what tho we deny not but that Circumcision was then the inâ—â—lating Ordinance and Baptism is so now in Gospel-times i. e. an Ordinance of Initiation yet Circumcision initiated none into the Jewish Church but such who were by the express and positive Command of God to be circumcised who were only Male Infants for the Females were initiated without it even so Baptism tho it be an initiating Ordinance yet none are to be initiated thereby not only those who by the express Command of God are required to be baptized and they are only such who believe or make a Profession of their Faith Sir Precepts that are merely positive greatly differ you know well enough from Precepts that are purely moral in their own nature Laws that are of meer positive Right wholly depend upon the absolute Will and Pleasure of the great Legislator and in all Cases and Circumstances we must keep to the express words of the Institution we must venture to do no more nor no less nor do any thing in any other manner than God hath commanded as appears in Nadab and Abâ—hu and Vzzah's case the first for offering of strange Fire which thing God commanded them not tho God in express words no where forbid them so to do were cut off Levit. 10. 1 2. When God commanded Abraham to circumcise on the eighth day did he not virtually forbid him to do it on the seventh or ninth day Therefore this sort of reasoning of yours is meer sophistical and you do but darken Counsel with words without Knowlâ—dg You say in Pag. 4. That God hath no where declared that Infants should be excluded You mean he has no where forbid in express words the baptizing of Infants no more say I has he forbid Hony Wine Oil Salt and Spittle to be used in Baptism the former was used by some of the ancient Fathers and the latter is still in the Romish Church Where are we forbid to baptize Bells and consecrate Water as the Papists do to make it holy Water Also where are Infants excluded from the Lord's-Table If therefore any thing may be done in God's Worship which you suppose is not forbid and bears also some proportion in Signification with Jewish Rites all Popish Rites and Ceremonies may be let in at the same Door for the Pope Miter Popish Vestures Candle and Candlesticks c. they no doubt will tell you are of like Signification with the High-Priest under the Law with the Priest's Vestures and other Ceremonies among the Jews Whither will this lead you 't is dangerous to be led by such a Guide But to proceed we will come to that grand Proof of yours for Infant Baptism in Pag. 4. which you intimate will put the Matter out of all dispute namely That Baptism doth come in the room of Circumcision which is Col. 2. 11 12. In whom also ye are circumcised with the Circumcision made without Hands by the Circumcision of Christ buried with him in Baptism You say The Design of the Apostle here is to take the Colossians off from the old Sacrament of Circumcision He informs them that there was no reason why they should be fond of it because they were compleat without it Christ having substituted new Circumcision in the room of it namely Baptism and accordingly Christians may now be said by Baptism to be spiritually circumcised as the Jews were said to be spiritually baptized Answ Your Exposition of this Text there is no ground to admit of the Apostle speaks of the Power or Virtue of Christ's Circumcision His design is to shew we are compleat in Christ without Circumcision or Jewish Ordinances and to shew how we are compleat in Christ and have put him on he mentions Faith as well as Baptism or such a Faith that should always attend Baptism and therefore Infant-Baptism from hence cannot be proved or inferred nor the least ground for your bold Conclusion from hence viz. That Baptism came in the room of Circumcision 1. For first the Apostle 't is true excludes Circumcision but 't is upon another account viz. by shewing Circumcision was a Figure of the Circumcision of the Heart as Rom. 2. 28 29. Phil. 3.3 and since they had the thing signified thereby the Rite or Sign ceased And as I have lately replied to some of your Brethren in answer to this Text so I must say to you all that can well be asserted from this Scripture where the Apostle brings in Baptism is no more than this viz. That where Baptism is rightly administred upon a proper Subject it represents the spiritual and mystical Circumcision of the Heart i. e. that the Soul is dead to Sin or hath put off the Body of the Sins of the Flesh by the Circumcision of Christ which may refer to the Power of his Death in the blessed Effects thereof by the effectual Sin-killing Operations of the Spirit on the Heart And as being dead to Sin we are buried with Christ in Baptism both in sign and token of Christ's Burial i. e. covered all over in the Water which is a clear Symbol of his Burial also in Signification i. e. that we being dead and buried with Christ in Baptism so are to rise with him by the Faith of the Operation of God and both these are held forth in true Baptism The Apostle doth not mention Baptism to come in the room of Circumcision but to shew that these believing Colossians had through Christ by the Spirit obtained the Antitype thereof or thing figured out in the Circumcision of the Flesh which Baptism did clearly represent But since this is so strenuously urged by you afresh tho so often answered I will be at the trouble to transcribe once more what Dr. Taylor late Bishop of Down hath said to this Argument of yours and others before you about Circumcision viz. That Baptism is the Antitype of it or that it came in the room thereof The Argument saith he from Circumcision is invalid upon infinite Considerations Figures and Types prove nothing unless a Command go along with them or some Express to signify such to be their purpose For the Deluge of Waters and Ark of Noah were Figures of Baptism saith Peter If therefore the Circumstances of the one be drawn to the other we shall make Baptism a Prodigy rather than a Rite The Paschal Lamb was a Figure of the Eucharist which succeeds the other as Baptism doth Circumcision But because there was in the Manduâ—ation of the Paschal Lamb â—o Prescription of Sacramental Drink shall we conclude from hence the Eucharist is to be administered in one kind To which let me add Because Children Servants and all in the House might eat of the Passeover must our Children and all in our Houses eat of the Eucharist or Supper of the Lord But saith the Doctor and in this very Instance of this Argument suppose a Correspondency of the Analogy between Circumcision and Baptism yet there is no Correspondency of Identity for
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
rise not As if he had said If there be no Resurrection why are we baptized In vain does the Church use the Symbol of Baptism if there be no Resurrection The like Testimonies frequently occur among the Fathers saith he Ignatius saith that believing in his Death we may be made partakers of his Resurrection by Baptism Baptism was given in memory of the Death of our Lord we perform the Symbols of his Death Mark not of pouring forth his Blood or Holy Spirit or sprinkling the Spirit on us or the Blood of Christ No no this that Author says is not signified in Baptism but the Burial and Resurrection of Christ which Sprinkling no manner of ways can represent Justin Martyr saith We know but one saving Baptism in regard there is but one Resurrection from the Dead of which Baptism is an Image And from hence say I we know not Infants Rantism or Sprinkling for this is none of Christ's true Baptism Christ's Baptism in Water is but one and 't is that of Believers and 't is not Sprinkling but Dipping to signify Christ's Burial and Resurrection He goes on and cites other Authors Hear Paul exclaiming they past through the Sea and were all baptized in the Cloud and in the Sea He calls Baptism the Passage of the Sea for it was a flight of Death caused by Water To be baptized and so plunged and to return up and rise out of the Water is a Symbol of the descent into the Grave and returning from thence Baptism is a Pledg and Representation of the Resurrection Baptism is an Earnest of the Resurrection Immersion is a Representation of Death and Burial Innumerable are the Testimonies saith Sir Norton which might be added but these I think sufficient to prove that Baptism is an Image of the Death and Resurrection of Christ from whence we acknowledg the Mystery of our Religion saith he Christ's Deity and Humanity and of all the Faithful who are baptized in his Faith from death in Sin to newness of Life which if they lead in this World they have a most assured Hope that being dead they shall hereafter rise to Glory with Christ Thus Sir Norton Knatchbul a worthy Knight and of your Church too Mr. Perkins saith The dipping of the Body signifies Mortification or Fellowship with Christ in his Death the staying under the Water signifies the burial of Sin and coming out of the Water the resurrection from Sin to newness of Life In another Treatise of his he saith The ancient Custom of Baptizing was to dip as it were to dive all the Body of the Baptized in Water Rom. 6. Council of Laodicea and Neocesarea And here let me add what Reverend Dr. Sharp the present Arch-Bishop of York hath lately delivered in a Sermon preached before the Queen's Majesty on Easter-day March 27 1692. And this in antient times was taught every Christian saith he in and by his Baptism When ever a Person was baptized he was not only to profess his Faith in Christ's Death and Resurrection but he was also to look upon himself as obliged in correspondence therewith to mortify his former carnal Affections and to enter upon a new state of Life And the very Form of Baptism saith he did lively represent this Obligation to them For what did their being plunged under Water signify but their undertaking in imitation of Christ's Death and Burial to forsake all their former evil Courses as their ascending out of the Water did their engagement to lead a holy spiritual Life This our Apostle doth more than once declare to us thus Rom. 6. 3 4. We are buried saith he with Christ by Baptism unto Death that like as Christ was raised up by the Glory of the Father so we should walk in newness of Life Thus far Dr. Sharp Dr. Fowler now Lord-Bishop of Glocester on Rom. 6. 3 4. saith Christians being plunged into the Water signifies their undertaking and obliging themselves in a spiritual sense to die and to be buried with Jesus Christ in an utter renouncing and forsaking all their Sins that so answering to his Resurrection they may live a holy and godly Life Also Dr. Sherlock Dean of St. Pauls on Rom. 6. 3 4. saith Our conformity to the Death and Resurrection of our Saviour consists in dying to Sin and walking in newness of Life Which saith he St. Paul tells us is represented by the external Ceremony of Baptism and rising out of his warry Grave a new-born Creature And unto these let me add what the Reverend Dr. Tillotson the present Arch-Bishop of Canterbury hath wrote speaking of the same Text Rom. 6.3 4. Anciently saith he those who were baptized put off their Garments which signified the putting off the Body of Sin and were immers'd and buried in the Water to represent the Death of Sin and then did rise up again out of the Water to signify their entrance upon a new Life And to these Customs the Apostle alludes when he says How shall we that are dead to Sin live any longer therein Know ye not that so many of us that were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his Death c. 1. 'T is a hard case you neither will believe the holy Scripture the Antient Fathers and modern Divines no nor those learned Prelates and Doctors of your own Church who 〈…〉 living but contrary to the nature and tendeâ—â—y of holy Baptism plead for Sprinkling and condemn Dipping and cast reproach upon it and say also that the thing signified thereby is the pouring forth of Christ's Blood or the sprinkling or pouring out of the Holy Spirit notwithstanding we prove from the Scripture and with the Testimony of all these great Men that Baptism signifies the Death Burial and Resorrection of Jesus Christ and not any of those things you affirm as your own Concein without the Testimony of any learned or approved Author Therefore Sir that Baptism is any thing else than dipping plunging or washing which is done by dipping we do utterly deny For as the cutting off a little bit of the Foreskin of the Flesh or not the twentieth part round is not Circumcision so sprinkling a little Water on the Face is not Baptism True you call it Baptism and will do so tho 't is nothing less nor more than Rantism 't is not the thing nor does it answer in signification I may tell you again that the Jews instead of circumcising the Foreskin of their Childrens Flesh might have as well presumed to dispense with that and only have paired off the Nails of the Fingerâ— of their Male Infants and have called that Circumcision as you may call sprinkling or pouring a little Water Baptism But may be you will say in Circumcision they were to draw Blood so say I they might in cutting the Nails of their Childrens Fingers nay and they might better plead that the things signified in Circumcision might be as well answered in that
washes not away the Filth of the Flesh Or is not Original Pollution a Filth of the Flesh what Stuff is this you would force upon us and the World We affirm Infants are no more capable of this Ordinance than any other Why do you say of no Rite but this We challenge all the World by God's Word to prove they are capable of Baptism any more than of the Lord's Supper 4. You say Baptism administred to Infants has this Advantage That it puts the Christian upon more bitter mourning for actual Sin from the consideration of that shameful Perjury and wilful Apostacy that is found in such Persons Sin Answ 1. I find you are one of Mr. Williams his Brethren i.e. you are of his Belief it seems but tremble at the thoughts of the Consequences of your Doctrine Have not your Children when grown up enough Sins to mourn for and bewail before Almighty God but you must bring them into a Covenant which you knew they would break when they come to riper Age and such is the pravity of human Nature there is no avoiding of it without a supernatural Work of Grace their Burden is heavy enough you need not add to it 2. Is it not sad that you should give cause to your Children to think they are guilty of Perjury when in truth they never were nor of Apostacy from God upon that account our first Apostacy was bad enough you need not go about to make them guilty of another Alas their pretended Baptism never brought them one step nearer to God than those Children are who never were baptized in their Infancy at all where then is the Apostacy you speak of 3. You hereby bring them under a necessity of committing of the Sin of Perjury and of Apostacy at leastwise in your own conceit and in theirs too if they can believe what you say and so to cause them to mourn for that or those Sins most which may be if all things were rightly considered are no Sins at all I do not mean that any of their actual Transgressions may not be Sin but that they are not guilty of Perjury and Apostacy by breaking that you call their Baptismal Covenant for if God brought them not into that Covenant nor into any Covenant-relation with himself thereby I cannot see how there should be such a Sting in the Tail of it as you affirm and imagine and indeed had they themselves of their one accord and consent entred into an unlawful or an unwarrantable Covenant which they were no ways able to perform it may be doubted whether it would be Perjury in them if they kept it not besides I hope they have not forsworn themselves how then is it Perjury 4. Moreover I desire all those Parents who baptize their Children and you also to consider in the fear of God the natural Tendency and Consequences of your bringing poor Babes into such a Covenant 1. That you force them to enter into this Covenant without any Authority or Command from God for I challenge you and all Pedo-Baptists in the World to prove God hath any-where directly or indirectly required any such thing at your Hands 2. Consider that 't is not only a Reformation of Life or a bare refraining from the gross Acts of Sin that you assert is comprehended in this Baptismal Covenant you cause Infants to enter into but it is Regeneration it self i. e. a change of Heart and savingly to believe in Christ this you oblige your poor Babes to perform Now what Arminianism is here fomented if once you say or think they are capable to perform this Obligation but if they do not do it woe be to them Moreover what guilt do you bring the poor Sureties under unless they stand obliged no longer then the Child abides in Infancy and if so what need of their Obligation at all if you intend no more 3. Consider you brought them into this Covenant without their Knowledg or Consent they never subscribed to it nor knew any thing of it nor were they capable so to do 4. Consider whatever you think that such is the pravity of their Natures by means of our first Apostacy from God or Original Sin that they do and must of necessity break it as I said before unless God should by supernatural Grace change their Hearts and Natures and remove the vicious Habits thereof which you had not the least ground to believe he would do or leastwise to all or the greatest part of them God having made no such promise and by woful experience we daily see many or most of those Children are never converted but from the Womb go astray and are guilty of almost of all manner of abominable Sins and so live and die As to the Adult 1. Consider as I said before 1. That all Believers God himself doth require or command in his Word to enter into this Baptismal Covenant 2. And they before they enter into it have a Principle of Divine Life infused into their Souls or Grace implanted in their Hearts having passed under the Work of Regeneration being dead to Sin of which Baptism is a lively Symbol or is as your Church says an outward Sign of an inward spiritual Grace Not as Mr. Baxter observes a Sign or Symbol of future but of present Regeneration which is confirmed by what St. Paul teaches Rom. 6.2 How shall we that are dead to Sin live any longer therein not may be dead but are dead and so are buried with Christ in Baptism vers 3 4. If you say all Adult Persons baptized are not converted c. I answer They appear so to be and as such voluntarily enter into this Covenant besides God does not require them without Faith to do it Baptism doth not only represent the Death and Burial of Christ but also signifies our Death to Sin or that blessed Work of Mortification of the Body of Sin and Death by which means Believers who enter into this Baptismal Covenant are put into a gracious and meet capacity to perform that sacred Obligation but so are not Infants 3. That every true Believer baptized considers ponders upon and weighs with all seriousness and deliberation imaginable the Nature of this Covenant before he signs it And 4. That he doth it freely voluntarily and with his full liking approbation and consent neither of which do nor can do those poor Infants you force to enter into this Covenant These things considered it appears as it is a sinful Act in you to bring them into this Covenant since 't is done without Command or Authority from God so 't is cruelty also towards your own Babes by making them to be come guilty of Perjury and thereby damning as Mr. Williams says their own Souls 5. Consider every true Believer that is listed under Christ's Banner by entring into this Baptismal Covenant is by Christ compleatly armed i. e. he hath the Christian Armor put upon him Ephes 6. he has the Breastplate of
That the primary literal proper and genuine Signification of the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to dip we have abundantly proved by a great Cloud of learned Witnesses and this indeed I see you dare not deny saying in Pag. 51. that the Primitive Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from whence comes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to dye or give a new Colour All know that which is dyed in the Dyers Fat is dipped all over but whereas you say it signifies also sometimes to wash we have shewed 't is no other washing than is by a total dipping or plunging the Thing or Person all over in Water And therefore now to proceed I shall further prove Baptism is no other Act but Dipping or burying the Body under the Water You say Pag. 52. We read of divers Washings under the Law in the Original it is divers Baptisms Now say you what were those Washings but Sprinklings no Persons were dipp'd in Blood c. Answ We deny those Washings which are called Baptisms were either sprinkling or pouring of Water on them but total dipping of their whole Body and so the Reverend Mr. Ainsworth a Man very learned in all Jewish Rites and Ceremonies positively affirms on Levit. 11.31 these are his words viz. All that are unclean whether Men or Vessels are not cleansed but by dipping or baptizing in Water and wheresoever the Law speaketh of washing a Man's Flesh or washing of Cloaths for Uncleanness it is not but by dipping the whole Body therein And whether they be Men or Vessels there may not be any thing between them and the Water to keep them asunder as Clay Pitch or the like that cleaveth to the Body or Vessel if there be then they are saith he unclean and their washing profiteth them not Maim in Mikvaoth What can be a more full Confutation of what you affirm But Sir where we read of sprinkling of Blood the word is not there baptizing And now I shall proceed further to prove that Baptism or baptizing is not Sprinkling but Dipping or plunging into the Water in the Name of the Father c. and besides all we have already said clearly make this appearâ—â—rom the spiritual Signification thereof or what in a lively Figure or Symbol is held forth thereby And first to proceed let it be in the fear of God considered that as the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper doth in a lively Figure represent the breaking of Christ's Body and the pouring forth of his precious Blood so and in like manner the Sacrament of Baptism doth signify and hold forth the Death Burial and Resurrection of the same Lord Jesus Christ and the holding forth and confirming of these two great Gospel-Truths was doubtless the end of our Saviour in ordaining both these Gospel-Ordinances that so Christ crucified with his Burial and Resurrection might not only in the Ministry of the Word be preach'd to the hearing of our Ears but by these two Institutions be also preach'd as it were to the seeing of our Eyes And that Baptism doth hold forth this together with our Death unto Sin and rising again to walk in newness of Life I shall prove in the next place and that First From express places of Scripture Secondly By the Consent Agreement and Arguments of a Cloud of Witnesses both Ancient Fathers and Modern Divines and worthy Protestant Writers 1. The first Scripture is Rom. 6.3 4 5 6. Therefore we are buried with him in Baptism c. The Saints or whole Church of the Romans were to reckon themselves dead to Sin and bound to live no longer therein and that because by Baptism as in a lively Figure they held forth the same thing So that it appears Baptism hath a twofold Signification 1. There is in it when truly and rightly administred not only a Representation of Christ's Buriâ—â— and Resurrection But 2. Also it signifies our Death unto Sin and our rising again to walk in newness of Life And indeed the Apostle makes use of this as an Argument to press newness of Life the thing signified in Baptism upon them all As if he should say As many of us as are baptized must know this that we were baptized into Christ's Death and therefore must die to Sin and live a neâ— Life But we have all been baptized or buried with him in Baptism therefore must all of us die to Sin and live a new Life Our late Annotators on the place say thus He seems to allude to the manner of baptizing in those warm Countries which was say they to dip or plunge the Party baptized and as it were to bury him for a while under Water Cajetan upon the same Text says We are buried with Christ by Baptism into Death by our burying he declares our Death by the Ceremony of Baptism because he that is the Party baptized is put under Water and by this carries a Similitude of him that was buried who was put under the Earth Now because none are buried but dead Men from this very thing that we are buried in Baptism we are assimilated to Christ buried or when he was buried The Assembly in their Annotations on this Text of Scripture say likewise thus viz. In this Phrase the Apostle seems to allude to the ancient manner of baptizing which was to dip the Party baptized and as it were to bury them under Water for a while and then raise them up again out of it to represent the Burial of the Old Man and the Resurrection to Newness of Life The same saith Diodate Tilenus a great Protestant Writer speaks fully in this Case Baptism saith he is the first Sacrament of the New Testament instituted by Christ in which there is an exact Analogy between the Sign and the thing signified The outward Rite in Baptism is three-fold 1. Immersion into the Water 2. Abiding under the Water 3. A Resurrection out of the Water The Form of Baptism viz. external and essential is no other than the Analogical Proportion which the Signs keep with the things signified thereby for the Properties of the Water washing away the Defilements of the Body does in a most suitable Similitude set forth the Efficacy of Christ's Blood in blotting out of Sin so diping into the Water in a most lively Similitude sets forth the Mortification of the Old Man and rising out of the Water the Vivification of the New Man The same plunging into the Water saith he holds forth to us that horrible Gulph of Divine Justice in which Christ for our sakes for a while was in a manner swallowed up abiding under the Water how little time soever denotes his Descent into Hell even the very deepest of Lifelesness which lying in the sealed or guarded Sepulchre he was accounted as one dead Rising out of the Water holds forth to us a lively Similitude of that Conquest which this dead Man got over Death In like manner saith he 't is therefore
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
new Device the Nails being a sort of Excrement they might say signified the taking away the Filth of Sin or Corruption of Nature better than the great Mysteries signified by Baptism or Dipping can be represented by Sprinkling or Pouring Furthermore they might possibly plead the same Pretences you do viz. the cutting off the Foreskin of the Flesh put the Infants to great Pain nay may be they might fancy it would cost them their Lives nay call it Murder and therefore let pairing off their Nails serve as you it seems fear Dipping would endanger the Lives of Infants and therefore make Sprinkling to serve instead thereof But to proceed 2. I am in a-maze to see these Men speak so fully and clearly to this glorious Truth i. e. that the great thing Christ ordained Baptism to represent is his Death Burial and Resurrection together with the baptized Person 's Death to Sin and his rising again to walk in newness of Life that both those shameful Abuses in your Church and among other Churches also are not rectified viz. 1 st That Sprinkling which doth not cannot answer or represent those Gospel-Mysteries should not be rejected 2 dly That Infants should be once deemed the proper Subjects of Baptism sith nothing of a Death to Sin nor rising again to walk in newness of Life can appear in them For as the Learned observe Baptism is a Symbol of present not of future Regeneration 't is an outward Sign of that inward Death unto Sin which the Party baptized passed under then or ought to have done when or before he is baptized They then professed themselves to be dead to Sin i. e. even when they were buried with Christ in their Baptism for the Argument of the Apostle lies in that respect How shall we that are dead to Sin live any longer therein knowing that so many of us who have been baptized into Christ were baptized into his Death both in Sign and Signification And therefore as Dr. Sherlock says rising out of that watry Grave a new-born Creature denotes not only what they should be hereafter but what they were actually at that time So that as this Text and Arguments drawn therefrom utterly condemn Sprinkling as not being Christ's Baptism so it excludes Infants from being the Subjects thereof because in them appears no such Death to Sin nor can they be said to come out of that watry Grave as new-born Creatures To these Testimonies I shall only add one or two more and pass to your Obiections See that most learned Anonymous French Protestant Writer in his Answer to the famous Bishop of Meaux 'T is most certain saith he that Baptism hath not hitherto been administred otherwise than by Sprinkling by the most of Protestants But truly this Sprinkling is an Abuse This Custom which without an accurate Examination they have retained from the Romish Church in like manner as many other things makes their Baptism very defective It corrupteth its Institution and ancient Use and that nearness of Similitude which is needful should be betwixt it and Faith Repentance and Regeneration This Reflection of Mr. Bossuet deserveth to be seriously considered to wit saith he that this Use of Plunging hath continued for the space of a whole thousand and three hundred Years hence we may understand that we did not carefully as it was meet examine things which we have received from the Roman Church Calvin saith That Baptism is a form or way of Burial and none but such as are already dead to Sin or have repented from dead Works are to be buried 1. From whose words I note that Sprinkling is not the Form of Baptism because not the Form of a Burial 2. That Infants are not the true Subjects of Baptism because not such as are already dead to Sin or have repented from dead Works and indeed as they are not able they are not required so to do by Christ The last Author I shall quote is Learned Zanchy There are two parts saith he in Regeneration Mortification and Vivification that is called a Burial with Christ this a Resurrection with Christ The Sacrament of both these is Baptism in which we are overwhelmed or buried and after that do come forth and rise again It may not be said Truly but Sacramentally of all that are baptized that they are buried with Christ and raised with him but only of such as have true Faith Now we may appeal to all the World whether Zanchy and all the rest do not clearly and evidently testify the same thing that we assert viz. That Baptism is and can be no other Act than Immersion or Dipping since Sprinkling all must confess doth not represent in a lively Figure the Burial and Resurrection of Christ nor our dying or being dead to Sin and vivification to newness of Life saith he Sacramentally i. e. Analogically in respect of the near resemblance between Baptism and a Death and Resurrection And this I say cannot be said of them that are sprinkled only for if in respect of Mortification and Vivification they may be denominated buried and raised with Christ which cannot be said of Infants yet that outward Rite or Sign cannot denominate them so much as Sacramentally buried and raised with Christ for there is not so much as any likeness of such things in it but in true Baptism viz. total dipping the Body in Water and raising it again it is in a lively Figure held forth to our very sight And as Zanchy saith It cannot be said of all nor indeed of any that they are 〈◊〉 sacramentally dead buried and risen with Christ but only of such as have true Faith Therefore Infants are excluded by his own Argument And thus your first and second Arguments against â—ipping are fully answered in the 52 d and 53 d pages of your Book Your third Argument or Objection against Dipping is this viz. If Dipping were essentially and absolutely necessary in Baptism then in all the Baptism recorded in Scripture we should meet with full Proof or at least with fair Probability that the Parties Baptized were all Dipped But say you in several Instances of Baptized Persons recorded in Scripture we meet with no such Proof but the contrary Ergo c. The Textâ— you cite are first Acts 9.18 19. That Paul was baptized in his Lodgings being sick and weak c. Answ 1. Both these things you affirm without any Ground or Authority from the Text. For first the Text does not say he was baptized in his Lodgings therefore you strive to make the Scripture speak what it doth not See Reader the 18 th Verse and you may find Mr. Burkit speaks an Untruth or that which the Text says not 2. 'T is false also in that you say he was sick or weak tho he might be somewhat weakened and amazed by the good Hand of God upon him But if he had been weak yet when God commanded him to be baptized or dipp'd in Water In the
Men who will not work which all know doth no ways refer to Children so that the Dispute might well here end By your own concession Infants are not concerned in the Commission 2. You say the Adult are here intended we say so too Whither then will you go for your Infants Right to Baptism We can prove from many Texts Infants ought to eat though they cannot work But how will you prove Infants ought to be baptized by any other Scriptures if not from the Commission though they do not believe or have not actual Faith 3. May you not as well argue thus viz. If Children have mortal Bodies they must be fed at their Parents Table and eat Bread though they cannot work So because they have immortal Souls therefore they must be fed at the Lord's Table and eat the Lord's Supper though they can't believe nor discern the Lord's Body by Faith The Apostle saith Let a Man examine himself and so let him eat but this is only required of Adult Persons and 't is such St. Paul means But Infants who are capable to receive spiritual Benefit by Christ's Death they must have the Medicine also may you not argue thus as well Pray Reader observe what a kind of Doctrine this Man asserts I demand say you Whether according to the Mind of God gathered from the words of the Commission the Remedy prescribed should be administred only to grown Persons because they only are capable of understanding and believing the Virtue and Efficacy of it Sure every rational Man among you would conclude his Child capable of the Remedy as well as himself altho ignorant of the Virtue that is in it and only passive in the Administration of it and that it would be Cruelty yea Murder in the Parent to deny the Application of it to all his Children Reply I stand amazed at your Ignorance and Folly Does it follow because Children are capable to receive a Medicine against the Plague or bodily Distemper are they therefore capable of Baptism and the Lord's Supper If capable of one say I of the other also for as a Man is required to examine himself and to discern the Lord's Body in the Lord's Supper so he is required to repent and to believe in Christ that comes to Baptism 4. I would know how you prove Baptism to be the Medicine appointed to cure the Soul of the Plague of Sin Is not this to blind the Eyes of poor People and make them think that an external Ordinance saves the Soul If not thus how can it be Cruelty yea Murder in Parents to deny the Application of Baptism to their Children The Ancient Fathers from that in John 6.53 Vnless a Man eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood he hath no Life in him gave Infants the Lord's Supper thinking our Saviour like as the Papists do meant that Sacrament when indeed he meant only of 〈◊〉 by Faith on Christ crucified But however their Argument for giving Infants one Sacrament was as good as yours for giving them the other But when they are as capable to repent and believe and are helped so to do as they are and do eat Bread let them have both Baptism and the Lord's Supper and till then if God's Word be the Rule of our Faith and Practice and not our own Fancies they ought to have neither yet the Remedy or Medicine which is Christ's Blood we deny not but dying Infants may be capable of 5. Sir You seem to be no true Son of the Church of England for they it seems positively affirm Repentance whereby a Person forsakes Sin and Faith whereby he stedfastly believes the Promise of God made to him in that Sacrament is required of those who are to be baptized nay and of little Babes too therefore the Sureties answer for them that they do believe and repent or forsake the Devil and all his Works c. the Child answers by Proxy Your Church baptizes no Child but as a Believer and a true penitent Person What is this your Argument good for even nothing How now are you wiser than the Church no doubt she believes as we do All that are proper Subjects of Baptism are comprehended in the Commission and must be as such whether Adult or Infants who profess Faith and Repentance But you it may be foresaw the Snake in the Grass viz. that God-fathers and God-mothers is a Tradition and none of God's Appointment nor are they able to perform those things for the Child which they promise for him and in his Name And therefore make use of another Argument and would have them baptized without Faith or upon their Parents Faith of which your Church speaks nothing As to your Comparison 't is not worth mentioning Baptism as I have told you doth not cure the Soul of Sin but 't is the Blood of Christ applied by Faith And now do we say no Child can have the Benefit of that Sovereign Remedy because not capable to believe by reason Men and Women must receive it by Faith or perish God as Dr. Taylor observes may have many ways to magnify his Grace through Jesus Christ to them which we know not of who die in their Infancy yet have we no Authority to baptize them any more than to give them the Lord's Supper 6. Sir You talk at a strange rate as if you regarded not what you say or affirm while you bring Similitudes to teach People to believe Baptism is the Balm to cure the Contagion of Sin and as if the application of it saved a little Babe from Hell and they guilty of murdering the Souls of their Children who deny to baptize them I had thought you would not have lain greater stress upon Childrens Baptism than on Childrens Circumcision since you would fain have them run parallel-wise Pray what became of the Jews Female Infants were they damned And what became of their Male Infants who died before eight days old for they broke God's Law if they Circumcumcised them though sick and like to die if they were not full eight days old Blush for the sake of your precious Soul and take more care for time to come to what you Preach and Write But to proceed In pag. 19. you say Tho Children have not actual Faith yet they have habitual Faith Faith in Semine and so are potentially Believers As for Instance Infants have not Reason yet because they have a Principle we call them reasonable Creatures Thus Infants whilst such have not the Use and Exercise of Faith but have it in the Root and so may be called Believers initially Ans 1. Dr. Taylor clearly confutes this Conceit of yours Some there be saith he who argue stiffly for Infants having habitual Faith but saith he is there any Precedent Concomitant or Consequent to this pretended Habit This strange Invention is absolutely without Art without Scripture Reason or Authority Answ 2. Why may not the Infants of Unbelievers have the same
hath laid down as an Everlasting Rule That unless a Man be born again he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God John 3.3 requiring Regeneration as an indispensable Condition in a Member of his Church a Subject of his Kingdom for his Temple is now built of living Stones 1 Pet. 2.5 Men spiritual and savingly quickned from their Death in Sin and by the Holy Ghost whereof they are Partakers made a meet Habitation for God Ephes 2.21 22. 1 Cor. 3.16 2 Cor. 6.16 which vital Supplies from Christ its Head encreaseth in Faith and Holiness edifying it self in Love And saith Dr. Taylor they that baptize Children make Baptism to be wholly an outward Duty a Work of the Law a carnal Ordinance it makes us adhere to the Letter without regard of the Spirit to be satisfied with Shadows to return to Bondage to relinquish the Mysteriousness the Substance and Spirituality of the Gospel which Argument is of so much the more consideration because under the Spiritual Covenant or Gospel of Grace if the Mystery goes not before the Symbol which it does when the Symbols are signations of Grace as the Sacraments are yet it always accompanies it but never follows in order of Time And this is clear in the perpetual Analogy of Holy Scripture The Lord open your Eyes Sir I am perswaded you speak as you believe But to proceed You come in pag. 26. to the Gospel-Church 1. From the Command of Christ 2. From the Practice of the Apostles 3. From the constant usage of the Primitive Church after the Apostles 1. That Infants were to be admitted into the Christian Church you say appears from our Saviour's express Command in the words of the Commission Mat. 28.19 Go disciple all Nations baptizing them that is go and proselyte all the Gentile Nations without distinction of Country Sex or Age whatsoever make the Gospel-Church as large as you can Answ 1. Who is so blind as he who is not willing to see It is evident to all Men who understand what they read that none are to be baptized by the virtue and plain meaning of our Saviour's Commission but such only who are first made Disciples as I have proved or as St. Mark renders it such who believed And that 't is so I have already proved 1. From the Practice of Christ John 4.1 he first made Disciples and then baptized them 2. From the Practice of the Apostles who always required Faith and Repentance of such they by virtue of their Commission did baptize as Acts 2.37 8.27 10.47 3. From the Nature of the Ordinance it self it being a sign of that inward Grace the Person baptized ought to have 4. From the Nature of the Gospel-Church it being only built up of living Stones and to be no larger than Christ appointed it But say you pag. 27. doubtless had our Saviour here intended the exclusion of Infants out of the Visible Church he would have acquainted her with this Alteration Christ being faithful to him that appointed him as was Moses in all his House Heb. 3.2 Answ I must retort it back upon you with much better Reason Doubtless say I had our Saviour intended the admission of Infants he would at this time have acquainted his Disciples and so us that it was his Will they should be received since as you well say he was so faithful and the rather because he commanded his Disciples to receive into his Church such who were taught or made Disciples When he commanded Abraham to circumcise his Male-Infants Abraham knew well enough he was not to circumcise his Females though he received no Negative Law in the case What is not commanded I say again is forbid especially in all Instituted Worship or else whither shall we run Thus your first Proof is gone having nothing in it 2. Baptizing Infants appears in the Christian Church you say from the Practice of the Apostles who baptized whole Families i. e. Lydia and her Houshold Acts 16.15 the Jaylor and all his c. Answ 1. If there were no Families or Housholds but in which there are some Infants you might have some pretence for what you infer from hence but how palpable is it that there are every where many whole Families in which there is no Infant or Child in Non-age and this being so what certain Conclusion or Consequence can be drawn from hence 2. Besides you know by a certain Figure called a Synecdoche a part is put for the whole as Isa 7.2 5 8 9. the Tribe of Ephraim is put for all Israel 'T is said All Jerusalem and Judea went out to be baptized by John in Jordan In 1 Sam. 1.21 22. the Text saith expresly The Man Elkanah and all his House went up to offer unto the Lord yet in the next Verse 't is as expresly said That Hannah and her Child Samuel went not up and yet 't is said all his House went up 3. As touching the Jaylor's House 't is positively said Paul preached to him and to all that were in his House do you think he preached to his Infants if he had any And to put the Matter out of doubt 't is said He rejoiced believing in God with all his House as well as 't is said He was baptized and all his 4. And as touching Lydia we still say 't is uncertain whether she was a Maid Widow or Wife but if she was married and had Children 't is very unlikely if Babes that they were at that time with her because she was far from her proper Dwelling nay many Miles from it for she was of the City Thyatira vers 14. but when Paul preached to her she was at Philippi where she was merchandizing being a seller of Purple Can we suppose she carried her little Babes so far to Market Besides those of her House were called Brethren who were baptized with her therefore sure Children cannot be here meant vers 40. Will you Sir build your practice of baptizing of little Babes from such uncertain Conclusions when 't is uncertain whether she had Children or no or if she had whether they were with her at that time or not Our denying of it is as good as your affirming it yet 't is plain she had Servants or some who are called her Houshold therefore that is impertinent you mention in p. 28. And thus it appears to all impartial Persons that there is nothing in your second Proof touching the Practice of the Gospel-Church here 's no mention made of one Infant baptized nor the least Colour of Reason to conclude there were in those Families But you in the next place put us upon searching the Scripture to prove a Negative i. e. that there were none baptized in Infancy you might as well bid us search and see if we can find there were not one Infant who broke Bread or were not ordained an Elder or Pastor of a Church How can we prove they did not make use of Honey
beginning of the Practice of it you hereby contradict what you have said about those Jewish Baptisms which you say were long in use before our Saviour's time and from hence he spoke so little of Infant-Baptism if it were so how was this in the Infancy of Baptism 3. Then was the Ordinance in its Beauty and Primitive Purity indeed in its Virgin Glory and it was soon after the Apostles time corrupted as well as other Truths were We ought to go to the Original Copy to the Primitive or first Institution and Practice Is not Christ's Precept our only Rule and his own Practice our sure and certain Pattern VVere not the Saints to keep the Ordinances and commanded so to do as they were first delivered to them As to the Situation of the River Jordan is a Figment 't is not said he came up from the VVater but that he came up out of the Water therefore had been in it 4. As to what you say that John baptized in Aenon because there was much Water that the word signifies many Waters I have answered that already but take one word or two more here True the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies many Waters but not little Rivolets but rather the tumultuousness and raging of the Seas which fully signifies the abundance and confluence of Waters contrary to what you affirm See Rev. 14.2 where you have the same original words so Rev. 19.6 5. And lastly as to your Arguments against re-baptizing I pass them over you might have saved your self that Pains for we as I told you before are as much against re-baptizing as you can be or for any to renounce their true Baptism your Arguments therefore in that are good And now from the whole take two Arguments Arg. 1. If Baptism was ordained to represent the Death Burial and Resurrection of Christ in a lively Figure then Sprinkling cannot be Christ's true Baptism But Baptism was ordained to represent the Death Burial and Resurrection of Christ in a lively Figure therefore Sprinkling cannot be Christ's true Baptism This Argument we have proved to be true in every part of it Arg. 2. If Baptism was appointed to hold forth or represent in a lively Figure the Person 's Death to Sin who is baptized or his present Regeneration not future and his rising again to walk in Newness of Life then Infants cannot be the Subiects thereof But Baptism was appointed to hold forth or represent in a lively Figure the Person 's Death to Sin who is baptized or his present Regeneration not future and his rising again to walk in â—â—wness of Life therefore Infants are not the Subjects thereof 4. There is yet one Proof further to make it yet clearer that Baptism is Immersion Dipping or Plunging and nothing else and that is taken from those typical Baptisms spoken of in the Holy Scripture 1. That of the red Sin wherein the Fathers were buâ—â—ed as it were unto Moses in the Sea and under the Cloud See Pool's Annotations on the Place Others says he more properly think the Apostle uses this term in regard of the great Analogy Betwixt Baptism as it was used the Persons going down into the Waters and being dipped in them and the Israelites going down into the Sea the great Receptable of Water though the Water at that time was gathered on Heaps on either side of them yet they seemed buried in the Water as Persons seemed buried in the Water were in that Age when they were baptized 2. The second typical Baptism was that of Noah's Ark See Sir Norton Knatchbul whom I quoted before saith he Noah's Ark and Baptism were both a Type and Figure of the Resurrection not a Sign of the washing away of Sin though so taken metonymically but a particular Signal of the Resurrection of Christ of this again saith he is Baptism a lively and emphatical Figure as also was the Ark of Noah out of which he returned as from a Sepulchre From hence I infer this Argument following Arg. 3. If those typical Baptisms spoken of in the Scriptures signified Immersion or an overwhelming or a Burial then is Sprinkling no true Baptism But those typical Baptisms c. did signify Immersion or an Overwhelming or a Burial therefore Sprinkling is no true Baptism 5. And lastly That Baptism is Dipping or Plunging or a being buried in the Water appears by those metaphorical Baptisms we read of which are two-fold 1 st The Baptism of the Holy Spirit 2 dly The Baptism of Afflictions 1. Saith John Baptist I indeed baptize you with Water but he shall baptize you with the Holy Spirit and Fire Now 't is not the sanctifying Gifts of the Spirit which every godly Person receives that is the Baptism of the Spirit but as the Learned observe the miraculous Effusion of the Holy Spirit like that at Pentecost Acts 1.4 5. shall be baptized The Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Casaubon is to dip or plunge c. in which Sense saith he the Apostles might be truly said to have been baptized for the House in which this was done was filled with the Holy Ghost So that the Apostles might seem to have been plunged into it as in a large Fish-Pond 'T is not a Sprinkling of the Spirit that is the Baptism of the Spirit for so doubtless the Apostles had the Spirit before they were said to be baptized with it Oecumenius on Acts 2. saith A Wind filled the whole House that it seemed like a Fish-Pond because it was promised to the Apostles that they should be baptized with the Holy Ghost 2. We read of the Baptism of Afflictions I have a Baptism to be baptized with and how am I straitned till it be accomplished From the literal Signification of the word baptizo immergo plunge under overwhelm great Afflictions come to be called Baptism and signifies as Vossius shews not every light Affliction but like that of David Psal 32.6 he drew me out of deep Waters Hence great Afflictions are called Waves Thy Waves and thy Billows are gone over me Psal 42.7 'T is spoken of Christ's Sufferings who was as it were drowned drenched or overwhelmed in Afflictions and Sufferings every small Affliction is not the Baptism of Afflictions but great and deep Afflictions suffering even unto Blood and Death Pool's Annotations say to be baptized is to be dipped in Water metaphorically to be plunged in Afflictions I shall close this also with another Argument Arg. 4. If those metaphorical Baptisms which we read of in God's Word as the Baptism of the Spirit and of Afflictions and Sufferings are taken from the literal Signification of the Greek word baptizâ— which signifies to dip then Sprinkling is not baptizing but thâ— former is true Ergo Sprinkling is not baptizing CHAP. X. Containing some brief practical Vse of the whole with seasonable Counsel to Parents c. 1. FRom hence I infer that those who have only been sprinkled or