The Doctrine and Practice of Paedobaptism, Treatise 1 · Part 1
Arg. 2. from Gen. 17. 12.
[He that is eight dayes old ſhall be circumciſed.]
Arg. 2. Infants were circumciſed, ergo, may be baptized.AN Argument which I queſtion not but it would alone bear the weight of this whole Controverſie, if it were laid upon it. It is taken from the analogie and proportion betwixt Baptiſme and Circumciſion: the one a Sacrament of the Old Teſtament, the other of the New.
The Argument is framed thus: Infants under the Old Teſtament were circumciſed; therefore Infants under the New Teſtament may be baptized. The Propoſition or former part of this Enthymeme, the words which I have now read hold forth unto your, That Infants were circumciſed▪ So runs the Order and Injunction here in the Text. [He that is eight dayes old, ſhall be circumciſed &c.]
Wherein for the opening of the words, we may take notice of the Ordinance it ſelfe, and the time aſſigned for the adminiſtration of it. The Ordinance, Circumciſion; the time, the eight day. Briefly of each.
Circumciſion, what.1. For the Ordinance it ſelfe, Circumciſion, you know what it was. The firſt Sacrament of the Old Teſtament ſignifying and ſealing up to the people of the Iewes their entrance into Covenant with God; Thence called by the name of the Covenant. [My Covenant ſhall be in your Gen. 17. 13.fleſh, Gen. 17.]
For further opening of it, I might ſhew you both what was the ſigne, and what the thing ſignified by it. v. 11.The outward ſigne, the cutting away the foreskin of the fleſh. The thing ſignified by it; Generally, their entrance into Covenant▪ More particularly, their Iuſtification …nd Sanctification. Iuſtification, in the remiſſion of all their ſins, and gracious acceptation of their perſons in and through the bleſſed ſeed, being now marked out for God. Sanctification, in the mortifying of their luſts. And hence it was, that that mark was ſet upon that part of the body, to repreſent both the pardoning and mortifying of all their ſinfull luſts; both which were hereby not only ſignified, but ſealed up unto them.
Divers myſteries ſhadowed out by Circumciſion.Many other uſes there were of this Sacrament. Divers myſteries were ſhadowed out and ſignified by it: As,
1. The Corruption of their natures, viz. That they were by carnall generation unclean, and impure, out of Covenant with God, deſerving to be cut off, and caſt from the preſence of God, as that foreskin was from the preſence of men.
Heb. 9. 22.2. The meanes of their Redemption, viz. by the ſhedding of blood, without which there is no remiſsion, no redemption. It is a generall obſervation: All blood ſhed in the Old Teſtament, was typicall; and ſo was this. The blood ſhed in Circumciſion, a type of the blood of Chriſt ſhed in his Paſsion.
3. The nature of Mortification, which is a painfull exerciſe making the heart bleed, and making it bleed by affliction of ſpirit; and a cutting off, and caſting away of ſin, as in Circumciſion there was a cutting off, and caſting away the foreskin of the fleſh.
4. Their obligation and duty, viz. That they ſhould be ready to ſhed their blood for God, who had taken them into Covenant with himſelfe.
Ends of the Inſtitution.Theſe and divers other myſticall ſignifications it had; beſides divers other ends of the Inſtitution.
As 1. It was to them the initiall ſeale of the Covenant, making them viſible members of the Church.
2. It was a note of diſtinction, to difference and diſtinguiſh them from all other nations and people.
3. It was an obligation upon them, binding them to the obſervation of the whole Law, not only Moral, but Ceremonial.
4. It was to them a pledge and aſſurance of their right to, and intereſt in the earthly Canaan, which was the type of a heavenly. Theſe and many more ends and uſes might be reckoned up, but I ſhall not dwell upon them.
The time appointed for adminiſtring of Circumciſion, the eight day.Paſſe we to the ſecond thing, (which is here principally aimed at) viz. the Circumſtance of Time, when this Sacrament was to be adminiſtred, and that was upon the eight day. [He that is eight dayes old.] Filius …ct… di…rum, the ſon of eight dayes, (ſo the Originall hath it) i. e. a Child of eight dayes old: That was the day appointed for the adminiſtring of this Sacrament, the eight day: which was preciſely commanded▪ and as preciſely obſerved, upon what day ſoever it fell, I, though upon Joh. 7. 22, 23.the Sabbath day. [Moſes gave you Circumciſion (ſaith our Saviour to the Iewes) and ye on the Sabbath day circumciſe a man;] viz. that the Law of Circumciſion might not be broken. Thus it was.
Q. Why the eight day?Q. But the queſtion may be touching the reaſon of it; why God would have it ſo? why he chooſeth out that time, that day? why no ſooner? why no later?
A. For anſwer, Know we it is not good, nor ſafe to be too curious in our enquiries after God, in ſeeking a reaſon of all his Injunctions and Commands. He that is the Lord of time, may diſpoſe of time as he pleaſeth, neither is he bound to give an account of it. Yet in as much as there is a reaſon in all his actions, make we a ſober and modeſt enquiry after it here.
Q. Why no ſooner A. Divers reaſons alleadged. Some Phyſical Perer. ad loc. ex Plutarcho.Q. 1. Why no ſooner? Why not before the 8th. day?
A. Divers reaſons I find given for it; ſome phyſicall or naturall, others ſpirituall and myſticall:
In a phyſicall way, The Phyſitian will tell us, that the ſeventh day is a Cryticall day, and ſo a dangerous day, in ſpeciall to Infants; ſo as till that day be paſt, no wound, no inciſion can ſafely be made in the body of a tender Infant.
Other myſticall.In a myſticall way; Auguſtine will tell us, that this had reference to the reſurrection of Chriſt, who roſe again the eight day, by whom we have the true Circumciſion. The Maſter of the Sentences, and others after him, will tell us, that this eight day ſhadowed out the laſt day. Octava dies eterna dies, (ſaith Luther.) The eight day an Luther ad loc.embleme of Eternity, which commeth not within the compaſſe of the ſeven dayes, which are the meaſurers of time. Then ſhall we have a full and perfect Circumciſion, having put off this ſinfull fleſh.
The Hebrew Doctours have yet another conceit. The eight day was aſſigned (ſay they) to the end that a Sabbath (which to the Jewes was a ſigne of their Sanctification) Exod. 31. 13.might paſſe over the head of the Infant, before it was circumciſed, which it doth ever in eight dayes. But I will not avouch any of theſe.
Two reaſons inſiſted on.More plainly and ſimply, take a double reaſon for it. The one naturall, the other ceremoniall and myſticall.
R. 1. The naturall Reaſon.1. God puts off Circumciſion to the eight day, becauſe before that, the childe being tender could not without hazard or hardſhip indure ſo painfull a wound. From whence we might (by the way) take up a double obſervation, each uſefull.
Obſ. 1. God proportions tryalls to ſtrength.Obſ. 1. See here the truth of that which St. Paul tells us, 1 Cor. 10. 13. That God will not ſuffer his people to be tempted, (tried above their ſtrength, above what they are able to beare. He knoweth their frames and their tempers, and he will deale with them accordingly. [Hee Pſal. 103. 14.knoweth our frame (ſaith the Pſalmiſt) and he remembreth that we are but duſt. And therefore what ever ſenſe and reaſon may dictate, God will deale tenderly with his people, the people that are in Covenant with him, not 1 Pet. 1. 6.afflicting them but when and where needis, and in ſuch a meaſure as they ſhall be able to beare it. Giving them ſuch breathings, ſuch intervals, and intermiſſions as hee ſhall ſee fitting for them. Thus deales he here with theſe young Covenanters, the Hebrew Infants, he giveth them a breathing time betwixt their Birth and Circumciſion, that ſo they might recover the ſoarneſſe of the one, before he put them upon a new ſmart. Even ſo tenderly is God pleaſed to deale with his people: He will not ſuffer them to have ſorrow upon ſorrow but where need is. Paul writing to his Philippians tells them of Epap…roditus his ſickneſſe, [He was ſicke nigh unto death, but Phil. 2. 27.(ſaith he) God had mercy on him; and not on him only, but on me alſo, leſt I ſhould have ſorrow upon ſorrow. Herein God de…leth with them, as the warie Phyſitian with his patient; who if he be driven to repeat his Phlebotomie, his blood letting, yet he affordes his patient ſuch intermiſſion as the caſe will permit. Thus though God doe ſometimes follow his people with a ſucceſſion of tryalls, their need requiring it, yet he allows them ſuch reſpites, and ſuch breathings as he in his wiſdome ſeeth fit f…r them. True it is, fleſh and blood ſometimes thinkes otherwiſe. It is Iobs complaint as touching himſelfe, that [God multiplied his wounds without cauſe, and that hee would not ſuffer him to take his breath, Iob 9. 17, 18] But this was Iobs infirmity, (as Aſaph ſaith of himſelfe in a Pſal. 77. 10.like caſe) a fit of paſſion. Certainly God is no delighted in the miſeries of his creatures, much leſſe in the ſufferings of his people, and therefore they ſhall have ſuch intermiſſions as he ſeeth fit for them, that ſo they may not ſinke under their burthens.
Obſ. 2. God will have mercy rather then ſacrifice.Obſ. 2. See here the truth of that which the Prophet Hoſea tells us, Hoſ 6 6▪ The Lord deſireth merciemercy, and not ſacrifice, i. e. mercy rather then ſacrifice. God requireth that the Hebrew Infants ſhould be circumciſed, but he will not have them circumciſed before the eight day; before that, they were not able to beare it. It might be a hazard, at leaſt a hardſhip to them, and therefore hee requires it not. Nay, he requires the contrary. By no meanes upon what pretence ſoever, they might not adminiſter it before that day.
Applic.Applic. Which may ſerve both as a warrant, and direction unto us about our baptizing of Infants.
A warrant for baptizing by ſprinkling.1. As a warrant, viz. to beare out our manner of baptizing Infants by ſprinkling rather then dipping. Dipping being a Ceremony which in theſe colder Climates cannot be uſed without eminent hazard and danger unto children. Now the Rule is. Neceſsitie and charity diſp…nce with ceremoniall obſervances. Such is this rite, this manner of baptizing, a Ceremony. Now the duties of the Ceremoniall Law were ever to give way to the Morall, and ſo muſt they ſtill. To preſerve life is a duty of the Morall Law; no Ceremony but muſt give way to it. He that would not have Infants circumciſed, will not have them baptized to the hazard of their lives.
A direction about the time for baptizing Infants.2. Here is a direction to parents about the time for baptizing their children. Therein let them not be over haſty in thruſting their children upon this Ordinance ſo ſoone as ever they are borne, though not without ſome hazard and danger to their perſons. But let them bee content to wait Gods time.
Q. Gods time, I, but when is that?
Gods time, the time convenient.A. When it is moſt convenient. That is Gods time. Therefore it was that God made choice of the eight day for Circumciſion, becauſe that day was moſt convenient. In Baptiſme now there is no ſet day appointed, it may be adminiſtred ſooner or later, before the eight day, or after. But the time convenient, that is the day.
Q. Time convenient; when is that? A. Why when the childe may ſafely and conveniently receive it, and when the Ordinance may bee had according to Chriſts Inſtitution. Now is the time convenient, which is Gods time; and this time Chriſtians ſhould wait for.
Children dying without Baptiſme, whether indangered.Q. But what if the childe dye in the meane time? is it not hereby damni…ied or endangered?
A. To this we anſwer by making the like Querie out of the Text. What if an Hebrew childe dyed before the eight day? The ſame caſe of danger might have beene objected, becauſe the childe dyed without the ſeale of the Covenant: yet were not the Jews upon that pretext of neceſsity to haſten the time, to baptiſe before the eight day. But in this caſe they muſt leave their children unto that God who hath not tyed himſelf (though he hath done us) to Ordinances and means, but is able inwardly to ſupply what is outwardly wanting. And the like ought Chriſtians to doe where Baptiſme cannot bee conveniently had, with ſafety to the childe, and according to the Ordinance of Chriſt, there are they to commit and commend it unto that God, who both can and will make good his Covenant, though unſealed.Obj. Gen. 17. 14. The uncircumciſed man-childe was to bee cut off.
Obj. Why but it is objected: The uncircumciſed manchilde was to be cut off: So you have it v. 14. [The uncircumciſed manchilde ſhall be cut off from his people.] i. e. ſeparated from the fellowſhip of the Saints both here and hereafter. Now by proportion it may ſeeme there may be the like danger in a childe unbaptized.
Arg. 1. It reached not to Infants under eight daies old.A. To this we anſwer, that that Text, ſhould it bee underſtood of children, yet is it not to be extended to Infants under eight dayes old. Such as dyed before they could receive this Ordinance according to the Inſtitution, they were not within the compaſſe of this commination and threatning. No more are children which are taken away before they can be made partakers of Baptiſme according to Chriſts Inſtitution, this endangereth them not.
Not yet to children, but to perſons of age contemning or neglecting that Ordinance. Jun. & Trem, ad loc.2. But (ſecondly) that place is not properly to bee underſtood of Infants, but of perſons come to yeares of diſcretion. Not of Infants meerly wanting Circumciſion, but of perſons neglecting and contemning that Ordinance. The words in the Originall import no more. Praeputiatus mas. The uncircumciſed male, (ſo Iunius duplicate page duplicate page conceives the word there to be taken, with reference onelyonly to the ſexe, not to the age;) Such a one ſhall be cu… off; when? not in his Infancie, but afterwards, when hee commeth to yeares of diſcretion. If then hee ſhall neglect Circumciſion, ſo approving of his parents neglect, then he ſhall be cut off.
That this is the ſenſe of the place, Iunius maketh it good by two arguments.
Proved by two Arguments.1. From the word in the Originall which (ſaith he) is to be rendred not paſsively, (as our Tranſlation readeth it) [Whoſe fleſh of his foreskin is not circumciſed:] but actively; [Who ſhall not circumciſe his foreskin▪] Not Circumcidetur, but Circumciderit. Not, ſhall not bee Circumciſed, but ſhall not Circumciſe, or cauſe to be circumciſed the foreskin of his fleſh, viz. when he is come to yeares of diſcretion, If then he ſhall contemne or neglect this Ordinance, &c.
2. From the Reaſon which God himſelf there giveth why the uncircumciſed perſon ſhould be cut off, viz. Becauſe he hath broken my Covenant. Iritum fecit faedus meum. He hath made void my Covenant. Now this is not incident to children. And the…e…ore the puniſhment ſhould not be … where the offence▪could not be committed. If the Infant were not circumciſed, it was the Parents fault in omitting it, not the Infants in wanting it. And in this caſe the Parent might be cut off, not the Child. The Exod. 4. 24.truth whereof we ſee in Moſes; his child being uncircumciſed, the Lord proceeds not againſt the childe, but him.
Not the want, but contempt or neglect of …ti…me.And ſurely thus ſtandeth the caſe in Baptiſme: If perſons being come to yeares of diſcretion ſhall remaine unbaptized, either contemning or neglecting of this Ordinance of God; in this caſe God threatens them with a Cutting off. But as for Infants, let their Parents look to it: If there be any default, any contempt, any neglect in them, let them ſee to it; God will have a controverſie with them they may ſmart for it. But as for Infants themſelves, I have more charity then to feare their miſcariage for their Parents neglect. No: As the father ſhall not beare the iniquity of the ſon, ſo neither ſhall the ſon beare the iniquity of the father. The ſoule that ſinneth Ez…lthat ſhall dye. The uncircumciſed male ſhould be cut off: Non Infans, ſed adultus: not being an Infant, but being come to yeares of underſtanding.
It is not the want, but the neglect, the contempt of an Ordinance, that is dangerous and damnable. Not the want of Circumciſion, nor yet the want of Baptiſme, where it cannot be had according to the Inſtitution of Chriſt. This is our rule, which we may not tranſgreſſe upon any pretence whatever. (Better no Ordinance, then to corrupt an Ordinance.) The Iſraelites might not upon any pretext or opinion of neceſſity haſten the circumciſing of their Children before the time appointed, the eight day. This was the time convenient. There was the naturall reaſon of this Inſtitution.
…R. 2. Beſides this, I told you of a Ceremoniall Reaſon: Infants were not to be circumciſed before the eight day: Why? Becauſe till then they were counted as in their blood polluted and uncleane. So was it with the reſt of the Creatures, being new borne, they were accounted unclean for ſeven dayes, the eight day they might be offered up unto the Lord, and not before. So you have it, Lev. 22. And as it was with other Creatures, ſo Lev. 22. 27.with mankind: For the firſt ſeven dayes the male-childe was accounted as unclean; the eight day it might be circumciſed Lev. 12. 2▪ 3.and ſo offered up unto the Lord. And what ſee we here?
Obſ. God will have no communion with impure creatures.Obſ. God will have no communion with impure and unholy creatures. There is the ſubſtance of this ſhadow. God is in himſelf a pure and a holy God; being ſo, hewil have no communion with polluted & defiled creatures, Ezek. 16. 6.men that are in their blood, the blood of their nativity, in whom the corruption of nature rules and reigns. Thence Iſa. 1. 16.is that of the Prophet; Waſh ye, make ye clean &c. then come and reaſon with me. Infants under the Law were firſt to be waſhed and cleanſed from the blood of their nativity, their Birth-uncleanneſſe before they came to receive the ſeale of Gods Covenant. Who ever would ſtrike Covenant with God, or partake of the ſeales of his Covenant, they muſt be pure and holy.
Appl. Pſal. 50. 16. Let not ſuch meddle with the ſeales of the CovenantsAppl. O labour we all to be ſuch, Otherwiſe never take the Covenant of God in our mouths. Quid tibi? [What haſt thou to doe to take my Covenant in thy mouth, &c. Pſ. 50.] Never boaſt that we are in Covenant with God; dare not to meddle with the ſeales of the Covenant, which ſo long as we continue in an unreformed, unſanctified ſtate and condition, we have no right unto. The Infant during the time of the Ceremoniall uncleanneſſe of it, it had no right to this ſeale of the Covenant, Circumciſion. No more have you, who ever you are, ſo long as you lye under a ſpirituall uncleanneſſe, not purged, and cleanſed, and waſhed from your filthineſſe, you have no right to this Ordinance of God, the Sacrament of the Lords ſupper. And therefore take you heed how you intrude upon what you have no right unto: But firſt get your ſoules waſhen; firſt with the blood, then with the ſpirit of Chriſt: with the blood of Chriſt waſhing away the guilt of your fins unto Iuſtification; with the ſpirit of Chriſt waſhing away the pollution and power of ſin unto Sanctification. Being thus waſhen, then, and not before, have you right to have communion with God, and ſo may comfortably partake in the meanes of your Communion, amongſt which the Sacrament of the Lords ſupper is one, being a ſeale of the Covenant. And thus have I reſolved unto you the firſt branch of this queſtion: Why the Hebrew Infants were not to be circumciſed before the eight day; Why no ſooner?
Q. 2. The latter branch yet remaines. Why no later? Q. 2. Why no later?They might not doe it before, neither might they defer it beyond that day. The Text is expreſſe for the one as well as the other; [He that is eight dayes old ſhall be circumciſed,] i. e. upon the eight day: So you have it explained, Lev. 12.Lev. 12. 3.
Not but that in caſes of neceſſity it might be deferred: So was it in the wilderneſſe for forty yeares together. The reaſon whereof you have inſinuated, Ioſh. 5. Their children were uncircumciſed, for (ſaith the Text) Joſh. 5. 7.they had not circumciſed them by the way.] Being in itinere, every day marching and journeying from place to place, and ſubject to daily encounters with the Enemy, they could not conveniently be circumciſed. In this caſe then, (the caſe of neceſſity) it might be deferred; otherwiſe it was to be adminiſtred preciſely upon the eight day.
And why not upon the 9. 10. 20.? why not the next monethmonth, the next yeare?
A. Reaſons alledged. 1. Naturall. Peter. ad loc.A. For this I find divers reaſons alledged: one phyſicall or natu…all, the other morall or myſticall.
1. In a Phyſicall way (ſay ſome) this was a more convenient time then afterwards; inaſmuch as afterwards the body of the Infant growing more firme and ſolid, his Circumciſion would have been more painfull and grievous to him: Now God is not delighted in the ſmart and torment of his creatures, much leſſe of the people that are in Covenant with him. Letting that paſſe:
Morall and Myſticall Reaſons. Paraeus ad loc. … Parents ….Other Reaſons yielded are morall or myſticall. Of them I find Paraeus reckoning up three:
1. God would not have it any longer deferred, for the conſolation of the parents; that they might have an early aſſurance of Gods grace and favour towards their Infants, viz. that he had received them into Covenant, and did look upon them as confederates with himſelfe, and with his people.
Appl. A ſpeciall Priviledge, and ſo to be accounted by all that profeſſe the name of Chriſt; who ought to uſe all means to have the Covenant ſealed up, as to themſelves, ſo to their Children, not omitting the firſt opportunity that God offereth them for that purpoſe. Were it a temporall eſtate, an inheritance that were to be ſetled upon poſterity, and to be confirmed by ſome Decree in Chancery under Seale, in this caſe a carefull and provident parent would not let ſlip the firſt ſealing day. No more ſhould Chriſtian parents willingly baulk the firſt opportunity for the ſealing up of the Covenant of Grace, and therein of the heavenly inheritance, unto their children. The ſooner it is done, the more comfortable to the parent.
… the … ſake, … might fleigh▪2. As God did this for the Parents, ſo for the Ordinances ſake, viz. that that might not be ſleighted, might not be neglected. Had there been a liberty left for parents to have deferred and put off the circumciſing of their children ſo long as they pleaſed, the Ordinance by this meanes would have been brought into contempt, and have been reputed as unneceſſary, as needleſſe. Now God cannot endure that any ordinance of his ſhould fall into diſreſpect and diſrepute among his people. Be it Word, be it Sacrament, be it Prayer. &c. God would have the due eſtimation of them all maintained.
Take heed of ſl…ighting Ordinances.Applic. And take we heed how any of us have a hand in impairing it. How any of us be any occaſion of laying any ordinance of God under diſrepute and diſeſteem. This is done to the Word, when men come to heare i…, as if they cared not whether they came or no: Come ſometimes (it may be) for faſhions ſake, if they Word.like the perſon of the Preacher; otherwiſe their own houſe, or their neighbours houſe, is as good to them as Gods houſe, the Publike Congregation. When they doe come, yet they care not how late they come, when the Sermon is begun, halfe done. Thus is it with ſome, who ſuffer every ſleight occaſion to detain them, As we ſee it too ordinary in divers caſes, and particularly in that which I cannot but touch upon, your Baptizings; where civill ceremony, and outward ſolemnity ſtealeth away the time from Religious ſervice: And what is this but to bring a diſrepute, a diſreſpect upon this ordinance of God? as if it were not a thing of any ſuch neceſſity as it is pretended to be.
Baptiſme.The like I may ſay of Baptiſme, when children are detained from it week after week, monethmonth after monethmonth. What doth this imply, but that Baptiſme ſurely either is not proper for Infants, or at leaſt it is not of any ſuch neceſsity, but that they may be well enough without it?
The Lords ſupper.And ſo for the Lords ſupper. When Chriſtians upon ſleight grounds ſhall abſent themſelves, laying aſide that ordinance, not comming to the Sacrament yeare after yeare: What is this but to bring a diſeſteem upon that ordinance? as if it were not of any ſuch worth, of any ſuch neceſsity as it is pretended to be.
In the feare of God every of us take we heed of every of theſe, or the like. Take heed how we be any occaſion of bringing an evill report upon any of the wayes of God: But by all meanes be carefull to uphold the reverence and eſtimation that is due to his ordinances. This was one end why God would not have Circumciſion deferred beyond the eight day, that he might preſerve that ordinance from neglect and contempt.
3. A third Reaſon alledged by my Author, is: This To order the adminiſtration of Baptiſm afterwards.God did (ſaith he) not without a reference and reſpect unto Baptiſme under the New Teſtament, which was to ſucceed in the room and place of Circumciſion. Herein taking order alſo for the adminiſtration of the Sacrament, viz. that it ſhould be adminiſtred unto Infants, though not preciſely upon the eight day▪ (that was Ceremoniall, and being ſo, it is ceaſed as touching any obligation) yet in time ſ…tting and convenient. That was the ſubſtance and morality of that command, and that ſtill abides; By vertue whereof Infants in their infancie both may, and ought to be baptized. And ſo I am fallen upon the later part of the Enthymeme.
The Conſequence of the Argument proved.Infants under the Old Teſtament were circumciſed: [Therefore under the New Teſtament they may and ought to be baptized.]
Q. But how prove you this Conſequence, (ſaith the Anabaptiſt.)
Baptiſme ſucceeds Circumciſion.A. Why, the ground of it is this: Becauſe Baptiſme ſucceeds and commeth in the room and place of Circumciſion, anſwering to it.
Q. How prove we that?
Col. …. 11. 12. explained.A. From the Apoſtle himſelf, Col. 2. 11, 12. In whom alſo ye are circumciſed, &c. v. 11. Buried with him in Baptiſme, v. 12.] For the opening of which Text, know we briefly what the Apoſtles ſcope and drift there is, viz. to prove againſt the Jewes that Circumciſion is not now neceſſary nor uſefull unto Chriſtians under the Goſpel. The reaſon he giveth for it, is, becauſe Chriſtians have a more excellent Circumciſion then that of Moſes. That you have, v. 11. proved and made good by three Arguments. 1. From the Author of their Circumciſion; Not Moſes, who was but a ſervant, nor any other man, but Chriſt himſelfe. [In (or by) whom ye are circumciſed: [By the circumciſion of Chriſt.] 2. From the kind of it. It was not an outward, but an inward circumciſion, foreign; a circumciſion not made with hands, as that Moſaicall circumciſion was; but made without hands, viz. the circumciſion of the heart, of the inward man by the ſpirit of Chriſt. 3. From the fruit and effect of it, which is far different from that Legall circumciſion. There was only the cutting off of one ſmall part of the body, the foreskin of the fleſh: but here is a cutting or putting off the whole body of ſin: [In whom alſo ye are circumciſed with the circumciſion made without hands, in putting off the body of the ſins of the fleſh, by the circumciſion of Chriſt▪]
Why but the Iewes here might object: This Reaſon is of no force; that becauſe Chriſtians were ſpiritually circumciſed, therefore they ſhould not need the outward circumciſion: For ſo was Abraham, and yet he received the outward circumciſion; He had the inward grace, and yet he received the outward ſigne. And thus Chriſtians, though they be made partakers of this great benefit by Chriſt, yet they may ſtand in need of an outward ſeale to aſſure them of their partaking herein.
To this the Apoſtle anſwers, v. 12. ſhewing that Chriſt hath not left his people under the New Teſtament deſtitute of ſuch an outward ſigne and ſeale: For hoever Circumciſion be taken away, yet there is another Sacrament ſubſtituted and appointed in the room and place of it, a more excellent and lively Sacrament then ever Circumciſion was, a Sacrament reſembling it, and anſwering to it, viz. Baptiſme. [Buried with him in Baptiſme] viz. Sacramentally, Baptiſme being a Sacrament of Regeneration, ſignifying and ſealing up both our mortification, and vivification. [Being buried with him in (or by) Baptiſme; wherein alſo ye are riſen with him.] Thus then Baptiſme ſucceeds Circumciſion, and ſupplies the place of it.
Q. Whether Circumciſion was a type of Baptiſme.Q. What then (ſaith the Anabaptiſt) was Circumciſion a type of Baptiſme? That cannot be (ſaith one of them) for then one Type might type out another, and ſo be a Type of a Type.
A. Not ſo, yet Baptiſme ſucceedeth it, and anſwereth to itA. To this we anſwer, that we doe not ſay that Circumciſion properly was a type of Baptiſme: Both Circumciſion and Baptiſme are types of one and the ſame thing, viz. the myſtery of our Regeneration, which is the truth of thoſe types. But this we ſay, that the one ſucceeded the other; Baptiſme ſucceeded Circumciſion, Baptiſme an Antitype to Circumciſion.came in the room and place of it, withall anſwering to it, and ſo may be called an antitype to it. This we ſay with warrant from S. Peter, who ſaith the ſame of Baptiſme, 1 Pet. 3. …1.and the Ark wherein Noah was ſaved, 1 Pet. 3. [The like figure whereunto even Baptiſme doth now ſave us.] The like figure, foreign, the antitype, i. e. Typus correſpondens, (as Beza explaineth it) a Type anſwering to a Type. That deliverance in and from the flood, and our Baptiſme, they are two ſeverall types, both typifying and ſhadowing out one and the ſame thing, viz. our deliverance by Chriſt: but that being the former type, carried with it a reſemblance of this; and this comming after, anſwereth unto that. Even ſo may we ſay of Circumciſion and Baptiſme: Baptiſme is to Circumciſion foreign, an antitype, though not properly typified by it, yet a type comming in the place of it, and anſwering to it.
Obj. Anſwering to it? (ſaith the Anabaptiſt) True, in ſome things it doth, but not in all: Nay in many things there is a vaſt difference betwixt them. And therefore (ſay they) to reaſon from Circumciſion to Baptiſme, can be no convincing Argument.
Baptiſme and Circumciſion compared.A. In way of reply to this, it will be both expedient and neceſſary to bring the Type and the Antitype, Baptiſme and Circumciſion, (as I may ſay) face to face, to compare the one with the other, that ſo we may ſee both wherein they differ, and wherein they agree. We will begin with the former.
Wherein they differ.Wherein they differ. That there are differences betwixt them, we yield it: But yet theſe differences we ſhall find for the moſt part circumſtantiall; For ſubſtance we ſhall ſtill find them one and the ſame. The differences are many.
1. In outward Ceremony.1. They differ in the outward ceremony or ſigne; which in the one, was a cutting off the foreskin of the fleſh; in the other, the waſhing of the body with water.
2. In ſome circumſtances about the ſubject.2. In ſome circumſtances about the ſubject, As 1. Circumciſion was to be adminiſtred only to the males, Baptiſme to male and female. 2. Circumciſion was enjoyned only to Abrahams poſterity, to his ſeed according to the fleſh. As for others, however they might come in and joyn themſelves with Abraham, and be confederates with him, yet were they not enjoyned to Gen. 17. 9.be circumciſed: The command reached only to Abraham and his ſeed. But Baptiſme, that extendeth to all, both Iewes and Gentiles. [Goe teach all nations baptizing them.] i. e. not adminiſtring Baptiſme to the Iewes only, as Circumciſion was, but to all nations, Iewes and Gentiles.
3. Time of adminiſtration.3. In the circumſtance of Time appointed for their adminiſtration. Circumciſion was to be adminiſtred preciſely upon the eight day, neither ſooner, nor later, (as I have ſhewed you:) But in Baptiſme there is a liberty left, no ſet day appointed.
4. Manner of ſignification.4. In their manner of ſignification. Circumciſion looked at Chriſt to come; Baptiſme, at Chriſt already come: The one ſignifying and ſealing the remiſſion of ſins by and through the blood of Chriſt to be ſhed; the other, through that blood already ſhed.
5. Matter ſealed.5. In the matter ſealed. Circumciſion ſealed up unto Abraham and his ſeed a temporall promiſe, viz. touching the Land of Canaan: So you have it, v. 8. of this Gen. 17. 8.Chap. [I will give unto thee, and to thy ſeed after thee, the Land wherein thou art a ſtranger, all the Land of Canaan.] Not that this was the only thing which Circumciſion ſealed up, (as the Anabaptiſts would have it) or yet the main thing; For in the verſe foregoing, God promiſeth Abraham to be his God, and the God of his ſeed. This ver. 7.was the grand promiſe, the main of the Covenant which Circumciſion ſealed up. As for that temporall inheritance, it was but an acceſſary, an appendix, an additament. But Baptiſme ſealeth up only ſpirituall and heavenly benefits, Grace and Glory.
6. Duration.6. And laſtly, (to name no more) they differ in their duration and continuance. Circumciſion was but a temporary ordinance, the temporary ſeale of an everlaſting Covenant, Gen. 19. 7. 13.being to continue in force only till the comming of Chriſt, in whom all the Ceremonies of the Old Teſtament determined. Paul ſpeaking of the whole Pedagogie of the Law, the Legall Covenant, tels us, It was Gal. 3. 19.added becauſe of Tranſgreſsions, untill the ſeed ſhould come to whom the Promiſe was made:] i. e. till Chriſt ſhould Rom. 10. 4.come who was the end of the Law. But Baptiſme, it is a perpetuall ordinance. Such is the Goſpel it ſelfe, an everlaſting Goſpel (as it is called Rev. 14. 6.) And ſuch are all Goſpel ordinances, everlaſting ordinances, to continue in force till the ſecond comming of Chriſt at the end of the world.
All theſe differences we confeſſe and acknowledge: And we think our Adverſaries cannot truly aſſigne any more, at leaſt not materiall. Now for theſe differences, he that looketh upon them ſhall ſee them to be but circumſtantiall, ſo as for ſubſtance theſe two may ſtill remaine one and the ſame, and ſo we ſhall find them, the one in all materials anſwering the other. That will appeare Wherein they agree.by comparing of them in the things wherein they agree.
1. In ends and uſes.And here we ſhall find them agreeing (firſt) in the maine and principall ends and uſes, for which they were inſtituted and ordained. As
1. Each of them a Seale of the Covenant. So was Each a ſeale of the ſame Covenant. Verſ. 11.Circumciſion. [It ſhall be a token of the Covenant between me and you.] And ſo is Baptiſme a Token and Seale of the Covenant: And that of the ſame Covenant that Rom. 4. 11.Circumciſion was, viz. the Covenant of Grace, ſealing up to the beleever his intereſt in the grace and favour of God through Chriſt. Each a Seale of the Covenant, of the ſame Covenant.
2. Each an Initiall Seale, the firſt Seale of the Covenant; Each an initiall Seale.each ſealing up an entrance into Covenant. So did Circumciſion, and ſo doth Baptiſme.
Each a note of diſtinction.3. Each a note of diſtinction, to difference and diſtinguiſh Gods people from all other people. So did Circumciſion; it was the diſtinguiſhing marke, diſtinguiſhing Gal. 2. 15.betwixt Iewes by nature, and ſinners of the Gentiles. And ſo doth Baptiſme now to Chriſtians, diſtinguiſhing them from Pagans, Turkes and Infidels.
Each an obligation to obedience.4. Each of them an Obligation, binding to the ſame condition, the condition of Obedience, & that, Evangelicall obedience. Such was the condition of the Covenant Gen. 17. 1.which God made with Abraham. [Walke before me and be thou perfect,] i. e. upright, or ſincere. Hereunto was he obliged by his Circumciſion. And hereunto are Chriſtians obliged by their Baptiſme to the ſame condition. Thus they agree in their maine ends and uſes.
In their ſignification, ſhadowing out the ſame myſteries.2. We ſhall finde them agreeing in their ſignification. Each ſhadowing out the ſame myſteries. As
1. The corruption of nature. This was ſhadowed out in Circumciſion, by cutting off the foreskin of the fleſh. The corruption of nature.And the ſame myſterie is ſhadowed out in Baptiſme, by the waſhing of the body with water.
The myſtery of Redemption.2. The myſterie of our Redemption through the ſhedding of the blood of Chriſt. That was ſhadowed out in Circumciſion by the ſhedding of blood: And the ſame is ſhadowed out in Baptiſme by the water; both repreſenting and ſignifying the blood of Chriſt.
The myſtery of Regen e… tion.3. The myſterie of our ſpirituall regeneration. This was ſhadowed out by Circumciſion, wherein the cutting off the foreskin of the fleſh ſignified the mortifying of ſinfull luſts: And the ſame is ſignified in Baptiſme, where by the waſhing of the body with water, is ſignified the waſhing of the ſoule from the ſtaine and pollution of ſin by the ſpirit of Chriſt. Whence it is called a Tit. 3. 5.Laver, foreign, The laver of Regeneration, the waſhing of the new birth. Thus each of them holdeth forth the ſame myſteries.
3. Agreements in the Subject.3. We ſhall find them agreeing in the Subject. Each of them being to be adminiſtred to all, and only Confederates; ſuch, all ſuch, only ſuch as are within the compaſſe of the Covenant. So was Circumciſion to Abraham and all his poſteritie, to Infants as well as others, they being alſo confederates. And even ſo is it with Baptiſm: it is to be adminiſtred to all, and only ſuch as may in the judgement of charity be reputed confederates; amongſt which Infants alſo are to be reckoned (as I have already proved it at large.) Upon this ground were they circumciſed, becauſe within the Covenant; and upon this ground they may and ought to be baptized.
Replic. Circumciſion was grounded upon an expreſſe command.Repl. But to this the Anabaptiſt replieth, that it was not the Covenant that made Infants capable of Circumciſion. What then? Why, an expreſſe Command from God. Even that in the Text: [He that is eight dayes old ſhall be circumciſed.] Here is an expreſſe Mandamus (ſay they) an expreſſe order for the Circumciſion of Infants; and by vertue hereof it was, that they were circumciſed: not becauſe they were in Covenant, but becauſe God had given an expreſſe command concerning it.
Sol. That command was grounded upon the Covenant.A. To this we anſwer. It is true, here is an expreſſe command for the Circumciſion of Infants: but it is with reference to the Covenant, which was the ground of this Injunction, and the ground of Infants circumciſion. This it was that made Infants capable of Circumciſion; not meerly this Mandamus, this Command in the Text, (as abſtracting Anabaptiſts would have it) without reference to the Covenant, but their being in Covenant. They were confederates with God: God had taken them into Covenant, and therefore hee would have the ſeale of his Covenant ſet upon them. So much may be clearly collected (as from divers other paſſages in this Chapter, ſo) from the 10. 13. & 14. verſes, where Circumciſion is ſtill called by the name of the Covenant: [My Covenant ſhall be in your fleſh▪ &c.] Clearly importing that this was the ground of their Circumciſion, even the Covenant, not ſimply the Command.
Note.As for the Command here in the Text, it is to be noted, that it only determines the time, aſſignes the day upon which Infants were to be circumciſed, limiting it to the eight day. But as for their Circumciſion it ſelfe, that was ordered before, being comprehended in the Covenant it ſelfe, which was the ground of their Circumciſion.
Repl. Here is a command for Circumciſion, not the like for baptiſme of Infants.Repl. Why but (ſaith the Anabaptiſt) however, here is an expreſſe mandamus, an expreſſe order and command for the circumciſion of Infants. Now (ſay they) could you ſhew us the like for the baptiſme of Infants, then the controverſie were at an end. But ſuch command, ſuch injunction, or direction there is none.
Sol. No prohibition to forbid the ſeal of the Covenant to Infants under the New Teſtament, more then under th… Old.A. To this Allegation of theirs (Godwilling) I ſhall anſwer more fully hereafter. For the preſent I ſhall only retort it upon them, and demand of them to ſhew us a Prohibition, or Inhibition, where it is any wayes forbidden that children ſhould partake of the ſeale of the Covenant under the New Teſtament, as well as under the Old; That they who were circumciſed then, ſhould be baptized now. That Baptiſme ſucceeded, and came in the roome of Circumciſion, we have ſufficiently proved it already, and I thinke our adverſaries being preſſed upon it, they will not, they cannot deny it. Now if it came in the place of Circumciſion, then it tyeth upon our Adverſaries to ſhew what ſpeciall proviſo, what caeveat is put in to debar children from the one, who had ſo undoubted a right to, and ſo long a continued poſſeſſion of the other. How they come to be cut off from this priviledge which was once ſo firmly intailed upon them: Which if they cannot ſhew, then muſt we ſtill conclude it to be their right.
All materiall differences betwixt Circumciſion and Baptiſme held forth in the Word.As for other alterations wherein Baptiſme differs from Circumciſion, we can ſhew good warrant for them out of the Scriptures: As viz.
1. Why, whereas Circumciſion was adminiſtred only to males, Baptiſme ſhould be adminiſtred to both ſexes, both to male and female. For this, we have both the practiſe of the Apoſtles to warrant it, (At Philips Baptizing of both ſexes.preaching to the Samaritanes, they beleeving his doctrine, were baptized both men and women, Act. 8. 11.) and we have the Apoſtles reaſon for it, Gal. 3. 28. [As many of you as have beene baptized into Chriſt, have put on Chriſt; For in Chriſt Ieſus there is neither male, nor female, &c.]
Of all Nations.2. So ſecondly, for baptizing of all Nations. Whereas Circumciſion was reſtrained peculiarly to one Nation, Baptiſme is to be tendred to all. For this we have our Mat. 28. 19.Saviours owne commiſſion and warrant, [G…e teach all Nations baptizing them;] i. e. Not Iewes only, but Gentiles alſo. And we have the Apoſtles reaſon for it alſo Gal. 3. 28. Act. 10. 35.in the place forenamed: [For in Chriſt Ieſus there is neither Iew nor Greek, &c.]
Upon any day.3. So againe for the circumſtance of time. That we do not tye the adminiſtration of Baptiſme to any certaine day, as it was in Circumciſion, but adminiſter it before the eight day, or after: For this alſo we have the Apoſtles warrant, who tells us that it is not for Chriſtians now to obſerve dayes as the Jewes did; reckoning up this amongſt thoſe weake and beggarly rudiments, as Gal. 4. 9. 10.he calls them. [Yee obſerve months and dayes, and times and years.] Herein Chriſtians have a liberty, a liberty purchaſed for them by the blood of Chriſt; and that liberty Gal 5. 1.they muſt ſtand faſt in.
Thus in what ever other changes and alterations herein we meet with, we can ſtill ſhew good warrant No warrant for this alteration that Infants ſhould not be baptized as well as Circumciſed.for it out of Scripture. Now if our Adverſaries can doe the like for this great alteration, why Baptiſme ſhould not bee adminiſtred to Infants as well as Circumciſion was, then indeed wee will hearken to them. In the meane time it is not for them to preſſe us for a ſpeciall warrant, an expreſſe and particular order and command in this caſe. This we conceive to be altogether needleſſe; having ſuch a ſtanding order and direction touching Circumciſion, ſhewing us to whom this ſeale of the Covenant belongs, and to whom it is to be adminiſtred; viz. to all that are in Covenant, Infants as well as others, what needeth any new order in this particular? This order for the ſubſtance of it is perpetuall of force under the New Teſtament as well as under the Old. Further anſwer to this queſtion I ſhall defer till hereafter, conceiving this ſufficient for the preſent.
One allegation is yet behinde which our Adverſaries by way of reply here caſt in our way, I ſhall only touch briefly, and ſo diſmiſſe this ſecond Argument with it.
Replic. By a like reaſon children ſhould now eat the Lords Supper becauſe they eat the Paſſeover.Repl. If this bee a good Argument (ſay they) that Infants may be baptized, becauſe they were Circumciſed, then by a like reaſon they ſhould now be admitted to the Lords Table, becauſe under the Old Teſtament they eat the Paſſeover. The reaſon (ſay they) is a like for both. So as if it hold in the one, why not in the other?
Sol. Childrens eating of the Supper an ancient practice.Anſ. To part of this I have in part anſwered already; give me leave now to doe it a little more fully. For childrens eating of the Lords Supper, whether lawfull or no, it hath beene, and yet is a Queſtion. Anciently it is well knowne it was allowed and practiſed in the Roman Aug. l. de Eccl. Dogm. c. 52. & Eph. 23. Cyprian de Lapſis Serm. 5and African Churches. Thoſe ancient Doctors Auguſtine and Cyprian are Advocates in this cauſe, pleading not only for the lawfulneſſe, but Expediencie of it. At this day the practice is (or at leaſt lately was, as Peter P. Martyr Com. in 1 Cor. 11. 24.Martyr informes me) retained amongſt the Grecian, Bohemian, Moravian Churches. How warrantable this hath been, or may be, is diſputable. P. Martyr for his In iſtâ cauſâ pro neutrâ parte vehementer contenderim. P. M. ibid. Non enim damnare auſim Eccleſiam veterem, &c. ibid.part profeſſeth that he will not be zealous in ſiding with either part in this quarrell. As for the cuſtome of thoſe ancient Churches in admitting them, he will not, he dare not condemne it; and as for the practiſe of other Churches in debarring them, he cannot but allow it. The latter not ſo warrantable is amongſt us, and moſt of the Churches at this day, and that upon good ground (as we conceive) concluded to be the more ſafe, the more warrantable. For their admiſsion Scripture will not beare it out. As for that place cited and made uſe of by thoſe Ancients as a ground for this practice, Joh. 6. 53. Except yee eat the Fleſh of the Son of man, and drinke his Blood ye have no life in you,] it maketh nothing for it; our Saviour there ſpeaking not of a Sacramentall, but a Spirituall Communion, a Spirituall feeding upon him, which is done by faith, fetching refreſhment & nouriſhment from Chriſt, by the application of his merits unto the ſoule. Much in Scripture that ſeemeth to make againſt it. Paul telleth us of divers Qualifications requiſite in Communicants; and divers actions to be performed by them in, and about the ſupper of the Lord, which Infants are not capable of, as viz. (beſides the eating and drinking of the Elements which young Infants cannot doe) the examining 1 Cor. 11. v. 24 25, 26, 28, 29.of themſelves, the diſcerning of the Lords body, the ſhewing forth the Lords death, the doing what they doe in remembrance of him &c. All theſe actions are actually to be performed by worthy Communicants. So as there is juſt reaſon why Infants though they be baptized, yet they ſhould not be admitted to the Supper of the Lord; this being as you ſee an active Ordinance, conſiſting moſtly in doing, [Doe this as oft as you eat it, &c.]
Q. But what ſay we then to the Argument? Infants eat the Paſſeover, why not then the Lords Supper, as well as be baptized, becauſe they were circumciſed?
A. 1. To this we anſwer (i.) ſhould it be granted that Infants did partake of the one, yet we ſee good reaſon why they ſhould not be admitted to the other, being not ſubjects capable of the aforeſaid Qualifications.
Children did not eat the Paſſeover.2. But (ſecondly) how can it be proved that Infants did eat the Paſſeover? I know it is an opinion that hath been received (ſwallowed downe I ſuppoſe without chewing, as many other of this nature have been) and that by ſome of note; but upon what ground, I know Aret. Cenſura contrà Paedobaptiſt.not: Scripture I am ſure will not make it out. True, we finde an order that there ſhould be a Lambe for a houſe, and in caſe that one family were too little to eat it up, Exod. 12. 3. 4.the next family was to be joyned to it; they muſt take it according to the number of the ſoules, (ſaith the Text) Joſeph. de B…llo Judai. l. 7. c. 17.reckoning (ſay the Hebrewes) ten to a Lambe: But that muſt be underſtood not univerſally of all the perſons in a family, but only ſuch as were meet to eat thereof. Amongſt Aynſworth Annot. ad loc.which (ſay the Hebrews) ſicke perſons and young children were not to be reckoned, (no more then perſons uncircumciſed and uncleane) being not fit to eat thereof.
1. Not fit to partake in the outward elements: This could not young Infants doe, eat the fleſh and unleavened bread, much leſſe that unpleaſing ſalade of ſowre or Exod. 12. 8.bitter hearbes which was to be eaten with it. Theſe were no fit food for Infants.
2. Much leſſe (in the ſecond place) could they underſtand the myſtery and meaning thereof, which (as it ſeemeth) they ought to doe, before they were admitted Bucan. de Baptiſm. ſect 36.to communicate therein. So much (at leaſt with great probability) is collected from the 26. v. of that … d. 12. 26.Chapter, where it is ſaid, It ſhall come to paſſe when your children ſhall ſay unto you, What mean you by this ſervice? Yee ſhall ſay, It is the ſacrifice of the Lords Paſſeover, &c.] So it ſeemeth that none were to partake of this Sacrament, but ſuch as were of age and capacity to interrogate concerning the meaning of it: And that they were to be inſtructed concerning it, before ſuch time as they were admitted to it. So much the Iewiſh Doctours will tell us concerning this Feaſt, viz. That ſuch children as were able to goe up with their parents from the Gates of Ieruſalem Aynſworth ib.to the Temple, they were to appeare before the Lord, that being firſt catechized in the Commandements, they might celebrate the Feaſt.
The Argument retorted.So that this Argument may now be retorted, and returned with great advantage againſt the Adverſarie, (as Bucan. de Baptiſmo loc. 47. q. 36. Tilen. de Baptiſmo Diſp. 2 Theſ. 24.I finde it by ſome of our moderne Divines.) Infants under the Law were circumciſed the eight day, but not admitted to the eating of the Paſſeover, untill they were of capacity to underſtand the myſtery and meaning of it. Even ſo n…w under the Goſpel, Infants of believing parents may and ought to be baptized, but not admitted to the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, untill they be able to underſtand the myſtery and meaning of that Sacrament, to diſcerne the Lords Body. Which parallel being duly weighed, it maketh very much for the clearing of the warrantableneſſe of the Churches practiſe in both theſe particulars, both in adminiſtring unto Infants the one Sacrament, and in with-holding from them the other. But I will no longer dwell upon it.