Anti-Paedobaptism Part 3, Section 11
SECT. XI. The Agreements between Circumcision and Baptism, do not justifie Infant-baptism, and the validity of sealing Infants with an initial seal now, is shewed to be null.
HIs sixth and last Argument runs thus, The promise was sealed by the initial Sacrament aforetime to infants of visible Professors, seeking it for them both Jews and Gentile, therefore it may be sealed to the infants of Christians by the initial Sacrament.
The Antecedent he proves not, it is in effect no more than the infants of Jews and Proselytes were circumcised, onelyonly Mr. Church useth the affected Phraseology of Paedobaptists to call that sealing the Promise by the initial Sacrament, which is no more than circumcision, which it is false did seal, or assure to every circumcised person the Promise of propriety in God, or any other Promise made in the covenant with Abraham, Gen. 17. And he says, It was sealed to infants of visible Professors; intimating it was done to them by reason of their Profession, and not to others; whereas the infants of any in his house, whether born in Abrahams house, or bought with his money, who were not of his seed, but a strangers children, were by command to be circumcised. He puts in his conclusion (our Baptism) for (sealing by the initial Sacrament) But to let pass these stale Paralogisms; he takes on him to prove the consequence by six Arguments.
The first is, The principal Promise is not made void. He means that Gen. 17.7. but gives no reason why that should be the principal Promise, and not that v. 4. But I grant that Promise Gen. 17.7. meant of Abrahams seed by faith is not made void. He thence concludes, Therefore it may be sealed to the infants of Christians by the initial Sacrament in this dispensation; which is not a proof of the consequence, but of the conclusion of the former Argument; nor is there any force in this inference: for though the Promise were still in force as then, yet it is not a sufficient reason to baptize an infant, the command being not to baptize persons in covenant, but disciples of Christ.
In his second he tells us, Sealing that Promise by an initial Sacrament to infants of Gods people (which was the substance of circumcision, and a distinct thing from it) did not of right cease with the Jewish church-state; for it was not peculiar to that church as a national church; for that Promise was sealed to infants by the initial Sacrament long before the existence of a national church, and to Infants of strangers which were not of that nation Gen. 27.2. Sealing the promise by an initial Sacrament is principally in reference to the Catholik church. For shews of grace are sufficient to it, though… the parties have not joyned themselves to any particulor church Acts 18.36, 37. and 10 47. and one that cannot be rightly judged to be of the catholick church cannot have the promise sealed to him by an initial Sacrament, though he be a member of a particular church.
Answer. That which Mr. church saith (sealing that promise by an initial Sacrament to Infants of Gods people was the substance of circumcision and a distinct thing from it▪ ) is many waies faulty in respect of falsehood, and obscurity. For 1. the substance of circumcision as a type or shadow is Christ exhibited, as the Apostle Col. 3.7. not the promise of God to every Infant of a believer by profession 2. as circumcision was asign or taken of the covenant made with Abraham; and it is true the promise Gen. 17.7. was the thing signified by it, but not onelyonly that part, I will be the God of thy seed, but also the other, I will be thy God, yea and all the rest of the promises as ver. 4. thou shalt be a father of many nations, fruitfulness, descent of Kings ver. 6. inheritance of Canaan ver. 8. yet how the promises or the sealing of them should be the substance of circumcision I do not understand. Circumcision was a ceremony consisting of an action and a relation. Circumcision as an action hath no other substance or essence but the cutting off the little skin, as a relation, the signifying, or sealing is the very relation, but it is a trifling speech to say, paternity is the substance of paternity, if the promises sealed be meant to be the substance yet no Logicians I know so speak, to call the object of sight the substance of sight, the thing signified the substance of the sign. Faith is Heb. 11.1. said to be the substance of things hoped for, but there the act is said to be the substance of the object, not the object the substance of the act, & so the covenant should not be the substance of circumcision, but circumcision, the substance of the covenant. 3. It is more unintelligible to me, how sealing the promise by an initial Sacrament to Infants of Gods people was the substance of circumcision and yet a distinct thing.
For, first, if he mean that it was the substance of circumcision as a relation, that is the essence of it (in which sense only I know how to understand his speech) then sure it was the very same and no distinct thing, the essence being not a distinct thing from the essentiate, the thing defined and definition are not two distinct things, though the notion be formally distinct; if he mean that sealing that promise by an initial Sacrament should be the Genus to circumcision, yet so it should not be a distinct thing, the Genus and species are not distinct really but formally, Quae formaliter distinguunter non habent se ut res et. res Kick. …ist. log. lib. 1. part. 2. cap, 5. nor was there any other sealing that promise by an initial Sacrament then by circumcision, and therefore no real distinction, all the distinction was meerly notional or verbal, circumcision being one word, and sealing with the initial seal at that time another, yet both expressing the same thing. If any imagine a sealing with an initial seal then that was not circumcision let him shew what it is and were commanded: Mr. Church himself pag. 41. calls circumcision the initial Sacrament aforetime. 2. Sealing the promise by an initial Sacramment is said to be the substance of circumcision, yet pag. 41. he saith it was a distinct thing from sealing the promise, and only a ceremony for that time. Wherin sundry inconsistences seem to be 1. that sealing the promise by an initial seal should be the substance of circumcision, & yet circumcision a distinct thing from it. Is the substance of a being a distinct thing from it? the substance of a man a distinct thing from a man? 2. that Sealing the promise should be the substance of circumcision, and yet circumcision onelyonly a ceremony for that time. Is that a ceremony to a thing which is the substance of it? 3. that circumcision doth cease yet not that sealing the promise by that initial Sacrament which was no other then circumcision. Let him that can read these riddles, I am no such Ocdipus as to unfold them. But let Mr. Church use what gibberish he please I know no other initial Sacrament then that of circumcision mentioned in the old Testament, nor any sealing then commanded but it, and if it cease, then all the ruls about it cease to bind, and so are no rule to us now. But saith he pag. 41. The sealing of promise is not ceased, far seals are added in dispensation to the covenant. To which I reply. A thing is said to cease either of right or of fact which was of right to be or had being before but not now. There was no sealing by an initial seal aforetime that had being of right or of fact aforetime but circumcision, which Mr. Church saith was the initial seal aforetime, therefore circumcision ceasing, sealing with the initial seal aforetime ceased, there being no other foretime. But saith Mr. Church it is not ceased, for seals are added in this dispensation to the covenant, he means doubtless baptism and the Lords Supper, and by seals other seals, and so his reason is sealing of the promise by an initial Sacrament which was aforetime is not ceased, because other seals are added, which is as if one should say, the night is not past because the sun is risen, the reason is good to the contrary, there are other seals added, therefore the sealing with the initial seal, aforetime is ceased. But, saith he, it did not of right cease with the Jewish church state: For it was not peculiar too that church as a national church.
Answer. If circumcision were not perticular to the Jewish Church-state I know nothing peculiar to it. And if it were not peculiar to that church as a national church why was the nation peculiarly called the circumcision, and other people the uncircumcision Rom. 3.30. And for that which is alledged, that promise was scaled to Infants by the initial Sacrament long before the existence of a national church and to Infants of strangers which were not of that nation, I conceive neither is true. For circumcision was not till Abrahams nation were a Church. For he had before that time taught them the way of the Lord Gen. 18.…9. and they worshipped the true God, as appears by the many altars he built to Jehovah▪ And though Abrahams house was but a small nation, yet it was a nation. And though Infants of strangers were circumcised, yet it was not without in corporation into that nation, so that they were of that nation if not by birth, yet as proselytes added thereto; nevertheless if it had been before the existence of the national church of the Jews, it might cease with that church-state, as the distinction of clean and unclean beasts was before Abrahams dayes, as appears by Gen. 17.2. and yet that distinction ceased with the Jewish Church state.
As for his second reason it is of no force. For when he saith, Sealing the promise by an initial Sacrament is principally in reference to the Catholike Church ▪ he means it, I conceive, of baptism, else Acts 8.36, 37. & 10.47. are cited to no purpose. But there is no colour of consequence in Mr. Churches reason, thus framed, Baptism joined men to the Universal Church, therefore Circumcision was not peculiar to the Jewish Church-state, or that it ceased not with the Jewish Church-state. As for his other assertion, That [one that cannot be rightly judged to be of the Catholick Church, cannot have the promise rightly sealed to him by an initial Sacrament, though he be a Member of a particular Church,] it being of no weight to the present Argument, I shall not so fitly meddle with it till I come to answer the 20. ch. of Mr. Bs. first part of Plain Scripture proof, &c.
As for his third Argument, it proves not the Consequence. [For though faith and repentance be required of some afore circumcision] yet it was not required of infants afore circumcision. But afore baptism it is required of all Mat. 28.19. Mark 16.16. Acts 2.38. & 8.36, 37, 38.
To the fourth, I say though [infants now are capable of the promise as the Jews infants were,] and that [they could bear baptism as well as the Jews infants could circumcision, yet without a like command (which cannot be found) they are not to be baptized as the other were to be circumcised.
As for the fifth Argument, it is false, That [baptism is as appliable to infants as circumcision was; for there is not the like command, without which though it were, that no more action were required in the subject to be baptized then in the subject to be circumcised (which is false, as appears from Matt. 28.19. Mark 16 16. Acts 2.38. Acts 8.36, 37, 38.) and though it were that the parities were more between them then they are, yet they make no rule for baptism without a command or institution. But it is false which he saith, that baptism is the same Sacrament with Circumcision And as for the twelve parities, brought by Mr. Church, some are doubtful, as the first [that they are both initial Sacraments of the Covenant of grace] in some sense with some limitations it may be true, but in other, even in that sense it is commonly taken, it is not true; to wit, that the essence of them consists therein, and that they are so to all rightly circumcised or baptized.
The second is likewise ambiguous, in some sense true, in some false. Those that might not be rightly judged to be in the promise might be circumcised, however it be concerning baptism. And those that may be rightly accounted to be of the Church, meaning the invisible, yet are not therefore to be baptized.
The third likewise is doubtful by reason of the different waies of being accounted to the Church, and the doubt whether a person be to be accounted of the Church afore baptism or after. The Words Acts 2.41.47. seem to prove that they are added to the Church after baptism.
Neither is the fourth or fifth certain. For women ordinarily entred into the Church aforetime without circumcision, and did eat the Passeover.
The eighth is not true of every circumcised persons circumcision, nor of every baptized persons baptism, that it is an external seat of the righteousness of faith.
In the tenth something is untrue. For in the new Dispensation (as the phrase is) are not both temporal and spiritual promises sealed as well as in the former, if he mean it of the same temporal promises, we have better promises Heb. 8.6 but not the …ame, not the promise of the land of Canaan, of greatness, prosperity, &c. but rather a prediction of persecution, if we will live Godly in Christ Jesus. Christians have Christ, and all other things by that part of the Covenant made with Abraham, which is spiritual, but not by that part which is proper to the Israelites.
In the eleventh Mr. Church seems to be out in his computation about the beginning of baptism, and end of Circumcision. He saith [Circumcision of right ended when baptism began to be an initial Sacrament, and that was not surely till Iohn began to baptize, which was not till the fifteenth year of Tiberius, as is plain from Luke 3.1, 2. now mark his reason, For Christs Circumcision was the period of it. Now if Christs circumcision was the period of it, then it did cease almost thirty years before baptism began to be an initial Sacrament, Christ being circumcised in the Reign of Augustus. But whence doth he gather that Circumcision of right ended, when Baptism began to be an initial Sacrament?
For my part I find no such thing in Scripture. If our Lords words Iohn 7.22, 23. do not prove it was then in force, yet those speeches of the Apostle Ephes. 2.14, 15, 16. of abolishing the Law of Commandments in Ordinances, and slaying the enmity by his Cross, and Col. 2.14. of blotting out the handwriting of Ordinances, which was against us, and took it away nailing it to his Cross, do determine that Circumcision did of right continue until Christs death, and so some years after, baptism began to be a Sacrament initial. The usual Doctrine is, that the Ceremonies of the Law became dead with Christ, deadly after the open promulgation of the Gospel, and calling of the Gentiles, Diodati annot. on Matth. 27.51. And this breach was a sign that by the death of Christ all Mosaical Ceremonies were annihilated. But Mr. Church tells us, Circumcision ceased to be needful when Iohn began to baptize, for the Law is said to continue but untill John, Luke 16.16. To which I answer, I know not why Circumcision should not be as needful as the Pass over, which our Saviour himself observed Luke 22.15. and offering the gift to the Priest that Moses commanded, Matth. 8.4. I presume the command of Circumcision was in force till after Christs death as well as the command of the Passeover, seventh day Sabbath and other things. As for Mr. Church his reason if it were good, That circumcision was needless when Iohn began to baptise, because it is said the law was untill Iohn, by the same reason he might say▪ all the rest of the Law, yea and the Prophets were needless, when Iohn began to baptize. But the meaning is, the Ministery of the Law and Prophets continued, till Iohn, or as it is Matth. 11.13. all the Prophets and the Law prophecied until Iohn, that is, declared Christs comming as future, and when Iohn began then the Kingdom of God began to be preached, and therefore Mark 1.1, 2. The beginning of the Gospel of Iesus Christ the Son of God is said to be upon Iohns preaching; for then the Messiah was named as present, Behold the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the World, John. 1.29.
Lastly saith Mr. Church [the Apostle plainly teacheth that Baptism is the same Sacrament to Christians that Circumcision was to Gods people aforetime Col. 2.11.12. arguing against the continuance of Circumcision: in this Dispensation he uses two Arguments, which argue no less. For 1. Christ being come (who was the body of the old shadows) they of right ceased. 2. That baptism was now the sign of our Mortification, for which circumcision served aforetime.]
To which I answer, neither doth the Apostle plainly, that is, in express terms, teach Col. 2.11, 12. what ever Mr. Church, or Mr. Calvin say, That baptism is the same Sacrament to Christians that circumcision was to Gods people aforetime, nor do his reasons prove it. For by the same reason we might say it of putting away of leaven out of their houses, and keeping the Passeover with unleavened bread: baptism is the same Sacrament to Christians that the feast of unleavened bread was to Gods people aforetime. For 1. Christ being come (who was the body of the old shadows) they of right ceased. 2. That baptism is now the sign of Mortification, for which keeping the feast with unleavened bread served aforetime, 1 Cor. 5.7, 8.
But were all these parities between circumcision and baptism, which Master Church mentions, right, yet they prove not his Conclusion, That the initial sacrament in this dispensation is as appliable to infants of Christians as the initial sacrament aforetime was to infants of Gods people. For if not all these, yet as many other parities may be reckoned, at least according to Paedobaptists Hypotheses, between baptism and the Passeover, as, that they are both Sacraments of the Covenant of grace, both ceremonies to be used about those that might rightly be judged in the promise, and accounted of the Church, the ordinary way of communion in the Church, not allowed to those without, engaging to observancy of the Covenant according to the several administrations, signs of mortification, external seals of the righteousness of faith distinguishing Gods people from infidels, to cease at Christs comming, &c. and yet I suppose Mr. Church will not have them the same Sacrament. Yea as many disparities between circumcision and baptism may be reckoned as Mr. Church reckons parities, as that the one was a shadow of Christ to come, not the other; the one a token of the mixt covenant made to Abraham, which was of promises peculiar to the Jews, not the other; the one a domestick action to be done in the house, the other an Ecclesiastick belonging to the Church; the one to be done by the parents in that respect, not so the other; the one with cutting off a part, not the other; the one with drawing blood, not the other; the one to males onelyonly, the other to females also; the one to be on the eighth day whatever it were, the other not limitted to any precise day; the one made a visible impression on the body, and that permanent, not so the other; the one to be done with an artificial and sharp, the other with a natural and not wounding instrument; the one to all males belonging to the house of Abraham even infants, but not to others though Godly, except they joined themselves to that family: the other to believers or disciples of all nations; the one engaging to keep Moses his Law, not so the other. But be the disparities or parities what they will, the only rule in these meer positive rites is the institution or command: so that were the Sacraments (as they are called) the same in kind, use, analogy, or what other way they may be deemed the same, yet without a rule of command or example intimating such a command, we are not bound to do the like in the one, as we do in the other.
As for the sixth Argument, That nothing can be soundly collected from the scriptures against infant-baptism; the contrary hath appeared above in the second part of this Review Sect 5. &c. what he grants that it may be soundly gathered that all of riper years should be discipled before baptism from the commission Matth. 28.19. doth also prove, that they had no Commission to baptize any but discipled persons, and so none but those of riper years, not infants unless there be shewed some other Commission: which is not to be found in the Scripture, but only in corrupt tradition of antiquity, and the Jewish arguings of latter Divines, and is not yet found any other then will-worship.
To all which Mr. Church further brings answer is made before, the vindicating of my objections will most fitly come in the reply to Masters Marshalls Defence, to which I shall hasten after the dispatch of some few other Authors.