conscience been convinced of the truth thereof How might he have rejoyned Original sin cannot be proved from the Baptizing of Infants which is but a modern custome an innovation in the Church of God What the Sodomites said of Lot Gen. 19. 9. This one fellow came in to sojourn and will he needs be a judg may be said of Infants Baptism This custome is new and novel lately crept into the Chuch as yet rather a sojourner then an inhabitant therein and must this regulate matters in a judicial way so that arguments must be deduced from the same Besides I have been a Traveller and have conversed with most Churches in Christendome being born in Britaine a little world by it self I have been in the great world abroad Jew and Gentile East and Western Churches have I observed Hierusalem that was and Rome which is so eminent for Religion are places wherein I am well acquainted This I know some Churches observe others neglect some use others slight the Baptising of Infants Nor can it be accounted a general custom of the Church which is but local and partial in a word both NEW and NARROW as neither coming down from Christ nor extended over all Christendome But Pelagius endeavoured to evade S. Austins argument by another device namely by pleading that Baptism was admitted to Infants not to wash away their Original sin but to bring them to the kingdome of heaven A fancy which he was the first and he and his the last to maintain it The result of all is this Seeing Pelagius was so great a schollar knowing full well how to manage a bad cause to its best advantage and seeing he was so great a Traveller who had not eat his bread all in one place but had roved up and down to know the customes of the Church and yet feeing by his silence urging nothing against it and by his shifting seeking otherwise to evade it he acknowledgeth the truth of Infants Baptism we conclude the same in his days received for an Ancient and Universal practice of the Church For why should he adventure the breaking of his bones or at leastwise the bruising of his flesh by leaping out of the window who hath a wide door set open unto him Why should he make so poor and pittiful so base and beggerly an escape to avoid S. Austins argument against him by forming a frivolous fancy of his own who had a ful free and fair passage at pleasure to go forth durst he but have denied the Baptizing of Infants to have been a general Church custome in his time To conclude this point the argument of Jephthah to the King of Ammon carrieth great weight therewith Judg. 11. 26. proving Israels right to the Land which they possest and the Ammonites pretended unto When Israel dwelt in Heshbon and her towns and in Aroer and her towns and in all the cities that be along by the coasâ—s of Aâ—â—on three hundred years why there fore did ye not recover them within that time In like manner may we urge it against the adversaries of childrens Baptism If the Ancient Church conceived the Baptizing of Infants an usurpation and incroachment injurious and unlawful why did not the Church of God in so long a time cast out the custome which made so unjust an invasion therein For S. Austin lived about the fift Century after Christ when Pedo-baptism was in a peaceable passission of Church practice and Pelagius himself sufficiently impudent was so modest and ingenious not to deny the same though such a denial had conduced much to his own advantage I have done when I have told the Reader that S. Austin brought the Baptizing of Infants as an argument to prove Original sin and in our age wherein Original sin is on ought to be granted by all we alledge the same as a reason to prove the necessity of Infants Baptism and surely so solid is the argument reciprocally that both may be firmly grounded on the same CHAP. XVI The Grand Objection drawn from the silence of Scripture herein Answered OUr Adversaries in this point gain not a greater advantage against us amongst common people then by urging of that which indeed we confesse no literal precept or practice for Pedo-baptism in Scripture By popular improving of which argument they not only gain to themselves the reputation of a strict adherence to the Word and will of God but also asperse us with the dangerous imputation of wil-worship and Popish inclinations Yea which is more they threaten us with a curse pronounced Rev. 22. 18. If any man shall adde unto these things God shall adde unto him the plagues that are written in this book In Answer whereunto In the first place we request our Adversaries to remember that this place by them cited out of the Revelation like a two edged sword cuts on both sides for it followeth immediatly And if any shall take away from the words of the book of this prophesie God shall take away his part out of the book of life See here a curse incurr'd as well by the defect as the excesse And be it reported to our opposites in this point whether denying such consequences which infallibly flow from Scripture be not taking away from the words as well as mutilating or abstracting the numerical words from the same More particularly I answer Baptizing of Infants appears not to such who only read the Scripture but is plainly visible to those who also search the Scriptures which John 5. 39. is the duty of all judicious Christians as by reasons out of Scripture we have made it to appear Here will it not be amisse to mind our adversaries in this point that they account themselves concerned in conscience to believe and practice many things as necessary to salvation which notwithstanding are built on the same foundation with the Baptism of Infants namely not on the expresse letter of Scripture but undeniable consequences arising from the same But I conceive such instancing though lawful yet not expedient in this unhappy juncture of time lest Satan get an advantage over us for we are not ignorant of his devices and lest such instancing though intentionally good in us prove occasionally evil to others by casting scruples into mens consciences who are quiet for the present There needs more allaying of old then raising of new jealousies in divinity more needful to settle then scatter mens belief in our dayes wherein so many deniers and more doubters in most Articles of Faith Indeed the words of the wise Eccles 12. 11. are as goads or as nailes fastened by the masters of the assemblies But such builders must be wary lest whilest they fasten one nail they do not loosen another However to prove this point I will embrace a way as sure to clear the matter and more safe not having any dangerous influence on the times This may be done by removing the instance from our age and fixing the same in the time of Gods
in ability and sometimes a cordial counsel who zealously engageth for his client is to be accepted for his hearty intentions and affections though falling short of others in his performances Indeed great is the multitude of pleaders who have undertook this cause and truly the more the better such the worth thereof to deserve the weight thereof to require many defenders against the fiercenesse and multitude of modern opposers But here give me leave to bemoan a sad accident that the councel cannot agree amongst themselves how to manage their clients cause Some found it on a Jewish ceremony of washing others fasten it only on the ancient practice of the Primitive Church others graft it on the Analogie of Circumcision others bottom it on an implicite precept others on expresse arguments in the New Testament And which is the worse many of these are not content alone to prefer and advance their own opinion except also they decry and destroy confute and confound the arguments of others by which discords our adversaries in this point gain to themselves no small advantage I am confident those our adversaries long since had wanted weapons had not our friends furnished them with all manner of munition out of our own magazins Yet dare I not challenge such pleaders for Infants Baptism of disloyaltie as if they wilfully betrayed their trust herein though I cannot excuse them for indiscretion whereby they have prejudiced that cause they endeavoured to defend It would be well therefore for the time to come if the assertors of Pedo-Baptism on what bottom soever they builded store in this kind is no sore and the firmer it is that stands on so many foundations raise their own Reasons without opposing the arguments of others who agree with them in judgement though going by different ways to the end of the same place It is said of every Locust that marched in Gods Army they shall not thrust one another they shall walk every one in his path on Gods blessing let the assertors of Childrens Baptism what way soever they imbrace for the proof thereof proceed fairly and friendly in their own tract and leave off justling those who go next to them in another path Thus desiring Reader Gods blessing on thy perusing my weak pains I remain Thine in Christ Jesus THO. FULLER THE Infants Advocate 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 â—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. 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