speaking of the Church's Authority in this Case of Paedobaptism that it was without all question delivered by the Lord and his Apostles p l. 1. De peccat merit remiss c. 16. Proculdubio per Dominum Apostolos traditum The word Tradition the Fathers understood not in the Popish Sense for that which hath been delivered in Doctrine from Age to Age above what is written to supply the supposed defect of the Scripture but for the very written word it self by which they delivered the truth and for their examples and report thereof tending to the explication of their Doctrine and not to the adding any new Doctrine Calvin affirms the baptizing of Infants to be a holy Institution observed in Christ's Church q Instit 4. c. 16. Sect. 6. All the Reformed Churches use it as you may see by the Harmony of their Confessions r Th. à Jesu de Convers omnium Gentium l. 7. pag. 506. The Greek Church who yearly excommunicate the Pope Baptize their Infants s Pagit of Heresies pag. 17. so the Cophti or native Christians of Egypt who have no Communion with the Roman Church And the practice being so general and Primitive Erasmus wondered what evil Devil entered them who denyed the Baptism of Children used in the Catholick Church above 1400 Years and he might the rather for that it hath been the general Consent and almost universal Practice not only of all Christendom but of all the World Jews Gentiles Mahometans Christians of all Sects Protestants Papists Greeks Armenians Muscovites Mengrelians Indians of St. Thomas Abyssines c. as a modern Author observes to use some solemn initiating Ceremony to admit their Children not yet adult into the Society and Communion of their Religion These Authorities with others cited in the Margin * Constit Clementis there 't is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Baptize your Infants l. 6. c. 19. Concil Melevit can 2. apud Magdeb Cent. 5. cap. 9. col 835. Caranz fol. 123. Ambros l. de Ahrah Patriarch Hier. contra Pelag. lib. 3. Ut Christus Infantes ad se venire jussit ita nec Apostoli eos excluserunt à Baptismo quidem dum baptismus Circumcisioni aequiparat Paulus Col. 2. aperte indicat etiam Infantes per baptismum Ecclesiae dei esse inferendos c. Magdeb. Cent. l. 2. c. 4. Magdeb. Cent. 2. 't is said nec usquam legitur Infantes hoc seculo à Baptismo remotos esse We don't read they were then excluded Baptism c. 4. p. 48. de Baptismo nor as 't is said until the 6th Cent. when 't was excepted against by one Adrianus That Terull himself was for Infant Baptism appears in that in his Book De anima cap. 39. He presseth it when the Child is in danger of Death and gives his reason lib. de Bapt. cap. 12. praescribitur nemini sine Baptismo competere salutem Council of Trullo Can. 48. requires that all the Grecian little ones without delay should be baptized One of the 8 Cannons in the Council of Carthage concluding against Pelagius decreed that whosoever denyed Baptism for the remission of sins to a new Born Infant should be anathematiz'd see Craggs Arraigment and Conviction of Anabaptism against Tombs pag. 85. Photius a learned Greek produceth an Imperial Constitution wherein it was decreed that all baptized Samarit and Grecians should be punished who brought not their Children to holy Baptism apud Craggs ibid. I lay down as I might have done many more not to tye the Baptism of Children to the Testimony of Men but as a Martyr for the Protestant Religion did to shew how Mens Testimonies do agree with God's Word w In a Letter that Mr. Philpot writ whilst he was in Prison and that Antiquity is on our side and that the Anabaptists have nothing but false and new Imaginations who feign the Baptism of Children to be the Pope's Commandment or any late Invention or Innovation Nor is our manner of administring this sacred Rite by sprinkling or pouring on of Water novel as I said or unjustifiable for the word to Baptize usually signifies as much which as Dr. Featly x Dipper dipt pag. 33. See Wells also in his Answer to Danvers pag. 242. Printed Anno 74. and Walker's Discourse of dipping and sprinkling wherein is shewn the lawfulness of other ways of Baptization besides that of total Immersion Printed Anno 78. says Hesychius Stephanus Scapula and Budaeus those great Masters of the Greek Tongue makes good by many Instances and Allegations out of Classick Writers And in this sense is it used in Scripture So the Fathers were baptized in the Clould not dipt therein for they were under the Cloud * 1 Cor. 10.2 but were wet or sprinkled therewith So Nebuchadnezzar was wet or sprinkled or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Septuag hath it baptized with the Dew of Heaven Hence we read of diverse washings or Baptisms as the word is And what were those but sprinklings Sometimes Blood was sprinkled †Hebr. 9.10 sometimes Water was poured forth No Person was dipt or plunged in Blood yet those sprinklings were called Baptisms So Mark 7.4 except they wash the Original is except they be baptized and the manner of their washings before Meat was not by dipping but by pouring on of Water ‖ 2 Kings 3.11 We read also of washing or baptizing Tables * Mark 7.4 in the Margin beds vid Lightfoot vol. 2. p. 345. and other things many times a Day which if done by dipping would make the labour of the Jews intolerable besides many other inconveniences And 't is but reasonable that the outward Baptism should have allusion to and an Analogy with the inward We are said to be baptized with the Holy Ghost but not dipt into the Holy Ghost or his Graces but to be sprinkled therewith as with clean †Ezek. 36.25 Water in our Baptism and to have the Holy Spirit poured on us * Isaiah 44.3 And it had been more properly translated baptized in Water if it had been done only by dipping rather than baptized with Water Again if we take a Survey of the several Instances and Examples of Persons baptized in Scripture we shall find that 't was probably done by sprinkling or pouring on of Water rather than by dipping St. Paul was baptized by Ananias when Sick and Weak having fasted three Days and was not strengthened till he received Meat which was after he was baptized †Act. 9.18 19. and according to all Circumstances it was done in his Lodgings So when the Goaler and those that belonged unto him were baptized it was at a time and place that there could be no accommodation for Water and other Conveniences for plunging and dipping as the manner of some is for 't is not likely that the Apostle should carry the Goaler and all his in the dead of the Night to a River or Pond to Baptize them 'T is said
it And thereupon he gives several Instances wherein they differ But what would he infer hence That the one succeeds not the other And so there can be no Argumentum à pari That therefore Infants should be baptized because such were circumcised I answer the Lord's Supper succeeded the Passover and yet they differ in many Punctilio's and Circumstances It sufficeth to make the Parallel suitable that Baptism is a Sacrament of initiation into the Covenant of Grace and the Seal of the Righteousness of Faith under the Gospel as Circumcision was before under the Law Gen. 17.11 Act. 7.8 Rom. 4.11 compared with 1 Cor. 12.13 1 Pet. 3.21 and doth as properly and effectually confirm and establish the Covenant betwixt God and us now as Circumcision did then Baptism being the only ordinary way of adding to the Church in the time of the Gospel on which score 't was instituted And 't is as requisite that we should in some such manner seal to the Covenant now as Abraham before we being as much unable to give an answerable assurance to Almighty God for our selves and Children as ever Abraham was for himself and Posterity or if you will may it not be thought as highly necessary that we should be by some Rite matriculated members of the Christian as they were solemnly initiated into the Jewish Church Now what other way is prescribed to us of Matriculation than Baptism the only most proper Rite for this purpose as it hath been in all Ages accounted insomuch that all the several Baptisms that were before Christ were all meant for initiating forms So the Jews had a Custom long before the coming of Christ to make proselytes or converts to their Religion not only by Circumcision but by baptizing or washing them with Water The same was the meaning of John's Baptism to make Men Disciples under his Administration And the same was the meaning of Christ's Baptism to initiate Men into the Christian Religion and make them Disciples of Christ Hence baptizing and making Disciples means the same thing John 4.1 John made and baptized more Disciples that is baptized them Disciples which was the form of making them such All the instances of Baptism in the New Testament were used as initiating Forms and to no other Purpose being therefore never repeated no more than men were twice circumcised or admitted into the Church before Christ Nor do we find since the coming in of the Gospel any other Rite or Ceremony of initiation permitted much less enjoyn'd Sure I am there was at first no framing of distinct Covenants for each Congregation according to the fancy and humour of the respective Teacher a mode which some of our late upstart Sects have boldly introduced without any Divine Authority or Foundation in the Word of God And as there is no mention in the Gospel of any Covenant but one of Grace so neither of any other Sign or Token thereof or any other form of entering into the said Covenant than Baptism but as Circumcision was heretofore so Baptism is now the initiating Rite But to Reply to his Instances whereby he would prove the Parallel not suitable His first Instance or Reason is because the natural Seed of Abraham without any token of a work of Grace on them ought to be circumcised but the natural Seed of Believers without some token of a work of Grace upon them ought not to be baptized For which he cites Matt. 3.6 to v. 10. That some had a sense of their Sins and were brought to a confession is plain v. 6. But what token was there of a work of Grace on them whom the Baptist calls there a Generation of Vipers And yet of them he says Matt. 3.7 v. 11. Mark 1.5 Luke 7.30 I indeed Baptize you And St. Mark says they were all baptized of him he refused none of them So that they were only the Pharisees and Lawyers that were not baptized of him who exempted themselves Or what token of a work of Grace appeared on those that were baptized of Lydia's Houshold besides what was observed on her self Act. 16.15 Domûs autem nomine ipsam intelligimus familiam imprimis vero Liberos nepotes says Marl. on the Place See Mons le Clerc's Supplement to Dr. Hammond on the Place And yet not she only was baptized but her Houshold upon her Conversion And if others of the House were thereupon baptized much rather her Infant-Children if she had any such This is certain she had a Houshold a Family and they were baptized as well as her self To alledge that some had such a work of God wrought upon their Souls before they were baptized proves nothing for so doubtless had some Jews and Abraham in particular before they were circumcised That interrogative Mat. 3.7 having there the force of a Negation implies that they had no manner of Conviction nor could any have taught them that they should merely by St. John's Baptism avoid the destruction that hung over their Heads and therefore he bids them to repent He must prove if he can that none else ought to be baptized for as yet we have only his bare Ipse dixit his own say so he may pass for a Magisterial Dictator to his own ignorant Party who can follow him with an implicit Faith but his Authority will not sway with any others of sober sense 2. He says the natural Seed of Abraham were commanded to be circumcised but the Children of Believers are no where in the word of God commanded to be baptized This is that we call a begging of the question Is not Baptism as expresly commanded now as Circumcision was then But Infant Baptism he will say is not Neither need there to be a new or distinct Command for it Because their right to be within the Church or Covenant together with their Parents is not a new Institution but as old as Adam for ought I know says Dr. Wallis * Defence of Infant Baptism pag. 14. Printed Anno 97. but the solemn Rite of admission into this Church to which the Children of Believers have a right to be admitted is a new Institution Then by Circumcision appointed to Abraham And Now by Baptism upon a new Institution appointed by Christ as the same Author expresseth it Another Reason that he gives which is the only one more that I need consider here is because there is a sore Punishment threaten'd on the Man-Child that is not circumcised †Gen. 17.14 but no Punishment threaten'd in the whole Word of God on an Infant for not being baptized Answer This Argument were it of any force doth militate against the Lord's Day succeeding the Sabbath * Exod. 31.14 which nevertheless he himself hath granted and in some measure made good Moreover the Punishment threaten'd doth not affect Infants wanting Circumcision but Persons neglecting or contemning that Ordinance The words in the Original import no more Praeputiatus Mas the uncircumcised Male so
or Conversion of the Chief that 't was usual for the whole Family thereupon to be put into the ordinary way of Salvation added to the Church to be saved and especially Children that have not committed actual Sins nor could reject the Counsel of God against themselves Whereas there might have been perchance some others in the Families who with those Pharisees and Lawyers might have so done and so have rendred themselves unworthy of the blessing but this could not have been incident unto the Children The stress then of the business lies not in this Whether it can be proved there were Infants in those Families where 't is recorded whole Housholds were baptized but the truth of the Case is this That in all Families whatsoever were there never so many Infants they were all baptized when their Parents were baptized Which shews the vanity of this repeated saying Not one word of an Infant in this House Not one word of Infants in all those Housholds and the like Now to retort this their negative Argument upon themselves let it be demanded where they find mention in Scripture of any Children of Christian Covenanting-Parents that were baptized when they came to Years of Discretion and not before That they were baptized I suppose they 'l not deny and if so let them shew where and when for this let all the sacred Register be searched from the time that John the Baptist began his Ministry to the time that John the Evangelist ended his which was above 60 Years during which time thousands if not millions of Children of such Parents were grown up to Maturity and if in all that time they can but shew any one Instance of any Child so priviledged whose Baptism was deferred till he came to Years of Discretion and that then he was baptized it may then be acknowledged that there is some strength in their Negative Allegations In the mean time having such general Instances of baptizing whole Families surely we have more reason to believe that Infants were comprehended and are to be reckoned in the number than they have for the contrary I said we read of none laid aside or excluded Baptism upon the Account of their Non-Age To this he answers Page 20. We never read in the whole Word of God that ever any Infant was commanded or offered to be baptized and if so how should we read of any laid aside or excluded that were Non-sense But I say again Is there any Direction given in the Gospel to lay them aside in case they be offered to Baptism And who can say they were not offered Where then is the Non-sense Can it be imagined but that the Jews brought their Children with them to the Baptist to save them as well as themselves from the wrath to come who were so tender of their Children and so zealous for their Circumcision they who had been always used to have their Infants admitted into the same Covenant with themselves by vertue of a Divine Law would have raised great Arguments against the Divine Authority of Christ if he or his Disciples in his Name had refused to admit their Children together with themselves into this Covenant of which they taught God's Messiah to be the Mediatour So that 't is no Non-sense to suppose that we should have heard in the Gospel of Children being excluded if they had not been of course admitted I ask therefore again shew us in any place of Scripture where any one was excluded Baptism upon the account of Non-age particularly such a one whose Parents were admitted thereto for if in that sacred Book such are not expresly excluded we are to take it for granted they are not to be excluded at all since it hath been God's constant Method to take Children into his Covenant when he took in the Parents Thus for instance the Covenant made with innocent Adam included his Infant Children The Covenant made with Abraham which hath been already proved to be the Gospel Covenant included his Children So the legal Covenant of which Moses was Mediatour included the Jewish Infants also Therefore they should shew us where God hath altered this Method in the Gospel or else we are to take it proconfesso that God hath not altered this his constant Method And the Abrahamical Covenant which included Infants seeing it could not be disanull'd by the legal Covenant continued till Christ unrepealed Gal. 3.17 If therefore they can't shew that 't is repealed by Christ we are to conclude that 't is not repealed at all Wherefore our negative Argument is more cogent from Scripture for Infants being in Covenant with their Parents and that they have a right thereupon to Baptism than theirs is against it and proceeds on the fairest and most credible Grounds As first That there were Children in some at least of those Housholds that are said to be baptized upon the Conversion of the Chief of the Family Secondly That if the Jewish Converts Infants had been forbidden Baptism they would have made such a noise about it that the sacred History of those times must needs have taken notice of it And lastly It having been God's constant Method when ever he made a Covenant before Christ came to include the Infants in it and particularly God having by an express Law commanded Infants to be admitted to the sign and seal of the Gospel Abrahamical Covenant it must be supposed that God if he had intended to exclude Infants from the sign and seal of the Gospel-Covenant under Christ would have signified his Pleasure that his former Method of dealing with Infants was altered or that the aforesaid Law in the Covenant with Abraham was as to Infants repealed Whereas the Anti-paedo-Baptists negative Argument proceeds upon all the contrary improbable Grounds and therefore their objecting that we have no certain instance of the Baptism of any such and that we don't read that ever they were offered to be baptized is of no force for it shall be presumed by vertue of that Law which is unrepealed viz. That Children should keep the Covenant in the sign of it that they were both offered and admitted of Course How highly had the Jews been scandalized if the first Planters of Christianity had denyed an admission of Infants into the Covenant under the Gospel despensation when they had ever been allowed it under the Mosaick oeconomy and had wholly shut them out like the Children of Infidels This must in all probability have galled them to see their Infants so treated to have had no visible difference put between the Infants of those that embraced and those that resisted the Faith having always reckoned upon Pagans Children as common and unclean but their own as separate and holy St. Paul makes the same distinction that tho' but one of the Parents be a Believer yet they are so far sanctified each to other that their Children are thereby entitled to the Covenant of Grace which they had not been if both the Parents had
Gospel-Govenant of which Baptism is the Sign is not without its Conditions which Baptism seals in a way of particular application not only that upon the performing our part of the Covenant we shall obtain the Grace but it seals up to every receiver their particular right in the Graces promised If we do not forfeit all by violating and breaking the Covenant and rend'ring our selves unworthy of the benefits of it Hence the Sacrament of Baptism is said by the Schools to be gratiae exhibitivum an Ordinance of exhibiting and conferring Grace to those that are rightly baptized not by its own Operation but through the Operation of God alone who in the right use of Baptism does always perform what he hath promised For who can deny the effect when we have God's fiat for it Some indeed ascribe too much to Baptism others leave it as a mere naked Sign The bare Element 't is true hath not a power and vertue to convey Grace The Water is not a subject capable to receive it and consequently cannot convey it it toucheth not the Soul it cannot operate upon that to infuse real Grace this would be to ascribe that to the external Instrument which is peculiar only to the great efficient Cause What it conveys and confers is not from any vertue of its own by its bare application but by vertue of Christ's Institution and its relation to the Covenant For this Reason its effects are not confin'd to the instant of its Administration But it extends its efficacy and influence throughout our Lives it continues a seal to the Covenant and the promises of Grace and Mercy till the Covenant be utterly violated by absolute Apostacy or final Unbelief And so it continues an Instrument to convey Grace during our whole Lives not only remission of Sins for the time present but upon our perseverance in the conditions of Faith and Repentance it continues this Grace of Pardon to us to the last Period So that we are but once baptized for the remission of Sins though we daily contract Guilt because being once received it remains a perpetual Pledge and Testimony of the everlasting Covenant of God and of the continual washing away of Sin by the Blood of Christ 'T was therefore a causeless fear occasioned from the Novatian Errour that made some of the Ancients defer Baptism till near their death as tho' it did not continue to exhibit and convey the Grace of Pardon But from what I have already noted there is no resting on the bare work done All are not upon the receiving the external Baptism regenerate and made partakers of internal Grace as if it were necessarily annexed to the outward Ordinance Real Sanctification doth not always accompany the Ministration of Baptism Nevertheless the Ordinance is not without its effect in a way of Grace it doth confer on us in a Sacramental Way what it doth exhibit and Seal to And till there be a Bar put by Men's actual Rejection those that are truly baptized have a right to the Grace and Mercy sealed And tho' Baptism be not always an Instrument of infusing real Grace Yet hereby we are actually de presenti made partakers of relative Grace and have a right to real sanctifying Grace in that way that God gives it and so are partakers of relative Regeneration Being as it were born again into a new State of gracious Relations Priviledges and Hopes And our Baptism is the Character and Sacramental Seal of this new blessed State of Adoption and Salvation And this continues as I have said till there be a forfeiture on our Part and he that will not call this Grace knows not how to value things Spiritual But how rich so ever this Baptismal Grace may be in its self and effects for the benefit of Infant-Innocency 't is not that which is the terms of our Salvation in riper Age when we come under the guilt of actual Sins Those that arrive to the Years of Reason and Choice to them the Gospel tenders Salvation upon condition of actual Faith and Repentance What is sealed to us in our Infant-state is continued to us upon other conditions at Age The Grace that is made over by the free Covenant of God and sealed in Baptism confers a right to the baptized So that if he dies in this State he dies in this right But there are other things required for the continuance of it at years of Knowledge and Reason which as it is a great Foundation of comfort touching the Salvation of dying Infants and justifies that Clause formerly in the rubick for Baptism so it destroys the vain presumptions of others and takes Men off from resting on the Grace of Baptism as if it were sufficient for their Salvation not considering whatever Mercy or Priviledge Baptism doth confirm is continued to us upon other conditions after we come to Age and fall under the guilt of actual Sins Again To be baptized is to be enrolled a Member of the Church incorporated into the Communion of Saints ingrafted into Christ's Mystical Body The Apostle speaking of Christ Mystical under the similitude of a natural Body 1 Cor. 12.13 saith We are baptized into Jesus Christ into that noble blessed Society of which Christ is the Head and to which belong the Adoption and the Covenant and the Promises It would be too large a digression particularly to insist upon the Priviledges and Advantages of the Church of Christ beyond the rest of the World Sure I am of all the judgments that God inflicted upon the Jews none had comparably that fire of Fury that terrour of Wrath in it which was executed in the accomplishment of the threatning mentioned Zach. 11.9 10. upon their heinous Provocation in crucifying the Lord of Life which filled up the number of their Sins Upon which they were rejected cut off from the Olive-Tree and their Church-enclosure pluckt down So that they were no longer his peculiar People but were left in common with the rest of the World without God without Christ and so without all hope of Salvation Whereas they only that are added to the Church that are separated to be God's peculiar Inheritance among all the Tribes of the Earth are in the way to be saved as being the sole objects of his special Care and Providence And therefore it must needs be a blessed Priviledge to be brought within the Pale to be owned by God under such a Relation Now into this Body this Society this holy Corporation we are baptized And as the Church in its Constitution is blessed of God beyond all the World So all its Members have the advantage of other benefits flowing from the Communion of Saints in order to their spiritual and eternal Good As the labours and services of God's Ministers and Ambassadors all are theirs whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas they are all Servants of Christ for the edifying this his Body and the building of them up till they come to Perfection Again they
aquam quae adfuerit super caput nascentis dicens Ego te bapt Synod Colon sub Rudolpho Imper. apud Magd. Cent. 13. And consequently with so much precipitancy as speaks their laying too much stress as their manner is upon the Opus operatum and as if God ties himself to means as well as us Agreeable hereto Christ's Commission is as full for baptizing Infants as any others for if they be the natural or adopted Children of Believers or such as are proselyted they are Abraham's Seed and so are interested in the Covenant and belong to Christ which in Christ's own Dialect is the same thing with being his Disciples * Compare Matt. 10.42 with Mark 9.41 Yea they are called so by the Holy Ghost †Act. 15.10 with v. 1. And the Commission runs to Baptize all Disciples ‖ Matt. 28.19 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Go Disciple all Nations baptizing them if then Infants be or are made Disciples together with their Parents or Proparents so as the Promise of Abraham reacheth to them they are to be baptized for there is nothing to interpose between discipling and baptizing Yea such is the near conjunction of the Commands that they seem to be coincident q. d. Whosoever are my Disciples or Relatives Partners of the Covenant or are in the Church's Power to stipulate for their Religious Education let them be consigned thereunto by this Sacrament of Baptism let this be the Rite of their Admission let this be the Badge and Cognizance of their Discipleship and who are we that dare in contradiction to this express order of our Saviour hinder any such out of our own Imaginations from entering in at this ordinary Gate or Door of Grace who do not exclude themselves Ananias finding Saul in the state of a Disciple baptized him * Act. 9.18 tho' neither he nor any Minister else had made him so Infants are Disciples not so much of Man 's as of God's making vouchsafing graciously in their believing Parents to accept them also into his Covenant †Rom. 11.16 1 Cor. 7.14 and so into the State of Disciples The Apostle also plainly declares that interest in the Promise is alone by it self a sufficient ground for the application of Baptism in that he exhorts those awaken'd Jews to be baptized upon this Ground or for this reason that the Promise did belong to them ‖ Act. 2.38 39. 'T is true he exhorts them to Repentance to which Faith must be conjoyn'd as necessary to their interest in the Promise but 't was their interest in the Promise on which he Grounds his Exhortation to them to be baptized Hence however Persons come to have an interest in the Promise whether it be by descent or adoption or by their own personal Faith and Repentance 't is all one to our present purpose And this is agreeable to the first Command to keep the Covenant that is the token of the Covenant the Command is grounded upon interest in the Promise Gen. 17.9 Thou shalt keep my Covenant therefore that is upon this Ground because the Promise is unto thee and having the Promise thou shalt wear the Sign and Seal thereof for it follows à majori ad minus that the Children being in Covenant should not want the Sign and Seal that ensures the Benefits and Priviledges of the same Who then can forbid Water 'T is the Apostle's Argument * Act. 10.47 to those that have received the Grace of God the Promise by Virtue whereof they are in Covenant with God as well as we Now what have the Anabaptists to Object against what is here alledged for the putting on Infants the present Sign or Token of the Covenant Why nothing in effect but what they are beholden to the Papists for viz. That Circumcision was the Token only of a Carnal Legal Covenant and that such was the Covenant which God made with Abraham and his Seed and renewed by Moses to the Children of Israel and that its being a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith was peculiar only to that Patriarch and that there is no such thing now as foederal holiness or any Right or Priviledge accruing by vertue of any Promise or Covenant from Birth or by being of such a Lineage or Descent but that the Children of Believers in their Infant Estate are in no better Condition than those of Heathens 'T is strange that they who in shew are so much against Popery should broach so much of it speaking the Language of Rome against the Protestant Doctrine maintained in the Church of England Is this to come out of Babylon thus to side with the Papists and Bellarmine * De Sacr. effectu l. 2. c. 13. alibi in particular Mr. Blake †Answer to Tombs p. 61. Printed Anno 46. declares that their Arguments against foederal Holiness are borrowed from them and that he hath not met with any either in Mr. Tombs or Blackwood which may not be found in Stapleton Cornelius a Lapide the Rhemists or some of that Party and that the Jesuits were the first Opposers of it 'T is likewise a great and much agitated Controversie between the Papists and those of the Reformed Religion concerning the Identity and Efficacy of John's Baptism compared with Christ the Papists thundering Anathema's against them who shall affirm the Baptism of John to have the same vertue and power with that of Christ Those of the Reformed on the other side are generally of Opinion that John's Ministry was the same that was afterwards delegated to the Apostles And his Baptism the same which was afterwards ministred by them This the Anabaptists deny to take occasion there-from to Ground their dipping again or Rebaptization and to this purpose draw most of their best Shafts out of the Popish Quiver and form most of their choicest Weapons on their Anvil yea in the whole conflict they have been necessitated to borrow help from these Philistine Artists But let them if they can produce any thing in the whole Bible to overthrow what is here laid down otherwise what I have retorted on them must be acknowledged to be very just Neither is there any doubt but that the Practice of Christ's Church hath been answerable to the Doctrine here represented They say there is not any express Instance of any Infant baptized in the whole History of the Gospel but is there any instance of any Infant of a Christian believer left unbaptized Are there not strong Presumptions that upon coming over of any to the Faith their Children together with themselves were received and baptized 't is said only of Lydia that she believed but of her and her Houshold that they were baptized * Act. 1◠15 yea our Saviour himself upon Zaccheus's receiving of him says to Day is Salvation come to thy House forasmuch as thou also art the Son of Abraham †Luk. 19.9 So St. Peter told Cornelius words by which he and his House should
with the Papists tho' I had represented it in so many Instances and whereas I said expresly that the Fathers in avouching Infant-Baptism to be an Apostolical Tradition did not understand the word Tradition in the Popish sense to supply the supposed defect of the Scripture Yet he positively affirms it is to be believed to do so and so he runs on for above 2 Pages proving the Perfection of the Scripture that is fighting with his own Shadow for who denied it Once more I said we don't read in the New Testament of laying on of Hands on any unbaptized Person except in order to a bodily Cure But the Answerer passeth by the exception and then doubtless he confuted his Adversary speaking so home to the matter What hath been hitherto observed chiefly refers to the Method and Composure of the Answer and discovers in it so much of weakness and insufficiency that no judicious Person can well allow it that denomination But taking liberty further to display its imbecility I shall offer somewhat by way of Reply to the matter and contents of the pretended Answer that if possible I may provoke him or some one for him to make a Rejoynder that the point in Controversie may be thorowly sifted and the truth cleared or left to the World to judge how unable that Party is to maintain their way or make any tolerable defence He saith Page the first that he cannot understand that the weight of the Arguments for Infant-sprinkling but rather thinks that the want of weight in them is the Cause an Answer hath been so long neglected It seems he is unfit to answer Arguments tho' they want weight and others perhaps may think it was very meet and fit he should have let them alone rather than prejudice his Cause by an unfit Answer and should not have put himself upon this Tryal of his Skill unless he could have managed it better But first an Answer as he saith is expected that is something must be done towards the giving an Answer for the amusing the expecting People who otherwise 't is likely would have been more apt to have mistrusted the weakness of their Cause Secondly 'T is presumed that after the perusal of my Discourse by some of the more learned and wiser Heads 't was thought more eligible to leave it to one that is unfit for it to give an Answer that the defect thereof may not reflect on any of the Grandees or rather 't is suspected that some Chief undertook it but under the mask of one unfit that the lameness of the Answer of which the Preface seems conscious may by those that peruse it be imputed to the Author and the strength thereof which their own Party will suppose may be ascribed to the presumed goodness of the Cause they have espoused however tho' he be unfit he will make an Essay Yea he will which is more give an Answer to such things as he thinks may have any thing in them that calls for an Answer Now he who will discharge the Office of a Respondent ought fairly to repeat his Adversaries Words and then to apply his Answer either by denying or distinguishing or both but how this hath been observed by the Answerer you will see in the first Paragraph The first thing saith he that I take notice of is in Page 1. where you endeavour to prove that Infant-Baptism came in the room of Circumcision although no positive Prescript for it bringing the change of the Sabbath-Day from the seventh to the first without prescript Reply These are so far from being my words that they contain not the sense of them For 1. neither I nor I think any Body else ever indeavoured to prove either that Baptism came in the room of Circumcision without a positive prescript or that Infant-Baptism came in the room of Circumcision but that Baptism did which none can justly deny St. Paul Coloss 2.12 affirms as much viz. That Baptism in the New Testament succeeded Circumcision the initiating Sacrament of the Old Testament and that as plainly as in 1 Cor. 5.7 8. he hath affirmed the Lords Supper to come in the room of the Passover for the Apostle having told his Colossians that they had the Circumcision made without Hands the Circumcision of the Heart he further signifies by way of implication that they had as good as the outward Circumcision too by being baptized or he could have no occasion to add being buried with him in Baptism and his Argument had been nothing at all a mere non sequitur unless he gives them to understand thereby that Baptism succeeded and came in place of Circumcision To evidence this to be the genuine sense and intention of the Apostle know that he was here disswading the believing Christians from the Rudiments of the World and Jewish Ceremonies particularly from Circumcision upon this very ground that they were compleat in Christ but lest the Jewish Teachers should suggest that the receiving the inward Grace of Circumcision doth not make them so compleat as the Jews were because they had also an outward visible sign As Abraham for instance had the inward Grace and yet he received the outward Sign and consequently tho' Christians be made partakers of this great Benefit by Christ yet they may stand in need of an outward Seal to assure them of their partaking herein he would have them know that neither is this Priviledge wanting to Christians who have as excellent and express a Sacrament of it and that Christ hath not left his People under the New Testament destitute of such an outward Sign and Seal for however Circumcision be taken away yet there is another Sacrament substituted and appointed a more excellent and lively one than ever Circumcision was a Sacrament resembling it and answering to it buried with him in Baptism wherein c. that is sacramentally signifying and sealing up both our mortification and our vivification But if they had espoused Antipedo-Baptism they might have urged their dissatisfaction and have again Replyed that tho' they needed not to be circumcised themselves seeing Baptism is so happily come in the room of it yet they would still Circumcise their Children because according to their Doctrine Baptism is not to be applyed to them In the second Place the Words have no positive Prescript for it and without a Prescript do shew either that he did not understand my Argument tho' easie to be understood or else that he wilfully altered and perverted my sense that he might serve some other Design than the finding out the Truth His own Conscience must tell him he hath fathered on me what I said not This Addition of his without Prescript insinuates as if I had there argued that the want of a Precept for the change from Circumcision to Baptism is no more a reason to deny Baptism to Infants than the want of a Precept for the change from the seventh Day to the first is a reason for the rejecting of
and made a sign of that Administration and Covenant in which he had to do Wherefore if the Law ceased Circumcision could not continue seeing whosoever was circumcised became a Debtor to keep the whole Law and so it would infer as if Christ were not come in the Flesh Nor can the abrogation or cessation of Circumcision be understood to be any diminution to the Promises forasmuch as it was applied to the Legal Covenant out of a gracious Consideration as Doctor Burthog well observes not in the derogation of the Promises or of any Priviledges or Duties arising from thence but in confirmation of them God taking the token of the Covenant of Promise and putting it upon the Legal Covenant shews he had the Covenant of Promise still in remembrance for doing so he could never look on or so much as think on the Law but he must also remember the Promise the sign and memorial of the Promise being thus annexed and put to the Law So that here is an express command for baptizing Infants or little ones tho' not in the very term Baptism yet under this general Notion as 't is now the oken of the Covenant for God's Covenant with Abraham still continues 't is an everlasting Covenant * Gen. 17.7 in which blessedness was promised in and thro' Christ the promised Seed and by virtue whereof the blessing of Abraham or the Promise made to that Patriarch in like manner came on the Gentiles as the Apostle asserts Gal. 3.14 therefore 't is said the Gospel was preached to Abraham †Ib. v. 8. and as it was long before the Law and not disannull'd by the coming of the Law so 't was to endure till the Seed should come to whom the Promise was made and consequently to the end of the World because Christ came to establish the Covenant made to the Fathers ‖ Rom. 15.8 Now if the Covenant be the same the Promises of it must needs be continued in the same Tenure in which they were at first made and run in the same latitude and extent taking in Children with their Parents unless God himself had made any alteration or restriction or passed any Act of Exclusion But 't is remarkable the Apostle doth not say the Promise was but is * Act. 2.39 And the Grace of the Gospel is now more ample than before under the Law being then in its ordinary Dispensation appropriated to the Jews they were God's Favourites to whom his Grace in Christ was manifested but now it reacheth to the Gentiles also having appeared to all Men to all sorts and ages Surely therefore Infants being in Covenant then are not to be excluded now which if they be let it be shew'd how and when they were ejected How this Magna Charta came to be forfeited How they who were once Members of the mystical Body came to be cut off The Common Wealth indeed of Israel is at an End and the Scepter is departed from Judah but the Olive-tree the Church continues tho' under a different Administration the Partition-wall is broken down but the very Church is not destroyed And for this see and consult Rom. 11. where the Apostle compares the Jews to an Olive-tree and the rejecting of them for a season to the lopping off its natural Branches as Branches which bore no Fruit and the calling of the Gentiles he resembles to the grafting upon that old Stock which growing again a-fresh makes up one entire Olive-tree whose Root and Branches are nourished by the same Sap which Similitude plainly intimates that Jews and Christians make up but one Universal Church of which our Lord Jesus is the Head and that Faith in him is the Sap which gives Life and Nourishment to it the consequence whereof is this that the same Spiritual Priviledges which belonged to the Children of the Jews do belong to the Children of Christians and that if the former were to be initiated into the Church by Circumcision so are the latter by Baptism for being of the same Church and within the same Covenant they should receive a-like the Seal thereof which tho' now changed from Circumcision to Baptism yet the Church and Covenant is the same still and therefore Church-membership is as extensive and comprehends Infants under the Gospel as it did once under the Law and unless a Law can be shew'd which confines Infants Church-membership to the Jewish-State and excludes them the Christian there is no reason why we should be frighten'd from our laudable Practice of initiating Infants into the Christian Church What saith our Saviour Joh. 3.5 If one be not Born again of Water and the holy Ghost he cannot inherit the Kingdom of God Where we see not only the unregenerate are excluded Heaven but as the Text is interpreted * Nisi enim renatus fuerit ex aquâ spiritu Sancto non potest introire in regnum dei utique nullum excipit non Infantem non aliquâ praeventum necessitate D. Abros de Abrah Patriarch l. 2. c. 11. vid. etiam de voc Gent. l. 2. c. 8. D. Aug. l. 10. de Gen. ad literam c. 14. We hold says Bishop Andrews the same necessity of Baptism that the Fathers did hold which is Viâ ordinariâ yet non alligando gratiam dei ad media no more than the Schoolmen do Bishop Andrew 's Answer to Peron p. 12. by some even the unbaptized with respect to the ordinary means of Salvation and so far forth as the omission of an instituted Rite or positive Duty may be said to do so now forasmuch as we cannot be too sure but that this may be the true sense of the Place and the mind of our blessed Saviour and seeing he speaks it indefinitely we cannot know for certain but he had reference to unbaptized Infants as well as others therefore unless God had plainly declared his Mind against the baptizing of such and expresly excluded them from that Ordinance how can we chuse out of mere compassion and zeal for their Salvation but administer it to them Though then there be some so prepossest with prejudice that they cannot so earnestly believe with our Church the interest Children have in Baptism yet since their not so believing cannot alter the Infant 's Case neither can they be so sure but as it hath been said they may be comprehended in that of St. John according to the aforesaid Interpretation therefore upon that other principle exprest by our Church in the same Paragraph * Vid. Office for publick Baptism in the exposition upon the Gospel they should look upon it as a charitable Work to bring such to Baptism But to return to the Argument and to illustrate it and render it more convincing suppose there were an Act of Parliament wherein certain civil Priviledges are granted to all English Subjects and their Children without any limitation of time for their continuance and afterwards there comes a New Act of Parliament wherein more
Phillip and the Eunuch went down into the Water or to ‖ Act. 8.38 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Water but 't is not said after what manner he was baptized and a Man may go down into the Water and come up out of it too and not be covered all over with it if he wet but his Feet or Ankles or wade but Knee deep he goes down into the Water and so may come up out of it and our Lord and the Eunuch might do no more and then have their Faces washed or sprinkled only in Baptism and if St. Bernard may be believed this way was Christ baptized and as for the Eunuch if we 'll believe St. Jerome * Serm. de St. Joh. B. p. 1303. and Sir Geo. Sandys * De locis Hebr. in voce Beths p. 500. Trav. l. 3. p. 142. vid Fullers Miscel l. 2. c. 8. p. 220. Fons ad radices Montis ebulliens ab eadem in quâ gignitur sorbetur humo Apostolorum Acta referunt Eunuchum Candacis Reginae in hoc Baptizatum fuisse vid. Zanch. de cultu dei externo l. 1. col 494. Linwood l. 3. de bapt and other learned Men. he could not be dipped because the Fountain in which he was baptized which retains the name of the Aethiopian Fountain to this Day is immediately drunk up by the Earth out of which it Springs and so not likely to be deep enough to dip the Aethiopian Treasurer in it Moreover who can say that he stript himself or that he was dipt in his wearing Cloaths much less that he had any conveniency for shifting for such a purpose for the meeting we find was very accidental and the Eunuch presently as soon as the solemnity was over went on his way nor do we read that he made any stay but went immediately down from his Chariot to the Water Estius on Act. 2.41 judgeth it most rational to conceive that the Apostles did Baptize by washing or Sprinkling for says he 't is altogether incredible that they dipt 3000 in one Day and 5000 at another time and 't is most likely that the 3000 were baptized in the same Place where they heard St. Peter's Sermon which converted them where 't is not likely that such quantities of Water as Bonavent notes ‖ In l. 4. sent dist 3. Artic. 3. q. 2. could be found to serve for the decent dipping of so many Whereas to suppose that after St. Peter had ended his Sermon those thousands took a Progress out of the City in order to the celebration of that Ordinance as if dipping and plunging the whole Body under Water were so essential to Baptism that it could not be rightly performed without it don't so well agree with Christ's Commission For comparing Matt. 28.19 with Mark 16.15 the instruction or order that is given is to this purpose that preaching the Gospel to all Nations they should Disciple and Baptize them not that they should Preach in this or that Place and then take them forth that they may descend to some River to Baptize them for to have the Ordinance of Baptism administred apart from the meeting Place of the Assembly for all other Duties would look somewhat like the Popish Pilgrimage or at least like their going a Processioning especially in some Countries and Places where there is not a River in many Miles compass I may further add the consideration of the danger of plunging and dipping over Head and Ears Our Saviour who prefers Mercy before Sacrifice will have the administration of the Ordinace in such a way as is most consistent with his Peoples lives even of those of the weakest Constitution which must in some Countries especially at some Seasons of the Year be in extream danger by dipping And there is no dispensation in Scripture for procastinating Baptism yea in some short process of time we find the Church expresly against some Mens taking liberty of putting off their Baptism and giving publick Testimony of her dislike insomuch that the Clinicks if any of them recovered were adjudged unworthy to be admitted into any Office of the Ministry not only by the Council of Neocesaria * Can. 12. Caranz giving this for a Reason non enim fides illius voluntaria sed ex necessitate est but by earlier Rules of more ancient Observation which were urged by Cornelius †Apud Euseb l. 6. c. 33. prope finem against Novatus and as Surius remarketh * Tom. 1. pag. 223. declaring Novatus 's Ordination to be contra Canones the Ordination of such Persons to the Priesthood was prohibited by those Ancients not for that they thought them not sufficiently baptized but because they judged it unfit that ever they should be Priests who deferred so long before they would declare themselves to be Christians The truth is notwithstanding this Procastination of Baptism in Novatus and tho' too he had upon his recovery neglected to have the Confirmation of the Bishop according to the custom of the Church which Cornelius †In his Letter to Fabian apud Euseb Harm E. l. 6. c. 43. vid. Niceph. l. 6. c. 3. Chemnit Exam. par 1. p. 84. accounts as another just exception against him yet Fabian finding some relaxation allowable by Law upon some weighty Reasons did by his Mediation and importunity prevail to have him ordained giving assurance that he would ordain no more such which could in no wise be granted him if Novatus's Baptism had been Null and the manner of its Administration unlawful which as Cornelius writes was by sprinkling An unanswerable proof and instance of administring Baptism by way of sprinkling so early in the Church as in the time of Novatus of whom the story is and who no doubt was not the first Man that was so baptized seeing 't was pleaded in Bar to admission into Orders as being against Law Mr. Cradock a great Independant in his Treatise of Gospel liberty says that the practice of dipping is to be restrained by the chief Magistrate for the preservation of the lives of his Subjects And in the Senate of Zurick in Switzerland there was an Act made that if an Anabaptist dipt any of their People he was to be punished with drowning St. Cyprian doth not only allow of pouring on of Water or sprinkling in Baptism but pleads for it in certain Cases and acquaints us that 't was usual in those Days to Baptize sick Persons in their Beds and proves that such Persons were rightly baptized tho' only sprinkled from Ezek. 36.25 and says that sprinkling holds forth the Mystery as well as dipping * See his Discourse on Purpose when the question concerning it was put to him by one Magnus Epist 76. ad Magnum Upon this custom of the Clinicks the learned Vossius makes this remark that those that were thus baptized were not plung'd or dipt under Water but only sprinkled But 't is urged from John 3.23 that John was baptizing in Aenon near
the Lord's Day That the Answerer did thus intend to represent me seems plain because after he had shewed Reasons for the first Day he concludes so we have a plain Precedent tho' not positive Prescript for the first Day but you want not only Precept but Precedent for Infant Baptism Page 3. Now the obvious meaning of my Discourse there is that the general Command of keeping God's Covenant in its Sign as also the general Command of observing the Day of the Sabbath one Day in seven is obligatory to Christians as well as it was to Abraham and his Seed The consideration what is the particular Sign or whether it be altered from what was first specified or whether with or without a Prescript being not there any part of the Argument its main strength depending on the general and primary Part of the Precepts the substance therefore of what I said is that the general and primary Command to Abraham thou and thy seed shall keep my Covenant in the sign of it is of perpetual Obligation as in the fourth Commandment the general and primary Command for sanctifying the Sabbath or keeping Holy one Day in seven obligeth now as well as then and that if Christians be discharged from observing Circumcision as the Sign and the last of seven which was appointed to be the Sabbath at first which are secondary positive Commands yet they are bound to observe a seventh Day and to keep God's Covenant in its Sign these things being of Primary obligation And now what is said to all this Why truly as to the general Command to Abraham above mentioned he passeth it over at least for the present and says nothing about it but as to the Sabbath doth he deny that the general Command of keeping one Day in seven Holy continues obligatory Not at all which he should have done if he would have opposed the force of my Argument What doth he then do Why he gravely says 1. He knows no positive Command for the change of the seventh Day to the first 2. He knows one Day of seven was commanded 3. He gives some account what we have to say for the change of the seventh Day to the first Lastly That he dares not blame the Sabbatarians By all this he confirms my Argument and that too more than it required And yet he hath so mannaged the matter blind-folding his ignorant followers that those who heard only his Papers when they were read apart in their Congregation doubtless thought that he answered what may be reasonably thought to call for an Answer He proceeds Page 3. to observe concerning the Covenant which he saith I have written several Pages about supposing that as Abraham's natural Seed were in Covenant and had right to Circumcision so the Seed of Believers are in Covenant and ought to be baptized Reply The word Natural is not in the Text neither was it put in by me 'T is rather their way to add to the Word the better to gloss over their Error Provided nevertheless it be not understood qua tale as natural I do admit it and own the whole it being that which I have fully demonstrated But so it is to be accounted for my Conclusion rather than for my Hypothesis However it be he makes two exceptions against it tho' it be very illogical to nibble as it were at the Conclusion whilst he tacitly grants the premises But it must be considered that he hath ingeniously acknowledged how unmeet and unfit he is to be a Respondent and he doth but go on to prove it The first Exception that he makes is That the Covenant in the 17 of Gen. is not a Covenant of Grace This indeed would overthrow the very foundation of my Discourse could it be proved and duly applied Nei-of which tho' he Acts here the Part of an Opponent is done by the pretended Answerer whereof he is so Conscious that he dares not depend upon it fearing he should be driven to his Shifts should we put the matter in Controversie to this issue And therefore that he may have a Loop-hole to escape he saith Page 8. neither indeed were it that Covenant meaning the Covenant of Grace would it as to that help you And he is not without a pretended Reason to help himself in it because forsooth Grace doth not go says he in Generation from Parent to Child Wisely argued 't is as much as to say speaking to the Point God is not a God to Abraham and his Seed too his Promise in that respect went beyond his Performance Grace cannot go by Covenant from Parent to Child And who are those that found descent of Grace in natural Generation or say that Believers Children are in this gracious state because they are believers Children that is by vertue of natural Generation We only say 't is by vertue of the Covenant the Promise that is made to the faithful and their Seed whereupon are grounded such gracious Priviledges and Perogatives descending from Parent to Child So that the Root being Holy the Branches are so too * Rom. 11.16 yea if but one of the Parents be a Believer †1 Cor. 7.14 the Children are in a Holy Separate-State not common and unclean with the rest of the World but in such a State at least as puts them into a more advantagious and fairer Prospect of Heaven and greater probability of obtaining saving Grace than if they had been out of the Covenant that Holy State so as the Promise did not reach them Hence Christ speaking of the Jews Collectively calls them the Children of the Kingdom ‖ Matt. 8.12 the Apostle the Children of the Covenant * Act. 3.25 the Margin referring it to that of Gen. 12.3 which himself saith Page 5. respects the Covenant of Grace But to Reply to his Exception as he goes on to demonstrate it here as his manner is he Acts the Opponent rather than the Respondent and therefore thinks himself not concern'd to meddle with the Arguments produced by me tho' he pretended otherwise in his Preface and seemed to Promise to give Answer to such things as call for an Answer but since 't is not his mind I am content to answer his Allegations and moreover do purpose to take occasion from thence further to demonstrate the Identity of the Abrahamical and Evangelical Covenant that the Covenant Gen. 17. is a Covenant of Grace the more firmly to establish the Scripture Foundation touching God's Covenant with Abraham on which as himself says truly Page 3. I found the stress of my Discourse He says Page 4. that he looks upon this Covenant in the 17th of Gen. not to be the Covenant of Grace but a Covenant God made with Abraham respecting some temporal Blessings that God was pleased to bestow upon him and his natural Seed and the same with Deut. 29.1 and onward to the 9th but adds that he understands the Covenant in Gen. 12.3 and 18.18 to have a respect to the
have the invisible guard of Angels watching over and ministring for the good of such as are Heirs of Salvation they have all an interest in the Charity Love and Prayers of the whole Mystical Body all joyning in common in their Liturgies for every single Member how e're divided from one another by Countries and Languages yea every single Member of this Body hath the united strength of the Prayers of all the Saints on Earth and I doubt not but in a general manner the Prayers of all the glorious Society the crowned part of the Church in Heaven our elder Brethren who have finished their warfare and do now possess the Kingdom of Glory Should we go no further we may reflect and thankfully acknowledge this happy Priviledge to be called to this state of Salvation Hence we are brought into a state of Union with Christ made Members of his Mystical Body and partakers of the influences of his favour in all the means and ordinances helps and advantages whereby he declares himself the Saviour of the Body By vertue of this Union all the special saving Graces of his purchase are freely offered the doors of Mercy stand open to us and the gate of Life and Glory is ready to receive us provided we abide in him Hold the head from which all the body as the Apostle says Colos 2.19 by joynts and bands have nourishment ministred and so don't separate from him by Apostacy and fall off by an evil heart of unbelief by an impenitent course of Sin and Wickedness so long I say as we maintain this Union we shall not fail to receive influences of Grace and spiritul Life till we come to Glory Having considered what the Sacrament of Baptism is and the Priviledges and Advantages that redound from thence I come to evince the truth of the general Proposition viz. That the Ordinance of Baptism is the initiating Sacrament of the New Testament and so succeeds Circumcision which is generally granted to be the initating Sacrament of the Old In order to this let it be premised that there can be no Reason given why we should not be by some rite matriculated Members of the Christian as well as heretofore they were thus solemnly initiated into the Jewish Church Now what other way is prescribed to us of doing this than by Baptism the most proper rite for this purpose as it hath been in a manner all along accounted This rite of Initiation of admitting Persons into religious Societies was used by the Posterity of Noah at least very early among the Jews Their Enquiry John 1.25 28. sounds as much as a tacit acknowledgment of their practising it Vid. Wills against Danvers pag. 7. though not as a Sacrament till the Messiah had confirmed it for which we have the Testimonies of their Rabbies cited by the learned Doctor Hammond * In his Query of Infant-Baptism And Bishop Taylor is inclined to give the more credit to such Authorities because the Heathen as he saith had the same Rite in many Places and in many Religions Hence a Proselyte is called in Arrianus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one baptised Baptism being his solemn Investiture who should enter into any Sect or Religion being thereupon reckoned one of that Sect or Religion A Proselyte or Convert in the Apostle's Phrase such an one is said to be added to the Church The Jews have a Tradition that Sarah and Rebeckah when they were adopted into the Family of the Church that is the Church respectively as it was in Abraham's and Isaac's House were baptized In St. Paul's Catechism Baptism is reckoned as part of the Foundation of the first Principles of Religion and so proper for Babes Whereby they are matriculated and adopted as a late Reverend Prelate expresseth it into the House of their Father and taken into the hands of their Mother This then is the ordinary method God hath taken of adding to the Church such as should be saved And therefore it cannot be denied but that Baptism as an initiating Rite succeeds Circumcision And my Text will avouch for the truth thereof For the Apostle having told the Colossians that they had the Circumcision made without hands the Circumcision of the Heart He further signifies by way of implication that they had as good as the outward Circumcision too by being baptized or he could have no occasion to add buried with him in Baptism And his Argument had been a mere Non sequitur unless he gave them to understand thereby that Baptism succeeded and came in place of Circumcision And that this was the genuine Sense and intendment of the Apostle I have I conceive not only more fully illustrated but demonstrated in the foregoing Discourse * Pag. 43. whereto I refer the Reader I proceed in the third Place to shew that as Christ's Death so his Burial and Resurrection are not only exemplified in the Ceremony and manner of its Administration but that they ought to be exemplified after a spiritual manner in the blessed effects and fruits of that Holy Sacrament viz. In our Mortification and Vivification First As to the Symbol or Ceremony Christ's Burial and Resurrection may be and are represented in the external Action of that Sacrament or manner of its admistration And the Apostle seems to allude to a Practice which might then be used by some in those hot Countries viz. Of dipping or putting the whole Body under Water in Baptism But forasmuch as the Word Baptize carries not always that signification or import and for that there is no Command that Baptism should be always administred exactly after that manner such a Practice cannot be binding to us So that should it be granted that there are some very probable instances and examples in Scripture of dipping and immerging the whole Body in Baptism as it must be granted there are as likely examples and instances of only sprinkling and pouring on of Water This will only argue that we cannot thereby be bound up to either way But are at liberty to administer it according to the more prevailing custom where we live Moreover this Ceremony of dipping cannot be practised towards Infants without great inconvenience and even danger of their Lives in so tender an Age and in so cold a Country as ours is especially in the Winter Season But here the Anabaptists step in and urge from hence their way of dipping and think this is enough for them not only to plead in their own justification but to confute our way of baptizing only by sprinkling or pouring on of Water Accordingly a certain Person who takes upon him to Answer my foregoing Discourse hath these very words Baptism must be by dipping not sprinkling because Baptism rightly administred doth figure out the Death Burial and Resurrection of Christ But I know not wherein sprinkling doth it And then citing Rom. 6.3 4. he immediately subjoyns When the Body is put down under Water O what resemblance is this of the Burial of
yet we do not continue in it but repent and turn from it But how shall we you 'l say thus mortifie our Sins Why we must fetch our Weapons against our prevailing Lusts from our Baptism As David took the smooth Stones out of the Brook of Water with which he slew Goliah 1 Sam. 17.40 So ought we to draw help and directions from the Water of Baptism to deaden the force of the most Giant-like Sin and to lay it at our Feet Yea our Baptism doth not only direct us herein holding forth the conditions on our Part what Duty is incumbent upon us and likewise impower and enable us for the Encounter as it conveys unto us the Grace of God and the assistance of his Spirit but moreover it obligeth us thereto in the highest nature by the most solemn and the strongest Bonds that may be in that we Vow to God through Christ to perform it The firmest Obligation imaginable upon the deepest penalty as ever we hope to have an interest in Christ or in the Death of Christ q. d. we disclaim all hope and interest in Christ and his Death if we be not the Death of every ruling Sin in us This surely is enough to make us bestir our selves and set upon it and even to compel us to it When the forty Jews Act. 23.12 bound themselves with an Oath that they would neither eat nor drink till they had killed Paul how did the consciousness of this Oath urge them to lie in wait for him v. 16. and how resolved were they upon his Death with all suddenness And we saith they e're he come near are ready to kill him v. 15. We are under such an Oath to God by our Vow of Baptism to mortifie and kill our prevailing Sins as these were to kill Paul theirs was unjust to murther an Innocent ours most just and necessary to Execute the greatest Traytor in the World And therefore let us remember when our hearts would fain spare our Sins and any way indulge them That this sacred Vow is upon us What was the Reason Jonathan durst venture to tast of the Hony in the Wood when the Israelites durst not touch it 1 Sam. 14.27 He considered not the Oath by which he and they were obliged not to eat of it So why do you thus follow and pursue such and such a pleasing profitable Sin You mind not the Oath the Sacrament the Vow in which you are obliged not to tast such forbidden Fruit but on the contrary to renounce the devil and all his works the pomps and vanities of this wicked world and all the sinful lusts of the flesh But to come more near and home in the way of Application Is Baptism an Ordinance that engages us to Duty and that as the Condition of the continuance of the Benefits contained in the Promises and Covenant to which it is the Seal We see what a Foundation of loose vain hope a bare Baptismal Christianity is What slight tinctured Christians those are that have only the outward washing of Baptism but abandon the practice of a Christian Life Who please themselves in a Sign without the effect and boast themselves in a Figure and Shadow without the Substance and Grace of it The Baptism of Water howsoever it may avail us in the state of Infancy in which state God requires no actual Performance of Duty Yet when we grow up to Years of Knowledge and Reason and come under the Law of Duty it availeth nothing without the Baptism of the Spirit in actual Regeneration and Sanctification I mean without an actual Repentance and Abrenunciation of Sin and Satan and the practice of a Holy Life Our Baptism will but remain as a Testimony against us of our perfidious violation of the Covenant of God and of the falseness and treachery of our evil Hearts who pretend to be and own our selves the Subjects and Servants of Jesus Christ and yet basely revolt from and disobey him This is to speak Christ fair and then to betray him Mens receiving the name of Christ's Disciples and Servants in Baptism makes the Disobedience of their sinful Lives more hateful and abominable In this respect some had an erroneous conceit of Old which made them defer their Baptism thinking they had a greater Liberty before than after their Baptism and therefore were wont to say in St. Austin's time Sine illum facere nondum baptizatus est let him alone he is not yet baptized implying the strict Obligation that lies upon Men by Baptism unto Holiness of Life What is Christian Baptism without a Christian Life 'T is not this external Badge or Cognizance 't is not a common profession that follows it that will be a Title to Heaven 'T is in vain to pretend that we have been baptized into Christ or are buried with him in Baptism and have made profession of his name if we be workers of iniquity our doom at last will be to depart from him That which is most material and considerable in our Baptism and which most contributes to our eternal Interest and Salvation is not as at first I noted from St. Peter the putting away the filth of the Flesh But the Answer of a good Conscience towards God What then doth our Conscience answer touching the performance of the Conditions on our Part We build our hopes and confidences upon the Sands unless we keep the Faith whereinto we are baptized and perform the Duty to which our Baptism obligeth How vainly do Men bear themselves up upon the Title of an outward Baptism as if thereby they were good Christians though the course of their Lives be a flat Contradiction to the holiness and purity of the Christian Religion and in effect the renouncing of it The truth is there is a sad answering of this Engagement in the generality of those that are baptized What backsliding from and violations of the baptismal Covenant From the observation of whose Lives a Heathen might conclude as Salvian complained of old Si Christus sancta docuisset if Christ had taught holiness why don't Christians practise it Either as he goes on your Christ is no God who allows such evil Lives or you are no Christians who practise such Things Are they Christians are they dedicated to the honour and service of God the Father Son and Holy Ghost who lead such impure Lives who slight the ways of Religion and set at nought the Laws and Commands of Christ and are so devoted to the ways of their own evil hearts Would Men but consider how they have performed their Covenant with God into which they were entered by Baptism and what an aggravation of the Sin of their unholy unchristan Life ariseth hence this must needs give a check to their sinful Carreer If Infidels and they that know not God do Blaspheme his holy Name and fight against Heaven by their open Impieties this is no such great Wonder but for you that have given up your names unto