rantized who are baptized afterwards when they believe are not rebaptized as you affirm nor do they renounce their Baptism though they do renounce the Practice and humane Tradition of Sprinkling 2. All you pious Parents bless God for Christ and the Gospel and for all those Priviledges he hath bestowed upon you and be sure make God's Word your Rule and tremble to do any thing in his Worship without lawful Authority from him I mean Precept or Example from his Word and do not adventure to baptize much less to rantize your Children whatever Mr. Burkit or any Man on Earth says unless you can find it written in your Bibles God hath not commanded you to bring them into a Baptismal Covenant not made any Promise of Blessing to assist them to perform it If you do so consider what I have said in this Treatise about that devised and unwarrantable Covenant by which you may heap up Guilt upon your selves and lay such a Load and Burden on your Children that you are not aware of and frighten them with the Thoughts of Perjury c. sufficient to drive them into Despair when indeed God never will charge them with Perjury since he never commanded them to enter into any such Covenant Can any Body think when your Children are grown up and they by Light received from God's Word should be convinced they were never baptized at all and so renounce their Infants Rantism that they thereby become guilty of Perjury and must be damned Do not these Men teach such a kind of Doctrine as that is 2 dly Train up your Children in the Fear of God and set them a good Example and pray for them and over them and give them good Instruction or godly Counsel and Admonitions but dread to sprinkle them in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost because 't is not done by his Authority nor Appointment Know 't is not in the Power of Man by any external Rite to make your Children Members of Christ or visible Members of his Body Baptism is not Bread for Infants but for Christ's new-born Babes not for your Children as such but such who are the Children of God who are born of his Spirit 3 dly Don't deceive your poor Children and make them believe they are in a good Condition by reason they are the Seed of believing Parents and baptized as these Men call it and so look out for no further Work of Grace nor Regeneration but think they by that pretended Baptism were made Christians even Children of God Members of Christ and Inheritors of the Kingdom of Heaven when in Truth 't is no such thing Nor have you any Cause to doubt but that your Infants who die though not baptized are happy as it appears from what we have said Neither be ye so ignorant to believe Baptism can save your Infants or the Adult either nor let poor Children cry out against their ungodly Parents as Mr. Burkit intimates they may do in pag. 62. Take a Taste of his strange Doctrine thus he says Before your Children are born 1. Make sure as much as in you lieth that they may be born within the Covenant and under the Promise by your being in Covenant with God your selves See that the Lord be your God â— God in Covenant with you and then you may comfortably hope he will be the God of your Seed in their Generations Answ This is a way to bring poor Souls into Covenant that God speaks nothing of in his Word You may be in Covenant and your Children never in it whilst they live nay die out of the Covenant as doubtless many godly Peopleâ— Children do Nor hath God made such a Covenant with every Christian Man and their Seed as he made with Abraham who was the Father of all that Believe but so are not you nor I though we are in Covenant with God and walk in Abraham's steps Those who are in the Election of Grace of your Seed never fear God will interest in his due time with all Covenant-Blessings and Privileges but if any of them are not comprehended in that Election of Grace they being born of your Loins will not cannot bring them into Covenant with God Your Business and your Childrens too is to make your and their Election sure by special and effectual Calling 'T is not the first Birth but the Second that brings either you or your Children into the Gospel Covenant that God may be your God and their God But mark Mr. Burkit's next words p. 62. O! were but Infants capable of Knowledg how much would they dread being born of wicked Parents Make it your Endeavour before your Children are born to sanctify your Children this is done by Prayer c. Answ 1. This is enough to set Children against their ungodly Parents nay to 〈◊〉 them in their Hearts Alas the Children of wicked Parents I see not but they may be iâ— as good a Condition as the Children of Believers for doubtless God will not destroy poor children for the Fâ—â—â—t and Sins of their Parents 〈◊〉 by your begetting them though gracious you cannot live them so you by begetting them though wicked cannot damn or destroy them There is no reason saith Mr. Perkins that the wickedness of the Parents should prejudice the Child in things pertaining to Eternal Life 2. But if it be aâ— you say that when you are in Covenant your Children are in Covenant doubtless they are in a safe Condition and Baptism to them is 〈…〉 cannot bring them into the Covenant becaâ—â—â— they were in it beâ—â—â—e and therefore 〈◊〉 enough 3. But may not thâ—â— Doctrine puâ—â— just Rebuke â—â—on Unbelievers or Ungodly Persons for once attempting to Marry and beget Children that are in such a sad Condition by reason their Pareâ—â—s were not â—n Covenant wâ—â—â— God! Ought 〈◊〉 nay may they lawfully Mâ—rry this being considered and such dreaâ—â—ul 〈◊〉 following â—â—â—sider how far doth thâ— Covenant Blessing exâ—end If my Grand father in Covâ—â—â—nt â—ho my Fathe◠〈…〉 bâ— very wicâ—ed and ungodly Persons am I not still in Covenâ—â—t and are not my Children iâ— Covenant too Nay if 〈◊〉 was by my Great-Grandfather will not that do as well as if my moâ—◠〈◊〉 Father was in Covenant with God Sir The Opposers of Pedo-â—â—ptism do not creep out of Darkness and 〈…〉 as you scandalously affirm but God hath graciously brought us out of the Darkness you are in and hath given us blessed be his Name the Knowledg and Light of his Word and what his Good-will and Pleasure is in this Matter and mercifully vouchsafed to us a gracious Freedom and Liberty to worship him â—â—cording to our Light and Consciences which â—ou seem troubled at and we are not ashamed to shew our Heads on the House-top nor do we scandalously dip our deluded Proselytes as you with Envy and Prejudice enough say but do at Noon-day to the Honour of God aâ—â— in justification of his Wisdom
erroneous Principles into the World as must be own'd 〈◊〉 acknowledged by all There 's more cause to â—earâ—tis your practice of â—â—â—tizing of Infants might lead them to disown Water-Baptism because they can find no mention of any such Practice in the Scripture May not they be miâ—â—ed to deny any Water-Baptism at all since they see such a multitude to assert that to be Christ's Ordinance which the Scripture is â—holly silent about But to proceed in Pag. 2. you say The great Controversy between you and us liâ— in your second Proposition which is this viz. Prop. 2. That not only those who do actually prosess Faith in Jesus Christ but the Infants of such Professors may and ought to be baptized Answ Reader observe that Mr. Burkitt does grant that such who do actually profess Faith may nay ought to be baptized It appears he â—wns our practice of baptizing Adult Person who actually profess-Faith in Jesus Christ But he says more i. e. Not only such Persons may and ought to be baptized but the Infants of such who profess Faith also And to prove this hold Assertion he lays down this Hypothâ—tical Syllogisâ— viz. If the Infants of the Jews were partakers of Ciâ—cumcision the Infants of Christians may and ought to partake of Baptism But the Jewish Infants were partakers of Circâ—mcision therefore Christian Infants may and ought to partake of Baptism Answ Sir must we believe it is so because you speak and write it You give no proof of your 〈◊〉 Proposition which is utterly denied Might not I state another Argument as good as yours nay may be better yet both prove nothing I argue thus 1. If the Jewish Infants had Right to the Possession of the Land of Canaan the Infants of Christiâ—â—s have a Right to the Possession of the Land of Canaan But the former is true Ergo. And if this were so let us make another holy War aâ—d take possession of it for our Children 2. Take a second Argument of the like nature with yours viz. If all the Sons of the Priests of God under the Law had an undeniable Right to the Priesthood and many other external Priviledges then the Sons of the Ministers of Christ have a Right to the Ministry under the Gospel and many other external Priviledges But the former is true Ergo. Ob. Your Logick will do you no good if you Argue no better I must tell you that which gave the Male Infants of the Jews a Right to Circumcision was not their bare being the Infants of the Jews not because their Infants weâ—â— in that legâ—l Coveâ—ant with their Parents but rather the express and positive Command of God to Abraham for evident it is no Godly Marâ—â— Children before 〈◊〉 days had any Right to be Circumcised And had Abraham or the Jews Circumcised their 〈◊〉 Infants without such a Commission or Command from God â—hey had no doubt been guilty of Will-worship 〈◊〉 and in like mâ—nner If God 〈…〉 required Christians to 〈…〉 Infants 〈…〉 be no Precept nor Exampâ—e 〈…〉 the Holy Biblâ— it must 〈…〉 worship in them so to 〈◊〉 But God 〈…〉 or required Christians to Baptize their Infants there is no 〈◊〉 nor Example for any such Practice 〈◊〉 all the Holy Bible Ergo it is Willâ—worship in them so to do I shall proceed to your second 〈◊〉 viz. If Baptism suceeds in the room of Câ—rcuâ—cision then as the Jewish Infants were Circumcised so the Infants of Christians may and ought to be Baptized But Baptism succeeds in the room of Circumcision therefore 〈◊〉 their Children were Circumcised 〈◊〉 so may 〈◊〉 be Baptized now Answ 1. I answer There is no necessity that a Gospel Ordinance must succeed in the 〈◊〉 of a Legal or Jewish Ordinance therefore I deny your Mâ—â—â—r What if 〈◊〉 that no Ordinance succeeds in the room of Circumcision Were there not many other Rites and Ordinances under the Law or Old Testament besides Circumcision And yet you cannot find or once imagine any Gospel-Rite or Ordinance to come in the room of them respectively for that then it would follow there would be as many Christian Riâ—es Precepts and Ordinances as there were Jewish Rites Precepts and Ordinances which as oâ—â— observes were more than three hundred 2. Besides as Dr. Taylor observes If Baptism came in the room of Circumcision you 〈◊〉 baptize your Children always on the eighth day and you must not baptize your Female Infants at all because none but Male Infants were then circumcised 3. And whereas you say Baptism signifies the same things that Circumcision did it is not true as will appear to all understanding Men if they consider these Particulars following which are so many Disparities viz. 1. Circumcision was a Shadow of Christ to come Baptism is a Sign he is already come was dead and buried 2. Circumcision was a Sign of the Covenant made with Abraham and his natural Seed Baptism is a Sign of the peculiar spiritual Priviledges made to Saints as such and no others 3. Circumcision was a Domestick Action i.e. to be done in the House Baptism an Ecclesiastick belonging to the Gospel-Church 4. Circumcision was to be done by the Parents in that respect Baptism is to be done only by Gospel-Ministers 5. Circumcision was the cutting off the Fore-skin of the Flesh which drew Blood Baptism is to be done by dipping the whole Body into the Water without drawing of any Blood 6. Circumcision belonged to Male Children only Baptism belongs to Males and Females also 7. Circumcision was to be done precisely on the eighth day Baptism is not limited to any precise day 8. Circumcision made a visible Impression on the Body which the Party might perceive when he came to Age of Understanding Baptism leaves no Impression on the Body 9. Circumcision belonged to Abraham's House to his Male Infants only or sucâ— who were bought with his Money and not the Male Infants of any other godly Men in his days unless they join themselves to his Family Baptism belongs to Believers in all Nationâ— 10. Circumcision bound those who came under that Rite to keep the whole Law of Moses Baptism signifies we are delivered from that Yoke of Bondage 11. If Circumcision signified the same things and consequently particularly the sealing the Covenant of Grace then those 〈◊〉 were circumcised needed not to be baptized because sealed before with the same seal of that which signified the same thing but Christ and all his Apostles and many others who were circumcised were nevertheless baptized 12. Circumcision signified the taking away the Sins of the Flesh or the Circumcision of the Heart but Baptism signifies the Death Burial and Resurrection of Christ which Circumcision did not 13. Circumcision was to be a Partition-Wall betwixt Jew and Gentile but Baptism testifieth that Jew and Gentile Male and Female Barbarian and Scythian Bond and Frâ—e are all one in Christ Jesus Therefore there are invers Disparities and different Significations between Circumcision and Baptism â— And
Honour and Faithfulness of Christ since the Apostles to whom he delivered his Commission were Jews and since at the same time it was a continual and setled Custom among the Jews to baptize Men Women and Children of proselyted Heathens and Infants being not exempted out of the Commission To which I have in this Treatise given a full Answer Arg. VIII If there be but one Baptism in Water left by Christ in the New Testament and but one way or manner of Right for all both Parents and Children to be admitted into the Church and that one Baptism in Water is that of the Adult who upon their Profession of Faith ought to be baptized and so admitted into the Church Then none either Parents or Children must be admitted either to Baptism or into the Church without such a Profession of Faith But the former is true There is no need the Scripture should particularly mention the Ends of Pedo-Baptism since there is but one Baptism for all though more Subjects to that one Baptism You run say they too fast and take it for granted that Baptism is only of the Adult Answ Since there is but one Baptism mentioned in Scripture and that is of the Adult and the End â—nd Design of Christ in it is expresly laid down as to that We say therefore there is Reason why the End of Infant-Baptism should be certain and we run not too fast We say the Subjects are but one since the Baptism is but one and manner of Right thereto being but one also Arg. IX If no Parents at any time or times have been by God the Father Jesus Christ or his Apostles either commended for baptizing their Children or reproved for not baptizing them then Infant-Baptism is no Ordinance of God but the former is true Ergo. Your Answer saith The Athenian Society is answered unless you will destroy Laying on of Hands one of the Principles of the Christian Religion none were ever commended 〈◊〉 reproved for ever being or not being subject to that c. Answ Do we â—â—t read in Acts 8.17 Acts 19.6 that those Men and Women who were baptized did subject to Laying on of Hands being Believers as such Sure what is said of their coming under it or submitting to it is spoken to their Commendation However as 't is called a Principle of Christ's Doctrine Heb. 6.1 2. so here are two Precedents of Persons that subjected to it Shew us the like as to Infant-Baptism Arg. X. Baptism is Dipping Infants are not dipped Ergo Infants are not baptized As to the other Arguments sent to the Athenian Society with their Answers I have spoken to several of them in this Treatise and I shall add no more new but â—eâ—ve all I have said to the Blessing of God hoping the time is near when this Truth I contend for will be cleared up to all which is now to enrich despised that Wisdom may be justified of her Children and God may be honoured to whom be Glory now and for ever-more Amen FINIS Faults escap'd the Press Page 10. line 13 14 15. blot out the double Comma's Page 25. line 22. for makes mention read makes no mention There are other Errata's and dispointing which the Reader is desired to correct Arg. 1. Arg. 2. * Exod. 12.3 4. They were to take to them a Lamb according to the number of Souls in the House See Mr. Tomb's Anti-Pedo-Baptism The Pedo-Baptists Argument Mr Tomb's Answer Milevit Conc. Joh. 1.25 * The Athenian Society detected in their 12 Numbers to their fifth Volume Here the Athenian Society may see their first Query fully answered of Infants being once in Covenant and never cast out are in still All Nations takes in Pagans c. and their Children 1 Thess 5.17 18. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Arg. 2. He should have mentioned Circumcision in his Propositions Mr. Burkit's Syllogism not true in form The Covenant God made with Abraham proved to be a mix'd Covenant partly Gospel and partly Legal See Mr. Tombs Exercit. p. 2. Arg. 1. The Athenian Society confuted Arg. 2. Arg. 3. Covenant of Circumcision no Covenant of Grace Arg. 1. Being the Children of Abraham as such gave them no right to Circumcision Arg. 3. Covenant of Circumcision made with Abraham belonged to the ungodly as well as the godly Arg. 4. All in the new Covenant need not be taught to know the Lord. A necessity that Infants be taught to know the Lord. Arg. 5. The Covenant of Circumcision a Covenant of Works Circumcision obliged Persons to keep the whole Law Arg. 6. Covenant of Circumcision of the same nature with the Sinai-Covenant Mr. Flavel answered in what he says in his Book p. 217. The Sinai Covenant called the Old or first Covenant in the Scripture See Mr. Tombs The New Covenant had divers Additions or Transcripts or divers Ministrations Arg. 7. Faith not reckoned to Abraham â—â— Circumcision Arg. 8. Covenant of Faith and that of Circumcision contradistinguished Arg. 9. Circumcision a Yoke of Bondage Infants saved by the Covenant of Redemption or by Christ's Vndertakings Circumcision a Priviledg on condition of keeping the Law Infants the Members once of the Jewish-Church yet not of the Gospel-Church Arg. 10. The Old Covenant and Old Covenant-Seed both cast out Heb. 10.9 The Old Church-state of the Jews is gone 1 Pet. 2.5 Infant Church-Membership came in with the Old Covenant and is gone with it I had this Simile once before but because it is so full I repeat it The Athenian Society's first Query more fully answered External Privileges under the Law greater than ours under the Gospel Mr. Ball 's Posit 3 4 p. 38. The old Covenant and Church of the Jews dissolved See Mr. Cary's Solemn Call Pedo-baptists Argument for Believers Seed c. of ill consequence Mr. Burkits first Argument to prove the Covenant of Circumcision a Gospel-Covenant All God's Covenanting Transactions since the Fall are by means of the Mediator The Sinai Covenant a Covenant of Works Mr. Burkits 2d Arg. Mr. Burkits 3d Arg. The happy State of all in the Covenant of Grace Mart. Luther on Gal. 3. p. 115. Perkins Vol. 2. cap. 3 on Galat. p. 242. Mr. Burkits third Argument to prove Infant Baptism Infants had the Lord's Supper formerly given to them Seed or Habit of Grace remains where infused and its Effects will appear * As if Christ passed through Regeneration or change of Nature Baptism makes no Persons Christians * These words be cites were wrote by Dr. Taylor Pool's Annotat. Athenian Society say Females were circumcised by some People formerly Infants may be capable to be saved and yet not capable Subjects of Baptism Baptism cannot save the Souls of Infants The Parents Baptism may serve for the Child as well as the Parents Faith Various thoughts among Pedo-Baptists what Faith Infants have See Mr. Danvers Perkins 2 vol. cap. 3. on Gal. p. 257. Baxter's Right of Baptism p. 149 150. Mr. Burkit's sense of the order of
notwithstanding I have lately so fully answered all they have urged upon this account still insist upon this ridiculous Argument as appears by their 12 Numbers to their fifth Volume And what I have now said may serve for a further Answer to them as well as to you but if we hear any more of this we shall further expose you and them than yet we have done In Pag. 6. you seem to answer a Question viz. Why our Saviour did not particularly name Infants when he instituted Baptism in the room of Circumcision Your Answer is because there was no occasion for it What need say you our Saviour declare that Infants ought to have the Seal of the Covenant applied to them when it was never denied them it had been highly requisite that our Saviour should have particularly named them now but being all ways included before if our Saviour had intended their Exclusion now he would most certainly have declared it c. Answ 1. I answer you say the Seal of the Covenant was never denied Infants and therefore what need our Saviour particularly name Infants when he instituted Baptism Sir but did not our Saviour know there would be just ground for us to deny Infant-Baptism since he commanded none in the great Commission to be baptized but such who were made Disciples by being first taught And he being God as well as Man did know from hence it would be denied as it has been by some godly Christians from the first time it was as an human Device introduced into God's Worship as hereafter we shall prove sure this being so there was all the reason imaginable that he should speak of their Baptism in his great Commission had it been his Will they should be baptized 2. And why should the baptizing of Believers be so clearly and so often spoken of in the New Testament if a being in the Covenant was a sufficient ground to baptize them without a positive Precept or express Command to baptize them since they were always from the beginning of the World look'd upon and known beyond doubt to be in Covenant and so you cannot say of Infants tho you say the Seal was never denied them for there is no mention of their being in Covenant as to have any Sign or Rite assigned them of it till Abraham's days and that that Covenant then viz. of Circumcision was not a Covenant of Grace we shall hereafter God assisting clearly prove Therefore say you what you please there was more need for our Saviour to have Infants Baptism and Church-Membership particularly mentioned than that of Believers had it been the Mind of Christ they ought to be baptized and made Members of the Gospel-Church 3. Besides the Dispensation of the Gospel requires it since it differs in Nature Rites and Priviledges from that of the Law or under the Old Testament The Church-State of the Jews being National and that of the Gospel Congregational had Christ only confirmed old Covenant-Rites and manner of Priviledges Membership and Initiations c. there might be something in what you say but evident it is that the Matter and Form Rites and Priviledges of the Gospel-Church according to the Constitution Laws and Ordinances of Christ quite differ and are of another sort to those of the Law Think not to say within your selves We have Abraham to our Father c. Now the Axe is laid to the Root of the Trees Mat. 3.9 10. Now as if he should say the case is altered your being the fleshly Seed of Abraham would do then or give you a right to Circumcision but this will not do now this will give you no right to Gospel-Baptism the Dispensation is changed actual Faith and Fruits meet for Repentance are required of all who have a right to Baptism 4. Moreover 't is evident that Christ in bringing in and establishing of the second Covenant and Gospel-Church-State dissolved and for ever took away the old Covenant and Church-State of the Jews with all their Rites initiating Ordinances and Priviledges whatsoever Suppose a Man should make his Will and bequeath such or such Legacies to such and such Persons and yet afterwards he abrogates that Will and makes another which is his last Will and Testament in which he leaves out the Names of those Persons and doth not bequeath those Legacies to them Can they recover those Legacies by virtue of the old abrogated Will The case is the same here If Infants have right to Baptism and visible Church-Membership it must be found in Christ's Gospel which is his last Will and Testament or they have no such Right you may be sure nor ought to be baptized He took away the first that he might establish the second Heb. 10.2 Your second Answer to this Objection viz. That Infants are no where commanded to be baptized is this viz. Altho they are not say you particularly named yet are they necessarily included in the Commission Mat. 28.19 20. Infants being a very considerable part of all Nations surely the universal all Nations does include the Individuals tho our Saviour does not particularly name them To clear this you make use of a Similitude Suppose say you the King should grant his Royal Charter to make this your Market-Town a Corporation and all the Inhabitants of it Free-Men would any be so idle as to suppose that this Royal Grant doth not include your Children because it doth not particularly name them Is not the Son of a Free-man a Free-man as well as his Father Thus in the Sacred Charter and Royal Patent of the Covenant of Grace which is sealed by Baptism all the Priviledges and Promises of that Covenant granted to Believers concern their Children as well as themselves Acts 2.38 The Promise is to you and to your Children the Promise of the Covenant belongs to you and to yours The Infants then of Believers are included together with themselves tho not particularly named Answ 1. I reply that you argue not only sophistically but also very weakly for are not Pagans Turks and Infidels with the profane and ungodly Men and Women and their Children a very considerable part of all Nations nay the far greatest part of all Nations for Christ's Flock comparatively is but a little Flock And are these included in the Commission tho not named You must say they be or else confess there is nothing in what you say in the least upon this account 2. If that Universal does include every Individual in all Nations all these are included as well as Infants of Believers Sir you must be corrected here for your bold and daring Abuse of the Sacred Commission of our Blessed Lord for I appeal to your Conscience or to the Consciences of all impartial Men whether by virtue of the Commission any one Person ought to be Baptized but such who is first Taught 't is not said Go Baptize all Nations mark but go ye therefore teach all Nations 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is
which you in Pag. 8. laid down thus viz. If the Infants of believing Christians under the Gospel are in Covenant with God as the Jewish Infants under the Law were then the Seal of the Covenant which is Baptism may and ought to be administred to them But the Infants of Believers under the Gospel are in Covenant with God as well as the Jewish Infants under the Law were Therefore Baptism the Seal of the Covenant ought to be applied to these as Circumcision was to them Answ Tho this Syllogism is not perfect in Form yet I will pass by that Oversight of yours and consider it in each part and finding it sophistical must deny the whole Argument 1. For first as to your Major If the Infants of Christians were in Covenant with God as the Jewish Infants were yet Baptism cannot belong to them unless God hath commanded them to be baptized and made it also a Seal of the same Covenant for as much as Baptism as I have told you before once or twice already is a meer positive Law or Institution 't is not Man but God himself must make it their Duty to be baptized and a Seal of the Covenant if it were so indeed but God hath neither enjoyned them or made it their Duty to be baptized nor appointed it to be a Seal of the Covenant of Grace to them Ergo. Also you mistake in calling Circumcision a Seal of the Covenant made with Abraham for 't is only called the Seal of the Righteousness of the Faith he had that is Abraham and which he had being yet uncircumcised 'T is not called a Seal of the Covenant but of Faith and that too of Abraham's Faith only because none before they were circumcised had such a Faith but himself only Nor can you prove Christ's true Baptism is a Seal of the Covenant of Grace under the Gospel the holy Spirit is the only Seal of the Covenant of Grace mentioned in the Scripture Ephes 1.13 14. chap. 4.30 If therefore I should grant that the Infants of Believers under the Gospel as such were in Covenant with God which I must deny yet it would not follow in the least that they ought to be baptized from that ground for were not think you all the Children of the Godly before Abraham's time or before he received that express Command to circumcise them in your sense in Covenant with God If you do not say this why do you affirm that the Children of Believers were always or ever in Covenant as well as their Parents but if it were so Do you think it was their Duty to circumcise them If you should say no because they did not know to circumcise them was the Will of God But you might say more viz. it was not the Will of God they should do it 't is God's Command only and not their being in Covenant made it their Duty to circumcise their Children and had God given us such a Command or any Authority to baptize our Children we ought and would baptize them but must not dare not without such positive Command or Authority 2. We utterly also deny your Minor and say that the Infants of Believers as such under the Gospel are not in Covenant with God We will therefore examine your Grounds to prove that which you affirm upon this account Pag. 8 9. and thus you argue viz. They who by Circumcision were once solemnly taken into Covenant with God and never since were solemnly cast out do undoubtedly continue in a Covenant-State But Infants under the Law were solemnly by God's Appointment taken into Covenant with himself and were never since by any Command of God cast out therefore they do still continue in Covenant Answ 1. I answer first of all that your Argument is not true in form Is Circumcision in your Minor Sir if you are a Logician speak like one your Minor should run thus viz. But Infants were once by Circumcision solemnly by God's Appointment taken into Covenant c. But I 'll pass by that and must tell you your Argument in another respect is lame also You do not tell us what Covenant 't is you here intend ought you not to have added They who were once solemnly taken into the Covenant of Grace by Circumcision c. but Infants were once solemnly taken into the Covenant of Grace by Circumcision If you do not affirm that you say nothing that concerns our Controversy If the Covenant of Circumcision was not the Covenant of Grace you will and must give up your Cause and if you say that you ought to have put it into your Syllogism 3. There is yet another fault in your Argument If you would include the Controversy ought you not to have said All they who c. Can your Conclusion be good when your Propositions are bad and defective But to the business If you say Infants as such were solemnly taken into the Convenant of Grace by Circumcision then I deny your Minor Infants as such were never by Circumcision nor any other ways under the Law taken into the Covenant of Grace Moreover I affirm that tho they were once solemnly taken into Covenant with God by Circumcision yet that Covenant and that Covenant Seed viz. the natural Seed of Abraham are both solemnly cast out and this I shall God assisting prove and afterwards take off all those pretended Absurdities you in the 9 th and 10 th Pages of your Book mention and give a full Answer to your Reasons and Arguments you bring to prove the Covenant of Circumcision was a Covenant of Grace 1. And now to proceed to raze and quite overthrow this main Foundation and Pillar of Pedo-baptism I shall argue as Mr. Tombs hath done whose Arguments could never be yet answered We are first of all to consider whether the Gospel-Covenant and the Covenant of Circumcision made with Abraham be the same Secondly Inquire what Seed of Abraham it is of which 't is said I will be a God to thee and to thy Seed Gen. 17.7 Thirdly Whether there be the same Reason of Circumcision and of Baptism in signifying the Gospel-Covenant Fourthly Whether there is the same Parity of Reason for the one as for the other First The Covenant made with Abraham we affirm is not a pure Gospel-Covenant but a mix'd Covenant partly made with his Natural or Fleshly Seed and partly made with him and his Spiritual Seed and therefore we thus argue Arg. 1. If the Covenant takes its Denomination from the Promises and the Promises are mix'd some Evangelical belonging to those to whom the Gospel belongeth some Domestick or Civil Promises specially and absolutely respectinâ— the House and Natural Seed of Abraham and Policy of Israel then 't is a mix'd Covenant But the Covenant takes its Denomination from the Promises and the Promises are mix'd some Evangelical belonging to those to whom the Gospel belongeth some Domestick or Civil Promises specially and absolutely respecting the House and
Names of their own choice and profess their own Faith In the Neocesarean Council it was framed thus As to those who are big with Child they ought to be baptized when they will for in this Sacrament there is nothing common to her that brings forth and that which shall be brought forth from her Womb because in that Confession the Liberty of every one's Choice is declared Whence we may infer 1. That in that Age there seemed to be that aversness from baptizing Children that they were not willing to admit Women great with Child to Baptism lest it should be thought that the Child was baptized with them 2. That in those Times in the Confession of Faith in the Death Burial and Resurrection of Christ which was done in a publick and solemn manner in their Baptism a liberty of Choice and Consent was required as preparatory to it for the incapacity of the Infant in the Womb to declare this Choice and Consent is the reason why they conclude that the Infant was not baptized with the Mother 3. That it was then judged necessary to have the Consent and Choice of those who were to be baptized Dr. Du-Veil citing the same Synod on this Passage viz. That concerning the Baptism of a Woman with Child that her Baptism concerns not her Child for every one is to give a demonstration of his own Faith and Confession saith However the Interpreters draw it to another purpose it does appear that the Question was made of a Woman big with Child because it did seem that the Child was baptized together with the Mother which notwithstanding ought not be used nor to be baptized except of its own proper Election and Profession Dr. Barlow late Bishop of Lincoln in his Letter to Mr. T. saith I believe and know that there is neither Precept nor Example in the Scripture for Pedo-baptism nor any just Evidence for it for above 200 Years after Christ Tertullian condemns it as an unwarrantable Custom and Nazianzen a good while after dislikes it Sure I am saith he that in the Primitive Times they were Catechumeni then Illuminati or Baptizati and that not only Pagans and Children of Pagans converted but Children of Christian Parents The truth is I do believe Pedo-Baptism how or by whom I know not came into the World in the second Century and in the Third and Fourth began to be practised though not generally and defended as lawful from the Text John 3.5 Grosly misunderstanding upon the like mistake John 6.53 they did for many Centuries both in the Greek and Latin Church communicate Infants and give them the Lord's Supper and I confess they might do both as well as either c. Thus Bishop Barlow Curcaeleus saith Poedobaptismus duobus primis à Christo nato saeculis suit in cognitus c. Pedo-baptism was unknown in the two first Ages after Christ but in the Third and Fourth it was approved of by a few in the Fifth and following Ages it began to be generally received And therefore as afterwards he saith this Rite is indeed observed by us as an ancient Custom but not as an Apostolical Tradition The same Learned Author De peccato Originis Numb 50. saith Morem Infantes baptizandi non coepisse ante tertium à Christo nato saeculum c. That the custom of baptizing Infants did not begin till the third Age after Christ but in the two former no foot-steps of it appear And afterwards saith Sine ipsius Christi mandato introducta est It was introduced without the Command of Christ Athanasius in Sermone 3. contra Arianos saith Our Saviour did not slightly command to baptize but first of all said Teach and then Baptize that true Faith might come by Teaching and Baptism be perfected by Faith Haimo in Postilla upon the Text Go teach all Nations Fol. 278. In this place saith he is set down a Rule rightly how to baptize that is that Teaching should go before Baptism for he saith Teach all Nations and then he saith and baptize them for he that is to be baptized must be before instructed that he first learn to believe that which in Baptism he shall receive for as Faith without Works is dead so Works when they are not of Faith are nothing worth â—â—dem in Annotationibus in Mar. The Apostles were commanded first to teach and then to baptize The Jews were brought by Ceremonies to the Knowledg of the Truth but Christians must learn to know them first Beda All those that came to the Apostles to be baptized were instructed and taught concerning the Sacrament of Baptism then they received the holy Administration thereof Rabanus The Catechism which is the Doctrine of Faith must go before Baptism to the intent that he that is to be baptized i. e. Catechâ—â—â—nus may first learn the Mysteries of Faith Arnobius Thou art not first saith he baptized and then beginnest to effect and embrace the Faith but when thou art to be baptized thou signifiest unto the Priest what thy Desire is and makest thy Confession with thy Mouth Jerom upon Matth. saith The Lord commanded his Apostles that they should first instruct and teach all Nations and afterwards should baptize those that were instructed into the Mysteries of the Faith for it cannot be saith he that the Body should receive the Sacrament of Baptism till the Soul have received the true Faith Sir What think you now of the Testimony of the Ancient Fathers and of the Practice of the Churches after the Apostles days Sure the Reader must needs conclude we have it here too and you must yield whether you will or no and give up the Controversy But to proceed Your first Demonstration to prove Infant-Baptism in the days after the Apostles in pag. 30 31. is this viz. Because that Children had Hands laid upon them in their Minority Answ This signifies nothing for as the Fathers changed the Ordinance of Baptism from believing Men and Women to ignorant Babes so they changed Imposition of Hands which I own to be a Principle of Christ's Doctrine Heb. 6.12 to such young People who in their Minority had learned the Articles of the Christian Faith But clear it is in the Primitive Apostolical Times none but baptized Believers were admitted to that Ordinance of Laying on of Hands as Acts 8.14 19.6 witnesses You do well to acknowledg in the same 29 th Page That anciently there were such called Catechumeni Persons taught or instructed and afterwards baptized You say indeed that there were two sorts the last you bring for your purpose but I know not where you have your Testimony and therefore shall pass it by So much to your first Demonstration from the 〈◊〉 Fathers Your Second to prove Infant-Baptism is this viz. Because say you Infants in the Primitive Times were admitted to the Lord's Supper therefore you conclude they were admitted to Baptism Answ And they had
was Dipping If you would saith Dr. Du-Veil attend to the proper Signification of the word in the Synod of Celichyth Anno 816. where Wolfred Archbishop of Canterbury presided Let saith he the Presbyters beware that when they administer the Sacrament of Baptism they do not pour Water upon the Heads of the Infants but let them be always plunged in the Font according to the Example of the Son of God himself who was plunged in the Waters of Jordan thus must the Ceremony be performed according to order See Dr. Du-Veil on Acts Chap. 2. p. 76. The said learned Doctor saith in the same place the constant Practice of the universal Church till the time of Clem. 5. who was crowned Pope An. 1305. under whom first of all the second Synod of Ravenna approved the Abuse introduced into some Churches about an hundred Years before that Baptism without any necessity should be administred by Aspersion Hence it came to pass that contrary to the Analogy or intended mystical Signification of this Sacrament all the West for the most part has in this Age the use of Rantism that is Sprinkling instead of Baptism as Zepper speaks to the great Scandal of the Greeks and Russians who to this day plunge into the Water those they baptize and deny mark any one to be rightly baptized who is not plunged into the Water according to the Precept of Christ as we find in Sylvester Sguropulus Dr. Taylor saith The Custom of the Ancient Church was not Sprinkling but Immersion in pursuance of the sense of the word Baptizing in the Commandment and Example of our blessed Saviour Salmasius in his Notes of divers upon Sulpitius Severus saith That the word Baptizein signifies Immersion not Sprinkling Nor did the Ancients otherwise baptize than by single or treble Immersion in the Greek Church to this day saith he the Person to be baptized is plunged over Head and Ears The same thing does Peter Avitabolis testify of the Asian Christians inhabiting Iburia and Colchi St. Ambrose saith Water is that wherein the Body is plunged to wash all Sin away there all Vice is buried In a Book inscribed Reformation of Ecclesiastical Laws printed at London 1641. 't is expressed in these words viz. While we are plunged in the Water the Death and Burial of Christ is recommended to us that we openly testify that Sin lies dead and buried in us The Roman Order published by the Writers concerning Ecclesiastical Ceremonies say the Presbyters enter into the Fountain within unto the Water and the Males are first baptized and then the Females Luther saith The Name of Baptism is a Greek word it may be turned a Dipping when we dip something in Water that it may be wholly covered with Water And although saith he that Custom is now altogether abolished among the most part for neither do they dip the whole Children but only sprinkle them with a little Water they ought nevertheless to be dipt and presently drawn out again The Germans also call Baptism Tâ—â—ff from deepness which they call Tieff in their Tongue as if it were meer saith my Author that those be dipt deeply who are baptized John Bugenhagius Pomeranus both a Fellow and Successor in the Ministry of Luther at Wittenburgh whom Thuanus and Zanchius witness to have been a very moderate godly and learned Man affirms That he was desired to be a Witness at Hamburgh in the Year 1529. That when he had seen the Minister only sprinkle the Infant wrapped in Swathling-Cloaths on the top of the Head he was amazed because he neither had heard nor saw any such thing nor yet read in any History except in case of Necessity in Bed-rid Persons Hence in a General Assembly therefore of all the Ministers that were convened he did ask of a certain Minister John Frize by Name who was sometime Minister of Lubec how the Sacrament of Baptism was administred at Lubec who for his Piety and Candor did answer That Infants were baptized naked at Lubec after the same fashion altogether as in Germany but from whence and how that peculiar manner of Baptizing hath crept into Hamburgh he was ignorant At length they did agree among themselves that the Judgment of Luther and of the Divines of Wittenburgh should be demanded about this Point Which thing being done Luther wrote back to Hamburgh That this Sprinkling was an Abuse which they ought to remove Thus Plunging was restored at Hamburgh yet is that Climate cooler than ours Mr. Joseph Mede saith That there was no such thing as Sprinkling or Rantism mark used in Baptism in the Apostles days nor many Ages after He had spoke more proper if he had said there was no Rantism used in the Apostles days but Baptism than to say no Rantism used in Baptism since he well knew they are two distinct and different Acts It cannot be Baptism at all if it be only Rantism or Sprinkling Immersion or Dipping being the very thing not an Accident as I hinted but an Essential so absolutely necessary that it cannot be the Act or Ordinance without it If I command my Maid to dip my Handkerchief into the Water and she only takes a little Water in her Hand and sprinkles a few Drops upon it doth she do what I commanded her was that the thing or is it not another Act Even so 't is here you do not the thing you Rantize and Baptize none unless you dip them into the Water Chamier also saith The ancient use of Baptism was to dip the whole Body into the Element therefore did John baptize in a River Dr. Hammond in his Annotations upon John 13.10 saith That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies an Immersion or washing the whole Body and which answereth to the Hebrew word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used for Dipping in the Old-Testament and therefore tells us upon Mat. 3.1 that John baptized in a River viz. in Jordan Mark 1.5 in a Confluence of Water John 3.23 because 't is said there was much Water which the Greeks called the Lakes where they used to wash Also saith he the Ancients called their Baptisterions or the Vessels containing their Baptismal-Water Columbethras viz. a Swimming or Diving-place being very large with Partitions for Men and Women The Learned Mr. Pool or those Learned and Reverend Divines concerned in perfecting his most excellent Annotations on the Holy Bible says A great part of those who went out to hear John were baptized that is dipped in Jordan On John 3.6 and on Matth. 28.20 say they It is true the first Baptism of which we read in Holy Writ was by dipping the Person Baptized The Dutch Translation according to their Language reads it Dipping Mat. 3.16 Ende Jesus gedoopt zijn de is terstont opgeklomen vit hit wter And when Jesus was dipp'd he came out of the Water And vers 6. Ende wierden van hemge doopt in de Jordan And were dipped of
meet that we being baptized into his Death and buried with him should rise also with him and to go on in a new Life Thus far Tilenus And let all thinking and serious Christians carefully consider since this sacred Ordinance was appointed to be thus significant as this and other learned Men observe what a sad and lamentable thing it is that the true Baptism should be changed from Dipping into Sprinkling which neither doth nor can hold forth these great Mysteries for which Purpose our Saviour ordained it for 't is evident Rantism or Sprinkling doth not bear any proportion to those Mysteries nor can they be signified thereby What Figure of a Burial of Christ or of the Old Man is there in sprinkling a few Drops of Water on a Person 's Face or what Representation is there in that Act of a Resurrection O how is Christ's Holy Baptism abused by this devised Rantism and the Signification thereof destroyed the Lord open your Eyes or the Eyes of my godly and impartial Reader This shews you clearly what Christ's true Baptism is as also the true Subject But to proceed St. Ambrose saith Water is that wherein the Body is plunged to wash away all Sin there all Sin saith he is buried We suppose he means 't is a Sign of this i. e. that all Sin is buried Moreover Chrysostom saith That the Old Man is buried and drowned in the Immersion under Water and when the baptized Person is afterwards raised up out of the Water it represents the Resurrection of the New Man to Newness of Life and therefore concludes the contrary Custom being not only against Ecclesiastical Law but against the Analogy and mystical Signification of the Sacrament is not to be complied with It has been too long as I have formerly noted God grant Men more Light to see their Error and abhor to do so any more Kecker says That Immersion not Aspersion was the first Institution of Baptism as it doth saith he plainly appear from Rom. 6. 3. And say I where hath Christ since the first Institution instituted Aspersion or Sprinkling in the stead or room of Immersion or Dipping or given Orders to change that significant Sign into the insignificant Foppery of Sprinkling Ought not we to keep the Ordinances as they were first instituted and given to the Saints Is not God's Word to be our Rule in all Points of Faith and Practice to the End of the World Has Christ given to any Men or Church a Dispensation to change his Laws and Ordinances or make them void by their Traditions or to set up their Post by his Post How doth God complain by the Prophet against his People of Old for presuming to change his Laws in Deut. 12.13 God gave particular Command to make an Altar of Gold to offer Incense Exod. 40.5 And he commanded Exod. 20.24 25. that his Altars should be made of Earth or rough Stone But in Isa 65.3 he reproves their horrid Transgression and Disobedience in acting contrary to his express Institution A People saith God that provoke me to Anger continually to my Face that sacrificeth in Gardens and burn Incense upon Altars of Brick You may think that was no great Error instead of Gold or Stone to make Altars of Brick But what saith God They for this c. provoke me continually to my Face O tremble ye who adventure to transgress God's Precept in as bad or worse a manner who commanded you to baptize or dip Believers in the Name of the Father c. and you rantize or sprinkle Infants Alas you know not how you hereby provoke God although he is yet silent and doth not manifest his Displeasure yet know he is a jealous God and hath the like Zeal for his Gospel-Institutions as ever he had of those under the Law and may manifest it too in his own time But to proceed and call in further Witnesses against your Practice Daille on the Fathers saith That it was a Custom heretofore in the ancient Church to plunge those they baptized over Head and Ears in the Water as saith he Tertullian in his third Book De Cor. Mil. Cyprian in his seventh Ep. p. 211. c. and others testify Dr. Cave saith That the Party baptized was wholly immerged or put under the Water which was the almost-constant and universal Custom of those times whereby they did most notably and significantly express the great Ends and Effects of Baptism For as in immerging there are in a manner three several Acts the putting the Person into the Water his abiding under the Water and his rising up again thereby representing Christ's Death Burial and Resurrection And in our Conformity thereunto our dying to Sin the Destruction of its Power and our Resurrection to a new Course of Life So by the Person 's being put into the Water was lively represented the puting off the Body of the Sins of the Flesh c. by his being under it which is a kind of Burial into the Water his entring into a State of Death or Mortification like as Christ remained for some time under the State or Power of Death therefore it is said as many as are baptized into Christ are baptized into his Death c. And then by Emersion or rising up out of the Water is signified his entring upon a new Course of Life that like as Christ was raised up by the Glory of the Father so we should walk in Newness of Life We are said saith Paraeus to die and to be buried with Christ in Baptism And further shews that the external Act of being buried in Water is a lively Emblem of the internal Work of Regeneration St. Bernard saith Immersion is a Representation of Death and Burial Against all these Testimonies and multitudes more of the best and most learned Writers and plain Scriptures you in pag. 52. bring in your second Argument against Dipping Arg. 2. If Baptism administred by pouring Water on the Face represents the whole Person doth answer the Use and End of Baptism as well as when administred by Dipping or Plunging then Dipping is not essentially and absolutely necessary in the Act of baptizing But the one answers the Use and End of Baptism as well as the other therefore the one cannot be more necessary than the other What is the Use and End of Baptism but to represent to our Minds the Effusion of Christ's Blood for to take away the Guilt of Sin and the pouring forth of the Holy Spirit for the purging away the Filth of it Now say you the sprinkling of the Blood of Christ and the pouring forth of the Holy Spirit upon the Infant are more fully and plainly represented by Baptism ad administred by Sprinkling than by Dipping If say you the inward and spiritual Grace signified by Baptism be more lively represented by Sprinkling than by Dipping then surely Sprinkling is not only as lawful but more expedient than Dipping but the