Signified when he speaks of baptizing with the Holy Ghost or baptizing with the Spirit for so says the Apostle again By one Spirit we are all Baptized 1 Cor. 12.13 I add That it is no new thing for the Holy Spirit to be figur'd or represented by Water for thus in the Prophet of Old when God had said I will pour Water on him that is Thirsty He interprets himself immediately I will pour my Spirit upon thy Seed Isai 44.3 and again when he had said in Ezekiel I will Sprinkle Clean Water upon you he adds as the meaning of it I will put my Spirit within you Ezek. 36.25 27. And again with allusion to Water is the promise of the Spirit express'd by pouring out I will pour out my Spirit upon all Flesh Joel 2.28 and to clear this matter from all doubt St. John quoting these Words of our Saviour He that Believeth in me out of his Belly shall flow Rivers of Living Water This he spake says that Evangelist of the Spirit which they that believe in him should receive John 7.38 39. Sir If you would see more and larger proofs of this you may read Mr. Mede's Discourse upon Titus 3.5 Indeed I cou'd hardly have thought that there cou'd have been any difference among Catechetical Writers as to this matter only I find in that same discourse of Mr. Mede that some would have the Blood of Christ to be the thing signified by the Water in Baptism as it is by the Wine in the other Sacrament To which he replies That the Blood of Christ is not once mention'd by the Fathers of the Primitive Church as the inward part of this Sacrament of Baptism no more than it is in our Liturgy and he further adds That the Opinion is Novel and That the Lutheran Divines make it peculiar and proper to the Followers of Calvin But now Sir give me leave to observe to you That Calvin himself seems not to have been always of this Opinion nay but he plainly asserts That the Holy Spirit is the Thing signify'd by the Baptismal Water For complaining of the Church of Rome for feigning Confirmation to be a Sacrament by which the Spirit of Regeneration is conferr'd he adds That they transferr'd to Confirmation what was proper to Baptism meaning that they made the Spirit of Regeneration which is the Inward part of Baptism to be the Thing signifi'd by the laying on of hands in Confirmation Calv. in Heb. 6.1 2. And here Sir if I was minded to enlarge I could confirm this Matter with abundance of Testimonies out of the best Writers and Fathers of the Primitive Church but I forbear being pretty confident that there is no great need of their Evidence in so plain a Case And now my good Friend are not your Eyes open Don't you clearly see from what I have said of the Inward part of Baptism how rightly the Outward part may be administred by Sprinkling or Pouring on Water The Gift of the Holy Spirit the thing signified in Baptism is exprest by Sprinkling or Pouring on And is there or can there be any Reason given why the Thing Signifi'd should be exceeded by the Sign God himself thought it not necessary but makes Sprinkling or Pouring on Water sufficient to represent and signifie his giving or pouring on the Spirit for when He I say promises his Holy Spirit he does not no not so much as once in the whole Bible say I will dip or plunge into Water but I will sprinkle or pour on Water Isa 44.3 and Ezek. 36.25 Dr. Towerson who had once said something which was a little too harsh as himself confesses against this way of Baptizing by Sprinkling whose very words our Adversaries have catch'd hold of and have boasted of him as a brave Man on their side yet when he came to enquire more narrowly into the Matter he industriously defends it and amongst other Arguments uses this very Text Ezek. 36.25 and proves from Maimonides That the Words were spoken with reference to the Times of the Messiah and affirms That they cannot be better interpreted than of the Water of Baptism applying them as I have here done as very well expressing the Outward Sign of that Sacrament And shall Men be wiser than God Or think it any Wit to mock at and deride his Words And be at the pains of making a Greek word English to make their mockery the plainer Sprinkling forsooth out of Sport and Rallery must be call'd Rantizing and Baptism when administer'd by Sprinkling or Pouring on Water must be nicknam'd Rantism But let me tell you Sir and you may tell the Author of your little * A little Book call'd The Reason why not Infant-Sprinkling but Believers Baptism ought to be approv'd c. Book you boast of That when he so merrily calls our way of Baptizing Rantizing and our Baptism Rantism He makes a mock of the very Words of God himself and according to his reproachful way of Speaking when God promises to Sprinkle clean Water upon his People he must not then promise to Baptize but only to Rantize This puts me in mind how I had once the misfortune to hear a wild Wretch call the Lord's Supper He seem'd to quarrel with my Friend for calling that Sacrament the Supper of our Lord A Supper said he A Bite and a Sip you mean And he had as much to say for the Profane expression as any one can have for calling our Baptism Rantism Why Sir He urg'd that a Supper ought to be a full Meal that to Signifie our receiving the Body and Blood of Christ we ought to eat a piece of Bread as big as his Body and to drink as much Wine as he shed Blood And is it not at a like Rate that some plead against Baptizing by Sprinkling You have heard the reason why That profane Wretch call'd our way of Receiving the Holy Sacrament of the Lord's Supper a Bite and a Sip and is it not for a very like reason that our way of Baptizing is by some call'd Rantizing I will not here say with the Psalmist What shall be done to the false Tongue but rather with our most charitable Lord Father forgive them for surely they know not what they say or do But this 't is to be so Zealous for Externals when Men think that they can never have enough of the outward Signs of the Sacraments when yet perhaps the thing Signified which is the main and principal thing is as much neglected But Sir When we receive the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper if we Spiritually eat his Flesh and drink his Blood which is the inward part of this Sacrament as to the outward part it will not matter much how little Bread we eat or how little Wine we drink So when any are baptized if their Souls are purifi'd and cleans'd with the Holy Spirit which is the Inward part of this Sacrament as to the outward part it will not matter much how little Water
afraid to enquire into the meaning of them Nay but the greatest Strength of that Book is spent against our Mode of Baptizing by Sprinkling Your Author has a Throw at this where-ever he meets with the Word Baptize and takes it for granted all along That to Baptize signifies always to Dip which I think has been sufficiently disprov'd and therefore if all that he has said and repeated again and again to this purpose in his little Book was taken out his Forty Texts wou'd dwindle into a far less number and there wou'd not be many of them left standing against Infant-Baptism Well but in Answer to the first part of your Objection That you no where find in Scripture that any Infants were Baptized First I 'll make an Impartial Enquiry what I can find in Scripture to have been done in this Case of Baptizing by Christ and by his Disciples in his Life-time And Secondly What I can find to have been done by his Apostles after his Ascension into Heaven I. We have no very large account in the New Testament of Christ's or of his Disciples Baptizing in his Life-time not one word more than what you may see in these few Texts John 3.22 26. John 4.1.2 The First of which Texts says that Jesus Baptized but says not whom not a Syllable to exclude Infants John 3.22 The Second Text says that Jesus Baptized and all Men came to him John 3.26 But here Sir that our English Translation may not lead you into a mistake I must inform you that there is no particular word in the Original that signifies Men only but the Greek word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Jesus Baptized and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all came to him All without Exception And here I will do so much Right to the Author of your little Book as to suppose he had observ'd this to be the sense of the Original words in this Text and therefore he passes it over as rather making for than against Infant-Baptism He does not I say mention this amongst the Forty Texts in his Book because he knew the Greek Word here Translated All Men signifies as well All Children even all without Exception All of all Ages I proceâ—d therefore to the Third and Last Text which says That Jesus made and Baptized more Disciples than John tho' Jesus himself Baptized not but his Disciples John 4.1 2. And here the Author of your little Book wou'd fain gather from the word Disciples that no Children were Baptiz'd but all that he say's is grounded upon a Gross Mistake which supposes them to have been Disciples before Baptism whereas the Text says plainly That they were made and Baptized Disciples That is they were by Baptism made Disciples and accordingly that Baptism is the only ordinary way of making Disciples I shall take occasion hereafter very largely to prove to you And thus I have particularly and Impartially Consider'd those few Texts which yet are all we find in Scripture which speak of Christ's or of his Disciples Baptizing during his Life-time and the Sum of them is this That Jesus's Disciples Baptized and made by Baptizing them more Disciples than John The Words are not They were Baptized all that Believed or all that Repented Nay nor all Men only but all in general not a Child of Man excepted And now Sir whether the Scripture be thus far against or for Infant-Baptism judge you And here I will add one thing more which wou'd be a great Satisfaction to my own mind in this Case of Baptizing Infants tho' there was nothing more to be said for it Know then Sir and I tell it you from undoubted Authority that Children were Baptized as well as Circumcised in the Jewish Church long before our Saviour's Coming in the Flesh The Jews report says Dr. Taylor That the World took up the Doctrine of Baptisms in Remembrance that the Iniquity of the Old World was purged by Water Great Exemp P. 175. And indeed Noah and his Families being saved by passing through the Waters of the Flood in the Ark did Typifie and Pre-figure our being saved by passing thro' the Waters of Baptism in the Ark of the Church for so St. Peter In the Ark says he were Eight Souls saved by Water The like Figure whereunto even Baptism doth also now save us 1 Pet. 3.20 21. And as for that Infant-Baptism which was practised of Old in the Jewish Church 't is by their own best Writers made as Ancient as Moses and deduc'd by them says Dr. Towerson from that Command of God whereby Moses was Enjoyned to Sanctifie the Israelites and cause them to wash their Cloaths against that time that God declared from Mount Sinai That Legal Covenant which they were then to enter into Dr. Towerson of the Sacrament of Bapt. Pag. 13. And the Apostle himself tells us of these Israelites That they were all Baptized into Moses in the Cloud and in the Sea 1 Cor. 10.2 They were all Men Women and Children so Baptized And you know Good Sir that when God did safely lead these Children of Israel thro' the Red-Sea he thereby figured his Holy Baptism And therefore as they Men Women and Children were Baptized into Moses by the Cloud above and the Sea beneath so says Dr. Taylor are all Persons now Men Women and Children to be Baptized into Christ by the Spirit from above and the Water below and the same Excellent Author most truly adds That it was the design of the Apostle in that Discourse 1 Cor. 10. To represent that the Fathers and We were equal as to the Privileges of the Covenant and that as we do not exceed them so neither do they exceed us nor their Children ours Great Exemp Pag. 176. And in short When our Saviour first Instituted his Baptism amongst that very People who had then such an Ancient Custom to Baptize Infants had he made any Exception against that their Custom had he excluded such Babes from his Baptism as they admitted to theirs we should certainly have heard something of it I am sure that their Infant-Circumcision was not laid aside without great Noise and Struggle and therefore that their Infant-Baptism should be so easily quitted without so much as one word said either for or against it is what I profess to you I cannot easily believe Nay but I am hereby very much confirm'd in my Belief that Infants were as well admitted to our Lord's Baptism when he Baptized in Judea as they then were and for a long time before had been Baptized in the Jewish-Church And thus Sir I have Briefly shewn you what was done by our Lord and by his Disciples in his Life-time in this Case of Baptizing And II. I will God willing enquire again what we find in Scripture to have been done in this Case by the Apostles after our Lord's Ascension But of this in my next which shall be hastened from Sir June 26. 1698. Your c. T. H. LETTER V. SIR I Proceed to enquire
every-where find Infant-Baptism receiv'd and continu'd as an Apostolical practice But I 'll not lead you too far into these Historical accounts which yet we must be oblig'd to or else we shall know but very little of the Acts of the greatest part of the Apostles for what they did into what Cities and Nations they Travel'd what Disciples they made whom they Baptiz'd is not written in Scripture But now Sir suppose some wild Theist or Atheist in pursuance of their Mischievous design to discredit the Apostles should come and tell you that the greatest part of them were a pack of Lazy Drones who though they were under the obligation of a Command to Disciple and Baptize all Nations yet never mov'd a Foot upon that great Errand did not the least Hand's-turn in all that weighty Business pray Good Sir what Answer would you make How would you vindicate the Apostles from so black a charge I am sure that all Scripture-Evidence would here fail you you could not quote Scripture in the defence of one half of them but how then would you stop the Mouths of their Accusers Why Sir You must be beholden to just the evidence we have for Infant-Baptism's being practis'd by the Apostles for by all the Authority whereby you could silence their Accusers and prove to 'em the Apostles Travels and the Conversions that they every where made all the wide World over even by all that Authority I say do we prove Infants to have been Baptized by them And further suppose an Atheist should fly in the face of our Blessed Saviour himself and Blasphemously tell you that he was a false Prophet who pretended to foretell such things concerning the Destruction of the Jewish Church and State as never came to pass though he positively prophesy'd that That very Generation should not pass away till all these should be fulfill'd Suppose I say an Atheist should say thus Good Sir I must beseech you to tell me what you would answer or how you would clear our blessed Lord and Saviour from the foul Aspersion you could not in this case have any help from Scripture No but you would be forc'd to appeal to the Historians of that and of the following Ages and particularly to that most admirable Historian Josephus to shew how these Predictions and Prophecies of our Saviour were accomplish'd and most wonderfully and punctually fulfill'd about forty Years after our Saviour's Crucifixion Well Sir and we have altogether as good evidence in the first Writers of the Christian Church for Infant-Baptism as we have for the Accomplishment of our Saviour's Prophecies and as you must prove our Saviour to have been a true Prophet in that Case even so do we prove Infants to have been Baptized in the Apostolical Ages Once more some deny that the Apostles Baptiz'd any Infants and suppose a Quaker who is against all Water-Baptism should deny that they Baptiz'd either Men or Women I know you would say that we have sufficient Proof of this in the Acts of the Apostles Oh but Sir You need not be told that these Quakers many of them are a sort of unmannerly fellows that disrespect and disparage the very Scriptures themselves and perhaps they 'll ask you Who writ that Book in the New Testament call'd The Acts of the Apostles Of what Authority is it Was the Author of it an Inspir'd Writer and what can you say why we are bound to believe what we find Written therein more than in any other Old Book And now pray Sir should a morose Quaker thus put you to 't to prove the Authority of the Acts of the Apostles how wou'd you do it Truly you must answer that we have the whole Primitive Church bearing witness to it that it was written by an Inspired Author viz. by St. Luke and that it has ever been receiv'd as Canonical Scripture throughout the Universal Church of Christ dispersed over the face of the whole Earth And this indeed is sufficient evidence to a Wise-Man But then we have the very same evidence for Infant-Baptism's being an Apostolical practice we have the Universal Church of Christ bearing witness thereto in all places yea and at all times for the first fifteen Hundred Years after Christ without exception Sir That Infant-Baptism was the Universal Practice of the Holy Catholick Church and that no time can be shewed on this side the Apostles when it began is so manifestly and clearly prov'd from the best and most Authentick Writers of all Ages that some of our learned'st Adversaries have had more Conscience than to deny it Menno One of the most Learned of the Anabaptists as the Author of the Case of Infant-Baptism tells us from Cassander acknowledg'd Infant-Baptism to be as Old as the Times of the Apostles and therefore he was forc'd in the defence of his cause to invent the Story That though Infant-Baptism was first taught in the Apostles Times yet that it was then taught by false Apostles and false Teachers which proof-less Story is Learnedly and largely answer'd by the said Author of the Case of Infant-Baptism pag. 47 48 49 50. And our excellent Dr. Falkner has these Words The Christian Church in the first Ages thereof and in a Continued Succession from thence to this time hath admitted Infants to be Baptized and thought it self bound so to do And this he proves by several plain Testimonies out of St. Austin St. Cyprian Origen and from the famous African Council and concludes that divers other Fathers and Councils might be added to manifest the Universal Reception of Infant-Baptism in the Catholick Church But this saith he having been clearly and sufficiently evidenc'd by the Historical Theses of Vossius upon this Subject of Paedobaptism I shall refer him thither who wou'd have more large and ample Proof hereof Treatise concerning Reproaching c. pages 285.286 And now Good Sir have patience with me till I shall briefly summ up what I have said in this long Letter and I will conclude I have shewn you how little we read in Scripture of what The Apostles did in this Case of Baptizing after they had receiv'd the Command to Baptize all Nations and likewise what clear hints we have even in that little of their Baptizing Infants but then I have added that as we find larger accounts of the Apostles Travels and of the Nations Converted by them in the primimitive Writers so that from the same Writers we are more fully assur'd that Infant-Baptism was an Apostolical Practice And you Sir I hope will not be so vain as to despise this Evidence without which you can never prove that the greatest part of the Apostles Baptiz'd either Man Woman or Child Without which you cannot prove to an Atheist that our Saviour was a True Prophet Without which you cannot prove to a Sullen Quaker the Authority of that very Book in which we have so may Proofs against them of Baptism in general viz. The Acts of the Apostles And thus I have
they are baptized with And if you good Sir resist not the Holy Spirit of God nor receive his Grace in vain but be thereby renew'd in the Spirit of your Mind and cleansed from all filthiness both of Flesh and Spirit My Soul for yours if you enter not into the Kingdom of God tho' you was but sprinkled with Water when you was baptized Whereas they whose hearts are not purified whose Conversations are not cleansed who wallow in foul Sins I must and will pronounce them too unclean to enter into the Kingdom of God tho' they were never so much Plung'd or Dipt into Water never so deep when they were baptized But I must remember my self that I am not now writing a Book but only a Letter and therefore I shall only further tell you that I design'd but in this to open the way to a fuller Vindication of the thing in Question And so I conclude at present with this promise That you shall God willing very speedily hear again of this matter from Dear Sir June 6. 1698. Your very Humble Servant T. H. LETTER II. SIR THO' I concluded my Last with a Promise to let you hear from me again very speedily about the Matter in Debate viz. Concerning the Validity and Lawfulness of our way of Baptizing by Sprinkling yet I had hardly time to breath or to take a little Air before I was alarm'd with your second Letter wherein you call out to me in great heat and haste to let you hear what I have to say to such and such Objections And dear Sir I 'll be your humble Servant here again and attend your Motion nor shall I be much out of my own intended way for in answering the Objections which you say seem to wound our Cause I doubt not but to blunt or to turn their Edge so as to make them defend it which is the very thing I aim at But First You say that the very Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Baptizing always signifies Dipping yes and so they 'll very confidently and peremptorily say too who yet never understood one Syllable of Greek in their Lives and above all the rest the Author of the little Book you sent me is almost perpetually saying so from one end of That book to the other But now to this I can give you a very short Answer and such an Answer as I believe will to you be very satisfactory and convincing For I know you dare depend upon Dr. Patrick now Bishop of Ely whose Writings you so justly admire for the signification of a Greek Word and therefore I will observe to you what he has noted in the Margin of his most excellent Discourse concerning Baptism Mr. Pocock says he hath largely shewn That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be Baptized does not always signifie among the Jews the Washing of the whole Body which is to be observed against those who now make it necessary I may have occasion before I have done to consult Mr. Pocock himself and then you shall hear more from him And Sir if I might be Sophistical and play with Particles as it is the manner of our Adversaries to do I might here observe of our Pious and Learned Translators to whom we are obliged for our English Bibles that they do not seem to understand Dipping by Baptizing for in our English Bibles which they have put into our hands we usually read of Baptizing with Water But now Good Sir in all those places where we read of Baptizing with I can hardly think that they would have us there by Baptizing to understand Dipping because Dipping with is not good Sence to Dip in or into Water is good Sence but to Dip with Water is not And therefore I say I might be perswaded that it was not the meaning of those Translators that we should always understand Dipping by Baptizing or that we may read Dipping with Water which is not good Sense where they have Taught us to Read Baptizing with Water Yea to Baptize with Water is the common Language of all English Authors even of our Adversaries themselves but that they mean to Dip with Water when they say to Baptize with Water we may no more believe I say than we may believe Dipping with Water to be good Sence But 'T is true we Read that there is but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one Baptism Ephes 4.5 which is an unanswerable Argument indeed for the only once Administration of it directly against Anabaptism but then we are also told that there are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Diverse Baptizings for so the Original word signifies tho' translated Diverse Washings Heb. 9.10 which undeniably shews that the Ways and Modes of baptizing are various and different Yea and by the Diverse Baptizings here mention'd must certainly be meant among the rest those Sprinklings which we read of Numb 8.7 and Chap. 19.18 19. Again 'T is said of the Jews that when they come from Market they Eat not except they Wash Mark 7.4 The Original Words are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They Eat not except they are Baptized where by Baptized we are not necessarily to understand Dipped for as Mr. Pocock has abundantly prov'd Lavantes à foro totum Corpus non Mersabant The Jews at their return from the Market did not always Wash or Dip the Whole body Not. Miscel c. 9. p. 390. And again Luke 11.38 where we read that the Pharisee wonder'd at Jesus that he did not Wash before Dinner the Greek Words are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That he was not first Baptized But now by Baptized in this Text we cannot possibly understand Dipped for there was no such Custom among the Jews as to dip themselves before their common Meals no not so much as to dip their Hands into Water For Even in the Case of washing their Hands Non Lavant Manus nisi è vase affusâ aquâ They wash not their Hands by Dipping them into any Vessel of Water but by having Water poured upon them says Mr. Pocock from their best Authors Not. Mis c. 9. p. 365. and again p. 371. Non Lavant Manus says He quoting Maimonides c. They wash not their Hands but with Water poured upon them And tho' some of their Authors allow of dipping their Hands into Water yet 't is only urgente necessitate in Cases of necessity for to do so ordinarily they all forbid them And so in this Text where it is said that the Pharisee wonder'd at Jesus that he was not first Baptized before Dinner says Mr. Pocock tho' it be meant according to Grotius's Note that the Pharisee wonder'd that Jesus did not first wash his Hands before Dinner yet he disagrees with Grotius as to the reason of the expression and adds That if our Lord's Hands had but been Washed aquâ affusâ by having water poured upon them there had been no cause for the Pharisee's wonder because the Pharisees themselves did not otherwise wash their Hands upon the like occasion Idem
or Commanded to be so Baptiz'd and not otherwise Yes say they Our Saviour himself was Dipped when he was Baptized of John in Jordan for the very Original Words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be Translated He was dipped of John into Jordan Mark 1.9 To this it has been rightly answer'd that the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 does not necessarily signifie He was Dipped as I have clearly shewn you in my last Letter and then as for the Words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which our Adversaries would fain translate into Jordan they have been shewn from several the like Expressions in the New Testament That they may as well be translated at Jordan 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be translated at Jordan says Mr. Horn just as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is translated at Azotus Acts 8.40 and just as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is translated at the City Mat. 2.23 and just as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is translated at Capernaum Mat. 4.13 and as the like Instances may be seen in Acts 4.5 and 20.16 and 21.13 and 25.15 See Mr. Horn's Cause of Infants Maintain'd p. 70. But 't is further Objected That our Saviour when he was baptized went up straightway out of the water Matth. 3.16 and Mark 1.10 Sir I wonder not that these Texts are urg'd by the Common People of our Adversaries as an Argument to prove our Lord's being Dipp'd but that any Man who has Learning enough to interpret our English Bibles as they ought to be interpreted so as to agree with the Original that any such Learned Man should take an Advantage from the English Words which he must needs know the Original will not bear This to me indeed is very wondrous But who then can sufficiently wonder at the Author of your little Book for his wild Note upon Matth. 3.16 Our Lord went down so far and deep into the River says he that the Text is express when he was baptized he went up straightway out of the water Mark He went up Out of the Water is the Curious Penning of the Matter by the Holy Ghost to shew the Considerable depth our Lord went into the Water to be dipt Thus your Author But Sir I will leave it to others to say That his wrested Observation belyes the Holy Ghost I will only tell you That he ought to have look'd into the Original before he had presum'd to make his Remarks upon what the Holy Ghost did Pen for the Greek Words were the Curious Penning of the Holy Ghost And I do affirm That the Greek Words in both these Texts Matt. 3.16 and Mark 1.10 only signifie That our Lord went up From the Water as every Man does who goes from the Water-side only And thus our Saviour's being in or dipt into the Water cannot be prov'd from these Texts by any one who can consult the Original Words which in Matth. 3.16 are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He went up from the water and in Mark 1.10 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Coming up from the water which I say can never prove him to have been in but only by the Water-side for he who goes but from the Water-side goes up from the Water because I think that Rivers do always run in the lowest Ground But granting that our Blessed Lord went into the River to be Baptiz'd it will not yet follow that he was dipt For good Sir I cannot here but observe both of our Lord and of the Eunuch which is your next Objection and of the many thousands we read of to have been Baptiz'd that we never find the least hint of any of their Cloaths being put off Certainly if they were dipt Naked as some say which I can hardly believe because Men and Women were baptiz'd together or if they put off but some of their uppermost Garments as others contend we shou'd have heard something of it for we are told of our Lord 's laying aside his Garment upon a far less occasion John 13.4 And therefore I say that we never hearing one Syllable about their Cloaths whether any part of them or all or none were put off is a good Argument ad hominem that they were not dipt And now let me appeal to you Sir whether we may not give a good Account of this Matter by supposing them to have been baptized only by Sprinkling or Pouring on Water Why you very well know That it was their Custom in those Countries to go bare up to the Knees only with Sandals upon their Feet so that they might conveniently enough step into their shallow Rivers to be baptized by having Water sprinkled or poured upon their Faces without putting off or laying aside any part of their Garments and therefore I say considering that we never read of any such thing not one Tittle about putting off or altering their Garments 't is as good an Argument against their being dipt and as strong for their being sprinkled only as we can desire against our Adversaries In short That when they were Baptized they were stript and dipt naked I cannot believe for the aforesaid Reason because Men and Women were Baptized together or supposing that they were Baptized distinctly and separately the Men by themselves and the Women by themselves yet still they were Men who Baptized and had this been put upon the Apostles to Baptize Women naked what brave sport wou'd their Enemies have made of it To be sure the Devil with the spightful Jews and Gentiles would have rais'd from such a practise as this a whole Volume of Lewd stories as the Learned know they did from the Celebration of the other Sacrament upon a far less Occasion But if the Baptized were dipped in their Garments then what becomes of their Objection which we hear of from Heb. 10.22 where there is Mention made of our Bodies being wash'd with pure Water For how our Bodies can be wash'd with our Cloaths on I do not well understand But Sir I shall here add by the by that in that Text to the Hebrews there is no allusion to Baptism No but that it plainly alludes to the Washing of the High-Priest mentioned Levit. 16.4 is even demonstrated by Mr. Sydenham in his Exercitation on Infant-Baptism Cap. 16. And for a Conclusion of this whole matter I will here set down some of the very Words of that Learned Author If says he The Person Baptized be not Naked then this Baptism by Dipping is rather a Baptizing Mens Cloaths and upper Garments than their Bodies but if he or she be Naked how odious a Custom wou'd this be I cannot but think that that part which is Baptized ought to be naked that the Water may immediately fall upon that place or else something else must be Baptized primarily and the Flesh only secondarily and by Consequence And this says he is the Reason why we only pour Water on the Face because it is the most Principal part wherein the Image of God most appears and the Soul shines forth most Eminently on
which all the workings of Mens humours and affections leave the most visible impression and symptoms and it 's Observable that the same word in Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies both the Face and the Person because the whole Person is represented by the Face and thus we Baptize the Person in Baptizing his Face which we can look on and wash Naked and not be ashamed So that worthy Author Concludes his 15 Chapter of the abovemention'd Book And now Sir I come to your Last and Grand Argument with which you make so much Noise and Cry and in which you do really Boast and Triumph with what Heat and Bravery do you repeat it to be Demonstration perfect Demonstration that John Baptiz'd by Dipping and why Sir I pray Why say you don't we read that John was Baptizing in Enon near Salem because there was much Water there Well and what then You add that the much Water there does certainly imply that all that John Baptized in that Water were certainly Dipp'd Very good and before I Answer you as to this I must here rejoyce with you a little that your Stomach still serves to swallow Consequences yea and very lusty ones too But now Good Sir This your high and mighty Argument so Confidently and Hotly propos'd is by no means to be Faintly and Coldly Answer'd but I must e'en force my self to put on a little warmth too and be bold to Challenge all our Learned Adversaries to contradict me whilst I say that the Original words in that Text Signifie That John was Baptizing in Enon near Salem because there were many Waters there So that we must understand the much Water in our English Bibles in no other Sense than as it may be understood by the Many Waters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which are the Original words And now you Sir who have not always liv'd within the smell of your own Chimney you know that in some Hill-Countries there are Multitudes of Springs and we may therefore say many Waters and yet not Water enough in any one of these Springs for a Man to be Dipt in And the Truth of this business seems to be this John was The Voice of one crying in the Wilderness and he might have been in many parts of the Wilderness where had he wanted but a drop of Water he must have travelled above Ten or Twenty Miles before he cou'd have found it but he would not continue in any such place because of the Multitudes that daily throng'd to him to be Baptized of him No but He stay'd near Salem where there were wany Springs or Waters because so long as he was thereabouts he had always Water at hand to Baptize the People that flockt to him for that End For there were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 many Waters there And this I say may seem to be the True Account of this Passage and now if you can find any thing in it to prove that John Baptized by Dipping pray let me hear it in your next Letter and you shall then know more of my mind In the mean time having thus given you my Answers to all your Objections which I have as yet heard from you I shall here take leave to rest awhile till you may be pleas'd to shape out some more work for Sir June 19. 1698. Your obedient and humble Servant T. H. LETTER IV. SIR AT the very first sight of yours I presently conjectur'd what sort of Task you were setting me and I am very glad to find that you are grown a little cooler and that your heat against our Mode of Baptizing is somewhat abated for you say very well that if we can prove Infant-Baptism the very Weakness and Tenderness of the poor Babes themselves will be some Plea for Mercy rather than Sacrifice Nay and you say that Infant-Baptism once prov'd would put an end to the whole Controversie and there would be no further need of Quarelling about Dipping or Sprinkling because you are well assur'd that we will not even in the Case of Infant-Baptism refuse to Baptize by Dipping if it be required and certified that the Child may well endure it And therefore you are pleased to say that you are sorry for your beginning at the wrong end of the Controversie or rather where there is no occasion for any Controversie at all And now you ask leave which Good Sir you may freely take to call upon me for my Proofs of Infant-Baptism and for my Answers to your Objections which you have been taught to make against it Dear Sir I doubt not but you have Read at least some of the many Books which have been Written upon this Subject by the very Learned Bishop Taylor Dr. Hammond Dr. Featly Dr. Towerson The Author of the Case of Infant-Baptism Mr. Walker Mr. Baxter Mr. Horn Mr. Sydenham and others and I cannot forbear telling you that 't is an Argument of something which I will not Name that our Adversaries Objections shou'd be so often Printed and Reprinted as if there had never been one Syllable said in Answer to them whereas I will here venture to say unto you that no one can shew you any one Objection in any of our Adversaries Books against Infant-Baptism but I will undertake to shew you enough to Answer it in some One or more of the Books which I can produce in the Defence of it And you must not Sir expect any new Discoveries in this Case from me all that I can aim at is but to speak plainer than some others have done and this indeed is all that you seem to desire from me for you want a little light you say being something in the dark as to this matter because of the silence of the Scriptures in which you can no where find either that any Infants were Baptiz'd or Commanded to be Baptiz'd Sir In very few words you have open'd a wide Field of Discourse and I think that the Case of Infant-Baptism may be pretty throughly Scann'd and Canvas'd by Considering your Objection which I shall divide into these two Parts First You find not in Scripture that any Infants were Baptiz'd Secondly Neither do you there find that any Infants were Commanded to be Baptiz'd To both which Parts of your Objection I shall endeavour to return you a very plain and full Answer First You Object and say That you find not in Scripture that any Infants were Baptized And here you take occasion to tell me what a Triumphant noise the Forty Texts in your lit-Book have made 'T is the Common Boast among some Folk you say that there is not One Text in Scripture to Countenance Infant-Baptism but Forty that are Point-Blank against it I suppose they mean if the Author of your little Book speaks the Truth in this Matter But whether he has done so or no I shall have occasion before I have done still farther to Consider For as fast as any of his Forty Texts come in my way I shall not be
what I can find in Scripture to have been done in the Case of Baptizing by our Lord's Apostles after his Ascension into Heaven Now the first that we read of to have been Baptiz'd by them were the Three thousand Converts Acts 2.41 But that none of these were Children is most confidently affirm'd because 't is there said of them that they gladly receiv'd the Word c. which indeed is a very plausible way of Arguing but yet 't is a very ill way and not to be allow'd of in our Interpretations of such Scripture-Passages For there is nothing more common than for the Scripture to speak of Children together with adult Persons and yet to add such things as the Children will not be thought capable of As for Example St. Paul speaks of Infants as well as of Men and Women when he assures us that We must all appear before the Judgment-Seat of Christ and every one of us receive for the good or evil done in our bodies I say St. Paul speaks of Infants among the rest tho' one half of what he there speaks cannot be understood of them namely That they shall receive for the good or evil done in their bodies who never liv'd in their Bodies to do either Good or Evil. Sir you argue that none of the Three thousand baptiz'd Acts 2. were Children because 't is said of them That they gladly received the word and continued stedfastly in the Apostles doctrine which are things that Children could not do And just at the same rate it may be argu'd That no Infants shall appear at the last Day before the Judgment-Seat of Christ because 't is said of them that shall then and there appear that they must receive for the good or evil done in their bodies which are things that Infants could not do And again I have not the least doubt but there will be Children and Infants at the Last Day placed among the Blessed Saints at the Right-hand of the Judge and yet I know what the Judge will then say to those on his Right-hand I was an hungred and ye gave me meat c. But now as you are pleas'd to reason the Case That there were no Children among the Three thousand baptized Acts 2. because such things are immediately added to have been done by them as no Children could possibly do viz. That they continu'd stedfastly in the Apostles Doctrine c. just after the same manner it may be reason'd That there shall be no Infants among the Saints at the Right-hand of the Judge at the Last Day because such things will immediately be added to have been done by them as no Infants could possibly do viz. I was an hungred and ye gave me meat c. But good Sir Infants will certainly make up a great part of the Blessed Train at the Right-hand of the Judge though the Judge cannot say to them I was an hungred and ye gave me Meat And so there might be many Infants among the Three thousand that were baptized tho' it cannot be said of them that they continued stedfastly in the Apostles doctrine For so you plainly see that Infants may be spoken of together with adult Persons though some things may be added which the Infant-part of the Company are no ways capable of And accordingly that there were Infants or Children among the Three thousand baptized as aforesaid we have yet this further Reason to convince us because when they were there perswaded to be baptized with this Promise of having the Holy Ghost given them 't is expresly added The promise is to you and to your Children Acts 2.38 39. But of this more largely before I have done I proceed therefore to the next that we read of to have been baptized and They were the Samaritans baptized by St. Philip Acts 8.12 and there indeed it is said that They were baptized both Men and Women and therefore surely say you had any Children been then baptized it would have been added That they were baptized Men Women and Children No Dear Sir there was no need of any such Addition for consider I beseech you the Scripture-way of speaking Even all Ages of both Sexes Children and Infants together with the Elder Sort are express'd in Scripture by Men and Women as Mr. Horn has particularly noted in Joshua 8.25 26. and Judges 9.49 51. which Texts you may consult at your Leisure and I will take leave to go on The next we meet with in the Acts of the Apostles to have been baptized was the Eunuch baptized by St. Philip Acts 8.38 and from their going down to the Water is there a great Objection rais'd against our Mode of Baptizing by Sprinkling or Pouring on Water but this I have already answer'd In the next Chapter was St. Paul baptized by Ananias and I think he was baptized in the House of Judas and you will not I hope from hence conclude that he also was Dipt In the next Chapter again we find St. Peter commanding Cornelius and them that were with him to be baptized but pray Sir Observe the Reason Can any man forbid water that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Ghost as well as we Acts 10.47 48. And may it not as well be argu'd Can any man forbid Water that Children shou'd not be Baptized who receive the Holy Ghost as well as we But of this more hereafter In the next place we read that Lydia was Baptized and her Houshold Acts 16.14 15. Where I observe that whatever qualifications are mention'd to have given Lydia a right to Baptism yet we read not any thing of any of her Houshold but that they were Baptized Nay and after their Baptism says Lydia to the Apostles If ye have Judged Me faithful to the Lord c. She says not if ye have Judged Us faithfull but only ME which implies according to our Adversaries best way of reasoning That only Lydia and that none of the rest were Believers So that thus far I am sure here is nothing against Infants being a part of her Family But Sir I must admire the Author of your little Book and the profound discoveries he has made in his Notes upon this Text to convince us that Lydia had no Husband and Consequently no Children But this wou'd not follow unless he cou'd prove her to have been no Widow neither and therefore by dint of mighty Argument he 'll make us farther know that she was no Widow And I must not conceal his All-convincing Reason which is this She cou'd be no Widow because she is called a Woman whereas Widows in Scripture are called Widows as the Widow of Sarepta c. A most wonderful Argument indeed But Sir When I think on 't again The wonder ceases because I find the very Widow of Sarepta call'd a Woman 1 King 17.17 24. Yea I find in Scripture one call'd a Woman who had been seven times a Widow for after she had Buried no fewer than Seven Husbands 't
the Ministers of Christ to whom he has the opportunity of applying himself for that purpose be all so unfaithful as to refuse to Baptize him yea tho' he sought and begg'd of them so to do with Tears In such a Case as this where the outward Baptism with Water was so far from being slighted that it was earnestly desir'd and yet cou'd not be had upon any terms whatsoever In such a Case as this I say I cannot think that the unfaithfulness of Christ's Ministers in dispensing the outward part of the Sacrament would hinder our Lord from doing the inward part which is to Baptize with the Spirit And this seems to have been the Case of the little Children brought unto him His Disciples rebuked those that brought them and wou'd not by any means have had them come unto Christ or become his Disciples And for this our Lord 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was very much displeased And in this great displeasure he seems to have intimated thus much to them That tho' they or any other of his Ministers should at any time refuse to admit such for Disciples whom he would have admitted and should therefore refuse to do the outward solemn part of Admission as they ought to do yet this wou'd be no reason with him that he should refuse to do that inward part which he does himself perform And accordingly he took up those very Children in his Arms and blessed them viz. with Spiritual Blessings and may therefore in some Sense be said to have Baptized them I mean to have Baptized them with the Spirit which is the inward part of Baptism and the only part that Christ ever did or does But 2. As our Lord himself Received and Commanded Children to be receiv'd into his Church so likewise has he plainly taught us that they are to be admitted by Baptism yea and that ordinarily they cannot otherwise be admitted For except a Man be born of Water and of the Spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God John 3.5 In which Text By the Kingdom of God taken in its lowest Sense must be meant the Christian Church for so is the Christian Church very frequently call'd in the New Testament The Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Heaven And this is that Kingdom of God viz. The Church of Christ into which there is no entrance ordinarily but through the Gate of Baptism The Text makes no exception for tho' the English words are Vnless a Man be born again yet by Man must be understood Mankind no Sex or Age excluded for the Original word Translated Man signifies any one 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 except any one be Born again c. Whosoever or of what Age soever they be except they be Born again of Water and of the Spirit that is except they be Baptized they cannot enter into that Kingdom of God which is the Christian Church And so says the Apostle very expresly Namely That we are all Baptized into that one Body of Christ which is his Church 1 Cor. 12.13 And so again we read of being Baptized into Christ that is into Christ's Body his Church Gal. 3.27 Yea it is there said that so many as have been Baptized into Christ have put on Christ that is are incorporated into that Body whereof Christ is the Head And accordingly I have observ'd that there is nothing more usual in Antiquity than for Baptism to be called Ecclesiae janua the Gate of the Church Baptism says our very Learned Bishop is the Door whereby we enter into the Church the Gate that lets us into Christ's Fold and the first step to Fellowship with God and with his People and hence it was that the Font was used to be placed at the Door or entrance of the Church to signifie that by this we come into the Congregation of Christ's Disciples Aqua Genitalis p. 447. But I 'll say no more of this both because it is so plain and because that it is not that I know of deny'd by our Adversaries Mr. Tombs wou'd not deny it in all that Controversie between him and Mr. Baxter Nay but in his Apology p. 58. I grant says he that Baptism is the way and manner of Solemn Admission into the Church and says Mr. Grantham in his Friendly Epistle Baptism is an Ordinance of Christ necessary to the Admission of all Men to the privileges of his Church p. 31. And the Author of your little Book notes upon 1 Cor. 12.13 that we are by Baptism added to the Bride the Lamb's Wife as he there calls the Christian Church And again in his Note upon Heb. 6.1 2. He says that Baptism is an Ordinance for the Solemnization of the Soul 's visible Marriage-Union with Christ that is we are united and wedded to Christ by Baptism as we are thereby incorporated into and United to that Church which is his Spouse But now it being so very plain our Adversaries themselves not denying it That there is no other visible way of Admitting into Christ's Church but by Baptism it necessarily follows that if Children ought as I have before prov'd to be admitted into that Church then they must be Baptized into it Sir Should the King Command you to carry your pretty little Child into his Presence-Chamber you wou'd not I think once ask or question whether you must carry him in at the door you wou'd not I am sure be thought over-wise shou'd you say My Lord O King Your Royal Command is that I shall bring my Son into your Presence-Chamber but pray does your Majesty mean that I shall bring him in at the Door Just so Our Lord having Commanded that Children shall be received into his Church shou'd any one question whether they must be received in at the Door which is acknowleg'd to be Baptism what Answer could he reasonably expect but to be laugh'd at And thus Sir wonder not that there is no such express Command in Scripture as this That Infants shall be Baptized For Christ's Command to receive them into the Church is sufficient and there was no need of any such second Command to receive them in at the door or to Baptize them In short Our Lord has plainly taught us that little Children must be admitted into his Church Suffer little Children to come unto me and forbid them not for of such is the Kingdom of God Mark 10.14 And he has plainly taught us that there is no other way of being admitted into his Church but by Baptism Except any one be born of Water and of the Spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God John 3.5 And from hence I frame this Argument There is no other way of Admission into Christ's Church but by Baptism But little Children must be admitted into Christ's Church Therefore they must be Baptized And this I am perswaded is very good Proof because 't is such Proof as our Lord made use of against the Pharisees to convince them of a Resurrection and such