The Infants Advocate of Circumcision and Baptism, Chapter 1
CHAP. I. Of Circumciſion.
What it was, on whom, by whom, and when to be adminiſtred. The Penalty of wilful Recuſants there in.
CIRCUMCISION was the cutting off of a ſkin, in thoſe parts which nature hath covered with ſhame, which might be ſpared without danger of life, hinderance of generation, or viſible deformity.
The ſolemn Inſtitution hereof we find Gen. 17. where it was commanded to Abraham and his ſeed; before which time (though allowing ſomething Sacramental in the Tree of Life, Ark, &c.) the Church of God had (Sacrifices but) no conſtant and continuing Sacrament.
This Circumciſion is ſubject to many carnal objections, which corrupt Nature may urge againſt it. Firſt, ſome accuſe it as an immodeſt Ceremony; whereas indeed no ſuch wantons as ſuch, who pretend to more modeſty then God commands. If a ſtrict enquiry ſhould be made into their lives, it is more then ſuſpicious, Eph. 5. 12. It would be a ſhame to ſpeak of thoſe things which are done by them in ſecret.
Others are offended at ſuch Cruelty therein exerciſed on a ſmall Infant, as probably with the pain thereof, might drive it into a Feavour.
It is anſwered, that was cruelty indeed which wil-worſhip commanded ſuperſtitious Parents to afford to their Idols, when 2 Kings 17. 31. They burnt their children in fire to the gods of Sephar Vaim: Call not Circumciſion Cruelty, but what indeed it was, Mercy, Pity, and Compaſſion; that ſuch who by nature were children of wrath, and deſerved damnation, had by Gods mercy, their ſufferings commuted into the ſhort pain of Circumciſion.
Beſides, we are bound to believe that God doubled the guard of his providence, to preſerve ſuch infants as were ordered according to his command. Indeed if the Prieſts of Baal, who with knives, and lances cut themſelves till the bloud guſhed out, 1 Kings 18. 28. I ſay, if ſuch ſuperſtitious Bedlams, ſhould have their wounds feſter and gangreen, they dyed felons de ſe, and the Devils Martyrs; ſeeing God never required it at their hands. But if any infant miſcarried under Circumciſion, (the precedents whereof we conceive very rare) being a divine ordinance and injunction; the Parents might comfortably preſume of the final good eſtate thereof; who rendred his ſoul in ſervice to Gods command.
Come we now to conſider on whom Circumciſion was to be adminiſtred. Theſe were all the males, and only the males of Abrahams family, Gen. 17. 13.
All the Males
1. Born in his houſe.
2. Bought for money.
In the latter obſerve a miraculous providence: How many of theſe perſons being taken priſoners, and ſold, like beaſts in the ſlave-market, accounted themſelves utterly undone for the loſſe of (the life of their Life) their Liberty? What ſighing, what ſobbing, what grieving, what groaning for their forlorn condition? But oh! Let them not ſorrow that they are ſold, but rejoyce that Abraham hath bought them; How had they been undone, if they had not been undone? Sold under ſin for ever, Rom. 7. 14. if not ſold unto Abraham. See here in ſome caſes it is better to be a good mans ſlave, then a great mans Son.
Only Males.
Object. How cometh it to paſſe that ſo many as amount to the halfe of reaſonable …ouls were excluded the Sacrament. If the Grecians Acts 6. 1. murmured againſt the Hebrews, becauſe their widows were neglected in the miniſtration of Almes, had not the weaker ſex cauſe to grieve and grudge at men that neither their widows, wives, nor virgins, were included in the adminiſtration of Circumciſion? Beſides, no Sacrament, no Salvation. Their not partaking of the ſign, might cauſe them to ſuſpect the ſubſtance, and queſtion their title to Heaven and happineſs.
Anſw. Before we come to the particular anſwer hereof, be it premiſed, that had God created at the firſt two diſtinct, and abſolute, (as to the mutual dependance each on other) principles of mans being, the one male, the other female; and had they both, wilfully forfeited their integrity, then ſome neceſſity might have been pretended that to Re-covenant them both, both Sexes ſhould have been ſigned with Circumciſion. But Divine providence otherwiſe ordered the matter, only making man at the firſt, and woman of the man.
This laid down, we anſwer to the Objection; though women were not formally, they were vertually circumciſed in the males. What is done to the head none will deny done to the body; The man therefore being the head of the woman, 1. Cor. 11. ſuch females as died in their virginity were circumciſed in their Fathers; ſuch as ſurvived to be married were circumciſed in their husbands; Their nearer relation (one fleſh) ſwallowing up that, which was more remote in their Father. And thus all, though not directly, reductively Circumciſed.
It follows, by whom it was adminiſtred; this generally was the maſter of the family, Abraham Circumciſed Iſaac, Gen. 21. 4. As for Zipporahs Circumciſing her ſons, Exod, 4. 25. in a caſe of extremity, and her huſbands indiſpoſition, it was an irregular act, not to be drawn into precedent▪ but to be recounted amongſt thoſe, which when performed are valid, but ought not to be performed.
Come we now to the time, When; eighth day Here I will not ſearch with ſome for a ſecret ſanctity in the Number of eight, (as conſiſting of ſeven, the Embleme of Perfection, with the Addition of one, that is Intireneſſe) leſt our Curioſity reap what Gods wiſdom never ſowed therein. The plain reaſon is this. Before the eighth day, a child was not conceived to be conſolidated fleſh, but till then in the bloud of the mother. And for the ſame cauſe, when a bullock, ſheep, or goat was brought forth, Levit. 22. 27. Then it ſhall be ſeven dayes under the dam, and from the eighth day and thenceforth, it ſhall be accepted for an offering made by fire unto the Lord.
Quest. What became of the ſouls of ſuch infants, who died before the eighth day, and ſo wanted Circumciſion?
Anſw. They wanted not Circumciſion. For want is the abſence of that which ought to be had; now there was no neceſſity of, (becauſe no command for) their Circumciſion, before that time; God the Grand Law-giver, though tying others, is not tyed himſelf to his Law: But can, and no doubt did, give ſpiritual grace to many infants, (chiefly if children of believing Parents) dying in their non-age, of their non-age, (before the eighth day) and incapacity of the ſign of Circumciſion. He who, Rom. 4. 17. calleth things which are not as if they were, can call children, which are, but are not circumciſed, as if they were circumciſed. And although properly, amongſt men, they were not named till the eighth day, Luke 2. 21. Yet ſuch infants, nameleſs on earth, might Phil. 4. 3. have their names writte… in the book of life.
An inſtance we have hereof plain and pregnant to ſuch, who read the place without prejudice in Davids child, 2 Sam. 12. 18. And it came to paſs, on the ſeventh day that the child died: That is, ſeventh day à nativitate, from the birth thereof, as Tremelius expoundeth it; the more probably becauſe no mention is made of any name impoſed upon it. This child, beſides the natural ſtain of original corruption, had alſo the perſonal blemiſh of adulterous extraction; And yet how confident David was of the final happineſſe thereof, appears by this expreſſion, verſ. 22. I ſhall go to him, but he ſhall not return to me.
Let none ſtrangle the life of ſo comfortable a paſſage, with too narrow an interpretation thereof, as if nothing therein were imported more then that David ſhould die as well as his child. This had been but cold comfort unto him, and would never have invited him to ſuch cheerfulneſs of ſpirit, ſo freely to have refreſhed himſelf: Whoſe joy was founded on the comfortable aſſurance of his childs final happineſſe, and that one day they ſhould both meet in Heaven together.
It remaineth that we treat of the puniſhment on the refuſers of Circumciſion, expreſſed in theſe words, Gen. 17. 14. That ſoul ſhall be cut off from his people, he hath broken my covenant. A threatning capable of three ſeveral ſences.
1. Severe.
That is, by the ſword of Eccleſiaſtical cenſures; They ſhall be cut off from the viſible congregation; they ſhall moſt juſtly (as the blind man was injuriouſly, John 9. 33.) be caſt out of the Synagogue, not to be reſtored unto it without their ſolemn and ſincere repentance. Parallel to S. Pauls expreſſion, Gal. 5. 12. I would they were even cut off that trouble you: Though both phraſes by ſome Divines be expounded in a ſence.
2. Severer.
That is, the Magiſtrate ſhall cut them off with the ſword of Juſtice, and as Capital offenders they ſhall be put to Death. In this ſence, God had laſt uſed the ſame words, Gen. 9. 11. neither ſhall all fleſh be cut off any more; that is, their lives ſhall no more be taken away, by an univerſal deſtruction.
3. Severeſt.
That is, they ſhall be cut off from the congregation of the righteous, by a final perdition of ſoul and body in Hell-fire.
Theſe three interpretations do not croſſe but crown one another, being no contradiction unto, but a gradation one above another. The Refuſer of Circumciſion, firſt ſhall be cut off by excommunication: that not cauſing his amendment, ſhall be cut off by the Magiſtrate, and the pain and ſhame of temporal death not reclaiming him, he ſhall be cut off with Eternal Damnation.
Queſt. Here is a heavy puniſhment indeed; But who is the perſon, on whom it is to be inflicted? It was the Diſciples queſtion to our Saviour, John 9. 2. Who did ſin, this man or his parents, that he was born blind? But here the queſtion will be, who ſhall be puniſhed, this child or his parents? ſeeing betwixt both Circumciſion is neglected?
Anſw. Firſt negatively, ſurely not the child, for it is ſaid, He hath broken my Covenant. The Covenant may be ſaid to be broken on him, but not by him, being purely paſſive therein. Were the child ſenſible of the benefit, by the having, dammage by the looſing thereof, and might it but borrow a tongue of the ſtanders by, never was Rachel more impatient for children then this child would be importunate for Circumciſion; Give me Circumciſion or elſe I dye. Now poſitively that the Penalty fals not on the child, but on the parent, plainly appears by Gods proceedings, Exod. 4. 24. When he ſought to kill Moſes, and not his children for being uncircumciſed. However if a child left uncircumciſed by his Parents neglect, afterwards arrive at mans eſtate, and pertinaciouſly perſiſt in the contempt of Circumciſion, he equally entitleth himſelf to the fault, and is alſo liable to the puniſhment in my text.
Queſt. Seeing ſo ſharp and ſevere the penalty, how came that ſuſpenſion of Circumciſion full forty years in the wilderneſs, Joſh. 5. 7 to be connived at, God not only not puniſhing, but, (for ought appears in Scripture) not ſo much as reproving the ſame?
Anſw. In the firſt place I cannot approve the anſwer of S.*About the end of his firſt Book on the Galatians, Theodoret. 2. Queſt. on Joſhua. Hierom and others, affirming that Circumciſion was given to difference and diſtinguiſh the Jews from other Nations; and ſeeing no Nations were near them during their travel in the deſolate wilderneſſe, Circumciſion was therefore purpoſely omitted. For (beſide that ſundry people, and particularly the Amalekites, dwelt in the deſart) Circumciſion was principally ordained, (not to be a badge of diſtinction, but) a Seal of the conſecration of the Jews unto God. More probable therefore it is, that becauſe the Jews during that fourty years were alwayes (though not actually moving) diſpoſed to move at a minutes warning, when ever they received orders from the removing of the Pillar, God the Lawgiver diſpenſed with them to defer Circumciſion, till they were fixed in a ſetled condition, affording conveniencies for the curing of that ſoreneſſe, which otherwiſe by conſtant journeying would be chafed, and inflamed.