Of Baptism, Chapter 9
CHAP. IX. In which entrance is made into the conſideration of the great argument for Infant Baptiſme, drawne from the circumciſion of Infants, by way of anſwer whereunto five particulars are handled, the firſt whereof is treated on in this Chapter, namely what circumciſion was to the Iewes, and whether the qualification requiſite to it was regeneration, or the infuſion of gratious habits.
HAving thus layd downe the ſtate of Baptiſme, and cōſidered ſeverall things about it, ſufficient for my owne ſatisfaction, and clearely alſo deſign'd the right ſubject of that ordinance, I come now (in order to a more full diſcharge of my ſelf to this controverſy, & for a more generall ſatisfactiō) to conſider the particular reaſons, by which the patrons of Infant Baptiſme would inforce it: The firſt whereof (& which ſeemes to be a great one) is that the ſeede of Abraham, with whom and whoſe ſeede God was in covenant, received ordinances, and particularly circumciſion, by vertue of their birth, and that wee being ingrafted into that ſtock, have power to derive a capacity of ordinances to our children, elſe the priviledges of Chriſtians, & the New Teſtament would be leſſe then thoſe of the Iewes & of the old Teſtament; which is not to be imagined; I take this to be the ſumme of that argument, which ſeemes to carry the greateſt weight, & to ſpeake lowdeſt for Infant Baptiſme of any other.
Here divers things by way of anſwer are to be conſidered, firſt what circumciſion was to the Iewes, & whether the qualification required to it was regeneration, or the infuſion of gratious habits; for if not, then there will be found to be this great and eſſentiall difference, namely the qualification of the ſubject.
Secondly, what ever that ſhould proove; how far the ordinances of the old Teſtament ſhould regulate & determine, by way of rule and inſtitution thoſe of the New; if not, then the parallel of circumciſion is not fit to beare the weight of an inſtitution.
Thirdly how we are ingrafted into Abrahams covenant, and by what tittle wee are called Abrahams children; for we are not to clayme the ſame things by different tenures.
Fourthly how far the Iewes, by vertue of their being Abrahams ſeede, could pretend to New Teſtament ordinances, and if they by their birthright could not, then neither can we by any ſuch birthright, or carnall generation.
Fifthly whether though Infant Baptiſme, ſhould not be; the priviledges of Chriſtians & their churches might juſtly be ſaid to be as great or greater, then the priviledges of the Iewes and their Churches and ſtate.
For the firſt, I muſt profeſſe I am not Iew enough to underſtand the full drift of that ordinance, and although men are bold in commenting and interpreting all types and ceremonies of the old covenant, after their owne apprehenſions, yet it is ſafe to be ſober, and to advance no further then the Scripture guides. This I am perſuaded of, that as they were formed particularly to that ſtate of the Iewiſh church, ſo they had meanes to underſtand them, for their comfort & edification, to better advantage then we have, but it would not be hard to tell you, what ſome have thought, and perhaps to as much purpoſe as thoſe who are of a different opinion, for this notion received that the parallel of circumciſion muſt be the pillar of infant Baptiſme, hath (I am afraid) to much determined & ſtreightned the interpretation of that ordinance, & the places which ſpeake concerning it; Ambroſe upon the 4. of the Rom. ſaith, Circumciſio aliquid habet dignitatis, ſed ſignum eſt tantum, quod ſignum ideo accipiebant filij Abraham, ut ſcirentur ejus filij eſſe, qui credens Deo, hoc ſignum acciperet, ut aemuli eſſent paternae fidei. Circumciſion hath ſomething of dignity, but it is a ſigne onelyonly, vvhichwhich ſigne the children of Abraham did therefore receive, that they might be knovvne to be his ſeede, vvho beleeving in God, received this ſigne, that they might be emulators of their fathers faith.
Ierome upon the 3. of the Gal. ſaith, Becauſe Chriſt vvas to ſpring from the ſeede of Abraham, and many ages vvere to paſſe from Abraham to Chriſt; the vviſe God, leaſt the ſeede of beloved Abraham ſhould be mingled vvith other nations, and ſhould by degrees be joyned more familiarly, diſtinguiſht the flock of Iſrael by a certain marke, or circumciſion; then for 40. yeares together in the vvilderneſſe none vvere circumciſed, becauſe they vvere out of the daunger of ſuch mixtures, being alone; but aſſoone as they vvere paſt the banks of Iordan, circumciſion prevented the error of mingling vvith others, vvhereas it is vvritten that they vvere circumciſed that ſecond time by Ioſhua, it ſignifies that circumciſion ceaſed in the vvilderneſſe, vvhichwhich vvas rationally uſed in Egypt.
The Apoſtle Rom. 4. doth not call circumciſion a ſeale of the covenant or promiſe, but of the righteouſnes of faith, which ſayes Origen upon this place, vvas to ſeale ſhut up, the righteouſnes of faith, vvhichwhich in its time vvas to be revealed; that is, under the figure and types of that carnall circumciſion was ſecretly ſignified and vayled, the circumciſion of the heart, which is the true juſtification that Chriſt was to bring, or as Chryſoſtome, Theophilact and others, it vvas called a ſeale of the righteouſnes of faith, becauſe it vvas given to Abraham as a ſeale and teſtimony of that righteouſnes, vvhichwhich hee had acquired by faith; Novv this ſeemes to be the priviledge of Abraham alone, & not to be transferd to others, as if circumciſion, in vvhom ever it vvas, vvere a teſtimony of divine righteouſnes: for as it vvas the priviledge of Abraham, that hee ſhould be the father of all the faithfull, as vvell circumciſed as uncircumciſed, and being already the father of all uncircumciſed, having faith in uncircumciſion, hee received firſt the ſigne of circumciſion, that hee might be the father of the circumciſed; novv becauſe he had this priviledge in reſpect of the righteouſnes vvhichwhich he had acquired by faith, therefore the ſigne of circumciſion vvas to him a ſeale of the righteouſnes of faith, but to the reſt of the Ievves, it vvas a ſigne they vvere Abrahams ſeede, but not a ſeale of the righteouſnes of faith, as all the Ievves alſo vvere not the fathers of many nations. This appeares firſt, becauſe Paul joynes theſe two together, he received the ſigne of circumciſion, a ſeale of the righteouſnes of faith, that he might be the father of all that beleeve, vvhether circumciſed or uncircumciſed, ver. 11.12. Therefore all circumciſed have not the ſeale of the righteouſnes of faith, as they are not the father of all that beleeve.
Secondly, this the Apoſtle may ſeeme to intimate, by diſtinguiſhing betweene a ſigne, and a ſeale, to ſhew that circumciſion was to all a ſigne, but to Abraham alone a ſeale of the righteouſnes of faith.
Thirdly though the Scripture ſpeake often of circumciſion, yet it never calls it a ſeale, but here where it ſpeakes of Abraham, which intimates that it was onelyonly a ſeale to him, elſe when Paul aſkes, vvhat advantage hath the Ievv, and vvhat proffit is there of circumciſion, and ſayes, much every vvay, Rom. 3.1.2. He ſhould (one would thinke) have mentioned this great advantage, that it ſhould be the ſeale of the divine promiſe, but this he mentions not at all; nor will it anſwer this (though that be the beſt I know given) that Aquinas ſeemes here to find a double queſtion, one, what advantage hath the Iew, which is handled in this Chapter; the other, what proffit is there of circumciſion, which is handled in the 4. chapter; this hath to great an quietnes, rather as Muſculus ſayes upō that place, It is no daunger to vvhichwhich member yee apply the anſvver, for the ſame thing is aſkt in both, for by circumciſion he comprehends in generall all Iudaiſme, for aſmuch as the inauguration into Iudaiſme lay in circumciſion; So as what ever force there is in this probable reaſon (for it is no more) may ſtand good notwithſtanding this exception.
Fourthly, if circumciſion had bene the ſeale of the righteouſnes of faith to Infants, then an account of the righteouſnes of faith ſhould have bene required in thoſe of yeares; to whom it was adminiſtred, but that ſuch faith was required or foūd in all, wee reade not; Abraham the ſame day circumciſed all, whether borne in his houſe, or bought with his money without any ſuch declaration, or demaund that wee read of; and Iſhmael, who was thirteene yeares old, & judged not within the covenant of grace, was alſo circumciſed; Of the Sechemites alſo there was required no profeſſion of faith to their circumciſion, which as a forme at leaſt would have bene required, if it hath bene judged neceſſary to that ſeale, and uſed by converted Proſelites, though Symeon and Levi, brethren in iniquity, were the miniſters of it.
To illuſtrate this conſideration, let us ſee the great difference in the inſtitution of Baptiſme and Circumciſion, when Chriſt inſtituted Baptiſme, Goe teach, ſayes hee, and baptize, make Diſciples and baptize; and in the adminiſtration of the ordinance, they confeſſed and vvere baptized, they beleeved and vvere baptized; but not a word of infants, who were not capable of this beleeving and confeſſion: But when the precept of Circumciſion was given, not a word of teaching, or faith, nor in the example find you any ſuch thing; but of infants you find the command moſt expreſly, for the time, for the age, for the ſexe.
To conclude, whereas holines is required to Sacraments, the houſehold of Abraham, whether naturall, or adopted, were holy, but not ſo as to include regeneration, or cleanes of heart, which is our holynes; but there was of uſe among them an Eccleſiaſticall, Leviticall, and typicall holynes, which amongſt us obtains nothing; of creatures for food ſome were cleane & ſome uncleane, and the land was holy and ſo was the fruit, the trees therefore were holy and to be circumciſed, Levit. 19.23. in ſuch a time and ſtate of the church, when things & actions tooke their denomination of ſinfull or holy, from ſuch outward and typicall conſiderations, when circumciſion was predicated of trees, as well as men; no wonder though infants were circumciſed.
The ſumme of all is this, that it is not eaſie for us to determine diſtinctly of the nature and ſcope of the ordinances of the other covenant, that ſome have judged circumciſion onelyonly a ſigne of the Iewes, diſt inguiſhing and admoniſhing to good, but a ſeale to Abraham onelyonly, who had righteouſnes of faith (as the Scripture calls it) to be ſealed, and who was of capacity to receive it. Though there be them, who have doubted, whether it ſealed any thing to Abraham, but his fatherhood of the faithfull.
And then againe, it is wondred, that the profeſſion of this faith ſhould never have bene required of thoſe of yeares, if it had qualified for this ordinance, and laſtly it is ſhewed, that there was another kind of holynes then of uſe & eſteeme in the church of God, namely, typicall, eccleſiaſticall and Leviticall, which gave right and tittle to ordinances, which amongſt us hath no place, and therefore there will be found to be this great difference betweene theſe to ordinances the qualification of the ſubjects, which will farther appeare, in handling the third particular in this anſwer; to all which I ſhall add onelyonly this one thing more, that if that be true which I have formerly diſcourſed about Infant Baptiſme, that it cannot be neceſſarily concluded that they have Baptiſmall qualifications, namely regeneration, and that if they had, yet there were no juſt haſt for the ordinance of Baptiſme, but the contrary, then much leſſe can any ſuch qualifying regeneration and converſion be predicated of the infants of the Iews in the old covenant; and therefore if that be the onelyonly way, as it is, to pretend to Baptiſme, & our infants cannot pretend that way, then the Iewes infants muſt needs have ſome other qualification for circumciſion, then regeneration, and therefore the ſubject of theſe ordinances differ greatly, namely in that which reſpectively qualifies them to be capable of thoſe adminiſtrations.