are compleat in Chriſt, and have him on; he mentions Faith as well as Baptiſm, or ſuch a Faith that ſhould always attend Baptiſm; and therefore Infant-Baptiſm from hence cannot be proved, or inferred, nor the leaſt ground for ſuch a bold Concluſion from hence, viz. That Baptiſm came in the room of Circumciſion.
1. For firſt, the Apoſtle 'tis true excludes Circumciſion, but 'tis upon another account, viz. by ſhewing Circumciſion was a Figure of the Circumciſion of the Heart, as Rom. 2. 28, 29. Phil. 3. 3. and ſince they had the ſame ſignified thereby, the Rite or Sign ceaſed. And as I have formerly replied in Anſwer to this Text, ſo I muſt ſay to you, all that can well be aſſerted from this Scriptare, where the Apoſtle brings in Baptiſm, is no more than this, viz. That where Baptiſm is rightly adminiſtred, upon a proper Subject, it repreſents the Spiritual and Myſtical Circumciſion of the Heart, i. e. That the Soul is dead to Sin, or hath put off the Body of the Sins of the Fleſh, by the Circumciſion of Chriſt; which may refer to the Power of his Death in the bleſſed Effects thereof, by the effectual Sin-killing Operations of the Spirit on the Heart. And as being dead to Sin, we are buried with Chriſt in Baptiſm, both in Sign and Token of Chriſt's Burial, i. e. covered all over in the Water, which is a clear Symbol of his Burial; alſo in Signification, i. e. that we being dead, and buried with Chriſt in Baptiſm, ſo are to riſe with him by the Faith of the Operation of God; and both theſe are held forth in true Baptiſm. The Apoſtle doth not mention Baptiſm to come in the room of Circumciſion, but to ſhew that theſe believing Coloſſians had through Chriſt by the Spirit obtained the Antitype thereof, or thing figured out in the Circumciſion of the Fleſh, which Baptiſm did clearly repreſent. But ſince this is ſo ſtrenuouſly urged afreſh, tho ſo often anſwered, I will be at the trouble to tranſcribe once more what Dr. Taylor, late Biſhop of Down, hath ſaid to this Argument of yours, and others before you, about Circumciſion, viz. That Baptiſm is the Antitype of it, or that it came in the room thereof.
The Argument (ſaith he) from Circumciſion is invalid upon infinite Conſiderations: Figures and Types prove nothing, unleſs a Command go along with them, or ſome thing expreſs to ſignify ſuch to be their Purpoſe; for the Deluge of Waters and Ark of Noah were Figures of Baptiſm, ſaith Peter. If therefore the Circumſtances of the one be drawn to the other, we ſhall make Baptiſm a Prodigy rather than a Rite. The Paſchal Lamb was a Figure of the Euchariſt, which ſucceeds the other, as Baptiſm doth Circumciſion: But becauſe there was in the Manducation of the Paſchal Lamb no Preſcription of Sacramental Drink, ſhall we conclude from hence the Euchariſt is to be adminiſtred in one kind? To which let me add, Becauſe Children, Servants, and all in the Houſe might ear of the Paſſover, muſt our Children and all in our Houſe eat of the Euchariſt, or Supper of the Lord? But ſaith the Doctor, In this very Inſtance of this Argument; ſuppoſe a Correſpondency of the Analogy between Circumciſion and Baptiſm, yet there is no Correſpondency of Identity; for tho it be granted both of them did conſign the Covenant of Faith, yet there is nothing in the Circumſtances of Children being circumciſed, that ſo concerns that Myſtery, but that it might well be given to Men of Reaſon, becauſe Circumciſion left a Character in the Fleſh, which being imprinted upon the Infants, did its Work to them when they came to Age; and ſuch a Character was neceſſary, becauſe there was no word added to the Sign. But Baptiſm imprints nothing that remains on the Body; and if it leaves any Character at all, it is upon the Soul, to which the word is added, which is as much a part of the Sacrament as the Sign it ſelf; for both which Reaſons it is requiſite that the Party baptized ſhould be capable of Reaſon, that he may be capable both of the Word and of the Sacrament, and the Impreſs upon the Spirit. Since therefore the Reaſon of the Parity does wholly fail, there is nothing left to infer a neceſſity of complying in the Circumſtance of Age any more than in the other Annexes of Types. The Infant muſt alſo preciſely be baptized upon the eighth day, and Females muſt not be baptized at all, becauſe not circumciſed. But it were more proper, if we would underſtand it aright, to proſecute the Analogy from the Type to the Antitype, by the way of Letter and Spirit, and Signification; and as Circumciſion figures Baptiſm, ſo alſo the Adjuncts of the circumciſed ſhall ſignify ſomething ſpiritual in the Adherents of Baptiſm: and therefore as Infants were circumciſed, ſo ſpiritual Infants ſhould be baptized, which is ſpiritual Circumciſion; for therefore Babes had the Miniſtry of the Type, to ſignify that we muſt, when we give our Names to Chriſt, become Children in Malice, and then the Type is made compleat.
Thus, as I have formerly ſaid, the worthy Doctor hath given you a full Anſwer to all you have ſaid concerning your Arguments for Baptiſm coming in the room of, or being a Figure of Circumciſion. But to proceed.
5. If Baptiſm and Circumciſion were both in full force together for ſome time, then Baptiſm is not the Antitype of, nor came in the room of Circumciſion.
But Baptiſm and Circumciſion were both in full force together for ſome time; therefore Baptiſm is no Antitype of, nor came in the room of Circumciſion.
The Minor is undeniable: Was not Baptiſm in full force from the time that John received it from Heaven, and adminiſtred it on the People? And did not Chriſt by his Diſciples baptize many Perſons, nay more Diſciples than John? as it is ſaid John 4. 1, 2. and was not Circumciſion then in full force too, and ſo abode till Chriſt took it away by nailing it with all other Jewiſh Rites to his Croſs?
And as to the Sequel of the Major, that cannot be denied: for if one thing cannot come in the room and place of another, till the other is actually and legally removed, and took out of the way, which is plain; then ſince theſe two Rites had a Being together, the Major is undeniable. A Type can abide no longer than till the Antitype is come, therefore Baptiſm is not the Antitype of Circumciſion, or came not in the room and place thereof; the Antitype of which, or that which came in the room of the Circumciſion of the Fleſh, is the Circumciſion of the Heart, not in the Fleſh but in the Spirit, whoſe Praiſe is not of Men, but of God.
6. And indeed how one thing that was a Figure or Shadow ſhould come in the room, or be the Antitype of another thing which is a Figure or Shadow, no wiſe Man can ſee Reaſon to believe. And thus your great Text, Col. 2. 11, 12. is plainly and honeſtly opened, according to the ſcope and main drift of the Spirit of God therein, and your great Pillar for your Scriptureleſs Practice of Babes Baptiſm, razed and utterly overthrown.
I have met with an Anſwer given to the like pretended Proof for Pedo-baptiſm, written by a moſt Learned and Reverend Author. The Argument and Anſwer I have been at the pains to tranſcribe, which take here as followeth.
The Argument runs thus, viz.
To them to whom Circumciſion did agree, to them Baptiſm doth agree; but Circumciſion did agree to Infants; therefore alſo Baptiſm, &c.
The Major he endeavours thus to prove, i. e. If the Baptiſm of Chriſt ſucceeds in the room and place of Circumciſion, then Baptiſm belongs to them that Circumciſion belonged to: but the Antecedent is true, therefore the Conſequent. The Minor he ſays is proved from Col. 2. 12. 'tis ſaid the Coloſſians were circumciſed becauſe baptized.
Anſw. This Argument ſuppoſeth Baptiſm to ſucceed in the room of Circumciſion, which may be underſtood many ways.
1. So as that the ſenſe be, that thoſe Perſons may be baptized, which heretofore by God's Appointment were to be circumciſed, and in this ſenſe the Argument muſt proceed, if it conclude to the purpoſe: but in this ſenſe it is falſe, for Females were not circumciſed, which yet were baptized, as Acts 8. 12, 13, 14. & 16. 14, 15. and Believers out of Abraham's Houſe, as Lot, Melchiſedec, Joh, were not to be circumciſed, but believing Gentiles are univerſally to be baptized.
2. It may be ſo underſtood as if the Rite of Baptiſm then began when the Rite of Circumciſion did, or was to end: but this is not to be ſaid; for John Baptiſt and Chriſt's Diſciples baptized, Joh. 4. 1, 2. before Circumciſion of right ceaſed.
3. It may be underſtood as if Baptiſm did ſucceed in the place of Circumciſion in reſpect of its Signification, which is true in ſome things, but not in others. Firſt, both might ſignify the Sanctification of the Heart, and this is all may be concluded out of that place alledged, Col. 2. 11, 12. to which I think meet to add, that if that Text be looked into, the Apoſtle ſpeaks not of Circumciſion, but of Chriſt; becauſe in him we are compleat, and by whoſe Circumciſion we are ſaid to put off the Body of the Sins of the Fleſh: nor doth the Text ſay we are circumciſed, becauſe we are baptized, but that we are compleat in Chriſt, becauſe we are circumciſed in him, and buried with him in Baptiſm; in which, or in whom ye are alſo riſen together, through the Faith of the Operation of God that raiſed him from the Dead.
In ſome things Baptiſm doth not ſucceed in the place of Circumciſion, in reſpect of Signification. For,
1. Circumciſion did ſignify Chriſt to come of Iſaac according to the Fleſh, Gen. 10. 11. but Baptiſm doth not ſignify this, but points at his Incarnation, Death and Resurrection.
2. Circumciſion was a Sign that the Iſraelites were a People ſeparated from all Nations, Rom. 3. 1. but Baptiſm ſignifies, that all that believe, whether Jews or Gentiles, are one in Chriſt, Gal. 3. 28.
3. Circumciſion ſignified, that Moſes his Law was to be obſerved, Gal. 5. 3. but Baptiſm doth ſignify, that Moſes his Law is aboliſhed, and the Doctrine of Chriſt eſtabliſhed.
4. Circumciſion ſignified the Promiſe of the Land of Canaan, but Baptiſm Eternal Life by Chriſt.
And indeed, ſaith he, if this Argument be not warily and reſtrainedly underſtood, an Egg is laid, out of which manifeſt Judaiſm may be hatched: but if it be taken reſtrainedly, it no more follows thence, but that Baptiſm and Circumciſion in ſome things hold forth the ſame, which is more plainly ſaid of Noah's Ark, 1 Pet. 3. 21. and of the Red Sea and Cloud, 1 Cor. 10. 2. and yet we ſay not that Baptiſm ſucceeded in their place, much leſs do we infer any Rite to be inſtituted in their ſtead, reſpecting the ſame Perſons; yea verily it is to be ſeriouſly thought on,
1. That by ſuch Arguments drawn from Analogies not conceived by the Holy Ghoſt, but drawn out of our Wit, a new kind of inſtituting Right (viz. from Analogies) is brought in, beſides our Lord's Precepts and the Apoſtles Examples.
2. This being once ſaid, by a like Parity of Reaſon and arguing, it will be lawful to bring into the Chriſtian Church under other Names and Forms, the whole Burden of Jewiſh Rites, yea almoſt out of what you will, to conclude, what you will; for who ſhall put a Bound to Mens ſeigning Analogies, when they go beyond the Lord's Precepts, and the Apoſtles Examples? It is well known that the Divine Appointment of Tithes to be paid, and many other things in the Writings of Divines are aſſerted by this kind of Argument, beſide the Rule of the Lord's Precepts, and the Apoſtles Examples.
3. Thereby will the Opinion of the Papiſts be confirmed, who affirm the Sacraments of the Jews to be Types of the Sacraments of Chriſtians, which is rejected by thoſe Divines that diſpute againſt Bellarmine.
4. This manner of arguing will countenance the Arguments of the Papiſts for an univerſal Biſhop, becauſe the Jews had ſuch, and juſtify a Linen Garment at Maſs, becauſe there was ſuch among the Jews, and for holy Water, Purification of Women, Eaſter, Pentecoſt, &c. for which the Papiſts do in like manner argue, as appears out of Durandus's Rationals and other Interpreters of Rituals among the Papiſts. Yea what hinders but we may give Children the Lord's-Supper, if we argue this way, ſince Samuel, Jeſus Chriſt, &c. under Age, were Partakers of the Paſſover? and of right all the Males were thrice in the Year to appear before the Lord; and therefore it is certain they did eat the Paſſover: and it ſhall be afterwards ſhewed, 1 Cor. 11. 28. the place will not avoid this Inconvenience, if the Text, Mat. 28. 29. may be ſhifted off, as Pedo-baptiſts uſe to do. Leſt any M…n take this for a light Suggeſtion, I will add that Grave, Godly and Learned Men have often warned that we are to take heed, that we do not raſhly frame Arguments from Analogy: Among others in their late Writings in the Engliſh Tongue, John Paget in his Defence of Church-Government, Part 1. cap. 3. p. 8. and elſewhere. John Ball in his Reply to the Anſwer of the New-England Elders unto the nine Poſitions, Poſit. 2. p. 14.
Laſtly; It is to be conſidered again and again, how by theſe Argumentations the Conſciences of Men may be freed from the danger of Will-worſhip, and polluting ſo remarkable an Ordinance of Chriſt as Baptiſm is: Eſpecially the Care lies on them, who by Prayer, Sermons, Writings, Covenants and Oaths, do deter Chriſtians from Human Inventions in God's Worſhip, diligently, and it is to be hoped ſincerely.
We further object, That there was a Command for Circumciſion of Infants, but there is no Command for the baptizing of them.
You anſwer,
The New Teſtament mentions but little of Infants, becauſe ſo much mention is made of them in the Old Teſtament, which ſaith plainly, that the Children of the Faithful are in God's Covenant, and that the Seal of the Covenant belongeth unto them.
Neither the Old Teſtament only, nor the New Teſtament only (ſay you) but both together, comprehend the Rule of Faith and Obedience. The Jews deny the New Teſtament, and ſome Chriſtians among us (ſay you) deny the Old Teſtament in reſpect of Infant-Privileges.
Anſw. 1. You ſeem here to deny Infant-Baptiſm to be found in the New Teſtament, therefore would have us go to Gen. 17. for it: Strange caſe! that a pure Goſpel-Ordinance that is of meer poſitive Right can be found in the Old Teſtament.
2. Sir, tho the Old Teſtament and New together is a Rule of Faith and Obedience in many things, eſpecially in pure Moral Precepts; yet, Sir, in Precepts meerly poſitive, I deny the Old Teſtament is any Rule to us: we are not obliged to Circumciſion, the Paſſover and Sacrifices, &c. by virtue of the Old Teſtament, becauſe they only belong to the Old Covenant-Time; and as to Baptiſm and the Lord's-Supper, they that lived under the Old Teſtament were not oblig'd to them, becauſe theſe are pure Goſpel-Precepts; and the New Teſtament only is our Rule, and a perfect Rule too upon this account. If therefore you cannot find Infants Baptiſm in the New Teſtament, you and your Childiſh Baptiſm is gone for ever.
3. The Old Teſtament doth not ſay the Children of the Faithful, as ſuch, were in the Covenant of Grace, tho they were in the Legal Covenant; but we have proved if they were, yet that doth not prove they ought to be baptized, becauſe the Covenant of Grace, as ſuch, gives no right to Baptiſm, but Chriſt's poſitive Command.
Now theſe things being conſidered, what ſignifies all Mr. Owen hath ſaid concerning Circumciſion, tho it ſignified ſome things that Baptiſm alſo doth ſignify, if they differ in ſo many reſpects, and there is no Inſtitution of Chriſt for Infant-Baptiſm, as there was for the Male Children of the Jews to be circucmiſed; Circumciſion or Baptiſm being neither of them moral, but meer poſitive Precepts? But ſince Mr. Owen ſaith in his next Chapter, he ſhall ſhew that there is a Command for baptizing Infants; we will ſee how he proves that.