they affirm they do perform it by their Sureties Answ. If Suretiship for Children in Baptism is not required of God and the Sureties do not cannot perform those things for the Child then Suretiship is not of God and so signifies nothing but is an unlawful and sinful Undertaking But Suretiship in Childrens Baptism is not required of God and they do not cannot perform what they promise Ergo. Do they or can they cause the Child to sorsake the Devil and all his Works the Pomps and Vanities of this wicked World and all the sinful Lusts of the Flesh In a Word Can they make the Child or Children to repent and truly believe in Jesus Christ for these are the things they promise for them and in their Name Alas they want Power to do it for themselves and how then should they do it for others Besides we see they never mind nor regard their Covenant in the Case and will not God one Day say Who has required these things at your Hands Arg. 7. If there be no Precedent in the Scripture as there is no Precept that any Infant was baptized then Infants ought not to be baptized But there is no Precedent that any Infant was baptized in the Scripture Ergo. If there is any Precedent or Example in Scripture that any Infant was baptized let them shew us where we may find it Erasmus saith 'T is no where expressed in the Apostolical Writings that they baptized Children Union of the Church and on Rom. 6. Calvin saith It is no where expressed by the Evangelists that any one Infant was baptized by the Apostles Iustit c. 16. Book 4. Ludovicus Vives saith None of old were wont to be baptized but in grown Age and who desired and understood what it was Vide Ludov. The Magdeburgenses say That concerning the baptizing the Adult both Jews and Gentiles we have sufficient Proof from Acts 2 8 10 16 Chapters but as to the baptizing of Infants they can meet with no Example in Scripture Magdeb. Cent. l. 2. p. 469. Dr. Taylor saith It is against the perpetual Analogy of Christ's Doctrine to baptize Infants For besides that Christ never gave any Precept to baptize them nor ever himself nor his Apostles that appears did baptize any of them All that either he or his Apostles said concerning it requires such previous Dispositions of Baptism of which Infants are not capable viz. Faith and Repentance Lib. Proph. p. 239. Arg. 8. If whatsoever which is necessary to Faith and Practice is left in the Holy Scripture that being a compleat and perfect Rule and yet infant-Infant-Baptism is not contained or to be found therein then infant-Infant-Baptism is not of God But whatever is necessary to Faith and Practice is contained in the Holy Scriptures c. but infant-Infant-Baptism is not to be found therein Ergo. That the Scripture is a perfect Rule c. we have the Consent of all the Ancient Fathers and Modern Divines Athanasius saith The Holy Scriptures being Inspirations of God are sufficient to all Instructions of Truth Athan. against the Gentiles Chrysostom saith All things be plain and clear in the Scripture and whatsoever are needful are manifest there Chrysost. on 2 Thess. and 2 Tim. 2. Basil saith That 〈…〉 ould be an Argument of Infidelity and a most certain Sign of Pride if any Man should reject any thing written and should introduce things not written Basil in his Sermon de Fide Augustine saith In the Scriptures are found all things which contain Faith manner of Living Hope Love c. Let us saith he seek no farther than what is written of God our Saviour lest a Man would know more than the Scriptures witness Arg. in his 198 Epistles to Fortunat. Theophilact saith It is part of a Diabolical Spirit to think any thing Divine without the Authority of the Holy Scripture Lib. 2. Paschal Isychius saith Let us who will have any thing observed of God search no more but that which the Gospel doth give unto us Lib. 5. c. 16. on Levit. Bellarmin saith That though the Arguments of the Anabaptists from the defect of Command or Example have a great Use against the Lutherans forasmuch as they use that Rite every where having no Command or â—xample theirs is to be reâ—ected yet is it of no Force against Catholicks who conclude the Apostolical Tradition is of no less Authority with us than the Scripture c. this of baptizing of Infants is an Apostolical Tradition Bellarm. in his Book de Bapt. 1 1. c. 8. Mr. Ball saith We must for every Ordinance look to the Institution and never stretch it wider nor draw it narrower than the Lord hath made it for he is the Institutor of the Sacraments according to his own Pleasure and 't is our part to learn of him both to whom how and for what End the Sacraments are to be administred Ball in his Answer to the New-England Eâ—â—ns p. 38 39. And as to the Minor 't is acknowledged by our Adversaries it is not to be found in the Letter of the Scripture And as to the Consequences drawn therefrom we have proved they are not natural from the Premises and though we adâ—â—â—â— of Consequences and Inferences if genuine yet noâ— in the case of an Institution respecting a practical Ordinance that is of meer positive Right Arg. 9. If Infant-Baptism was an Institution of Christ the Pedo-Baptists could not be at a loss about the Grounds of the Right Infants have to Baptism But the Pedo-Baptists are at a great Loss and differ exceedingly about the Grounds of the Right Infants have to Baptism Ergo 't is no Institution of Christ. As touching the Major I argue thus That which is an Institution of Christ the Holy Scripture doth shew as well the End and Ground of the Ordinance â—s the Subject and Manner of it But the Scripture speaks nothing of the End or Ground of pedo-Pedo-Baptism or for what reason they ought to be baptized Ergo 't is no Institution of Christ. The Minor is undeniable Some affirm as we have shewed p. 15. it was to take away Original Sin Some say it is their Right by the Covenant they being the Seed of Believers Others say Infants have Faith and therefore have a Right Others say They have a Right by the Faith of their Sureties Some ground their Right from an Apostolical Tradition others upon the Authority of Scripture Some say All Children of professed Christians ought to be baptized others say None but the Children of true Believers have a Right to it Sure if it was an Ordinance of Christ his Word would soon end this Controversy Arg. 10. If the Children of believing Gentiles as such are not the natural nor spiritual Seed of Abraham they can have no Right to Baptism or Church-Membership by virtue of any Covenant-transaction God made with Abraham But the Children of believing Gentiles as such are not the natural nor spiritual Seed of Abraham Ergo. Arg. 11. If no Man can
prove from Scripture that any spiritual Benefit redounds to Infants in their Baptism 't is no Ordinance of Christ. But no Man can prove from Scripture that any spiritual Benefit redounds to Infants in their Baptism Ergo. Arg. 12. That cannot be an Ordinance of Christ for which there is neither Command nor Example in all God's Word nor Promise to such who do it nor Threatnings to such who neglect it But there is no Command or Example in all the Word of God for the baptizing of little Babes nor Promise made to such who are baptized nor Threatnings to such who are not Ergo. That the Child lies under a Promise who is baptized or the Child under any Threatning or Danger that is not baptized let them prove it since it is denied Arg. 13. If no Parents at any time or times have been by God the Father Jesus Christ or his Apostles either commended for baptizing of their Children or reproved for neglecting to baptize them then Infant-Baptism is no Ordinance of God But no Parents at any time or times have been by God commended for baptizing of their Children c. Ergo Infant-Baptism is no Ordinance of God This Argument will stand unanswerable unless any can shew who they were that were ever commended for baptizing their Children or reproved for neglecting it or unless they can shew a parallel case Arg. 14. If Men were not to presume to alter any thing in the Worship of God under the Law neither to add thereto nor diminish therefrom and God is as strict and jealous of his Worship under the Gospel then nothing ought to be altered in God's Worship under the Gospel But under the Law Men were not to presume so to do and God is as strict and jealous under the Gospel Ergo. The Major cannot be denied The Minor is clear See thou make all things according to the Pattern shewed thee in the Mount Exod. 25. 40. and Levit. 10. 1 2. See how Nadab and Abihu sped for presuming to vary from the Command of God and Uzzah tho but in small Circumstances as they may seem to us How dare Men adventure this being so to change Baptism from Dipping into Sprinkling and the Subject from an Adult Believer to an ignorant Babe Add thou not into his Word c. Arg. 15. Whatever Practice opens a Door to any humane Traditions and Innovations in God's Worship is a great Evil and to be avoided But the Practice of Infant-Baptism opens a Door to any humane Traditions and Innovations in God's Worship Ergo to sprinkle or baptize Infants is a great Evil and to be avoided The Major will not be denied The Minor is clear because there is no Scripture-ground for it no Command nor Example for such a Practice in God's Word And if without Scripture-Authority the Church hath Power to do one thing she may do another and so ad infinitum Arg. 16. Whatsoever Practice reflects upon the Honour Wisdom and Care of Jesus Christ or renders him less faithful than Moses and the New Testament in one of its great Ordinances nay Sacraments to lie more obscure in God's Word than any Law or Precept under the Old Testament cannot be of God But the Practice of Infant-Baptism reflects on the Honour Care and Faithfulness of Jesus Christ and renders him less faithful than Moses and a great Ordinance nay Sacrament of the New Testament to lie more dark and obscure than any Precept under the Old Testament Ergo infant-Infant-Baptism cannot be of God The Major cannot be denied The Minor is easily proved For he is bold indeed who shall affirm infant-Infant-Baptism doth not lie obscure in God's Word One great Party who assert it say 't is not to be found in the Scripture at all but 't is an unwritten Apostolical Tradition others say it lies not in the Letter of the Scripture but may be proved by Consequences and yet some great Asserters of it as Dr. Hammond and others say Those Consequences commonly drawn from divers Texts for it are without Demonstration and so prove nothing I am sure a Man may read the Scripture a hundred times over and never be thereby convinced he ought to baptize his Children tho it is powerful to convince Men of all other Duties Now can this be a Truth since Christ who was more faithful than Moses and delivered every thing plainly from the Father Moses left nothing dark as to matter of Duty tho the Precepts and external Rites of his Law were numerous two or three hundred Precepts yet none were at a loss or had need to say Is this a Truth or an Ordinance or not for he that runs may read it And shall one positive Precept given forth by Christ who appointed so few in the New Testament be so obscure as also the ground and end of it that Men should be confounded about the Proofs of it together with the end and ground thereof See Heb. 3. 5 6. Arg. 17. That Custom or Law which Moses never delivered to the Jews nor is any where written in the Old Testament was no Truth of God nor of Divine Authority But that Custom or Law to baptize Proselytes either Men Women or Children was never given to the Jews by Moses nor is it any where written in the Old Testament Ergo It was no Truth of God nor of Divine Authority And evident it is as Sir Norton Knatchbul shews That the Jewish Rabbiâ—s differed among themselves also about it for saith he Rabbi Eliâ—zer expresly contradicts Rabbi Joshua who was the first I know of who asserted this sort of Baptism among the Jews For Eliâ—zer who was contemporary with Rabbi Joshua if he did not live before him asserts that a Proselyte circumcised and not baptized was a true Proselyte Arg. 18. If Baptism is of mere positive Right wholly depending on the Will and Sovereign Pleasure of Jesus Christ the great Legislator And he hath not required or commanded Infants to be baptized then Infants ought not to be baptized But Baptism is of mere positive Right wholly depending on the Will and sovereign Pleasure of Jesus Christ the great Legislator and he hath not required or commanded Infants to be baptized Ergo Infants ought not to be baptized This Argument tends to cut off all the pretended Proofs of Pedo-Baptism taken from the Covenant made with Abraham and because Children are said to belong to the Kingdom of Heaven it was not the Right of Abraham's Male Children to be circumcised because they were begotten and born of the Fruit of his Loins till he received Commandment from God to circumcise them Had he done it before or without a Command from God it would have been Will-Worship in him so to have done Moreover this further appears to be so Because no godly Man's Children nor others in Abraham's Days nor since had any Right thereto but only his Children or such who were bought with his Money or were proselyted to the Jewish Religion because they had no
Scriptures Yet he has not made either of these things to appear In the said 5 Page he saith here thou hast the Cavils of the adversary Answered In Page 42. Because Mr. Collins saith that the habit of Faith if it be in all Infants of believers it cannot be lost there being no losing the habits of Grace c. Mr. Shute says this Gentleman meaning Mr. Collins doth as little Boyes that make a thing of Rags in Imitation of a Cock and when they have set it up throw at it But gives no other Answer as appears to me than by denying that he asserted all Infants of believers have habitual Faith yet 't is from that Topick he seems to plead for the Baptising of all believers Infants In Page 46. he says Mr. Collins is troubled with a grumbling in his gizzard Are those comely expressions He says in Page 57. that Mr. Collins is pleased to mock at habitual Faith because he compares Faith Potential and habitual Faith in the Infants of believers as such with Transubstantiation c. He renders me worse then the Devil Page 116. The Devil left out part of a Scripture once to tempt our Saviour with but in my weak Judgment saith Mr. Shute this Author had done it three times successively to maintain this error c. the better to beguile and deceive poor ignorant bigotted Souls c. The Lord knows I did not leave out part of the Text at any time to avoid answering their objection or to favour our cause But quoted then what was to the purpose in Hand And that objection I designed to answer afterwards as I did in the second part in order As the Reader may see that hath the Book In Page 82. he saith speaking of Mr. Collins was there ever such Legerdemain played with the Sacred Scripture In Page 23. he speaking to Mr. Collins crys out O for shame cease from bringing your Carnal reason c. Whereas 't is he himself that infers false conclusions from Mr. Collins words and then cries out O for shame Page 24. Where are you now with your humane invented Lame Decrepit Salvation c. Are not these Unchristian Reflections Resides he had no ground given him thus to abuse Mr. Collins as if his Salvation was lame and decrepid In Page 56. he abuses Mr. Danverse who is dead who was cleared by several Learned Ministers upon the answer of an Appeal of his Adversaries Mr. Shâ—â—â—s's abusive and false Representations of us and false Interpretation of several places of Holy Scripture and Gods Holy Ordinance of Dipping Believers in the Name c. FIrst in Page 6 he calls Dipping Ducking and the like in several other places as iâ— we had Believers to a 〈◊〉 when we Baptise â—â—â—m And again to viliâ—â—â— that Holy Ordinance in the same 6 Page he says Dipping is more like a punishment of criminals than the 〈◊〉 of an Ordinance of God Yet Dipping was generally owned by all Pedo-Baptists formerly and by many of late In Page 7 he says The Jaylor and his House were Baptized the same hâ—ur of the Night whereas the Text only says he washed their Sâ—ripes the same hour of the Night and was Baptized he and all his straight way Act. 16. 33. In Page 7. he says They were all Baptized in the Jaylers House which is a palpable abuse of the Text that they did not go out of his House to a River Yet the Text clearly intimates Act 16. 34. that after they were Baptized he that is the Jaylor brought them into his House Doth not that imply they went out of it And it might be to a River as far as he knows He also says That we read not of one Soul of the Jaylors House that did believe before Baptized besides the Jaylor himself Whereas we read that all his House believed as well as himself and as soon too as we read of the Jaylors own Faith so that he may as well say the Jaylor did not believe himself before he was Baptized as so to affirm concerning his House He says Page 11. John Baptiâ—â— Baptized all that came unto him yet the Text clearly Implies he rejected the Pharisees and Sadducees bidding them to bring forth Fruits meet for repentance He asserts in Page 33. that those little Children our Saviour saith did believe on him were little Infants calling them Infant Believers He vilifies Mr. Collins for leaving out in his quotations a word in one or two Texts of scripture whereas he destroys not the Sense of the Texts by so doing nor done to favour his own â—â—tion as that in Isa. 44. 3. where his Seed 〈◊〉 put for thy Seed and that in Acts 2. 39. Nor doth he wrong his Antagonist in the least and therefare no cause of complaint But palpable 't is Mr Shutes abuses that Text greatly Act 2. 39. for the promise is to you and to your Children and to all that are afâ—r off even so many as the Lord our God shall call Now see this Mans exposition of these worth in Page 71. viz. That was to all the Elect Gentiles and their Children for the promise runs in the same Channel to the Gentiles and their Children in the Text without any variation as is â—id to the Jews and their Children Answer If he had said to the Elect Gentiles and to their Children or off-spring also that are elected and called then he had not wronged the Text for the promise that is that of remission of Sâ—n and of the Holy Ghost which runs first to the Jews that are called and to their Children or Off-spring that are called and so in like manner also unto the Gentiles that are called and to their Off spring that shall be called not to the Jews and their Children as such i. e. whether Effectually called or not but to no more of the Jews nor Gentiles themselves nor their Children but even so many as the Lord our God shall call Dr. Hammond confessed this Text is to little purpose brought to prove Infant Baptism Seeing by Children is meant off-spring and refers not to Infants as such It certainly intends no Children of Jews or Gentiles but such only who are elected and called ones Besides this Man hath left out words in several Texts of Scripture quoted by himself in his Book yet blames his Antagonists for so doing at a strange manner For because I left out the words Everlasting Covenant he comparies me to the Devil See Page 116. in Page 21. he 〈◊〉 Ger. 17. 9. 10 11. but saith he neither in these â—â—â—ee quotations nor in his whole Book hath 〈◊〉 so much as named that which is the quintessence of the Covenant c. namely as Everlasting Covenant The Devil left out part of a Scripture c. Answer I fear he saw but part of my Book for 't is a great untruth which he affirms viz. that I never named Everlasting Covenant for I as you have heard in this Answer did not only name it
A COUNTER-ANTIDOTE To purge out the Malignant Effects Of a Late COUNTERFEIT Prepared by Mr. GYLES SHUTE An Unskilful Person in Polemical Cures BEING An Answer to his Vindication of his pretended Antidote to prevent the Prevalency of Anabaptism Shewing that Mr. Hercules Collins's Reply to the said Author remains unanswered Wherein the Baptism of Believers is evinced to be God's Ordinance and the Baptized Congregations proved true Churches of Jesus Christ. With a further Detection of the Error of Pedo-Baptism To which is added An Answer to Mr. Shute's Reply to Mr. Collins's Half-sheet By BENJAMIN KEACH LONDON Printed for H. Bernard at the Bible in the Poultry M DC XC IV. THE INTRODUCTION I Cannot without Grief and Sorrow of Heart reflect upon the sad Consequences of our present Differences in and about the smaller Matters of Religion whereas we agree in all the Essentials thereof but do much more resent that bitter and censorious Spirit many shew and particularly appeareth in the Person I have now to do with which all that read his Books will quickly perceive Pray do but see what a kind of Advertisement he put twice into the City Mercury of his last Treatise c. wherein he positively denies those he calls Anabaptists to be Churches and their Baptism he affirms to be a Counterfeit which is the Baptism of Believers or adult Persons and that because we do not ground Gospel-baptism upon the Covenant God made with Abraham but upon the great Commission our blessed Saviour gave to his Disciples after he rose from the Dead as it is contained Mat. 28. 19 20. Mark 16. 15 16. This is such an Attempt that none of our Brethren who are Pedo-baptists nor any that ever I read of assayed to do Whether our Baptism be a Truth of Christ or a Counterfeit will appear in our Answer but why are we no Churches Certainly we are Churches for a Church may consist of wicked Men as well as of good Men but I suppose he means we are not true Churches of Christ he as I judge not knowing from what Theam that word is derived we must be wicked Persons or else Churches of Christ. This Man hath come too near to the Expressions and bitter Reflections John Child uttered against us falsely called Anabaptists who soon after fell under fearful horror of Conscience and Desperation He wrote a Book against us rendring us very odious to the World and casting Contempt upon our saithful Ministers but quickly was convinced of his horrid Design crying out in Despair That he had touched the Apple of God's Eye for said he if God has any People in the World those that I have vilified are his or to that effect The Lord deliver this Man from such a Spirit and dismal end but 't is bad modling as we used to say with edge Tools Our Saviour shews the danger of rash Judgment and what have â—e to do to judge our Fellow Servant much less Churches We may judge of Things and freely speak our Minds according to Light received but to censure a People after this manner and only because 〈◊〉 differ from him about the Subject and Mode of Baptism is hard 〈◊〉 considering that we are in all other things of the same Faith with himself and such that he hath daily Church Communion with is this lovely or just is this the Spirit of Jesus Christ Oâ— doth he appear in the Wisdom that is from above that is first Pure then Peaceable Gentle â—aâ—â—e to be Intreated full of Mercy and good Fruits without Partiality and without Hypocrisie and the Fruits of Righteousness that is sown in Peace of them that make Peace Jam. 3. 17 18. What kind of Scoffing Reproaching Railing and opprobious Language he hath cast on us I shall collect and set down in its proper Place and yet at the same time he bears very hard upon his Antagonists for using such kind of Terms c. p. 4. How will he escape who says a Man should not Steal if he Steals Or that a Man should not commit Adultery if he commits Adultery Rom. 2. 22. Or that says a Man should not scoff or rail on and vilifie his Brother when he doth the same thing and yet pretends he hath not doâ—e it I will not render Railing for Railing these are his Words and again saith I shall labour to declare in the Spirit of Meekness pag. 4. Hath he been as good as his word or hath he not they are proper Judges who have read his Book I think few Men who have had to do with us in this Controversie shewed a more four Spirit than Mr. Eaxter and yet did he ever deny us to be Churches or call our Baptism a Counterfeit Pray take his Sentiments of us when in a coâ—l Spirit these are his words viz. That the Anaebaptists are godly Men that differ from us in a Point so difficult that many Papists and Prelatists have maintained that it is not determined in in the Scripture but dependeth upon Tradition of the Church and I know as good and sober Men of that Mind as of theiâ—s who are most against them c. And again he saith That Augustin and many Children of Christians were baptized at Age and that the Controversie is of so great Difficulty that if in all such Cases none that differ be tollerated we may not live together in the World or Church but endlesly excommunicate or persecute one another Baxter's Book Principle of Love page 7. But Mr. Shute hath appeared so bold and rash as if he had an infallible Spirit and seems to be so lifted up as if he hath done more in his short Tract than all those learned Men who have formerly and of late times asserted Pedo-baptism And that now we are totally confuted and We and our Cause of Believers Baptism gone for ever See his Title Page And in pag. 113. saith he Thus I have given you one Broad side more by which I have brought your whole Opinion by the Lee and all the Carpenters and Calkers in the Nation cannot save it from Sinking I wish he knew his own Spirit and Weakness better and not thus to admire what he hath done Doth he think there is none can answer his Arguments No saving our Baptism and Churches from sinking to the bottom which he hath so furiously attacked sad Case What could Goliah of Gath or proud Rabshaketh say more But he forgot the old Proverb Let not him boast that puts on his Armour as he that puts it off If I or my Reverend Brother Collins have in any Writings of Ours used hard Words we have cause to be troubled for the Truth never gained any thing that way 'T is not hard Words but hard Arguments that must do the Business A soft Answer as Solomon saith turneth away Wrath. I must say I had rather have to do with a Man that hath more Argument and less Confidence than I can find in his Writing or Spirit I am sorry he
had no better Counsel or followed no better Conduct at such an hour as this is it sure concerns us all to study the things that make for Peace and that by which we may edifie one another the Breach is too wide already O what want of Love is there in Christians to each other who are all Members of the Mystical Body of Christ and Children of one Father and Heirs of the same glorious Inheritance Sure we shall love one another when we come to Heaven and I hope His Reverend Pastor whom I have more cause both to love and honour than ten thousand Instructors in Christ he being the blessed Instrument in my Conversion all most forty Years ago gave no Encouragement to him thus to write and abuse his Brethren I would he had consider'd the Text He that hateth his Brother is in Darkness Joh. 2. 11. For my part I hope I can say I love them in whom I see the Image of God that differ from me in the like degree as those of mine own Opinion I am persuaded the want of Love to one another is one of the greatest Sins of this Age and that which is a high Provocation to God and if that which this Man hath done is a fruit of Love or tends to promote it I am mistaken True I have may be wrote as much of late as another on the Subject of Baptism but never without Provocation by means of divers Persons who have of late times wrote against us I have not begun the Controversie but have still been on the defensive Side nor can any justly blame us to clear our selves and defend that which we believe to be the Truth of Christ when urged to it As to his Answer to Mr. Collins he hath said something 't is true to one or two of his Arguments but the rest he has passed by in silence and left the chief Argumentive part in a great measure unanswered And as to his Reply to me I cannot see he hath said any thing that deserveth my notice at all but lest the easie unwary and prejudiced Reader should conclude he hath done Wonders should we aot return an Answer I have examined the stress of all that seems Argumentive which contains but a small part of his Book and having studied Moderation and Tenderness I hope it may tend to allay and quench the Fire of his Passion and bring him to a more moderate Temper However I shall leave it to the Blessing of God to dispose of the Issue of it as he shall seem good in his all-wise Providence and to help the Reader I have divided his Book into Chapters in my Answer and since he begins with the form or manner of baptizing there I shall begin also CHAP. I. Wherein it is proved That Baptism is not Sprinkling nor Pouring of Water on the Face nor Dipping of the Head only But that it is Dipping or Plunging of the whole Body under Water I Shall begin with Mr. Sbute's Fifth Page and shall shew him that he hath not yet buried Mr. Collins his answer but that it is still alive and as lively as it was before his pretended Answer came forth In pag. 6. he râ—cited what Mr. Cobins mentioned in the 2d page of his Reply to his Antidote viz. where Mr. Cobins says The right mode of Baptism is by Dipping To which Mr. Shute saith in p. 5. I think there is more to be said for Sprinkling or Pouring Water on the Face in Baptism than there is for Dipping or Ducking over Head and Ears in a River or Pond For the latter is more like a Punishment of Criminals than the Solemnizing of an Ordinance of God pray hear what the Scripture saith of Sprinkling and of Pouring Water upon Sinners to cleanse them Heb 12. 24 And to Jesus the Mediator of the New Covenant and to the Blood of Sprinkling c. â— Pet. 1. 2. Elect according to the Foreknowledge of God the Father through Sanctification of the Spirit unto Obedience and Sprinkling of the Blood of Jesus Christ. And Isa. 44 3. For I will pour Water upon him that is thirsty and Fâ—oods upon the dry Ground I will pour my Spirit upon thy Seed and my blessings upon thine Off-spring Ez â— 36. 25. Then will I sprinkle clâ—an Water upon you and ye shall be clâ—an from all your Filthiness and from all your â—â—ols wâ—â— I cleanse you Edâ—d 2â— 8. Here you see say you we do not read of Dipping nor Ducking in all those spiritual Metaphorical Baptisms which are all nearly reâ—ued unto the Ordinance of Baptism and tâ—nâ— to the fam thing but more effectually and perfectly and are accompanied with the same Promises namely the Remission of Sins Sanctification by the Spirit and the Gift of the Holy Ghost compared with Acts 2. 38 39. Answer 1. You might have added many other Places of Scripture where we read of Sprinkling But what would it signify the Sprinkling and Pouring mentioned in these Scriptures refer not to Water Baptism Read your learned Annotators and Expositors and you will find they agree as one Man That Sprinkling and Pouring of Water in Isaiah and Ezekiel c. do refer to the graci us Effusion of the Spirit in the Times of the Gospel and to the Purifying and Purging Vertue of the Blood of Christ and so that in Heb. 12 24. is to be understood you should not only say but prove Baptism to be here intended and then yoù had said something 2. Should the Sprinkling or Pouring in these Scriptures be meant of Baptism then it would follow that Baptism has mighty Vertue in it indeed even to wash away all Sin and Filthiness I thought nothing could cleanse from Sin out Christ's precious blood as it is applyed by the Spirit through Faith Baptism Peter tells you washes not away the Filthiness of the Flesh. Not the putting away of the Filthiness of the Flesh but the answer of a good Conscience towards God by the Resurrection of Jesus Christ 1 Pet. 3. 20. 3. If you should say Baptism is chiefly a Sign or lively Symbol of our being sprinkled with the Spirit or with the Blood of Jesus Christ we do deny it You have not attempted to prove it 't is evident Baptism is principally a Sign or Symbol of Christ's Death Burial and Resurrection see Rom. 6. 3 4. Col. 2. 12 13. compared with this in 1 Pet. 3. 20. which Sprinkling or Pouring cannot hold forth 4. But you intimate That these Spiritual Metaphorical Baptisms are nearly related to the Ordinance of Baptism I answer by pouring Floods of Water or by the great Effusion of the Spirit I deny not but the Baptism of the Spirit may be held forth and the Baptism of the Spirit signifies Immersion Ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost c. Acts 1. 5. The Greek Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 says Casaubon Is to Dip or Plunge in which Sense saith he the Apostles might be said to have been Baptized
Resurrection of our Saviour consists in dying to Sin and walking in newness of Life Which saith he St. Paul tells us is represented by the External ceremony of Baptism and rising out of his watry Grave a new creature Moreover unto these let me add what Dr. Tillotson the present Lord Arch-Bishop of Canterbury hath wrote see his Book stiled Sermons on several occasions 5th Edit Page 188 189. Speaking also of the same Text Rom. 6. 3 4. Antiently saith he those who were Baptised put off their garments which signified the putting off the Body of Sin and were immers'd and buried in the Water to represent the Death of Sin and then did rise up again out of the Water to signifie their entrance upon a new Life And to these customs the Apostle alludes when he says How shall we that are dead to Sin live any longer therein Know ye not that so many of us that were Baptized into Jesus Christ were Baptized into his Death c. Dr Duveil on Act. 8. Page 292 293. cites a most learned Anonimous French Protestant Writer in his answer to the famous Bishop of Meaux speaking thus viz. 't is most certain saith he that Baptism hath not hitherto been Administred otherwise than by sprinkling by the most of Protestants But truly this sprinkling is an abuse thus custom which without any accurate examination saith he they retained from the Romish Church in like manner as many other things makes their Baptism very defective it corrupteth its institution and ancient use and that nearness of similitude which is needful should be betwixt it and Faith repentance and resurrection This reflection of Mr. Bâ—ssuet deserveth to be seriously considered to wit saith he that this use of plunging hath continued for the space of a whole thousand and three hundred years hence we may understand that we did not carefully as it was meet examine things which we have received from the Romish Church Calvin also saith l. 4. c. 16. that Baptism is a form or way of burial and none but such as are already dead to sin or have repented from dead works are to be buried But now say we sprinkling and pouring is not the form of Baptism because not the form of a Burial nor can Infants be the subjects of it because as the learned observe Baptism is a Symbol of present not of future regeneration 't is an outward sign of that Death unto sin which the party Baptised passed under then or ought to have had before Baptis'd they then professed themselves to be Dead to sin i. e. when they were Buried with Christ in their Baptism for the argument of the Apostle lies in that respect How shall we that are Dead to sin live any longer therein know you not that so many of us who were Baptized into Christ were Baptized into his Death both in sign and signification And therefore as Dr. Sherlock says they rise out of that watry Grave as new born Creatures it denotes not only what they should be hereafter but what they were actually at that time So that as this Text and arguments drawn there from utterly condemn sprinkling and pouring as that which is not Christs true Baptism so it excludes Infants from being the true subjects thereof because in them appears no such Death to Sin nor can they be said to come out of that Watry Grave as new born Creatures I will only quote one Author more and proceed and that is learned Zanchy on Col. 2. 12. There are saith he two parts in regeneration i. e. Mortification and Vivification that is called a burial with Christ this a Resurrection with Christ the Sacrament of both these is Baptism in which we are overwhelmed or buried and after that do come forth and rise again It may not be said truly but sacramentally of all that are Baptised that they are buried wich Christ and raised with him but only of such who have true faith Thus Zanchy Now Sir see what a stir and pudder as you call it these Pedo-Paptists make on this Text Rom. 6. 3 4. Col. 2. 12. to prove Baptism is Dipping or a figure of a burial Would you not have us give the true sense of the Word wherein we concur with all learned Men I hope by this time Reader thou art fully satisfied that this Man hath said nothing to weaken our Arguments or Grounds for Dipping tho' ' twice as much we have said on this Account in that Treatise called The Rector Rectified but this shall suffice here as to the Mode of Baptizing CHAP. II. Wherein Mr. Shutes Reply to Mr. Hercules Collins Answer about habitual Faith is considered detected and clearly refuted proving that Infants are not required to believe nor are they without a miracle capable so to do nor are they intended in those places of Scripture that Enjoyns Faith on the Adult BEfore I proceed to take notice of what this Man hath said about Infants having habitual Faith I shall note two or three things by the Way 1. 'T is very remarkable and worthy the Readers observation to see how the asserters of Infant Baptism differ among themselves about that Faith they suppose to be in Infants for as I noted in by Answer to Mr. Smythies Cold resined Page 144 some of them as Thomas Aquinas asserts They have the Faith of the Church that being intailed upon all who are within the Pale thereof others say they have the Faith of the Gossips or Sureties thus the Church of England c. Musculus seems to assert they have an Imputed Faith Mr. Blake intimates They have a Dogmatical Faith only Mr. Baxter would have it be a saving Faith but does not tell us how it agrees or differs from the Faith of the Adult some as Mr. Danvers observes say 'T is a Physical some a Metaphysical Faith some a hyperphysical Faith Some say They are born Believers which proceeds from their Patents being in the Covenant and being Believers but this is to intail Grace to Nature and Regeneration to Generation nay and to assert all are not Children of Wrath by nature or as they are born and come into the World others say They are made Believers by Baptism that Ordinance conveying grace as Mr. Rothwell This Man asserts they have habitual Faith the like do the Athenian Society seem to intimate But which of all these shall we give credit to The Truth is they all speak without Book having no ground from Gods word to say what they do 2. We desire it may be considered and carefully heeded lest we still are abused as Mr. Collins hath been that we stedfastly believe and readlly grant it as an Article of our Faith That all Infants are under the Guilt and stain of original Sin as they come into the World and that no Infant can be saved but through the Blood and Imputation of Christs righteousness And also we do believe That all those dying Infants who are â—aved God doth in some way or
refers to the Act or exercise of Faith you may as well say the Jaylor had no more than the habit of Faith for read the words again viz. be rejoyced believing in God with all his House 6. If Infants believe they know the object of their Faith can any believe in him whom they know not Faith all Men I think agree has its Seat in the will and understanding the understanding is illuminated and sees the need necessity and excellency of Jesus Christ and so assents that he is the only Saviour as well as the Will consents bends and bows down in subjection to him And can any either young or old be said to be Believers or to have Faith and yet in them is nothing of this But say you Page 22. For as much as the Creature is wholly passive in the reception of grace and Christ is all in all from the foundation of Mans Salvation to the topstone therefore a young Child in the Womb or Cradle is as capable of being born again as well as an old one for both young and old are dead in sin and Trespasses before they are converted Answer You seem to refer to the Almighty power of God 'T is very true he can if he please infuse grace into a Babe in the Womb or Cradle nay of Stones raise up Children to Abraham but the question is not what God can do but what God doth do Though we do believe the creature is passive in the first reception of Grace yet how do you prove God doth regenerate Infants in the Womb or Cradle Gods Grace is infused into fit and proper subjects and tho the Grace by which we believe is from God yet 't is the Creature that doth believe Why do we say that Irrational creatures are not fit Soil for the Seed of the word is it not because they have no understanding and tho' Infants have rational Souls yet till they come to maturity they have no knowledg nor understanding the design of God in sowing the Seed or Habit of Grace is that the Fruits thereof may be produced and brought forth But you must say the Fruits of grace do not appear in Babes which is Love Joy Peace Longsuffering Gentleness Goodness Faith Meckness Temperance c. Gal. 5. 22. Nor is it possible it should without a Miracle Such as is the Cause such is the effect or product of it How God doth Sanctify dying Infants I speak as to the Mode of it no mortal Man I am sure can tell if it is by infusing Grace let it be so tho' it can't be proved whilst the World stands yet Gods design therein could not be the same in them as it is in others he expecteth no such fruit from them Nor can any Gospel ordinance be the right of such Infants nor any other without a precept or example from Gods word Baptism as you have heard is a significant ordinance 't is an outward sign of mortification of sin and of Vivification to a new life and â—aith is required in respect of the act of it touching the gracious promise of God made to all such who are the true subjects thereof see what Dr. Taylor Late Bishop of Down speaks about this notion of Infants having habitual faith viz. are there any Acts precedent concomitant or consequent to this pretended habit this strange invention is absolutely without Art without Scripture Reason or Authority And further saith he if any run for succour to that exploded Cresphuâ—eton that Infants have faith or any other inspired habit of I know not what or how we desire no more advantage than that they are constrained to answer without Revelation against reason common sense and all experience Again he saith how can any Man know they have faith since he never saw any sign of it neither was he told so by any that could tell Thus Dr. Taylor In Page 22. He strangely reflects upon Mr. Collins and endeavours to infer that from his Arguments which no way can in honesty be drawn therefrom viz. that the whole strength of his arguments against Infant Baptism naturally tends to the making Adult Believers the Authors of their own Faith and Eternal Salvation Answer Let all Men consider the nature of this Mans Spirit what little ground there is for this Conclusion will soon appear to all that read Mr. Collins arguments doth he deny the infusion of Sacred habits in Believers or that 't is not by the grace of God alone that they are quickened and regenerated because he knows not that Infants have the like Sacred habits infused into them We say the same with worthy Mr. Marshal in Page 78. of his Book which you recite in the 24th Page of yours viz. that Union between Christ and the Soul is fully accomplished by Christ giving the Spirit of Faith to us even before we can Act Faith in the reception of him because by this grace or Spirit of Faith the Soul is inclined to an active receiving of Christ. What of this tho' 't is thus in the Adult must this Spirit of Faith or the Habit of Faith be therefore in Infants of Relievers also Sir let me ask you two or three questions here before I leave this Is Regeneration in your Infants that are Regenerated the fruit or product of that Spirit of Faith or Habits which you plead for to be infused into them when Infants sure if they had any such Habits when Infants they need no other inspired Habits when they are grown up 2. I would know since you speak only of those habits to be in Believers Infants whether they were infused before they were born or after 3. Seeing some Infants of Infidels or Unbelievers may be elected nay and it appears to us by Gods working upon the Hearts of such when grown up that they were comprehended in his electing love had not they likewise when Infants habitual Faith and so an equal right to Baptism In Page 26 you say all the Seed of Believers under the Gospel do partake of all the benefite and priviledges of the Covenant of Grace as much as ever the Seed of professing Jews did under the Law Answer I say so too and more All our Children partake of greater benefits and priviledges of the Gospel of the New Covenant than theirs did of it under the Law as to outward dispensation and revelation when grown up set under the clear and plain Revelation and Ministration of it But of what this therefore say you they have as good a right to the initiating Seal or Token of the Covenant namely Baptism as ever the Jews Children had to the initiating Seal of the Covenant namely Circumcision Answer You go too fast how do you prove that Baptism is an initiating Seal of the Covenant some call it an initiating rite into the visible Church but is it indeed an Ordinance of initiation into the Covenant of Grace then your Infants are not in the Covenant before Baptized I know nothing to be the
5. Mâ—n Spiritual and savingly quickened from their Death in Sin and by the Holy Ghost whereof they are made partakers made a meet habitation for God Eph. 2. 21 22. 1 Cor. 3. 16. c. Page 106. Also see Reverend Mr. Cotton of New England on the Covenant speaking of the Ax being laid to the Root of the Trees Mat. 3. 9. Page 177 178. The first is saith he the Root of Abrahams Convenant which this People much trusted upon and that is that which John Baptist speaks of is the Ax laid to the Root of the Trees think not to say with in your selves we have Abraham to our Father vers 8. So that all their confidence they had in Abrahams Covenant Temple and Tabernacle and such things is burnt up and so they have no Root left them to stand upon But 2ly The Lord he saith hath cut us off from the righteousness of our Parents and from boasting of his Ordinances Again he saith it is spoken of the Ministry of John Baptist which did burn as an Oven and left them neither the Root of Abrahams Covenant nor the Branches of their own good works he cutteth them off from the Covenant of Abraham and so by cutting them off from the root he leaveth them no ground to trust to Page 21 22. you say the new creature in the Womb or in the Cradle is as perfect and compleat in all its lineaments as in the oldest Saint on Earth Page 40. c. Answer Sir do not mistake your self if Infants are any of them regenerated in the Womb then Regeneration in them is the first birth but Regeneration is a being born again or a second Generation which is wrought by the Holy Spirit therefore it can't proceed from believing Parents in any wise they can by their Faith contribute nothing to the second Birth Now shew at what time 't is that regeneration is wrought in your Infants O take heed for tho' God doth regenerate the Souls of dying Infants that are saved Yet what is this to the Infants of Believers as such Besides if John Baptist or Jeremiah the Prophet were Regenerated in the Womb or any other Infants then it would follow they were not born Children of wrath as others Nor could their Regeneration be called a being born again as I hinted before but their first Birth must be so called You I see apply those Scriptures where our Lord Jesus Speaks of the Adult to Infants as that Mark 16. 16. John 3. 3. So that Infants by your notion are required to believe and to be born again nay you in Page 24 25 Châ—llenge Mr. Collins in the name of the Lord to produce â—at one Text of Scripture that dâ—â—h discover any other way or means wherein God hath ordained and appointed to save Elect. dying Infants in differing in any point or part of it from that wherein he saves Adult believers Again in Page 19. say you where will you find two ways for the saving Elect Persons c. Answer As to the way of Salvation 't is we gâ—ant but one viz. Christ is the way nor is there Salvation in any other But the mode or manner may differ about the Application or means of that one way in some points as may appear to all viz. 1. The Adult except Ideots are not saved without the Act and exercise of Faith dying Infants are 2ly The Adult are not saved without actual repentance but dying Infants are 3ly The Adult are not saved without Mortification of Sin taking up the Cross and following of Christ. But Infants are saved without any of these or any other Sacred Acts of obedience whatsoever and yet will you say the way as to the Mode or manner of the Salvation of dying Infants differs in no one point from Adult persons How will you prove that 't is the habit of Faith and not the Act of Faith that applies Christs merits and Righteousness to the Soul in adult persons is it not from the habit the Soul is enabled to believe and say hold on Christ and is it not thus that Christ saves the Adult and doth he just so and in the same mode or manner save dying Infants As to the producing one Text in the Case I say the Holy Ghost is wholly silent as touching the way or manner of the application of Christs merits to dying Infants or how their sinful natures are sanctified yet that the modes differ in many respects as I have shewed is evident As to what you say in Page 4â— I ask how do you knâ—â— but that some of the dying Infants of â—fiâ—â—ls may be elected as well as some Infants of believers and so in as good a condition â—â—y â—â—w 〈◊〉 on know but that all Infants dying in Infancy may be elected sure I am naturally all are born in â—in and I know no difference in that respect nor is there any when grown up till grace is infused ' 〈…〉 e and not the natural Birth that makes any difference between the Children of Believers and the Children of unbelievers and I do affirm till Children have actual Faith or do believe and repent they have no right to the Ordinance of Baptism nor have you proved the contrary nor ever will The Church of England acknowledg the same viz. that Infants are not able to perform Faith and Repentance the two great prerequisits of Baptism by reason of their tender age therefore they have found out sureties to ingage for them In Page 57. you greatly abuse Mr. Collins in saying that he allows not Elect dying Infants to be in the Covenant of Grace Doth it follow because he denies the Infants of believers as such to be in the Covenant of grace therefore he denies elect Infants to be in the Covenant of Grace Sir you ought not to bear false witness against your neighbour as you have done he will tell you and hath told you that all that are saved are in the Covenant of Grace Reader Pray note how disengenuous this Man seems to be and how he hath strangely encumbred the present controversie in talk of habitual grace in dying Infants for what is that to the purpose since he refers not to such Infants of believers that live he himself acknowledges that all their Infants who live have not the habit of Faith Nor can he prove any of them have it or such that die either therefore unless no other but dying Infants were baptized by the Pedo Baptists this can no ways concern the controversie 2. Consider that since those supposed habits in Infants of believers do not appear to us nor do we know which they are what ground it there to Baptise any of them For what appears not is not as to us Shouâ—d we Baptise any Adult persons in whom no Fruit Sign or demonstration of Faith appears than what appears in Infants certainly we should be worthy of the greatest blame imaginable For 't is evident that in all whosoever that are the true subjects of
mayest not meet with them I shall give thee here the heads or sum of them as followeth see Page 18. 1. Part. Arg. 1. Because the Law or Covenant of circumcision was made as to the design and end of it to separate the natural Seed of Abraham in their national Church state from all other Nations and to give them the Land of Canaan so that they might not mixt themselves with the Heathen 1. Will any say the Gospel Covenant or any precept of it in the end and design of it is institured to separate all believers and their fleshy Seed as a national Church from all other People in the World if this be so farewel to all Spiritual incorporated congregations of Christians See Dr. Owen 2. Doth any Gospel ordinance assure us and our Children of the Land of Canaan or any worldly and earthly Blessings or is not the new Covenant established upon better promises Arg. 2. Because some who were not in the Covenant of promise had a positive right to and where commanded of God to be circumcised as Ishmael Esau c. and all the Male-Children tho' wicked Mens Children that sprung from Isaac in their generations c. also some of Abrahams Spiritual Seed were not to be circumcised nor had they any right there too 1. As all his Male-Children who died before eight days old 2. All his Females who were elected persons and some others who lived in Abrahams Days as Melchisedeck and Lot c. Arg. 3. Because some of Abrahams natural Seed to whom circumcision did belong were nevertheless denied Gospel Baptism tho' their plea was Abraham is our Father 1. From hence it follows circumcision was no Gospel Law for that which gave right to circumcision was not sufficient to give right to Gospel Baptism 2. It also appears that the Covenant of Grace was not the adequate reason of circumcision but the mere positive command of God to Abraham So that if they could prove the Children of believers in the Covenant of Grace it would nevertheless be no argument to Baptise them unless they had a command or ground from Christ so to do For the Covenant God made with Abraham speaks nothing of Baptism And had not our Blessed Saviour given it forth as an instistution of the Gospel we had never heard of it nor known it had been a duty or ordinance should we have read the Covenant made with Abraham a thousand times over Therefore if all they say about the Infant Seed of Believers as such should be granted being in the Covenant of Grace that God made with Abraham which cannot yet it would not follow from thence Infants ought to be Baptized for none ought to be Baptized but such that Christ's Commission and positive command doth authorize so to be which are none but those who by preaching and the working of the Holy Ghost are made Disciples or do believe and make a confession of their Faith in maters of mere positively right We must always keep to the direct will and words of the Law-giver like as Abraham did in circumcision No adding nor altering no pleading for Females to be circumcised if Males only are expressed in the institution of it Arg. 4. Circumcision could not be a Gospel rite because all in the Gospel Church 't is expresly said shall know the Lord Jer. 31. 31. And shall not need to be taught to know him Now under the old Legal Covenant Infants were admitted Members of the Jewish Church who did not know the Lord but had need when grown up to understanding to be taught to know him in this the old Covenant differs from the new and old Church Membership from new Church Membership for our Children before admitted into Gods Church must know the Lord we and they too must believe or be made Disciples by teaching we must know Christ or fix our Faith on him in saving knowledg which Infants cannot do To the last of these arguments he seems to say some thing see Page 119. where he cites these words out of my Sermons Page 21. viz. in the old Covenant Infants were Members who did when taken into that Covenant and made members of that Legal Church not know the Lord. Mr. Shute says here I mention but one Covenant and acknowledg Infants were in that one Covenant So that he hath confused himself and let him or any of their opinion prove by Scripture God did â—ast young Infants out of that one Covenant he hath destroyed his two Covenants by thus contradicting himself a Man under his circumstances had need to have a good Memory Answer That Covenant which I mention was I tell you the Legal Covenant that God made with the whole Church and House of Israel and how do I contradict my self Infants I own were Members of the Jewish Church and doth not the Scripture say cast out the Bond woman and her Son c. is not the old Covenant the Jewish Covenant gone did not God take away the first that he might establish the second what Covenant is that which the Apostle says is took away and difanulled 't is not you will say the Covenant of Grace I also ask you whether the Jewish Church that was founded upon that Old Covenant is not gone and dissolved if so what doth your arguing prove nor is there a new Gospel national Church like the Church of the Jews instituted in the room of the old since you plead for Infants Church-membership you must come to the new and last Will and Testament if Christ hath not willed Infants their right to Baptism and Church-membership in the Gospel they can't have it by the former Testament which is disannulled Tou ask if faith and repentance was not required under the Law Page 119. I answer Not to make any Members of the Jewish Church you are in Page 120. 121. c. upon your old argument that both young and old Infants and the Adult are saved by faith We have answered that already Such that can believe that Infants do believe or know the Lord let them I believe it not nor can he nor all the Men of the World prove it I shall repeat the substance of my other arguments to prove that circumcision did not appertain to the Covenant of Grace Arg. 5. Because the Terms of it runs according to the Sinai Covenant which is said not to be of Faith But the Man that doth these things shall live in them Gal. 3. 22. Life was promised to their obedience death threatned to their disobedience The promises were earthly c. and thus runs the Covenant of circumcision Gen. 17. 9 10. Thou shalt keep my Covenant c. and I will give to thee and to thy Seed after thee the Land of Canaan And the uncircumcised Man-Child whose Flesh of his Fore-â—â—in is not circumcised that Soul shall be cut off c. vers 14. 6. The covenant of circumcision was of the Letter and not of the Spirit that is of the Law
they are not able to help him c. Doth Mr. Collins question Gods power or intimate God cannot work without help of the Creature 2. That he doth tacitly declare that God is not able to make them capable of the Reception of Grace Because they are not of years to exercise iâ— as if Mr Collins did not know God was infinite in power 3. That Adult persons do qualifie themselves for the reception of Grace or at leastwise are Copartners with the Spirit of Grace in the working of it 4. If this be so saith he then it is not Gods Grace but Mans work c. Which are all false Conclusions and great abuses cast on Mr. Collins and no ways to be inferred from his positions In Page 73. he renders the Baptists to be cunning deceivers take his words i. e. I am not saith he all together ignorant of their devices and stratagems by which they uphold their opinion in which their Principles are enveloped and lie Dormant In Page 115. he says Benjamine Keach doth reckon Abraham of greater antiquity than Christ. Answer This is a false charge likewise and no such consequence can be gathered from my words to which he refers as my Answer shews in this reply In Page 126. he saith this Author is for the saving Elect Dying Infants by some other Covenant and not by the Covenant of Grace Answer This is also false and a great abuse for I no where hint any such thing but say 't is impossible any Infant or Adult Person either should be saved by any other Covenant but that tho' I say they may be saved and not be Members of the visible Church as some Infants were before God made known the Covenant of circumcision and set up the legal Church of Israel In Page 134. he calls our Doctrin a fallacious Doctrin and knows not which to wonder at most viz. our boldness and confidence Or our Peoples ignorance to be so horribly deluded and imposed upon What Enemy could reproach us worse In Page 113. saith he Thus I have given you one broad side more by which I have brought your opinion by the Lee and all the Carpenters and Calkers in the Nation cannot save it from sinking Answer Friend you mistake our cause and opinion is an firm and as sound as ever and needs no Carpenters nor Calkers to mend those Breaches you have made In Page 140. he says Thus you see the Covenant God made with Abraham and all his Seed both Spiritual and Carnal stands fact and firm to Gospel Believers and all their Seed both Spiritual and Carnal notwithstanding Hercules with his Club and Benjamin hewed it with his broad Ax they cannot destroy it because it is an everlasting Covenant 1. Answer Are these Savoury expressions my Ax Friend is Gods word the Title of that Book was the words of the Text viz. the Ax laid at the Root and this Ax will cut down all your Thorns and Briers do what you can 2. How he hath proved that Covenant God made with Abraham and his Carnal Seed as such doth remain let the Reader now Judg. 3 How came if this be so Abraham's natural Seed to be unchurched as he himself confesses in Page 37. nay that they unchurched themselves In his Postscript Page 190. he says tho he has thus written concerning the Anabaptists and proved their Congregations to be no Churches and their Baptism to be a counterfeit and their Opinion Sacrilegious in that they Rob the Church of her treasure c. These are very hard words and also false for he has not done what he says and never will nor can he do it An Account of some of Mr. Shute's Impertinences Inconsistences and Self-contradictions IN the last place take a few of his Impertinences c. In Page 49. If you can prove saith he by plain Scripture Testimony that ever Christ or any of his Apostles c. did forbid the Baptising the infant Seed of Believers c. Answer Now how impertinent is this Where did Christ forbid Infants of Believers the Lords Supper and indeed they may have that as well as Baptism and the first Fathers that established Infant Baptism gave them the Lords Supper also 2. Where is crossing in Baptism forbid or Popists Salt Spittle or Crisom or other Popish rites These in plain words are not forbid are they therefore lawful If Christ would have them to be Baptized it would have been expressed in the affirmative and is this horribly to impose our own uncouth notions as you affirm in the said 49. Page of your Book Where hath Christ forbid Baptizing of Turks and Insidels or the Children of unbelievers In Page 98. he says the Church of the Jews was not a legal Church take his words viz. the Church of God under the Mosaick Law was not a Carnal legal Church Strange contradiction What a Church under the Law and not a legal Church he may as well say the Church of God under the Gospel is not a Gospel Church In Page 97. he distinguishes not on the Covenant made with Abraham but positively asserts that off from that Covenant God made with Abraham viz. The Covenant of Grace some of the natural Branches were broken yet in contradiction to this he shews in Page 74. from Psa. 89. That the Covenant of Grace is firm and abideth for ever and else where shews that there 's no final falling from grace all those therefore say I that are in that Covenant cannot fail of Salvation therefore those Branches never were in the Covenant of Grace In Page 25. he says God saves Elect dying Infants in no ways or means differing in any one point or part from that wherein he saves Adult believers Yet in Page 65. he owns Infants cannot exercise grace in an ordinary way and that nothing is required of them personally but passive Obedience Is nothing required say I of Adult believers but passive Obedience If there is then the way or mode of Gods saving dying Infants differs in some part or point from the way or means of saving the Adult and clear it is that more than passive obedience is required of Adult persons One while he says all Abrahams Seed are in the Covenant of Grace God made with him and he denies final falling out of that Covenant yet in Page 12. he says one of Abrahams Sons or Seed is praying to him in Hell And to be Abrahams Seed will not serve their turn He is for a Congregational Church and yet in Page 34. Speaking of the Gospel Church he says all the Seed of believers are Members as much now as the Jewish Children were under the Law And that it is the same Church State tho' in another dress and denys the dissolution of the Jewish Church Page 35. Can a natural Church consisting of whole Parishes Families and Provinces be all one with Gospel Congregational Churches of believers only Why did this Man leave the Church of England also then the Jewish
now than ever we were and we did and do believe that those who preach the Gospel ought to live of the Gospel He renders Mr. Collins no better than a Jesuite take his words this Man hath confidence and deceit enough to make a swinging Jesuite c. Page 16. Again he says This deceitful Man hides the Sense and meaning of them from the World Doth not this saviour of great malice Page 16. He says Infants have Faith yetin Page 10. of his Book he asketh what personal Faith a Child is capable of acting in an ordinary way or what good Fruit such Children are capable to bring forth 1. In Page 8. he renders those false Teachers who say that the Covenant God made with Abraham is repealed viz. the Covenant of circumcision he may see that we deny that the promise or Covenant of Grace God made with Abraham is repealed tho' we say the Covenant of circumcision God made with him is repealed 2. Such he says are false Teachers who say the Church State under the Law was Carnal 3. Such as deride and Scoff at habitual Faith in dying Infants Mr. Collins owns not such Faith to be in Infants is he therefore a false Teacher But how does he prove he derides or Scoffs c. 4. Such who take upon them the Work of the Ministry without Gods Call or being gifted or qualified he says are false Teachers Such we grant are not true Ministers but doth not he think you refer to such who were not trained up in School Learning I doubt not but our call from God to the Ministry is as good as others have tho' may be not every ways so well qualified as we ought yet humane learning is no qualification left by the Holy Spirit in the Scripture In Page 7. he says In this Authors former Book he hath by excluding Infants from Baptism exclud them from Eternal Life and Salvation dying in their Infancy How false that is let all Men Judg who have read Mr. Collins Book he refers unto Page 41. In Page 10. he says How wilfully blind and dishonest are you thus falsly to quote my words I can see no reason for those Unchristian expressions in Page 11. he says I suppose he means a long White Shift as if we Baptized Persons in a White Shift What sport is here for the Enemies of Religion Tho' I deny that Women were Baptized in that undecent immodest shameful way and manner saith he He means by Dipping the whole Body God saith he never appointed an ordinance to draw out and gratifie Mens lusts Page 11. O see what contempt he doth cast upon that way of Baptising which all Christians used for many hundred of years in the Church and which Christ appointed to the end of the World You represent to the World as if our way of Baptising were immodest and done not as comely or of good Report for this you are to be accountable to the most high God Friend if you please to come and see our Order in the Administration of that Ordinance I doubt not but you will be convinced of your Error and be forc'd to say That the Subject goeth with more Sobriety and Modesty to the Sacrament of Baptism than thousands do to the hearing of Gods Word or to the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper In Page 12. Therefore saith he there is no more work for the Club nor the Ax you may lay them by as useless or hang them up in Merchant Taylors Hall You may know what he intends and is not this like those who said is not this the Carpenter c. see what a strange Prayer he makes in Page 15 Where he pleads his Innocency God is a gracious God and I think the Man is acted in Zeal but not according to knowledg in Page 11. he says Our Author hath Coined a brand new Epithet to cover that unseemly Luxurious way of tripping and Dipping Women c. In Page 18. he would suggest that Mr. Collins is possessed with a Devil People say there is a Maid saith he possessed in Wapping for my part I think there is a Man possâ—ssâ—d also hard words In Page 20. he boasts as if Anabaptism it self hath resigned up the Ghost and this may serve for its Funeral Sermon In Page 21. he breaks out I cannot tell what to think of this Man meaning Mr. Collins That should dare to have the confidence as to put out such scuâ—rilous abominable false and scandalous things Friend what shall we think of you and your Papers In Page 23. he renders the answering Books that are put out against Infant Baptism a raking in Dunghils and therefore such a one as he he thinks is fit to do it In Page 191. of this last Book he says that they meaning the Independant Congregations are not true Churches or else we are not I know no reason for this for I doubt not but they are true Churches as well as we they being godly Christians tho' I do believe they may be less compleat Churches Then those who are Baptized upon the profession of Faith or not so orderly in their constitution besides they have received as we Judge a Tradition of Man in the stead of Christs Institution This man says he can have Communion with those of our opinion yet says our Baptism is a counterfeit and we guilty of Sacriledge Page 190. But Friend I see not how they can have Communion with you without repentance considering all the hard words uttered by you You know who saith Men must give an account of all their hard Speeches c. God grant those I have mentioned and these following may not be laid to your charge calling our Baptism a mock Baptism and us diving Anticovenanters preaching without a call suggesting as if under Diabolical possession calling Jesuite swinging Jesuite calling Dipping which was the Apostolical way of Baptising more like a punishment of criminals c. Asserting that we make no better of Infants than Dogs calling our Doctrin Mountebank c. and a Minister a C C by which 't is concluded you intend Coxcomb asserting we have crasty positions uncouth glosses that we mince and limit the fundamental Doctrin of Mans Salvation To conclude let the Reader take notice of this viz. Were it not more for the Honour of God and Love to Truth I had not concerned my self with so linâ—le an Antagoniâ—â— as this is â— and in reproach call some Arminians Sacinians others gone back to Judaism some gormandisers feasting on Legs of Muiton in some places reflecting on Mens honest callings God by his providence called them once unto that our Doctrin damns Infants c. whether these Speeches he ought not publickly to acknowledg as evil Is not this as bad as to call his Brother Raca i. e. a vain person in anger or malice Cant Men write upon controversible points without such bitterness and reviling language I desire Friend you would go to God in Prayer and intreat for pardon
Command from God so to do as Abraham had This being true it follows that if we should grant Infants of believing Gentiles as such were the Seed of Abraham which we deny yet unless God had commanded them to baptize their Children they ought not to do it and if they do it without a Command or Authority from Christ it will be found an Act of Will-Worship in them Arg. 19. All that were baptized in the Apostolical Primitive Times were baptized upon the Profession of Faith were baptized into Christ and thereby put on Christ and were all one in Christ Jesus and were Abraham's Seed and Heirs according to Promise But Infants as such who are baptized were not baptized upon the Profession of their Faith nor did they put on Christ thereby nor are they all one in Christ Jesus also are not Abraham's Seed and Heirs according to Promise Ergo Infants ought not to be baptized Mr. Baxter confirms the Substance of the Major These are his very Words â— â— As many as have been baptized â—ivâ— put on Christ and are all one in Christ Jesus and are Abraham's Seed and Heirs according to the Promisâ— Gal. 3. 27 28 20. This speaks the Apostle saith he of the Probability grounded on a credible Profession c. Baxter's Confirm Reconcil pag. 32. The Minor will stand firm till any can prove Infants by a visible Profession have put on Christ are all one in Christ Jesus are Abraham's Seed and Heirs according to Promise Evident it is none are the spiritual Seed of Abraham but such who have the Faith of Abraham and are truly grafted into Christ by a Saving-Faith If any object We read of some who were baptized who had no Saving-Faith but were Hypocrites I answer Had they appeared to be such they had not been baptized nor had they a true Right thereto Arg. 20. Baptism is the solemnizing of the Souls Marriage-Union with Christ which Marriage-Contract absolutely requires an actual Profession of consent Infants are not capable to enter into a Marriage-Union with Christ noâ— to make a Profession of Consent Ergo Infants ought not to be baptized The Major our Opposits generally grant particularly see what Mr. Baxter saith Our Baptism is the solemniâ—ing of our Marriage with Christ. These are his Words p. 32. The Minor none can deny No Man sure in his right Mind will assert that little Babes are capable to enter into a Marriage-Relation with Christ and to make a Profession of a Consent And the Truth is he in the next Words gives away his Cause viz. And 't is saith he a new and strange kind of Marriage where there is no Profession of Consent p. 32. How unhappy was this Man to plead for such a nâ—w and strange kind of Marriage Did he find any little Babe he ever baptized or rather rantizeâ— to make a Profession of Consent to be married to Jesus Christ. If any should object he speaks of the Baptism of the Adult I answer his Words are these ` Our Baptism is c. Besides will any Pedo-Baptist say that the Baptism of the Adult is the solemnizing of the Souls Marriage with Christ and not the Baptism of Infants Reader observe how our Opposits are forced sometimes to speak the Truth â—â—ough it overthrows their own Practice of Pedo-Baptism Arg. 21. If the Sins of no Persons are forgiven them till they are converted then they must not be baptized for the Forgiveness of them till they proâ—ess themselves to be converted but the Sins of no Persons are forgiven them till they are converted Ergo No Person ought to be baptized for the Forgiveness of them till they proâ—ess they are converted Mr. Baxter in the said Treatise lays down the Substance of this Argument also take his own Words i. e. As their Sins are not forgiven them till they are converted Mark 4. 12. so they must not be baptized for the Forgiveness of them till they proâ—ess themselves converted seeing to the Church non esse and non-appareâ—â— is all one Repentance towards God and Faith towards our Lord Jesus is the Sum of that Preaching that makes Disciples Acts 20. 21. Therefore saith he both these must by a Profession seem to be received before any at Age are baptized p. 30. 31. And evident it is say I from hence none but such at Age ought to be baptized Philip caused the Eâ—â—ugh to profess before he would baptize him that he believed that Jesus Christ is the Son of God Saul had also saith he more than a bare Profession before Baptism Acts 9. 5 15 17. p. 28. The Promise it self saith he doth expresly require a Faith of our own of all the Adult that will have part in the Priviledges therefore there is a Faith of our own that is the Condition of our Title Mâ—â—k 16. 16. p. 16. He might have added by the Foâ—â—â— of his Argument therefore Infants should not have the Priviledges for â— argue thus 〈…〉 Arg. 2â— If there is but one Baptism of Water leâ—t by Jesus Christ in the New Testament and but one Condition or Manner of Right thereto and that one Baptism is that of the Adult then Infant-Baptism is no Baptism of Christ. But there is but one Baptism in Water lest by Christ in the New Testament and but one Condition and Manner of Right thereto and that one Baptism is that of the Adult Ergo infant-Infant-Baptism is no Baptism of Christ. Mr. Baxter saith Faith and Repentance is the Condition of the Adult and as to any other Condition I am sure the Scripture is silent the Way of the Lord is one one Lord one Faith one Baptism Ephes. 4. 4. If Profession of Faith were not necessary saith Mr. Baxter coram Ecclesiâ to Church-Membership and Priviledges then Infidels and Heathens would have Right also saith he the Church and the World would be consounded He might have added but Infidels and Heathens have no Right to Church-Membership c. Ergo 'T is a granted Case among all Christians saith he that Profession is thus necessary the Apostles and Ancient Church admitted none without it pag. 2â— And if so why dare any now a days admit of Infants who are capable to make no Profession He adds Yâ—â— Christ in his Commission directeth his Apostles to make Disciples and tâ—en baptize them promising He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved Mark 16. 16. pag. 27. Furthermore he saith Iâ— as many as are baptized into Christ are baptized into his Death and are buried with him by Baptism into Death that like as Christ was raised from the Dead so we also should walk in Newness of Life c. Then no doubt saith he but such as were to be baptized did first profess this Mortification and a Consent to be buried c. Iâ— our Baptism we put off the Body of the Sins of the Flesh by the Circumcision of Christ being buried with him and raised with him through Faith quickned with him and having all our
Trespasses forgiven Col. 2. 11 12 13. And will any Man says he yeâ— will Paul ascribe all this to those that did not so much as profess the things signified Will Baptism in the Judgment of a wise Man do all this for an Infidel or say I for an Inâ—â—nt that cannot make a Profession that he is a Christian pag. 31 32. He proceeds Arg. 23. The Baptized are in 〈…〉 called Men washed sanctified justified they are called Saints and Churches of Saints 1 Cor. 1 2. all Christians-are sanctified oâ—â—eâ— pag. 33. Now let me add the Minor But Infants baptized are not in Scripture called Men washed sanctified justified they are not called Saints Churches of Saints Christians nor sanctified ones Ergo Infanâ—s ought not to be baptized If any should say why did you not cite these Assertions of Mr. Bâ—â—tn's whilst he was living I answer More then twelve Years ago I did recite and print these Assertions and many other Arguments of his to the same Purpose â—o which he gave no Answer Arg. 24. If there is but â—ne way for all both Parents and Children to be adâ—iâ—â—â—d into the Gospel-Church to the End of the World and that it is upon the Profession of Faith to be baptized then both Parâ—â—â—s and Children must upon the Profession of their Faith be baptized and so admitted c. But there is but one way for all boâ—â— Paâ—eâ—â—â— and Children to be admitted into the Gospel-Church to the End of the World and that is upon the Profession of their Faith to be baptized Ergo. Arg. 25. That cannot be Christ's true Baptism wherein there is not 〈…〉 â—e â— lively Representation of the Death Burial and Resurrection of Jesus Christ together with our Death 〈◊〉 Sâ—â— and V 〈…〉 tion to a new Life But in the Baptizing or Sprinkling of an Infant there is not cannot be a lively Representation of Christ's Death Burial and Resurrection c. Ergo. Arg. 26. That pretended Baptism that tends to 〈…〉 the glorious 〈◊〉 and Design of Christ in his 〈…〉 of Gospel Baptism or cannot answer it is none of Christ's Baptism But the pretended Baptism of Infants â—enâ—â— to 〈…〉 the glorious end and design of Christ 〈…〉 of Gospel Baptism Ergo. The Mâ—â—â—â— will now 〈…〉 As to the M 〈…〉 all generally conâ—â—â—â— the End or Design of Christ i◠〈…〉 the Ordinance of Baptism was in a lively Figâ—â—e to represâ—â—â— his Death Burial and Resurrection with the Person 's Death unto Sin and his rising again to walk in newness of Life that is baptized as the Sacrament of the Supper was ordained to represent his Body was broke and his Blood was shed But that a liverly Figure of Christ's Death Burial and Resurrection appears in sprinkling a little Water on the Face I see not and as done to an Infant there can no Death to Sin and rising again to walk in newness of lâ—â—e be signified And therefore-Christ's Design and End therein is frustrated Arg. 27. If Baptism be Immersion as to the proper and genuine signification of the word Baptizo as also of those Typical and Metaphorical Baptisms and the spiritual Signification thereof then Sprinkling cannot be Christ's true Baptism But Immersion is the proper and genuine signification of the word Baptizo and also of those Typical and Metaphorical Baptisms spoken of and the spiritual Signification thereof Ergo Sprinkling is not Christ's true Baptism 1. That the proper and genuine Signification of the word Baptizo is Immersion or to â—ip c. we have proved which is also confessed by the Learned in that Language 2. The Figurative Baptism was 1st That of the Red Sea wherein the Fathers were buried as it were unto Moses in the Sea and under the Cloud Pools Annotations on 1 Cor. 10. 2. Others saith he more probably think that the Apostle useth this term in regard of the great Analogy betwixt Baptism as it was then used the Persons going down into the Waters and being dipped in them and the Israelites going down into the Sea the great Receptacle of Water though the Water at that time was gathered on Heaps on either side of them yet they seemed buried in the Water as Persons in that Age were when they were baptized c. The 2d was that of Noah's Ark. See Sir Norton Knatchbull The Ark of Noah and Baptism saith be were both a Type and Figure of the Resurrection not the Sign of the washing away of Sin though so taken metonymically but a particular Signal of the Resurrection of Christ of this Baptism is a lively and emphatical Figure as also was the Ark of Noah out of which he returned as from a Sepulchre to a new Life 3. Metaphorical Baptism is that of the Spirit and of Affliction the first signifies not a sprinkling of the Spirit but the great Effusion of the Spirit like that at Pentecost Acts 1. 4 5. Shall be baptized c. on which Words Casaubon speaks thus See Dr. Duveil on Acts 2. The Greek Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to dip or plunge as it were to die Colours in which Sense saith he the Apostles might be truly said to have been baptized for the House in which this was done was filled with the Holy Ghost so that the Apostles might seem to have been plunged into it as in a large Fish-Pond Also Oecumenius on Acts 2. saith A Wind filled the whole House that it seemed like a Fish-Pond because it was promised to the Apostles that they should be baptized with the Holy Ghost And the Baptism of Affliction are those great depths or overwhelmings of Afflictions like that of our Saviour's suffering i. e. no part free Matth. 20. 22. where you have the same Greed Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and like that of David who saith God drew him out of great Waters 4. The spiritual Signification thereof is the Death Burial and Resurrection of Christ and of our Death to Sin and Vivification to a new Life This being so it follows undeniably Sprinkling cannot be Christ's true Baptism it must be Immersion and nothing else And in the last Place Finally To confirm that Baptizo is to dip both from the literal and spiritual Signification thereof as also from those typical and metaphorical Baptisms mentioned in the Scripture I might add further that this evidently appears from the Practice of John Baptist and the Apostles of Christ who baptized in Riuers and where there was much Water and also because the Baptizer and Baptized are said to go down into the Water not down to the Water and came up out of the Water John Baptist is said to baptize them into Jordan as the Greek Word renders it which shews it dipping and not sprinkling Would it be proper to say He sprinkled them into Jordan The Lord open the Eyes of those who see not to consider these things FINIS
believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved and thy House and they spake unto him and to all that were in his House vers 32. And he took them the same hour of the Night and washed their Stripes and was Baptized â—e and all his straight way Now from these words Mr. Shute affirms that they were all Baptized in his House that is in the Jaylors House 2. That they were Baptized the same hour of the Night 3. That they did not go out of the House to a River If you can see these three Things in these Verses you have better Eyes than I have As to what was done the same hour of the Night 't is directly in plain words asserted viz. He washed their Stripes As to the time when Baptized it is said Straight way If you will have the same Hour and Straight way to intend both the washing their Stripes and their being Baptized it is more than can be gathered therefrom but if that be granted might they not in that hour go a little way out of the House and be Baptized 't is evident he abuses the Sacred Text. 4. What reason hath he also to affirm that none believed but the Jaylor himself for so he asserts These are his words Page 7. We do not read of any one Soul of them that did believe besides the Jaylor himself before they were Baptized nor of any one act of Faith they exerted 1. Answer We do read in vers 34. And when he had brought them into his House he set Meat before them and rejoyced believing in God with all his House 2. He will say may be this was after they were Baptized I answer we read not one word of the Jaylors believing himself tell then I mean tho' he believed before and all his House believed before either were Baptized yet 't is not expressed by the Holy Ghost until after they had been Baptized and were come into his House and he set Meat before them believing in God with all his House So that here is as much mention made of that act of Faith his whole House exerted as of the Jaylors own Faith and as soon also 3. And is it not evident likewise that they were before out of the Jaylors House else why is it said when he had brought them into his House c. that is after they were Baptised take heed how you write at another time lest you provoke God by adding and diminishing from his Sacred Word In Page 12 you say you believe that there were more modes in Baptism than one for some went down into the Water and others were Baptised in their Houses but say you I understand not that any were Ducked all under Water it is possible their Faces might be Dipped without Plunging the whole Body under Water or by pouring Water on their Faces 1. Answer That which you again assert I again affirm is not true viz. That some were Baptised in their Houses what you have said of the Jaylors being Baptised in his own House all may see is without Book and without the least shadow of proof nor do you nor can you prove it of any other 2. If there were more modes of Baptism than one then there were different significations of the same ordinance and all of them could not be held forth in the Baptism of each person for such that were Dipped tho' it was but the Head only were taught the proper Mysteries represented thereby and those that were sprinkled only with Water or had Water poured upon them were taught the proper Symbols or signification of that mode but how absur'd that would be I leave to all impartial wise Men to consider 3. And if this was so how then was the way and ordinance of God in their Holy administration one and the same in all the Churches of the Saints you may as well say the modes of the Administration of the Lords Supper were more than one and so allow of the Popish mode therein who deny the Laiâ—y the Cup. Is this to make the Holy God a God of order or of confusion 4. If Dipping was one mode and Sprinkling another then would Baptism and Rantism be both ordinances of Christ ask the learned what the word for Sprinkling is in the Greek Tongue and if they do not tell you if they speak the truth 't is Rantising I will confess I have in this done you wrong and mistook my self But we deny Sprinkling is Baptism for Dipping of the whole Body is an essential not an accident of Baptism Baptism is compared to a burial that 's clear from Rom. 6. 3 4. as it is confessed by a multitude of learned Men who were Pedo Baptists as you shall hear anon Now will you say if the Face or Head only of a Dead Corps was covered with Earth and not the whole Body that the Corps was buried if you should would you not be laught at Our Saviour was buried not his Head only but his whole Body also in the Heart of the Earth and he whose whole Body is not covered all over in the Earth is not buried no more is he whose whole Body is not covered all over in the Water-Baptised Baptism is a lively Figure of the Burial of our Blessed Lord and of our Death to Sin and being Buried with him both in Sign and signification In Page 12. say you produce one positive command or example to prove that ever any Woman went down into a River or Pond to be Dipped or Ducked all under Water in Baptism throughout the Book of God or else take your human invention to your self these are your words Answer If we prove that a Woman by name was Baptized then we prove a Woman was Dipped because Baptized in Greek is Dipped in English and the Dutch as I have elsewhere shewed have so Translated the Word viz. Dooped or Dipped in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost Now in Act. 16. we read of Lydia who was Baptized that is Dipped and in Act. 8. 12. when they believing Philip preaching the things concerning the Kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ they were Baptized both Men and Women That is saith the Dutch Translation they were Dooped both Men and Women our Translators have left the Greek word untranslated into our Tongue What difference is there between Baptisma Greek and Baptism 2. But Sir I cannot but take notice how often you add Ducking to Dipping Is not this to reproach and cast contempt upon us and on the ordinance of Christ of Dipping believers in his name The Lord open your Eyes and give you repentance in mercy to your poor Soul In Page 13. because every Sinner God draws to Christ must come to him naked c So you say it must be in Baptism viz. that part of the Man Woman or Child that is Baptized must be naked and so plead only for the Baptizing of the Face 1. Answer
Sir what reason do you give for this have you any ground to run that parallel from any Text of Scripture Is it not of your own making and devising But since you are for plain Texts of Scripture for every thing pray where do you read that any Man or Womanâ— Face or Head was only Baptised or that â—ver John Baptists or Christs Disciples Baptised any person naked You tell us of the immodesty and evil of such a practice and that it may tend to gratifie the Devil and to the sin of Adultery certainly such a thing is utterly to be condemned and never was practised you know well enough by us whom you reproachfully call Anabaptists As touching what Mr. Baxter to which you might have added Dr. Featly hath said concerning Baptizing persons naked we know they as well as you were too much guilty of backbiting vâ—lifying and reproaching of us yet they had no ground in the least to cast this odium upon us we challenge all Men or any person living to produce one instance that ever any Man or Woman by any of our perswasion was Baptized naked As to what Mr. Tombs said to Mr. Baxter of a former custom in some nations of Baptizing naked it affects not us nor do I believe there was ever any such custom used among any godly Christians Nor did Mr. Tombs ever so Baptise any Maids in Bewdeley nor any where else If he said he could do it it was doubtless his weakness so to speak but I am not bound to believe all that Mr. Baxter hath wrote of worthy Mr. Tombs but since they are both dead we will say no more to that but any thing you can catch up you resolve 't is plain to make the greatest use of imaginable to reproach your godly Neighbours and the truth of Christ. In Pape 15. the Anabaptists you say make a great deal of pudder and stir about the Apostles words in Romans 6. 3 4. and have pressed them into their service the words are as followeth therefore we are buried with him by Baptism they will say you have it that this respects burying in Water over Head and Ears in Baptism and therefore they make it an argument for Dipping The Apostle you say seems to have been stirring them up and puting them in mind of their Baptismal vows and Obligations It may be as well to Children of believing parents that were grown up as to themselves for in vers 3 saith he know ye not that so many of us as were Baptised into Christ were Baptized into his Death that is say you as they were Baptized into all the priviledges that were purchased by the Death of Christ so they were baptised also into the sufferings of Christ for they were obliged by their Baptismal Covenant to take up their Cross and follow the Lord Jesus Christ c. 1. Answer You shall now see whether 't is only those whom you call Anabaptists that make such improvement of this Text you say pudder and stir about it or whether others who were and are Pedo Baptists do not make the like use of it viz. to prove Baptism is an Image Symbol or representation of Christs Death and burial and Resurrection together with our Death unto sin and vivification to a newness of Life But before I shall quote the Authors I must tell you the Apostle is not in the context speaking of the sufferings of believers not a word of bearing the Cross Therefore from the Scope and coherence of the Text you cannot infer any such conclusion as you do Pray Reader take notice of the 5th Chapter and the beginning of this 6th and see if I or this Man speak the truth of the Texts in vers 1. of this Chapter the Holy Apostle says thus i. e. What shall we say then Shall we continue in Sin that grace may abound God forbid how shall we that are dead to sin live any longer therein vers 2. Know you not that so many of us as have been Baptized into Jesus Christ were Baptized into his Death vers 3. Therefore we are buried with him by Baptism into Death That like as Christ was raised up from the Dead by the Glory of the Father even so we also should walk in newness of Life vers 4. For as we have been planted together in the likeness of his death we shall be also into the likeness of his Resurrection vers 5. Is here a word of the Cross or suffering for Christ or that we are Baptized to shew we must suffer Martyrdom with Christ no no unless it be the Death or mortification of sin or the old Man Tho' I deny not but such that are Baptized must look for suffering You say our Saviour calls his suffering his Baptism and a Blood Bloody Baptism it was but I have a Baptism to be Baptized with and how am I straightned till it be accomplished now you say the Apostle draws his argument from the premises in verses 4 5 p. 16. Answer 'T is very true the Apostle doth draw his argument from vers 4 5. c. but not from Luk. 12. 50. the Text you mention about Christs Baptism of suffering so that 't is evident to all you have abused this Sacred Text also and prest it in to serve your purpose Pray read all the Annotators you can get on the place particularly Mr. Pools and see if any favour your exposition of it 2. Tho' I have said enough to silence this Man or any other upon this Text Rom. 6. 3 4 5. in two Treatises yet left they come not into the Author or Readers Hand I shall repeat some passages once again Let all Men consider in the fear of God and take notice of the gracious design and condescention of our blessed Saviour in his instituting of the two great ordinances of the Gospel viz. the Lords Supper and Baptism for as that of the Lords Supper doth in a lively Figure represent the breaking of his Body and the pouring forth of his Blood so the ordinance of Baptism doth as clearly if rightly Administed represent or hold forth the Death Burial and resurrection of the same Lord Jesus Together with our death to sin and rising again to walk in newness of Life and that this appears from this Text and that in Col. 2. 12. shall God assisting be evinced The whole Church of the Romans and every member thereof were to reckon themselves dead to Sin and were bound to live no longer therein because by Baptism as in a lively Figure they had held forth the same thing nay by that Baptismal covenant they were obliged to live and walk in newness of life See Pools Annotations on the place where you will find these words viz. he seems to allude to the manner of Baptizing in those warm Countries which was to Dip or plunge the party Baptised and as it were to bury him for a while under water See the like Phrase Col. 2. 12. Baptism doth not only represent