thought and it were to be wish'd that many more did not who do not perhaps speak it out that a Sacrament as to this particular is a bare sign of the Divine Grace and accordingly intended by God only to awaken mens minds to conceive it and their hearts to the embracing of it What induced them so to opine I am not able to say unless it were on the one hand an universal acknowledgment of its being a sign and a fear on the other lest if they made it any thing more they should approach too near to those excesses into which the former had cast themselves But as it is a very ill way of choosing opinions in Religion by the distance which they bear to the excesses of other men so the fondness of this cannot better be made appear than by those glorious effects which are attributed to a Sacrament and which in strictness of speech are the proper and immediate issues of that which is signified by it For that which is only a sign being no way capable of producing such effects nor therefore with any reason of having such effects attributed to it we are in reason where the thing will bear it to conceive it under such a notion as will make those effects yet more proper to it Which we shall then and then only do when we make it such a sign whereby as was before said God conveys to us that Grace by which those effects are produc'd Only as there are who think all this may be salv'd by making a Sacrament a seal as well as a sign of Grace or rather a seal of that New Covenant by which we are intituled to it so it may not therefore be amiss to examine that pretension also and enquire into the validity thereof What relation a Sacrament bears to the New Covenant and how far the notion of a seal is competible to it shall be examin'd in another place and I will not therefore at present engage my self in that dispute But I shall not stick to affirm that how legitimate soever that notion of a Sacrament may be yet it is no adequate one As will appear in part from the insufficiency of those grounds upon which it is built and in part also from the nature of that Covenant whereof they speak and of which they represent it as a seal For the evidencing the former whereof we are to know that as the ground upon which it is built is a passage of St. Paul (a) Rom. 4.11 where he represents the Circumcision of Abraham as a seal of that righteousness of faith which he had yet being uncircumcis'd so that Text if it be well examin'd will not be found to be a sufficient proof of that for which it is alledg'd For not to require those that urge that Text which yet they seldom do to make it appear that the Christian Sacraments are of the same nature with Circumcision and consequently that what is said concerning Circumcision ought to be alike understood of the other Neither is what is there affirm'd concerning Circumcision affirm'd concerning Circumcision in the general but only of the Circumcision of Abraham neither is it affirmed concerning his that it was a seal of that Covenant to which it did more immediately relate but of that righteousness which he had before he enter'd into it Things which if duly consider'd will render that testimony perfectly ineffectual as to what it is designed to establish For as if Abraham's case were different from that of other Circumcised persons what may have been to him a seal of the righteousness of Faith may not yet have been such to them so that Abraham's case was so far different from that of the generality of Circumcised persons may appear from his having before had that righteousness of Faith which the other because Infants could not be supposed to have had or at least not till they had it by the sign of Circumcision And indeed whosoever shall consider what the Apostles design in that place is even to shew that the righteousness of Faith is not annexed to Circumcision because Abraham had it before he was Circumcised must consequently believe that when he afterwards makes that Circumcision of his a seal of that righteousness in him his meaning was only to say that it was a testimony from God to him and others that he allowed of the former righteousness as which if he had not done he would not thus have entred with him into that other Covenant of which Circumcision was a sign By which way of arguing what is here said concerning Circumcisions being a seal must not be understood of it as it was in it self and so in a notion common to all that receiv'd it but with respect to that righteousness of Abraham's which it followed after in time and which it could not but be look'd upon as some Confirmation from God of because a sign of that New Covenant which God then enter'd into with him As for that New Covenant or any righteousness of Faith accruing to Abraham by it This St. Paul is so far from affirming his Circumcision to have been a seal of that he may seem rather to intimate that it had no such relation to it Because affirming it to have been a seal of that righteousness which he had before it and which therefore he derived not from the Covenant of Circumcision or was under any necessity of having it seal'd to him by the sign of it I conclude therefore that how true soever it may be that a Christian Sacrament is a seal of the New Covenant Yet the Text before mention'd conferrs not at all to the proving of it and much less toward the shewing that it hath no other relation than that of a seal either to that Covenant or the graces of it But beside that the single notion of a seal how plausible soever it may appear hath no countenance from that Text which is usually produced for it It will be found to have as little from the nature of that Covenant of which it is represented as a seal For that Covenant importing as well the conferring of present benefits as a promise of future ones it must consequently if it be tranfacted by any visible ceremony make use of that ceremony to convey those present benefits as well as to ascertain the exhibition of future ones The former whereof a seal being no way proper for or at least not in the usual notion of it we are in reason to give the respective Sacraments of that Covenant another and a more effectual notion even that of a means whereby Christ who is the Author of them conveys his graces to mankind One only relation there is besides which a Sacrament bears to the Divine Grace even that of a pledge to assure us thereof as our Catechism expresseth it or as the 25th Article of our Church hath it a certain sure witness of it A relation which stands sufficiently confirm'd by the imperceptibleness
as a type of that to which it is so in which sense I my self have also us'd the word and allow it so to be so we do not at all argue from Circumcision as it may be supposed to be a type of Baptism but as a sign of the same righteousness of Faith of which Baptism is and of the same gracious Covenant that assures it And in this sense as nothing hinders us to argue from Circumcision's being bestowed upon Infants then that that which is a sign of the same righteousness of faith under the Gospel is in reason to be extended to the same persons So there is this in particular to enforce it that Christian Parents would otherwise fall short in the account of God of the priviledges of the natural descendants of Abraham Of which what account can be given when Abraham from whom they both claim is declared to be the Father of them both yea is said by S. Paul to have receiv'd the sign of Circumcision not only as a seal or assurance to himself of that righteousness of faith which he before had but a seal or an assurance also of his being to the same purposes a Father (b) Rom. 4.11 of those that believe though they be not circumcised as well as a Father of those that were There is as little reason to be stagger'd by what is alledged in the second instance that if Circumcision be a sufficient direction for the baptizing of Infants it may as well be a direction for the confining of it to the Males and for the confining of it too to the eighth day after the Infants birth Because first the Sacrament of Baptism hath nothing in it to confine it to the Males as Circumcision had but on the contrary is equally fitted to be administred to both Sexes And secondly because it appears from what was before said (c) Part 1. concerning the Rite of Baptism among the Jews that the want of Circumcision was afterwards suppli'd to the Females by Baptism and they thereby even in their Infancy initiated into the same Covenant with the other For this shews yet more how little reason there is to argue from Circumcisions being confin'd to the Males that therefore Baptism ought to be so Or rather how much more reason there is to extend it both to Male and Female and so to all of the same Infant estate If therefore there be any thing to hinder our arguing from Circumcision in this particular it must be it s not being pretended by our selves to be a direction as to the day of its administration as well as to the persons to whom it ought to be administred But beside that there is a vast difference between the persons to whom any Sacrament is to be given and the precise day on which it is to be so and therefore not the like reason for Circumcision's directing as to this as there is for its directing as to the other What Circumcision directs as to the case of Infants is more a favour than a command whereas what is directed as to the precise day is rather a command than a favour Now it being a rul'd case That Favours are rather to be enlarg'd than restrain'd especially under a Dispensation which is so manifestly gracious as that of the Gospel is there may be reason enough for our interpreting what is said concerning the Circumcision of Infants to the equal or rather greater benefit of Infants now and consequently that Sacrament which came in place of it to be rather hastned than deferred to a day to which possibly they may not arrive but however to be given them as soon as a convenient opportunity presents it self Add hereunto the difference there is between Circumcision and Baptism as to the trouble or danger which may attend the administration of them to such tender bodies as those of Infants are For there being a greater trouble and danger to Infants from the Rite of Circumcision than there is from the Rite of Baptism There might be greater reason for the deferring of that to the eighth day than there is for the deferring of this And what is therefore as to that particular directed concerning Circumcision not to be drawn into example in the matter of Baptism though other more material and more advantagious circumstances are But leaving what is commonly urg'd against the Argument from the Circumcising of Infants because as I suppose sufficiently assoil'd by the foregoing discourse Let us take a view of such Objections as strike more directly at Infant Baptism or at least of the more material ones Such as I take to be first the want of an express command or direction for the administring of Baptism to Infants Secondly their being incapable of that regeneration which is the great intent and end of Baptism or giving no sutable indications of it afterwards Thirdly their being as incapable of answering what is prerequired to it on the part of the persons to be baptized or is to be performed by them in the receiving of it That which seems to stick much with the Adversaries of Infant Baptism and is accordingly urg'd at all turns against the Friends or Asserters of it is the want of an express command or direction for the administring of Baptism to them Which objection seems to be the more reasonable because Baptism as well as other Sacraments receiving all its force from Institution they may seem to have no right to or benefit by it who appear not by the institution of that Sacrament to be intitled to it but rather by the qualifications which it requires to be excluded from it And posbly more might be of the opinion of the Objecters if there had not been before an express Law for admitting Infants to that righteousness of Faith of which Baptism is a sign and a means of conveyance and for admitting them too by such an outward sign as that of Baptism is But such an express law having been before given by God and that law as notorious as any law in either Testament there was no reason (d) See Stillingfleet's Irenicum Part 1. cap. 1. §. 3. for God to give any such express law for the so administring of Baptism or for us to expect it from him It being easie to collect from the Analogy there is between the two Sacraments and the great graciousness of the present dispensation that what was communicated to the Children of Abraham's posterity by the sign of Circumcision which was then the standing way of administring it was alike intended for the Children of those who were to as good or better purpose the Children of the same Abraham and intended too to be transmitted to them by their particular Sacrament and to which as was before observ'd the great graces of the Gospel were annex'd by our Saviour (e) Joh. 3.5 himself Which Argumentation is so much the more reasonable because it appears by what was but now suggested that our Saviour whose Institution Baptism
posterity of Abraham and after which I do not see what doubt can be well made of the other Partly upon the account of the Analogy there is between Circumcision and Baptism and partly upon account of the Children of Christian Parents having as good a right to the blessings exhibited in them as the Children of those who were of the posterity of Abraham For supposing as was before (o) Expl. of the Sacram. in general Part 4. shewn and may hereafter (p) Answ to the object against Infant-Baptism be farther clear'd that Circumcision relates to the same spiritual blessings with Baptism and particularly to the righteousness of Faith And supposing farther that the Children of Christian Parents have as good a right to those blessings and that righteousness as the Children of those that were of the posterity of Abraham By the same reason that the Children of these were intitled to that Circumcision which was intended to exhibit those blessings and that righteousness among them the Children of the other shall be admitted to that Baptism which was intended to exhibit them among us Those Children which have an equal right to the blessings exhibited having an equal right to those means which were intended for the exhibition of them Now that the Children of Christian Parents have as good a right to the former blessings and righteousness as the Children of the Posterity of Abraham will appear from those Parents of theirs being equally the Children (q) Rom. 4.11 of Abraham with those that were of his posterity For being equally his Children they must consequently be suppos'd to give their Children as good a right to the former blessings and the means that was intended to exhibit them among us as the posterity of Abraham did their Children to the like blessings and that means which among them was intended for the exhibition of them II. The Baptism of Infants being thus made out from the Scripture and by such passages thereof also as cannot be easily avoided Pass we on to enquire what countenance it hath from Antiquity as which if it be any thing considerable will the more firmly establish it Where the first that I shall take notice of is a passage of Justin Martyr I do not mean what is commonly quoted out of his Questions and Answers ad Orthodoxos (r) Quaest 56. it being questionable enough (ſ) Vid. Coci Censur quorund Script in Script Just Martyr whether that Book were his or at least as we now have it but what may be found in his second Apology (t) Pag. 62. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and concerning which there is not any the least controversie in the Church In which Apology speaking of the excellency of the Christian Law above that of any humane ones in setting bounds to the carnal desires of men he hath these words And there are many men and women of sixty and seventy years of Age who having from their Childhood been discipled unto Christ have all their time continued uncorrupt or Virgins And I boast that I can shew such among all sorts of men For why should we also speak of that innumerable multitude of men who have chang'd from intemperance and so have learnt these things For Christ called not the just or temperate to repentance but the ungodly and intemperate and unjust Which words to an unbiast Reader cannot well signifie less than Childrens being then baptiz'd into Christianity That Father not only making mention of certain persons who had from their childhood been discipled unto Christ which we know from our Saviour (u) Matt. 28.19 to have been effected by Baptism and continu'd too all their time uncorrupt or Virgins which yet is a competent proof of their being baptiz'd when Children but opposing them to such persons as had chang'd from intemperance and rather learnt that purity afterward than been discipled into it at the very first That opposition of his making it yet more evident that he meant such persons as were discipled to Christ from their very childhood and before they were in a capacity of learning him and his doctrine by instruction To this of Justin Martyr subjoyn we another of Irenaeus which is yet more clear for the Baptism of Infants For Christ saith that Father (w) Omnes enim venit per semetipsum salvare Omnes inquam qui per eum renascuntur in Deum infantes parvulos pueros juvenes seniores Ideo per omnem venit aetatem infantibus infans factus sanctificans infantes in parvulis parvulus sanctificans hanc ipsam habentes aetatem Adv. haeres li. 2. c. 39. came to save all persons by himself All I say who by him are born again to God Infants and little ones and Children and Young Men and Old Therefore he came in every Age and was made an Infant to Infants sanctifying Infants and a little one among little ones sanctifying those of that age c. Where we have him not only affirming Christ to have come to save Infants as well as others yea to have been made an Infant himself to sanctifie them which shews them in his opinion to have had a general right to the blessings of Christianity but speaking of several of them as born again unto God by Christ which is as much as to say baptiz'd That as it is the way by which all are to be so born even by the Doctrine of (x) Joh. 3.5 our Saviour so the way too by which the Antients apprehended it to be effected For thus where Justin Martyr intreats of the Baptism of those of his time he tells us (y) Apolog. 2. p. 93.4 that they who were to partake of it were brought by the Christians to a place where water was and there regenerated after that manner of regeneration wherewith they themselves had been And to the same purpose also this very Irenaeus (z) Adv. haeres li. 1. c. 18. because not only attributing the same regeneration to it but representing it as the Doctrine of the Gnosticks as to that Baptism which they set up against our Saviour's that it was necessary for those who had received perfect knowledge to be so regenerated into that vertue or power which is above all things Which passage with the former one makes it yet more manifest that Irenaeus meant by such Infants as were born again by Christ unto God such as had been regenerated by Baptism and consequently that the Baptism of such was no stranger in his days I think I shall not need to insist upon the days of Tertullian because what the practice of that time was is evident from his disputing against Infant Baptism or at least advising to delay it There being no place for such a dispute or advice if the thing it self had not been then in use and in use too as he himself intimates in obedience to that precept of our Saviour which enjoyn'd the suffering little Children to come unto
would be a God to Abraham and to his Seed after him For that implying at least that he would be as gracious to him as he was before and consequently because God dealt with him so before that he would count his Faith to him for Righteousness it must also be thought to import his assuring the same Blessings with the Christian Covenant because that is the summ and substance of them all All therefore that we have farther to shew is That some at least of those Blessings were by vertue of the Covenant it self to be immediately bestow'd on those who entred into it which will be no hard matter to evince For thus much at least it must be thought to import that if the party to be Circumcised receiv'd his Circumcision with that Faith which God required of him that Faith of his should from that very instant be accounted to him for Righteousness Because the Covenant being so far perform'd on his part there must ensue a like completion on the part of God as which otherwise he could not have been said to be punctual to nor approv'd himself a God to the party in Covenant with him And tho' we cannot make the like Inference upon the part of Children because there was nothing of Faith in them to procure them such an Imputation Yet in as much as they were admitted into the same Covenant with their believing Parents and as they could bring nothing more toward the procuring the Blessings of it than their external Circumcision so they had nothing more required of them It is but reasonable to believe that they receiv'd the same Benefits by it and had their Circumcision imputed to them for it Such Evidence there is for Circumcision's being a Sacrament yea of the same general nature with the Christian ones And I no way doubt we ought to think the same of the Feast of the Passover if not also of many of their other Sacrifices Not it may be for any particular evidence there is from the Institution of it or them but from the relation they bore to Christ's Sacrifice upon the Cross and the care it appears God took to convey the Benefits of Christ's Sacrifice by those extraordinary Sacraments which he gave them in the Wilderness For the Sacrifices before mention'd being equally signs of that of Christ yea intended by God to remit men (†) See Expl. of the Creed in the word Dead to him It is but reasonable to believe that God made the same use of them and conveyed Christ and his Benefits by them Otherwise their condition in the Land of Cana an would have been worse than in the Wilderness because as soon as they entred that their extraordinary Sacraments ceased III. Only as it is not to be thought that those Sacraments tho' the same in substance with ours did yet agree with them in all other particulars because belonging to a Dispensation which was manifestly inferiour to the Christian So there are two things wherein they differ'd from ours and by which they will appear to have fallen short of them First That they did not so clearly represent the things they were intended to signifie Secondly That they did not convey what they so signified in so ample a manner For beside that those significations of theirs were rather hinted than plainly expressed and much less so plainly express'd as the designs of the Christian Sacraments Those significations were not a little obscur'd by the concomitancy of others and which they were equally obliged to intend For thus Circumcision because a sign of that Covenant by which God did equally oblige himself to possess Abraham and his natural Seed of the Land of Canaan was a sign of God's giving them that promised Land as well as the righeousness of Faith and that Heavenly Canaan which belonged to it And thus too the Passover was a sign of that People's Aegyptian Servitude and God's delivering them from it as well as Christ's delivering them from the slavery of Sin and Satan by the shedding of his Blood By which means it is easie to see that these latter and more noble significations of them must have been yet more obscured to them and so administer less Spiritual Consolation to them This I take to be one signal difference between the Jewish Sacraments and ours and wherein therefore they must be thought to fall far short of what we now enjoy But that it is not the only material difference between them will appear if we consider the preference the Scripture gives to that Dispensation under which we are above that of Moses or Abraham And that exuberance of Grace which was poured out upon the embracers of the Christian Dispensation and of which we find no footsteps under the other For that is enough to shew that though the Jewish Sacraments convey'd the same Spiritual Benefits yet they did not do it in that proportion wherein the Christian did and so fell yet shorter of them Which will not only oblige us to set so much the greater value upon our own Sacraments but be the more curious in enquiring what ought to be look'd upon as such which is that I am in the next place to intend For the resolution whereof we are to know what we need go no farther than our own Homilies (x) Hom. of Com. Pray and Sacram. for the understanding that the word Sacrament may be taken either in a more lax and general or in a more strict and particular acceptation If we take it in the former of these so the number of the Christian Sacraments will be found to be much greater than even the Romanists themselves have made it Because as our Homily observes in a general acception the name of a Sacrament may and hath been attributed to any thing whereby an holy thing is signifi'd Whence it is as the same Homily goes on that Ancient Writers have given that Name not only to those Five which have been added by the Papists but also to divers and sundry Ceremonies as to Oyl washing of Feet and such like But as the Question between us and the Papists even in their own (ſ) Conc. Trid. Sess 7. can 1. way of stating it is not what may in a more lax and general sense be look'd upon as Sacraments but what are strictly and properly such so that Question cannot better be voided than by examining those things which pretend to that dignity by the account we have before given of the Nature of a Sacrament Of Baptism and the Lord's Supper I shall say nothing at present partly because there is no Controversie at all concerning their being truly and properly Sacraments and partly because we have no other certain means of judging of the Nature of Sacraments but by that which is observable concerning them Our business must therefore be to examin the other Five by them and by what we have before observ'd concerning the Nature of a Sacrament from them To begin with Confirmation because the