Name of the Holy Ghost altho' baptiz'd before into John's Baptism were all baptiz'd again by St. Paul and if John's Baptism differ'd from ours in some Circumstances why may not ours differ from his in this one of sprinkling and we lawfully use it tho' John did dipping especially since there is nothing in Christ's Command which requires us to observe the one more than the other but he leaves the Minister at liberty as our Church does either to dip or sprinkle according to the Strength or Weakness of the Party that is to be baptized and either way if he does it with Water and in the Name of the Father of the Son and of the Holy Ghost he does administer true Christian Baptism P. I think this a sufficient Answer to that Objection from John and wonder these Men insist so much upon dipping in Baptism as to make the Ordinance void without it when they can never prove this to be essential to Baptism from any Place of Scripture but only by conjectural Consequences and Deductions from it M. I do not wonder at this at all since none are more confident than those that are most ignorant as deep Rivers run silently on but shallow Streams make a Noise and thus Mountebanks will undertake Cures which the ablest Physitians look on as desperate but they seldom stay long in a Place and more seldom cure People of any Disease but their Folly P. But I hope I shall have more Wit than to be cheated by Mountebanks in Physick and more Grace than to be deceiv'd by Mountebanks in Religion M. Pray take care of both but more especially the latter since to try Practices on the Soul is far more dangerous than to tamper with the Body P. I thank you for your good Advice and by God's Help shall be careful to follow it But to return to our former Discourse pray Sir who are the proper Subjects of Baptism which you have prov'd may be administred by sprinkling or dipping M. Not only all Believers but also all their Children P. How do you prove that Believers Children may lawfully be baptiz'd M. From several Texts of Scripture which by good and undeniable Consequence imply so much P. Pray Sir name some of those Texts that I may have them in readiness to defend our Church's Practice in baptizing Infants M. I shall the first is a Place already quoted to prove the Lawfulness of sprinkling 1 Cor. 10.2 where the Apostle says the Israelites were all baptiz'd into Moses in the Cloud and in the Sea which imports as all Expositors will allow even those that oppose the Consequence we draw from it that the Jews Passage thro' the Red Sea was a Mr. Keach's Gold refin'd p. 62. Type of our Christian Baptism and if so it was in the Type that Men Women and Children passed thro' the red Sea it ought to be so in the thing typifi'd and then the Children of believing Parents as well as they themselves may and ought to be baptiz'd P. But did not the Jews Cattle and many Unbelievers pass thro' the Red Sea with them And were they baptiz'd too This seems absurd M. And so does your Question the Scripture being silent and saying nothing about Cattle and Unbelievers which went with Israel thro' the Red Sea and if both of them did how cou'd they be baptized into Moses i. e. into his Doctrin and Law which the Cattle cou'd not and the Unbelievers wou'd not understand and obey and therefore the mixt Multitude spoken of Ex. 12.38 who went up from Egypt were all the Jewish Proselytes as well as the Jews themselves their Wives and Children comprehended under the general Name of Fathers in the former Verse 1 Cor. 10.1 These were the All that were baptized unto Moses in the Cloud and in the Sea P. Where is your next Scripture Proof M. It is Col. 2.11 12. where the same Apostle calls Baptism a Circumcision made without Hands and says the Colossians were circumcised by it which implies that Circumcision comes in the room of Baptism as our Saviour's calling the Lord's Supper the Passover is an Argument it was instituted instead thereof Luk. 22.15 P. But here they object that if Baptism comes in the room of Circumcision then Males must be only baptized as Males of old were only circumcised M. To this I answer 1. That Baptism does not succeed Circumcision as the Antitype does the Type or the Substance does the Shadow but as one positive Institution succeeds another and both seal the same spiritual Mercies that to the Jews and this to the Christians and therefore if Baptism is administred to other Subjects viz. Females who are more capable thereof than they were of Circumcision this is no Argument that the one does not come in the room of the other but rather that God's Mercies are more enlarged to us than to them as the Seal thereof which is Baptism is extended and applied farther than their Circumcision was 2. I say that the Jewish Females were vertually circumcis'd in the Males and for that reason the whole Jewish Church and Nation are call'd in Scripture by the Name of Circumcision Act. 10.45 cap. 11.2 Gal. 2.9 and Phil. 3.3 P. But they have a Salvo for this that the Jewish People are call'd the Circumcision from the greater part who were circumcis'd as the Cattle of Egypt are said to have dy'd Ex. 9.6 and yet there was Cattle left ver 19 25. M. But this will not serve the turn for how does it appear that the Jews Males were more in Number than their Females Their Number might be equal or they might have more Women than Men for any thing can be prov'd to the contrary but to put this matter out of doubt that the Jews were not call'd the Circumcision from the greater or better Part of them that were circumcis'd is plain from Ex. 12.48 where no uncircumcis'd Person was to eat of the Passover and yet the Jewish Women did constantly partake thereof and were never reprov'd by Moses or any of the Prophets for it and therefore in God's Esteem the Jewish Women must be vertually circumcised in the Men or else they cou'd not have been admitted to the Lord 's Passover P. This is a convincing Argument and proves that Males and Females among the Jews in respect of the Covenant of Circumcision were like Man and Wife but one Flesh and I cannot imagine what they will say to it but they have something to offer from that place of St. Paul for Dipping that he calls our Spiritual Circumcision a being buried with Christ in Baptism which they say is an Argument against Sprinkling and for Dipping M. To this I Answer 1. This passage cannot be taken according to the Letter that the Colossians were cover'd all over with Water in Baptism as Christ was cover'd with Earth at his Burial who had no Earth at all upon him being laid in a Sepulchre of hewn Stone and they must have continued Three
Days and Nights under Water to make the resemblance to Christ's Burial compleat and then they would have been Bury'd indeed 2. In Burying a Corps we are not wont to Dip them into the Earth which will not yield to them as Water does but to sprinkle Earth upon it 3. This Phrase must be taken Mystically as our Church expounds it that as Christ Died and Rose again for us so shou'd we who are Baptized Dye from Sin and Rise again unto Righteousness P. Have you any more places of Scripture to produce M. Yes Three more which you shall have in order Mat 19.14 where our Lord says of little Children whom St. Luke calls Infants Cap. 18.15 who were brought unto him for his Blessing and Prayers of such is the Kingdom of Heaven and then certainly we cannot deny Baptism to those Children to whom God will not deny Heaven P. But at this rate of arguing you must give them the Lord's Supper too as they did generally in the Church about a Thousand Years ago M. But there is not the same Reason for adminstring the one as there is the other Ordinance to Children 1. Because in that Command our Lord gives about Baptism John 3.5 the Word made use of to signifie the subjects thereof may be as well extended to Infants as to grown Persons 't is except one any one whether he be Man or Woman or Child be Born of Water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God but in the Command St. Paul gives about the Lord's Supper he says Let a Man examine himself and so let him Eat of that Bread and Drink of that Cup 1 Cor. 11.28 Let a Man c. the word signifies a Man of Understanding that can examine himself and discern the Lord's Body so that Infants may be baptiz'd pursuant to the former Command but they may not be permitted to Communicate pursuant to the latter P. But these Men will not understand that place of John to be spoken of our Christian Baptism M. They may understand things as they please and as their Interest leads them but it is plain the most Ancient and best Expositors have so understood the place and so it must be understood or else it will be hard for them to prove we must Baptize with Water there being no mention of Water in Christ's Commission or rather inlargement of it to his Disciples to Baptize all Nations Mat. 28.19 And therefore I wonder at the Confidence of * Mr. K. Gold refin'd p. 6. one of them who says this last is the only place where Water-baptism is mention'd when 't is certain it is not there mention'd at all the words are Go ye therefore and Teach all Nations Baptizing them in the Name of the Father of the Son and of the Holy Ghost 't is not there said Baptize them with Water any more than it s said Baptize Infants and if Water had been expressed to what purpose does that Author muster up eight Arguments and spend so many Pages to prove Water must be impli'd and meant in Christ's Commission if it was mention'd there P. 'T is strange a Man shou'd take so much pains to prove Water must be intended in such a place of Scripture if it was there expressed M. 'T is no stranger than true but he is loath such a needful thing as Water shou'd be omitted in Christ's Comission to Baptize and be only imply'd lest on the same account the baptizing of Infants shou'd be also imply'd in it P. That may be the reason why he is so presumptuous to say water-Water-baptism is mention'd Mat. 28.18 tho' he tells an untruth in saying it but have you any other Reason why Children tho' they may be Baptiz'd may not receive the Lord's Supper M. Yes because Baptism is an Initiating Sacrament and so like Milk proper only for Babes in Christ but the Lord's Supper is a strengthening and confirming Sacrament and so like stronger Meat proper for such as are grown to be perfect Men in Christ Jesus P. But Christ does not say of these Children but of such as these is the Kingdom of Heaven M. But if Men shall enter into Heaven for being like Children Children who are set for Mens Pattern cannot be excluded from it and if Children have a Right to the Heavenly Inheritance they cannot in Justice be deny'd Baptism which is as it were God's Signing and Sealing the Deed by which it is convey'd P. This seems unreasonable but what is your other Proof M. It is 1 Cor. 7.14 Else were your Children unclean but now are they holy Where the Apostle in all likelihood intends a real or foederal and not a Matrimonial Holiness i. e. only a Legitimacy to be in Believers Children otherwise there cou'd be no Lawful Marriages among Heathens nor their Children lawfully begotten contrary to Heb. 13.4 Marriage is honourable in all c. and this reason of our Exposition the Opposers thereof do well to omit because I doubt they are not able to Answer it P. But if foederal Holiness be here meant then the Unbelieving Wife may lay a claim to Baptism as well as the Children on the account of her Husband's Faith M. No there is a double difference in the Case 1. Because there is not the same reason a Believer's Unbelieving Wife shou'd be Covenantly Holy as that his Children shou'd be so Almighty God having ingag'd himself in Covenant to such Children which he has not done to such a Wife the Tenor of which Covenant runs thus Gen. 17.7 I will establish my Covenant between me and thee and thy Seed after thee in their Generations for an everlasting Covenant to be a God to thee and to thy Seed after thee And this Covenant which God made with Abraham is still in Force and made with the Believing Gentiles and their Children by Virtue of which a Covenant relation redounds to the Children of a Believing Father but not of the Unbelieving Mother the Covenant is establish'd with Believers and their Seed and not with their Wives that are Idolaters and so St. Peter expounds this Covenant Acts 2.39 The promise is to you and to your Children there is no mention in either place of Unbelieving Wives neither are they included in the Covenant of Grace as their Believing Husbands and Children are as for instance when Solomon Marry'd Pharaoh's Daughter she continuing a Heathen still had no benefit of the Abrahamical Covenant as her Husband and Children if he begat any by her had they were both within the Covenant tho' she was out of it In like manner is it with a Believing Christian Husband he and his Children are Covenantly Holy when his Unbelieving Wife is not so but only Civilly Holy 2. The Wife is able and therefore ought to make Profession of her Faith before she is Baptiz'd the Children are not able to Profess their Faith and therefore may be Baptiz'd without it And this distinction they must allow because they have made
A Religious Conference Between a Minister and Parishioner Concerning the Practice of Our Orthodox Church of England IN BAPTIZING INFANTS AND Pouring Water on their Faces or Sprinkling them and in Confirming them by the Bishop when they come of Age to give an Account of their Faith Proving all three lawful by the Authority of the Holy Scriptures Ezech. 3.17 Son of Man I have made thee a Watchman unto the House of Israel therefore hear the Word at my Mouth and give them warning from me LONDON Printed for A. and J. Churchil and sold by John Pearce Bookseller in Exon 1696. A Religious Conference Between a Minister and Parishioner c. Parishioner GOOD morrow to you Sir I wish you Health of Body which as I remember you heretofore often wanted Minister The God of Heaven bless you Sir and give you Health of Soul and grant you may never want that P. This spiritual Health is somewhat impair'd since your Departure from us M. I am heartily sorry for that and wish I cou'd restore it but hope you have so much Charity for me as to believe I wou'd gladly have officiated still among you if I cou'd have done it without sinning against my own Conscience P. You have studyed that Point better than I and if you are satisfied I have no reason to object against it M. I thank God I am easie and quiet in my own Mind and that is a continual Feast P. I believe so by your Countenance because you look better than ever but I have often wish'd my self and this Parish under your Ministry again it might have been a means under God to have kept some of us from falling from the Church into divers Errors and particularly that of opposing Infant Baptism M. I am mightily concern'd to hear such Opposers of truth do increase in these Parts P. So am I to see it and to tell you that one of your Flock who was a constant Attendant on your publick Prayers Preaching and Holy Sacrament has been lately dipt by them and others I fear are like to follow M. This grieves my very Soul the good God put a Stop to this spreading Contagion P. And pray Sir lend your helping Hand to cure it M. I shall readily and freely do it by satisfying your Doubts or answering any puzzling Questions you shall propose about it P. I kindly thank you Sir and without any more ado shall begin with my first Question which is to inform me what Baptism is Because the Stress of this Controversie lies in understanding the Meaning and Signification of it M. The Word Baptize is us'd in Scripture to signifie sometimes the dipping the whole Body in Water sometimes the wetting washing or sprinkling some Part thereof with Water P. How do you prove this latter Signification of the Word Baptism M. From four several Places of Scripture as Luke 11.38 where 't is said in the Greek our Saviour was not baptiz'd because he had not wash'd his Hands before Dinner and the Pharisee marvelled at it that he himself not his Hands was not baptiz'd and Mar. 10.39 where our Lord calls his Sufferings on the Cross a Baptism because he was wet and sprinkled with the Blood and Water which issued out of his wounded Heart and Act. 1.5 where the Disciples are promised to be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many Days hence because the Holy Ghost was shortly to be shed or poured forth on the Disciples Heads and into their Hearts somewhat after the manner of our pouring forth Water and sprinkling in Baptism which was prophecy'd by Joel cap. 2.28 29. and came to pass on the Day of Pentecost Act. 2.17 33. and 1 Cor. 10.2 where St. Paul says the Israelites in their Passage from Egypt to Caanan were all baptized in the Cloud because they were all sprinkled with the Rain which fell from it as is further evident from Psal 77.17 the Clouds poured out Water i. e. on the Children of Israel as they marched thro' the Red Sea to which the foregoing and following Verses of that Psalm prove that it must have Reference P. May Baptism then be administred by sprinkling or pouring Water on the Face of the baptized Person as well as by dipping him M. Yes it may for the Reasons before expressed because Christ who was wet and sprinkled with Blood and Water in some Part of his Body on the Cross and his Apostles who had the Holy Ghost poured forth and as it were sprinkled upon them and the Israelites who in their Passage thro' the Red Sea were sprinkled only with Water for all that way they walked on dry Ground Exod 14.22 these are all nevertheless said to be baptized P. But was not Christ and the Eunuch dipt under Water when they were baptized because they both went down into the Water and came up out of it M. It does not necessarily follow from those Expressions that the Baptism of either was by dipping since John Baptist and Philip went down into the Water and came up out of it as well as Christ and the Eunuch and yet none do thence infer the two former were dipt P. But they urge farther and I have often heard it from them that Place of Joh. 3.23 John was baptizing in Enon near Salim for there was much water there whence they conclude he dipt his Proselytes or else why is that reason given there Why did he repair to a River for Baptism M. The reason why John baptized in Enon as well as Jordan might be and in all Probability was because of the great Multitudes that resorted to him for Baptism Jerusalem and all Judaea and all the Region round about Jordan Mat. 3.5 and to be continually drawing and carrying Water for the baptizing so many thousand People wou'd have been an endless Work and therefore a River was the most convenient Place for John's Baptism there being then too no Baptisteries in Churches erected and allowed for that purpose and the saying there was much Water there does no more prove that John dipt his Disciples than the Eunuchs saying to Philip see here is Water what does hinder me to be baptized Act. 8.36 does prove that he was only sprinkled because the Eunuch makes Water and not the Muchness or Littleness of it to be the Reason why Philip shou'd baptize him there 2ly If John had dipt his Proselytes this is no Proof that we must do so too because his Baptism if it was the same for Substance with Christs yet was administred in a different manner and not in that Form of Words Christ's was not in the Name of the Father of of the Son and of the Holy Ghost and for this we have the Confession of * Mr. Blackwood's storming of Antichrist pag. 13. part 2. one of their own Party that John did not baptize in the Name of the Holy Trinity as Christ did which he proves from Act. 2.3 4 5. where those twelve Disciples because they had not been baptized in the
it themselves in respect of Christ's Satisfaction which * Mr. Blackwood's storming of Antichrist pag. 11. part 2. they say is but one though there is a twofold way of applying it 1. Through believing in those that are capable of believing 2. Without believing is this Satisfaction apply'd to dying Infants And therefore they have no more reason to say we make two Baptisms than we have to say they make two Satisfactions of Christ one for grown Persons through Faith and another for Infants without Faith And if Christ's Satisfaction is one so is our Baptism one notwithstanding this twofold way of applying it but were this Interpretation of ours of Foederal as false as I have prov'd theirs of Matrimonial Holiness to be there is a third more probable than both that by Sanctify'd St. Paul means Baptiz'd that the Unbelieving Wife by the Conversation and importunity of the Believing Husband has been Sanctify'd i. e. Baptiz'd the effect which is Sanctification being here put as also in several of the Ancient Fathers for Baptism which is the instrumental cause of it and if this be the Apostle's sense as 't is more likely than theirs then Children were Baptiz'd in St. Paul's time and his saying they were Holy imports as much P. But this Interpretation supposes that Baptism washes away Original Sin and how can Water do that How can it cleanse the Soul in a Physical manner M. 'T is not the Water but the Spirit of God which co-operates with it that produces Scanctification in the Childs Soul and 't is by vertue of Christ's Institution that Baptism is a Converting as the Lord's Supper is a Strengthening Ordinance and the operation of Grace in both is not perform'd in a Natural but Supernatural and Spiritual manner and by vertue of Christ's Institution P. Then all Believers Children are Regenerated in Baptism which cannot be because some prove wicked afterwards unless you hold a falling from Grace M. 1. If we hold this they have not yet prov'd it to be an Error and if they cou'd some of their own party wou'd be found to be Erroneous 2. There is no need of holding it because such Believers Children as prove wicked may repent afterwards in their Lifetime or at the Hour of their Death and that they do not repent is more than any can certainly tell and therefore we shou'd be so Charitable as to think and hope the best P. Some indeed say as you do that Regeneration is conferr'd in Baptism and exerts it self afterwards in Conversion but how so active a Principle as Spiritual Life shou'd lye dead and a-sleep so long even many Years which intervene betwixt Baptism and Conversion is not easily conceivable M. This is as easie to be conceiv'd as that David after his Conversion shou'd fall into those foul Sins of Adultery and Murder and wallow a considerable time a Year or two at least as some conjecture in them and let any of these Men reconcile David's foul Sins and continuance in them with his former Conversion and I will undertake to reconcile the after-wickedness of Children with their Regeneration in Baptism P. But if Baptism be a Regenerating Ordinance What becomes of those Children that die without it Must they be all Damn'd that die before they are Baptiz'd M. 1. If they should be all damn'd What have these Men to answer for that have been the cause of so many Thousand Childrens damnation It must needs make their Hell seven times hotter to meet their Unbaptiz'd Children there whom they might have kept from coming into that place of Torments But 2. Our Church has determin'd nothing about this matter leaving us as the Scripture does in the dark concerning it and not binding Almighty God to those means to which he has bound us and all that can be gathered from the Scriptures and our Church's doctrin about this nice point is that Baptism is the only ordinary Means of our childrens Salvation and if any of them through their Parents negligence and contempt of that Ordinance should die without it because it is not the Childrens fault thro the extraordinary Grace of God they may be sav'd when the Parents who saw the danger of their Souls and would have no pity through the just Judgment of God may be damn'd P. But to avoid this dreadful Consequence of the damnation of themselves or Children * Mr. Blackwood storming of Antichrist p. 11. and 53. they say Infants are sav'd by the presentment of the Satisfaction of Christ to God's Justice for Original Sin and that without believing this Satisfaction is apply'd to dying Infants whether they be born of Turks or Christians M. But this Answer does not seem sufficient upon a double account 1. Because many of their Infants live to commit actual Sin and then die unbaptized and the bare pardon of their Original Sin is not enough to save such their Actual Sins must be forgiven too or else they will be damn'd 2. Because the presentment of Christ's Satifaction to God's Justice for Original Sin amounts to no more than a Pardon of it which may be granted Children without admitting them to the Joys of Heaven which cannot be obtain'd without Christs imputed or their own inherent Righteousness as a Rebel may be pardon'd his Treason and so not suffer the Sentence of Death which is an Act of Grace in the Prince but yet to prefer this pardon'd Rebel to a place at Court it must proceed from some extraordinary merit or a farther Act of Grace to do this and therefore the Pelagians who were a Sect that denied Original Sin nevertheless were for Baptizing their Children that they might be born again and so enter into the Kingdom of God 3. But if this is sufficient to obtain Heaven for Infants the presentment of the Satisfaction of Christ to Gods Justice for Original Sin Why is not the same sufficient to qualifie them to be Baptized In short let these Men assign what reason they will for Infants Salvation and some they must or declare their opinion to be unreasonable and I will undertake to prove the same will conclude more forceably for Infants Baptism Indeed we both agree that Infants may be sav'd they say without Baptism by Christ's Satisfaction we say certainly with Baptism which is the application of that Satisfaction their Opinion is uncertain and hazardous ours sure and certain by God's Word John 3.5 and Tit. 3.5 and therefore to Baptize our Children is the safest and surest way and not to Baptize them is to expose them to infinite and apparent danger which no Parents that love their Children and their own Souls will venture to do P. I am glad you have cleared this Point so well I hope it will make all Parents consider the dreadful hazard they run in neglecting their Childrens Baptism but there is one Scripture proof more which you promised wanting M. It is in Acts 2.39 where St. Peter declares that the Promise i. e. of
Rom. 4.15 Besides if that Text of Jeremy or any other of the like nature shou'd condemn our Practice in Baptizing Infants they do as much condemn their Practice in admitting Women to the Lord's Supper which is alike destitute of any express Scripture Command or Example to warrant it and then according to their own way of arguing it must be sinful P. But if you cou'd produce some Command or Example for Baptizing Children you wou'd soon convince these Men and they would readily do it M. I much doubt this whether they would Baptize their Children if there were never so plain a Command or Example in Scripture for it P. This looks a little Uncharitable but what reason have you to think this of them M. Because altho we tell them the Chapter and Verse where singing Psalms is required and where there are Examples of Christ and his Apostles who not only Injoin'd it others but also practised it themselves yet the far greater number of them in this Kingdom never sing Psalms or Hymns at all and 't is no Uncharitableness to think that those who make bold in disobeying one Scripture Command back'd with Examples too wou'd not make bold in disobeying another P. But I am told they refuse to sing Psalms because they have a mix'd Congregation with which they cannot join in singing M. So if there were an express Command for Baptizing Children they might find the like excuse for not Baptizing theirs because it must be done in a mix'd Congregation they do not like the Minister or People or Form of Baptism and therefore will keep their Children from it but these are ridiculous Excuses and why then do they Pray in a mix'd Congregation P. I cannot imagine what they will say to this or what reason they can give that they seldom use the Lord's Prayer in any of their Meetings M. I guess at the reason of both but I will not be positive therein because I will not be Uncharitable as they are it may be 't is because they hate all Forms of Words in the Worship of God and therefore will not sing Psalms nor use the Lord's Prayer lest they shou'd symbolize with us and stand self Condemn'd for going so far and not going farther in joining with us in that Excellent Form of Prayer our Church prescribes P. Truly this may be the reason they do not sing Psalms nor use the Lord's Prayer and I shall think it is till they shew a better But they Object many places of Scripture against Infant-baptism even all those that require the Ministers to Teach and Baptize Mat. 28.19 and the People to Believe and be Baptiz'd Mar. 16.16 and To repent and be Baptiz'd Acts 2.38 And with these they stagger Ignorant and Unstable Souls and sometimes gain them to their Party M. What you say is very true but there is no reason any one shou'd be stagger'd with these Texts for they all have respect to grown Persons that were then Believers or shou'd become and do not at all concern their Children P. But how do you prove that Children are not excluded from Baptism by these Texts M. From one of them that of Mar. 16.16 He that Believeth and is Baptiz'd shall be sav'd but he that believeth not shall be damned Where he that Believeth not shall be Damned is acknowledg'd by our Opposers in this Point to be restrain'd to grown Persons only and that Children are not intended by it whom they will neither allow to have Faith nor yet to be Damn'd for want of it And therefore he that Believeth and is Baptiz'd in the former part of the Verse must be so restrain'd too and understood of grown Persons and not of Children and so Children are no more to be kept from Baptism than from Heaven for want of Faith And therefore when they object such Scriptures as these to you answer them with some other as Heb. 5.9 Christ became the Author of Salvation to all them that obey him Luke 13.5 Except ye repent ye shall all likewise perish And the place just before quoted He that believeth not shall be damn'd and Heb. 11.6 Without Faith it is impossible to please God and Rev. 21.8 But the fearful and unbelieving and the abominable and murderers and whoremongers c. shall have their part in the Lake that burneth with fire and brimstone which is the second death And tell them 't is as plain from these Texts that Children cannot be Sav'd without Faith as from the other Scripturs that they ought not to be Baptiz'd without it And tell them too tho' Baptism be but one there is a twofold way of applying it 1. Through Confession of Faith to such grown Persons as are capable of making it and so the objected Scriptures mean it 2. Without the Confession of Faith in them who are not able to make it is Baptism apply'd to Believers Children and 't is absurd in any one to urge that against Children to shut them out from Baptism which only concerns Men. P. This kind of Reasoning I believe will be too hard for them but it would leave them without excuse if you cou'd produce a plainer Text or two for Infant-baptism M. I think they are left without Excuse in what has been already urg'd and if I cou'd yet produce plainer Texts they wou'd do but little good upon them P. You know not but through the blessing of God they may and therefore if you have any more pray let me hear them M. Why then urge those two places wherein Believers Children are called Disciples and Believers as Acts 15.10 Now therefore why tempt ye God to put a yoke upon the neck of the Disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear Which was the Yoke of Circumcision and that was chiefly born by Children who were to undergo it at eight Days Old and Mat. 18.6 But whoso shall offend one of those little ones that believe in me it were better that a Milstone were hanged about his neck and he drowned in the depth of the Sea Where by little ones Christ means little Children as is plain from the four preceeding Verses in every one of which he expresses little Children or the little Child he had set in the midst of his Disciples P. But what say you to their evasions to these Texts To Acts 15.10 * Mr. K. Gold refin'd p. 89. they say the putting the Yoke of Circumcision is not actual Circumcision in the Flesh for that the Jews as well as their Children were able to bear for many Ages but the Yoke of Circumcision is the necessity of it upon Mens Consciences in order to Salvation M. But this is a meer shift and Confuted by one of their own Party * Mr. Blackwood's storming of Antichrist pag. 37. who says St. Peter here speaks of Circumcision not as the false Teachers wou'd then have brought it in which certainly was to impose it on the Consciences of Christians as if they cou'd
not be Sav'd without it but as it was consider'd simply in it self as that he calls it a Yoke upon their Fathers not to be born who liv'd before those false Teachers were And 't is a weak Reason of the former's Opinion to say that the Jews and their Children bore Circumcision for many Ages and the Apostle says this is a Yoke which neither cou'd bear for who can be ignorant that by this Phrase is meant only the difficulty wherewith the Jews bore Circumcision that they cou'd hardly endure it it being frequently said in Scripture that a Man cannot do that which is hard for him to do as Mark 1.45 Luke 11.7 and so the meaning can be no other than that neither the Jews nor their Children were well able to bear the Yoke of Circumcision P. This is clear But what say you to the answer they commonly give to Mat. 18.6 That by little ones Christ means such as are little in Faith and their own Judgment M. They may say what they please but they can never prove this to be Christ's meaning and I dare ingage that if any unprejudic'd Person reads from the first Verse of this Chapter to this sixth and considers that all along in every Verse Christ has a particular regard to little Children and to the little Child that was before him he can never imagine Christ wou'd break off so abruptly as to mean by little ones Men and Women that were little in Faith but will rather conclude that by little ones Christ meant such little Children he had been speaking of before in every part of this Discourse but the truth is these two Texts especially press so hard upon them that I do not wonder to see them wrench and turn and distinguish to avoid the force of them which with all their Art and Subtilty they are never able to do for if Believers Children are Disciples and Believers as Christ and the Holy Ghost assures us who best knew their Hearts then by their own confession they may and ought to be Baptiz'd P. I am satisfied and to Dispute as many of them do that Children cannot be Disciples nor Believers against such plain Texts of Scripture which affirm them to be both is really to fight against God But there is one Objection behind with which they flourish and sometime gravel unlearn'd and wavering People viz. That Christ was not Baptiz'd till he was a Man as most conjecture about Thirty Years of Age and how dare we Baptize Children when they are not Thirty nor Three Days Old We shou'd rather defer their Baptism after Christ's Example till they are Men and can give an account of their Faith M. This Argument proves nothing because it proves too much for then no one must be Baptiz'd till he is about the same Age of Thirty as Christ was nor in any River but Jordan And no one must receive the Lord's Supper above once and that at the point of Death and then with Men only because therein he has Christ's Example for his Pattern but if they themselves do not follow Christ in all imitable things why do they press us to follow him in this of deferring Baptism till Manhood The truth is Scripture Examples whether of Christ or his Apostles conclude nothing unless the very same reasons and circumstances concur to inforce our imitation and that they do not in the case before us for Christ did not defer his Baptism till Manhood because he cou'd not sooner give an account of his Faith who at Twelve Years Old was able to baffle and confound all the Doctors in Jerusalem Luk. 2.47 but he deferr'd it in all likelyhood because he did not sooner enter upon his Ministerial Office And he then receiv'd it not because he needed it but to fulfill all Righteousness and to Consecrate this Christian Ordinance before he began to Preach the Christian Religion to the World or else Christ receiv'd Baptism no sooner because John Baptist who was to perform that Office began no sooner to Baptize for 't is as evident from Scripture that John Baptist did not Baptize his Proselytes till Christ was about Thirty Years of Age as that Christ was so Old before he was Baptz'd Luke 3.21 22 23. And if it is suggested that notwithstanding the Evangelist's relation of these things as if done near together they might have happen'd at some distance of time from one another then I say for the same reason Christ might have been Baptiz'd long before he was Thirty even in Infancy at least so soon as he cou'd speak and go and their urging of Christ's Example does rather conclude for than against the Baptism of our Children P. So it does and now I should have done but that I must beg the Favour of you to resolve me Three Queries more fully which in effect you have answered already not as if I doubted my self but that I may be able to satisfie others and I shall trespass no longer upon your patience M. I shall chearfully comply with you and am never tired to serve you or any Man else on so good account and therefore pray proceed to your Queries P. The First is Whether you judge Baptism which is Administred to Believers Children in Infancy to be Lawful and good Baptism M. Yes Certainly it is and you have no reason to doubt of â—t not only because I prov'd before from Scripture that Bapâ—ism comes in the room of Circumcision that the Israelites passage through the Red Sea was a Type thereof that Children â—re Holy and shall be happy For of such is the Kingdom of Heaven and that the Promise is to their Children as well as to the believing Parents but also because the Covenant God made with our Father Abraham is the very same in substance with that he has made with us Christians being a Covenant of Faith in Christ and obtaining Salvation by it and therefore Circumcision was not only a Seal of Abraham's Faith in particular but also a Seal of the Jews Faith which descended from him and of the Gentile Proselytes Faith who imbrac'd the Jewish Religion and were adopted into the Jewish Nation as is clear from Gen. 17. from the 7th to the 15th Verse Rom. 4.11 and several other places of Scripture and the Abrahamical Covenant being the same for substance with that which is made with Believers now even a Covenant of Faith and the Seal thereof being only chang'd Circumcision into Baptism because Almighty God admitted Children into Covenant then and by no one Precept or Example has since excluded them from it Children are still in Covenant with him for being once in Covenant the same Everlasting Covenant Children are ever in it unless it can be shew'd when or where they are shut out of it and so our Children ought to be Baptiz'd as the Jewish Children were of Old Circumcis'd the Consequence of which is that the Baptism of the Christian is as valid as the Circumcision of the Jewish Children
P. This is close reasoning But these * Mr. Blackwood storming of Antichrist p. 32. Men object here that Circumcision was no Seal of Faith to the Jews because it was Administred to the Reprobates as well as to the Elect Esau and Ishmael were Circumcis'd whom they look on to be finally rejected as well as Isaac and Jacob who were effectually called M. To this I answer 1. I might as well argue that Baptism is no Seal of Grace because it was administred to Simon Magus whose final condition the Scripture sets forth to be as dangerous at least as Ishmael's or Esau's St. Peter says of him that he was in the gall of bitterness and bond of iniquity and leaves it mighty doubtful whether he was ever forgiven or no Acts 8.22 Ibid. page 58 59. 23. and yet the objector himself allows Baptism to be a Sign or Seal of Grace already wrought and of Grace farther to be wrought and so he confutes himself with his own Answer and in effect owns that Circumcision as well as Baptism might be a Seal of Grace notwithstanding its being Administred to such bad Men as Esau Ishmael and Simon Magus 2. How does it appear that Esau and Ishmael never had Faith they might have it and fall from it unless they can prove this to be impossible 3. How does it appear that Esau and Ishmael were Reprobates and finally rejected As to the latter tho' he had not the Birth-right and Priesthood which belong'd to it yet Abraham Pray'd for him no doubt for his Eternal as well as Temporal Welfare Gen. 17.18 O that Ishmael might live before thee And God answered his Prayers ver 20. As for Ishmael I have heard thee And as to the former tho Esau be call'd Profane yet that was for undervaluing his Birth-right to which the Priesthood was annex'd as is evident from Heb. 12.16 If it be said he found no place of Repentance that was of his Father Isaac's Repentance in changing his mind and recalling the Blessing he had first given Jacob Esau found no place of such Repentance in his Father tho' he might of his own Repentance for he might Repent and there is nothing in this place to prove the contrary it having respect only to his Father Isaac's Blessing as the former part of the Verse does plainly shew For ye know that afterwards when he wou'd have inherited the blessing he was rejected But by whom was this by his Father Isaac Gen. 27.33 I have blessed him i. e. Jacob yea and he shall be blessed Upon which Esau cryed with an exceeding great and bitter cry Ver. 34. but to no purpose he cou'd not alter his Father's mind and so he found no place for Isaac's repentance tho' he sought it carefully with tears And for that other place of St. Paul Rom. 9.13 Jacob have I loved but Esau have I hated It may be understood 1. Comparatively that God lov'd the one less than the other a lesser degree of Love being in Scripture call'd Hatred as Luke 14.26 If any man come unto me and hate not his father and mother and wife and Children and brethrn and sisters yea and his own life he cannot be my Disciple all which Relations especially a Man 's own dear self 't is not only Natural but God has Commanded us to Love and yet if we do not Hate all these we cannot be Christ's Disciples the meaning of which seemingly harsh passage is only this that we must Love our nearest Kindred and Selves less than Christ or else he will not own us for his Disciples at the last Day and in this sense God might Love Esau too tho' he lov'd Jacob more Or 2. God's Hatred to Esau may be understood in respect of Temporal Blessings that Jacob injoy'd a greater share of them than Esau did and so the Prophet Malachy whence St. Paul had it expounds this place Mal. 1.1 2. Was not Esau Jacob's brother saith the Lord yet I loved Jacob and I hated Esau and wherein that Hatred consisted it immediately follows I laid his mountains and heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness i. e. Esau's Possessions were more Barren and Unfruitful than Jacob's which was a Temporal Curse laid upon him for despising his Birth-right and the Priesthood that went along with it so that Esau and Ishmael might be Gracious and Elect Children for any thing that can be prov'd from Scripture to the contrary and then Circumcision might be a Seal of Grace and Faith to them as well as to other Believing Jews P. I am glad you have Explain'd these Scriptures to me which my self as well as many others have always apply'd to Election and Reprobation tho' I now find we had no reason for doing it But have you any other Reason for proving Baptism administred to Believers Children in Infancy to be Lawful and sufficient M. Yes several but I shall name but one more that I may not be too tedious to you P. I shall never think so and therefore pray let me hear your other Reason M. It is because the Parents or Friends Faith has procur'd the Children some Spiritual as well as Temporal Benefits from Christ and therefore why may it not procure for them the benefit of Christian Baptism And if it be regularly obtain'd it must be valid P. But how do you prove that the Parents Faith has procured Temporal and Spiritual Advantages for Children M. The Temporal are to be seen in those Miraculous Cures Christ wrought on their Bodies particularly Luk. 8.50 Believe only thou that art her Father and she that is thy Daughter shall be made whole The Spiritual Cures may be found if you consult those places where Christ cast out Devils of Children particularly Mat. 15.27 28. where he deliver'd the Woman of Canaan's Daughter from the Power and Possession of Satan for the sake of her Mother's Faith and that was a Spiritual Blessing indeed And the like Cures did Christ work for the sake of the Friends as well as Parents Faith particularly the Centurion's Faith was the Motive that induc'd Christ to recover his Servant that lay Sick of the Palsie grievously tormented Go thy way says Christ to the Centurion as thou hast believed so be it done unto thee and his servant was healed in the self same hour Mat. 8.6 13. Which by the way is a good Argument why the Faith of others even God-fathers and God-mothers as well as the Parents may be available for obtaining this Spiritual Priviledge of bringing Children to Baptism if they had no Faith of their own especially when God's Promise imbraces them as well as grown Believers I do not mention this as a thing of absolute necessity but only as highly reasonable that our Church shou'd require Sureties to make an open Profession of the Christian Faith and to promise to see the Baptiz'd Child Educated in it for fear the Parents through negligence or Death shou'd fail to perform their Duty to him as no
Man wou'd Lend a considerable Sum of Money but he would have one or more Sureties to be bound with the Principal for the surer Payment of the Debt And truly what is the Consequence of despising the Faith of God-fathers and God-mothers Why Men come next to despise the Parents Faith and will not Baptize the Child till he has actual Faith of his own and does publickly Profess it and from that they come to despise the very Ordinance of Baptism and to say if we have Faith there is no need of being Baptiz'd and so from Contemning the Orders of our Church they proceed at last so far as to justle the Ordinance it self out of Door P. I see there is no stop when Men forsake our Church and therefore I shall stick close to it only I wish that what our God-fathers and God-mothers thus Charitably undertake they wou'd be careful according to their Power Conscientiously to perform But I hasten to my second Query Whether Baptism Administred by Sprinkling or Pouring Water on the Face be a good Baptism P. Yes certainly it is and that for these Four Reasons 1. Not only because the Word Baptize is used in Scripture for Sprinkling and Washing some part of the Body as well as for Dipping the whole in Water as I have already prov'd But 2. Because the Vertue of the Ordinance of Baptism does not depend upon the quantity of Water any more than that of the Lords Supper depends upon the quantity of Bread and Wine receiv'd in it a little of each Element makes either Ordinance as valid as a great deal 3. Because if Baptism by Sprinkling or which the Opposers of it count all one by Dipping in Infancy be no Baptism then are not any of them Baptiz'd since they receiv'd their Baptism at first from some one of us that was either Sprinkled or Dipp'd in Infancy and therefore they shou'd take heed how they make void our Baptism lest thereby they destroy their own and prove themselves to be no Christians as they uncharitably esteem us 4. Because they themselves do not put the whole Body of the Baptiz'd Person under Water but he himself puts the one half at least under Water by wading into it and the Dipper puts the other and if their Baptism be Administred by casting the upper part of the Body under the Water Why may not we Administer Baptism by Pouring Water on the Face or Sprinkling it And why may not our Baptism thus Administred be as good as theirs P. I see no Reason but it is and much better But I proceed to my Third and last Query Whether Believers Children that are Baptiz'd in Infancy ought to be Baptiz'd again because we have some among us that are fallen into Scruples about it M. Let the Doubters be never so many this must not be done by no means For as there is but one Lord and one Faith so there is but one Baptism Eph. 4.5 And having receiv'd that one Baptism 't is dangerous for you to mock God in the repeating of it this is in effect to Condemn the Generation of God's Children to declare your selves to have been hitherto meer Heathens and to deny that Faith into which ye have been Baptiz'd Nevertheless the Foundation of God standeth sure having this Seal which ought not to be set twice to the same Covenant but yet this Baptism when they come of Age to give an Account of their Faith they may and ought to Ratify by Episcopal Confirmation and so by taking their Baptismal Vow upon themselves your Children at last shou'd make it their own Act and Deed And this is no Superstitious Ceremony but grounded on the Apostles Practice and plain Testimony of Scripture as Acts 8.14 15 16 17. where we find that after the whole Country of Samaria was Converâ—ed by the Preaching of Philip and had received Baptism at his Hands the Apostles sent St. Peter and John thither to Confirm them which they needed not to have done if Philip who was one of the Seven Deacons mention'd Acts 6.5 cou'd have Confirm'd as well as he had Baptiz'd them but that being a Work peculiar to the Apostles and their Successors the Bishops of the Church two of that Sacred Order were Delegated on purpose for the doing of it and a Work 't is that is needful to be done not only to ratifie our Baptism and make it our own voluntary Fact but also to receive a greater degree of the ordinary and Saving Graces of the Holy Ghost now that the extraordinary and Miraculous Gifts are long since ceased for which reason the Author to the Hebrews reckons Confirmation among the Principles of the Doctrin of Christ and places it next to Baptism as a thing which in the course of the Gospel Dispensation ought next to follow it Heb. 6.2 where in the Foundation of the Christian Religion the Apostle sets Baptism and after that laying on of Hands which is Confirmation and * Calvins Instit lib. 4. cap. 19. Sect. 4. 13. de Confir Mr. Calvin himself was so far from Condemning the right use of this Ceremony as Superstitious that he wishes it were Restored and Practised in all Churches as it was in the Primitive Times and then I am sure the Practise of it cannot be condemned in our Church And he proves at large the Reasonableness and Benefits thereof by way of Preparation for the Lord's Supper and to Mr. Calvin's wish I shall add mine That Confirmation were as duly and conscientiously perform'd by all Bishops in ours as it was by the Apostles in their Days and that we Ministers wou'd every one of us prepare the Youth of our respective Parishes by Catechistical Instruction and that all our People wou'd take care to present them to the Bishop for this Apostolical Benediction P. I am glad to find this prov'd by Scripture and shall not slight Episcopal Confirmation any more but if I had never so many Children wou'd bring them all assoon as they are capable to be Confirm'd by the Bishop to receive the benefit of his Blessing and Prayers M. I wish all other Parents were of your mind and from Confirmation would bring their Sons and Daughters to the Lord's Supper and by their good Example and Perswasions prevail with them to continue the constant and devout use of that Holy Sacrament as often as they have an opportunity of receiving it and then I dare say there wou'd not be so much Division and Wickedness as there is in the World P. I cannot tell what others will do but Joshua's Resolution shall be mine As for me and my house we will serve the Lord Jos 24.15 M. 'T is bravely resolv'd and I pray God to give you the Grace to keep your good Resolution that it may not vanish as the Morning Dew or as the Cloud that passeth away P. Amen But these People have more Objections to make and more Answers to return to ours which I cannot think of and Ignorant