A Christian, Chapter 12
CHAP. XII. Circumciſion and Baptiſm compared; that they have both one ſpiritual ſignification; the true nature of them both opened, and what influence this conſideration hath to prove Infant-baptiſm.
IT'S well known among theſe that are againſt baptizing of Infants, what weight they put on that Ordinance of Baptiſm, that all other ſeem light in their eyes, and of no account in reſpect of that. When they ſpeak of Circumciſion, they uſually call that a carnal Ordinance, ſealing only carnal and temporary things, and only reaching the outward man; the one requiring only the fleſh for its ſubject, the other a ſpiritual man, a new creature, &c. And ſo much do they idolize (for ſo I fear it is among many) Baptiſm, that even faith it ſelf ſeems little without it: But that I may waſh off this paint, and make Ordinances look like themſelves, let us compare theſe Ordinances together, and view them in their dignity, and worth, and ſignifications. And,
1. In general for Circumciſion; We all know how much it was prized among the Jews above all other Ordinances, and that it was the laſt that was taken away with the greateſt difficulty; about which the Apoſtles had more ado, then about the taking away all the Ceremonies; whereby we may judge, the Jews did look on it as the great ſeal of all their priviledges; which when that was loſt, all was loſt. Read the Epiſtle to the Romanes, Chap. 2.3. when he would ſpeak all their outward priviledges at once, he ſaith, What advantage hath a Jew? what profit of Circumciſion, &c? So in the Galatians, Philippians, Epheſians, Coloſſians, many Chapters are ſpent to take them off from Circumciſion.
2. Circumciſion was that Ordinance which was immediatly annexed to the Covenant, and a confirmation of it, Gen. 17.7, 10. therefore called the Covenant.
3. It was an Ordinance inſtituted long before the Legal and Moſaical Ceremonies of an elder date: It was not a type of Canaan, but of Chriſt to come in the fleſh of the ſeed of Abraham, and of the circumciſion of the heart, which Chriſt was moſt fully to perfect in the Goſpel.
There is only one Gentleman that writ a Book of Baptiſm, printed in the year 1646. will have Circumciſion to be a type of Baptiſm; which cannot be: For,
1. Types muſt have ſomething in their outward face to repreſent another thing more eminent and real: Now Circumciſion hath nothing in the outſide to ſet forth Baptiſm.
2. It is not ſo handſom to make one outward ſign the antitype of another.
4. Circumciſion was as holy an Ordinance as Baptiſm in the New Teſtament; for they are both in themſelves outward acts, and no holineſs more in one then in another, but as they have from inſtitution; only Baptiſm is more eaſy to the fleſh then Circumciſion; and yet not more eaſy, if that way of dipping ſhould be the only way of baptizing, eſpecially at ſome ſeaſons, and to ſome bodies.
5. The N. T. gives as large and honourable characters of Circumciſion as it doth of Baptiſm: thus the Apoſtle cals it in Rom. 4. The ſeal of the righteouſneſs of faith: A character ſo reſplendent and glorious, that the Goſpel can give no higher to an Ordinance. And as much as he ſaith of Baptiſm in effect, 1 Pet. 3.21. that Baptiſm ſaves through the anſwer of a good conſcience, the contrary Opinioniſts are put to hard ſhifts to avoyd the ſtrength of this place; and therefore ſome would evade it thus, ſaying, That the Apoſtle doth not call it a ſeal of the Covenant or Promiſe, but of the righteouſneſs of faith.
Sol. A miſerable evaſion! as if the righteouſneſs of faith were not included in the Covenant, or there were any righteouſneſs of faith but what comes by the Covenant▪ and ſo would make a ſeparation between the promiſe of righteouſneſs, and the righteouſneſs promiſed.
Others would cloath the Text with this diſguiſe, That it ſealed it only to Abraham, whereas it was ſo to Iſaac, and Jacob, and David, and all that were in the Covenant.
This is held forth moſt clearly in that verſe.
1. That Circumciſion was a ſeal of the pure Covenant of grace, in which righteouſneſs was promiſed to Abraham and his ſeed indefinitely.
2. That this ſeal was applied to all the ſeed that were but externally and viſibly in Covenant, to Infants; and the ſame ſign that Abraham received upon profeſſion of his faith, his Child received; and therefore he is ſaid to be the Father of Circumciſion, as of Faith, ver. 12.
3. Doctor Willet from this place holds forth the ſameneſs of the ſubſtance of the Sacraments of the Old and New Teſtament, both which do ſeal the righteouſneſs of faith; and lays it as a great errour on the Romaniſts, who affirm, That the Old Teſtament Sacraments did not exhibite the graces of the New.
4. This cannot be denied from the place, without men will wilfully put out their own eyes, that Circumciſion had as glorious a uſe as Baptiſm, viz. to ſeal the righteouſneſs of faith; which muſt be as well to others that had the true efficacy of the Covenant, as to Abraham himſelf; and no higher mercy can any Ordinance of the New Teſtament ſeal to any.
There were many other circumſtantial and accidentall uſes of circumciſion according to the Jewiſh ſtate, as we will grant Mr. Tombes, as
1. To engage to the performance of the whole Law, Gal. 5.2, 3. Acts 15.10.
2. To be a partition-wall between Jew and Gentile, Eph. 2.14.
But when the Apoſtle would give circumciſion his true character, and ſhew what the primarie, and ſubſtantiall uſe of it was, he calls it a ſeal of the righteouſneſs of faith.
6. Circumciſion and baptiſm ſignifie one and the ſame thing, and ſo agree in being ſigns of the ſame grace; compare Coloſſ. 2.11, 12, 13. with Rom. 6.3, 4. and 6. v. circumciſion ſignifies the putting off the bodie of the ſins of the fleſh; baptiſm is into Chriſts death, and to teſtifie the crucifying the old man with him, that the bodie of death might be deſtroyed, as by the comparing theſe two places it is moſt clear, and 3 v. and 6 ver. of Rom. 6. chap. onelyonly baptiſm hath this larger conſideration in it, as that it takes in Chriſts reſurrection with it, and alſo the quickning of the ſoul together with him, which was not ſo fully ſignified in circumciſion, but implied, according as the Apoſtle argues in the ſame place, Rom. 6.5. v. for if we have been planted in the likeneſs of his death, we ſhall be alſo in the likeneſs of his reſurrection; the one being a conſequence of the other; and as circumciſion did cut off the foreskin in token of the deſtruction of ſin, ſo baptiſm by waſhing, ſignifies the taking away the pollution of ſin; thus, God when he would promiſe to kill ſin, and work all grace, he expreſſeth it by circumciſion; I will circumciſe thy heart, and the heart of thy ſeed, Deut. 30.6. And the Apoſtle, Phil. 3.4. ſaith, We are of the circumciſion, that is, we have the true work of grace in us.
The reaſon why I urge theſe conſiderations, is to hold for the capacitie of Infants, as well for Baptiſm as Circumciſion; there is no reaſon why they ſhould be thought more unfit and incapable for the one then for the other: For
Firſt, if Circumciſion were a ſeal of the righteouſneſs of Faith, and yet applied to Infants, and Baptiſm can ſeal no higher merciemercy, why ſhould it be thought ſuch a ſtrange and unmeet thing to baptize them, more then to circumciſe them? they uſually ſay you put a ſeal to a blank in baptizing Infants; the ſame might be ſaid as to Circumciſion; yet they were circumciſed as well as Abraham that profeſt his own Faith. I muſt acknowledge I never could yet underſtand why Infants ſhould be thought fit to have that ſeal applied to them in the Old Teſtament, which the New calls a ſeal of the righteouſneſs of Faith, and yet be denied it in the New Teſtament as incapacious, when Baptiſm can ſeal no more. I wiſh it were ſeriouſly conſidered;
Eſpecially, Secondly, when Baptiſm ſhall ſignifie the ſame thing in ſubſtance, be both ſigns of the ſame grace; the one cutting away ſin as with a knife, the other waſhing it away with water; and yet Infants capable, and moſt fit to have the adminiſtration of the one ordinance, not of the other; if theſe of the diſſenting judgment, did with more ſobriety weigh ſuch conſiderations as theſe, they would not with ſo much fooliſh contempt write and ſpeak of Infants Baptiſm.
A knife may be applied to an Infant, as to Abraham, though old, and in the heighth of his Faith, and ſeal the righteouſneſs of it; but water muſt onelyonly be poured on actual believers, and grown perſons, ſuch as Abraham, but not on Infants, though it hath no more to ſeal; as if there were ſome ſtrange excellencie and virtue in the nature of water, that it were too precious to waſh the Infants of believers: For, if there be no more virtue in the water that baptizeth, then in the knife that circumciſed, you ſee there is no more glorious uſe of the one then the other. And what end God ſhould have to put ſuch a Seal on Infants in the Old Teſtament, and exclude them in the New, when the Ordinances both ſignifie the ſame ſubſtantial grace, let any Chriſtian heart imagine.