the Subject who must undoubtedly be in great fear and in apparent danger of being let fall if not of being Suffocated or Smothered in the Water And strange it is to me that Arminians who plead so much for the universal Love and Mercy of God to Mankind in general should not see how full of Reflection on God this Principle of theirs is which makes the God of Love and Mercy the Author of such a Mode or Way of Baptizing which is not possible to be practised without apparent Danger both to Health and Life of both the Subject and the Administrator too I conclude this Argument with the Saying of Judicious Sydenham viz That if Baptism be to be Administred in that way of Dipping only Happy are those who live in hot Climates or who have Bodies of Brass A third Argument may be grounded on Scandal thus That Mode or Way of Baptizing which is both Immodest and tends to Excite Lustful Motions and Carnal Desires in Men and Women cannot be commanded by Christ neither was the same ever practised by John But that way of Baptizing by Dipping the whole Body under Water is both Immodest and tends to Excite Lustful Motions and Carnal Desires in Men and Women Therefore that Mode of Baptizing by Dipping the whole Body under Water was never commanded by Christ neither was the same ever practised by John He who commands all Matters relating to Divine Worship to be done decently and in order 1 Cor. 14.40 and who commands Believers to abstain from all appearance of Evil 1 Thes 5.22 can never be the Author of such Disorderly Practises as thwart and contradict his own general Rules Now whether it be not an Immodest and unseemly Sight to see a mixt Company of Men and Women stand in Garments to use Mr. Sydenham's Expression next to Nakedness it self Let any not bereav'd of common Modesty Judge And whether the Administrator can possibly handle the Female Sex as he doth when actually Dipping them and not feel the risings and motions of Concupiscence in his Nature I leave to Thinking Persons to Determine and Judge Again in the fourth place to add no more let the last Argument be grounded on the Analogie which is and must be between the Baptism of John and that of Christ The Argument is thus framed If Christ's way and manner of Administring the Inward Spiritual Baptism whereof that of John was but the Outward Visible Sign be by Sprinkling or Pouring out upon Then John did certainly Baptize by Sprinkling or Powering out the Water on those he Baptized But Christ's way and manner of Administring the Inward Spiritual Baptism is by Sprinkling or Pouring out upon Therefore John did certainly Baptize by Sprinkling or Pouring out Water on those he Baptized If there was a necessity that John should Harmonize with Moses the Ceremonial Law and the Prophets I cannot see any reason why he should not be as greatly concern'd to Harmonize with Christ himself And seeing that the manner of Christ's Administring the Inward and Spiritual Baptism is by Pouring out and Sprinkling the Graces of the Spirit upon the Souls of the Elect in the Work of Regeneration why John the forerunner of Christ should Administer his Baptism which was but an External Sign or Christ's by Dipping or Plunging the whole Body into the Water can never be demonstrated by all the Wit and conceited Skill in our Doctor though he were as well Verst in all the Roots and Heemantique Nouns of the Hebrew Tongue as his so much admired Robertson was And if the Doctor will not be offended I am very desirous to know if his so highly commended and admired Robertson was by his so great Excellency in the Hebrew and Greek Tongues more Infallibly acquainted with the Mind of the Holy Ghost than other Men and that Mr. Robertson did certainly believe that the Etymology which he gave of the word Baptizo was Infalible as he said How came it to pass that the Learned Robertson did not Renounce that Baptism which he received in Infancy and by Sprinkling I think I knew Master William Robertson as well as Dr. Russel and during the time of my Acquaintance with him I am sure he was far enough from Anabaptism All the Skill he had in the Tongues with his Acquaintance in the Arts did not convince him that the Baptism he received in Infancy and by Sprinkling was a Nullity as the Doctor holds it is But to return to John the Dooper I think fit to assure the Doctor that I own my self bound to believe John himself rather than Doctor Russel or any of those Learned Men he so greatly Brags of The words of John are so plain that I can see no need of a Commentator to explain their Sense he tells us in Mar. 1.8 and in Mat. 3.11 that he did Baptize with Water but that Christ should Baptize with the Holy Ghost 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 do both intend and signify the very same way and manner of Administration All the difference between John and Christ in both their Baptisms is in the Subject Matter viz. In the outward Water and the inward Grace John he did Administer Water the outward Sign but Christ he did Administer the Spiritual Grace But as touching the manner it was most certainly the very same in both Now if the Doctor grant as he must if he speak Truth that Christ doth Administer the Inward and Spiritual Baptism by Pouring out or Sprinkling the Graces of the Holy Ghost he will find it altogether Incongruous and no way agreeing with the Analogie of Faith to hold or assert that John did Administer the outward Sign in such a manner as was directly contrary to Christ There must be necessarily an Harmonious Agreement between the Sign and the Thing signified thereby which can never be in case Christ Baptizes by or with Pouring out or Sprinkling and John should Baptize by Dipping or Plunging into As Christ applies the Graces of the Spirit to the Soul in Conversion not the Soul to the Spirit so in the outward Baptism John he apply'd the Water the outward Sign to the Person not the Person to the Water For making the Thing or Point now in Debate obvious and plain to the meanest Capacity let it be seriously considered how plain and express the Scriptures are in affirming that Christ's way or manner in Administring the Spiritual Baptism is by Pouring out and Sprinkling the Holy Spirit on the Souls which he Regenerates but never by applying the Souls to the Holy Spirit Read without prejudice Tit. 3.5 6. Not by works of righteousness which we have done but according to his mercy he hath saved us by the washing of regeneration and the renewing of the holy Ghost which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath powered on us the very same word is made use of in Acts 2.17 And it shall come to pass in the last days saith God I will power out my Spirit on
their Heterodox and Soul deluding Doctrines I find that when the Holy Ghost would express the Act of Dipping or Plunging into he doth it only by the Primitive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 never by the Derivative 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that I can find For Proof whereof let those Scriptures Quoted by the Dr. himself in Page 11. be without prejudice lookt into and seriously weighed Rev. 19.13 He had his Vesture dipt in Blood Mat. 26.23 He that dippeth his hand with me in the Dish Luke 16.24 That he may dip the tip of his finger in Water And in John 13.26 it is saith the Dr. twice used 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dipped 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and when he had Dipped Here in these places the Holy Ghost expresseth the Aâ—t Dip or Plunge into by the Primitive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but never by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Baptizo the Derivative Secondly again on the contrary when the Holy Ghost expresseth Baptism by washing he doth it by the Derivative 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but never by the Primitive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bapto For Proof hereof let the places of Scripture already quoted out of Leigh's Critica Sacra be consulted in all which places the Spirit speaks of Baptism but not a word of Dipping and that by the Derivative word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Baptizo never by the Primitive Bapto Seeing then it hath pleased the Holy Ghost to express Dipping or Plunging into by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but never by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Baptizo and that he hath expressed Baptism by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but never by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I think none but Fools or mad Men will blame me for resolving to believe the Holy Ghost in this matter before I believe Dr. Russel and all the human Testimonies he hath quoted to make good his Cause though he were able to quote a Million of Authors as Witty and Learned as his so much admired Servetus and Castellio The Premisses considered I hope the Dr. will not be displeased for making this fair and generous offer to him and all who espouse his Unscriptural Cause viz. that if he or they can shew such a solid and convincing reason as doth not contradict the Analogie of Faith why or wherefore the Holy Ghost should not in any of those Scriptures where he expresseth Dipping express Dipping by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Derivative but only by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Primitive and why he should not express Baptism in any of the places of Scripture above quoted by the Primitive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bapto but always by Baptizo in case both 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Primitive and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 its Derivative do signifie the very same thing viz. to Dip or Plunge under the Water And I do faithfully promise him to own my self mistaken and him to be herein in the right If he cannot I then hope his misguided Proselytes as well as himself will ingeniously own themselves mistaken and persist no longer in fighting against the truth of God From the difference between the two words in Letters Syllables and Sound as also from the Practice of the Holy Ghost in using both the words in the N. T I thus Argue Major If the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 do apparently differ in Letters Syllables and Sound and if the Holy Ghost do always express the Act of Dipping and Plunging by Bapto never by Baptizo and Baptism by Baptizo never by Bapto then the word Bapto must signifie to Dip and Plunge but never to Baptize and the word Baptizo must signifie to Baptize but never to Dip or Plunge under Water Assump But the words Bapto and Baptizo do apparently differ in Leâ—ters Syllables and Sound and the Holy Ghost doth always express the Act of Dipping or Plunging by Bapto never by Baptizo and Baptism by Baptizo never by Bapto Conclusion Ergo the word Bapto must signifie to Dip or Plunge but never to Baptize and the word Baptizo must signifie to Baptize but never to Dip or Plunge under Water Besides this Argument others shall be laid down to confirm this when I come to speak to his third viz. the Practice of the first Baptizers In the 2d place our Dr. will have Baptizing to be only by Dipping or Plunging the whole Body under Water The Proof he gives to make good his Assertion herein are those Metaphors used in Holy Scripture To represent it to our understanding he Instances in two in Page 8 viz Burial and Resurrection He tells his Reader there that our Lord Jesus hath not burdened us under the Gospel with a multitude of Ceremonies as it was in the Oeconomy of the Jews under the Legal Dispensation but only with some few and those very Significant this being a more Spiritual Dispensation Before I meddle in speaking to his Metaphors I â—ill take liberty to tell the World that alâ—eit Christ doth not burden us with a multitude of Ceremonies now as under the Oeconomy of the Jews under the Legal Dispensation yet this one Ceremonie of Baptism will prove a heavier Yoke to Believers now then Circumcision with all the whole Body of Ceremonies appertaining to that Legal Dispensation in case it must be Administred by Dipping and Plunging the whole Body under Water as Anabaptists say it must I come now to his Metaphors the first whereof he saith is that of a Burial For this he and all of his Perswasion quote Rom. 6.4 and Colos 2.12 Buried with him in Baptism unto Death From this Metaphor of a Burial the Dr. and all his Party do hold and teach for an infallible truth that the Scope and Design of the Apostle in the two places now quoted is to teach and set forth the mode and manner how Christ was Buried to the end Believers should in Baptism imitate the same This if I mistake them not as I am very confident I do not is the sense and meaning wherein he and all Anabapâ—ists take those Scriptures In Answer to whom I affirm that this their sense of those places is senseless and meerly forc't to serve their own turn in proving that Dipping and Plunging in Baptism is the only true and right Baptism Now to discover their Mistake and Error herein I shall offer but two things to consideration The first is to shew the Scope and Design of the Apostle in those places which is not as they fondly and injudiciously imagine to shew that Christ was Baptized by dipping or that Believers are to be so Baptized But the Scope and Design of the Apostle in those places is to set forth and prove that Suretyship Union which is between Christ the Mediatorial Head and all the Members of his Body Mystical there being no one Act of Obedience either Active or Passive which Christ the Mediator performed in the assumed Nature but all his Members
Gospel in Hebrew a meer Non-sequitur What though those words be not in Matthew I hope he will not deny that they are in Jo. 20.21 there the Spirit of God hath recorded them and why the Dr. should look to find them in Matthew I know no reason or wherefore his Learned Friend Mr. Robertson should take on him to place the Words recorded by John between the 18th and 19th of Mat. 28. I cannot conceive But whatever moved Robertson to so presumptuous an Act in taking on him to alter things of this Nature as if by his Skill in the Hebrew Tongue he thought himself able to rectifie the Order in which the Holy Ghost hath set down his own Mind in Writing I doubt not but the Dr. was well pleased with so Palpable an Aberration and all for the love and liking he hath to his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tabal he Dipped and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Velammddu Disciple ye By what I have said it is easie to judge that could the Dr. but have his will in two things First that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Baptizo doth alway signifie the very same thing with its Primitive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And Secondly that Matthew did write his Gospel in the Hebrew Tongue and that the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vetabelu otham and Dip ye them were the very words of Matthew All the Art in Men and Angels could never hinder but that Dipping the whole Body under the Water must needs be the only right way of administring the outward Baptism But both these on which he erects his tottering structure of Anabaptism I utterly deny and do fairly offer and sincerely promise him that if he can confute by Gods Word the Arguments laid down to prove him mistaken in both I will forthwith renounce my Baptism received in Infancy and by Sprinkling as a meer Nullity and not only so but I will in Pulpit and Print too Declare to the World that I am fully convinced that Dipping the whole Body under Water is the only right way of administring Water-Baptism under the New-Testament Dispensation And this I hope with the offer made him in clearing up the Etymology of the word Baptizo will prove as generous an offer as he made to Master James As touching what is usually Objected from Mat. 3.16 concerning Christ's coming up out of the Water And from Acts 8.38 39. concerning Philip and the Eunuch going down into and coming up again out of the Water I need say but two things First For any to affirm possitively what the Word of God affirms not is to me a sure Argument of an Ignorant Rash and Presumptuous Spirit Reader mark the words And Jesus when he was Baptized went up straightway out of Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from not out of the water The Text doth not say in downright Terms that Christ was Dipt under the Water neither doth it appear from Acts â— 38 39. that the Eunuch was Dipt onâ— the Doctor and his Adherents will â—ve it to be so right or wrong Secondly There is nothing more certain than that a Person may be said properly enough to go down into the Water though he go not in above Shooe or Ancle deep which I doubt not was practised by both John and by Philip in the places above-mentioned and that for the better conveniency of catching hold of the Water with their Hands in order to Sprinkle or Pour out the same on those they Baptized And that which may convince any Man not prepossest with Prejudice against the Truth I here contend for that this was the Practise of John and all the first Baptizers so much brag'd of by the Dr. is the Impossibility of the Spirit 's being the Author of any though the least Contradiction in any part of God's Worship Hence I argue That which can no way be prov'd or made good by express Testimony of God's Word or deduced therefrom by sound and necessary Consequence is an Invention in God's Worship which God will Reject and Abominate as not appointed by him But Dipping the whole Body under Water in Baptism can no way be provâ—â— made good by express Testimony of Goâ— Word nor yet by sound or necessarâ— Consequence deduced therefrom Therefore Dipping the whole Body uâ—der Water in Baptism is an Invention in God's Worship which God will Reject and Abominate because not appointed by him The major Proposition will not be denied That which secures the Minor and proves the Conclusion to be the Truth which all the Wit of the Adversary will never be able to prevail against is the Scriptures silence in that it no where gives an express Witness or Testimony heretâ— And the Impossibility of that being prov'â— a sound Consequence from God's Word which makes God the Author of Self-Contradiction The Word of God no where commands Dipping in Baptism neither doth it say in express terms that either John or any of the Apostles did Baptize by Dipping under the Water Reader Keep the Adversary close to this where doth the word Dip appear either in the command of Christ when speaking of Baptizing or in any Instance of Persons Baptized by Joâ— or the Apostles If thou keep close to this the Enemy will retreat and fly to Consequence 〈◊〉 the which if he doth as no doubt he will 〈◊〉 pursue him with a Holy Courage be not a◠〈◊〉 of his daring Brags How do yo prove that 〈◊〉 sound and Scriptural Consequence which 〈◊〉 the Holy Spirit of God the Author of Self-â—â—â—â—â—adiction â—hat thus it is will evidently appear the Adâ—â—â—sary can no way avoid it If thou urge with an Holy Zeal for Truth what is Graphically set down in God's own Word concerning the manner of Application of the Blood of the Sacrifices and the Waters of Purifications both which had a Typical Relation to the Spiritual Baptism Administred by the Spirit of Christ These were applied under the Ceremonial Administration by Sprinkling not by Dipping as hath been before observed The Prophets who foretold of Christ and the great Benefits which should come by him to Believers under the Gospel They set it forth by Sprinkling witness â—sa 52.15 and Ezek. 36.25 and in the Gospel â—e are assured that the Spirit of Christ doth apply â—he inward Spiritual Baptism by Sprinkling or Pouring out the Graces of his Spirit on the Soul in the Work of Regeneration see Tit. 3.6 Now to affirm that Christ either commands Dipping or that he himself was Dipp'd in Baptism what is it but to affirm that Christ's Spirit doth contradict himself What is pretended for Dipping from John 3.23 hath nothing in it to help their Cause but what empty Conceit and Unscriptural Confidence supply John saith the Adversary was Baptizing in Aenon because there was much Water there Therefore he Baptized by Dipping the whole Body under the Water The stress or weight of the Argument is laid on a fond Conceit that much Water there signifies and â—â—ports Greatness and Depth of Water which plainly appears to be otherwise witness the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Many Waters denoting ra◠〈◊〉 Rivulets or Springs of Water wherewith thaâ— abounded than that the Waters of that place deep And it was I doubt not for Conveniencâ— that John left Bethabarah a place of deeper Vâ— because Aenon was every way more convenienâ— commodious for the multitudes o People which oâ— daily to his Baptism Piscator's Note upon the place may not here 〈◊〉 either improper or impertinent to the Purpose iâ— hand Videntur significari plures Rivi non autem unuâ— Magnum Flumen Many Rivulets not one grâ—â—â— Floâ— or Water seems here to be signified saith that Learâ—ed Author with whom agrees the best Geographeâ— who give the Description of that place I conclude my Treatise against Dipping in Baâ—tism with that Saying of Godly and Judicious Sâ—denham If saith he there be any absolute need of Diâ—ping it is to cool the heat of those Mens Spirits who deâ— Baptism to be true or right Baptism because not Aâ—ministred by Plunging or Dipping Reader Observe that as in the Sacrament of thâ— Lord's Supper it is not so much the Quantity of thâ— Wine drunk in that Ordinance by a Believer 〈◊〉 the Quality which signifies and represents the Blooâ— of Christ Christ doth not tye a Believer up to such or sucâ— a quantity of Winâ— to be drunk in remembrance oâ— his Blood-shed but only commands Wine to 〈◊〉 drunk leaving to the Discretion of the Believâ— what quantity to drink So in Water-Baptism it is not the depth or quâ—tity of Water which is necessary to right Baptism real Water it matters not how small the quantâ— be so there be but a Sprinkling or Pouring out Water on the Subject to represent the Sprinkliâ—â— or Pouring out of the Graces of God's Spirit on tâ— Elect Soul in Effectual Calling FINIS
God Bless the Reading thereof to the keeping thee back from Espousing the Errors herein decry'd or if it should prove the occasion of thy Vomitting up by sound Repentance and hearty Reformation the love and liking thou hast had to those Principles of Darkness give God the Glory of his own Grace and suffer thy self no longer to be impos'd on by such Preachers who are not only Intruders into the Sacred Office but also Heterodox and Unsound in what they Teach concerning God's Covenant with Abraham being a Covenant of Works concerning Infants-Baptism being but a Popish Invention and a piece of Will-Worship and what they Teach and confidently Affirm of Dipping being the only right Mode of Baptizing Commanded by Christ and Practised by John and all the first Baptizers By which Principles they Rase the very Foundation of Salvation to Grown Believers as well as to their Infants And disown that Christ hath any right Gospel Churches but themselves From which Principles I shall ever say and heartily pray Good Lord Deliver me and all the Families of thy Faithful People THE INTRODUCTION An occasional Discourse between a Minister and a Church Member concerning Infant-Baptism wherein sundry material Questions are put by the Church Member and plainly and particularly Answered by the Minister for the Information of the Ignorant and the satisfaction of such as are staggering in their judgments about the lawfulness of Infants-Baptism Minister Brother Edward By what I have heard from some of my Neighbours as also by the discourse which past between you and me when last together I suspect that some have been tampering with you to draw you away to Anabaptism is it so or no deal plainly to the end I might address my self to my duty in giving you satisfaction herein from Gods Word Church Member I must ingeniously acknowledge Sir that I am not without wavering and doubtful thoughts in my Mind about Infant-Baptism occasioned partly by discoursing with some of that way and perswasion partly by reading some Books which were put into my hand which to me seems full of clearness that Infant-Baptism is no way warrantable or justifiable by the Gospel of Christ Minist I find then that I am not mistaken in my apprehension of you in this matter but for your encouragement I must tell you that you are but tryed herein by a temptation for which I think never the worse of your Souls state neither are my hopes and confidence of your integrity towards God a jot or whit lessened by the inclination in your Mind to favour that Opinion for I have known some very Holy and upright Hearted Christians who in the simplicity of their Hearts have strongly enclined to favour and espouse that cause and principle as the most plausible and likely to agree with the Gospel there being no mention at all of Infant-Baptism in the Gospel neither in Precept nor yet in Example to recommend it yea I my self have in my first setting out in the ways of Christianity met with temptations to draw me to that Opinion and that by the very same means which hath occasioned your staggering herein And the main things which induced me to hanker after that Principle were 1. The high and charitable opinion I had of some of that Party being Men of high attainments in Grace and Gospel Holiness 2. There appearing to me no command for Infant-Baptism in all the Gospel nor yet any one instance where it is said that such were Baptized 3. The many Quotations of Learned Divines and Counsels which the Anabaptists Books assured me were all of their Judgment and Perswasion herein which much startled and sway'd me to kind apprehensions of their way 4 Their Branding Infant-Baptism with the Black Brand of Will-worship and Popery against both which I always had since I knew Christ in the Gospel of his Grace and ever shall have I humbly hope in Christ a Mortal Dislike and rooted Hatred By means of the 4 particulars now mentioned I was drawn to the very verge or brink of Anabaptism being just on the point of renouncing my Baptism received in my Infant State as being a meer Nullity or no Baptism at all My roving Spirit thus fluctuating and tossing between the Waves and Billows of doubtful and distracting Cogitations what I had best to do in this Case whether to offer my self to be Dipt yea or not or to address my self to Ministers of the contrary Judgment for resolution in so weighty and material a point Matters being thus I providentially and happily happened into the Company of some of the Congregational Perswasion Men no whit inferiour to those I so much admired for Piety and Holiness and who I very well knew were able to instruct and teach the others for matter of Learning and deep knowledge in the Mysteries of the Gospel These debating sundry points in Controversy between the Anabaptists and the Orthodox Protestant Reformed Churches concerning Infant-Baptism I apprehended and saw so far into the Mystery of Baptism that I was at a stand and began to question whether I was not under a delusion in disliking my Infant-Baptism received in Infancy by means hereof I was stirred up to Pray earnestly to God that his good Spirit might teach and guide me in the way of Gospel-Truth which was seconded by a diligent search into the Holy Scripture and a careful reading and weighing the Arguments brought by both Parties both for and against Infant-Baptism And in a short time through the special assistance of the Spirit of Christ I was enabled to see and understand that there was nothing of solid weight in the Reasons brought against Infant-Baptism but what are in reality repugnant and contradictory to the Word of God as will I hope in time most plainly appear to your understanding I have been the more prolix in speaking my experience herein that you might become sensible that even Godly Men might be entangled in erronious Opinions And to let you know what be the ordinary means to escape the Nets of Crafty Men who lye in wait to ensnare poor unstable though Honest and well meaning Souls Now as Christ my Lord and Master said to Peter after his recovery from his fall When thou art Converted strengthen thy Brethren Luke 22. So I am now come as my Duty binds me to endeavour your recovery and full satisfaction in these points about Infant-Baptim wherein you seem to stagger Church Memb. I hope I can say through special Grace that I am no way fond of Errour But what I do herein I do it really from my Conscience according to the light thereof I hope Sir you will not blame me for acting according thereto Minist I am far from arraigning your integrity to God being very sensible that herein you are but under a temptation as stronger Christians than you or I have been and now are neither shall I in the least attempt to press you to act herein against your Conscience Conscience I am sensible is a
Seal thereof in the Visible Church must belong to them also But Infants are Saved by the Grace of God's Covenant made with Abraham and in no other way Therefore the Covenant of God's Grace by which they are Saved and the Seal thereof in the Visible Church must belong to them also This Argument hath been constantly maintained by the Orthodox against the Enemies of Infant-Baptism with such success that I never yet heard the Man's Name who was able to answer or overthrow the same by sound or solid Argument To deny Salvation to Infants is a Principle so monstrously Cruel and Uncharitable exposing to the Judgment of God and to the deserved Frowns of all Tender-hearted Parents that some who account it a point of great Skill and Wisdom in the Mystery of the Gospel to Decry and Witness against Infant-Baptism have declared themselves strongly inclin'd to believe that all Infants are Saved and that without distinguishing between Elect and Reprobate or between the Seed of Professing Godly Believers and that of Mahometans c. a Principle altogether as silly and groundless as that of denying the Right of Believers Infant-Seed to the Covenant of Grace and the Visible Token or Seal thereof in the Church And at what Door this Heterodox Dream should enter or from what Root or Principle it should spring I know not unless from that Popish Arminian Principle of general Redemption and universal Grace Here by the Concession or Grant of the very Adversaries Infants are Saved but how or in what way whether by a Covenant or without a Covenant Here they are profoundly silent not daring to mention any Covenant at all fearing an Advantage may be thereby given to discover or prove the Right of Infants to the Covenant It is sufficient such Dreamers Judge to leave poor Infants to the general Mercy and Grace of God as those do who Dream and Conceit that the very Damned in Hell shall at length be delivered from the Torments of that Place For which Chymerical Whym there is as much to be said from the Word of God As there is to prove that God will extend the Grace of his Covenant to all Infants Dying so The Adversary I dispute against knows very well that should it be granted in Terminis in plain Terms that Infants are Saved by the Grace of the Covenant it can no way be avoided but that Infants must be in that Covenant and must have an Indisputable Right in foro Ecclesiae to the outward Seal thereof But this must be deny'd and its contrary asserted for the most Glorious Gospel-Truth viz. That Believers only excluding their Infants are Interested in the Covenant and have a Right to the Seal thereof and that in the Right of the Profession they make before Men. Now how absurd and contrary to the very Tenure and Design of God's Covenant with Christ in the behalf of the Elect this Principle of Anabaptism is I leave to every Unprejudiced Reader who understands any thing in Religion to Judge And whether to restrain the Promise of God's Covenant which equally extends to all the Elect to that part of the Elect which are Adult and Grown up to make a Profession and to extend the Grace of God beyond the bounds of his own Covenant be not equally to Rase the Foundation of Gospel-Truth and to Usurp the Throne of God or to Invade his Prerogative in the Church I leave to Wise Men to determine If thus to do falls not under that dreadful Commination or Woe threatned in Rev. 22.18 I am greatly mistaken Arg. 3. If Infants do stand in as real need of the Grace of God's Covenant as the Adult do and be every way as capable thereof as the Adult are then must they of necessity be allow'd the Seal thereof in the Church But Infants do stand in as real need of the Grace of God's Covenant and are every way as capable thereof as the Adult are Therefore the Seal of God's Covenant in the Church must of necessity be allow'd them That Infants are Partakers of Adam's Guilt and also of that Pravity and Pollution of Nature which came by Adam's Fall I am confident will be deny'd by none unless by downright Dreamers now to own this And at the same time to Teach and Hold that Infants are because not Grown up to the use of Reason and actual Faith uncapable of Regeneration is to deny Salvation to all Infants who Die Infants And how well this Principle accords with all Infants being Saved who Die Infants is not difficult to understand If this be not Contradictio in Terminis viz. A Contradiction in plain Terms I know not what a Contradiction means The Lord Christ who can neither lye nor be deceived in what he saith assures us that except one be Born again he cannot possibly see the Kingdom of God Jo. 3.8 wherein the absolute need of Regeneration is discovered and asserted and the Subject of which this is predicated in that Text being indefinitely and universally exprest we are taught that neither Adult nor Infant shall ever enter Heaven till that work of Regeneration pass on the guilty polluted Soul And to say that an Adult or grown Person by reason of his Age is capable of this great Change but that an Infant because he wants the use of reason c. is uncapable of it What is this but interpretatively to hold and say that the Creatures own will and reason must concurr to the producing the New Creature in a Dead Soul And how advantageous this Principle is to Papists Arminians Pelagians and Socinians the Learned and Orthodox well know The Enemies themselves do with us acknowledge that Water-Baptism is a Passive Ordinance and strange it is that those of that Party who are concerned to deck and adorn the Frontispiece of their Books against Infant-Baptism with such Ornate Florishes of Greek Hebrew and Latin Sentences do not in their way of arguing about this matter give us to understand that they understand and know the meaning and proper signification of the word Passive better than it appears they do certain it is and the Learned know it that the term Passive signifies and imports a Non-agency in the Subject when a change is passing on it or a work producing in it to the effecting of which change or work the Subject Recipient neither wills nor acts any thing towards the production of such a change If I understand any thing of Gods Mind revealed in the Sacred Scripture or was ever experimentally acquainted with the Spirits method in passing that great change on a Sinner in effectual Calling The work consists of two parts First Gods Gracious Acts in freely Pardoning all the Rebels Sins and Transgressions committed against the Law imputing to him that spotless Righteousness of Christ his Son the Sinners Sponsor or Surety as truly and really as if that spotless Righteousness had been acted performed by the Sinner himself Personally This is the first part wherein that great
takes on him to Usurp the Seat of Judgment in passing Sentence on all the Holy Learned and Orthodox Divines and Protestant Martyrs and Churches who are gone to Glory in the unshaken Belief that the Infants of Believing Parents have an unquestionable right to Baptism and that they are as capable of the Seal of Baptism as they are of the Grace of Gods Covenant signified thereby But that the Lords Supper belongs to none but to Adult and actual Believers who are capable of those qualifications required in a worthy Communicant such as Self-examination with reference to his State Godward his faith in Christ his progress in a Holy Life his discerning the Lords Body his keeping up a lively Communion with Father Son and Spirit in that Ordinance and judging ones self in case of short coming in Holy Duties These are the qualifications required to be in one who comes to the Lords Supper of which any not in a Dream may judge an Infant cannot be capable while an Infant I humbly hope no judicious Christian will censure me as rash and uncharitable if I judge those Preachers fitter for a Shop-board than a Pulpit who are not able or willing to discern or distinguish between Milk and strong Meat and who will deny to Infants the Milk of Holy Baptism whereof they are capable and whereto by Gods Covenant they have right because they are uncapable of receiving and digesting the strong Meat of the Lords Supper Object 8. If Infant-Baptism were God's Ordinance and were accompanied with his Blessing to the Infant how comes it to pass that so many Baptized in Infancy prove so Carnal and loose in their Lives and Conversations Answ Hereto I reply in three Particulars wherewith I shall shut up the present Dispute First It is with many Believers Infants now under the Gospel as it was with Abraham and his Infants of old Some are their Children by fleshly Generation only who Ishmael-like prove Mockers and Scoffers at Holiness and Haters of God and good Men These notwithstanding the Relation they stand in to the Church by Virtue of their Baptismal Vow and the External Profession they make in the Visible Church for a time being left to the darkness and folly lodged in their corrupted Nature they give themselves over to all kind of Looseness Baptism now is no more to be faulted on this account than Circumcision was formerly When the Children of believing Gentiles do actually violate God's Covenant and depart from him then will God do with them as he did with Abraham's Carnal Seed c. Secondly As some of the Children of believing Parents who were Baptiz'd in Infant State prove loose and vain so Blessed be God a great many prove Holy and Upright Walkers with God manifesting in their Lives and Conversations the lively Coppy of that Spiritual Circumcision wrought by the Spirit in their Hearts when Converted which was Signified and Sealed by that Baptism which they were made Partakers of when Infants Thirdly and lastly If from the vain and sinful Practise of some Baptiz'd in Infancy Infant-Baptism must be disallow'd as no Institution of God how strong an Argument will this prove to overthrow the Baptizing grown Professors For if I mistake not the Opposers of Infant-Baptism must own will they nill they that many of those Baptiz'd in their way have notwithstanding their shining Profession and their high Pretensions to the Work of the Spirit within fallen most foully and never recover'd again And thus I have according to the Wisdom given from above endeavoured to clear up from God's Word that Abraham's Covenant Gen. 17.7 is most certainly the Covenant of Grace I have also prov'd from the same Word that Circumcision was the Seal of that Covenant And that Baptism under the Gospel is now succeeded or come in the room thereof I have endeavoured to prove that the Infants of believing Gentiles have as real a Right to Baptism as Abraham's Seed had to Circumcision under that dark Dispensation And whether the Answers I have given to the most material Objections I find brought against Infant-Baptism be pertinent and convincing I leave to the Judicious and Unprejudic'd to Judge CHAP. V. AMong all the Rash and Presumptuous Assertors of Dipping the whole Body under Water being the only right Mode or Manner of Baptizing none hath made a greater noise or a fairer shew of being herein Infalible than one William Russel who styles himself Medicinae Doctor Accademiae Cantabrigiensis This Author with a more than ordinary Confidence hath boldly asserted that Dipping c. is the only right Mode of Baptizing commanded by Christ in the New Testament and practised by John the Baptist and all the Apostles and Primitive Christians This crude or raw Assertion of his he labours to support and make good by a fourfold Medium First The Etymologie of the Greek word the Holy Ghost useth to express Dipping by Secondly Those Metaphors used in Holy Scriptures to represent it to our Understanding Thirdly The Practise of the first Baptizers Fourthly The words of the Grand Commission given by our Saviour in Mat. 28.19 To demonstrate the falseness of his Assertion and to discover to Weak and Injudicious People the great Mistakes whereon he bottoms his Assertion is the design of my present Undertaking But before I attack this Goliah in examining what he can get from the four Particulars above mentioned which may cause Simple and empty Brains to think and conceit this Accademical Doctor Invincible and Unanswerable in what he hath so Peremptorily asserted for the Truth of God I will lay down two things by way of Premise whereof I desire the Reader who is unwilling to be deceiv'd to take notice The first is That not so much the bare Letter of Scripture as the sense and meaning of the Spirit therein is the Word of God by which Truth and Error are to be Try'd and Judg'd I have often said and I am very bold in affirming that that Sense or Interpretation which any Man or Men give of any Text of God's Word which thwarts and contradicts the Analogie of Faith that Sense or Interpretation is from the Spirit of Satan not from God be the same never so plausible and pleasing to the Sons of Men and be the Authors never so highly esteem'd of for both their Piety and Learning There is a sweet and an harmonious Concord and Agreement between all the parts of God's Revealed Religion though but few Comparatively can see it to be so The Doctrine and Institutions of God in all the particulars of his Instituted Worship are plain easy and obvious to the Eye which the Spirit of Christ hath Anointed But to such Men and Women who are Destitute of the Spirit of Christ nothing in Religion appears to them but Nonsense and seeming Contradictions which is the Reason why so many thousands in England c. Stagger and Reel with a Spiritual Vertigo in the Principles of the Protestant Religion wherein both they and their