Pedo-Baptism disproved BEING AN ANSWER To two printed Papers put forth by some Gentlemen CALLED THE Athenian Society Who pretend to answer all Questions sent to them of what Nature soever CALLED THE Athenian Mercury One put forth November 14. the other November 28 1691. In which Papers they pretend to answer eight Queries about the Lawfulness of INFANT-BAPTISM Likewise divers QUERIES sent to them about the true Subjects of Baptism c. The Second Edition to which is added twenty Sylogistical Arguments to disprove Infant-Baptism London Printed for the Author and sold by John Harris at the Sign of the Harrow in the Poultry MDC XCI Price four Pence AN ANSWER TO THE ATHENIAN MERCURY VOL. 4. NUMB. 14. CONCERNING INFANT-BAPTISM With an Account of divers Questions sent by the Author and some others to the Athenian Society which they have not yet answered Gentlemen WHO he was that sent you the first Questions about Infant-Baptism I know not whether he was an Antipedo-Baptist or a Pedo-Baptist is a Question but your calling upon all who had any Doubts about it to send in their Objections argues a great degree of Confidence of your Ability of doing more than all before For 't is strange you should attempt to call for all our Objections when it appears you intended to write but one half Sheet of Paper in Answer to them as if you could do that in a few Lines which others as learned as your selves could never yet do in great Volumes this savours as some judg of great Pride and casts much Contempt upon you and lessens your Reputation among wise Men who are for Pedo-Baptism as well as others And yet after all the great and mighty noise you have not so much as in the least touched the chief Questions which to my knowledg were sent you near a Fortnight before your said Mercury came forth And therefore to shew how disingeâ—â—ous you have been herein I thought it might not be amiss to spend a few spare hours upon your Mercury 1. The first Question you pretend to answer is this i. e. Whether Baptism as it is commonly taught is the proper and natural Antitype of Circumcision Reply As to what you speak of the Customs of Nations Linguisms and of Men being ignorant of Radixes or Original Significations in Langages seems remote to the business and serves for little else than to blot Paper or rather to darken Counsel Certainly the Ordinance of Baptism one of the two great Sacraments of the New-Testament doth not lie so obscure in God's Word either what it is or who are the proper Subjects thereof that Men must be at a loss about it unless they understand the Radixes or original Significations of Languages But to proceed you would it seems have Baptism to be the proper Antitype of Circumcision in some respect and not in others First From the Customs of the Jews in proselyting the Gentiles into their Religion so far you say indeed Circumcision was not a Type but a continuance of a Custom Now how absurd and ridiculous that is which you affirm upon this account may appear to all Will you assert and stand by it that Baptism was a Jewish Custom and so no pure Gospel-Institution Doubtless if so the Pharisees might have soon given our Saviour a ready Answer to his great Question viz. The Baptism of John whether is it from Heaven or of Men Mat. 21. 25. Certainly there was no Baptism of this nature of Divine Institution before John received it from Heaven But say you If John Baptist undertook any now way of proselyting the Jews into the Gospel they had not only struggled with the Opposition of his new Doctrine but also of his new Practice therefore say you it was that this Custom was continued and had the Super-addition of the full force of Baptism viz. a Consignation or Seal of the Covenant Reply As you confess his Doctrine was new so was his Baptism no doubt for as our Annotators observe his Baptism was part of his Doctrine Pray what was the Doctrine he preach'd was it not Baptism of Repentance for the Remission of Sins Mâ—rk â— 4. Moreover we do not read they were more displeased with his new Doctrine than with his new Practice 2. But what Authority have you to affirm Gospel-Baptism was but the continuance of a Jewish Custom or was a Legal Rite or rather indeed a human Tradition for 't is evident the Jews were not required or commanded of God to baptize their Proselytes or others for Circumcision was the only Rite by which Proselytes who were Males were added to the Jewish Church as we find God commanded Abraham And if Baptism had been so frequently practised amongst the Jews as you assert wherefore did the Pharisees say to John Why dost thou baptize if thou art not that Christ nor Elias John 1. 25. Moreover Baptism is directly called a Principle of the Doctrine of Christ Heb. 6. 1 2. which Doctrine our Saviour saith he received from his Father If it be a Principle of the Doctrine of Christ it follows undeniably he instituted it and gave it forth Furthermore if Baptism was practised all along among the Jews I argue Either they practised it as a Mosaical Rite or else as a Tradition of their own not say I as a Mosaical Rite because Moses never commanded them so to do for he speaks nothing of it and yet declared all things God commanded him and did every thing according to the Pattern shewed him in the Mount And if it was a human Jewish Tradition what is become of one of the great Sacraments of the New Testament Must it be look'd upon from henceforth to be nothing else than the continuance of a Jewish Tradition taken out of their fabulous and erronious Talmud What kind of poisonous Stuff is this you trouble the World with What tho the Jews who had made the Commandments of God void through their Traditions did practise some such thing Must you affirm Gospel-Baptism in its Rise and Original sprung from their Custom And because they baptized Proselytes both Men Women and Children must Christians do so too Sure the Custom of the Romish Church in baptizing of Infants as a human Tradition is every way of as good Authority to warrant us so to do as the Custom of the unbelieving Jews But pray take what a Learned Pedo-Baptist and a Son of the Church of England hath said in answer to this vain Conceit 't is Sir Norton Knatchbull in his Animadversiones in lib. Novi Testamenti pag. 313. Aâ— cum videam summi judicii viros in his temporibus ex Rabbinis fundamenta petere veritatis c. But when I see in these times some Men of the greatest Judgment to fetch the Foundation of Truth from the Rabbins I cannot but stick at it for whence was the Talmud sent to us they are the words saith he of Buxtorf in his Synagoga Judaica that we should give so much Credit thereto
that we should believe that the Mosaick Law either was or ought to be understood therefrom much less the Gospel to which they are professed Enemies The Talmud is called a Labyrinth of Errors and the foundation of Jewish Fables it was perfected and acknowledged for Authentick five hundred Years after Christ and out of it Maimonides drew his Doctrine as all the rest of them therefore we cannot acquiesce in such Testimony Gentlemen either answer no more Questions about Religion or take more heed to what you say for your pleading for Infant-Baptism from such grounds all may perceive tends to cast an Odium and Contempt on the Christian Religion Therefore I infer your Proof for this Practice from the Custom amongst the Jews about baptizing of Proselytes both Men Women and Children proves nothing you were better for the Authority of it to urge the Decrees of Popes and General Councils a Popish Innovation is as good as a Jewish one But however you do allow that our blessed Saviour did add something to this pretended Jewish Custom and hath not only put it in full force but also made it a Consignation or Seal of the Covenant and this say you is further strengthened by several undeniable Texts of Scripture which Anabaptists themselves can never get clear of and ask them they must either be silent or give such a Paraphrase as we do The Texts are these First Col. 2. 11 12. In whom also ye are circumcised with the Circumcision made without hands in putting off the Body of the Sins of the Flesh by the Circumcision of Christ Buried with him in Baptism c. The second that of baptizing the Israelites in the Red-Sea 1 Cor. 10. 2. The last is the saving of Noah and his Family in the Ark 1 Pet. 3. 21. Reply 1. But is it so indeed did our Saviour in instituting Gospel-Baptism do no more than put a Jewish Custom to be in full force and make it a Consignation or Seal of the Covenant Were you not learned and ingenious Men I should not so much admire at your Notions 2. But the Truth is in the second place if you had not told us in your next words to what purpose you mention those Scriptures we should have been at a great loss about it or not well have understood your Intention but you like the ingenious Painter soon inform us and tell us what 't is i. e. you tell us you urge not these things to prove any thing else but the Parallel betwixt Circumcision and Baptism or to speak say you more properly the necessary continuance of the old Manner amongst the Jews of continuing their way of proselyting the Heathen 3. Was it necessary then that a human Tradition of the Jews should be continued I am sure the Apostle tells you that Christ nailed all the Jewish Ceremonies of the Mosaical Law to the Cross and that they all ceased when the Antitype was come and besure had the Baptism you speak of been indeed a Mosaical Rite I mean appointed or commanded of God it had vanished with its Fellows But 't is hard Christ should abolish all Legal Customs or Ceremonial Ordinances and yet confirm with some addition a Custom of the Jews own inventing 4. You do not seem to distinguish between your twofold Answer to the Question I thought you had brought those Scriptures to prove Baptism the proper Antitype of Circumcision but you urge the former old Custom again so that here 's no Scripture nor Argument brought by you to prove the thing in hand As touching what you say of the Parallel betwixt Circumcision and Baptism signifies nothing if in some things there should be a Parallel it doth not follow therefore Baptism was the Antitype of Circumcision What tho Circumcision was the initiating Ordinance of the Male Children into the Jewish Church and Baptism is that initiating Ordinance into the Gospel-Church this doth not prove the one the Type of the other 5. But pray what is it that the Anabaptists can never get clear of or being ask'd the Exposition they must be silent or give such a Paraphrase as you do I must tell you I know no Text more full for our practice of baptizing Believers than that in Col. 2. 11 12. We say from thence that the proper Antitype of Circumcision in the Flesh is the Circumcision of the Heart and therefore not Baptism tho 't is granted by us that in Baptism there is a Representation of the new Birth and Mortification of Sin which Circumcision was the express Type of And this cannot weaken nor silence us but rather strengthen our hands All that can well be inferred from this Text Col. 2. 11 12. where the Apostle mentions Circumcision and Baptism is no more than this viz. Where Baptism is administred upon a proper Subject it represents the Spiritual and Mystical Circumcision of the Heart i. e. that the Soul is dead to Sin or that he hath put off the Body of Sins of the Flesh by the Circumcision of Christ which may refer to the Power of his Death in the Effects thereof by the effectual Sin-killing Operations of the holy Spirit on the Heart And as we being dead to Sin we are also buried with Christ in Baptism both in the Sign i. e. covered all over in the Water which resembles in a lively Figure his Burial and also in Signification i. e. the Power and blessed Effects of his Death having been the Death of the old Man or that Body of Sin in usâ— wherein also in like manner we are also risen with him through the Faith of the Operation of God and this is likewise held forth both in Sign and Signification in true Baptism Now if this be not your Paraphrase on this Text we cannot help it I know many Learned Men who own Pedo-Baptism speak to the same purpose nor is there any reason for you to say we must be silent c. as if we knew not what to say to this Text But what is this for Infant-Baptism or to prove Baptism the Antitype of Circumcision Doth Sprinkling represent a Burial doth the Sign or Figure of Christ's Burial appear in sprinkling a little Water on the Face and as it is done to Infant in whom Faith and Regeneration is not wrought what doth there appear in Signification Doth not the Church of England say that Baptism is the outward Sign of an inward spiritual Grace sure that is but a mock-mock-Baptism where there is neither the Sign or Figure of Christ's Death and Burial c. nor that inward Work wrought upon the Person baptized which is signified or ought to be signified thereby viz. That the said Person is dead to Sin and raised up by the Faith of the Operation of God to walk in newness of Life But alas this it seems is not the thing 't is not so much to prove Baptism to be the Antitype of Circumcision as 't is to prove Baptism to be the continuation of a Jewish Custom
so dark or obscure that it could not be proved without Consequences Did not Moses make every Law Precept or Command plain that he that runs might read it and yet Christ is said to exceed Moses being faithful as a Son over his own House Heb. 3. Those Consequences you have drawn all impartial Men may see prove nothing Moreover what you speak about those great Articles of the Christian Religion as if they could not be proved without Consequences must not by any means be allowed nor can I take it to be true Cannot we find the Doctrine of the Trinity in the Scripture and that Christ is God and the second Person and that he was born of the Virgin without Consequences Is it Wisdom in you in such a corrupt Age as this is to lay down such Assertions Were those things the Matter of Controversy between you and me you should hear what positive and plain Scripture Proof might as you know hath often already be brought upon that account But to pass by this I affirm the Baptism of Believers lies plain in God's Word but Infant-Baptism is not to be found therein Quest 4. Why was not Christ baptized before he was thirty Years old You answer From the same Reason that the Jailor the Eunuch and St. Peter's Converts were not viz. there is no adhering to a Doctrine before it is instituted or preached but say you Infant Baptism was much before our Saviour's time as amongst those of riper Years since and that you say is Proof enough Reply It can't be Proof enough to answer the Question and as to prove Infant-Baptism it utterly fails but if Infant-Baptism was much before our Saviour's time as an Institution of God there was no Want of an Institution when he was a Babe and therefore your Reason why he deferred his Baptism is gone Was it in being long before and yet not instituted or appointed by Jehovah Do you not herein implicitly confess that Custom amongst the Jews was humane Nor will it serve your turn to say it was instituted a-new as a Gospel-Ordinance because you affirm Baptism under the Gospel was the Continuation of that old Custom with the Super-addition of the full Force of Baptism viz. a Consignation or Seal of the Covenant Do you not intimate it was not instituted anew but rather a Custom continued upon which you with that Addition and some others before you seem to lay the great Stress of your Infants Baptism And if some Additions were made to the old Custom why might there not be some Diminutions also and if it were a-new instituted it is all one as if it had never been in being before for the Right any have to Baptism and manner of Administration and all things appertaining to it must of necessity wholly depend upon the new Institution or Law of Christ If therefore Gospel-Baptism wholly depends on the new Institution then the old Custom is gone for ever had it been a Mosaical Rite like a Legacy bequeathed in a Will made void by the Testator's last Will and Testament though some part of the same thing may be repeated in the last Will that was in the first yet the last must decide the Controversy but in Christ's last Will and Testament Infant-Baptism is not to be found nor was it indeed an Ordinance ordained of God before Christ's time See my Answer about this in Answer to the first Question 2. Certainly had it been the Will of God Children should have been baptized as such Christ had been baptized when in his Infancy no doubt God who is a free Agent could not want an Administrator he could have sent John into the World sooner or have commissionated some other Person to have done it But since the Holy Ghost in the Gospel relates the time of his Baptism and that it was not till he was about thirty Years old it clearly shews us that adult Persons ought to be admitted to that Ordinance only and not Babes By which Example of his he hath strengthned his Commission or at least wise shewed the Congruity or sweet Agreement there is between this Precept and his own Practice Question 5. Why Sprinkling and not Dipping You answer Our Church denies not the latter that is Dipping but looks upon it as a clear Representation of our Saviour's descending into the Grave abiding there and rising up again c. But say you the Church has power to dispense with Circumstantials and manner of Acting tho not with the Act it self c. Reply What your Church is I know not the Church of England doth acknowledg I must confess that Baptism is Dipping but I never heard they have of late times so practised But how dare you 〈…〉 the Church hath power to dispense 〈…〉 Dipping and change it into Sprinkling Who gave her such Power Where do you read of it You call it a Circumstantial but I am not of your Mind I must say 't is â—â—sential nay 't is no Baptism at all if not Dipping for Baptize is to dip which to confirm I could give you a Cloud of Witnesses learned in the Greek Tongue therefore 't is not the manner of the Act but the Act it self to baptize is one Act and to rantize or sprinkle Water is another the manner of the Act of dipping or baptizing 〈…〉 to put the whole Body into the Water backward or forward 〈…〉 of with a swift or gentle Motion 〈…〉 is dipping and sprinkling sprinkling which Act will never be baptizing whilst the World stands You say well dipping or burying the Body in the Water is a clear and lively Representation of the Death Burial and Resurrection of Christ And hence 't is said that such who are indeed baptized are buried with Christ in Baptism To which you might have added 't is also a Sign of our being dead to Sin and of our being raised up with Christ by the Faith of the Operation of God to walk in newness of Life And hence I infer Infants ought not to be baptized because there doth not cannot appear in them that glorious internal Work of the Spirit which ought to be signified thereby and as they for this reason cannot be the proper Subjects of Baptism So likewise it cannot be done by Sprinkling because that Act cannot represent those Signs and Gospel-Mysteries which the Law-giver intended should be held forth in that holy Administration But why do you say this is a circumstantial Thing Was not Nadab and Abihu's Transgression and that of Uzzah's more like Circumstantials than this is and yet their Error cost them their Lives Or hath the Gospel-Church a greater dispensing Power in such Cases than the Church had under the Law Suppose the Jews should have changed Circumcision or cutting off the Foreskin of thâ— Flesh to the paring the Nails of their Children or to cut off a little Skin off of the Fingers Ends would that have been Circumcision no doubt a better Circumcision than Sprinkling is Baptism Gentlemen will you
Faith of People about Pedo-Baptism stands in the Power of God and knowledg of his Word and not rather in the Wisdom of Men who having endeavoured with all the Art and Cunning they can to draw pretended Consequences for it tho after all they do not naturally and genuinely follow 〈…〉 the Premises to which they refer 〈◊〉 Whether Christ having 〈◊〉 the Qualifications â—â— such as 〈◊〉 Baptized viz. actual Repentance 〈…〉 and the Answer of a good Consci 〈…〉 doth not thereby exclude all those 〈…〉 not capable of those Qualifications 〈◊〉 Whether it doth not reflect upâ—â— the Care Wisdom and Faithfulness of Jesus Christ who as a Son over his own House exceeded the Care and Faithfulness of Moses to affirm Infants ought to be Baptized and yet it cannot be found in all the Ne◠〈◊〉 an it be 〈…〉 should be a Gospeâ—â— recept nay a 〈◊〉 and yet Christ speak nothing of it or could it be in the Commission and yet the Apostlet never to mention it but contrariwise require Faithâ—â—â— all they admitted to Baptism Paul says He declared the whole Counsel of God and said nothing of it in any of his Epistles nor any where else How many thousands of Children were born to baptized â—â—â—ievers from the time of Christ's Ascension to the time John â—â—â—â—e the Revelations but not one word of 〈…〉 one Child Baptized Thirteen Whether in matter of positive Right such as Baptism is we ought not â—â— keep expresly and punctually to the Revelation of the Will of the Law-giver Fourteen Whether the Baptism of Infants be not a dangerous 〈◊〉 since it tends to deceive and blind the Eyâ—â— of poor ignorant People who think they are thereby made Christians and so never look after Regeneration nor true Baptism which represents or signifies that inward Work of Grace upon the Heart Fifteen Whether the Ancient Church who gave the Lord's Supper to Infants as well as Baptism might nâ—â—â—e allowed as well to do the one as the other since Faith and Holy Habits are as much required in those who are to be Baptized as in such who come to the Lord's Table And all such in the Apostolick Church who were Baptized were immediately admitted to break Bread c. And also the Arguments taken from the Covenant and because said to be Holy and to belong to the Kingdom of Heaven are as strong for them to receive the Lord's Supper there being no Command nor Example for either and human Tradition carrying it equally for both for several Centuries Sixteen Whether Nadab Abihâ— and 〈◊〉 Transgressions were not as much Circumstantials and so as small Errors as to alter Dipping in â—o Sprinkling and from an understanding Believer to a poor ignorant Babe And whether to allow the Church a Power to make such Alterations be not dangerous see Râ—â— 22. And doth 〈…〉 open a Door to other innovations Seventeen Whether there is any just Cause for Men to vilify and reproach the People called Anabaptists for their baprizing Believers and denying infants to be Subjects thereof seeing they have the plain and direct Word of God to warrant their practice i. e. not only the Commission but also the continual usage of the Apostles and Ministers of the Gospel all along in the New Testament who Baptized none but such who made profession of their Faith And the Châ—â—â—â— of England also saith Faith and Repentance are required of such who are to be Baptized We â—â—â—e not Baptize our Children because we cannot find it written 't is from the holy Fear of God lest we should offend and sin against him by adding 〈◊〉 his Word Eighteen What should be the reason that our faithful Translators of the Bible should leave the Greek word Baptism or Baptisma and not turn it into English seeing the Dutch have not done so but contrariwise translate for John the Baptist John the Dooper and for he Baptized he dooped or dipped them Nineteen Whether those who translate out of one Language into another ought not to translate every word into the same Language into which they turn it and not leave any word in the same Original Tongue which the People understand not and for whose sakes they undertook that Work and not to translate every word but also to give the right literal genuine and proper signification of each word and not the remote improper or collateral signification of it Which if our Translators of the Bible had so done I query whether the Doubt among the Unlearned concerning what the word Baptisma signifies 〈…〉 Twenty Seeing the Greek Church uses Immersion not Aspersion may it not be look'd upon as a great Argument against Sprinkling especially seeing they disown the Baptism of the Latin Church becaâ—â—â— they use Sprinkling for doubtless the Greeks best knew the genuine and proper signification of that word that Tongue being their own natural Language in which the New Testament was wrote 21. Whether if a Minister should administer the Lord's Supper in one kind only and so doing it cannot answer the great Design of Christ the Law-giver i. e. the breaking of his Body and shedding of his Blood would not prophane that Holy Institution If so whether such who instead of dipping the whole Body do but sprinkle or pour a little Water on the Face do not also prophane the holy Sacrament of Baptism since it is not so done to represent in a lively Figure the Death Burial and Resurrection of Christ with our Death unto Sin and vivification unto newness of Life Rom. â— Col. 2. 11 12. 22. Whether all such who have only been sprinkled ought not to be deemed Unbaptized Persons since Aspersion is not Immersion or Rantizing not Baptizing for though the Greek word Baptizo in a remote and improper sense may signify to wash yet as the Learned confess it is such a washing as is done by dipping swilling or plunging the Person or Thing all over in the Water 23. Since you say Children have Faith potentia I query Whether Unbelievers and all ungodly Persons have not also the like Faith potentia as well as Children and so the same Right to Baptism We grant they may have Faith hereafter what tho There is one Assertion and Argument laid down by you that I omitted in my Answer which as it is New so it must needs expose you viz. If God be pleased to radiate or shine upon the Souls of Children in Heaven and they do behold the Face of God as our Saviour says then it follows that they have Faith in Heaven and why not on Earth see Heb. 11. 27. These are your very words 〈…〉 Reply I had thought that in Heaven the Faith of the Adult ceases i. e. the strong and saving Faith of Believers Doth not the Apostle say Then we come to receive the End of our Faith And is not Faith turned there into Vision Is not Faith the Evidence of Things not seen and the Substance of Things hoped for Heb. 11. 〈…〉 Divines say
Faith Hope c. cease then and that 't is only Love that continues What is it they have not received in Heaven which they trust in God for Nor is your Conclusion good Had they Faith there they may have it here The Text you cite Heb. 11. 27. refers to that Faith Moses had on Earth who saw him that was Invisible God seems so to us here but what a sight we shall have of him in Heaven we know not Doth not the Apostle say we shall behold Face to Face and the pure in Heart shall see God Shall that be such a sight that Moses had whilst on Earth Questions relating to the Fathers with respect tâ—â—â—e Controversy about Infâ—â—-Baptism First WHat reason can be given why Nazianzen an eminent Greek Father should counsel the deferring the Baptism of Infants until the third or fourth Year of their Age except in danger of Death if it were in Nazianzen's Time as some suppose it-was the Opinion of the whole Church as also his own that Infants by an Apostolical Tradition were to be baptized as such that is as soon as born Secondly Whether all the Fathers of the third and fourth Century both of the Greek and Latin Church who have wrote any thing abouâ—â—â—nfant-abouâ—â—â—nfant-Baptism do not unanimously give this as the Reason why Infants should be Baptized viz. the washing away Original Sin or the putting them into a Capacity of Salvation and some of them pâ—â—ticularly St. Austin sentencing Infants to â—â—ernal Damnation if not Baptized Thirdly If so Whether the Fathers might not be mistaken in the Right of Infants to Baptism as well as 〈…〉 the Judgment of most Protestants they are in the Reason why they should be Baptized Four other Queries 1. WHether God hath allowed or enjoined Parents to bring their â—â—ttle â—â—bes of two or ten days old into a Covenant with him by Baptism since 't is nor to be found in the Scâ—â—â—â—ure he either hath allowed or enjoined them so to do 2. If it cannot be proved he hath required any such thing at their Hands Whether that Covenant can be said to bâ—nd their Consciences when they come to â—ge especially since they gave no Consent to it noâ— were capable so to do 3. If this pretended Covenant was not of God's Appointment I query how these Children who refuse to agree to the said Covenant when at Age can thereby be guilty 1. Of rejecting Christ 2. Of renouncing the Blessings of the Gospel 3. And that 't is Rebellion continued against their Maker 4. That 't is Ingratitude and â—â—jury to their Redeemer 5. Gross Injustice to their Parents 6 That 't is self-killing Crueltie to their own Souls 7. And a damning Sin 4. I query whether this be good Divinity not rather a strange Doctrine And whether unwarrantable Articles of Faith taken out of the Jewish Talmud or Turkish Alcoran may not by as good Authority be put into a Christian Catechism as such Assertions as these Four Queries sent by another Hand to the Athenian Society Gentlemen I Humbly conceive that no Man knoweth what is a Duty but by the Scriptures And since Pedo-Baptism cannot be proved by the Word of God as every Man may know and is generally acknowledged by the most Learned Assertors of that Practice it therefore plainly followeth in my Judgment that Infant-Baptism is no Ordinance of God's Appointment but an Innovation I therefore feriously query I. WHethâ—â—â—radition Jewish Talmuds the Opinion of private Doctors Schoolmen c. be a sufficient Warrant for the Churches to establish such a Practice that hath neither Precept nor Example in the Holy Scriptures II. Since the pretended Foundation of Infant-Baptism viz. its absolute necessity to Salvation proving â—o be a Mistake of the Text John 3. 5. as is generally acknowledged by Protestants Whether the Structure ought not to fall with it as it did in the Case of giving the Child the Eucharist III. Whether the Faith of the Parent or Gossip on the Child's behalf be required of God or will be imputed to the Child by God If not why ventured on and not rather a waiting for Faith in the Subject as required in Holy Writ by the Apostles and Primitive Churches and seemingly by the Church of England in her Cateâ—â—â—sm IV. Whether the Church hath a good Warrant that will justify her before God in changing the Mode from Dipping to Sprinkling and whether that Alteration doth so well answer the Design of the Holy God as that Ceremony which himself appointed Gentlemen I knew nothing of that Gentleman's Animadversions or that he or any Body elâ—â— intended to take notice of your Mercury till I had wrote what I intended to say tho when it was too late I saw it POSTSCRIPT Containing some Remarks upon the Athenian Mercury Vol. 4. Numb 18. published Saturday Novemb. 28. 1691. Gentlemen JUST as my Answer to your first Mercury about Infant-Baptism was finished and almost printed off your second Paper on the same Subject came to my Hand And tho I was not concerned in the Paper called Animadversions on your other Mercury yet till a further Answer is prepared I shall make some Reflections upon what you have said in your pretended Reply to that Gentleman c. 1. Sirs You go too fast to conclude you by that Paper understand wherein our strength lies as by this time you may perceive nor don 't conclude you have it all yet 2. What you say about your pretended Proof of Infant-Baptism from that unscriptural Tradition or Custom among the Jews of proselyting whole Families to the Jewish Religion by Baptism you may see fully answered before I saw your last Mercury Have you proved that Custom among them was Jure Divino or if so that it remained and was continued by Christ Secondly What you have said about Baptism being the proper Antitype of Circumcision is also answered Nor does what you speak of Types and Antitypes not agreeing in every thing help you Have not we shewed that the proper Antitype of Circumcision in the Flesh is that of the Heart Thirdly As to your Logical Argument â—â— viz. An Ordinance once enjoined and never repealed is always in force but the Ordinance of Childrens incovenanting was once in the Old Testament enjoined and was never repealed Ergo We answer If the Ordinance of Children incovenanting under the Law was Circumcision that Ordinance is repealed Is noâ— Circumcision repealed 2. If you say notwithstanding Children of the Flesh or the natural Seed being once in the Covenant and never cast out by reason that Law or Covenant for their incovenanting being not repealed is always in force Reply 1. That the Old or first Covenant for their incovenanting is repealed is plain he took away the first that he might establish the second 2. Also 't is said that Hagar and her Son are cast our viz. the legal Covenant and fleshly Seed and no new Law is added to bring them into the Gospel-Church by Baptism i. e. the fleshly
or natural Seed as such Now is the Ax laid to the Root of the Trees Fourthly Your citing Heb. 8. and Jer. 31. to shew what Baptism seals to Infants proves nothing We deny not but all who are actually in the New Covenant viz. by Faith ingraâ—ted into Christ have right to Remission and Salvation and that that Covenant secures and preserves them to Eternal Life therefore the Children of Believers as such are not in it And if they are no otherwise in it than conditionally that is if they repent believe c. I ask you what Priviledg that is more than what the Children of Heathens and Infidels have 〈◊〉 if they believe and repent shall they not have the same Blessings Priviledges of the Covenant also As to the Adult Professors we say if they fall finally away it shews they never indeed were in the Covenant of Grace As to Adult true Believers the Holy Spirit seals Remission and Salvation to them and they shall be saved a sign of what is actually in them is held forth in Baptism there being nothing signified by that Ordinance as to a Death unto Sin but what they experienced wrought on their Souls before Baptized tho 't is true they thereby for the time to come covenant to walk in newness of Life Fifthly As touching the great Commission Mat. 28. where you urge Baptizing goes before Teaching we have fully answered you in the precedent Reply we prove there is a Teaching goes before Baptism and yet also a Teaching after Why do you attempt to blind the Eyes of the unwary Reader Sixthly To what purpose do you mention Jairus's Daughter do we deny but that the Parents Faith and Prayer may procure outward Blessings nay and spiritual Ones too and as much perhaps for their poor carnal Neighbours and Friends My Servant Job shall pray for you The fervent Prayer of a Righteous Man availeth much but it doth not give Right to their Friends or Children to Baptism Seventhly As to your Syriac Translation that the Jaylor and all the Sons of his House were Baptized I argue All his Sons no doubt were grown up to Age because 't is said he believed with all his House If he had Sons grown up and yet did not believe then by your Argument Unbelievers may be Baptized but to this see our Answer Eighthly As to your proof from that Passage i. e. Suffer little Children to come unto me Take the words definitely or indefinitely it proves nothing for you for Christ Baptized no Child for with his own Hands he Baptized no Person at all Joh. 4. 1 2. 't was to lay his Hands upon them not to Baptize them Moreover I have before told you those little Ones Mark 9. 42. were Adult Whosoever shall offend one of these little Ones that believe in me I affirm our Saviour speaks only of such little Ones as were grown up to such Age as in very deed did believe in him and not Babes of two or ten dayâ— old But you say we would have no Children proselyted but such as Timothy c. To which you answer That according to the Original those Children that did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which word we have shewed signifies any common coming and may be such who come in their Parents Arms Let Babes come to Christ this way or that he baptized none of them I may infer as well because little Children come or were brought to Christ and of such are the Kingdom of Heaven therefore they may partake of the Lord's Supper as you infer they may be Baptized Ninthly Tho the Gospel did not spread into all Nations c. yet sure you conclude all were to be baptized in all Nations wheresoever the Gospel did come or was preached or else as we say none in those Nations but such who were made Disciples i. e. did believe and repent for if but some in those Nations â—here the Gospel comes were to be Baptized and not all and yet more ought so to be then such who are discipled first Pray who are they or how shall we know them to be included in the Commission For as Mr. Baxter saith If we have it not here where have we it this being the great Rule or Charter of the Church for this Rite unto which we ought to adhere in this Matter Tenthly What signifies what some of the Ancient Fathers believed i. e. That Federal Holiness of Parents made Children Candidates for Baptism They said other things too that you decry as well as we many Errors being early let into the Church Besides we have Tertullian against Tertullian or one Father against another which is ground enough to believe you abuse Tertullian or to doubt of the truth of your History Eleventhly You ask whether Children have not as much right to their Baptism as that of Adult Females for 't is no where said she that believeth and is baptized where have we one Instance of Female-Baptism Reply We ak you whether Male and Female is not intended in Mark 16. 16. he or she and so John 3. 3. Unless a Man be borâ— again the Woman is included or have Women no Souls Did you never read of the Figure Sylepsis or Conceptio that comprehends the less worthy under the more worthy indignioris sub dignâ—ore as for Example â—uid tu soror facitis 〈…〉 mater miseri perimusâ—â—â— uxor qui adâ—â—stis testes estote and it 's no less true in Divinity see that full and never to be baffled place 1 Cor. 6. 16. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They two shall be one Flesh See Gen. 5. 2. And he called their Name Adam Moreover do we not read Women were made Disciples as well as Men and so had the same right to Baptism from the Commission But to detect your Ignorance of the Scripture pray see Acts 8. 12. When they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the Kingdom of God and the Name of Jesus Christ they were baptized both â—â—n and Women Also Acts 16. 15. 't is said Lydia was baptized I thought she had been a Woman Gentlemen you shew you are but younger Brethren and will do tâ—â—â— edobaptists no Service shew such a Proof for the Baptism of Infants and your work is done But tho Children lose no spiritual Right by Christ's coming yet they may lose some Legal Rites As Ministers Sons now are not born to the Ministryâ—â—s they were under the Law as well as their Fleshly Seed had right as such to their Jewish Church Membership Furthermore because Believers are made holy by the Operations of the Spirit are all their Children made holy in like manner also Blush for Christ's sake The Blessing of Abraham Sirs only comes upon the Gentiles through Faith not by natural Generation as you imagine As the Blessing runs to the Parents viz. through Faith so to their Children they must believe also if they would be the Children of the Promise or Spiritual Seed of Abraham Gal. 3. ult
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 dâ— Bapt. I. 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 Elders p. 38 39. And as to the Minor 't is acknowledged by our Adversaries it is not to be found in â—â—e Letter of the Scripture And as to the Consequences drawn therefrom we have proved they are not natural from the Premises and though we admit of Consequences and Inferences if genuine yet not 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 as 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 Abibu 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 unto 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-Baptism cannot be of God The Major cannot be denied The Minor is easily proved For he is bold indeed who shall affirm Infant-Baptism doth not lie obscure in God's Word One great Party who assert it say 't is not to be found â—â— 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 Rabbins differed among themselves also about it for saith he Rabbi Eliâ—zer expresly contradicts Rabbi Joshâ—a who was the first I know of who asserted this sort of Baptism among the Jews For Eliâ—zer who was contemporary with Rabbi Joshâ—a if he did not live before him asserts that a Proselyte circumcised and not baptized was a true Proselyte Arg. 18. If Baptism â—â— 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 noâ— 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 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 oâ— 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 out on Christ thereby nor are they all one in Christ Jesus also are not Abraham's Seed and Hoirs according to Promise Ergo Infants ought not to be baptized Mr. Baxter confirms the Substance of the Major These are his very Words i. â— As many as have been baptized have put on Christ and are all one in Christ Jesus and are Abraham ' s Seed and Heirs according to the Promise Gal. 3. 27 28 29. 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 not 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 nor to make a Profession of Consent Ergo Infants ought not to be baptized The Major our Opposits generally grant particularly see what Mr. Baxter â—aith Our Baptism is the solemnizing 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 new and strange kind of Marriage Did he find any little Babe he ever baptized or rather rantized to make a Professioo 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 though it overthrows their own Practice of pedo-Pedo-Baptism Arg. 21. If the Sins of no Persons are forgiven them till they are converted then they must noâ— be baptized for the Forgiveness of them till they profess 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 profess 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 profess themselves converted seeing to the Church non esse and non apparere 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 Eunuch 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 Mark 16. 16. p. 16. He might have added by the Force of his Argument therefore Infants should not have the Priviledges for I argue thus viz. Arg. 22. If there is but one Baptism of Water left 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 left by Christ in the New Testament and but one Condition and Manner of â—â—ght thereto and that one Baptism is that of the Adult Ergo 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 confounded 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. 21. And if so why dare any now adays admit of Infants who are capable to make no Professior He adds Yea Christ in his Commission directeth his Apostles to make Disciples and the â—â—baptize them promising He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved Mark 16. 16. pag. 27. Furthermore he â—aith If 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 fâ—â—t profess this Mortification and a Consent to be buried c. In our Baptism we put off the Body of the the Sins of the Flesh by the Circumcision of Christ bring buried with him and raised with him through Faith quickned with him and having all our Trespasses forgiveâ— Col. 2. 〈◊〉 12 â—3 And will any Man says he yea will Paul ascribe all this to 〈◊〉 that did noâ— so much as profess the thing◠〈◊〉 Will Baptism in the Judgment of a wise Man do all this for an Infidel or say I for an Infant that cannot make a Profession that he is a Christian pag. 31 32. He proceeds Arg. 23. The Baptized are in Scripture called Men washed sanctified justified â—â—â—y are called Saints and Churches of Saints 1 Cor. 1. 2. all Christians are sanctified ones 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 Infants ought not to be baptized If any should say Why did you not cite these Assertions of Mr. Baâ—ter'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 to which he gave no Answer Arg. 24. If there is but one way for all both Parents and Children to be admitted into the Gospel-Church to the End of the World and that it is upon the Profession of Faith to be baptized then both Parents and Children must upon the Profession of their Faith be baptized and so admitted c. But there is but one way for all both Parents 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 cannot be a lively Representation of the Death Burial and Resurrection of Jesus Christ together with our Death unâ—o Sin and Viâ—ification to a new Life But in the Râ—â—â—â—ing 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 â—ruâ—trate the glorious â—â—d and Design of Christ in his instituting of Gospel-Baptism or cannot answer it iâ— none of Clâ—â—st's Baptism But the pretended Baptism of Infants tends to frustrate the glorious end and design of Christ in instituting of gospel-Gospel-Baptism Ergo. The Major will not be denied As to the Minor all generally conâ—â—â—â— the End or Design of Christ in instituting the Ordinance of Baptism was in a lively Figure to represent his Death Burial and Resurrection with the Person 's Death unto Sin and his rising again to walk in newness of â—ife 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 lively 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 Life 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 dip c. we have proved which is also confessed by the Learned in that Language 2. The Figurative Baptism was 1sâ— That of the Red Sea wherein the Fathers were buried as it were unto Moses in the Sea and under the Cloud Fools Annotations on 1 Cor. 1â— 2. Others saith â—e 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 Recâ—pâ—acle of Water though 〈◊〉 Water at that time was gathered on â—â—aps on either side of them yet they seeâ—â—ed buried in the Water as Persons in that Age were when they were baptized 〈◊〉 The â—d was that of Noah's Ark. Sâ—e 〈…〉 Kâ—aâ—eâ—bull The Ark of Noah and Baptism saith he were both a Type and Figure of the Resurrection noâ— the Sign of the washing away of Sin though so taken metonymically but a particular â—â—gnal 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 〈◊〉 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. Dâ—Vâ—il 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 â—ife 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 evidentlâ— appears from the Practice of John Baptist and the Apostles of Christ who baptized in Rivers 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